Heroic-Dark- Descriptive Rating part 1
Brian Gleichman
A couple of things up front.
First, I didn't get to write this (let alone post it or part 2) last night
due to time pressures. Sigh.
Second, I don't think I've typed so much in such a short time in a long
while. I've noticed (after reading a few of my own posts) that I've fallen
into my old habit of thinking faster than I'm typing. Forgive the resulting
lost words, letters and typos.
On to other things.
There has been a flood of responses claiming that I needed to break
Description detail out of the ratings and put it in its own area.
In part 2 I'll cover the addition of a Descriptive rating.
Part 1 will cover why was there wasn't a Descriptive Rating at the start.
It will also explain why the addition of a descriptive rating should not
remove the descriptive limits in place.
First, Let me explain why having a Descriptive Rating didn't occur to me.
The Interactions were meant to define how parts of the campaign treated
each other, i.e. what actions are possible.
Thus followed a natural progression of allowed actions:
Heroic- we don't want ever want the game to have bad acts.
Normal- we don't want the game to have bad acts except under extreme
conditions.
Pragmatic- there is a subset of bad acts that can be justified for the
greater
good. We don't want to see the others except under extreme
conditions.
Dark- bad acts are part of the world, we will see them often- just don't
spell
out the graphic details.
Black- As Dark but we want to see the graphic details.
I also assumed, that graphic description was reserved for 'bad events'.
That is, one would need to agree that bad events are possible first. Once
has one agreed to that, Graphic Description would mean an increase in "how
bad is bad?" as it were. Hence Black.
My mistake seems to be in assuming that Graphic Description would only be
applied to bad events. It seems such is not the case to the point where a
separate rating for Game Description detail is required.
I'm strongly against removing the limits on descriptive detail from the
existing Interactions however. Doing so causes problems.
For example, a game with Description Detail: Black. We love our gore, you
just can't have a good fight without gore. Rape? Torture?, Ick, we can't
stand a description of that. In fact, we don't want it in our game at all-
no way, no how.
Result:
Description Detail: Black
Player vs. Player: Heroic
Player vs. Game: Heroic
Game vs. Player: Heroic
Game vs. Game: Heroic
See how removing the detail limits from the existing Interactions would in
effect limit the reach of the Model?
Psychohist
Brian Gleichman posts, in part:
For example, a game with Description Detail:
Black. We love our gore, you just can't have
a good fight without gore. Rape? Torture?,
Ick, we can't stand a description of that.
In fact, we don't want it in our game at all-
no way, no how.
Result:
Description Detail: Black
Player vs. Player: Heroic
Player vs. Game: Heroic
Game vs. Player: Heroic
Game vs. Game: Heroic
See how removing the detail limits from the
existing Interactions would in effect limit
the reach of the Model?
Um, actually, no. It seems like a perfectly valid and useful result to
me.
I'm honestly puzzled as to what point you are trying to make. Could you
clarify?
Warren Dew
Brian Gleichman
Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970710033...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Um, actually, no. It seems like a perfectly valid and useful result to
> me.
>
> I'm honestly puzzled as to what point you are trying to make. Could you
> clarify?
You're right. Bad example, I shouldn't have used Heroic as that disallows
the ratings moving towards dark or black.
Try This:
Descriptive: Black
Player vs. Player: Normal
Player vs. Game: Normal
Game vs. Player: Normal
Game vs. Game: Normal
The people playing the game:
1. Want detailed blood and gore combats. Descriptive- Black gives it to
them in spades.
2. Want to limit events including torture or other vile acts to occurring
only due to extreme conditions. The Interaction ratings of Normal provides
this.
3. Want no detailed descriptions of rape, torture or any other vile
events.... But Descriptive Black requires this.
The players are screwed, descriptively I might add :)
I'd say its they're lucky no one is forcing them to use the Model at this
point. We might need air-sickness bags and a new GM.
Lets Try Another:
Descriptive: Normal
Player vs. Player: Normal
Player vs. Game: Normal
Game vs. Player: Normal
Game vs. Game: Normal
The players want:
1. A normal description level of combat and common events. Descriptive-
Normal provides this.
2. To limit events including torture or other vile acts to occurring only
due to extreme conditions. The Interaction ratings of Normal provides this.
3. The full detail description of vile events when they do occur in order
to feel the full impact (Mary asked for nearly this very thing). But...
Description- Normal disallows it.
Mary gives the Model the toss and dives in anyway.
Note: I really shouldn't speak for you Mary, Sorry.
Are these examples better?
Descriptive Limits for normal events can be lumped into the new rating. It
would stand for all common (i.e. not vile) Interactions.
The descriptive limits for vile acts need to stay where they are,
specifically so they can related directly to those things the Interaction
scale defines.
Ennead
Brian Gleichman wrote:
: First, Let me explain why having a Descriptive Rating didn't occur to me.
: The Interactions were meant to define how parts of the campaign treated
: each other, i.e. what actions are possible.
: Thus followed a natural progression of allowed actions:
: Heroic- we don't want ever want the game to have bad acts.
: Normal- we don't want the game to have bad acts except under
: extreme conditions.
: Pragmatic- there is a subset of bad acts that can be justified
: for the greater good. We don't want to see the others
: except under extreme conditions.
: Dark- bad acts are part of the world, we will see them often-
: just don't spell out the graphic details.
: Black- As Dark but we want to see the graphic details.
Ah!
I begin to understand. I had been defining the ratings
slightly differently. My understanding of what "Black" means,
however, deviates wildly from your own.
My understanding went something like this:
Heroic- permissable behavior includes only that recognized
as "heroic" by normal cultural standards. No cruelty,
no betrayal. No gratuitous killing. Rules of "fair
combat" are to be followed.
Moral - permissable behavior includes only that recognized as
"good" by normal cultural standards. Betrayal is
permissable only under extreme circumstances. Combat
need not be utterly fair, but cannot be grossly
unbalanced. Gratuitous killing and cruelty are no-nos.
Pragmatic - Permissable behavior includes only that recognized as
"decent" or "forgivable" by normal cultural standards.
Betrayal and unfair combat (ambushes, etc.) are allowed,
but considered regrettable. Cruelty may be forgivable
under certain situations as "lapses." Sadism (enjoyment
of cruelty) and brutality (enjoyment of gratuitous
killing or harm) are no-nos.
