Realism, verisimilitude, plausibility, consistency, fidelity
Brett Evill
For as long as I have been talking about RPGs, discussions about the
stupid implications of bad RP rules have been plagued by the gadflies
blurting arguments equivalent to "it's fantasy, it isn't *supposed* to be
realistic".
Some people have tried to get around the problem by using the word
'verisimilitude' instead of realism. But this approach has two major
problems. First, 'verisimilitude is not plainly associated with a
convenient and recognisable adjective to correspond to 'realistic'. In the
second place, if we start using it a few people will look it up in a
dictionary and discover that it is a stricter condition than 'realism'.
'Realistic' may be contrasted with 'stylised', 'idealised', 'idealistic',
'impressionistic' etc. So it is perfectly possible to paint a realisitc
picture of Yoda, or of John Wilkes Booth stabbing Winston Churchill at the
foot of Pompey's statue, but neither of these possesses verisimilitude. If
the picture looks real it is realistic. Only if it looks like something
true does it have verisimilitude.
Now, we might ask that an RPG produce results that are 'plausible', that
it possess 'plausibility'. But unfortunately 'plausible' carries, as well
as a sense 'believeable', a sense 'specious, misleading, convincing but
untrue', and we don't want that.
What is it that we are really talking about when we complain of the
'unrealism' of a game that allows a character to jump off a seventy-foot
cliff in the knowledge that he will be able to walk away at the bottom? I
think our real problem is that the implications of the game system are not
consistent with the desired properties of the setting: the system implies
that things will happen in the game which ought not to happen in the
setting; implies that things cannot happen in the game which ought to
happen in the setting; and gets the probabilities unacceptably wrong in
the intermediate, implying that things are likely in the game which ought
to be unlikely in the setting and vice-versa.
Unfortunately, we also want to use the term 'inconsistent' for internal
inconsistencies within the game, such as clashes where one part of the
rules says you make a self-control roll to avoid any frenzy, but another
part says the you make a roll against a different virtue for each type of
frenzy.
So how about, rather than saying that a game system ought to be consistent
with its intended setting, we say that it ought to be faithful to the
intended setting? I think we can criticise an RPG for infidelity to its
setting, or 'infidelity' for short, without a danger that we will get into
stupid arguments about whether fantasy ought to be faithful or not.
Regards,
--
Brett Evill
To reply by e-mail, remove 'spamblocker.' from <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au>
Bruce Baugh
>So how about, rather than saying that a game system ought to be consistent
>with its intended setting, we say that it ought to be faithful to the
>intended setting? I think we can criticise an RPG for infidelity to its
>setting, or 'infidelity' for short, without a danger that we will get into
>stupid arguments about whether fantasy ought to be faithful or not.
Thanks, Brett! That's a very useful term - I'm happy to add it to my
arsenal, er, vocabulary. :)
Of course, it requires a sense of what the setting is supposed to be.
--
http://brucebaugh.home.mindspring.com/
Rolegaming, writing tools, miscellany
The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and
high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on
the contrary, it increases the desire to walk. -- Massimo d'Azeglio
Brett Evill
(Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>Thanks, Brett! That's a very useful term - I'm happy to add it to my
>arsenal, er, vocabulary. :)
>
>Of course, it requires a sense of what the setting is supposed to be.
Of course. Is this an argument for specialised setting-based systems, do
you think? Must all generic games have deep optional rules in the
mechanics for universal events and situations? Or is it possible to have a
core of universal rules and use options only for the special features of a
setting?
Bruce Baugh
>Of course. Is this an argument for specialised setting-based systems, do
>you think? Must all generic games have deep optional rules in the
>mechanics for universal events and situations? Or is it possible to have a
>core of universal rules and use options only for the special features of a
>setting?
I'm personally skeptical about universal systems. My view is that just
as each roleplaying campaign has a genre, each ruleset does, too, and
trying to work outside that ultimately runs into problems. GURPS Black
Ops shows the trouble of turning a detailed relatively reality-based
system into something suited for Hong Kong action; Feng Shui does
action movies far better, at the cost of not doing gritty low-powered
environments nearly so well.
Depending on the premises of a rules set, it may do a lot of very
different things well, as long as there's some common point. I
mentioned earlier today a weird high-tech fantasy setting for Everway,
and an sf-as-religion setting. But they share an orientation toward
classical heroes; for all the differences in the worlds, there's a
similar attitude about adventuring, outsiders as reconcilers and
problem-solvers, and so on.
Over The Edge likewise can do a lot of things besides modern-day
strangeness, but they'd all involve not-lots-more-powerful-than-normal
people with very strong character definitions, and like that.
Then again....
David Dunham used Pendragon personality traits for his cyberpunk game,
which had _no_ other elements of chivalry in it.
So. In general, games do better to settle on an intended effect or
range of effects and focus on those, not worrying about trying to do
everything. But sometimes systems will, in whole or part, end up also
being suitable for other things as well.
Mary K. Kuhner
Bruce Baugh <bruce...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <b.evill-2207...@tynslip1.apana.org.au>, b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>>So how about, rather than saying that a game system ought to be consistent
>>with its intended setting, we say that it ought to be faithful to the
>>intended setting?
>Thanks, Brett! That's a very useful term - I'm happy to add it to my
>arsenal, er, vocabulary. :)
>Of course, it requires a sense of what the setting is supposed to be.
I like the term too. Generally speaking once one has played a while
one has enough sense of the setting for the term to be useful--some-
times it's obvious at once. The telltale is very often discrepancies
between what the GM says when he narrates an action freeform (as when
reporting offstage events) and what happens when similar actions
are resolved under the system.
For example, in the first Shadowrun module an NPC shoots another
NPC with a palm pistol and kills him instantly. This scene will
never occur if the PCs try these actions, it being (a) mechanically
impossible to do killing damage with one pistol shot and (b)
mechanically impossible to kill someone so dead that a common
spell can't save him. The rules are radically unfaithful to the
module author's sense of the setting. (And to most everyone
else's, it seems--it's very non-intuitive that you can't really
kill someone dead. The one GM I know who kept this concept
ended up with a *very* different world when he worked out the
consequences.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Bruce Baugh
>times it's obvious at once. The telltale is very often discrepancies
>between what the GM says when he narrates an action freeform (as when
>reporting offstage events) and what happens when similar actions
>are resolved under the system.
Yeah! Good point there! I hadn't thought about that consciously, but
it definitely is a sign that there's a gap somewhere between intent
and execution.
liz...@mrlizard.com
>What is it that we are really talking about when we complain of the
>'unrealism' of a game that allows a character to jump off a seventy-foot
>cliff in the knowledge that he will be able to walk away at the bottom?
Compare the following:
=====
Thangor barely stopped himself from heading over the cliff. The drop was
steep, probably seventy feet or more. Behind him, the horror from the cave
continued to approach, jaws gaping. Death seemed certain in either direction,
but maybe...
Thangor leapt, grasping at branches, pulling searching for handholds, doing
anything to slow his fall. His body was scraped and battered along the rocky
clifface as he struggled to slow his descent. As the bottom approached, he
remembered his training and forced his muscles to relax, to accept the impact,
not to fight it...
Hours later, he awoke. His leg was certainly broken, along with many ribs, and
each breath was anguish. But he was alive...
Versus:
Thangor looked at the cliff. "Hmmm...seventy feet, that's 7d6, I've got 60 hit
points, no problem." He jumped off, dusted himself off, and walked on.
======
In both cases, you have someone surviving a seventy foot fall. The former
case, if it were better written, could be found in an otherwise decent
sword&sorcery pulp novel. The latter case would never be in any work of
fiction, no matter how crude, unless it was a parody.
How do you make games which work more like the former, and less like the
latter?
Brett Evill
>Compare the following:
>=====
>Thangor barely stopped himself from heading over the cliff. The drop was
>steep, probably seventy feet or more. Behind him, the horror from the cave
>continued to approach, jaws gaping. Death seemed certain in either direction,
>but maybe...
>
>Thangor leapt, grasping at branches, pulling searching for handholds, doing
>anything to slow his fall. His body was scraped and battered along the rocky
>clifface as he struggled to slow his descent. As the bottom approached, he
>remembered his training and forced his muscles to relax, to accept the impact,
>not to fight it...
>
>Hours later, he awoke. His leg was certainly broken, along with many ribs, and
>each breath was anguish. But he was alive...
>
>Versus:
>Thangor looked at the cliff. "Hmmm...seventy feet, that's 7d6, I've got 60 hit
>points, no problem." He jumped off, dusted himself off, and walked on.
>======
>In both cases, you have someone surviving a seventy foot fall. The former
>case, if it were better written, could be found in an otherwise decent
>sword&sorcery pulp novel. The latter case would never be in any work of
>fiction, no matter how crude, unless it was a parody.
