gamist/simulationist: a practical example
Mary K. Kuhner
I like real examples, and just got handed one--luckily not in a game
of my own.
In a game my husband is playing in, the PCs recently asked an NPC for
assistance with something they were doing. As I understand it, they
didn't ask the NPC to do it for them, but requested that she provide
some backing spells and other forms of aid. The NPC was in general
agreement with their goals, and the requested aid was within her
demonstrated capabilities.
This strikes me as a litmus test between use of game principles to
decide an event and use of simulation principles.
From a simulation point of view, the question is "What would the NPC
naturally do?" taking into account the sitaution, her personality,
and perhaps the mysterious factors one encounters when playing an NPC
Immersively.
From a game point of view, however, there may be additional concerns such
as "It's unfair for the PCs to get substantial help from NPCs." This
is very much akin to "It's unfair to put another piece on the chessboard
midgame." It reduces the fairness of the contest or challenge.
My husband's GM chose to contrive a (rather flimsy) reason why the aid
would not be given. This is extremely common, perhaps standard, for
that group, but it's not something a strict simulationist would be
likely to do. So it shows a definite difference between game-based
and simulation-based adjucation.
I sympathize with Irina's discomfort in labelling games or GMs. It
might be more helpful to think in terms of simulationist, gamist,
dramatist *decisions* and in what situations the group prefers to use
each set of criteria. There is nothing wrong with a style that
uses different criteria in different situations, as long as everyone
knows where they're at.
I think one thing this example hints is that the dichotomy "uses
metagame" and "doesn't use metagame" is not all that useful,
particularly in describing the games that do. A group might allow
certain metagame considerations, but vehemently disallow others. The
_Radiant_ campaign uses Script Immunity, for example, but does not
use the kind of "fairness" considerations shown by this example.
If the PCs make a good pitch for having an NPC solve their problems,
the NPC will solve them. (This has happened several times now.)
In fact, even if the PCs don't make a pitch, an NPC may solve their
problems.
One important determinant of whether this style (NPC intervention
allowed) works well seems to be whether there are lots of engaging
things for the PCs to do in the setting, or only a few. If there are
not very many, "losing" any of them to NPCs will annoy the players.
If there are plenty, having NPCs intervene with some will be
welcomed. The other key variable is whether the players see NPC
intervention as coming out of world considerations, or out of a
frustrated desire on the GM's part to play a powerful character who
saves the day. I think my husband's group may eschew NPC activism
simply because it's their experience that if it's allowed, the GM
will have his favorite NPCs hog the spotlight. But it needn't work
that way, and hasn't in our games. (I've seen the stereotypical
"horrible GMing mistake" of having an NPC party leader who is massively
more powerful than the party work wonderfully well, when done by a
thoughtful, restrained, and scrupulously fair GM.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Rick Cordes
In article <5kr5mp$b...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>I like real examples, and just got handed one--luckily not in a game
>of my own.
>
>In a game my husband is playing in, the PCs recently asked an NPC for
>From a game point of view, however, there may be additional concerns such
>as "It's unfair for the PCs to get substantial help from NPCs." This
>is very much akin to "It's unfair to put another piece on the chessboard
>midgame." It reduces the fairness of the contest or challenge.
Unfair or fair only in the context of who is playing whom.
In the context of an RPG, it may be warranted on any number of
levels. In a CoC campaign I played in, there were a series of situations
me and my character both felt someone should call the police. At the first
of these, I thought the GM should have had an anonymous NPC do it off-stage,
-somehow I thought it that would better fit with our game contract- but
then my inclination grew to have my character follow through. The problem
was that it may have upset the balance, and so we come to your next
point...
>My husband's GM chose to contrive a (rather flimsy) reason why the aid
>would not be given. This is extremely common, perhaps standard, for
>that group, but it's not something a strict simulationist would be
>likely to do. So it shows a definite difference between game-based
>and simulation-based adjucation.
...or the difference between flimsey adjudications and otherwise.
Whether or not an NPC, or NPCs, helps or hinders -or PCs do whatever- is
all part of the game. Like so many distictions drawn on this newsgroup,
I question here utility here of talking about game-based-vs-simulationist-
based adjudications: are these in anyway really mutually exclusive approaches,
or in fact, are they really just characterizations for descriptions of
very limited context?
>I sympathize with Irina's discomfort in labelling games or GMs. It
>might be more helpful to think in terms of simulationist, gamist,
>dramatist *decisions* and in what situations the group prefers to use
>each set of criteria. There is nothing wrong with a style that
>uses different criteria in different situations, as long as everyone
>knows where they're at.
My sympathies also: these labels and characterizations have
contributed nothing to the illumination of a cogent RPG philosophy
for me. Whether or not gamers use more or less limited sets of
criteria is relevant only to the extent to which they are able to
do it successfully, and we may then proceed to talk about the
possibilities of how what may be done successfully, but limiting
the criteria by which one plays, or speaking in such terms, is
ennervation.
>I think one thing this example hints is that the dichotomy "uses
>metagame" and "doesn't use metagame" is not all that useful,
>particularly in describing the games that do. A group might allow
>certain metagame considerations, but vehemently disallow others. The
>_Radiant_ campaign uses Script Immunity, for example, but does not
>use the kind of "fairness" considerations shown by this example.
>If the PCs make a good pitch for having an NPC solve their problems,
>the NPC will solve them. (This has happened several times now.)
>In fact, even if the PCs don't make a pitch, an NPC may solve their
>problems.
What can be said of someone who always allows "certain metegame
condsiderations, but vehemently disallows others?" Well, either
one is rather inflexible, or the distinction between what is metagame
and what isn't, isn't a useful one but that terms like can be used to
generally obscure what may be at issue. This metagame fluff is like
stuff: if either PCs or NPCs do not have a tactical or a strategic
role to play, in part and in the balance, then it is not a game,
or at best, less of a game.
>One important determinant of whether this style (NPC intervention
>allowed) works well seems to be whether there are lots of engaging
>things for the PCs to do in the setting, or only a few. If there are
>not very many, "losing" any of them to NPCs will annoy the players.
>If there are plenty, having NPCs intervene with some will be
>welcomed. The other key variable is whether the players see NPC
>intervention as coming out of world considerations, or out of a
>frustrated desire on the GM's part to play a powerful character who
>saves the day. I think my husband's group may eschew NPC activism
>simply because it's their experience that if it's allowed, the GM
>will have his favorite NPCs hog the spotlight. But it needn't work
>that way, and hasn't in our games. (I've seen the stereotypical
>"horrible GMing mistake" of having an NPC party leader who is massively
>more powerful than the party work wonderfully well, when done by a
>thoughtful, restrained, and scrupulously fair GM.)
This is at the heart of an RPG philosophy. Providing players
with options, and enabling them to act as they see fit, is key to
providing the potential for a satisfactory experience. Again,
though, the success or failure of the game does not hinge upon the
device employed or the approach used, but how it is used.
Eschewing NPC activism because it leads to GM meglomania seems
excessively fatalistic and limiting. As you point out, having
players cope with imposing NPCs -to the extent of envisioning
a campaign based largly upon richochetting between them- could
be made a success. To accomplish this, however, the players
and GM would use devices and approaches, appropriately and
cooperatively, which they might or might not use in another
context.
Ennead
Rick Cordes wrote:
: In article <5kr5mp$b...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
: Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
> >I sympathize with Irina's discomfort in labelling games or GMs. It
> >might be more helpful to think in terms of simulationist, gamist,
> >dramatist *decisions* and in what situations the group prefers to use
> >each set of criteria. There is nothing wrong with a style that
> >uses different criteria in different situations, as long as everyone
> >knows where they're at.
I agree, but this is probably unsurprising, as like Mary
and Irina, I play in a mixed style.
> My sympathies also: these labels and characterizations have
> contributed nothing to the illumination of a cogent RPG philosophy
> for me.
As characterizations of entire _games,_ I agree that they
are not very useful. This is primarily because "pure" examples
are so rare. As characterizations of approaches to *types* of
situations, however, I think they are very useful indeed. When
bad feeling arises in games, it is often because the participants
differed in their expectations of which approach was to be used
for the particular type of in-game situation. Having a common
vocabulary to describe these criteria can help to keep these
misunderstandings from occurring -- to ensure, as Mary puts it,
that "everyone knows where they're at."
> Whether or not gamers use more or less limited sets of
> criteria is relevant only to the extent to which they are able to
> do it successfully, and we may then proceed to talk about the
> possibilities of how what may be done successfully, but limiting
> the criteria by which one plays, or speaking in such terms, is
> ennervation.
How does one determine "success" without speaking in such
terms? The evaluation of success is dependent on which criteria
one is using.
Mary's choice of example was fortuitous, from my point of
view, because a very similar situation arose in my group's
Isrillion campaign several years ago. The PCs, faced with a
tricky problem which carried with it potential for catastrophe,
decided that their best course of action was to call upon a far
more powerful group of NPCs for aid and adjudication. The then-acting
GM had not, it seems, even considered the possibility that the
characters might go this route: not only hadn't he _expected_ it,
he hadn't even _thought_ of it as a possible option.
Faced with this situation, the GM in Mary's example chose
to privilege gamist criteria: he came up with a reason for the NPC
to refuse to aid the PCs because had he not done so, the game would
have been less challenging. He may also have been considering
dramatist criteria: had the NPC stepped in to solve the PCs'
problems, then the dynamism of the story line would have been
weakened. He may also have *considered* simulationist criteria,
but when it came to making a decision, he chose to *privilege*
the gamist considerations. Based on his ranking of the
criteria, it made a better game that way.
When my group was faced with this situation, on the other
hand, we chose to deal with it differently. It seemed clear to
us that, given what we knew of the NPC group's motivations,
information, and political agenda, the people in question *would*
respond to the PCs' request. The ensuing events were not, perhaps,
as dramatic or dynamic as they would have been had the NPCs
refused, nor as challenging in a gamist sense -- the PCs played a
peripheral and somewhat passive role in the affair -- but
from our point of view, it made a better game *this* way. Our
interpretation of "what makes a better game" differed from that
of the GM in Mary's example because the criteria by which we
judge games are ranked differently.
I understand the point you are trying to make about
"success," but I think that you may be overlooking the influence
of individual preference when it comes to determining success.
Would Mary's husband have considered the NPC motivation for
not helping the PCs "flimsy" if he hadn't been accustomed to
a more simulationist approach to this type of in-game situation?
I suspect not. Would my group's game have been labeled "boring"
by someone who values gamist principles more highly than my group
does? I rather imagine it would have.
How we view the "success" of a game decision is always
going to be influenced by how we prioritize game values.
> >I think one thing this example hints is that the dichotomy "uses
> >metagame" and "doesn't use metagame" is not all that useful,
> >particularly in describing the games that do.
I agree. I also confess to the suspicion that everyone
uses _some_ metagame.
> >A group might allow
> >certain metagame considerations, but vehemently disallow others.
Sure. Ruggels goes in for a gamist approach to "challenge,"
but runs screaming from the room at the sight of script immunity --
while I tend to do just the opposite.
> What can be said of someone who always allows "certain metegame
> considerations, but vehemently disallows others?"
Er...That their players rarely go home from the game
feeling frustrated, dissatisfied, or vaguely as if the GM has
"cheated?"
I think that establishing these sorts of boundaries
is a Good Thing. It serves to align the stylistic expectations
of the group, which reduces the likelihood of disagreements and
bad feeling. This is the purpose of a game contract.
> Well, either
> one is rather inflexible, or the distinction between what is metagame
> and what isn't, isn't a useful one but that terms like can be used to
> generally obscure what may be at issue.
They can be. They can also be used to describe gaming
style more precisely, which is extremely useful.
> This metagame fluff is like
> stuff: if either PCs or NPCs do not have a tactical or a strategic
> role to play, in part and in the balance, then it is not a game,
> or at best, less of a game.
I'm not sure quite what you're saying here. Do you really
think that there is a platonic ideal of that "balance" on which
everyone will agree? That is contrary to my experience. One
person's "perfect balance" may seem insufferably gamist to
another, while a third party may consider it insufficiently
game-like -- or, in your words, "less of a game."
> Providing players
> with options, and enabling them to act as they see fit, is key to
> providing the potential for a satisfactory experience. Again,
> though, the success or failure of the game does not hinge upon the
> device employed or the approach used, but how it is used.
I disagree. The success or failure of the game may also
hinge upon whether the group agrees on the propriety of the
devices employed.
> Eschewing NPC activism because it leads to GM meglomania seems
> excessively fatalistic and limiting. As you point out, having
> players cope with imposing NPCs -to the extent of envisioning
> a campaign based largly upon richochetting between them- could
> be made a success. To accomplish this, however, the players
> and GM would use devices and approaches, appropriately and
> cooperatively, which they might or might not use in another
> context.
The situation you describe -- the PCs richochetting
between imposing NPCs -- sums up fairly well the game which
arose once the powerful NPCs interceded in our Isrillion
campaign. The success of that game, however, was not due to
any sudden *change* in the devices and approaches we use.
It was due to our *agreement* on the prioritization of game
values. A player who held PC centrality, dynamism, and game
challenge in high regard would not have enjoyed that game; to
his eye, it would not have been a "success." It would have
been unsatisfying and frustrating. Similarly, a player who
valued NPC consistency and realism very highly would not
have enjoyed the game Mary described very much, because the
decision to give the NPC an excuse to refuse to aid the PCs
would have weakened the very aspects of the game which she
valued most highly.
I don't think that it works very well to change
directions mid-stream, as it were. Going into a game knowing
that in the case of NPC intervention, gamist values will
be prioritized over simulationist ones is very different
than having the priorities switched on you. Having ones
expectations baffled that way is one of the chief causes
of coming away from a game with a nasty feeling that the
GM did something akin to cheating.
-- Sarah
Rick Cordes
In article <5la9v0$3s9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
}Rick Cordes wrote:
}: In article <5kr5mp$b...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
}: Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
}
}
} I agree, but this is probably unsurprising, as like Mary
}and Irina, I play in a mixed style.
}
}} My sympathies also: these labels and characterizations have
}} contributed nothing to the illumination of a cogent RPG philosophy
}} for me.
}
} As characterizations of entire _games,_ I agree that they
}are so rare... [but] Having a common
}vocabulary to describe these criteria can help to keep these
}misunderstandings from occurring -- to ensure, as Mary puts it,
}that "everyone knows where they're at."
We're at cross purposes here. Whether or not these
impressionistic characterizations can be used to mediate
difficulties below the deck, I assumed they supposedly served
some other specialized purpose, commensurate with the trouble
taken to define them. As Mary points out, what they achieve
is a language of preference, and I don't feel that justifies
the trouble being taken to define a non-lexical terminology.
}} Whether or not gamers use more or less limited sets of
}} criteria is relevant only to the extent to which they are able to
}} do it successfully, and we may then proceed to talk about the
}} possibilities of how what may be done successfully, but limiting
}} the criteria by which one plays, or speaking in such terms, is
}} ennervation.
}
} How does one determine "success" without speaking in such
}terms? The evaluation of success is dependent on which criteria
}one is using.
Success is measured by what is accomplished rather than by
how it is accomplished, though what you may want to accomplish
may be achieved better by some means other than by others. In
an RPG, I like to see a variety of effects and prospectives at
play because it is what keeps things interesting. How something
is done of course contributes to the success of a venture but it
doesn't alone qualify success. Again, I would argue depending on
the nature of the campaign, certain perspectives, stance or
methodologies, in combination, may better insure the success
than another.
} I understand the point you are trying to make about
}"success," but I think that you may be overlooking the influence
}of individual preference when it comes to determining success.
}Would Mary's husband have considered the NPC motivation for
}not helping the PCs "flimsy" if he hadn't been accustomed to
}a more simulationist approach to this type of in-game situation?
}I suspect not. Would my group's game have been labeled "boring"
}by someone who values gamist principles more highly than my group
}does? I rather imagine it would have.
When it comes to success, I think it is ettiquette rather
than preference that is key to the success of any game or RPG.
I think an excuse may be flimsy or not, but it's imapact upon
the game may or may not be critical or relevant or either. What
may amount to a glaring defect in one book, will not be in another.
In an RPG, the situation is fluid, and adopting or excluding a
single stance during the evolution of an adventure, under the
totem of preference, seems stodgy. The situation described seems
to be one where the GM created a situation, and then
dropped the ball, that's all. I would judge success by a number
of criteria, and everything else being equal, whether or not
different people would mind it or notice it to varying degrees,
there is flimsy, and there is flimsy, and it seems the game
failed in that department.
} How we view the "success" of a game decision is always
}going to be influenced by how we prioritize game values.
}...
}...
} I agree. I also confess to the suspicion that everyone
}uses _some_ metagame.
}...
}} What can be said of someone who always allows "certain metegame
}} considerations, but vehemently disallows others?"
}
} Er...That their players rarely go home from the game
}feeling frustrated, dissatisfied, or vaguely as if the GM has
}"cheated?"
Yes, yes, yes... but you seem to be saying that the
only purpose of this language of preference is to establish
an ettiquette. If this is the case, I just misconstrued what
was being advocated. I think though it is more practical to
define what is cheating in an RPG and what is flimsy.
} I think that establishing these sorts of boundaries
}is a Good Thing. It serves to align the stylistic expectations
}of the group, which reduces the likelihood of disagreements and
}bad feeling. This is the purpose of a game contract.
}
}} Well, either
}} one is rather inflexible, or the distinction between what is metagame
}} and what isn't, isn't a useful one but that terms like can be used to
}} generally obscure what may be at issue.
Again, I see a proscriptive, exclusionary force at work here.
Games will have certain strengths and weaknesses, and different approaches
will conditionally allay them to varying degrees.
}
} They can be. They can also be used to describe gaming
}style more precisely, which is extremely useful.
Describing a gaming stlye in a manner which is useful,
it seems, only in catering to preference.
}} This metagame fluff is like
}} stuff: if either PCs or NPCs do not have a tactical or a strategic
}} role to play, in part and in the balance, then it is not a game,
}} or at best, less of a game.
}
} I'm not sure quite what you're saying here. Do you really
}think that there is a platonic ideal of that "balance" on which
}everyone will agree? That is contrary to my experience. One
}person's "perfect balance" may seem insufferably gamist to
}another, while a third party may consider it insufficiently
}game-like -- or, in your words, "less of a game."
I see this metagame distinction as being a fallacy, i.e.,
that you can have an RPG that does not possess a so called
metagame dimension. By "in the balance" the only sense
I meant it to be contrued as being an ideal was in the sense
that an RPG without metagame dimension is an absurdity.
By balance I meant the metagame part of the game be balanced
with the other elements in the game.
}} Providing players
}} with options, and enabling them to act as they see fit, is key to
}} providing the potential for a satisfactory experience. Again,
}} though, the success or failure of the game does not hinge upon the
}} device employed or the approach used, but how it is used.
}
} I disagree. The success or failure of the game may also
}hinge upon whether the group agrees on the propriety of the
}devices employed.
I agree, so, let's talk rather then in terms of what
defines propriety and fair play in a game. I think fair play
and propriety transcend definition by preference.
}} Eschewing NPC activism because it leads to GM meglomania seems
}} excessively fatalistic and limiting. As you point out, having
}} players cope with imposing NPCs -to the extent of envisioning
}} a campaign based largly upon richochetting between them- could
}} be made a success. To accomplish this, however, the players
}} and GM would use devices and approaches, appropriately and
}} cooperatively, which they might or might not use in another
}} context.
}
} The situation you describe -- the PCs richochetting
}between imposing NPCs -- sums up fairly well the game which
}arose once the powerful NPCs interceded in our Isrillion
}campaign. The success of that game, however, was not due to
}any sudden *change* in the devices and approaches we use.
}It was due to our *agreement* on the prioritization of game
}values. A player who held PC centrality, dynamism, and game
}challenge in high regard would not have enjoyed that game; to
}his eye, it would not have been a "success."
... and a player who held PC decentrality, passivism
and game ease in high regard necessarilly would have enjoyed
the game? I don't know how the Isrillion game was handled
but I can imagine how it could have been played so that it
was accessible to either hypothetical player's conception
of character or sensibility. I believe it is the part of the
game contract that if a player is allowed to generate a
character, a role shall evolve that fits with the player's
conception.
} It would have
}been unsatisfying and frustrating. Similarly, a player who
}valued NPC consistency and realism very highly would not
}have enjoyed the game Mary described very much, because the
}decision to give the NPC an excuse to refuse to aid the PCs
}would have weakened the very aspects of the game which she
}valued most highly.
Again, I do not think you can prioritize values even
within a group on an absolute scale: even if you prioritize
values, aren't you going to want to have proviso's of the
form, whenever possible we're going to do this rather than
that but if that's totally unreasonable (or "wouldn't this
be interesting") then...? The game was weakened by the
flimsy excuse, not because somebody was a gamist or not.
} I don't think that it works very well to change
}directions mid-stream, as it were. Going into a game knowing
}that in the case of NPC intervention, gamist values will
}be prioritized over simulationist ones is very different
}than having the priorities switched on you. Having ones
}expectations baffled that way is one of the chief causes
}of coming away from a game with a nasty feeling that the
}GM did something akin to cheating.
Let's talk about cheating. Simulationist and Gamist
values are not mutually exclusive. I think an arguement
can be made that a who GM cooks up a flimsy excuse to disallow
a character with the ability to solicit an NPC, to do so,
has at best had a failure of imagination. I don't see
how not producing a flimsy excuse amounts to switching
from simulationist to gamist values: I think it amounts
indeed to something akin to cheating on the part of the
GM.
-Rick
Ennead
Rick Cordes wrote:
: In article <5la9v0$3s9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
: We're at cross purposes here. Whether or not these
: impressionistic characterizations can be used to mediate
: difficulties below the deck, I assumed they supposedly served
: some other specialized purpose, commensurate with the trouble
: taken to define them.
What, you were expecting maybe a cure for cancer?
Seriously, now: what were you hoping for? What purpose
did you expect a specialized gaming vocabulary to serve?
The purpose of developing a specialized vocabulary
is to facilitate communication on a specialized topic. If
you don't consider this a useful result, then I honestly don't
know what I could possibly say to convince you otherwise.
: As Mary points out, what they achieve
: is a language of preference, and I don't feel that justifies
: the trouble being taken to define a non-lexical terminology.
I don't see it so much as a "language of preference."
It is a language, by means of which many things may be communicated.
Preference is one of these things, certainly. So is technique.
So is analysis. So is plain old description.
Recently, I wrote in a response to Russell Wallace that
I would likely have handled a specific gaming situation by
"directing strongly at first." He understood what I was talking
about. This may seem a puny miracle to you, admittedly, but it
is communication, and it is facilitated by a shared language.
: Success is measured by what is accomplished rather than by
: how it is accomplished, though what you may want to accomplish
: may be achieved better by some means other than by others.
Yes, and how do you *describe* these goals and means?
How, for that matter, might you go about analyzing the dynamic
whereby "what you want to accomplish may be achieved better by
some means than by others?"
Well, perhaps you do so instinctively. That's fine, but
if you want to communicate your understanding to others -- perhaps
to give advice, perhaps to receive advice, or perhaps just to
discuss the phenomena you have observed -- then you need some
common vocabulary, some classification system, in which to express
it.
Mary Kuhner, for example, has done a very nice job in
the past of describing the problems that strongly DIP players
may have with certain types of character "templating." This
is useful information. Its accessibility to me, however, is
dependent upon my understanding of what "DIP" means, what
sort of character generation approach Mary is talking about when
she writes of a "template," and how these two factors are likely
to interact with one another.
This is far from a language in which only preference
may be expressed.
: } I understand the point you are trying to make about
: }"success," but I think that you may be overlooking the influence
: }of individual preference when it comes to determining success.
: }Would Mary's husband have considered the NPC motivation for
: }not helping the PCs "flimsy" if he hadn't been accustomed to
: }a more simulationist approach to this type of in-game situation?
: }I suspect not. Would my group's game have been labeled "boring"
: }by someone who values gamist principles more highly than my group
: }does? I rather imagine it would have.
: When it comes to success, I think it is ettiquette rather
: than preference that is key to the success of any game or RPG.
I hardly think that the two can be separated. The
etiquette that the group follows is largely determined by their
stylistic preferences. My group's "common courtesy" might be
considered unspeakably rude by another gaming group, while
that group's standard practice could seem a terrible breach
of etiquette to us.
This issue has often come up here in the past when we have
discussed internal monologue in games. In some groups, it is
apparently considered very rude for a player to reveal his
character's inner hidden thoughts during the game. In my group,
it is standard practice, although it would not be a breach of
etiquette for a player to fail to do so.
: I think an excuse may be flimsy or not, but it's imapact upon
: the game may or may not be critical or relevant or either.
And what determines whether or not it will be perceived
as relevant or critical?
: The situation described seems
: to be one where the GM created a situation, and then
: dropped the ball, that's all.
Your interpretation of the situation, though, is rooted
in your own stylistic preference. To one group, an NPC solving
the PCs' problems for them indicates that the GM "dropped the ball."
To another group, the same NPC *refusing* to solve the PCs' problem
would be seen as symptomatic of a GM who has "created a situation,
and then dropped the ball."
: I would judge success by a number
: of criteria, and everything else being equal, whether or not
: different people would mind it or notice it to varying degrees,
: there is flimsy, and there is flimsy, and it seems the game
: failed in that department.
Did it? We don't know that it did. Mary didn't say.
As far as I know, the evaluation of the excuse as "rather
flimsy" may have been solely that of Mary's husband. She didn't
mention whether anyone else in the group was bothered by it.
It's quite possible that what bothers Mary's husband
might not even be noticed by others. In cases of that sort,
the problem is not the GM dropping any sort of ball. The
problem is that one of the players is accustomed to playing
under different customs than the rest of the group -- different
etiquette, if you will.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that
"flimsy" is an objective term. I don't think that it is.
Flimsiness, like "fairness," is in the eye of the beholder.
: }} What can be said of someone who always allows "certain metegame
: }} considerations, but vehemently disallows others?"
: }
: } Er...That their players rarely go home from the game
: }feeling frustrated, dissatisfied, or vaguely as if the GM has
: }"cheated?"
: Yes, yes, yes... but you seem to be saying that the
: only purpose of this language of preference is to establish
: an ettiquette.
If you like. It is a tool which can also be used to
analyze games after the fact, to predict (to some extent) which
gaming techniques might mesh well or poorly with other ones,
and to describe the dynamic by which various game-related
factors intersect.
If you define "etiquette" loosely enough to encompass
all of these phenomena, then I suppose that _is_ its function,
yes. But since these phenomena are the stuff and substance of
gaming style, I don't really see anything "only" about it.
Again I must ask, for I am becoming more and more curious:
What else is there that you would _like_ to see this terminology
address?
: If this is the case, I just misconstrued what
: was being advocated. I think though it is more practical to
: define what is cheating in an RPG and what is flimsy.
And 'round and 'round we go...
Okay. How are you going to define what constitutes
"cheating" in an RPG without touching the subject of preference?
Do you believe that a universal definition of "cheating"
which does _not_ take variance in style into account is possible?
If I were called upon to define cheating in an RPG, I
would say that cheating is a violation of the game contract.
Since every game contract differs, however, we're back to
preference again.
Here are some examples of behavior which various gamers
might consider "cheating":
- fudging dice rolls
- varying adjudicative technique without first
establishing formal rules for this variance
- allowing characters access to OOC information
- retconning a scene
- *refusing* to retcon a scene
- Schroedingering an NPC or part of the game world
- changing the character sheet to reflect changes
in the character concept after play begins
- *not* changing the character sheet to reflect
changes in character concept after play begins
- sending a PC into a no-win situation
- *refusing* to send a PC into a no-win situation
- tailoring enemy NPCs to match the PCs' level of skill
- *not* tailoring enemy NPCs to match the PCs' level
of skill
- various types of plotting
- refusal to use various types of plotting
- allowing a powerful NPC to solve the PCs' problems
for them
- *not* allowing a powerful NPC to solve the PCs' problems
for them
- etc.
What's your fancy? What do _you_ consider cheating in
_your_ games? Chances are that what you see as cheating, someone
else sees as normal game play. You cannot escape the issues of
preference and priorities.
: } They can be. They can also be used to describe gaming
: }style more precisely, which is extremely useful.
: Describing a gaming stlye in a manner which is useful,
: it seems, only in catering to preference.
I'm not sure what you mean by "catering to preference."
Gaming style *is* a matter of preference, obviously. If it
were not, then we would all play games exactly the same way.
It is because we do not do so that the entire concept of "gaming
style" exists.
: } I disagree. The success or failure of the game may also
: }hinge upon whether the group agrees on the propriety of the
: }devices employed.
: I agree, so, let's talk rather then in terms of what
: defines propriety and fair play in a game. I think fair play
: and propriety transcend definition by preference.
How? I'm all ears.
: } The situation you describe -- the PCs richochetting
: }between imposing NPCs -- sums up fairly well the game which
: }arose once the powerful NPCs interceded in our Isrillion
: }campaign. The success of that game, however, was not due to
: }any sudden *change* in the devices and approaches we use.
: }It was due to our *agreement* on the prioritization of game
: }values. A player who held PC centrality, dynamism, and game
: }challenge in high regard would not have enjoyed that game; to
: }his eye, it would not have been a "success."
: ... and a player who held PC decentrality, passivism
: and game ease in high regard necessarilly would have enjoyed
: the game?
More to the point, a player for whom PC centrality,
dynamism, and game challenge were *non-issues* might have
enjoyed the game.
The issue of "game challenge," for example, is not something
I consider when I play an RPG. I don't think about the game that way
at all, in terms of "easy" or "hard;" to do so is extremely alien to
my mode of thought. The question of whether the game was "challenging"
is therefore simply not one it would occur to me to ask myself. It
is an irrelevancy, a non-issue.
For a group which shares this approach, the idea that "NPCs
ought not solve the PCs' problems for them" just doesn't make any
sense. After all, why on earth shouldn't they?
For a group which has as a part of their gaming style
the concept of "game challenge," on the other hand, the answer
to "why _shouldn't_ this NPC take care of matters?" is perfectly
clear. She shouldn't do so because it won't be as challenging
a game if she *does.* QED. But this answer only makes sense
within the context of a specific type of gaming style; outside
of that context, it is completely nonsensical.
: I don't know how the Isrillion game was handled
: but I can imagine how it could have been played so that it
: was accessible to either hypothetical player's conception
: of character or sensibility.
Perhaps it could have. I don't really know, as I don't
have all that clear an idea of what sorts of things are necessary
to make people with that flavor of gaming preference happy. I
am fairly certain that that particular game, the Tension game,
would not have pleased such players, but I'm less certain as to
what would have made it acceptable to them.
One thing I do know, though, is that had the NPCs
in question *refused* to come to Isrillion, that would have
been unacceptable to *us.* It might have been hunky-dory
with a different group, but for my group, it was not an
acceptable option.
The point here is that the what different groups
consider "acceptable" is a matter of their priorities and
preferences, and that it is these that define how the group
will approach the game.
: I believe it is the part of the
: game contract that if a player is allowed to generate a
: character, a role shall evolve that fits with the player's
: conception.
I can agree with that, although I suspect that our
interpretations of that statement might vary in the details.
: Again, I do not think you can prioritize values even
: within a group on an absolute scale: even if you prioritize
: values, aren't you going to want to have proviso's of the
: form, whenever possible we're going to do this rather than
: that but if that's totally unreasonable (or "wouldn't this
: be interesting") then...?
That's still a setting of priorities. "We value
naturalism highly, but we are unwilling to dispense with
script immunity, so unless it is totally unreasonable, we
will intercede to keep major characters alive" is a very
different statement than "we value naturalism highly, but
we are unwilling to have the PCs at the periphery of important
events, so unless it is totally unreasonable, we will intercede
to ensure that the major characters have an important role
to play in the Big Plot."
They're both perfectly valid preferences, but they
are *different,* and it is quite possible to enjoy one while
disliking the other. This was Mary's original point: groups
differ in the specifics of how they set these priorities.
: The game was weakened by the
: flimsy excuse, not because somebody was a gamist or not.
No, the game was weakened because one person was
accustomed to the convention "NPC motivations and behaviors
are not altered for the purpose of providing game challenge
to the players," while another was accustomed to the rule:
"Intercession is justified to ensure that the plot not be
taken away from the PCs."
: Let's talk about cheating.
Okay.
: Simulationist and Gamist values are not mutually exclusive.
No, of course not. Neither are dramatist and simulationist
values, for that matter, or dramatist and gamist values.
There are situations, however, such as the one Mary
described, in which the GM's or group's decision will reflect
the specific system of prioritization they are using.
: I think an arguement
: can be made that a who GM cooks up a flimsy excuse to disallow
: a character with the ability to solicit an NPC, to do so,
: has at best had a failure of imagination.
Ugh. Again with the "flimsy."
Okay, what if it had been a _good_ excuse, one that was
made up on the spur-of-the-moment, but nonetheless did not come
across as flimsy or half-hearted.
Can you understand how some people might still feel that
it was the wrong decision, that the game would have been better
served by allowing the NPC to respond favorably to the call for
aid?
: I don't see
: how not producing a flimsy excuse amounts to switching
: from simulationist to gamist values: I think it amounts
: indeed to something akin to cheating on the part of the
: GM.
Ah! Okay, then. Why is that? Why is it "cheating"
for an NPC to help out a PC, when there is no particular reason
for the NPC to refuse such a request?
I would hazard that it strikes you as "something akin
to cheating" because the implicit game contract under which
you play has a clause concerning game challenge or PC centrality
to the plot. Is that right?
Can you not see how this reflects a different
prioritization of values than the contract under which my group
plays, or that under which Mary and her husband usually play?
-- Sarah
Mary K. Kuhner
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> writes:
[in response to Rick Cordes, discussing my example of a GM forbidding an
NPC from helping the PCs]
> It's quite possible that what bothers Mary's husband
>might not even be noticed by others. In cases of that sort,
>the problem is not the GM dropping any sort of ball. The
>problem is that one of the players is accustomed to playing
>under different customs than the rest of the group -- different
>etiquette, if you will.
In fact, I believe that of the four regular players, one (my husband)
was disappointed that the NPC didn't help, but two would have been
disappointed if she had helped, because of the loss of PC centrality and
opportunity for action. This is an awkward makeup for a gaming group,
to be sure.
If the excuse had not been "flimsy" my husband (or I, in similar
situations) might not have objected to a single instance, but in such
games it rapidly becomes apparent that the NPCs will never provide
significant help to the PCs. Each instance can be justified, but not
the whole pattern. This still annoys both of us, as we are used to a
playing style in which the game-rules "Don't make things easy for the
PCs" and "Don't give the PCs anything they didn't earn" do not apply
at all.
