D&D started it all!

[Koby]

<snip>

The direct result of an attempt at writing a PhD in the filed of professionalism in P&P-role-playing, it has the potential to change the world as we know it.

 

[Human Shield]

[
I *think* that for him it was... it's hard to explain umm, undead are an ultimate-evil (moral?), and the fact that he had an unique ability to do some ass kicking and protecting his party from them(it?), maybe it was about moral superiority, in the sense that "I'm all about doing the right thing"... I didn’t looked into the depth of it.

Is it still 'just color'?

So he wanted to experience the character and get a moment to shine? Wanting to explore character is separate from what is used to accomplish it. Setting, situation, and character are important, undead as color is something to tie it all together. Undead couldn't just be thrown in, it would have to relate to other elements.

because with in some cases (my former group) relying on rule-set for storytelling isn’t necessary, the other group which I played I don’t know/not sure,

Maybe you all enjoyed what you were doing and that is fine, but I don't think the group was enjoying as much as they could or as much as you thought.

and for the last time
I HAVENT PLAYED ANY P&P FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS.

Sorry, this is the first time I've seen you bring it up. How long did the group last?

Typical, "only one way" either this or that, no middle ground.

So did you keep separate universes going or did the imagined space only end up "one way", and that "one way" was empirically done "one way".

You have not yet commented even once on how you group resolve things, what are you and your group passionate about, what rule-set you are using, what do you enjoy in P&P...

You are the one that ranted about a lack of rules being the peak of roleplaying and can't describe what the people at the table actually did.

I'm not in a group.

Every thing revolves around this it seems.

What are you getting out of meeting with your friend in the pub?

Do you enforce your 'social contract' on these situations, also?

Captain obvious: Human being are social creatures, they like to get together.

... and do stuff, even if its just trash talking. The fact that you are spending time with your friends is all by itself an accomplishment, and in not just a few occasions, the more important and enjoyable part then the excuse of meeting each other.

If "getting something out of" is of the *highest* priority of the group activity, in the sense that it is priority #1, #2 and #3, and the fact that they are engaging social activity, is at priority #15 if it is at all one of the reason for that activity, then it becomes something else, whether it is a competition, personal/group agenda (not necessarily a creative agenda), whatever, I already explained this earlier.

Social contract is the sum of all interaction of the people around an activity. I'm using that word because that is what the Forge uses, if you can't see past your narrow definition of "contract" as something that is enforced and aggressive then think of another word.

People don't like every movie they see with friends, they mite love the company and go anyways but that doesn't mean the group should go see movies everyone hates to make a statement about how advanced their level of friendship is. It is obvious people are still individuals. Why spend time watching movies you hate, you can socialize a million ways, if you going to do something why not discuss a way that makes everyone happy.

Friends debate about what movie to see, they don't go see the same one as a ritual and because it is all they know. Discussing to find a better way to make everyone enjoy the activity more isn't the evil selfish thing you make it out to be. Dragging a passive friend to see movies he gets bored at and ignoring his subtle clues of displeasure is the selfish action instead of talking to him about what he wants to see.

For some reason, you just don’t get it. For you it seems that P&P HAS to be about something other then a reason to get together and play.

You can play a million different ways. Why is playing locked down into tradition for you. When you invite friends to watch a movie most people want a movie that their friends will enjoy but maybe your group is so "laid back" that each member doesn't care anymore and everything feels the same.

When control isn't clearly delegated you get players that don't know what they can and can't do.

Why is this a *necessity* for enjoying the game?

Because it promotes passive play, which mite be what you're group is aiming at but most players want more actual "play".

I can not shack the feeling the whole 'social contract' theory, as you describe it (in the context of role-playing), is the end result of a one or more nerds trying to figure out why most of their time he/they are arguing and not playing or enjoying around the table (I'm going to use the stereotype 'nerd' as a reference to people that tend to minimize their engagement in social activity).

Is that why they design RPGs that get great reviews and change perceptions. Did you even glance at how the Capes demo worked? I'd like you to tell be what you think of the Capes system and how it isn't social. The games based on the theory are ones that attract new people to the hobby instead of copying D&D.