Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You could find a “If you don’t like the topic of conversation you could go to a different thread“ icon.
The First Fantasy Campaign explains so much about the origins of the hobby; it should be required reading.In a nutshell some of this starts with we learned about the first roleplaying campaign, Blackmoor, ran by Dave Arneson.
THRAKADOOM is the name of my GWAR cover band.. . . THRAKADOOM. . .
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.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."
”It” refers to what? The process of “events happening”? This sounds like one could call the process of a court of law “a conversation”.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.
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?”It” refers to what? The process of “events happening”? This sounds like one could call the process of a court of law “a conversation”.
He says it better than I would, so here's the bit from the front of the book: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)
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.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.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.I dunno, it's kinda a description of roleplaying that leaves out the role-playing part
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.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)
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.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.
It just didn't hit home for me. It seemed like a poor description. That's my prerogative.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.
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 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'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.
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).
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.I dunno, it's kinda a description of roleplaying that leaves out the role-playing part
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.Is it useful? It seems like it's stating upfront what is self-evident once the purpose and method is described.
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.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).
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.
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).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.
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?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.
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).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.
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 post from above. After the fact, if someone was recording it, you might be able to call that a story though. Maybe.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?
But there are GMed wargames...
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?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.
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).
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.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 post from above. After the fact, if someone was recording it, you might be able to call that a story though. Maybe.
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.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?
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).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 post from above. After the fact, if someone was recording it, you might be able to call that a story though. Maybe.