Dark - No restrictions are placed on behavior.
Black - Behavior conforming to heroic conventions is *not*
permissable. Behavior is expected to reflect a
dark, twisted, or evil orientation; characters with
no areas of psychosis or twistedness do not fit the
tone of the game and therefore break the contract.
As you can see, I had been viewing "black" as a matter of
permissable behavior, just like all of the other ratings, and not
as a question of descriptive detail.
I've also tried to be a bit more specific in my definitions,
as I am uncomfortable with the term "bad acts." I consider all
non-consensual killing "bad," which makes me suspect that a game
which, under your definition, I would consider "heroic" would not
be at all the sort of game you envisioned.
The thing that strikes me about my definitions, BTW, is
that while there are three levels of contractual imposition on
the side of the angels, so to speak, there is only _one_ on the
side of evil. So perhaps I seem to be in disagreement with your
earlier statement that there are more shades of evil than good. ;)
I see no reason, however, to balance this out. I've seen
a few games that match my definition of "black," but they haven't
deviated from one another all that much. I don't think there's
really any need for any further levels below "dark."
: I'm strongly against removing the limits on descriptive detail from the
: existing Interactions however. Doing so causes problems.
How do you feel about my suggestion to place it as an addendum
to each of the four rating scales? (The scale could go something like:
Glossed, Abstracted, Normal, Explicit, Graphic.)
For example:
PP: Moral (descriptive detail: Graphic)
PG: Pragmatic (descriptive detail: Abstracted)
GP: Pragmatic (descriptive detail: Normal)
GG: Dark (descriptive detail: Explicit)
: For example, a game with Description Detail: Black. We love our gore, you
: just can't have a good fight without gore. Rape? Torture?, Ick, we can't
: stand a description of that. In fact, we don't want it in our game at all-
: no way, no how.
: Result:
: Description Detail: Black
: Player vs. Player: Heroic
: Player vs. Game: Heroic
: Game vs. Player: Heroic
: Game vs. Game: Heroic
:
: See how removing the detail limits from the existing Interactions would in
: effect limit the reach of the Model?
I don't think this limits it. It makes it more useful, to
my mind. If someone's going to be describing combat in gory
detail, then I'd rather be warned about it in advance than assume
that they'll pretty it up just because their game is otherwise
heroic (no torture, no rape, everyone tries for clean kills, no
ambushes, chivalrous approach to combat, etc.). That's just the
sort of assumption clash that gets people into trouble.
Similarly, I would hate to unwittingly violate a contract
-- and possibly stamp on someone else's personal vulnerabilities --
simply because I incorrectly assumed that a group this into gore
*surely* wouldn't object to an interrogation scene. (This is
just the sort of assumption clash that gets people into a LOT of
trouble!)
-- Sarah
Ennead
Brian Gleichman wrote:
: The people playing the game:
: 1. Want detailed blood and gore combats. Descriptive- Black gives it to
: them in spades.
: 2. Want to limit events including torture or other vile acts to occurring
: only due to extreme conditions. The Interaction ratings of Normal provides
: this.
: 3. Want no detailed descriptions of rape, torture or any other vile
: events.... But Descriptive Black requires this.
Hmmm. I don't see too big a problem here.
PG: Heroic (Graphic)
GP: Moral (Graphic)
Special Note: descriptive detail for torture and rape
is an exception to the general rule,
and will be treated with a descriptive
rating of "Glossed."
(I gave this group a PG rating of "Heroic" on the
assumption that they do not want the PCs _ever_ to commit rape
or torture, but wish to leave open the possibility that particularly
vile NPCs might do so on very rare occasion.)
Yeah, you need a "special note" here, but that's going
to be common for a number of group contracts. It is quite common,
for example, for a group of players who otherwise favor "Dark"
ratings to declare rape utterly and unquestionably out-of-bounds.
: The players want:
: 1. A normal description level of combat and common events. Descriptive-
: Normal provides this.
: 2. To limit events including torture or other vile acts to occurring only
: due to extreme conditions. The Interaction ratings of Normal provides this.
: 3. The full detail description of vile events when they do occur in order
: to feel the full impact (Mary asked for nearly this very thing). But...
: Description- Normal disallows it.
How's this?
PP: Moral (Graphic)
PG: Moral (Graphic)
GP: Moral (Graphic)
GG: Moral (Graphic)
That seems to me to describe the contract quite handily.
-- Sarah
John H Kim
I am intrigued by Brian's Campaign Tone scale (i.e. Heroic
to Black). I am a bit concerned in that how acceptable some games
are to me doesn't seem to be indicated by the scale. I have
problems with Heroic under certain conditions, and I have problems
with Black under certain conditions.
Previously, I have been using the categories from _Champions_
and other HERO games for this purpose. I thought it would be
worthwhile to outline this. In it's checklist for defining
campaigns, _Champions_ defines the campaign tone in terms of
Morality, Realism, Outlook, and Seriousness. I will describe
how they are defined in _Champions_ as well as my own comments
on them...
- *Morality* is described as "How clear are the moral choices - is
there a clear difference between good and evil? Or are all aspects
of morality just different shades of gray?"
Personally, I would distinguish two common contracts here
as separate from black/while versus shades of gray. In (1) the
PC's expected to adhere to strict morality (and how much?),
whereas in (2) the PC's can commit wrongs, but the GM will
enforce karma such they are punished for their crimes.
- *Realism* is "Will your adventures to be realistic or romantic,
and to what extent?" This includes Script Immunity as well as
how much genre illogic will be encouraged (i.e. chandalier
swinging) -- which I would distinguish as separate effects.
- *Outlook* is "What does the future hold for the campaign world?
Are the people there optimistic or pessimistic about the world
and the future?" Note that things can be bad in an optimistic
world, just that they are expected to improve (i.e. _Star Wars_
where the galaxy is ruled by an oppressive Empire).
I think it is useful to note how this is different from
the other scales. It is possible to have an romantic epic in
which clear heroes struggle against dastardly villians -- but
like the Norse gods versus Ragnarok, there is the sense that
their eforts are doomed.
- *Seriousness* means "How serious is the campaign, and how seriously
is it taken by the players? Campaigns can range from the totally
goofy antics of cartoon characters to the jagged-edge seriousness
of crime stories - and everything in between."