>
>How do you make games which work more like the former, and less like the
>latter?
Ask anyone except TSR.
Brian Gleichman
liz...@mrlizard.com wrote in message <6p5ngo$q...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>In both cases, you have someone surviving a seventy foot fall. The former
>case, if it were better written, could be found in an otherwise decent
>sword&sorcery pulp novel. The latter case would never be in any work of
>fiction, no matter how crude, unless it was a parody.
>
>How do you make games which work more like the former, and less like the
>latter?
Simple.
The first case had Thangor wake hours later with a number of resulting
injuries. Seems an easy enough thing to model in fixed damage scale systems
like my own.
It's much harder in pure expanding Hit Point systems like AD&D however,
requiring large amounts of 'exception' rules or GM overrides.
Travis S. Casey
[snip]
>Now, we might ask that an RPG produce results that are 'plausible', that
>it possess 'plausibility'. But unfortunately 'plausible' carries, as well
>as a sense 'believeable', a sense 'specious, misleading, convincing but
>untrue', and we don't want that.
Why not? Our games are fiction, and fiction is, by definition, untrue.
What we're looking for is fiction that "feels right" -- which is
convincing even though it is untrue.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@io.com>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Lizard
(Brett Evill) wrote:
>In article <6p5ngo$q...@enews4.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>
>>Compare the following:
>>=====
>>Thangor barely stopped himself from heading over the cliff. The drop was
>>steep, probably seventy feet or more. Behind him, the horror from the cave
>>continued to approach, jaws gaping. Death seemed certain in either direction,
>>but maybe...
>>
>>Thangor leapt, grasping at branches, pulling searching for handholds, doing
>>anything to slow his fall. His body was scraped and battered along the rocky
>>clifface as he struggled to slow his descent. As the bottom approached, he
>>remembered his training and forced his muscles to relax, to accept the impact,
>>not to fight it...
>>
>>Hours later, he awoke. His leg was certainly broken, along with many ribs, and
>>each breath was anguish. But he was alive...
>>
>>Versus:
>>Thangor looked at the cliff. "Hmmm...seventy feet, that's 7d6, I've got 60 hit
>>points, no problem." He jumped off, dusted himself off, and walked on.
>>======
>>In both cases, you have someone surviving a seventy foot fall. The former
>>case, if it were better written, could be found in an otherwise decent
>>sword&sorcery pulp novel. The latter case would never be in any work of
>>fiction, no matter how crude, unless it was a parody.
>>
>>How do you make games which work more like the former, and less like the
>>latter?
>
>Ask anyone except TSR.
Well, no, because, in most games, the player knows the odds and acts
accordingly. He knows he can take 'x' damage and that a given
attack/event will do 'y' damage. To a large extent, the keyword in the
original question is "KNOWS". Characters in books don't "know" how
much damage a sword does versus how many hitpoints they have.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
John Kim
surviving a 40-foot wall, where one was a semi-realistic fictional
description and one used game-mechanical hit points such that the
character fell, stood up immediately, dusted himself off, and went
on his way.
Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>>> How do you make games which work more like the former, and less
>>> like the latter?
>
>Well, no, because, in most games, the player knows the odds and acts
>accordingly. He knows he can take 'x' damage and that a given
>attack/event will do 'y' damage. To a large extent, the keyword
>in the original question is "KNOWS". Characters in books don't "know"
>how much damage a sword does versus how many hitpoints they have.
Hmm. This seems to me to be a largely problem of fixed
or small-variance damage as opposed to large-variance damage.
Many systems have a greater range of possible damage. Mary recently
commented on this in a _Shadowrun_ modules, where in a fictional
introduction a character died due to a small pistol shot, but this
was patently impossible in the system.
I would say that it is reasonable for a character to jump down
from a certain height and just dust himself off. Let's say a drop of
ten or fifteen feet. The problem here is just that falling damage does
not do enough and/or that it doesn't have enough variance. What you
are looking for is a system where:
A] A human character could potentially die from a 70 foot fall
B] A human character could potentially survive a 70 foot fall
C] A 70 foot fall is guaranteed to seriously injure and/or knock
unconscious a human character
I can suggest several systems where this is true, but that is
probably not the point.
Psychohist
it's very non-intuitive that you can't really
kill someone dead.
A tangent, but a number of months ago, I tried to figure out how people
actually die in combat. I concluded that it's actually quite a bit more
difficult to 'kill people dead' than is commonly believed. Mortal wounds
typically don't kill for seconds to days, during which time attempts can be
made to save the victim. Most roleplaying games have combat systems that are
rather more deadly than combat in the player world.
I'm not sure what a Shadowrun palm pistol is, but if it's the equivalent of a
.22 pistol - the kind Reagan was shot with - I'd find your example module's
instant kill to be somewhat damaging to suspension of disbelief.
Warren Dew
Brett Evill
(Lizard) wrote:
>Well, no, because, in most games, the player knows the odds and acts
>accordingly. He knows he can take 'x' damage and that a given
>attack/event will do 'y' damage. To a large extent, the keyword in the
>original question is "KNOWS". Characters in books don't "know" how
>much damage a sword does versus how many hitpoints they have.
Most people know that a seventy foot drop onto a hard level surface will
kill them. It isn't uncertainty that stops tham from jumping.
I read (for example in Hammett stories) of characters who expect that they
can take one shot from a .32, and act on the belief. But they still stand
back from a 12 gauge.
I have been in fights and thought "I can take that guy's best punch", worn
it, and pasted the bastards. I also know that a seventy foot drop will
burst me open like a ripe quince.
The issue is not knowledge. The issue is not the central tendency of large
dice pools making damage more predictable. The issue is that characters in
the game can survive what they should not (in faith to the setting)
survive.
Unbroken falls in the Hero System do 1d6 of damage per 2m fallen (for
short falls). Each die of damage does 1 point of damage, minus the
character's PD of up to 4. Seventy feet is about 21 metres. A
(non-superheroic) character with a typical BDY of 15 and PD of 3 or 4 will
jump off a 70-foot cliff if pressed.
Unbroken falls in ForeSight do damage class (h-1), where h is the height
of the fall in metres. DC X does X/2 to X/5 (round down) points of damage.
A human character in ForeSight can survive five points of damage, but not
six, and is incapacitated by four points of damage. Players know this,
characters act as though the knew it. ForeSight characters do not jump off
seventy-foot cliffs unless the alternative is near-certain death.
Real people don't jump of seventy-foot cliffs unless the alternative is
near-certain death.
ForeSight, in this respect, is more faithful to reality than Hero System.
But ForeSight characters will jump off ten-foot cliffs if in a hurry. DC 2
is unlikely to hurt them, and if it does it won't be serious.
First-level characters in 1st-edition AD&D might well have only three hit
points. A ten-foot fall would have a 67% chance of killing them. In 1st
edition AD&D, first-level characters did not jump off ten-foot walls.
I don't jump off ten-foot walls, because I am very heavy, and would hurt
my ankles. But my primary-school aged nephews do (and sometimes hurt
themselves). ForeSight is more faithful to reality that 1st Edition AD&D
in this respect.
Real people actually do make decisions based on their beliefs of what
might hurt and kill them. So do characters in role-playing games.
Characters in some RPGs act more like real people than characters in
others.
There is sometimes a discrepancy of certainty. But often the variability
of the damage system washes it away.
AD&D, for instance, wants [high-level] characters to take on hordes of
enemies, confident in their vast hit points. Therefore it is faithful to
its intentions at that point. How do you hope to get characters to take
the mechanics into account in that decision, but not in the decision of
whether to jump off a cliff? You can't.
But what you can do is make levels subtract from armour class instead of
adding to hit points, giving everyone a number of hit points equal to his
or her constitution. Let shields continue to subtract one from AC, but
have armour absorb from each attack a number of hit points equal to the
amount it used to subtract from armour class. Voila! High-level characters
can still cut their way through hordes of mooks, but they do not jump off
cliffs. The result is higher-fidelity (to the original Conanesque
intention) than the published rules.
Brian Gleichman
<199807230440...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>I'm not sure what a Shadowrun palm pistol is, but if it's the equivalent of
a
>.22 pistol - the kind Reagan was shot with - I'd find your example module's
>instant kill to be somewhat damaging to suspension of disbelief.
I really doubt that Shadowrun is made to simulate actual 'real life' firearm
damage. Given that it's a simulation of works often found with instance
kills the norm, the scene seems proper and the mechanics flawed.
The tendency here often seems to be 'default to real world' reality. Very
few published games do so nor have I seen many gaming groups that would what
to (most of them are here on this newsgroup).
I proudly claim that combat in Age of Heroes is far from realistic. It was
the goal to simulate Heroic fiction and in this case, a realistic system
would cause SOD problems.
