14 Dimensions of RPGs [long]
Lea Crowe
In article <robbj95.848196088@octarine>
rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au "Barbara Robson" writes:
> Well, having mainly lurked here so far, I thought perhaps it was
> time to make a contribution (and hopefully help distract some of
> the conversation from dice wars).
Oh, and there was I preparing to raise a RFD on changing the name
to "r.g.f.dice-wars" (see thread on .misc).
> DAS Characters <--------------------------------------> DIP Characters
> This is the familiar Design at Start versus Design in Play
> dichotomy. A given game may of course have a mixture of DAS and
> DIP PCs.
I'm not sure to what extent this can be an attribute of a game; although
GMs may push in one direction or the other, it tends to be pretty
much a player attribute.
> Unrandomised <--------------------------------------------> Dice Heavy
> I have used the term "unrandomised" because "diceless" still
> brooks confusion. Between the "unrandomised" and "dice heavy"
> extremes are games which use occasional consciously random
> decisions made by the GM without external aids, games which use
> qualitative randomisers such as tarot cards and games in which
> dice or other quantitative randomisers are used only occasionally.
I think perhaps a second axis is called for here: Qualitative Randomisers
vs Quantitative Randomisers. And for "dice heavy," read "randomiser
heavy." A game in which the GM pulls cards for task resolution is just
as randomiser-heavy as one in which he rolls dice. But he may pull them
for value (quantitative) or suit/meaning (qualitative).
This brings up the question of whether quantified/unquantified falls within
the scope of your mechanicless/mechanics-heavy axis. Could a game have
significant mechanics without being quantified?
> Single Session <--------------------------------------> *Roman-fleuve*
> A game may be a single-session event, a series of such sessions,
> (interconnected, but each a complete story in itself), a single
> adventure spanning a number of sessions, a series of such
> adventures, an epic campaign, or a *roman-fleuve* ('river-novel')
> -type campaign. This seems trivial, but will have an important
> impact on the character of the game.
Nothing to add except that I've always been fond of the term "roman
fleuve" and will henceforth try to use it more often to describe my
preferred style.
> Anything I've missed?
I think you've done a very good job here: clear, concise, and well thought
out. I continue to wonder, however, to what extent these classifications
are useful. They're too group-dependent to be informative about game
systems; but if you're describing a particular group, you'd really want
to describe them in a more flexible way. I suppose classification schemes
highlight areas where writers need to be clear.
In that case, I'd add another important area, which is related to your
"motivation" category but is specifically excluded from it: play atmosphere.
Rigidly game-oriented, or free to frolic amidst the "Monty Python" jokes and
"what happened in last week's episode of 'Babylon 5'" discussions?
--
l...@hestia.demon.co.uk Ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea!
Scott Taylor
In article <robbj95.848196088@octarine> Barbara Robson,
rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au writes:
>Anything I've missed?
>Barbara
Wow.
(More when I have some spare time to really look this over).
Well done though...
Welcome to R.G.F.A.!
(now we need to figure out how to get her to Canada... :-)
Scott Taylor
Travis Casey
Barbara Robson <rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote in article
> PLAYER-CHARACTERS:
> -----------------
> Many PCs <-------------------------------------------------> Single PC
> This needs no explanation, but it's worth mentioning.
Umm... I have to disagree. Does it mean how many PCs the game allows for?
How easy it is to run with a big group? Whether it has rules for a single
player having multiple PCs?
> Many Players <-----------------------------------------> Single Player
> Ditto.
This is likewise unclear.
> MECHANICS:
> ---------
> Mechanicless <---------------------------------------> Mechanics Heavy
> A mechanicless game is a freeform. A game using the full
> Rolemaster rule-set is mechanics heavy. This needs no
> explanation.
However, this is something which is hard to objectively determine, especially
since many games have a large number of supplements which can be used.
Personally, I'd break this up into "Complexity" and "Completeness" axes.
A complex rules system is one which has extensive rules, often with many
special cases. A "complete" rules system is one which covers all possible
actions that the PCs could undertake; an "incomplete" system has many gaps
which the GM must fill in some manner.
