This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The vocabulary of RPGs

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.
«13

Comments

  • Has anyone else had similar problems?
    1) Scientists who work in fields that require taxonomy.
    2) Nerds on the internet arguing about semantics.
  • It kind of reminds me of the argument against game genres (an episode of Extra Credits). The gist is that we should stop defining genres by mechanics, and start defining them by overall aesthetic (much like we define film and music genres).
  • Characteristics of Games doesn't address RPGs. It's almost exclusively devoted to "orthogames."
  • I thought this was going to be about tanking my dps and last hitting mobs to proc my ult.

    I really don't like "Characteristics of Games" even being compared to GSN theory. As you already pointed out, they're just not trying to do the same thing. They're not even close to "competing standards". GSN is more of a theory about social interactions and what goes on 'around' the game and the players themselves. CoG just talks about things in the games themselves and loosely discusses some of the possibilities of those mechanics like politics and such.

    I kinda hate GSN anyway because I feel like it misses the forest for the trees.
  • Characteristics of Games doesn't address RPGs. It's almost exclusively devoted to "orthogames."
    I think the point was that the tabletop rpgs need similar book. Something that provides good, well defined easy to use terminology that can be used while talking about games.

    Lot's of terminology that is used while talking about rpgs come and evolve in discussion forums and blog posts. In closed circles there is no real problem, in that kind of situations people use same terminology with same sources and everyone can understand each other, but when people who don't share understanding of what a term means there often appears difficulties in understanding each other and in worse case scenario these two people who both have different definition to a term end up creating yet another definition to it, or defining more new terms.
  • RPG people tend to (in my experience) not understand what RPGs are, nevermind what function the rules of any given system serve. They focus entirely on the most subjective and least defined aspects of role playing and attempt to explain everything in those ridiculously useless terms.

    So, an RPG player (even a seasoned one) will recognize a problem in a game, but will try to explain the cause of the problem from within the assumed context of the system he's using. The system itself won't be questioned.

    It's like watching a roomful of people argue about which flavor of ice cream melts the slowest, and how best to clean up melted ice cream, rather than purchasing a freezer.
  • edited March 2013
    2) Nerds on the internet arguing about semantics.
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • edited March 2013
    I'm a ridiculous RPG nerd and I agree with Rym on this. "Assumed context of the system" is a pretty big part of the problem with starting a general academic dialogue about such things.

    Just look at how "Role Playing Game" gets defined from system to system, game to game, group to group, person to person, etc.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • I'm a ridiculous RPG nerd and I agree with Rym on this. "Assumed context of the system" is a pretty big part of the problem with starting a general academic dialogue about such things.

    Just look at how "Role Playing Game" gets defined from system to system, game to game, group to group, person to person, etc.
    The problem is that it's hard if not impossible to make a definition for what is rpg that includes everything that someone considers an rpg, but excludes staff that isn't. It's only moderately easier than defining a game.


  • 1. System of conflict resolution
    2. Collaborative storytelling

    Single player doesn't count. Calling things like Final Fantasy RPGs is a misnomer, and obviously isn't what's being discussed here.

    Collaborative storytelling without a means of conflict resolution is an RPG, it's just RP.

    Noncollaborative storytelling is just a linear game.
  • I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "noncollaborative storytelling", but I don't see why it would have to be linear.
  • I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "noncollaborative storytelling", but I don't see why it would have to be linear.
    If the story is 100% predetermined, then it isn't really a role playing game now is it?

    The story has to be able to be modified by the players. The storytelling is thus collaborative.
  • Noncollaborative does not imply predetermined.
  • RymRym
    edited March 2013
    Noncollaborative does not imply predetermined.
    If one person is literally determining the full story on their own, it had might as well be predetermined. It's definitely not collaborative, and certainly isn't any longer a game. Collaboration implies creative input from more than one person.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • edited March 2013
    "Collaborative" in the context of an RPG means that more than one person is required to engage with and craft the story. Takes (at least) two to tango.

    An important element of any RPG is storycraft. A pre-determined scenario is not, in fact, an RPG. You are not making a story.