(I'll note here that lightly leaping off of 70 foot cliffs and walking away
wasn't part of my source material, and would be a SOD problem for the
campaign).
chris
<bruce...@mindspring.com> writes
>In article <6p3ta7$cs6$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>, mkku...@evolution.genetics.wa
>shington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>
>>times it's obvious at once. The telltale is very often discrepancies
>>between what the GM says when he narrates an action freeform (as when
>>reporting offstage events) and what happens when similar actions
>>are resolved under the system.
>
>Yeah! Good point there! I hadn't thought about that consciously, but
>it definitely is a sign that there's a gap somewhere between intent
>and execution.
>
diferentiation between the main protagonists, and the supporting cast.
When the bit players take a hit during a fight, or as part of a
narrative section, having them drop dead is perfectly within the
convention, even if the game mechanics wouldn't normally have that
result - remember the game mechanics are mainly there for the players'
interactions with the world and so need to be balanced so that the world
is dangerous without being instantly lethal. One of the advantages of
the expanding level/hit point system is that it takes the PCs fairly
quickly out of the pleb instant kill zone and allows for narrative
slaughter all around without stretching the players' "reality check" for
why they are still standing - they know they are "elite" and so come to
expect it.
--
chris
Suppressive fire, doesn't. Friendly fire, isn't.
(extract from Murphy's rules of War)
Brett Evill
Casey) wrote:
>Brett Evill <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Now, we might ask that an RPG produce results that are 'plausible', that
>>it possess 'plausibility'. But unfortunately 'plausible' carries, as well
>>as a sense 'believeable', a sense 'specious, misleading, convincing but
>>untrue', and we don't want that.
>
>Why not? Our games are fiction, and fiction is, by definition, untrue.
>What we're looking for is fiction that "feels right" -- which is
>convincing even though it is untrue.
Specious? Misleading?
But perhaps you're right.
Brian Gleichman
chris wrote in message ...
>In article <6p3upv$3rg...@news.mindspring.com
>Not necessarily - running a game in high fantasy style does make a
>diferentiation between the main protagonists, and the supporting cast.
I agree with the basic concept that there are styles very much suited to
such differentiation in damage to bit players and damage to the heroes.
I could quibble with calling it a 'high fantasy style' and personally I
would prefer a better method than a system that gives the illusion of actual
sword thrusts ramming home to little effect. But in general, yes there is a
style for everything and any method can find a perfect home (even if we're
at lost for finding source material outside itself).
But to put words in Mary's month (which I shouldn't do), I think she was
referring to clashes that result when the system doesn't match the style
assumed. It is a bit jarring to think one is playing in a hard realistic
campaign and then find out you can safety fall off 70 foot cliffs without
the possibility of meaningful damage.
The question goes to the heart of Brett's excellent post on fidelity. We
just have to remember that to apply its concepts one needs to first be aware
of the style and material we'll shooting for.
Mary K. Kuhner
chris <ch...@rat-cage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
[Shadowrun module where an NPC pulls off an instant kill that is
impossible for PCs under the rules]
>Not necessarily - running a game in high fantasy style does make a
>diferentiation between the main protagonists, and the supporting cast.
>When the bit players take a hit during a fight, or as part of a
>narrative section, having them drop dead is perfectly within the
>convention, even if the game mechanics wouldn't normally have that
>result - remember the game mechanics are mainly there for the players'
>interactions with the world and so need to be balanced so that the world
>is dangerous without being instantly lethal.
The module scene is as follows:
The PCs burst in on a conference between two very important NPCs.
NPC A shoots NPC B dead (in order to keep him from talking to the
PCs) and then escapes. This would be very frustrating to me as a
player--*I* don't get to do things like that in Shadowrun, it being
totally impossible under the rules, so I don't want the NPCs to do
them either. This offends me on a Gamist level--it seems unfair.
I think the convention you're suggesting is "Mooks can be killed in
one shot: Named Characters are harder to kill." Feng Shui does this,
and is consistent with it. When the GM is describing what happens
he'll describe mooks as going down easily and Names fighting on.
When you roll the dice, mooks go down quickly and Names fight on.
In the SR module, when the GM is describing what happens a Named
character (NPC B) goes down from a single shot. When the dice are
being rolled, *nobody* goes down from a single pistol shot (it's
just not possible). I find this a poor match between narration and
mechanics. One could fix it in several directions, including towards
Feng Shui, and I think any of them would be an improvement.
My general conclusion would be--if you want particular kinds of
things to happen in your game, use mechanics that cooperate. SR 1
didn't cooperate well with its writers' styles, and the modules
are frustrating (and sometimes infuriating) to use as a result.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Brian Gleichman
John Kim wrote in message <6p8k9o$e...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>If you are designing a
>cinematic game one should probably make gun damage more uniform than
>in a realistic game.
Depends completely on the cinematic source material. In some bigger guns
have more mystique than smaller guns, and so should be more effective as a
result (at least in the hands of the hero). Any number of examples come to
mind...
John Kim
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@evolution.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>chris <ch...@rat-cage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> When the bit players take a hit during a fight, or as part of a
>> narrative section, having them drop dead is perfectly within the
>> convention, even if the game mechanics wouldn't normally have that
>> result - remember the game mechanics are mainly there for the
>> players' interactions with the world and so need to be balanced so
>> that the world is dangerous without being instantly lethal.
I think this is pretty much what was said: the game mechanics
of _Shadowrun_ fail to represent the genre. In contrast, look at
_Feng Shui_ where the mechanics *do* have bit players drop dead
more easily. It is always possible to overrule the mechanics --
but I would say it is better for the mechanics to support the
convention and not have to be overruled.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>In the SR module, when the GM is describing what happens a Named
>character (NPC B) goes down from a single shot.
I would note that there are several other genre conventions
that may come into play here:
- Hits from surprise are the most deadly: In many genres, it is
traditional to play up suspense when a character's back is turned.
A villian who stalks or betrays his target is grossly evil and
grossly effective. Practically anything sharp will kill if
stabbed in the back.
- Guns is guns: Particularly in film, there is a mystique to the
gun. It has a magical power which is to a large degree independent
of size. Shots from derringers kill with almost as much frequency
as shots from rifles.
This last one is often not recognized even in games which
try to represent genres where that is true. If you are designing a
Mark Apolinski
Brett Evill wrote:
> Unbroken falls in the Hero System do 1d6 of damage per 2m fallen (for
> short falls). Each die of damage does 1 point of damage, minus the
> character's PD of up to 4. Seventy feet is about 21 metres. A
> (non-superheroic) character with a typical BDY of 15 and PD of 3 or 4 will
> jump off a 70-foot cliff if pressed.
Actually, the 'typical' BODY for a non-superheroic character is 10 in Hero. I would call
any character with a BODY of more than 12 'heroic'.
Even with only 10 BODY, jumping off a 70-foot cliff won't kill this character, however the
reason here is that Hero doesn't have any mechanic other than an 'alive/dead' dichotomy when
it comes to BODY. In other words, a character can take 9 BODY out of 10 and have no
penalties to actions. As in AD&D. This, I think, is the heart of the problem for both
systems. Characters are absolutely fine, until they loose all their hit points/BODY, then
they're dying. Systems like GURPS or CORPS, where you can never know whether a wound will
kill you or not no matter how small it is, produce the proper respect for injury in players.
> First-level characters in 1st-edition AD&D might well have only three hit
> points. A ten-foot fall would have a 67% chance of killing them. In 1st
> edition AD&D, first-level characters did not jump off ten-foot walls.
>
> I don't jump off ten-foot walls, because I am very heavy, and would hurt
> my ankles. But my primary-school aged nephews do (and sometimes hurt
> themselves). ForeSight is more faithful to reality that 1st Edition AD&D
> in this respect.
For Hero, BODY could simply represent a character's 'toughness', such that you have less
'toughness' than your nephews do. It's not unreasonable that people who are 'tough' would
know it and allow that knowledge to affect their behavior.
Mark Apolinski
Brett Evill
>> I don't jump off ten-foot walls, because I am very heavy, and would hurt
>> my ankles. But my primary-school aged nephews do (and sometimes hurt
>> themselves). ForeSight is more faithful to reality that 1st Edition AD&D
>> in this respect.
>
>For Hero, BODY could simply represent a character's 'toughness', such
that you have less
>'toughness' than your nephews do. It's not unreasonable that people who
are 'tough' would
>know it and allow that knowledge to affect their behavior.
I don't think that many people would be happy with a game that made a
skinny seven-year-old tougher than a 33-year old man of unusually robust
construction.
I am both big and tough. I allow it to affect my behaviour. My usual
tactic in my rare fights has been to take a couple of punches while
getting in close (which is probably unwise, since I have long arms: but I
have never learned to box). But I really only meant to explain why i was
not using myself for an example again.
