Tuesday, November 26, 2013

TTRP; Answering the Air: Always parpuzio?

From here
As a secondary point, is non-mechanics outcome authority always parpuzio?

The issue is that parpuzio is somewhat like giving a name to a food that is far too spicy hot for ones own tolerance, let alone taste.

Ie, a misleading name, if one enjoys a certain amount of spice. Because the naming given is simply a result of an overload of spice - thus it damns all spice use.
Depends on what you mean by "mechanics." Some of the games we know have rather sophisticated speaking-distribution rules which impose mechanics constraints without fortune mechanics.
Sophisticated enough speech/speaking distribution rules basically are board game mechanics. May as well be passing around cards and tokens.

If they don't become full on board game mechanics, then they are 'parpuzio'.

But again the question is: How much spice do you want to use?

Traditionally the question is take that there's 'persuade the GM' and there's 'good GM'ing' where the GM is just 'running the world'.

On reflection I'm not sure I parallel Moreno's position
but that kind of "play to convince the GM" somewhat returned to be felt during the sessions.
I'm not sure if it's a translation thing, but the way it's put, it's as if there can be a point (in non board game play) where there ISN'T convincing of the GM. Rather than simply considerably less of it/play does not soley revolve around convincing the GM.

I'd answer in the thread, but I'm waiting. I'm pretty sure I don't have a place there, as yet. More in the 'say it for yourself' stage.

Edit: Okay, call BS on me. In regard to one of the topics, I replied


  1. Hi Callan!

    The difference is that, in Parpuzio, the ONLY real way you have to accomplish ANYTHING in the fiction is to convince the GM to give it to you.

    You want to marry the princess? You have to do what the GM says: roll dice, play the wooing like a method actor,... and in any case it doesn't matter a bit if the GM is not convinced.

    Because if the GM is "god of the world, above every rule", what happen in the fiction is decided by his whim, and his whim only. To "win", expecially in gamist games, you have to convince HARD: complain when you can, always, make the GM that decide against you has a social cost, threaten to go away (better if the group play at your home).
    It's not a game anymore, is a social tug of war.

    A game, instead, is something where every player (so even the GM) can talk and try to convince anybody about anything, but it's not the end of the world if you can't, you don't have only that avenue to play.

    Do you even played Primetime Adventures, or Trollbabe? Try it, you will easily see what I mean.

    In the same exact situation where in D&D I would have continued to discuss about a pint for hours, in Primetime Adventures I said "I don't agree but who cares? It's not important in the game".
    I these games you can easily get what you want even if the GM doesn't agree. It's really another world.

    Play games like these for a while, and you see how what gamers usually call "how you play in rpg" is only a very small specific case used only with a very specific little game: Parpuzio. Une specific case over thousands of possible different rpgs where everything they believe "always happen" in rpgs, never happen.

    - Moreno

  2. Hi Moreno, thanks for commenting.

    you don't have only that avenue to play.

    What's the other avenue you're refering to?

    I've refered to play where it's not entirely based around convincing the GM, only partially (ie "Rather than simply considerably less of it/play does not soley revolve around convincing the GM."). I might be refering to the same thing as yourself - the other avenue I refer to is just flat out boardgame mechanics, and ones which dictate which boardgame mechanics will come up next (well, mostly do - the less the mechanics say what mechanics will be used less, the more Parpuzio it gets, I'd say)

    I have to say though, I really didn't see what your saying in the definition you gave on the adept press forum?

    But anyway, what is the other avenue you are refering to?

  3. Gah - just clarifying my sentence
    (well, mostly do - the less the mechanics say what mechanics will be used next, the closer it gets to Parpuzio, I'd say)

  4. Gah! Lost my reply! Too many scripts in this page, it can't work with NoScript....

  5. I feel for your post loss - I hate losing posts (there's an add on for firefox called lazarus to help with that). But it seems you can post?