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

[Thomas Shey]

It is not really about accuracy of the model. But talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting. The former has immediate immersiveness in the way latter doesn't. YMMV and all that, but I don't think this concept is even remotely weird or hard to get.

But seriously, man, you do seem to think people who disagree are coming from a weird place. See the problem here?

 

[hawkeyefan]

But I do think there is something to this point as it relates to fighting. It might be hard to predict what will happen in a fight with someone you've never fought with before.

I wouldn’t challenge this reasoning at all. I would simply say that trying to convince someone I’ve never interacted with before would be just as difficult.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In a conversation, you have a literal infinite variety of choices...almost all of which are entirely up to you.

I don’t agree with this. Sometimes I choose to be angry. But very often, I become angry or I become sad with no control over that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, I get that! I think the motive so to speak is there....portray this NPC with integrity. I can understand that.

But when you are also the one who crafts the NPC and their place in things, when you determine these traits, they have an impact on play. Deciding to place an incorruptible guard at a key door has an impact on the game, certainly a different impact than placing a guard who is open to bribes would have.

Sure but that would be a choice the GM is making to create challenges that can't be overcome. And maybe in a particular setting corruptible guards are rare. As long as they have motivations, responsibilities, etc, there still may be a way to get the key though (even if it can't be done with a bribe). I think a lot of it boils down to the GM being open minded when the players try things. If your starting point is: I don't want the players to ever get this key. Then the problem is the GM's starting point, not the RP method. That is like when you make an adventure and write it so the players have to go through A, B, C and D to get to the end (even if they figure out a clever short cut from A to D). I once had a whole campaign built around a big bad elven Emperor. I think in something like the first session or two, the players got hold of a teleport spell or scroll and used that to teleport right into his bed chamber and murder him. It was very anticlimactic, it isn't what I expect, but it was a victory they deserved because the plan worked. I think this approach definitely works better when the GM walks into each session and campaign with fewer expectations of where things will go.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But seriously, man, you do seem to think people who disagree are coming from a weird place. See the problem here?

I'm sorry, I really have hard time getting how someone wouldn't get it. This probably is some sort of blind spot to me, I don't know... I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I also genuinely cannot fathom how it is not obvious that talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting...

It feels we are talking past each other, and I'd like to unpack this further, but I really don't know how.

 

[overgeeked]

It is not really about accuracy of the model. But talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting. The former has immediate immersiveness in the way latter doesn't. YMMV and all that, but I don't think this concept is even remotely weird or hard to get.

The trouble you're running into the is very basis of the game is conversation. So everything is already handled via conversation between the referee and players. Occasionally dice are involved, too. Yes, conversation representing conversation feels more "natural" as you're using the game mechanic (conversation) that exactly mirrors the activity it represents (conversation). But for literally everything else, you're using the game mechanic (conversation) for something that is not actually that thing (everything that's not conversation).

It's one of those "water is wet" statements. Yes, conversation feels more like conversation than fighting feels like conversation. But that's entirely beside the point.

The point is: different people have different preferences. You want to maximize conversation and minimize dice. Great. Have at it. Others want to minimize conversation and maximize dice. That's not weird or wrong or bad...it's just not your preference. BTW, the preferences thing also applies to the way we think and what we find odd, weird, hard, or easy. Something that's easy for you to grok is impossible from someone else; something that's easy for them to grok is impossible for you.

I think turning an RPG into a small-circle community improv theater without dice is weird. You seem to think it's the only and best way to play. I think it's weird that people would even care about RAW and not run everything as rules light / near free-form as you possibly could to avoid the headache of RAW...and to others the mere thought of that is akin to blasphemy. Fair enough. To each their own.

Neither is wrong; neither is right. I think it's the main obstacle to having these conversations. Everyone is so convinced they're right and their way is the only right, just, and perfect way that they cannot fathom others have different preferences or styles.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The trouble you're running into the is very basis of the game is conversation. So everything is already handled via conversation between the referee and players. Occasionally dice are involved, too. Yes, conversation representing conversation feels more "natural" as you're using the game mechanic (conversation) that exactly mirrors the activity it represents (conversation). But for literally everything else, you're using the game mechanic (conversation) for something that is not actually that thing (everything that's not conversation).

