FAQ
Warren J. Dew
A. FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions. Newsgroup FAQs usually contain
questions frequently asked in the newsgroup, along with their answers, to save
the regulars the bother of having to answer the same questions all the time.
Q. How come there are two FAQs here?
A. The regulars in this newsgroup enjoy productive discussions with newbies,
and don't mind answering their questions. We figured that giving you two sets
of conflicting answers will help you get started on the questions. Besides, we
haven't found the off switch yet on the bot that posts the other FAQ.
Q. What do you discuss in here?
A. The topic of this newsgroup, by charter, is flame wars about which game
system is best. Since we don't like flaming, we pretty much stick to off topic
discussion. We especially stick to off topic discussion about roleplaying
games, and sometimes develop theoretical models to help understand them. Two
of these models are the narrative stances model and the threefold.
Q. What's the narrative stances model?
A. The narrative stances are Actor, Author, Audience, and Character.
Character stance is not the same thing as "in character". A related subject is
immersive play.
Q. That didn't exactly answer my question. Can you give me a better answer on
the threefold?
A. Challenge
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Story ---------------- World
Q. That was even less useful than the last answer! How do I get answers that
are actually useful?
A. Post your questions. Then you'll get answers from actual human beings
instead of a canned post.
Peter Knutsen
Warren J. Dew wrote:
> Q. How come there are two FAQs here?
>
> A. The regulars in this newsgroup enjoy productive discussions with newbies,
> and don't mind answering their questions. We figured that giving you two sets
> of conflicting answers will help you get started on the questions. Besides, we
> haven't found the off switch yet on the bot that posts the other FAQ.
Q: Why don't you provide the answers that conflict with those in John
Kim's FAQ, then?
Awaiting your A.
--
Peter Knutsen
Magnus Lie Hetland
>
>
>Warren J. Dew wrote:
>
>> Q. How come there are two FAQs here?
>>
>> A. The regulars in this newsgroup enjoy productive discussions
>> with newbies, and don't mind answering their questions. We figured
>> that giving you two sets of conflicting answers will help you get
>> started on the questions. Besides, we haven't found the off switch
>> yet on the bot that posts the other FAQ.
You haven't? I received an email from you just a couple of days ago
where you asked me to stop posting it... ;)
I've emailed John H. Kim to hear his opinion (i'm just posting it as a
favour to him), but I have temporarily disabled the posting.
Is it the general opinion of this newsgroup that I should stop posting
it? I haven't been following the group very diligently lately, but I
hadn't noticed any loud outcries; however, judging from Warren's
email, it's been the object of may flame wars, and does no longer
reflect the vocabulary of the newsgroup.
IIRC, people never really agreed about much on this newsgroup, so that
might not be all that new ;) but if the FAQ is more of a nuisance than
a source of information, I probably should stop posting it. (It would
still be available on the Web, at John's site.)
Opinions?
--
Magnus Lie Hetland "If you can't take a joke, you have no business
http://hetland.org having a heart condition!" Igor, Dork Tower
Larry D. Hols
> Is it the general opinion of this newsgroup that I should stop posting
> it? I haven't been following the group very diligently lately, but I
> hadn't noticed any loud outcries; however, judging from Warren's
> email, it's been the object of may flame wars, and does no longer
> reflect the vocabulary of the newsgroup.
I suspect that having more than one FAQ available could be a very good
thing, actually, so I'd like to see you continue posting one. If John's
FAQ is a bit long in the tooth, perhaps he'd like to revise it a bit or
allow somebody else to work his material in their own creation and offer
it up for posting. I think a new look at FAQ material is certainly in
order, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the historical context
provided by John's FAQ can prove useful.
Larry
Warren J. Dew
I suspect that having more than one FAQ available could be a
very good thing, actually, so I'd like to see you continue
posting one.
I don't guarantee to continue posting mine. It was intended as much as a joke
as anything, and I'm really very bad at doing anything consistently. Recall
also that my newsreader doesn't see Magnus' FAQ postings, so I'll tend to
forget that they are being posted.
Magnus, can I suggest that you read through the last month or so's worth of
posts on the threefold? I think you'll see where a newbie managed to get into
some rather heated arguments as a result of misconceptions from reading John's
FAQ, resulting in killfiling by regulars of what I considered to be a promising
newbie. (Not that the FAQ is necessarily wrong, but that it can easily be
misconstrued in the absence of discussion.)
Having it continue to be available as a web, as a resource we could point to
for those who are interested in history on the subject, would probably be a
good idea.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
John Kim
> Magnus, can I suggest that you read through the last month or so's worth of
> posts on the threefold? I think you'll see where a newbie managed to get into
> some rather heated arguments as a result of misconceptions from reading John's
> FAQ, resulting in killfiling by regulars of what I considered to be a promising
> newbie. (Not that the FAQ is necessarily wrong, but that it can easily be
> misconstrued in the absence of discussion.)
Hello. I had posted a new thread on this on Sunday but somehow I
didn't seem to get distribution. Anyhow, I'd be willing to drop
posting my FAQ, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions. As far as I
know right now, Larry Hols is apparently for keeping it, Warren and
Charlton are against.
I find it bizarre that you would want to remove information in
order to help newbies. My FAQ may be out of date, it seems to me that
without it, newbies will have even more misunderstandings (i.e.
"What's this Gamism thing? [...someone replies...] Hey, that's just
like in this campaign I played in."). Obviously, the ideal would be
if someone worked at creating a more up-to-date FAQ, but failing that,
do you really think that it is better to rely on off-the-cuff
explanations and random usage?
I haven't read the entire thread, but as far as I see, Adrian has
been very polite, communicated fairly well, and quickly acknowledged
that the difference between current usage and my older FAQ explanation
once it was pointed out. As I see it, the problem was that he wanted
to discuss things (i.e. "*Why* do you only use Threefold terms for
motivation?"), and others wanted him to simply accept it as canon.
- John
Charlton Wilbur
> Hello. I had posted a new thread on this on Sunday but somehow I
> didn't seem to get distribution. Anyhow, I'd be willing to drop
> posting my FAQ, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions. As far as I
> know right now, Larry Hols is apparently for keeping it, Warren and
> Charlton are against.
>
> I find it bizarre that you would want to remove information in
> order to help newbies. [...] Obviously, the ideal would be if
> someone worked at creating a more up-to-date FAQ, but failing that,
> do you really think that it is better to rely on off-the-cuff
> explanations and random usage?
I like the FAQ, and I think it served a purpose. But I think it
doesn't currently reflect the way the terminology is currently used,
and there are parts of it (such as the confusion between intent and
outcome with the Threefold) that are actively damaging, as we've seen.
The real problem is that inaccurate information is worse than no
information, and the usages of rgfa have changed much in the past
couple years. Your hypothetical newbie, confused about gamism (from a
part of your post I snipped) is one problem; but we have a concrete
example of the other problem, which is why we're discussing this at
all. I suspect I'd prefer a horde of newbies with no concept of what
the Threefold is to a horde of newbies who have a muddled concept of
what the Threefold is and who insist in rehashing old flamewars.
I've thought about volunteering to organize a revision of the FAQ, but
I fear that I am already overcommitted for the next couple of months.
But I think I'll make the offer -- if enough people think that an
updated FAQ is a good idea, and if John doesn't want to take on the
project, then I'd be happy to coordinate, consolidate, and edit.
> I haven't read the entire thread, but as far as I see, Adrian has
> been very polite, communicated fairly well, and quickly acknowledged
> that the difference between current usage and my older FAQ explanation
> once it was pointed out. As I see it, the problem was that he wanted
> to discuss things (i.e. "*Why* do you only use Threefold terms for
> motivation?"), and others wanted him to simply accept it as canon.
The problem I saw was that he insisted on treating the FAQ as canon,
rather than the usage in the group, and he insisted on covering old
ground that's already well-charred from several YEARS of Threefold
flamewars. Several people explained to him exactly why the Threefold
was used to discuss intent rather than outcome -- to wit, that intent
doesn't always match outcome; that the Threefold was created to
discuss differences in intent; that using the same terminology to
discuss outcomes or to conflate outcome with intent would be imprecise
at best, confusing most of the time, and incendiary at worst; and that
this issue that he insisted in pursuing had been the subject of
several flamewars in the past -- and he continued to insist that he
would use it for outcome rather than intent because his interpretation
of the FAQ allowed him to do so.
Charlton
Beowulf Bolt
>
> Anyhow, I'd be willing to drop
> posting my FAQ, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions. As far as I
> know right now, Larry Hols is apparently for keeping it, Warren and
> Charlton are against.
Here's another vote for keeping the FAQ. It desperately needs
updating (and says so right up front), but still contains a lot that
would be of value.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Halzebier
<cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>I've thought about volunteering to organize a revision of the FAQ, but
>I fear that I am already overcommitted for the next couple of months.
>But I think I'll make the offer -- if enough people think that an
>updated FAQ is a good idea, and if John doesn't want to take on the
>project, then I'd be happy to coordinate, consolidate, and edit.
John's FAQ is still an excellent resource and much appreciated. I'm
definitely in favour of regular re-posting, but of course, a revision
would be very welcome, too.
And while the FAQ may have contributed to the flamewar surrounding
Adrian, I think that it was not the main problem.
Regards,
Hal
Larry D. Hols
> I find it bizarre that you would want to remove information in
> order to help newbies. My FAQ may be out of date, it seems to me that
> without it, newbies will have even more misunderstandings (i.e.
> "What's this Gamism thing? [...someone replies...] Hey, that's just
> like in this campaign I played in."). Obviously, the ideal would be
> if someone worked at creating a more up-to-date FAQ, but failing that,
> do you really think that it is better to rely on off-the-cuff
> explanations and random usage?
I think the usage has changed enough that an updated version would be
useful. I think the history of the Threefold is important to
understanding and using it, so the info from your FAQ is essential. I'd
also like to see critiques of the Threefold appear alongside it to
provide counterpoint and describe what it doesn't address.
> I haven't read the entire thread, but as far as I see, Adrian has
I dropped out at the outset, expecting a flame fest. There was a reason
I asked for commentary on the Threefold in private mail. I've received
some and I'm still open to more.
Larry
John Kim
> jh...@darkshire.org (John Kim) writes:
>> Obviously, the ideal would be if someone worked at creating a more
>> up-to-date FAQ, but failing that, do you really think that it is
>> better to rely on off-the-cuff explanations and random usage?
>
> the Threefold is to a horde of newbies who have a muddled concept of
> what the Threefold is and who insist in rehashing old flamewars.
> But I think I'll make the offer -- if enough people think that an
> updated FAQ is a good idea, and if John doesn't want to take on the
> project, then I'd be happy to coordinate, consolidate, and edit.
OK, based on history, I would say that not having an FAQ does
*not* prevent getting a muddled understanding. Quite the opposite!!!
The terminology exists and posters still regularly use it. There
is no way to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Without it, I suspect
you will just go back to rehashing even earlier debates from before
I made the Threefold section of the FAQ in December 1998.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
> >
> > As I see it, the problem was that he [Adrian] wanted to discuss
> > things (i.e. "*Why* do you only use Threefold terms for motivation?"),
> > and others wanted him to simply accept it as canon.
>
> Several people explained to him exactly why the Threefold was used to
> discuss intent rather than outcome -- to wit, that intent doesn't
> always match outcome; that the Threefold was created to discuss
> differences in intent; that using the same terminology to discuss
> outcomes or to conflate outcome with intent would be imprecise at
> best, confusing most of the time, and incendiary at worst;
OK, so here we get to the heart. I tackled this in my FAQ
with questions #4 and #5. In question #4, I said:
: However, every game will have problems, including undramatic bits,
: unrealistic bits, and unbalanced bits. The Threefold asks about how
: much comparative effort you put into solving these.
Is the problem that this isn't strongly worded enough, or that the actual
meaning of current usage is different than what I expressed then?
If so, in what way has the meaning changed? Any ideas on what
should be done differently?
Charlton Wilbur
> OK, so here we get to the heart. I tackled this in my FAQ
> with questions #4 and #5. In question #4, I said:
>
> : However, every game will have problems, including undramatic bits,
> : unrealistic bits, and unbalanced bits. The Threefold asks about how
> : much comparative effort you put into solving these.
>
> Is the problem that this isn't strongly worded enough, or that the actual
> meaning of current usage is different than what I expressed then?
> If so, in what way has the meaning changed? Any ideas on what
> should be done differently?
I think that the FAQ definition, and particularly those sentences, are
unclear in that they muddles intent and outcome, which have become
very clearly separated in the years since it was written. Current
usage has changed.
For instance, rewriting that bit:
However, every game will have problems, including undramatic
bits, unrealistic bits, and unbalanced bits. The Threefold
asks about what the gamemaster's intention is when considering
the outcome of in-game events.
It might also be prudent to add a sentence or paragraph clarifying and
explaining the emphasis on intent. "Why can't you use it to talk
about outcome?" certainly qualifies as a FAQ -- maybe something like
this:
Q. Okay, I get it. But why did I just see someone get jumped
on for mentioning a gamist outcome?
A. The emphasis in the Threefold model is on intent rather
than on outcome. There are practical as well as historical
reasons for this.
Trying to apply the Threefold to the in-game outcome of events
rather than the gamemaster's intent in resolving actions leads
to a couple of problems. Many decisions are not clearly one
or the other, and so the pattern of outcomes -- often more
succinctly expressed as the intent of the gamemaster -- is
more useful in the long run. [Perhaps use the example of
finding the suspect in the second place that the party looks
as an illustration?]
In discussing assumption clashes, it's often very useful to
separate intent and outcome: a GM who wants to run a
simulationist game but who fudges the numbers when things turn
out to put the characters' lives in jeopardy is in a very
different situation than a GM who wants to produce dramatic
stories and does so well. Further, it's entirely possible for
a gamemaster to be predominantly simulationist, but to have
gripping stories with lots of dramatic tension be the outcome.
Historically, the ideas behind the Threefold were first
articulated as part of a discussion of what different people
found satisfying in games. Several of the participants put
more weight on the intent of the gamemaster than on the actual
outcome. (In the [paraphrased] words of Mary Kuhner, "When
someone treads on my foot, I don't mind if it's accidental,
but I get upset if it's intentional." [To be included only with
Mary's consent, of course, and preferably only after having
looked up the actual cite, but it seems to illustrate things
perfectly.])
Finally, juxtaposing outcome and intent has led to some
particularly nasty flame wars in the past, often because one
side was arguing as if the Threefold referred to intent and
because the other was arguing as if the Threefold referred to
outcome. We'd like to avoid those if possible.
I don't have the FAQ in front of me at the moment; if you'd like, I'll
take a stab at updating the entire Threefold section, and then we can
all wrangle over it together. Or perhaps, as someone suggested, what
we need is three or four different perspectives on the Threefold,
including at least one from people who don't think it's a useful
model.
Charlton
Peter Knutsen
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
[...]
> The problem I saw was that he insisted on treating the FAQ as canon,
> rather than the usage in the group, and he insisted on covering old
> ground that's already well-charred from several YEARS of Threefold
> flamewars. Several people explained to him exactly why the Threefold
You can't expect a newcomer to use GoogleGroups read the thousands of
previous posts in here, just to familiarize himself withpast flame
wars (or for any other purpose). Instead such flame wars should be
summarized in easy-to-read form, such as one or more FAQs.
