Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
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.
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.
Comments
2) Nerds on the internet arguing about semantics.
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.
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.
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.
Just look at how "Role Playing Game" gets defined from system to system, game to game, group to group, person to person, etc.
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.
The story has to be able to be modified by the players. The storytelling is thus collaborative.
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.
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.
Role Playing without collaboration is just reading a novel and imagining what you've read.
In either case, it doesn't fit this obvious and easy definition for role playing games.
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."
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.