Anti-Pretentious games

[Crothian]

There's no search function on Enworld,

There is for community supporters

 

[Nathal]

Actually, we usually just use existing words. Neologisms in games mostly refer to rules terms --

RPGs often feature a word subsuming meanings not inherent to its original dictionary definition. Take, for instance, "dexterity" in D&D, which incorporates speed, agility, reflexes, etc. Certainly its meaning extends beyond manual dexterity. Would we call dexterity a neologism in this case? I thought neologisms were original words, not existing words. Is that true?

 

[Eridanis]

I just closed another thread due to sniping. This is a warning to not continue carrying on in a similar vein on this thread. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[eyebeams]

RPGs often feature a word subsuming meanings not inherent to its original dictionary definition. Take, for instance, "dexterity" in D&D, which incorporates speed, agility, reflexes, etc. Certainly its meaning extends beyond manual dexterity. Would we call dexterity a neologism in this case? I thought neologisms were original words, not existing words. Is that true?

They can be words that are used in a way that stretches beyond their common meaning. This is chancy, though, since these variants often become more popular than the original. Take "snob," for instance. It was originally an insult applied to members of the lower class. In gaming, you might have a word like Emperor, which originally referred to one particular Roman position but now stands for the head of all kinds of governments thanks to its wide adoption.

 

[jmucchiello]

Well, not all game fiction is pretentious in the sense of being artsy or angsty, but they all do contain the pretense of being good fiction, and I have yet to see any that actually is.

Well if that is how you are going to talk about pretentiousness then anyone releasing a game is being pretentious. They have the pretense that you should buy their game because it is good. And as small as the RPG market is, that also takes a lot of Chutspah.

Take a game like Macho Women with Guns. When it was first released it (I've still got the baggie), it was with a wink and a nod that they were being "naughty". That's pretense right? But that game is as anti-pretentious as I can think of. Perhaps you might start this thread over with a better word than pretentious.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I've yet to find anything pretentios in a Vampire game.

How about this from Vampire: The Masquerade Second Edition page 268 -

Vampire was written in order to discover the nature of Evil... Vampire is an exploration of evil, and as such, it is unsafe. You are digging deep when you play this game. This game was not meant to be comfortable - it was designed to provoke and inspire.

 

[Crothian]

I'm not seeing it. It is a nice explanation from the writer as to what Vampire was desinged to do. That kind of info from the writer to the players is helpful.

 

[Numion]

Er, I think it being D&D did that. It could have been pretentious, or not, or called all of us dirtbags to our faces and it still would be the dominate RPG.

I don't think thats entirely true. Lots of people I know positively hated D&D before 3e. I had really beg to get them to try 3.0e ("It's really not a mess like the previous editions"), which they then liked a lot, better than any game we've ever played.

Back then, before 3.0e, D&D wasn't a guarantee of anything. A lot people came back to the brand because the new edition was much better than the previous ones - not because it was just a new edition with the D&D name. Thats just my experience.

ps Nisarg, nice to see you still fighting the good fight

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not seeing it. It is a nice explanation from the writer as to what Vampire was desinged to do.

You don't think trying to discover the nature of Evil is setting one's sights too high for a roleplaying game? Not more appropriate for a book on theology or philosophy? In fact I doubt any post-C19 philosopher would have the stones to claim he'd discovered the nature of Evil.

 

[Crothian]

You don't think trying to discover the nature of Evil is setting one's sights too high for a roleplaying game? Not more appropriate for a book on theology or philosophy? In fact I doubt any post-C19 philosopher would have the stones to claim he'd discovered the nature of Evil.

its just an exploration, not a quest. The people won;'t find true evil, but they might experince a little bit of the evil that they do as the monsters. Also, I think goals should be set high so that they challenge people, every game cannot be about taking a pie from an orc.