I know it's easy for me to say this, as I'm not going to do it, but I
want to argue for realistic assumptions here: Newcomers will *not*
bother to read several thousand old posts, no matter how hard they are
flamed.
> Charlton
--
Peter Knutsen
Charlton Wilbur
> You can't expect a newcomer to use GoogleGroups read the thousands of
> previous posts in here, just to familiarize himself withpast flame
> wars (or for any other purpose).
No, but when a newcomer is told the same thing repeatedly by more than
four people he ought to believe it -- or at least back down long
enough to reconsider -- instead of arguing with it.
> I know it's easy for me to say this, as I'm not going to do it, but
> I want to argue for realistic assumptions here: Newcomers will *not*
> bother to read several thousand old posts, no matter how hard they
> are flamed.
Yes, which is why I'm in favor of removing the FAQ or revising it.
The current FAQ is in a position to contribute to flamewars rather
than preventing them.
Charlton
Robert Scott Clark
And it's not as if any of those old flamewars ever actually resolved
anything anyway. In cases like this, victory goes to those who write the
FAQ.
And further, I would just like to add, just because some people feel the
issues were resolved (or just became tired of discussing them) doesn't in
any way imply that a newcomer should not question those conclusions. And
if your average newcomer asks those exact same unresolved questions, that's
a good indication that they should never have been put away in the first
place.
>> Charlton
>
Warren J. Dew
OK, so here we get to the heart. I tackled this in my FAQ
with questions #4 and #5. In question #4, I said:
: However, every game will have problems, including
undramatic bits,
: unrealistic bits, and unbalanced bits. The Threefold
asks about how
: much comparative effort you put into solving these.
Is the problem that this isn't strongly worded enough, or
that the actual meaning of current usage is different than
what I expressed then? If so, in what way has the meaning
changed? Any ideas on what should be done differently?
I think you would have to get an answer from Adrian to know for sure.
Mostly he said that he felt the FAQ "emphasized" results over intent. The fact
that "emphasis", rather than logic, was what got paid attention to may point to
the FAQ's being too long.
Frankly, I don't remember any problems with threefold flamewars before the FAQ
contained discussion of the threefold. I understand you are trying to help,
but I think the concepts aren't sufficiently easy for newcomers to grasp that
they can be expected to learn them noninteractively.
Peter Knutsen:
I know it's easy for me to say this, as I'm not going to do
it, but I want to argue for realistic assumptions here:
Newcomers will *not* bother to read several thousand old
posts, no matter how hard they are flamed.
From the evidence above, they aren't going to read important parts of the FAQ,
either.
As one of the few who were patient enough to actually figure out that Adrian
was interested in learning, and to help answer his questions, I'd say that I'd
much rather spend my time starting by answering questions rather than having to
first go through a flamewar stage of burning away misconceptions.
Russell Wallace
> Hello. I had posted a new thread on this on Sunday but somehow I
>didn't seem to get distribution. Anyhow, I'd be willing to drop
>posting my FAQ, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions. As far as I
>know right now, Larry Hols is apparently for keeping it, Warren and
>Charlton are against.
The two issues regarding the Threefold that lead to confusion (and
sometimes flame wars) are:
- It's defined in terms of intentions, not results.
- There's an asymmetry: gamism and dramatism are defined positively,
but simulationism is defined negatively.
I think it would be best if the FAQ were still posted, but with some
sort of note added to emphasize the above points. (Feel free to copy
my wording from this or any other post if it would help, of course.)
--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
Rusty
(snip)
>Is it the general opinion of this newsgroup that I should stop posting
>it? I haven't been following the group very diligently lately, but I
>hadn't noticed any loud outcries; however, judging from Warren's
>email, it's been the object of may flame wars, and does no longer
>reflect the vocabulary of the newsgroup.
>
>IIRC, people never really agreed about much on this newsgroup, so that
>might not be all that new ;) but if the FAQ is more of a nuisance than
>a source of information, I probably should stop posting it. (It would
>still be available on the Web, at John's site.)
>
>Opinions?
I haven't posted much to this group for a couple of years, but I've
been reading it since sometime in 97. My vote would go for continuing
to post John's FAQ - preferably with a good update, but a notation
that it's a little dated would do just fine. I think it is a helpful
document even if it does fuel misunderstanding sometimes.
Rusty
Peter Knutsen
John Kim wrote:
> Hello. I had posted a new thread on this on Sunday but somehow I
> didn't seem to get distribution. Anyhow, I'd be willing to drop
I didn't see the post, but then again I don't see all your posts. Only
some of them make it to my server (same problem with Robert and a
couple of others who don't post in here). But I've just checked with
GoogleGroups and your new thread isn't there either. Maybe you could
try re-posting it?
> - John
--
Peter Knutsen
Robert Scott Clark
news:878ytjr...@mithril.chromatico.net:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> writes:
>
>> You can't expect a newcomer to use GoogleGroups read the thousands of
>> previous posts in here, just to familiarize himself withpast flame
>> wars (or for any other purpose).
>
> No, but when a newcomer is told the same thing repeatedly by more than
> four people he ought to believe it -
No, you should only believe things you are given good reason to believe.
Only a fool believes something simply because he is told.
Thomas Hudson
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>Several people explained to him exactly why the Threefold
>was used to discuss intent rather than outcome -- to wit, that intent
>doesn't always match outcome; that the Threefold was created to
>discuss differences in intent; that using the same terminology to
>discuss outcomes or to conflate outcome with intent would be imprecise
>at best, confusing most of the time, and incendiary at worst; and that
>this issue that he insisted in pursuing had been the subject of
Unfortunately, it took *me* many, many readings to get this; I suspect
it's such old ground to the group members who were posting that they
just weren't writing clearly enough for we uninitiated to grasp. I'm
still not entirely convinced of some of their points - it's been repeated
many times, but not well.
Tom
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
> In article <878ytks...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
> > Several people explained to him exactly why the Threefold was used
> > to discuss intent rather than outcome -- to wit, that intent
> > doesn't always match outcome; that the Threefold was created to
> > discuss differences in intent; that using the same terminology to
> > discuss outcomes or to conflate outcome with intent would be
> > imprecise at best, confusing most of the time, and incendiary at
> > worst; and that this issue that he insisted in pursuing had been
> > the subject of several flamewars in the past...
>
> Unfortunately, it took *me* many, many readings to get this; I
> suspect it's such old ground to the group members who were posting
> that they just weren't writing clearly enough for we uninitiated to grasp.
DON'T THINK THAT WAY!
There is no secret knowledge on rec.games.frp.advocacy. There is no
magic here, no special lore that will turn you into one of the secret
masters of gaming. What utility there is in this group, comes from
having a community of people who are actually willing to talk about
their games, how they play, what does and doesn't work, and why.
If you fall into the mindset that you can't contribute until you have
achieved some unspecified level of mastery, then you never will,
because there will /always/ be people who have been around here
longer. And that doesn't just hurt you, it hurts everyone, because
your voice won't be a part of the conversation. If you find that some
particular piece of jargon isn't working (however you define
"working") then invent some new language to describe what you
do. That's how the original jargon came to be; someone invented it,
and other people took it up because they found it useful.
Think critically about your play, and write up your observations for
other people to learn from. Be polite, so that other people will feel
comfortable posting their own thoughts. That's all you need to know to
participate effectively on rgfa.
--
Neel Krishnaswami
ne...@alum.mit.edu
Wayne Shaw
<cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>> I haven't read the entire thread, but as far as I see, Adrian has
>> been very polite, communicated fairly well, and quickly acknowledged
>> that the difference between current usage and my older FAQ explanation
>> once it was pointed out. As I see it, the problem was that he wanted
>> to discuss things (i.e. "*Why* do you only use Threefold terms for
>> motivation?"), and others wanted him to simply accept it as canon.
>
>The problem I saw was that he insisted on treating the FAQ as canon,
>rather than the usage in the group, and he insisted on covering old
>ground that's already well-charred from several YEARS of Threefold
>flamewars. Several people explained to him exactly why the Threefold
>was used to discuss intent rather than outcome -- to wit, that intent
>doesn't always match outcome; that the Threefold was created to
>discuss differences in intent; that using the same terminology to
>discuss outcomes or to conflate outcome with intent would be imprecise
>at best, confusing most of the time, and incendiary at worst; and that
>this issue that he insisted in pursuing had been the subject of
>several flamewars in the past -- and he continued to insist that he
>would use it for outcome rather than intent because his interpretation
>of the FAQ allowed him to do so.
Hmmm. I've apparently not only missed some messages in here, I've
missed an entire thread, since this whole discussion is utterly
cryptic from where I sit.
Leszek Karlik
<ne...@alum.mit.edu> disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
> There is no secret knowledge on rec.games.frp.advocacy. There is no
> magic here, no special lore that will turn you into one of the secret
> masters of gaming. What utility there is in this group, comes from
> having a community of people who are actually willing to talk about
> their games, how they play, what does and doesn't work, and why.
[...]
> Think critically about your play, and write up your observations for
> other people to learn from. Be polite, so that other people will feel
> comfortable posting their own thoughts. That's all you need to know to
> participate effectively on rgfa.
That ought to go in the FAQ. :-)
> Neel Krishnaswami
Leslie
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik; Drone, Offensive, Special Circumstances, Contact.
GH/L/S/O d- s+:- a24 C++ UL+ P L++ E W-() N+++* K w(---) M- PS+(+++) PE
Y+ PGP++ !t---(++) 5++ X- R+++*>$ !tv b++++ DI+ D--- G-- e>+ h- r% y+*
Warren J. Dew
Q: Why don't you provide the answers that conflict with those
in John Kim's FAQ, then?
Well, the threefold answer uses completely different terminology. I don't
remember what his FAQ says about the narrative stances.
Any suggestions?
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> writes:
>> You can't expect a newcomer to use GoogleGroups read the thousands of
>> previous posts in here, just to familiarize himself withpast flame
>> wars (or for any other purpose).
> No, but when a newcomer is told the same thing repeatedly by more than
> four people he ought to believe it -- or at least back down long
> enough to reconsider -- instead of arguing with it.
"We're Authority, and you're not. You must obey." does not go over
well with most people. I know, this may be hard for you to understand
or accept, since you consider yourself part of the cool clique.
>> I know it's easy for me to say this, as I'm not going to do it, but
>> I want to argue for realistic assumptions here: Newcomers will *not*
>> bother to read several thousand old posts, no matter how hard they
>> are flamed.
> Yes, which is why I'm in favor of removing the FAQ or revising it.
> The current FAQ is in a position to contribute to flamewars rather
> than preventing them.
FAQs do not cause flamewars. People cause flamewars. Specifically,
inconsiderate, closed-minded, fuckwitted people who are unwilling to
discuss anything, but instead insist that because they've done something
one way for a long time, that is the only way it can be done, and if you
don't already agree, you are a savage who must be killfiled.
Not that I'm pointing a finger at anyone. Well, okay, I am. Who, I
leave as an exercise for groups.google.com.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"We remain convinced that this is the best defensive posture to adopt in
order to minimize casualties when the Great Old Ones return from beyond
the stars to eat our brains." -Charlie Stross, _The Concrete Jungle_
Joachim Schipper
"Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes" <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> schreef in bericht
news:slrnbbjjel.2...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu...
I disagree with you in magnitude, but agree in principle - there were indeed
quite a few inconsiderate posts, though not as bad as you describe. That is
entirely true. The thread does not reflect well on the group. That is
entirely true. I myself stayed out of it, exactly because of the things I
outlined here. That is entirely true.
However, your own post does not help in preventing future flamewars. Maybe
you should word a little more carefully. Even if the regulars here should've
known better, so should the newbies.
Joachim
---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24-4-03
T. Kurt Bond
Diceless Roleplaying.
It might be a good idea to include links to the publishers of some of
the games.
Epiphany:
http://www.btrc.net/html/catalog.html#Epiphany
Theatrix:
http://shopping.netledger.com/app/site/site.nl/site.ACCT88453/mode.items/sc.2/category.17/.f
Persona:
http://www.tesarta.com/www/persona/persona.html
Nobilis needs to be added to the list of published diceless
roleplaying games; it's currently published by Guardians of Order,
Inc. Here's a link:
http://www.guardiansorder.com/nobilis/
Several of the "New Style" games from the late, lamented Hogshead
Publishing are diceless roleplaying games, or might be. Puppetland,
by John Tynes, clearly is. De Profundis and Banron Munchausen are, if
you accept that they are roleplaying games at all. (I do.)
> In terms of this FAQ, however, "diceless" role-playing refers
> to generally minimalist systems where the GM decides on the results
> of actions without the help of randomizers, tables, or explicit
> quantified mechanics.
I think this overly restricts the definition of diceless role-playing.
Both Epiphany nor Nobilis use explicity quantified mechanics, and the
mechanics portions of Nobilis are probably not minimalist and don't
rely on GM fiat any more than any diced game.
Would it be useful to split this into two categories: non-random
and freeform?
Non-random would be dice- and card- less, but would include systems
with quantified mechanics like Epiphany and Nobilis.
Freeform would would be those games where results are decided by
GM fiat or negotiation between all or some of those playing.
Note that this would included the ever popular "Roll some dice
and the GM and/or players decide based on the roll and any
other other factors deemed important", so it's not actually diceless.
(There's some similarity here, I think, to Australian Freemform
LARPs.)
A differnt way of approaching this would be something involving drama
resolution, karma resolution, and fortune resolution mechanics. Does
anybody know where a good definition of these is?
--
T. Kurt Bond, t...@tkb.mpl.com
Peter Knutsen
T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> I think this overly restricts the definition of diceless role-playing.
> Both Epiphany nor Nobilis use explicity quantified mechanics, and the
> mechanics portions of Nobilis are probably not minimalist and don't
> rely on GM fiat any more than any diced game.
>
> Would it be useful to split this into two categories: non-random
> and freeform?
It would be even more useful if it was spelled correctly: fudge-heavy.
Changing from "diceless" to "non-random" is also good, although there
are some distinction between dice-randomness and card-randomness,
which it might be useful to discuss briefly.
> A differnt way of approaching this would be something involving drama
> resolution, karma resolution, and fortune resolution mechanics. Does
> anybody know where a good definition of these is?
Yes, that's a useful distinction, even if Ron Edwards has given it bad
publicity.
--
Peter Knutsen
Magnus Lie Hetland
>On 6 May 2003 09:42:40 -0700, jh...@darkshire.org (John Kim) wrote:
>
>> Hello. I had posted a new thread on this on Sunday but somehow I
>>didn't seem to get distribution. Anyhow, I'd be willing to drop
>>posting my FAQ, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions. As far as I
>>know right now, Larry Hols is apparently for keeping it, Warren and
>>Charlton are against.
>
>The two issues regarding the Threefold that lead to confusion (and
>sometimes flame wars) are:
>
>- It's defined in terms of intentions, not results.
I must say I'm a bit confused by the enormous weight that has been
placed on this distinction... Is it really that important? Or is it
that we love to play with words here at rgfa?
And although intent and result clearly are different things, is there
really any reason why a set of descriptive terms may only be used on
either? I see how the distinction may warrant extra clarification (as
in "dramatist intent" or "the resulting simulationism" or whatever),
but still... Saying that it can only be used to describe intent is a
bit like saying that object-oriented can only be used to describe
design, and not code...
Oh, well.
--
Magnus Lie Hetland "If you can't take a joke, you have no business
http://hetland.org having a heart condition!" Igor, Dork Tower
Jason Corley
> I must say I'm a bit confused by the enormous weight that has been
> placed on this distinction... Is it really that important? Or is it
> that we love to play with words here at rgfa?
