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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I can't say that I agree with your fairly unfair characterization of these threads, Whizbang Dustyboots. I do agree that these threads can become dense, but they rarely start out that way.

I absolutely disagree. Even the thread titles often require people to Google what the terms mean so that they can know what it's about.

Often the jargon doesn't really come out until the "[translations] into normal English" fail simply because there are fundamental disagreements about games and game analysis.

Really? "Doyleist" is a concept that normal English can't capture?

And while you may characterize the use of jargon as "aggresively gatekeeping scene," I would say that there is also a contingent of peope who regularly show up, like moths attracted to the flame, to regularly derail such discussions into the ground. But I guess those people aren't gatekeepers, right?

The existence of trolls doesn't in any way play into this. Also, you should report those people and put them on ignore.

But much as pemerton says, I think that a basic reason such threads get comparatively few participants is simply that most people aren't that interested in game analysis.

As an experiment, go three months discussing these topics with zero jargon and see how much participation you have. I can almost guarantee the threads will be more lively with productive comments from people who don't normally participate in them.

 

[Emerikol]

I had to smack my face to be sure when I thought I might have some agreement with @permeton though in this case I think I am agreeing.

I'm open to debate the validity of using terminology. I'm not believing though that what that terminology represents is not a valid concern in gaming. People like different things in gaming. I'd venture to guess that what we call roleplaying has already fragmented into at least four different types of games. Even inside D&D, games are played very differently. There are probably limits to how far you can take it from it's roots and it still be D&D but there are people in all directions taking it to the limits.

So when I'm standing at the hobby store looking at the games looking for players on the bulletin board, (yeah I'm old), I'd like to know something about those games and how they work. I don't want to just join games willy nilly and keep finding out they are playing in style X when I was looking for style Y. It's wasting that DMs time and it's wasting my time and the other players time.

So if no one has a better suggestion on how to talk about these things, I think terminology is a good way. Not everyone has to talk about it but I think it is valid for some to talk about it. How do we telegraph our intentions if the game is like X and not Y.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So if no one has a better suggestion on how to talk about these things

Describe it in English?

I agree that it's useful -- maybe even essential -- to have these discussions with your players, but if you're using words that they don't understand, you're not actually having these discussions with them at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't do that. The local constables are 1st to 5th level with most being 1 to 3. But if they just wipe those people up, word will go out and a better group will be sent to deal with this higher level threat. What do the PCs think when they are called upon to fight some evil? They are not unique in all the world.

I do definitely agree with the idea that they are not unique in the world. But my hope with explaining to the players the movie or novel analogy is to just try and remove the "who's better mechanically?" mindset altogether. Even by just stating that guards could be anywhere from 1st to 5th level (and thus not necessarily pushovers) still has the potential to maintain the idea that anyone and anything out there is a potential foe to fight in order to get past them... and all that matters is just making sure your levels are higher than theirs and you wield the bigger sticks. That's the kind of thinking that I try to lead players new to my tables away from, and instead ask "If this was a real situation, how would one actually most likely react?"

 

[Emerikol]

Describe it in English?

I agree that it's useful -- maybe even essential -- to have these discussions with your players, but if you're using words that they don't understand, you're not actually having these discussions with them at all.

That is true but long term are we going to use paragraphs to describe things that nouns could describe quickly and efficiently? I'd argue you could teach the basics of this language and then make decisions quicker than you could paragraph your way to the answer. Language allows us to have discussions about abstract ideas without spending days getting to the point.

 

[Emerikol]

I do definitely agree with the idea that they are not unique in the world. But my hope with explaining to the players the movie or novel analogy is to just try and remove the "who's better mechanically?" mindset altogether. Even by just stating that guards could be anywhere from 1st to 5th level (and thus not necessarily pushovers) still has the potential to maintain the idea that anyone and anything out there is a potential foe to fight in order to get past them... and all that matters is just making sure your levels are higher than theirs and you wield the bigger sticks. That's the kind of thinking that I try to lead players new to my tables away from, and instead ask "If this was a real situation, how would one actually most likely react?"

Well I don't allow evil groups in my campaigns much anymore. So the quickest way to shut something down would be to just say "It crosses your minds that slaughtering the guards could be an evil act". There are though situations where it wouldn't be an evil act but it would be an incredibly stupid act. In those situations, I might say "Are you sure that is what you want to do?" This is code for think about it. Most of the time they do. On occasion they suffer.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That is true but long term are we going to use paragraphs to describe things that nouns could describe quickly and efficiently?

It's only efficient if it's understandable.

I'd argue you could teach the basics of this language and then make decisions quicker than you could paragraph your way to the answer.

But that isn't happening. No one's even trying, that I've seen.

And again, Doyleist isn't an improvement over English. It is slapping jargon on an idea for the sake of creating jargon.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

The question is - Why you want to be "the best" lightsaber duelist in the Order?

Are you fighting other members of the Order? If so, you are probably already on the Dark Side. Is it for prestige/status, or to prove that you are "better" than other members of the Order? That's pride, vanity or jealously - totally roads to the Dark Side.

Is it because you fear the Sith so much? Well, fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. There we are, back at the Dark Side.

What I'm picking up here is that a sense of competition is being folded automatically into pride, vanity, or jealousy, or that needing to be prepared for the threats one might face is folded fear, rather than a discreet sensibility of vigilance.

I don't think that necessarily true of the Jedi, I think they can be competitive without letting it consume them-- I think Obi-Wan did strive to become one of the order's finest duelists after he failed to help Qui-Gon because he feared he might need it, and I don't think that was him falling to the dark side.

But this gets you into the logic of refraining from relationships to avoid attachment and the fear of losing them, instead of accepting those feelings and seeking to not let them consume you, which is a conflict that sits at the thematic heart of the prequels and the philosophical mistakes of the Republic's Jedi.

 

[Emerikol]

It's only efficient if it's understandable.

I agree and I'm not even sure the language that exists is the right language. We do need a language though. We can't explain exhaustively over and over and over.

But that isn't happening. No one's even trying, that I've seen.

And again, Doyleist isn't an improvement over English. It is slapping jargon on an idea for the sake of creating jargon.

Well I admit I don't even know what Dyleist even is in terms of gaming. Maybe something things don't need a noun but some do.

I suppose someone could write a pamphlet depicting a scene from each type of game that illustrates the gameplay and the DM could ask the player to read the pamphlet and rank the types in order of preference. Maybe even name the scenes and start using those names. The pamphlet could be a free pdf download.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Maybe something things don't need a noun but some do.

Maybe. But I suspect if someone sat down to describe all these concepts in English -- not every little permutation that gets argued over for 50 pages, but the high points -- it'd be discovered that 99% of them need three to four words to reasonably describe each idea.