I am not passing judgement on these styles: merely noting that if you
can recognize and describe them, disappointments of the kind I'm
describing may be rarer. You'll also be less likely to use a technique
applicable to one type of game inappropriately in another. I used to
run a fairly simulationist game, but feel guilty whenever anticlimaxes
occured. Realizing that they are a natural part of the style helped
me run more comfortably. I was using a tool-set which doesn't contract
to always make things work out dramatically, but still had the idea that
somehow I ought to be making things work out dramatically....
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Rick Cordes
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
}Rick Cordes wrote:
}: In article <5la9v0$3s9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
}: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
}
}: We're at cross purposes here. Whether or not these
}: impressionistic characterizations can be used to mediate
}: difficulties below the deck, I assumed they supposedly served
}: some other specialized purpose, commensurate with the trouble
}: taken to define them.
}
} What, you were expecting maybe a cure for cancer?
Perhaps I'm dismissive of intermediate measures but yes
I'm more focused on treating the disease rather than the
symtoms.
} Seriously, now: what were you hoping for? What purpose
}did you expect a specialized gaming vocabulary to serve?
The illumniation of a cogent RPG design philosophy.
I think we're in the stone age on this question and that
all this jargon is akin to mysticism.
} The purpose of developing a specialized vocabulary
}is to facilitate communication on a specialized topic. If
}you don't consider this a useful result, then I honestly don't
}know what I could possibly say to convince you otherwise.
What has been achieved here has not required, much
less, justified the specialized vocabulary. A character is
more or less defined, and then to greater or lesser degree
evolves; likewise plot, story, background, tone, color. Terms
like DIS and DAP are unwarranted, unless you really want to
argue that campaigns should always be staged in the same way,
by stylistic preference. Moreover, as you and others have
observed, although you can use these terms to characterize
instances of play, in general an amalgam of these effects
is what is usually at play, and while talking about how
Wagglestaff used punctuation and iambic pentameter may be
diverting in itself, it has very little to do with
Wagglestaffian accomplishment.
}: As Mary points out, what they achieve
}: is a language of preference, and I don't feel that justifies
}: the trouble being taken to define a non-lexical terminology.
}
} I don't see it so much as a "language of preference."
}It is a language, by means of which many things may be communicated.
}Preference is one of these things, certainly. So is technique.
}So is analysis. So is plain old description.
Again, I see no justification for it beyond it being a
language of preference. I accept your proposition that it may
be useful to achieve accord. Still, the terminology seems
baroque. Moreover, the utility of this vocabulary in reference
to improving or prescribing technique or analysis has just
been claimed. I doubt that it does, and plain old description
is just what I would advocate in its stead.
} Recently, I wrote in a response to Russell Wallace that
}I would likely have handled a specific gaming situation by
}"directing strongly at first." He understood what I was talking
}about. This may seem a puny miracle to you, admittedly, but it
}is communication, and it is facilitated by a shared language.
The example you give is comprehendable to anyone who
plays, or at leasts runs, RPGs and speaks the english language.
}...
} Mary Kuhner, for example, has done a very nice job in
}the past of describing the problems that strongly DIP players
}may have with certain types of character "templating." This
}is useful information. Its accessibility to me, however, is
}dependent upon my understanding of what "DIP" means, what
}sort of character generation approach Mary is talking about when
}she writes of a "template," and how these two factors are likely
}to interact with one another.
}
} This is far from a language in which only preference
}may be expressed.
Are claiming you are more efficiently and effectively
communicating some nuance of practical import by saying "problems
that strongly DIP players may have with certain types of character
"templating"," instead of talking about the dynamics of players
who prefer to generate loosely defined characters? [The practical
problem seems to be how to relegate the broadest spectrum of
definition to preference.] Mary makes her points clearly, and
although she shows no aversion to speaking the cant, for me it
is the example she usually evokes that spells out the nuances
she is trying to convey: the jargon just lets me know she's one
of the boys.
}...
}: When it comes to success, I think it is ettiquette rather
}: than preference that is key to the success of any game or RPG.
}
} I hardly think that the two can be separated. The
}etiquette that the group follows is largely determined by their
}stylistic preferences.
Preference is expressed through etiquette, stylistic or
otherwise. There is a tendency at work here to reduce most of
what has been touched upon to preference, and thereby remove
it from objective analysis. You continue in this vein...
} This issue has often come up here in the past when we have
}discussed internal monologue in games. In some groups, it is
}apparently considered very rude for a player to reveal his
}character's inner hidden thoughts during the game. In my group,
}it is standard practice, although it would not be a breach of
}etiquette for a player to fail to do so.
...here we have a group who think soliloquies are rude
who are counterposed to your group for which soliquies are not
de riguer but are not considered rude. Everything else being
equal, I think it one could argue from premises more substantial
than preference that the former position is more bonkers than
the latter.
}: I think an excuse may be flimsy or not, but it's imapact upon
}: the game may or may not be critical or relevant or either.
}
} And what determines whether or not it will be perceived
}as relevant or critical?
You imply that only if it's perceived as being relevant or
critical, will it be relevant or critical? It seems to me that
RPGing should enjoy their analog to literary license but that
is to bear the same aesthetic priviledges and responsibilities
that entails. This is to say, if a flimsy excuse is employed,
it needs to be justifies in terms of what is thereby accomplished
on a whole. However, one should avoid a daily fair of being
flimsy.
}...
}: I would judge success by a number
}: of criteria, and everything else being equal, whether or not
}: different people would mind it or notice it to varying degrees,
}: there is flimsy, and there is flimsy, and it seems the game
}: failed in that department.
}
} Did it? We don't know that it did. Mary didn't say.
}As far as I know, the evaluation of the excuse as "rather
}flimsy" may have been solely that of Mary's husband. She didn't
}mention whether anyone else in the group was bothered by it.
I don't know the details but as a hypothesis, let's
say the it was a flimsy excuse by some objective standard.
Doesn't that make the game less fair, or at least a little
lame, whether or not anyone appreciates it?
} You seem to be operating under the assumption that
}"flimsy" is an objective term. I don't think that it is.
}Flimsiness, like "fairness," is in the eye of the beholder.
It seems to me, objectively, fairness is less in the
eye of the beholder than is flimsiness. Again, I think a
RPG philosophy should in part define what constitutes both
fair play and cheating in roleplaying. You can see in this
instance why these characterizations of style do nothing for
me: I am more interested in how to accomodate, in what is to
be accomplished by, the broadest spectrum of devices and sytles.
}: }} What can be said of someone who always allows "certain metegame
}: }} considerations, but vehemently disallows others?"
}: }
}: } Er...That their players rarely go home from the game
}: }feeling frustrated, dissatisfied, or vaguely as if the GM has
}: }"cheated?"
}
}: Yes, yes, yes... but you seem to be saying that the
}: only purpose of this language of preference is to establish
}: an ettiquette.
}
} If you like. It is a tool which can also be used to
}analyze games after the fact, to predict (to some extent) which
}gaming techniques might mesh well or poorly with other ones,
}and to describe the dynamic by which various game-related
}factors intersect.
Ipsy Dixie, y'all. Whether or not it this language
can better serve in this capacity, I have yet to see any
body of commentary on how gaming techniques are to be meshed,
or how differing game related factors may be integrated,
couched, much less promoted, in these or any terms.
} If you define "etiquette" loosely enough to encompass
}all of these phenomena, then I suppose that _is_ its function,
}yes. But since these phenomena are the stuff and substance of
}gaming style, I don't really see anything "only" about it.
Vice Versa, I never implied such a broad definition for
etiquette: I intended its lexical meaning.
} Again I must ask, for I am becoming more and more curious:
}What else is there that you would _like_ to see this terminology
}address?
}
}: If this is the case, I just misconstrued what
}: was being advocated. I think though it is more practical to
}: define what is cheating in an RPG and what is flimsy.
}
} And 'round and 'round we go...
}
} Okay. How are you going to define what constitutes
}"cheating" in an RPG without touching the subject of preference?
}
} Do you believe that a universal definition of "cheating"
}which does _not_ take variance in style into account is possible?
Yes, if we do not take everything and anything to constitute
simply a variance in style. Do you think it's unconditionally
impossible to define any kind of cheating in an RPG?
} If I were called upon to define cheating in an RPG, I
}would say that cheating is a violation of the game contract.
}Since every game contract differs, however, we're back to
}preference again.
'round and 'round you go... again evoking preference.
} Here are some examples of behavior which various gamers
}might consider "cheating":
}
} ...[examples deleted]...
}
} What's your fancy? What do _you_ consider cheating in
}_your_ games? Chances are that what you see as cheating, someone
}else sees as normal game play. You cannot escape the issues of
}preference and priorities.
In most of the examples you cited, without further
clarification of their context or without evoking my own
half-baked RPG philosophy, I could not say categorically
any necessarilly constituted either fair play or cheating.
Still, I would say one should be able to place qualifications
upon them based upon an RPG philosophy not based on preference
that would characterize how any could constitute cheating or
fair play. True it would not be as easy as describing fair
play or cheating in a poker game, but I don't think it's
impossible.
}...
}: } The situation you describe -- the PCs richochetting
}: }between imposing NPCs -- sums up fairly well the game which
}: }arose once the powerful NPCs interceded in our Isrillion
}: }campaign. The success of that game, however, was not due to
}: }any sudden *change* in the devices and approaches we use.
}: }It was due to our *agreement* on the prioritization of game
}: }values. A player who held PC centrality, dynamism, and game
}: }challenge in high regard would not have enjoyed that game; to
}: }his eye, it would not have been a "success."
}
}: ... and a player who held PC decentrality, passivism
}: and game ease in high regard necessarilly would have enjoyed
}: the game?
}
} More to the point, a player for whom PC centrality,
}dynamism, and game challenge were *non-issues* might have
}enjoyed the game.
This is tit-for-tat. My point is that styles of play
should be accomodating, not exclusionary, otherwise, play is
handicapped.
} The issue of "game challenge," for example, is not something
}I consider when I play an RPG. I don't think about the game that way
}at all, in terms of "easy" or "hard;" to do so is extremely alien to
}my mode of thought. The question of whether the game was "challenging"
}is therefore simply not one it would occur to me to ask myself. It
}is an irrelevancy, a non-issue.
This is beyond my ken, still, I would hope for a way
to play that would accomodate us all.
} For a group which shares this approach, the idea that "NPCs
}ought not solve the PCs' problems for them" just doesn't make any
}sense. After all, why on earth shouldn't they?
}
} For a group which has as a part of their gaming style
}the concept of "game challenge," on the other hand, the answer
}to "why _shouldn't_ this NPC take care of matters?" is perfectly
}clear. She shouldn't do so because it won't be as challenging
}a game if she *does.* QED. But this answer only makes sense
}within the context of a specific type of gaming style; outside
}of that context, it is completely nonsensical.
This logic assumes that all the challenges the character
will encounter were preordained, and that by cleverly defusing
this one, someone had unfairly advanced their absolute position.
This explains why the GM, et al, felt justified in cooking up, et
swallowing, the flimsy excuse. The error seems completely
understandable.
}: I believe it is the part of the
}: game contract that if a player is allowed to generate a
}: character, a role shall evolve that fits with the player's
}: conception.
}
} I can agree with that, although I suspect that our
}interpretations of that statement might vary in the details.
I'm all ears.
}...
}: Let's talk about cheating.
} ...
}
}: I don't see
}: how not producing a flimsy excuse amounts to switching
}: from simulationist to gamist values: I think it amounts
}: indeed to something akin to cheating on the part of the
}: GM.
}
} Ah! Okay, then. Why is that? Why is it "cheating"
}for an NPC to help out a PC, when there is no particular reason
}for the NPC to refuse such a request?
Oops, pronoun trouble. I created a misunderstanding here:
the "it" I use in the second place refers to the flimsy excuse.
I don't think allowing the PC to coopt the NPC abandons gamist,
for simulationist, values; I do think the flimsy excuse is akin
to cheating. The "no particular reason" arbitrariness of "thats
just the way they play" is what I find stultifying about reducing
this all to a question of preference.
-Rick
Ennead
Rick Cordes wrote:
: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
: Perhaps I'm dismissive of intermediate measures but yes
: I'm more focused on treating the disease rather than the
: symtoms.
What do you perceive the "disease" here to be?
: } Seriously, now: what were you hoping for? What purpose
: }did you expect a specialized gaming vocabulary to serve?
: The illumniation of a cogent RPG design philosophy.
Okay. Let's talk about design philosophy.
To my mind, for an RPG design philosophy to be truly
useful, it must consist of a series of "if...then" statements.
If you want effect X, then you ought use technique Y. If effect
R is not to your tastes, then it is in your best interests to
avoid technique S.
You, I assume, would hold such a philosophy in disdain,
as it takes preference into account. (Why you have such an
aversion to the entire concept of preference is, I confess,
beyond me.) To my mind, however, any philosophy which does
not take preference into account is of extremely limited utility.
It is a dogma, rather than a physics. It serves only to define
one particular gaming approach, and it leads to a coercive
dynamic by which all those who do not conform to the philosophy
in all of its particulars are "cast out of the club," while
those who agree with the philosophy in its overall approach
but differ on a few minor points are faced with the choice of
either towing the party line or renouncing the philosophy
altogether.
This is just the dynamic Irina wrote about when she told
us that her GMing has become more self-conscious (and, she implied,
less effective and enjoyable) due to her quandry over whether or not
she "qualified" as a "True Simulationist."
We've heard similar complaints from the "dramatist" side.
"If I use dramatic technique X, but eschew technique Y, then does
that just make me a *bad* dramatist?"
Bleh. Phooey. This is counter-productive. I'm not
interested in who qualifies as a "real" Simulationist, or a
"real" Dramatist, or a "real" Rick-Cordian. I'm interested
in making games run better. Gaming Credos ("I believe in
the One True Way, the Path of Simulation and Righteousness...")
do not further this goal; they distract from it.
Discussions on this newsgroup which have focused on the
"physics of style," the give-and-take of techniques and effects,
that "language of preference" you so detest, on the other hand,
_have_ proved useful, not only to me, but to a number of others
as well.
: I think we're in the stone age on this question and that
: all this jargon is akin to mysticism.
If you dislike the jargon, then you don't have to use it.
After a time, though, it becomes tiresome writing out the full
explications of "DIP" or "DAS" each bloody time, when the
abbreviations serve the same function. The intent is not to
mystify: this is the reason for the various FAQs and glossaries
periodically posted and referenced on the newsgroup.
: Terms
: like DIS and DAP are unwarranted, unless you really want to
: argue that campaigns should always be staged in the same way,
: by stylistic preference.
I'm having some trouble parsing "always be staged in
the same way, by stylistic preference." What do you mean?
I certainly do want to argue that if you want certain
effects ("preference"), then it is in your best interest to
look to certain techniques to facilitate them. To refuse to
do so would, indeed, seem extremely foolish to me.
: Moreover, as you and others have
: observed, although you can use these terms to characterize
: instances of play, in general an amalgam of these effects
: is what is usually at play...
These "effects," though, do not exist in a vacuum.
They are not isolated instances, unconnected to one another.
They themselves have effects, repercussions. If you use gaming
tools which do not blend well together -- which fight one another,
if you will, or which lead to incorrect assumptions -- then the
net amalgam is not going to be as effective as it might otherwise
have been.
: } I hardly think that the two can be separated. The
: }etiquette that the group follows is largely determined by their
: }stylistic preferences.
: Preference is expressed through etiquette, stylistic or
: otherwise. There is a tendency at work here to reduce most of
: what has been touched upon to preference, and thereby remove
: it from objective analysis.
I disagree. Recognizing the issue of preference does
not in any way "remove it from objective analysis." One can
discuss the dynamic by which Technique X yields Result Y
without denying the fact that a preference for Result Y is
just that: a preference.
Your statement only seems true to me if one interprets
"objective analysis" to mean "a discussion of which preferences
are better than others." To my mind, though, such discussion
is the antithesis of objective analysis. Rather, it is dogma,
and dogma is an entirely different animal.
: } This issue has often come up here in the past when we have
: }discussed internal monologue in games. In some groups, it is
: }apparently considered very rude for a player to reveal his
: }character's inner hidden thoughts during the game. In my group,
: }it is standard practice, although it would not be a breach of
: }etiquette for a player to fail to do so.
: ...here we have a group who think soliloquies are rude
: who are counterposed to your group for which soliquies are not
: de riguer but are not considered rude. Everything else being
: equal, I think it one could argue from premises more substantial
: than preference that the former position is more bonkers than
: the latter.
The people who consider internal monologue rude behavior
explain the reasoning behind this rule of etiquette very cogently.
They are not "bonkers," nor are their social conventions.
If internal monologue interferes with the immersion
of the players, and if the group values immersion highly, then
it makes perfect sense to consider internal monologue a rude
behavior. If both of the qualifying statements were true for
me, then I'm sure that *I* would consider a monologuing player
a violator of etiquette.
As things stand, though, one of the qualifying statements
is untrue for my group: while we do value immersion highly, internal
monologue does *not* interfere with our immersive play. We therefore
do not have any social conventions discouraging this behavior. We
do, however, discourage those behaviors which *do* interfere
unacceptably with our immersion, such as "mechanicspeak."
Surely you can see how this ties into preference?
: }: I think an excuse may be flimsy or not, but it's imapact upon
: }: the game may or may not be critical or relevant or either.
: }
: } And what determines whether or not it will be perceived
: }as relevant or critical?
: You imply that only if it's perceived as being relevant or
: critical, will it be relevant or critical?
Yes, of course. The term "relevance" only has meaning
in the context of human perception. The impact a "flimsy excuse"
has upon a game is dependent on how much it bothers the participants.
If none of them cares or even notices, then how much impact could
it possibly have?
The problem with single instances, though, is that they
add up to become noticeable trends. If Mary's husband's GM had
come up with a _good_ excuse, rather than a "rather flimsy" one,
then perhaps no one would have noticed. Over time, though, there
is the risk that the emerging pattern ("NPCs will never help the
PCs solve their problems; the PCs are always going it alone") may
become a dire annoyance. This is the problem which often comes
up in discussions of script immunity.
: It seems to me that
: RPGing should enjoy their analog to literary license but that
: is to bear the same aesthetic priviledges and responsibilities
: that entails. This is to say, if a flimsy excuse is employed,
: it needs to be justifies in terms of what is thereby accomplished
: on a whole.
You can't escape the question of preference. To the
members of Mary's husband's gaming group, the flimsy excuse
was justified by the plot centrality it afforded the characters.
To a different group, plot centrality would not be sufficient
to justify the excuse. Whether something is "justified" or not
depends on the prioritization of those making that judgement.
: I don't know the details but as a hypothesis, let's
: say the it was a flimsy excuse by some objective standard.
: Doesn't that make the game less fair, or at least a little
: lame, whether or not anyone appreciates it?
If no one thinks that the excuse was "flimsy," then
how can you call it such? "Flimsy" to whom? To GOD?
: } You seem to be operating under the assumption that
: }"flimsy" is an objective term. I don't think that it is.
: }Flimsiness, like "fairness," is in the eye of the beholder.
: It seems to me, objectively, fairness is less in the
: eye of the beholder than is flimsiness.
All of the discussion of fairness in gaming that I have
observed contradicts this notion.
: Again, I think a
: RPG philosophy should in part define what constitutes both
: fair play and cheating in roleplaying. You can see in this
: instance why these characterizations of style do nothing for
: me: I am more interested in how to accomodate, in what is to
: be accomplished by, the broadest spectrum of devices and sytles.
It seems to me that all you will end up doing is defining
yet another style, perhaps the "RickCordist Philosophy of Gaming."
That's fine -- I've written Credos of my own -- but I've come to
the conclusion that the utility of gaming credos lies more in the
elaborations of that "language of preference" you so dislike that
they inspire than in the credos themselves.
: Ipsy Dixie, y'all. Whether or not it this language
: can better serve in this capacity, I have yet to see any
: body of commentary on how gaming techniques are to be meshed,
: or how differing game related factors may be integrated,
: couched, much less promoted, in these or any terms.
The group has been slow lately. Stick around.
: } Okay. How are you going to define what constitutes
: }"cheating" in an RPG without touching the subject of preference?
: }
: } Do you believe that a universal definition of "cheating"
: }which does _not_ take variance in style into account is possible?
: Yes, if we do not take everything and anything to constitute
: simply a variance in style. Do you think it's unconditionally
: impossible to define any kind of cheating in an RPG?
No, I don't. I have already told you my definition of
cheating in an RPG. Cheating is a violation of the game contract.
: }Since every game contract differs, however, we're back to
: }preference again.
: 'round and 'round you go... again evoking preference.
You still haven't told me what you consider cheating
in an RPG.
: } What's your fancy? What do _you_ consider cheating in
: }_your_ games? Chances are that what you see as cheating, someone
: }else sees as normal game play. You cannot escape the issues of
: }preference and priorities.
: In most of the examples you cited, without further
: clarification of their context or without evoking my own
: half-baked RPG philosophy, I could not say categorically
: any necessarilly constituted either fair play or cheating.
Precisely. What constitutes fair play or cheating
is determined by the philosophy under which the game is being
run.
: Still, I would say one should be able to place qualifications
: upon them based upon an RPG philosophy not based on preference
: that would characterize how any could constitute cheating or
: fair play.
An RPG philosophy _not_ based on preference? How are
you going to create such a thing? And even if you *could* do
so (perhaps by rolling dice to make the decisions?), WHY would
you? What would be gained by using a philosophy of gaming that
is not in keeping with your own preferences? Sounds pretty
masochistic to me.
: This is tit-for-tat. My point is that styles of play
: should be accomodating, not exclusionary, otherwise, play is
: handicapped.
You can't please everyone. There are some preferences
which are simply mutually incompatable. Others are not so, and
where it is possible, I certainly approve of making every effort
to accomodate them, particularly if one is forging a brand new
gaming group.
: } For a group which has as a part of their gaming style
: }the concept of "game challenge," on the other hand, the answer
: }to "why _shouldn't_ this NPC take care of matters?" is perfectly
: }clear. She shouldn't do so because it won't be as challenging
: }a game if she *does.* QED. But this answer only makes sense
: }within the context of a specific type of gaming style; outside
: }of that context, it is completely nonsensical.
: This logic assumes that all the challenges the character
: will encounter were preordained, and that by cleverly defusing
: this one, someone had unfairly advanced their absolute position.
Agreed. This is close to what Mary said when she wrote
that if the PCs have their fingers in a number of different pies,
then the pressure to ensure their centrality in any one plot is
diffused.
: This explains why the GM, et al, felt justified in cooking up, et
: swallowing, the flimsy excuse. The error seems completely
: understandable.
That plot may have been the only one on the burner for
those particular PCs, making the entire group far less willing
to see the buck get passed. The solution you suggest -- for the
GM to ensure that there were other fish for the PCs to fry -- is
certainly one possibility.
: }: I believe it is the part of the
: }: game contract that if a player is allowed to generate a
: }: character, a role shall evolve that fits with the player's
: }: conception.
: }
: } I can agree with that, although I suspect that our
: }interpretations of that statement might vary in the details.
: I'm all ears.
Okay. I believe that if the GM gives the OK to a player's
character conception, he is then obligated to pay attention to
the Things That Matter to that character in play. For example,
if the player has created a character who is primarily interested
in magical theory, then in-game events dealing with magical theory
should not be consistently glossed over, or handled as "off-stage"
events. They should be played out with sufficient regularity to
satisfy the player. Similarly, if a player creates a character
who is a psychopathic serial killer, and the GM approves this
conception, then the GM should not use his power to make it
_impossible_ for the serial killer to commit murder. To do so
begs the question of how the character ever *became* a serial
killer in the first place, if the world does not permit such
activities.
I do not, however, play under a contract that states that
it is necessary for the GM to go out of his way to provide dramatic
hooks for the characters. If magical theory is important to the
character, then the character can seek out opportunities for this
endeavor on his own: they do not need to be thrust in his face.
Furthermore, unless the game is defined as one in which dramatic
hooks will be used, the GM ought *not* use them. If the game is
not so defined, and the GM goes fishing anyway, this is a minor
violation: it imposes a dramatism upon the game to which there was
no consent, which under this sort of contract is a bit of a no-no.
This is hardly the One True Contract, though. Some groups
play under a contract in which there is an *obligation* for the
GM to "hook" the characters. In this approach, the Gm who does *not*
hook the characters in accordance with their dramatic needs (defined
in part by the player's original character conception) is committing
the no-no: he is not doing his job. I've played under this sort of
contract as well, and it works fine. It does, however, create
a different kind of game: a more dramatic one. What contract
you use depends on what you want from the game.
: } Ah! Okay, then. Why is that? Why is it "cheating"
: }for an NPC to help out a PC, when there is no particular reason
: }for the NPC to refuse such a request?
: Oops, pronoun trouble. I created a misunderstanding here:
: the "it" I use in the second place refers to the flimsy excuse.
Whoops! Sorry about that. I misunderstood.
: I don't think allowing the PC to coopt the NPC abandons gamist,
: for simulationist, values.
I don't think it does necessarily either. It might just
as easily be a decision designed to privilege dramatist values
over simulationist ones: maybe the NPC helping out makes a better
story. For that matter, it could go the other way: perhaps the
NPC should *not* help, but the GM decides to have the NPC help
out because *that* makes a better story (dramatist reasoning),
or because he suddenly realizes that the PCs on their own are
simply not powerful enough to take on the opposition in fair
contest (gamist reasoning).
The specifics don't really matter so much. The important
thing is that the decision must be made, and the criteria the GM
privileges in making the decision is a reflection of the system of
prioritization which constitutes gaming style. Inconsistency here
can cause trouble down the road -- can even lead to accusations
of "cheating" or "unfairness."
: I do think the flimsy excuse is akin to cheating.
Would it be akin to cheating if the excuse had been a
good one?
In other words, is it the poor delivery which makes
it seem like cheating to you, or is it the alteration of NPC
motivations mid-stream? If the reason the NPC gave for not
helping out did not sound flimsy to you, and if you had no
idea that it was made up on the spot, would you still feel
that it was unfair, or would that be acceptable gaming practice
in your opinion?
: The "no particular reason" arbitrariness of "thats
: just the way they play" is what I find stultifying about reducing
: this all to a question of preference.
Oh, but there *is* a reason. The reason they play
that way is because they value PC plot centrality over NPC
character consistency. A Schroedingered NPC motivation is
therefore considered an acceptable GM action. It's a reflection
of a system of prioritization.
This prioritization of values is how people make
decisions. The PCs want the NPC to solve their problem for
them, and in your original conception of the NPC, there is
no reason why she should not do what they suggest. If she
does so, however, then that particular plot will be effectively
taken from the PCs' hands. What do you do?
Well, you can allow the NPC to solve the problem and
let the PCs find something else to do. That's one answer.
You can tweak the NPC so that, in fact, there *is* a reason for
her not to help. That is another.
Either response can be done well or badly. Even if
done well, however, one of these solutions might be considered
the "wrong one" by a group which sets its priorities differently
than you do.
-- Sarah
Rick Cordes
In article <5lvm6k$9a9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,}...
}: } Seriously, now: what were you hoping for? What purpose
}: }did you expect a specialized gaming vocabulary to serve?
>
}: The illumniation of a cogent RPG design philosophy.
}
} Okay. Let's talk about design philosophy.
}
} To my mind, for an RPG design philosophy to be truly
}useful, it must consist of a series of "if...then" statements.
}If you want effect X, then you ought use technique Y. If effect
}R is not to your tastes, then it is in your best interests to
}avoid technique S.
}
} You, I assume, would hold such a philosophy in disdain,
}as it takes preference into account.
You'll next accuse me of picking straws from my hair
but you're right, I doubt such a recipe book approach would
be much use. If I had anything in mind, I believe I was thinking
of a philosophy that addressed the question of techniques from the
perspective of how they should or should not be employed to
achieve fair play. The application of techniques within those
bounds should best be left to preference, though, perhaps
how to cope with finnicky or unimaginative players should also
be addressed.
(Why you have such an
}aversion to the entire concept of preference is, I confess,
}beyond me.)
My aversion is to preference as the overweening criteria
for RP analysis or philosophy.
To my mind, however, any philosophy which does
}not take preference into account is of extremely limited utility.
}It is a dogma, rather than a physics.
You are picking straws from your hair. My sense is that
the sectarianism which you advocate, is, if not the handmaiden of
dogmatism, at the very least antithetical to the growth of
roleplaying. What ever you mean by physics, your insistence that
fair play can only be determined by preference seeks to undermine
the idea that a philosophy could be devised which prescribed the
manner in which techniques may be integrated to achieve fair play,
by claiming the only way to achieve fairplay is by contractual
fiat. This seems dogmatic and of limited utility.
It serves only to define
}one particular gaming approach, and it leads to a coercive
}dynamic by which all those who do not conform to the philosophy
}in all of its particulars are "cast out of the club," while
}those who agree with the philosophy in its overall approach
}but differ on a few minor points are faced with the choice of
}either towing the party line or renouncing the philosophy
}altogether.
The sectarianism you advocate seems exclusionary and
degenerate to me, while, you seem to have a reciprocal abhorence
for my advocacy of a philosophy which seeks to define fairplay
because you think it's authoritarian. It would seem to me that
what you call the party line is somewhat similar to a game
contract, and that some game contracts would be better than
others based upon how effective and facile they are in how
much and what they achieve and enable, and this is what should
be gained by pursuit of a RPG philosophy which is what I
advocate, if you will, the better game contract.
} This is just the dynamic Irina wrote about when she told
}us that her GMing has become more self-conscious (and, she implied,
}less effective and enjoyable) due to her quandry over whether or not
}she "qualified" as a "True Simulationist."
}
} We've heard similar complaints from the "dramatist" side.
}"If I use dramatic technique X, but eschew technique Y, then does
}that just make me a *bad* dramatist?"
}
} Bleh. Phooey. This is counter-productive. I'm not
}interested in who qualifies as a "real" Simulationist, or a
}"real" Dramatist, or a "real" Rick-Cordian. I'm interested
}in making games run better. Gaming Credos ("I believe in
}the One True Way, the Path of Simulation and Righteousness...")
}do not further this goal; they distract from it.
This chauvinisn is abetted by sectarianism and
the language of preference. If you will recall, our debate
commenced with my endorsement of Irina's remarks. It is
you who has sought to defend the various camps by making a
virtue of preference; I was the one who said it was stodgy
and limiting. [If you're going to Sarahan-rap me, shouldn't
it be "Cordesian?"]
}...
} I certainly do want to argue that if you want certain
}effects ("preference"), then it is in your best interest to
}look to certain techniques to facilitate them. To refuse to
}do so would, indeed, seem extremely foolish to me.
I am of course interested in effects but I don't
want my hands tied by arbitrarilly limiting what can
happen in a game, nor do I want to encourage perspectives
which abet that: what I do want is guidelines for the fair
play of effects, not the restriction of effects. Will you
at all entertain the notion that certain sets of preferences
may objectively be more wise or foolish than others?
}: Moreover, as you and others have
}: observed, although you can use these terms to characterize
}: instances of play, in general an amalgam of these effects
}: is what is usually at play...
}
} These "effects," though, do not exist in a vacuum.
}They are not isolated instances, unconnected to one another.
}They themselves have effects, repercussions. If you use gaming
}tools which do not blend well together -- which fight one another,
}if you will, or which lead to incorrect assumptions -- then the
}net amalgam is not going to be as effective as it might otherwise
}have been.
So you agree differeent methodologies and perspectives will
desirably be at play but you deny the utility of the pursuit of
a philosophy which would prescribe how different methodologies
and perspectives may by reconciled fairly? Moreover, as the
recent debate over the definition of "immersive"-vs-"IC"-vs-
"ICK" has shown these different methodologies and perspectives
represent a continuum of nuances and shadings, what would be
more useful, would be general principles that could be used,
as necessary, to guide how a any particular amalgam, static or
otherwise, be run fairly.
}: } I hardly think that the two can be separated. The
}: }etiquette that the group follows is largely determined by their
}: }stylistic preferences.
}
}: Preference is expressed through etiquette, stylistic or
}: otherwise. There is a tendency at work here to reduce most of
}: what has been touched upon to preference, and thereby remove
}: it from objective analysis.
}
} I disagree. Recognizing the issue of preference does
}not in any way "remove it from objective analysis." One can
}discuss the dynamic by which Technique X yields Result Y
}without denying the fact that a preference for Result Y is
}just that: a preference.
As you have said, this is not in a vacuum. According
to you, although we may discuss whatever you mean by "the
dynamic by which Technique X yields Result Y", the only thing
that matters is the preference for Result Y.
So, in this perfectly reasonable, "non-bonkers" group, I
could never play a character who was even a little given to
self-declamation? I really think this question of rudeness is
presently tangential to our concerns but I think the example
you present is more a question of one coping with peevish quirks,
rather than one of being rude or not.
}...
}: }: I think an excuse may be flimsy or not, but it's imapact upon
}: }: the game may or may not be critical or relevant or either.
}: }
}: } And what determines whether or not it will be perceived
}: }as relevant or critical?
}
}: You imply that only if it's perceived as being relevant or
}: critical, will it be relevant or critical?
}
} Yes, of course. The term "relevance" only has meaning
}in the context of human perception. The impact a "flimsy excuse"
}has upon a game is dependent on how much it bothers the participants.
}If none of them cares or even notices, then how much impact could
}it possibly have?
No brain, no pain, eh? How much impact, indeed. How about
if it was brought to the fore, and the game benefitted, and a
player who had felt stifled by the game but didn't know why,
didn't quit the game, and went on to become a great RPGer,
and then president and savior of a united earth?
}...
}: I don't know the details but as a hypothesis, let's
}: say the it was a flimsy excuse by some objective standard.
}: Doesn't that make the game less fair, or at least a little
}: lame, whether or not anyone appreciates it?
} If no one thinks that the excuse was "flimsy," then
}how can you call it such? "Flimsy" to whom? To GOD?
To GOD or any other judgemental SOB. It's a dirty
JOB, but somebody has to do it, obfuscations not
withstanding.
}: } You seem to be operating under the assumption that
}: }"flimsy" is an objective term. I don't think that it is.
}: }Flimsiness, like "fairness," is in the eye of the beholder.
}
}: It seems to me, objectively, fairness is less in the
}: eye of the beholder than is flimsiness.
}
} All of the discussion of fairness in gaming that I have
}observed contradicts this notion.
Do tell.
}...
}: In most of the examples you cited, without further
}: clarification of their context or without evoking my own
}: half-baked RPG philosophy, I could not say categorically
}: any necessarilly constituted either fair play or cheating.
}
} Precisely. What constitutes fair play or cheating
}is determined by the philosophy under which the game is being
}run.
}
}: Still, I would say one should be able to place qualifications
}: upon them based upon an RPG philosophy not based on preference
}: that would characterize how any could constitute cheating or
}: fair play.
