Why D&D?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Yes, but you can say "game world" or "fictional world" instead. "Diegetic" is a word that has been ported around because it's a useful one. Diegetic is "in-character"; non- or extra-diegetic is "out-of-character."
 
You could find a “If you don’t like the topic of conversation you could go to a different thread“ icon. :fu:

Yeah sorry, bad attempt at humour on my part. But don't worry I have now clicked the unwatch button.
 
In a nutshell some of this starts with we learned about the first roleplaying campaign, Blackmoor, ran by Dave Arneson.
The First Fantasy Campaign explains so much about the origins of the hobby; it should be required reading.

. . . THRAKADOOM. . .
THRAKADOOM is the name of my GWAR cover band.


. . . and now I want a Conan campaign with Thraka Doom, Thulsa Doom's totally metal offspring, as the chief antagonist.
 
Yes, but you can say "game world" or "fictional world" instead. "Diegetic" is a word that has been ported around because it's a useful one. Diegetic is "in-character"; non- or extra-diegetic is "out-of-character."
Good luck getting people to agree on what’s IC vs. OOC. Diegetic is described as a binary switch, everything is Diagetic or non-Diagetic. There’s at least three levels of Roleplaying, IC, Abstracted and OOC, which I describe in my sig.
 
That's why I suggested seriated events within the diagetic frame. Personally, I don't have nearly the baggage a couple of you do using general words like story and narrative to describe that, as non-precise as those are, but there's no need to. Really, it's a game more than a story anyway. Events happen in the gamespace in a causal or connected fashion, one after the next, within a framework of rules and information that delimit to a degree the boundaries of what events and outcomes are acceptable. I think Baker describing it as a conversation is about as accurate as it gets from a non-academic word use standpoint.
”It” refers to what? The process of “events happening”? This sounds like one could call the process of a court of law “a conversation”.
 
”It” refers to what? The process of “events happening”? This sounds like one could call the process of a court of law “a conversation”.
The thing that a couple of posters really really don't want to call a narrative or story. As a general term for what happens at the game table conversation works well. Have you read Baker's introduction to Apocalypse World?
 
No, I haven’t. Care to summarize?
He says it better than I would, so here's the bit from the front of the book:

You probably know this already: roleplaying is a conversation. You and the other players go back and forth, talking about these fictional characters in their fictional circumstances doing whatever it is that they do. Like any conversation, you take turns, but it’s not like taking turns, right? Sometimes you talk over each other, interrupt, build on each others’ ideas, monopolize and hold forth. All fine.

These rules mediate the conversation. They kick in when someone says some particular things, and they impose constraints on what everyone should say after. Makes sense, right?
(Apocalypse World 2nd Ed, p 9)
 
He says it better than I would, so here's the bit from the front of the book:

You probably know this already: roleplaying is a conversation. You and the other players go back and forth, talking about these fictional characters in their fictional circumstances doing whatever it is that they do. Like any conversation, you take turns, but it’s not like taking turns, right? Sometimes you talk over each other, interrupt, build on each others’ ideas, monopolize and hold forth. All fine.

These rules mediate the conversation. They kick in when someone says some particular things, and they impose constraints on what everyone should say after. Makes sense, right?
(Apocalypse World 2nd Ed, p 9)


I dunno, it's kinda a description of roleplaying that leaves out the role-playing part
 
I dunno, it's kinda a description of roleplaying that leaves out the role-playing part
I agree, its a rather poor description if you ask me. It's kind of like boiling down what it means to live as being able to breathe.
It's not wrong but it misses so much that it may as well be a non answer.
 
I dunno, it's kinda a description of roleplaying that leaves out the role-playing part
Well, I think it doesn't try to define exactly what role playing is, because people have very different ideas. It does say " talking about these fictional characters in their fictional circumstances doing whatever it is that they do" which to me is where the role playing is, whether it be third person, voice acting, or whatever.

It's a wordy version of the Lumpley Principal: "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." which is the most succinct statement that to me identifies just what it is that makes a role playing game different than a war game (and for this it's worth noting that I came to role playing from war gaming, and at first didn't even necessarily understand just how it was different, and certainly never was able to articulate it).
 
I dunno, it's kinda a description of roleplaying that leaves out the role-playing part
It's not a definition, its an introduction. The device of the conversation carries on throughout the book and the rules for all players are generally set in terms of that conversation. The intro here really describes the recursive action in the diegetic frame, to put it in terms I've been using. It's a much more useful conceit than any other "this is what roleplaying is.." bit from any book I're read. Anyway, I brought it up because 'conversation' can be used in place of narrative or story since those seem to really push peoples buttons.
 