For example:
System 1: Whenever a PC attempts an action, flip a coin. Heads, the
action succeeds. Tails, it fails.
System 2: Whenever a PC attempts an action, the GM will decide what
happens.
Both of these are very simple. The first, however, is complete (not
realistic, just complete), which the second is of very low completeness.
> Unrandomised <--------------------------------------------> Dice Heavy
I'd suggest "highly randomised" for the opposite extreme, to allow for
games using cards, spinners, etc.
> GMing:
> -----
> Player-Controlled <------------------------------------> GM-Controlled
This is, IMHO, more of a campaign issue than a game issue -- I've seen
AD&D run at both extremes, and GM-controlled Ars Magica. A game can only
encourage players and GMs towards one way or another, it can't enforce it.
> Interactionist <--------------------------------------------> Dramatic
Again, this seems to me to be more a classification of campaigns than of
games.
> Absolute Script Immunity <------------------------> No Script Immunity
Ditto.
> DAS World <------------------------------------------------> DIP World
Ditto as well... although a similar axis could be used for the pre-designed
game worlds of some games. For example, in Harn's world, all of the materials
provided stop at a certain date, so GM's can be assured that if they set their
campaigns after that date, nothing new will come along that will contradict
what's happened in their campaigns. TSR, however, often updates their game
worlds in ways that may conflict with individual campaigns.
> Players Know All <--------------------------> Player Knowledge Limited
This, again, is a campaign issue, not a game issue.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <ca...@cs.fsu.edu>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ System Manager, FSU CS department
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' (904) 644-4290; Room 101C Carothers
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) No one agrees with me. Not even me.
rec.games.design FAQ: http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~casey/design.html
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Um.. could somebody please repost this? It sounds interesting and my
mailer may have eaten/ignored it.
Scott
Irina Rempt
Travis Casey (ca...@cs.fsu.edu) wrote:
> Barbara Robson <rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote in article
> > PLAYER-CHARACTERS:
> > -----------------
> > Many PCs <-------------------------------------------------> Single PC
> > This needs no explanation, but it's worth mentioning.
> Umm... I have to disagree. Does it mean how many PCs the game allows for?
> How easy it is to run with a big group? Whether it has rules for a single
> player having multiple PCs?
> > Many Players <-----------------------------------------> Single Player
> > Ditto.
> This is likewise unclear.
And how many is 'many'? Seven players, or PCs for that matter (I don't
like having multiple PCs per player, neither as player nor as GM) are a
large group for me, but I understand some people consider that a
*small* group. I prefer three or four players/characters, can work with
5 or (at a pinch) 6, but after that I need a co-GM, or drop out of the
game if I'm a player.
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Love your enemies. It'll drive them crazy. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <robbj95.848530816@octarine> Barbara Robson <rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au> writes:
>This is an interesting distinction. I was aiming for independent
>axes, however. Do you think it is possible to have a very simple
>system which has low completeness? I suppose in theory, you could:
>have one simple mechanic which covers pistol shooting and leave it
>up to the GM to worry about anything else that might happen. I
>can't think of a real example of a simple system with low completeness,
>though.
There were quite a few early-generation systems that had simple
combat rules and no non-combat rules (no skill use rules, for example).
Tunnels and Trolls, Melee, The Fantasy Trip, etc. are more or less
in this class. By modern standards, these are simple and very
incomplete. Early editions of D&D are also simple and incomplete
in this way, though later editions complicated matters.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mauri Sahlberg
Barbara Robson wrote:
> GENRE: (e.g. hyper-realist, space-opera, heroic fantasy, action,
> ----- horror, psycho-drama, magic-realist, historical, soap opera)
> I don't think genre can be covered by an axis of any sort, but it
> is an important factor in defining a game.
>
Action biased (AD&D), Mystery solving (Call of Ctulhu),
Politics (Ars Magica), Dialogue based (?), Therapic (?),
Fun (Paranoia)?
I think the most of the entertaining rpgs can be classified to
"tactical" and "strategic" games.
For example:
AD&D is "tactical" game, your fighter goes to the dungeon
and beats the hell out of the Orcs and Goblins. If she is clever
she might use traps or combat tactics but the only long-time goal
the rules support is getting better at beating orcs and goblins.