}
} An RPG philosophy _not_ based on preference? How are
}you going to create such a thing? And even if you *could* do
}so (perhaps by rolling dice to make the decisions?), WHY would
}you? What would be gained by using a philosophy of gaming that
}is not in keeping with your own preferences? Sounds pretty
}masochistic to me.
Many would argue that aesthetics derive from one's
philosophy but you seem to have it the other way around. Your
rational for a game contract seems to be to insure certain
effects are achieved while other effects are avoided, and
that this comprises an ettiquette as it avoids effects which
are thereby defined as being rude. On the otherhand, the
philosophy I idealize would provide general guidelines, for
example, how players and referees should cope with information
they received in or out of character or above, below or on
the table, to encourage fair play. Whether groups or individuals
want to exclude certain behaviors, may or may not the embrace of
a cogent philosophy. My stipulation is that it should address how
things should be properly employed, rather than what should be
properly be employed. Is this what we have been going round and
round about?!?
}...
} You can't please everyone. There are some preferences
}which are simply mutually incompatable. Others are not so, and
}where it is possible, I certainly approve of making every effort
>to accomodate them, particularly if one is forging a brand new
}gaming group.
There can be a world of difference between objective and
preferential incompatibility. By preferential incompatibility
one accepts things that are objectively compatible or reconcilable
may become incompatible, and vice versa. It is this chimera which
stands between you and an objective philosophy of fair play. That
is why I think it is futile to try to describe, much less, analyze
these things in terms of preference.
}...
} This is hardly the One True Contract, though. Some groups
}play under a contract in which there is an *obligation* for the
}GM to "hook" the characters. In this approach, the Gm who does *not*
}hook the characters in accordance with their dramatic needs (defined
}in part by the player's original character conception) is committing
>the no-no: he is not doing his job. I've played under this sort of
}contract as well, and it works fine. It does, however, create
}a different kind of game: a more dramatic one. What contract
}you use depends on what you want from the game.
I may have omitted too much super ubi but I think your
qualifications were unnecessary. A character is allowed to be
created, hooks or no, persuasive or not, thereafter, effort
is focusued in that spirit.
}...
}: Oops, pronoun trouble. I created a misunderstanding here:
}: the "it" I use in the second place refers to the flimsy excuse.
}
} Whoops! Sorry about that. I misunderstood.
Gesundheit! Our etiquette happily achieves better
cordiality, at least, towards the end...
}...
}: I do think the flimsy excuse is akin to cheating.
}
} Would it be akin to cheating if the excuse had been a
}good one?
I suppose one might say the GM was handicapped by
wanting to keep in the spirit of the game, so he fudged. I
think this was at least unfair to the player, and detracted
from the game because if a NPC makes a flimsy excuse, that
should mean something in and of itself. If I had thought it
would be better for the NPC not to help but could not think
of a plausible rational, I would hope I would have played the
mysterio gambit by saying the NPC "makes some flimsy excuse,"
and let them cope with that while I churned up a sub-plot:
the dicovery of which they could thereafter capitalize on.
So, unless PCs are somehow appropriately recompensed
for effective roleplay, then yes, it is akin to cheating.
}...
}: The "no particular reason" arbitrariness of "thats
}: just the way they play" is what I find stultifying about reducing
}: this all to a question of preference.
}
} Oh, but there *is* a reason. The reason they play
}that way is because they value PC plot centrality over NPC
}character consistency. A Schroedingered NPC motivation is
}therefore considered an acceptable GM action. It's a reflection
}of a system of prioritization.
Ah, but it is still no reason to cheat or to sacrifice
one thing for another. Whether or not it occurs because of
prioritization, or it is an example of the indulgence of
preference, it is also an example of a poor GMing, which,
I would argue will more often result from reliance upon
sytlistic blinders rather than what would, working from the
perspective of how to constitute fair play.
-Rick
Psychohist
Rick Cordes posts, in part:
If I had anything in mind, I believe I was thinking
of a philosophy that addressed the question of
techniques from the perspective of how they should
or should not be employed to achieve fair play.
This presumes that there is a single, universal concept of 'fair play'.
Sarah's claims to the contrary, that what constitutes 'fair play' depends
on the particular players involved, is not merely her personal opinion.
Rather, it's based on observation: it's the conclusion that most of the
posters here have reached, after reading the essays (and watching the
flamewars) of the other regulars.
Basically, everyone has his own personal opinion of what constitutes
'fair', and some of these opinions are diametrically opposed.
Furthermore, they do seem to be opinions rather than conclusions - they
aren't something that people can be dissuaded from by reasoned argument.
This may be the most important lesson to be learned from r.g.f.a - that
the category of roleplaying games is broad enough that you can't please
everyone in one game. If one person shows up wanting to play bridge, and
another expects to play poker, you aren't going to be able to please both
with only one deck of cards.
Warren Dew
Ennead
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
: In fact, I believe that of the four regular players, one (my husband)
: was disappointed that the NPC didn't help, but two would have been
: disappointed if she had helped, because of the loss of PC centrality and
: opportunity for action. This is an awkward makeup for a gaming group,
: to be sure.
It is, but since Rick is particularly interested in accomodating
such differencs, rather than throwing up ones hands in despair over
them, perhaps we might want to think about what could have been done
to make this entire group happy.
It seems to me likely that the players in this group who
placed a high value on PC centrality might have accepted the NPC's
aid if they had felt that there were other plots in which their
characters could play a central role.
The player who valued NPC consistency highly, on the other
hand, would likely not have been too bothered by refusal if it
did not become a pattern over the course of the campaign. As
Mary writes:
: If the excuse had not been "flimsy" my husband (or I, in similar
: situations) might not have objected to a single instance, but in such
: games it rapidly becomes apparent that the NPCs will never provide
: significant help to the PCs. Each instance can be justified, but not
: the whole pattern.
I suspect that if that pattern were not permitted to emerge,
then even the "flimsiness" of the excuse would be forgivable. No
GM is perfect, after all, and even the best of them occasionally
let slip something completely lame in play, particularly when PC
actions take them by surprise. Reasonable players forgive such
blunders and move on.
I would say therefore that if one is running a game for
a group with this particular preferential mix, then one should
seriously consider having a number of plots available to the PCs
at all times (so that losing one will be no disaster), *and*
taking care that neither plot-loss nor NPC-inconsistency is
always chosen as the solution (so that neither pattern will
have the opportunity to become an irritation).
Some stylistic differences are irreconcilable, but I
don't think that this is necessarily one of them. Assuming that
the players are willing to be somewhat accomodating, I think that
a GM would be able to run a game for this group that would satisfy
everyone. To do so, he would just need to be aware of the differences
and willing to work a bit harder to negotiate around them.
: This still annoys both of us, as we are used to a
: playing style in which the game-rules "Don't make things easy for the
: PCs" and "Don't give the PCs anything they didn't earn" do not apply
: at all.
We play under a similar contract. In a game in which the
GM was taking pains to ensure that that pattern was not too intrusive,
however, I'd be willing to forgive the occasional flimsy excuse.
It is feeling that ones preferences here are being completely
disregarded (or, more often, not even *understood*) that makes
me come home from games feeling frustrated and angry.
: I am not passing judgement on these styles: merely noting that if you
: can recognize and describe them, disappointments of the kind I'm
: describing may be rarer. You'll also be less likely to use a technique
: applicable to one type of game inappropriately in another. I used to
: run a fairly simulationist game, but feel guilty whenever anticlimaxes
: occured. Realizing that they are a natural part of the style helped
: me run more comfortably. I was using a tool-set which doesn't contract
: to always make things work out dramatically, but still had the idea that
: somehow I ought to be making things work out dramatically....
Here, in my opinion, is one of those irreconcilable differences.
I don't see any way for a GM to accomodate both players who crave the
simulationist aesthetic *and* players who require consistently dramatic
denouments. The two do not go together.
I note, however, that you and your husband _have_ managed
to reconcile the twin desires for simulationist middle-games and
dramatic end-games in long-running campaigns. Here, an accomodation
was possible in a way that it would not have been had you required
consistently dramatic climaxes to each minor plot turning along the
way.
-- Sarah
scott....@3do.com
In article <5ltptu$n...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) wrote:
>
> Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> }Rick Cordes wrote:
> }: In article <5la9v0$3s9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
> }: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> }
> }: We're at cross purposes here. Whether or not these
> }: impressionistic characterizations can be used to mediate
> }: difficulties below the deck, I assumed they supposedly served
> }: some other specialized purpose, commensurate with the trouble
> }: taken to define them.
> }
> } What, you were expecting maybe a cure for cancer?
>
> Perhaps I'm dismissive of intermediate measures but yes
> I'm more focused on treating the disease rather than the
> symtoms.
I am looking for a way to steamline the startup and execution of RPg
events at my house. perhaps we are working at cross purposes.
>
> } Seriously, now: what were you hoping for? What purpose
> }did you expect a specialized gaming vocabulary to serve?
>
> The illumniation of a cogent RPG design philosophy.
> I think we're in the stone age on this question and that
> all this jargon is akin to mysticism.
>
> } The purpose of developing a specialized vocabulary
> }is to facilitate communication on a specialized topic. If
> }you don't consider this a useful result, then I honestly don't
> }know what I could possibly say to convince you otherwise.
>
> What has been achieved here has not required, much
> less, justified the specialized vocabulary. A character is
> more or less defined, and then to greater or lesser degree
> evolves; likewise plot, story, background, tone, color. Terms
> like DIS and DAP are unwarranted, unless you really want to
> argue that campaigns should always be staged in the same way,
> by stylistic preference.
This is >exactly my goal here, to help develope, and walk away with e
precise, detailed, and focussed vocabulary for analyzing particular
gaming styles and traits among GM's and players, so as to avoid style
clashes.
Scott
Life is too short to be stuck in bad games.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Phil K.
Rick Cordes wrote:
>
> In article <5lvm6k$9a9$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
> Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> }Rick Cordes wrote:
> }: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> }...
[snip]
> Will you
> at all entertain the notion that certain sets of preferences
> may objectively be more wise or foolish than others?
No! Definitely, and finally, NO! There are no objective criteria which
can be used to demonstrate that one set of preferences is more wise or
foolish than another. If I may be so bold/rude as to make a suggestion.
I've been lurking here for a few months, and have raised my head
occasionally, and I would suggest that if you haven't been lurking for
long that perhaps you should review recent postings on this newsgruop.
there has been enormous debate here on techniques, ettiquette, etc.,
etc. One thing which has become quite clear after millions of words of
debate is that there are no objective standards. Different people play
for difference reasons, they often use techniques which others would
subjectively regard as 'foolish', yet when an attempt is made to
objectively determine whether such techniques are foolish it has proven
impossible.
[snip]
> So, in this perfectly reasonable, "non-bonkers" group, I
> could never play a character who was even a little given to
> self-declamation? I really think this question of rudeness is
> presently tangential to our concerns but I think the example
> you present is more a question of one coping with peevish quirks,
> rather than one of being rude or not.
But the issue at point was not whether your character has a tendency to
self-declamation (such would be acceptable), but whether you _as a
player_ would be disrupting everyone elses enjoyment by declaiming, OOC,
the contents of your character's inner mind or feelings. In the "non
bonkers" group describing the contents of the characters mind in a many
other than IC self-declamation is not acceptable. Why do you have a
problem with this?
[snip]
> } Yes, of course. The term "relevance" only has meaning
> }in the context of human perception. The impact a "flimsy excuse"
> }has upon a game is dependent on how much it bothers the participants.
> }If none of them cares or even notices, then how much impact could
> }it possibly have?
>
> No brain, no pain, eh? How much impact, indeed. How about
> if it was brought to the fore, and the game benefitted, and a
> player who had felt stifled by the game but didn't know why,
> didn't quit the game, and went on to become a great RPGer,
> and then president and savior of a united earth?
If a player feels stifled by a game and doesn't know why, then it is
time to examine the game contract and the techniques being used to
determine why. Perhaps the situation described is contributing to the
player's discomfort and should be corrected. But if so, it is because of
the preferences of the player, not because of some arbitrary objective
conditions which are not being met by the GM. To be a great RPGer is to
be someone who enjoys their hobby and with whom the other people who
regularly RPG with the person enjoy RPGing. These conditions can be
satisfied by innumerable different styles, none of which relate to
whether the person would make a great world leader.
[snip]
> To GOD or any other judgemental SOB. It's a dirty
> JOB, but somebody has to do it, obfuscations not
> withstanding.
When GOD decides to contribute to this group I'll listen to his
objective criteria for good RPGing (and I'll probably disagree and
debate the substance of the claims). Until then, RPGing is a
recreational activity which different people do differently to their own
satisfaction and claims by others that they are doing it wrong are
insulting, not to say rude.
[snip]
> Many would argue that aesthetics derive from one's
> philosophy but you seem to have it the other way around. Your
> rational for a game contract seems to be to insure certain
> effects are achieved while other effects are avoided, and
> that this comprises an ettiquette as it avoids effects which
> are thereby defined as being rude. On the otherhand, the
> philosophy I idealize would provide general guidelines, for
> example, how players and referees should cope with information
> they received in or out of character or above, below or on
> the table, to encourage fair play. Whether groups or individuals
> want to exclude certain behaviors, may or may not the embrace of
> a cogent philosophy. My stipulation is that it should address how
> things should be properly employed, rather than what should be
> properly be employed. Is this what we have been going round and
> round about?!?
OK, a simple objective philosophy.
1) Fair play is whatever provides a satisfying and enjoyable RPGing
environment for the individuals involved in a particular RPG group.
2) While the techniques used by a second RPG group may have bearing upon
the activities of another RPGing group in an educative or illustrative
manner, they have no bearing on the fairness or appropriateness of the
techniques used by by another RPG group.
OK, there is your objective philosophy, as derived from millions of
words of debate on this news group.
[snip]
> Ah, but it is still no reason to cheat or to sacrifice
> one thing for another. Whether or not it occurs because of
> prioritization, or it is an example of the indulgence of
> preference, it is also an example of a poor GMing, which,
> I would argue will more often result from reliance upon
> sytlistic blinders rather than what would, working from the
> perspective of how to constitute fair play.
>
> -Rick
In _your_ opinion. In _your_ campaigns. Others would disagree with you.
And since these are only opiions you'll be hard pressed to prove that
yours in 'objectively' superior to theirs. For a start you'll have to
agree on some objective criteria by which to judge those opinions, and
that isn't possible. Millions of words of debate have convinced most of
those on this newsgroup that the search for such objective rules is
doomed to failure because any such rules would result in some RPG
campaigns or games being declared 'wrong' despite being incredible
successes in terms of the enjoyment of the players and GM (which are the
only relevent criteria).
Phil K.
Mary K. Kuhner
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> writes:
[some players hate to "lose control of the action", others crave
realistic NPC involvement]
> I would say therefore that if one is running a game for
>a group with this particular preferential mix, then one should
>seriously consider having a number of plots available to the PCs
>at all times (so that losing one will be no disaster), *and*
>taking care that neither plot-loss nor NPC-inconsistency is
>always chosen as the solution (so that neither pattern will
>have the opportunity to become an irritation).
The other thing that would, I think, be helpful is careful choice
of scenario and party template. For example, one of this group's
GMs did a scenario a while back where the PCs were junior mages
in a mages' guild, checking something local out at the request of
their usperiors. This is an invitation to trouble, since (a) NPCs
are clearly available who are much more capable than the PCs, and (b)
clearly it would be natural for the PCs to appeal for help if they
find something very threatening to the Guild, and natural for the
NPCs to respond.
If the game had been set up from the start as a _Mission Impossible_
"We will deny all knowledge of your existence" situation, the
issue of asking for help would not have arisen as naturally or as
often, reducing the amount of clash. Another possibility would be
"Guild agents behind enemy lines" where there is simply no
opportunity to ask for help.
I would personally prefer to avoid "We're testing you, so we won't
help you" as it sets stringent limits on how threatening the threat
can be before the PCs must, played in character, say, "I'm willing
to fail the test in order to save the Guild/my own life/something
I care deeply about." Almost every time I've seen this angle tried,
the PCs have run up against such a situation. It could be done, but
it seems risky.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Ennead
Rick Cordes wrote:
> Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> } To my mind, for an RPG design philosophy to be truly
> }useful, it must consist of a series of "if...then" statements.
> }If you want effect X, then you ought use technique Y. If effect
> }R is not to your tastes, then it is in your best interests to
> }avoid technique S.
> }
> } You, I assume, would hold such a philosophy in disdain,
> }as it takes preference into account.
> You'll next accuse me of picking straws from my hair
> but you're right, I doubt such a recipe book approach would
> be much use.
I think, then, that we must simply agree to disagree.
Such elaborations of the repercussions of style and technique
are precisely what I have found useful on this newsgroup.
> If I had anything in mind, I believe I was thinking
> of a philosophy that addressed the question of techniques from the
> perspective of how they should or should not be employed to
> achieve fair play.
In other words, you want to write a game contract.
That's all well and good. Why you believe that it should be
a *universal* game contract, however, is beyond me. Most people
have their own game contracts, selected to suit their own needs.
Other people's game contracts are unlikely to prove as useful
or relevant as one the group has composed itself.
> The application of techniques within those
> bounds should best be left to preference, though, perhaps
> how to cope with finnicky or unimaginative players should also
> be addressed.
I find such discussions useful, and should you initiate
one, I would happily participate.
> You are picking straws from your hair. My sense is that
> the sectarianism which you advocate, is, if not the handmaiden of
> dogmatism, at the very least antithetical to the growth of
> roleplaying.
I do not advocate sectarianism. Sectarianism arises
as a by-product of One True Way proposals.
> What ever you mean by physics, your insistence that
> fair play can only be determined by preference seeks to undermine
> the idea that a philosophy could be devised which prescribed the
> manner in which techniques may be integrated to achieve fair play,
> by claiming the only way to achieve fairplay is by contractual
> fiat.
Yes, I do claim that the only way to achieve fair play is
by contractual agreement. ("Fiat" is an inappropriate word here,
as it implies imposition from above, rather than agreement through
consensus.) You have yet to convince me that I am mistaken.
I do not, however, think that questioning your initial
premise is quite the same thing as "seeking to undermine" your ideas.
The latter phrasing implies a subversive approach. I have been, I
think, quite straight-forward and open in my disagreement with your
starting premise.
> It would seem to me that
> what you call the party line is somewhat similar to a game
> contract...
Yes. A "party line" is a game contract which is proposed
as the best one to use for a specific style of gaming (ie
"simulationist," "dramatic," etc.). The problem with such proposals
is that because no one adheres to precisely the same contract in
practice, the labels tend to confuse discussion, rather than
facilitate it.
: ...and that some game contracts would be better than
: others based upon how effective and facile they are in how
: much and what they achieve and enable, and this is what should
: be gained by pursuit of a RPG philosophy which is what I
: advocate, if you will, the better game contract.
What one is *trying* to "achieve and enable" is determined
by preference. This is how the question of preference makes its
way into the equation.
Once an agreement on precisely *what* you want the contract
to achieve and enable is reached, then discussion of whether the
contract chosen is a effective or ineffective for the effects you
have chosen can certainly take place.
But this gets us nowhere. Why don't you go ahead and
advocate your game contract? This discussion would benefit from
specifics. If you were to explain what it is you want from a game,
what your contract says, and how your contract helps you to achieve
your goals, then we'd have significantly more to talk about here.
> } I certainly do want to argue that if you want certain
> }effects ("preference"), then it is in your best interest to
> }look to certain techniques to facilitate them. To refuse to
> }do so would, indeed, seem extremely foolish to me.
> I am of course interested in effects but I don't
> want my hands tied by arbitrarilly limiting what can
> happen in a game, nor do I want to encourage perspectives
> which abet that...
Then don't choose arbitrary limits. Choose limits which
are designed to facilitate the effects you desire. A game contract
based on "arbitrary" limits is obviously going to be ineffective.
> : what I do want is guidelines for the fair
> play of effects, not the restriction of effects. Will you
> at all entertain the notion that certain sets of preferences
> may objectively be more wise or foolish than others?
No, of course I won't! How can a preference be "objectively"
more wise or foolish than another?
If this is what our disagreement boils down to, then I
don't think there's much more to say. If you were to give me
*examples* of preferences which you would consider "wise" or
"foolish," then perhaps we could continue (although I doubt
the ensuing conversation would be very productive). In the
absence of such examples, though, we are simply at an impasse.
> So you agree differeent methodologies and perspectives will
> desirably be at play but you deny the utility of the pursuit of
> a philosophy which would prescribe how different methodologies
> and perspectives may by reconciled fairly?
No, I don't. In fact, I have such a philosophy. You
have rejected it on the grounds that it utilizes a "language
of preference." You have yet, however, to tell me anything
about your own philosophy. You have not even been willing to
tell me what you consider "cheating" and what "fair play" in
your own games.
You seem to be very excited to share *something* with
the rest of the group, but I am as in the dark about what this
something is as I was when this discussion began. If you have
the beginnings of a universally-applicable game contract stewing
in your mind, why not let us know something about it? Others
may join in, and we might well end up with something very useful.
> As you have said, this is not in a vacuum. According
> to you, although we may discuss whatever you mean by "the
> dynamic by which Technique X yields Result Y", the only thing
> that matters is the preference for Result Y.
No, that isn't the "only thing that matters." The dynamic
is interesting and useful in and of itself. Whether one desires
or detests Result Y, however, will determine how one chooses to
*use* this information. The observed mechanism by which "Technique
X yields Result Y" is useful regardless of whether one wants to
achieve Y or to avoid it.
> Your rational for a game contract seems to be to insure certain
> effects are achieved while other effects are avoided, and
> that this comprises an ettiquette as it avoids effects which
> are thereby defined as being rude.
Yes.
> On the otherhand, the philosophy I idealize would provide general
> guidelines, for example, how players and referees should cope with
> information they received in or out of character or above, below or on
> the table, to encourage fair play.
What I cannot understand is how you think these two things
differ. It comes to the same thing.
What you seem to resist is the idea that "fair play" is
not an objective term, that different people may have different
ideas about what constitutes "fair play," and that these ideas
are dependent on such factors as what they want to get out of
the game, what purpose they think the game serves, what the "goal"
of the game is, and other matters of <O horrors!> preference.
<discussion of two separate game contracts: one in which
the GM is obligated to hook PCs, one in which the GM is not
supposed to do so>
> I may have omitted too much super ubi but I think your
> qualifications were unnecessary. A character is allowed to be
> created, hooks or no, persuasive or not, thereafter, effort
> is focusued in that spirit.
I don't mind omission -- I'm long-winded, I know -- but
it does strike me that the above paragraph does not even bother
to address the issue about which I wrote at such length. I
really do not want to write it all out a second time.
Are you saying that whether or not "hooking the characters"
is required or forbidden is *irrelevant* to the question of fair play?
If so, then could you explain this assertion? I do not understand
your reasoning.
> }: I do think the flimsy excuse is akin to cheating.
}
> } Would it be akin to cheating if the excuse had been a
> }good one?
> I suppose one might say the GM was handicapped by
> wanting to keep in the spirit of the game, so he fudged. I
> think this was at least unfair to the player, and detracted
> from the game because if a NPC makes a flimsy excuse, that
> should mean something in and of itself.
No, no, no. You've changed the question on me by
making the excuse "flimsy" again.
I asked you if you would also consider a *good* excuse
"something akin to cheating."
> Ah, but it is still no reason to cheat or to sacrifice
> one thing for another.
It's hard for me to comment on this, as you have still
not given me any idea what you consider "cheating" in an RPG.
-- Sarah
Ennead
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
: I would personally prefer to avoid "We're testing you, so we won't
: help you" as it sets stringent limits on how threatening the threat
: can be before the PCs must, played in character, say, "I'm willing
: to fail the test in order to save the Guild/my own life/something
: I care deeply about."
Or before the PCs must, played in-character, come to
the conclusion: "Our superiors are clearly either stupid or
utterly insane, and therefore they are unworthy of our respect
and loyalty." That's the one I've come up against most often.
: Almost every time I've seen this angle tried,
: the PCs have run up against such a situation. It could be done, but
: it seems risky.
My experience with this type of situation corresponds
to Mary's. In fact, I don't think I've *ever* seen this angle
worked successfully in a game.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone with different
experience. I find myself wondering if this plot approach is
just a dog, or whether it can work properly if handled in the
right way.
Mary -- when you _have_ seen this gambit work, do
you think it succeeded due to dumb luck, or were there particular
factors in play which made it an effective approach?
-- Sarah
Rick Cordes
}> Will you
}> at all entertain the notion that certain sets of preferences
}> may objectively be more wise or foolish than others?
}
}No! Definitely, and finally, NO!
}> So, in this perfectly reasonable, "non-bonkers" group, I
}> could never play a character who was even a little given to
}> self-declamation? I really think this question of rudeness is
}> presently tangential to our concerns but I think the example
}> you present is more a question of one coping with peevish quirks,
}> rather than one of being rude or not.
}
}But the issue at point was not whether your character has a tendency to
}self-declamation (such would be acceptable), but whether you _as a
}player_ would be disrupting everyone elses enjoyment by declaiming, OOC,
}the contents of your character's inner mind or feelings. In the "non
}bonkers" group describing the contents of the characters mind in a many
}other than IC self-declamation is not acceptable. Why do you have a
}problem with this?
What is at issue, is whether or not a notion of fairplay can
be defined that resides on something other than preference. In this
group the description was that the characters should not reveal the
inner thoughts of their characters: no exception was made allowing
this to be done through soliloquy, in character. My point is that
rather than describing every possible nuanced instance of roleplay,
and ascribing by preference whether it is fair play or not to each,
a generalizable philosophy would provide rubrics to determine how
things may be used fairly or not, whether or not should they come
into play.
}...
}When GOD decides to contribute to this group I'll listen to his
}objective criteria for good RPGing (and I'll probably disagree and
}debate the substance of the claims). Until then, RPGing is a
}recreational activity which different people do differently to their own
}satisfaction and claims by others that they are doing it wrong are
}insulting, not to say rude.
Like I said, obfuscations not withstanding.
}...
}OK, a simple objective philosophy.
}
}1) Fair play is whatever provides a satisfying and enjoyable RPGing
}environment for the individuals involved in a particular RPG group.
}
}2) While the techniques used by a second RPG group may have bearing upon
}the activities of another RPGing group in an educative or illustrative
}manner, they have no bearing on the fairness or appropriateness of the
This is simple, it's patently subjective, and where's the
philosophy?
}...
}} Ah, but it is still no reason to cheat or to sacrifice
}} one thing for another. Whether or not it occurs because of
}} prioritization, or it is an example of the indulgence of
}} preference, it is also an example of a poor GMing, which,
}} I would argue will more often result from reliance upon
}} sytlistic blinders rather than what would, working from the
}} perspective of how to constitute fair play.
}}
}In _your_ opinion. In _your_ campaigns. Others would disagree with you.
}And since these are only opiions you'll be hard pressed to prove that
}yours in 'objectively' superior to theirs. For a start you'll have to
}agree on some objective criteria by which to judge those opinions, and
}that isn't possible. Millions of words of debate have convinced most of
}those on this newsgroup that the search for such objective rules is
}doomed to failure because any such rules would result in some RPG
}campaigns or games being declared 'wrong' despite being incredible
}successes in terms of the enjoyment of the players and GM (which are the
}only relevent criteria).
Your objections go a little far afield. I just don't think it's
impossible to philosophize about what defines fairplay in a game
without having to resort to preference. I am not trying to define wrong,
I'm trying to define better, if that's not too airy-fairy. Your claim
that it is impossible to find objective criteria to agree upon seems
plainly wrong: how do you reason such a thing?
-Rick
Rick Cordes
In article <robbj95.864439379@octarine>,
Barbara Robson <rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote:
}cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) writes:
}
}...
}|} If internal monologue interferes with the immersion
}|}of the players, and if the group values immersion highly, then
}|}it makes perfect sense to consider internal monologue a rude
}|}behavior. If both of the qualifying statements were true for
}|}me, then I'm sure that *I* would consider a monologuing player
}|}a violator of etiquette.
All kinds of quirkiness, as well as, it seems to me all
sorts of more or less reasonableness, may define what constitutes
rude behavior. I'm not interested in this question: I'm looking to
define generalizable means to determine what constitutes fair
play in running or playing in RPGs. I can imagine how people who
play immersively, or just honestly try to roleplay, may be unfairly
taken advantage of by those who play characters like chess pieces,
whether either PCs or NPCs. As long as its done passably and
not to excess, I would never object to declamation, in or out
of character, but I would object if any information gleaned back
stage was used unfairly on stage. Now this may be construed as
preference but on the other hand it seems to me I'm generalizing
from what constitutes fair play in other games.
}| So, in this perfectly reasonable, "non-bonkers" group, I
}| could never play a character who was even a little given to
}| self-declamation?
}
}The case described was _internal_ monolgue (the player describing what
}their character is thinking), not self-declamation on the part of the
}PC, which the other characters would reasonably be aware of and could
}respond to.
This was not clear, and I purposefully used this ambiguity
to illustrate my feeling of the futility of this preferential
approach to define fairplay to be whatever doesn't seem rude to
whomever.
}<snip}
}| On the otherhand, the philosophy I idealize would provide general
}| guidelines, for example, how players and referees should cope with
}| information they received in or out of character or above, below or on
}| the table, to encourage fair play.
}
}The answers to these questions will depend on the aims of the group,
}what outcomes are valued and so on. For many games, the concept of
}"fair play" is not even an appropriate criteria for judging the best
}styles to adopt or rules to follow -- if the game is played to create
}a story rather than to engage in competition (against puzzles, against
}other PCs, against the GM's world, or whatever), then "fair play" is
}irrelevant.
This is a novel objection: games where fairplay is not
relevant. Most have been arguing that cheating is only in the
eye of the beholder. It seems peculiar that the concept of
rudeness has figured more often in this debate than the concept
of cheating, but now it seems while the potential for rudeness
can always exist, the potential for cheating cannot?
}...
}| I suppose one might say the GM was handicapped by
}| wanting to keep in the spirit of the game, so he fudged. I
}| think this was at least unfair to the player
}
}Whether it was unfair to the player depends on what the player wants
}and expects from the game. If it was agreed that the players were
}there with the expectation that the GM would provide a challenging
}scenario and a good story, it might be seen as unfair to allow an NPC
}to get in the way of these being provided.
}
}<snip}
}| So, unless PCs are somehow appropriately recompensed
}| for effective roleplay, then yes, it is akin to cheating.
}
}"Cheating" implies that an agreed or implied contract has been
}broken, that the GM has in some way broken the (stated or unstated)
}rules. If the game contract includes no expectation that the GM
}will not behave as described, there is no way in which "cheating"
}can be said to have occurred in the example given. A contract
}in which there was a rule that fudging should not occur but
}which allowed this to be bypassed with some kind of compensation
}for the plays or PCs would be unusual to say the least.
The GM was represented as having offered a flimsy
excuse for why the NPC did not act appropriately. This was
done because of a supposed preference that supposed this
would have amounted to allowing cheating, i.e., allowing
an NPC to help a PC. Besides this being a ludicrous notion,
the implication seems to be that the GM created a situation,
and then reneged on the follow through, for bad reasons
rather than good.
}...
}In the exaple given, one thing had to be sacrificed for another,
}whichever approach the GM adopted. If the GM had not fudged the NPC's
}reaction, the sense of challenge in the game and the plot would have
}been sacrificed for the sake of consistency.
By no means in the example given did the one thing have to
be sacrificed for the other. I believe Sarah grants this point though
she still wants to reduce it purely to a question of preference. It
is simply not true that having NPCs behaving realistically towards
the PCs will remove challenge from the game, and isn't it that
consistency should sometimes be sacrificed for the sake of plot, and
not as you have it, the other way around? What is a plot if it is not
usually consistent?
-Rick
Mary K. Kuhner
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> writes:
["We're testing you, so we won't help you" as a plot strategy]
> Mary -- when you _have_ seen this gambit work, do
>you think it succeeded due to dumb luck, or were there particular
>factors in play which made it an effective approach?
In both of the cases that I can think of, the PC in question had
an essentially adversarial relationship with her superiors. Corazon,
for example, served someone she knew was teaching her only to
further his own aims. She was willing to do so, because she was
cold-bloodedly power-hungry and stood to learn a lot from him; but
respect and loyalty didn't enter into the deal at all. So when he
said "I won't help you here, even if that means you die" she was
neither surprised nor disappointed.
I think it might also work as a one-shot where the PCs know in
advance that the situation is a test and that it may well be a
test to destruction. They should have a chance to refuse at the
start, in this case. The reward, if the test is passed, should
probably involve substantial status. "To become a full Initiate
you must walk Shadow Vale from one end to the other...alone."
"We're testing you" on a regular basis, though, is going to destroy
any regard the PCs might have had for their superiors very
fast. Since the usual player dynamic is to dislike superiors anyway,
this strikes me as unfortunate.
I had an amusing encounter with this in a convention game. The game
started with a running combat (no explanations given, the game just
started in mid-fight) which killed half the PCs. Then the scene
shifted--the PCs were being unhooked from a virtual reality device.
The person doing so explained that he'd been testing them--he intended
to hire them for a dangerous mission, and had wanted to see them in
action.
The PCs looked at each other, looked at him...there was a long pause
while the players sort of said "Are we really going to play in
character here?"...and the PCs said "Take your job and shove it."
Then the players took the GM out to dinner. We had a bit of a talk,
and came up with the idea that the PCs, having heard about this job,
might get somewhat drunk and decide to go see how the fools who *did*
accept were doing. The job went wrong, the PCs got involved, and
we ran with it from there.
It was pretty clear that even with brand new, poorly developed
characters, there was *no way* the PCs would put up with being
"tested" in that fashion.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Ennead
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
: ["We're testing you, so we won't help you" as a plot strategy]
[Under what circumstances can this gambit work?]
: In both of the cases that I can think of, the PC in question had
: an essentially adversarial relationship with her superiors. Corazon,
: for example, served someone she knew was teaching her only to
: further his own aims. She was willing to do so, because she was
: cold-bloodedly power-hungry and stood to learn a lot from him; but
: respect and loyalty didn't enter into the deal at all. So when he
: said "I won't help you here, even if that means you die" she was
: neither surprised nor disappointed.
Ah. Okay. The versions of this gambit that I've
encountered have quickly moved past "Fail and you die" and
straight to "Fail, and <insert name of appropriate institution>
will be harmed or destroyed." That's the point at which the
superiors' refusing to help seems like an indication of stupidity
or utter insanity, and at that point, it becomes very difficult for
the PCs to maintain enough loyalty to their own institution to
continue to risk their lives for its benefit.
I can certainly accept a potentially lethal test. When
failure of the "test" might destroy the testers as well, though,
then it just becomes absurd.
