Mechanics for dramatic games
John Kim
out debate some. Reading an old article of designer's notes on
_Everway_, and seeing debate over _Runequest_ versus _Hero Wars_
elsewhere got me thinking. I could distinguish two conflicting
qualities for mechanics of dramatic games: "tranparent" and
"inspirational".
Transparent mechanics try to interfere with the narrative
as little as possible -- i.e. so a minimum of game-time and game-speak
is affected. They usually resolve success or failure in a simple
manner, and leave it up to the GM and players to add the appropriate
specifics and color to that. The mechanic should be quick to resolve
and easy to translate into actual narrative. _Call of Cthulhu_ would
be an example of this, IMO. The approach is to move the emphasis away
from the mechanics and onto the story.
Inspirational mechanics try to add to the flavor of the game,
or even suggest twists or subplots that would not otherwise have been
thought of. The "Drama Deck" from Masterbook and Torg would be a
clear example. Other games with deliberately flavorful mechanics
might be _Castle Falkenstein_ and _Everway_.
-*-*-*-
At the moment, I am leaning towards transparency as my
preference (I am using a simplified version of Runequest in my
current campaign), but I am interested in other people's views.
A parallel to this is a school of thought on movie direction which
suggests that if a movie is directed well, a viewer *never* walks
away saying "Wow, that movie was directed really well." Instead,
they will be saying "Wow, what an interesting character that was"
or simply "What an interesting story."
Robert Scott Clark
> OK, I am starting a new thread here in an effort to broaden
>out debate some. Reading an old article of designer's notes on
>_Everway_, and seeing debate over _Runequest_ versus _Hero Wars_
>elsewhere got me thinking. I could distinguish two conflicting
>qualities for mechanics of dramatic games: "tranparent" and
>"inspirational".
>
> Transparent mechanics try to interfere with the narrative
>as little as possible -- i.e. so a minimum of game-time and game-speak
>is affected. They usually resolve success or failure in a simple
>manner, and leave it up to the GM and players to add the appropriate
>specifics and color to that. The mechanic should be quick to resolve
>and easy to translate into actual narrative. _Call of Cthulhu_ would
>be an example of this, IMO. The approach is to move the emphasis away
>from the mechanics and onto the story.
Just curious, what, then, is the purpose behind the mechanics? If the
emphasis is on the story, and the mechanics are not intended to
enhance the story, why bother with mechanics? I agree with your
divisions, but don't see the usefulness of the transparent type.
>
> Inspirational mechanics try to add to the flavor of the game,
>or even suggest twists or subplots that would not otherwise have been
>thought of. The "Drama Deck" from Masterbook and Torg would be a
>clear example. Other games with deliberately flavorful mechanics
>might be _Castle Falkenstein_ and _Everway_.
>
>-*-*-*-
>
> At the moment, I am leaning towards transparency as my
>preference (I am using a simplified version of Runequest in my
>current campaign), but I am interested in other people's views.
>A parallel to this is a school of thought on movie direction which
>suggests that if a movie is directed well, a viewer *never* walks
>away saying "Wow, that movie was directed really well." Instead,
>they will be saying "Wow, what an interesting character that was"
>or simply "What an interesting story."
What an odd school of thought. But then, I like being aware I am
watching a movie, so...
>
Jason Corley
> OK, I am starting a new thread here in an effort to broaden
> out debate some. Reading an old article of designer's notes on
> _Everway_, and seeing debate over _Runequest_ versus _Hero Wars_
> elsewhere got me thinking. I could distinguish two conflicting
> qualities for mechanics of dramatic games: "tranparent" and
> "inspirational".
Good distinction. However, I dispute that this distinction has anything to
do with dramatic games.
Transparent mechanics are not just for people who "don't want the rules to
get in the way of the story" - they are also for people who (like my wife)
don't like complicated rules and don't want to learn them for any purpose.
In addition, "transparent" rules make it very easy to look at a character
sheet and see what kind of resources are available to the character,
without arcane formulae and Table 14-2(D) on page 873 of Volume 9. This
makes it very easy to problem-solve.
And "inspirational" rules are not just for flavor and suggesting plots.
They are also for encouraging certain in-character actions which fit the
world, by making them easier or more common. What I'm referring to here
are things like the falling-damage rules in Adventure! (In a pulp
adventure world, falling from high places is not that big a deal unless
you're falling from a REALLY high place.) or the Force Point rules in
either the d6 or d20 versions of Star Wars.
> Inspirational mechanics try to add to the flavor of the game,
> or even suggest twists or subplots that would not otherwise have been
> thought of. The "Drama Deck" from Masterbook and Torg would be a
> clear example.
I have always considered the Drama Deck to be more a tool for distributing
authorial power to the players, not necessarily anything to do with
encouraging dramatic play.
I suppose I am just skeptical about anything in gaming that claims to be
"for the purposes of the story" because /no/ game has really came out and
said "here are some suggestions on how to make your game like a good
story". If my games have been like good stories, it hasn't been because of
anything in the game /as published/, it has only been because of the way
the game has been /played/. In short, there is no dramatic game for me.
