Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7623774" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>This is a pretty big shifting of the goalposts from “acting” to “should provide concrete dialog, in some form.” You’re able to dismiss large parts of my argument because you assign them to the performative aspects of acting while you try to focus on the provision of dialog – a distinction you may have intended all along but have failed to illuminate until now. And, to top that off, you dismiss some of my arguments because you can assign them to performance and ignore that they are still talking to your dialog points.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, but CAN doesn’t imply MUST, or even ONLY. May be sufficient but not necessary is something I keep saying. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is the goalpost shift, and, honestly, I think it cuts against your argument. If it’s only dialogue that matters, then the manner in which that dialog is delivered should have no bearing on the representation of character. And, yet, If I deliver the line, "Good morrow, Captain. I am Sir Reginald, and as you may have discerned, I am a Knight Templar of Holy Aravar the Traveller," in a bored and sarcastic tone vice a cheerful and friendly tone, then a difference is had. You’re trying to argue that the only relevant part of acting to your argument is the delivery of dialog, but this is flat out untrue. Tone, mannerism, etc., all matter as much, as they change the intent and even message delivered. You cannot separate dialog from acting as you’ve done and have it retain meaning.</p><p> </p><p>You also address the poor dialog here, and say it does not matter so long as the player provides some dialog. I, again, disagree. What you’re doing here is ignoring poor dialog and inserting some imagined delivery and speech to get to the player’s goals. All you’ve done re: in game dialog is force the player to accede to your preference and then, if the performance does not align with the character or the player’s intent, you actually ignore the performance and just deal with the stated intent. You discard your own requirements.</p><p> </p><p>And, I run into this quite often with one of my players, who can describe how their character acts in character well, but becomes flustered when having to put it into dialog and often reverts to aggressive or dismissive words in that frustration. I do not require that they provide dialog – they choose to often because they’re working on this for themselves – because I, so often, must ignore the provided dialog and instead adjudicate the intent. This directly cuts against your argument that dialog improves roleplaying. It does not in this case, and you haven’t shown that it improves roleplaying in the best cases, either. That you prefer it just means that you appreciate roleplaying with good dialog, but it doesn’t mean that this is universal or objective.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>This is handwavy. The division isn’t between a well delivered flowery introduction and a bald declaration. You’re taking the best of yours and putting against the worst of the others. If the declaration was, “Bob the Bard introduces himself to the Baron, using his knowledge of the nobility to recite the Baron’s lineage in glowing terms, and presenting himself as a humble supplicant for favor.” This works better for me than a partial, back and forth switch between dialog (that may be badly formed and delivered) and declarations of the things the player doesn’t know (presumably the Baron’s lineage). It’s also, in my opinion, closer to what’s being simulated, which is Bob the Bard’s impressive knowledge of nobility and his ability to easily manipulate the vain. The player may not have these qualities at all. </p><p></p><p>(Not that I accept that "closer to what's simulated" is the desirable goal.)</p><p> </p><p>And that’s not even getting into the fantastical.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>This is valid, but it was your conjecture that acting improves roleplaying without qualification. Showing that this is untrue in regards to your assertion is not rendered a less effective argument if it’s also untrue in regards to other assertions. Examine: if the claim is that the sky is red, showing that it is not is not defeated if the counterargument is that the ocean is also not red.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The argument isn’t the assault rifles are inferior to butcher knives, it’s that a jammed and corrodes assault rifle IS inferior to a functional butcher knife. I don’t have to show that your assertion is wrong in all cases (and I’ve clearly not made this argument), I just have to show that your universally stated assertion is wrong in at least one case.</p><p> </p><p>Bad acting being inferior to not-bad declaration is sufficient to defeat your statement that acting is the height of roleplaying.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, as I don’t define “roleplaying” as synonymous with “providing dialog”, sure. I also having said that acting isn’t fun, or enjoyable, or something that shouldn’t be encouraged if the players enjoy it. So, now that we’re done with the strawmen, all you’ve said here is that practicing something means you can improve in that something. This is trivial, and does absolutely nothing to bolster your claim that acting improves roleplaying. It also doesn’t go to any of my points, as I’ve not made the argument that practice doesn’t lead to improvement, but that acting is not the pinnacle of roleplaying.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, I strongly disagree with this. I am a GM mostly, and I bounce between description and dialog all the time, but the crux of my job isn’t dialog, it’s description. The jester telling a joke, for instance, strikes me as badly off as an example. The point of the scene I’m framing is not the joke the jester is telling, it’s something else, and the jester’s joke is a minor detail to that point. Wasting time actually telling a joke, which may or may not be found funny by the players (and, given my propensity to Dad jokes, likely the later, although I’ll be amused), actually acts to obfuscate the important points of the scene I’m framing. I can hardly think of a better example of where dialog actively harms the play of the game but yet may greatly aid the enjoyment of the performance of the GM. It so well illustrates the underlying premise of my point – that acting is your preference because you enjoy it (doing it and observing it) and that this doesn’t mean it’s the best for roleplaying in general.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7623774, member: 16814"] This is a pretty big shifting of the goalposts from “acting” to “should provide concrete dialog, in some form.” You’re able to dismiss large parts of my argument because you assign them to the performative aspects of acting while you try to focus on the provision of dialog – a distinction you may have intended all along but have failed to illuminate until now. And, to top that off, you dismiss some of my arguments because you can assign them to performance and ignore that they are still talking to your dialog points. Yes, but CAN doesn’t imply MUST, or even ONLY. May be sufficient but not necessary is something I keep saying. This is the goalpost shift, and, honestly, I think it cuts against your argument. If it’s only dialogue that matters, then the manner in which that dialog is delivered should have no bearing on the representation of character. And, yet, If I deliver the line, "Good morrow, Captain. I am Sir Reginald, and as you may have discerned, I am a Knight Templar of Holy Aravar the Traveller," in a bored and sarcastic tone vice a cheerful and friendly tone, then a difference is had. You’re trying to argue that the only relevant part of acting to your argument is the delivery of dialog, but this is flat out untrue. Tone, mannerism, etc., all matter as much, as they change the intent and even message delivered. You cannot separate dialog from acting as you’ve done and have it retain meaning. You also address the poor dialog here, and say it does not matter so long as the player provides some dialog. I, again, disagree. What you’re doing here is ignoring poor dialog and inserting some imagined delivery and speech to get to the player’s goals. All you’ve done re: in game dialog is force the player to accede to your preference and then, if the performance does not align with the character or the player’s intent, you actually ignore the performance and just deal with the stated intent. You discard your own requirements. And, I run into this quite often with one of my players, who can describe how their character acts in character well, but becomes flustered when having to put it into dialog and often reverts to aggressive or dismissive words in that frustration. I do not require that they provide dialog – they choose to often because they’re working on this for themselves – because I, so often, must ignore the provided dialog and instead adjudicate the intent. This directly cuts against your argument that dialog improves roleplaying. It does not in this case, and you haven’t shown that it improves roleplaying in the best cases, either. That you prefer it just means that you appreciate roleplaying with good dialog, but it doesn’t mean that this is universal or objective. This is handwavy. The division isn’t between a well delivered flowery introduction and a bald declaration. You’re taking the best of yours and putting against the worst of the others. If the declaration was, “Bob the Bard introduces himself to the Baron, using his knowledge of the nobility to recite the Baron’s lineage in glowing terms, and presenting himself as a humble supplicant for favor.” This works better for me than a partial, back and forth switch between dialog (that may be badly formed and delivered) and declarations of the things the player doesn’t know (presumably the Baron’s lineage). It’s also, in my opinion, closer to what’s being simulated, which is Bob the Bard’s impressive knowledge of nobility and his ability to easily manipulate the vain. The player may not have these qualities at all. (Not that I accept that "closer to what's simulated" is the desirable goal.) And that’s not even getting into the fantastical. This is valid, but it was your conjecture that acting improves roleplaying without qualification. Showing that this is untrue in regards to your assertion is not rendered a less effective argument if it’s also untrue in regards to other assertions. Examine: if the claim is that the sky is red, showing that it is not is not defeated if the counterargument is that the ocean is also not red. The argument isn’t the assault rifles are inferior to butcher knives, it’s that a jammed and corrodes assault rifle IS inferior to a functional butcher knife. I don’t have to show that your assertion is wrong in all cases (and I’ve clearly not made this argument), I just have to show that your universally stated assertion is wrong in at least one case. Bad acting being inferior to not-bad declaration is sufficient to defeat your statement that acting is the height of roleplaying. Well, as I don’t define “roleplaying” as synonymous with “providing dialog”, sure. I also having said that acting isn’t fun, or enjoyable, or something that shouldn’t be encouraged if the players enjoy it. So, now that we’re done with the strawmen, all you’ve said here is that practicing something means you can improve in that something. This is trivial, and does absolutely nothing to bolster your claim that acting improves roleplaying. It also doesn’t go to any of my points, as I’ve not made the argument that practice doesn’t lead to improvement, but that acting is not the pinnacle of roleplaying. Oh, I strongly disagree with this. I am a GM mostly, and I bounce between description and dialog all the time, but the crux of my job isn’t dialog, it’s description. The jester telling a joke, for instance, strikes me as badly off as an example. The point of the scene I’m framing is not the joke the jester is telling, it’s something else, and the jester’s joke is a minor detail to that point. Wasting time actually telling a joke, which may or may not be found funny by the players (and, given my propensity to Dad jokes, likely the later, although I’ll be amused), actually acts to obfuscate the important points of the scene I’m framing. I can hardly think of a better example of where dialog actively harms the play of the game but yet may greatly aid the enjoyment of the performance of the GM. It so well illustrates the underlying premise of my point – that acting is your preference because you enjoy it (doing it and observing it) and that this doesn’t mean it’s the best for roleplaying in general. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
Top