>>94761761
Would you, in the context of traditional games (open or closed systems), comprehend a game in which the secondary is actually the primary and the said engagement, progression and resolution of the game concerns only what you say and how you say it?
>within the bounds of their rules
In open systems (TTRPGs generally) it's all arbitrary anyway. The GM usually lets you win. In chess or monopoly I get it. I don't like chess nor monopoly.
Temperament predicts voting behavior, but also the choice of game and style of gaming. Some people like theater circlejerk RPG, some want to win a lot in chess. I don't know if there's a third camp somewhere for people like me who belong to neither.
Anyway, in my Mausritter game we pretend to be mice and my only goal for each session is nobody in the table can predict what will happen. Also if I describe something in a poetic way the players' imaginations become filled with ideas and the table talk will be more fruitful than if we used technical, mechanical language only. That is why I believe speaking in character and describing stuff with care results in more fun even if it is not required. Even when discussing OOC, rules and such you can do it in style and within theme of the game, keeping up the ambience. Social skills is the top RPG player skill. Second skill is rhetoric/argumentative skills and third poetic use of language.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/tg/

Thread:

How poetic/aesthetically pleasing is the language used during your traditional game session? How embellished would you prefer the dialogue and…