I would say this is an extremely important scale. The
classic case that leaps to mind for me is _Paranoia_, which in
my experience can be extremely amoral and graphic. However,
it is far more acceptable to many in my group than a serious
game with graphic violence and amoral backstabbing and torture.
-*-*-*-
This sort of rating is attempting to cover different
ground than Brian's system is, it seems. However, I don't think
that they overly complicate. After all, they are only four
scales (or more if you consider my branch-offs), whereas Brian's
rating system already has eight scales plus conditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
scott....@3do.com
In article <5q2sd1$mav$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) wrote:
>
> I am intrigued by Brian's Campaign Tone scale (i.e. Heroic
> to Black). I am a bit concerned in that how acceptable some games
> are to me doesn't seem to be indicated by the scale. I have
> problems with Heroic under certain conditions, and I have problems
> with Black under certain conditions.
>
> Previously, I have been using the categories from _Champions_
> and other HERO games for this purpose. I thought it would be
> worthwhile to outline this. In it's checklist for defining
> campaigns, _Champions_ defines the campaign tone in terms of
> Morality, Realism, Outlook, and Seriousness. I will describe
> how they are defined in _Champions_ as well as my own comments
> on them...
Thank you John for reminding me about that. I had this funny feelingabout
the tone ratings, like I had heard of them before. And now I know why. I
had always thought that these described the tone fairly well.
Scott
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Brian Gleichman
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<5q293i$d9b$1...@nadine.teleport.com>...
> I begin to understand. I had been defining the ratings
> slightly differently. My understanding of what "Black" means,
> however, deviates wildly from your own.
That does seem to be the case.
> As you can see, I had been viewing "black" as a matter of
> permissable behavior, just like all of the other ratings, and not
> as a question of descriptive detail.
Yours seems to approach the problem from the direction of- "This is the
kind of tone we want you to approach the game with". Mine comes from "We
don't want to see stuff like...."
Mine was envisioned to protect players from things they don't want to deal
with. Yours seem to be to direct players to a style of action.
Off-hand I'd think mine was less limiting by being more narrow.
I can see advantages and disadvantages with both.
I'm will stick with mine for now. This will let people know the terms I'm
debating from as well.
> I've also tried to be a bit more specific in my definitions,
> as I am uncomfortable with the term "bad acts." I consider all
> non-consensual killing "bad," which makes me suspect that a game
> which, under your definition, I would consider "heroic" would not
> be at all the sort of game you envisioned.
What's non-consensual killing?
> The thing that strikes me about my definitions, BTW, is
> that while there are three levels of contractual imposition on
> the side of the angels, so to speak, there is only _one_ on the
> side of evil. So perhaps I seem to be in disagreement with your
> earlier statement that there are more shades of evil than good. ;)
It depends upon your viewpoint. For instance, if the ground floor is Good
then a descent into the cellar is one of shades of evil. If one is
attempting to climb out the cellar however...
> How do you feel about my suggestion to place it as an addendum
> to each of the four rating scales?
It has a certain value and appeal, more so in your view of the scale (Thou
shall) than mine (Thou shall not) I think.
By themselves, I would think the addendums would run into the same problems
I did when I didn't have a separate Descriptive Rating.
That is, some people want graphic description of combat but want the vile
acts glossed over or non-existent. Some want the opposite.
Now addendums combined with the use of a Descriptive rating have merit.
That is the addendum would define the description applied to the vile
events when they occur and the general Descriptive rating would apply to
the common events of the game.
A partial example:
Descriptive: Heroic
Game vs. Player: Normal (Black)
Combat is just a matter of hit points, up/down, dead,alive.
A player could only be tortured under very rare conditions.
But when the PC is tortured, its very graphic.
This defines the general detail. It defines what events are allowed to
happen under what conditions, and it defines to what level these
exceptional events can be described at.
Note at Heroic, the addendum has no meaning. Here there will be no chance
of vile events under any conditions.
As a side effect, it should reduce the use (or at least the word count) of
Conditions.
Its a more complicated Model. But still useable IMO.
I'd be happy with this, at least until somebody shoots holes in it.
> (The scale could go something like:
> Glossed, Abstracted, Normal, Explicit, Graphic.)
In general I think I could only keep three levels of description distinct.
In part 2, I did manage to increase that to five by specifying a difference
in when each level can be applied.
Also, it would be nice to use the same names just to be consistent.
Brian Gleichman
John H Kim <jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu> wrote in article
<5q2sd1$mav$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>...
> Previously, I have been using the categories from _Champions_
> and other HERO games for this purpose. I thought it would be
> worthwhile to outline this.
I've know about the _Champions_ Model for some time. It has good uses but
no real relation (as you state) to what I'm trying to Model.
Morality- defines only if an event is good or evil, not
if it should be in the game and under what
conditions.
Realism-Normally this just has the effect of what unrealistic
actions can I get away with. Things like do I wake up
without needing a shave every morning.
One could view this as having an impact on
what events are allowed. A highly realistic game
must include torture right?
Except I want realism in everything except torture
and other vile things.
Outlook- has little impact on allowed events. Leia was tortured
despite the optimistic setting
Seriousness- again this doesn't effect what effects are allowed.
it now just a case of funny torture vs. torture.
Note, the model is not a simple as it seems.
Is Morality clear to everyone, how about just the players, how about just
the NPCs. What if the PCs consider Morality clear in relation to other PCs,
but not when looking at the NPCs
Even here, the Model could benefit from PP, PG, GP, GG views. We now have
sixteen scales.
Now this Model has other uses where it shines. Like the Threefold and
Ruleset, it can help in further defining campaigns.
BTW: Didn't they include a measure for Romanticism at one point?
Brian Gleichman
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote in article
> Yeah, you need a "special note" here, but that's going
> to be common for a number of group contracts. It is quite common,
> for example, for a group of players who otherwise favor "Dark"
> ratings to declare rape utterly and unquestionably out-of-bounds.
I'd like to keep the 'special note' down as much as possible.
Its preferred if the Model can handle a larger range of possibilities
without resort to the Conditions. Models are meant to convey an image after
all and people are know to dislike heaps of 'fine print'
>
> How's this?
>
> PP: Moral (Graphic)
> PG: Moral (Graphic)
> GP: Moral (Graphic)
> GG: Moral (Graphic)
>
Since all details are Graphic, this disallows the Normal descriptive combat
that was asked for. Again not without a Condition.