: Then the players took the GM out to dinner. We had a bit of a talk,
: and came up with the idea that the PCs, having heard about this job,
: might get somewhat drunk and decide to go see how the fools who *did*
: accept were doing. The job went wrong, the PCs got involved, and
: we ran with it from there.
I am awash in admiration. That was nicely handled.
-- Sarah
Psychohist
Rick Cordes posts, in part:
I can imagine how people who play immersively, or just honestly
try to roleplay, may be unfairly taken advantage of by those
who play characters like chess pieces, whether either PCs or
NPCs.
Interesting statement ... I have a situation with Laratoa right now where
it seems much more likely that the one game oriented player will feel
'unfairly taken advantage of' by the world oriented players.
This one player recently started playing again, after a few years' hiatus.
He has a fairly clear game orientation: he plays for the challenge that
the game offers the player, he is highly sensitive to 'player character
glow', and he tends to treat gamesmaster characters as either adversaries
or resources, and not as individuals. The main exception to his treating
characters as playing pieces is that they don't collude, but it's mainly
because he considers a player's coordinating the actions of his multiple
characters to be cheating.
He does seem to play from the character stance, though not immersively.
He reconciles this with the desire for a player level challenge by
creating characters with fairly clear cut goals - typically, to become
'the best at' some specific thing - which can then be treated as game
objectives at the player level. He's also oriented towards traditional
'adventures'.
The rest of the current players, whether playing from the character stance
or immersively, have reached the point where their characters form goals
on their own, based on their personalities and their situations in the
game world. These characters are no longer 'adventurers' per se, though
they sometimes find that their positions require them to do something
that, in the words of one of them, 'looks like an adventure' - for
example, travelling around tracking down political enemies.
I don't think the game oriented player will interfere with the world
oriented players at all - since he does play his characters individually,
there won't be collusion that would be unexplainable at the character
level, and since the game oriented player does treat the other players'
characters as 'real', the character interactions won't seem strange,
either.
On the other hand, the game oriented player is likely to feel frustrated
at times. Though he's too polite to say such things, I can just see him
thinking things like, 'this is a perfectly good adventure - what do you
mean it's more important to balance the budget for your duchy?', or 'you
mean my character just got killed because you had to role play your
character's attachment to this random NPC?', or 'this other NPC was
obviously placed there to provide the players with key information - why
can't he just give it to me, instead of making me talk to his butler and
make an appointment?'
I suspect he'll find it worthwhile to play anyway. But I'd still be
interested in any ideas people have on making his time easier, without
compromising the world orientation of the gamesmaster and the other
players.
Warren J. Dew
Mary K. Kuhner
>On the other hand, the game oriented player is likely to feel frustrated
>at times. Though he's too polite to say such things, I can just see him
>thinking things like, 'this is a perfectly good adventure - what do you
>mean it's more important to balance the budget for your duchy?', or 'you
>mean my character just got killed because you had to role play your
>character's attachment to this random NPC?', or 'this other NPC was
>obviously placed there to provide the players with key information - why
>can't he just give it to me, instead of making me talk to his butler and
>make an appointment?'
One thing the player can do to help himself out is choose PC
personalities that mesh well with his goals. For example, if by
temperment the player is likely to want action and be frustrated by
politics, he will probably have more fun playing a PC of similar
leanings, so that he can say in-character "Enough with the budget
already, we have real problems out there!" Players sometimes don't
do this because they've been told it's bad roleplaying to play someone
with a personality similar to theirs, but I think it's worth a try.
If the game-oriented player can find a social role in the campaign
milieu that allows him to act as "advocate for adventure" he won't have
to spend so much time being too polite to say so. Often lords have
one advisor who always pushes the direct solution, for example, and
who is perhaps not very alert to social issues.
I don't know what to do about the NPC issue, though. My games also
emphasize NPCs very heavily and players who don't like to interact with
them never seem to fit in, no matter what we try. At best, like
Fred in the _Sunrise War_ campaign, the player just sits back and
listens when NPC interaction is center stage--but Fred was unusually
patient.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <5mfg0g$j...@s10.math.uah.edu> lam...@s10.math.uah.edu (Doug Lampert) writes:
>I did this for a campaign and it worked quite well. Several scenarios
>were solved by 'I teleport back home, I tell (Rose, Marius, or Caroline
>as appropriate) what we are facing and hand over an appropriate set of
>information and arcane connections, whoever casts many powerful spells,
>teleports to source of problem, demolishes source of problem, takes the
>best loot, and teleports home.' Players get a small black mark for
>disturbing someone important, which largely cancels the credit for
>undertaking the mission.
>The players only rarely appealed for help. And they still had to do all
>the leg work, prep work, and investigations. Only the 'final climactic
>fight' is aborted. An important NPC mage is far to busy with research
>to go out and do routine leg work, that is what they have PC's for.
I would probably enjoy such a game, as long as the routine leg work was
not *too* emphatically routine. But I'm pretty sure that my husband's
group, except for him, would feel deeply cheated by missing the final
climatic fight. Different tastes.
I'd be interested in hearing what kinds of leg work your players did,
and how you handled it. I like such scenarios as a GM as well as
player, but I'm looking for ways to make them more engaging for my
players.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Doug Lampert
In article <5m6qho$m...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,>Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> writes:
>The other thing that would, I think, be helpful is careful choice
>of scenario and party template. For example, one of this group's
>GMs did a scenario a while back where the PCs were junior mages
>in a mages' guild, checking something local out at the request of
>their usperiors. This is an invitation to trouble, since (a) NPCs
>are clearly available who are much more capable than the PCs, and (b)
>clearly it would be natural for the PCs to appeal for help if they
>find something very threatening to the Guild, and natural for the
>NPCs to respond.
I did this for a campaign and it worked quite well. Several scenarios
were solved by 'I teleport back home, I tell (Rose, Marius, or Caroline
as appropriate) what we are facing and hand over an appropriate set of
information and arcane connections, whoever casts many powerful spells,
teleports to source of problem, demolishes source of problem, takes the
best loot, and teleports home.' Players get a small black mark for
disturbing someone important, which largely cancels the credit for
undertaking the mission.
The players only rarely appealed for help. And they still had to do all
the leg work, prep work, and investigations. Only the 'final climactic
fight' is aborted. An important NPC mage is far to busy with research
to go out and do routine leg work, that is what they have PC's for.
DougL
Doug Lampert
In article <5mfjbm$6...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
>not *too* emphatically routine. But I'm pretty sure that my husband's
>group, except for him, would feel deeply cheated by missing the final
>climatic fight. Different tastes.
>
>I'd be interested in hearing what kinds of leg work your players did,
>and how you handled it. I like such scenarios as a GM as well as
>player, but I'm looking for ways to make them more engaging for my
>players.
The last big problem they solved that way was an infestation of
vampires, they found out where the master vampire was by tracing
up through 'children', and then reported the location.
Several times they wound up with an arcane connection to a hostile
mage, and had no real long range attack spells, so they finished
anything else they were doing, then sent the connection back for
disposal (of the hostile mage, not the connection).
Once when out escorting a merchant ship they decided the opposing
pirates were to tough, so halfway through the battle one PC went
for help.
Several times someone was 'killed' (actually lethal wounds, with
death prevented by magic, no resurrection was available). Then all
they needed to do was keep the character alive till help showed up.
Unless the entire adventure hinges on a single fight, or dealing
with a single known enemy in head to head combat, the PC's could
do almost anything you can do in an adventure with a different
premise. Even for one or two deal with a known enemy in head to
head combat situations, remember that he who fires first often wins.
So the NPC would drag a bunch of weaker characters (PC's) along to
flush the main enemy and deal with henchmen. Does it matter that
you have an awe-inspiring NPC present if the NPC plans to lay low
till he can ambush the other sides equally powerful NPC, and when
that happens they will both be throughly busy for 10+ rounds?
DougL
Phil K.
Rick Cordes wrote:
[snip]
> What is at issue, is whether or not a notion of fairplay can
> be defined that resides on something other than preference. In this
> group the description was that the characters should not reveal the
> inner thoughts of their characters: no exception was made allowing
> this to be done through soliloquy, in character.
<blat> Wrong, thank you for trying. If you go back and check you'll find
that the example refered to the _player_ revealing the _character's_
inner thoughts. If a _character_ soliloquizes (is that a word?) then it
is a completely different situation. And if you can't recognise the
difference then you have some much more fundamental RPG concepts to
master before you're ready for the "Universal One True Way of RPGing".
> My point is that
> rather than describing every possible nuanced instance of roleplay,
> and ascribing by preference whether it is fair play or not to each,
> a generalizable philosophy would provide rubrics to determine how
> things may be used fairly or not, whether or not should they come
> into play.
You have yet to provide any possible criteria other than the context of
the individual game and players (ie: preference) for distinguishing
between different techniques. I can understand your desire for such a
generalizable philosophy, but it is my (and I'd suggest others)
experience that such a philosophy is impossible to develop. If you think
you can develop such a philosophy (without declaring the GMing styles of
some very successful GMs here wrong), then we are all ears. Until then,
though, I think we'll just have to potter along with our descriptive,
illustrative language.
>
> }...
> }When GOD decides to contribute to this group I'll listen to his
> }objective criteria for good RPGing (and I'll probably disagree and
> }debate the substance of the claims). Until then, RPGing is a
> }recreational activity which different people do differently to their own
> }satisfaction and claims by others that they are doing it wrong are
> }insulting, not to say rude.
>
> Like I said, obfuscations not withstanding.
I'm serious. The onus is on _you_ to demonstrate that your objective
criteria are justified and not based on fiat. So, when you eventually
get round to producing your objective rules I shall examine them
carefully for the quality of their justification and the arguments in
favor of them, compare them with my experience and extrapolation of
RPging in specific and general circumstances, and probably proceed to
debate those points which I will inevitably disagree with. Sorry Rick,
no free rides. ;)
>
> }...
> }OK, a simple objective philosophy.
> }
> }1) Fair play is whatever provides a satisfying and enjoyable RPGing
> }environment for the individuals involved in a particular RPG group.
> }
> }2) While the techniques used by a second RPG group may have bearing upon
> }the activities of another RPGing group in an educative or illustrative
> }manner, they have no bearing on the fairness or appropriateness of the
>
> This is simple, it's patently subjective, and where's the
> philosophy?
Sorry, but it IS a philosophy. It is a collection of intellectual
statements which can be taken as guidelines to action or belief or as
illustrations of particular concepts. If you somehow think that just
because it is simple it cannot be Philosophy them I'm afraid you are
wrong (and before you set yourself up to be contradicted again, I am a
post-graduate Philosophy student). And no, it is NOT a subjective
philosophy. It states that it is an obvious, a priori, objective,
'true-by-virtue-of-the-nature-of-reality' fact that preference and
context should taken into account in any discussion of RPGing. It
neccessarily follows, of course, that any specific, more detailed rules
or guidelines concerning proper RPGing must be contecxt based and hence
subjective. But the core philosophy itself isn't subjective. Care to try
again?
[snip]
>
> Your objections go a little far afield. I just don't think it's
> impossible to philosophize about what defines fairplay in a game
> without having to resort to preference. I am not trying to define wrong,
> I'm trying to define better, if that's not too airy-fairy. Your claim
> that it is impossible to find objective criteria to agree upon seems
> plainly wrong: how do you reason such a thing?
Simple. I cannot concieve of such a thing unless it is itself unfair to
numerous real world examples of good GM's, players, and games. Better by
what criteria? If you actually have some supposedly objective criteria
for fair/unfair, good/bad (better is only relative positioning on a
good/bad contiuum so you'll have to have definitions of good and bad),
etc., etc., then lets hear them. I predict that they'll be based on
preference, yours probably. I further predict that I could generate a
reasonable (note I say reasonable, not conclusive) counter-argument or
example to any supposedly objective criteria, thus reducing the criteria
to preference. There is my challenge. As the person championing an
objective RPGing philosophy the onus is on you to deliver one. Until you
do, I stand by my claim that I don't believe such an animal exists.
>
> -Rick
Have a nice day ;)
Phil K.
Jim Henley
Rick Cordes wrote:
>
> It seems peculiar that the concept of
> rudeness has figured more often in this debate than the concept
> of cheating, but now it seems while the potential for rudeness
> can always exist, the potential for cheating cannot?
It shouldn't seem peculiar. Role-playing is a social activity.
"Rudeness" is a vital concept in understanding any social gathering. I
might be tempted to go so far as to say, in a voluntary association like
an RPG group, the concept of "cheating" actually collapses into the
concept of "rudeness." Cf. football (American), where, say, jumping
offsides is clearly "cheating," but it's hard to see how the act is
"rude."
Best,
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
In article <5mfjbm$6...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>
> I would probably enjoy such a game, as long as the routine leg work was
> not *too* emphatically routine. But I'm pretty sure that my husband's
> group, except for him, would feel deeply cheated by missing the final
> climatic fight. Different tastes.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing what kinds of leg work your players did,
> and how you handled it. I like such scenarios as a GM as well as
> player, but I'm looking for ways to make them more engaging for my
> players.
I'd like to ask both of you to describe how exactly this works -- I'm
setting up a campaign in which the PCs will have an awful lot of
institutional support, and I'm curious what you did to maintain tension
and excitement. (I'm planning on handling this by throwing so much
at the PCs that they have to triage, and letting them figure which
crises to handle themselves, and which to pass on.)
Neel
Rick Cordes
In article <338BA3...@luff.latrobe.edu.au>,
Phil K. <phi...@luff.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
}Rick Cordes wrote:
}
}[snip]
}} What is at issue, is whether or not a notion of fairplay can
}} be defined that resides on something other than preference. In this
}} group the description was that the characters should not reveal the
}} inner thoughts of their characters: no exception was made allowing
}} this to be done through soliloquy, in character.
}
}<blat} Wrong, thank you for trying. If you go back and check you'll find
}that the example refered to the _player_ revealing the _character's_
}inner thoughts. If a _character_ soliloquizes (is that a word?) then it
}is a completely different situation. And if you can't recognise the
}difference then you have some much more fundamental RPG concepts to
}master before you're ready for the "Universal One True Way of RPGing".
As if this were a salient issue. In anycase, the quote I directly
responded to was "In some groups, it is apparently considered very
rude for a player to reveal his character's inner hidden thoughts during
the game." Whether or not the player is in character is ambiguous. Your
quibbling and disingenuity are of a piece.
}} My point is that
}} rather than describing every possible nuanced instance of roleplay,
}} and ascribing by preference whether it is fair play or not to each,
}} a generalizable philosophy would provide rubrics to determine how
}} things may be used fairly or not, whether or not should they come
}} into play.
}
}You have yet to provide any possible criteria other than the context of
}the individual game and players (ie: preference) for distinguishing
}between different techniques. I can understand your desire for such a
}generalizable philosophy, but it is my (and I'd suggest others)
}experience that such a philosophy is impossible to develop. If you think
}you can develop such a philosophy (without declaring the GMing styles of
}some very successful GMs here wrong), then we are all ears. Until then,
}though, I think we'll just have to potter along with our descriptive,
}illustrative language.
This is not at issue nor is it true. We have not been debating
the basis for distinguishing between techniques, and if it is of course
possible to distinguish between styles of roleplay without resorting
to distinctions based on preference.
What I have been suggesting is to attempt a codification of
what constitutes cheating in RPGs: a primary motive for this is to
reconcile different approaches to RPGing fairly. You as well as
others who claim to be in the majority should appreciate the irony
that while claiming a consensus, you purportedly represent the only
subset of gamers for whom a code of fairplay does not exist.
-Rick
Rick Cordes
In article <5ma2k5$dva$1...@nadine.teleport.com> you write:
} Rick Cordes wrote:
}
}> Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
}
}} If I had anything in mind, I believe I was thinking
}} of a philosophy that addressed the question of techniques from the
}} perspective of how they should or should not be employed to
}} achieve fair play.
}
} In other words, you want to write a game contract.
}That's all well and good. Why you believe that it should be
}a *universal* game contract, however, is beyond me. Most people
}have their own game contracts, selected to suit their own needs.
}Other people's game contracts are unlikely to prove as useful
}or relevant as one the group has composed itself.
So preference is fairplay, and a roleplaying philosophy
is a game contract? What I believe to be universally generalizable,
is a notion of fairplay. It is a remarkable presumption that
such universal ideas either do not exist or that they in no
practicle manner apply to RPGs.
}} The application of techniques within those
}} bounds should best be left to preference, though, perhaps
}} how to cope with finnicky or unimaginative players should also
}} be addressed.
}
} I find such discussions useful, and should you initiate
}one, I would happily participate.
}
}} You are picking straws from your hair. My sense is that
}} the sectarianism which you advocate, is, if not the handmaiden of
}} dogmatism, at the very least antithetical to the growth of
}} roleplaying.
}
} I do not advocate sectarianism. Sectarianism arises
}as a by-product of One True Way proposals.
Historically, sectarianism arises from philosophical
failure. Whatever it is you advocate, it is certainly widespread,
and it did not arise from anything I proposed, or in fact, did not
propose. Be that as it may, how would you currently characterize
the current state of the RPG art, and what is is you certainly do
advocate in this respect?
}} What ever you mean by physics, your insistence that
}} fair play can only be determined by preference seeks to undermine
}} the idea that a philosophy could be devised which prescribed the
}} manner in which techniques may be integrated to achieve fair play,
}} by claiming the only way to achieve fairplay is by contractual
}} fiat.
}
} Yes, I do claim that the only way to achieve fair play is
}by contractual agreement. ("Fiat" is an inappropriate word here,
}as it implies imposition from above, rather than agreement through
}consensus.) You have yet to convince me that I am mistaken.
} I do not, however, think that questioning your initial
}premise is quite the same thing as "seeking to undermine" your ideas.
}The latter phrasing implies a subversive approach. I have been, I
}think, quite straight-forward and open in my disagreement with your
}starting premise.
In the original instance you maintained that the group
in question valued PC centrality over simulation and that
the flimsy excuse, thereby motivated, therefore wasn't really
to be regarded as anything at all, by contractual fiat. While
I do disagree with you over the appropriateness of the term
"fiat", I do agree with your inference that your approach is
subversive. I think we can agree that one may be straight-
forward and forthright, and still be equivocal and solipsistic,
or in general seek to subvert language.
}} It would seem to me that
}} what you call the party line is somewhat similar to a game
}} contract...
}
} Yes. A "party line" is a game contract which is proposed
}as the best one to use for a specific style of gaming (ie
}"simulationist," "dramatic," etc.). The problem with such proposals
}is that because no one adheres to precisely the same contract in
}practice, the labels tend to confuse discussion, rather than
}facilitate it.
We've aleady agreed that most styles are an amalgam and I've
already said I'm not advocating what should be employed, I'm looking
to define how things may be used fairly.
}: ...and that some game contracts would be better than
}: others based upon how effective and facile they are in how
}: much and what they achieve and enable, and this is what should
}: be gained by pursuit of a RPG philosophy which is what I
}: advocate, if you will, the better game contract.
}
} What one is *trying* to "achieve and enable" is determined
}by preference. This is how the question of preference makes its
}way into the equation.
}
} Once an agreement on precisely *what* you want the contract
}to achieve and enable is reached, then discussion of whether the
}contract chosen is a effective or ineffective for the effects you
}have chosen can certainly take place.
}
} But this gets us nowhere. Why don't you go ahead and
}advocate your game contract? This discussion would benefit from
}specifics. If you were to explain what it is you want from a game,
}what your contract says, and how your contract helps you to achieve
}your goals, then we'd have significantly more to talk about here.
You've caught me off base here. I don't have a cogent RPG
philosophy embodying what I advocate, much less, it reified in
contract form. My proposal is at best a hypotheses prompted by
my perception of the state of the art in RPGing. As Scott has
alludued, he is looking for a effective and efficient method for
communicating how to get a game going and rolling, and he seems to
think the inculcation of a specialized language will help achieve
that. [Excuse me Scott, if I've put words in your mouth.] I also
share the perception that there is a real problem of
miscommunication in RPGs but I don't think additional vocabulary
will undo the Tower of Babel. This group is unto Nero fiddling
while Rome burns. To the backdrop of the most innovative exploiters
of the RPG market (WotC) buying out those who by commercial
exploitation have increasingly reduced roleplaying to lower
common denominators (TSR), we have this group who offers what kind
of alternate vision? The questions of preference (and the maturation
of tastes) are real ones, and there is no denying they often are the
primary confrontational issues when you sit down to roleplay but although
consideration of these issues works to refine the rules of play and
even indirectly perhaps to define fair play, this is by its nature a
haphazard approach. I object to what I've called sectarianism
that it is impossible to derive or describe an encompassing RPG
philosophy. Whether or not a RPG philosophy should evolve (why not?)
the starting point might be to take what represents fair play in
other contexts, and apply it to the methods and styles of RPGs. I
don't think this is a trivial nor a futile task, given respectively,
the width and breadth and depth of what comprises roleplaying and
refereeing, or as the success of the venture would provide a basis to
reconcile different sytles and methods without recourse to ad hoc
constructions. So there, goals and objectives.
}...
} No, of course I won't! How can a preference be "objectively"
}more wise or foolish than another?
Even in the context of a game, this is a nonsensical
claim. How about a game of Russian Roulette where people prefer
to use a blank instead of a real bullet, or six bullets instead
of one, or no bullets at all?
} If this is what our disagreement boils down to, then I
}don't think there's much more to say. If you were to give me
}*examples* of preferences which you would consider "wise" or
}"foolish," then perhaps we could continue (although I doubt
}the ensuing conversation would be very productive). In the
}absence of such examples, though, we are simply at an impasse.
I have already provided examples to which you have variously
assented. One was with respect to the obligation of referees
to follow through with characters they've allowed to be created,
and another had to do with the utilization of information obtained
above or below the board. I have already said the resort to the
flimsy excuse was at best "foolish", and this of course touches
back upon the former example. You acknowledge your preferences
differ from other players, but yet these preferences or differences
are without implicit nor explicit philosophic underpining?
}} So you agree differeent methodologies and perspectives will
}} desirably be at play but you deny the utility of the pursuit of
}} a philosophy which would prescribe how different methodologies
}} and perspectives may by reconciled fairly?
}
} No, I don't. In fact, I have such a philosophy. You
}have rejected it on the grounds that it utilizes a "language
}of preference." You have yet, however, to tell me anything
}about your own philosophy. You have not even been willing to
}tell me what you consider "cheating" and what "fair play" in
}your own games.
}
} You seem to be very excited to share *something* with
}the rest of the group, but I am as in the dark about what this
}something is as I was when this discussion began. If you have
}the beginnings of a universally-applicable game contract stewing
}in your mind, why not let us know something about it? Others
}may join in, and we might well end up with something very useful.
Indeed, I'm very excited about exploring this but I am
getting a little tried and frustrated with the -as you say-
opacity I've met. Succinctly, I'd like to discuss what passes
for fairplay in RPGs starting from what passes for fairplay in
other games and contexts. Moreover, while I have indeed given
examples of what I explicitly consider cheating, you have
occupied our exchanges with defense of the notion that there
can be no universal notion of fairplay because the basis of
all RPG "philosophies" is preference. To this I respond: the
evolution of games has been accompanied by the evolution of
what constitutes fair play in general and in particular, and
that this may serve as a basis to reconcile and accomodate
different RPG methods and styles if not work in part to
define a RPG philosophy.
}...
}> On the otherhand, the philosophy I idealize would provide general
}} guidelines, for example, how players and referees should cope with
}} information they received in or out of character or above, below or on
}} the table, to encourage fair play.
}
} What I cannot understand is how you think these two things
}differ. It comes to the same thing.
More pronoun trouble. Your "thing"'s are tangled.
} What you seem to resist is the idea that "fair play" is
}not an objective term, that different people may have different
}ideas about what constitutes "fair play," and that these ideas
}are dependent on such factors as what they want to get out of
}the game, what purpose they think the game serves, what the "goal"
}of the game is, and other matters of <O horrors!} preference.
What you seem to deny is the objective existance of notions
of fairplay before the advent of RPGs. You now verge on denying
the existance of any criteria for analyzing or judging RPGs at
all, outside of your reduction of everything to preference.
}...
} Are you saying that whether or not "hooking the characters"
}is required or forbidden is *irrelevant* to the question of fair play?
}If so, then could you explain this assertion? I do not understand
}your reasoning.
Whether or not something is used does not determine fairness:
how it is used, does, or so it seems to me, particularly when we're
talking about the very intriguing manners in which different RPG
techniques and approaches can intersect.
} ...
}} I suppose one might say the GM was handicapped by
}} wanting to keep in the spirit of the game, so he fudged. I
}} think this was at least unfair to the player, and detracted
}} from the game because if a NPC makes a flimsy excuse, that
}} should mean something in and of itself.
}
} No, no, no. You've changed the question on me by
}making the excuse "flimsy" again.
I have addressed this point repeatedly and variously.
In this example the GM made the flimsy excuse for no good reason.
This amounted to compromising the game and being unfair to the player.
If the GM had made the excuse for a good reason, it still would have
compromised the game. If the GM came up with a good excuse for a
bad reason, then that would work to determine whether it was cheating,
unfair, compromising, or whatever.
-Rick
Doug Lampert
In article <5mi224$e...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
Neelakantan Krishnaswami <ne...@mit.edu> wrote:
>I'd like to ask both of you to describe how exactly this works -- I'm
>setting up a campaign in which the PCs will have an awful lot of
>institutional support, and I'm curious what you did to maintain tension
>and excitement. (I'm planning on handling this by throwing so much
>at the PCs that they have to triage, and letting them figure which
>crises to handle themselves, and which to pass on.)
I already tried to respond to Mary Kuhner, however you should ask yourself
what sort of institutional support?
The most likely responses from an organization to a problem encountered by
operatives boil down to three possibilities.
(1) Tell the operatives to keep trying. This may be combined with additional
money, information, or other 'passive' support as appropriate. (i.e. Fine
you have a problem, so solve it.)
(2) Tell the operatives to stop trying. The problem is not worth the trouble.
This may be followed by sending someone else, and will be followed by time
writing reports.
(3) Send help. Most likely send troubleshooters.
I explained in my response to Mary how I think (3) can be made to work.
(If trouble shooters time is expensive enough we do not send them unless
you have the solution worked out and just need the firepower.)
An alternate response, and in many ways a better one is that the PC's are
the troubleshooters. Possibly al la Paranoia, but probably not. PC's are
sent to deal with trouble spots, help those in over their heads, investigate
missing lower level operatives, whatever. This requires that the PC's
be of above average ability for their organization.
In all cases remember that the organization is powerful, not omnipotent,
and very not omniscient.
It wants accurate reports badly, false reports are one of the unforgivable
sins if you are caught. (One of the few, you can survive almost any other
single mistake that does not either kill you or the organization.)
It does not want to use vastly more resources than required, overkill here
may mean underkill elsewhere. Thus a request for help may not be met
unless it is clear to the organization that the help is likely to be
needed. Conversely the PC's are valuable, so if help is likely to be
needed, and is requested, it will probably be forthcoming. Note that
you need not show that the help is sure to be needed to get it, likely
is good enough since failure is expensive. Note that if you request a
specific type of help you are more likely to get it then you are to get
anything from a vague request.
It's very top operatives/levels of effort are reserved for extreme cases,
and are not sent in until it is clear they are needed.
When the very top operatives/levels of effort are committed it is after
someone more expendable has gathered as much information as practical,
and cleared the way as far as possible. A frivolous request for help
will be met with no help, but a demand for more information and details.
All of this means that even if the PC's do call for help they are not
done unless the call is for something that is doable, specific, will
solve the problem, and requires no followup. Otherwise help does not
end the adventure, just changes it.
DougL
Jim Henley
Rick Cordes wrote:
>
> In article <5ma2k5$dva$1...@nadine.teleport.com> you write:
> }I have been, I
> }think, quite straight-forward and open in my disagreement with your
> }starting premise.
>
> I think we can agree that one may be straight-
> forward and forthright, and still be equivocal and solipsistic,
> or in general seek to subvert language.
If there's any subversion of language going on here it ain't on Sarah's
part. Viz.:
> As Scott has
> alludued, he is looking for a effective and efficient method for
> communicating how to get a game going and rolling, and he seems to
> think the inculcation of a specialized language will help achieve
> that.
If you are going to write a sentence like that, throw around
redundancies like "going and rolling," and misuse the word "inculcate"
in the process, you would be wise to avoid crap like this:
> } What I cannot understand is how you think these two things
> }differ. It comes to the same thing.
>
> More pronoun trouble. Your "thing"'s are tangled.
You, son, have no standing to be correcting the language of your
intellectual betters (Sarah, not me). You are slinging a latinate hash
that, quite frankly, keeps getting away from you. Or, to put it another
way, your polysyllabic pretensions are deleterious of effective
communication, even obfuscatory. The two sentences of Sarah's that you
criticise are vastly clearer than any six paragraphs you have posted to
this thread. Didn't your freshman comp teacher explain that endless
concatenations of big words are not the key to good writing?
> share the perception that there is a real problem of
> miscommunication in RPGs but I don't think additional vocabulary
> will undo the Tower of Babel. This group is unto Nero fiddling
> while Rome burns.
Nero is fiddling in the Tower of Babel? Have you _taken_ freshman comp
yet?
> To the backdrop of the most innovative exploiters
> of the RPG market (WotC) buying out those who by commercial
> exploitation have increasingly reduced roleplaying to lower
> common denominators (TSR), we have this group who offers what kind
> of alternate vision?
So you have no sense of history either? TSR didn't "increasingly" reduce
role-playing "to lower common denominators." They started the hobby
_out_ at a low level. Hack & slash, munchkinism, power gaming _predate_
more sophisticated approaches. TSR has always domninated the market, but
role-playing has "advanced" over time regardless. As for WotC, Magic is
so successful commercially that it has to be doing more than
"exploiting" the RPG market -- the RPG market was never as big as the
number of kids buying those cards. Meanwhile the bona fide RPGs that
they published (Everway and an edition of Ars Magica) were genuinely
worthy additions to the canon, and both survive under other publishers
today. I've seen people bitch about WotC dropping Everway because they
are soulless profiteers, but I have a hard time believing that any other
company would have had the resources necessary (or the inclination) to
foster the game in the first place.
> Whether or not a RPG philosophy should evolve (why not?)
> the starting point might be to take what represents fair play in
> other contexts, and apply it to the methods and styles of RPGs. I
> don't think this is a trivial nor a futile task, given respectively,
> the width and breadth and depth of what comprises roleplaying and
> refereeing, or as the success of the venture would provide a basis to
> reconcile different sytles and methods without recourse to ad hoc
> constructions. So there, goals and objectives.
Sarah has offered cogent arguments (never yet refuted by you) why such a
philosophy _can't_ evolve, and why she thinks it's a fool's errand to
seek one. You are free to disagree with her, though I wish you would do
a better job of it. But you seem utterly unwilling to do the actual work
of coming up with this philosophy you claim to seek. All you seem to
want to do is chastise others for not doing the job for you.
"So there, goals and objectives," for you. Quit bitching about how they
are not the goals and objectives of others here and pursue them yourself
if they are so important to you.
What doesn't seem to have occurred to you is that others may have tried
to come up with a general philosophy of RPGs long before you came on the
scene here.
> }...
>} No, of course I won't! How can a preference be "objectively"
>}more wise or foolish than another?
>
> Even in the context of a game, this is a nonsensical
> claim. How about a game of Russian Roulette where people prefer
> to use a blank instead of a real bullet, or six bullets instead
> of one, or no bullets at all?
You make it too easy. You're confusing levels, ignoring contexts, you
name it. Russian Roulette is _a_ game. RPGs are a _class_ of games.
While, in a trivial sense, a game with no real bullets, all bullets, one
blank, or only a single open chamber, might not be "Russian Roulette" as
a matter of definition, they would all belong with Russian Roulette
(Basic and Expert Set) in a class of suicide games that might also
include Chicken, Race-the-Train and a number of others.
Now, why not play Russian Roulette with two bullets? Why not play it
with 5 out of 6? Why not play it with a blank? (It can still damage your
hearing!) Because the person or people that sit down to play the game
find that the mix of survival odds, risks and the psychic and material
rewards open to them (including the rewards that come from respecting
tradition) make one the preferred number of bullets. My mix of rewards
and risks optimizes when I don't play at all.
If five people with a revolver agreed to play "a Russian Roulette
homebrew" with two bullets instead of one, they would hardly be
"cheating." If they decided to play with blanks they would not be
"cheating," though they could not post their scores to the International
Russian Roulette Association. If, mind you, the first four guys bit it
and the last guy decided to quit early, you could say he had "cheated,"
but you could also say he violated the game contract.
> Moreover, while I have indeed given
> examples of what I explicitly consider cheating, you have
> occupied our exchanges with defense of the notion that there
> can be no universal notion of fairplay because the basis of
> all RPG "philosophies" is preference.
What Sarah did was explain that, as a factual matter, your examples of
"cheating" would not be considered cheating by any number of actual
existing game groups.
> What you seem to deny is the objective existance of notions
> of fairplay before the advent of RPGs.
This is tantamount to dishonesty. I have read all the exchanges between
you and Sarah in this thread and she has never done such a thing
explicitly or implicitly. Sarah has, by implication at least, argued
that such notions are probably not applicable to RPGs for reasons she
has detailed with nigh superhuman patience.
> You now verge on denying
> the existance of any criteria for analyzing or judging RPGs at
> all, outside of your reduction of everything to preference.
Actually, she's not. She's presented the _only_ criteria for analyzing
or judging games. Nor has she reduced "everything" to preference. Just
as one example: Someone says they "prefer" technique x and result y.
But, proceeding from Sarah's philosophy, _analysts_ have already
determined that technique x _prevents_ result y. Therefore, per Sarah's
philosophy we could _judge_ the desire to have technique x and result y
at the same time as misguided.
> } No, no, no. You've changed the question on me by
> }making the excuse "flimsy" again.
>
> I have addressed this point repeatedly and variously.
> In this example the GM made the flimsy excuse for no good reason.
> This amounted to compromising the game and being unfair to the
player.
Which player? There were at least four. One of them didn't like the GMs
decision. At least two did like it.
> If the GM had made the excuse for a good reason, it still would have
> compromised the game. If the GM came up with a good excuse for a
> bad reason, then that would work to determine whether it was
cheating,
> unfair, compromising, or whatever.
Go on, surprise me. Clearly demonstrate how specific variations on the
example would constitute each of your categories ("cheating;" "unfair;"
"compromising;" "whatever"). Explain the difference between cheating and
unfair. Assign a moral valence to "compromising." Is it good, bad,
neutral? (Chaotic? Lawful?) Try to do something besides wave your hands
and say what _other_ people should be doing and thinking for you.
