Whenever someone decries the death of role playing because there’s skills for social encounters all I see is people trying to gatekeep certain classes based on who the player is. Why should only charismatic players get to play charismatic characters? Not everyone is silver tongued and able to come up with elaborate conversations on the fly so what, they should never get to play out their fantasy of being exactly that type of person? They should never get to play a Bard, a Warlock or a Sorcerer? Why stop at just social skills if you’re following that logic? Sorry, you can’t play a Barbarian unless you’ve got anger issues. Want to play a Fighter? Get down and give me 200 pushups or I won’t let you have a decent strength score. It’s an idiotic and exclusionary train of thought. Let people play how they enjoy playing
I'm going to step in here and counter this.
The difference between a charismatic person person and a not-charismatic person is in delivery and allure. Having an uncharismatic player play a charismatic character is rather easy for a gm to arbitrate even without dice at all. They simply consider the argument or concepts presented by the player and consider how receptive the listener would be to it if it had been presented better. Boom, done. But nowadays, people just kind of assume that without mechanics players would need to be charismatic in order to roleplay a charismatic character and that is entirely false. Further, the point of a social skill check is almost always because you are trying to get something from the character, and that means arguments need strategy as well as delivery, and the strategy of such conversations can still be considered even under the idea that a character has the talent to present themselves better.
The problems with the arguments in this thread are really a textbook example on sample bias.
You give an example of a charismatic and non-charismatic person and then postulate that "nowadays, people just kind of assume that without mechanics players would need to be charismatic in order to roleplay a charismatic character." Using that as part of an example of how views of social interaction has changed with the newest edition. But that doesn't match what other people have seen. Or the fact that the mechanics for Diplomacy/ Persuasion haven't significantly changed in the last 20 years.
I've been playing for three decades, during which time I participated in multiple organized play programs and attended several local and international gaming conventions plus local game days. I have conservatively sat down at a table with well over 175 different gamers. Possibly as many as 250 fellow nerds. I can pretty comfortably say that I've seen many instances of people playing variations on 3.X, who have a low Cha character but are roleplaying like they were a Shakespearean protagonist. And almost as many people who run a bard and say "I convince the orcs not to attack us. I rolled a 27." I've seen no significant change in this between 3e and 5e. (4e was different as those kinds of tasks would be a Skill Challenge and were layered behind more explicit mechanics.)
Once again, I would strongly reccomend you actually spend some time with people who play 5e. Find a local D&D club and sit in on some games. Go in with an open mind and play the game.
This is why I question whether RPGs should be called games, as they do not have to share the trait that any other "game" has where every gamestate can be computed as valid or invalid according to well defined methods. Now I grant that you have game theory, a scientific field of study in which decisionmaking is studied. Perhaps we can find a better definition there, not for the term"game" but perhaps a term that better fits what most people would consider a game to be, those things sold in stores and online as "games" such as chess and poker, which are a distinctly identifiable category that is a subset of what the scientists studying game theory would call a game.
As you probably know, the game aspect of RPGs predates the role-playing aspect. Since the first sessions began as an asymetrical wargame with most players controlling a single character rather than a team or unit. It was only later that someone added role-playing.
RPGs are a game because the success and failure of narratively actions are determined by rules, often accompanied by some form or random element. This is typically dice, but could also be tokens drawn from a bag, cards drawn from a deck or played from a hand, blocks drawn from a tower of wooden blocks, or even engaging in rock-paper-scissors. Without these rules and game elements, it's just an exercise in narrative storytelling. An improv jam session. A round-robin story.
It's also worth remembering that not all games are sold in stores or have physical components. Tag is a game and is free and requires no props. What makes it a game is the agreed upon rules and code of conduct.
RPGs are a type of game. But they are a unique type of game as they possess both codified rules and the adoption of a role other than your own and improvised storytelling. Take away one of those elements and it ceases to be an RPG. Remove the rules and it's just improv. Remove the storytelling and it's just a board game. Remove the role and... okay, I'm not sure what that would be.
RPGs are a type of game. But they are a unique type of game as they possess both codified rules and the adoption of a role other than your own and improvised storytelling. Take away one of those elements and it ceases to be an RPG. Remove the rules and it's just improv. Remove the storytelling and it's just a board game. Remove the role and... okay, I'm not sure what that would be.
There is some things we can learn from old-school gaming philosophies on this topic. One of the main "thesis" behind what a role-playing game is from the old guard is that they are by design free-form theatre in which the core of the rules of the game apply to the DM responsibility to be executed honestly and authentically. It's something that exists in modern gaming on some levels, but it was quite specific in old-school games like 1st edition AD&D and 1st edition B/X where the bulk of the rules of the game were targeting the DM. At least as a gaming approach, these designs have largely been sort of dropped without replacing them with anything either as rules or philosophy as the concept of "free-form" began to apply more and more to the DM.
For example, there were adventure exploration, wilderness exploration and Waterborne exploration rules. An actual procedure for tracking things with steps on when and how to execute things like tracking time, tracking timed elements like torches and food, random encounters and so on. There was something called "an exploration action" for example. These were quite explicit.
You also had rules for things like the processes for encounters in which the DM would make checks like "reaction rolls" to determine the mood and hostility level of whatever you were encountering, you had elements like morale that would define the response to events over the course of a combat or interaction with the player characters.
There were rules that governed how cities were built with hard lines like how much gold a city of X size would have, how much defenses it had and all sorts of world-building rules for maintaining the structure of the universe the players occupied.
The point of these rules was to make sure that the "free-form" role-playing part of the game applied to the players, it did not apply to the DM, the DM was actually very restricted by tons of rules that defined "this is how you the DM game must run the game to maintain the integrity".
These rules however were contradicted by the philosophy the very rulebooks that included these often eschewed, which is why I think a lot of these sub-systems of governance where ultimately abandoned by most DM's. If you give a rule to the DM that says "follow this procedure" and then sub-text that rule with "if you want", the game loses its integrity because there is no point in creating a rule for a game, if you are then instructed not to use it or use it optionally. Not to suggest you can't have optional rules, but if everything is an optional rule and the whole thing is optionally free-form, then you don't actually have a game, it becomes this weird kind of theatre and in a way modern gaming is sort of the result of that. All of these structures have been abandoned and don't even exist as optional rules anymore, so there is not much to hang your hat on even if you wanted to.
When I run old school 1e D&D, I use these rules to the letter and they do work and they do create a specific type of playstyle and D&D does become more of a game as a result. I think these rules work, but the problem is that they take away the "creative" power of the DM, because many of them are procedures and structures for things that in modern gaming we think of as "storytelling". When do players fight? Well when the story makes sense for that to happen... Not so in old school gaming, you fight when a timer hits a certain point after taking X amount of exploration actions and I roll a random encounter die and something comes up. Thats when you have an encounter. What is the mood of that encounter, how do the monsters act... you roll for that to and that interaction with Orcs might not be hostile at all because how hostile they are is not a foregone conclusion or a story element, is governed by rules that the DM follows.
I'm not saying that this is what should be implemented, just pointing out that this idea that there are no rules for social or exploration encounters was not always true, originally the game had many rules that governed these parts of the game, we just don't have them anymore in modern games, not even as optional rules.
As such you are left with a truly DM fiated system, what happens, when it happens, how it happens, these are all DM decisions not governed by any rules and by that measure, yeah, D&D is not a game anymore, not really. Its theatre with a central storyteller governing the main story and the players playing a theatrical role through their characters. Sure there are rules... you can make skill checks and "make decisions" but how much that actually matters, is entirely up to the DM. In modern D&D players have very little impact on the outcome of anything, its all pretty much decided by the DM.
This is however why I always question anyone who thinks modern gaming is about "ROLL-playing". That is silly, the rules of modern games barely have any impact on anything, they are so insufficient when it comes to running D&D as a game... it's a free-form theatre show with some frivolous skill checks thrown in to sell the smoke and mirror magic show, but nothing in modern D&D happens unless the DM decides it does. At best, modern gaming might boil down to a story-negotiation game where players and DM negotiate the outcome of the story, but even that really doesn't change the execution as much. Combat is the only real gamist system in modern D&D that is the exception to the rule.
Here is the kicker. This is exactly why D&D 5e is as popular as it is. Its actually this part, this idea that the game is a sort of theatre show with story's being negotiated between DM and Player... that is at the heart of why people like the game. That and fighting monsters is fun and is "The Core Game". So players know that ok... we are in a fight.. its game time...this is where character abilities, leveling up and all the decisions you made about spells, equipment, powers etc.. matter. Outside of that, its theatre. People like that and while it might not be "a game" in the truest sense, i don't think anyone actually cares. The goal for most gaming groups is to find a good DM that runs a good story and creates fun, memorable outcomes for them that feel like they were driven by player decisions and actions. Aka, a good smoke and mirror show.
RPGs are a game because the success and failure of narratively actions are determined by rules, often accompanied by some form or random element. This is typically dice, but could also be tokens drawn from a bag, cards drawn from a deck or played from a hand, blocks drawn from a tower of wooden blocks, or even engaging in rock-paper-scissors. Without these rules and game elements, it's just an exercise in narrative storytelling. An improv jam session. A round-robin story.
It's also worth remembering that not all games are sold in stores or have physical components. Tag is a game and is free and requires no props. What makes it a game is the agreed upon rules and code of conduct.
RPGs are a type of game. But they are a unique type of game as they possess both codified rules and the adoption of a role other than your own and improvised storytelling. Take away one of those elements and it ceases to be an RPG. Remove the rules and it's just improv. Remove the storytelling and it's just a board game. Remove the role and... okay, I'm not sure what that would be.
Pretty sure there are narrative-focused games that have come out of the indie scene that don't actually have the players adopt roles. Microscope might be one.
Alternately, it could be the card game Once Upon a Time, which is a game of competitively telling a fary tale, with each player trying to shape it to reach the ending they've been dealt.
(On a technical level I don't consider D&D to be a game, because it has no defined resolution. (I also don't consider Candy Land to be a game, for different reasons.) But that's the sort of definition that you have to be pretty far into the weeds for it to be useful. Colloquially, D&D is a game, and plenty of other people's definitions agree with that.)