In AD&D, first-level and zero-level characters do not jump off ten-foot
walls or out of ten-foot trees because they are afraid it will kill them.
In reality, seven-year-olds do make such jumps. So at this point, AD&D has
low fidelity to reality.
John Kim
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ioc.net> wrote:
>Hero doesn't have any mechanic other than an 'alive/dead' dichotomy
>when it comes to BODY. In other words, a character can take 9 BODY
>out of 10 and have no penalties to actions. As in AD&D. This, I
>think, is the heart of the problem for both systems. Characters are
>absolutely fine, until they loose all their hit points/BODY, then
>they're dying. Systems like GURPS or CORPS, where you can never know
>whether a wound will kill you or not no matter how small it is, produce
>the proper respect for injury in players.
This is patently false. HERO has pretty much the same mechanic
as GURPS and CORPS for wound penalties: impairment/crippling of hit
locations. Like GURPS, HERO doesn't use hit locations in its basic
combat system, but has it as an optional rule along with rules on
knockdown and bleeding.
If you restrict yourself to only basic, non-optional rules,
then GURPS does have a minor penalty while HERO does not (your
movement is halved if you drop to 3 hit points or less, but no
other penalties). I don't see this as a huge difference.
HERO is certainly a less lethal system than either GURPS
or CORPS. However, if you scale up the BODY damage (as recommended
in some optional rules for gritty genres) then it is pretty similar
to either system, I think.
I am not overly fond of the hit-location-based model in any
of these systems, incidentally. You can get your left arm chopped
off in any of these and keep on attacking with your right with no
lasting penalties. In HERO you can at least be stunned or knocked
unconscious by this; in GURPS you cannot unless you were already
wounded, although you will be penalized for one second due to the
pain.
Jered Moses
>Even with only 10 BODY, jumping off a 70-foot cliff won't kill this
>character, however the reason here is that Hero doesn't have any mechanic
>other than an 'alive/dead' dichotomy when it comes to BODY. In other
>words, a character can take 9 BODY out of 10 and have no penalties to
>actions.
Do note that this is only true using the basic damage system. If you use
optional rules (which are recommended for non-super-heroic campaigns),
there are both incapacitations for individual hit locations (i.e., legs
will probably be broken from the fall), and also bleeding rules--taking 9
BOD is going to bleed that last BOD out pretty quickly in most instances.
--Jered ("Kid Kibbitz")
Alan D Kohler
<apol...@ioc.net.AMSPAY> wrote:
>
>
>Brett Evill wrote:
>
>> Unbroken falls in the Hero System do 1d6 of damage per 2m fallen (for
>> short falls). Each die of damage does 1 point of damage, minus the
>> character's PD of up to 4. Seventy feet is about 21 metres. A
>> (non-superheroic) character with a typical BDY of 15 and PD of 3 or 4 will
>> jump off a 70-foot cliff if pressed.
>
>Actually, the 'typical' BODY for a non-superheroic character is 10 in Hero. I would call
>any character with a BODY of more than 12 'heroic'.
>
>Even with only 10 BODY, jumping off a 70-foot cliff won't kill this character, however the
>reason here is that Hero doesn't have any mechanic other than an 'alive/dead' dichotomy when
>it comes to BODY. In other words, a character can take 9 BODY out of 10 and have no
>penalties to actions. As in AD&D. This, I think, is the heart of the problem for both
>systems. Characters are absolutely fine, until they loose all their hit points/BODY, then
>they're dying. Systems like GURPS or CORPS, where you can never know whether a wound will
>kill you or not no matter how small it is, produce the proper respect for injury in players.
You seem to forget some of the optional rules of HERO. HERO is made to
simulate a wide variety of genres. In the superhero genre, having
small scratches kill people is just not consistent with the genre. In
heroic campaigns, using the included rules for bleeding and impairment
DO make wounds more threatening.
Spam Filter Notice: Remove "REMOVE2REPLY" to reply by email.
Alan D Kohler <hwk...@REMOVE2REPLYpoky.srv.net>
(6/27)- Martial Art rules under C&T, OA style!
- Guild Space setting for the Starfarer *free* SFRPG
http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/homepage.html
Brett Evill
hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net (Alan D Kohler) wrote:
>
>You seem to forget some of the optional rules of HERO. HERO is made to
>simulate a wide variety of genres. In the superhero genre, having
>small scratches kill people is just not consistent with the genre. In
>heroic campaigns, using the included rules for bleeding and impairment
>DO make wounds more threatening.
The injuries a person suffers in falling of a seventy-foot cliff are
scarcely 'small scratches.
One morning at my school a man committed suicide by jumping out of a third
floor (fourth floor American-style) window in an adjacent block of flats,
and landed in the school grounds. The fall was about 12 metres (forty
feet), and the body had *burst open*. The police scraped up what they
could with shovels, and then the fire brigade hosed what remained down the
drains. Some scratch!
Bryant Berggren (Vox Ludator)
<apol...@ioc.net.AMSPAY> wrote:
> Actually, the 'typical' BODY for a non-superheroic character is 10 in
> Hero. I would call any character with a BODY of more than 12 'heroic'.
>
> Even with only 10 BODY, jumping off a 70-foot cliff won't kill this
> character, however the reason here is that Hero doesn't have any
> mechanic other than an 'alive/dead' dichotomy when it comes to BODY.
The last clause, "when it comes to BODY", is kind of the kicker here
-- not quite a straw man, but ...
There are the Impairment/Disabling rules; unless you're in a seriously
cinematic (which is not an oxymoron :]) setting, you really ought to
be using it. A character who takes 9 BODY out of 10 in 1 shot is going
to break something (and may kill NPCs outright); as a GM, I'd roll a
"hit location" (basically, "what hits the ground first?") and apply
the Impairing/Disabling effects for that location.
--
Bryant Berggren (Vox Ludator)
<glei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>John Kim wrote in message <6p8k9o$e...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>
>>cinematic game one should probably make gun damage more uniform than
>>in a realistic game.
>
>have more mystique than smaller guns, and so should be more effective as a
>result (at least in the hands of the hero). Any number of examples come to
>mind...
About the only genre I can think of which doesn't use what I consider
to be the Four Part Law of Gun Mystique (Big beats small; shot beats
slug; pump/revolver beats semi-auto; full auto beats anything even if
you only hit once [thus, the deadliest gun is the CAWS or similar])
would be the cinematic Western, where nothing is deadler than the
sixgun, planted by God as a divine inspiration into Colonel Colt's
mind. (Tho in _Silverado_, a damn fine Western IMO, there's a
considerable mystique attached to the Henry rifle over pistols).
--
Karen J. Cravens
b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>One morning at my school a man committed suicide by jumping out of a third
>floor (fourth floor American-style) window in an adjacent block of flats,
Irrelevant aside: My company just moved out of a building in
which we occupied three floors: two above ground, one below. It
was deemed unacceptable by the Powers That Be to call the lowest
floor "the basement." (Apparently, since it had artificial
fluorescent "windows," they believed that if we didn't call it
that, the people with offices down there wouldn't *notice*.)
So they called them "first floor, second floor, third floor." I
always wondered what our frequent visitors from Aer Lingus and
Flying Colours made of that.
(I refused to give in to the silliness and called it "upstairs,
ground floor, downstairs." My boss insisted it was "heaven,
purgatory, and hell." My office was in purgatory, his in
heaven.)
-- Karen Cravens | Phoenyx PBeM RPG Listserver: majo...@phoenyx.net
sil...@phoenyx.net | http://www.phoenyx.net/
Keyboard not connected, press F1 to continue.
Brian Gleichman
<35b8ce69...@news.theramp.net>...
>About the only genre I can think of which doesn't use what I consider
>to be the Four Part Law of Gun Mystique
<snip>
>would be the cinematic Western
007 is another.
It's amazing he did so well with a .380
But I guess that's to be expected when you're the hero and your main MO is
to be captured by the bad guy so he'll explain the master plan to you :-)
Brian Gleichman
>In the original books, Bond started out with a .25 Beretta. It was only in
>'Dr. No' that he shifted to the 9mm Short.
I recall thumbing through one of the books. Firearm knowledge was apparently
not a strong suit for the author.
In the movie version of Dr. No (I think) his rifle of choice was a .22 LR
AR-7. Good choice for squirrel hunting or knocking over tin cans...
Brett Evill
<glei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In the original books, Bond started out with a .25 Beretta. It was only in
'Dr. No' that he shifted to the 9mm Short.
In the *game* 'James Bond 007' I swear by the Ruger T-512 .22 target pistol.
Keran
(Brett Evill) wrote:
>G'day
>
>For as long as I have been talking about RPGs, discussions about the
>stupid implications of bad RP rules have been plagued by the gadflies
>blurting arguments equivalent to "it's fantasy, it isn't *supposed* to be
>realistic".
