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

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it’s a huge factor. Fighting is a big part of the game. It’s a big part of many games. Nothing wrong with that, it simply is so. The hobby’s roots in wargaming are a big influence.

It is a reason why D&D has such complicated and extensive combat mechanics. But it is not the reason for combat mechanics being prioritised over social mechanics in general. I've been in a lot of LARPS that in which basically only rules were for physical conflict, (usually super light like rock-paper-scissors etc) and the game's focus was solely on the social situation.

Replace the word “physical” with “social”. Haggling with the shopkeeper? Sure…simple stuff like that we can likely model pretty well. Courtly intrigue, international diplomacy, hostage negotiation…high stakes things like that aren’t resolved with simple talking. They’re as complicated as combat and just as unfamiliar to most players.

I simply don't agree with this. These things are not completely unlike more mundane social conflicts everyone is familiar with. People can imagine such things, to sufficient degree that they feel pretty real to them (and if this is actually "realistic" doesn't really matter, it just needs to feel like it is.) It is exactly these sort of tense high stakes social situations many LARPs are build around, people play these sort of situations by talking and immersing all the time, so it seems utterly ludicrous to me to claim that this is somehow super difficult.

Also, if you don't want to immerse and roleplay situations like this and just rather roll the dice to move on, then what is even the point? This is the good stuff, why would you want to roll the dice to skip it?

 

[pemerton]

Haggling with the shopkeeper? Sure…simple stuff like that we can likely model pretty well.

I have two memories of trying to haggle in any serious way, both in Morocco.

The first time, I offered about a quarter (maybe a third?) of what had been asked for. And the offer was immediately accepted.

The second time, there was back and forth. At one point the vendor made a hidden, written note of what the final price would be after we finished. He was correct.

In a RPG, I could play myself; but unless the GM is as skilled at haggling as that vendor in Fez, what are we actually modelling?

Courtly intrigue, international diplomacy, hostage negotiation…high stakes things like that aren’t resolved with simple talking. They’re as complicated as combat and just as unfamiliar to most players.

if you don't want to immerse and roleplay situations like this and just rather roll the dice to move on, then what is even the point? This is the good stuff, why would you want to roll the dice to skip it?

I don't see why you're imputing these desires to @hawkeyefan (or to anyone else posting in this thread).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't see why you're imputing these desires to @hawkeyefan (or to anyone else posting in this thread).

It's due the words people have been writing.

 

[Manbearcat]

It also isn't what anyone has argued for.

If someone is saying D&D players (or they themselves) “don’t speak combat-ese so a combat engine allows us to speak combat-ese sufficient to process information and make decisions that feed back to and from the user and the imagined space…” well, that is exactly what they’re saying.

It’s a UI to bridge a comprehension gap/language barrier to facilitate functional play

They then go on to say “I/we speak/comprehend human talky so I/we don’t need mechanics for that.“

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If someone is saying D&D players (or they themselves) “don’t speak combat-ese so a combat engine allows us to speak combat-ese sufficient to process information and make decisions that feed back to and from the user and the imagined space…” well, that is exactly what they’re saying.

It’s a UI to bridge a comprehension gap/language barrier to facilitate functional play

You don't need intricate combat mechanics for that. Like you said, you can handle it relatively rules light or even completely freeform.

They then go on to say “I/we speak/comprehend human talky so I/we don’t need mechanics for that.“

First. Most people have better intuitive understanding of social interaction than combat. I don't think this is at all controversial. But that's not even the main point. Resolving talking via talking has very strong correspondence, resolving combat via talking doesn't. You can do the latter, but it doesn't have the same advantage than the former has.

 

[Garthanos]

I disagree with the last bit here. The game doesn't fall apart when things move into purely RPed social stuff, it more just gets out of the way - like it should.

Quits being a game aka RPG and you pretty much do not get to play anyone but yourself. To me that is falling a part

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Quits being a game aka RPG and you pretty much do not get to play anyone but yourself. To me that is falling a part

You could argue it technically isn't terribly much 'a game' at that point. Which is not a big deal in my book. RPGs are very unlike most other games to begin with and the term 'game' is vague anyway.

But of course you can play a character different from you and it is weird to think that you couldn't. Most of the characterisation doesn't depend on the rules. Actors can play characters that are not like them (even when improvising) and authors can write characters that are not like them. They don't need rules to do this.

 

[Campbell]

We have decent intuition about the things we experience on a day-to-day basis but painting all social interaction with a broad brush is not helpful here. The social pressures and social norms of working from home for a software company for insistence feels nothing like the cadence, social pressures and norms of my experience as an active-duty soldier in my 20s. Even when I was a soldier talking to those infantry and artillery guys was a whole nother ball game.

Then bring it into social experiences that are incredibly far removed from our experiences as humans living in the modern world. What does it feel like to exist in pseudo Edo Period Japan as a samurai trained from birth to never show weakness or anger, to always have to maintain your composure in an environment where everyone you socialize with walks around carrying six foot razor blades? Do you have an intuition of what social interaction looks like then? What if the Emperor is a god and there are spirits and ghosts around every corner?

What about parlaying with a dragon who has lived for 600 years?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We have decent intuition about the things we experience on a day-to-day basis but painting all social interaction with a broad brush is not helpful here. The social pressures and social norms of working from home for a software company for insistence feels nothing like the cadence, social pressures and norms of my experience as an active-duty soldier in my 20s. Even when I was a soldier talking to those infantry and artillery guys was a whole nother ball game.

Then bring it into social experiences that are incredibly far removed from our experiences as humans living in the modern world. What does it feel like to exist in pseudo Edo Period Japan as a samurai trained from birth to never show weakness or anger, to always have to maintain your composure in an environment where everyone you socialize with walks around carrying six foot razor blades? Do you have an intuition of what social interaction looks like then? What if the Emperor is a god and there are spirits and ghosts around every corner?

What about parlaying with a dragon who has lived for 600 years?

Right. But to me the whole point of roleplaying is that you try to imagine that and immerse into it the best you can. It may be far from perfect, but the goal still is clear. I really don't see what's even the point of playing if we give up on this.

Seriously, at this point I don't even understand what people want to get out of RPGs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

We have decent intuition about the things we experience on a day-to-day basis but painting all social interaction with a broad brush is not helpful here. The social pressures and social norms of working from home for a software company for insistence feels nothing like the cadence, social pressures and norms of my experience as an active-duty soldier in my 20s. Even when I was a soldier talking to those infantry and artillery guys was a whole nother ball game.

Then bring it into social experiences that are incredibly far removed from our experiences as humans living in the modern world. What does it feel like to exist in pseudo Edo Period Japan as a samurai trained from birth to never show weakness or anger, to always have to maintain your composure in an environment where everyone you socialize with walks around carrying six foot razor blades? Do you have an intuition of what social interaction looks like then? What if the Emperor is a god and there are spirits and ghosts around every corner?

What about parlaying with a dragon who has lived for 600 years?

I think there is a difference between feeling the end result has to be a perfect approximation of the reality versus viewing this as fun thought experiment, a fun empathy experiment or game where you think through: what is it like for someone in X environment to have to operate in a certain way; what is it like for a dragon who is 600 years old. The fun for me in this, whether I am reading a book where a writer is trying to answer that question in the context of a story, or an RPG where we are doing so through PCs and NPCs, is seeing what answers other people arrive at, seeing where I arrive at, etc. I think much of this is going to begin with analogies that are familiar to us of course. But again its a game of imagination. Much of the fun comes from trying to imagine things that are distant from our own experiences.