I don't know whether it's enormously important, but it is pounded into
everyone with a hammer who triies to take part in a Threefold
discussion without understanding it. Clearly some people are
/tremendously/ invested in it.
Personally, I think limiting it to in-game intent-in-making-decisions
makes it exactly 100% useless, because it doesn't matter what my intent
is when I make a GM decision. It only matters what the players think my
intent is and how they respond to the /outcome/. The only time GM
intent really matters - and the only time when it matters /completely/
is during design........which naturally is also explicitly excluded,
with a verbal 2x4, from Threefold discussions. But I have already been
over this ground a thousand times before and don't feel the need to
bring it up every single time there is a Threefold discussion.
--
***************************************************************************
"You turn off the light and turn on the dark, you turn off the dark and
turn on the light --- positively marvillainous!" ---Krazy Kat, 1921
Jason D. Corley | End...@thecircus.org.uk | AIM: Concordancer
T. Kurt Bond
> It would be even more useful if it was spelled correctly: fudge-heavy.
I'm not sure why you think this is a better spelling; I think freeform
is a better (more general) description. Could you elucidate?
(I'm presuming that you were refering to freeform, since non-random
need not include any fudging.)
--
T. Kurt Bond
Leszek Karlik
disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote in message news:<3EBB8675...@knutsen.dk>...
>> It would be even more useful if it was spelled correctly: fudge-heavy.
> I'm not sure why you think this is a better spelling;
Oh, that's just Peter's, well, let's call it "unique" style of
discussion. You'll get used to it. ;->
> T. Kurt Bond
Beowulf Bolt
>
> And although intent and result clearly are different things, is there
> really any reason why a set of descriptive terms may only be used on
> either?
From my POV the ability to apply the Threefold to fix a campaign is
dependant upon intent and preferences rather than results. A given
*result* could fit World, Story or Game, but knowing the *reason why* a
decision was made is what allows prediction of future decisions.
It all comes down to reduction of stylistic assumption clash. In
order to achieve this, you *must* know what assumptions (ie intents) the
other party is operating based upon.
Let me return to my example of the game I am currently in (thrashed
out at length recently in the "campaign premise" thread, starting with
Message-ID: <3EA96D...@shaw.ca>.). I have a GM whose only concern
appears to be making every climactic battle a challenging one. He has
paid no attention to World concerns to arrange this, leading to a clash
with many of the players about the "unbelievability" of some of the
situations we have found ourselves in.
Now if I look at the *results* of any particular decision the GM has
made, any protest by the players may seem a little petty. There could
be World reasons why the mob boss has a full-fledged dungeon underneath
a small bar in the middle of a major city. There could be Story
reasons unbeknownst to us why all his henchmen are fanatically loyal and
neutral in aligment. It is only by looking at the pattern of such
decisions over a longer term that I deduce instead that Game concerns
are paramount to him and World considerations practically nonexistant.
This is an important discernment to make if one hopes to heal the
campaign. Similar assessment of my fellow players has told me that they
prefer a stronger degree of World. Thus, I can see that the campaign is
doomed to further dissent unless the GM starts making more decisions
with an intent to add World considerations, or else the other players
accept (as I have) that we cannot expect the World to make sense.
> I see how the distinction may warrant extra clarification (as
> in "dramatist intent" or "the resulting simulationism" or whatever),
> but still... Saying that it can only be used to describe intent is a
> bit like saying that object-oriented can only be used to describe
> design, and not code...
Hmmm. Here's a better computer-based analogy (imo).
You have code which is supposed to determine a result based upon
certain input parameters. It has been tested on a predetermined sample
dataset and produced the correct result. Is it okay at this point to
declare the code good, or is it important to determine that the process
by which it achieved those results is valid?
Looking at results will only tell you how well a campaign has met
expectations heretofore. Looking at the process (ie intent) behind the
decision-making allows you to predict future breaking-points before they
occur.
Murkily yours,
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Scott Clark
news:a3db6b24.03050...@posting.google.com:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote in message
> news:<3EBB8675...@knutsen.dk>...
>> It would be even more useful if it was spelled correctly:
>> fudge-heavy.
>
> I'm not sure why you think this is a better spelling; I think freeform
> is a better (more general) description. Could you elucidate?
Peter very myopic. The only reason he can see for anyone ever wanting to
use any rules-light system is because they like GM-fudging, and he has
therefore invented his own terminology that enforces his faulty
worldview.
Robert Scott Clark
> Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
>>
>> And although intent and result clearly are different things, is there
>> really any reason why a set of descriptive terms may only be used on
>> either?
>
> From my POV the ability to apply the Threefold to fix a campaign is
> dependant upon intent and preferences rather than results. A given
> *result* could fit World, Story or Game, but knowing the *reason why* a
> decision was made is what allows prediction of future decisions.
#1 Knowing what results were achieved will often be a pretty darn good
predictor of what future decisions will be - for some play styles. The
fact that for whatever in-game/metagame reason, PCs have, in the past,
rarely been killed in campaigns I GM is a damned good indicator that
future decisions about PC death will produce the similar results.
#2 How a decision is made will not allow prediction of future decisions,
only a pattern of decisionmaking will allow prediction of future
decisions. This produces a distincty problem for people who fall
anywhere in the triangle except the extremes. The person who is
unconcerned with the threefold axies and the person who is conflicted
over them will produce a similar pattern.
>
> It all comes down to reduction of stylistic assumption clash. In
> order to achieve this, you *must* know what assumptions (ie intents)
the
> other party is operating based upon.
And is an assumption clash all by itself. It assumes that everyone is
using one of those predetermined methods to make decisions. It removes
assumptions within one subset of players, but never recognizes that it
creates one just as significant between that group and those of us not in
that group.
>
> Let me return to my example of the game I am currently in (thrashed
> out at length recently in the "campaign premise" thread, starting with
> Message-ID: <3EA96D...@shaw.ca>.). I have a GM whose only concern
> appears to be making every climactic battle a challenging one. He has
> paid no attention to World concerns to arrange this, leading to a clash
> with many of the players about the "unbelievability" of some of the
> situations we have found ourselves in.
>
> Now if I look at the *results* of any particular decision the GM has
> made, any protest by the players may seem a little petty. There could
> be World reasons why the mob boss has a full-fledged dungeon underneath
> a small bar in the middle of a major city. There could be Story
> reasons unbeknownst to us why all his henchmen are fanatically loyal
and
> neutral in aligment. It is only by looking at the pattern of such
> decisions over a longer term that I deduce instead that Game concerns
> are paramount to him and World considerations practically nonexistant.
>
> This is an important discernment to make if one hopes to heal the
> campaign. Similar assessment of my fellow players has told me that
they
> prefer a stronger degree of World. Thus, I can see that the campaign
is
> doomed to further dissent unless the GM starts making more decisions
> with an intent to add World considerations, or else the other players
> accept (as I have) that we cannot expect the World to make sense.
This type of statement is of the type that makes people like me say the
threefold is worthless. When people supporting it say things like this
it makes it clear there is something wrong with the model.
To state it blatantly - no style need ever result in the world not making
sense.
>
>
>> I see how the distinction may warrant extra clarification (as
>> in "dramatist intent" or "the resulting simulationism" or whatever),
>> but still... Saying that it can only be used to describe intent is a
>> bit like saying that object-oriented can only be used to describe
>> design, and not code...
>
> Hmmm. Here's a better computer-based analogy (imo).
>
> You have code which is supposed to determine a result based upon
> certain input parameters. It has been tested on a predetermined sample
> dataset and produced the correct result. Is it okay at this point to
> declare the code good, or is it important to determine that the process
> by which it achieved those results is valid?
You need to look at both. You can stare at pure code all you want, but
until you test it, you'll never find the bugs.
>
> Looking at results will only tell you how well a campaign has met
> expectations heretofore.
Unless you are mainly concerned with the results. If the computer
program is supposed to do nothing but draw a big circle on the screen,
then whether it does so by mathematically estimating points or by a
simple list of points to light, matter very little.
It makes sense to say that from a freefold point of view that a
"simulationist" is concerned with the reasons decisions are made, but
this doesn't work for "narrativist" (once you use a better definition
than the stupid "tell a good story" one). Narrativist decisions are
based on outcome. You make a decision that matches the outcome you want
- there is no difference between intent and outcome, your intent is the
outcome.
Warren J. Dew
I must say I'm a bit confused by the enormous weight that has
been placed on this distinction... Is it really that
important? Or is it that we love to play with words here at
rgfa?
Magnus, go read through the massive flamewar a couple years ago when Bradd W.
Szonye first joined the newsgroup, the one that pretty much killed discussion
here until this past month, and you will see why there's a lot of weight placed
on this distinction.
The more I see, the more I think that if there's going to be a FAQ, the poster
of it ought at least be required to keep up with the newsgroup.
Russell Wallace
Lie Hetland) wrote:
>In article <3eb88f3c....@news.eircom.net>, Russell Wallace wrote:
>>
>>The two issues regarding the Threefold that lead to confusion (and
>>sometimes flame wars) are:
>>
>>- It's defined in terms of intentions, not results.
>
>I must say I'm a bit confused by the enormous weight that has been
>placed on this distinction... Is it really that important? Or is it
>that we love to play with words here at rgfa?
Well, I don't greatly care about the distinction for its own sake,
because I find I don't need the Threefold model these days, and it
wouldn't bother me if people would just stop referring to it at all.
The reason I commented is that empirically I find people who miss the
above point are wont, for whatever reason, to obscure potentially
interesting discussions with interminable arguments and flame wars
about the bloody Threefold, to the point where I sometimes wish it had
never been invented; okay, it was progress at the time, but with all
the vast fertile tracts of memetic space available, why do people want
to spend so much time and energy bickering over this one stupid little
corner of it?
One can vaguely hope that having the official definition set down
clearly and unmistakably in the FAQ might perhaps help discourage some
of this.
Beowulf Bolt
> > campaign. Similar assessment of my fellow players has told me that
> > they prefer a stronger degree of World. Thus, I can see that the
> > campaign is doomed to further dissent unless the GM starts making
> > more decisions with an intent to add World considerations, or else
> > the other players accept (as I have) that we cannot expect the World
> > to make sense.
>
> This type of statement is of the type that makes people like me say
> the threefold is worthless. When people supporting it say things like
> this it makes it clear there is something wrong with the model.
WTF?!?
I tell a story about how the Threefold model is helping me to come to
grips with a campaign and you cite it as *proof* that the model is
"useless"?
Robert, I don't give a flying fuck whether or not you like the
Threefold. If it doesn't work for you, so be it. What I don't
understand, however, is what basis you have for attacking those of us
who *do* find value in it.
> To state it blatantly - no style need ever result in the world not
> making sense.
So what? The style of campaign I am in has done *precisely* that.
Should I just pretend that the world *does* make sense? I don't
understand why it troubles *you* so much that I look into the reasons
*why* the campaign world doesn't make sense.
Never have I claimed that such a lack of sense is obligatory to one of
the extreme points. Your attack on the model is unwarranted.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
>
> The reason I commented is that empirically I find people who miss
> the above point are wont, for whatever reason, to obscure
> potentially interesting discussions with interminable arguments and
> flame wars about the bloody Threefold, to the point where I
> sometimes wish it had never been invented; okay, it was progress at
> the time, but with all the vast fertile tracts of memetic space
> available, why do people want to spend so much time and energy
> bickering over this one stupid little corner of it?
>
> One can vaguely hope that having the official definition set down
> clearly and unmistakably in the FAQ might perhaps help discourage
> some of this.
Actually, putting your previous paragraph in the FAQ might work
better. :)
--
Neel Krishnaswami
ne...@alum.mit.edu
Charlton Wilbur
(in response to me)
> >The two issues regarding the Threefold that lead to confusion (and
> >sometimes flame wars) are:
> >
> >- It's defined in terms of intentions, not results.
>
> I must say I'm a bit confused by the enormous weight that has been
> placed on this distinction... Is it really that important? Or is it
> that we love to play with words here at rgfa?
It is very important to some of us. As a possibly-wrong
generalization, it seems that the people who care about intent also
care to distinguish between intent and results, and people who don't
care about intent (or who think it's a red herring, viz. Jason
Corley's response to your question in this thread, in which he says
that player perception of GM intent, which correlates strongly with
outcome, is more interesting to him than actual GM intent) don't think
that the distinction is necessary.
My own interest in *intent* rather than *outcome* is because outcomes
are difficult to read on their own; you can't look at one resolution
and determine anything meaningful about the GM. You need a pattern of
resolutions, and at that point the useful thing to do is to generalize
about a pattern for the method behind the outcomes -- which means
you're talking about intent.
I agree with Jason Corley in that the *perceived* intent of the
gamemaster can be as important as the *actual* intent -- if the
gamemaster thinks he's being dramatist, while the players think based
on his decisions that he's being gamist, we're either dealing with an
issue of perception or of definition. But on a deeper level, we're
also committing the intentional fallacy -- trying to draw conclusions
about the intent a person had based on what he does.
I also think that it's problematic to talk about 'simulationist
outcomes' -- what that means, to me at least, is 'outcomes that match
what I would expect if the gamemaster had simulationist intent.'
Better to say 'world-oriented outcomes' or 'story-oriented outcomes'
or 'game-oriented outcomes', or some newly-created jargon, to get the
point across, if that's what you mean.
> And although intent and result clearly are different things, is
> there really any reason why a set of descriptive terms may only be
> used on either? I see how the distinction may warrant extra
> clarification (as in "dramatist intent" or "the resulting
> simulationism" or whatever), but still... Saying that it can only be
> used to describe intent is a bit like saying that object-oriented
> can only be used to describe design, and not code...
I think a preferable solution is to come up with alternate, more
precise terminology to avoid the necessary clarification. If we
conclude that we *must* use the Threefold terminology with an emphasis
on outcome, then we need good solid rubrics, akin to what we have with
the Threefold as currently used, to determine if an outcome is gamist,
simulationist, or dramatist, *without reference to the intent of the
gamemaster*.
The real problem is that there exist both a set of people for whom the
distinction between intent and outcome is useful and a set of people
for whom the distinction between intent and outcome is irrelevant. If
both of those sets of people use the same three words, we're going to
wind up talking past each other more than talking to each other.
Perhaps what we need is for one of the people who wants to talk about
outcomes to enumerate the interesting sorts of outcomes, and a
terminology can arise from that. The Threefold arose because people
were interested in discussing the *intent* of the GM in making
decisions. I'll admit to being stuck in my ways: I can't see
'<threefold absolute> outcome' as anything but 'a likely outcome if
the GM had <threefold absolute> intent', and so the definition is
based on intent. I don't know how I can conceive of an event being
simulationist, or dramatist, or gamist, *without* using intent as an
essential part of the definition.
And that said, maybe the sufficient resolution to this is to clarify
somewhere explicitly that the Threefold can refer to *intent* or
*perceived intent*, since it seems to me that a lot of people are
using constructions like 'simulationist outcome' to mean something
like 'I perceive that the intent of the GM in this matter was
simulationist,' or 'This outcome is consistent with a simulationist
intent,' but that the people who are resisting the limitation of the
Threefold to intent are reluctant to ascribe intent.
Or maybe I'm way off base here. Maybe the first step is to come up
with rubrics to separate various types of outcome from each other
without reference to intent.