Best,
Jim
Ennead
Rick Cordes wrote:
: In article <5ma2k5$dva$1...@nadine.teleport.com> you write:
: So preference is fairplay, and a roleplaying philosophy
: is a game contract?
No. Adherence to contractual agreement is "fairplay."
I do not think that this is an unusual definition, nor one that
holds true only for RPGs.
As for a "roleplaying philosophy" being a game contract,
you yourself wrote these words:
: }: ...and this is what should
: }: be gained by pursuit of a RPG philosophy which is what I
: }: advocate, if you will, the better game contract.
Is it surprising that I should have received the impression
that by "philosophy," you mean a "better game contract?"
: What I believe to be universally generalizable,
: is a notion of fairplay.
I have given you a definition of "fairplay." On what
grounds do you disagree with it? What definition would you
propose in its stead?
: I have already provided examples to which you have variously
: assented. One was with respect to the obligation of referees
: to follow through with characters they've allowed to be created...
In reference to which you insisted that you saw no difference
in a game in which contriving to "hook" the characters was a GM
obligation, and one in which it was prohibited. Ignoring such
differences sounds to me like a very good way to violate standards
of "fair play."
: ...and another had to do with the utilization of information obtained
: above or below the board.
Is the GM allowed to use such information in the running
of his NPCs?
Is a player allowed to use OOC information IC if by doing
so, he is supporting the game by, say, facilitating another PC's
story, maintaining party unity, or otherwise aiding the group's
enjoyment? Is the player allowed to use OOC information IC to
simulate actual IC knowledge?
: Moreover, while I have indeed given
: examples of what I explicitly consider cheating...
Have you? I don't remember seeing them. I do remember
giving you an entire list of things which might be considered
cheating, only to have you respond that any or all of them
"might or might not be" cheating, depending on the circumstances.
You did not, however, identify or describe those "circumstances,"
which would have been helpful if your goal was indeed to make
your definition of "cheating" clear and explicit.
: What you seem to deny is the objective existance of notions
: of fairplay before the advent of RPGs.
Nonsense. I have proposed a definition of "fairplay" for
you at least a dozen times over the course of this discussion. It
is hardly a concept applicable only to RPGs, nor is it a concept
which only came into existence with the advent of role-playing
games as a marketplace commodity.
If you refuse to address this definition, then I can do
no more.
-- Sarah
Paul Mason
On 29 May 1997 05:49:48 GMT, cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) wrote:
In the midst of a long and interesting message, I found the following
comment:
> while Rome burns. To the backdrop of the most innovative exploiters
> of the RPG market (WotC) buying out those who by commercial
> exploitation have increasingly reduced roleplaying to lower
> common denominators (TSR), we have this group who offers what kind
> of alternate vision?
The characterisation of WotC as 'the most innovative exploiters of the
RPG market' is not something I entirely understand. Are you advocating
'Progress Through Extermination' or something?
As I'm in Japan I haven't seen any WotC product apart from Magic. What
innovations have they brought to the market?
-
Paul Mason
Of whom it has been said: '...er...?'
Mary K. Kuhner
pan...@tcp-ip.or.jp (Paul Mason) writes:
>As I'm in Japan I haven't seen any WotC product apart from Magic. What
>innovations have they brought to the market?
WotC has done two RPG products which might be considered innovative,
in different ways. The first was a series of booklets collectively
called "The Primal Order" which contained detailed mechanics, meant to
be grafted onto the system of your choice, for running gods. People
who like such things have said that the mechanics were decent, and
the idea of making graftable mechanics subsystems was interesting. I
didn't find the material useful at all, but that was more a quarrel
with the basic philosophy (gods are superbeings who exploit mortals
for arcane energy).
The second was an RPG called Everway which used picture cards heavily
in character design and a kind of Tarot for action resolution.
Basically a diceless system with a low-to-medium amount of mechanics.
The cards were lovely (WotC can do cards, no question) and the idea
was quite interesting. I've heard of a couple of good things being
done in the system. However, most people who tried running it
encountered various problems: many felt that the scale on which
skills were rated (where weapon skill 5 meant you were as good as
two people with skill 4) was too granular.
The Primal Order was not a big seller. WotC said that Everway was
doing well at the point they dropped it, but I haven't seen any
evidence of that personally. Everway was probably the more influential
in terms of affecting other games: I think the alternate resolution
system in Dragonlance 5th Age might have Everway in its family
tree (along with Castle Falkenstein).
WotC's lack of success with its RPG line makes its buyout of TSR
pretty weird stuff, if you ask me. If they manage to run TSR into
the ground that *will* shake up the industry.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
jlwa...@students.uiuc.edu
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> WotC's lack of success with its RPG line makes its buyout of TSR
> pretty weird stuff, if you ask me. If they manage to run TSR into
> the ground that *will* shake up the industry.
The only reason they could buy out TSR is that the present staff
has managed to do exactly that, run TSR into the ground. I think
it had something to do with their publishing branch, or at least
that's what most of the industry wags are saying.
-dj
Jason Stokes
Umm, that's what they do, right? Publish things?
Do you mean their fiction line or something?
--
Jason Stokes: j%stokes <at> bohm%anu%edu%au
exchange <at> with @ and % with . to discover my email
address.
Rick Cordes
In article <338ED9...@nospam.erols.com>,
Jim Henley <jlhe...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
}Rick Cordes wrote:
}}
}} In article <5ma2k5$dva$1...@nadine.teleport.com} you write:
}} }I have been, I
}} }think, quite straight-forward and open in my disagreement with your
}} }starting premise.
}
}}
}} I think we can agree that one may be straight-
}} forward and forthright, and still be equivocal and solipsistic,
}} or in general seek to subvert language.
}
}If there's any subversion of language going on here it ain't on Sarah's
}part. Viz.:
}
}
}} As Scott has
}} alludued, he is looking for a effective and efficient method for
}} communicating how to get a game going and rolling, and he seems to
}} think the inculcation of a specialized language will help achieve
}} that.
}
}If you are going to write a sentence like that, throw around
}redundancies like "going and rolling," and misuse the word "inculcate"
}in the process, you would be wise to avoid crap like this:
I had intended to write "to get a game going and [kept] rolling."
Even with my ommission, it's not too far a stretch to infer that I am
refering to effectively and efficiently getting character generation "going"
and keeping the adjudication of the game smoothly "rolling" along. These are
two points that have both been at issue. Your allegation that I misuse
"inculcate" is pointless crap.
} } } What I cannot understand is how you think these two things
} } }differ. It comes to the same thing.
} }
} } More pronoun trouble. Your "thing"'s are tangled.
}
}You, son, have no standing to be correcting the language of your
}intellectual betters (Sarah, not me). You are slinging a latinate hash
}that, quite frankly, keeps getting away from you. Or, to put it another
}way, your polysyllabic pretensions are deleterious of effective
}communication, even obfuscatory. The two sentences of Sarah's that you
}criticise are vastly clearer than any six paragraphs you have posted to
}this thread. Didn't your freshman comp teacher explain that endless
}concatenations of big words are not the key to good writing?
Look whose talking. I don't know which of your prejudices I've
excited, but I haven't noticed that any intellectual credentials were
required for this newsgroup. I thought that any fool was free to
interject their venom. I didn't realize that I was concatenating big
words together, but you're right, my teacher did make that observation.
I can't help myself. I love lauguage, and you always hurt the ones you
love.
This issue of intellectual superiority, although irrelevant, I
do find troublesome. In my discussion with Sarah, I did not think my
intellectual superiority was at question: I thought we were just
trying to hammer out whether she was a either a moral or social leper.
Where do you come up with these cock-eyed notions?
} } share the perception that there is a real problem of
} } miscommunication in RPGs but I don't think additional vocabulary
} } will undo the Tower of Babel. This group is unto Nero fiddling
} } while Rome burns.
}
}Nero is fiddling in the Tower of Babel? Have you _taken_ freshman comp
}yet?
If you're implying I'm mixing metaphors or dates, I think you
should brush-up on your reading comprehension. Whatever it is you're
doing, I think you should brush-up on your reading comp.
} } To the backdrop of the most innovative exploiters
} } of the RPG market (WotC) buying out those who by commercial
} } exploitation have increasingly reduced roleplaying to lower
} } common denominators (TSR), we have this group who offers what kind
} } of alternate vision?
}
}So you have no sense of history either? TSR didn't "increasingly" reduce
}role-playing "to lower common denominators." They started the hobby
}_out_ at a low level. Hack & slash, munchkinism, power gaming _predate_
}more sophisticated approaches. TSR has always domninated the market, but
}role-playing has "advanced" over time regardless. As for WotC, Magic is
}so successful commercially that it has to be doing more than
}"exploiting" the RPG market -- the RPG market was never as big as the
}number of kids buying those cards. Meanwhile the bona fide RPGs that
}they published (Everway and an edition of Ars Magica) were genuinely
}worthy additions to the canon, and both survive under other publishers
}today. I've seen people bitch about WotC dropping Everway because they
}are soulless profiteers, but I have a hard time believing that any other
}company would have had the resources necessary (or the inclination) to
}foster the game in the first place.
When I speak of TSR, I'm talking about where they went with D&D
and that devolution has been the march of commercialism hand in hand with
munchkinism. In the beginning, all players were D&Ders (there was nothing
else or better for at least a few years) and that meant all games were D&D
games and there was good and bad roleplay then also. TSR had the ball, and
they went in the wrong direction.
} } Whether or not a RPG philosophy should evolve (why not?)
} } the starting point might be to take what represents fair play in
} } other contexts, and apply it to the methods and styles of RPGs. I
} } don't think this is a trivial nor a futile task, given respectively,
} } the width and breadth and depth of what comprises roleplaying and
} } refereeing, or as the success of the venture would provide a basis to
} } reconcile different sytles and methods without recourse to ad hoc
} } constructions. So there, goals and objectives.
}
}Sarah has offered cogent arguments (never yet refuted by you) why such a
}philosophy _can't_ evolve, and why she thinks it's a fool's errand to
}seek one. You are free to disagree with her, though I wish you would do
}a better job of it. But you seem utterly unwilling to do the actual work
}of coming up with this philosophy you claim to seek. All you seem to
}want to do is chastise others for not doing the job for you.
}
}"So there, goals and objectives," for you. Quit bitching about how they
}are not the goals and objectives of others here and pursue them yourself
}if they are so important to you.
I have an idea, Jim, why don't you go back to wherever you came
from, and check-out the road sign at this exit? The middle name of this
group is Advocacy. I have put forth a hypothesis that a philosophy which
seeks what universally constitutes fairplay in any RPG might as least
be as useful as the universal notion of what contitutes fairplay in
cardgames. Beyond that, I have in no way either advocated "The One True
Way," or like you, told anybody what they should do. Whether or not
this mutual lack of appreciation represents a failure of imagination on
Sarah's part, or represents a fool's errand to Sarah, with friends like
you, who needs cogent arguments?
}What doesn't seem to have occurred to you is that others may have tried
}to come up with a general philosophy of RPGs long before you came on the
}scene here.
}
}} }...
} }} No, of course I won't! How can a preference be "objectively"
} }}more wise or foolish than another?
} }
} } Even in the context of a game, this is a nonsensical
} } claim. How about a game of Russian Roulette where people prefer
} } to use a blank instead of a real bullet, or six bullets instead
} } of one, or no bullets at all?
}
}You make it too easy. You're confusing levels, ignoring contexts, you
}name it. Russian Roulette is _a_ game. RPGs are a _class_ of games.
...
You've again missed the boat but I will have to agree with you
that RRs are a special case, and that you should go see which way is
best for yourself.
} } Moreover, while I have indeed given
} } examples of what I explicitly consider cheating, you have
} } occupied our exchanges with defense of the notion that there
} } can be no universal notion of fairplay because the basis of
} } all RPG "philosophies" is preference.
}
}What Sarah did was explain that, as a factual matter, your examples of
}"cheating" would not be considered cheating by any number of actual
}existing game groups.
}
} } What you seem to deny is the objective existance of notions
} } of fairplay before the advent of RPGs.
}
}This is tantamount to dishonesty. I have read all the exchanges between
}you and Sarah in this thread and she has never done such a thing
}explicitly or implicitly. Sarah has, by implication at least, argued
}that such notions are probably not applicable to RPGs for reasons she
}has detailed with nigh superhuman patience.
This is more slander and lies, moreover, you overrate Sarah's
patience. Let's see, is it "for reasons she has detailed" or "at least
by implication" that she acknowledges the objective existance of notions
of fair play probably not applicable to RPGs before the advent of RPGs?
Your allegations are will`o'wisps for of course both she and I would
acknowledge the same. Of course, there are such notions which do apply
to RPGs and what Sarah argues is they are universally unappplicable to
RPGs because always in RPGs in some instances fairplay will amount to
cheating or cheating will amount to fair play or nobody will notice.
} } You now verge on denying
} } the existance of any criteria for analyzing or judging RPGs at
} } all, outside of your reduction of everything to preference.
}
}Actually, she's not. She's presented the _only_ criteria for analyzing
}or judging games. Nor has she reduced "everything" to preference. Just
}as one example: Someone says they "prefer" technique x and result y.
}But, proceeding from Sarah's philosophy, _analysts_ have already
}determined that technique x _prevents_ result y. Therefore, per Sarah's
}philosophy we could _judge_ the desire to have technique x and result y
}at the same time as misguided.
Sarah wants to talk about how different methods and stances
create different effects: I want to talk about a universal code for
how different things may be reconciled fairly, whatever tha amalgam.
One can forever be memorizing multiplication tables, or learn how to
multiply.
} } } No, no, no. You've changed the question on me by
} } }making the excuse "flimsy" again.
} }
} } I have addressed this point repeatedly and variously.
} } In this example the GM made the flimsy excuse for no good reason.
} } This amounted to compromising the game and being unfair to the
}player.
}
}Which player? There were at least four. One of them didn't like the GMs
}decision. At least two did like it.
The player who thought the excuse was flimsy, and who had been
characterized as having critiqued the game in those terms.
} } If the GM had made the excuse for a good reason, it still would have
} } compromised the game. If the GM came up with a good excuse for a
} } bad reason, then that would work to determine whether it was
}cheating,
} } unfair, compromising, or whatever.
}
}Go on, surprise me. Clearly demonstrate how specific variations on the
}example would constitute each of your categories ("cheating;" "unfair;"
}"compromising;" "whatever"). Explain the difference between cheating and
}unfair. Assign a moral valence to "compromising." Is it good, bad,
}neutral? (Chaotic? Lawful?)
Try to do something besides wave your hands
}and say what _other_ people should be doing and thinking for you.
Cheating: If the GM had done it just to screw that particular player.
Unfair: If the GM was unintentionally screwing that particular player.
Compromising: If the GM superstitiously limiting what was allowed.
}Try to do something besides wave your hands
}and say what _other_ people should be doing and thinking for you.
This is what happens when people drink and drive. Your father
shouldn't have been driving with you on his lap, and he would have
never fallen asleep at the computer. Turn it off, Jim, and go to bed.
-Rick
Mary K. Kuhner
>I'd like to ask both of you to describe how exactly this works -- I'm
>setting up a campaign in which the PCs will have an awful lot of
>institutional support, and I'm curious what you did to maintain tension
>and excitement. (I'm planning on handling this by throwing so much
>at the PCs that they have to triage, and letting them figure which
>crises to handle themselves, and which to pass on.)
A clear division of labor so that the PCs know what is expected of them
will help--you don't want a situation in which the PCs are tempted to
turn over *every* problem to their higher-ups. It also helps to show
what the higher-ups are doing on their own, so that the PCs will not
feel saddled with a parasite. For example, while the PCs solve one
problem, have the NPCs solve another and give the PCs a few glimpses of
this in progress. A phone call: "While we were working on the Markov
affair, we picked up a lead I think you might find useful ..." will
both give the PCs something nice and demonstrate that the NPCs are not
passive.
Figure out what kinds of investigation are actually entertaining to
play out, and abstract the other kinds. I personally like interviewing
people, but am bored with records tracing. My husband likes information
which has to be gathered covertly. Both of us enjoy impersonation and
infiltration. You probably want to avoid spending much time on
information which can be gathered while sitting quietly in the office.
Provide it, but don't play out the acquisition process.
Don't have the big guns, when called in, obscure the outcome of the
event from the PCs; this is frustrating. Instead, they should provide
a report when they're done, or even better involve the PCs in the
cleanup and final checking. This closes the dramatic circle--the PCs
are involved both at the beginning and at the end, even if they didn't
do all the work in between. Also, if praise and rewards are important
to your players (or their characters) don't let the big guns have it
all whenever they're called in. Consider a "This case was cracked by
the Elite Investigation Team" speech by the police chief, for example.
Use a setting which is limited enough that the PCs are not dealing with
totally unfamiliar people and places every time. Information gathering
is much more exciting when you know the folk involved, and when pushing
on one issue will have repercussions elsewhere. One way to get the PCs
more deeply involved is for informants to want favors in return.
I'm not sure how much of this is relevant to your specific game, but I
hope some of it helps.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Joshua Macy
Rick Cordes wrote:
>
...snip....
> Cheating: If the GM had done it just to screw that particular player.
>
> Unfair: If the GM was unintentionally screwing that particular player.
>
> Compromising: If the GM superstitiously limiting what was allowed.
>
I don't see what this is supposed to do. Does the substitution of
"screwing" for "cheating" make it a more objective criterion? I would
expect opinions as to what constitutes "screwing" to be exactly as
widely dispersed as what constitutes "cheating".
Rick Cordes
In article <5mn2lg$nl3$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Rick Cordes wrote:
>: In article <5ma2k5$dva$1...@nadine.teleport.com> you write:
>
>: So preference is fairplay, and a roleplaying philosophy
>: is a game contract?
>
> No. Adherence to contractual agreement is "fairplay."
>I do not think that this is an unusual definition, nor one that
>holds true only for RPGs.
There is adherence to rules and there is fairplay but
like law and justice they do not necessarilly embody the same thing.
If anywhere, simply abiding by the rules of the game in an RPG
does not mean abiding by the spirit of the game. I think we are
in agreement here. Your solution to this is a game contract which
spells out the priorities of the group. My objection to that is
that it seems to constrain access between games/groups and to
limit the scope of how a game/group can evolve. The intention of
the game contract seems to be to insure that the spirit of the
game is maintained. I'm not questioning the importance of this,
though I still wonder whether a means for the analysis of the
interactions which can occur in RPGs, a philosophy of fair play,
wouldn't be a better alternative to a proscriptive list of
interactions, a game contract. The idea is to have things
adjudicated fairly rather than just plainly.
> As for a "roleplaying philosophy" being a game contract,
>you yourself wrote these words:
>
>: }: ...and this is what should
>: }: be gained by pursuit of a RPG philosophy which is what I
>: }: advocate, if you will, the better game contract.
>
> Is it surprising that I should have received the impression
>that by "philosophy," you mean a "better game contract?"
You have a penchant for quoting out of context and your
ellipsis above captures it. The full quote places in context
what I seek, a philosophy of fairplay, as possibly being
a better alternative to what you advocate, the game contract. You
have all along equated "philosophy" with "game contract;" I was
just speaking in those terms, and that's why when I used the
expression "better game contract," I predicated it by, "if
you will."
>: What I believe to be universally generalizable,
>: is a notion of fairplay.
>
> I have given you a definition of "fairplay." On what
>grounds do you disagree with it? What definition would you
>propose in its stead?
Fairplay is adherence to justice. Don't you think
this is a better definition than 'fairplay is adherence
to contracts', or am I correct to surmise you think I'm
being impractical?
>: I have already provided examples to which you have variously
>: assented. One was with respect to the obligation of referees
>: to follow through with characters they've allowed to be created...
>
> In reference to which you insisted that you saw no difference
>in a game in which contriving to "hook" the characters was a GM
>obligation, and one in which it was prohibited. Ignoring such
>differences sounds to me like a very good way to violate standards
>of "fair play."
It is peculiar that you bring that up now when in this
context this was just in response to your accusation that I had
never discussed any example of what I considered fair or not. I
believe what you misrepresent is that I said whether or not a GM
hooking a character or not is fair should be determined by how it
is done, while, always prohibiting the hooking of a player simply
handicaps the scope of a game.
>: ...and another had to do with the utilization of information obtained
>: above or below the board.
>
> Is the GM allowed to use such information in the running
>of his NPCs?
It would depend on how it was done. To what ends the GM
uses the information also impacts upon the spirit and caliber
of the game, and aestheticallly I feel these are somehow
related to fairplay but I'm not going to climb out on that limb
with you shaking the tree. On the whole, of course, NPCs should
not be run as if they knew everything the GM knows, no sirree
Bob.
> Is a player allowed to use OOC information IC if by doing
>so, he is supporting the game by, say, facilitating another PC's
>story, maintaining party unity, or otherwise aiding the group's
>enjoyment? Is the player allowed to use OOC information IC to
>simulate actual IC knowledge?
So it seems to me, yes.
>: Moreover, while I have indeed given
>: examples of what I explicitly consider cheating...
>
> Have you? I don't remember seeing them. I do remember
>giving you an entire list of things which might be considered
>cheating, only to have you respond that any or all of them
>"might or might not be" cheating, depending on the circumstances.
>You did not, however, identify or describe those "circumstances,"
>which would have been helpful if your goal was indeed to make
>your definition of "cheating" clear and explicit.
Well, I think I did, and I don't think I will now since
it might serve to tangentially excite you to greater heights of
disagreeability. Your contention is that there can be no code of
fairplay that transcends all game contracts. I suspect your
tactic would be simply to refute any example I give by producing a
contract for a planet where the sky is yellow and the sun is blue.
I realize the question of fair play in RPGs is a tricky one as I
think one can't define a what as being fair or not, instead, one
has to analyze how it should or should not done. Be that as it may,
the idea that there are no universal notions of fair play that
should by some reasonably objective criteria apply to RPGs,
in the first approximation, is a novel conceit. Novel in that
it is to the only class of games, new or old, it applies, and
a conceit, in that the gray-beards, in this ancient art, won't
even entertain a notion otherwise.
>: What you seem to deny is the objective existance of notions
>: of fairplay before the advent of RPGs.
>
> Nonsense. I have proposed a definition of "fairplay" for
>you at least a dozen times over the course of this discussion. It
>is hardly a concept applicable only to RPGs, nor is it a concept
>which only came into existence with the advent of role-playing
>games as a marketplace commodity.
The definition you have supplied is notable only for its
lack of definition and that slipperiness is what you intended.
You now imply that games have always had rules; people who play
fairly obey rules; therefore, all games are fair. We have of course
been debating, not the universiality of games being defined by their
rules, but the universiality of what constitutes fair play in games.
Abiding by a game contract may lend a modicum of sanity to
the game but the use of game contracts has shortcomings
which would be overcome, at least in part, if a universal
means for adjudicating fair play could be devised.
> If you refuse to address this definition, then I can do
>no more.
Okay. You say, "Adherence to contractual agreement is "fairplay"."
I say, that, at a cost, sometimes may achieve fair play.
-Rick
John H Kim
This is a reply to Rick concerning his suggestion that we
should find a universal philosophy of the idea of "fair play" in
RPG's. In short, I would encourage his developing such a philosophy
for himself, and I would be interested to see it. However, I don't
think that it will be "universal". Rather, I would consider it a
well fleshed-out example of a game contract...
First, I should explain that not too long ago I ranted
a bit *against* what I termed a "Fair Play" bias in GM's. As a
player, I was irritated by the tendency for GM's to always make
the opposition challenging but defeatable by the PC's. (i.e. So
if the players acted intelligently, they would always "win".)
The thing is, many players view this as precisely
"fair play". If the GM revealed to them an enemy of theirs who
it turned out they had no hope of defeating, they would regard
this as unfair.
Rick, you expressed concern that if you gave specific
examples of what you considered "fair play", then people would
invent obscure and impractical game contracts which disallow
them. I want to assure you that it requires no stretching
You can look this thread up on DejaNews using perhaps my name
and the topic "Fair Play" -- I forget how old it was.
Rick Cordes <cor...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> Adherence to contractual agreement is "fairplay." I do not think
>> that this is an unusual definition, nor one that holds true only
>> for RPGs.
[...]
> Your solution to this is a game contract which spells out the
> priorities of the group. My objection to that is that it seems to
> constrain access between games/groups and to limit the scope of how
> a game/group can evolve. The intention of the game contract seems to
> be to insure that the spirit of the game is maintained. I'm not
> questioning the importance of this, though I still wonder whether a
> means for the analysis of the interactions which can occur in RPGs,
> a philosophy of fair play, wouldn't be a better alternative to a
> proscriptive list of interactions, a game contract. The idea is to
> have things adjudicated fairly rather than just plainly.
I don't oppose your trying to develop such a philosophy,
but I think that such a beast simply doesn't exist.
In _Paranoia_ or _Toon_ games I have played in, it is
perfectly acceptable for the GM to arbitrarily throw failures and
extra opponents at the PC's in an obviously ad-hoc mannner to make
them suffer. The exact same behavior is completely out of line in,
say, _Twilight 2000_. I will quote here from the _Paranoia_ GM book:
"In _Paranoia_, the gamemaster is malevolent, not benevolent.
Never give the players information unless they ask for it, and
not even then if that information is logically classified at a
higher clearance than the players'. Never weaken the opposition
to make a 'fair fight' if the opposition should logically be
strong -- many fights, after all, are not fair. Never fudge a
die roll to help a player; if he screws up, that's tough luck,
isn't it? Don't fight fair -- fight dirty."
For comparison, I am going to quote some from _Theatrix_,
"The Director's primary job is to balance the game so that _all_
of the participants feel empowered and enjoy themselves.
[...] Our advice to everyone is:
-> The primary reason we're here is to enjoy each others company.
So in moments of tension, leave the tension to the characters.
-> Be nice to each other, even if your characters are at odds.
It'll make the game what it was meant to be.
-> No one likes it when bad things happen to their characters. Some
genres are grim, and wouldn't be the same without the tragedy. If
you're ever in the wrong place, at the wrong time, allow yourself
everal minutes of sorrow, then continue to enjoy the spectacle of
life going on before you. You get as many more chances to
participate as your imagination has roles to play.
-> Trust the Director. If you feel left out for the moment, say
so. The Director will correct the situation soon."
I assert that these two game books assume very different concepts
of "fair play".
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
> Be that as it may, the idea that there are no universal notions of
> fair play that should by some reasonably objective criteria apply
> to RPGs, in the first approximation, is a novel conceit. Novel in
> that it is to the only class of games, new or old, it applies, and
> a conceit, in that the gray-beards, in this ancient art, won't
> even entertain a notion otherwise.
I am going to quote here from my copy of the original
_Illuminati Expansion Set 1_ (a supplement to the original
card game from Steve Jackson Games).
"It has come to our attention that there are actually a few
people out there who would like rules to make _Illuminati_
even more complicated and backstabbing. For you, we present...
the cheater's game.
As the name implies, this is a variant in whihc most forms
of cheating are 'legal'. The thing which players may _not_ do
are:
1. Tip over the table or disarrange the power groups.
2. Bring in counterfeit money or money from other sets.
3. Cheat on the amount of money drawn from the bank during the
income phase. (Players may agree to allow cheating here, too,
but it slows down the game if you have to watch each other
at this point.)
Anything else goes. Anyone 'caught in the act' of cheating must
undo the cheat and play fair -- for the moment. There is no
penalty! That's the way the _real_ Illuminati run the world.
Suggested methods:
'Accidentally' misread the dice.
Steal from the bank (except during the income phase) or from
other players. Short-changing and sleight-of-hand are equally
useful here.
Lie about the amount of power or resistance your groups have.
Maybe your enemies won't check.
Slip in extra cards from other decks. If you get away with
bringing a 'ringer' into play, the _real_ card must be removed
from play if it is the second one to turn up!
Stack the deck, or peek at it surreptitiously."
etc.
In short, I contend that there is no universal concept of
fair play in any game except by agreement. Note the difference
between what is acceptable in a "friendly" game versus in a
"competitive" game. Many players have differing opinions on what
sorts of psych-out tactics are acceptable -- some feel that
only moves on the board are kosher tactics, while others allow
conversation even if it can be used to distract and mislead
opponents. Look at a friendly poker game versus a competitive
bridge game.
I would encourage you to outline what you consider as
"fair play"... I think the discussion could be enlightening.
However, I don't think that it will be a universal that applies
to all RPG's and RPG groups.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <5n0lpj$n...@news.Hawaii.Edu> cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) writes:
> I realize the question of fair play in RPGs is a tricky one as I
> think one can't define a what as being fair or not, instead, one
> has to analyze how it should or should not done. Be that as it may,
> the idea that there are no universal notions of fair play that
> should by some reasonably objective criteria apply to RPGs,
> in the first approximation, is a novel conceit. Novel in that
> it is to the only class of games, new or old, it applies, and
> a conceit, in that the gray-beards, in this ancient art, won't
> even entertain a notion otherwise.
You haven't been reading rec.games.board.misc. There is a fundamental
fairness debate that crops up yearly on that newsgroup, and it has
never been settled, and apparently never will be settled.
The question is: Are moves which are damaging to the player in this
particular game acceptable if they serve a useful purpose over a series
of games? For example, in _Diplomacy_ a player may say "If you backstab
me, I will devote the rest of the game to destroying you, even if that
reduces my (already slight) chance of winning." Some players regard
this as fair, and indeed necessary to keep backstabbing at a reasonable
level. Others regard it as grossly unfair, holding that players should
consider only the current game. The two factions can never agree. No
amount of reasoning has been seen to sway anyone from one side to the
other.
Therefore, your contention that "fairness" can be objectively defined
in all games except RPGs is false.
However, even if it were true, I don't acknowledge any duty to apply
standards useful in other games to RPGs just because the English
language happens to label both with the word "game".
In our current game one character, Christine, could be gracefully built
on 100 points in GURPS. Another, Chernoi, would be hard to do for less
than 500 (as a starting character; probably 600 now). This is not due
to a pathology in the GURPS rules, either, but pretty accurately
reflects relative power level.
Is this fair? Certainly if I proposed Chernoi as a character in a 100-
point game run by my husband's group, they would say No, and they would
be right. However, I will assert that in the game they're actually in,
the characters are fair: neither the GM nor the player has been
troubled by the power assymetry.
I agree with Sarah, John Kim, and others; a universal standard of
fairness is not possible. At most you can devise a working standard
for one group--and that, precisely, is a game contract.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 3 Jun 1997 17:24:22 GMT, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu
(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
This is a gross tangent, so I beg your forgiveness in advance :)
>The question is: Are moves which are damaging to the player in this
>particular game acceptable if they serve a useful purpose over a series
>of games? For example, in _Diplomacy_ a player may say "If you backstab
>me, I will devote the rest of the game to destroying you, even if that
>reduces my (already slight) chance of winning."
How is this kind of maneuver or threat improper, in the sense that by
making it I am not playing in the one game, but am rather playing for
the next one? If I make the threat before hand, before I am
back-stabbed, it serves a very important deterrant purpose, *in the
present game.*
Such a threat, of course, has to be believable. And my opponent may
decide that my ability to harm him is sufficiently small that the
back-stab is worthwhile anyway. Whatever, I will do everything I can
to extablish my credibility *before hand* precisely so I *don't* have
to carry through on the threat.
There is of course a real world analagy at stake here, in the world of
MAD during the cold war. Once I, as President of the US, am on the
receiving end of a first strike, my deterrant has failed. But would I
order a retalaitory strike anyway, as MAD doctrine insists I must?
Who knows? But would you bet the farm, as the Russian Premier, that I
wouldn't launch in retaliation?
If its a legal ploy in real politics, why is it illegal in Dip?
And now, back to rgfa :)
Best,
Kevin
Mike (Leszek Karlik)
Hmmm...
On 3 Jun 1997 15:47:38 GMT, jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
wrote:
> This is a reply to Rick concerning his suggestion that we
>should find a universal philosophy of the idea of "fair play" in
>RPG's. In short, I would encourage his developing such a philosophy
>for himself, and I would be interested to see it. However, I don't
>think that it will be "universal". Rather, I would consider it a
>well fleshed-out example of a game contract...
>
> First, I should explain that not too long ago I ranted
>a bit *against* what I termed a "Fair Play" bias in GM's. As a
>player, I was irritated by the tendency for GM's to always make
>the opposition challenging but defeatable by the PC's. (i.e. So
>if the players acted intelligently, they would always "win".)
> The thing is, many players view this as precisely
>"fair play". If the GM revealed to them an enemy of theirs who
>it turned out they had no hope of defeating, they would regard
>this as unfair.
I agree here. Well, they would surely not bitch if they would attack
the local Mages Guild and loose, but they sure would if you, like,
threw a Darth Vader at them (esp. if they are at beginning level -
with moderately smart GM, they have no chance of winning).
Well, I know of one game where they would not regard this as unfair,
but look for additional fire support (or at least, they shouldn't
regard this as unfair) - Amber. I mean, they KNOW that their chances
of defeating an Elder Amberite are almost non-existent, but they don't
whine at GM unless the Elder in question starts running after them
with a sword in his hand and bloodlust written on his face...
And playing Amber turned out to heal my players from the "fair play"
bias against the GM. So now, when I caught them in an Imperial trap,
they did not whine... (Of course, they probably knew whining won't
help...) And it gave them some sense of fair play, since they HAD a
chance of getting out. Small chance (actually, it was VERY SMALL), but
it existed.
And it was much better than saying to them: "So, you begin this
session in a prison cell on an Imperial Star Destroyer."
But then, after playing Amber, my group turned from basically
good-aligned, cooperating team into a greedy, turncoad, evil,
murderous bunch... It was probably my fault, though, since the first
Amber game I ran was Throne War - the player who survives gets to be
the king. :>
And after the War ended, went through four groups in three sessions
(custom fantasy system) ... "For a fistful of gold coins".
--
Mike (Leszek Karlik) - tr...@polbox.com; http://www.polbox.com/t/trrkt
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, GRD(Sith) {IWATS-IIC} (Emperor's Hammer)
Star Wars junkie and Amber fan.
Mary K. Kuhner
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net writes:
>(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>How is this kind of maneuver or threat improper, in the sense that by
>making it I am not playing in the one game, but am rather playing for
>the next one? If I make the threat before hand, before I am
>back-stabbed, it serves a very important deterrant purpose, *in the
>present game.*
The argument is that while making the threat is reasonable, once
you have been back-stabbed you should choose your moves purely to
maximize your chance of winning, retaliating only if it is advantageous
to do so. Retaliating when it is disadvantageous proves that
your threat was sincere--but that is likely to matter only in subsequent
games with the same players, not in this game, and thus can be seen
as a meta-game concern.
I'm an agnostic on this argument, personally. I bring it up mainly
to illustrate that in board wargames with multiple players fair play
is not always well defined.