It would seem that the general Descriptive Rating combined with addendums
would allow the Model to function with Condition in the listed examples.
Brian Gleichman
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote in article
<33c5a95f...@news.washingtonian.infi.net>...
> Perhaps. I think the scales in the Champions model are there more to
> stimulate conversation by the group, or perhaps the GM's thinking.
No doubt. Many games have something in the rules somewhere to do just this.
However, Champions is one of the few spend so much time on it.
What I find interesting is that they bring up the questions and than ask
the GM to rate his campaign on a rather vague scale.
"My campaign's Realism Factor? Oh, on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give it about
a 8."
Not too useful in and of itself.
It's use comes from a group setting down and discussing each of the
questions. Only then does the result of '8' really mean anything.
That's a very useful exercise and one I do every once in a while with
groups I'm in. I find it notable that players will often have a very
different concept of what your game is- as opposed to what you thought it
was.
> In practice, that is what your scales do too. They aren't really a
> substitute for in-depth conversation--all they can do is to provide
> some guidance as to what questions one might ask.
True enough, and it has caused a bit of that.
It's meant to go a tiny bit further though. When the Champions use is
mainly of importance to a general group agreement on the style of campaign,
I hope to have something more useful to people who didn't sit through the
discussion session.
A outsider looking in sort of thing.
Also, it does give fixed answers. Heroic flatly disallows things. Black
flatly includes them. The important thing in-depth conversation adds to
this is the why and how.
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 11 Jul 1997 01:50:19 GMT, "Brian Gleichman"
<glei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>John H Kim <jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu> wrote in article
><5q2sd1$mav$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>...
>
>> Previously, I have been using the categories from _Champions_
>> and other HERO games for this purpose. I thought it would be
>> worthwhile to outline this.
>
>I've know about the _Champions_ Model for some time. It has good uses but
>no real relation (as you state) to what I'm trying to Model.
>
> Morality- defines only if an event is good or evil, not
> if it should be in the game and under what
> conditions.
Different strokes, I guess. My reading of the model in Champions is
that it IS about what kind of game the group wants it to be. It isn't
about specific in-game events, but is rather a meta-game or
group-contract issue.
> Realism-Normally this just has the effect of what unrealistic
> actions can I get away with. Things like do I wake up
> without needing a shave every morning.
>
> One could view this as having an impact on
> what events are allowed. A highly realistic game
> must include torture right?
I think about this somewhat differently. This is a way to gauge
expectations about what kind of game the game will be--will it strive
to be super-realistic, or will it have all sorts of Hollywood, Eroll
Flynn/Jackie Chan stunts in it?
> Outlook- has little impact on allowed events. Leia was tortured
> despite the optimistic setting
>
> Seriousness- again this doesn't effect what effects are allowed.
> it now just a case of funny torture vs. torture.
Perhaps. I think the scales in the Champions model are there more to
stimulate conversation by the group, or perhaps the GM's thinking.
In practice, that is what your scales do too. They aren't really a
substitute for in-depth conversation--all they can do is to provide
some guidance as to what questions one might ask.
Best,
Kevin
John H Kim
This is a reply to Brian concerning the _Champions_ scale
of campaign tone. I realize that _Champions_ covers many things
which you never intended to be included in your rating scale.
The reason why I brought it up was that those things are
important to me in considering whether a campaign is acceptable
to me. For example, Seriousness: I am perfectly willing to
accept dismemberment and torture in a _Paranoia_ game, while I am
much less willing to accept it in a serious game.
Thus, for me these issues are important. When I present
a campaign to prospective players, then, I am going to include
description of where the campaign falls on these scales.
-*-*-*-
Brian Gleichman <glei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>It has good uses but no real relation (as you state) to what I'm
>trying to Model.
>
>Morality- defines only if an event is good or evil, not if it
> should be in the game and under what conditions.
What?! That's precisely what the moral scale is about.
In a black-and-white game, morally questionable events should
not be in the game. This is important because many players aren't
squeamish about torture appearing in a game, but they don't want
to be faced with tough moral choices ("Life's complicated enough").
Thus, for them a villian who tortures is *more* acceptable than a
villian who assists in suicides. The Torturer can be fun to
hate, while the Euthanizer is just a drag.
-*-*-*-
>
>Realism-Normally this just has the effect of what unrealistic
> actions can I get away with. Things like do I wake up
> without needing a shave every morning.
>
> One could view this as having an impact on what events are
> allowed. A highly realistic game must include torture right?
>
> Except I want realism in everything except torture and other
> vile things.
-*-*-*-
>
> Outlook- has little impact on allowed events. Leia was tortured
> despite the optimistic setting
Right, again, for me the optimism was more important than
the act. I liked _Star Wars_. _Brazil_ also had torture, and I
would agree that it is a well-made movie, but it was so damn
depressing I couldn't enjoy it. Watching it was a painful and
agonizing experience.
-*-*-*-
>
>Seriousness- again this doesn't effect what effects are allowed.
> it now just a case of funny torture vs. torture.
Yes, but I explained how this was important. For some
people, torture in a non-serious campaign is acceptable whereas
it is not acceptable in a serious campaign. I really don't think
I am alone in this, having had these sorts of discussions
amongst my own gaming group. Chris can deal with a racist PC
torturing gooks in a light-fun pulp one-shot, but is horrified at
it in a serious campaign.
-*-*-*-
>
>Is Morality clear to everyone, how about just the players, how about
>just the NPCs. What if the PCs consider Morality clear in relation
>to other PCs, but not when looking at the NPCs
Could you describe this as an actual game? I haven't
generally had trouble any of the campaigns I've played in or run
in terms of the Morality scale I defined (note that I split off
two issues from the single scale in _Champions_).
Ennead
Brian Gleichman wrote:
: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote in article
: Mine was envisioned to protect players from things they don't want to deal
: with. Yours seem to be to direct players to a style of action.
I think that your system does both, really -- which is
the reason for the separate scales for PG and GP. PG directs
players to a style of action by specifying that it is not acceptable
for the PCs *in particular* to act in certain ways. This is not
merely a statement of "Ugh -- don't want to see that," but one of
"Ugh -- NPCs might do that kind of stuff, but don't let me see
your player characters behaving that way!"