Charlton
Russell Wallace
<ne...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>Actually, putting your previous paragraph in the FAQ might work
>better. :)
Heh. I suppose maybe it just might :)
Jason Corley
> And that said, maybe the sufficient resolution to this is to clarify
> somewhere explicitly that the Threefold can refer to *intent* or
> *perceived intent*, since it seems to me that a lot of people are
> using constructions like 'simulationist outcome' to mean something
> like 'I perceive that the intent of the GM in this matter was
> simulationist,' or 'This outcome is consistent with a simulationist
> intent,' but that the people who are resisting the limitation of the
> Threefold to intent are reluctant to ascribe intent.
I'll refine my point of view a little bit because people are actually
talking about the subject again and I think it's been long enough that
I don't feel like I'm harping on it - although I did present my point
of view on the Threefold again-and-again back in the day.
I don't want to discount GM intent as important - /in campaign design/.
In fact, when designing a campaign, GM intent is BY FAR the most
important thing that we can look at to determine what's going on in the
game. And translating that intent into a campaign with various
techniques is an extremely important topic for me, as a GM, very very
fruitful to talk about. Heck, sometimes campaign design takes place,
chronologically, after play begins, so intentions behind those
decisions are also interesting to talk about.
But no GM intention survives contact with the players, and I think
trying to understand what happens at the gaming table by thinking about
GM intent is like trying to understand your car by an extremely close
analysis of the seat belt latch. That seat belt latch isn't
unimportant, by any means, but it tells you two things about how your
car works: diddly and squat.
And I think when you start to talk about outcomes you start to come
across what I think is the coolest thing about the hobby, but which
also makes navel-gazing about it both tempting and stupid: it's
/extremely extremely broad/. It is more interesting to me from an
analytical point of view to narrow in, laser-like, on /one little
thing/ about someone's experience than it is to try to stick people in
bins, or use vector algebra to describe them or whatever the
description method du jour is. Then compare that one little thing to
other people's similar one little thing and see how everything,
holistically, relates to it (including the seat belt latch of GM
intent, the windshield of player intent, the radio knob of dice
variation, the badly folded road map of task resolution, and so on
through all the bad metaphors).
It's also more useful because it's much easier to change a small thing
about your approach to a situation than "your intent".
Anyway, there's my suggestion. My suggestion is to just forget about
jargon, forget about classification systems, just focus in closely on
something you've observed and figure out what's going on in there.
As a poster on RPG.net recently said (with this punctuation and
spelling):
===============
I fully admit that I am guilty of arm-chair roleplaying. I can't even
begin to count the hours I've spent sitting around thinking or talking
about roleplaying philosophy, how certain systems contribute "such and
such" a feel, or which system would be best for "such and such" a
genre/setting.
Now I am pretty fed up. I just feel like jumping up and shouting, "FUCK
IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK
IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK
IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK IT! FUCK
FUCK FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Let's just play something.....PLAY.....fuck what system it is!
For the love of sweet baby Jesus, all of this philosophy is giving me
the SHITS!
Sorry for the cussing. You might be able to tell I am frusterated.
====================
*bow*
Magnus Lie Hetland
Scott Clark wrote:
[snip]
>This type of statement is of the type that makes people like me say the
>threefold is worthless. When people supporting it say things like this
>it makes it clear there is something wrong with the model.
Even though I partook wholeheartedly in the original debates in the
formative years of the threefold model, and thought it was a pretty
good idea to have such a model at the time, now I tend to agree with
you.
[snip]
>You need to look at both. You can stare at pure code all you want, but
>until you test it, you'll never find the bugs.
Absolutely. An the code is not the intent, anyway. Looking at your
intent (i.e. design or test suite or whatever) won't help much on its
own either.
Focusing on intent may not help if the intent is not reached. If the
GM is intent on creating dramatic stories but fails -- what good would
the threefold do?
I think the threefold model seems like a nice way of making people
realize there are other ways of gaming than their own (even though
three "the right" number of dimensions...) Using it for detailed
analysis -- either of intents or outcomes -- seems a bit far-fetched
IMO.
And, if applying the threefold to outcomes rather than intents can get
you *flamed* (I didn't really follow the relevant discussions, so
please excuse me if I misunderstood this), then I'm really shocked.
Magnus Lie Hetland
Dew wrote:
>Magnus Lie Hetland posts, in part:
>
> I must say I'm a bit confused by the enormous weight that has been
> placed on this distinction... Is it really that important? Or is it
> that we love to play with words here at rgfa?
>
>Magnus, go read through the massive flamewar a couple years ago when
>Bradd W. Szonye first joined the newsgroup, the one that pretty much
>killed discussion here until this past month, and you will see why
>there's a lot of weight placed on this distinction.
Yeah, I guess I'll have to look it up -- because I'm completely
baffled by the energy invested in this distinction.
Although... I do remember the wild flame-throwing discussions about
David Berkman's religious fervor ;) in defending Syd Field's story
model as the One True Way of dramatic structure quite a number of
years ago ('94?). In hindsight, I do think that all was rather silly
too...
I skimmed briefly through various flame-related-looking posts by Bradd
W. Szyone, and found one Szyone quote I quite liked:
"I don't think the threefold is the problem as much as the
hair-splitting discussions that go along with it. There seems to be
a *lot* of intolerance for differing opinions on it, despite that
the whole point of the thing is to dispel intolerance."
Finding the exact points where this issue was discussed wasn't too
easy, though. If someone could point to a specific thread where the
importance of applying the threefold to intent but not to results is
explained, I would be thankful. If not, I guess I shall remain in
ignorance, and probably butt out of this specific discussion (for
now).
>The more I see, the more I think that if there's going to be a FAQ,
>the poster of it ought at least be required to keep up with the
>newsgroup.
Why? All I do is host a cron job that posts it. John is the author,
and responsible for the contents. My quips about this issue have
nothing to do with the FAQ.
>Warren J. Dew
>Powderhouse Software
--
Magnus Lie Hetland
Neelakantan Krishnaswami wrote:
[snip]
>Actually, putting your previous paragraph in the FAQ might work
>better. :)
Good suggestion :)
>Neel Krishnaswami
>ne...@alum.mit.edu
Magnus Lie Hetland
>m...@furu.idi.ntnu.no (Magnus Lie Hetland) writes:
>
Thanks for clarifying.
As I said earlier, I agree that there is a clear distinction between
intent and outcome -- of course. If not, we'd all be omnipotent.
As for classifying events (i.e. games) based on intent or outcome;
this distinction is commen in (e.g.) ethics too.
I guess what I reacted to was the perceived (by me) "prohibition"
against using the threefold on outcomes. Maybe one should have two
completely sets of terms (as you suggest below) to avoid confusion.
I don't see a great need for it, but it wouldn't really trouble me.
And... While we're on the issue of intent vs. outcome; wouldn't it be
just as fruitful to focus on how to actually get from intent to
outcome? An intent isn't much worth by itself...
>I also think that it's problematic to talk about 'simulationist
>outcomes' -- what that means, to me at least, is 'outcomes that match
>what I would expect if the gamemaster had simulationist intent.'
I see what you mean -- as "simulationist" smacks of personal
description.
>Better to say 'world-oriented outcomes' or 'story-oriented outcomes'
>or 'game-oriented outcomes', or some newly-created jargon, to get the
>point across, if that's what you mean.
Sure. I just feel it ought to be permitted to use the same categories
to describe outcomes, if need be... Just like we use the term "action
movie" more as a description of the movie itself than of the intent of
the director, for example.
[snip]
>I think a preferable solution is to come up with alternate, more
>precise terminology to avoid the necessary clarification.
Fine by me.
>If we conclude that we *must* use the Threefold terminology with an
>emphasis on outcome, then we need good solid rubrics, akin to what we
>have with the Threefold as currently used, to determine if an outcome
>is gamist, simulationist, or dramatist, *without reference to the
>intent of the gamemaster*.
I'm not going to argue that we need this. I'm not going to argue
fervently either way here.
>The real problem is that there exist both a set of people for whom the
>distinction between intent and outcome is useful and a set of people
>for whom the distinction between intent and outcome is irrelevant. If
>both of those sets of people use the same three words, we're going to
>wind up talking past each other more than talking to each other.
Good point -- although I have a feeling this is true of Usenet
discussions anyway ;)
>Perhaps what we need is for one of the people who wants to talk about
>outcomes to enumerate the interesting sorts of outcomes, and a
>terminology can arise from that. The Threefold arose because people
>were interested in discussing the *intent* of the GM in making
>decisions.
I don't agree. The threefold arose because we wanted to describe
different gaming preferences -- different ways of gaming. These
preferences, when they belong to a GM, surely influence intent. But
they also apply to players.
But during its development, the model was defined in many ways. To
quote from Justing Bacon, two of these definitions were:
"a model describing the considerations used by the GM at the point
of resolving an action"
"a model describing the way the gaming group perceives the
roleplaying event"
I think using it to describe preferences is just fine; GM preferences
will influence his/her intentions, while player preferences will
influence what outcomes (i.e. games) they prefer. Indirectly, this
will, of course, influence what GM intentions they prefer, since
outcomes usually are somewhat correlated to intentions...
> I'll admit to being stuck in my ways: I can't see
>'<threefold absolute> outcome' as anything but 'a likely outcome if
>the GM had <threefold absolute> intent',
In that case, how do you define the intent? If what the GM is intent
on achieving cannot be defined in itself, you are bound to get caught
up in circular logic... At least I cannot see how you avoid it.
Of course, you could use the threefold terms to describe the _actions_
taken by the GM -- they would be clearly influenced by intent and
would clearly influence the outcome. Oh, darn... Now we've got
_another_ thing to apply the threefold to <wink>.
>and so the definition is based on intent. I don't know how I can
>conceive of an event being simulationist, or dramatist, or gamist,
>*without* using intent as an essential part of the definition.
OK. How about judging whether it would appeal to a simulationist,
dramatist, or gamist player?
>And that said, maybe the sufficient resolution to this is to clarify
>somewhere explicitly that the Threefold can refer to *intent* or
>*perceived intent*, since it seems to me that a lot of people are
>using constructions like 'simulationist outcome' to mean something
>like 'I perceive that the intent of the GM in this matter was
>simulationist,' or 'This outcome is consistent with a simulationist
>intent,' but that the people who are resisting the limitation of the
>Threefold to intent are reluctant to ascribe intent.
Maybe -- but here you are, again, assuming that these limitations are
inherent in the threefold. As I see it, they are inherent only in the
interpretation you give, and that seems to be prevalent in the
newsgroup at present.
But, as I said (or have tried to convey), I don't mind having the
threefold terms used as a description of intent. I just feel that the
same categories (quite possibly with different names, to avoid
confusion) may be useful in classifying types of games, that is, the
type of thing one might be intent on creating (to avoid circular
logic), or the type of thing one might want to play in.
As I said earlier, one of my main concerns is the way to actually
*achieve* your intent. And to do that, I think a good description of
what you want to achieve is important.
But I guess this is all quickly becoming a typical rambling usenet
posting with little real content. I'll shut up now. Or after I've
answered your next suggestion ;)
>Or maybe I'm way off base here. Maybe the first step is to come up
>with rubrics to separate various types of outcome from each other
>without reference to intent.
How about using more common terms like "dramatic" instead of
"dramatist" to describe outcome? Not sure what adjectives to use for
simulation and gaming, though...
>Charlton
Oh, my -- how easy it is to get sucked into these discussions. :]
Mary K. Kuhner
>>- It's defined in terms of intentions, not results.
>I must say I'm a bit confused by the enormous weight that has been
>placed on this distinction... Is it really that important? Or is it
>that we love to play with words here at rgfa?
In my opinion, it's the "dead hand" of David Berkman.
He would describe a game that I wouldn't enjoy playing in, and
then disagree with my self-assessment of that. A major tool
was denying that I could possibly be responding to intent,
and insisting that I could only be responding to results.
The follow-up argument was that I should be perfectly happy
with game resolutions as long as each one was plausible in
the game-world, no matter how clearly I could see metagame
intent.
This just wasn't so, and it felt helpful at the time to work out
nomenclature that supported the distinction.
It's not as clearly helpful now.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Magnus Lie Hetland
>In article <slrnbbn5b...@furu.idi.ntnu.no>,
>Magnus Lie Hetland <m...@furu.idi.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>In article <3eb88f3c....@news.eircom.net>, Russell Wallace wrote:
>
>>>- It's defined in terms of intentions, not results.
>
>>I must say I'm a bit confused by the enormous weight that has been
>>placed on this distinction... Is it really that important? Or is it
>>that we love to play with words here at rgfa?
>
>In my opinion, it's the "dead hand" of David Berkman.
LOL!
I'm glad I'm not the only one still referring to him :)
>He would describe a game that I wouldn't enjoy playing in, and
>then disagree with my self-assessment of that.
Right. I remember becoming quite smitten with the alluring story
paradigm mumbo-jumbo myself... The rhetoric of the likes of Syd Field
(who claim to have the only true answer to how things must be done)
can be quite attractive.
>A major tool was denying that I could possibly be responding to
>intent, and insisting that I could only be responding to results.
I see.
>The follow-up argument was that I should be perfectly happy
>with game resolutions as long as each one was plausible in
>the game-world, no matter how clearly I could see metagame
>intent.
I see your point. (Although -- what you were observing was, of course,
the outcome, _shaped_ by the intent... Unless you were using a
brainscanner of some kind ;)
>This just wasn't so, and it felt helpful at the time to work out
>nomenclature that supported the distinction.
Indeed.
>It's not as clearly helpful now.
Well, as I have (evidently) not been following recent discussions
closely enough, I don't really know how useful this is. I find the
threefold is a nice, basic terminology, but not really much more
useful than saying that a story must have a 'beginning, middle, and
end' (and no -- I'm not talking about the Syd Field three-act model
here ;)
Anyway -- thanks for clearing things up a bit.
>Mary Kuhner
>mkku...@eskimo.com
Mary K. Kuhner
Magnus Lie Hetland <m...@furu.idi.ntnu.no> wrote:
>In article <3eb88f3c....@news.eircom.net>, Russell Wallace wrote:
>>- It's defined in terms of intentions, not results.
>I must say I'm a bit confused by the enormous weight that has been
>placed on this distinction... Is it really that important? Or is it
>that we love to play with words here at rgfa?
One further thought on this:
Some people see tradeoffs in their games, where if they try for
more World accuracy, for example, the proportion of Game
disappointments goes up. Or if they try to make the game a better
Story, the players become less convinced of the World.
Other people deny, vehemently and with passion, that there is
ever any tradeoff. In particular, story-focused GMs often
say flatly that making the World worse *never* makes the Story
better. (We had just such a post today.)
It appears that part of the disagreement here depends on whether
the players value intent or not. A player who cares about
intent is likely to find that Story-directed efforts damage
World, because a decision that she can see was made for Story
reasons cannot, thereby, have been made for World reasons.
A player who does not care about intent finds this whole
line of reasoning utterly opaque, even stupid; as long as the
result was good for both Story and World there is no conflict.
I'm not sure there is any easy way for these two camps to
understand each other. I have attempted to summarize the
view that differs from mine here, but I admit that I do so
without any intuitive understanding. But there was a hope,
for a while, that having terminology which dealt with intent
would at least let the intent-priority folks talk intelligably
about their games.
Again, I'm not sure anymore that this is working. But that's
the logic.
