Myths of Gaming 2.0 (RGFA only this time!)
Jeff Heikkinen
keep this one the heck OUT of RGFD, shall we?
Anyway, here is the list in its current form. I'm now putting it in a
spreadsheet, so the following text is from a CSV export. Sorry if that
makes it somewhat hard to read; I did a bit of cleaning up, but not
much.
I was going to develop a fairly detailed typology; the only aspect of
that which ended up surviving was a distinction between "Major" and
"Lesser" myths, which was simply a somewhat arbitrary measure of my
perception of their prevalence, destuctive potential and how
many/important aspects of gaming they involved.
The list has ballooned from 12 (three of which listed a subtype) to 32
(16 of which list a subtype). I've tried to order it more logically,
and reworded some of my original set. A couple of the original ones are
now listed as subtypes of other myths. You'll notice a common theme of
listing two opposite extremes back to back (fudging is always OK /
fudging is never OK, etc). Thanks to everyone who suggested more,
whether I used your suggestions or not.
Major Myths
Myth Important variants
1 The GM is God and/or always right
1a Players who complain are always whiners
2 It's all about the story
2a If the players don't want to follow the GM's storyline,
that's a problem with the players
3 Roleplaying = acting things out
3a Acting out dialogue is always the best way to handle social
encounters
4 Lower-powered games are inherently better
4a Players who prefer higher-powered games are (insert insult
of choice here)
5 Combat-light games are inherently better
5a Dialogue-heavy games are inherently better
6 Powerful = unbalanced
7 More mechanical detail -> more scope for roleplaying
8 More mechanical detail -> less scope for roleplaying
9 Less abstract = more realistic
9a More detailed = more realistic
10 Deadlier = more realistic
10a Guns as unstoppable wands of death
11 More realistic -> better
11a More "realistic" = better (the player doesn't actually
prefer realism per se, but detail and/or deadliness)
12 Equal combat power = game balance
12a Players who complain about relative spotlight time are
whiners
13 Game balance is completely unimportant
13a Players who complain about relative character power are
whiners
14 Optimizing for combat efficiency -> not really roleplaying
15 Not optimizing for combat efficiency = playing incorrectly
16 Tigger Syndrome: If players say they don't care, don't mind, etc
they truly don't
16a If your players never complain, you must be doing okay
17 It's always okay for the GM to fudge rolls
17a The GM should fudge rolls to prevent meaningless PC deaths
18 It's never okay for the GM to fudge rolls
Lesser Myths
Myth Important Variants
19 If you don't say it, your PC doesn't do it
20 Small weapons are faster than big weapons, and similar weapon
speed canards
20a Going first in the combat round is a good way to model
differences in speed
21 The more character background you come up with, the better
21a DIP players are lazy and/or not commited to the game
22 If you know how to do it, your PC can do it
23 If you don't know how to do it, your PC can't do it
24 If something is overpowered, making it rare balances that out
25 Making something expensive = removing it from the game
25a Making something expensive = making it rare
26 Making something dangerous to use = removing it from the game
26a Making something dangerous to use = making it rare
27 Skill systems are more realistic than class systems
28 Magic should always be mysterious (even to its practitioners)
29 Called shots are a reasonable game mechanic
30 Gunpowder has no place in a fantasy setting
31 Stats are the most important aspect of a character
32 Stats are the least important aspect of a character
My eventual plan is to pick about 20 of these and write up more details
(a paragraph or two for each, maybe a bit more for some) and make that
the first thing the potential players in my next group see. If they
think it's the coolest thing they ever saw, great, if they run screaming
for the hills or go all Sea Wasp on me, I know they're potentially
problematic :-).
sw
> Major Myths
> Myth Important variants
> 2a If the players don't want to follow the GM's storyline,
>that's a problem with the players
These two kind of lack full definition. A game obviously doesn't have to be
about a particular story, but the way its written seems to imply that it's
a myth to think that story's always a factor. Story _is_ always a factor,
in that an RPG will, practically by definition, create a story. It may not
be a good one, it doesn't have to be "imposed" by the GM, but playing time
goes in, story comes out. It's a formula of life. Perhaps you meant
"It's all about the (GM's) story"?
2a digs a bit too far into this murky issue. Some might say it's not so
much a myth as a truism. If the GM has a storyline he's bound and determined
to use, but you think it's crap, well... Not to resurrect the horrific
atrocity that is the "GM as God" controversy, but if you join a game under
a GM who you know gets a hard-on for storylines, you really don't have much
justification to complain if the storyline turns out to be not to your liking.
Perhaps it would be better to just stick with "2".
>3 Roleplaying = acting things out
> 3a Acting out dialogue is always the best way to handle social
>encounters
3, again, not so much myth as truism, since the definition is so wide that
it loses all meaning. It might be better to stick with 3a.
>13 Game balance is completely unimportant
> 13a Players who complain about relative character power are
>whiners
Yay!
>My eventual plan is to pick about 20 of these and write up more details
>(a paragraph or two for each, maybe a bit more for some) and make that
>the first thing the potential players in my next group see. If they
>think it's the coolest thing they ever saw, great, if they run screaming
>for the hills or go all Sea Wasp on me, I know they're potentially
>problematic :-).
If it's a group of people you already know, sure. Just speaking from
experience, though, if I walked into a new game and the first thing I'm
introduced to is the Holy Document of Positions on Metagaming Issues,
then wether I agree with what's in it or not, it's going to raise the
big "oh, hell, these people have Issues" warning flags.
Just, y'know, felt I should point that out.
--
--- An' thou dost not get caught, do as thou wilt shall be the law ---
"Religion disperses like a fog, kingdoms perish, but the works of
scholars remain for an eternity." - Ulughbek
Wayne Shaw
>Boy, my first Myths of Gaming thread sure went degenerate fast. Let's
>keep this one the heck OUT of RGFD, shall we?
>
I could have told you that would not go well.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Story _is_ always a factor, in that an RPG will, practically by
> definition, create a story.
I don't accept that RPGs necessarily create stories at all, and
definitely not "by definition." There's a difference between experience
and story. The former is living through an event, and the latter is
structured communication of an event with the goal to inform or
entertain the recipient. IME, many RPGs are experiential in nature; they
fit the definition of "story" only in a trivial, accidental way.
By "trivial and accidental," I mean that there are no useful conclusions
to be drawn from analyzing the game as a story, so there's no point in
thinking of it that way. In particular, if storytelling techniques would
not improve the game noticeably, why call it a story? In my experience,
doing so detracts from analyzing the game in the more appropriate
"experiential" context, and therefore it actually hurts the quality of
the game.
> It may not be a good one, it doesn't have to be "imposed" by the GM,
> but playing time goes in, story comes out. It's a formula of life.
This analogy is actually helpful: Living your life as a story is not
generally helpful and often harmful. It's much better to live your life
as an experience. The same goes for games which focus on experience
rather than storytelling.
I think this qualifies
Playing an RPG always tells a story.
as a myth of gaming.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Wayne Shaw
>>3 Roleplaying = acting things out
>> 3a Acting out dialogue is always the best way to handle social
>>encounters
>
>3, again, not so much myth as truism, since the definition is so wide that
>it loses all meaning. It might be better to stick with 3a.
But unless you use "act" very broadly, it's not a truism. Someone can
be in the head of their character, be making decisions entirely from
their POV, and yet third-person narrate the result. That's not
"acting" in any meaningful sense that I see.
Robert Scott Clark
news:slrnbrn8vi.9...@szonye.com:
> sw <s...@eyrie.org> wrote:
>> Story _is_ always a factor, in that an RPG will, practically by
>> definition, create a story.
>
> I don't accept that RPGs necessarily create stories at all, and
> definitely not "by definition." There's a difference between experience
> and story. The former is living through an event,
You don't live through an even in a RPG. You tell it back and forth
between the participants.
> and the latter is
> structured communication of an event with the goal to inform or
> entertain the recipient.
Limited and therefore incorrect definition.
sw
>sw <s...@eyrie.org> wrote:
>> Story _is_ always a factor, in that an RPG will, practically by
>> definition, create a story.
>
>I don't accept that RPGs necessarily create stories at all, and
>definitely not "by definition." There's a difference between experience
>and story. The former is living through an event, and the latter is
>structured communication of an event with the goal to inform or
>entertain the recipient. IME, many RPGs are experiential in nature; they
>fit the definition of "story" only in a trivial, accidental way.
>
>By "trivial and accidental," I mean that there are no useful conclusions
>to be drawn from analyzing the game as a story, so there's no point in
>thinking of it that way. In particular, if storytelling techniques would
>not improve the game noticeably, why call it a story? In my experience,
>doing so detracts from analyzing the game in the more appropriate
>"experiential" context, and therefore it actually hurts the quality of
>the game.
I do have to agree with you that intentionally analyzing "the story" of
a game as opposed to "what the characters ought to do" can be quite
detrimental. Of course, I've seen both methods ("Here's a situation.
Here's some characters. Hijinks ensue!" and "Behold the mighty plotline!")
acheive both spectacular success and miserable failure, so hey.
I don't agree with your definition of story, of course, but since
arguing definitions on Usenet is a fool's errand, I'll cheerfully skip to
the more interesting part, which is, what do you mean by 'experimental'?
Do you mean it in the "experimental art" sort of sense, or just in the
sense of throwing characters into a situation and seeing what they do?
>> It may not be a good one, it doesn't have to be "imposed" by the GM,
>> but playing time goes in, story comes out. It's a formula of life.
>
>This analogy is actually helpful: Living your life as a story is not
>generally helpful and often harmful. It's much better to live your life
>as an experience. The same goes for games which focus on experience
>rather than storytelling.
>
>I think this qualifies
>
> Playing an RPG always tells a story.
>
>as a myth of gaming.
I do think there's a certain degree of confusion here between the
process and the results. I could agree with "Playing an RPG always
requires storytelling (techniques)" which sounds much the same but
really isn't, but at that point we're starting to get into metaphysics
which, if anything, makes this discussion even more wacky.
sw
Granted. I probably stretched the definition a bit too far on that one.
Now, what if we posit that the Narrator is, itself, a characte-- ow! Not
the face!
Joachim Schipper
news:MPG.1a24bbaa7...@news.easynews.com...
> Boy, my first Myths of Gaming thread sure went degenerate fast. Let's
> keep this one the heck OUT of RGFD, shall we?
Not a bad idea. I'd try to reform some of the trolls if I actually cared for
the group a bit, but as it stands, I'll happily leave them to the trolls
they so willingly tolerate.
> Anyway, here is the list in its current form. I'm now putting it in a
> spreadsheet, so the following text is from a CSV export. Sorry if that
> makes it somewhat hard to read; I did a bit of cleaning up, but not
> much.
>
> I was going to develop a fairly detailed typology; the only aspect of
> that which ended up surviving was a distinction between "Major" and
> "Lesser" myths, which was simply a somewhat arbitrary measure of my
> perception of their prevalence, destuctive potential and how
> many/important aspects of gaming they involved.
May I suggest other types of division? In particular, 'untrue in many cases'
and 'untrue in a rare few cases'. While the latter are as theoretically
valid as the former, they will not be much good for most standard players -
it's mostly of interest to such (over)analyzing groups as rfga.
> The list has ballooned from 12 (three of which listed a subtype) to 32
> (16 of which list a subtype). I've tried to order it more logically,
> and reworded some of my original set. A couple of the original ones are
> now listed as subtypes of other myths. You'll notice a common theme of
> listing two opposite extremes back to back (fudging is always OK /
> fudging is never OK, etc). Thanks to everyone who suggested more,
> whether I used your suggestions or not.
>
> 12 Equal combat power = game balance
> 13 Game balance is completely unimportant
> 14 Optimizing for combat efficiency -> not really roleplaying
> 15 Not optimizing for combat efficiency = playing incorrectly
> 24 If something is overpowered, making it rare balances that out
> 25 Making something expensive = removing it from the game
> 25a Making something expensive = making it rare
> 26 Making something dangerous to use = removing it from the game
> 26a Making something dangerous to use = making it rare
Those are really all about game balance, which is probably quite important
in a D&D group but, frankly, do not really interest me. You may want to
review them.
> 20 Small weapons are faster than big weapons, and similar weapon
> speed canards
> 20a Going first in the combat round is a good way to model
> differences in speed
> 27 Skill systems are more realistic than class systems
> 29 Called shots are a reasonable game mechanic
And those are mostly single-rule points. I do not necessarily disagree, but
I do feel they are less 'mythical' than your other myths, and certainly of a
very different sort (rules vs the actual game).
> 16 Tigger Syndrome: If players say they don't care, don't mind, etc
> they truly don't
> 16a If your players never complain, you must be doing okay
Very important, indeed.
I had a few points of critique, as you see. However, most of it (as in 'the
part I did not mention') was very good. Thanks!
Joachim
---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 14-11-03
Joachim Schipper
news:slrnbrnb...@haven.eyrie.org...
It reads 'experiential', based on experience, not experiment. I had to read
it twice myself, actually...
Robert Scott Clark
>
>> 12 Equal combat power = game balance
>> 13 Game balance is completely unimportant
>> 14 Optimizing for combat efficiency -> not really roleplaying
>> 15 Not optimizing for combat efficiency = playing incorrectly
>> 24 If something is overpowered, making it rare balances that out
>> 25 Making something expensive = removing it from the game
>> 25a Making something expensive = making it rare
>> 26 Making something dangerous to use = removing it from the game
>> 26a Making something dangerous to use = making it rare
>
> Those are really all about game balance, which is probably quite
> important in a D&D group but, frankly, do not really interest me. You
> may want to review them.
24-26a have little to do with game balance. There are plenty of reasons to
want something to be rare other than balance. And balance seldom has
anything to do with wanting something removed altogether.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> I don't accept that RPGs necessarily create stories at all, and
>> definitely not "by definition." There's a difference between experience
>> and story. The former is living through an event, and the latter is
>> structured communication of an event with the goal to inform or
>> entertain the recipient. IME, many RPGs are experiential in nature; they
>> fit the definition of "story" only in a trivial, accidental way.
sw wrote:
> I do have to agree with you that intentionally analyzing "the story"
> of a game as opposed to "what the characters ought to do" can be quite
> detrimental. Of course, I've seen both methods ("Here's a situation.
