Blur; the insidious demon

edited April 2011 in Story Games
Posted By: Michael PfaffPosted By: HarlequinYou can role-play over anything. Scrabble, Monopoly can be role-playing games.
I'm cringing. :/
Posted By: HarlequinHow about we start a new thread on how utterly wrong I am and let this one go back to being about the original post?
OK! Here we go:

How do you resist dissolving your understanding of language in a relativity gone wrong?

How do you avoid kowtowing to Blur, the insidious demon:
- There are no fixed boundaries for anything!
- We have no mutual understanding!
- There is never any real communication going on!
- Anything is everything!
- Blur!!!


How do you arrest yourself from posting the ideas that leads to nothing?

Comments

  • Just because the boundaries of some terms (like, for example, "story" or "game") are fuzzy and ill-defined doesn't mean they don't work or oughtn't be used, it's just that they should be a starting point for more specific statements and discussions. Human life is complicated and it's very useful to be able to refer to blurry concepts.

    All my ideas lead to nothing but brilliancy and deep insights and any lack of clarity is entirely on the part of the reader, not my fault, just ask me.
  • Posted By: JDCorleyAll my ideas lead to nothing but brilliancy and deep insights ...
    I concur!

    As an experienced demonologist I would place you fair and square in the ninth circle of worship under the she-demon Fata Morgana. She is the first child of Blur, with the sun itself as her mother. I am awestruck by the brilliance in your worship of the she-demon! Huzza for Jason, and his demon-mistress!

    I myself praise the high demon Jocular, foremost amongst the chirping choir of demons, and the only Saint amongst them; due to him regarding nothing as too holy to joke about.
  • For some reason Tomas is working for me better than usually here. Must be something to do with our shared interest in the occult.
  • Don't you simply have to start from experience? Agree that the experience you share with someone else is similar enough to give it common language and use that language? I guess the blur is worst when people continue to use the same language, yet their experiences have drifted.

    How do you know the experiences have drifted? Well, you won't until you break the language back down until you get to the point where you are talking directly about the experience again. When the temple of language has become so old and enormous, probably this can become as difficult as an archaeological excavation, doesn't it?

    Of course you can always settle for an acceptably stable, but not ideal language state. I'm sure this is the common experience outside of total blur.
  • This is an interesting question!
  • edited April 2011
    Revving to a serious tack ...
    Posted By: JDCorleyJust because the boundaries of some terms (like, for example, "story" or "game") are fuzzy and ill-defined doesn't mean they don't work ...
    Absolutely!

    Most terms are very well defined, at the core; a story is a story and a game a game, kind of. Some people need to care less for the boundaries, and more for the core of the terms. It would do wonders for their ability to develop a mindset worth listening to.
    Posted By: Big J MoneyDon't you simply have to start from experience? Agree that the experience you share with someone else is similar enough to give it common language and use that language?
    Yes!

    You start by buying into the language of your parents, and that gives you an "alphabet" by which you spell your life; the various experiences and ideas. Communication will always be about connecting the reality of your life to the symbolism of words, and making that connection work for someone else, at least in fora such as these. If you are too eager to redefine (or un-define) the words you are working with, you will undermine your ability to contribute to a constructive dialogue.
  • Now I want a roleplaying game that uses monopoly money!
  • Wilmer; we shall overcome!
  • edited April 2011
    Posted By: KripplerNow I want a roleplaying game that uses monopoly money!
    Freaky, I was thinking the exact thing 2 weeks ago. I came up with an idea for a game where each player takes the role of a mobster trying to become the city's only Don, and it would play on a board a lot like monopoly (with all the pieces). I was thinking you could have a basic set of rules that is basically monopoly plus a crunchy form of R-Maps; but then also have a much thicker Advanced rulebook that has rules for creating your own Mobster and playing series of games (rather than a single game) with a continuing story that leads to the final act where 1 player actually becomes the Don.

    Anyway, I'm not really interested in the theme and/or genre enough to write that game, but it was a cool thought. I would definitely play it.
  • I feel like I've read the rules for a game like this... but I can't remember what it's called.

    You move units around a city. There are drug dealers, and mafia/police, and one player has a unit called the Femme Fatale. You try to control neighbourhoods of the city, I think.
  • Could you please re-phrase the question?
  • Posted By: TomasHVM
    If you aretoo eagerto redefine (or un-define) the words you are working with, you will undermine your ability to contribute to a constructive dialogue.
    Too eager sounds like a great description. I think it's possible to strengthen communication* through analysis and reduction, but you have to be very cautious, careful and patient in the breaking down. Kind of like how a paleontologist has to be with those bones. It's easy to try and accomplish everything at once and soar from conclusion to conclusion, forgetting to go back and check the language against conscious experience. I feel like language is more delicate than science, since all science (or math) requires is an objective 3rd person observation.

    * Hell, maybe even perfect it, or at least reach some kind of a communication Nirvana; if only temporarily
  • Posted By: Big J MoneyI feel like language is more delicate than science
    Yes, it is delicate, both as an object of analysis, and as an analytic tool.
Sign In or Register to comment.