As a GM I have two completely distinct styles, one which
prioritizes World and one which prioritizes Story. In both
cases I want the World to be consistent, but in the first
kind of game the World drives everything else, and in the
second the Story does. My player has absolutely no trouble
telling which approach I'm using, and will in fact recommend
one or the other for a given game.
The Story-priority games tend to die off, because for me that
style is a huge amount of ongoing work, much more work than
the World-priority style. World-priority requires more setup
but then takes on a "life of its own" and runs along with
relatively low effort. Story-priority never has a life of
its own for me, and requires constant maintenance (Bradd's
recent exchanges with me have some very good examples of what
the maintenance would be like).
Arguments that these two are really the same, therefore,
strike me as unhelpful. Yet the difference is
really intent. There's a visible pattern in results, but
from the GM's point of view that's just a side effect of
the difference in intent.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Beowulf Bolt
>
> Focusing on intent may not help if the intent is not reached. If the
> GM is intent on creating dramatic stories but fails -- what good would
> the threefold do?
This depends on how it fails. If it fails because the GM sucks at
telling stories, or because the type of story being told doesn't appeal
to the players, then the Threefold doesn't help.
If it failed because at key times the GM would deviate from the
storyline because "this is not what that NPC would do in this
situation", then this is another matter.
There are two types of intent being discussed here. An arching intent
for the whole campaign, and the intent driving an individual decision.
It is stylistic differences at the individual decision level that are
covered by the Threefold.
The Threefold is not the end-all or be-all of gaming, and doesn't
cover a myriad of possible player-GM disagreements. No-one has *ever*
claimed this to be the case. Thus, a failure of the Threefold to be
such an all-purpose tool is neither surprising nor proof that it is
broken.
> And, if applying the threefold to outcomes rather than intents can get
> you *flamed* (I didn't really follow the relevant discussions, so
> please excuse me if I misunderstood this), then I'm really shocked.
As well you should be because no such baseless flaming has ever taken
place, as far as I can see. We've had disagreements grow heated which
stemmed from this issue, but the flames were not themselves feeding upon
this disagreement.
Mary K. Kuhner
Magnus Lie Hetland <m...@furu.idi.ntnu.no> wrote:
>In article <b9gr6o$f7o$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>>The follow-up argument was that I should be perfectly happy
>>with game resolutions as long as each one was plausible in
>>the game-world, no matter how clearly I could see metagame
>>intent.
>I see your point. (Although -- what you were observing was, of course,
>the outcome, _shaped_ by the intent... Unless you were using a
>brainscanner of some kind ;)
Not necessarily. A player can have many tools with which to
judge the GM's intent:
--individual events in the game
--the pattern of events over time
--the GM's manner and bearing in adjucating those events
(is she covering the dice with her hand?)
--the GM's analysis of the game (when I had a multi-player
group we loved to go out to dinner and talk about the
just-completed game)
--accounts of previous games
--the GM's writing, Usenet posts, etc. describing her preferred
GMing style
--direct questions--"Hey, did you do that for reason X?"
--explicit game contract, if it exists
Since I care about intent, I am attentive for clues to
intent, and I certainly respond to more than just the single
in-game outcome. In some circumstances I will flat-out
ask, and I expect to be told the truth. But even when I
don't ask, I always have a theory and I'm constantly
accumulating evidence.
Players who don't care about intent, I presume, don't do
this. In many ways that sounds like a simpler mode of play,
and one with less scope for player/GM conflict. I just
can't play that way, I don't know why.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Mary K. Kuhner
Magnus Lie Hetland <m...@furu.idi.ntnu.no> wrote:
>Focusing on intent may not help if the intent is not reached. If the
>GM is intent on creating dramatic stories but fails -- what good would
>the threefold do?
I have found that when asking for GMing advice, it really, really
helps to make intent clear. "I am trying to make this game a
good story, and I'm failing for the following reasons--or, I
can't see why I'm failing, but I am. Can anyone help?"
If you don't make the intent clear, you get advice that is not
about making your stories better, it's about doing something
else, perhaps something you had no desire to do. This is
frustrating and tends to lead to lots of heat and little light.
When I am running a highly World-oriented game I've learned
*always* to make that clear before asking for help, or 99%
of the advice I get is not only useless but somewhat infuriating.
As for practical usefulness of the Threefold: I have, as I
mentioned earlier, two different GMing styles. Before I
realized this, I had a couple of radical campaign failures
due to trying to mix what are, to me, immiscible styles. It
helped to realize that if I focused on Story I was not going
to be able to achieve the advantages (basically, a world-model
that runs on its own) which I expect from games where I
focus on World, and vice versa. I was always wondering--
what's wrong with this campaign? Why are things that used
to be easy suddenly so hard?
None of this applies, however, to people who don't see a
tradeoff, or people whose style is resolutely in the middle
of the triangle. So they naturally find the model unhelpful
and annoying.
It also doesn't apply to people who think their particular
style is the One True Way, because no matter *what* I say to
them, they'll still give me advice from their True Way and
nothing else.
Some of the flame wars have to do with anger toward the second
group; and sometimes I think we've been unable to adequately
distinguish the first group from the second. I'd point at
Neel and Jason as clear examples of the first group; they
aren't one-true-way extremists, they just don't organize
their play in a way that these models enhance at all.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Russell Wallace
K. Kuhner) wrote:
>Since I care about intent, I am attentive for clues to
>intent, and I certainly respond to more than just the single
>in-game outcome. In some circumstances I will flat-out
>ask, and I expect to be told the truth. But even when I
>don't ask, I always have a theory and I'm constantly
>accumulating evidence.
>
>Players who don't care about intent, I presume, don't do
>this.
Hmm. I think I do this to some extent as insurance.
I mostly don't care much about intent when things are going well;
don't look a gift horse in the mouth and all that. If problems arise,
though, an understanding of intent is critical to solving them, which
is the practical benefit I (at least sometimes) gain from having a
theory about what's going on there.
Russell Wallace
K. Kuhner) wrote:
>As for practical usefulness of the Threefold: I have, as I
>mentioned earlier, two different GMing styles. Before I
>realized this, I had a couple of radical campaign failures
>due to trying to mix what are, to me, immiscible styles. It
>helped to realize that if I focused on Story I was not going
>to be able to achieve the advantages (basically, a world-model
>that runs on its own) which I expect from games where I
>focus on World, and vice versa. I was always wondering--
>what's wrong with this campaign? Why are things that used
>to be easy suddenly so hard?
>
>None of this applies, however, to people who don't see a
>tradeoff, or people whose style is resolutely in the middle
>of the triangle.
That's an interesting analysis... I'm somewhat middle of triangle
these days. (I mostly let the world run itself, but apply occasional
nudges for things like dramatic appropriateness, or giving X's
character something to do if he's been idle for a couple of hours, as
long as it isn't inconsistent with what's already been established.) I
know of course that other people can be at different places on the
triangle, but I hadn't really thought about the possibility of someone
being able to GM well at point A or B, but not halfway in between.
Peter Knutsen
Robert Scott Clark wrote:
> Peter very myopic. The only reason he can see for anyone ever wanting to
> use any rules-light system is because they like GM-fudging, and he has
> therefore invented his own terminology that enforces his faulty
> worldview.
In a rules-light campaign, you can't *avoid* lots of fudging. You
gotta determine outcomes somehow. It's a continuum where you have
rules at one end and fudging at the other end.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Beowulf Bolt wrote:
> From my POV the ability to apply the Threefold to fix a campaign is
Why only use the Threefold to fix an existing campaign? Why not use
it, instead of (or in addition to) fixing existing campaigns, to match
up with roleplaying gamers who share your preferences?
> Biff
--
Peter Knutsen
Russell Wallace
wrote:
>In a rules-light campaign, you can't *avoid* lots of fudging. You
>gotta determine outcomes somehow. It's a continuum where you have
>rules at one end and fudging at the other end.
Except the word "fudging" means more than "adjudication other than
with formal rules", it carries the connotation that using rules is the
norm, and freeform adjudication is an undesirable deviation from it.
"In a rules-heavy campaign, you can't *avoid* lots of anal-retentive
bureaucracy." Semantic content not incompatible with your statement
but very different connotations, yes?
Now I've better uses for my time than feeding trolls; if you continue
referring to freeform gaming as fudging, I'll assume that's your
intent and leave you to it. But if you genuinely didn't know why the
word isn't appropriate, the above is the reason.
Russell Wallace
wrote:
>Why only use the Threefold to fix an existing campaign? Why not use
>it, instead of (or in addition to) fixing existing campaigns, to match
>up with roleplaying gamers who share your preferences?
The general idea of matching up with gamers who share your preferences
is a good one, but I think the Threefold is a bad tool for it.
- 99.99% of gamers have never heard of the Threefold.
- 90% of those who have, haven't carried out the sort of cold
self-analysis necessary to accurately identify their preferences on
such an abstract scale.
- 50% of those who have, will lie about their preferences if they
think it'll improve their chances of getting into a game.
- Being at different points on the Threefold isn't the most common
cause of conflict in the first place. The most common causes of
conflict are things like setting and rules system, amount of combat
and PC power level. It would probably be more effective to attempt a
matchup using questions addressed directly at these concerns.
Peter Knutsen
T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote in message news:<3EBB8675...@knutsen.dk>...
>
>>It would be even more useful if it was spelled correctly: fudge-heavy.
>
> I'm not sure why you think this is a better spelling; I think freeform
> is a better (more general) description. Could you elucidate?
Free-form contains the component "free", which is, in modern English,
a positively loaded word. "Free" is *good*, generally speaking
(hearing the syllable makes most people think of "freedom" and other
such concepts). The term thus suggests that free-form play is better
than whatever-it-is that is not free-form play, which is criminally
misleading.
My objection is exactly the same as when I complain about the use of
terms such as rules-light and rules-heavy. If something is "light" on
something, it is probably good, because we're constantly exposed to
commercials advertizing such things as "coke light", products that are
light in sugars or fats, or just plain calories. People new to
roleplaying, who see such terms being used by veteran players, may be
lead to believe that the fewer rules there are in a campaign, the
better the campaign is. Misleading newbies is harmful.
> (I'm presuming that you were refering to freeform, since non-random
> need not include any fudging.)
Yes.
--
Peter Knutsen
Beowulf Bolt
>
> I mostly don't care much about intent when things are going well;
> don't look a gift horse in the mouth and all that. If problems arise,
> though, an understanding of intent is critical to solving them, which
> is the practical benefit I (at least sometimes) gain from having a
> theory about what's going on there.
Strong agreement.
Such was the case for me in the campaign I have brought up here
recently in a couple of threads. In the early going, any problems I or
my fellow players had with the campaign were regarded as isolated
things, and I didn't even think of the Threefold.
It is only as it became apparent to me that ongoing stylistic clashes
*were* taking place, and getting stronger in the current storyline that
I looked back and tried to divine the GMs intent all along. And such an
analysis *did* bear fruit.
Peter Knutsen
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
[Threefold intents vs threefold results, about Berkman]
> He would describe a game that I wouldn't enjoy playing in, and
> then disagree with my self-assessment of that. A major tool
> was denying that I could possibly be responding to intent,
> and insisting that I could only be responding to results.
> The follow-up argument was that I should be perfectly happy
> with game resolutions as long as each one was plausible in
> the game-world, no matter how clearly I could see metagame
> intent.
Would it be useful to think of GMing as dividing your mental
ressources into three different categories? The more time and effort
the GM spends on making sure the world makes sense, the less time and
effort he can spare on story or challenge. He can't get everything
perfect (unless he has unlimited mental ressources).
If so, Berkman's problem was that he could not, or would not, realize
that it requires a lot of effort to make sure the world makes sense.
That he refused to acknowledge that GMing means to try to choose a
balance between making the prettiest possible story, and the best
simulation.
Some weeks ago, one of the newcomers used a rope analogy, in the
dungeon-beneath-the-inn example, where the GM completely stopped
trying to make sure the world made sense.
> Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Charlton Wilbur
> In article <87of2cm...@mithril.chromatico.net>, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>> I'll admit to being stuck in my ways: I can't see
>> '<threefold absolute> outcome' as anything but 'a likely outcome if
>> the GM had <threefold absolute> intent',
>
> In that case, how do you define the intent? If what the GM is intent
> on achieving cannot be defined in itself, you are bound to get caught
> up in circular logic... At least I cannot see how you avoid it.
No, the emphasis is on the word *outcome.* I can't see 'gamist
outcome' as anything but 'a likely outcome if the GM had gamist
intent.'
If you allow intent to be the definining characteristic, then it's
easy to define the three poles of the Threefold: simulationism is the
intent to resolve the in-game action based only on what is in-game;
dramatism is the intent to resolve the in-game action based on what
makes a good story; and gamism is the intent to resolve the in-game
action based on player skill.
> OK. How about judging whether it would appeal to a simulationist,
> dramatist, or gamist player?
What is a simulationist player? From my definition above, I conclude
that it's one who likes actions to be resolved with no out-of-game
influence. By comparison, a dramatist player must be one who likes
good stories, and a gamist player must be one who likes challenges to
out-of-game skills. Well, what happens if the outcome appeals to all
three? What happens if a decision made for simulationist reasons also
appeals very heavily to the dramatist players? This example in
particular is near and dear to my heart, because I like good stories
and I especially like dramatic closure -- but it feels cheap when I
know the GM was intentionally resolving actions all along to create
the story. This is why intent matters to me.
>> And that said, maybe the sufficient resolution to this is to clarify
>> somewhere explicitly that the Threefold can refer to *intent* or
>> *perceived intent*, since it seems to me that a lot of people are
>> using constructions like 'simulationist outcome' to mean something
>> like 'I perceive that the intent of the GM in this matter was
>> simulationist,' or 'This outcome is consistent with a simulationist
>> intent,' but that the people who are resisting the limitation of the
>> Threefold to intent are reluctant to ascribe intent.
>
> Maybe -- but here you are, again, assuming that these limitations are
> inherent in the threefold. As I see it, they are inherent only in the
> interpretation you give, and that seems to be prevalent in the
> newsgroup at present.
They're problems with the Threefold as I have defined it, yes. And
the 'limitation' I referred to is not a limitation of the model but an
explicit limit set on it -- as in, yes, I know it won't work properly
when we use it to discuss outcomes.
I think part of the problem here is that people get tunnel-vision for
the Threefold. I don't understand why -- why don't people insist on
applying narrative stances to every possible parameter of every
possible game?
Charlton
Peter Knutsen
Russell Wallace wrote:
> Now I've better uses for my time than feeding trolls; if you continue
> referring to freeform gaming as fudging, I'll assume that's your
> intent and leave you to it. But if you genuinely didn't know why the
> word isn't appropriate, the above is the reason.
You're allowed to say rules-light but I'm not allowed to say
fudge-heavy? How come your word is less offensive than mine?
(Hint: I don't give a fuck about how many people use your word versus
how many people use my word. As far as I'm concerned, if a lot of
people embrace a particular position, one should not join them but
instead react with intense suspision)
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Russell Wallace wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2003 22:08:35 +0200, Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Why only use the Threefold to fix an existing campaign? Why not use
>>it, instead of (or in addition to) fixing existing campaigns, to match
>>up with roleplaying gamers who share your preferences?
>
>
> The general idea of matching up with gamers who share your preferences
> is a good one, but I think the Threefold is a bad tool for it.
It probably is, but perhaps it can be hammered into something useful?
It's been stagnant for a number of years. On general principles, a
work that is half a decade old needs updating.