> Here's some characters. Hijinks ensue!" and "Behold the mighty
> plotline!") acheive both spectacular success and miserable failure, so
> hey.
Correct. Both approaches can fail. What's important here is that IME
most gamers who say "All RPGs tell a story" rely on equivocation to
prove that storytelling techniques are universally useful to gamers.
Specifically, they use the "life is a story" definition to prove that
all games are stories, then they quietly switch to the "deliberate
storytelling" definition -- equivocation -- to show that storytelling
techniques are useful.
> I don't agree with your definition of story, of course ....
There's more than one definition of "story." Yes, we do say that "life
is a story," but that's just a metaphorical observation with few
practical consequences. Unfortunately, many gamers equivocate that
definition with "storytelling" and use it as an excuse to recommend
specific storytelling techniques or (worse) to claim that all gamers are
storytellers.
> [What] do you mean by 'experimental'?
That's "experiential," not "experimental." In this context, I use it to
mean "experiencing an event for its own sake." There's a difference
between an entertaining *experience* and an entertaining *story*, and
that difference is important in this context.
> I could agree with [the myth] "Playing an RPG always requires
> storytelling (techniques)" which sounds much the same but really
> isn't, but at that point we're starting to get into metaphysics which,
> if anything, makes this discussion even more wacky.
I stated it the way I did because many gamers disguise your version by
stating it as "All RPGs are stories." While the claim itself may be
true, it typically leads to equivocation with your version. In short,
it's not *untrue*, but it is *harmful* because it commonly leads to a
harmful untruth, and that fits Jeff's definition.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Boy, my first Myths of Gaming thread sure went degenerate fast. Let's
>> keep this one the heck OUT of RGFD, shall we?
Joachim Schipper wrote:
> Not a bad idea. I'd try to reform some of the trolls if I actually
> cared for the group a bit, but as it stands, I'll happily leave them
> to the trolls they so willingly tolerate.
Hey, careful who you're callin' "they"!
> May I suggest other types of division? In particular, 'untrue in many
> cases' and 'untrue in a rare few cases'. While the latter are as
> theoretically valid as the former, they will not be much good for most
> standard players - it's mostly of interest to such (over)analyzing
> groups as rfga.
Good idea.
>> 12 Equal combat power = game balance
>> 13 Game balance is completely unimportant
>> 14 Optimizing for combat efficiency -> not really roleplaying
>> 15 Not optimizing for combat efficiency = playing incorrectly
>> 24 If something is overpowered, making it rare balances that out
>> 25 Making something expensive = removing it from the game
>> 25a Making something expensive = making it rare
>> 26 Making something dangerous to use = removing it from the game
>> 26a Making something dangerous to use = making it rare
> Those are really all about game balance, which is probably quite
> important in a D&D group but, frankly, do not really interest me. You
> may want to review them.
I think any gamer who prefers #13 (i.e., who does not care about game
balance) would consider these unimportant. However, I think the majority
of gamers follow just the opposite myth ("Game balance is king") would
consider them very important.
>> 20 Small weapons are faster than big weapons, and similar weapon
>> speed canards
>> 20a Going first in the combat round is a good way to model
>> differences in speed
>> 27 Skill systems are more realistic than class systems
>> 29 Called shots are a reasonable game mechanic
> And those are mostly single-rule points. I do not necessarily
> disagree, but I do feel they are less 'mythical' than your other
> myths, and certainly of a very different sort (rules vs the actual
> game).
Yes, they're of a different sort, but I suspect that Jeff included them
because they're very, very common myths (and very, very common flamewars
in games that touch on them). Some of them are specific examples of more
general myths on the list; for example, "Called shots are better" is
typically a specific example of "More detailed is better."
Robert Scott Clark
> Correct. Both approaches can fail. What's important here is that IME
> most gamers who say "All RPGs tell a story" rely on equivocation to
> prove that storytelling techniques are universally useful to gamers.
It makes me uncomfortable when people attempt to say what is or isn't true
based on whether they think the effect are positive or negative.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Correct. Both approaches can fail. What's important here is that IME
>> most gamers who say "All RPGs tell a story" rely on equivocation to
>> prove that storytelling techniques are universally useful to gamers.
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> It makes me uncomfortable when people attempt to say what is or isn't
> true based on whether they think the effect are positive or negative.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm not claiming that "All
RPGs tell a story" is strictly false; there are definitions of "story"
for which it is true.
What I am objecting to is the fact that the overwhelming majority of
gamers who make the claim falsely equate it to a *different* claim.
Specifically, they follow it with "... and therefore, the dramatist
approach is the One True Way" or at least "... and therefore, it's
always helpful to apply storytelling techniques to RPGs."
They equivocate "All RPGs tell a story" with "All RPGs are stories in
the storytelling sense," which is incorrect and harmful.
sw
>> [What] do you mean by 'experimental'?
>
>That's "experiential," not "experimental." In this context, I use it to
>mean "experiencing an event for its own sake." There's a difference
>between an entertaining *experience* and an entertaining *story*, and
>that difference is important in this context.
So how would you describe "experiential game play"? Are we actually
talking about different concepts here, or are you defining "green" to
mean "blue" so that you can say "it is true that the sky is green",
which, while a perfectly valid thing to do in a debate, tends to drive
people completely insane.
sw
To return this to the context of the original post, though, it does not
necessarily follow that it's a good idea to put this on the list of
"myths". What you object to (with entirely reasonable justification) is
the position that all games require storytelling techniques, which is of
course not true. I don't think it's a good idea to then include the much
broader "All RPGs tell a story" in the list of myths, especially if it's
not just for the purposes of random debate, but for an actual meta-logic
handout for a gaming group. If you need an extensive list of definitions
and explanations to make sense of the point, then it would seem to be
somewhat counter-productive.
sw
>"sw" <s...@eyrie.org> schreef in bericht
>> >the game.
>> sense of throwing characters into a situation and seeing what they do?
>
>It reads 'experiential', based on experience, not experiment. I had to read
>it twice myself, actually...
Egads. So it does. That leaves me completely baffled, then, as opposed
to merely slightly confused.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:29:18 GMT:
> I was going to develop a fairly detailed typology; the only aspect of
> that which ended up surviving was a distinction between "Major" and
> "Lesser" myths, which was simply a somewhat arbitrary measure of my
> perception of their prevalence, destuctive potential and how
> many/important aspects of gaming they involved.
You still need to explain what it is you mean by "myth". "Destructive
potential", again, indicates that you think these are all lies, which
produce a negative effect if they're believed.
The majority of them still fall into three categories: 1) Your pet
peeves and personal damage, which are not believed by many real gamers,
2) Things which are commonly believed, but are correct and harmless or
actively beneficial to the vast majority of games, or 3) Things which
are purely a matter of taste, and therefore should not be lumped with
the "destructive myths" if there are any.
Since you didn't bother to address most of the points in a useful
fashion last time, I'll pass on doing a point-by-point of this one; take
the same comments as read, because the same problems still exist.
So what you've got right now is really just... nothing. It's useless
as it is, except as something to argue over. When you figure out what
your point is, get the chip off your shoulder, and learn to deal with
criticism in a civil and objective manner, perhaps you can do something
useful with it.
I'm not saying that to be hostile. I'm saying that because you've
obviously got a lot of issues about gaming, and you need to work them
out in private rather than in public.
> My eventual plan is to pick about 20 of these and write up more details
> (a paragraph or two for each, maybe a bit more for some) and make that
> the first thing the potential players in my next group see. If they
> think it's the coolest thing they ever saw, great, if they run screaming
> for the hills or go all Sea Wasp on me, I know they're potentially
> problematic :-).
No, what you'll know then is that they have sense enough to see that
there are fundamental problems with your list. Admittedly, this might
be "problematic" if you don't want players in your group who are more
rational than you are. You're doing them a favor, in that case. I'd
certainly rather play with Sea Wasp's group...
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"I believe in communication. If I communicate with you every so often,
you'll be bothered by what I say enough that you won't ask me to, which
means more sleep for me." -Something Positive, 2003Sep22
Bradd W. Szonye
>> [Gamers often] equivocate "All RPGs tell a story" with "All RPGs are
>> stories in the storytelling sense," which is incorrect and harmful.
sw <s...@eyrie.org> wrote:
> To return this to the context of the original post, though, it does
> not necessarily follow that it's a good idea to put this on the list
> of "myths". What you object to (with entirely reasonable
> justification) is the position that all games require storytelling
> techniques, which is of course not true. I don't think it's a good
> idea to then include the much broader "All RPGs tell a story" in the
> list of myths ....
It's a good idea because it typically leads to a harmful myth. Perhaps:
100. Good storytelling techniques -> better game.
100a. All RPGs tell a story.
(Not a myth, strictly speaking, but beware of gamers who
use #100a to "prove" #100.)
Bradd W. Szonye
>> That's "experiential," not "experimental." In this context, I use it
>> to mean "experiencing an event for its own sake." There's a
>> difference between an entertaining *experience* and an entertaining
>> *story*, and that difference is important in this context.
sw <s...@eyrie.org> wrote:
> So how would you describe "experiential game play"? Are we actually
> talking about different concepts here ....
It's definitely different from "storytelling game play." Storytelling
relies on specific techniques to organize events, to provide tension, to
develop characters, etc. They have the goal of deliberately creating
"better stories."
That's not generally appropriate for experiential play, and it's often
harmful. That's because storytelling techniques tend to weed out the
"bad stories," but that's undesirable for many experiential players, for
two reasons. First, the knowledge that somebody is deliberately
directing the game tends to dilute the impact of the experiences.
Second, it can eliminate events which make for fun experiences but dull
stories.
As for describing experiential play, it often involves deep immersion
and strict exclusion of meta-game influences. It focuses on getting into
the character's head or otherwise "directly" enjoying his experiences.
The use of storytelling techniques tends to disrupt that, just as you
might feel "weirded out" if you suspected that your life were actually
some story told by gods instead of an experience under your control.
Richard Brown
Nice list. I hate how it degenerated into a flame war before.
Hopefully I can add a few constructive coments without starting
another.
> Major Myths
> Myth Important variants
> 1 The GM is God and/or always right
The GM by definition of his job must get the last word on any
important issue. However, a good GM must be sensitive to the players
feelings and opinions. RPG's are all about having a good time and
that usual requires that the GM be open to the players opinions and
ocasionaly reverse a decision based on them. OTOH sometimes a GM has
good reasons for a decision that wont make sense to the players and
that he can't tell them without spoiling a later surprise, hopefully
the players can trust the GM in those situations enough to let things
unfold in what is eventualy (hopefully) an enjoyable fassion.
> 1a Players who complain are always whiners
A players complaint only becomes whining when it starts lesening the
enjoyment of the game for everyone else.
> 2 It's all about the story
It is about the story that the GM and players make together in a
cooperative, albeit ocasionaly haphasard fassion. It's not about the
story that the GM has planed in advance.
> 2a If the players don't want to follow the GM's storyline,
> that's a problem with the players
The reverse can also be true. That is if the players are folowing a
particular storyline and the GM sudenly changes things on them it
doesn't necessarily mean he (or she) is a bad GM.
Example: the GM had planed an adventure where the PC's, Heroes of
the Realm all, stop the overthow of the kingdom. Instead of catching
the plot as planed the players go off on a odd tangent. The GM is
then IMO within his rights to have the plot against the kingdom go on
in the background without the PC's involved while he is GM'ing their
tangent. In this case the PC's will likely find themselves on the
losing side of a palace coup in the middle of whatever else they were
doing.
The story and the world belong to both the players and GM and if the
players chose to ignore the parts of the world the GM is trying to
tell them are important the GM is within his/her rights to have those
parts turn around and bite the players. I do not agree with
railroading the players, but when they ignore things that will make
the game world less plesant, the world will become unpleasant. Then
again a less plesant world can provide more role playing oportunities
so it's not all bad.
> 3 Roleplaying = acting things out
If the player is as articulate, gracefull, wise or what have you as
his character this can add to the game experience. However the reason
for having a character sheet is to describe things the character can
do whether the player can or not.
> 3a Acting out dialogue is always the best way to handle social
> encounters
Sometimes a less than articulate player will want a silver tounged
character. In such cases it's unfair to ask the player to act out his
PC's persuasiveness, he won't be able to do so convincingly and it
will detract from the game. Better to handle it with a die roll.
> 4 Lower-powered games are inherently better
Some genere can only be handled at higher power levels.
> 4a Players who prefer higher-powered games are (insert insult
> of choice here)
Truth: insults are best reserved for those who think RPG's should be
played to WIN rather than to have fun.
> 5 Combat-light games are inherently better
They are in some genere and with some groups, but definitely not all.
Better=everyone is having more fun.
> 5a Dialogue-heavy games are inherently better
Again true in some genere and groups not all.
> 6 Powerful = unbalanced
Powerfull is harder to balance with game mechanics and therefore
requires more work from the GM to balance with things like spolight
time ect. People who believe this myth probably get their ideas from
GM's who are experienced at lower power games and try their hand at
high powered ones without understanding the different requirements.
> 7 More mechanical detail -> more scope for roleplaying
> 8 More mechanical detail -> less scope for roleplaying
The trick with both of these is finding the right level of mechanical
detail for your group. Too mutch and you get bogged down, to little
and it isn't as much fun. Just right is a variable.
> 9 Less abstract = more realistic
> 9a More detailed = more realistic
again a issue of finding just right for your group.
> 10 Deadlier = more realistic
Well real life weapons are plenty deadly and historicaly all sorts of
nasty tricks have been used to make them more so (like smearing dung
on blades to encorage infected wounds). Most wounds are not
imediately fatal however, someone who dies of a gunshot wound is far
more likely to bleed to death on the way to the hospital than die
instantly. The real question is what level of deadlyness is
apropriate to the genere.