There is also an interesting and unsolved fair play question in chess
tournaments: is it "fair" to accept a draw in a game you might
otherwise win, if doing so would in your judgement improve your chance
of winning the tournament? Or must you play for a win in each game?
I don't think "fair play" is really cut and dried in any complex social
activity. Infinite pains have been taken to make chess objective, yet
still we have these arguments.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Jason Stokes
In article <robbj95.865383784@octarine>, Barbara Robson
<rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote:
> You seem to be assuming that a "game contract" is an explicit set of
> rules. In the vast majority of cases, it is not. In the usual
> terminology of this newsgroup, every roleplaying group has a game
> contract, usually consisting of nothing more than a shared
> understanding of what constitutes the spirit of the game.
Which is why I particularly hate the metaphor "Game Contract." A contract
is a legally binding agreement that is worded in absolute and legalistic
terms; it *forces* the parties to behave in a certain way. An agreement
between players and GM is just that; an agreement. It can even be a
shared sense of game "style."
Ennead
: There is adherence to rules and there is fairplay but
: like law and justice they do not necessarilly embody the same thing.
: If anywhere, simply abiding by the rules of the game in an RPG
: does not mean abiding by the spirit of the game. I think we are
: in agreement here.
Yes, we are. A "game contract" differs from a "rules system"
in that while the rules system delineates the letter of the law,
the game contract attempts to describe the spirit of the game.
Its "rules" are more like the rules of etiquette than the rules
of game play. (Of course, these sorts of rules are notoriously
difficult to describe, which is why culture clash continues to
plague travellers no matter how many books they have read before
they set out from home.)
: Your solution to this is a game contract which
: spells out the priorities of the group. My objection to that is
: that it seems to constrain access between games/groups and to
: limit the scope of how a game/group can evolve.
Hmmm. There are really two objections here, although
I can see how they might interrelate.
I don't know that I agree that game contracts constrain
access between games or groups. In the past, I have often run
into problems when playing with a new group precisely _because_
I did not fully understand that group's conventions and priorities
when I sat down to play. Had the customs and expectations of the
group been explained to me beforehand, many of these problems could
have been avoided. Here, it seems to me, it was the *absence* of an
explicitly-described contract that constrained integration.
Discussions of contract issues on this newsgroup have,
I believe, made it far more likely that I would be able to play
with the other participants' groups without these problems arising.
Because I have gained an understanding of their respective styles
of play, I have a better idea of how I might play in their games
without stepping on toes and annoying others, without acting in
a manner which they would consider "not cricket." This is valuable
information when one is considering joining a new group, or playing
with relative strangers.
Since moving to Portland, I have met a new group of
role-players. Discussion of contract issues with them has
made me feel far more confident that I might be able to join
in their games, or they in my group's, and have the integration
run smoothly. I do not believe that the concept of an explicit
game contract has constrained access here; on the contrary, it
has facilitated it.
Do game contracts limit the scope of how games/groups
can evolve, though?
I think that this is a valid objection. It seems to
me that, indeed, they can do. Once a group has decided that
*this* is the way it plays, then it can become extremely reluctant
to try out new approaches, or to make accomodations for new
players. This is certainly cause for concern.
I don't know, though, whether the explicitness of the
contract is to blame here. It seems to me that rigid gaming
groups who are suspicious of unfamiliar techniques and reluctant
to bend even an inch to accomodate outsiders have always been
with us. Nor is an explicit game contract always in evidence
when a group behaves this way. If a group *is* rigid, then I
think the concept of contract useful: for one thing, it allows
newcomers to be forewarned about the group's rigidity; for
another, it creates the possibility of discussion and challenge
of the group's priorities. If the group is open to new ideas
and ways of approaching the game, on the other hand, then the
contract provides a means of reflecting those changes so that
everyone in the group understands the current status.
I think that on the whole, the benefits of contract
outweigh the risks. I do agree with you, though, that contract
can be used to reinforce a level of rigidity and conservativism
that I would consider undesirable in a group or game.
: The intention of
: the game contract seems to be to insure that the spirit of the
: game is maintained. I'm not questioning the importance of this,
: though I still wonder whether a means for the analysis of the
: interactions which can occur in RPGs, a philosophy of fair play,
: wouldn't be a better alternative to a proscriptive list of
: interactions, a game contract. The idea is to have things
: adjudicated fairly rather than just plainly.
My suspicion about such a philosophy of fair play is
that it would be too general to be of terribly much use. I can
certainly think of a few rules of fairness that I suspect would
be well-nigh universal, but their very universality would seem
to me to limit their utility.
"It is not fair to play favorites among the players,
giving loads of screen time to your best friend's character,
while fudging the dice against the character of the guy who
stole your girlfriend," for example, is likely to be a rule
of fairness everyone here can agree upon. It is also, however,
rather obvious. When a game in which that sort of dynamic is
going on begins to founder, no one is confused as to the reasons
why, nor is the GM likely to be unaware that he is acting unfairly.
An explication of the underlying rules of fairness that are being
violated in such a situation seems neither necessary nor useful:
it reveals nothing that the group does not know already, and it
does not suffice to resolve the problem.
The clashes and misunderstandings and "unfairnesses"
which in my experience could have benefitted from a contract,
on the other hand, have been subtler, more difficult to define,
and less obviously unjust. These sorts of problems are so
damaging precisely because they are so tricky to identify: they
arise out of assumption clashes and differing priorities which
the participants may not have realized that they *had,* and which
therefore leave people with a general sense of "unfairness," of
frustration and disatisfaction, which can prove far more damaging
in the long run than the sense of righteous indignation one feels
when a more basic tenet of fairness has been violated.
: Fairplay is adherence to justice. Don't you think
: this is a better definition than 'fairplay is adherence
: to contracts', or am I correct to surmise you think I'm
: being impractical?
No, I don't think you are being impractical. I do think,
though, that it is probable that the problems you have encountered in
gaming are of a very different variety than the problems I have
encountered, and that therefore you are seeking a slightly different
remedy.
As for a definition of fairplay as "adherence to justice,"
I'm afraid that it just seems of limited utility to me. I do not,
for example, perceive the rule that "the participants in a poker
game should not use marked cards" to have very much to do with
justice, and yet I think that we would agree that such agreements
and conventions do fall under the category of "fair play." Cheating
in a poker game is unfair, because it violates the implied agreement
of the participants to abide by certain rules of play. It is not
really a matter of justice. Whirling about and shooting your opponent
in the back on the count of "one" in a pistol duel may well be
*just,* but it is absolutely not Fair Play.
: > In reference to which you insisted that you saw no difference
: >in a game in which contriving to "hook" the characters was a GM
: >obligation, and one in which it was prohibited. Ignoring such
: >differences sounds to me like a very good way to violate standards
: >of "fair play."
: It is peculiar that you bring that up now when in this
: context this was just in response to your accusation that I had
: never discussed any example of what I considered fair or not.
As I recall it, your answer might be paraphrased as "whether
or not it's fair just depends." You didn't give me a clear idea of
on *what* it depended, and so you left me just as in the dark about
your ideas of fairness as I was before introducing the example.
A meta-debate digression here. You seem to feel that I am
trying to hector you, or to discredit your ideas by harping on examples.
You have accused me of sophistry, of quoting you out of context, of
using "slippery" arguments, even of trying to subvert the English
language itself. You have implied that my agenda in this debate is
merely to refute anything you propose, presumably out of some form of
one-upmanship or perhaps simply due to congenital spitefulness.
I've so far ignored these ad hominem attacks because I
felt that to address them would merely get in the way of the
discussion. They seem, however, to be slowly but surely emerging
as your main theme, which leads me to the conclusion that you
will be dissatisfied until I have addressed them.
Very well, then. My intent in this discussion is _not_
to harrass you, nor to ridicule anything you propose, nor to use
any means within my power to cut down your arguments, no matter
how valid or sensible they might be. Unlike many people I know,
I happen to dislike argument for argument's sake. I do not engage
in debates for the sheer fun of argument, nor to score points off
of others. That I am still participating in this conversation, in
spite of its unpleasantness, is evidence that I think you have
something useful and interesting to impart and wish to discover
what it is.
If I seem to be hectoring you, it is because I am trying to
understand what your philosophy of fairness *is,* and examination of
examples of in-play situations is the best way I know to do that.
Your responses so far have intrigued me, which is why I am still
here, but they haven't been specific or descriptive enough to give
me a clear idea of what precisely you mean by them.
: I believe what you misrepresent is that I said whether or not a GM
: hooking a character or not is fair should be determined by how it
: is done, while, always prohibiting the hooking of a player simply
: handicaps the scope of a game.
Do you think that you could give some examples here, perhaps
describe a hook that you would consider fair, and one that you would
consider unfair?
I understand that you think that how the hook is done is
the determining factor of its fairness, but I don't understand
exactly on what criteria you draw the distinction, and in the
absence of this information, I am left with an extremely vague
picture of your philosophy.
: >: ...and another had to do with the utilization of information obtained
: >: above or below the board.
: >
: > Is the GM allowed to use such information in the running
: >of his NPCs?
: It would depend on how it was done. To what ends the GM
: uses the information also impacts upon the spirit and caliber
: of the game, and aestheticallly I feel these are somehow
: related to fairplay but I'm not going to climb out on that limb
: with you shaking the tree.
Well, if you won't get any more explicit than that out of
fear that someone might disagree with you, then I don't see how you
expect people to come to understand your philosophy. Would question
and answer be easier here, or would it lead you to feel that I am
badgering you again?
Off-hand, I can think of a number of different ends to
which a GM might use out-of-game knowledge about the players, obtained
through non-gaming means, in the running of his NPCs or his world.
- to create an atmosphere of fear in a horror game (GM
knows that Player X has a phobia of spiders, and so
writes icky spider stuff into the scenario)
- for humor value (GM touches on player group in-jokes
in his world or NPC creation)
- to ensure that the game will have thematic resonance
for the players (GM knows that Players X and Y are
currently struggling with identity issues, and so
he arranges the game, world, or NPCs to reflect
those issues and play off of related themes)
- to influence desired PC reaction (GM uses his knowledge
of Player X's romantic predilections to create an NPC
designed to appeal to X's character)
- to encourage IC rivalries and tension (GM uses his
knowledge of Player X and Player Y's personal rivalry
or dislike to play their characters off of each other)
Those are just the examples that flew off of the top of
my head. I'm sure there are many more.
Now, all of these sneaky little GM tricks can work
very well indeed. They are also, however, likely to strike
certain players as unfair. The big problems arise not when
they are done badly, for when they are done badly, *no* one
is going to appreciate them. The problems arise when they
are executed *well*...and the players _still_ think that they
were unfair. Even larger problems arise when half of the players
think that the use of such tactics was brilliant and enhanced
the game, while the other half feel that they were Not Fair Play
and damaged the game.
I think I am beginning to understand your position that
whether or not the GM's techniques are competently executed is
the effective determinate of whether or not it is acceptable
("Fair Play"), but it just doesn't match my personal experience.
In my experience, a well-executed dodgy technique usually irritates
those who believe it to be Not Fair Play even more than a poorly-
executed one does: with a poorly-executed tactic, at least everyone
can agree that, regardless of fairness or the lack thereof, the
end result just sucked. When a borderline tactic works well, then
the group can often not reach the same sort of consensus, and then
issues of fairness rise to the fore.
: > Is a player allowed to use OOC information IC if by doing
: >so, he is supporting the game by, say, facilitating another PC's
: >story, maintaining party unity, or otherwise aiding the group's
: >enjoyment? Is the player allowed to use OOC information IC to
: >simulate actual IC knowledge?
: So it seems to me, yes.
Okay. So basically, the end result is what determines
fairness? In other words, so long as the player is *really*
supporting the game by his use of OOC knowledge IC, then it's
fair, but if he *tries* to support the game and ends up
inadvertently damaging it, then it becomes less fair?
Or is it the *intent* which is important here? It's
fair if by using the technique your *goal* is to make the game
more enjoyable for others, but it is unfair if your goals are
selfish, self-aggrandizing, or hostile?
I think that you must mean one of these two ideas -- or
possibly both of them simultaneously. Am I getting warmer?
[more about Fair Play]
: Your contention is that there can be no code of
: fairplay that transcends all game contracts.
The code of adherence to agreed-upon rules of play
certainly transcends the specific details of that rules set.
If I play _Illuminati_ by the "cheaters' rules," then I am
still not playing fair if I overturn the board. The general
idea that Fair Play consists of adhering to the rules of play
is not invalidated by the adoption of an unusual rules set.
: Be that as it may,
: the idea that there are no universal notions of fair play that
: should by some reasonably objective criteria apply to RPGs,
: in the first approximation, is a novel conceit.
It is a very novel conceit indeed, and it is not my own.
Adherence to agreed-upon rules is a very old definition of fair
play, and it applies just as readily to RPGs as to any other type
of game. What makes applying it to RPGs so tricky, I think, is
that so many people never bother to agree upon a rules-set in
the first place, leading to a situation in which all of the players
think that they _know_ what the rules are, only to find their
fellow players breaking these rules regularly in play.
: The definition you have supplied is notable only for its
: lack of definition and that slipperiness is what you intended.
Rubbish. The definition I supplied is only "slippery"
because you are refusing to acknowledge any distinction between
the specific rules of a game and the general notion of adhering
to those rules.
What is "Fair Play" in a game of poker? That depends
on which particular version of the game you are playing -- in some
varieties you get five cards, in some seven, in some you can trade
in your cards for new ones, in some you cannot, in some you have to
take off your clothing if you lose a hand, and so forth. To play
fair, you abide by the rules of whichever type of game you are playing.
What is Fair Play in a role-playing game? Depends on which
particular version of RPG you are playing. In some varieties you
can fudge dice rolls, in some you cannot, in some you can give your
character access to OOC information in certain situations, in some
you can't, and so forth. To play fair, you abide by the rules of
whichever type of game you are playing.
What is so difficult about this? It seems that the only
thing that makes it so difficult is your perception of RPG as a
single game, rather than as a class of games.
: You now imply that games have always had rules; people who play
: fairly obey rules; therefore, all games are fair. We have of course
: been debating, not the universiality of games being defined by their
: rules, but the universiality of what constitutes fair play in games.
I thought we were debating the notion that certain rules
sets are objectively, _inherently_ more fair than others. This
seems a strange notion to me; it is like claiming that draw poker
is inherently more fair than seven-card stud.
-- Sarah
Psychohist
Regarding 'fairness' in games, Mary Kuhner posts, in part:
There is a fundamental fairness debate that crops up
yearly on that newsgroup, and it has never been settled,
and apparently never will be settled.
The question is: Are moves which are damaging to the
player in this particular game acceptable if they serve
a useful purpose over a series of games? ... The two
factions can never agree. No amount of reasoning has
been seen to sway anyone from one side to the other.
Actually, I've been swayed back and forth once or twice on this one, which
is why I'd like to see Rick present some cogent examples and arguments of
what he considers 'fair' and 'unfair' play. I think a debate on that
topic could be interesting and even enlightening, even if we all ended up
deciding that what's fair, in the end, depends on the game contract.
Regarding Mary's example, Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
How is this kind of maneuver or threat improper, in the
sense that by making it I am not playing in the one game,
but am rather playing for the next one?
It's related to the issue of under what circumstances it's fair for a
player who is, say, in a distant third place with little chance of
winning, to 'throw' the game to his choice of the first two players rather
than trying to maximize his own slim chances of winning.
Anyone who wants to know all the nuances could probably restart this
thread on rec.games.board (no .misc, I think).
Warren
Psychohist
Sarah Kahn posts, in part:
I can certainly think of a few rules of fairness that I
suspect would be well-nigh universal, but their very
universality would seem to me to limit their utility.
"It is not fair to play favorites among the players,
giving loads of screen time to your best friend's
character, while fudging the dice against the character
of the guy who stole your girlfriend," for example, is
likely to be a rule of fairness everyone here can agree
upon.
Um, no. Most of the guys I know would go with 'if you're stupid enough to
steal the gamesmaster's girlfriend and still play in his game, you deserve
what's coming to you', instead. (Maybe it's a guy thing.) More
seriously, I think many groups would find it acceptable to favor newcomers
to role playing during the initial learning process in order to encourage
them to join the hobby on a long term basis. I don't think there are any
universals here, even simplistic ones.
What is "Fair Play" in a game of poker? That depends
on which particular version of the game you are playing
-- in some varieties you get five cards, in some seven ...
I don't think that's a very good parallel - 'five cards or seven' is more
like 'Storyteller or GURPS'. The 'fair play' issues in poker have to do
with issues like collusion (universally considered unfair, in my
experience), sandbagging (varies a lot from group to group), and bluffing
(considered 'fair play' in most but not all groups). There are also a
number of more detailed 'fair play' issues like, 'if you're playing table
stakes, when is it okay to buy more chips, and who are you allowed to buy
chips from?'
But perhaps that just strengthens your point - it's generally recommended
that a poker group have a well understood, even written, set of 'house
rules' that govern these types of issues, just as people on r.g.f.a
recommend that people understand and agree on a 'game contract' for role
playing games.
On the other hand, the types of issues that should be covered in a set of
'house rules' for poker are pretty widely known and agreed on, whereas I
think a lot of the issues that are covered in game contracts for role
playing games haven't been adequately explored.. I think that we could
benefit from more discussion of some specific game contract issues.
Rick, want to suggest some?
Warren Dew
Rick Cordes
In article <5n1eaq$1p1$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>,
John H Kim <jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
> This is a reply to Rick concerning his suggestion that we
>should find a universal philosophy of the idea of "fair play" in
>RPG's. In short, I would encourage his developing such a philosophy
>for himself, and I would be interested to see it. However, I don't
>think that it will be "universal". Rather, I would consider it a
>well fleshed-out example of a game contract...
John,
Thank-you for your interest and encouragement.
Conducting this all in the abstract has been difficult but
that is the nature of conjecture. In keeping with the spirit
of the hypotheses, though, I think it is mistaken to think
of what I propose as a contract, anymore than it is to think
of the Bill of Rights as a set of laws, or The Constitution as
a Bill of Rights.
> First, I should explain that not too long ago I ranted
>a bit *against* what I termed a "Fair Play" bias in GM's. As a
>player, I was irritated by the tendency for GM's to always make
>the opposition challenging but defeatable by the PC's. (i.e. So
>if the players acted intelligently, they would always "win".)
...
The operant word here is "always", and I think your
example reflects more upon the caliber of the game rather
than upon the fairness of the game. I do think these issues
are not entirely independent but I would like to keep them
seperate for the time being. In any game, some players may
play exclusively to win while others play just to see how
things hatch. An RPG where the success of the game is measured
only by th success of the players, represents an approach of
limited scope, still, within those limitations, it still may
be conducted fairly. What would have irritated me, would have
been handicapped manner in which fair play was achieved.
>Rick Cordes <cor...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>> ...The intention of the game contract seems to
>> be to insure that the spirit of the game is maintained. I'm not
>> questioning the importance of this, though I still wonder whether a
>> means for the analysis of the interactions which can occur in RPGs,
>> a philosophy of fair play, wouldn't be a better alternative to a
>> proscriptive list of interactions, a game contract. The idea is to
>> have things adjudicated fairly rather than just plainly.
>
> I don't oppose your trying to develop such a philosophy,
>but I think that such a beast simply doesn't exist.
>
> In _Paranoia_ or _Toon_ games I have played in, it is
>perfectly acceptable for the GM to arbitrarily throw failures and
>extra opponents at the PC's in an obviously ad-hoc mannner to make
>them suffer. The exact same behavior is completely out of line in,
>say, _Twilight 2000_. I will quote here from the _Paranoia_ GM book:
>
> "In _Paranoia_, the gamemaster is malevolent...
> ...Don't fight fair -- fight dirty."
>
>For comparison, I am going to quote some from _Theatrix_,
>
> "The Director's primary job is to balance the game so that _all_
> of the participants feel empowered and enjoy themselves...
>
>...I assert that these two game books assume very different concepts
>of "fair play".
In the first place, the games cited represent RPGs of
significantly different caliber, and I think Paranoia, like Toon,
relative to Theatrix, are of limited scope. This notion of having as
an objective always to make the characters suffer is of a piece
with the notion of always to provide winable encounters. It seems
to me that campaigns can be conducted by comedic, tragic or heroic
lights but games defined exclusively in any way or by it antithesis,
are of limited interest, and to my aims, represent trivial exceptions
to the rule. As you continue...
> I am going to quote here from my copy of the original
>_Illuminati Expansion Set 1_ (a supplement to the original
>card game from Steve Jackson Games).
>
> "It has come to our attention that there are actually a few
> people out there who would like rules to make _Illuminati_
> even more complicated and backstabbing. For you, we present...
> the cheater's game...
This is not an example of an RPG but just an example of
a game where it is "fair to cheat?" Okay -you got me- for all
games where it is fair to cheat will not be susceptible to a
universal notion of fairplay but all games where one may only
cheat will find useful a universal notion of fairplay to
determine whether any one is fairly cheating or not.
>...
> In short, I contend that there is no universal concept of
> fair play in any game except by agreement. Note the difference
>between what is acceptable in a "friendly" game versus in a
>"competitive" game. Many players have differing opinions on what
>sorts of psych-out tactics are acceptable -- some feel that
>only moves on the board are kosher tactics, while others allow
>conversation even if it can be used to distract and mislead
>opponents. Look at a friendly poker game versus a competitive
>bridge game.
In my first duplicate bridge tournament, after an exchange
of tricks, I admiringly said to a cigar smoking opponent, "nice
play". To this, he paid me a cool gaze, and called the director
of the game over to our table. The director of the game informed
us that by the rules of the game, Mr Cigar could either except or
decline my partner's next lead because my compliment could have
been a signal. My honor having been affronted, I snatched the
cigar from the offender, and holding his head in a choke-hold,
ground it out in his eye socket. To make a long story short, in
the resulting ruckus, no one else saw anything, and it came
down to mine and my partner's word against that of the offender
and his wife's with the director holding the deciding testimony
for the police. By any arbitrary set of ad hoc rules, his hands
would have been tied -as it was- he embraced a unversal notion
of what constituted fair play in these kinds of games, and by
weighing how I had conducted myself against how he knew the
man and woman conducted themselves, and all our expectations,
he was able to lie, fairly for my benefit, and say I had
been defending myself.
My point is that regardless of whatever your approach to
an RPG, whether by someone's lights it is more or less limited
in scope, a universal means to adjudicate issues of fairness
would seem to be of some use to most RPGers. It has already been
acknowledged that fairness is the aim of all game contracts
except those where fairness is variously excepted. By a universal
means, I mean a recourse to principle, rather than to rule. It
seems to me that the caliber of a game may be measured the spectrum
of different styles and approaches it can accomodate, and reconcile
and that this would naturally be assisted by the principles for how
fair play is constituted in whatever RPG amalgam. To that extent,
better games are fairer games.
-Rick
Rick Cordes
In article <5n1k06$5...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <5n0lpj$n...@news.Hawaii.Edu> cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) writes:
>
>me, I will devote the rest of the game to destroying you, even if that
>this as fair, and indeed necessary to keep backstabbing at a reasonable
>level. Others regard it as grossly unfair, holding that players should
>amount of reasoning has been seen to sway anyone from one side to the
>other.
>
>in all games except RPGs is false.
I do not want to seem equivocal here but this is not the
fairness of which I speak. In Diplomacy, backstabbing is always
an option, and some peoples' stlye of Diplomacy embraces backstabbing.
There are numerous ways one may cope with this, some more or less
reasonable, but all those which do not violate the rules of Diplomacy,
if you are going to play Diplomacy, are fair. Fairplay in Diplomacy
is like fairplay in tic-tac-toe; fairplay in RPGs needs to be adjudicated.
On the other hand, you do equivocate when you say because people cannot
agree upon what constitutes fairplay, there cannot be an underlying
principle of fairplay. Strident styles of play may well effect the
caliber of the game as well as its palatability but I don't regard
them as being implicitly unfair.
>However, even if it were true, I don't acknowledge any duty to apply
>standards useful in other games to RPGs just because the English
>language happens to label both with the word "game".
Duty? The hypotheses is that the pursuit of the principles
of how to adjudicate fairplay in games might in some way serve better
than ad hoc proscriptions. All I'm looking for from you are the principles
you feel underlie what passes for fair play in your game. I want them
on my desk monday morning.
>In our current game one character, Christine, could be gracefully built
>on 100 points in GURPS. Another, Chernoi, would be hard to do for less
>than 500 (as a starting character; probably 600 now). This is not due
>to a pathology in the GURPS rules, either, but pretty accurately
>reflects relative power level.
>
>Is this fair? Certainly if I proposed Chernoi as a character in a 100-
>point game run by my husband's group, they would say No, and they would
>be right. However, I will assert that in the game they're actually in,
>the characters are fair: neither the GM nor the player has been
>troubled by the power assymetry.
Do you acknowledge you have underlying principles at work here?
In RPGs there are different kinds of starting points, and different
kinds of endings, and all kinds of paths and vehicles in between: I
am not advocating absolute rules; I'm advocating universal principles
which may be used to adjudicate. My understanding of american juris-
prudence is that it evolves from precedent and that if a case can
be reduced to a former instance, the current adjudication is based
upon the former adjudication of the law. As a method for coping with
the kind of can of worms "asymmetry" to which you allude, this method,
if I may, neglects the mitigating circumstances that arise when one
is trying to adjudicate what is fair when different approaches, etc...
come into conjunction as an RPG game evolves or when an RPG group grows.
A game contract in this way just builds a house of cards.
>I agree with Sarah, John Kim, and others; a universal standard of
>fairness is not possible. At most you can devise a working standard
>for one group--and that, precisely, is a game contract.
I disagree with Sarah, John and the Big Kahuna: a philosophy of fair
play in RPGs is a useful pursuit. At best without, you can define a game
contract, and make it work for a while.
-Rick
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <5nctl7$d...@news.Hawaii.Edu> cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) writes:
> It
> seems to me that the caliber of a game may be measured the spectrum
> of different styles and approaches it can accomodate, and reconcile
> and that this would naturally be assisted by the principles for how
> fair play is constituted in whatever RPG amalgam. To that extent,
> better games are fairer games.
Our disagreement becomes more clear now; we differ on first principles.
My current game has only one player and will never have any more. Being
able to accomodate styles other than that player's style would be of
no use whatsoever to us. The only goal we acknowledge is to suit the
one player, and the GM, as well as possible; this often involves using
techniques which would horribly reduce the general appeal of the game.
What you're saying is analogous to "A good car is one that can be
used for the widest possible variety of tasks" (racing, city
triving, touring, trailer towing, dirt roads....) But if one really
needs a superb race car, what good is a general purpose vehicle?
What you're saying makes sense if the group expects new players
constantly, as at a game club or a convention. But I don't see it
as having anything to do with closed groups, honestly. Why spend
effort optimizing for play-styles you don't have?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <5nd40r$g...@news.Hawaii.Edu> cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) writes:
> Duty? The hypotheses is that the pursuit of the principles
> of how to adjudicate fairplay in games might in some way serve better
> than ad hoc proscriptions. All I'm looking for from you are the principles
> you feel underlie what passes for fair play in your game. I want them
> on my desk monday morning.
<snort> Well, you can have them, but you'll find that they're not
universal.
General principles:
Respect territorial boundaries (i.e. player control of characters, GM
control of setting).
Respect emotional sore spots (i.e. avoid running games that touch on
overly painful real-life issues).
Acknowledge that some things are difficult to run, and don't ask for too
many of them.
Inform the other person at once when something is unacceptable; for
example, if the Player is not willing to see PCs die, she must say
so as soon as she realizes, not wait till a PC actually dies.
Don't change the game contract without discussion.
Maintain consistency within your territory.
Player: Generate and maintain characters who are interested in what
you actually want to do; don't make characters that must be forced.
Player: Don't make characters who will take advantage of Script
Immunity or other conventions.
Player: Don't make characters whose personalities the GM will hate.
GM: Generate and maintain a setting in which things interesting to the
characters arise naturally; don't make the player force the
characters.
GM: Insure that at least some of the available challenges are suitable
for the PCs to accomplish.
GM: Don't allow drama-based patterns to become obtrusive.
GM: Don't "milk" situations to increase their emotional impact.
I suppose all this could be boiled down to "Respect the other person's
limits; don't make things hard for them unnecessarily; inform them
of your own limits and work together to keep the game functioning."
Which is a pretty general contract, but its specific implementations
are going to end up varying hugely from group to group. And it's not
universal even in this vague form. "Respect the other person's limits"
is not a concern for all groups; I get the impression that David
Berkman, for example, would say "Stretch limits, don't be hampered by
them." (And you might agree? It's not clear to me.)
Also, my group's definition of "unnecessarily" is pretty unusual. We're
willing to demand that the GM run an NPC who is with the PCs constantly
and has a really complex emotional life of her own. This turned out
to slow down play greatly and exhaust the GM, but we were willing to
call it "necessary" for the sake of the player's fascination with
intra-group dynamics. Another group might, very sensibly, refuse to
do this.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
rho...@mnsi.net
In article <5nd7k3$h...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> What you're saying is analogous to "A good car is one that can be
> used for the widest possible variety of tasks" (racing, city
> triving, touring, trailer towing, dirt roads....) But if one really
> needs a superb race car, what good is a general purpose vehicle?
>
> What you're saying makes sense if the group expects new players
> constantly, as at a game club or a convention. But I don't see it
> as having anything to do with closed groups, honestly. Why spend
> effort optimizing for play-styles you don't have?
Hmmm. Using your analogy, a multi-purpose vehicle might have a few
different functions that work well together. In the roleplaying context
(and others), I don't see anything wrong with proposing different facets
of the same game, so long as they aren't mutually exclusive, or more
elastically, they don't "get in the way" or make you lose something you
consider important.
What are those things?
Personally, I haven't the faintest. But I'm willing to try the thought
experiment. One might suppose that given a characters themselves, there
might not be any problem with differentiating between numbers of players
at all. The only problem really comes into the picture when you have to
have spotlight time, as you've previously mentioned a penchant for the
interaction of characters, and dislike overdevelopment to the exclusion
of the other characters. Amusingly enough, I find that that is exactly
the problem with a fair number of games in multiplayer games as well.
TOO much exclusion of other characters gives even the most patient too
much time on their hands to remain fixed on the game.
In your case, I iamgine you NEED that focus of the problem at hand from
the third person in the context of the game itself, and the "eyes" of all
your characters to see it through, and see the perspectives from how it
would seem "real" in the world you play in, qualified by the characters'
conceptions of normality.
I see long habit trails for individual characters in that situation to be
damnably against what you'd want. What about fast paced action? Does
that throw off your context with information overload, even when there's
more than one character at a scene?
(Sorry if this seems extremely tangental to what you were discussing with
the other person. I've just jumped in at this point. Still wouldn't
mind you satisfying my curiosity, though.)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Rick Cordes
>
>|In article <5mn2lg$nl3$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
>|Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
>|>Rick Cordes wrote:
>|
>| There is adherence to rules and there is fairplay but
>| like law and justice they do not necessarilly embody the same thing.
>| If anywhere, simply abiding by the rules of the game in an RPG
>| does not mean abiding by the spirit of the game. I think we are
>| in agreement here. Your solution to this is a game contract which
>| spells out the priorities of the group.
>
>rules. In the vast majority of cases, it is not. In the usual
>terminology of this newsgroup, every roleplaying group has a game
>contract, usually consisting of nothing more than a shared
>try to make this contract explicit in order to minimise assumption
>clashes, but most do not.
I appreciate that what passes for a game contract or what a
game contract accomplishes varys and I see no reason why it might
not in fact be a rigidly enforced contract or be a set of rules,
however I did not assume any of these in particular. My point was
that the spirit in which one plays bespeaks the stlye and approach
one brings to roleplay, and that a philosophy of fairplay should
work to reconcile different spirits. I feel a recourse to principles
should work better, particularly in the long run, rather than recourse
to idiosyncratic lists of proscriptions. You may appreciate that a
motivation for this is what I see as the increasingly inpenetrability
of RPG communities.
>There are many different reasons for playing RPGs and many different
>styles of play. Each group will have its own priorities, and the
>"spirit" of the game will therefore vary from group to group. I put it
>to you that this does mean that there can be no universal code of "fair
>play" for RPGs in general. I also repeat that, as many RPGs are not
>games _in the traditional sense_, there are some for which the concept
>of fair play does not apply. (Are there rules of "fair play" in
>writing poetry which is not intended to be shown to the world at
>large? The case is similar, IMO, although I'm not arguing that RPGs
>are poetry).
You will not have to do much to persuade me that the notion of
fairplay in poetry is an odd idea. Still, as the question of language
has arisen in this thread, the untranslatable quality of poetry has
always intrigued me: the only reason for all not to speak the same
language, is to preserve the poetry that has been written in the others.
Nonetheless, whether or not RPGs are games in the traditional sense or
poetry or both, I think the spirit of the game's name is legion, and as
you observe, "will therefore vary from group to group," and will vary
in time. Collectively, different muses may be capable of different
things and they need to be reconciled first if they are to achieve it.
I am not interested in what things can't be reconciled; I'm interested
in how, much, can be. The problem is collaboration, not translation,
my writing withstanding.
-Rick
Mary K. Kuhner
>Hmmm. Using your analogy, a multi-purpose vehicle might have a few
>different functions that work well together. In the roleplaying context
>(and others), I don't see anything wrong with proposing different facets
>of the same game, so long as they aren't mutually exclusive, or more
>elastically, they don't "get in the way" or make you lose something you
>consider important.
Okay, I was a little harsh. There's certainly nothing wrong with having
a versatile or mult-faceted play style, as long as you don't put
versatility above functionality for what you actually want to do--as
you say, you don't want to lose what you consider important. Groups
do vary amazingly in what they consider important, though, so I think
that a single universal philosophy or framework is not possible. It
would have to be so vague, I fear, as to reduce to "Play in the way
that works best for you as a group."
>In your case, I iamgine you NEED that focus of the problem at hand from
>the third person in the context of the game itself, and the "eyes" of all
>your characters to see it through, and see the perspectives from how it
>would seem "real" in the world you play in, qualified by the characters'
>conceptions of normality.
I'm not positive I understand what you're saying, but if you mean:
--One of the things I enjoy is seeing situations and problems from
multiple perspectives, and having one PC on her own for too long
loses that pleasure.
then yes, that's true. I've enjoyed single-character campaigns, but
they are a different animal and provide different pleasures. I
certainly wouldn't want to try to prescribe one set of rules for
"fairness" that would apply to both styles.
>I see long habit trails for individual characters in that situation to be
>damnably against what you'd want. What about fast paced action? Does
>that throw off your context with information overload, even when there's
>more than one character at a scene?