>
>Some people have tried to get around the problem by using the word
>'verisimilitude' instead of realism. But this approach has two major
>problems. First, 'verisimilitude is not plainly associated with a
>convenient and recognisable adjective to correspond to 'realistic'.
It's 'verisimilar,' adj. Appearing or seeming to be true; likely;
probable.
Which is followed immediately by 'verisimilitude,' 1. Appearance of
truth; likelihood. 2. That which resembles truth.
>In the
>second place, if we start using it a few people will look it up in a
>dictionary and discover that it is a stricter condition than 'realism'.
>'Realistic' may be contrasted with 'stylised', 'idealised', 'idealistic',
>'impressionistic' etc. So it is perfectly possible to paint a realisitc
>picture of Yoda, or of John Wilkes Booth stabbing Winston Churchill at the
>foot of Pompey's statue, but neither of these possesses verisimilitude. If
>the picture looks real it is realistic. Only if it looks like something
>true does it have verisimilitude.
Er...no.
Nothing prevents a painting or a story from being verisimilar in
some respects and not in others, any more than it's impossible for
an account of an event to be true in some respects and not in
others.
The painting of Booth stabbing Churchill can have verisimilitude in
the depiction of the knife entering flesh, in the depiction of the
motion of Booth's arm, in the depiction of the light and surface
texture, position, shape, and location of Pompey's statue, in the
depiction of both men's clothing, and many other things. It does not
have verisimilitude in putting Booth and Churchill on the same scene
at the same time.
It would be perfectly proper, in your painting examples, to say that
the styles of the paintings had verisimilitude and the subjects of the
paintings did not, just as it would be perfectly proper to say that
the styles of the paintings were realistic (in one of the less
restricted senses of realism) and the subjects were not.
In your example, you applied 'realism' to the styles of the paintings,
but 'verisimilitude' to the subjects. 'Verisimilitude' can be used of
the style alone just as 'realism' (broad sense) can.
In some narrower senses of realism, not only the style but the
subjects of a work must be realistic; more than merely possible,
indeed, they should be common, everyday things, ordinary people.
'Realism' has a handful of major meanings. There have been two
philosophical movements termed realism, one medieval, one more
recent; realism vs. nominalism is the medieval philosophical
controversy--and 'realism' has a very different definition then; it
almost approaches a reversal of the recent philosophy of realism vs.
idealism. My old Britannica gives other meanings of realism as
follows:
"In literature and art "realism" again is opposed to "idealism" in
various senses. The realist is (1) he who deliberately declines to
select his subjects from the beautiful or harmonious, and, more
especially, describes ugly things and brings out details of an
unsavory sort; (2) he who deals with individuals, not types; (3)
most properly, he who strives to represent the facts exactly as
they are."
Sense (3) here is similar to the broader definition of realism given
in Bruce's post on the subject:
"Realism is, in the broadest sense, simply fidelity to actuality
in its representation in literature; a term loosely synonymous with
verisimilitude; and in this sense it has been a significant element in
almost every school of writing in human history."
(The above in incomplete in that literature is not the only art to
which realism pertains.)
'Realism' in the narrower sense was an outlook on all of life, a way
of thinking that dictated not only the artistic treatment of subjects
but the *selection* of subjects. 'Verisimilitude' is an end and a
technique, a word of lesser scope.
I use 'verisimilitude' with respect to fantastic genres to denote
that quality which has a likeness to truth (without being truth.) I
do not use 'realism' because even in its broadest sense it still
means 'attempting to depict *reality* as it is.' It seems a peculiarly
inappropriate term to wrench into service for describing fantasy.
>Now, we might ask that an RPG produce results that are 'plausible', that
>it possess 'plausibility'. But unfortunately 'plausible' carries, as well
>as a sense 'believeable', a sense 'specious, misleading, convincing but
>untrue', and we don't want that.
>
>What is it that we are really talking about when we complain of the
>'unrealism' of a game that allows a character to jump off a seventy-foot
>cliff in the knowledge that he will be able to walk away at the bottom? I
>think our real problem is that the implications of the game system are not
>consistent with the desired properties of the setting: the system implies
>that things will happen in the game which ought not to happen in the
>setting; implies that things cannot happen in the game which ought to
>happen in the setting; and gets the probabilities unacceptably wrong in
>the intermediate, implying that things are likely in the game which ought
>to be unlikely in the setting and vice-versa.
>
>Unfortunately, we also want to use the term 'inconsistent' for internal
>inconsistencies within the game, such as clashes where one part of the
>rules says you make a self-control roll to avoid any frenzy, but another
>part says the you make a roll against a different virtue for each type of
>frenzy.
>
>So how about, rather than saying that a game system ought to be consistent
>with its intended setting, we say that it ought to be faithful to the
>intended setting? I think we can criticise an RPG for infidelity to its
>setting, or 'infidelity' for short, without a danger that we will get into
>stupid arguments about whether fantasy ought to be faithful or not.
I think it's a terrific idea for debates about the merits of various
game systems, and it ought to eliminate a lot of confusion. It
seems as if it would be counterproductive to criticize Feng Shui
for being unrealistic when it's attempting to model an unrealistic
genre. A useful concept.
It doesn't solve my problem, which is why I spent all that time on
'verisimilitude'. I still need the word. I don't have much occasion
to debate which game systems could most faithfully render my
settings because the closest I get to a system these days is
FUDGE diceless, which is darned near indistinguishable from
no system at all. I need to describe the character of the setting,
not the fidelity of the game system in rendering the setting.
In hard science fiction the idea is to start from a scientifically
plausible assumption and then consistently deal with its
consequences. I'm attempting to run the fantasy equivalent,
not dissimilar from what Larry Niven called "rivets and sorcery."
One starts from an assumption and attempts to consistently
deal with its consequences, but there is no requirement of
scientific plausibility.
I cannot bring myself to call my adjudications of the results
of Shazemar the lich-ghost's activities 'realistic.' If they
conformed to reality he'd be dead, not undead. However,
I've granted the scientifically implausible assumption that
such magic exists as to make undeath possible. After I've
made a series of assumptions about how the magic works--
I attempt to deal with the consequences in a physically
consistent manner.
Bone mass averages less than 9% body mass. Shazemar
weighs around 12 lbs, undead. He lacks the large mass of
muscle a living man has in the legs, in consequence of
which his center of gravity is high in his chest. His balance
is therefore excruciatingly bad. Suppose that Shazemar
had been a warrior in life instead of a mage and scholar.
Consider him attempting to attack or defend with a typical
3 lb. longsword--now 25% of his own weight--as hordes
of skeletons have done in countless fantasy worlds.
The chances seem rather high that his own swing would
topple him. If perchance it didn't, the opponent's almost
certainly will--even on a successfully parry.
Keranset necromancers animate zombies, not skeletons
for low level troops. It's uneconomical, magically, to attempt
to compensate for the physical effects of all that missing
mass.
Truth it isn't, but grant my premise and it's likely. Probable.
It bears a certain likeness to truth: it creates the impression
that the gameworld has definable physical laws *some* of
which are like the real world's and push back in the same way.
This quality being a central feature of the setting, I cannot do
without a word to name the concept.
For that matter, fiction writers and actors employ verisimilitude
exactly as I am doing it for identical reasons. They need a word
for something that resembles truth in a story known *not* to be
truth. A typical application of the word in an artistic context is to
describe the addition of lifelike detail to a portrayal for the
primary purpose of bolstering the impression of reality.
(I am not employing it in the scientific sense, where it is
bound up with the concept of the successive approximations
of truth as theories are replaced. I am heroically resisting the
temptation to add several pages of quotes from an Alta
Vista search proving either that I have used it correctly or
that a notable portion of the literary and theatrical worlds
doesn't know what it means either.)
The reason I find the concept important--and I am not at all
sure I can come close to doing it justice tonight; I've been up
for far too long--is that I find a division, not between strictly
realistic settings and unrealistic ones, but between settings
which are consistently modelled enough to generate
verisimilar details, and those which are inconsistently
modelled such that looking at the details reveals clashes,
impossibilities, and inexplicability.
As an example of an inconsistently modelled setting, take
superhero comics. I've enjoyed reading some where there
was good art and a good story with at least some character
development attached. But I need more than that to roleplay
in a setting: it is absolutely critical for me to be able to build
up a picture of how the world works from the character's
perspective.
How many times have you seen a superhero who has no
defense against gunfire, conspicuously dressed, a hostile
presence around a military area or the like--and not only
doesn't he get shot, the guards who are armed don't
attempt to shoot him? As a reader, I may be able to ignore
cause and effect, to gloss over such things. As a reader I
can simply say, "It's a genre convention of superhero
comics."
