Semi-Rant: Maturity and dumbing down a game

[Belen]

BU, honestly. The word "play-styles" are in the bit I quoted. I don't see how you can claim he didn't mention play styles because it's right there. Could you explain your thinking somewhat?

IMO, when I read Shaman's post, I took it to mean that he was not going to argue that some styles were more correct than others. It seemed that he was saying that some universal qualities or improvements transcend different styles and that those qualities made for a better gaming experience.

I think we can all agree that there are some universal truths to RPGs that are found in every style such as:

1.) Interactive/cooperative story
2.) Taking the role of a hero/anti-hero/villain, which is a break with reality
3.) Having fun with a group of like minded people

I would not go as far as Dremmen in his narrative style, but I think we can safely say that people who play RPGs want more than a minis or PC game for an experience and that some qualities will enhance that experience no matter the style.

 

[Hussar]

So roleplaying stops when initiative is rolled? Interesting. *snip*

Going swimming way back up thread for this bit.

You know what? Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Roleplaying may not stop when initiative is rolled, but it sure as heck should be curtailed. It has to be for several reasons:

1. Combat is the one time in a session when the game mechanics dictate character actions. Players can only act in a particular order. Players CANNOT do whatever they want, they are constrained by the mechanics of combat.

2. Combat is also one of the few times when the player has no control over the outcome of his actions. The results of his actions are entirely dictated by the dice. Any narrative the player wishes to make must include the results of the dice.

3. DnD and d20 combat is abstract, making any narrative ultimately meaningless. Saying that you wind up for a mighty blow and then doing 1 point of damage pretty much makes the narrative a farce at best. Besides that, there is also the result that doing maximum damage, for example, to one opponent kills that opponent yet barely wounds the next. How do you justify narrating two exactly identical actions with almost opposite results?

While I truly appreciate high rp outside of combat, once initiative starts, rp should be IMO, kept to a minimum. Combat is abstract. What's wrong with using abstract language - AC, BAB, Power Attack etc, to describe an abstract? Why should I be forced to narrate something which quite possibly is not occuring in any manner similar to what I'm saying?

Since narration actually has no effect on combat, and, only serves to slow combat down, and, is not necessarily even accurately describing what is happening, how does rping combat add to anything?

 

[jmucchiello]

Its the using of terminology that has subjective defenitions. Narrative style, hack'n'slash, even the core term of role-playing all have different meanings for different folks.

You were directed to the Forge (indie-rpgs.com) where many of these terms are defined and whose definitions many of the posters here are using.

And the problem with this is that my personal definition of hack'n'slash is the playing with an absence of role-play, an absence of character individuality, just straight forward action. If you are doing lots of killing of stuff, but in character and RPing the massacres that your character deals out, then to me its not hack'n'slash. Its just a very bloody narrative RPG that I would have no problem with.

And that is a problem since there are commonly accepted definitions of terms that if you aren't using, you are going to butt heads with other posters. I wish I'd found this thread sooner as by page 2 I had a feeling we were having a problem of definition.

For example, correct me if I'm wrong but your use of the term Narrative seems rooted in the common English definition whereas several of the posters above are using the terms as it applies to the GNS theory of gaming. Common English would vaguely say that narrative style involves... narration. GNS Narrative style specifically states that story elements trump game elements when determining the outcome of events in RPGs. GNS Narrative has nothing to do with description (or narration). It has to do with dramatic tension and timing. The Hero cannot die in a random ambush in GNS Narrative. Death must follow the rules of dramatic narrative. Your plea is more toward characterization than drama dictating events, trumping even the GM.

I may be wrong but if I'm not, perhaps you should define some of the terms you have used casually that may only follow your meaning. It might make your message seem less elitist to some. After all, you can have characterization in a hack n slash game by most commonly held definitions of hack n slash. Likewise you conflate hack/slash with munchkinism and those terms are also orthogonal.

Narrative:
Hack N Slash:
Munchkin:
Role:
Role-Play:

Just a thought.