> - 99.99% of gamers have never heard of the Threefold.
True.
> - 90% of those who have, haven't carried out the sort of cold
> self-analysis necessary to accurately identify their preferences on
> such an abstract scale.
Wrong, it's more than 90%! No, wait.. if you're already excluded
99.99% then you're probably right.
> - 50% of those who have, will lie about their preferences if they
> think it'll improve their chances of getting into a game.
Generally true.
I tried discussing a Roleplayer Compatibility Questionaire in here
some years ago (nothing came out of it), and one of the things I
pointed out was that it was vitally important to phrase each and every
question neutrally, i.e. so it does not tell the questionaire taker
which reply is the one that will bring him closer to being invited to
join the campaign.
(This does not solve the problem of known GMs, i.e. GMs who have
written at length about their preferences and styles on WWW or Usenet,
but there's no workaround for that except anonymity)
> - Being at different points on the Threefold isn't the most common
> cause of conflict in the first place. The most common causes of
I disagree. The vast majority of roleplayers are rather Gamist or
Dramatist or a mixture of the two (some weeks ago someone suggested in
here that most are Simulationists which is extremely wrong). Notice
how, every time I try talking about realism, I'm slapped with remarks
such as "You want realism in a game featuring magic and dragons?".
Getting rid of potential players who would just disrupt the game
anyway, and attracting those who would enjoy themselves, is important
and has a lot to do with Threefold preferences.
> conflict are things like setting and rules system, amount of combat
> and PC power level. It would probably be more effective to attempt a
> matchup using questions addressed directly at these concerns.
...Nevertheless those are also important issues.
Another issue is Free Will(tm). Should NPCs be able to use social
skills to influence PCs? What about magic, such as fear- or
lust-inducing spells? From discussions on Pyramid, this appears to be
a very important issue, upon which the gaming community is quietly
divided, each fraction taking it for granted that everyone plays like
them.
--
Peter Knutsen
Beowulf Bolt
Beowulf Bolt wrote:
>
> Robert Scott Clark wrote:
> >
> > To state it blatantly - no style need ever result in the world not
> > making sense.
>
> So what? The style of campaign I am in has done *precisely* that.
> Should I just pretend that the world *does* make sense? I don't
> understand why it troubles *you* so much that I look into the reasons
> *why* the campaign world doesn't make sense.
After more thought on the subject, I am willing to bet that if pressed
on the subject the GM would claim that the world *does* make sense. He
could look case-by-case and come up with explanation *how* the dungeon
was built, *why* the mob-bosses followers were the way they were, etc.
In this respect, he's like David Berkman was. As long as the
individual bits have some degree of plausibility, that is good enough
for him. For us players, however, we feel that things have to stick
together better. An opposition with the resources to build such a
"la-ir" and staff it with such personnel would not resemble the
organization we felt we were going entangling ourselves with. This
dissatisfaction then gets magnified by the cumulative effect of every
successive "unrealistic" encounter.
Thus the conflict.
Jason Corley
> I tried discussing a Roleplayer Compatibility Questionaire in here
> some years ago (nothing came out of it), and one of the things I
> pointed out was that it was vitally important to phrase each and every
> question neutrally, i.e. so it does not tell the questionaire taker
> which reply is the one that will bring him closer to being invited to
> join the campaign.
My players don't deceive me - but there are several who ARE deeply
infected with Tigger Syndrome. Even honestly-answered questionnaires
cannot defeat this.
John Kim
> > In terms of this FAQ, however, "diceless" role-playing refers
> > to generally minimalist systems where the GM decides on the results
> > of actions without the help of randomizers, tables, or explicit
> > quantified mechanics.
>
> I think this overly restricts the definition of diceless role-playing.
> Both Epiphany nor Nobilis use explicity quantified mechanics, and the
> mechanics portions of Nobilis are probably not minimalist and don't
> rely on GM fiat any more than any diced game.
Well, I do say "for purposes of this FAQ". Literally, "diceless" means just that:
doesn't use dice. This includes a host of games like Castle Falkenstein,
Mind's Eye Theater, and so forth.
I'm not familiar with Nobilis, but Epiphany is sort of a strange case. For
ranged combat and some other tests, the resolution is analogous to
Rock-Paper-Scissors. The result is effectively random (modulo the
ability of a player to read what the opponent is going to do).
>
> Would it be useful to split this into two categories: non-random
> and freeform?
I would say that the FAQ should probably specify that it is about a
particular type of diceless play: the style of Amber and Theatrix.
The range of other possible games goes way beyond the scope
of this.
Then again, none of the diceless stuff seems to come up here for a
long time -- so maybe it should just be dropped.
Robert Scott Clark
Rules light combat system: in case of conflict flip a coin - loser dies
the end
No fudging at all.
Sure, there are other things you lose by doing this, but you can choose to
lose them in order to get both rules light and no fudging at the same time.
They are opposed, but increasing one does not automatically necessitate
decreasing the other, or visa-versa.
>
Robert Scott Clark
> Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
>>
>> Focusing on intent may not help if the intent is not reached. If the
>> GM is intent on creating dramatic stories but fails -- what good would
>> the threefold do?
>
> This depends on how it fails. If it fails because the GM sucks at
> telling stories, or because the type of story being told doesn't appeal
> to the players, then the Threefold doesn't help.
>
> If it failed because at key times the GM would deviate from the
> storyline because "this is not what that NPC would do in this
> situation", then this is another matter.
How do you propose to tell a decent story with characters that behave
illogically and inappropriately for their established personalities?
Consistently and realistically written characters are one of the more
common things that people use to judge a good story.
Mary K. Kuhner
Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
>Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>[Threefold intents vs threefold results, about Berkman]
>> He would describe a game that I wouldn't enjoy playing in, and
>> then disagree with my self-assessment of that. A major tool
>> was denying that I could possibly be responding to intent,
>> and insisting that I could only be responding to results.
>> The follow-up argument was that I should be perfectly happy
>> with game resolutions as long as each one was plausible in
>> the game-world, no matter how clearly I could see metagame
>> intent.
>Would it be useful to think of GMing as dividing your mental
>ressources into three different categories? The more time and effort
>the GM spends on making sure the world makes sense, the less time and
>effort he can spare on story or challenge. He can't get everything
>perfect (unless he has unlimited mental ressources).
No, it wouldn't. I don't perceive it as an effort tradeoff but
as a methods tradeoff. There are methods which, if I use them much,
will kill World for me in the process of improving Story or Game.
No amount of time put in helps with this.
Even if I have infinite time, I can't make a decision both for
reason A and for reason B.
This could work well for the less intent-fixated players and GMs,
but I think that for them the Threefold (as Jason says) is
probably way to narrow, and it would be more use to talk about
which ropes you're trying to pull at any given moment. After
all, you can also run out of time and energy by trying to get
different parts of your Story to be perfect--time spent polishing
the villain's characterization is time not spent improving the
pacing of your scenes. Or you can run out by trying to get
different Game aspects right--time spent on improving game
balance is time not spent on enriching tactical choices. For those
who don't care about intent, it's not obvious to me that the
tripartate division is useful (except in trying to understand
the rest of us).
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Mary K. Kuhner
Russell Wallace <wallacet...@eircom.net> wrote:
>That's an interesting analysis... I'm somewhat middle of triangle
>these days. (I mostly let the world run itself, but apply occasional
>nudges for things like dramatic appropriateness, or giving X's
>character something to do if he's been idle for a couple of hours, as
>long as it isn't inconsistent with what's already been established.) I
>know of course that other people can be at different places on the
>triangle, but I hadn't really thought about the possibility of someone
>being able to GM well at point A or B, but not halfway in between.
After seeing it happen a few times, I think I have a pretty good
grasp on the debacle.
For me, a relatively World-oriented game tends to "run itself" after
it's well established, much as a well-established PC can be run without
too much mental struggle except in unusual circumstances. When I
want to know what happens next, I look at what key NPCs might be
doing, and the general flow of events, and maybe some new stuff pops
into mind but it's triggered by my sense of what's already there.
In _Weave_ once I knew that the Queen was immortal due to having
killed a phoenix, and wanted immortal company to salve her loneliness,
a whole bunch of other things accreted around that--the knight who
helped kill the phoenix and is now trying to redeem himself,
enemies in the court of the King of Death, the Queen's plan to
trick the King of Death, which required me to know about gates to
the Death-realm in the area, which in turn.... It's all connected,
even if the player never sees most of that.
But the downside of this is that it isn't, in my hands, very
flexible. Just as a PC model may crack if you do too many out-of-
character things, so the world model may crack if too many non-World
considerations are allowed in. I get a certain amount of
slack on this--I can do a bit of script immunity, or fudge some
timing for dramatic effect. But I can't really shoehorn in whole
elements that don't come out of the model. I wanted the Queen to
rule over a nice defended dungeon-like fortress, but she just
doesn't. And I wanted to find a reason that the PCs tackled
this alone, not with the Goblin Guardians as allies, but I just
couldn't.
Too many violations, and suddenly when I pull on one thread to see
what's attached, nothing is attached. What is the Queen's fortress
actually like? I dunno. It has to be consistent with all those
metagame decisions I made, and I have no idea anymore what that
would be.
I know a couple of players and GMs with this same problem; it
seems to correlate with playing immersively.
So to do a Story-oriented game I need to explicitly give up on or
even *kill* the world model, and substitute something else. In
my Honolulu Feng Shui games I set up a rather permissive setting
and then accepted that it wouldn't ever generate events on its
own. Instead, I had "guest villains" who I invented out of whole
cloth each week, and who were usually gone pretty quickly so I
didn't have to worry too much about their connections to the
setting. I actively stomped on intuitive connectedness among them.
I tried to run it like an episodic TV show.
To my surprise, I could get this to work once I accepted that it
was *not* world-model based. I'd like to make it clear that I
was still working to have the world appear plausible and consistent;
I just didn't indulge the idea that it was "real", and didn't
expect it to do stuff "by itself". (Quotes because I don't quite
mean to be taken literally; these are descriptions of how it
feels.)
But Honolulu II came to a sudden unexpected end. The PCs made
a dangerous ally among the bad guys, and she became a continuing
character. We had one stunningly cool confrontation scene where
the PCs talked with her and made plans for the alliance. And
then the player said, okay, let's stop now.
Because this particular NPC was Real, and having one Real thing
in an unreal background felt very bad to both of us. The player
said that he'd come to feel strongly enough about the NPC that
pushing her offstage or turning her back into a story character
would upset him; but that he could see that treating her as
Real and allowing the game to slide toward being World-driven would
ruin it. We just hadn't set up a situation that would produce
good games from a World orientation--we hadn't needed to.
This saved my neck, because she was Real to me just as much as
to the player, and I was having a terrible time with my sense of
what she was going to do next--it didn't lead to the things I'd
promised for this game contract, namely flashy, well-balanced,
exciting fights with clear-cut moral issues and clean resolutions.
I could have forced her to cooperate, but it'd have killed the
sense that she was Real, and I knew the player would react to
the lessened intensity of my portrayal. Maybe best to kill her?
I proposed that, but the player said no, better kill the game
instead. (One advantage of the one-player style is that these
decisions are a little easier. I don't know what I'd have done
if there had been player disagreement on the point. Killed her,
I guess, and gone on to see if it worked.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Mary K. Kuhner
Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
>> I tried discussing a Roleplayer Compatibility Questionaire in here
>> some years ago (nothing came out of it), and one of the things I
>> pointed out was that it was vitally important to phrase each and every
>> question neutrally, i.e. so it does not tell the questionaire taker
>> which reply is the one that will bring him closer to being invited to
>> join the campaign.
>My players don't deceive me - but there are several who ARE deeply
>infected with Tigger Syndrome. Even honestly-answered questionnaires
>cannot defeat this.
Maybe you need to do what the other animals did with Tigger--keep
trying different flavors on him. After all, Tigger is pretty good
at identifying what he *does* like, once he tastes it; he just
has no idea up until then.
You could consider doing a deeply episodic game with a very different
set of flavors each episode, including (if you can) varying your
GMing style. I've been in a couple of world-hopping games, and a
world-hop is a good excuse for a huge style break. (In Torg there
is even a gameworld reason for things like script immunity to
change from world to world.)
Of course, if they like something you'll have the problem of too
many free variables--*what* did they like about that? Its genre?
Its style? Or the snappy NPC interaction that just happened to pop
out?
It's tough. I'm too opinionated to really be a Tigger, but sometimes
I'm just flat wrong about my preferences, as in the insect-spirit
game I described earlier. It sounded like fun (in retrospect I
wonder why!) but it just...wasn't.
(For those who don't know the reference, there's a lovely essay--
I think it's on rpgnet--telling about how Tigger first said he
liked all foods, but then disliked each one as it was tried, until
they found he actually only liked one very specific thing. The
essayist said that his players, like Tigger, constantly claimed to
like whatever idea he put forward--until they tried it, whereupon
they hated it. It's a pretty common problem, alas.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Mary K. Kuhner
Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
>Another issue is Free Will(tm). Should NPCs be able to use social
>skills to influence PCs? What about magic, such as fear- or
>lust-inducing spells? From discussions on Pyramid, this appears to be
>a very important issue, upon which the gaming community is quietly
>divided, each fraction taking it for granted that everyone plays like
>them.
Yes, this is a big one. It's been utterly explosive every time it
comes up here. And it doesn't seem to correlate strongly with
anything else, except maybe railroading versus non-railroading.
My only beef with your description is "quietly"--I haven't noticed
anything quiet about it. Got to a screaming match quite fast last
time we tackled it, as I recall.
One thing that I learned from previous discussion, and later from
observation of Jon's GURPS game, is that it doesn't even boil down
neatly to Free Will versus Determinism. In the GURPS game coercive
psych lims and social skills acted to *protect* player free will,
because the alternative was coercive social pressure to play "optimally."
A player might take a psych lim in order to protect his freedom
to play his character as having a personality, and encourage the
GM to make a social-skill roll in order to protect the player from group
coercion of his PC's decision.
So the psych lims became a tool of player/player conflict resolution,
rather than, as I had originally expected, player/GM resolution.
I have also seen them used in the more obvious way, as a means
whereby the GM can enforce a contract on the players, and in a
very subtle way where they are internal to the player's PC model
and essentially invisible to outsiders.
A tricky topic, worth tackling, but perhaps we can avoid repeating
the flame wars?
My problem with "Free Will" as a questionnaire question is that I
personally wouldn't know how to answer. I like some implementations
of coercive psychosocial mechanics just fine; I loathe others.
It's not a matter of mechanics, either, but of intent (sigh) and
whether they're used to support roleplay or discourage it.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Wayne Shaw
<cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
>> I tried discussing a Roleplayer Compatibility Questionaire in here
>> some years ago (nothing came out of it), and one of the things I
>> pointed out was that it was vitally important to phrase each and every
>> question neutrally, i.e. so it does not tell the questionaire taker
>> which reply is the one that will bring him closer to being invited to
>> join the campaign.
>
>My players don't deceive me - but there are several who ARE deeply
>infected with Tigger Syndrome. Even honestly-answered questionnaires
>cannot defeat this.
In fact, I'd go as far as to suggest that's _far_ more common than
deliberate deception.
Wayne Shaw
Wallace) wrote:
>The reason I commented is that empirically I find people who miss the
>above point are wont, for whatever reason, to obscure potentially
>interesting discussions with interminable arguments and flame wars
>about the bloody Threefold, to the point where I sometimes wish it had
>never been invented; okay, it was progress at the time, but with all
>the vast fertile tracts of memetic space available, why do people want
>to spend so much time and energy bickering over this one stupid little
>corner of it?