RPGs are a type of game. But they are a unique type of game as they possess both codified rules and the adoption of a role other than your own and improvised storytelling. Take away one of those elements and it ceases to be an RPG. Remove the rules and it's just improv. Remove the storytelling and it's just a board game. Remove the role and... okay, I'm not sure what that would be.
There is some things we can learn from old-school gaming philosophies on this topic. One of the main "thesis" behind what a role-playing game is from the old guard is that they are by design free-form theatre in which the core of the rules of the game apply to the DM responsibility to be executed honestly and authentically. It's something that exists in modern gaming on some levels, but it was quite specific in old-school games like 1st edition AD&D and 1st edition B/X where the bulk of the rules of the game were targeting the DM. At least as a gaming approach, these designs have largely been sort of dropped without replacing them with anything either as rules or philosophy as the concept of "free-form" began to apply more and more to the DM.
You also had rules for things like the processes for encounters in which the DM would make checks like "reaction rolls" to determine the mood and hostility level of whatever you were encountering, you had elements like morale that would define the response to events over the course of a combat or interaction with the player characters.
OD&D and 1e definitely had this obfuscation of the rules. IIRC the 1e DMG even advocated for DMs not to let players read that book, so the rules would be mysterious. Only the DM was meant to understand the rules and see behind the screen. It was a very different philosophy that didn't really last long.
As such you are left with a truly DM fiated system, what happens, when it happens, how it happens, these are all DM decisions not governed by any rules and by that measure, yeah, D&D is not a game anymore, not really. Its theatre with a central storyteller governing the main story and the players playing a theatrical role through their characters. Sure there are rules... you can make skill checks and "make decisions" but how much that actually matters, is entirely up to the DM. In modern D&D players have very little impact on the outcome of anything, its all pretty much decided by the DM.
In my opinion, as long as the result of actions can be determined by the dice or other gamist element, it is a game. If the story is impacted and informed by the dice rolls, it's a game. An RPG game, but still a game. If you speak in-character and make decisions based on what "my character would do" during a game of Clue or Battletech those are still games. If you prologue a skirmish in Warhammer 40k with a narrative set-up—an interactive cutscene if you will—it's still a game.
Really, the story and narrative has played an increasing role in D&D, with "the story" really becoming spotlight officially as early as Dragonlance in 1984.
This is however why I always question anyone who thinks modern gaming is about "ROLL-playing". That is silly, the rules of modern games barely have any impact on anything, they are so insufficient when it comes to running D&D as a game... it's a free-form theatre show with some frivolous skill checks thrown in to sell the smoke and mirror magic show, but nothing in modern D&D happens unless the DM decides it does. At best, modern gaming might boil down to a story-negotiation game where players and DM negotiate the outcome of the story, but even that really doesn't change the execution as much. Combat is the only real gamist system in modern D&D that is the exception to the rule.
It's also worth noting that many early players stuck to the more rules lite BECMI sets, choosing more DM fiat and story over regimented rules. With more opportunity for roleplaying and social interaction. Opposed to more modern games where social encounters could entirely be handled by dice. Starting with 3e, you could just dungeon delve and never speak in-character with even negotiation being reduced to a dice roll.
Here is the kicker. This is exactly why D&D 5e is as popular as it is. Its actually this part, this idea that the game is a sort of theatre show with story's being negotiated between DM and Player... that is at the heart of why people like the game. That and fighting monsters is fun and is "The Core Game". So players know that ok... we are in a fight.. its game time...this is where character abilities, leveling up and all the decisions you made about spells, equipment, powers etc.. matter. Outside of that, its theatre. People like that and while it might not be "a game" in the truest sense, i don't think anyone actually cares. The goal for most gaming groups is to find a good DM that runs a good story and creates fun, memorable outcomes for them that feel like they were driven by player decisions and actions. Aka, a good smoke and mirror show.
I think streaming shows and stuff like Critical Role has made this a more common part of the game. Sticking in-character and having longer "scenes" of social interaction. More emphasis on backstory and goals and personal drama.
But I also don't think this is remotely new. I'm old enough to remember the heyday of Vampire the Masquerade LARPing in the '90s and early 2000s, when you were fully in-character and the theatrical was the core part of the experience. 5e is just slightly more rules lite than 3e and 4e, so that aspect of play is more encouraged. But that's also a return to a more OSR/ BECMI style of gameplay where there is more fiat and less regimented rules.
Mechanics: mechanical or functional details or procedure
Mechanical: done as if by machine : seemingly uninfluenced by the mind or emotions
Mechanics: the explicit methods of interaction, the stuff that details that a pawn can only make certain moves and what those moves are as well as the consequences, such as when a pawn reaches the back row.
Rule: a prescribed guide for conduct or action
Prescribe: to specify with authority
Rule: a guide for conduct or action as specified with authority
Narrative: having the form of a story: of or relating to the process of telling a story.
Milieu: the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops. Nothing prevents this from referencing a fictional setting.
Thus, narrative milieu would be the physical or social setting in which a story occurs.
Game: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement . But as that would include a lot of things incomparable here, for the purposes of our discussion it is probably best here to think of a term for a defined system of interactions between people via some intermediary.
Mechanics: the method of operation for accomplishing a task.
Rules: the explication of the terms and conditions of the game, inclusive of Mechanics.
Narrative: we agree on this.
Milieu: we agree on this to an extent.
Narrative Milieu: So long as we can acknowledge that the social setting's context is not specific to the individual table, but that it includes the wider world around that table and the participants, we can agree here. This is necessary because we are not speaking about a single table, but about the larger milieu.
Game: A game is an activity engaged for educational, social, developmental, work, art, and healthcare or other purposes that has certain traits:
Goals / Objectives - which provide the purpose
Rules / Mechanics -- which provide a limiting context
Challenges / Problems - which provide the basis
Interactions / Exchanges - which engage the players
Feedback / Rewards - which encourages further play
Independent Decision Making by participants - which defines the role(s) of the players.
I removed aspects of commentary in order to reach the specific points in concern. While commentary is of value in explaining why we have a personal definition, the aspect here is to achieve something other than a personal definition. Consensus can be dependent on those explanation, but we have to first achieve parity in order to be able to effectively express ourselves in order to be able to understand what the other is speaking.
5e, as a systemic and structured game that is part of a tradition of similar games under the same brand and relying on the same core information, meets the necessary criteria -- as do other games, which may be described as freeform rpgs, as well as chess, or checkers, or football, or solitaire, or Poker, or slot machines, or tag, or hide and seek, or making money in the stock market or engaging in politics of government or interpersonal exchange.
The same applies to all prior versions of the game, as well.
In every edition of the published game, there has been some effort made to point out that, ultimately, the rules are a starting point, a baseline. They can be added to or subtracted from, altered or modified, used or ignored, as is seen fit by the Players, so long as they arrive at a mutually satisfactory set. This has been expressed variously in forms such as "rule of cool", "make it your own", "DM fat", and assorted others, as well as explicit statements.
As with any game, there is a certain degree of social expectation that if one moves from one "table" to another, there will be certain commonalities among the same game. it is socially expected, for example, that if you can play a Wizard at this table, you should be able to play one at the next table. Circumstances where that is not possible are and remain edge cases, outliers that require a different approach, even though they may otherwise be the same game, on the part of the player.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
In every edition of the published game, there has been some effort made to point out that, ultimately, the rules are a starting point, a baseline. They can be added to or subtracted from, altered or modified, used or ignored, as is seen fit by the Players, so long as they arrive at a mutually satisfactory set. This has been expressed variously in forms such as "rule of cool", "make it your own", "DM fat", and assorted others, as well as explicit statements.
I'm not sure all the D&D systems over the years have had good baseline mechanics. I mean, what does 1e AD&D RAW look like? Has anyone ever actually managed to run AD&D 1e this way? Is it even possible? 2e was closer, 3e I think wasn't clear enough, almost a fall back to 1e AD&D days. 4e was super clear, but really only covered combat exclusively.
Like when you really think about it. 1e B/X and 5e are really the only two systems I can think of that actually have a baseline with full coverage. Like, I could run 5e with a DMG, MM and Players Handbook with 0 prep and using dice mechanics exclusively create an adventure and run. You could quite literally run the entire game using systems and dice checks with ZERO role-playing if you wanted to. It was the same with B/X. To me that is the mark of a good baseline.
Not saying anyone did or should run the game that way, but this is a good measure of a solid system baseline, where you always have a dice option for something you don't want to play out. Don't feel like creating a dungeon? No problem, roll for it. Don't want to do a social interaction, no problem.. roll for it.
Well, I was avoiding insertion of too much opinion in my response, which is why I didn't talk about what makes a "good" baseline or a "bad" baseline -- the rules are simply a baseline.
AD&D had freaking rules for what seemed at the time like everything. Of course, at the time, we didn't have anything to compare it to. But when Wizards talks about their "three pillars", I have to say that none of their editions has really had a handle on all those three elements like both 1e/2e and, especially BECMI had on all three.
And yes, I do know someone who has run AD&D completely "RAW", without homebrew: me. Imagine my shock when I played at GenCon with Gary and even he didn't use all the rules.
My personal gripe with the Wizards era is that it has shifted from the DM focused TSR era to the layer focused one at present, and I am seeing some course correcting there.
Funny thing, though: during the 25 years that we stuck to 2e, out of unreasonable hate for 3.x and a "cool but meh" feeling about 4e, wee also realized we had more than three of those pillars, because we had played together so much and for so long that stuff became dry to us, so we added stuff to do.
As a result, when 5e came out, we jumped because we saw how it could work for all that other stuff, with some fairly simple conversions and additions.
Our pillars are: Role Play, Character Growth, Exploration, Discovery, and Combat. Hell, we hadn't heard terms like "West Marches, Sandbox, Player-Driven" and such until after we made the switch to 5e -- and were shocked because we already were doing all those things, and had been doing them since the earliest days.
But the thing that is key for us is the Character Growth thing -- we actually have little systems to give meaning to stuff like "you learn a new skill" and we do rolls and have interactions and all that. Downtime for us is when the PCs are sleeping, basically. Not a simulation, but something to mark the point and make these "special abilities" of the new 5e style seem like they have a point and a purpose and to make us understand their value.
I've ben doing some tweaking with the other DMs as we prep for the new DMG, and one of the things that hit us was that in 2014 5e, the way the game is designed is to enable a PC to go from 1st to 20th level in slightly over a month of in-game time, if the DM uses the budget system for an Adventuring Day.
For us, that's supposed to be a lot longer (and, because we do that growth stuff, it usually is). We could do that in 1e/2e, but that's because there were rules for stuff like that.
We snagged the strongholds, err, bastions, set up and quickly hammered out our own system for it because we missed that from the 1e days (not 2e, which cut that out). Even though 5e already had rules for that kind of thing, it wasn't really developed -- and that was a big thing about 5e that we do like: it has the "stubs" for things, and all we have to do it bolt on our own stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Like when you really think about it. 1e B/X and 5e are really the only two systems I can think of that actually have a baseline with full coverage. Like, I could run 5e with a DMG, MM and Players Handbook with 0 prep and using dice mechanics exclusively create an adventure and run. You could quite literally run the entire game using systems and dice checks with ZERO role-playing if you wanted to. It was the same with B/X. To me that is the mark of a good baseline.
Not saying anyone did or should run the game that way, but this is a good measure of a solid system baseline, where you always have a dice option for something you don't want to play out. Don't feel like creating a dungeon? No problem, roll for it. Don't want to do a social interaction, no problem.. roll for it.
Question, what is your conception of the opposite of that? What would you call that opposite?
Like when you really think about it. 1e B/X and 5e are really the only two systems I can think of that actually have a baseline with full coverage. Like, I could run 5e with a DMG, MM and Players Handbook with 0 prep and using dice mechanics exclusively create an adventure and run. You could quite literally run the entire game using systems and dice checks with ZERO role-playing if you wanted to. It was the same with B/X. To me that is the mark of a good baseline.
Not saying anyone did or should run the game that way, but this is a good measure of a solid system baseline, where you always have a dice option for something you don't want to play out. Don't feel like creating a dungeon? No problem, roll for it. Don't want to do a social interaction, no problem.. roll for it.
Question, what is your conception of the opposite of that? What would you call that opposite?
The opposite would be free-form or near free-form. For example, there are games where there is just a simple mechanic in place to figure out if anything (anything being a generic concept applicable to everything) is true or false. Dungeon World I think would be an example.
Narrative Milieu: So long as we can acknowledge that the social setting's context is not specific to the individual table, but that it includes the wider world around that table and the participants, we can agree here. This is necessary because we are not speaking about a single table, but about the larger milieu.
Okay, so we do not agree on narrative milieu.
In an RPG session, there are two milieus. There is the one you just described, with the players here on Earth, living breathing people. Then there is the milieu of the fiction, where the characters see themselves existing, not the players, the characters. Places like Fearun or Eberron are not real, they are not part of the real world milieu (though obviously they are referenced), they contain independent milieus of their own.
Perhaps we can use the term Fictional Milieu.
Fictional: : of, relating to, characterized by, or occurring in fiction: invented by the imagination
There is then an interaction between the fictional milieu and the players. Largely the point of the game is in one way or another about the interaction between the players and the fictional milieu. There are a number of ways one can look at, understand, or conceptualize that interaction.
So lets have a hypotheitical situation. To start, we have several players and a GM playing freeform RPG, no mechanics, no rules (about the activity of playing the RPG I mean, the otherwise normal behavior rules of decent and cultural human interaction don't count here). The GM builds the fictional milieu, tells the players what their characters perceive and know about the fictional milieu, and the players in turn tell the GM what their characters do in the fictional milieu, to which the GM responds with how the fictional milieu and those who inhabit it respond to the player's characters. Consider for a moment, how players might conceptualize this activity, in particular, how do they decide what to do, and what they can possibly do. (The more I see of your descriptions about your table, the less I think you can use your table as a generally representative example of "most players.")
I contend that the inclusion of mechanics and rules often leads to changes or differences in the conceptualization of the activity and in particular, changes the way players make decisions about what their characters do, what they look at, what considerations they take into account. More than that, it also changes the expectations players have about how the fictional milieu responds and with it the desires of the players.
In fact, it seems to perhaps lead to a third milieu, or something similar to a milieu, that of the mechanics and rules related to this interaction between the players and the fictional milieu.
From all I have seen, this change heavily results in players, especially those making videos and commenting on such videos, but also those I've watched play or have played with, where they make the fictional milieu fit the mold of the mechanics, instead of making the mechanics fit the mold of the fictional milieu.
For example, instead of making mechanics that reflect the fictional milieu and accepting that any "simple enough to be both enjoyably and usefully used" mechanic will inevitably fail to perfectly represent the fictional milieu and thus need correction sometimes, they instead make the mechanics like a machine and built to fit parameters primarily outside the fictional milieu, such as making mechanics "balanced" for some definition of balanced, and then they shape the fictional milieu to fit the mechanics. Do you see the dichotomy here of how the mechanics relate to the fictional world? Do you see how the choice of making all classes get a subclass at level 3 is a decision that has nothing to do with representing the fictional milieu?
Narrative Milieu: So long as we can acknowledge that the social setting's context is not specific to the individual table, but that it includes the wider world around that table and the participants, we can agree here. This is necessary because we are not speaking about a single table, but about the larger milieu.
Okay, so we do not agree on narrative milieu.
In an RPG session, there are two milieus. There is the one you just described, with the players here on Earth, living breathing people. Then there is the milieu of the fiction, where the characters see themselves existing, not the players, the characters. Places like Fearun or Eberron are not real, they are not part of the real world milieu (though obviously they are referenced), they contain independent milieus of their own.
Perhaps we can use the term Fictional Milieu.
Fictional: : of, relating to, characterized by, or occurring in fiction: invented by the imagination
There is then an interaction between the fictional milieu and the players. Largely the point of the game is in one way or another about the interaction between the players and the fictional milieu. There are a number of ways one can look at, understand, or conceptualize that interaction.
So lets have a hypotheitical situation. To start, we have several players and a GM playing freeform RPG, no mechanics, no rules (about the activity of playing the RPG I mean, the otherwise normal behavior rules of decent and cultural human interaction don't count here). The GM builds the fictional milieu, tells the players what their characters perceive and know about the fictional milieu, and the players in turn tell the GM what their characters do in the fictional milieu, to which the GM responds with how the fictional milieu and those who inhabit it respond to the player's characters. Consider for a moment, how players might conceptualize this activity, in particular, how do they decide what to do, and what they can possibly do. (The more I see of your descriptions about your table, the less I think you can use your table as a generally representative example of "most players.")
I contend that the inclusion of mechanics and rules often leads to changes or differences in the conceptualization of the activity and in particular, changes the way players make decisions about what their characters do, what they look at, what considerations they take into account. More than that, it also changes the expectations players have about how the fictional milieu responds and with it the desires of the players.
In fact, it seems to perhaps lead to a third milieu, or something similar to a milieu, that of the mechanics and rules related to this interaction between the players and the fictional milieu.
From all I have seen, this change heavily results in players, especially those making videos and commenting on such videos, but also those I've watched play or have played with, where they make the fictional milieu fit the mold of the mechanics, instead of making the mechanics fit the mold of the fictional milieu.
For example, instead of making mechanics that reflect the fictional milieu and accepting that any "simple enough to be both enjoyably and usefully used" mechanic will inevitably fail to perfectly represent the fictional milieu and thus need correction sometimes, they instead make the mechanics like a machine and built to fit parameters primarily outside the fictional milieu, such as making mechanics "balanced" for some definition of balanced, and then they shape the fictional milieu to fit the mechanics. Do you see the dichotomy here of how the mechanics relate to the fictional world? Do you see how the choice of making all classes get a subclass at level 3 is a decision that has nothing to do with representing the fictional milieu?
Point of Order in relation to the "spoiler" marked sections: We have precisely two things we have agreed one thus far: Narrative and Milieu. We cannot proceed without acknowledged agreement on "Game", "Mechanics", and "Rules" as well as the part we are still in contention on relating to the concept of Narrative Milieu. With a small exception covered in a moment, until we reach agreement on all of those elements, good faith discussion involving them is not possible.
Narrative Milieu:
In this discussion and an RPG being played, there two Milieus:
The Social Milieu, which includes the players and the world they live in
The Game Milieu, which includes the setting of the game and the rules of the game (which include the mechanics).
They cannot be separated in practice -- the game rules, the game setting, and the place of the setting are all dependent on the larger world around them and in which it takes place. One can abstract the concept of "just the world" or "just the rules" or "just the Players" or whatever, but the effects of the real world around the players will always inform and shape the nature of the imagination employed, in particular the language, cultural norms, and breadth of knowledge of the collective individuals drawn fro their personal experiences and their larger shared world.
The rules of a game, themselves, are inherently shaped by that same force. That force is called Structure, in the sciences, and is omnipresent in all things. The rules of the game, themselves, are a form of Structure, and commonly reflective of it. This is why things like "racial bonuses" can be seen for their inclusion of racism -- the fact that it is an imaginative space is irrelevant since the people playing the game are not, and we know that racism even in that format has a specific, measurable degree of harm in the physical sense -- real world harm from imagination.
Thus, even the Game Milieu can have real, measurable effects in the Social milieu, and this is an operation that function both ways (for that is how did the racism got into the game in the first place -- from the real world.)
Hence the pointed bit about inclusion of the larger world in discussion of the Social Milieu -- none of this happens in a social vacuum. To do so is to invite logical fallacy, and to provide cover and service to harm done to people since the game's inception, excusing it. Which is in part why it is a non-negotiable aspect for me when discussing the Social aspects of the game; I will not countenance such.
That said, when you say "Largely the point of the game is in one way or another about the interaction between the players and the fictional milieu.", I do not disagree. It is the focus of the moment of play and interaction, but it is still not devoid of the larger actual reality and its impact.
So, while I can speak to the particulars of the setting and the imaginary environment therein, it is not a space that is unaffected or indeterminate in relation to the world and reality in which that imagining is ongoing. It would be dishonest for me to not acknowledge that, but I can settle for this:
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present as part of the Game Milieu, in relation to the Social Milieu.
Hopefully that will work for you.
Exception noted above
When you say "More than that, it also changes the expectations players have about how the fictional milieu responds and with it the desires of the players." you do so within the context of a comment about Rules, Mechanics, and Game, and we have not agreed on this terminology and so cannot speak to that part. THis is even more critical when you note that my definition of a game requires there to be rules -- and it is notable that my definition of game is derived from 300 years of scientific study on games, and what comprises a game, specifically. Format may be different, but it is summation of that scientific basis as it stands today.
Spoilers
As described, without acknowledgement of and agreement on terminology, we cannot fully understand each other, and so arguments based on that, such as the immediate preceding statements around the exception, cannot be addressed in good faith at this time. The hypothetical would, for example, need to be reframed in order to be answered, because it is dependent on the understanding of those three concepts still in contention.
Your entire closing paragraph would have no basis to be asked if we used my definition of a game or rules or mechanics, for example -- which is why I said we had to find some other place to speak from. Good faith requires that we be willing to change our minds, and if we cannot understand the other well enough to give the points raised the due consideration, we would fail to achieve that, even if we otherwise acted in good faith simply because we never understood the other well enough to give the position good, honest consideration.
This is why I spoilered the remaining portions -- they would all be something we can come back to down the road, once we can think about things in a more equitable space.
Once we can hammer out agreement on the remaining terms, we can move into the parts you described, though you'll have to respond after re-evaluation in light of the new terminology.
Thus far, I can think of two non-negotiables:
Social Milieu being inclusive of the larger reality (due to real world harm)
A game must have rules -- without rules, it is not a game (due to science-based fact).
However, rules do not have to be concrete, or even written down. They merely have to be understood by all the participants.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
First, recognition of physical traits is not and never will be discriminatory except for when people are using it as a basis for their social treatment of others. Hating on orcs because of their strength is discrimination, but recognizing and acknowledging that orcs are physically stronger than others is not discriminatory because it is not social treatment.
Second, while such issues are terrible to commit in the real world, the best stories are built on conflict, and things such as discrimination are great sources for conflict. Can't have good guys defeating bad guys when there are no bad guys. Not everyone will be comfortable dealing with any particular issue, but when moral issues become complete taboo to even discuss much less allow in our stories, art, and games, that is a marker for the breaking of society as it inevitably leads only to war, suffering, and death. As a sociologist and psychologist, you know this, you know what such things do to societies. I know you know because I myself have studied those fields of science. The right of free speech is the first amendment for a very good reason.
Now that we established a few moral boundaries of our discussion, we need to establish the ideas of what can or can not be discussed as separate things. An engine is fundamental to a car, yet we can still discuss it as a separate thing from the car it is a part of. A car can't go without it's motor, but the motor is still distinct.
"The Game Milieu, which includes the setting of the game and the rules of the game (which include the mechanics)."
This is a problem. The central point of everything I am trying to point out, has it's source in the distinction between "the setting of the game" and "the rules of the game (which include the mechanics)." If you can not separate those two in your mind, that would literally prove my core point better than anything I could ever say.
But I honestly would find it weird if you were unable to comprehend such a distinction when simply writing it out that way requires recognizing that a distinction is there.
Additionally, the connection to the Social Milieu as you put it, is irrelevant to the core principles of what I want to convey. I'm not saying these things do not have influence. I'm just saying that not everything being brought up is relevant to the concepts I want to convey and discuss. So we can leave that out of further discussion.
"A game must have rules -- without rules, it is not a game (due to science-based fact)."
Aye, but how those rules relate to the rest of the game, whatever the definitions you want to give those terms, can only only be discussed when we can speak of them as separate parts.
So,
Mechanics: the method of operation for accomplishing a task.
Rules: the explication of the terms and conditions of the game, inclusive of Mechanics.
See, mechanics and rules are distinctly separate, one may be part of the other, yet it remains distinct.
A player of an RPG has a character, and will at times be making choices about what that character does. There are a variety of methods for making that decision, and a number of things that can be considered or dismissed, which will be different for different players. However, a set of infinite possibilities can still be broken down into groups. One group of the infinite possibilities for how one chooses actions for their character can be defined by taking the mechanics of a game into massively stronger consideration than other aspects such as the fictional world, characters, and situations. Likewise, another group might be defined by dismissing the mechanics from that consideration and using the mechanics only after the decision has been made for what the character will do.
Like when you really think about it. 1e B/X and 5e are really the only two systems I can think of that actually have a baseline with full coverage. Like, I could run 5e with a DMG, MM and Players Handbook with 0 prep and using dice mechanics exclusively create an adventure and run. You could quite literally run the entire game using systems and dice checks with ZERO role-playing if you wanted to. It was the same with B/X. To me that is the mark of a good baseline.
Not saying anyone did or should run the game that way, but this is a good measure of a solid system baseline, where you always have a dice option for something you don't want to play out. Don't feel like creating a dungeon? No problem, roll for it. Don't want to do a social interaction, no problem.. roll for it.
Question, what is your conception of the opposite of that? What would you call that opposite?
The opposite would be free-form or near free-form. For example, there are games where there is just a simple mechanic in place to figure out if anything (anything being a generic concept applicable to everything) is true or false. Dungeon World I think would be an example.
Aye, now consider the notion of playing the game like it is a freeform game, but use mechanical terminology like that found in other games as a shorthand, and have various things things written down to make communication clearer an easier.
For example, how strong is "very strong?" You could have a discussion over whether that is like the strongest man at the local gym kind of very strong, or if it means being like the incredible hulk kind of very strong. Or you can have a chart with various numbered rows describing different levels of strength and simply using the number for the appropriate row to very quickly establish a common understanding of just how strong you mean.
we need to establish the ideas of what can or can not be discussed as separate things. An engine is fundamental to a car, yet we can still discuss it as a separate thing from the car it is a part of. A car can't go without it's motor, but the motor is still distinct. "The Game Milieu, which includes the setting of the game and the rules of the game (which include the mechanics)." This is a problem. The central point of everything I am trying to point out, has it's source in the distinction between "the setting of the game" and "the rules of the game (which include the mechanics)." If you can not separate those two in your mind, that would literally prove my core point better than anything I could ever say. But I honestly would find it weird if you were unable to comprehend such a distinction when simply writing it out that way requires recognizing that a distinction is there.
Bolded part is correct. We can speak to the parts thereof, but we cannot lose sight that it is still a part of a larger whole -- there is no abstraction that will happen..
Additionally, the connection to the Social Milieu as you put it, is irrelevant to the core principles of what I want to convey. I'm not saying these things do not have influence. I'm just saying that not everything being brought up is relevant to the concepts I want to convey and discuss. So we can leave that out of further discussion.
it is only irrelevant as long as the core principles, as you understand them, are not in conflict with it. We, however, have not established that yet, We are only seeking agreement on terminology.
"A game must have rules -- without rules, it is not a game (due to science-based fact)." Aye, but how those rules relate to the rest of the game, whatever the definitions you want to give those terms, can only only be discussed when we can speak of them as separate parts. So, Mechanics: the method of operation for accomplishing a task.
Rules: the explication of the terms and conditions of the game, inclusive of Mechanics.
See, mechanics and rules are distinctly separate, one may be part of the other, yet it remains distinct.
It means that they are still able to be referenced and discussed individually while being part of a larger whole, like we can speak of rock and still speak of the constituent elements and atoms that make up that rock. None of which changes the fact that it is still a rock.
Much of this seems to stem from the leap to conclusion you made about there being a problem due to something you opted to read into what I wrote, even though you already knew I didn't write any of what you leapt towards (hence the bolded part).
A player of an RPG has a character, and will at times be making choices about what that character does. There are a variety of methods for making that decision, and a number of things that can be considered or dismissed, which will be different for different players. However, a set of infinite possibilities can still be broken down into groups.
One group of the infinite possibilities for how one chooses actions for their character can be defined by taking the mechanics of a game into massively stronger consideration than other aspects such as the fictional world, characters, and situations.
Likewise, another group might be defined by dismissing the mechanics from that consideration and using the mechanics only after the decision has been made for what the character will do.
This is all true, but we still haven't had acknowledgement and agreement on the terms in use.
From this, it appears that you are agreeing to use my definitions for Rules and Mechanics in further posts. However, that is only an appearance and not an acknowledgment or agreement.
If you do agree to use that terminology -- by which you would need to explicitly state so -- then that means we have the following terms in agreement:
Mechanics: the method of operation for accomplishing a task.
Rules: the explication of the terms and conditions of the game, inclusive of Mechanics.
Narrative: having the form of a story: of or relating to the process of telling a story.
Milieu: the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops. Nothing prevents this from referencing a fictional setting.
That, however, still means we need to agree on the terminology for: Narrative Milieu and Game. And if you do not agree to the terms for rules and mechanics above, then we still need to finish with them.
So those remain in contention to my knowledge as of this moment. I have proffered two of my own for that so far:
Game: A game is an activity engaged for educational, social, developmental, work, art, and healthcare or other purposes that has certain traits:
Goals / Objectives - which provide the purpose
Rules / Mechanics -- which provide a limiting context
Challenges / Problems - which provide the basis
Interactions / Exchanges - which engage the players
Feedback / Rewards - which encourages further play
Independent Decision Making by participants - which defines the role(s) of the players.
Narrative Milieu:
The Social Milieu: which includes the players and the world they live in.
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present, in relation to the Social Milieu.
The Game Milieu: whichis the combination of the Social and Fictional Milieus, in relation to each other.
If these are all acceptable to you then we can move forward and begin to discuss the things that you have mentioned previously once more.
As for the rest:
First,
I am not here to re-litigate a fact about the game. If the fact that the use of racial modifiers is racist bothers you, that is a you problem, not an I problem.
Second, ...>snip<...Can't have good guys defeating bad guys when there are no bad guys.
Factually, this is incorrect.
The right of free speech is the first amendment for a very good reason.
Given this right is the Right of Freedom of Expression, and is a limitation placed on governments, I have to note this is irrelevant. The government is not involved in this. Ergo, the right of freedom of expression is not germane to any of the points raised.