 

[Dremmen]

You were directed to the Forge (indie-rpgs.com) where many of these terms are defined and whose definitions many of the posters here are using.
And that is a problem since there are commonly accepted definitions of terms that if you aren't using, you are going to butt heads with other posters. I wish I'd found this thread sooner as by page 2 I had a feeling we were having a problem of definition.

Yeah apparently I was using what I thought was general terminology which in reality has some very specific meaning, at least going by the discourse in the glossary at the Forge. It'll take me a bit to crunch through the glossary definitions of things but all terms I was using in my arguments were layman. Narrative just referred to narrating - out loud descriptions of actions. That was all. And I already mentioned that to me hack'n'slash, and munchkinism, meant an absence of roleplaying. So disclaimer to all that my previous posts were not using the standarized definitions layed out on the GNS theory of gaming.

IMO, when I read Shaman's post, I took it to mean that he was not going to argue that some styles were more correct than others. It seemed that he was saying that some universal qualities or improvements transcend different styles and that those qualities made for a better gaming experience.

I think we can all agree that there are some universal truths to RPGs that are found in every style such as:

1.) Interactive/cooperative story
2.) Taking the role of a hero/anti-hero/villain, which is a break with reality
3.) Having fun with a group of like minded people

I would not go as far as Dremmen in his narrative style, but I think we can safely say that people who play RPGs want more than a minis or PC game for an experience and that some qualities will enhance that experience no matter the style.

If I moved my rather extreme views closer to a diplomatic middle ground, I think they would translate into what you have written above Belen. Thanks for putting it in less abrasive terms than my own. Playing a role and interactive/cooperative are style elements intrinsic to RPG games and how they are played.

Next time you're at a GM dinner at All Fun and Games, your share of the pizza is on me

 

[The Shaman]

IMO, when I read Shaman's post, I took it to mean that he was not going to argue that some styles were more correct than others. It seemed that he was saying that some universal qualities or improvements transcend different styles and that those qualities made for a better gaming experience.

That was it exactly.

barsoomcore, I could kind of understand your misapprehension if that was all I wrote - however, I continued at some length to expand on that thought, and to specifically repeat that I wasn't talking about game styles.

Since narration actually has no effect on combat, and, only serves to slow combat down, and, is not necessarily even accurately describing what is happening, how does rping combat add to anything?

I don't understand this thinking at all.

You seem to see narration in combat as something like this...

Player 1: "I raise my sword high overhead and crash it down on the demon's scaly hide, cleaving the foul fiend in two!" (sound of die rolling) "A one?!? Uh...."
Gamemaster: "Great swing there, oh mighty swordcrasher."

...whereas I see it more like this...

Player 1: "I raise my sword and bring it crashing down on the demon's scaly hide!" (sound of dice rolling) "A one?!? Uh...."
Gamemaster: "The demon catches your sword arm with a wingtip and deflects your swing."

Others posters have suggested that this isn't roleplaying, that it's just description, and I as I don't want this to become a point of further contention, I'll simply refer to it as descriptive action. Its goal, whatever you choose to call it, is to make combat as immersive or as flavorful as other chracter activities in the game. "I'll attack now. A one. Next," is the antithesis of that way of thinking, which is what I believe Dremmen was getting at in the first place.

As far as the mechanics providing an insurmountable constraint, I think that's just whitewash. The mechanics of the game are inform roleplaying, and roleplaying influences mechanics - it's a feedback loop. Roleplaying determines when a die roll is needed, and the result of the die roll, passed through the prism of the game mechanics, guides subsequent roleplay. At least that's how it works when I play the game - your experience may be quite different.

 

[Cartigan Mrryl]

I agree with most people in this thread, there is no "RIGHT" way to play the game nor is there a "BETTER" way. Both words are relative, it depends upon the groups preference. Some groups just aren't narrative enough. They don't enjoy that type of play. But I agree with your style, I'd just need to find a group of people to play with (as of late, I've only been able to play with my two brothers... and they like the 'I rolled a 19.. did I hit?" style)Oh well, I guess that's just how it is.