> 10a Guns as unstoppable wands of death
Well they do alow a less trained person to kill more quickly over
greater distance. OTOH wheteher it's a sword, arow or bullet that
goes through your heart your just as dead.
> 11 More realistic -> better
This is just plain silly. Would you like a game where in low tech
settings a PC could die from a infected shaving cut? That is
realistic. The realism desireable for a game is the realism suited to
the fictional genere the game portrays.
> 11a More "realistic" = better (the player doesn't actually
> prefer realism per se, but detail and/or deadliness)
Just right "realism"=better, but what just right means depends on the
group.
> 12 Equal combat power = game balance
This is true for combat heavy games but only then.
> 12a Players who complain about relative spotlight time are
> whiners
You'd whine too if you spent most of the game watching from the
sidelines.
Just because someone has started whining about something doesn't mean
they are wrong.
> 13 Game balance is completely unimportant
Explain what you mean by game balance, and in what context, then
people can decide if it's important or not.
> 13a Players who complain about relative character power are
> whiners
This may be true in a combat heavy game, but not always even then.
> 14 Optimizing for combat efficiency -> not really roleplaying
Well even the most combat hardened vetran has intrests and abilities
ouside of combat but his combat abilities should be prety well
optomised. Also a character who has never known a life outside of
combat will not have any non combat ablilities and those will be
totaly optomised (otherwise the character would be dead).
> 15 Not optimizing for combat efficiency = playing incorrectly
Truth: Playing corecly=appropriate combat optimization. Appropriate
depends on character concept.
> 16 Tigger Syndrome: If players say they don't care, don't mind, etc
> they truly don't
> 16a If your players never complain, you must be doing okay
In both of these the players must take much of the responsibilaty.
Without feedback the GM can't know what's wrong. Conversely the GM
MUST be open to such feedback.
> 17 It's always okay for the GM to fudge rolls
Well the point of a GM screen is to alow the GM to fudge rolls when
dramaticaly apropriate. What constitutes dramaticaly apropriate is a
mater of oppinion.
> 17a The GM should fudge rolls to prevent meaningless PC deaths
Depends on what you call meaningless. If you mean death by a suprise
atack from out of the blue or batling a meaningless NPC then yes. If
you mean death from doing something Mind Numbingly Stupid (like
starting a unnecessary fight with meaninless NPC's) then NO.
> 18 It's never okay for the GM to fudge rolls
Some people like playing this way and let the body's fall where they
may. More power to them, as long as they remember not everyone likes
that sort of game.
>
> Lesser Myths
> Myth Important Variants
> 19 If you don't say it, your PC doesn't do it
This might be true in some situations. An example used in the
previous thread was the player saying he checked for traps on the
first 19 doors and not saying it on door 20. The player may be
asuming that the GM know's he'll check every door because that's been
the patern, but the GM may think if no traps have been found on 1-19
so the PC is getting careless. If this is the case fairness would
dictate alowing the PC a saving roll to see if he's as careless as the
player.
> 20 Small weapons are faster than big weapons, and similar weapon
> speed canards
You left of the quotes around faster this time but I asume you still
mean able to atack first.
> 20a Going first in the combat round is a good way to model
> differences in speed
I've actualy played games with "simultaneously resolved combat" that
simulated tactical advantage or speed by who goes last ie the faster
player or the one at greater advantage get's to see what everyone else
does and react acordingly. It worked prety well for that game.
> 21 The more character background you come up with, the better
> 21a DIP players are lazy and/or not commited to the game
If I'm the GM I find a detailed background with lots of plot hooks
helpfull. OTOH if it's a detailed background with no hooks I wonder
why I should care. By the same token if a Player doesn't have a
backgound fleshed out I can use that to create plot hooks for the
character and flesh it out as we go (with the players help of course).
> 22 If you know how to do it, your PC can do it
> 23 If you don't know how to do it, your PC can't do it
If these two were true what then would be the point of writing
character sheets?
> 24 If something is overpowered, making it rare balances that out
Actualy making something overpowered rare can make someone with it
even more powerfull because of the rarity. OTOH making something
overpowerfull common can add a M.A.D. component to the things and make
it's use less comon.
> 25 Making something expensive = removing it from the game
Adding expense can in the long run just make the item more powerfull,
because fewer characters will get it. If you want something removed,
forbid it before hand or have it confiscated, stolen or lost after the
fact.
> 25a Making something expensive = making it rare
Well if it's expensive enough the cost will outweigh the benifits and
almost no one will bother to get it. If you make something expensive
to keep it rare and everyone get's it anyway you obviously didn't make
it expensive enough.
> 26 Making something dangerous to use = removing it from the game
> 26a Making something dangerous to use = making it rare
Like making something expensive this depends on the risk to benefit
ratio. If something causes instant death to the user for minimal
return it won't get used. OTOH if the benifit is high enough even
instant death may not deter use.
> 27 Skill systems are more realistic than class systems
Personaly I do think skill systems are more realistic except in cases
where the class is a profesion with a higly specific training program
like some military training where the skill set may not be available
to those outside the military. Even then for clases to be ralistic
they should alow learning of skills outside the class without too much
dificulty. YMMV
I think 27a should be Class systems are more realistic/easyer to
learn/"better" than skill systems should also be included. Neither is
truly superior in all cases it's a matter of taste.
> 28 Magic should always be mysterious (even to its practitioners)
Far more interestin IMO to have the practitioners have a idea about
how magic works that seems to be corect but has some gaps or flaws.
This makes understanding of magic more like science ie. "We have a
model that seems to explain everything we have encountered so far so
it must be right." even though later eveidence proves the model wrong.
However practitioners of magic may want to keep it mysterous to
everyone else.
> 29 Called shots are a reasonable game mechanic
They can be if handled corectly but not otherwise.
> 30 Gunpowder has no place in a fantasy setting
Interestin though seing as how most clasical fantasy RPG's are based
on Tolkein. In The Hobbit Tolkein strongly alludes to Goblins being
responsible for the invention of Gunpowder, and mentions Galdalfs
fireworks. OTOH I think that if gunpowder is included in a clasical
fantasy setting it should be left rare and mysterious to any but
highly trained wizards and alchemists. For non clasic fantasy like
Deadlands or Shadowrun having gunpowder common is required.
> 31 Stats are the most important aspect of a character
> 32 Stats are the least important aspect of a character
>
These two depend on the players, GM and the game system.
> My eventual plan is to pick about 20 of these and write up more details
> (a paragraph or two for each, maybe a bit more for some) and make that
> the first thing the potential players in my next group see. If they
> think it's the coolest thing they ever saw, great, if they run screaming
> for the hills or go all Sea Wasp on me, I know they're potentially
> problematic :-).
I assume you will be taloring your 20 to your plaing style and the
game you will be playing. After all if your playing D&D the myth
about skill systems vs class systems is a moot point, likewise if you
prefer less mechanical detail the point about that ofering less
roleplaing opertunity is also moot.
Bradd W. Szonye
> You still need to explain what it is you mean by "myth". "Destructive
> potential", again, indicates that you think these are all lies, which
> produce a negative effect if they're believed.
No, it doesn't. Please improve your reading comprehension, or get your
telepathy helmet repaired, or whatever it is you need to do to
understand this simple concept that just about everyone else has
successfully grasped.
> The majority of them still fall into three categories: 1) Your pet
> peeves and personal damage, which are not believed by many real
> gamers ...
You need to get out more.
> 2) Things which are commonly believed, but are correct and harmless or
> actively beneficial to the vast majority of games ...
Like the DIP vs DAS thing, eh? You need to pull your head out of your ass.
> 3) Things which are purely a matter of taste, and therefore should not
> be lumped with the "destructive myths" if there are any.
They're quite destructive in practice, especially when one of the people
involved believes that it is actually a universal truth rather than a
matter of taste (which is common).
Are you sure that you actually play RPGs?
> I'm not saying that to be hostile.
Like you weren't being hostile to DIP players? You need to either
improve your social skills (if you're being honest here) or stop lying
about your motives (if you aren't).
> I'm saying that because you've obviously got a lot of issues about
> gaming, and you need to work them out in private rather than in
> public.
Bullshit.
sw
>> To return this to the context of the original post, though, it does
>> not necessarily follow that it's a good idea to put this on the list
>> of "myths". What you object to (with entirely reasonable
>> justification) is the position that all games require storytelling
>> techniques, which is of course not true. I don't think it's a good
>> idea to then include the much broader "All RPGs tell a story" in the
>> list of myths ....
>
>It's a good idea because it typically leads to a harmful myth. Perhaps:
>
> 100. Good storytelling techniques -> better game.
> 100a. All RPGs tell a story.
> (Not a myth, strictly speaking, but beware of gamers who
> use #100a to "prove" #100.)
This still doesn't feel entirely right, but I'm kind of stuck for how
I'd phrase it better. There's probably no really good way to state it,
which is likely to be the case for a lot of the things on the list.
Jeff Heikkinen
A fairly typical Kamikaze post, followed by...
> I'm not saying that to be hostile.
Thanks for the best laugh I've had today! Damn near spewed Coke all
over my screen.
sw
>sw <s...@eyrie.org> wrote:
>> So how would you describe "experiential game play"? Are we actually
>> talking about different concepts here ....
>
>It's definitely different from "storytelling game play." Storytelling
>relies on specific techniques to organize events, to provide tension, to
>develop characters, etc. They have the goal of deliberately creating
>"better stories."
>
>That's not generally appropriate for experiential play, and it's often
>harmful. That's because storytelling techniques tend to weed out the
>"bad stories," but that's undesirable for many experiential players, for
>two reasons. First, the knowledge that somebody is deliberately
>directing the game tends to dilute the impact of the experiences.
>Second, it can eliminate events which make for fun experiences but dull
>stories.
>
>As for describing experiential play, it often involves deep immersion
>and strict exclusion of meta-game influences. It focuses on getting into
>the character's head or otherwise "directly" enjoying his experiences.
>The use of storytelling techniques tends to disrupt that, just as you
>might feel "weirded out" if you suspected that your life were actually
>some story told by gods instead of an experience under your control.
In my experience, "experiential" play tended to work better in online
games. I must admit to having a certain degree of difficulty visualizing
it in "tabletop" play, unless you're dealing with a small group of
people who already mesh well out-of-game, or, say, a historical
re-enactment.
It's entirely possible to mesh them, but not in a game with an explicit
game-master role. I've never seen a game last very long without
someone to occasionally upset a few in-character apple-carts, though I'm
willing to admit that someone, somewhere must have pulled it off.
Bradd W. Szonye
Richard Brown <rbr...@myriad.com> wrote:
> The GM by definition of his job must get the last word on any
> important issue ....
Only if that job definition includes "referee," which is not always the
case. Some GMs act as moderators or facilitators instead, relying on
group consensus for the "last word."
>> 1a Players who complain are always whiners
> A players complaint only becomes whining when it starts lesening the
> enjoyment of the game for everyone else.
Even that isn't necessarily whining. It could mean that the rest of the
group is abusive, ganging up on him, or simply incompatible with his
preferences.
>> 2 It's all about the story
> It is about the story that the GM and players make together in a
> cooperative, albeit ocasionaly haphasard fassion.
That's only true for the trivial, useless definition of "story" as "a
series of events." Since that definition isn't useful, and it's
typically misunderstood to mean "storytelling," I strongly object to its
use.
>> 4a Players who prefer higher-powered games are (insert insult
>> of choice here)
> Truth: insults are best reserved for those who think RPG's should be
> played to WIN rather than to have fun.
Hey, that's another myth. There's nothing wrong with competitive RPGs,
and there are even published examples IIRC. Winning is fun, so it's
often "played to win *because* it's fun." In particular, I don't know
many players who try to win *instead* of having fun.
>> 17 It's always okay for the GM to fudge rolls
> Well the point of a GM screen is to alow the GM to fudge rolls when
> dramaticaly apropriate.
Some of us dislike screens too, you know.
>> 17a The GM should fudge rolls to prevent meaningless PC deaths
> Depends on what you call meaningless.
No, it doesn't, because many players believe that:
>> 18 It's never okay for the GM to fudge rolls
> Some people like playing this way and let the body's fall where they
> may. More power to them, as long as they remember not everyone likes
> that sort of game.
And this is why the last two are myths; they spoil the game for these
players.
>> 21 The more character background you come up with, the better
>> 21a DIP players are lazy and/or not commited to the game
> If I'm the GM I find a detailed background with lots of plot hooks
> helpfull.
I don't. To me, it's more stuff to keep track of, and I hate heavy
bookkeeping. I prefer characters with only a few hooks, and I prefer
hooks which arise from play rather than from background.
>> 27 Skill systems are more realistic than class systems
> Personaly I do think skill systems are more realistic except in cases
> where the class is a profesion with a higly specific training program
> like some military training where the skill set may not be available
> to those outside the military.
They typically do a poor job of showing relationships between similar
skills, which is something that comes up in more than just the "special
ops" situation. Also, classes let you deal with the whole package at
once, which makes realism and balancing issues easier to deal with
holistically. (It works better if the game encourages multiclassing,
tweaking, and invention of classes, although it takes experience to do
that well.)
> I think 27a should be Class systems are more realistic/easyer to
> learn/"better" than skill systems should also be included. Neither is
> truly superior in all cases it's a matter of taste.
Agreed.
>> 30 Gunpowder has no place in a fantasy setting
> Interestin though seing as how most clasical fantasy RPG's are based
> on Tolkein. In The Hobbit Tolkein strongly alludes to Goblins being
> responsible for the invention of Gunpowder, and mentions Galdalfs
> fireworks. OTOH I think that if gunpowder is included in a clasical
> fantasy setting it should be left rare and mysterious to any but
> highly trained wizards and alchemists.
Depends on what you mean by "classical." If you mean "semi-historical
medieval fantasy," then I disagree.