I suspect it's because many people find it, or something like it (note
the qualification) a necessary first step in seperating out basic
style assumptions, and while acknowledgement of the fact there are
differences is a positive step in discussion of such, the actual
definition can be threatening. What I mean by that is that once you
split things into a defined set of piles, someone who doesn't see
themselves as fitting in any of those piles is, in the end, in the
same boat many Simulationist and Gamist people were around Berkman;
stuck with the charming option of either being defined out of
existance or being told they were simply doing things inconsistently
or otherwise wrong. Even if not consciously expressed, I think
there's enough concern for this basic style turf that those who don't
think the Threefold fits their play find it as uncomfortable to leave
alone (especially when used by others in the discussion as an
assumption) as people with a sore tooth have avoiding poking at it.
Robert Scott Clark
> Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>>
>> Beowulf Bolt <beowul...@shaw.ca> wrote in
>> news:3EBBC1...@shaw.ca:
>>
>> > This is an important discernment to make if one hopes to heal the
>> > campaign. Similar assessment of my fellow players has told me that
>> > they prefer a stronger degree of World. Thus, I can see that the
>> > campaign is doomed to further dissent unless the GM starts making
>> > more decisions with an intent to add World considerations, or else
>> > the other players accept (as I have) that we cannot expect the
>> > World to make sense.
>>
>> This type of statement is of the type that makes people like me say
>> the threefold is worthless. When people supporting it say things
>> like this it makes it clear there is something wrong with the model.
>
> WTF?!?
>
> I tell a story about how the Threefold model is helping me to come
> to
> grips with a campaign and you cite it as *proof* that the model is
> "useless"?
Well, you spent most of a post saying the threefold was about intent and
not results, yet when you give a concrete example the conflict between
styles you offer up as an example is about results. You complain that
the world does not make sense. That is not a complaint about decision
making processes, it is a coimplaint about results.
"I want decisions made that result in a world that makes sernse."
"The threefold is about methods, not results."
"The threefold is useful to me in judging problems stemming from
conflicts involving sentence 1."
Notice the inherent contradiction there?
>
> Robert, I don't give a flying fuck whether or not you like the
> Threefold. If it doesn't work for you, so be it. What I don't
> understand, however, is what basis you have for attacking those of us
> who *do* find value in it.
>
>
>> To state it blatantly - no style need ever result in the world not
>> making sense.
>
> So what? The style of campaign I am in has done *precisely* that.
And it's not because of any threefold reason. It's because the GM made
a world that doesn't makes sense. If he did, it's not because he's a
narrativist or even because he's a Methodist, so don't attribute blame
where it is not deserved.
> Should I just pretend that the world *does* make sense?
No, you should get a better GM who makes the world make sense - you
shouldn't pretend his failure to do so is because he was trying to tell
a story, as telling a good story does not result in a world that does
not make sense, quite the opposite actually.
> I don't
> understand why it troubles *you* so much that I look into the reasons
> *why* the campaign world doesn't make sense.
>
> Never have I claimed that such a lack of sense is obligatory to one
> of
> the extreme points. Your attack on the model is unwarranted.
>
> Biff
>
Robert Scott Clark
>
> If so, Berkman's problem was that he could not, or would not, realize
> that it requires a lot of effort to make sure the world makes sense.
> That he refused to acknowledge that GMing means to try to choose a
> balance between making the prettiest possible story, and the best
> simulation.
>
Here ladies and gentlemen is the rancid, smelly, faulty heart at the core
of the threefold - the confusion of "being the best simulation" and "making
sense". They aren't the same thing, and anything model that treats them
the same is going to be flawed.
Silvered Glass
K. Kuhner) wrote:
<snip>
>Other people deny, vehemently and with passion, that there is
>ever any tradeoff. In particular, story-focused GMs often
>say flatly that making the World worse *never* makes the Story
>better. (We had just such a post today.)
Well, I'll second it. The quality of the story and the realization of
the world have consistently varied directly in my campaigns. I don't
recall a single incident in which they varied inversely: getting the
world or characters wrong necessarily makes the story unbelievable at
that point.
And how the blazes can the story be better if I find it unbelievable?
>It appears that part of the disagreement here depends on whether
>the players value intent or not. A player who cares about
>intent is likely to find that Story-directed efforts damage
>World, because a decision that she can see was made for Story
>reasons cannot, thereby, have been made for World reasons.
>A player who does not care about intent finds this whole
>line of reasoning utterly opaque, even stupid; as long as the
>result was good for both Story and World there is no conflict.
I don't know that I find it opaque or stupid, in the sense that it
clearly matters to some people and I can follow the explanations of
why it matters to them. But intent -- at least any intent considered
by the Threefold; there are other sorts of intention it omits --
seldom matters to me. Certain propositions that apparently seem
axiomatic to those who care about intent are, from my perspective,
wrong in monumentally large ways.
>I'm not sure there is any easy way for these two camps to
>understand each other. I have attempted to summarize the
>view that differs from mine here, but I admit that I do so
>without any intuitive understanding.
I'd say it's a decent summary. There's more to it than that, but
that's where the problem lies, I think.
> But there was a hope,
>for a while, that having terminology which dealt with intent
>would at least let the intent-priority folks talk intelligably
>about their games.
>
>Again, I'm not sure anymore that this is working. But that's
>the logic.
I now have a killfile that axes the posts of a good many of the old
regulars, for vocal inability to accept that someone might see the
matter from a very different angle and still be arguing in good faith
and with intelligence.
>As a GM I have two completely distinct styles, one which
>prioritizes World and one which prioritizes Story. In both
>cases I want the World to be consistent, but in the first
>kind of game the World drives everything else, and in the
>second the Story does. My player has absolutely no trouble
>telling which approach I'm using, and will in fact recommend
>one or the other for a given game.
>
>The Story-priority games tend to die off, because for me that
>style is a huge amount of ongoing work, much more work than
>the World-priority style. World-priority requires more setup
>but then takes on a "life of its own" and runs along with
>relatively low effort. Story-priority never has a life of
>its own for me, and requires constant maintenance (Bradd's
>recent exchanges with me have some very good examples of what
>the maintenance would be like).
>
>Arguments that these two are really the same, therefore,
>strike me as unhelpful. Yet the difference is
>really intent. There's a visible pattern in results, but
>from the GM's point of view that's just a side effect of
>the difference in intent.
Unhelpful and false: they're different in intent, method, and result.
So far, I appear to only have one method. There's no path to story
creation /but/ through "live" models, for me, because without live
models I disbelieve what happens and thus can't care about it.
Wayne Shaw
K. Kuhner) wrote:
>A tricky topic, worth tackling, but perhaps we can avoid repeating
>the flame wars?
As you note, tricky. It tends to in many cases be the core barrier a
GM is not permitted to cross, but since it's not universally
recognized, many people have a very strong reaction to any discussion
of eroding or penetrating that barrier.
Russell Wallace
wrote:
>You're allowed to say rules-light but I'm not allowed to say
>fudge-heavy? How come your word is less offensive than mine?
Tell you what: you pick your preferred word for your favorite gaming
style, just as we've done for ours.
Russell Wallace
>As you note, tricky. It tends to in many cases be the core barrier a
>GM is not permitted to cross
Pretty much; it's about the only thing that could get me stating in
the middle of a session that a GM is not entitled to rule in a certain
way, and he can kick me out of the game if he disagrees, rather than
waiting until the end to discuss it. (And that doesn't even correlate
with views on railroading; I don't necessarily mind railroading per
se.) So Peter is right about it being a contentious enough issue that
it belongs on any preference-matching questionnaire.
As for discussing it without a flame war: I promise not to flame
personality mechanics advocates as long as they refrain from implying
my dislike of them indicates I'm a bad roleplayer :)
Russell Wallace
wrote:
>Russell Wallace wrote:
>> The general idea of matching up with gamers who share your preferences
>> is a good one, but I think the Threefold is a bad tool for it.
>
>It probably is, but perhaps it can be hammered into something useful?
>It's been stagnant for a number of years. On general principles, a
>work that is half a decade old needs updating.
I usually tend to the philosophy that a work that's half a decade old
needs to be thrown out and rewritten from scratch :) But if you think
you can use the Threefold as a basis for such a questionnaire, by all
means go for it and let's see what you come up with. (Just, please,
change terminology wherever you change meaning so we don't end up in
another of those 200-post arguments about the definition of the
Threefold.)
>I tried discussing a Roleplayer Compatibility Questionaire in here
>some years ago (nothing came out of it), and one of the things I
>pointed out was that it was vitally important to phrase each and every
>question neutrally, i.e. so it does not tell the questionaire taker
>which reply is the one that will bring him closer to being invited to
>join the campaign.
Yes, very good idea.
>Another issue is Free Will(tm). Should NPCs be able to use social
>skills to influence PCs? What about magic, such as fear- or
>lust-inducing spells? From discussions on Pyramid, this appears to be
>a very important issue, upon which the gaming community is quietly
>divided, each fraction taking it for granted that everyone plays like
>them.
Replace "quietly" with "noisily" and I completely agree!
Robert Scott Clark
>
> Russell Wallace wrote:
>
>> Now I've better uses for my time than feeding trolls; if you continue
>> referring to freeform gaming as fudging, I'll assume that's your
>> intent and leave you to it. But if you genuinely didn't know why the
>> word isn't appropriate, the above is the reason.
>
> You're allowed to say rules-light but I'm not allowed to say
> fudge-heavy? How come your word is less offensive than mine?
Because his word is accurate.
Mary K. Kuhner
Russell Wallace <wallacet...@eircom.net> wrote:
>As for discussing it without a flame war: I promise not to flame
>personality mechanics advocates as long as they refrain from implying
>my dislike of them indicates I'm a bad roleplayer :)
I'm saying "me too" an awful lot, but....me too.
I've come to the following (overly complicated, but it can't be helped)
understanding of my own views on this:
If the GM and player are using the personality mechanics or coercive
social skills cooperatively, as a tool to capture parts of the PC's
personality and experience that would be hard or impossible for us to
get at otherwise, I'm fine with them. An example would be inflicting
a period of shock on a PC who has seen a Sight Men Aren't Meant To See.
I am going to have trouble getting at that immersively, since it's
literally unimaginable, and I don't mind having a mechanic to fall back
on here. Another example is that if my PC has to interview 50
people and pick out the liar, I'm more than happy to use a dice mechanic,
rather than player judgement. The mechanics are really helpful in
cases where the direct method can't be used. (I also favor them
when the direct method is too unpleasant; I'm usually not keen on
trying to immersively appreciate the impact of torture. Abstraction,
please!)
If the GM is trying to enforce genre conventions, I'm a lot more
uncomfortable. I'm not fond of strongly enforced genre, and
having a PC who mustn't, for example, ever even consider certain
courses of action can be really bad for me. I'm willing to consider
this, though, especially if it's built strongly into the world. "After
two hundred years of peace, there's a near-universal prohibition
against violence--most people can't bring themselves to kill someone
else. I'd like your PC not to be an exception." I'd rather the
mechanics were advisory, though.
If the GM wants to overrule my PC decisions in order to smooth out
a plotline, keep the game on track, avoid exposing weaknesses
in his gameplan, or just play my PC for me--I'm with Russell, this
game's not a keeper. For me this loses too much of what I play for.
And if the GM is looking for game balance, or just trying to encourage
PCs with weaknesses, I really wish he'd trust me to come up with
weaknesses on my own. The people I've played under have not, in
general, ever had a problem with my ability to do that. (Lots of
other problems, I admit. But not that one.) And in my experience the
results of bribing players to roleplay are not very encouraging.
I wouldn't mind having a wider repertoire of the player-assistance
mechanics. Ones in published systems are usually evilly confounded
with GM-enforcement or play-balance motives. (For example, Sanity in
CoC is both a tool to limit the power of mages, for balance, and a
player aid to help model the cumulative effect of seeing the
unimaginable. The dual purpose interferes with its use for
player assistance. For example, it's hard for a player to impose
San loss on his own PC without feeling he's playing badly in a
strategic sense.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Robert Scott Clark
>
> I think the threefold model seems like a nice way of making people
> realize there are other ways of gaming than their own
I think saying "there are other ways of gaming than your own"
occasionally does a good job without causing all the hostilities.
>(even though
> three "the right" number of dimensions...) Using it for detailed
> analysis -- either of intents or outcomes -- seems a bit far-fetched
> IMO.
>
> And, if applying the threefold to outcomes rather than intents can get
> you *flamed* (I didn't really follow the relevant discussions, so
> please excuse me if I misunderstood this), then I'm really shocked.
>
Well, it's definitely fuel for flamewars, and I'll tell you why.
Now, take note, I don't agree with this line of reasoning (I'll explain
why later), but I have seen it argued enough that I will repeat it.
The threefold needs to be a trade-off model. Why? Well, it's all about
the whole "it's OK to play in a different style" thing. That attitude is
about smoothing disagreements, and when smoothing disagreements is the
purpose saying "different is OK" isn't enough for some people - you need
to say "different is equal". And to do that, you have to be able to say
that increasing one element automatically results in a decrease in
another.
A model based on result rather than intent allows for a non-trade-off
model. One person can have a game where 50% of the decisions match what
a simulationist decision would say, and 50% of decisions match what a
narrativist decision would have happen, while another game can have
results match both with 80% accuracy. Some people feel this would allow
the second person to say his game is better than the first, as if you
want both, the second game produces better results.
As this would allow one person to potentially say their game/style was
better, it must be avoided with dogmatic zeal.
Now, I find this argument silly for two reasons.
#1 Not everyone WANTS all of the corners of the threefold. If you don't
care about gamism, then a 30/30/80 game is no better than a 30/30/40
game. If you actively dislike some effects of gamism, it would actually
be a less disirable game even though it had higher numbers.
#2 Even more importantly, just because you want something does not mean
you are willing to pay the price to get it. And some things incur a
price If you find simulating a world desirable, then a 80/30/30 game
might seem more desirable than a 40/30/30 game. But that 80% match for
simulation results takes a lot of work and time. If you are not willing
to invest that time, then again, the lower numbers might be the
preferable game for you.
The point is that just because a result-based model produces non-equal
results does not mean that it is saying that some styles are better than
others/
Silvered Glass
Wallace) wrote:
<snip>
>The general idea of matching up with gamers who share your preferences
>is a good one, but I think the Threefold is a bad tool for it.
>
>- 99.99% of gamers have never heard of the Threefold.
<snip>
And some of those who have, have heard of other versions of it
instead, where the words are mostly the same, but they mean something
just different enough to confound discussion entirely.
T. Kurt Bond
message news:<c05f9678.03050...@posting.google.com>:
> Well, I do say "for purposes of this FAQ". Literally, "diceless"
> means just that: doesn't use dice. This includes a host of games
> like Castle Falkenstein, Mind's Eye Theater, and so forth.
True, and below you say that the FAQ is mostly about the
Amber/Theatrix style of diceless roleplaying, and I think that
is probably what most people are thinking of when they talk
about diceless roleplay. However, I think it's a confusing
and perhaps erroneous confluence of ideas.