If both PG and GP get the same rating, of course, then it
_might_ be simply a reflection of the group's unwillingness to
be exposed to vileness at all. As I saw it, though, the whole
point of allowing different ratings here was to allow for an
imposition of morality upon the PCs.
: > I've also tried to be a bit more specific in my definitions,
: > as I am uncomfortable with the term "bad acts." I consider all
: > non-consensual killing "bad," which makes me suspect that a game
: > which, under your definition, I would consider "heroic" would not
: > be at all the sort of game you envisioned.
: What's non-consensual killing?
Killing of sentients to which the killed has not given
consent. In other words, all killing save suicide and assisted
suicide.
But this is a flammable topic, and it's not something
I particularly feel like arguing about. I just wanted to point
out that the term "bad acts" is, IMO, problematic. We've already
seen you and Mary dance around this a bit with the discussion of
ambushes and whether they classify as "bad acts." It's come up
more blatantly in the back-and-forth over Irina's game example.
You've also touched on it briefly when you expressed concern that
some people might take advantage of the descriptions of the ratings
to claim, for example, that rape or torture are "justifiable" under
certain conditions (you even mentioned Hitler -- a sure sign that we
were entering emotional territory).
Suffice it to say that people differ in what they consider
morally acceptable or even admirable. If you want to impose a
certain moral tone on your game, then I think it _very_ important
that you go into specifics with your players, unless you are already
certain that they share your particular moral outlook.
I think that I've got a pretty good idea of your own moral
beliefs down now, but only because I've read a number of your articles.
Had I come into one of your games cold, I wouldn't have been nearly
so well-equipped to interpret your ratings in the way you had
intended.
: By themselves, I would think the addendums would run into the same problems
: I did when I didn't have a separate Descriptive Rating.
: That is, some people want graphic description of combat but want the vile
: acts glossed over or non-existent. Some want the opposite.
Yes, that is a problem, but I don't really see a way around
it save "special notes."
: Now addendums combined with the use of a Descriptive rating have merit.
: That is the addendum would define the description applied to the vile
: events when they occur and the general Descriptive rating would apply to
: the common events of the game.
How do you determine when something is "vile" and when it
is "not vile?"
For example, in a game with a PG rating of "Moral" (PCs
are not supposed to kill unarmed opponents, but may do so under
extreme provocation as a "lapse in morality"), in which combat
is regularly described cleanly, would the combat suddenly be
described graphically if the opponent were unarmed?
That would seem very peculiar to me.
: A partial example:
: Descriptive: Heroic
: Game vs. Player: Normal (Black)
: Combat is just a matter of hit points, up/down, dead,alive.
: A player could only be tortured under very rare conditions.
: But when the PC is tortured, its very graphic.
Huh.
I would find this extremely confusing without your
explanatory paragraph. How am I to know what sort of events
get "heroic" description and which "black?" It just isn't at
all clear to me.
: Note at Heroic, the addendum has no meaning. Here there will be no chance
: of vile events under any conditions.
Well...that depends on how you define "vile," really.
The sort of events permissable under a "heroic" contract can
certainly be vile if they are described graphically. That's
why, IMO, if you want an overall "heroic" tone to the game, you
must attend not only to the morality rating, but also to the
description rating.
-- Sarah
Oh -- BTW, I know it's terribly late, but welcome to
.advocacy! (The fact that it took so long is surely evidence
that you're doing something right -- everyone's been too busy
thinking about what you've been writing to notice that it was
a de-lurk.)
-- Sarah
Brian Gleichman
> I think that your system does both, really
True enough. As does yours.
Mine is a list of 'don't' which guide to 'do'. Yours is a list of 'do'
which guide to 'don't'. The difference is subtle.
In an ideal world, the result would be identical. In the real world both
will be butchered by those on the extremes. I just think the 'don't' is a
little less likely to go completely astray without being quickly obvious.
> If both PG and GP get the same rating, of course, then it
> _might_ be simply a reflection of the group's unwillingness to
> be exposed to vileness at all. As I saw it, though, the whole
> point of allowing different ratings here was to allow for an
> imposition of morality upon the PCs.
It allows both approaches depending upon the taste of the group.
> Killing of sentients to which the killed has not given
> consent. In other words, all killing save suicide and assisted
> suicide.
Ok.
I take it this results in a campaign similar, in part to Irina's. High
social interaction and low to no frequency of violence.
> Suffice it to say that people differ in what they consider
> morally acceptable or even admirable. If you want to impose a
> certain moral tone on your game, then I think it _very_ important
> that you go into specifics with your players, unless you are already
> certain that they share your particular moral outlook.
We've seen some of that already. I've been very happy that none of it had
dropped to the flame level.
Still, I do think the most people (raised in the western world) have a good
grasp of the 'general view' of what's a 'good' thing, what's an 'bad' thing
and that's there's something in-between that's an 'acceptable' thing. There
are always extreme belief systems that don't understand or even recognize
the 'general view', but I doubt that they would be interested in this
discussion except to jeer it.
> I think that I've got a pretty good idea of your own moral
> beliefs down now, but only because I've read a number of your articles.
Really. You might e-mail me your thoughts. It's interesting to see how
others view you.
> How do you determine when something is "vile" and when it
> is "not vile?"
Once we have the base model, we'll have to match certain types of actions
to "vile", which now is functioning as short hand for violent sexual
crimes, torture, murder of innocents, and stuff like that.
We can't list every possible action of course. By a short list at each
level should give people enough of a guideline to lump those things not
included into a grouping.
> For example, in a game with a PG rating of "Moral" (PCs
> are not supposed to kill unarmed opponents, but may do so under
> extreme provocation as a "lapse in morality"), in which combat
> is regularly described cleanly, would the combat suddenly be
> described graphically if the opponent were unarmed?
Could be I supposed, if it was desired or thought appropriate by the group.
Descriptive Rating modifiers to each interaction would determine the upper
level of description. One isn't forced to go there unless one thinks one
should or must.
Remember, the ratings are to set limits of what one can expect.
> : Descriptive: Heroic
> : Game vs. Player: Normal (Black)
> I would find this extremely confusing without your
> explanatory paragraph. How am I to know what sort of events
> get "heroic" description and which "black?" It just isn't at
> all clear to me.
Descriptive is the normal description applied to common actions found in
the game. In this case nearly everything gets 'heroic' description'
GP: Moral (I'm giving in to the call to change Normal) states that the
players need only worry about those 'vile acts' happening to them only
rarely.