But how is the *character* going to explain it? The character
can't point to the OOC info that they're in a particular genre.
If the way the world does work (the rules of the genre) and
the way it ought to work, extrapolated from the natural laws
of the setting, are irreconcilably opposed, it can prevent me
from ever forming a character worldview and mindset.
That, in turn, leaves me with a set of stats on a sheet and a
massive failure to get into character.
To my frustration, I've found it possible to suffer setting-
induced failure of RP with a good gamemaster and a system
appropriate to the setting, in a genre I found entertaining
to read. For this to happen, it must be the case that my world
models aren't built from game mechanics--which is so, and is why
I could so easily dispense with mechanics.
At any rate it is not the unrealistic genre but the genre that
produces an incoherent world that gives me fits trying to play
in it. Consequently I remain interested in the nature of the
settings themselves, although certain having the problem of
the game system's fidelity to the setting dissected out of the
consideration of the setting itself can only improve matters.
Keran
kera...@exciseme.mail1.nai.net
http://nw3.nai.net/~keranset/
keranset.telmaron.com 5252
Remove 'exciseme' in email address to reply.
Jered Moses
>[...] the cinematic Western, where nothing is deadler than the
>sixgun, planted by God as a divine inspiration into Colonel Colt's
>mind. (Tho in _Silverado_, a damn fine Western IMO, there's a
>considerable mystique attached to the Henry rifle over pistols).
Hmm... Lots of counter-examples abound, and I haven't even seen many
Westerns!
Most obvious would be "The Springfield Rifle," which was, of course, about
a shipment of the titular weapon which saved the day. And in the recent "The
Unforgiven" (though whether that counts as "cinematic" is somewhat
debatable) the rifle got a fair bit of play.
In the main, though, I do agree that the revolver is highly mythicized in
Westerns.
John Kim
Bryant Berggren (Vox Ludator) <vo...@theramp.net> wrote:
>About the only genre I can think of which doesn't use what I consider
>slug; pump/revolver beats semi-auto; full auto beats anything even if
>you only hit once [thus, the deadliest gun is the CAWS or similar])
>sixgun, planted by God as a divine inspiration into Colonel Colt's
>mind. (Tho in _Silverado_, a damn fine Western IMO, there's a
>considerable mystique attached to the Henry rifle over pistols).
I disagree with this as a matter of action-movie genre
laws. Take, for example, _Die Hard_. Despite the plethora of
full auto submachineguns, all of the bad guys were killed by pistol
shots or explosions/falls/etc.
Full auto weapons, like shotguns, tend to cause a lot of
property damage but often don't actually kill more people. The
schtick of a lone hero with a pistol against thugs with submachine
guns is repeated in many other movies. The thugs will cause lots
of property damage, but the hero will kill them more effectively.
If the CAWS is so deadly, name one film where anyone was killed
by one.
For _Silverado_, I recall the scene where Jeff Goldblum is
stalking one of the heroes armed with a pint-sized derringer -- at
which point scary music plays up as usual.
Joseph Teller
(Brett Evill) wrote:
>One morning at my school a man committed suicide by jumping out of a third
>floor (fourth floor American-style) window in an adjacent block of flats,
>and landed in the school grounds. The fall was about 12 metres (forty
>feet), and the body had *burst open*. The police scraped up what they
>could with shovels, and then the fire brigade hosed what remained down the
>drains. Some scratch!
On the other hand I've known someone who fell out of a tree of aprox.
the same size (the support cable snapped while they were trimming off
upper branches) who simply had the wind knocked out of them and a few
bruises.
Fall damage has numerous variables involved in calculating it, which
many systems totally ignore, including whether the person is trained
at falling in some way. There have been parachutists who have survived
having their parachutes not open, landing in snow or haystacks, from
much greater heights that would have left an untrained person
splattered as in your example.
Shadow Bindings features a specific middle-zone mechanic for dealing
with falls that has proved effective in play. Its available on our
website (http://www.fantasyrealms.simplenet.com)
Joe
Joe Teller f...@ici.net
The Fantasy Realms Journal Online
http://www.fantasyrealms.simplenet.com
Shadow Bindings RPG (FREE TO DOWNLOAD & USE) is on This Same Site
Patrick O'Duffy
John Kim wrote:
> I disagree with this as a matter of action-movie genre
> laws. Take, for example, _Die Hard_. Despite the plethora of
> full auto submachineguns, all of the bad guys were killed by pistol
> shots or explosions/falls/etc.
>
> For _Silverado_, I recall the scene where Jeff Goldblum is
> stalking one of the heroes armed with a pint-sized derringer -- at
> which point scary music plays up as usual.
I'd argue that guns exist in action movies almost solely as a vehicle
for the expression of the 'dude-ish-ness' of the major characters.
Weapons get used to effect the environment, but what the weapon is & does
is far less important than what the character does with it and how that
use reflects personality. Thus you can give a really big gun to a minor
character, but since they have no personality, they can't use it in any
effective manner. A major character, on the other hard, can be armed with
a tiny pistol, a stick or even bare hands, but their ability to affect
others & show off their personality traits is undiminished.
This effects comes through most strongly in movies that have a variety
of weapons, particularly martial-arts films that feature guns, melee
weapons & kung-fu. In them, we usually see that weapons are only as
good/useful/effective as the person using them.
Completely unrealistic, but it makes for fun cinema.
--
Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia
Joe Jefferson
>
> In article <6p3n8u$ig_...@news.mindspring.com>, bruce...@mindspring.com
> (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>
> >Thanks, Brett! That's a very useful term - I'm happy to add it to my
> >arsenal, er, vocabulary. :)
> >
> >Of course, it requires a sense of what the setting is supposed to be.
>
> Of course. Is this an argument for specialised setting-based systems, do
> you think? Must all generic games have deep optional rules in the
> mechanics for universal events and situations? Or is it possible to have a
> core of universal rules and use options only for the special features of a
> setting?
>
> --
> Brett Evill
>
> To reply by e-mail, remove 'spamblocker.' from <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au>
I'm very skeptical of claims that some system is truly universal. It's
just too easy to find a genre with basic assumptions about the way
things work which contradict any given set of rules. For example, any
setting that is supposed to be historically accurate is so far removed
from the four-color superhero genre that it's nearly impossible to
imagine a set of rules that could be faithful to both.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated June 13th, 1998.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
John Kim
Patrick O'Duffy <red...@thehub.com.au> wrote:
>I'd argue that guns exist in action movies almost solely as a vehicle
>for the expression of the 'dude-ish-ness' of the major characters.
>Thus you can give a really big gun to a minor character, but since they
>have no personality, they can't use it in any effective manner. A
>major character, on the other hard, can be armed with a tiny pistol,
>a stick or even bare hands, but their ability to affect others & show
>off their personality traits is undiminished.
In general, I absolutely agree with you -- but I would say that
there is a line crossed going from no-gun to gun. A hero without a
gun usually has to go through a choreographed melee combat scene,
which is much slower in permanently disposing of bad guys than a
shoot-out. He'll still win, of course, but shoot-outs tend to be
faster and with a higher body count.
Thus my original suggestion that guns should tend to have
more uniform damage in an action-movie genre.
Triad3204
writes:
>I'm very skeptical of claims that some system is truly universal. It's
>just too easy to find a genre with basic assumptions about the way
>things work which contradict any given set of rules. For example, any
>setting that is supposed to be historically accurate is so far removed
>from the four-color superhero genre that it's nearly impossible to
>imagine a set of rules that could be faithful to both.
The trick is to provide a basic framework with enough dials and switches
attached to customize the framework to specific tasks.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Alan D Kohler
Modularity. The approach Fuzion tries to take. Best way to approach a
"universal" system, but I still find that to some extent, universal
systems lack something when trying to simulate some genres. For
example, I consider HERO to be one of the most flexible "universal"
systems, and have been using it to run a Japanese fantasy game. But I
had to write a whole new set of mechanics that go beyond the scope of
the core mechanic, because HERO, flexible as it is, doesn't quite
capture the essence of the setting the way that some more specific
systems -- like Bushido -- do.
George W. Harris
(Brett Evill) wrote thusly:
=G'day
=So how about, rather than saying that a game system ought to be consistent
=with its intended setting, we say that it ought to be faithful to the
=intended setting? I think we can criticise an RPG for infidelity to its
=setting, or 'infidelity' for short, without a danger that we will get into
=stupid arguments about whether fantasy ought to be faithful or not.
Sorry for the lateness of this reply,
The only objection I would have with that is that it
erases the distinction which I wish to draw when using the
adjective 'realistic', which is between those campaigns
which wish to emulate reality in areas where the setting
intersects with reality, and handle such other areas with
logical consistency (eg, setting a game in 5th century Britain,
with populace and technology as close as we understand to
historical accuracy, but with an overlay of some magic, and
events being decided in a simulationist fashion), versus what
have recently been called 'genre' or 'heavy-genre', where the
campaign attempts to emulate some class of narratives, such
as Hong Kong action movies or Arthurian literature.