He says it better than I would, so here's the bit from the front of the book:

You probably know this already: roleplaying is a conversation. You and the other players go back and forth, talking about these fictional characters in their fictional circumstances doing whatever it is that they do. Like any conversation, you take turns, but it’s not like taking turns, right? Sometimes you talk over each other, interrupt, build on each others’ ideas, monopolize and hold forth. All fine.

These rules mediate the conversation. They kick in when someone says some particular things, and they impose constraints on what everyone should say after. Makes sense, right?
(Apocalypse World 2nd Ed, p 9)
It's a description of the mechanical things that happen at the table; at that level, it's fine, it's what you'd see if you watched a table play; it's not trying to be a comprehensive description of a game. I think the rest of the book does a good job of the "creating who your character is, what they want, and how they get it" side of it.
 
I agree, its a rather poor description if you ask me. It's kind of like boiling down what it means to live as being able to breathe.
It's not wrong but it misses so much that it may as well be a non answer.
Or you could have asked me what it was. That isn't a definition. It's an introduction. You two are like Statler and Waldorf here, yikes. :grin:
 
Or you could have asked me what it was. That isn't a definition. It's an introduction. You two are like Statler and Waldorf here, yikes. :grin:
It just didn't hit home for me. It seemed like a poor description. That's my prerogative.

Not gonna lie... part of me cringed reading it too.
 
It just didn't hit home for me. It seemed like a poor description. That's my prerogative.

Not gonna lie... part of me cringed reading it too.
That's fine. I wasn't trying to sell you stock in PbtA. It's a hugely popular system, and one I like quite a bit, but you don't need to like it too. I'm just looking for a word to replace story or narrative, since other people can't get over that hump, and conversation fits too.
 
It's not a definition, its an introduction. The device of the conversation carries on throughout the book and the rules for all players are generally set in terms of that conversation. The intro here really describes the recursive action in the diegetic frame, to put it in terms I've been using. It's a much more useful conceit than any other "this is what roleplaying is.." bit from any book I're read. Anyway, I brought it up because 'conversation' can be used in place of narrative or story since those seem to really push peoples buttons.


Is it useful? It seems like it's stating upfront what is self-evident once the purpose and method is described.
 
It's a wordy version of the Lumpley Principal: "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." which is the most succinct statement that to me identifies just what it is that makes a role playing game different than a war game (and for this it's worth noting that I came to role playing from war gaming, and at first didn't even necessarily understand just how it was different, and certainly never was able to articulate it).


Actually, now that you bring that up - what seperatess RPGs from Wargames for me is the exact opposite - that the system is beholden to the GM, to be interpreted, modified , or ignored. It is the position of the GM as an "engine" that allows the unique situation of the RPG to exist, with the rules system being only one tool at the GM's disposal.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, it's kinda a description of roleplaying that leaves out the role-playing part
Exactly, there no IN-character there. You could be talking about the characters in "the fiction" like the writing bullpen of a TV series talks about the latest episode they're writing.

In assume a narrative position, ie "world of the story" from the get go.
 
Is it useful? It seems like it's stating upfront what is self-evident once the purpose and method is described.
I found it useful, yeah, he carries it through the rules really well, it's tight. It's a different way to look at what happens at the table and how the pieces fit together. Personally I don't have one set of vocabulary that I think is 'right', there are lots of ways to talk about RPGs and the knobs and dials involved.
 
Actually, now that you bring that up - what seperatess RPGs from Wargames for me is the exact opposite - that the system is beholden to the GM, to be interpreted, modified , or ignored. It is the position of the GM that allows the unique situation of the RPG to exist.
Games that are identifiably RPGs exist that don't have a GM though (Fiasco, say). I'd agree that that's a common trait of RPGs though, for sure. Also, the extent to which the system is beholden to the GM is pretty variable from RPG to RPG, but that's why it's good to have vocabulary to talk about the differences.
 
The term story, doesn't push people's buttons, and for someone who is quick to cry foul at people characterizing what others think, you're doing a mighty persistent job of micharacterizing anyone who disagrees with using that term.

The.word Story is incorrect, because not everyone creates a Story when they roleplay.

That's not an inconsequential part of a greater argument, it is the key of the entire argument, because if you disagree with what I typed above, there is no point in moving forward, because you are proceeding from an assumption many of us know to be false.
 
OK, so way
Games that are identifiably RPGs exist that don't have a GM though (Fiasco, say).


I don't know Fiasco, but it is a game that is frequently cited as not being an actual RPG, much like Baron Munchausen.
 
Exactly, there no IN-character there. You could be talking about the characters in "the fiction" like the writing bullpen of a TV series talks about the latest episode they're writing.

In assume a narrative position, ie "world of the story" from the get go.
Not if you read the whole game. Assuming that those handful of sentences describes the whole thing probably isn't fair. PbtA is actually pretty traditional from a narrative control and moving parts standpoint.
 