(Black) states that the act (and the results of) that cause the normal
GP:Moral to move dark, can be describe in terms up to and including Black.
It does not specify that it must be so describe.
I hope that's clearer. If not, maybe someone can help me out and tell you
what I mean.
> The sort of events permissable under a "heroic" contract can
> certainly be vile if they are described graphically. That's
> why, IMO, if you want an overall "heroic" tone to the game, you
> must attend not only to the morality rating, but also to the
> description rating.
I agree completely. It was, after all, graphically pointed out to me.
> Oh -- BTW, I know it's terribly late, but welcome to
> .advocacy! (The fact that it took so long is surely evidence
> that you're doing something right -- everyone's been too busy
> thinking about what you've been writing to notice that it was
> a de-lurk.)
>
Thanks. It's been interesting.
Brian Gleichman
John H Kim <jh...@kiaora.cc.columbia.edu> wrote in article
<5q5jrb$sod$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>...
> The reason why I brought it up was that those things are
> important to me in considering whether a campaign is acceptable
> to me.
Agreed. It's just a bit out of scope for what I considering in this model.
Other than that, they are very useful to help set expectations in a
campaign. They (or a modified version of them), could be very useful as a
addition to the model.
> >Morality- defines only if an event is good or evil, not if it
> > should be in the game and under what conditions.
>
> What?! That's precisely what the moral scale is about.
> In a black-and-white game, morally questionable events should
> not be in the game.
True enough. I wasn't attempting to dismiss it on that level. What I was
trying to say is that torture is allowed in a Morality high game and It's
allowed in a Morality low game.
That is, it has no impact on Interactions directly. It does indirectly
though in the same way the Descriptive rating does.
> Yes, but I explained how this was important. For some
> people, torture in a non-serious campaign is acceptable whereas
> it is not acceptable in a serious campaign.
Agree it is important.
But there are people that don't like funny torture any more than they like
serious torture.
None of the Champion ratings will inform them if they can expect it or not.
> >Is Morality clear to everyone, how about just the players, how about
> >just the NPCs. What if the PCs consider Morality clear in relation
> >to other PCs, but not when looking at the NPCs
>
> Could you describe this as an actual game? I haven't
> generally had trouble any of the campaigns I've played in or run
> in terms of the Morality scale I defined (note that I split off
> two issues from the single scale in _Champions_).
A couple of examples:
One for the Moral scale
Player vs. Game: Very distinct good/evil
Game vs. Player: Views everything in shades of gray
One result: The PC would find it much harder to recruit people
based upon the 'evil' actions of the enemy NPC. After
"both sides have good points on their side"
One for the Realistic scale.
Player vs. Game: Unrealistic
Game vs. Player: Realistic
One result: The PC's gun never runs out of ammo.
The NPC's gun run out as it would in the real world.
Brian Gleichman
BTW: I had a thought.
I'm really leaning toward's Sarah's addendum concept.
One of the result of going with it is that Black loses it's descriptive
modifier (as does Heroic).
Given this I have two options:
A) Change Black to mean that not only are those no limits as to
what vile things can happen (which is Dark), but such
events are desired.
OR
B) Change Black to the present meaning of Dark. Change Dark
to mean black with exceptions (i.e. some of the events
are dissallowed, 'we leave children alone' for example.
This would require a exception list for Dark Interactions.
I favor option A myself.
John H Kim
This is a followup to Sarah's comment that she (as a
person) found non-consensual killing to be immoral...
Brian Gleichman <glei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> Killing of sentients to which the killed has not given consent.
>> In other words, all killing save suicide and assisted suicide.
>
>I take it this results in a campaign similar, in part to Irina's.
>High social interaction and low to no frequency of violence.
Actually, my own morality would agree with Sarah's on
this point. However, this doesn't mean that I tend towards
games with no violence. What it means is that I view violent
RPG games as involving immorality -- i.e. I don't see a game
where you torture the bad guys as being much worse than a
game where you kill the bad guys.
In general, the RPG's I tend to play in are violent,
and I tend to view the PC's as a rather bloodthirsty crew --
even if they are "heroic" by other people's standards. I don't
have a problem playing bloodthirsty types, but sometimes I come
into moral conflict with other players. Sometimes I react
badly to cavalier acts of killing, while sometimes they
react badly to one of my acts. Sample dialogue:
"That's evil."
"So was killing those soldiers."
"But they were soldiers of the corrupt government!"
"So what?"
etc.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Still, I do think the most people (raised in the western world) have
>a good grasp of the 'general view' of what's a 'good' thing, what's
>a 'bad' thing and that's there's something in-between that's an
>'acceptable' thing. There are always extreme belief systems that
>don't understand or even recognize the 'general view', but I doubt
>that they would be interested in this discussion except to jeer it.
Hmmm. I hate to bring up 'moral relativism' here, but in
historical campaigns it has been very important. I was in a
_Rolemaster_ campaign in fantasy Renaissance Italy where my PC
was an strict Christian healer who helped others whenever possible,
avoided bloodshed, and so forth. He was also fairly dumb, however,
and did not realize that one of the other PC's was an assassin.
The combat system neccessitated a certain amount of graphic
detail in wounds -- we would occaisionally embellish but
rarely.
Was this a "Dark" or "Black" game for having a poison-using
assassin? Add to this that there was a necromancer, but he viewed
his magic as being moral. If so, then by some accounts my
saintly-type would be out of place, but in fact he was the
highlight of the campaign.
One more thing to note: in those times, punishments for
crimes were frequently quite harsh. At one point, we captured an
evil-doer, and my character took charge of punishing him for his
crimes. I gave him I think forty lashes with a whip as
punishment and then let him go. Was this "vile" as kin to
torture? My character viewed the act as moral, indeed lenient
considering the fellow's crimes. He also had the idea of pain
as a purifying force -- this comes from his being a masochist
and perhaps over-exposure to Christian themes of suffering and
martyrdom. (Note that healers in _Rolemaster_ operate by
taking the wounds of others upon themselves, and Luca *liked*
healing people.)
Brian Gleichman
> Actually, my own morality would agree with Sarah's on
> this point. However, this doesn't mean that I tend towards
> games with no violence. What it means is that I view violent
> RPG games as involving immorality -- i.e. I don't see a game
> where you torture the bad guys as being much worse than a
> game where you kill the bad guys.
