Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
?There it is! @Malmuria
?There it is! @Malmuria
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.“It’s been a while…”
I have an ebook and searched for it.
Imagine you are someone trying to study psychotherapy in 1910, at the founding of the field.you can site sources OTHER than Freud though...
Nothing prevents you from doing that stuff in the tabletop version! Although standing at the table could be awkward.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.
See article, "bass playing."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.
it's not 1910... in the interanet age you are telling me that no one else is studying this?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.
Indoor smoking bansNothing prevents you from doing that stuff in the tabletop version! Although standing at the table could be awkward.
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.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).
I couldn't find an article with that title (yet). Do you mean perhaps this article?See article, "bass playing."
You certainly have a good grasp of the essentials of Vampire!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.