I don't have a problem with one character being on his own for as much
as one to two sessions (3 to 6 hours of play). This would almost surely
be too long for me in a multi-player game. However, after about two
sessions there's a danger of losing track of the other PCs due to too
much emphasis on the solitary one; in particular, the tapestry of PC/PC
interactions is hard to bear in mind if it's not accessed quite
frequently.. There's also a danger of the player losing interest in
the other PCs' concerns and becoming engaged only with the one PC;
this is hard to recover from. We generally try to handle this by
the same technique I'd use in multi-player games--cutting back and
forth from one group to the other--but on a much slower time scale,
often sessions instead of hours.
You're correct that fast-paced action is problematic in this style.
We've experimented with two approaches. In the Shadowrun campaign,
where almost all of the characters were combative and combat was
common, I'd pretty much retreat from Immersive roleplaying into a
more mechanics-oriented style when engaged in combat, with only
occasional flickers of Immersion to try to keep the characterizations
on track. Most of the actual roleplaying was between combats. (I've
seen this happen frequently in multi-player groups too, especially
ones that use a complex combat system; they gameplay during combat
and roleplay between.) This worked okay, except that it meant that
highly combat-centric characters like Argent, who didn't interact very
much between fights, were difficult to develop. Argent was very
flat until the sequence in which he was turning into a monster and
had to decide whether to stay with his friends (who might kill him)
or run off (and perhaps become something that would kill his friends).
Only in that extremely non-action scene (he just lay in bed throughout
it) did I really get a grasp on his personality.
In our current campaign we've taken a different approach. Most of the
characters are not very action-oriented, and they seldom undertake
action as a group. A typical combat scene, for example, might involve
an attack on Chernoi and Vikki. Chernoi would typically be unarmed, and
could be dealt with by saying simply "Chernoi dives for cover and radios
for help." I could then focus on Vikki for the duration of the action
scene. Instead of asking Chernoi for an action every round
(exasperating for a non-com) we'd just follow Vikki unless it became
apparent that Chernoi ought to intervene. In general, this game's
action scenes have almost never involved more than two PCs actively
doing something at the same time. This allows more characterization
during action scenes, but of course greatly limits the kinds of
challenges the PCs can face. I think we have had 5 or 6 actual
fights in 3 years of play.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Ennead
Psychohist wrote:
: Sarah Kahn posts, in part:
: "It is not fair to play favorites among the players,
: giving loads of screen time to your best friend's
: character, while fudging the dice against the character
: of the guy who stole your girlfriend," for example, is
: likely to be a rule of fairness everyone here can agree
: upon.
: Um, no.
Okay, so I was wrong. In that case, I'm stumped to come
up with an example of Not Fair Play on which we'd all agree without
venturing into the realms of silly extremism. (Is it unfair to
steal the GM's campaign notes, read them in secret, and then use
your OOC knowledge to make your character look good? Here we
venture into the Forbidden Realms of Reductio.)
: Most of the guys I know would go with 'if you're stupid enough to
: steal the gamesmaster's girlfriend and still play in his game, you deserve
: what's coming to you', instead. (Maybe it's a guy thing.)
Heh. Alas for the GM's blood pressure, the one time this
situation came up in any of my gaming groups, the consensus was
that for the GM to take vengeance on the player through the game
would have been Not Quite Cricket. I doubt it's a guy thing: that
was a predominantly male group. I suspect that it was more an
"all's fair in love, but not in war" sort of aesthetic -- one that
that group of friends eventually outgrew, much to my personal relief.
It was an annoying phase.
: More
: seriously, I think many groups would find it acceptable to favor newcomers
: to role playing during the initial learning process in order to encourage
: them to join the hobby on a long term basis.
<nod> Yes. That was the reason that I did not simply phrase
my example as "it is not fair to play favorites among the players," but
instead qualified it with examples of "unfair" *types* of playing
favorites. Even my attempt at a universal had to be made specific
for me to have any faith in its universality (and even then, as you
point out, I failed to come up with a true universal).
: I don't think there are any universals here, even simplistic ones.
No, I guess not. I *was* trying to be obliging, though.
: On the other hand, the types of issues that should be covered in a set of
: 'house rules' for poker are pretty widely known and agreed on, whereas I
: think a lot of the issues that are covered in game contracts for role
: playing games haven't been adequately explored.. I think that we could
: benefit from more discussion of some specific game contract issues.
: Rick, want to suggest some?
Please do. Anyone?
-- Sarah
rho...@mnsi.net
In article <5nh728$h...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> Groups
> do vary amazingly in what they consider important, though, so I think
> that a single universal philosophy or framework is not possible. It
> would have to be so vague, I fear, as to reduce to "Play in the way
> that works best for you as a group."
Under certain situations, this could easily be true. It depends on how
eclectically persuasive the characters are, and how versatile the setting
is for handling this. I've got an example from something you say later
that might touch on this a bit more. I might mention that I don't
sponsor "giving in" to peer needs, even little ones, if they take away
too many small things as well; too much compromise, no matter the
remainder of the pie you're left with, isn't a good deal.
[I said:]
> >In your case, I iamgine you NEED that focus of the problem at hand from
> >the third person in the context of the game itself, and the "eyes" of all
> >your characters to see it through, and see the perspectives from how it
> >would seem "real" in the world you play in, qualified by the characters'
> >conceptions of normality.
>
[snip vis-a-vis concensus]
> then yes, that's true. I've enjoyed single-character campaigns, but
> they are a different animal and provide different pleasures. I
> certainly wouldn't want to try to prescribe one set of rules for
> "fairness" that would apply to both styles.
How easily do your characters portray internally, when you're immersive
in single-player mode, cathartic realizations about plot points that
would influence characters to think about certain thematic elements? Or
does this generally just hit you in one big ball as feedback from all of
your characters at some later point? This seems to be one of the models
of roleplaying that seem worth keeping for most games and I was wondering
how it finds its way into your games (or in some alternative form). I
think this maps as a possible "default play mode" for sets of players,
regardless of the size of the set (for some, possibly more introspective,
games at least).
> sessions there's a danger of losing track of the other PCs due to too
> much emphasis on the solitary one; in particular, the tapestry of PC/PC
> interactions is hard to bear in mind if it's not accessed quite
> frequently..
[snip]
> the same technique I'd use in multi-player games--cutting back and
> forth from one group to the other--but on a much slower time scale,
> often sessions instead of hours.
I've run up against this too, but in the form of others I play with or GM
for. Everybody loves a time reference they can anticipate and use to pace
their internal "action" in terms of plot, or character motivation, or
whatnot. I've always been a big fan of "let time take care of itself"
but I've found it interesting how disorientating this can be for players
especially since they seem to require an objective time frame from which
they fit within their slots. On the surface, you seem to fit the same
mold, even being single-player... and I can't help but ask what necessity
it fulfills when objective pacing is basically in your hands. From my
misbegotten perspective, it seems like you'd be shifting into third
person no matter how apparently unobstrusive the context (possibly due to
your natural tendency to think in temporal units for goals?). Have you
ever had characters by themselves who didn't need this framework even
though the rest of the adventuring team did, and if so, how do they
relate to each other?
[snip]
> highly combat-centric characters like Argent, who didn't interact very
> much between fights, were difficult to develop.
When I envision a character who uses combat as a means and finds it a
natural calling, I tend to envision not their goals, or thoughts per se,
but their emotional crest/wave/what-have-you. This doesn't provide me
with detailed information with which to go on for a character, but its
coloured pigments are definitely flavoured by character depth. Running a
group each with their own emotional outbursts instead of governing
thoughts might be more interesting and empathetically immersive a playing
technique. So even thought they're fighting, they'll act in subtle ways
that would scream "them."
> Instead of asking Chernoi for an action every round
> (exasperating for a non-com) we'd just follow Vikki unless it became
> apparent that Chernoi ought to intervene. In general, this game's
> action scenes have almost never involved more than two PCs actively
> doing something at the same time. This allows more characterization
> during action scenes, but of course greatly limits the kinds of
> challenges the PCs can face. I think we have had 5 or 6 actual
> fights in 3 years of play.
> Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
If Chernoi's actions hold no influence on the combat itself, why not have
her personal "timeline" occur later and roleplay that out too? You have a
backdrop for her to react to, if needs be, that is nonresponsive to her
noninfluential actions and you can paint her picture around Nikki's in
that way, without the two overlapping or suffering for the fight by a
lack of full characterization.
(Apologies if this reply seems to be more pendantic than curious; I'm far
more curious in your inter-character relationship model than prescribing
questionably experimental advice.)
rho...@mnsi.net
In article <5nfs7f$5...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) wrote:
> You will not have to do much to persuade me that the notion of
> fairplay in poetry is an odd idea. Still, as the question of language
> has arisen in this thread, the untranslatable quality of poetry has
> always intrigued me: the only reason for all not to speak the same
> language, is to preserve the poetry that has been written in the others.
> Nonetheless, whether or not RPGs are games in the traditional sense or
> poetry or both, I think the spirit of the game's name is legion, and as
> you observe, "will therefore vary from group to group," and will vary
> in time. Collectively, different muses may be capable of different
> things and they need to be reconciled first if they are to achieve it.
> I am not interested in what things can't be reconciled; I'm interested
> in how, much, can be. The problem is collaboration, not translation,
> my writing withstanding.
Heh. I think there are some people who take up poetry as a game, some
with that qualification, I think I could at least partially agree that
there would be rules in the actual players' minds concerning them,
whether they are single or group related delusions.
I think everybody can learn all the languages they want to experience
them, but not *everybody* needs the exposure, desires the experience, or
gains much from it as a result.
Collaboration is an ideal for some. Just as some people absolutely can't
stand standard Ars Magica play because of the inherent troupe style, and
others would rather be a grunt or a mystical creature (like a Djinn) than
a Magus. Within every utopia is a subset dystopia for those who don't
fit the bill and those selfsame rules of conduct have to be flexible
enough to be tossed out--sometimes.
But that's as far as "fair play" concerning roleplaying goes. I think
there's a distinction to be made between rule sets (hard?) and
roleplaying sets (soft?). Semantically, "fair roleplaying" doesn't equate
to "fair playing." Sticking to "fair playing" without influencing the
soft rules in the least, and I think you'd find a more objective means to
get to where you want to go.
Mary K. Kuhner
>How easily do your characters portray internally, when you're immersive
>in single-player mode, cathartic realizations about plot points that
>would influence characters to think about certain thematic elements? Or
>does this generally just hit you in one big ball as feedback from all of
>your characters at some later point?
I'm sorry, but I'm just not grasping this question. Can you give an
example?
[pacing: cutting back and forth among groups]
>I've run up against this too, but in the form of others I play with or GM
>for. Everybody loves a time reference they can anticipate and use to pace
>their internal "action" in terms of plot, or character motivation, or
>whatnot. I've always been a big fan of "let time take care of itself"
>but I've found it interesting how disorientating this can be for players
>especially since they seem to require an objective time frame from which
>they fit within their slots. On the surface, you seem to fit the same
>mold, even being single-player... and I can't help but ask what necessity
>it fulfills when objective pacing is basically in your hands.
I'm not sure that I understand.
For me, switching among subgroups of PCs is something that happens at
the player level; it should be transparent to the characters. Its
timing, at a player level, is determined by the pace of the game. You
must switch often enough to maintain a decent level of synchronicity (if
one subgroup gets too far ahead, continuity errors are inevitable).
You must switch often enough to keep the inactive PCs from becoming
stale (for me, minimally every 6-8 hours of play). But it's nice not
to switch so often that you sacrifice Immersion, or strain the player's
memory trying to maintain "snapshots" of what is happening during
multiple concurrent action scenes. (Cutting between two combats is
something I personally find very hard, and avoid if at all possible.)
Having a fixed schedule for switching has some practical advantages;
it reminds GM and player to do the switch (otherwise they might forget
and let things go too long) and allows both of them to anticipate and
prepare for it. The risk is that the switch will then fall at a bad
time. I personally cannot cope with switching among groups of PCs at
cliffhangers. I can't get my mind off the first group and onto the
second fast enough. I need switches to fall at logical breakpoints
as much as possible: places where one group comes to rest and therefore
it is easy to turn to the other.
Multi-player groups may use the opposite technique, deliberately
stopping at cliffhangers, in order to keep player interest high; I
know one GM who swears by this technique. It works differently because
the player whose PC is hanging by a thread can just keep thinking
about him; she needn't attend to the other PC who's not yet in such
danger.
>From my
>misbegotten perspective, it seems like you'd be shifting into third
>person no matter how apparently unobstrusive the context (possibly due to
>your natural tendency to think in temporal units for goals?). Have you
>ever had characters by themselves who didn't need this framework even
>though the rest of the adventuring team did, and if so, how do they
>relate to each other?
Are you imagining a character who doesn't set temporal goals? I would
still, as a player, need regular back-and-forth alternation to serve
*my* goals.
>When I envision a character who uses combat as a means and finds it a
>natural calling, I tend to envision not their goals, or thoughts per se,
>but their emotional crest/wave/what-have-you. This doesn't provide me
>with detailed information with which to go on for a character, but its
>coloured pigments are definitely flavoured by character depth.
The extent to which I can succeed in doing this depends on the
complexity of the mechanics and the time-scale of the combat. In GURPS
with one-second rounds, for example, if I am switching between six
characters I really can't do much to represent the individual style
of each; even a short verbal statement, for example, would have to
be done in multiple snippits and I just can't keep track. The switching
is too fast to allow intellectual Immersion, and for me emotional is
slower. (As I said in another thread, I experience emotions rather
viscerally, and switching, say, an adrenaline rush on and off is very
slow for purely physical reasons.) On the other hand, the more you
slow down the switching the more likely continuity errors are to
creep in; so it's a tradeoff.
>> Instead of asking Chernoi for an action every round
>> (exasperating for a non-com) we'd just follow Vikki unless it became
>> apparent that Chernoi ought to intervene.
>If Chernoi's actions hold no influence on the combat itself, why not have
>her personal "timeline" occur later and roleplay that out too? You have a
>backdrop for her to react to, if needs be, that is nonresponsive to her
>noninfluential actions and you can paint her picture around Nikki's in
>that way, without the two overlapping or suffering for the fight by a
>lack of full characterization.
Our experience has been that running one character, then the next, then
the next when there is any realistic possibility of interaction between
them does not work well. The player's handling of the later characters
in the series is too obtrusively constrained by the knowledge that if
the character suddenly does something unexpected and interactive, a
retcon (change in what has already been established to have happened)
will be needed. Too many retcons and the structure of the game comes
apart as the player and GM lose track of "what really happened."
For example, although Chernoi is not at all a fighter, she does have
substantial personal presence. If desperate enough she might try
browbeating Vikki's opponent into breaking off the fight. We really
don't want to find out that Chernoi would do this *after* resolving
the whole fight from Vikki's point of view.
It is practically impossible in my experience for the player to say in
advance "I can guarantee this PC won't take action in this scene" short
of the PC being incapable of doing so. Immersive PCs do unexpected
things now and again, often in response to tiny details that could not
have been forseen in advance. Chernoi might jump if she saw Vikki
*bleeding* whereas the same amount of injury from a bruising weapon
wouldn't upset her as much. Or she might not. I'd hate to have to
guess. So the nonresponsive background can't be relied on to stay
that way. (Even in the given example, it might raise ugly firewall
issues if I have to decide who Chernoi calls for help, and how urgent
she sounds, *after* I know that Vikki is fated to get beaten up in
the fight.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
rho...@mnsi.net
In article <5ni9ts$m...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
>
> >How easily do your characters portray internally, when you're immersive
> >in single-player mode, cathartic realizations about plot points that
> >would influence characters to think about certain thematic elements? Or
> >does this generally just hit you in one big ball as feedback from all of
> >your characters at some later point?
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm just not grasping this question. Can you give an
> example?
Hmm. I don't exactly have enough of a grasp on your settings to depict a
guaranteed suitable reference in your experience but: suppose you were
dealing with an element in the campaign which through indirection makes
your characters react in differing ways, such as the possibility of the
transformation and eventual disassociation of humanity from one of the
closer NPCs. The friendship of one of the PCs might be strained, the
direct accumulation of said NPC's position in society might be an
unbalancing effect that creates social upheaval that influences all of
the PCs in varying ways, and so on. Are these reactions ever
crosspollenated at some point or for lack of better terminology, cross
into a form of the metagame which still interacts as a passive model for
the character's portrayals? (As opposed to the more agressive ones that
direct and are more extroverted in nature, and seem to be discussed more
in this newsgroup.)
> [pacing: cutting back and forth among groups]
>
> I'm not sure that I understand.
[snip]
> timing, at a player level, is determined by the pace of the game. You
> must switch often enough to maintain a decent level of synchronicity (if
> one subgroup gets too far ahead, continuity errors are inevitable).
[snip]
> (Cutting between two combats is
> something I personally find very hard, and avoid if at all possible.)
>
> Having a fixed schedule for switching has some practical advantages;
> it reminds GM and player to do the switch (otherwise they might forget
> and let things go too long) and allows both of them to anticipate and
> prepare for it.
This is precisely what I was thinking of. It seems that you have more
say in the pacing, but perhaps I've misunderstood internal character
pacing with the story elements and interaction of the setting, and they
are implemented as separate features of your games (with a good portion
of the cues of scene cuts being the GM's responsbility).
I find myself smiling at the fact that you'd even have to be reminded. I
imagine with the visceality of your experience, you DO become first
person if left to your own devices. I imagine there is variety in the
times left for each scene, with the understanding that they'd conclude at
some known point, like the ending of the session?
I can easily agree with you about switching between two sets of
apparently simultaneous combats. That would be confusing especially
given the timescale of your one second combat rounds. (ouch! I imagine
fast paced combat is your facet of realism in that setting you were
describing.)
> The risk is that the switch will then fall at a bad
> time. I personally cannot cope with switching among groups of PCs at
> cliffhangers. I can't get my mind off the first group and onto the
> second fast enough. I need switches to fall at logical breakpoints
> as much as possible: places where one group comes to rest and therefore
> it is easy to turn to the other.
Resting points, lulls, or what we usually refer to as "a break for
background roleplaying" is where we usually leave off, unless it's a
temporal realization that we've strayed far past our respective bedtimes,
so to speak, and we leave off at the nearest "containable" moment where
we CAN get a good grasp of the situation quickly in the next session.
Cliffhanging tires my fingers. I can undestand the British fascination
with the "unresolved movie ending," but the current American fascination
with the climax being the logical conclusion is diabolical for a captive
audience.
> Are you imagining a character who doesn't set temporal goals? I would
> still, as a player, need regular back-and-forth alternation to serve
> *my* goals.
Yes. Actually, I do that quite often. A goal is achieved when it's
possible for most of the characters I've been coming up with lately. The
"synchronicity" you were speaking of earlier seems very temporally based
in terms of anticipatory action; I take it this is a direct response to
theatre/scripting of the GM, or part of the planning involved in the
campaign?
On my own part, I'd *hate* to see myself try editing a film with regards
to timing issues. I think I'd find it an incredibly repetitive task of
"retcon." In a purely abstract media like roleplaying, where direct
action and "scene editing" is on the fly, I really don't think I'd be
able to cope. (To put this in Real Life Explanation Mode, I don't own a
watch, a car, a teevee, I walk every where, and haven't used a clock in
years. I just happen to get up before the sun rises and go to work.)
> The extent to which I can succeed in doing this depends on the
> complexity of the mechanics and the time-scale of the combat. In GURPS
> with one-second rounds, for example, if I am switching between six
> characters I really can't do much to represent the individual style
> of each; even a short verbal statement, for example, would have to
> be done in multiple snippits and I just can't keep track. The switching
> is too fast to allow intellectual Immersion, and for me emotional is
> slower. (As I said in another thread, I experience emotions rather
> viscerally, and switching, say, an adrenaline rush on and off is very
> slow for purely physical reasons.) On the other hand, the more you
> slow down the switching the more likely continuity errors are to
> creep in; so it's a tradeoff.
> Our experience has been that running one character, then the next, then
> the next when there is any realistic possibility of interaction between
> them does not work well.
[snip]
> It is practically impossible in my experience for the player to say in
> advance "I can guarantee this PC won't take action in this scene" short
> of the PC being incapable of doing so. Immersive PCs do unexpected
> things now and again, often in response to tiny details that could not
> have been forseen in advance.
I hadn't thought more than the application of multipoint personality
immersion with two characters. You've obviously found it much easier to
completely skip geometrically increasing chances of messing up the
continuity caused by nonparallel immersion and skip to a very short
second-person mode. I was hoping to connect nonconnective (nonparallel?)
simultaneous plotlines by a bit of lateral timetravel. (And what I found
out the most is that your playing abilities are quite different than
mine, though interesting for contrast and theory mongering.)
Do you find it limiting being so visceral, or does it provide more
freedom in other aspects than the ones we were discussing? I think it's
fascinating talking about the impacts of it on other values (such as time
keeping, plot, interaction to some extent) and while I don't enjoy the
obvious continuity you seem to, I work by with my authorship kludges.
Speaking of which: how does this affect your script immunity? In
previous posts from way back I remember you talking about a lack of death
as having absolutely no effect on your character's sense of caution. (A
rather isotopic example, which is why I'm curious as to the full extent
of an effect your immersion might have by means of indirection.) Does it
affect the way you might have power over defining your universe from a
more authorial mode, or do you treat it like you would the above combat
situation, and delegate an understanding in the character's relationship
with the setting with as little loss to continuity as possible?
Mary K. Kuhner
>Are these reactions ever
>crosspollenated at some point or for lack of better terminology, cross
>into a form of the metagame which still interacts as a passive model for
>the character's portrayals?
When I look back on the _Paradisio_ campaign I see about 2/3 of its
thematic qualities purely through the eyes of the character most
strongly involved (usually Jayhawk, who got most of the spotlight
time, and had a story written about her besides). But the remaining
1/3 does involve some kind of blending of perspectives; for example,
if I think of Casey and Channa's long running struggle with Channa's
magical abilities and their personal consequences, I remember
something that is a kind of blend of both their experiences. Channa
started out reluctant and became more accepting. Casey started out
accepting, but found it harder and harder. But what I remember is
the *pair* of them (they were married) trying to reconcile this; more
than Casey's or Channa's individual viewpoint, though that's in there
too. I remember the two of them talking about whether to have children;
I don't see that conversation from one viewpoint or the other
particularly.
If that's not what you mean, I still don't know what you mean.
>This is precisely what I was thinking of. It seems that you have more
>say in the pacing, but perhaps I've misunderstood internal character
>pacing with the story elements and interaction of the setting, and they
>are implemented as separate features of your games (with a good portion
>of the cues of scene cuts being the GM's responsbility).
I'm moderately concerned with character goals being attainable in
an appropriate time space (particularly, within the expected length
of the campaign) due to some frustrating and painful experiences in
the past. But it's pretty much a separate issue from session pacing.
I just don't want to put all my hopes, as a player, in continuations
that will never occur in the game.
>I can easily agree with you about switching between two sets of
>apparently simultaneous combats. That would be confusing especially
>given the timescale of your one second combat rounds. (ouch! I imagine
>fast paced combat is your facet of realism in that setting you were
>describing.)
I don't actually use one-second rounds by choice; they were just a handy
example. I've come to favor non-timed, but fairly short (maybe 10-20
seconds) rounds.
>> Are you imagining a character who doesn't set temporal goals? I would
>> still, as a player, need regular back-and-forth alternation to serve
>> *my* goals.
>Yes. Actually, I do that quite often. A goal is achieved when it's
>possible for most of the characters I've been coming up with lately. The
>"synchronicity" you were speaking of earlier seems very temporally based
>in terms of anticipatory action; I take it this is a direct response to
>theatre/scripting of the GM, or part of the planning involved in the
>campaign?
The GM scripts very little; he would be a simulationist if I let him
alone, but I require a certain amount of coddling (script immunity,
some control over strength of opposition) to enjoy the game fully.
I don't think my concerns are about GM plotting, but about my own
plotting; for example, if I design a character who is fun to play mainly
because she's working and planning towards a certain goal, I'm
frustrated if it turns out that no progress can be made in the whole
lifetime of the campaign, or conversely if she accomplishes her goal
in session #1 and is left bewildered.
>(To put this in Real Life Explanation Mode, I don't own a
>watch, a car, a teevee, I walk every where, and haven't used a clock in
>years. I just happen to get up before the sun rises and go to work.)
Neat. I don't have a watch, car, or TV either. My concern with
synchonicity is not how long something takes so much as the preservation
of causality: Vikki did this, therefore Chernoi did that, therefore
Markus did the other, and I want those in order. I need to cut back
and forth among characters often enough to maintain adequate causality;
how often that is varies (extremely often in close combat, extremely
seldom if the characters have, say, gone off to spy on several different
groups and aren't getting together again for weeks).
I'm not real tolerant of causality violations. I need to end up with
sets of memories that make sense.
Incidentally, although the GM is also fairly unconcerned about time, he
sometimes uses the wall clock to determine the duration of conversations
when they are scheduled to be interrupted; "let's see if the PC can
keep this NPC talking for fifteen minutes, until help arrives." He
doesn't say when he's doing this, but it's the only time he stares
at the clock, a hint it's hard to overlook....
>You've obviously found it much easier to
>completely skip geometrically increasing chances of messing up the
>continuity caused by nonparallel immersion and skip to a very short
>second-person mode. I was hoping to connect nonconnective (nonparallel?)
>simultaneous plotlines by a bit of lateral timetravel.
Yes, an interesting contrast. One important question would be "How happy
is the player to have foreknowledge of the future?" For example, are
you willing to play out a scene where you are trying to rescue your
sister, if you know from evidence gained in a different line that she
is in fact already dead and cannot be rescued? Or is already safe
and sound at home? I don't enjoy this, which increases my reluctance
to play things out of order. On the other hand, many players don't mind,
and even enjoy it as "dramatic irony."
>Do you find it limiting being so visceral, or does it provide more
>freedom in other aspects than the ones we were discussing?
Given the choice, I'd prefer to be able to suddenly stop feeling angry
or amorous on demand, rather than having to wait for biochemistry to
run its course.... On the other hand, the biochemical reaction
probably makes it harder to distract me, which is sometimes an
asset. Who knows? I don't get to try being the other way for
comparison's sake.
>Speaking of which: how does this affect your script immunity? In
>previous posts from way back I remember you talking about a lack of death
>as having absolutely no effect on your character's sense of caution. (A
>rather isotopic example, which is why I'm curious as to the full extent
>of an effect your immersion might have by means of indirection.)
That puzzled me too. All I can say is that the character in question is
cautious by temperment and has a vivid imagination. When I am playing
her I can "see" extremely clearly what the dangers are, and that
overrides any sense of safety the knowledge of Script Immunity ought to
give me. It's very much like an acrophobe looking through a glass
window at a 20 story drop. The intellectual knowledge of the glass
fails to override the visceral fear of the fall.
This was purely a pest in the actual game because we did Script
Immunity specifically so that I'd play less cautiously--it was dragging
the game down. The character in question is party leader, so if
she's paranoid, everyone's paranoid. But it didn't really work--
or rather, I did play a little more bravely, but not as much as I'd
have liked. I couldn't do better, though, without forfeiting Immersion
with that PC.
We had a similar problem in _Paradisio_ except without even the
cold comfort of Script Immunity. The GM, frustrated by my over-
cautious play, designed a new PC to add to the party who was both
highly capable and totally fearless. I didn't think this would do
any good--*I* was demoralized, not just my PCs--but to my surprise it
worked very well. The new character, Duende, "clicked" for me
easily and he really was fearless; this gave me a non-fearful view
of the situation, which helped me with my own morale problems.
Weird but efective. (However, we've tried this in other games and
never again gotten it to work.)
>Does it
>affect the way you might have power over defining your universe from a
>more authorial mode, or do you treat it like you would the above combat
>situation, and delegate an understanding in the character's relationship
>with the setting with as little loss to continuity as possible?
My main Authorial power comes in defining background, which I've done a
lot of; but I seldom do it while actually playing a character. I think
about background between games and tell the GM, in my own persona, what
I've come up with so that he can accept/reject. It's pretty much a
separate activity.
In a few cases I've been able to combine Author and IC the way Kevin
described his player's mage-masterwork scene. This feels wonderful
but is hard to duplicate or sustain.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
rho...@mnsi.net
In article <5npi83$5...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> When I look back on the _Paradisio_ campaign I see about 2/3 of its
> thematic qualities purely through the eyes of the character most
> strongly involved (usually Jayhawk, who got most of the spotlight
> time, and had a story written about her besides). But the remaining
> 1/3 does involve some kind of blending of perspectives; for example,
[snip]
> I remember the two of them talking about whether to have children;
> I don't see that conversation from one viewpoint or the other
> particularly.
This easily falls into the crossover communication I was thinking of.
The story itself at some point becomes an acceptable third person
perspective. I imagine you only get this during your off-time, while
you're doing your background authoring?
My only difference is that I tend to get this third person "effect"
while I'm playing, in a passive sense. My immersion isn't nearly as
"deep" as yours, and I don't tend toward writing in my off-time; but I
tend to be instinctual on my authorship in play as compensation and they
often strike me inspirationally as I build instant "background" from them
in a consistent way. Personally, I'd like to switch methodologies with
you to see how yours works, in vivo; in practice I suspect they're very
similiar for `results' generation, but I have a similar suspicions that
they allow different characters to thrive under similar genre conditions.
> I'm moderately concerned with character goals being attainable in
> an appropriate time space (particularly, within the expected length
> of the campaign) due to some frustrating and painful experiences in
> the past. But it's pretty much a separate issue from session pacing.
> I just don't want to put all my hopes, as a player, in continuations
> that will never occur in the game.
Unless that is a character concept, I can see it as definitely
frustrating. For the characters themselves it destroys their `personal
inner pacing.' Whether it relates to the metagame aspect of succeeding
doesn't really enter into it; your own hopes, therefore, would leave you
with a Pyrric victory of sorts with some vague (but lesser?)
dissatisfaction. Most of the times I've been hit with this, I've
actually quit the game.
In a metaphorical fashion, the nonparallel immersion we discussed might
be a good analogy for this situationally: sometimes the character and
setting don't mix well because of conditions of goal orientation or even
method of conclusion.
Do you vicariously experience your characters' personal victories during
your immersive play, and differentiate it after playing is over into
"gamist" victories (that might or might not be inclusive)?
> I don't actually use one-second rounds by choice; they were just a handy
> example. I've come to favor non-timed, but fairly short (maybe 10-20
> seconds) rounds.
That seems more seasoned for most of the settings I've played in. I
wonder how well a simple action-based timing mechanic would work in
comparison? As long as you get a feeling for pacing, you could probably
do away with turns as anything but transparent abstractions. I don't
think it would matter a whit in play, however if it's streamlined enough
to GM without calling out the rounds.
One thing I am curious about, though, that this leads to is character
interaction on a longer scale than a round. I like the "gestalt combat"
idea that was thrown around recently in rgfm, but I think it needs some
modularity. If the characters can envision general tactics, emotive
responses, and the like in realtime, more interaction might take place in
scales of three or more rounds, or some more arbitrary number dictated by
story pacing. (A good mechanical way of demonstrating where the natural
climax ought to be, by using a finer scale at some point, at the GM's
discretion, unless the fight is controlled mostly by the player(s)?)
In specie, how would your characters react to something this overt?
Would your later-game recollection be perceived differently?
> >Yes. Actually, I do that quite often. A goal is achieved when it's
> >possible for most of the characters I've been coming up with lately. The
> >"synchronicity" you were speaking of earlier seems very temporally based
> >in terms of anticipatory action; I take it this is a direct response to
> >theatre/scripting of the GM, or part of the planning involved in the
> >campaign?
>
> The GM scripts very little; he would be a simulationist if I let him
> alone, but I require a certain amount of coddling (script immunity,
> some control over strength of opposition) to enjoy the game fully.
> I don't think my concerns are about GM plotting, but about my own
> plotting; for example, if I design a character who is fun to play mainly
> because she's working and planning towards a certain goal, I'm
> frustrated if it turns out that no progress can be made in the whole
> lifetime of the campaign, or conversely if she accomplishes her goal
> in session #1 and is left bewildered.
Does your GM feel sometimes that the strength is a part of the plot? Or
a meta game indicator of anticipation, and scales all of the following
actions to it in order to keep its context in the game, or its
relationship to the setting consistent?
I'm assuming that your character might be temporarily frustrated by not
completing a goal at some directed time, but if it eventually gets
accomplished the satisfaction is the same. Do you think goals make up a
large part of your character's motivation (for its relationship to the
setting, and your relationship to the character)?
> Neat. I don't have a watch, car, or TV either. My concern with
> synchonicity is not how long something takes so much as the preservation
> of causality: Vikki did this, therefore Chernoi did that, therefore
> Markus did the other, and I want those in order. I need to cut back
> and forth among characters often enough to maintain adequate causality;
> how often that is varies (extremely often in close combat, extremely
> seldom if the characters have, say, gone off to spy on several different
> groups and aren't getting together again for weeks).
>
> I'm not real tolerant of causality violations. I need to end up with
> sets of memories that make sense.
I think I much better understand your basis after this explanation. I
was thinking in terms of abstract framework, but you use directed
causality to "remember" things after the fact, flowcharting the action
into useful tidbits as a datamining tool for understanding the pacing as
the structure; as opposed to trying to get the structure firsthand, and
creating detailed context from it, which is what I do. (I think. Jolt's
losing its goal orientation with my hemoglobin...)
> Incidentally, although the GM is also fairly unconcerned about time, he
> sometimes uses the wall clock to determine the duration of conversations
> when they are scheduled to be interrupted; "let's see if the PC can
> keep this NPC talking for fifteen minutes, until help arrives." He
> doesn't say when he's doing this, but it's the only time he stares
> at the clock, a hint it's hard to overlook....
That is an excellent cue. I haven't seen that one done in ages, but I
remember first playing arpeegees with exactness to critical "real world"
detail, and it working out beautifully. I think I agree with your
prognosis of your GM being a simulationist at heart. Personally, though,
I wonder what his goal orientation is and how it relates to your own.
I've always heard talk of players and GMs being somewhat frustrated by
each other because of this, but when it works, is it because of his
personal metagame goals, or certain entities desires in the game world?
> >You've obviously found it much easier to
> >completely skip geometrically increasing chances of messing up the
> >continuity caused by nonparallel immersion and skip to a very short
> >second-person mode. I was hoping to connect nonconnective (nonparallel?)
> >simultaneous plotlines by a bit of lateral timetravel.
>
> Yes, an interesting contrast. One important question would be "How happy
> is the player to have foreknowledge of the future?" For example, are
> you willing to play out a scene where you are trying to rescue your
> sister, if you know from evidence gained in a different line that she
> is in fact already dead and cannot be rescued? Or is already safe
> and sound at home? I don't enjoy this, which increases my reluctance
> to play things out of order. On the other hand, many players don't mind,
> and even enjoy it as "dramatic irony."