(Starting from inexperienced orcs and goblins of course:)
Ars Magica is strategic game, if you try fighting peasants with
your young magus (sometimes I wonder how to hell they survive
to become young magus especially with blatant gif) he ends dead.
The rules talk about houses and tribunals and then there is the
covenant you live in. It is easy to make your character involved in
in-house or covenant politics. And political goals are usually
strategic goals.
By the way, I found your article so usefull that I would like to
publish it on my home page. May I do that?
Travis S Casey
Barbara Robson <rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote:
>"Travis Casey" <ca...@cs.fsu.edu| writes:
>
>|Barbara Robson <rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote in article
>
>|> PLAYER-CHARACTERS:
>|> -----------------
>|> Many PCs <-------------------------------------------------> Single PC
>|> This needs no explanation, but it's worth mentioning.
>
>|Umm... I have to disagree. Does it mean how many PCs the game allows for?
>|How easy it is to run with a big group? Whether it has rules for a single
>|player having multiple PCs?
>
>your other comments relate to a semantic miscommunication. I
>was talking about actual games, not game systems. 'Campaigns',
>if you like, but I reserve that term for long-running, multi-
>session games. Hence, the question of whether a game has a
>single PC or many can be resolved simply by counting the PCs:
>a trivial task, but one which might serve as a basis for further
>discussion of the game. If my understanding of the term "game"
>is contrary to general usage in .advocay, please let me know
>if there is an alternative that I should be using.
I'd call that a game session. I think that the misunderstanding
came from something deeper, though... namely, that I don't think
a single game session is something that really lends itself to
this kind of discussion. A game session can vary wildly on all
of these axes from other game sessions in the same campaign.
For instance, If we're dealing with game sessions, then the first
game of a campaign is likely to be much more DIP than later games
in that campaign.
><snipped the other bits relating to this confusion>
>
>|Personally, I'd break this up into "Complexity" and "Completeness" axes.
>|A complex rules system is one which has extensive rules, often with many
>|special cases. A "complete" rules system is one which covers all possible
>|actions that the PCs could undertake; an "incomplete" system has many gaps
>|which the GM must fill in some manner.
>|
>|For example:
>|
>| System 1: Whenever a PC attempts an action, flip a coin. Heads, the
>| action succeeds. Tails, it fails.
>|
>| System 2: Whenever a PC attempts an action, the GM will decide what
>| happens.
>|
>|Both of these are very simple. The first, however, is complete (not
>|realistic, just complete), which the second is of very low completeness.
>
>This is an interesting distinction. I was aiming for independent
>axes, however. Do you think it is possible to have a very simple
>system which has low completeness? I suppose in theory, you could:
>have one simple mechanic which covers pistol shooting and leave it
>up to the GM to worry about anything else that might happen. I
>can't think of a real example of a simple system with low completeness,
>though.
Quite a few of the early RPGs were pretty much just character creation
and combat systems, with everything else up to the GM. I'd call that
low completeness. D&D back in the early days pretty much had nothing
but spell casting and combat rules, for example.
RPGs now tend to be fairly complete. IMHO, the turning point was the idea
of universal mechanics -- with that idea, it becomes possible to create a
simple system that can handle everything.
Even with a universal mechanic, a game may not be complete, though. For
example, something like:
Take whichever attribute and skill you think are appropriate, add them
together. Determine a difficulty and subtract it from the total.
Then roll a twenty-sided die; if the roll is under the total, the
character succeeded.
This can cover any situation, but all details are still left to the
GM... so I'd say it's not very complete.
To put it another way... in addition to doing traditional RPGs, I also
do mud programming. To me, completeness is "how much the system can
handle without GM input." A very complete system is one that you
could easily turn into a computer game... the GM's main function in
a system like that is coming up with the world background and acting
the NPCs.
(Of course, this isn't necessarily a good thing... I much prefer
"loose" systems for traditional play. With a computer game, though,
the ability to do things without human input is a must for many
things).
