But how you examine these depends on the kind of story you think you're in.
Anna Karenina believed she was the main character in a tragedy, and so she interpreted everything which happened to her as tragic: in doing so, she created a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you expect your family to leave you, you are liable to treat them in a way which makes them leave you.
Now look at RPGs.
"This NPC has a name; he must be going to be important later."
The player who says this believes that in the game world, a person's future importance reaches back in time and grants him personal detail.
In Fate, there is less of this because the places where a GM is improvising or working from prepared material are designed to be more obvious--and because an NPC's level is not an immediate indication of his relephance.
If you are in a story about fighting and killing and looting, this colours how you interpret everything you see, and closely defines the kind of predictions you make.
@BESW Exactly what I was about to say. Even more specifically, the moment any person has a stat block with attack stats and hitpoints, not only is that person now killable, the game actively encourages you to look at him as someone who can be killed.
I link this to video games like Bioshock and --more on the nose but with a smaller audience-- Shadow of the Colossus.
These are games which start you out on the basic video game assumptions: someone tells you what to do in order to go forward. You do it, because it's the only way to advance in the game.
I remember a game that challenged that - The game actually "lied" to you. Not just the characters etc, but even the rules system, and the tutorial - it was about choosing what to believe, and how to control.. I forget the name.. I will try to find it.
Then, without spoiling too much, I'll just say that both games (slowly or abruptly) move to defy that convention, and expose the meta-level motivation connection between the player and the character.
That the character you play is often doing things only because you as the player have been conditioned by the traditional video game practices to know that's just the way things are.
@InbarRose You had that in Douglas Adams' old text-adventure game of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You would type "go west", and get "you can't go west". Type it again, it says "I told you you can't go west". Type it a third time, and you'd be reworded with an "ok, ok, go west if you want". It's a great subversion of genre tropes and those unspoken assumptions BESW mentions.
The game has such a fundamental emphasis on casual slaughter of thinking, self-aware, tool-using, culture-having beings that not only is not doing that considered unusual and subversive--it's also durn near impossible, especially in the earlier iterations of the game where non-combat skillups like herb gathering didn't grant XP.
But is this something the game is conscious of? Does it treat its PCs as the appallingly mercenary mass murderers they really are? Only once or twice, as a self-aware joke which is quickly brushed aside for more killing.
It's uncomfortable with its own premise, which it's locked into largely because it's built on the conventions of its predecessors and its medium, rather than because it chose to tell that kind of story.
Bringing it back to D&D, look at the paladin. That paragon of justice and virtue, the honourable knight who values life and mercy.
It's not just WoW. D&D is of the same mindset, in general. The game gives you the tools to slaughter innocents (stat blocks, hitpoints), but leaves the censure of such slaughter to the DM's judgement.
I have seen this question about updates of the DnD4 books, and it got me thinking.
Since I got my Kindle I have not read a single paper novel, and they have fewer drawbacks compared to digital copies than rpg rulebooks.
Dead-tree types have some benefits like looking good on a bookshelf, but any...
@lisardggY Except that, again, the game is uncomfortable with itself because we have the alignment axis which explicitly condemns the actions that the rest of the system is designed to support.
It's a fascinating tangle.
And we can see in the real world examples of narrative time and the potential for unity or chaos that it contains.
@JonathanHobbs The Oracle isn't there to ask you questions, but to give you answers. Thus, it gives your meta questions time to be answered before bringing them in. :)
@Utkarsh This is not a chat about torrenting, and I strongly suggest you not discuss probably-illegal activities in a place that is permanently archived and immediately seeded to the Google search engine.
@JonathanHobbs I've been using a keyboard quite intensively since about age 6. All in all, I've written more words on a keyboard than with a pen, probably several orders of magnitude more.
I believe that the transparency of a tool is measured by its adoption into both the cultural mainstream and, for each person, by its sublimation into muscle memory and habit.
I'm asking in regards to this question:
What are the benefits of owning a physical book?
My gut feeling has me concerned this might not be suitable to ask here. It might be a primarily opinion-based matter, or a gorilla-vs-shark question, or something else.
My say in the matter is totally out ...
For me, a keyboard is mostly transparent, at least as transparent as a pen. I don't explicitly think of operating the keys unless something pulls me out.
