Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7481288" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think these quotes capture both what we agree on and what we disagree about.I agree that the essence of RPGs includes creation of a shared fiction. I say &quot;includes&quot; rather than is because another element of that essence is that the players engage that fiction in the &quot;moves&quot; they declare for their &quot;pieces&quot;. (This is how RPGs differe from storytelling in the stricter sense.)Where we disagree is that the creation step is in some sense prior to play or a precondition for play. It can be, but need not be - I find it very hard to imagine a RPG session where no creation occurs as part of play, and it is possible to play a RPG where most or all of the creation happens as part of play. (In a trad game like Classic Traveller, many people feel that PC gen is a part of play, because of the way it works as a lifepath system; although the rules I quoted for In a Wicked Age talk about stuff you have to do so that it can be &quot;time to start the game&quot;, that other stuff can feel very much like playing a game. It's certainly more like playing a game than setting up the pieces in chess is, as you're sitting there with your friends bouncing ideas back and forth and making stuff up!And this is also why I disagree about &quot;game creation engines&quot;. To me it seems that you're locating all that creative stuff as not playing the game and rather as creating the game, which would then mean that playing the game is just making moves (ie declaring actions for PCs). To me that's far too narrow. I'm not sure it even works for classic D&amp;D. It certainly doesn't work for any game run &quot;fail forward&quot;/&quot;scene framing&quot; style, because in that sort of game much of the fiction that establishes the parameters of the situation/scenario will be narrated by the GM in response to failed checks, and it's hard for me to see that as anything other than playing the game.I understand that you think your definition is inclusive, but to me it seems to exclude most of the RPGing I've done over the past few years. (And I'm not doing anything very radical, I don't think.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7481288, member: 42582"] I think these quotes capture both what we agree on and what we disagree about. I agree that the essence of RPGs includes creation of a shared fiction. I say "includes" rather than is because another element of that essence is that the players engage that fiction in the "moves" they declare for their "pieces". (This is how RPGs differe from storytelling in the stricter sense.) Where we disagree is that the creation step is in some sense [I]prior to[/I] play or a [I]precondition for play[/I]. It can be, but need not be - I find it very hard to imagine a RPG session where [I]no[/I] creation occurs as part of play, and it is possible to play a RPG where most or all of the creation happens as part of play. (In a trad game like Classic Traveller, many people feel that PC gen is a part of play, because of the way it works as a lifepath system; although the rules I quoted for In a Wicked Age talk about stuff you have to do so that it can be "time to start the game", that other stuff can feel very much like playing a game. It's certainly more like playing a game than setting up the pieces in chess is, as you're sitting there with your friends bouncing ideas back and forth and making stuff up! And this is also why I disagree about "game creation engines". To me it seems that you're locating all that creative stuff as not [I]playing the game[/I] and rather as [I]creating the game[/I], which would then mean that [I]playing the game[/I] is just making moves (ie declaring actions for PCs). To me that's far too narrow. I'm not sure it even works for classic D&D. It certainly doesn't work for any game run "fail forward"/"scene framing" style, because in that sort of game much of the fiction that establishes the parameters of the situation/scenario will be narrated by the GM in response to failed checks, and it's hard for me to see that as anything other than [I]playing the game[/I]. I understand that you think your definition is inclusive, but to me it seems to exclude most of the RPGing I've done over the past few years. (And I'm not doing anything very radical, I don't think.) [/QUOTE]

Verification