And no, you do not have a right to be free of censorship by anyone else -- only the government.
Now that we established a few moral boundaries of our discussion,
We have notdone this. Not even here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think when a discussion becomes people defining and redefining numerous terms at length it has ceased to be a useful discussion. Coming to an exact consensus over langauge never goes well...
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present, in relation to the Social Milieu.
The Game Milieu: whichis the combination of the Social and Fictional Milieus, in relation to each other.
You keep adding this "in relation to" bit. Something being influenced by something else does not make that second thing inseparable from the first. If that was the case, we would not be individuals and murder would not exist because it would just be self-harm, and hurting one's self to remove something undesirable is not murder. It just doesn't work. "In relation to" is also a context. Things exist, and the relation between those things and other things is entirely separate from the nature of the thing itself. A rock might be heavy in relation to an acorn, but that doesn't make the rock inseparable from the relation. So claiming the Fictional Milieu is X in relation to Y means you have an X and a Y as distinct things which can then have some kind of relation to each other. It's similar to nouns and verbs. Noun verbs noun. Two nouns and a verb, each noun is separate from the other, but have a relation towards each other. Each noun and the relationship is distinct making three distinct things. Adding "in relation to" is like defining a cloud as a thing that is somewhere west of the mountain, as though somehow it wouldn't be a cloud if it was somewhere else.
Frankly, I feel as though you are stretching to add this "in relation to" stuff in some attempt to make some sort of social justice agenda be brought into the conversation, like you just can't see anything without seeing the social justice agenda as part of it. Can you not look at a rock without seeing it as a weapon someone will use to stone someone else? We are supposedly trying to discuss a game, which whatever other elements you want to bring into it's definition, I think we can at least agree that a game, whatever it is, is supposed to be enjoyable. There is no enjoyment when you can't even define something without bringing social justice into it. That is the perversion of justice. It is taking the concept of justice so far that it ends up doing more harm than good despite the motivations of those pushing for it.
"And no, you do not have a right to be free of censorship by anyone else -- only the government."
Not quite correct. The founders, and I agree with them on this, considered the rights to be fundamental rights that exist outside of whatever governmental rules we establish to govern ourselves. They did not see themselves as granting us those rights, but rather were rather saying the governmental is not allowed to infringe on those rights. If you read it, they always mention the rights as if they are already in existence and are dictating the relationship of the government towards those rights. In that interpretation, I do have a right to remain uncensored by anyone, but you also have the right to ask me to not speak about something, and whatever choice I make about respecting or not your request, you will then make a choice as well.
Can't have good guys defeating bad guys when there are no bad guys.
"Factually, this is incorrect."
This is a purely logical statement, that is self evidently true. You can not destroy what does not exist. Indeed, you can not even act upon that which does not exist. If you can act upon it, then it exists. Did you perhaps misread this?
"If the fact that the use of racial modifiers is racist bothers you, that is a you problem, not an I problem."
Actually no, this is a really big problem. Calling someone racist means you can justify harming them, all in them name of "justice." You call someone racist, you are claiming that they are a bad person, someone who deserves negative treatment. Thus if we can not agree on what is racist or not, then we are not able to establish a common agreement of what is just, and that devolves into causing harm. That is why you get people who say "do what is right" as they burn down their own city killing innocent people who have never done any wrong. Or for a more historical example, go look at the Russian revolution. The revolutionaries didn't have a solid isolated idea of what classism was, and so who qualified as being an elite just kept growing and growing until no one was safe, not just no elites were safe, no. It went to the point that no innocent person was safe from being called an elite and killed.
Racist: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group.
A physical description is not prejudice, it is not discrimination, nor is it antagonism. If you can't see a physical description without thinking it is racist, that is a danger to society. That is not the problem of an individual. This is one of those things where "in relation to the social milieu" is actually appropriate. Not only is it a lie to claim it is racist to say orcs are physically stronger, but your bringing negativity where there wasn't any before. Worse, is that even if you were correct, which you are not, orcs do not exist. There are no orcs in the real world who are going to face hate crimes because a book says something racist about them. Fiction is a sort of safe place to focus such things, to write stories about the terrible things that happen because of evil like racism, and to explore the various ways societies and culture might handle or respond to such issues. Both as explorations of what might lead to a better future, and as warnings of what happens when bad things are allowed to progress. 1984 for example.
And guess what, sometimes it is actually fun, when in a safe space like a game, your character, or in a story a character you are rooting for, is subjected to such unfairness, as it becomes something for the character to struggle against and to overcome. Some people can find that fun. Some people find that an amazing thing to bring into a story or as a motivation for a character arc. Consider Drizzt and all his struggles against the surface people's hatred of drow, and the sort of thoughtful considerations that come from realizing that there is absolutely legitimate reason to hate and fear drow, enough to justify not wanting to take a chance. That is something that can be explored in a safe space like a game or story or comedy. Like Jeff Dunham and his puppet say "but you might offend somebody!" "Yea, that's why everyone else is laughing."
Heck, I actually spent several years making kobolds and tieflings because I wanted to have a character go through such an arc, and it was literally a massive disappointment to me when everybody completely ignored what my character was. Certainly I wasn't looking for trouble or problems among the players, but the among the characters, I saw it as the potential for great roleplaying and storytelling and character growth. Heck, I'm in a game now, where my character and another are constantly at odds and have even slapped each other. We the players are enjoying it. The characters however, really don't like each other much. It has made for some of the best narrative moments of the campaign.
So yea, you claiming that orcs having a strength modifier for being an orc is racist, and the implication of your references to that fact suggest you think it is a good thing that those modifiers are removed, and for that reason, is actively harmful on multiple levels.
Game: A game is an activity engaged for educational, social, developmental, work, art, and healthcare or other purposes that has certain traits:
Goals / Objectives - which provide the purpose
Rules / Mechanics -- which provide a limiting context
Challenges / Problems - which provide the basis
Interactions / Exchanges - which engage the players
Feedback / Rewards - which encourages further play
Independent Decision Making by participants - which defines the role(s) of the players.
This is way to broad. It would be easy to fit literal brain surgery into this definition. I suggest this slight adjustment.
Game: A game is an activity performed for the sake of enjoyment, or to make use of the enjoyment of the activity for an additional goal.
The inclusion of the various traits do not seem like definition elements to me, they seem more like a categorization of how one might examine basically any activity someone might perform for any reason. And I'm fine with that.
As for these,
The Social Milieu: which includes the players and the world they live in.
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present, in relation to the Social Milieu.
The Game Milieu: whichis the combination of the Social and Fictional Milieus, in relation to each other.
I suggest these instead
Real World Milieu: The physical and social environment of the real world.
The Physical Milieu: The physical environment. This is context dependent. It could be the real world's physical environment, or a fictional world's physical environment.
The Social Milieu: The social environment. Like the above, this is context dependent. It could be the real world's social envirnment or a fictional world's social environment.
Fictional Milieu:the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present. In other words, the physical and social environment of a fictional world.
The Game Milieu: the real world milieu and the fictional milieu and the relation between them.
I think when a discussion becomes people defining and redefining numerous terms at length it has ceased to be a useful discussion. Coming to an exact consensus over langauge never goes well...
Perhaps, but I'm enjoying myself at least. I don't get to be so technical very often.
And honestly, it is being somewhat helpful as well.
You keep adding this "in relation to" bit. Something being influenced by something else does not make that second thing inseparable from the first. If that was the case, we would not be individuals and murder would not exist because it would just be self-harm, and hurting one's self to remove something undesirable is not murder. It just doesn't work. "In relation to" is also a context. Things exist, and the relation between those things and other things is entirely separate from the nature of the thing itself. A rock might be heavy in relation to an acorn, but that doesn't make the rock inseparable from the relation. Adding "in relation to" is like defining a cloud as a thing that is somewhere west of the mountain, as though somehow it wouldn't be a cloud if it was somewhere else.
Frankly, I feel as though you are stretching to add this "in relation to" stuff in some attempt to make some sort of social justice agenda be brought into the conversation, like you just can't see anything without seeing the social justice agenda as part of it.
Can you not look at a rock without seeing it as a weapon someone will use to stone someone else?
We are supposedly trying to discuss a game, which whatever other elements you want to bring into it's definition, I think we can at least agree that a game, whatever it is, is supposed to be enjoyable.
There is no enjoyment when you can't even define something without bringing social justice into it.
This is way too broad. It would be easy to fit literal brain surgery into this definition. I suggest this slight adjustment.
Game: A game is an activity performed for the sake of enjoyment, or to make use of the enjoyment of the activity for an additional goal.
The inclusion of the various traits do not seem like definition elements to me, they seem more like a categorization of how one might examine basically any activity someone might perform for any reason. And I'm fine with that.
As for these, I suggest these instead
Real World Milieu: The physical and social environment of the real world.
The Physical Milieu: The physical environment. This is context dependent. It could be the real world's physical environment, or a fictional world's physical environment.
The Social Milieu: The social environment. Like the above, this is context dependent. It could be the real world's social environment or a fictional world's social environment.
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present. In other words, the physical and social environment of a fictional world.
The Game Milieu: the real world milieu and the fictional milieu and the relation between them.
1 - I will always add in relation to when there is a relation involved. It is a key part to understanding the whole. Excluding it abstracts the meaning -- and I will not abstract the meaning. consider it non-negotiable if you must -- your own stated reasoning in this point is entirely something you add to it, and not what is present.
2 - I do contract work in human rights for the UN, teach/lecture on the side, and do assorted work in relation to underserved minority populations in regular life, and have been doing so for 30 years. It is not a matter of "cannot", it is a matter of "will not". I cannot ignore my ethical and personal responsibilities.
3 - I look at a rock and pretty much never see it as a weapon. It is a rock -- and that's already an immense amount of information for me to see. But then, I see a lot in nearly anything -- my own neuro-atypicality in action.
4 - We do not agree that a game must be enjoyable. So many examples...
5 - I have a completely opposite stance on this.
