Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8500594" data-attributes="member: 82106">The model you espouse seems rough and in some people's opinions apparently isn't serving their analytical needs. Frankly it seems somewhat ambiguous. I suspect if you were to have put it forward back in the heyday of the Forge you'd have ended up where Edwards is now.I fail to see these 'dissonances and lacunae' frankly. The Edwards model is pretty clear and how it maps onto actual RPGs and play is quite explicit.Nobody is disagreeing that RP by itself is the same as an RPG. RPGs bring a particular type of process and particular elements (varying by game) to the process of story telling and role play. I don't see how anyone could realistically hold any other opinion (certainly I would not consider such a position to be very defensible, no doubt someone has tried). I don't believe games ARE a form of narrative. I believe they MAY participate in the characteristics of narratives, in which case they are probably 'narrative games', though perhaps not all such are actually RPGs (I can't cite an example, but maybe other people can of a narrative non-RPing game, but I think they probably exist, and certainly COULD exist). Certainly RPGs are an example of a narrative game, IMHO. Nobody disagrees with that, and I think 'finding fault' might be the wrong way of looking at it. Simply pointing out ways in which pre-existing analytical frameworks improve on the one you have suggested is not really finding fault, though it is criticism in the most classical sense.Well, by RP, but when we call them 'games' we are also constraining ourselves to a specific type of activity, game-playing. This implies some sort of reasonably formalized set of rules understood in common by the participants and which influence the process of play, which in this case definitionally produces a narrative. So we have the players, who play, the rules which influence the process, possibly cues, and then the fiction and narrative, which is the unrolling of fiction in the course of play. I would personally also state that 'story' might be considered a more precise definition that simply 'narrative', which could be construed to be pretty much any description of things which happened. A story needs specific structures, protagonists, conflict, etc. to produce drama. So, perhaps we might classify D&D as 'narrative', but not 'dramatic', as it has nothing to say rules or cue wise about drama particularly. Dungeon World on the other hand is a dramatically focused game, drama is a direct intentional consequence of playing by its rules. I think I've basically drawn Edwards' diagram here all over again. It sure feels to me like an almost inevitable analytical construct. I fail to see where it falls short.Rules govern interactions. Pieces do nothing without rules. Yes, rules can have reference to 'pieces' (cues) such as "when it is your turn throw 2d6 and move your piece forward around the board a number of spaces equal to the total." This is a Monopoly rule, right? It references your piece, but the piece and the rule can quite easily be separated into 2 distinct things. The player uses the piece to play by the rule. Now, maybe you don't feel like being so formal sometimes and you just say 'the game' or something instead of distinguishing, but the distinction seems valid to me.I think it is useful to point out that the figure is an abstraction, and that the sheet is a play aid. I mean, think about it this way, if you had a phenomenal memory you could simply play D&D without a character sheet, right? Whenever any rule referenced it, you would simply consult your memory and carry out the indicated process. You would still be playing D&D, right? If you tossed away the rules and simply did stuff with the character sheet, would that be D&D? I would say 'no' if you aren't following the rules, like say you used AC as a damage reduction number, or something like that (granting that we generally allow for a pretty wide latitude of house ruling without getting pissy about what name you call your game).I've certainly read some of the formal literature on the subject, though long ago. I am of the opinion that Edwards is actually pretty much within the established academic understanding of games, although I don't think I am confident enough to say anything much about that. Maybe you could cite  some work that would illuminate this area.I've played SOME games that are pretty minialistic in the game area, which might warrant this description to a degree (IE PACE, which is a very lightweight system, though it does have rules). OTOH my own game is about 300 pages long right now, at a rough guess. I don't think it would qualify as 'a few bits and pieces' <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification