Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[pemerton]

Correct. Use the abstractions when they are needed, but not when they are not needed.

But they're never needed. For instance:

I'm happy to let 'em argue all night if they want, as long as it stays in character.

They can thrust and parry all night, as long as it stays in character.

 

[soviet]

This is a great post. I think it illustrates a couple of significant things.

First, I think it highlights the external/internal aspect. When we talk about resolving social interaction by free RPGing, are we meaning that players should set about inducing emotional responses in others? That's a huge part of social interaction in the real world - we smile at people, yell at them, sometimes manipulate them. Or are we meaning that players should imagine that such things are happening to their PCs, and induce appropriate emotional responses in themselves?

I can't speak for the Nordic LARPers, but nothing I hear about (say) @Lanefan's table, or similar sorts of description of free RPing, makes me think that people are advocating for the external manifestations of social behaviour. That players should actually set about getting other players to make decisions for their characters by seducing or bullying or charming or manipulating them.

They are talking about the internal aspect - the player imaging their PC being subject to certain things. And what those "certain things" are can be determined in all sorts of ways.

Second, I think it highlights the issue of social disruption vs just-keep-on-playing. @Crimson Longinus posts "in TTRPG you usually only act as much as you can do by sitting on your chair" but that doesn't get to the point I asked, which is Do people really storm out in anger?. In your LARPing something like that really happened - and the game couldn't just keep going! But when I pretend that my character is storming out in anger, but I'm not actually angry with anyone, that's not a modelling of a real-world process. It's sheer authorship, and again the authorship can be structured and decided in all sorts of ways.

One is a sphere of rational negotiation. The other is not.

In situations which aren't like the one @niklinna describes, the script and the performance are not the same thing.

What happens if each player feels that their PC really wants the hand of Violette? Then they will never relent. But in real life people sometimes relent in such situations. And what makes them relent are factors that simply don't come to bear when two friends are performing their PCs to one another at a kitchen table.

For example, in the real situation one person realises that their friendship is more important to them than their romance, and hence gives up on the wooing in order to save the friendship. But at the RPG table there is no actual friendship that is at stake (assuming, once again, that we're not in a situation like the one @niklinna described). So nothing stops each player sticking to his conviction that his PC will not relent. (And this is just one example. Many more could be given.)

The basic structure of the issue, in game play terms, is finality - bringing something to a conclusion. The factors that produce that in real-life social encounters aren't present in a RPG which involves conversation among friends. (Unless it's in the sphere of rational negotiation, in which the relevant factor - the balance of reasons - is present.)

I've got doubts about this.

Great post.

It's very easy to stick to one's guns when there are no stakes and no real external considerations. Witness threads like this. How often do they end with anyone switching positions or conceding a fundamental point? Basically never, right? How often do they even end at all rather than being closed by the mods or just eventually petering out?

Consider what this would look like if we were at a WotC design retreat to plan the next edition, or at a UN panel on setting a global standard of RPGing. Suddenly we can't just fold our arms and keep repeating the same platitudes. We have a real time limit and real pressure to come to an actual agreement. I might not be convinced that the DMG should have a chapter on props and funny voices, but I might be concerned about looking too obstructionist if I continue trying to block it. I might want to give in on this because I'm hoping for your support on the Types of Polearms chapter that's my pet project. Or I might offer a compromise and suggest a couple pages on each thing in the appendix instead. The point is, we are under external pressure that make some sort of resolution necessary.

'Just talk it through, like real life' is nerd thinking. (I am also a nerd.) For one thing, the construction of your argument and the literal words you say is only a small part of any social interaction. Body language, emotions, external pressures... these are all largely absent from our 'simulation'. The proof of this is also in the results at the table - how often does the NPC fail to be convinced about giving the PCs the hook for the next adventure? How often does an NPC get convinced to do more than was anticipated by the GM, and spill their guts completely, or give up their life of crime and come adventuring with the PCs (where this was not already a conceivable possibility)? I venture to say the answer is 'very very rarely'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes there are.

As I posted, it hits a wall when two free roleplayers won't budge. The solution that I'm most familiar with is to make sure - via the sort of GM control of the fiction you also mention - that the main focus of play isn't something that will generate deep but opposed commitments from the various players of the various protagonists.

Yeah, I have really never seen it happen to any great degree. Sometimes players, in the guise of their PCs, disagree and cannot resolve their disagreement via RP. Either they do it some other way (as you suggest) or typically the GM simply introduces some new fiction that either presents a more immediate concern or unilaterally decides the issue (IE by mooting it entirely). Some of these solutions might be pretty compatible with Narrativist concerns. Like, the girl in question picks one of the PCs, rejecting the other suitor. This obviously can raise various questions and push things this way or that, but it certainly feels like a kind of GM move that would be quite in keeping with how PbtA games approach things, for instance.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Great post.