    The use of "storytelling" in an RPG context is a bit of a misnomer, because really, an RPG gives you a set rules to help make a story - the art of presentation and assimilation is something else.

    RPG's are: cooperative storycrafting.

    Single-player storycraft is you writing a novel.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • edited March 2013
    Noncollaborative does not imply predetermined.
    If one person is literally determining the full story on their own, it had might as well be predetermined.
    Not really; other players are not the only source of unpredictability. Properly used randomness and/or sufficiently advanced AI can do the job as well.

    I agree that "storycraft" is a better term. I also don't see why people are acting as though I said that a single-player game can be collaborative, when I said nothing of the sort. That said, with sufficiently advanced AI it could be, but then that AI would essentially just be a player.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited March 2013
    Noncollaborative does not imply predetermined.
    You're getting the control and independent variables backwards. Predetermined implies noncollaborative. Someone has prepared an outcome, and is likely going to have to shut down offers to make it happen.
    Post edited by pence on
  • edited March 2013
    Noncollaborative does not imply predetermined.
    You're getting the control and independent variables backwards.
    Rym is the one who did that, not me. I brought up the noncollaborative case, and Rym asserted that it would be 100% predetermined.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • For any player, it's just the same as being predetermined. At best, if you add randomness, then it's predetermined as a set of defined branches.

    Role Playing without collaboration is just reading a novel and imagining what you've read.
  • edited March 2013
    For any player, it's just the same as being predetermined. At best, if you add randomness, then it's predetermined as a set of defined branches.
    So is the real world. It's just a matter of having enough branches.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • For any player, it's just the same as being predetermined. At best, if you add randomness, then it's predetermined as a set of defined branches.
    So is the real world. It's just a matter of having enough branches.
    It's still not collaborative if the players have no input. And, if they players truly have no input, then it doesn't matter if it's predetermined or not: the effect is that, for the players, it's effectively predetermined.

    In either case, it doesn't fit this obvious and easy definition for role playing games.

  • Who said they had no input?
  • edited March 2013
    Characteristics of Games doesn't address RPGs. It's almost exclusively devoted to "orthogames."
    I think the point was that the tabletop rpgs need similar book. Something that provides good, well defined easy to use terminology that can be used while talking about games.
    Pretty much. I know that CoG is about orthogames because it says so in the introduction. I want to move beyond the typical RPGer level of understanding and maybe help the others along the way, I don't want to be alone in it, that's just as bad.

    I've not really got a circle of my own to discuss technical things so I step into other circles where they can't assume I'll interpret a word their way and vice versa.

    I'd like to hear some suggestions of answers to the question that prompted this. Imagine I'm someone who's never played anything but D&D, say whichever old edition you know the least about, and I ask "What does "narrative gaming" mean? I heard people say it a few times when talking about gaming and I didn't know what it meant."
    Post edited by Totally Guy on
  • Who said they had no input?
    If they have input, then the story is collaborative.
  • I'm someone who's never played anything but D&D
    Watch our Beyond Dungeons & Dragons lecture I posted above. It is literally aimed at exactly you.

  • Who said they had no input?
    If they have input, then the story is collaborative.
    Except if there's only one of them.
  • Who said they had no input?
    If they have input, then the story is collaborative.
    Except if there's only one of them.
    So one player and one game master? Then it's collaborative.
  • Who said they had no input?
    If they have input, then the story is collaborative.
    Except if there's only one of them.
    So one player and one game master?
    No.
  • Who said they had no input?
    If they have input, then the story is collaborative.
    Except if there's only one of them.
    So one player and one game master?
    No.
    I see no useful reason or way to call this a "Role Playing Game" then. CoG discounts "games" that aren't usefully similar to those being discussed for good reason.

    You're describing a single-player videogame or choose-your-own adventure book basically. Talking about those under the umbrella (tree) of "role playing games" alongside D&D is pointless.
  • I'm someone who's never played anything but D&D
    Watch our Beyond Dungeons & Dragons lecture I posted above. It is literally aimed at exactly you.

    No, wait, I was roleplaying there... Like imagine I'm this person... I mean that panel is great too.
Sign In or Register to comment.