Bradd W. Szonye
> In my experience, "experiential" play tended to work better in online
> games. I must admit to having a certain degree of difficulty
> visualizing it in "tabletop" play, unless you're dealing with a small
> group of people who already mesh well out-of-game, or, say, a
> historical re-enactment.
I've never had much trouble with it, but then my groups typically have
been small groups of friends.
> It's entirely possible to mesh them, but not in a game with an
> explicit game-master role.
To mesh storytelling techniques and experiential play? Not sure what
you're saying here or how it's true. For some experiential players, a
sufficiently skilled GM can manipulate the game invisibly enough that it
doesn't wreck the game. For others, that doesn't work. (For some
experiential players, merely the suspicion of influence is enough to
upset it.)
> I've never seen a game last very long without someone to occasionally
> upset a few in-character apple-carts, though I'm willing to admit that
> someone, somewhere must have pulled it off.
There's a wide range of experiential players; some are very resilient,
and others are very fragile, when it comes to dealing with storytelling
and similar metagame influences. Depending on the players, it could
work, or it might not.
sw
>> explicit game-master role.
>
>To mesh storytelling techniques and experiential play? Not sure what
>you're saying here or how it's true. For some experiential players, a
>sufficiently skilled GM can manipulate the game invisibly enough that it
>doesn't wreck the game. For others, that doesn't work. (For some
>experiential players, merely the suspicion of influence is enough to
>upset it.)
>
>> I've never seen a game last very long without someone to occasionally
>> upset a few in-character apple-carts, though I'm willing to admit that
>> someone, somewhere must have pulled it off.
>
>There's a wide range of experiential players; some are very resilient,
>and others are very fragile, when it comes to dealing with storytelling
>and similar metagame influences. Depending on the players, it could
>work, or it might not.
I'll admit that I'm very big on 'plot', so I haven't really sought out
the kind of game you're describing, and would likely to be pretty
miserable if I found myself in one. But I've seen it meshed where there
was both structured (where someone wore the GM Hat) and unstructured play
on the same game, just not at the same time. It added an element of
unpredictability which I suspect might be anathema to a group like yours.
Mileage, as they say, varies.
Robert Scott Clark
> Bradd wrote:
>>> Correct. Both approaches can fail. What's important here is that IME
>>> most gamers who say "All RPGs tell a story" rely on equivocation to
>>> prove that storytelling techniques are universally useful to gamers.
>
> Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> It makes me uncomfortable when people attempt to say what is or isn't
>> true based on whether they think the effect are positive or negative.
>
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm not claiming that "All
> RPGs tell a story" is strictly false; there are definitions of "story"
> for which it is true.
>
> What I am objecting to is the fact that the overwhelming majority of
> gamers who make the claim falsely equate it to a *different* claim.
> Specifically, they follow it with "... and therefore, the dramatist
> approach is the One True Way" or at least "... and therefore, it's
> always helpful to apply storytelling techniques to RPGs."
Which looks suspiciously to me like you making a strawman. I have seldom
seen the first claim followed by the second - most people making the second
claim wouldn't even bother with reasons and would just point to where it
says so in their WW books. And even if it is common, the fact that the
claim can be used as a blunt instrument should not lead to automatically
deciding that the claim isn't a useful statement.
Robert Scott Clark
>
> It's a good idea because it typically leads to a harmful myth. Perhaps:
>
> 100. Good storytelling techniques -> better game.
> 100a. All RPGs tell a story.
> (Not a myth, strictly speaking, but beware of gamers who
> use #100a to "prove" #100.)
Now that I like.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>> Major Myths
>> Myth Important variants
>> 1 The GM is God and/or always right
>
> The GM by definition of his job must get the last word on any
> important issue.
Patently false from the get-go. What action a PC takes is an important
issue, and the GM almost never gets the last word in determining that.
Jeff Heikkinen
It'll still be myth #2, though. The first three I listed are the first
three for a reason.
Joachim Schipper
news:slrnbrnh6p.2...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu...
> Jeff Heikkinen <o...@s.if>
> wrote on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:29:18 GMT:
> > I was going to develop a fairly detailed typology; the only aspect of
> > that which ended up surviving was a distinction between "Major" and
> > "Lesser" myths, which was simply a somewhat arbitrary measure of my
> > perception of their prevalence, destuctive potential and how
> > many/important aspects of gaming they involved.
>
> You still need to explain what it is you mean by "myth". "Destructive
> potential", again, indicates that you think these are all lies, which
> produce a negative effect if they're believed.
Most of the group here seems to understand Jeff's list of myths as 'a list
of things that are not, or not always, true, but believed to be by at least
a significant portion of the gaming population and often more'.
Aside from that, you might try to step lightly, especially with your
reputation with some of the members here and while a flamewar is still going
strong - I do not like taking sides, but I was not surprised that you got
flamed yet again.
Joachim Schipper
news:Xns943885C98661Ccl...@65.83.225.252...
I'd say there usually is a clear connection, though I agree there are many
cases where that is not true. Nonetheless, especially for something related
to a D&D group, I maintain that they are quite often connected.
Joachim Schipper
news:slrnbrnfat.9...@szonye.com...
> > "Jeff Heikkinen" wrote:
> >> Boy, my first Myths of Gaming thread sure went degenerate fast. Let's
> >> keep this one the heck OUT of RGFD, shall we?
>
> Joachim Schipper wrote:
> > Not a bad idea. I'd try to reform some of the trolls if I actually
> > cared for the group a bit, but as it stands, I'll happily leave them
> > to the trolls they so willingly tolerate.
>
> Hey, careful who you're callin' "they"!
Hey, I was not the one starting to point fingers! ;-)
> > May I suggest other types of division? In particular, 'untrue in many
> > cases' and 'untrue in a rare few cases'. While the latter are as
> > theoretically valid as the former, they will not be much good for most
> > standard players - it's mostly of interest to such (over)analyzing
> > groups as rfga.
>
> Good idea.
>
> >> 12 Equal combat power = game balance
> >> 13 Game balance is completely unimportant
> >> 14 Optimizing for combat efficiency -> not really roleplaying
> >> 15 Not optimizing for combat efficiency = playing incorrectly
> >> 24 If something is overpowered, making it rare balances that out
> >> 25 Making something expensive = removing it from the game
> >> 25a Making something expensive = making it rare
> >> 26 Making something dangerous to use = removing it from the game
> >> 26a Making something dangerous to use = making it rare
>
> > Those are really all about game balance, which is probably quite
> > important in a D&D group but, frankly, do not really interest me. You
> > may want to review them.
>
> I think any gamer who prefers #13 (i.e., who does not care about game
> balance) would consider these unimportant. However, I think the majority
> of gamers follow just the opposite myth ("Game balance is king") would
> consider them very important.
True, but they are nonetheless sub-sections of 13, more than free-standing
points.
And since I play single-player, game balance does not concern me at all. But
I did play a lot of D&D, where we tried to keep game balance, and I saw and
used many of the things described here.
> >> 20 Small weapons are faster than big weapons, and similar weapon
> >> speed canards
> >> 20a Going first in the combat round is a good way to model
> >> differences in speed
> >> 27 Skill systems are more realistic than class systems
> >> 29 Called shots are a reasonable game mechanic
>
> > And those are mostly single-rule points. I do not necessarily
> > disagree, but I do feel they are less 'mythical' than your other
> > myths, and certainly of a very different sort (rules vs the actual
> > game).
>
> Yes, they're of a different sort, but I suspect that Jeff included them
> because they're very, very common myths (and very, very common flamewars
> in games that touch on them). Some of them are specific examples of more
> general myths on the list; for example, "Called shots are better" is
> typically a specific example of "More detailed is better."
I agree - but I still maintain they are sub-sub-points, really.
Jeff Heikkinen
> In article <MPG.1a24bbaa7...@news.easynews.com>, Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
> > Major Myths
> > Myth Important variants
> >that's a problem with the players
>
> about a particular story, but the way its written seems to imply that it's
> a myth to think that story's always a factor. Story _is_ always a factor,
> in that an RPG will, practically by definition, create a story.
Only if you define "story" so broadly that the above statement conveys
virtually no information.
The myth is that this is true for much narrower definitions of "story".
Some people think is true, and quite a lot think it *should* be true
(although fewer than did a few years ago, it seems).
Also, as Bradd and/or RSC pointed out, there are people who equivocate
between two or more definitions of "story" to "prove" such dubious
points as "RPGs are always improved by applying storytelling
techniques".
> >3 Roleplaying = acting things out
> > 3a Acting out dialogue is always the best way to handle social
> >encounters
>
> 3, again, not so much myth as truism, since the definition is so wide that
> it loses all meaning. It might be better to stick with 3a.
I have a very specific diefinition of roleplaying in mind, basically
making decisions as your character would, not based on other
considerations like tactical efficiency (though actually, that's usually
at least somewhat in character) or entertaining the GM.
I suspect that you fell for the "playing a roleplaying game" canard that
Sea Wasp tried to saddle me and others with in the previous thread.
> >My eventual plan is to pick about 20 of these and write up more details
> >(a paragraph or two for each, maybe a bit more for some) and make that
> >the first thing the potential players in my next group see. If they
> >think it's the coolest thing they ever saw, great, if they run screaming
> >for the hills or go all Sea Wasp on me, I know they're potentially
> >problematic :-).
>
> If it's a group of people you already know, sure. Just speaking from
> experience, though, if I walked into a new game and the first thing I'm
> introduced to is the Holy Document of Positions on Metagaming Issues,
> then wether I agree with what's in it or not, it's going to raise the
> big "oh, hell, these people have Issues" warning flags.
>
> Just, y'know, felt I should point that out.
Oh, I'm well aware of the possibility of that. However, note the number
of cases where two opposite views are both listed as myths - I think
most people will get the point that I think quite a variety of styles
are valid. (I don't care for all of them myself - that's another issue
altogether.)
Also, I was planning to cherry-pick them so that every one will be
either interesting to, or elicit the same reaction as you gave to #13a
from, at least one potential player :-).
Jeff Heikkinen
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:29:18 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen <o...@s.if> wrote:
>
> >Boy, my first Myths of Gaming thread sure went degenerate fast. Let's
> >keep this one the heck OUT of RGFD, shall we?
> >
>
I actually had a pretty good idea what would happen if Sea Wasp saw #3
and to a lesser extent #1, but I thought they were too important to
leave out.
Warren J. Dew
Most of the group here seems to understand Jeff's list of
myths as 'a list of things that are not, or not always,
true, but believed to be by at least a significant portion
of the gaming population and often more'.
That was my original understanding, too, but I agree with Mark that Jeff's
comment on "destructive potential" seems to indicate that he, at least, means
something slightly different.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Jeff Heikkinen
> > 12 Equal combat power = game balance
> > 13 Game balance is completely unimportant
> > 14 Optimizing for combat efficiency -> not really roleplaying
> > 15 Not optimizing for combat efficiency = playing incorrectly
> > 24 If something is overpowered, making it rare balances that out
> > 25 Making something expensive = removing it from the game
> > 25a Making something expensive = making it rare
> > 26 Making something dangerous to use = removing it from the game
> > 26a Making something dangerous to use = making it rare
>
> Those are really all about game balance, which is probably quite important
> in a D&D group but, frankly, do not really interest me. You may want to
> review them.
>
least some people with preferences similar to yours (no idea whether
that includes you personally).
As I said, I was developing a typology at one point; aside from #14, you
have identified some of the categories I was planning on using with this
and your next item.
sw
I'd actually think that the less rules-heavy, D&D-like the game, the more
it's desperately important to consider game balance and power levels. D&D
at least has a certain amount of balance built in, even if there are
certain mechanisms that can break it.
It's possible to play an entirely rules-light, balance-agnostic game, but
things tend to get sticky after a while...
Jeff Heikkinen
Merely that mixing people who believe them with people who don't can
wreck the game for one or the other, or even the whole group.
In case it's not clear, that is intended to be a seperate issue from
whether they are myths in the first place; however, some do seem to have
more potential to create that sort of conflict than others, and I think
it is important to be aware of which they are. That is, after all, the
motivation for making the list in the first place.
Not all of them are this serious for most players and I am certainly not
saying that everyone in a gaming group has to take the same stand on all
50 [1] of them - I suspect it would be impossible to find two people who
agree on the best ways to handle all of them, much less 5-8 such people.
But they are all issues that, at the very least, a good GM should be
aware that there is more than one possible view on.
=====
[1] 48 on the current list, counting variants, and two more I currently
have in the hopper to add to the next version, both mentioned in this
thread. That's not counting rewording some of the existing ones,
especially #2.
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
Heikkinen <o...@s.if> wrote:
>1 The GM is God and/or always right
I'd reword this. I think it's trivially true that the GM often is God
- certainly not always, but often. On the other hand, the GM is not
omipotent, omniscient or infallible, either in the game world or the
gaming group, even if s/he is technically "God".
>3 Roleplaying = acting things out
This certainly isn't an identity, but I do think acting is implied by
the "playing" part of "roleplaying". The semantics are arguable, but
if you rephrase it "Being in character = acting things out" or "Acting
things out = better", then it's clearly a myth.
>29 Called shots are a reasonable game mechanic
I don't think there's anything inherently unreasonable about called
shots. Certainly there's a lot of unreasonable implementations out
there, but surely a fighter can _try_ to hit a particular location? It
may be that the odds of actually hitting it are remote, and the odds
of hitting something else are better, but that's a matter of
implementation, rather than conceptual validity.
I recall a bullseye template from a game I once encountered (can
anyone identify it?) that you laid over an outline of your target. You
could place the bullseye anywhere you liked, but if you put it on an
extremity most of the bull was air and you'd still have a better
chance of hitting something else. If you centred it, you got a much
higher proportion of hit, with still a variation of location. Your die
roll determined what part of the bull you hit. Apart from the obvious
problems with ideally needing target outlines for every possible
position of every possible foe, that seems like a reasonable approach
for missile weapons to me.
Stumpy.
