RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[darkbard]

Anyway, my posts have not been about the meaning of words; they've been about what is central to playing games that are in the same family as the one Arneson and Gygax ininvented.

QFT! It gets so very tiresome when legitimate attempts at discussion and analysis continually get derailed by Hijackings of the Word Meaning/Usage Variety (HotWMUV ever after; it just rolls off the tongue!).

 

[niklinna]

I think I’ve found the problem. When I talk about core in relation to games I use it to describe distinctive features that separate it from other games.

This is good to know, because nobody else has been using it that way, in relation to games or anything else.

This is just another one of those times where we are arguing not about the concept but about the semantics.

There's no need to argue about semantics when people agree on terminology and avoid using bespoke jargon.

I agree that that a feature can be important to 2 different types of games - I wouldn’t call that core but that’s rather beside the point.

What do you call it, then, so that we may translate?

 

[FrogReaver]

OK. I'm not familiar with that particular usage of "core"; Oxford Languages via Google gives me the part of something that is central to its existence or character which seems pretty standard to me and doesn't imply uniqueness. (Eg integrity might be core both to Eliot Ness's and Superman's personalities.) And I think the OP and my subsequent posts have been pretty clear that that is how the word is being used.

Anyway, my posts have not been about the meaning of words; they've been about what is central to playing games that are in the same family as the one Arneson and Gygax invented.

I don’t get this. I pinpoint our issue as one of semantics - even proceed to agree with your concept - and in return you turn the conversation to my word use (aka semantics) not making sense to you - proceed to declare your semantics the one true way and then in your final paragraph proceed to deny the very thing you just did.

I honestly cannot wrap my head around this reply.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's no need to argue about semantics when people agree on terminology and avoid using bespoke jargon.

All I was saying was that our underlying disagreement was ultimately word use - though that was not apparent at first.

 

[FrogReaver]

QFT! It gets so very tiresome when legitimate attempts at discussion and analysis continually get derailed by Hijackings of the Word Meaning/Usage Variety (HotWMUV ever after; it just rolls off the tongue!).

IMO. Most often people really do have 2 different concepts in mind regarding a word or phrase. Bridging that gap to get to the concept is what’s important (outside loaded language… but that’s a different issue).

 

[niklinna]

All I was saying was that our underlying disagreement was ultimately word use - though that was not apparent at first.

Well, then, I am glad that you figured out the cause of your underlying disagreement.

By the way, what is the word you use for a feature can be important to 2 different types of games, that is apparently different from the word anybody else would use (that word being "core")? You didn't say, which makes it rather difficult to bridge the gap to get to the concept, since apparently we can't use the word that anybody else would use (that word being "core").

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, then, I am glad that you figured out the cause of your underlying disagreement.

Thanks.

By the way, what is the word you use for a feature can be important to 2 different types of games, that is apparently different from the word anybody else would use (that word being "core")?

The way this is phrased makes me not want to answer. Which is probably a good thing as answering would only prolong this conversation that no one seems to actually want to have.

You didn't say, which makes it rather difficult to bridge the gap to get to the concept,

I already bridged the gap - I thought that was apparent.

since apparently we can't use the word that anybody else would use (that word being "core").

it’s weird how apparent observations are soo often flat out wrong. IMO, Use whatever word you want. I’ve got what I need to translate.

 

[pemerton]

I honestly cannot wrap my head around this reply.

All I was saying was that our underlying disagreement was ultimately word use - though that was not apparent at first.

So normally if I've misunderstood what someone was saying, I note that I misunderstood them, perhaps apologise, and then reconsider what they had to say in light of what they actually meant.

 

[FrogReaver]

So normally if I've misunderstood what someone was saying, I note that I misunderstood them, perhaps apologise, and then reconsider what they had to say in light of what they actually meant.

IMO. Using words differently isn’t something to apologize for. For what it’s worth I wish I’d caught that sooner.

And I did the later. It’s everyone else dragging this out at this point.

 

[clearstream]

My personal starting point for thinking about [imagine] is Ron Edwards' work - what you call [imagine] he calls [exploration].

He identified five elements of it, in RPGing:

*Setting (your [world-imagine])​

​

*Character​

​

*Situation - this is the immediate motivating circumstance in which the character(s) find(s) themselves​

​

*Colour - atmosphere, tropes, "mere flavour", and the like​

​

*System - how the content of [imagine] changes - system is what puts the game into motion​

Vincent Baker's analytical work in relation to system is (as you know) extensive, and in my view powerful. Your third and fourth dot points (norms and mechanics) pertain to system.

Your first two dot points seem to me like articulations of (what is in my view) the key idea that the principal limit on a player's moves (via declaring actions for their characters) is what everyone is prepared to imagine together (which is, of course, informed by system).

I think the relationships of character => situation and setting <=> situation are very interesting. These relationship differ in different RPGs, and are key sites of differences of system.

So I want to reserve [exploration] for the relationship between the imaginer and the imagined. For the sake of argument, let's stick with the notion that what is imagined is i) not wholly known at the outset, ii) open-ended, iii) subject to norms that can be a) mimetic, b) established by game text, c) established by preceding play, and iv) compelled and structured by mechanical promptings into the ludonarrative.

So what then, is imagined?

places, natural and constructed​

characters and creatures, including the supernatural​

cultures including beliefs​

relationships including politics​

things and forces, including natural, technological and supernatural​

actions​

effects​

time​

Supposing the above were complete, then any situation ought to be imaginable as an arrangement of those elements. Exploration then is the attitude or relationship of the imaginer to the imagined, such as when I "explore" a world imagined by others, and/or per curated prompts, and/or unfolded in my own mind. When designing a TTRPG, it's of practical value to think about the imaginer <> imagined relationship, which I would call explore and connect with immersion. That doesn't mean Edwards wasn't using the word to capture the ideas I'm capturing by [imagine], but rather to say that I think there is something else there that better uses the label.