Pendragon and Feng Shui are games which both exhibit
strong fidelity to their respective intended settings (have there
been any Arthurian Hong Kong action movies?), but would
not be included under the umbrella of what at least I would
call 'realistic' games.
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Brett Evill
gha...@mundsprung.com wrote:
Perhaps I don't understand the problem properly, but it seems to me that
the word 'realistic' has been freed up for this use, while 'faithful' has
taken over its role in describing well-designed rules sets that do not
contradict the intended setting.
delph...@geocities.com
But part of such a world is that it adheres to reality, except for the
magic. So "maintaining realism" could also be considered "being faithful
to the *conception*", not the genre, because the game isn't intended to
be typical of the genre.
- Dare "Just grin and Dare it!"
* All typos in the previous message are to be considered edicts of Eris.
Please update your dictionaries accordingly.
* Check 47 USC( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.shtml ). You
spam, you pay up to 500$ US.
.. \ôô1!1 !‰I²éqq1²Aq1rÆ ‰!Q)±r „Ìô,„
http://members.xoom.com/Darekun
Joe Jefferson
I won't say it can't be done because the minute I do someone will do it.
But so far I have never seen any system quite "universal" enough to
handle the extremes I gave as my example and remain faithful to the
genre conventions of each.
Hero is often given as an example and I'll admit it is a very flexible
system. But, ironicly, I haven't found it to do a very good job with the
four-color supers genre that is supposed to be one of its foundations.
For grittier supers (Wild Cards for example) it would be fine, but
without something to simulate the ability of important characters to at
times greatly exceed their normal limitations (as is modeled in DC
Heroes for example with "hero points"), it really isn't being faithful
to the four-color genre. (Of course DCH is far less flexible in dealing
with other genres.)
But I'm not sure if this is a good argument against calling something
"universal", simply because the laws of "reality" in this particular
genre are so far removed from the "realities" of other genres. What I
mean by this is that in most genres the laws of "reality" are expected
to remain consistent (even though they may not be identical to the laws
of our reality) and the characters are subordinate to that reality. In
the supers genres in general, and especially four-color in particular,
character concept is supreme and consistency with previously defined
reality is of lesser importance. (Or none at all in some cases.)
Alan D Kohler
<jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Alan D Kohler wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Jul 1998 21:28:59 GMT, tria...@aol.com (Triad3204) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <35BE83...@primenet.com>, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
>> >writes:
>> >
>> >>I'm very skeptical of claims that some system is truly universal. It's
>> >>just too easy to find a genre with basic assumptions about the way
>> >>things work which contradict any given set of rules. For example, any
>> >>setting that is supposed to be historically accurate is so far removed
>> >>from the four-color superhero genre that it's nearly impossible to
>> >>imagine a set of rules that could be faithful to both.
>> >
>> >The trick is to provide a basic framework with enough dials and switches
>> >attached to customize the framework to specific tasks.
>>
>> Modularity. The approach Fuzion tries to take. Best way to approach a
>> "universal" system, but I still find that to some extent, universal
>> systems lack something when trying to simulate some genres. For
>> example, I consider HERO to be one of the most flexible "universal"
>> systems, and have been using it to run a Japanese fantasy game. But I
>> had to write a whole new set of mechanics that go beyond the scope of
>> the core mechanic, because HERO, flexible as it is, doesn't quite
>> capture the essence of the setting the way that some more specific
>> systems -- like Bushido -- do.
>I won't say it can't be done because the minute I do someone will do it.
>But so far I have never seen any system quite "universal" enough to
>handle the extremes I gave as my example and remain faithful to the
>genre conventions of each.
>
>Hero is often given as an example and I'll admit it is a very flexible
>system. But, ironicly, I haven't found it to do a very good job with the
>four-color supers genre that is supposed to be one of its foundations.
>For grittier supers (Wild Cards for example) it would be fine, but
>without something to simulate the ability of important characters to at
>times greatly exceed their normal limitations (as is modeled in DC
>Heroes for example with "hero points"), it really isn't being faithful
>to the four-color genre. (Of course DCH is far less flexible in dealing
>with other genres.)
>
That's very much my point. HERO is very flexible, still it glosses
over some of the more specific attributes of a setting when compared
to a system written specifically for that setting (actually, Champions
/ HERO does have a "pushing mechanic," and was originally written for
4 color; I think the lack of a broader pushing mechanic like DC's is
partly due to the fact that the system's origins predated a "luck
point" type mechanic in games in general.)
>But I'm not sure if this is a good argument against calling something
>"universal", simply because the laws of "reality" in this particular
>genre are so far removed from the "realities" of other genres.
I'm not saying that the point is that we shouldn't call a system
universal, but that we should not expect the same level of
verisimilitude within a genre from a "universal" game than we should
expect from a specific system. But as far as that goes, I think I
disagree with you: it's a great argument. How can you expect a game
with fairly constant set of rules to faithfully emulate a dozen
different genres to the same extent that a very specific game can?
John Kim
Alan D Kohler <hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net> wrote:
> Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> Hero is often given as an example and I'll admit it is a very flexible
>> system. But, ironicly, I haven't found it to do a very good job with
>> the four-color supers genre that is supposed to be one of its
>> foundations. For grittier supers (Wild Cards for example) it would
>> be fine, but without something to simulate the ability of important
>> characters to at times greatly exceed their normal limitations (as
>> is modeled in DC Heroes for example with "hero points")
>
>over some of the more specific attributes of a setting when compared
>to a system written specifically for that setting
Actually, I think this is not true. _Champions_ was originally
designed specifically for superheroes -- and in my opinion it *still*
does badly when handling four-color superheroic action. From the
start it defined powers too narrowly and so forth.
Many of the arguments for setting-specific or genre-specific
games come under the assumption that the system design is inherently
going to be better at supporting that genre than optional rules.
But really, there are a lot of "genre-specific" games where the
rules are poorly matched to their genre. For every poorly-adapted
generic system, I can point to numerous poorly-adapted setting-specific
systems.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Now, admittedly, I think that HERO is difficult to use for
doing real four-color heroes. However, aspects like DC's "hero
points" are trivial to incorporate as a genre-specific optional rule
into the HERO system (in fact, I played in a superhero game which
did pretty much that).
I would say here that the _Champions_ genre book does a
very poor job at adapting the HERO rules to four-color comic-book
action -- because it fails to add in the neccessary options. In
contrast, I think that _Ninja HERO_ does an excellent job of adapting
HERO to the martial arts genre. A few good optional rules go a long
way towards helping to simulate genre.
Bruce Baugh
> Actually, I think this is not true. _Champions_ was originally
>designed specifically for superheroes -- and in my opinion it *still*
>does badly when handling four-color superheroic action. From the
>start it defined powers too narrowly and so forth.
I'm really glad to see someone else say this. I think of four-color
superheroics as a very flexible genre - powers are defined broadly and
applied in new ways at whim, action is simple and fast, and so on. In
some ways I think the Marvel Super-Heroes approach to powers -
_really_ broad definitions, with specific "stunts" within them - is
the closest to simulating how superpowers "really" work in comics.
>HERO to the martial arts genre. A few good optional rules go a long
>way towards helping to simulate genre.
Agreed here, too. Often getting just a few key features right is
enough to help everyone get the tone right, and then otherwise bland
or unspecific mechanics fall into place.
--
http://pharospress.galstar.com/
Lace & Steel: swashbuckling and magic in a fantasy Renaissance
Nobilis: a new game of the secret struggle for the soul of the world
Check these out!
George W. Harris
(Brett Evill) wrote thusly:
=In article <35d76d90....@news.mindspring.com>,
=gha...@mundsprung.com wrote:
=
=Perhaps I don't understand the problem properly, but it seems to me that
=the word 'realistic' has been freed up for this use, while 'faithful' has
=taken over its role in describing well-designed rules sets that do not
=contradict the intended setting.
Ah! Light dawns. So you intend 'fidelity' to be
used to describe a game which is faithful to its setting,
whether that setting be Arthurian fiction or bronze-age
Mesopotamia, while 'realistic' is used to describe a
game which, with whatever additions it has, tries to
emulate reality as it is understood?
--
"and I was fast was my name and my color." -anonymous Illinois third-grader
Brett Evill
wrote:
>In 1 Aug 1998 05:53:27 GMT of yore, b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au
>(Brett Evill) wrote thusly:
>
>=In article <35d76d90....@news.mindspring.com>,
>=gha...@mundsprung.com wrote:
>=
>=Perhaps I don't understand the problem properly, but it seems to me that
>=the word 'realistic' has been freed up for this use, while 'faithful' has
>=taken over its role in describing well-designed rules sets that do not
>=contradict the intended setting.