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <ca...@cs.fsu.edu>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ System Administrator, FSU CS department
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' (904) 644-7339; Room 011 Love
Andrew S Goldstein
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>In article <robbj95.848530816@octarine> Barbara Robson <rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au> writes:
>>This is an interesting distinction. I was aiming for independent
>>axes, however. Do you think it is possible to have a very simple
>>system which has low completeness? I suppose in theory, you could:
>>have one simple mechanic which covers pistol shooting and leave it
>>up to the GM to worry about anything else that might happen. I
>>can't think of a real example of a simple system with low completeness,
>>though.
>There were quite a few early-generation systems that had simple
>combat rules and no non-combat rules (no skill use rules, for example).
>Tunnels and Trolls, Melee, The Fantasy Trip, etc. are more or less
>in this class. By modern standards, these are simple and very
>incomplete. Early editions of D&D are also simple and incomplete
>in this way, though later editions complicated matters.
>Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Well, I realize that miniatures rules and wargames aren't neccessarily
RPGs, but seeing as there is a significant overlap I would think that
miniatures and wargames would fall into this category. D&D itself
evolved from Chainmail, after all.
Andrew
russell wallace
>Well, I realize that miniatures rules and wargames aren't neccessarily
>RPGs, but seeing as there is a significant overlap I would think that
>miniatures and wargames would fall into this category. D&D itself
>evolved from Chainmail, after all.
I'd call wargames complete, because they provide rules for *everything
that is allowed in the game*. (We don't call AD&D incomplete for not
providing firearms rules for example, because firearms aren't allowed in
AD&D. Similarly, we can't reasonably call a wargame incomplete for not
providing rules for anything other than combat, when combat is the only
thing one is allowed to do in the game.)
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwal...@tcd.ie
Ennead
Barbara Robson (rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au) wrote:
: Scott Taylor <izzy...@faerealm.com> writes:
: >Welcome to R.G.F.A.!
Yes, welcome, Barbara! I'm afraid that your original
article hasn't showed up here yet, but from the snippets I've
seen quoted in others responses, it looks interesting. I await
the original with some eagerness (as well as a lingering
suspicion that it might never appear. Sigh).
: >(now we need to figure out how to get her to Canada... :-)
: Well, it would help if there's some kind of international conference
: in estuarine dynamics or coastal oceanography over there at the same
: time and it subsidises student participation.
In *Alberta?*
Not very likely, I'm afraid.
Australia, eh? Maybe you and Rodney Payne could hijack a plane
together?
-- Sarah
Ennead
Barbara Robson (rob...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au) wrote:
: Sorry Travis, I obviously wasn't very clear. This and most of
: your other comments relate to a semantic miscommunication. I
: was talking about actual games, not game systems.
You caught on much faster than I did. I was seriously
confused for a while there.
I suspect that respective gaming style plays a large
role in this misunderstanding. I don't _use_ rule systems,
so it just doesn't occur to me to use the word "game" in that
sense. When I hear the word "game," I think of a _specific_
game, not a rules set.
: If my understanding of the term "game"
: is contrary to general usage in .advocay, please let me know
: if there is an alternative that I should be using.
Hmmm. Well, your usage seems to be the same as mine,
and it seems to me that it is a very common one around here.
I think we use the term "campaign" slightly differently,
though. You wrote:
: ...but I reserve that term for long-running, multi-
: session games.
Hmmm. For me, a long-running, multi-session game can
still be a "game," rather than a "campaign."
I usually use the term "campaign" to refer to a long-running
overarching gaming focus which may _incorporate_ a number of
different "games."
The Isrillion campaign, for example, includes all games
which deal with Isrillion (an ArM-type covenant). The games
themselves may differ dramatically in approach, in PCs, and
so forth, but they are still clearly a part of the same campaign.
To use another example, I would consider Alain's current
games, which all deal in one way or another, with the invasion of
a land by the Cat Demons, to be all part of the same campaign.
The games themselves, however, seem fairly distinct: the first
one dealt with a group of aristocrats at the beginning of the
invasion, the second one with lower-class urban characters later
in the invasion, and so forth. All these games, however, were
still part of a distinct entity -- the "campaign."
[Travis' "Complexity----Completeness" axis]
: This is an interesting distinction. I was aiming for independent
: axes, however.