It's one of those "water is wet" statements. Yes, conversation feels more like conversation than fighting feels like conversation. But that's entirely beside the point.

It is not besides the point, it is the point!

The point is: different people have different preferences. You want to maximize conversation and minimize dice. Great. Have at it. Others want to minimize conversation and maximize dice. That's not weird or wrong or bad...it's just not your preference. BTW, the preferences thing also applies to the way we think and what we find odd, weird, hard, or easy. Something that's easy for you to grok is impossible from someone else; something that's easy for them to grok is impossible for you.

I think turning an RPG into a small-circle community improv theater without dice is weird. You seem to think it's the only and best way to play. I think it's weird that people would even care about RAW and not run everything as rules light / near free-form as you possibly could to avoid the headache of RAW...and to others the mere thought of that is akin to blasphemy. Fair enough. To each their own.

Neither is wrong; neither is right. I think it's the main obstacle to having these conversations. Everyone is so convinced they're right and their way is the only right, just, and perfect way that they cannot fathom others have different preferences or styles.

I am not saying anything about any preferences being wrong. I am merely responding to some people seemingly not getting why mechanically abstracting conversation (instead of handling it via conversation) is a different thing than mechanically abstracting fighting (instead of handling it via conversation.) There are valid reasons for mechanically abstracting either, I am not arguing against that. But it is a different sort of trade-off. In the case of conversation via conversation there is a correspondence that is harmed by the abstraction, but in the case of fighting there was no such correspondence in the first place.

 

[overgeeked]

It is not besides the point, it is the point!

For you.

I am not saying anything about any preferences being wrong. I am merely responding to some people seemingly not getting why mechanically abstracting conversation (instead of handling it via conversation) is a different thing than mechanically abstracting fighting (instead of handling it via conversation.)

There's a lot of variables that go into a conversation. This is the internet. Some people will argue just to argue. Some people absolutely have to have the last word no matter what. Some people are simply contrarian. Some people will reject a premise because they don't like the conclusion. Some people's brains work differently. What's child's play to an astrophysicist is incomprehensible to an auto mechanic. And vice versa. Etc.

You don't get that other people don't see what you think is obvious. Okay. Cool...now what? You have two choices: keep arguing that their brains should work differently than they apparently do or accept it. The former seems entirely counterproductive while the latter at least allows the thread to continue.

There are valid reasons for mechanically abstracting either, I am not arguing against that. But it is a different sort of trade-off. In the case of conversation via conversation there is a correspondence that is harmed by the abstraction, but in the case of fighting there was no such correspondence in the first place.

Some people want the abstraction more than the correspondence. Some people do not play RPGs for the same reasons you do. So, to you, that correspondence is of paramount import...while to others, just getting on with things and not having yet another hour-long conversation with yet another shopkeep is infinitely more important than correspondence.

To me, shopping should be handled with a list of things the players want and the referee signing off on them or rejecting them as needed. That's it. To me, RPing though shopping is to utterly miss the point of RPGs. I get to go shopping in my real life. Playing a game where I have to RP through shopping sounds like a nightmare. Either let me write a list or throw a die and be done with it. Let me get on with the cool stuff...you know...all the stuff that I can't do in the real world.

 

[Lanefan]

Quits being a game aka RPG and you pretty much do not get to play anyone but yourself. To me that is falling a part

Why, when I'm role-playing a character in-character based on what that character would think and-or do, would you assume I'm just playing myself?

Further, in my view it's still part of a game even if the game's actual mechanics aren't being used in that moment.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Some people want the abstraction more than the correspondence. Some people do not play RPGs for the same reasons you do. So, to you, that correspondence is of paramount import...while to others, just getting on with things and not having yet another hour-long conversation with yet another shopkeep is infinitely more important than correspondence.

That's fine. I am not disagreeing with any of this. I have only tried to clarify why handling conversation via conversation has correspondence in a way handling fighting via conversation doesn't. Whether one values that correspondence of course is a matter of preference.