With Apologies to Mr. Edwards

[Levi]

I agree with the regular statement that having a single vocabulary to discuss some things about RPGs is a good thing. I agree that there's some hot thinking going on in various game design circles that can be really useful to players and GMs that aren't designers.

However, I'm not a big fan of many actual words used in many RPG theories. So, this is me defining some terms that I'd rather use. Some of this is flat-out stolen from a few really cool posts in other jargon-debating threads. My apologies to those not credited with coming up with good words.

Consensus: The Consensus is the whole mass of stuff that people bring to the table that they can agree on, whether they actually talk about it or not. When a group goes over group stuff, they're usually either just clearing up how their consensus works, or adding more stuff to it.
-For me, this replaces all the parts of the theory idea of "social contract" that I find important.

Rules: Every clearly stated part of the consensus is a rule. That includes if we roll dice, what dice we roll, and if we re-roll dice that go onto the floor, as well as who buys the pizza, whose house we play at, and so on.
-This one's just to be clear.

Mechanics: Mechanics are a specific kind of rule. A mechanic is a rule that governs and works with numbers, ratings, and such. A rule that says "a gun does 2d6 damage" is a mechanic. A rule that says "reroll dice that hit the floor" isn't.
-Again, just to be clear.

Authority: Authority refers to who has the power to decide things in a game, by whatever method. If players can just make up unimportant little details of scenery on the fly, they have more authority than the core D&D books might suggest. If they're constantly getting shifted around by the GM, to the point where the GM dictates a significant amount of what their characters actually do, then the players have less authority than usual.
-I don't think I changed this one much.

Focus: Most RPGs are focused in one way or another. For most of them, what they're focused on can usually be easily spotted. Now, it's entirely possible to play a game with a focus it wasn't written towards, and even do a great job of it, but plenty of people like their games to be written with the focus they want. Also, it's sometimes useful to know what category a game is in before you buy it, play it, or tinker with it; some of us like games focused one way over games focused another way.

Theme-Focused: Some RPGs have powerful questions or themes that constantly recur, or are built to make it easy to include such stuff. They ask questions, in a literary-kind-of-sense. They take characters that have specific things central to those character, and they test those things. Dogs in the Vineyard is pretty theme-focused; quite a few people apparently aim for theme-focused gameplay when they use the World of Darkness books (though the books themselves are multi-focus).
-This, to me, sums up the important parts of "narrativist".

Simulation-Focused: RPGs focused on simulation have a single genre, setting, or set of source material that they give a lot of service to; the things that happen often in that setting and genre will almost certainly happen often in the game. Toon simulates cartoons. Blue Planet simulates, uh, itself, as far as I can tell, but it gives a huge amount of service to doing it.
-This, to me, sums up the important parts of "simulationist".

Challenge-Focused: RPGs that present themselves, in play, as a series of challenges to be overcome by character and player, are challenge-focused. If you, as a player, are plotting tactics within the game world, and find that the mechanics serve you really well in doing this, chances are you're looking at a challenge-focused game. D&D, as written, is pretty challenge-focused.
-This, to me, sums up the important parts of "gamist".

Multi-Focus: Some RPGs have more than one focus, and serve them differently; they're "multi-focus".

Open-Focus: Some RPGs have no real focus to speak of, leaving it up to the group to set one before play, or to change during play; I'll call that "open-focus".

Are there other kinds of Focus? Yes. No. Hell, I don't know.

So, that's where I'm at. Thoughts on this?

[cjh]

I think that you might finally be getting somewhere, Levi. I hope that this whole thing doesn't go down in flames.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Levi Kornelsen

So, that's where I'm at. Thoughts on this?

Uhh, why? It's like saying "I want to discuss physics, but don't want to use the specialized terminology physicists have developed to discuss physics, so I'm going to make up my own."

[Levi]

Originally Posted by cjh

I think that you might finally be getting somewhere, Levi. I hope that this whole thing doesn't go down in flames.

I think that I've finally got a start on a glossary that avoids many (probably not all, but many) of the problems we see with the 'regular' one.

Flames will be avoided, by me, through the simple precaution of not answering insulting replies.

[Blackberry]

Terminology is generally good for academic discussion. But when people say things like "I'm a Narr player, so I can't allow myself to enjoy a Sim game", I think it really breaks down.

I take the Eastern approach quoted by Laurie Anderson: "There's a thing, and then there's a name for a thing, and that's one thing too many." Just play the game. Don't worry about whether your Focus Levels are appropriate for your Sub-Genre and Social Contract Status.

If someone doesn't like something that's going on in the game, let them speak up and say so without confrontation and without voting. Whenever there's voting by majority, and there isn't unanimity, someone's going to be upset or feel invalidated, and that's not a good basis for a roleplaying group.

[Matt M]

Anything that helps you clarify stuff in your head regarding what goes on in RPG-play is all good.

From tradition, Open is not a good place to discuss such things, which makes me sad. I hope this thread goes well.

-Matt

[cjh]

Originally Posted by Chris Goodwin

Uhh, why? It's like saying "I want to discuss physics, but don't want to use the specialized terminology physicists have developed to discuss physics, so I'm going to make up my own."

But that's not it at all. It's more a case of, "I want to discuss this novel, but *those* people are using one set of words to talk about it and *those* people are using another set of words to discuss it. Why don't we all get on the same page?"

Even the terminology of physicists had to be defined at one point.

Conversations like this aren't for everyone, some already have a language that they need. Good for them. Others are looking for a different language to use. Perhaps this conversation is for them.

[flyingmice]

Levi:

I agree with everything you have stated, and I far prefer your wording - not just for the names, but for the explanations - to those from/on the Forge. I see no terms whcih are muddied by unwarranted similarities to common usage, nor do I see terms which seem insulting on their face, nor do I see terms which are obscure and academic-sounding. The definitions are clear, consise, and non-judgmental, and you seem to cover all the important points.

Bravo!

-mice

[cjh]

Originally Posted by Levi Kornelsen

Flames will be avoided, by me, through the simple precaution of not answering insulting replies.

If you can do that it'll make you a better person than me. But that's what makes me unrepentent too.

[Levi]

Originally Posted by Blackberry

*Snip good stuff*

I agree entirely with everything you said, there, except the "academic" thing.

If I know that what I want is to run a really, really cool setting, and have this whole "journey of wonder" feeling where we explore stuff and have all these cool mechanics that really support what we're doing, chances are I want a game that does a lot of simulation.

If you're more just trying to remind everyone that having neat words does not make for useful conversation, I'm with you.