You can live nicely by those views and I'm sure you consider them right and
proper.
I do hope that you do realize that it is a 'non-western morality' as such.
That is, the Western World defines a number of conditions where the taking
of life is justified. Hence we have armed police and military forces.
Concepts of defense of life is in built into civilian law. Concepts of
defense of life, property and even culture is built into International law.
I'd view this as the 'general view' of Morality that is in used in my
model. You don't have to agree with it to use it, but you would need to
understand it.
In the West's 'general view', it IS Heroic to kill evil in the defense of
the innocent. We have centuries of history, tradition and law that says it
is.
Move out of the 'general view' and I see cases where one can justify rape
as being moral. I would suggest that those who insist upon doing things
like this drop the model or be certain to redefine it up front.
> Was this a "Dark" or "Black" game for having a poison-using
> assassin? Add to this that there was a necromancer, but he viewed
> his magic as being moral. If so, then by some accounts my
> saintly-type would be out of place, but in fact he was the
> highlight of the campaign.
If the assassin did what assassins do, it would be at least Player vs.
Game: Pragmatic. If he did it to the innocent as well, it would be Player
vs. Game: Dark.
As far as the necromancer goes, like swords, the presence of a type of
magic gets no definition in of itself on the scale. The Model is concerned
with what he does with that magic.
As far as your 'saintly-type', he's a character running with a group that
is Player vs. Game: Pragmatic or Dark. He can be anything he wants that is
at the same level, or lower (as in closer to Heroic).
>I gave him I think forty lashes with a whip as
> punishment and then let him go. Was this "vile" as kin to
> torture?
Just as a note- wasn't forty lashes nearly a death sentence?
I think torture has a different meaning than lashes or 'punch him in the
gut' type of actions. Its a case of degree, as most things are.
The 'punch him in the gut' (something movie/tv/book heros often do once or
twice) is not reason to take things out of Moral in itself, while 'beat him
horriably until he starts talking' would be reason to go to least
Pragmatic.
The main point I want to make here is the historical period has no bearing
upon the Model. The Model is for the use of the GM and Player for defining
what events they can expect to happen in the game.
Hence: A realistic and historical campaign based in one of many history
periods, that refused to gloss over certain events, would be Dark or Black.
It doesn't matter how the characters view them in the least.
Ennead
Brian Gleichman wrote:
: Given this I have two options:
: A) Change Black to mean that not only are those no limits as to
: what vile things can happen (which is Dark), but such
: events are desired.
: OR
: B) Change Black to the present meaning of Dark. Change Dark
: to mean black with exceptions (i.e. some of the events
: are dissallowed, 'we leave children alone' for example.
: This would require a exception list for Dark Interactions.
: I favor option A myself.
I favor option A as well. I think that there is a need
for a term for a contract in which heroism and moral stringency
are actively _discouraged,_ which isn't at all the same thing as a
contract which is strictly laissez-faire about such matters.
-- Sarah
Ennead
John H Kim wrote:
: This is a followup to Sarah's comment that she (as a
: person) found non-consensual killing to be immoral...
: Brian Gleichman <glei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >I take it this results in a campaign similar, in part to Irina's.
: >High social interaction and low to no frequency of violence.
Only if you assume that our game contract is "Heroic"
or "Moral," restricting the conditions under which immoral
acts are permitted to appear in the game world.
Since our game contract does not impose such restrictions,
however, my own personal views on the morality of violence aren't
terribly relevant. Killing is allowed in my games, as are all
other forms of vileness.
As a matter of fact, our current game *is* high in
social interaction and low in combat and PC death, but I would
hardly call it non-violent. There is a good amount of what I
suppose might be termed "domestic violence" in the Isrillion
campaign, and there is unpleasantness of the sort that I believe
qualifies as "vileness" under the prevailing rgfa community
standards.
There is also decency and generosity and kindness -- this
is not a "Black" game -- but the ugly stuff is there too. I should
hate to think that this style would be read as a reflection of my
personal values! It should not be assumed that all behavior
exhibited by the characters in a role-playing game is condoned
by the GM or the group.
: Actually, my own morality would agree with Sarah's on
: this point. However, this doesn't mean that I tend towards
: games with no violence. What it means is that I view violent
: RPG games as involving immorality -- i.e. I don't see a game
: where you torture the bad guys as being much worse than a
: game where you kill the bad guys.
What he said.
Basically, if I'm playing under a contract which specifies
certain types of violence as not only acceptable, but "heroic,"
while others are to be considered vile and evil, then I can
work within those parameters. I merely create a character who
adheres to that particular system of morality.
My character Jasper killed armed opponents without qualm,
but he was made unhappy by a scene in which the group was questioning
a captive. No torture was involved, but the dynamic itself -- the
captive was really at our mercy, and this in and of itself created
an implicit threat of torture -- was sufficient to make him feel
vaguely unclean. He found the entire situation distasteful and
rather uncomfortable.
That's not _my_ morality. But it was Jasper's, and it
fit in rather well with a game in which the PCs were supposed
to fall within the range of prevailing community ideals of "heroism."
So long as you don't ask _me_ to adopt, personally, for
myself as player, the ethic of the genre, I don't particularly mind
playing within it.
: In general, the RPG's I tend to play in are violent,
: and I tend to view the PC's as a rather bloodthirsty crew --
: even if they are "heroic" by other people's standards. I don't
: have a problem playing bloodthirsty types, but sometimes I come
: into moral conflict with other players.
<nod> I've had this problem, although thankfully not
in a long time.
: Sometimes I react
: badly to cavalier acts of killing, while sometimes they
: react badly to one of my acts. Sample dialogue:
: "That's evil."
: "So was killing those soldiers."
: "But they were soldiers of the corrupt government!"
: "So what?"
: etc.
This is really the reason I wanted to emphasize so
vehemently the need for making it clear to the players just
what the moral code of the game *is.* "Don't do vile stuff"
just doesn't help me all that much: if the game turns out to
include all sorts of things that I consider vile, then I find
myself confused as to exactly what the GM _meant_ when he said
"vile stuff."
Even "no gratuitous killing" can be a bit sticky.