--
R.G. "Stumpy" Marsh Timaru, New Zealand
<http://marsh.orcon.net.nz/>
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
Heikkinen <o...@s.if> wrote:
>Bradd W. Szonye, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> 100. Good storytelling techniques -> better game.
>> 100a. All RPGs tell a story.
>> (Not a myth, strictly speaking, but beware of gamers who
>> use #100a to "prove" #100.)
>
>I think I'll adopt something like this for the next version.
Surely, the main myth is that story is (always) the goal?
2. The purpose of roleplaying games is to tell a story.
2a. Good story-telling techniques -> better game.
2b. Characters should always do what is best for the story.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I'll admit that I'm very big on 'plot', so I haven't really sought out
> the kind of game you're describing, and would likely to be pretty
> miserable if I found myself in one. But I've seen it meshed where
> there was both structured (where someone wore the GM Hat) and
> unstructured play on the same game, just not at the same time. It
> added an element of unpredictability which I suspect might be anathema
> to a group like yours. Mileage, as they say, varies.
Nah, that's actually how I run my game. Mostly unstructured with the
occasional bit of plot or other storytelling devices. I don't have any
"fragile experiential" players, as far as I know. However, I've
encountered a few on Usenet.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> to a *different* claim. Specifically, they follow it with "... and
>> therefore, the dramatist approach is the One True Way" or at least
>> "... and therefore, it's always helpful to apply storytelling
>> techniques to RPGs."
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Which looks suspiciously to me like you making a strawman. I have
> seldom seen the first claim followed by the second - most people
> making the second claim wouldn't even bother with reasons and would
> just point to where it says so in their WW books. And even if it is
> common, the fact that the claim can be used as a blunt instrument
> should not lead to automatically deciding that the claim isn't a
> useful statement.
But it isn't a useful statement. "Every life has a story" is a cute
observation, and maybe a decent ad slogan, but it doesn't really tell
you anything useful about how to run your life. The same is true for
"Every RPG is a story."
I don't think I've ever heard it used *except* as a justification for
dramatism or as part of a useless semantic argument. Therefore, it's
never useful, and it's often harmful, which makes it a great candidate
for Jeff's list.
Bradd W. Szonye
Bradd W. Szonye
>>3 Roleplaying = acting things out
> This certainly isn't an identity, but I do think acting is implied by
> the "playing" part of "roleplaying". The semantics are arguable, but
> if you rephrase it "Being in character = acting things out" or "Acting
> things out = better", then it's clearly a myth.
Being in character *is* role-playing. Acting isn't the only way to
role-play, which should be trivially obvious from the fact that tabletop
gamers don't behave much like real actors at all. Actors project their
voices, wear make-up, use special lighting, move, fight, rehearse, and
do a ton of other stuff that is very rare in tabletop gaming. The
dialogue is about the *only* resemblance in most groups, and merely
delivering dialogue is *not* acting.
>>29 Called shots are a reasonable game mechanic
> I don't think there's anything inherently unreasonable about called
> shots. Certainly there's a lot of unreasonable implementations out
> there, but surely a fighter can _try_ to hit a particular location?
I personally believe that called shots are unreasonable for most RPGs.
Of course fighters try to hit particular locations! But players don't
typically have the training or the information necessary to call the
location. The RPG "user interface" is too limited for that. It's much
better to include "called shots" as part of character skill, below the
RPG's "abstraction line."
> I recall a bullseye template from a game I once encountered (can
> anyone identify it?) that you laid over an outline of your target. You
> could place the bullseye anywhere you liked, but if you put it on an
> extremity most of the bull was air and you'd still have a better
> chance of hitting something else. If you centred it, you got a much
> higher proportion of hit, with still a variation of location. Your die
> roll determined what part of the bull you hit.
That's cute, but how does the player know where to aim? In particular,
how can he know better than his character does? (And if he does, how is
it good role-playing to call it?)
Robert Scott Clark
>
>> I recall a bullseye template from a game I once encountered (can
>> anyone identify it?) that you laid over an outline of your target. You
>> could place the bullseye anywhere you liked, but if you put it on an
>> extremity most of the bull was air and you'd still have a better
>> chance of hitting something else. If you centred it, you got a much
>> higher proportion of hit, with still a variation of location. Your die
>> roll determined what part of the bull you hit.
>
> That's cute, but how does the player know where to aim? In particular,
> how can he know better than his character does? (And if he does, how is
> it good role-playing to call it?)
That's like asking "how does a player know to have a character eat a
doughnut". He knows where he wants the bullet to hit the target. I don't
understand your statement at all.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> That's cute, but how does the player know where to aim [the called
>> shot]? In particular, how can he know better than his character does?
>> (And if he does, how is it good role-playing to call it?)
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> That's like asking "how does a player know to have a character eat a
> doughnut". He knows where he wants the bullet to hit the target. I
> don't understand your statement at all.
Players (usually) know that they want the bullet to hit the target in
the most vulnerable and lethal place. However, players generally do not
know what that place is, but a trained combatant PC does. Therefore,
it's better to leave that choice up to the PC (i.e., to abstract it
away).
In other words, there's more to aiming a gun than there is to eating a
doughnut, and players do not generally know enough to judge better than
the character could. That's even more true when you're talking about a
less familiar weapon like a sword. Do most players know that it's a good
idea to aim for the ankle instead of the body? (Note that the "bullseye
diagram" would actually discourage that, even though it's a very, very
common and deadly wound in medieval combat.)
Jeff Heikkinen
POSSIBLY have enough information about what's going on in the gameworld
to reliably make such a decision?
Robert Scott Clark
> Players (usually) know that they want the bullet to hit the target in
> the most vulnerable and lethal place.
That is not the only reason to have called shots.
Robert Scott Clark
news:MPG.1a25d0cfe...@news.easynews.com:
What information do you need to determine that you want to shoot the
thermo-nuclear activation device out of your opponent's hand?
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:25:33 +0100:
> Most of the group here seems to understand Jeff's list of myths as 'a list
> of things that are not, or not always, true, but believed to be by at least
> a significant portion of the gaming population and often more'.
"Most"? No. Everyone seems to have a totally different
interpretation of what he's said, which means he's utterly failed his
Writing skill roll.
> Aside from that, you might try to step lightly, especially with your
> reputation with some of the members here and while a flamewar is still going
> strong - I do not like taking sides, but I was not surprised that you got
> flamed yet again.
What, because at times I've been slandered by a handful of halfwits,
offended when I butchered their sacred cows in public, I'm not allowed
to critique anything else? Screw that, and if you really think that
way, screw you.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"I believe in communication. If I communicate with you every so often,
you'll be bothered by what I say enough that you won't ask me to, which
means more sleep for me." -Something Positive, 2003Sep22
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:34:24 GMT:
> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> A fairly typical Kamikaze post, followed by...
>> I'm not saying that to be hostile.
> Thanks for the best laugh I've had today! Damn near spewed Coke all
> over my screen.
Instead of being offensive, why don't you try answering the problems
with your post?
I've done nothing but post civil critiques. You may or may not like
my position, but I've made no insults.
YOU, on the other hand, evade answers and then insult when it looks
like you've been caught, like a politician.
Jeff Heikkinen
> Jeff Heikkinen <o...@s.if>
> wrote on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:34:24 GMT:
> > Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > A fairly typical Kamikaze post, followed by...
> >> I'm not saying that to be hostile.
> > Thanks for the best laugh I've had today! Damn near spewed Coke all
> > over my screen.
>
> Instead of being offensive, why don't you try answering the problems
> with your post?
Becuase a) I don't agree that they are problems and b) you never
responded to my previous attempt to do so.
> I've done nothing but post civil critiques.
If you honestly think so, you have serious problems with your social
skills. You seriously come across as ruder than Terry.
> YOU, on the other hand, evade answers and then insult when it looks
> like you've been caught, like a politician.
These two threads are far too large, between them, to respond to
everything, but I think I've done a far better job than nearly anyone
else I've seen in a similar position of addressing crtiques, thank you
very much. You happen to be the author of one post where this wasn't
the case. Life is tough.
Jeff Heikkinen
> wrote on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:25:33 +0100:
> > Most of the group here seems to understand Jeff's list of myths as 'a list
> > of things that are not, or not always, true, but believed to be by at least
> > a significant portion of the gaming population and often more'.
>
> "Most"? No. Everyone seems to have a totally different
> interpretation of what he's said, which means he's utterly failed his
> Writing skill roll.
Find a place where two people have disagreed about what I meant by
"myths" without one of them obviously being deliberately dense about it.
The only three people who have seemed to have any trouble with it at all
are you, Sea Wasp and Frank Emmanuel, of whom only Frank showed any sign
of having even read the first paragraph of the first post.
I note that when I challenged you to quote the unclear part of that
paragraph and say *why* it was unclear (which would actually stand a
chance of being a USEFUL critique rather than you posting just to be
hostile) you didn't do so.
Jeff Heikkinen
(on Mark's perception that what I mean by Myth is unclear)
> I note that when I challenged you to quote the unclear part of that
> paragraph and say *why* it was unclear (which would actually stand a
> chance of being a USEFUL critique rather than you posting just to be
> hostile) you didn't do so.
Sorry, have to take the last part back - I think it was Sea Wasp I
challenged to do so.
It would still be useful, though.
Warren J. Dew
What, because at times I've been slandered by a handful of
halfwits, offended when I butchered their sacred cows in
public, I'm not allowed to critique anything else? Screw
that, and if you really think that way, screw you.
Mark, meet Joachim. Joachim, unlike anyone else in the history of r.g.f.a, has
never been less than unfailingly polite here. That, combined with his habit of
listening more than he speaks, has made him a respected presence here in a
fraction of the five to ten years it takes anyone else. If he thinks that
proper etiquette and consideration might be a wise course for others here as
well, it is only a reflection of his own experience.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Most of the group here seems to understand Jeff's list of myths as 'a list
>> of things that are not, or not always, true, but believed to be by at least
>> a significant portion of the gaming population and often more'.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:
> "Most"? No. Everyone seems to have a totally different
> interpretation of what he's said ....
Where "everyone" actually means "Mark Hughes and Sea Wasp."
> ... which means he's utterly failed his Writing skill roll.
Not unless the lurkers are supporting you in e-mail.
>> Aside from that, you might try to step lightly, especially with your
>> reputation with some of the members here and while a flamewar is
>> still going strong - I do not like taking sides, but I was not
>> surprised that you got flamed yet again.
> What, because at times I've been slandered by a handful of halfwits,
What slander?
> offended when I butchered their sacred cows in public ....
Yeah, right.
> I'm not allowed to critique anything else?
You failed your reading comprehension check *again*. Where did Joachim
claim that you must or should stop participating?
> Screw that, and if you really think that way, screw you.
Grow up, crybaby.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> I'm not saying that to be hostile.
> Jeff Heikkinen <o...@s.if>
>> Thanks for the best laugh I've had today! Damn near spewed Coke all
>> over my screen.
> Instead of being offensive, why don't you try answering the problems
> with your post?
Check the mirror, bub.
> I've done nothing but post civil critiques. You may or may not like
> my position, but I've made no insults.
Bullshit. Unless you don't think "unimaginative and lazy" is an insult.
Are you suffering from amnesia, or are you lying?
> YOU, on the other hand, evade answers and then insult when it looks
> like you've been caught, like a politician.
You should seek counseling, projection-boy.
sw
> YOU, on the other hand, evade answers and then insult when it looks
>like you've been caught, like a politician.
Calling him a politician?! My god, man! Have you no decency? You might
as well accuse him of being Hitler's brain in an evil jar, and be done
with it.
Jeff Heikkinen
> In message <MPG.1a259ffbd...@news.easynews.com>, Jeff
> Heikkinen <o...@s.if> wrote:
>
> >Bradd W. Szonye, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> >> 100. Good storytelling techniques -> better game.
> >> 100a. All RPGs tell a story.
> >> (Not a myth, strictly speaking, but beware of gamers who
> >> use #100a to "prove" #100.)
> >
> >I think I'll adopt something like this for the next version.
>
> Surely, the main myth is that story is (always) the goal?
>
> 2. The purpose of roleplaying games is to tell a story.
> 2a. Good story-telling techniques -> better game.
> 2b. Characters should always do what is best for the story.
(Jeff hits his newsreader's equivalent of Save)
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Not a bad idea. I'd try to reform some of the trolls if I actually
>>> cared for the group a bit, but as it stands, I'll happily leave them
>>> to the trolls they so willingly tolerate.
>> Hey, careful who you're callin' "they"!
> Hey, I was not the one starting to point fingers! ;-)
I do tolerate a bit of trolling -- OK, quite a lot of it -- but even I
don't like the degree it's gotten to in RGFD.
> True, but they are nonetheless sub-sections of 13, more than
> free-standing points.
Aw, you're just quibbling about taxonomy. It's a good point, but I don't
think Jeff has it organized that carefully yet. Same thing goes for the
specific rules issues -- yeah, they're very specific, but that doesn't
make them less true or out-of-place, just not as well-organized as they
could be.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Heikkinen <o...@s.if> wrote:
>
>>Bradd W. Szonye, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>>> 100. Good storytelling techniques -> better game.
>>> 100a. All RPGs tell a story.
>>> (Not a myth, strictly speaking, but beware of gamers who
>>> use #100a to "prove" #100.)
>>
>>I think I'll adopt something like this for the next version.
>
> Surely, the main myth is that story is (always) the goal?
>
> 2. The purpose of roleplaying games is to tell a story.
> 2a. Good story-telling techniques -> better game.
> 2b. Characters should always do what is best for the story.
Eh, perhaps.
Jeff Heikkinen
>
> >
> >> 12 Equal combat power = game balance
> >> 13 Game balance is completely unimportant
> >> 14 Optimizing for combat efficiency -> not really roleplaying
> >> 15 Not optimizing for combat efficiency = playing incorrectly
> >> 24 If something is overpowered, making it rare balances that out
> >> 25 Making something expensive = removing it from the game
> >> 25a Making something expensive = making it rare
> >> 26 Making something dangerous to use = removing it from the game
> >> 26a Making something dangerous to use = making it rare
> >
> > Those are really all about game balance, which is probably quite
> > important in a D&D group but, frankly, do not really interest me. You
> > may want to review them.
