Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[hawkeyefan]

It seems to there has been some bizarre strawman summoning going on here. "You cannot resolve social situation via in-character talking because it leads to an infinite debate that will never end." This is not a thing. It doesn't happen. This thread has again become completely detached from the reality.

This post certainly depicts otherwise:

I'm happy to let 'em argue all night if they want, as long as it stays in character.

I will happily sit by and not play if other players are engaged in meaningful play.

Watching two people argue in character… I give that about five minutes before I tell then to wrap it up so we can move on.

 

[overgeeked]

It seems to there has been some bizarre strawman summoning going on here. "You cannot resolve social situation via in-character talking because it leads to an infinite debate that will never end." This is not a thing. It doesn't happen. This thread has again become completely detached from the reality.

How many discussion threads have you seen end with both sides simply agreeing on everything within a few hours' time? At a guess, in the entire time you've been engaged with discussions in geek-spaces on the internet that's happened zero times.

Now, invite the players at your table to just go wild and decide as the referee to never step in and curtail things to get the game moving for everyone at the table. See how long it takes them to settle their argument on their own without your intervention. If you're not willing to let that play out in real time at your table, it's fair to say you already know how much of a problem this would be.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was talking with some folks about being perfectly willing to just watch when a game becomes focused on just one character or two for a while, and my character is uninvolved. I tend to be a fan of the other players and their characters, and I’m genuinely curious about what will happen to them. So when the game goes in a direction where my character isn’t involved, I don’t mind watching what happens and what the players decide to have their characters do.

But if it was just to argue endlessly without either coming to some compromise or in some way invoking rules to make a decision, I’d probably smash my face into the table in the hopes of succumbing to unconsciousness rather than listen to such self indulgent nonsense.

Depends on my character, and just how in character I'm supposed to be. I can think of some that I've played who would probably just slit the arguing character's throats, lol.

EDIT: Oh, actually, I remember one! He was a berserker type with a Horn of Valhalla, so he would just pull the thing out and blow it, lol. I think that party was eventually TPKed pretty much due to exactly that.... I was playing in character, HONEST!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It seems to there has been some bizarre strawman summoning going on here. "You cannot resolve social situation via in-character talking because it leads to an infinite debate that will never end." This is not a thing. It doesn't happen. This thread has again become completely detached from the reality.

Agreed, but I still don't see why we need rules for combat if we don't have them for other stuff.... What makes it different?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Agreed, but I still don't see why we need rules for combat if we don't have them for other stuff.... What makes it different?

It has been explained several times and it also is super obvious. So at this point I'm not sure what more can be said. You can talk for real, you usually can't fight fore real.

And yes, you could resolve fights by talking about the fight,* but that is removed from what is being emulated in way resolving talking via talking isn't.

(* And people do this. I have done it. It is what one does in a freeform RP without rules.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It has been explained several times and it also is super obvious. So at this point I'm not sure what more can be said. You can talk for real, you usually can't fight fore real.

But we're not talking about 'for real', nobody entirely talks 'for real' either. My point is different anyway. If it works to talk through social stuff (and other things I suppose) then why does it not work to talk through combat. Surely talking through it avoids attempting to act it out just as well as rolling dice does.

And yes, you could resolve fights by talking about the fight,* but that is removed from what is being emulated in way resolving talking via talking isn't.

I just don't understand this statement. I mean, sure it is more removed from actual combat, perhaps (I'll just grant it for the sake of argument anyway) but it is certainly NOT more removed from actual combat than rolling dice is! Thus there is some other reason, obviously.

(* And people do this. I have done it. It is what one does in a freeform RP without rules.)

Sure, we have all played story time...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But we're not talking about 'for real', nobody entirely talks 'for real' either. My point is different anyway. If it works to talk through social stuff (and other things I suppose) then why does it not work to talk through combat. Surely talking through it avoids attempting to act it out just as well as rolling dice does.

I already said it works. You can do that. But it is so removed from actually physically doing the combat that it doesn't have similar immediate immersiveness advantage than resolving talking via talking has. Or at least not for me. YMMV.

 

[pemerton]

This is absurd.

Players with weapons thrusting and parrying at each other all night would eventually attract the attention of the local police; and before it did I'd be constantly having to both recruit new players and find places to hide bodies. Again, absurd.

Abstractions are required in order that combat (and various other tests of skill not do-able at the typical gaming table) be able to exist in the game, and in the setting

Setting aside the idea of people actually wielding weapons…can’t the players simply continue describing their actions? Why must there be rules for all that? We can just talk it out.

What @hawkeyefan says is exactly what I meant. The two players describe their PCs thrusting and parrying until they talk it out.

 

[pemerton]

It seems to there has been some bizarre strawman summoning going on here. "You cannot resolve social situation via in-character talking because it leads to an infinite debate that will never end." This is not a thing. It doesn't happen. This thread has again become completely detached from the reality.

The point is that what makes it end is that someone makes a decision about what a character would do.

And there are other ways of making that decision than sheer social negotiation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I already said it works. You can do that. But it is so removed from actually physically doing the combat that it doesn't have similar immediate immersiveness advantage than resolving talking via talking has. Or at least not for me. YMMV.

Right, but what is the perceived advantage of using dice for that?