This was my problem with the suggestion. It is non-applicable
to mechanicless gaming. In the absence of formalized mechanics,
complexity and completeness are in no way opposed traits. The axis
does not seem to me to be relevant to games per se, only to rules
systems.
-- Sarah
Rodney Payne
enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) writes:
> Yes, welcome, Barbara! I'm afraid that your original
>article hasn't showed up here yet, but from the snippets I've
>seen quoted in others responses, it looks interesting. I await
>the original with some eagerness (as well as a lingering
>suspicion that it might never appear. Sigh).
Yes. It appears to be one of those mystery articles which only shows up
in follow-ups--even I didn't see it, and I'm only 600kms from ANU (not
that that makes any difference, really). Could you post it again, Barbara?
> Australia, eh? Maybe you and Rodney Payne could hijack a plane
>together?
Thanks, Sarah, I was beginning to feel neglected. ;) Even if you do seem
to want to get me arrested....
(Barbara said something about oceanography. Perhaps she knows some
very friendly dolphins.)
--
Rodney Payne | The artist should organise his life. Here
| is a precise record of the time taken by
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | my daily chores: I get up at 7.18,
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | inspiration 10.23 to 11.47.... Erik Satie
Ennead
Rodney Payne (spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
: enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) writes:
: > Yes, welcome, Barbara! I'm afraid that your original
: >article hasn't showed up here yet...
: Yes. It appears to be one of those mystery articles which only shows up
: in follow-ups--even I didn't see it, and I'm only 600kms from ANU (not
: that that makes any difference, really). Could you post it again, Barbara?
Patience may be required. I got it, eventually. Saved
it, too. Here it is, the
14 Dimensions of RPGs REPOST:
*---*---*---*---*---*---*
Well, having mainly lurked here so far, I thought perhaps it was
time to make a contribution (and hopefully help distract some of
the conversation from dice wars).
This group has clearly developed a significant body of roleplaying
theory and I was wondering if it would be possible to use some
of this to establish a system for categorising RPGs and hence a
shorthand mechanism for communicating quickly the most salient
features of a game being discussed. To do this, I think the first
step should be to work out a number of independent axes which can
be used to define any given rpg.
This task should be interesting even if a categorising system is
not deemed to be worthwhile - questions to be considered include:
what axes are needed? Are they really independent? What positions
represent the extremes? What combinations are rarely used and why?
Anyway, I've made a start on this and what I've come up with is
given below. Most of the axis I've chosen are obvious, but perhaps
one or two are less obvious. Anyone care to comment?
PLAYER-CHARACTERS:
-----------------
DAS Characters <--------------------------------------> DIP Characters
This is the familiar Design at Start versus Design in Play
dichotomy. A given game may of course have a mixture of DAS and
DIP PCs.
Player-Designed Characters <--------------------> Allocated Characters
Player-designed characters are designed entirely by those who will
play them. If the game system limits character generation (for
example, by assigning a set number of points to be spent on skills
and attributes or by imposing dice-rolls in character generation),
the game is partway along this axis. If the characters are
designed and allocated by the GM or someone else, the game is at
the opposite extreme. The old idea of first, second and
subsequent 'generations' of RPGs fits in here to a large extent.
Many PCs <-------------------------------------------------> Single PC
This needs no explanation, but it's worth mentioning.
Many Players <-----------------------------------------> Single Player
Ditto.
MECHANICS:
---------
Mechanicless <---------------------------------------> Mechanics Heavy
A mechanicless game is a freeform. A game using the full
Rolemaster rule-set is mechanics heavy. This needs no
explanation.
Unrandomised <--------------------------------------------> Dice Heavy
I have used the term "unrandomised" because "diceless" still
brooks confusion. Between the "unrandomised" and "dice heavy"
extremes are games which use occasional consciously random
decisions made by the GM without external aids, games which use
qualitative randomisers such as tarot cards and games in which
dice or other quantitative randomisers are used only occasionally.
GMing:
-----
Player-Controlled <------------------------------------> GM-Controlled
In a purely player-controlled game, there is no GM, except perhaps
to set things up at the start. The group as a whole GMs the game.