Is an ambush "gratuitous?" On the one hand, the ambushees
aren't attacking you *at that moment.* They're not even
*expecting* you. On the other hand, killing them now could
prevent them from killing you (or others) later, and in this
respect, it is far from a gratuitous act of violence. Before
the back-and-forth between Mary and Brian about ambushes, I confess
that it hadn't even occurred to me that someone might consider
ambushing established opponents particularly unacceptable if
the game otherwise allowed the killing of established enemies.
: -*-*-*-*-*-*-
: Hmmm. I hate to bring up 'moral relativism' here, but in
: historical campaigns it has been very important.
<John brings up the subject of crime & punishment)
A very good point. An appropriately "humane" character
for a "heroic" game set in our game world would still hold beliefs
about the appropriate treatment of criminals that would be considered
bloodthirsty (if not monstrous) by the standards of the culture
of the players.
Similarly, there's a level of sexism and misogyny evident
among the Isrillion characters which would be utterly inappropriate
for a game with a similar contract set in the contemporary USA.
Just as there is a genre approach which states "no matter
what your personal beliefs about violence may be, in this game,
*these* types of violence are Heroic, and *these* types are Vile,"
so there is a world approach which sets forth the prevailing
cultural standards of the game society and expects the PCs to
be believable within it. Often, in fact, the two overlap -- "Fair
Combat only applies to other aristocrats," for example.
-- Sarah
Ennead
Some questions about the _Champions_ Campaign Tone
Scale, with an eye towards combining it in some useful fashion
with Brian's recent attempts.
John H Kim wrote:
: - *Morality* is described as "How clear are the moral choices - is
: there a clear difference between good and evil? Or are all aspects
: of morality just different shades of gray?"
: Personally, I would distinguish two common contracts here
: as separate from black/while versus shades of gray. In (1) the
: PC's expected to adhere to strict morality (and how much?),
: whereas in (2) the PC's can commit wrongs, but the GM will
: enforce karma such they are punished for their crimes.
This is really the main issue Brian's scale attempts
to tackle (my constant quibbling about descriptive detail aside).
It does seem to me, though, that there is a very significant
difference between "how black-and-white are moral choices in the
game?" and "to what moral codes, if any, must PCs adhere?"
I also see a big difference between "how clear are the moral choices?"
and "does the world punish the _wrong_ choices?"
It's a bit confusing, to my mind, to have all of this
combined into one scale. Other than spelling out each aspect
separately, do you have any ideas how this might be rectified?
: - *Realism* is "Will your adventures to be realistic or romantic,
: and to what extent?" This includes Script Immunity as well as
: how much genre illogic will be encouraged (i.e. chandalier
: swinging) -- which I would distinguish as separate effects.
Agreed. I would assume that this is also the scale
governing the degree of permissable ugly descriptive detail,
as I see that very much as a question of Realism/Romanticism.
: - *Outlook* is "What does the future hold for the campaign world?
: Are the people there optimistic or pessimistic about the world
: and the future?" Note that things can be bad in an optimistic
: world, just that they are expected to improve (i.e. _Star Wars_
: where the galaxy is ruled by an oppressive Empire).
: I think it is useful to note how this is different from
: the other scales. It is possible to have an romantic epic in
: which clear heroes struggle against dastardly villians -- but
: like the Norse gods versus Ragnarok, there is the sense that
: their eforts are doomed.
Agreed. Tragedy lends itself quite well to romantic
handling, and gritty optimism is certainly a popular gaming stile.
: - *Seriousness* means "How serious is the campaign, and how seriously
: is it taken by the players? Campaigns can range from the totally
: goofy antics of cartoon characters to the jagged-edge seriousness
: of crime stories - and everything in between."
: I would say this is an extremely important scale. The
: classic case that leaps to mind for me is _Paranoia_, which in
: my experience can be extremely amoral and graphic. However,
: it is far more acceptable to many in my group than a serious
: game with graphic violence and amoral backstabbing and torture.
Yes. What this implies, to my mind, is that gamers might
well state their preferences in terms of conditions. "If the
game is not very _Serious,_ then I don't mind low Morality and
high Realism. If the game has a high Seriousness rating and
a low Morality rating, then I would prefer for Realism to be low."
And so forth.
-- Sarah
Brian Gleichman
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<5qj7m7$bbk$4...@nadine.teleport.com>...
> This is really the main issue Brian's scale attempts
> to tackle (my constant quibbling about descriptive detail aside).
> It does seem to me, though, that there is a very significant
> difference between "how black-and-white are moral choices in the
> game?" and "to what moral codes, if any, must PCs adhere?"
> I also see a big difference between "how clear are the moral choices?"
> and "does the world punish the _wrong_ choices?"
>
> It's a bit confusing, to my mind, to have all of this
> combined into one scale. Other than spelling out each aspect
> separately, do you have any ideas how this might be rectified?
You right in that my scale attempts to measure only one aspect of this,
i.e. "What moral codes must be adhered to".
But the scale does extend somewhat to the 'how black-and-white are moral
choices in the game" question.
If would be tough to require Player vs. Game: Heroic if the player's don't
know what Heroic is. Same with the other ratings. At Pragmatic, the things
become gray, at Dark one has good reason not to know, at black one doesn't
even care.
I'd consider this part implied in the other. Than again, there might be a
confusing game out that the requires Moral choices and doesn't give you a
cue as to what those would be. Still, I'd called that Pragmatic/Dark
myself.
Now the question of the World punishing wrong actions....
I'll get back to you.
> : - *Realism* is "Will your adventures to be realistic or romantic,
> : and to what extent?" This includes Script Immunity as well as
> : how much genre illogic will be encouraged (i.e. chandalier
> : swinging) -- which I would distinguish as separate effects.
>
> Agreed. I would assume that this is also the scale
> governing the degree of permissable ugly descriptive detail,
> as I see that very much as a question of Realism/Romanticism.
I think part of it is contained somewhat in General Descriptive Rating. But
part of the rating here is a matter doing "Heroic Deeds" that just plain
aren't realistic.
It would not be easy to determine a scale for this.
> : - *Outlook*
<snip>
A kinda is it this or is it this thing. A two value scale.
> : - *Seriousness*
<snip>
Another two value scale.
As I stated elsewhere, these areas are very important to game tone. Still I
wonder if they aren't so simple and general for all parts of a campaign
that they can't be included in a simple Campaign overview paragraph.