--
***************************************************************************
"Today's public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books,
and there is some evidence that they can't read them either." ---Gore Vidal
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
Robert Scott Clark
>And "inspirational" rules are not just for flavor and suggesting plots.
>They are also for encouraging certain in-character actions which fit the
>world, by making them easier or more common. What I'm referring to here
>are things like the falling-damage rules in Adventure! (In a pulp
>adventure world, falling from high places is not that big a deal unless
>you're falling from a REALLY high place.) or the Force Point rules in
>either the d6 or d20 versions of Star Wars.
>
>> Inspirational mechanics try to add to the flavor of the game,
>> or even suggest twists or subplots that would not otherwise have been
>> thought of. The "Drama Deck" from Masterbook and Torg would be a
>> clear example.
>
>I have always considered the Drama Deck to be more a tool for distributing
>authorial power to the players, not necessarily anything to do with
>encouraging dramatic play.
Oddly, I agreed with John, but I'm not sure if I understood him, and
you didn't, or that I'm just confused.
By "inspirational" I didn't assume he meant "make a good dramatic
story without player help", but instead "add story elements that might
not have been added without the card" (the best example I can think
of is the "interloper" card from masterbook) The mechanics don't
necessarily make a better story, but just adds story elements.
Mary K. Kuhner
John Kim <jh...@darkshire.org> wrote:
> At the moment, I am leaning towards transparency as my
>preference (I am using a simplified version of Runequest in my
>current campaign), but I am interested in other people's views.
>A parallel to this is a school of thought on movie direction which
>suggests that if a movie is directed well, a viewer *never* walks
>away saying "Wow, that movie was directed really well." Instead,
>they will be saying "Wow, what an interesting character that was"
>or simply "What an interesting story."
I think it depends critically on whether you have a flavor of
your own that you want to supply. I like to use fairly strongly
flavored mechanics when my own grasp on the desired flavor is
weak--for example, I found the Feng Shui mechanics helpful in
learning how to run that style of game. Conversely, if I know
what I want, flavored mechanics are likely to get in my way:
for example, the D&D spell names with their distinctive bits of
"local color" (Leomund's Hut, Bigby's Hand, Mordenkainen's Disjunction)
are merely distracting if I am running a game meant to have a
different and strong world background of its own.
For me personally, highly flavored mechanics are more suitable for
one-shots and short campaigns, and transparent mechanics are more
suitable for long games. I find that the colorful stuff gets
repetitious and restrictive after a while. For example, I got very
tired of the lurid critical-hits rules in Warhammer FRP. The first
time someone is cloven from stem to stern it's dramatic; the twentieth
time, it's ho-hum. (And we had problems with mood-breaking results
like "You cleave him from stem to stern with a dart.")
I also find I have a personal limit in the "colorful" direction, and
that the Torg Drama Deck was beyond it--it really rubbed in that we
were just playing a game, and I could never get engaged with it.
I don't find that, for example, the Warhammer crits or Shadowrun
Essence rules are so distracting. I think the problem is that the
Drama Deck requires so much metagame thinking in order to use it.
The example burned into my mind is a group which was fighting a
tyrannosaurus and drew a card that wanted them to bluff it. People
started suggesting lame ways to trick a dino. All sense that the
fight was real collapsed in a welter of inane suggestions. It really
didn't make sense to trick the dino, yet here were the game mechanics
pushing hard to get them to do so. Sure, they could have resisted
the temptation, but it's clear to me in this case that the mechanics
are not pushing in a direction that I would want to go.
My ideal gaming system would have a transparent layer and an optional
highly-colored overlay. It's darned hard to do, though. Hero tries,
but my (non-player's) experience of Hero is that the players almost
always peel off the colored layer and talk in terms of the underlying
transparent mechanics.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Warren J. Dew
I could distinguish two conflicting qualities for
mechanics of dramatic games: "tranparent" and
"inspirational".
Transparent mechanics try to interfere with the
narrative as little as possible -- i.e. so a minimum
of game-time and game-speak is affected....
Inspirational mechanics try to add to the flavor
of the game, or even suggest twists or subplots
that would not otherwise have been thought of.
Presumably the mechanics in Theatrix, which try to guide the creation of a good
plot line, would be in the 'inspirational' category?
I think transparency, for the purposes of a story oriented campaign, involves
more than just simplicity. It also means that the mechanics should not
interfere with or derail an evolving story line. For example, the Storyteller
die pool system permits the gamesmaster - "storyteller", in their parlance - to
determine the difficulty of each individual noncombat task independently;
events that would be bad for the story can be minimized by setting difficulties
appropriately.
At the moment, I am leaning towards transparency as my
preference (I am using a simplified version of
Runequest in my current campaign), but I am interested
in other people's views.
Personally, if I were to run a campaign intended to create a story, I would not
use mechanics at all. Diceless and mechanicless play are the most transparent
possible.