>
>
But most people who spout them think otherwise, which is what makes them
fodder for the list.
Jeff Heikkinen
>
> Jeff Heikkinen <o...@s.if>
> wrote on Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:34:24 GMT:
> > Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > A fairly typical Kamikaze post, followed by...
> >> I'm not saying that to be hostile.
> > Thanks for the best laugh I've had today! Damn near spewed Coke all
> > over my screen.
>
> Instead of being offensive, why don't you try answering the problems
> with your post?
>
I should mention another thing about this. I really *did* laugh out
loud when I read that sentence, and if I had done so a second earlier I
really would have spewed Coke. I wasn't *just* ridiculing you, though I
freely admit I was doing that too, I was also telling the truth. You
claiming to be non-hostile or to be offering polite criticism is
GENUINELY FUNNY.
I say this because you really seem to be sincere when you say these
things, and you really need to understand just how vicious you come
across as being.
If you check my exchanges with pretty much any substantial contributor
to these threads other than you or Wasp, by the way, you will find that
this is NOT generally how I treat people in these discussions, even when
they disagree with me. I respond in more or less the same tone that I'm
addressed, barring people like Zoran Bekric who are clue-deprived to a
degree that you - whatever else you may be - could never hope to match.
If you take umbrage at my tone, I assure you the only difference between
that and the way you address me is that I am *aware* of how I sound.
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Being in character *is* role-playing.
It's assuming a role, yes, but to me(!) the "playing" part, if it's to
be distinguished from the "game" part implies acting.
>Acting isn't the only way to
>role-play, which should be trivially obvious from the fact that tabletop
>gamers don't behave much like real actors at all. Actors project their
>voices, wear make-up, use special lighting, move, fight, rehearse, and
>do a ton of other stuff that is very rare in tabletop gaming. The
>dialogue is about the *only* resemblance in most groups, and merely
>delivering dialogue is *not* acting.
You have a very narrow definition of acting, then. Have you never
heard (or heard of) a radio play?
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Players (usually) know that they want the bullet to hit the target in
>the most vulnerable and lethal place. However, players generally do not
>know what that place is, but a trained combatant PC does. Therefore,
>it's better to leave that choice up to the PC (i.e., to abstract it
>away).
That's a big assumption. There are many reasons for wanting to hit a
particular spot, not just doing the most damage or straight out
tactical advantage. What if Hoozit the technomage needs to hit Geeko
the evil nerd's shirt pocket to break the vial of mutant computer
virus?
Even when it comes to straight lethality, it's game mechanics that
dictate the most combat-effective place to put a bullet, not real
world bio-physics. Players are perfectly capable of running the
numbers and making their own tactical decisions on the basis of the
odds. Remember, more realistic != better.
It's certainly a valid choice to not have called shots, but it's just
as much a myth that called shots are unreasonable as it is that they
are necessary, if not moreso.
>In other words, there's more to aiming a gun than there is to eating a
>doughnut, and players do not generally know enough to judge better than
>the character could. That's even more true when you're talking about a
>less familiar weapon like a sword. Do most players know that it's a good
>idea to aim for the ankle instead of the body?
That's an implementation issue, not a conceptual objection. What
you're saying is that a called shot system for HTH with swords should
make it easier and more effective to hit the ankles than some of the
more "obviously" sensitive locations.
>(Note that the "bullseye
>diagram" would actually discourage that, even though it's a very, very
>common and deadly wound in medieval combat.)
The bullseye would be utterly inappropriate for HTH combat. It's a
missile weapon mechanic.
Jeff Heikkinen
> In message <slrnbro4qh.c...@szonye.com>, "Bradd W. Szonye"
> <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>
> >Players (usually) know that they want the bullet to hit the target in
> >the most vulnerable and lethal place. However, players generally do not
> >know what that place is, but a trained combatant PC does. Therefore,
> >it's better to leave that choice up to the PC (i.e., to abstract it
> >away).
>
> That's a big assumption. There are many reasons for wanting to hit a
> particular spot, not just doing the most damage or straight out
> tactical advantage. What if Hoozit the technomage needs to hit Geeko
> the evil nerd's shirt pocket to break the vial of mutant computer
> virus?
Actually, this is a fairly good point. I'm going to have to tighten up
the wording of that one - it's a specific rationale for called shots
that I was after. It's very much in the spirit of what I'm doing to
point out that there are other possible rationales for them, whihc *do*
work.
> Even when it comes to straight lethality, it's game mechanics that
> dictate the most combat-effective place to put a bullet, not real
> world bio-physics. Players are perfectly capable of running the
> numbers and making their own tactical decisions on the basis of the
> odds. Remember, more realistic != better.
This, on the other hand, seems at least mildly disingenous. Realism
*is* the avowed motive of most people who support this kind of called
shot system, though I suspect it is normally a case of what I call
"realism" instead.
This, needless to say, is the sort of called shots Bradd and I oppose.
(Oh, and Mr Hughes, if you're reading this, I'll note that my
clarification on "realism" versus realism in version 2.0 was a DIRECT
response to your comments. You are being listened to, it's just that
over 80% of what you say, I either honestly disagree with or find too
vague to be useful.)
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Being in character *is* role-playing.
R G 'Stumpy' Marsh <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> It's assuming a role, yes ....
Check the dictionary. Assuming a role *is* role-playing.
> ... but to me(!) the "playing" part, if it's to be distinguished from
> the "game" part implies acting.
What is it with you and other people who feel the need to make the
"playing" part of "role-playing" meaningful on its own? It's a compound
word, and its meaning is not just the sum of its parts.
Also, why does it need to be distinguished from the "game" part, anyway?
>> Acting isn't the only way to role-play, which should be trivially
>> obvious from the fact that tabletop gamers don't behave much like
>> real actors at all. Actors project their voices, wear make-up, use
>> special lighting, move, fight, rehearse, and do a ton of other stuff
>> that is very rare in tabletop gaming. The dialogue is about the
>> *only* resemblance in most groups, and merely delivering dialogue is
>> *not* acting.
> You have a very narrow definition of acting, then. Have you never
> heard (or heard of) a radio play?
RPGs aren't very much like radio plays either, are they?
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
Heikkinen <o...@s.if> wrote:
>> Even when it comes to straight lethality, it's game mechanics that
>> dictate the most combat-effective place to put a bullet, not real
>> world bio-physics. Players are perfectly capable of running the
>> numbers and making their own tactical decisions on the basis of the
>> odds. Remember, more realistic != better.
>
>This, on the other hand, seems at least mildly disingenous. Realism
>*is* the avowed motive of most people who support this kind of called
>shot system, though I suspect it is normally a case of what I call
>"realism" instead.
>
>
>This, needless to say, is the sort of called shots Bradd and I oppose.
Fine... but then aren't you just falling into a myth of your own? This
is another one of those "always..." is as much of a myth as "never..."
situations.
Called shots make the game "better" for some people and not for
others. That's all there is to it in the end.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Players (usually) know that they want the bullet to hit the target in
>> the most vulnerable and lethal place. However, players generally do
>> not know what that place is, but a trained combatant PC does.
>> Therefore, it's better to leave that choice up to the PC (i.e., to
>> abstract it away).
R G 'Stumpy' Marsh <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> That's a big assumption. There are many reasons for wanting to hit a
> particular spot, not just doing the most damage or straight out
> tactical advantage. What if Hoozit the technomage needs to hit Geeko
> the evil nerd's shirt pocket to break the vial of mutant computer
> virus?
Then he targets the vial instead of the guy holding it. That's not a
"called shot," it's choosing a completely different target.
> Even when it comes to straight lethality, it's game mechanics that
> dictate the most combat-effective place to put a bullet, not real
> world bio-physics.
The game mechanics don't dictate squat unless there's a detailed hit
location and wounding system. And even if there is, your point is
irrelevant and counterproductive. The PC *still* knows the best targets,
and if the player thinks he can do better, well, that's just failure to
role-play the character.
> It's certainly a valid choice to not have called shots, but it's just
> as much a myth that called shots are unreasonable as it is that they
> are necessary, if not moreso.
Yes, that's also a myth. I never claimed otherwise. However, it's also
rare that a game supplies everything necessary for called shots to make
sense, and I'm not interested in playing those that do. I prefer
abstraction.
>> In other words, there's more to aiming a gun than there is to eating
>> a doughnut, and players do not generally know enough to judge better
>> than the character could. That's even more true when you're talking
>> about a less familiar weapon like a sword. Do most players know that
>> it's a good idea to aim for the ankle instead of the body?
> That's an implementation issue, not a conceptual objection. What
> you're saying is that a called shot system for HTH with swords should
> make it easier and more effective to hit the ankles than some of the
> more "obviously" sensitive locations.
You're assuming facts not in evidence (i.e., the existence of a detailed
wounding system). I prefer something more abstract.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> This, needless to say, is the sort of called shots Bradd and I
>> oppose.
R G 'Stumpy' Marsh <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> Fine... but then aren't you just falling into a myth of your own? This
> is another one of those "always..." is as much of a myth as "never..."
> situations.
Perhaps, but how does that mean that we're "falling into" it? We're both
aware that there *are* good ways to implement a called shot system. We
also realize that the usual expression of the desire is nonsensical, and
that we don't particularly like the extra stuff you need to actually
make it work well.
> Called shots make the game "better" for some people and not for
> others. That's all there is to it in the end.
IME, they don't work particularly well for most of the people who ask
for them. Often, the discussion goes like this: "I really want called
shots, but now my players keep aiming for their enemies' eyes. Help!
What do I do?"
For D&D, the correct answer is, "Give up on called shots. The systems
abstractions aren't well-suited to support them, so you'd basically need
to gut the combat system to make it work."
Rupert Boleyn
<cla...@mindspring.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>>
>>> 12 Equal combat power = game balance
>>> 13 Game balance is completely unimportant
>>> 14 Optimizing for combat efficiency -> not really roleplaying
>>> 15 Not optimizing for combat efficiency = playing incorrectly
>>> 24 If something is overpowered, making it rare balances that out
>>> 25 Making something expensive = removing it from the game
>>> 25a Making something expensive = making it rare
>>> 26 Making something dangerous to use = removing it from the game
>>> 26a Making something dangerous to use = making it rare
>>
>> Those are really all about game balance, which is probably quite
>> important in a D&D group but, frankly, do not really interest me. You
>> may want to review them.
>
>
>24-26a have little to do with game balance. There are plenty of reasons to
>want something to be rare other than balance. And balance seldom has
>anything to do with wanting something removed altogether.
However they are fairly commonly used as measures to control balance.
There's this idea floating around that if something is rare it can be
balanced even when it's over-powerful (number 24), and as the other
points are about fallicies in controlling rarity, they're also balance
related.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Rupert Boleyn
<bradd...@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>I do tolerate a bit of trolling -- OK, quite a lot of it -- but even I
>don't like the degree it's gotten to in RGFD.
It's not the trolling that annoys me, it's the constant outright
flaming. It's got to the point where some posters are being flamed
simply because of who they are, and I suspect that some of the flamers
don't actually read the posts, seeing as one of the usually victims
was flamed by one of the usual suspects for agreeing with the suspect
not too long ago.
Of course some posters who draw a lot of these flames are probably
trolls anyway (in which case they're bloody good in some ways, though
they fail in that they have to keep stirring the fire).
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Then he targets the vial instead of the guy holding it. That's not a
>"called shot," it's choosing a completely different target.
What's the difference? More to the point, if it's okay to target the
vial, why is it not okay to target the heart?
>> Even when it comes to straight lethality, it's game mechanics that
>> dictate the most combat-effective place to put a bullet, not real
>> world bio-physics.
>
>The game mechanics don't dictate squat unless there's a detailed hit
>location and wounding system. And even if there is, your point is
>irrelevant and counterproductive. The PC *still* knows the best targets,
>and if the player thinks he can do better, well, that's just failure to
>role-play the character.
How can the PC know the best target when the PC has no knowledge of
the hit location and wounding system?
>> It's certainly a valid choice to not have called shots, but it's just
>> as much a myth that called shots are unreasonable as it is that they
>> are necessary, if not moreso.
>
>Yes, that's also a myth. I never claimed otherwise. However, it's also
>rare that a game supplies everything necessary for called shots to make
>sense, and I'm not interested in playing those that do. I prefer
>abstraction.
Fair enough.
>> That's an implementation issue, not a conceptual objection. What
>> you're saying is that a called shot system for HTH with swords should
>> make it easier and more effective to hit the ankles than some of the
>> more "obviously" sensitive locations.
>
>You're assuming facts not in evidence (i.e., the existence of a detailed
>wounding system). I prefer something more abstract.
I don't mean to. Called shots imply hit locations. As for more
effective, that could simply be a function of it being easier to hit -
detailed wound system optional.
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Bradd wrote:
>>> Being in character *is* role-playing.
>
>R G 'Stumpy' Marsh <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> It's assuming a role, yes ....
>
>Check the dictionary. Assuming a role *is* role-playing.
I did. It didn't help, so I tried the thesaurus. While I can find
entries that might be interpreted as supporting your position, I can
also find entries to support mine. This is *my* understanding of the
term after deep reflection (I probably shouldn't have bothered). If
you don't like it, use your own. I don't care, so long as you don't
try to tell me I'm wrong.
>> ... but to me(!) the "playing" part, if it's to be distinguished from
>> the "game" part implies acting.
>
>What is it with you and other people who feel the need to make the
>"playing" part of "role-playing" meaningful on its own? It's a compound
>word, and its meaning is not just the sum of its parts.
Sure, but if each part doesn't have *some* meaning there's no point in
including it. Hence, to me at least, "roleplaying" means something
(perhaps subtly) different from "role gaming" and "roleplaying game"
is the wrong thing to use as the umbrella term. Technically.
