So this is interesting, because this very point was brought up in an article about the
Last of Us TV show adaptation vis-a-vis the video game ---
The Last of Us Is Not a Video-Game Adaptation
The article makes the point that to have
narrative, in a game sense, you as a player have to allow for a sense of caring
about the character narratively separately from caring
for the character as an avatar ---
"One may care
about a character on television, but one must care
for a character in a video game. In fact,
The Last of Us suggested that care, by definition, means
choosing to have no choice, holding onto another person so tightly their survival becomes an inescapable necessity."
Thanks for the link. This was an interesting read, and there is some iintersection between the contents of the article with TTRPGs.
Playing a narrative-style game naturally posits this effect; places it front and center. You have to choose to have no choice if you want to implement elements of character narrative arcs. In most cases, narrativist-style games push their chips all-in on this. The premise of a "Story Now" game naturally intersects with character positioning in ways that the exploration of the premise will happen. As a player, you're supposed to just accept this.
Ironsworn's core mechanic of the "Iron Vow" literally wills this exigency into play.
There have been many times playing traditional games, like D&D or PF1-2, where I felt pretty disconnected from my character. Nothing really challenges my sense of character, who they are, their identity, or anything of the sort. While I am sure there are people who will pity me and say that everything would be solved if I played in their games, I do know that I have achieved such desired results with greater frequency by playing narrative-style games.
I absolutely disagree. Even the thread titles often require people to Google what the terms mean so that they can know what it's about.
Which of pemerton's thread titles did you need to Google to understand? I looked through the past few pages on his profile of threads he started, and I'm not sure which ones would require Google to understand, assuming you were a TTRPG hobbyist (as per Umbran above). Or do you have other threads or posters in mind?
Really? "Doyleist" is a concept that normal English can't capture?
"Doyleist," as best as I can tell, is not a term that comes from the Forge or TTRPG jargon. Nor is it one that I particularly find myself using. So maybe ask those people who regularly apply this outside term to TTRPGs why they choose to do so. And maybe while we are at it, we can talk about the fair number of TTRPG jargon that many here take for granted as not being jargon.
The existence of trolls doesn't in any way play into this. Also, you should report those people and put them on ignore.
IME, it does play into the matter because it is one reason, I suspect, why traffic tends to be low. The trolls tend to derail discussion and cause them to frequently circle or become heated. These heated discussions can become less about jargon and more about perceived badwrong ideas. That is one reason why I myself sometimes avoid them, and it has little to do with the jargon.
FYI, putting the trolls on ignore won't stop them from derailing those threads. It just means that I don't see who is derailing the threads. I will leave it at that.
As an experiment, go three months discussing these topics with zero jargon and see how much participation you have. I can almost guarantee the threads will be more lively with productive comments from people who don't normally participate in them.
As I am spending less and less time here on this forum as of late, I doubt that this experiment would reveal anything meaningful. But I would certainly be curious how much more productive those threads would be if the handful of trolls weren't sticking their heads into the thread to offer their disagreement in a discussion about playstyles and theory that they are self-professedly are wholly uninterested in. I imagine that it would be easier for inquisitive new people to stick their heads in those threads and ask questions in those threads if that were the case.
But that isn't happening. No one's even trying, that I've seen.
I disagree that it isn't happening, but if you don't spend time in those threads, then it is natural that you don't see it.
If I told you that I have regularly seen people try to explain or talk about these concepts in "plain English," would you believe me? Or are you already set on believing that it rarely or never happens? Because I have seen posters like
@innerdude,
@hawkeyefan,
@darkbard, and even
@pemerton do this regularly with people wading into the discussion who aren't necessarily familiar with terms or language used. Several of these people did so with me when I was first hearing of these ideas. Often jargon is not their first or second choice. Very often, IME, these posters will cite and describe actual play examples from their games.