> I'm not familiar with Nobilis,
Nobilis is a bit more crunchy than most diceless games. All
Characters have four Attributes--Aspect, Domain, Realm, and Spirit--
which are rated from zero to five and describe the character's level
of ability in four broad areas of effect. Each attribute also has a
number of associated Miracle Points. Characters can also have other
abilities, called Gifts, which have a more focused or limited area of
effect. All actions are rated in difficulty from zero to nine.
Actions in a particular area of effect that have a difficulty less
than that of the attribute that governs that area are automatically
successful. Actions that have a difficulty greater than the
appropriate attribute require spending miracle points to succeed.
There are tables that indicate the level of power each level of
difficulty provides, and there are lists of example actions and
their difficulty levels.
> [B]ut Epiphany is sort of a strange case. For ranged combat and
> some other tests, the resolution is analogous to
> Rock-Paper-Scissors. The result is effectively random (modulo the
> ability of a player to read what the opponent is going to do).
(I wrote a nice description of Epiphany's general resolution mechanic
before I realized you were talking about ranged combat specifically;
composing messages in Google Groups' web interface is inconvenient.)
I don't think Epiphany's ranged combat is equivalent to
Rock-Paper-Scissors, though. In R/P/S each side chooses randomly
between three choices and there is no intrinsic reason to choose one
or the other. In Epiphany's ranged combat each side totals up their
advantages and all the attacker's advantages are used for offense and
all the defendor's advantages are used for defense. This is
non-random and it depends on what applicable abilities are
available to each side. I don't think these two are that similar.
Can you think of any other examples of the kind of resolution you were
thinking about?
> > Would it be useful to split this into two categories: non-random
> > and freeform?
I was wrong to suggest using these two terms to split diceless
roleplaying into two categories. See below.
> I would say that the FAQ should probably specify that it is about a
> particular type of diceless play: the style of Amber and Theatrix.
I think the FAQ should cover both kinds of diceless play. Would it be
useful for me to write up something covering the distinction and the
to types of play?
I think that the Amber and Theatrix style of roleplay is freeform,
diceless roleplay. In this style of roleplay, the GM, or the GM
and the players, decide on the outcome without randomizers, but
also without a specific resolution mechanic.
I think that the Ephiphany and Nobilis style of roleplay is
non-freeform, diceless roleplay. (I need a better term for this;
any suggestions?) In this style of play there is a specific
resolution mechanic, but it's non-random.
I have no idea where Persona would fit into this categorization;
can anyone give a comparison?
(Games that use randomizers could also be separated into non-freeform
and freeform categories. Most commercially published games are
non-freeform, randomizer-based. I can't think of any formally
published games of the freeform, randomizer-based kind, although
descriptions of M.A.R. Barker's Tekumel campaign seem to fit, as does
any "Roll some dice, low is bad, high is good, GM decides what
happened" procedure.)
> The range of other possible games goes way beyond the scope
> of this.
I don't think it's out of scope: the FAQ does mention using mechanics
for resolution, which is what Epiphany and Nobilis do. I think it
does make a further distinction between kinds of diceless play
(and implicitly between kinds of diced play).
I think that it's worthwhile to make these distinctions, and to point
out that freeform, diceless roleplaying got a huge portion of the
mindshare because they were commercially published first. For one
thing, it seems clear to me that many of the people who don't like
"diceless" roleplaying do so because they don't like the freeform
aspect, not the diceless aspect. I think that if the FAQ makes these
distinctions that it can help people who are considering systems
to understand their preferences and avoid styles they find unhelpful
without overgeneralizing and thereby missing out on styles they might
find helpful. The distinction may also be useful for games designers.
It's probably true that many game designs mix the random and
non-random approaches to resolution and also mix the freeform and
non-freeform approaches, and in those cases it's useful to someone
looking at the game to be able to say: oh, they're using a non-random,
freeform approach here, a non-random, non-freeform approach here, and
a random, non-freeform approach here, and use that to consider how
well those approaches work together.
> Then again, none of the diceless stuff seems to come up here for a
> long time -- so maybe it should just be dropped.
No, please don't do that! If you did that we'd not have a common
starting point for conversations about diceless roleplaying.
--
T. Kurt Bond
Warren J. Dew
And, if applying the threefold to outcomes rather than intents
can get you *flamed* (I didn't really follow the relevant
discussions, so please excuse me if I misunderstood this),
then I'm really shocked.
The most recent time, it only got him flamed when he insisted that the regulars
were wrong and the threefold was about outcomes, and not about intent, based on
his reading of the FAQ.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Russell Wallace
<cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>A model based on result rather than intent allows for a non-trade-off
>model. One person can have a game where 50% of the decisions match what
>a simulationist decision would say, and 50% of decisions match what a
>narrativist decision would have happen, while another game can have
>results match both with 80% accuracy. Some people feel this would allow
>the second person to say his game is better than the first, as if you
>want both, the second game produces better results.
>
>As this would allow one person to potentially say their game/style was
>better, it must be avoided with dogmatic zeal.
I meant to stay out of this debate now, but *sigh* I'll chip in again:
Historically it was the other way around. David Berkman was saying his
game was dramatist _and_ simulationist based on results: he designed
for good story _and_ consistent world, and achieved that. So he was
saying, hey your style has no advantage over mine because I achieve
everything yours does and more besides.
Then simulationists chipped in and pointed out that the achieving of a
consistent world wasn't the only thing they were interested in, they
most highly valued a simulationist-intent non-dramatist-intent result
_for itself_, even if the results were the same. (Google for one of
Mary's posts mentioning Japanese and European gardens for a nice
analogy.)
So that's how it came about. If you don't find that useful - well
that's entirely understandable, truth to be told neither do I
nowadays. So why not just talk about results rather than arguing about
the Threefold which has no relevance to you?
Warren J. Dew
It appears that part of the disagreement here depends on
whether the players value intent or not. A player who cares
about intent is likely to find that Story-directed efforts
damage World, because a decision that she can see was made
for Story reasons cannot, thereby, have been made for World
reasons.
Actually, I don't exactly care about intent - I care about method, which is
slightly different. And the reason that I care about method is that it isn't
possible to achieve the results I want without using the method I want.
I think that the emphasis on intent, while close to the mark, was also to some
extent an 'agree to disagree' type compromise between people who realize there
is a tradeoff between a real world and a good story, and people who refuse to
believe in such a tradeoff, and believe they can run games that are perfect in
every respect and are all things to all people. While the latter do often seem
to be story emphasis people, like David Berkman, they don't have a lock on the
attitude: I'd say Peter Knutsen, who is much closer to the world corner, has
pretty much the same attitude.
Warren J. Dew
Here ladies and gentlemen is the rancid, smelly, faulty heart
at the core of the threefold - the confusion of "being the
best simulation" and "making sense". They aren't the same
thing, and anything model that treats them the same is going
to be flawed.
Actually, the threefold recognizes the difference, and only addresses the
"being the best simulation" part, not the "making sense" part.
In fact, the main problem those that misunderstand the threefold have is that
they think it is about "making sense" when it is not. "Making sense" would be
better addressed in a results based model, or perhaps an effort based model
such as Peter suggests.
Russell Wallace
K. Kuhner) wrote:
>I'm saying "me too" an awful lot, but....me too.
Me too! ^.^
>I've come to the following (overly complicated, but it can't be helped)
>understanding of my own views on this:
If it wasn't overly complicated and someone hadn't said it before, it
probably wouldn't be interesting. So complicated is good ^.~
But yes, basically I agree with you except for one point:
>(For example, Sanity in
>CoC is both a tool to limit the power of mages, for balance, and a
>player aid to help model the cumulative effect of seeing the
>unimaginable. The dual purpose interferes with its use for
>player assistance. For example, it's hard for a player to impose
>San loss on his own PC without feeling he's playing badly in a
>strategic sense.)
SAN loss is one thing I didn't think much of in the original
literature and flatly can't stand in games. People go insane from
seeing an ugly creature? Then watching one episode of David
Attenborough in the Amazon jungle should have put me at SAN -200 or
so.
I've just finished playing a science fiction game where we're fighting
some bad guys in rather freaky circumstances. I was pretty proud of
the quality of my strategic play - my character has an IQ of 200 or
so, so I gave her every scrap of ability I can muster, to the extent
that one PC was griping about my character being an emotionless robot
and a couple of players were griping about me having all the ideas.
Brief log extract:
* Ami switches com to her group only. "Here's the plan. Go to ring
formation with the node at the center of the ring - we'll accelerate
all the way in and fly past that way, then come back for another pass
to finish what's left..."
<Ami> "Everyone fire one missile on my mark. Units 13 through 15
proximity fuse, aim for the enemy Highsuit, the rest of you aim for
the node, direct kill. After you've launched, go to evasive action and
fire all cannon at the enemy Highsuit until we're out of range."
* Ami adjusts her course until she's in the indicated formation with
the others, from behind a ring of thirteen blue-white points of fusion
flame.
<God> "Roger that." They all confirm and break into formation,
pulling heavy burn in order to pick up acceleration.
<name deleted> ((GEeze, Ami sure sounds very profesional military, not
like an engineer))
<name deleted> ((where did she learn military tactics?))
...
<Ami> [<name deleted>: Ami's player is a computer programmer. Where
did he learn military tactics? ^.~]
Later that fight, in which we got a limited victory, the enemy
assembled something else - an entity of some sort that looked like a
human, apart from little matters like it was flying in open space with
no suit of any kind. Uh-oh! I fired a laser at it, then scored a
direct hit with a ~100 kiloton nuclear warhead. It survived the hit,
smiled, rode the blast wave out to me, landed on my shoulder and
started clawing into my nano-unobtanium armor with its fingers.
I freaked!!!
<Ami> "Okay, you want some of this?! Come on! Come on!"
[Any resemblance to a certain movie character is entirely
non-coincidental, seeing as the character is a fan of classic 20th
century movies :)]
So at least for some players, there's no need whatsoever for SAN
rules. More to the point, the above is Real. It means something. "You
got 89 on the dice? Wibble." doesn't.
Jeff Heikkinen
> It makes sense to say that from a freefold point of view
I think you just accidentally coined a really useful word for people
like yourself who don't like the Threefold.
Russell Wallace
>I think that the emphasis on intent, while close to the mark, was also to some
>extent an 'agree to disagree' type compromise between people who realize there
>is a tradeoff between a real world and a good story, and people who refuse to
>believe in such a tradeoff, and believe they can run games that are perfect in
>every respect and are all things to all people.
Now, see, I don't necessarily believe there's a tradeoff between a
_consistent, plausible_ world and a good story - I've seen it done a
good few times, and I think I've at least sort of come near it myself.
But there is often a tradeoff between a good story and a
_simulationist_ world. What I understand Mary to mean by the Japanese
garden analogy. One which was _not_ directed.
While that isn't a big issue for me, I understand it is for some
people, and that's fair enough. But it does make the terminology
touchy.
That's why I made two points in my comment on the FAQ. The first,
which everyone's arguing about, is the intent-versus-results issue.
The second, which everyone seems to be ignoring but which is in fact
critical because it's a major driving force for the first, is the
definition of simulationist in _negative_ rather than positive terms,
_unlike_ the other two poles.
Warren J. Dew
The general idea of matching up with gamers who share your
preferences is a good one, but I think the Threefold is a bad
tool for it.
- 99.99% of gamers have never heard of the Threefold.
They don't have to have heard of it for me to use it. I can talk to them to
elicit the information for myself, and then make my own decisions. Indeed,
this is likely to be more effective if they don't know why I'm looking for the
information.
Being at different points on the Threefold isn't the most
common cause of conflict in the first place. The most common
causes of conflict are things like setting and rules system,
amount of combat and PC power level.
In my experience, being at different points on the threefold is the most common
cause of conflict once the game is begun and the player playing. I may see
this come up more often than you because I'm in a smaller camp, so I'll have
conflicts with a larger percentage of the potential players. (Indeed, we're
looking for one more player right now, but having trouble thinking of anyone
who really would like a world oriented campaign.)
Setting and rules system can be identified before a player starts playing, so
those don't cause difficulties in my experience. Amount of combat is an issue,
I agree, but usually conflicts here can be avoided if someone asks a few
quantitative questions (e.g., "what percentage of the time do you spend on
combat", not "do you have 'a lot' of combat in your game"). I've never seen
problems arising from player character power level except when the gamesmaster
used inappropriate mechanics - which is to say, mechanics with different
effects than the gamesmaster expected.
Warren J. Dew
> I think the threefold model seems like a nice way of
> making people realize there are other ways of gaming
> than their own
I think saying "there are other ways of gaming than your
own" occasionally does a good job without causing all the
hostilities.
I've never seen it happen. Usually it just smooths things over without
actually making the person realize there are other ways of gaming than their
own. Sometimes it makes things worse by making the person think they realize
there are other ways of gaming than their own, without making the person
actually realize it.
Russell Wallace
>In my experience, being at different points on the threefold is the most common
>cause of conflict once the game is begun and the player playing. I may see
>this come up more often than you because I'm in a smaller camp, so I'll have
>conflicts with a larger percentage of the potential players. (Indeed, we're
>looking for one more player right now, but having trouble thinking of anyone
>who really would like a world oriented campaign.)
Are you sure? From your description, the only big issue for me would
be the lack of script immunity, but I don't see that as being usefully
described by the Threefold.
>Setting and rules system can be identified before a player starts playing, so
>those don't cause difficulties in my experience.
True - that is usually the solitary piece of information a GM issues
before the game starts.
>Amount of combat is an issue,
>I agree, but usually conflicts here can be avoided if someone asks a few
>quantitative questions (e.g., "what percentage of the time do you spend on
>combat", not "do you have 'a lot' of combat in your game").
Have you seen that work in practice? If so, what was the number and
the result? I really don't know how to answer that for the games I
run, unless an order of magnitude estimate will do.
>I've never seen
>problems arising from player character power level except when the gamesmaster
>used inappropriate mechanics - which is to say, mechanics with different
>effects than the gamesmaster expected.
You've never seen a campaign where the GM expects level 3 AD&D
characters to defeat the Dark Lord?
Warren J. Dew
Magnus, go read through the massive flamewar a couple years
ago when Bradd W. Szonye first joined the newsgroup, the one
that pretty much killed discussion here until this past month,
and you will see why there's a lot of weight placed on this
distinction.
Magnus Lie Hetland posts, in part:
I skimmed briefly through various flame-related-looking posts
by Bradd W. Szyone ... Finding the exact points where this
issue was discussed wasn't too easy, though.
Finding the "exact points where this issue was discussed" won't do any good,
either.
When I said "read through the massive flamewar", I didn't mean just part of the
flamewar. I most assuredly didn't mean just Bradd's posts; I only provided his
name to make it easier to identify the time period on Google.
You can't understand the attitude of the regulars who lived through that thing,
the hard feelings that it produced, the massively detrimental effects it had on
the newsgroup, without reading the whole thing.
Or just trust us on this. Or, read through the last couple month's posts,
noting how Charlton killfiled a newbie after half a dozen posts. Charlton is a
very reasonable and intelligent person, and in my experience quite patient;
what could tempt him to killfile a newbie, one that later turned out to
actually want to learn, so promptly and abruptly? What could tempt three other
reasonable regulars to give short and impatient answers, to said newbie's first
posts? Living through that earlier flamewar, and becoming hypersensitive to
the issue, that's what.
Why? All I do is host a cron job that posts it. John is the
author, and responsible for the contents.
But your cron job was the one that is responsible for its appearing here in
this newsgroup. As the one with the proximate responsibility, your cron job
should have kept up with the newsgroup.