Parpuzio's dilemma

This is a good recording. But in regard to roleplay, I like it at about 9:20
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2013/12/12/the-fools-dilemma/

How you don't see someone so much as angry as a configuration of muscles on their face.

It ties into the recent Parpuzio stuff and probably either baffled readings of my saying it's always happening in roleplay, or alternative 'omg, his play must be like that!'. Actually the recording goes into an idea of attributing to others before attributing to oneself, but anyways...

I think some people figure that when they say their character grabs the can of peaches (that someone else has spoken some fiction about being on a table), much like we think we see anger when we actually see a  configuration of muscles on the face, they think they actually interact with that can of peaches they are thinking about. The number of interactions, like the facial configuration, slips past us. We short cut. Just like the recording gives the example of, if in the distant past a lion jumped out at us, would we pause to consider maybe this is a false possitive and it's something else, or do we scream lion? Even as the latter is a short cut?

To get the can of peaches, it's all parpuzio.

You can dial down the amount of parpuzio.

Dial it down to zero and you have a boardgame.

I swear, 5 to 6 years ahead and you'll be onboard with this anyway. You'll use different names, say it in your own words. But you'll be on board anyway.

I'm offering a shortcut.

TTRP; Answering the Air: Always parpuzio?

From here

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

Yes.

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