Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 9316765" data-attributes="member: 467">It would be AMAZING if we could actually talk about narrative games, and fiction first games, and play to find out games, without this sense of ownership over the language. Because as it is, I see lots of people shutting down what other people are saying just because they want to own the language and force adherence to a particular jargon. Some of you may have read enough of my posts to know that I have no love for jargon.As it relates to this game, what we want to do is invite players to have a say in how to interpret the results of die rolls. That's it. That is the &quot;narrative&quot; aspect: letting players share the world building responsibility.By making tis thing more complex it needs to be by incorporatinga&nbsp; bunch of bespokse, exclusionary jargon, you undermine the basic idea of the system which is simply: players are allowed to tell something of the story themselves, too. In plain English it is easy to understand and provides plenty of guidance.Here is what I do not like about jargon: almost always, jargon is the result of some very small number of folks talking about stuff everyone has been doing for a long time, and they give it a name and call it new when it isn't anything special or new. you can see it from the very earliest days of the hobby: folks were debating literally everything we talk about now. But when we force the use of terminology, we develop an exclusionary and elitist paradigm of discussion that is completely unnecessary except the person who made up the jargon term wants to hear/read other people use it.I legitimately believe we can talk about anything theoretical or philosophical in the RPG space without resorting to jargon, because what we as roleplayers so exists, by definition, in the space of natural language. &quot;I want to sneak behind the guard and make my way through the gate,&quot; is the most natural thing in the world and probably the most common player statement in RPG history.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 9316765, member: 467"] It would be AMAZING if we could actually talk about narrative games, and fiction first games, and play to find out games, without this sense of ownership over the language. Because as it is, I see lots of people shutting down what other people are saying just because they want to own the language and force adherence to a particular jargon. Some of you may have read enough of my posts to know that I have no love for jargon. As it relates to this game, what we want to do is invite players to have a say in how to interpret the results of die rolls. That's it. That is the "narrative" aspect: letting players share the world building responsibility. By making tis thing more complex it needs to be by incorporatinga bunch of bespokse, exclusionary jargon, you undermine the basic idea of the system which is simply: players are allowed to tell something of the story themselves, too. In plain English it is easy to understand and provides plenty of guidance. Here is what I do not like about jargon: almost always, jargon is the result of some very small number of folks talking about stuff everyone has been doing for a long time, and they give it a name and call it new when it isn't anything special or new. you can see it from the very earliest days of the hobby: folks were debating literally everything we talk about now. But when we force the use of terminology, we develop an exclusionary and elitist paradigm of discussion that is completely unnecessary except the person who made up the jargon term wants to hear/read other people use it. I legitimately believe we can talk about anything theoretical or philosophical in the RPG space without resorting to jargon, because what we as roleplayers so exists, by definition, in the space of natural language. "I want to sneak behind the guard and make my way through the gate," is the most natural thing in the world and probably the most common player statement in RPG history. [/QUOTE]

Verification