6 - As I noted before, the definition I provided was based on science and actual use cases. You could notliterally fit brain surgery into it; you could fit training for brain surgery into it. While the exaggeration for effect is somewhat humorous, it is neither accurate nor useful. That said, I am willing to possibly accept that for the purpose of this discussion as it does narrow it -- however...
6.1 - ... in doing so, that restricts it to those specific features that I noted describe a game. In compromise on the first part, I must insist on the bullets -- and I note that one of the bullets is previously stated to be non-negotiable.
6.2 - We are getting closer. I suggest this instead:
Real World Milieu: The physical and social environment of the real world.
The Social Milieu: The social environment. Like the above, this is context dependent. It could be the real world's social environment and/or a fictional world's social environment.
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present. In other words, the imagined environment of a fictional world.
The Game Milieu: the real world milieu and the fictional milieu and the relation between them.
0 - I repeat, I will not re-litigate facts regarding in-game racism, nor will I indulge in such relating to other elements. Those are personal issues on the part of others, not myself. I removed the portions that dealt in that, and will not revisit them: it is not my job to explain facts to others for free.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This may not be the best place to get into this, but there is a difference in calling an idea racist and calling a person racist. The fact that certain people - yourself included, it seems - equate them is cause for a large amount of continued societal problems. The line of thinking of "I am not a bad person, therefore I am not racist, therefore I don't hold any racist ideas," is unhelpful, as it prevents identification of problematic ideas, solutions, and reparations (used in a more broad sense here). EVERYONE has implicit biases and some of those biases can tend towards racist ideas. Calling those ideas out is not calling the person evil or bad, it is asking that person to have a bit of introspection to become aware of them and be critical of them.
There is also the problem that these racial bonuses were not restricted to physical characteristics, nor were they restricted to bonuses, historically. Orcs and dwarves (in the fantasy sense) do not exist, but you can clearly see the influences real cultures had on their design and when those cultures see that "race" as less intelligent or always the enemy, THAT is a problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The problems with the arguments in this thread are really a textbook example on sample bias.
You give an example of a charismatic and non-charismatic person and then postulate that "nowadays, people just kind of assume that without mechanics players would need to be charismatic in order to roleplay a charismatic character." Using that as part of an example of how views of social interaction has changed with the newest edition.
But that doesn't match what other people have seen. Or the fact that the mechanics for Diplomacy/ Persuasion haven't significantly changed in the last 20 years.
I've been playing for three decades, during which time I participated in multiple organized play programs and attended several local and international gaming conventions plus local game days. I have conservatively sat down at a table with well over 175 different gamers. Possibly as many as 250 fellow nerds.
I can pretty comfortably say that I've seen many instances of people playing variations on 3.X, who have a low Cha character but are roleplaying like they were a Shakespearean protagonist. And almost as many people who run a bard and say "I convince the orcs not to attack us. I rolled a 27." I've seen no significant change in this between 3e and 5e.
(4e was different as those kinds of tasks would be a Skill Challenge and were layered behind more explicit mechanics.)
Once again, I would strongly reccomend you actually spend some time with people who play 5e. Find a local D&D club and sit in on some games. Go in with an open mind and play the game.
The 2014 Basic Rules and 2024 Basic Rules are free, so there's no cost involved.
As you probably know, the game aspect of RPGs predates the role-playing aspect. Since the first sessions began as an asymetrical wargame with most players controlling a single character rather than a team or unit. It was only later that someone added role-playing.
RPGs are a game because the success and failure of narratively actions are determined by rules, often accompanied by some form or random element. This is typically dice, but could also be tokens drawn from a bag, cards drawn from a deck or played from a hand, blocks drawn from a tower of wooden blocks, or even engaging in rock-paper-scissors.
Without these rules and game elements, it's just an exercise in narrative storytelling. An improv jam session. A round-robin story.
It's also worth remembering that not all games are sold in stores or have physical components. Tag is a game and is free and requires no props. What makes it a game is the agreed upon rules and code of conduct.
RPGs are a type of game. But they are a unique type of game as they possess both codified rules and the adoption of a role other than your own and improvised storytelling. Take away one of those elements and it ceases to be an RPG. Remove the rules and it's just improv. Remove the storytelling and it's just a board game. Remove the role and... okay, I'm not sure what that would be.
There is some things we can learn from old-school gaming philosophies on this topic. One of the main "thesis" behind what a role-playing game is from the old guard is that they are by design free-form theatre in which the core of the rules of the game apply to the DM responsibility to be executed honestly and authentically. It's something that exists in modern gaming on some levels, but it was quite specific in old-school games like 1st edition AD&D and 1st edition B/X where the bulk of the rules of the game were targeting the DM. At least as a gaming approach, these designs have largely been sort of dropped without replacing them with anything either as rules or philosophy as the concept of "free-form" began to apply more and more to the DM.
For example, there were adventure exploration, wilderness exploration and Waterborne exploration rules. An actual procedure for tracking things with steps on when and how to execute things like tracking time, tracking timed elements like torches and food, random encounters and so on. There was something called "an exploration action" for example. These were quite explicit.
You also had rules for things like the processes for encounters in which the DM would make checks like "reaction rolls" to determine the mood and hostility level of whatever you were encountering, you had elements like morale that would define the response to events over the course of a combat or interaction with the player characters.
There were rules that governed how cities were built with hard lines like how much gold a city of X size would have, how much defenses it had and all sorts of world-building rules for maintaining the structure of the universe the players occupied.
The point of these rules was to make sure that the "free-form" role-playing part of the game applied to the players, it did not apply to the DM, the DM was actually very restricted by tons of rules that defined "this is how you the DM game must run the game to maintain the integrity".
These rules however were contradicted by the philosophy the very rulebooks that included these often eschewed, which is why I think a lot of these sub-systems of governance where ultimately abandoned by most DM's. If you give a rule to the DM that says "follow this procedure" and then sub-text that rule with "if you want", the game loses its integrity because there is no point in creating a rule for a game, if you are then instructed not to use it or use it optionally. Not to suggest you can't have optional rules, but if everything is an optional rule and the whole thing is optionally free-form, then you don't actually have a game, it becomes this weird kind of theatre and in a way modern gaming is sort of the result of that. All of these structures have been abandoned and don't even exist as optional rules anymore, so there is not much to hang your hat on even if you wanted to.
When I run old school 1e D&D, I use these rules to the letter and they do work and they do create a specific type of playstyle and D&D does become more of a game as a result. I think these rules work, but the problem is that they take away the "creative" power of the DM, because many of them are procedures and structures for things that in modern gaming we think of as "storytelling". When do players fight? Well when the story makes sense for that to happen... Not so in old school gaming, you fight when a timer hits a certain point after taking X amount of exploration actions and I roll a random encounter die and something comes up. Thats when you have an encounter. What is the mood of that encounter, how do the monsters act... you roll for that to and that interaction with Orcs might not be hostile at all because how hostile they are is not a foregone conclusion or a story element, is governed by rules that the DM follows.
I'm not saying that this is what should be implemented, just pointing out that this idea that there are no rules for social or exploration encounters was not always true, originally the game had many rules that governed these parts of the game, we just don't have them anymore in modern games, not even as optional rules.
As such you are left with a truly DM fiated system, what happens, when it happens, how it happens, these are all DM decisions not governed by any rules and by that measure, yeah, D&D is not a game anymore, not really. Its theatre with a central storyteller governing the main story and the players playing a theatrical role through their characters. Sure there are rules... you can make skill checks and "make decisions" but how much that actually matters, is entirely up to the DM. In modern D&D players have very little impact on the outcome of anything, its all pretty much decided by the DM.
This is however why I always question anyone who thinks modern gaming is about "ROLL-playing". That is silly, the rules of modern games barely have any impact on anything, they are so insufficient when it comes to running D&D as a game... it's a free-form theatre show with some frivolous skill checks thrown in to sell the smoke and mirror magic show, but nothing in modern D&D happens unless the DM decides it does. At best, modern gaming might boil down to a story-negotiation game where players and DM negotiate the outcome of the story, but even that really doesn't change the execution as much. Combat is the only real gamist system in modern D&D that is the exception to the rule.
Here is the kicker. This is exactly why D&D 5e is as popular as it is. Its actually this part, this idea that the game is a sort of theatre show with story's being negotiated between DM and Player... that is at the heart of why people like the game. That and fighting monsters is fun and is "The Core Game". So players know that ok... we are in a fight.. its game time...this is where character abilities, leveling up and all the decisions you made about spells, equipment, powers etc.. matter. Outside of that, its theatre. People like that and while it might not be "a game" in the truest sense, i don't think anyone actually cares. The goal for most gaming groups is to find a good DM that runs a good story and creates fun, memorable outcomes for them that feel like they were driven by player decisions and actions. Aka, a good smoke and mirror show.
Pretty sure there are narrative-focused games that have come out of the indie scene that don't actually have the players adopt roles. Microscope might be one.
Alternately, it could be the card game Once Upon a Time, which is a game of competitively telling a fary tale, with each player trying to shape it to reach the ending they've been dealt.
(On a technical level I don't consider D&D to be a game, because it has no defined resolution. (I also don't consider Candy Land to be a game, for different reasons.) But that's the sort of definition that you have to be pretty far into the weeds for it to be useful. Colloquially, D&D is a game, and plenty of other people's definitions agree with that.)
OD&D and 1e definitely had this obfuscation of the rules. IIRC the 1e DMG even advocated for DMs not to let players read that book, so the rules would be mysterious. Only the DM was meant to understand the rules and see behind the screen. It was a very different philosophy that didn't really last long.
In my opinion, as long as the result of actions can be determined by the dice or other gamist element, it is a game. If the story is impacted and informed by the dice rolls, it's a game. An RPG game, but still a game.
If you speak in-character and make decisions based on what "my character would do" during a game of Clue or Battletech those are still games. If you prologue a skirmish in Warhammer 40k with a narrative set-up—an interactive cutscene if you will—it's still a game.
Really, the story and narrative has played an increasing role in D&D, with "the story" really becoming spotlight officially as early as Dragonlance in 1984.
It's also worth noting that many early players stuck to the more rules lite BECMI sets, choosing more DM fiat and story over regimented rules. With more opportunity for roleplaying and social interaction.
