D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

[Charlaquin]

There it is! @Malmuria

?

 

[Charlaquin]

“It’s been a while…”

I have an ebook and searched for it.

I’d bet the ebook contains both Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Alice Through the Looking Glass. The Queen being quoted is probably the White Queen, who’s in the latter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

you can site sources OTHER than Freud though...

Imagine you are someone trying to study psychotherapy in 1910, at the founding of the field.

Who else do you cite?

There isn't anyone. Because the field is literally only about ten years old.

Edit: In the case of the Forge, it's closer to about 20 years. Edwards first began his stuff in the early 90s, as I understand it, but did not get out his final form essays until the late 90s/early 00s.

 

[niklinna]

I played it because I like dressing up slutty and/or goth and standing around looking moody, smoking Djarum Blacks.

…Oh, wait you’re probably talking about the tabletop version.

Nothing prevents you from doing that stuff in the tabletop version! Although standing at the table could be awkward.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Doesn’t the whole “instability is required for narrativism” thing kind of put paid to the idea that the GM is controlling the story there? It seems like Narrativism offers an alternative to trying to have the GM control the story and the players control the characters, rather than a way to make it actually happen.

See article, "bass playing."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Imagine you are someone trying to study psychotherapy in 1910, at the founding of the

Who else do you cite?

There isn't anyone. Because the field is literally only about ten years old.

Edit: In the case of the Forge, it's closer to about 20 years. Edwards first began his stuff in the early 90s, as I understand it, but did not get out his final form essays until the late 90s/early 00s.

it's not 1910... in the interanet age you are telling me that no one else is studying this?

 

[Charlaquin]

Nothing prevents you from doing that stuff in the tabletop version! Although standing at the table could be awkward.

Indoor smoking bans

 

[Ovinomancer]

You're suggestion is intended to be ridiculous, but there is a non-ridiculous version of this criticism and that is that it is perfectly possible to design and play a solo RPG. And in fact, certain people have done so. So then if Sociality is not an aesthetic of play that drives a group to play together, you'd think that they'd be equally happy and derive equal enjoyment from choosing to play a solo RPG. But that's clearly not the case. So I don't think you can dismiss that a RPG tends to be a social experience that drives a group to meet together for a long period on a regular basis from the reasons that an RPG is fun, because you certainly could have an RPG that doesn't do that.

More subtly, you could have an RPG where the mechanics didn't drive group collaboration on problem solving or story creation or shared experience. You could have an RPG where players typically set and watched each other play each taking a turn doing their own thing, something that tends to happen for example when parties become heavily split. So it isn't really tangential to the experience of enjoying D&D that splitting the party is such a bad idea there are memes about how bad it is. Having mechanics that drive the party to work collaboratively or risk failure upholds the desires of the player that enjoys the game because it is Social in a way that each of the three pillars of GNS just don't. So to claim that Social enjoyment is tangential to the game is to so far misunderstand RPGs that you don't even notice how it can be baked into the mechanics and processes of play (or not).

It's not tangential, it's orthogonal. If you actually look at the Big Model, Social is the outside box that exists before you even decide to play. Deciding to play is inside that consideration. Creative agendas are inside that consideration. GNS doesn't ignore this, it's predicated upon it. Whatever answer you have to the social space, it's done before you get to creative agenda.

 

[niklinna]

See article, "bass playing."

I couldn't find an article with that title (yet). Do you mean perhaps this article?

Theory 101: The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I played it because I like dressing up slutty and/or goth and standing around looking moody, smoking Djarum Blacks.

…Oh, wait you’re probably talking about the tabletop version.

You certainly have a good grasp of the essentials of Vampire!

And speaking of Vampire, I like it too. I haven't played the tabletop version for ages, but I was pretty impressed by it and other WW games back then. I mean, sure, I had my issues with them, and I would probably find more if I went back to them now, but they were far cry from incoherent mess. Compared to many other games of the era (such as D&D as it was back then) the design was very sleek and elegant, and the subject matter fresh (though of course it is rather passé now.)

If I had more gaming time, WW stuff definitely would be high on my list to play. I'd actually love to run very classic Vampire like it was 90s again.