Keyboards still have some natural barriers to transparency - the fact that you click in one place and hte word appears in another is a big one, whereas pens (or touch interfaces) are more naturally transparent due to the fact that the interaction and its result share a locality.
@lisardggY That's the key thing: you can get pretty transparent with a keyboard. Pens almost automatically start out that transparent. Writing might be trickier, but pen operation isn't a thing that takes a lot of effort.
An e-reader is a far-from-transparent technology that needs a lot more improvement, streamlining and time to become transparent, but it's on its way there.
@JonathanHobbs It does take some effort. Look at children first learning to hold a pen. I have a friend who to this day holds it rather awkwardly. But it's certainly easier.
So in general, I agree with your answer about the transparency of RPG books vs. PDF copies (especially, as BESW says, when a book's layout requires tables and complicated setups, which are terrible on a kindle and marginally better in PDFs)
@Utkarsh This is not a chat about torrenting, and I strongly suggest you not discuss probably-illegal activities in a place that is permanently archived and immediately seeded to the Google search engine.
I hereby declare that the first chat user to rightfully suggest a policy or use discussion be turned into a meta post will receive One Free Re-Roll, redeemable in any rpg.se chat game run by myself or other participating GMs.
@Adnan RPGs are hard to define, but chess doesn't give you a character sheet and send you into a dungeon that exists only in your imagination. To draw the biggest difference I can. Some board games are going to blur that distinction a bit.
(Case in point: one iconic video game RPG, Baldur's Gate, uses the combat rules for AD&D 2e, one of the iconic tabletop RPGs. But it's not played on a table; it's a video game, and has huge differences as a result.)
A group of about a half-dozen people gather in real life to cooperatively tell the story of a small group of fictional characters. Most of the players each represent/are responsible for the actions of a single character, while one player controls the rest of the world and its inhabitants.
A rules system is chosen to help determine the outcome and effectiveness of the characters' actions, usually using dice as a randomising element to add suspense and surprise.
Often there is a map and miniatures to keep track of tactical positioning in combat.
The result is cooperative improvisational storytelling bound by rules and kept suspenseful with randomisation.
Now, everything I just said can be --and has been-- subverted or neglected by various rule sets and systems within the RPG landscape, but that's the traditional baseline for the experience.
Common variants include playing online through chat or other means, relegating control of the world to the group as a whole instead of having one individual responsible for it, and using randomisation techniques other than dice (or eschewing them entirely).
If you've played games like Baldur's Gate, or WoW, or Wizardry, you've experienced the common practice of delineating a character's abilities through a set of stats like Strength and Intelligence, subdividing them into skills, and enriching them through class features. That's the Dungeons & Dragons legacy to gaming.
I'd hate to make up something that doesn't make sense. If I want to say things that don't make sense, I can much more easily look up the truth and say that.
@Magician You missed my narrative time rant, but it got derailed by a troll and a hammer of mods before I could get to the bits about Soviet propaganda.
@BESW My gaming experience comprises of RedAlert and Generals. But I guess I understand the concept of a character's stats interactions with other characters.
I have relatively little experience with board and video games compared to most people on this Stack, and my tabletop RPG experiences were quite limited until only a couple years ago.
(I stayed with two editions of D&D for something like eight years before seriously investigating other options.)
@Adnan One of the differences is that with humans, you can break the rules and only consult those rules when you really want to. You can change and bend them; just like you can with King of Tokyo.
You can also probably roleplay with King of Tokyo, so the line there is super fuzzy.
You can also roleplay with Monopoly. And therein lies a deep rabbit hole of debate.
Of course, it also means that you can have social conflicts like in any interpersonal exchange, and a lot of the questions on this site are about how groups can get along.
@BESW Hmmm.. that reminds me of what happened last week.
We were playing King of Tokyo (it was my first time), and then we reached a stage where I really wanted to convince somebody not to attack me in exchange of energy cubes.
The game owner said it's not in the rules, thus we can't do that.
@Wipqozn [8.4] Pithy and classic, but points off for all caps.
@Adnan If you ever feel a hankering for trying out an RPG, there are a couple people in this room (myself included) who would be happy to run a quick session for you when the time is available.
And Roll for Shoes is a dead simple system we regularly use for impromptu play; the whole system is only seven bullet points, and it requires no preparation.
Just type "XdY" on its own line, where X is the number of dice (up to 9) and Y is the number of faces on the dice (4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 20 are supported).