Opposed to more modern games where social encounters could entirely be handled by dice. Starting with 3e, you could just dungeon delve and never speak in-character with even negotiation being reduced to a dice roll.
I think streaming shows and stuff like Critical Role has made this a more common part of the game. Sticking in-character and having longer "scenes" of social interaction. More emphasis on backstory and goals and personal drama.
But I also don't think this is remotely new. I'm old enough to remember the heyday of Vampire the Masquerade LARPing in the '90s and early 2000s, when you were fully in-character and the theatrical was the core part of the experience.
5e is just slightly more rules lite than 3e and 4e, so that aspect of play is more encouraged. But that's also a return to a more OSR/ BECMI style of gameplay where there is more fiat and less regimented rules.
Mechanics: the method of operation for accomplishing a task.
Rules: the explication of the terms and conditions of the game, inclusive of Mechanics.
Narrative: we agree on this.
Milieu: we agree on this to an extent.
Narrative Milieu: So long as we can acknowledge that the social setting's context is not specific to the individual table, but that it includes the wider world around that table and the participants, we can agree here. This is necessary because we are not speaking about a single table, but about the larger milieu.
Game: A game is an activity engaged for educational, social, developmental, work, art, and healthcare or other purposes that has certain traits:
I removed aspects of commentary in order to reach the specific points in concern. While commentary is of value in explaining why we have a personal definition, the aspect here is to achieve something other than a personal definition. Consensus can be dependent on those explanation, but we have to first achieve parity in order to be able to effectively express ourselves in order to be able to understand what the other is speaking.
5e, as a systemic and structured game that is part of a tradition of similar games under the same brand and relying on the same core information, meets the necessary criteria -- as do other games, which may be described as freeform rpgs, as well as chess, or checkers, or football, or solitaire, or Poker, or slot machines, or tag, or hide and seek, or making money in the stock market or engaging in politics of government or interpersonal exchange.
The same applies to all prior versions of the game, as well.
In every edition of the published game, there has been some effort made to point out that, ultimately, the rules are a starting point, a baseline. They can be added to or subtracted from, altered or modified, used or ignored, as is seen fit by the Players, so long as they arrive at a mutually satisfactory set. This has been expressed variously in forms such as "rule of cool", "make it your own", "DM fat", and assorted others, as well as explicit statements.
As with any game, there is a certain degree of social expectation that if one moves from one "table" to another, there will be certain commonalities among the same game. it is socially expected, for example, that if you can play a Wizard at this table, you should be able to play one at the next table. Circumstances where that is not possible are and remain edge cases, outliers that require a different approach, even though they may otherwise be the same game, on the part of the player.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'm not sure all the D&D systems over the years have had good baseline mechanics. I mean, what does 1e AD&D RAW look like? Has anyone ever actually managed to run AD&D 1e this way? Is it even possible? 2e was closer, 3e I think wasn't clear enough, almost a fall back to 1e AD&D days. 4e was super clear, but really only covered combat exclusively.
Like when you really think about it. 1e B/X and 5e are really the only two systems I can think of that actually have a baseline with full coverage. Like, I could run 5e with a DMG, MM and Players Handbook with 0 prep and using dice mechanics exclusively create an adventure and run. You could quite literally run the entire game using systems and dice checks with ZERO role-playing if you wanted to. It was the same with B/X. To me that is the mark of a good baseline.
Not saying anyone did or should run the game that way, but this is a good measure of a solid system baseline, where you always have a dice option for something you don't want to play out. Don't feel like creating a dungeon? No problem, roll for it. Don't want to do a social interaction, no problem.. roll for it.
Well, I was avoiding insertion of too much opinion in my response, which is why I didn't talk about what makes a "good" baseline or a "bad" baseline -- the rules are simply a baseline.
AD&D had freaking rules for what seemed at the time like everything. Of course, at the time, we didn't have anything to compare it to. But when Wizards talks about their "three pillars", I have to say that none of their editions has really had a handle on all those three elements like both 1e/2e and, especially BECMI had on all three.
And yes, I do know someone who has run AD&D completely "RAW", without homebrew: me. Imagine my shock when I played at GenCon with Gary and even he didn't use all the rules.
My personal gripe with the Wizards era is that it has shifted from the DM focused TSR era to the layer focused one at present, and I am seeing some course correcting there.
Funny thing, though: during the 25 years that we stuck to 2e, out of unreasonable hate for 3.x and a "cool but meh" feeling about 4e, wee also realized we had more than three of those pillars, because we had played together so much and for so long that stuff became dry to us, so we added stuff to do.
As a result, when 5e came out, we jumped because we saw how it could work for all that other stuff, with some fairly simple conversions and additions.
Our pillars are: Role Play, Character Growth, Exploration, Discovery, and Combat. Hell, we hadn't heard terms like "West Marches, Sandbox, Player-Driven" and such until after we made the switch to 5e -- and were shocked because we already were doing all those things, and had been doing them since the earliest days.
But the thing that is key for us is the Character Growth thing -- we actually have little systems to give meaning to stuff like "you learn a new skill" and we do rolls and have interactions and all that. Downtime for us is when the PCs are sleeping, basically. Not a simulation, but something to mark the point and make these "special abilities" of the new 5e style seem like they have a point and a purpose and to make us understand their value.
I've ben doing some tweaking with the other DMs as we prep for the new DMG, and one of the things that hit us was that in 2014 5e, the way the game is designed is to enable a PC to go from 1st to 20th level in slightly over a month of in-game time, if the DM uses the budget system for an Adventuring Day.
For us, that's supposed to be a lot longer (and, because we do that growth stuff, it usually is). We could do that in 1e/2e, but that's because there were rules for stuff like that.
We snagged the strongholds, err, bastions, set up and quickly hammered out our own system for it because we missed that from the 1e days (not 2e, which cut that out). Even though 5e already had rules for that kind of thing, it wasn't really developed -- and that was a big thing about 5e that we do like: it has the "stubs" for things, and all we have to do it bolt on our own stuff.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Question, what is your conception of the opposite of that? What would you call that opposite?
The opposite would be free-form or near free-form. For example, there are games where there is just a simple mechanic in place to figure out if anything (anything being a generic concept applicable to everything) is true or false. Dungeon World I think would be an example.
Okay, so we do not agree on narrative milieu.
In an RPG session, there are two milieus. There is the one you just described, with the players here on Earth, living breathing people. Then there is the milieu of the fiction, where the characters see themselves existing, not the players, the characters. Places like Fearun or Eberron are not real, they are not part of the real world milieu (though obviously they are referenced), they contain independent milieus of their own.
Perhaps we can use the term Fictional Milieu.
Fictional: : of, relating to, characterized by, or occurring in fiction : invented by the imagination
There is then an interaction between the fictional milieu and the players. Largely the point of the game is in one way or another about the interaction between the players and the fictional milieu. There are a number of ways one can look at, understand, or conceptualize that interaction.
So lets have a hypotheitical situation. To start, we have several players and a GM playing freeform RPG, no mechanics, no rules (about the activity of playing the RPG I mean, the otherwise normal behavior rules of decent and cultural human interaction don't count here). The GM builds the fictional milieu, tells the players what their characters perceive and know about the fictional milieu, and the players in turn tell the GM what their characters do in the fictional milieu, to which the GM responds with how the fictional milieu and those who inhabit it respond to the player's characters. Consider for a moment, how players might conceptualize this activity, in particular, how do they decide what to do, and what they can possibly do. (The more I see of your descriptions about your table, the less I think you can use your table as a generally representative example of "most players.")
I contend that the inclusion of mechanics and rules often leads to changes or differences in the conceptualization of the activity and in particular, changes the way players make decisions about what their characters do, what they look at, what considerations they take into account. More than that, it also changes the expectations players have about how the fictional milieu responds and with it the desires of the players.
In fact, it seems to perhaps lead to a third milieu, or something similar to a milieu, that of the mechanics and rules related to this interaction between the players and the fictional milieu.
From all I have seen, this change heavily results in players, especially those making videos and commenting on such videos, but also those I've watched play or have played with, where they make the fictional milieu fit the mold of the mechanics, instead of making the mechanics fit the mold of the fictional milieu.
For example, instead of making mechanics that reflect the fictional milieu and accepting that any "simple enough to be both enjoyably and usefully used" mechanic will inevitably fail to perfectly represent the fictional milieu and thus need correction sometimes, they instead make the mechanics like a machine and built to fit parameters primarily outside the fictional milieu, such as making mechanics "balanced" for some definition of balanced, and then they shape the fictional milieu to fit the mechanics. Do you see the dichotomy here of how the mechanics relate to the fictional world? Do you see how the choice of making all classes get a subclass at level 3 is a decision that has nothing to do with representing the fictional milieu?
Point of Order in relation to the "spoiler" marked sections: We have precisely two things we have agreed one thus far: Narrative and Milieu. We cannot proceed without acknowledged agreement on "Game", "Mechanics", and "Rules" as well as the part we are still in contention on relating to the concept of Narrative Milieu. With a small exception covered in a moment, until we reach agreement on all of those elements, good faith discussion involving them is not possible.
Narrative Milieu:
In this discussion and an RPG being played, there two Milieus:
They cannot be separated in practice -- the game rules, the game setting, and the place of the setting are all dependent on the larger world around them and in which it takes place. One can abstract the concept of "just the world" or "just the rules" or "just the Players" or whatever, but the effects of the real world around the players will always inform and shape the nature of the imagination employed, in particular the language, cultural norms, and breadth of knowledge of the collective individuals drawn fro their personal experiences and their larger shared world.
The rules of a game, themselves, are inherently shaped by that same force. That force is called Structure, in the sciences, and is omnipresent in all things. The rules of the game, themselves, are a form of Structure, and commonly reflective of it. This is why things like "racial bonuses" can be seen for their inclusion of racism -- the fact that it is an imaginative space is irrelevant since the people playing the game are not, and we know that racism even in that format has a specific, measurable degree of harm in the physical sense -- real world harm from imagination.
Thus, even the Game Milieu can have real, measurable effects in the Social milieu, and this is an operation that function both ways (for that is how did the racism got into the game in the first place -- from the real world.)
Hence the pointed bit about inclusion of the larger world in discussion of the Social Milieu -- none of this happens in a social vacuum. To do so is to invite logical fallacy, and to provide cover and service to harm done to people since the game's inception, excusing it. Which is in part why it is a non-negotiable aspect for me when discussing the Social aspects of the game; I will not countenance such.
That said, when you say "Largely the point of the game is in one way or another about the interaction between the players and the fictional milieu.", I do not disagree. It is the focus of the moment of play and interaction, but it is still not devoid of the larger actual reality and its impact.
So, while I can speak to the particulars of the setting and the imaginary environment therein, it is not a space that is unaffected or indeterminate in relation to the world and reality in which that imagining is ongoing. It would be dishonest for me to not acknowledge that, but I can settle for this:
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present as part of the Game Milieu, in relation to the Social Milieu.
Hopefully that will work for you.
Exception noted above
When you say "More than that, it also changes the expectations players have about how the fictional milieu responds and with it the desires of the players." you do so within the context of a comment about Rules, Mechanics, and Game, and we have not agreed on this terminology and so cannot speak to that part. THis is even more critical when you note that my definition of a game requires there to be rules -- and it is notable that my definition of game is derived from 300 years of scientific study on games, and what comprises a game, specifically. Format may be different, but it is summation of that scientific basis as it stands today.
Spoilers
As described, without acknowledgement of and agreement on terminology, we cannot fully understand each other, and so arguments based on that, such as the immediate preceding statements around the exception, cannot be addressed in good faith at this time. The hypothetical would, for example, need to be reframed in order to be answered, because it is dependent on the understanding of those three concepts still in contention.
Your entire closing paragraph would have no basis to be asked if we used my definition of a game or rules or mechanics, for example -- which is why I said we had to find some other place to speak from. Good faith requires that we be willing to change our minds, and if we cannot understand the other well enough to give the points raised the due consideration, we would fail to achieve that, even if we otherwise acted in good faith simply because we never understood the other well enough to give the position good, honest consideration.
This is why I spoilered the remaining portions -- they would all be something we can come back to down the road, once we can think about things in a more equitable space.
Once we can hammer out agreement on the remaining terms, we can move into the parts you described, though you'll have to respond after re-evaluation in light of the new terminology.
Thus far, I can think of two non-negotiables:
However, rules do not have to be concrete, or even written down. They merely have to be understood by all the participants.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Mechanics: the method of operation for accomplishing a task.
Rules: the explication of the terms and conditions of the game, inclusive of Mechanics.
See, mechanics and rules are distinctly separate, one may be part of the other, yet it remains distinct.
A player of an RPG has a character, and will at times be making choices about what that character does. There are a variety of methods for making that decision, and a number of things that can be considered or dismissed, which will be different for different players. However, a set of infinite possibilities can still be broken down into groups. One group of the infinite possibilities for how one chooses actions for their character can be defined by taking the mechanics of a game into massively stronger consideration than other aspects such as the fictional world, characters, and situations. Likewise, another group might be defined by dismissing the mechanics from that consideration and using the mechanics only after the decision has been made for what the character will do.
Aye, now consider the notion of playing the game like it is a freeform game, but use mechanical terminology like that found in other games as a shorthand, and have various things things written down to make communication clearer an easier.
For example, how strong is "very strong?" You could have a discussion over whether that is like the strongest man at the local gym kind of very strong, or if it means being like the incredible hulk kind of very strong. Or you can have a chart with various numbered rows describing different levels of strength and simply using the number for the appropriate row to very quickly establish a common understanding of just how strong you mean.
it is only irrelevant as long as the core principles, as you understand them, are not in conflict with it. We, however, have not established that yet, We are only seeking agreement on terminology.
This is all true, but we still haven't had acknowledgement and agreement on the terms in use.
From this, it appears that you are agreeing to use my definitions for Rules and Mechanics in further posts. However, that is only an appearance and not an acknowledgment or agreement.
If you do agree to use that terminology -- by which you would need to explicitly state so -- then that means we have the following terms in agreement:
That, however, still means we need to agree on the terminology for: Narrative Milieu and Game. And if you do not agree to the terms for rules and mechanics above, then we still need to finish with them.
So those remain in contention to my knowledge as of this moment. I have proffered two of my own for that so far:
Game: A game is an activity engaged for educational, social, developmental, work, art, and healthcare or other purposes that has certain traits:
Narrative Milieu:
If these are all acceptable to you then we can move forward and begin to discuss the things that you have mentioned previously once more.
As for the rest:
I am not here to re-litigate a fact about the game. If the fact that the use of racial modifiers is racist bothers you, that is a you problem, not an I problem.
Factually, this is incorrect.
Given this right is the Right of Freedom of Expression, and is a limitation placed on governments, I have to note this is irrelevant. The government is not involved in this. Ergo, the right of freedom of expression is not germane to any of the points raised.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think when a discussion becomes people defining and redefining numerous terms at length it has ceased to be a useful discussion. Coming to an exact consensus over langauge never goes well...
You keep adding this "in relation to" bit. Something being influenced by something else does not make that second thing inseparable from the first. If that was the case, we would not be individuals and murder would not exist because it would just be self-harm, and hurting one's self to remove something undesirable is not murder. It just doesn't work. "In relation to" is also a context. Things exist, and the relation between those things and other things is entirely separate from the nature of the thing itself. A rock might be heavy in relation to an acorn, but that doesn't make the rock inseparable from the relation. So claiming the Fictional Milieu is X in relation to Y means you have an X and a Y as distinct things which can then have some kind of relation to each other. It's similar to nouns and verbs. Noun verbs noun. Two nouns and a verb, each noun is separate from the other, but have a relation towards each other. Each noun and the relationship is distinct making three distinct things. Adding "in relation to" is like defining a cloud as a thing that is somewhere west of the mountain, as though somehow it wouldn't be a cloud if it was somewhere else.
Frankly, I feel as though you are stretching to add this "in relation to" stuff in some attempt to make some sort of social justice agenda be brought into the conversation, like you just can't see anything without seeing the social justice agenda as part of it. Can you not look at a rock without seeing it as a weapon someone will use to stone someone else? We are supposedly trying to discuss a game, which whatever other elements you want to bring into it's definition, I think we can at least agree that a game, whatever it is, is supposed to be enjoyable. There is no enjoyment when you can't even define something without bringing social justice into it. That is the perversion of justice. It is taking the concept of justice so far that it ends up doing more harm than good despite the motivations of those pushing for it.
"And no, you do not have a right to be free of censorship by anyone else -- only the government."
Not quite correct. The founders, and I agree with them on this, considered the rights to be fundamental rights that exist outside of whatever governmental rules we establish to govern ourselves. They did not see themselves as granting us those rights, but rather were rather saying the governmental is not allowed to infringe on those rights. If you read it, they always mention the rights as if they are already in existence and are dictating the relationship of the government towards those rights. In that interpretation, I do have a right to remain uncensored by anyone, but you also have the right to ask me to not speak about something, and whatever choice I make about respecting or not your request, you will then make a choice as well.
"Factually, this is incorrect."
Game: A game is an activity engaged for educational, social, developmental, work, art, and healthcare or other purposes that has certain traits:
This is way to broad. It would be easy to fit literal brain surgery into this definition. I suggest this slight adjustment.
Game: A game is an activity performed for the sake of enjoyment, or to make use of the enjoyment of the activity for an additional goal.
The inclusion of the various traits do not seem like definition elements to me, they seem more like a categorization of how one might examine basically any activity someone might perform for any reason. And I'm fine with that.
As for these,
I suggest these instead
Perhaps, but I'm enjoying myself at least. I don't get to be so technical very often.
And honestly, it is being somewhat helpful as well.
1 - I will always add in relation to when there is a relation involved. It is a key part to understanding the whole. Excluding it abstracts the meaning -- and I will not abstract the meaning. consider it non-negotiable if you must -- your own stated reasoning in this point is entirely something you add to it, and not what is present.
2 - I do contract work in human rights for the UN, teach/lecture on the side, and do assorted work in relation to underserved minority populations in regular life, and have been doing so for 30 years. It is not a matter of "cannot", it is a matter of "will not". I cannot ignore my ethical and personal responsibilities.
3 - I look at a rock and pretty much never see it as a weapon. It is a rock -- and that's already an immense amount of information for me to see. But then, I see a lot in nearly anything -- my own neuro-atypicality in action.
4 - We do not agree that a game must be enjoyable. So many examples...
5 - I have a completely opposite stance on this.
6 - As I noted before, the definition I provided was based on science and actual use cases. You could not literally fit brain surgery into it; you could fit training for brain surgery into it. While the exaggeration for effect is somewhat humorous, it is neither accurate nor useful. That said, I am willing to possibly accept that for the purpose of this discussion as it does narrow it -- however...
6.1 - ... in doing so, that restricts it to those specific features that I noted describe a game. In compromise on the first part, I must insist on the bullets -- and I note that one of the bullets is previously stated to be non-negotiable.
6.2 - We are getting closer. I suggest this instead:
0 - I repeat, I will not re-litigate facts regarding in-game racism, nor will I indulge in such relating to other elements. Those are personal issues on the part of others, not myself. I removed the portions that dealt in that, and will not revisit them: it is not my job to explain facts to others for free.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This may not be the best place to get into this, but there is a difference in calling an idea racist and calling a person racist. The fact that certain people - yourself included, it seems - equate them is cause for a large amount of continued societal problems. The line of thinking of "I am not a bad person, therefore I am not racist, therefore I don't hold any racist ideas," is unhelpful, as it prevents identification of problematic ideas, solutions, and reparations (used in a more broad sense here). EVERYONE has implicit biases and some of those biases can tend towards racist ideas. Calling those ideas out is not calling the person evil or bad, it is asking that person to have a bit of introspection to become aware of them and be critical of them.
There is also the problem that these racial bonuses were not restricted to physical characteristics, nor were they restricted to bonuses, historically. Orcs and dwarves (in the fantasy sense) do not exist, but you can clearly see the influences real cultures had on their design and when those cultures see that "race" as less intelligent or always the enemy, THAT is a problem.