In a purely GM-controlled game, players can affect directly only
their own characters. In between are games in which important
decisions are made by group consensus or voting, games in which
players can directly affect the plot through 'plot points' or
something similar, games in which player descriptions help
characterise the environment and NPCs and games in which players
design only their PCs and the NPCs associated with them.
Interactionist <--------------------------------------------> Dramatic
These are perhaps not the terms in general use in this group, but
I have chosen them because the terms 'simulationist' and 'plotted'
tend to be used inconsistently. Here, an 'interactionist' game is
one in which NPCs and their world move independently of the player
actions. Schroedinger runs no hotels in such games, there is no
retro-fitting of plots and the trains will run on time regardless
of how interesting or important a diversion the PCs have found on
their way to the station. {blergh}
In a 'dramatic' game, by contrast, events happen in such a way as
to maximise dramatic potential (or comic potential, depending on
the genre), optimise pacing and so forth. Schroedinger lives and
plot is important.
Absolute Script Immunity <------------------------> No Script Immunity
I'm not sure whether this should be a separate axis or not.
Script immunity is arguably a function of either the dramatic
needs of the game (which puts it on the previous axis) or the
genre (which is included later). I have included it separately,
though, because script immunity sometimes exists at the expense
of drama and despite the apparent genre, for game-contract
reasons.
DAS World <------------------------------------------------> DIP World
Just as characters may be DIP or DAS, so may the game-master's
world. The interaction between this dimension and the 'dramtic--
interactionist' dimension is worth looking at: the 'design' that
is relevant refers mainly to plot for a dramatic game, whereas
it refers to more concrete things such as the layout of towns
for an interactionist game. Note that it is perfectly possible to
have a game full of Scroedinger's NPCs and places that is
nevertheless based on a strongly DAS World or a strongly
interactionist/simulationist game with a DIP game-world.
Players Know All <--------------------------> Player Knowledge Limited
Players might know all there is to know about the game-world
and be expected to firewall anything their characters can't know,
they may know just enough more than their characters to build
suspense, they may know only what their characters know or,
conceivably, less than the characters know. The latter can be
very difficult playing.
CAMPAIGN TYPE:
-------------
Single Session <--------------------------------------> *Roman-fleuve*
A game may be a single-session event, a series of such sessions,
(interconnected, but each a complete story in itself), a single
adventure spanning a number of sessions, a series of such
adventures, an epic campaign, or a *roman-fleuve* ('river-novel')
-type campaign. This seems trivial, but will have an important
impact on the character of the game.
Microcosmic <--------------------------------------------> Macrocosmic
This axis simply refers to the scale of events considered in the
game. At the extreme macrocosmic end, the universe is at stake.
At the extreme microcosmic scale, the events of the game will
affect only the PCs themselves.
MOTIVATION:
----------
What is the motivational focus of the game? Creating a story,
experiencing a world through the eyes of a PC, or using your
wits to solve a problem or optimise a strategy? These were the
three main motivations that I thought of. There could be others
(developing acting abilities, having an excuse to hang out with
friends and eat pizza, or whatever, but these are the three that
really seemed to relate to roleplaying. While these obviously
don't fit on a single axis, it does seem that as more emphasis
is placed on one of these factors, less can be placed on another.
I've therefore set these on a triangle rather than an axis.
Interactive
Storytelling
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
IC ______________________________ Problem-
Experience Solving
GENRE: (e.g. hyper-realist, space-opera, heroic fantasy, action,
----- horror, psycho-drama, magic-realist, historical, soap opera)
I don't think genre can be covered by an axis of any sort, but it
is an important factor in defining a game.
Anything I've missed?
Barbara
*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*
Wow. What a delurk!
: > Australia, eh? Maybe you and Rodney Payne could hijack a plane
: >together?
: Thanks, Sarah, I was beginning to feel neglected. ;)
Awwwww.
Man, you've got to get yourself an account you can use
*all the time.* I'm never quite sure whether you're really
around (and just being quiet), or off on one of your imposed
sabbaticals again.
And now I hear you're leaving us again. Now *I'm* the
one feeling neglected. <sniff>
-- Sarah