I think this very heavily depends on genre. And what genre does to the
settings realism. For instance, if time is simultaneous, nonstatic, or
fixed, things will resolve themselves differently, even if it is
metagame, unconscious belief of the characters, or some physical evidence
the character can thereby share knowledge of (if they can compare
different temporal perspectives with someone outside their `temporal
envelope,' event horizon, or whatever alternative label that best suits
your setting understanding).
That dramatic irony example might serve as a good demonstrative of genre
directly influencing character action. I'd like to play with the concept
of anti-goals if it's a viable concern, though; I think it might be
interesting, and certainly fitting for typical anti-heroic quests.
[snip my question about cautious character]
> That puzzled me too. All I can say is that the character in question is
> cautious by temperment and has a vivid imagination. When I am playing
> her I can "see" extremely clearly what the dangers are, and that
> overrides any sense of safety the knowledge of Script Immunity ought to
> give me. It's very much like an acrophobe looking through a glass
> window at a 20 story drop. The intellectual knowledge of the glass
> fails to override the visceral fear of the fall.
It seems like she has a form of metagaming behaviour, and that "allowed"
her to refuse another kind of `intrusive reality.' If it was a lurking
horror campaign, or had the possibility of such, I'd be curious as to
whether she would paradoxically become fearless as she wouldn't have a
"barrier" in the actual gaming world to that kind of instrusion. (Which
is a good deal of the horror involved from what I've read of the
literature.)
> We had a similar problem in _Paradisio_ except without even the
> cold comfort of Script Immunity. The GM, frustrated by my over-
> cautious play, designed a new PC to add to the party who was both
> highly capable and totally fearless. I didn't think this would do
> any good--*I* was demoralized, not just my PCs--but to my surprise it
> worked very well. The new character, Duende, "clicked" for me
> easily and he really was fearless; this gave me a non-fearful view
> of the situation, which helped me with my own morale problems.
> Weird but efective. (However, we've tried this in other games and
> never again gotten it to work.)
Given your style of play, it should be a workable technique. Possibly it
was the teamwork involved in being part of that one particular group? Or
the sheer amount of fear that caused her to instantly (and through her
latent metagame communicational need, you) to bond with Duende?
They say there's nothing to make friends like near death experiences.
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <8662510...@dejanews.com> rho...@mnsi.net writes:
> mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>> I remember the two of them talking about whether to have children;
>> I don't see that conversation from one viewpoint or the other
>> particularly.
>This easily falls into the crossover communication I was thinking of.
>The story itself at some point becomes an acceptable third person
>perspective. I imagine you only get this during your off-time, while
>you're doing your background authoring?
Something happens when one is trying to do both sides of a conversation.
I can't do huge multi-way conversations in anything but Author mode,
but two PCs conversing can be done in some kind of pseudo-Immersion,
not the real thing but closely related. I believe it works by knowing
both characters quite well, so that one can "coast" while the player
inhabits the other. The "coasting" character's dialog comes more
or less from Author, but the momentum of Immersion is maintained.
For example, if Markus is ribbing Chernoi once more about her
unwillingness to use her psi powers, I can remember how Chernoi
felt last time he did that, and come up with her dialog just
from that memory, without having to drop Markus' point of view
completely and pick up hers.
A while back I tried to write up the thought processes involved in
a two-way PC conversation; you might try Deja News, as I don't have
a copy any longer.
I once had the pleasure of seeing my GM do an eight-way conversation
more or less Immersively. It was a highly stylized conversation
in which the speakers took turns questioning one another (and the
one PC present), which helped a lot; but it was still an amazing
tour de force. A wonderful scene, too; one might expect the
player to feel upstaged, but I didn't at all. However, the
kind of "on a roll" inspiration that allows this is not very
common in our experience.
>Personally, I'd like to switch methodologies with
>you to see how yours works, in vivo; in practice I suspect they're very
>similiar for `results' generation, but I have a similar suspicions that
>they allow different characters to thrive under similar genre conditions.
So let's hear about some of your characters, to test hypotheses!
(I feel as though I have been telling interminable anecdotes, like
a proud parent of sextuplets.)
>Do you vicariously experience your characters' personal victories during
>your immersive play, and differentiate it after playing is over into
>"gamist" victories (that might or might not be inclusive)?
Our group esthetics require me not to use (too many) gamist principles
to determine PC actions, but they don't forbid me to enjoy the pleasures
of the game-as-game; I'm quite happy to chortle over amazing die rolls
and contemplate good ways to spend EXP, as long as it doesn't get in
the way of the more intense Immersion pleasures.
Generally speaking, if the PC triumphs I am pleased; but not necessarily
the reverse. I recall one bit of _Radiant_ that we decided right away
to retcon, because it killed two PCs and a key NPC and completely
destroyed the campaign; but we ended up talking through the entire
continuation anyway, because it was so damned beautiful, like a Greek
tragedy. Probably on a much higher esthetic level than most of the
game. Possibly the best continuation if one were writing a tragedy,
but no use as part of a continuing game.
So I don't tend to sort out character victories into "real to the
player" and "not real to the player", except in the case where I
know via OOC information that the PC victory is false. I hate that,
and try to avoid it wherever possible. I equally dislike situations
where the PCs think they failed, but the player knows it was really
a success; I cherish the PC experience of triumph, and the player
experience, and I'm greedy enough to want *both*.
>As long as you get a feeling for pacing, you could probably
>do away with turns as anything but transparent abstractions. I don't
>think it would matter a whit in play, however if it's streamlined enough
>to GM without calling out the rounds.
The main use of calling out turns is to avoid skipping a PC by accident,
a real risk when there are six. In the _Sun in Splendor_ campaign,
where there were ludicrously many PCs, I used 4x6 index cards, and
when I'd gone through the whole deck that was one round. This is
not the way to get roleplaying in combat, admittedly. I don't think
there was any way to get roleplaying in combat with that many PCs.
>(A good mechanical way of demonstrating where the natural
>climax ought to be, by using a finer scale at some point, at the GM's
>discretion, unless the fight is controlled mostly by the player(s)?)
My experience is that in our more simulationist games no one is really
in control of fight pacing; but we've never tried using variable-
length rounds.
>In specie, how would your characters react to something this overt?
>Would your later-game recollection be perceived differently?
I don't know. I'd need a more concrete example of what you mean;
I'm finding the idea hard to follow.
>Does your GM feel sometimes that the strength is a part of the plot? Or
>a meta game indicator of anticipation, and scales all of the following
>actions to it in order to keep its context in the game, or its
>relationship to the setting consistent?
He doesn't think primarily about "plot" but about "world." If, in
scrutinizing his game world, it is found that most problems the
PCs might want to tackle are too hard for them, then we have a problem.
If he plotted more he could adjust the difficulty; adjusting a world
is much harder.
The fact that both of us, as gamers, rather like grand earthshaking
events doesn't help here. We'll play towards such a continuation,
then realize with a nasty start at session's end that we've upped
the stakes too high, or written ourselves into a corner.
>Do you think goals make up a
>large part of your character's motivation (for its relationship to the
>setting, and your relationship to the character)?
It varies from character to character. In a group, at least one
PC must be goal-oriented enough to provide direction, as my GM does
not like to push constantly to make the PCs act. The PC's goals
may arise during the campaign or be pre-generated, but they must be
strong enough to motivate the group. No Reluctant Heroes as party
leader.
The extent to which I, as player, am goal-oriented seems to vary
over the course of the campaign. At the beginning of _Paradisio_ I
was just enjoying the various things the characters did, and the
challenges they met. But about midway through I developed a *very*
strong desire, as a player, to see the PCs destroy Paradisio (their
main enemy) or die trying. I would have far preferred them to
die trying rather than flounder, unable to hurt Paradisio, even if
there were other things to be done--I was obsessed. (So were they,
as it happens.) I didn't plan to react that way, and it was quite
awkward--the GM had not put any design work into making the destruction
of Paradisio possible, because he'd assumed that if it turned out to
be too hard, the PCs would find a different goal, and so would the
player.
My main problem with character successes that are deferred for a
long time is that having been in quite a few camapaigns where the
GM suddenly lost interest, I'm never comfortable that long-deferred
successes will actually arrive.
[causality]
>I was thinking in terms of abstract framework, but you use directed
>causality to "remember" things after the fact, flowcharting the action
>into useful tidbits as a datamining tool for understanding the pacing as
>the structure; as opposed to trying to get the structure firsthand, and
>creating detailed context from it, which is what I do. (I think. Jolt's
>losing its goal orientation with my hemoglobin...)
Care to try an example?
[wall clock to time a conversation]
>I think I agree with your
>prognosis of your GM being a simulationist at heart. Personally, though,
>I wonder what his goal orientation is and how it relates to your own.
>I've always heard talk of players and GMs being somewhat frustrated by
>each other because of this, but when it works, is it because of his
>personal metagame goals, or certain entities desires in the game world?
I think it's pretty much a simulationist manuver; and using the wall
clock lets him concentrate on doing the conversation (he tends to
run major NPCs fairly Immersively) rather than having to worry about
"how long should it be, dramatically or simulationally, before the
cavalry arrives?"
>[snip question about cautious character]
>It seems like she has a form of metagaming behaviour, and that "allowed"
>her to refuse another kind of `intrusive reality.' If it was a lurking
>horror campaign, or had the possibility of such, I'd be curious as to
>whether she would paradoxically become fearless as she wouldn't have a
>"barrier" in the actual gaming world to that kind of instrusion. (Which
>is a good deal of the horror involved from what I've read of the
>literature.)
Jon's campaigns are always potentially horror, and Chernoi is by
no means fearless, though she tends to fear prudential problems
prudently but be fairly brave about existential ones. I don't think
I'm following your argument about why horror would break down whatever
barrier is in action here; I'm particularly unclear on what "metagaming"
a character could possibly do on her own behalf.
>> The GM, frustrated by my over-
>> cautious play, designed a new PC to add to the party who was both
>> highly capable and totally fearless. I didn't think this would do
>> any good--*I* was demoralized, not just my PCs--but to my surprise it
>> worked very well.
>Given your style of play, it should be a workable technique. Possibly it
>was the teamwork involved in being part of that one particular group?
The next time we tried it, the newly-inserted character remained
resolutely a piece of cardboard; I could never shake myself of the
awareness that he had been invented just to make the game work
better, and so wasn't "real". I would have expected that with
Duende at well, but for some reason that particular
characterization--worked out cooperatively by the GM and me, since
Duende was a former agent of Paradisio and thus his background
was set by the GM--clicked right away and strongly. I needed more
than to know that one character was fearless; I needed to *experience*
him being fearless, and for some reason with Duende, but not with
the other character, this was readily accessible.
Teamwork may have been one variable; the Paradiso PCs, by necessity,
were a very close-knit group, whereas the PCs in the other campaign
were more the usual motly lot of adventurers with weak ties between
them.
We had a long period of weird play where the other PCs were trying
to decide whether to accept Duende; the GM helpfully relieved me
of some of my firewall concerns by making it clear that Duende *might*,
unbeknownst to even himself, be a traitor to the party, so that both
my other PCs and I were worrying in the same ways.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
rho...@mnsi.net
In article <5nt9kp$7...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> Something happens when one is trying to do both sides of a conversation.
> I can't do huge multi-way conversations in anything but Author mode,
> but two PCs conversing can be done in some kind of pseudo-Immersion,
> not the real thing but closely related. I believe it works by knowing
> both characters quite well, so that one can "coast" while the player
> inhabits the other. The "coasting" character's dialog comes more
> or less from Author, but the momentum of Immersion is maintained.
That is exactly the sort of thing I get the few times I've tried GMing a
few NPCs at once. I use it as a sort of precognitive branch decision.
When I'm playing a combative character, or rather, someone who thinks
with their body while in combat, I tend to use the emotional "coasting" I
mentioned earlier and you seem to be describing now. Intuitively deduced,
authorship doesn't deal with relationships well, though, and this does.
To "maximize" the comparison of authorship seems to entail describing
from first or third person omniscience and mapping it onto a relational
quasi-first person immersion.
I'm literally scared of examples, since I never related to them
throughout my education, but here goes. The way I reference my
characters are typically through identification of their niche in society
so identity is a big portion of character description.
My first Shadowrun character, Yolanda Twines, was a concept character
about a street girl who was really big on extended families of
mercenaries and was taught a mystical version of combat training, very
much influenced by the Dorsai novels by Gordon R. Dickson. She was a
relatively big pink-skinned Ork with a good smattering of street sense in
her too, very much living on the edge that way, to the near point of
achieving zen with any overt action.
After being acquainted with the group as a potential ally, she found
herself in the situation where a target was found and made to
"cooperate." The others, all purely mercenary themselves, were willing
to pull guns and shoot parts off. Yolanda was genuinely afraid; only
crazy people would DO that. Bravado and playing the bully on the street
was one thing, and she proved she enjoyed knocking him around a bit and
playing the bully, getting information incidentally when that happened.
Analysis given the above statements? She and I were both surprised by
the action of the others, and her reaction to it. While being raised by
a few mercenrary types, they were _family_. I wouldn't refer to what I
was doing as completely immersive first person; watching the reactions of
the others as they were occuring before she realized what was happening,
and dimly OOC realizing what was happening, really predicated her
eventual solution: to let the weasel go and cover him with enough bruises
for what she relationally thought of as her new "gang" to not gainsay her
private decision.
There are elements of immersion in it, but how she realizes her
relationship doesn't strike me as very immersive at all except by
incidence, though the effects ARE.
> A while back I tried to write up the thought processes involved in
> a two-way PC conversation; you might try Deja News, as I don't have
> a copy any longer.
I'll give it a look. As it is, I use Dejanews because my own ISP's
newsserver is disgustingly slow and seems stuck in a gravity well.
> I once had the pleasure of seeing my GM do an eight-way conversation
> more or less Immersively. It was a highly stylized conversation
> in which the speakers took turns questioning one another (and the
> one PC present), which helped a lot; but it was still an amazing
> tour de force. A wonderful scene, too; one might expect the
> player to feel upstaged, but I didn't at all. However, the
> kind of "on a roll" inspiration that allows this is not very
> common in our experience.
Personally, I don't think that would be possible with me. I think the
best I've come to realize has been three at once. I can "cheat" by
having a few off-stage, which seems to add a bit of context to the NPC's
`waiting' for their turn to speak without outright hitting into author
mode to show their actions as a means of personification.
I wouldn't feel upstaged so much as either awed or "there," or both. I
imagine some people would consider this part of the game too, outdoing
the other.
> >Personally, I'd like to switch methodologies with
> >you to see how yours works, in vivo; in practice I suspect they're very
> >similiar for `results' generation, but I have a similar suspicions that
> >they allow different characters to thrive under similar genre conditions.
>
> So let's hear about some of your characters, to test hypotheses!
> (I feel as though I have been telling interminable anecdotes, like
> a proud parent of sextuplets.)
Sometimes the anecdotes tell things besides character information though.
Style works in tandem on a personal scale with genre, and knowing where
they meet is useful.
> >Do you vicariously experience your characters' personal victories during
> >your immersive play, and differentiate it after playing is over into
> >"gamist" victories (that might or might not be inclusive)?
>
> Our group esthetics require me not to use (too many) gamist principles
> to determine PC actions, but they don't forbid me to enjoy the pleasures
> of the game-as-game; I'm quite happy to chortle over amazing die rolls
> and contemplate good ways to spend EXP, as long as it doesn't get in
> the way of the more intense Immersion pleasures.
I wish I had more experience playing games like CoC where the
pseudo-experience was more directly related to the skill's expanded
usefulness in question, because I tend towards abstracting almost totally
within group or character goals, as opposed to what some might call
natural development; though the two usually go together, sometimes they
don't.
For instance, Mofolo Lui, my wry halfbreed Korean/African Stargazer from
Werewolf used almost every single experience point he had scurried up and
plopped it into a good spirit for our fledling pack. He saw the
importance of finding the right spirit above and beyond anyone else in
the group, and sought it out instead of a more natural development with
practicing his own skills of which his illustrious mentor was constantly
trying to develop in him. Both were worth goals for the pack, but it was
an all-or-nothing expenditure that I think needed to be done _then_. The
pacing in the story was right too, which made it the harder to refuse the
temptation.
> Possibly the best continuation if one were writing a tragedy,
> but no use as part of a continuing game.
>
> So I don't tend to sort out character victories into "real to the
> player" and "not real to the player", except in the case where I
> know via OOC information that the PC victory is false. I hate that,
> and try to avoid it wherever possible. I equally dislike situations
> where the PCs think they failed, but the player knows it was really
> a success; I cherish the PC experience of triumph, and the player
> experience, and I'm greedy enough to want *both*.
I've never had much of a problem with my opinion being different from the
PC's I was playing, or for that matter, much of the other player's or
their PCs', all of whom might have conflicting opinions on the matter. I
wouldn't consider the ersatz personality to have any more nor less a
subjectively real explanation and cosmology than mine. I think this
might be different in your case, though, in reflection. Some people take
some facet of themselves for a personality base of the character, and if
one believes something and the other doesn't, it smacks of a lack of
exterior information clouding the truth, not of one being objectively
false or not.
> The main use of calling out turns is to avoid skipping a PC by accident,
> a real risk when there are six. In the _Sun in Splendor_ campaign,
> where there were ludicrously many PCs, I used 4x6 index cards, and
> when I'd gone through the whole deck that was one round. This is
> not the way to get roleplaying in combat, admittedly. I don't think
> there was any way to get roleplaying in combat with that many PCs.
I've always found that everybody *having* to take their "turn" to be
unrealistic. I've never seen or played differently myself except rarely,
but how many times do people pause just for an instant in a fight and
lose their chance at an opportunity in real life and in movies? Or in
the medieval siege battlefield, somebody steps in to relieve you
momentarily and the line "moves" appropriately with the correct timing
rather than breaking.
Even breaking "combat" to do something else, like !duck! doesn't come
about very often, because most players would lose the momentum of combat
flow and sense of accomplishment.
Yolanda, when she was attempting to stop a possible hit and run from a
small rogue but extemely professional mercenary shadow group that works
in the seedier aspects of corporate culture on a more favourably disposed
group whom we had worked with in the past, waited for the festivities to
begin. When drove up on her customized cycle and tossed a concussive
grenade in after the others had assured its rear door would be opened in
time, she did another drive by, shunted an NPC aside, and went "in" after
dislodging her axe. Something in the reaction I was getting from the
others, and the NPCs I could see and their reactions emotionally felt
"wrong," and I immediately ducked after I realized there was somebody
waiting for me inside.
I had a good idea of everybody else's emotions at the time, and I could
infer the NPC's well too, but there seemed to be a missing "link" when I
was emotionally "coasting" (or passively using the possibly metagamic
omniscient perspective). I was using it to decide where she would be and
tried to figure out when somebody would time their initiative for
attacking purposes. For instance, she did a hit and run first, then back
around to open up the opposition outside (from the near complex and an
extra one who had opened the van), and when most likely only personal
danger, to enter.
The ducking was right before the climax, and the action later on would
easily be anti-climax. As it happened, the NPC inside had been shielded,
and had something obviously restricted. We had hints that they were all
magical adepts earlier on, so retrospectively this was no big surprise.
Sorry if the above two paragraphs are hopelessly messy, but the situation
is very hard to imagine again in a rational light of what I did and why,
with the exception of timing.
> My experience is that in our more simulationist games no one is really
> in control of fight pacing; but we've never tried using variable-
> length rounds.
Then I would guess your combative story arcs are more successfully
related to the main story than the ones I've seen.
> >In specie, how would your characters react to something this overt?
> >Would your later-game recollection be perceived differently?
>
> I don't know. I'd need a more concrete example of what you mean;
> I'm finding the idea hard to follow.
In trying to recollect Yolanda's van fight scene, I found it incredibly
difficult, and needed to relate to the major impetus action reference
points to tell it: opening the van, cycle and grenade, back around, and
duck, and anticlimax. Unlike other situations that might have happened,
Yolanda didn't get a "chance" to finish off the threat. Something I
rather paradoxically enjoyed, as it provided her with that anticlimax and
possibly delayed the others'. (An erstwhile and indirect spotlight
effect?)
In its seeming, I have problems identifying exactly how many rounds
occured between these actions. I certainly hadn't intended for those
results, and hadn't paced them in accord as a player, but they occured
naturally. I'm not entirely sure whether it's not my recollection
reorganizing it into more story-defined timing, though.
> >Does your GM feel sometimes that the strength is a part of the plot? Or
> >a meta game indicator of anticipation, and scales all of the following
> >actions to it in order to keep its context in the game, or its
> >relationship to the setting consistent?
>
> He doesn't think primarily about "plot" but about "world." If, in
> scrutinizing his game world, it is found that most problems the
> PCs might want to tackle are too hard for them, then we have a problem.
> If he plotted more he could adjust the difficulty; adjusting a world
> is much harder.
Ah. Thank you very much for this feedback. I had used the wrong word to
describe the common thought we were trying to communicate. I had
intended "plot" to have meant an aspect of the player's view of the world
at a particular point in time.
Much like a marketer will point out a "price point" on a graph as an
"entry level for our product," I was thinking in terms of a plot as
character-level world intrusion.
So if your GM had made the baddies too bad or too good, and he had to
scale them to be more in line with your abilities, expectations, and what
his expectations on the implications of the resultant fray on the world,
would he have to do much work redesigning aspects of the world? (Which
is what I think you were talking about when the level of the game and its
odds increase and the only recourse is to change the world.)
^ The fact that both of us, as gamers, rather like grand earthshaking
^ events doesn't help here. We'll play towards such a continuation,
^ then realize with a nasty start at session's end that we've upped
^ the stakes too high, or written ourselves into a corner.
> The extent to which I, as player, am goal-oriented seems to vary
> over the course of the campaign. At the beginning of _Paradisio_ I
> was just enjoying the various things the characters did, and the
> challenges they met. But about midway through I developed a *very*
> strong desire, as a player, to see the PCs destroy Paradisio (their
> main enemy) or die trying. I would have far preferred them to
> die trying rather than flounder, unable to hurt Paradisio, even if
> there were other things to be done--I was obsessed. (So were they,
> as it happens.) I didn't plan to react that way, and it was quite
> awkward--the GM had not put any design work into making the destruction
> of Paradisio possible, because he'd assumed that if it turned out to
> be too hard, the PCs would find a different goal, and so would the
> player.
I don't think it was a matter of not forseeing the collapse or defeat of
Paradisio, but that you're starting to get into genre territory. It
seems from the name of the enemy, the fact that you were so diametrically
opposed to their side, and even the turned former associate being on your
side, all add up to a (if you don't laugh too hard) G.I. Joe vs.
Serpentor affair; or alternatively a Legends variation. You can't really
defeat Paraidiso because it would absolutely take the definition out of
the world. Then again, in another story arc, you might potentially have
a tragedy or learning experience with the aftermath.
Tragedies have a good deal of foreshadowing and sometimes even prophetic
knowledge in the main characters (Pandora, Tiresias and indirectly
Oedipus, Agamemnon's daughter Iphigenia, Cassandra, even
Proteus/Prometheus, et alia) and sometimes winning _a_ victory is _the_
defeat (emphasis on the definite and indefinite articles).
Sometimes epic campaigns need ends. Sometimes leaving them partially
unwrapped in and of itself tells a good deal. And sometimes tragic
endings are the best in settings like those for the both of you.
Sometimes when I've come across an ending I don't think is personalized
enough, or seems to envelop the feelings and concepts I've gotten out of
the campaign or adventure, I imagine it for myself a bit further.
> My main problem with character successes that are deferred for a
> long time is that having been in quite a few camapaigns where the
> GM suddenly lost interest, I'm never comfortable that long-deferred
> successes will actually arrive.
The times I've seen this happen, it's usually the players and not the
(inhumanly patient) GMs. Some are just best suited with an anything-goes
character-driven setting, and some absolutely need their story and
concept arcs. Unfortunately for me, my expectations usually fall into
the latter category most of the time, and especially when I GM.
> [causality]
>
> >I was thinking in terms of abstract framework, but you use directed
> >causality to "remember" things after the fact, flowcharting the action
> >into useful tidbits as a datamining tool for understanding the pacing as
> >the structure; as opposed to trying to get the structure firsthand, and
> >creating detailed context from it, which is what I do. (I think. Jolt's
> >losing its goal orientation with my hemoglobin...)
>
> Care to try an example?
Of the Jolt, or the flowcharting? &-)~
In either case, I think I've exemplified it with Yolanda's action
sequence with the van, and my utter confusion of possible events. One
easier to explain example is when you're writing something, possibly out
of your depth, and you need to distance yourself from it for a few days
in order for it to reassemble itself in an ordering that makes more sense
from an objective light. (ie, an alternative to "getting too close to
your work.")
Sometimes the structure suggests a definition as in
Causality/Timing/Action trigram working along similar lines of
Speed/Time/Distance. It seems hair-brained, but it also seems to
describe the effects.
Paraphrasing: In your case, you seem to use Causality, and Timing to
understand the of Action, resulting with the whole organizational
structure. I use the structure and action to get the causality and
timing. Look at the way I remembered it; I might have re-edited the
relevancy to this away though. I _was_ having trouble remembering that
action set correctly, probably due to it being more immersive than I
previously thought in some critical (to recollection) ways.
> [wall clock to time a conversation]
>
> I think it's pretty much a simulationist manuver; and using the wall
> clock lets him concentrate on doing the conversation (he tends to
> run major NPCs fairly Immersively) rather than having to worry about
> "how long should it be, dramatically or simulationally, before the
> cavalry arrives?"
That is an interesting observation. In my case, I wouldn't be worried
about it, possibly because the players I'm with usually need more time
than real time to come up with something good if their character happens
to be smarter or more adept in the situation than they are. That's why I
naturally assumed that it was because he was trying to model a situation,
instead of a conversation.
> >[snip question about cautious character]
>
> >It seems like she has a form of metagaming behaviour, and that "allowed"
> >her to refuse another kind of `intrusive reality.' If it was a lurking
> >horror campaign, or had the possibility of such, I'd be curious as to
> >whether she would paradoxically become fearless as she wouldn't have a
> >"barrier" in the actual gaming world to that kind of instrusion. (Which
> >is a good deal of the horror involved from what I've read of the
> >literature.)
>
> Jon's campaigns are always potentially horror, and Chernoi is by
> no means fearless, though she tends to fear prudential problems
> prudently but be fairly brave about existential ones. I don't think
> I'm following your argument about why horror would break down whatever
> barrier is in action here; I'm particularly unclear on what "metagaming"
> a character could possibly do on her own behalf.
The "metagaming behaviour" that I'm talking about might be metaphorical
on a level that you experience immersively (or partially immersively). I
find it interesting that even if it doesn't come out being directly
related, that Chernoi doesn't fear what you call "existential problems,"
the sort of things that I would call the intrusive realities of Clive
Barker and his lot on the character's psyche and indirectly on their
body.
I'd reply more, but I guess I shouldn't have snipped the question and
answer earlier because I, embarrassingly enough, have forgotten the
details of the example from which I derived said bit of esoteria. I
promise I'll get to it later and make it more understandable. Sometimes
my writing needs more grounding than it currently possesses.
> Teamwork may have been one variable; the Paradiso PCs, by necessity,
> were a very close-knit group, whereas the PCs in the other campaign
> were more the usual motly lot of adventurers with weak ties between
> them.
>
> We had a long period of weird play where the other PCs were trying
> to decide whether to accept Duende; the GM helpfully relieved me
> of some of my firewall concerns by making it clear that Duende *might*,
> unbeknownst to even himself, be a traitor to the party, so that both
> my other PCs and I were worrying in the same ways.
It sounds like, with this further information, that your GM is fooling
around with Jungian archetypes. The close-knittedness also helps out in
terms of identification too, I imagine. But how else can you explain the
paradox in him being possibly being a dupe and fearless, and his being
trustworthy? I think it's primarily a matter of a true archetype from
your cultural or literary background (or as Jung would have it, your
ancestrial/genetic memeories) or even your folklore/childhood
tales/dreams.
This possibly falls in with the archetypical battle against evil that you
fell in with out of reflex. Pure conjecture of course, but the
alternative makes little sense outside of dreams and archetypes.
Mary K. Kuhner
>I wish I had more experience playing games like CoC where the
>pseudo-experience was more directly related to the skill's expanded
>usefulness in question, because I tend towards abstracting almost totally
>within group or character goals, as opposed to what some might call
>natural development; though the two usually go together, sometimes they
>don't.
The CoC mechanics (at least from my experience in RuneQuest) are
not that successful in pushing a "natural" development either; there
is a tendency for the character to develop whatever skills the GM
particularly likes to call for (Scan, in my RQ GM's case).
I don't know a better way to do experience than asking the player, or
group, what's reasonable; mechanical substitutes tend to behave, well,
mechanically.
[Mary hates situations in which the PCs think they won, but she knows
they lost; or vice versa.]
>I've never had much of a problem with my opinion being different from the
>PC's I was playing, or for that matter, much of the other player's or
>their PCs', all of whom might have conflicting opinions on the matter. I
>wouldn't consider the ersatz personality to have any more nor less a
>subjectively real explanation and cosmology than mine. I think this
>might be different in your case, though, in reflection. Some people take
>some facet of themselves for a personality base of the character, and if
>one believes something and the other doesn't, it smacks of a lack of
>exterior information clouding the truth, not of one being objectively
>false or not.
I don't think that's it; the reluctance is emotional, not intellectual,
and has to do with my desire to enjoy both the character's reaction
to victory and the player's reaction. (Or conversely, to wallow in
angst on both sides of the line if tragedy ensues.) Strong discordance
between player and character emotions muddies both, for reasons
which are at least partly biochemical.
>I've always found that everybody *having* to take their "turn" to be
>unrealistic. I've never seen or played differently myself except rarely,
>but how many times do people pause just for an instant in a fight and
>lose their chance at an opportunity in real life and in movies?
You can teach yourself to say "pass"; my last multi-player group had
a convention that when your turn came around, you could say "I'm trying
to figure out what Linnick would do" and the group would wait, or
you could say "Linnick is trying to figure out what to do" and we'd
move on to someone else. The distinction is important, especially
if the character has more combat experience than the player. But
it takes a strong group consensus that this is correct play; many
players tend to get angry if one of their number "passes" as they
see it as a player failure harmful to the group.
>In trying to recollect Yolanda's van fight scene, I found it incredibly
>difficult, and needed to relate to the major impetus action reference
>points to tell it: opening the van, cycle and grenade, back around, and
>duck, and anticlimax.
I've found, in trying to write up RPG sessions, that the Shadowrun
initiative system produces particularly non-intuitive orders of
events in fight scenes. If you switch to a house rule where wiring
decreases the time between your successive actions, rather than
making all your actions earlier in the turn, it becomes easier to
figure out what "actually happened." Still not always easy, because
the impulse system does not respect long-running actions gracefully
(especially movement).
>So if your GM had made the baddies too bad or too good, and he had to
>scale them to be more in line with your abilities, expectations, and what
>his expectations on the implications of the resultant fray on the world,
>would he have to do much work redesigning aspects of the world? (Which
>is what I think you were talking about when the level of the game and its
>odds increase and the only recourse is to change the world.)
It can be tough to rescale opposition in a developed world. Paradisio
was a competitor of Aztechnology and Ren'raku, so making it weaker
without making them weaker would have been illogical; weakening them
would have ripple effects on, for example, the corporation-government
relationship. The problem was that the PCs should not have tackled
something so big in the first place. Isn't hindsight wonderful?
[the player suddenly decides that the goal of the game is "defeat
Paradisio" without regard to whether that's possible]
>I don't think it was a matter of not forseeing the collapse or defeat of
>Paradisio, but that you're starting to get into genre territory. It
>seems from the name of the enemy, the fact that you were so diametrically
>opposed to their side, and even the turned former associate being on your
>side, all add up to a (if you don't laugh too hard) G.I. Joe vs.
>Serpentor affair; or alternatively a Legends variation. You can't really
>defeat Paraidiso because it would absolutely take the definition out of
>the world.
Destroying the gameworld was not an issue, though (as the continuation
showed) defeating Paradisio would necessarily unravel that particular
PC party. I don't think the GM had a problem with Paradisio losing, as
a matter of fact; but both of us, especially me, had a problem with
the folly of the PCs taking on a megacorp and hoping to win. They were
not set up to be "the campaign enemy"; that sort of developed in play.
(There were plenty of other lines to choose from.)
>> >[snip question about cautious character]
>The "metagaming behaviour" that I'm talking about might be metaphorical
>on a level that you experience immersively (or partially immersively). I
>find it interesting that even if it doesn't come out being directly
>related, that Chernoi doesn't fear what you call "existential problems,"
>the sort of things that I would call the intrusive realities of Clive
>Barker and his lot on the character's psyche and indirectly on their
>body.
I have characters who feel metaphysical fear, and characters who don't.
Part of designing six characters for one player to play is trying to
diversify their responses as much as possible without breaking their
ability to relate to each other (or designing something the player
can't play). So, of this sixsome, some feel pragmatic fear of the
occult, and some feel metaphysical fear, and one feels attraction.
>> We had a long period of weird play where the other PCs were trying
>> to decide whether to accept Duende; the GM helpfully relieved me
>> of some of my firewall concerns by making it clear that Duende *might*,
>> unbeknownst to even himself, be a traitor to the party, so that both
>> my other PCs and I were worrying in the same ways.
>It sounds like, with this further information, that your GM is fooling
>around with Jungian archetypes. The close-knittedness also helps out in
>terms of identification too, I imagine. But how else can you explain the
>paradox in him being possibly being a dupe and fearless, and his being
>trustworthy? I think it's primarily a matter of a true archetype from
>your cultural or literary background (or as Jung would have it, your
>ancestrial/genetic memeories) or even your folklore/childhood
>tales/dreams.
I'm not sure what this would imply. Certainly Duende is an archetype
for me (more strongly than most of my characters, in that I can meet
him in dreams and so forth) but as far as I know all the GM was
working from was a convention character he'd seen me run, plus our
pragmatic desire to introduce some tactical information and some
military skill so that the PCs' cause wouldn't be quite so hopeless.
The dupe/trustworthy issue had a clear in-game logic; Paradisio was
fond of brainwashing, and Duende was a creation of theirs from
childhood. He knew that many of his memories were false, and was
suspicious of all the others. I personally would be unable to
function in that state of mind, but he managed. So his statement
to the PCs was "Either I am opposing Paradisio because I have
come to hate them for what they did to me--and that is how I
perceive the issue--or I am being used without my knowledge as a
tool of one faction within Paradisio against another. I can't
say for sure."
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu