What is the point of GM's notes?

[prabe]

It is but it is easy to slide into definition 1 (and one is very ambiguous so ripe for equivocation)

I don't think people who use fiction when they're talking about setting are doing the English language any favors as far as its reputation for clarity goes, but fiction neither connotes nor denotes anything about form, unless there's something in the context to say otherwise. No one describing what emerges from TRPG play as fiction is automatically talking about a story someone might have prepared.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think he made it pretty clear he was drawing only on his own experiences and not making a general statement.

@Emerikol doesn't have any experience with this approach, though, by his own admission. He only has conjecture.

 

[Fenris-77]

no but ‘something imagined’ and ‘a story’ are two different meanings of fiction. And fiction can refer to a novel or literature. There is ambiguity there and you see people use that kind of ambiguity all the time in discussions about RPGs and playstyles, and that matters when you are dealing with a low/no story like sandbox

Dude, literature and novels are types of fiction. The terms are not interchangeable. There's no abiguity in the terms at all, except I suppose, on your part.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No one describing what emerges from TRPG play as fiction is automatically talking about a story someone might have prepared.

it isn’t automatic but it is very easy to shift to the meaning as story (not necessarily one prepared but still story and having the elements you expect.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Dude, literature and novels are types of fiction. The terms are not interchangeable. There's no abiguity in the terms at all, except I suppose, on your part.

It is very ambiguous. The first definition means both something imagined but more specifically a story. And it suggests both literature and novels. There is plenty of room for equivocation there. Fiction has a strong connotation of a fictional novel or something literary. That’s why those forms are part of Def 1 (and why the core definition is so ambiguous)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Dude, literature and novels are types of fiction. The terms are not interchangeable. There's no abiguity in the terms at all, except I suppose, on your part.

Try "make believe" and "pretend elf stuff." See if that gets any better traction. I bet it won't, because I think the problem isn't the terms used, but the feeling that it's demystifying what's actually done, and that makes it feel less special.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Dude, literature and novels are types of fiction. The terms are not interchangeable.

then not bring interchangeable is why equivocation is an issue. If they were interchangeable then leaning on one meaning then another would not present an issue

 

[Fenris-77]

It is very ambiguous. The first definition means both something imagined but more specifically a story

It isn't ambiguous at all, and it doesn't actually mean story with any of the baggage you're imagining, and certainly not 'more specifically as story'.

 

[Fenris-77]

then not bring interchangeable is why equivocation is an issue

Good lord, no. They aren't interchangeable because they mean different things. What is your boggle here?

 

[Bedrockgames]

It isn't ambiguous at all, and it doesn't actually mean story with any of the baggage you're imagining, and certainly not 'more specifically as story'.

Yes it does and that is the problem. It is ambiguous because def one included both imagined stuff and story, then it goes on to include literature and novels. Story itself is a highly ambiguous word. The reason I am so wary of the term fiction is because I have seen people equivocate do much on the term story when talking about RPGs (story can just mean ‘stuff that happened’ but it can also mean something much more structured with lots of expectations)