YMM(AAD)V.
FWIW, in colloquial use, I'll happily use either definition. It's only
when it's raised as a semantic issue that I am drawn to the
distinction.
>Also, why does it need to be distinguished from the "game" part, anyway?
Because otherwise it's redundant.
>> You have a very narrow definition of acting, then. Have you never
>> heard (or heard of) a radio play?
>
>RPGs aren't very much like radio plays either, are they?
The point is that the medium makes a difference. Acting on stage is
different from acting on screen is different from acting on radio is
different from acting in an RPG. It's still acting.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Then he targets the vial instead of the guy holding it. That's not a
>> "called shot," it's choosing a completely different target.
R G 'Stumpy' Marsh <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> What's the difference? More to the point, if it's okay to target the
> vial, why is it not okay to target the heart?
In D&D: The vial has its own defenses and hit points. So does the guy
holding it. But his heart does not. That's below the system's level of
abstraction, so called shots don't make sense; the system doesn't have
the level of detail necessary to support it.
In other games: The system may or may not support it. I don't
particularly enjoy those that do, because I prefer "fast and abstract"
to "detailed and bookkeeping-heavy." (There may be a fast & easy way to
deal with the necessary detail, but if so I haven't seen it.)
>>> Even when it comes to straight lethality, it's game mechanics that
>>> dictate the most combat-effective place to put a bullet, not real
>>> world bio-physics.
>> The game mechanics don't dictate squat unless there's a detailed hit
>> location and wounding system. And even if there is, your point is
>> irrelevant and counterproductive. The PC *still* knows the best
>> targets, and if the player thinks he can do better, well, that's just
>> failure to role-play the character.
> How can the PC know the best target when the PC has no knowledge of
> the hit location and wounding system?
The PC doesn't know the game mechanics, but he *does* understand how his
world works. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a skilled combatant.
>> You're assuming facts not in evidence (i.e., the existence of a
>> detailed wounding system). I prefer something more abstract.
> I don't mean to. Called shots imply hit locations. As for more
> effective, that could simply be a function of it being easier to hit -
> detailed wound system optional.
Jeff's called-shot myth is a myth because called shots *aren't*
reasonable for abstract combat systems that lack those details.
Unfortunately, people keep trying to bolt them onto D&D anyway.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Check the dictionary. Assuming a role *is* role-playing.
R G 'Stumpy' Marsh <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> I did. It didn't help, so I tried the thesaurus. While I can find
> entries that might be interpreted as supporting your position, I can
> also find entries to support mine.
Your definition isn't *incorrect*. Playing a role "like an actor does"
certainly is a valid way to do it! However, it's not the only way. As
you said, it's also possible to find my definition if you look
carefully.
The only part of your definition that I object to is where it attempts
to exclude mine (which is silly, because *all* gamers role-play in the
abstract at least part of the time -- at the very least, we do it for
combat scenes).
> This is *my* understanding of the term after deep reflection (I
> probably shouldn't have bothered). If you don't like it, use your own.
> I don't care, so long as you don't try to tell me I'm wrong.
You're not wrong, so long as you don't try to exclude my definition or
try to tell me that I'm not "really" role-playing when I play the role
"like a novelist" instead of "like an actor."
>> What is it with you and other people who feel the need to make the
>> "playing" part of "role-playing" meaningful on its own? It's a
>> compound word, and its meaning is not just the sum of its parts.
> Sure, but if each part doesn't have *some* meaning there's no point in
> including it. Hence, to me at least, "roleplaying" means something
> (perhaps subtly) different from "role gaming" and "roleplaying game"
> is the wrong thing to use as the umbrella term. Technically.
> YMM(AAD)V.
Eh, sorry, but that's weird. The parts don't have meaning on their own
any more than "what's good for the goose" is about geese. It's
idiomatic.
>> Also, why does it need to be distinguished from the "game" part, anyway?
> Because otherwise it's redundant.
So? It wouldn't be the first redundant name.
>>> You have a very narrow definition of acting, then. Have you never
>>> heard (or heard of) a radio play?
>> RPGs aren't very much like radio plays either, are they?
> The point is that the medium makes a difference. Acting on stage is
> different from acting on screen is different from acting on radio is
> different from acting in an RPG. It's still acting.
Yes, but "acting" is not the same as "role-playing." Note that we don't
call them "acting games" (or "storytelling games," or a number of other
things). The key concept is assuming a role -- not dialogue, not boffer
combat, not telling a story. All of those things are possible, but
assuming a role (acted or not) is the common core.
I'm not sure where the "RP is dialogue" myth came from. I suspect it's
from early gaming advice articles that divided games into elements like
"combat" and "puzzle-solving" and "role-playing," where the latter was
arbitrarily used to mean "the talky stuff." Personally, I find that
combat and puzzle-solving are *much* better RP opportunities than talk
is, for many characters.
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>>> This, needless to say, is the sort of called shots Bradd and I
>>> oppose.
>
>R G 'Stumpy' Marsh <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> Fine... but then aren't you just falling into a myth of your own? This
>> is another one of those "always..." is as much of a myth as "never..."
>> situations.
>
>Perhaps, but how does that mean that we're "falling into" it? We're both
>aware that there *are* good ways to implement a called shot system.
Then to say that called shots aren't reasonable is a myth, by Jeff's
definition.
>We
>also realize that the usual expression of the desire is nonsensical, and
>that we don't particularly like the extra stuff you need to actually
>make it work well.
That doesn't make "Called shots are a reasonable game mechanic" a
myth. They can be implemented in a way that is reasonable.
"Called shots are (is?) a _good_ game mechanic" is a myth.
"Called shots are unreasonable (or bad) game mechanics" is also a
myth.
Saying "reasonable" is a myth shifts it (in my estimation at least)
from saying they don't always work, to saying they always don't work.
>> Called shots make the game "better" for some people and not for
>> others. That's all there is to it in the end.
>
>IME, they don't work particularly well for most of the people who ask
>for them.
Which is neither here nor there. The fact remains that they work
sometimes, and sometimes not so much.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Perhaps, but how does that mean that we're "falling into" it? We're
>> both aware that there *are* good ways to implement a called shot
>> system.
R G 'Stumpy' Marsh <rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> Then to say that called shots aren't reasonable is a myth, by Jeff's
> definition.
Agreed. I objected to the "falling into" part, which seems to imply that
we're unaware of the full situation.
>> We also realize that the usual expression of the desire is
>> nonsensical, and that we don't particularly like the extra stuff you
>> need to actually make it work well.
> That doesn't make "Called shots are a reasonable game mechanic" a
> myth. They can be implemented in a way that is reasonable.
But not in all game systems, and specifically not in D&D. Yet many
people try to wedge them into D&D or other game systems where they're
inappropriate. Therefore, it *is* a myth.
> Saying "reasonable" is a myth shifts it (in my estimation at least)
> from saying they don't always work, to saying they always don't work.
In this context, "myth" means "something that is not necessarily true,
yet many gamers believe that it is universally true." Don't lose sight
of that like some other posters have.
>> IME, they don't work particularly well for most of the people who ask
>> for them.
> Which is neither here nor there. The fact remains that they work
> sometimes, and sometimes not so much.
Which makes it a "myth."
Robert Scott Clark
news:9fvorvg3fketset7o...@news.xtra.co.nz:
>>Players (usually) know that they want the bullet to hit the target in
>>the most vulnerable and lethal place. However, players generally do not
>>know what that place is, but a trained combatant PC does. Therefore,
>>it's better to leave that choice up to the PC (i.e., to abstract it
>>away).
>
> That's a big assumption. There are many reasons for wanting to hit a
> particular spot, not just doing the most damage or straight out
> tactical advantage. What if Hoozit the technomage needs to hit Geeko
> the evil nerd's shirt pocket to break the vial of mutant computer
> virus?
For an example (where the bullseye mechanic would be useful), imagine a
kidnapper using a hostage as a bullet shield. If the character is going to
take a shot at the kidnapper, then the player/PC has a choice to make - there
is a tradeoff to be decided...
risk hitting the hostage <---> risk overcompensating and miss the kidnapper
or in common parlance "I can't get a clear shot".
Now, the PC with his skills is going to be the one best equipped to judge the
probabilities involved - and that's why the GM communicates them to the player
by some means. But it's up to the player to decide exactly how much of a risk
he wishes to take in one direction or another. And I would certain be a bit
peeved at a GM who said, "you accidentally shot the hostage because your
character thought the risk was worth it."
Not all situations of called shots involve optimizing damage.
>
> Even when it comes to straight lethality, it's game mechanics that
> dictate the most combat-effective place to put a bullet, not real
> world bio-physics. Players are perfectly capable of running the
> numbers and making their own tactical decisions on the basis of the
> odds. Remember, more realistic != better.
Again, it's a tradeoff...
possibility of more damage <---> probability of doing some damage
or "we've got to take this guy out right now!"
As a directly analogous situation, imagine a superhero game where the strength
of an energy blast attack can be increased by spending HP - extra effort. Now
imagine that a character with this power is fighting a high armor brick.
There is a decision to be made...
beat enemy faster and harm self <---> take time and risk higher civilian
casualties
and that certainly looks like a decision that a player should be allowed to
make.
Now, these damage optimisation decisions are strongly game decisions as
opposed to roleplaying decisions (although not entirely), but that doesn't
mean they do not have a place. The only danger I see is that it need to be
made sure that the mechanic and effect match the damage/combat model used in
the system.
Robert Scott Clark
>
> Then he targets the vial instead of the guy holding it. That's not a
> "called shot," it's choosing a completely different target.
And if you "call shot: head" you are simply selecting a different target
than "call shot: anywhere".
You are doing word mincing of the worst type.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Then he targets the vial instead of the guy holding it. That's not a
>> "called shot," it's choosing a completely different target.
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> And if you "call shot: head" you are simply selecting a different
> target than "call shot: anywhere".
Which is meaningless unless the system supports the difference between
the two, which requires a *lot* more than allowing players to call a
shot to the head. In particular, games with abstract wounding mechanics
like D&D don't have the right framework to support it.
Which is why "called shots are reasonable" is a myth; it's only true in
some cases, and it specifically *isn't* true for D&D (which is a key
influence for the myth list).
> You are doing word mincing of the worst type.
No, you're ignoring the fact that it takes more than just calling the
target for it to make sense.
Erol K. Bayburt
>> Even when it comes to straight lethality, it's game mechanics that
>> dictate the most combat-effective place to put a bullet, not real
>> world bio-physics. Players are perfectly capable of running the
>> numbers and making their own tactical decisions on the basis of the
>> odds. Remember, more realistic != better.
>
>This, on the other hand, seems at least mildly disingenous. Realism
>*is* the avowed motive of most people who support this kind of called
>shot system, though I suspect it is normally a case of what I call
>"realism" instead.
Most, maybe, but not all. *I* support called-shot systems as a substitute for
critical hits, as a way to produce the occasional "really cool" combat result.
Called shots tend to favor the skilled, heroic PCs, while critical hit systems
tend to favor the mooks, and in most of my gameworlds I prefer the system that
favors the PCs.
--
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com
Erol K. Bayburt
>Jeff's called-shot myth is a myth because called shots *aren't*
>reasonable for abstract combat systems that lack those details.
>Unfortunately, people keep trying to bolt them onto D&D anyway.
I agree that it's a bad idea to mix different levels of abstraction, and that
attempts to bolt a "called shot" system onto D&D will generally be miserble
failures because of this. But what about the following feat?
Finesse Attack [General]
You can make exceptionally well-aimed attacks.
Prerequisite: Dex 13+
Benefit: [mechanics identical to the Power Attack feat]
Beowulf Bolt
>
[to Joachim Schipper]
> Screw that, and if you really think that way, screw you.
"I've done nothing but post civil critiques. You may or may not like
my position, but I've made no insults."
Sound familiar?
Nothing Joachim wrote warranted your *hostile* response.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beowulf Bolt
>
> I recall a bullseye template from a game I once encountered (can
> anyone identify it?) that you laid over an outline of your target. You
> could place the bullseye anywhere you liked, but if you put it on an
> extremity most of the bull was air and you'd still have a better
> chance of hitting something else. If you centred it, you got a much
> higher proportion of hit, with still a variation of location. Your die
> roll determined what part of the bull you hit. Apart from the obvious
> problems with ideally needing target outlines for every possible
> position of every possible foe, that seems like a reasonable approach
> for missile weapons to me.
Damn, I like the sound of that template. I hope someone can identify
the game.
It reminds me of the hit location tables in Harnmaster (iirc) which
had a general d00 hit location table, and then different ones depending
on target location (ie if you aimed [at a penalty] for the head you
still had a better chance of hitting somewhere else, but all possible
locations were weighted towards the upper half of the body).
Richard Brown
> >
> >> Major Myths
> >> Myth Important variants
> >> 1 The GM is God and/or always right
> >
> > The GM by definition of his job must get the last word on any
> > important issue.
>
> Patently false from the get-go. What action a PC takes is an important
> issue, and the GM almost never gets the last word in determining that.
The GM does get the last word on whether the PC's stat's will alow a
given action and how difficult such an action is. The player get's to
say what the PC tries to do, the GM and the dice determine if he is
actualy sucessfull in any nontrivial action. The GM can block any
player action by simply giving it a high enough difficulty modifier.
Even something as trivial as a PC walking down the street could be
stoped by the GM throwing in banana peels to slip on, piano's droped
from a crane overhead or spooked horses changing into the PC's path.
A good GM won't do this sort of thing without a reason and GM's who
abuse the power will likely find themselves without players, but any
GM could.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:23:19 GMT:
> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> with your post?
> I should mention another thing about this. I really *did* laugh out
> loud when I read that sentence, and if I had done so a second earlier I
> really would have spewed Coke. I wasn't *just* ridiculing you, though I
> freely admit I was doing that too, I was also telling the truth. You
> claiming to be non-hostile or to be offering polite criticism is
> GENUINELY FUNNY.
