Trying to Describe "Narrative-Style Gameplay" to a Current Player in Real-World Terms

[niklinna]

It's a term that originates in Sherlock Holmes discourse, with its counterpart being Watsonian. Basically, if you ask why something happens in a Sherlock Holmes story, you will get a different answer depending on if you're asking John Watson, the fictional narrator who will give you an answer within the narrative, or Arthur Conan Doyle, the actual author who will tell you why he chose to write the story that way.

Essentially, Doylist means out-of-universe and Watsonian means in-universe.

Well dang, there's another jargon term I now understand after a short explanation.

I can see how it wouldn't be appropriate outside a discussion of Sherlock Holmes stories, but still, I know what it means now, after a short explanation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It doesn't matter if thats still where they're coming from; the attempt is already tainted. No methodology is going to mask that the motivation here isn't rooted in making things more fun for the player, but in convincing them to give up something they clearly enjoy so the GM can have more fun.

I don’t think anything is “tainted” or that anything related to the OP is beyond resolving with conversation.

And as an aside, I cannot imagine OP appreciates being tagged several posts in a row, so Id say cool it?

That’s not up to you, Emberashh. Nor is it your place to try and police how others post.

If @innerdude asks me to cool it, I happily will. I tend to tag anyone I mention because I don’t ever want to seem as if I’m trying to comment on or about someone without their knowledge.

 

[Emberashh]

Shockingly childish response. Yikes. Back to blocked land for you.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Oh noooo! But I really want to hear more about the Labyrinthian!!!

 

[niklinna]

I don’t think anything is “tainted” or that anything related to the OP is beyond resolving with conversation.



That’s not up to you, Emberashh. Nor is it your place to try and police how others post.

If @innerdude asks me to cool it, I happily will. I tend to tag anyone I mention because I don’t ever want to seem as if I’m trying to comment on or about someone without their knowledge.

What a mature, adult, responsible thing to do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What a mature, adult, responsible thing to do.

That’s what I thought!

 

[soviet]

It's a term that originates in Sherlock Holmes discourse, with its counterpart being Watsonian. Basically, if you ask why something happens in a Sherlock Holmes story, you will get a different answer depending on if you're asking John Watson, the fictional narrator who will give you an answer within the narrative, or Arthur Conan Doyle, the actual author who will tell you why he chose to write the story that way.

Essentially, Doylist means out-of-universe and Watsonian means in-universe.

I never knew what this meant until you just explained it. Thank you!

 

[Emberashh]

Idk, considering they went on to throw a rather hostile jab my way because I like to use my game as an example of what I'm talking about.

Pretty uncalled for when all I was doing was acknowledging that getting a bunch of pings is annoying to most people on the internet and saying may be we don't need to do it every single post, which then got met by doing it again out of clear spite and then a completely unnecessary jab after I removed myself from having to interact with them.

Its pretty obviously vitriolic to me and I don't see any reason to pretend it wasn't.

Edit: in hindsight, given who all decided to laugh react at that jab, more for the list i suppose. Oh well.

 

[Autumnal]

Which is weird in itself, right?

I mean, why are people who are not interested in "narrative style gameplay", or in explaining it to their fellow RPGers in the hope that their fellow RPGers might join in on it, participating in this thread? Like, what's their goal?

In a discouraged moment in the ‘90s, I formulated three laws of Usenet usage:

1. You must have an opinion about every subject within the overall topic, be it roleplaying games, creationism vs evolution, or life in Rhode Island.

2. You must make your opinions known.

3. You must continue to press your opinions until everyone who disagrees with is converted or silenced.

I wish they didn’t continue to seem so relevant. More people need a willingness to drop a subject and go talk about thin gd s they like.

 

[Emberashh]

In a discouraged moment in the ‘90s, I formulated three laws of Usenet usage:

1. You must have an opinion about every subject within the overall topic, be it roleplaying games, creationism vs evolution, or life in Rhode Island.

2. You must make your opinions known.

3. You must continue to press your opinions until everyone who disagrees with is converted or silenced.

I wish they didn’t continue to seem so relevant. More people need a willingness to drop a subject and go talk about thin gd s they like.

what I get for trying to be considerate I guess.

Edit: Ah, that wasn't in reference to the side track. Nevermind lol.

Though that said, its weird and gatekeepy to suggest people who aren't into what those folks are into can't weigh in. That may be OP should've picked a better game that suited everyone and that trying to convert somebody over to the proverbial promised land is fraught with a lot of bad juju even if its handled tactfully, given its not rooted in making that player have more fun, are both valid takes here.