Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4336270" data-attributes="member: 3192">That's fine.&nbsp; I appreciate you letting me post in your thread.&nbsp; As you see posting such contentious positions on an RPG board praising D&amp;D, a game that the cult-like theory specifically calls badwrongfun, is going to get you called out.&nbsp; Again, this is the reason the word &quot;narrative&quot; is so inappropriate in this discussion&nbsp; Anyone here could mistake what you are saying there as not &quot;description of the world&quot;, but instead as &quot;the telling of a story&quot;.&nbsp; As if somehow &quot;narrating&quot; my life is equivalent to living my life.&nbsp; I've told you before, narrating occurs after the fact, in both life and roleplaying (living as if I were another person).&nbsp; And yes, what occurs has to make sense in the world or it's just bad roleplay.&nbsp; Who on earth disagrees with that?Again, the word &quot;narrate&quot; as you use it here is horribly ambiguous with double meaning, most of which are inappropriate to discussing RPGs.&nbsp; I am not &quot;narrating&quot; my PC.&nbsp; I am roleplaying it.&nbsp; I may describe how I behave, but it's better if I actually behave that way.&nbsp; You are using the word inaccurately here as roleplaying is not the relation of events.&nbsp; Roleplaying (like living life) is not a relation of detail to other people.&nbsp; That's one of the major errors of this whole theory.&nbsp; A GM may describe the results of actions taken in the world.&nbsp; Yes, the word &quot;narrate&quot; can mean relating these descriptions.&nbsp; But narration is not roleplaying.&nbsp; Nor is it the GM interpreting the correct repercussions of the world to the PCs' actions. It's multiple definitions are confusing this entire discussion and I can only guess it was deliberately designed to do just that by the theory's author.&nbsp; Narration is not roleplaying.&nbsp; Nor is it GMing the game.&nbsp;&nbsp; The only way it really becomes useful in terms of RPGs is in the limited, single definition of &quot;the relating of details to another&quot;.&nbsp; &nbsp; Let's just use the world &quot;describe&quot; for that, okay?&nbsp; It's far more accurate and less confusing to the reader.Here, the word narrative is supposed to be &quot;world&quot;.&nbsp; I'm not even sure why you used it here other than to overly drive the point home that it is being used time and time&nbsp; inappropriately.Basically, people playing characters should behave as if those characters actually were them, real people.&nbsp; Rather than Gods who get to change the world at their whim.&nbsp; That's why it's called role-playing and not that God-playing game.&nbsp; Again, this isn't a minority position. It's the socially agreed upon definition of roleplaying in our world.&nbsp; I act like another person.&nbsp; That's it.&nbsp; Making the game about something other than roleplaying means the game isn't an RPG.&nbsp; That's not so hard to understand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4336270, member: 3192"] That's fine. I appreciate you letting me post in your thread. As you see posting such contentious positions on an RPG board praising D&D, a game that the cult-like theory specifically calls badwrongfun, is going to get you called out. Again, this is the reason the word "narrative" is so inappropriate in this discussion Anyone here could mistake what you are saying there as not "description of the world", but instead as "the telling of a story". As if somehow "narrating" my life is equivalent to living my life. I've told you before, narrating occurs after the fact, in both life and roleplaying (living as if I were another person). And yes, what occurs has to make sense in the world or it's just bad roleplay. Who on earth disagrees with that? Again, the word "narrate" as you use it here is horribly ambiguous with double meaning, most of which are inappropriate to discussing RPGs. I am not "narrating" my PC. I am roleplaying it. I may describe how I behave, but it's better if I actually behave that way. You are using the word inaccurately here as roleplaying is not the relation of events. Roleplaying (like living life) is not a relation of detail to other people. That's one of the major errors of this whole theory. A GM may describe the results of actions taken in the world. Yes, the word "narrate" can mean relating these descriptions. But narration is not roleplaying. Nor is it the GM interpreting the correct repercussions of the world to the PCs' actions. It's multiple definitions are confusing this entire discussion and I can only guess it was deliberately designed to do just that by the theory's author. Narration is not roleplaying. Nor is it GMing the game. The only way it really becomes useful in terms of RPGs is in the limited, single definition of "the relating of details to another". Let's just use the world "describe" for that, okay? It's far more accurate and less confusing to the reader. Here, the word narrative is supposed to be "world". I'm not even sure why you used it here other than to overly drive the point home that it is being used time and time inappropriately. Basically, people playing characters should behave as if those characters actually were them, real people. Rather than Gods who get to change the world at their whim. That's why it's called role-playing and not that God-playing game. Again, this isn't a minority position. It's the socially agreed upon definition of roleplaying in our world. I act like another person. That's it. Making the game about something other than roleplaying means the game isn't an RPG. That's not so hard to understand. [/QUOTE]

Verification