The fact that you're naturally, unconsciously offensive rather than
intending it does not make you less offensive. However, you also chose
to post such a thing, rather than shoving it where the sun doesn't
shine. You made the choice to be offensive.
> I say this because you really seem to be sincere when you say these
> things, and you really need to understand just how vicious you come
> across as being.
There's a class of people, and you are one of them, who are
unnaturally and obsessively attached to everything they've ever written
and every meme that's ever infected their brains as God's True Word
handed down from the heavens, and hear any criticism of any kind as a
spittle-flecked assault on them, their mother, and their country.
I criticize things bluntly, coldly, and honestly.
Combine the two, and defensive types like yourself read me as being
extremely vicious.
However, this is purely your own personal delusion. It is absolutely
not the case. I'm interested solely in correcting falsehoods and making
the truth possible.
You're just not important enough to me to get *rancor*; this is a
casual entertainment between serious work. It's pure hubris to think
that you could ever be that important to me. You don't ever want to see
what happens when I dislike someone. I suppose I could really blow up
at people more often, so you have something to compare it to, but I
can't see how that'll improve matters.
> If you check my exchanges with pretty much any substantial contributor
> to these threads other than you or Wasp,
Your obsession with Sea Wasp, turning him into the Ultimate Villain
Out To Destroy Your Works, is also really repulsive. You mention him
the way Christians talk about the Devil, in almost every single post.
> by the way, you will find that
> this is NOT generally how I treat people in these discussions, even when
> they disagree with me.
Yes, it is. Everyone who disagrees with you gets flamed and turned
into your own personal Antichrist, and the only ones you respond to
politely are those who are busy sucking your dick.
> If you take umbrage at my tone, I assure you the only difference between
> that and the way you address me is that I am *aware* of how I sound.
You have that exactly backwards. I don't think you're aware of your
offensive behavior to critics and obsequious behavior to sycophants, but
you do it anyway. And I'm certainly always aware that some people are
ill-equipped to deal with my criticism, I've had to deal with that for
years. It's a basic problem of human nature that isn't going to change.
Look to the beam in your own eye.
This is my last meta-post on the subject. Get back on topic, and
discuss the criticisms, rather than the critic. Any further responses
about personality will be deleted and ignored, because you have nothing
relevant to say on the subject.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"I believe in communication. If I communicate with you every so often,
you'll be bothered by what I say enough that you won't ask me to, which
means more sleep for me." -Something Positive, 2003Sep22
Richard Brown
> >> 1 The GM is God and/or always right
>
> > The GM by definition of his job must get the last word on any
>
> Only if that job definition includes "referee," which is not always the
> case. Some GMs act as moderators or facilitators instead, relying on
> group consensus for the "last word."
>
Does not the GM in such groups determine when a concensus has been
reached? Is not that determination the last word.
> >> 1a Players who complain are always whiners
>
> > A players complaint only becomes whining when it starts lesening the
> > enjoyment of the game for everyone else.
>
> Even that isn't necessarily whining. It could mean that the rest of the
> group is abusive, ganging up on him, or simply incompatible with his
> preferences.
Depends on which side of the issue you are on I supose. I would tend
to side with the majority.
>
> >> 2 It's all about the story
>
> > It is about the story that the GM and players make together in a
> > cooperative, albeit ocasionaly haphasard fassion.
>
> That's only true for the trivial, useless definition of "story"
I believe you are arguing semantics here. We simply define story
diferently.
>
> >> 4a Players who prefer higher-powered games are (insert insult
> >> of choice here)
>
> > Truth: insults are best reserved for those who think RPG's should be
> > played to WIN rather than to have fun.
>
> Hey, that's another myth. There's nothing wrong with competitive RPGs,
> and there are even published examples IIRC. Winning is fun, so it's
> often "played to win *because* it's fun." In particular, I don't know
> many players who try to win *instead* of having fun.
>
Again I think we are defining things diferently. I'm talking about
players who have to get all the treasure beat all the monsters and
other PC's personaly in order to have any fun, and to hell with
whether or not anyone else is enjoying themselves. The only games I
know of that encorage this aren't what I'd call RPG's.
> >> 17 It's always okay for the GM to fudge rolls
>
> > Well the point of a GM screen is to alow the GM to fudge rolls when
> > dramaticaly apropriate.
>
> Some of us dislike screens too, you know.
>
>
> >> 21 The more character background you come up with, the better
> >> 21a DIP players are lazy and/or not commited to the game
>
> > If I'm the GM I find a detailed background with lots of plot hooks
> > helpfull.
>
> I don't. To me, it's more stuff to keep track of, and I hate heavy
> bookkeeping. I prefer characters with only a few hooks, and I prefer
> hooks which arise from play rather than from background.
Which makes it a matter of taste. I don't know if having something be
a matter of personal prefference is enough to call it a myth if the
people who have the preference generaly aknowledge others don't share
it. I thought myths were suposed to be things people who beleived in
them thought there was no correct alternative to.
>
> >> 27 Skill systems are more realistic than class systems
>
> > Personaly I do think skill systems are more realistic except in cases
> > where the class is a profesion with a higly specific training program
> > like some military training where the skill set may not be available
> > to those outside the military.
>
> They typically do a poor job of showing relationships between similar
> skills, which is something that comes up in more than just the "special
> ops" situation. Also, classes let you deal with the whole package at
> once, which makes realism and balancing issues easier to deal with
> holistically. (It works better if the game encourages multiclassing,
> tweaking, and invention of classes, although it takes experience to do
> that well.)
>
My experience has differed, but that's likely due to the systems we
have each used.
> > I think 27a should be Class systems are more realistic/easyer to
> > learn/"better" than skill systems should also be included. Neither is
> > truly superior in all cases it's a matter of taste.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >> 30 Gunpowder has no place in a fantasy setting
>
> > Interestin though seing as how most clasical fantasy RPG's are based
> > on Tolkein. In The Hobbit Tolkein strongly alludes to Goblins being
> > responsible for the invention of Gunpowder, and mentions Galdalfs
> > fireworks. OTOH I think that if gunpowder is included in a clasical
> > fantasy setting it should be left rare and mysterious to any but
> > highly trained wizards and alchemists.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "classical." If you mean "semi-historical
> medieval fantasy," then I disagree.
I was refering to Tolkeinesque fantasy as I mentioned in the first
sentence. Actualy I have considered doing a "semi-hisorical medieval
fantasy" without magic (in the normal RPG sense) and replacing it with
proto scientists with secret knowledge of primitive gunpowder,
antibiotics and other more advanced sciences taking the place of
wizards.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
>>
>
> [to Joachim Schipper]
>
>> Screw that, and if you really think that way, screw you.
>
> "I've done nothing but post civil critiques. You may or may not like
>my position, but I've made no insults."
>
> Sound familiar?
>
> Nothing Joachim wrote warranted your *hostile* response.
Mark comes with hostility preinstalled.
Bradd W. Szonye
> The fact that you're naturally, unconsciously offensive rather than
> intending it does not make you less offensive.
Irony ... too ... powerful ... cannot ... resist!
George W. Harris
:> That doesn't make "Called shots are a reasonable game mechanic" a
:> myth. They can be implemented in a way that is reasonable.
:
:But not in all game systems, and specifically not in D&D. Yet many
:people try to wedge them into D&D or other game systems where they're
:inappropriate. Therefore, it *is* a myth.
I think the problem here is the word 'reasonable'.
Called shots can simultaneously be a reasonable game
mechanic and not be appropriate for all games. So, even
though called shots may not be appropriate for D&D, they
are still a reasonable mechanic. The myth would be that
a called shots mechanic will improve any game.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Robert Scott Clark
news:slrnbrph1p.c...@szonye.com:
> Bradd wrote:
>>> Then he targets the vial instead of the guy holding it. That's not a
>>> "called shot," it's choosing a completely different target.
>
> Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> And if you "call shot: head" you are simply selecting a different
>> target than "call shot: anywhere".
>
> Which is meaningless unless the system supports the difference between
> the two, which requires a *lot* more than allowing players to call a
> shot to the head. In particular, games with abstract wounding mechanics
> like D&D don't have the right framework to support it.
I'll certainly agree with that.
But then D&D already has a "called shot: extra damage" system built in,
so, of course, trying to tack another one on is going to be messy.
>
> Which is why "called shots are reasonable" is a myth; it's only true in
> some cases, and it specifically *isn't* true for D&D (which is a key
> influence for the myth list).
Now things are getting pushed too far. Basically, almost anything is
going to fall under myth if it tries to be an absolute. As a result of
this, it makes sense to try to state things in ways that don't seem
absoulte. But I'll be damned if there can be any kind of reasonable
discussion when saying something is "reasonable" is going to be read as
an extreme and dogmatic position. How many "if"s, "um"s, and "maybe"s do
we have to wrap a statement in to make it clear that it's not a one-true-
way statement. If I have to stick "YMMV" in front of every damn thing I
say I'm going to blow my brains out, but you can be damn sure I'm going
to find some of you first and take you with me.
Robert Scott Clark
news:5634e595.03112...@posting.google.com:
> Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9438A9E703FD4cl...@65.83.225.254>...
>> >
>> >> Major Myths
>> >> Myth Important variants
>> >> 1 The GM is God and/or always right
>> >
>> > The GM by definition of his job must get the last word on any
>> > important issue.
>>
>> Patently false from the get-go. What action a PC takes is an
>> important issue, and the GM almost never gets the last word in
>> determining that.
>
> The GM does get the last word on whether the PC's stat's will alow a
> given action and how difficult such an action is. The player get's to
> say what the PC tries to do, the GM and the dice determine if he is
> actualy sucessfull in any nontrivial action.
Taking action != succeeding at action.
> The GM can block any
> player action by simply giving it a high enough difficulty modifier.
And then what does he do when his nuts stop throbbing in pain?
> Even something as trivial as a PC walking down the street could be
> stoped by the GM throwing in banana peels to slip on, piano's droped
> from a crane overhead or spooked horses changing into the PC's path.
> A good GM won't do this sort of thing without a reason and GM's who
> abuse the power will likely find themselves without players, but any
> GM could.
And would then no longer be GM. And the actions he took would then be
ignored and erased.
>
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Even something as trivial as a PC walking down the street could be
>> stoped by the GM throwing in banana peels to slip on, piano's droped
>> from a crane overhead or spooked horses changing into the PC's path.
>> A good GM won't do this sort of thing without a reason and GM's who
>> abuse the power will likely find themselves without players, but any
>> GM could.
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> And would then no longer be GM. And the actions he took would then be
> ignored and erased.
There's an excellent example going on in RGFD right now. A DM got tired
of table talk, so he instituted some very, very harsh penalties for
metagame chatter. The end result is that this "Godlike DM" may soon be a
non-DM. Based on the discussion, it also seems like the players bought
into the DM's God complex and stuck with him longer than they probably
should have.
That's why I prefer the "referee" idea to the "God" metaphor: It makes
it much more obvious that the GM has the final say, but that he is
*also* accountable to the group as a whole, just as a sports referee is
accountable to the league organizers.
Joachim Schipper
news:slrnbrolc1.c...@szonye.com...
> Joachim Schipper wrote:
> >>> Not a bad idea. I'd try to reform some of the trolls if I actually
> >>> cared for the group a bit, but as it stands, I'll happily leave them
> >>> to the trolls they so willingly tolerate.
>
> >> Hey, careful who you're callin' "they"!
>
> > Hey, I was not the one starting to point fingers! ;-)
>
> I do tolerate a bit of trolling -- OK, quite a lot of it -- but even I
> don't like the degree it's gotten to in RGFD.
I am a firm believer that it's the silent majority that occasionally passes
a little fodder to the resident troll is the main reason for the troll's
continued presence on a list.
But I can see that rfg.dnd is really bad...
> > True, but they are nonetheless sub-sections of 13, more than
> > free-standing points.
>
> Aw, you're just quibbling about taxonomy. It's a good point, but I don't
> think Jeff has it organized that carefully yet. Same thing goes for the
> specific rules issues -- yeah, they're very specific, but that doesn't
> make them less true or out-of-place, just not as well-organized as they
> could be.
True, but organizing information well is paramount to getting it accross.
Joachim
---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 14-11-03
Joachim Schipper
news:MPG.1a25a7817...@news.easynews.com...
> Joachim Schipper, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > > 12 Equal combat power = game balance
> > > 13 Game balance is completely unimportant
> > > 14 Optimizing for combat efficiency -> not really roleplaying
> > > 15 Not optimizing for combat efficiency = playing incorrectly
> > > 24 If something is overpowered, making it rare balances that out
> > > 25 Making something expensive = removing it from the game
> > > 25a Making something expensive = making it rare
> > > 26 Making something dangerous to use = removing it from the game
> > > 26a Making something dangerous to use = making it rare
> >
> > Those are really all about game balance, which is probably quite
important
> > in a D&D group but, frankly, do not really interest me. You may want to
> > review them.
> >
> least some people with preferences similar to yours (no idea whether
> that includes you personally).
It does not. I am quite aware of balance issues and would be likely to pay
quite a bit of attention to it in a group (in fact, 99% of my D&D house
rules consisted of 'balancing stuff' rules, and that was not even in a
group). However, when playing one-on-one, balance is not really an issue.
It's also kinda silly to fine-tune the damage of a battle-axe if you have
half a pantheon backing your PC (as often happens, due to the preferences of
my GM), and the GM doesn't feel like using rules (no, not specific rules -
just 'rules') for a certain kind of magic that is used by all the truly
powerful people in the gameworld right now.
Finally, D&D is the system that seems to worry most about game balance, and
D&D-ers seem to be the people that most worry about game balance. There are
counterexamples, of course, but as a general conjecture it seems to be quite
good.
I am not sufficiently dramatist that I can go without the occasional good
fight, and I do like those somewhat balanced (winning is nice, but only if
the opposition ever had something of a chance).
However, I do think they are all interrelated and probably should not take
up seven 'slots', regardless of whether or not I personally care for them.