That's fine. I wasn't trying to sell you stock in PbtA. It's a hugely popular system, and one I like quite a bit, but you don't need to like it too. I'm just looking for a word to replace story or narrative, since other people can't get over that hump, and conversation fits too.
I wasn't commenting on PtBA. Honestly I don't know the system beyond that some people speak of it like it is the be all and end all of roleplaying. I was speaking on the snippet you posted.
 
The term story, doesn't push people's buttons, and for someone who is quick to cry foul at people characterizing what others think, you're a mighty persistent job of micharacterizing anyone who disagree with using that term.

The.word Story is incorrect, because not everyone creates a Story when they roleplay.

That's not an inconsequential part of a greater argument, it is the key of the entire argument, because if disagree with what I typed above, there is no point in moving forqard, because you proceeding from an aasumption many of us know to be false.
Sure it does, but that wasn't meant as a criticism. The very fact that you said not everyone creates a story shows why the word is problematic, doesn't it? I don't need the word story to talk about RPGs, nor have insisted it be used, and in fact I've gone out of my to try and find something that doesn't cause the same kind of issue. Feel free to suggest an alternative word to describe what happens at the table. I don't have a favorite or anything.
 
I found it useful, yeah, he carries it through the rules really well, it's tight. It's a different way to look at what happens at the table and how the pieces fit together. Personally I don't have one set of vocabulary that I think is 'right', there are lots of ways to talk about RPGs and the knobs and dials involved.

Hmm, a long time ago, so long I couldn't say where I read it or who wrote it, as it was during my "consuming lots and lots of RPG zines"-phase of the late 90s/early aughts, I came across a description of RPGs that ha always stuck with me. It's not perfect, or all encompassing, but Ive never encountered anything that quite so "hit the nail on it's head" as it were...

To praphrase - "When children are young, they inevitably play games of "let's pretend" where they assume the roles of characters in fictional situations. Inevitably, a dispute comes when an event in the fictional situation is disagreed upon ("I shot you" "No you didn't"). RPGs exist to arbitrate thee disputes."

Note that it's very close to what AW says in essence, but with a key difference in that it addresses the purpose and nature of the activity.
 
I wasn't commenting on PtBA. Honestly I don't know the system beyond that some people speak of it like it is the be all and end all of roleplaying. I was speaking on the snippet you posted.
Yeah, those people can be annoying. One-true-wayism is everywhere. I do really like the game system, but it's just one among a bunch I really like. As for the snippet, if it doesn't grab, it doesn't grab you. I've found it a useful way to talk about RPGs, but you may not.
 
Actually, now that you bring that up - what seperatess RPGs from Wargames for me is the exact opposite - that the system is beholden to the GM, to be interpreted, modified , or ignored. It is the position of the GM that allows the unique situation of the RPG to exist.
But there are GMed wargames... I GMed a modified game of Stellar Conquest. But it most definitely wasn't an RPG. Maybe the time I GMed Bar Room Brawl (with AD&D rules) was an RPG, but then it was already using an RPG for it's framework, but even that looks more like a war game than a full on RPG. I'll grant that I had never experienced a refereed war game before playing D&D, but the concept made enough sense that the first time I observed D&D play (Holmes Basic D&D in 1977) I offered to be the referee while my friend was the dungeon master (because we didn't yet understand the game and it mentioned both terms). I offered this because I was really unsure about this game that seemed different than the board and miniatures war games I had played up to that point. Once I got well under way with role playing, I struggled to identify what made an RPG. I knew what it looked like in play, but I couldn't quite pin it down, other than keying on the "you can do anything" idea (which the Lumpley Principle encompasses).

I think it might be possible to remove the GM and still have an RPG, though I haven't seen such a game yet. I also have seen almost none of the GMless games other than watched a demo of Universalis. A GM may well be critical to an RPG, or it may just be that the very adjacent games like Universalis are more what folks are looking for in a GMless game.

One thing I dismiss is that the GM has absolute control over the world. For an RPG to be an RPG at all, the player at least has to have agency which means they at least have control over (most of) that portion of the world that is their character. It's also not uncommon for the player to have control over other bits (like hirelings and henchmen, or even creating setting when they offer even a simple background of their character).

The Lumpley Principle and the statement from Apocalypse World doesn't contraindicate a GM, in fact AW is a strong GMful game.
 
Sure it does, but that wasn't meant as a criticism. The very fact that you said not everyone creates a story shows why the word is problematic, doesn't it? I don't need the word story to talk about RPGs, nor have insisted it be used, and in fact I've gone out of my to try and find something that doesn't cause the same kind of issue. Feel free to suggest an alternative word to describe what happens at the table. I don't have a favorite or anything.
Yeah but do you believe what's created in all cases during an RPG session is a story, whether we call it that or not?
 