It's very easy to stick to one's guns when there are no stakes and no real external considerations. Witness threads like this. How often do they end with anyone switching positions or conceding a fundamental point? Basically never, right? How often do they even end at all rather than being closed by the mods or just eventually petering out?

Consider what this would look like if we were at a WotC design retreat to plan the next edition, or at a UN panel on setting a global standard of RPGing. Suddenly we can't just fold our arms and keep repeating the same platitudes. We have a real time limit and real pressure to come to an actual agreement. I might not be convinced that the DMG should have a chapter on props and funny voices, but I might be concerned about looking too obstructionist if I continue trying to block it. I might want to give in on this because I'm hoping for your support on the Types of Polearms chapter that's my pet project. Or I might offer a compromise and suggest a couple pages on each thing in the appendix instead. The point is, we are under external pressure that make some sort of resolution necessary.

'Just talk it through, like real life' is nerd thinking. (I am also a nerd.) For one thing, the construction of your argument and the literal words you say is only a small part of any social interaction. Body language, emotions, external pressures... these are all largely absent from our 'simulation'. The proof of this is also in the results at the table - how often does the NPC fail to be convinced about giving the PCs the hook for the next adventure? How often does an NPC get convinced to do more than was anticipated by the GM, and spill their guts completely, or give up their life of crime and come adventuring with the PCs (where this was not already a conceivable possibility)? I venture to say the answer is 'very very rarely'.

Right, this gets back to the whole "it is not a real world, and it doesn't behave like one" thing. IMHO though this kind of assertion is viewed in a dim light by those who have built their thinking about play on the edifice of being entirely in character, or others where the issue is process-sim as a form of verisimilitude, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

But they're never needed. For instance:

They can thrust and parry all night, as long as it stays in character.

This is absurd.

Players with weapons thrusting and parrying at each other all night would eventually attract the attention of the local police; and before it did I'd be constantly having to both recruit new players and find places to hide bodies. Again, absurd.

Abstractions are required in order that combat (and various other tests of skill not do-able at the typical gaming table) be able to exist in the game, and in the setting.

It is in no way, however, absurd to think of a social situation being resolved without abstraction simply via those at the table talking to each other in-character. With rare exceptions talking doesn't usually attract police attention, nor does it produce a body count. Abstractions are not required here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is absurd.

Players with weapons thrusting and parrying at each other all night would eventually attract the attention of the local police; and before it did I'd be constantly having to both recruit new players and find places to hide bodies. Again, absurd.

Abstractions are required in order that combat (and various other tests of skill not do-able at the typical gaming table) be able to exist in the game, and in the setting.

It is in no way, however, absurd to think of a social situation being resolved without abstraction simply via those at the table talking to each other in-character. With rare exceptions talking doesn't usually attract police attention, nor does it produce a body count. Abstractions are not required here.

Setting aside the idea of people actually wielding weapons…can’t the players simply continue describing their actions? Why must there be rules for all that? We can just talk it out.

 

[loverdrive]

Setting aside the idea of people actually wielding weapons…can’t the players simply continue describing their actions? Why must there be rules for all that? We can just talk it out.

Not like any rules for a tabletop game can sufficiently model the chaotic nature of actual combat anyway.

 

[Eric V]

Just as can happen in real life, sometimes two people dig in their heels and either agree to disagree or just keep arguing.

I'm happy to let 'em argue all night if they want, as long as it stays in character.

And everyone else at the table does...what, exactly? Just wait for two stubborn people to get over themselves and realize they are all playing a game together?

 

[hawkeyefan]

And everyone else at the table does...what, exactly? Just wait for two stubborn people to get over themselves and realize they are all playing a game together?

I was talking with some folks about being perfectly willing to just watch when a game becomes focused on just one character or two for a while, and my character is uninvolved. I tend to be a fan of the other players and their characters, and I’m genuinely curious about what will happen to them. So when the game goes in a direction where my character isn’t involved, I don’t mind watching what happens and what the players decide to have their characters do.

But if it was just to argue endlessly without either coming to some compromise or in some way invoking rules to make a decision, I’d probably smash my face into the table in the hopes of succumbing to unconsciousness rather than listen to such self indulgent nonsense.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It seems to there has been some bizarre strawman summoning going on here. "You cannot resolve social situation via in-character talking because it leads to an infinite debate that will never end." This is not a thing. It doesn't happen. This thread has again become completely detached from the reality.