The other week a rather traditional gamer that I know asked me what "narrative gaming" was. I explained to him that was a trickier question to answer than it seemed because depending on where he'd heard the word, the answer would be different. The context matters a lot to such a discussion. A friend gave his explanation and we riffed off of each other where he'd say something that needed clarifying but I only refined his content in this conversation, I didn't produce my own. The first guy didn't really get it even then.
I'm not confident in the vocabulary because there's so much controversy around the Ron Edwards definitions.
So I started reading the Characteristics of Games book to improve this situation. I can pretty much see now that Ron Edwards vocabulary is controversial because it's prescriptive (to most gamers) and not descriptive like the CoG book.
I only received the CoG book on Saturday morning so I've only covered the first three characteristics so far but it looks like a good base for my need to express myself coherently.
Because CoG is descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) it shouldn't be necessary to have to explain what a lot of words mean to people regularly. Which is good. But I still wonder if the general RPG population are in fact stuck on several competing standards of vocabulary that produce emotional responses rather than intelligent responses. As that's been my experience, and sometimes my own habit.
It's like word choice is a lot the the double spacing argument (I started). A minor thing that when focussed on divides people up and pushes people's buttons.
I'd like to see a standard, one for my personal use. But I think the best we can manage, even when aided by the CoG resource, is another competing standard.
Has anyone else had similar problems? I am pretty psyched for this book right now, but I don't reckon it's the holy grail for this one of my subinterests.