Hmm, a long time ago, so long I couldn't say where I read it or who wrote it, as it was during my "consuming lots and lots of RPG zines"-phase of the late 90s/early aughts, I came across a description of RPGs that ha always stuck with me. It's not perfect, or all encompassing, but Ive never encountered anything that quite so "hit the nail on it's head" as it were...

To praphrase - "When children are young, they inevitably play games of "let's pretend" where they assume the roles of characters in fictional situations. Inevitably, a dispute comes when an event in the fictional situation is disagreed upon ("I shot you" "No you didn't"). RPGs exist to arbitrate thee disputes."

Note that it's very close to what AW says in essence, but with a key difference in that it addresses the purpose and nature of the activity.
That works just fine. You'd find AW in pretty much complete agreement on that score.
 
Hmm, a long time ago, so long I couldn't say where I read it or who wrote it, as it was during my "consuming lots and lots of RPG zines"-phase of the late 90s/early aughts, I came across a description of RPGs that ha always stuck with me. It's not perfect, or all encompassing, but Ive never encountered anything that quite so "hit the nail on it's head" as it were...

To praphrase - "When children are young, they inevitably play games of "let's pretend" where they assume the roles of characters in fictional situations. Inevitably, a dispute comes when an event in the fictional situation is disagreed upon ("I shot you" "No you didn't"). RPGs exist to arbitrate thee disputes."

Note that it's very close to what AW says in essence, but with a key difference in that it addresses the purpose and nature of the activity.
Yea, I used to go with that one, well, more phrased as "it's like cops and robbers but with written rules and a referee", but it isn't. At least not the way I played D&D. The players didn't go at each other like kids playing cops and robbers do. The players form a party to address the challenges the GM puts forth in the dungeon (or other scenario).
 
Yeah as but do you believe what's created in all cases during an RPG session is a story, whether we call it that or not?
Not at all. If I had to pick a word, just one, the word I'd probably pick is game. A game of pretend, to use TristramEvans TristramEvans post from above. After the fact, if someone was recording it, you might be able to call that a story though. Maybe.
 
But there are GMed wargames...

Sure, Wargams are where RPGs get the concept from. We use a GM in many of our wargames. But wheres a GM in a Wargame arbitrates, interprets, and institutes the rules, I'm not familiar with any situation where a wargame GM is not beholden to the rules.
 
Yeah, those people can be annoying. One-true-wayism is everywhere. I do really like the game system, but it's just one among a bunch I really like. As for the snippet, if it doesn't grab, it doesn't grab you. I've found it a useful way to talk about RPGs, but you may not.
I think its a good starting point, sure. There is also a truth to it... but I just don't see it as a good explanation for Role Playing on it's own. Is there more to it?
 
Yea, I used to go with that one, well, more phrased as "it's like cops and robbers but with written rules and a referee", but it isn't. At least not the way I played D&D. The players didn't go at each other like kids playing cops and robbers do. The players form a party to address the challenges the GM puts forth in the dungeon (or other scenario).


Hmm, do kids still do that? Presumably not "Cowboys and Indians" like I played when I was a kid. I tend to assume it's a natural human actiity, and thus "cops & robbers" or whatever modern equivalent seems like it would be a universal understanding, but I also must readily admit I have activelly avoided the company of children for the last 30 years, so I have no idea what they are up to these days (other than their playgrounds being much less "fun" than the ones I grew up with).
 
Not at all. If I had to pick a word, just one, the word I'd probably pick is game. A game of pretend, to use TristramEvans TristramEvans post from above. After the fact, if someone was recording it, you might be able to call that a story though. Maybe.
I've actually been involved in a similar conversation on this forum... it does indeed come around often. I actually agree that a Role playing session is more of a collaborative story telling session. I don't think we will ever get consensus on this though since all of us have such wildly different degrees and experiences.
 
I think its a good starting point, sure. There is also a truth to it... but I just don't see it as a good explanation for Role Playing on it's own. Is there more to it?
Well, pretty much the whole game really. Baker carries the idea of the conversation through the entire book, which is why it's so effective, or at least why I found it so, because all the knobs and dials are keyed to that one explanatory conceit.
 
Fair enough... So I am seeing it as an isolated thing when really its part of a broader tapestry. I can get that.
 
Not at all. If I had to pick a word, just one, the word I'd probably pick is game. A game of pretend, to use TristramEvans TristramEvans post from above. After the fact, if someone was recording it, you might be able to call that a story though. Maybe.
The word Rob used earlier to refer to the imaginary space is Setting. It carries the connotation of the reality of the imaginary space and the rules that describe how the imaginary space differs from ours (Orks, Jedi, God-Emperor, whatever).

I don't have an issue with diagetic frame, now we all know what we're talking about.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top