When he gets to asserting the "sole" function is this negotiation, that's philosophy.
That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"
- Thread starter innerdude
- Start date
When he gets to asserting the "sole" function is this negotiation, that's philosophy.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
You put it in quotes, so you obviously know you just subbed in a term that made this a strawman. Why do this?
RPGs are about shared fiction, and how that fiction is created is a negotiation. We use game systems to operationalize and codify these negotiations with mechanics, but that doesn't really change that what's happening is a discussion and negotiation about what we're going to all pretend together.
Emerikol
Legend
It's common place to appropriate a plain english term to represent some game concept. I'm not against it. When someone takes it as meaning the plain english sense, a polite way to respond would be to just say "Well this has come in gaming analysis to mean this". Even the word bleed is a generic term and it's valid in the way I used it. Negotiation is not what you are saying in the plain english sense but I'm sure in game analysis circles it may mean what you say.
Instead of being a jerk about it, and not everyone is of course, just say that. Just say it's become a gamified term that means something more than just it's plain english meaning.
Instead of being a jerk about it, and not everyone is of course, just say that. Just say it's become a gamified term that means something more than just it's plain english meaning.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
What on Earth are you talking about? The thread involving "bleed" is the other one. And that thread's OP has an article, which you appear to have read given other comments, that clearly defines what "bleed" is in the context of that thread.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
He means negotiation in the usual sense. You can disagree with the claim, but this is not a case of a word being used in unusual ways.
Emerikol
Legend
And if someone missed that buried in the text a nice person would just point that out politely and not be a jerk about it.
And negotiation has been stretched well beyond its original meaning. Here are some facts that would make something NOT a negotiation in the common language usage of the word.
1. If everyone agrees ahead of time then no negotiation occurred.
2. If no one agrees and no one is willing to budge at all up front from their position then no negotiation has occurred.
Words mean things.
Yeah I'm guessing 'negotiation' here means something a bit different from the dictionary definition? Negotiation - Wikipedia
In my game the players seek to achieve successful outcomes in the campaign environment. But I don't see how the GM's role is 'negotiation' - what successful outcome am I seeking to achieve, that requires player agreement? Participation in the game. After that my role is judge, not lawyer.
Emerikol
Legend
Well I was guessing in the first place because of course I don't know where this definition came from or there wouldn't be the issue. Your answer is the sort of answer I would hope for right off. Though including the specific parts about bleeding over being about emotions and not everything general.
Neonchameleon
Legend
I'd say this applies to you and most old school GMs. And it's an approach I find actively harmful when it comes to roleplaying.
Not because of the "The GM is the final authority" part; most GMs do that in most systems it's the "character sensory input from the DM is the only real connection" part. This is a pretty narrow, low bandwidth link.
In most games not run by people "defensive of their role as GM" the GM can still create the impossible. But I have more links than just what they deign to tell me; the rules of the game provide another significant connection to the campaign setting.
And they would then start trying to understand the world and figure it out. And they'd work out some of the physics of the world they were in and have understandings of it. As a player I approximate this sort of understanding of the world my character in and having learned about it from others who've been living there for longer through the mechanics. Does this make the mechanics always right? No. Exception based design is a thing.
And when GMs, because they are "defensive of their role as GM", use that as an excuse to deny me access to one of my key tools for understanding the world they strip me of the ability to connect with it as anything other than a blindfolded tourist with descriptions of somewhere I fundamentally am not allowed to have more than a superficial understanding of being told to me.
They also strip themselves of the ability to truly surprise where they intend to. A rock floating in space is not a surprise when you don't know rocks behave differently. Rather than "wow! That's odd" it becomes "Oh. Another thing I have no frame of reference for. Is this meant to surprise me?"
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
Vincent is talking about what happens at the table between players of a game. Not what the characters are doing. He's also attempting to do so in a way that does not privelege any particular RPG without making any assumptions about how authority is divided up. He's saying this is how RPGs work on a functional level before we bring rules, roles, and authority to the mix. I agree with him. You may disagree.
Similar Threads