>
> Ah! Light dawns. So you intend 'fidelity' to be
>used to describe a game which is faithful to its setting,
>whether that setting be Arthurian fiction or bronze-age
>Mesopotamia, while 'realistic' is used to describe a
>game which, with whatever additions it has, tries to
>emulate reality as it is understood?
Well put.
I think that part of the communication problem arose from my not clearly
distinguishing between 'game' in the sense of the rules set, the sense in
which we say that AD&D is a game, and game in the sense of a campaign, the
sense in which we say 'my game is set in the Rhône valley in 1122 AD'.
A game may be realistic or not in either sense, but 'fidelity', as I meant
it is really a property that only a game in the sense of a rules set can
possess or lack. And a realistic rules set lacks fidelity to the setting
if the setting is intended to be unrealistic.
Red
> But part of such a world is that it adheres to reality, except for the
> magic. So "maintaining realism" could also be considered "being faithful
> to the *conception*", not the genre, because the game isn't intended to
> be typical of the genre.
>
Arguably, all games are faithful to their own conception. But
seperating realism from fidelity makes a useful way of talking about
them.
Frank G. Pitt
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Hero is often given as an example and I'll admit it is a very flexible
>system. But, ironicly, I haven't found it to do a very good job with the
>four-color supers genre that is supposed to be one of its foundations.
>For grittier supers (Wild Cards for example) it would be fine, but
>without something to simulate the ability of important characters to at
>times greatly exceed their normal limitations (as is modeled in DC
>to the four-color genre. (Of course DCH is far less flexible in dealing
>with other genres.)
Hero does in fact model this. It has something called "pushing" which
can be done with any power or statistic, though the example talks
about a relatively "normal" superhero, "pushing" his strength
to save a child.
I have always preferred Hero for Supers, and have only ever used it
for such.
Frankie
Brett Evill
<red_arm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>delph...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>> But part of such a world is that it adheres to reality, except
for the
>> magic. So "maintaining realism" could also be considered "being faithful
>> to the *conception*", not the genre, because the game isn't intended to
>> be typical of the genre.
>>
>
>Arguably, all games are faithful to their own conception.
But some are definitely not faithful to their intended setting. For
example, in the first edition of 'Star Wars: the RPG', there was no such
thing as some characters being intrinsically talented for the use of the
Force, while in the movies which the game was intended to reflect a great
deal turned on the fact that Luke and Leia were special because the Force
was strong with them for hereditary (probably congential) reasons.
Carl D. Cravens
>Arguably, all games are faithful to their own conception.
I would like argue against this. :)
In many traditional roleplaying "games", there are two factors that
combine to make the whole "game"... the setting (or genre) and the
rules. If the setting has particular features and the rules fail to
support the features of the setting, the rules are not faithful to the
conception of the setting. One assumes that the over-all conception
(setting+rules) envisioned rules which supported the tone and features
of the setting within reasonable limits.
As an odd example, take Traveller. It came out when Star Trek and Star
Wars were popular and it was marketed with a "just like the movies" kind
of slant. But, you couldn't come *close* to simulating any of the
popular movies or TV shows of the time. While the concept may have been
"you can play Star Wars" it's certainly not the way it came out.
Even in a generic set of rules, the current discussion of Champions
shows that while the concept was "4-color supers" many believe that they
failed to be faithful to the conception. Ultimately, Champions wasn't
everything they set out to make it (in some opinions) because it fails
to support its stated genre properly.
For a close-to-home example that deals with only the rules, when I wrote
The Gramarye (a spell system in A MAGICAL MEDLEY by Grey Ghost Games), I
had a certain concept in mind. A fast, simple, but flexible magic
system that incorporated certain elements. While I did incorporate the
elements I wanted, the system isn't as fast and simple as I'd prefer.
One may say that I changed concepts half-way through, but I still hold
my original concept... I just never came up with a set of rules that
matched my criteria. What I came up with was not faithful to my
concept.
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a
Brian Gleichman
> Both _Star Wars_ and _Star Trek_ feature a FTL radio of one sort
>or another (i.e. Darth gets orders from the Emperor, the Enterprise gets
>orders from Star Fleet Command). It seems to me that Traveller tries to
>deliberately distinguish itself here.
Actually a look in the writer's guide for the original Star Trek series will
show that slow communication and a mirror of the 'Age of Sail' was one of
its core concepts.
John Kim
Carl D. Cravens <rave...@southwind.net> wrote:
>Red <red_army_blues@hotmail> wrote:
>> Arguably, all games are faithful to their own conception.
>As an odd example, take Traveller. It came out when Star Trek and Star
>Wars were popular and it was marketed with a "just like the movies" kind
>of slant. But, you couldn't come *close* to simulating any of the
>popular movies or TV shows of the time. While the concept may have been
>"you can play Star Wars" it's certainly not the way it came out.
I have limited access to the marketing of the time (I see a
few adds in old Dragon magazines), but my Deluxe Traveller set (1981)
doesn't seem to support this. The back cover to the box and the
introduction seem rather different. This is how Traveller starts:
*Traveller* deals with a common theme of science-fiction: the concept
that an expanding technology will enable us to reach the stars and
populate the worlds which orbit them. The major problem, however,
will be that communication, be it political, diplomatic, commercial,
or private, will be reduced to the level of the 18th century, reduced
to the speed of transportation. The result is a large (bordering on
infinite) universe ripe for the adventurer's bold travels.
Both _Star Wars_ and _Star Trek_ feature a FTL radio of one sort
or another (i.e. Darth gets orders from the Emperor, the Enterprise gets
orders from Star Fleet Command). It seems to me that Traveller tries to
deliberately distinguish itself here. The basic setup of Traveller is
individuals who serve in the military, muster out, and then go into
independent exploration for themselves -- this is quite different from
either of the sources you mention. This is basic conception, I would
argue, not some artifact of the rules.
John Kim
Brian Gleichman <glei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>John Kim wrote in message <6qaudq$5...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>> another (i.e. Darth gets orders from the Emperor, the Enterprise gets
>> orders from Star Fleet Command). It seems to me that Traveller tries
>> to deliberately distinguish itself here.
>
>will show that slow communication and a mirror of the 'Age of Sail' was
>one of its core concepts.
Well, and it was pitched as a "western in space" as well.
However, as it came out, the Entreprise received its orders by subspace
radio from Star Fleet Command in many episodes. This communication was
not instantaneous, but it was not carried by courier. I've also heard
that Roddenberry intended Kirk to be based on Horatio Hornblower, whereas
in the series he was nearly the opposite. Hornblower was guiltily
devoted to his wife and children, and was neurotically underconfident
in his own abilities.
Traveller came out well after the original series ended, and
was quite distinct from the concepts of Star Trek as they were aired.
If it did take from the Star Trek writer's guide, it deliberately took
those guidelines in a completely different direction than Star Trek.
Brian Gleichman
>However, as it came out, the Entreprise received its orders by subspace
>radio from Star Fleet Command in many episodes.
And ships from the age of sail often received orders from home.
The subspace radio in the original Star Trek had a delay of hours, days or
even weeks depending upon the location of the Enterprise. Once in a while
they were 'close in' enough (i.e. the writers decided they needed instant
Comm) to have real time communication. I've seen the differences explained
be saying subspace radio slowed down the further the signal traveled. A very
workable concept and while not an exact copy of the age of sail, it gives a
close result.
The 'western in space' (which was the pitch, being more understandable to a
TV exec than either sci-fi or age of sail) model matches this delay in
communications as well.
The idea was to move the Enterprise from "yell for help' to the 'yell for
help, now we must wait hours or days- looks like we'll have to deal with the
problem' concept common for the age of sail or the wild west frontier
adventure.
> I've also heard
>that Roddenberry intended Kirk to be based on Horatio Hornblower, whereas
>in the series he was nearly the opposite.
One doesn't have to keep everything when you base your work on something.
Roddenberry's comments on the manner showed he was more interested in
aspects of lonely command, responsibility, power, and distance from higher
power than Horatio's own personality.
Carl D. Cravens
> I have limited access to the marketing of the time (I see a
>few adds in old Dragon magazines), but my Deluxe Traveller set (1981)
>doesn't seem to support this. The back cover to the box and the
>introduction seem rather different. This is how Traveller starts:
It was magazine advertising if I recall. Marketing hype and probably
not the author's real intent in the game. My access is about as limited
as yours, so I may not recall it properly and can't verify it.
Consider it a theoretical example if not the actual truth. It makes my
point even if it doesn't directly support it in fact. "If Traveller
were marketed this way..."
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
4 out of 5 people think the 5th person is an idiot.