I don't think I would use inspirational mechanics, either, though. Or, rather,
I might use them purely for potential inspiration, but throw out the results if
they didn't seem to fit, in which case they are questionably mechanics.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Warren J. Dew
Just curious, what, then, is the purpose behind the mechanics?
If the emphasis is on the story, and the mechanics are not
intended to enhance the story, why bother with mechanics?
I get the strong impression from various sets of White Wolf rules, which are
fairly strongly in this 'transparent story oriented mechanics' category, that
they are intended to provide players with enough of a framework or rules to
allow players to play the game as a game, while giving the gamesmaster the
ability to create a story without too much interference.
I believe the presumption is that one can often find a gamesmaster interested
in creating a story, but that it's much tougher to find an entire group of
players all with that same aim. Certainly in practice, I've found this to be
the case; with more than one player, they aren't all going to want exactly the
same thing, and you're very likely to have at least one player more interested
in advancing his character than in advancing the story. Transparent mechanics
can keep such players interested while permitting the story line to be advanced
as well.
Robert Scott Clark
> At the moment, I am leaning towards transparency as my
> preference (I am using a simplified version of
> Runequest in my current campaign), but I am interested
> in other people's views.
>
>Personally, if I were to run a campaign intended to create a story, I would not
>use mechanics at all. Diceless and mechanicless play are the most transparent
>possible.
Everyone, we need to take up a collection for Satan's winter wardrobe;
Warren and I made essentially the same post.
>Or, rather,
>I might use them purely for potential inspiration, but throw out the results if
>they didn't seem to fit, in which case they are questionably mechanics.
Wow, it's like I wrote this part. At least I've said the exact same
thing many times.
Robert Scott Clark
>Robert Scott Clark posts, regarding transparent mechanics for dramatic games:
>
> Just curious, what, then, is the purpose behind the mechanics?
> If the emphasis is on the story, and the mechanics are not
> intended to enhance the story, why bother with mechanics?
>
>I get the strong impression from various sets of White Wolf rules, which are
>fairly strongly in this 'transparent story oriented mechanics' category, that
>they are intended to provide players with enough of a framework or rules to
>allow players to play the game as a game, while giving the gamesmaster the
>ability to create a story without too much interference.
But then WW rules don't exactly make a spectacular game. Maybe it's
enough to have the superficial characteristics of a game - calling
moves and rolling dice.
But in reality, I question how "transparent" any mechanic can be. I
mean, the main function of most mechanics is to determine success or
failure of an action. And from a narrative standpoint, success and
failure seem pretty darn important to the flow of the story.
As I understood what was meant by "inspiratinal", wouldn't all
mechanics fit to one degree or another?
>
>I believe the presumption is that one can often find a gamesmaster interested
>in creating a story, but that it's much tougher to find an entire group of
>players all with that same aim. Certainly in practice, I've found this to be
>the case; with more than one player, they aren't all going to want exactly the
>same thing, and you're very likely to have at least one player more interested
>in advancing his character than in advancing the story. Transparent mechanics
>can keep such players interested while permitting the story line to be advanced
>as well.
Stop the presses! You lost me.
How would transparent mechanics be beneficial to a player who wanted
to advance his character?
John Kim
Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>John Kim <jh...@darkshire.org> wrote:
>> Reading an old article of designer's notes on _Everway_, and seeing
>> debate over _Runequest_ versus _Hero Wars_ elsewhere got me thinking.
>> I could distinguish two conflicting qualities for mechanics of
>> dramatic games: "tranparent" and "inspirational".
>
>Good distinction. However, I dispute that this distinction has anything
>to do with dramatic games.
Er, miscommunication here. I was not suggesting that this is
exclusive to dramatic games. I just wanted to talk about it in the
context of dramatic games, because my current campaign is more-or-less
dramatic. i.e. The question is "how do people use these two different
tools to help make better stories". In other contexts, the tools can
certainly be used for other purposes.
-*-*-*-
>
>And "inspirational" rules are not just for flavor and suggesting plots.
>They are also for encouraging certain in-character actions which fit the
>world, by making them easier or more common. What I'm referring to here
>are things like the falling-damage rules in Adventure! (In a pulp
>adventure world, falling from high places is not that big a deal unless
>you're falling from a REALLY high place.) or the Force Point rules in
>either the d6 or d20 versions of Star Wars.
This is different than what I meant by "inspirational", I
think. In the way I was using the term, the Force point rules in D6,
at least, are an attempt at representing a in-game-world feature in
a fairly neutral manner. i.e. any other mechanic which represents
the Force will have to do something of the sort.
A less dramatic inspirational mechanic might be critical
hits rules such as _Rolemaster_. These could be viewed as trying
to convey better the gory reality of hits rather than the fairly
flavorless "22 points of damage".
-*-*-*-
>
>I suppose I am just skeptical about anything in gaming that claims to be
>"for the purposes of the story" because /no/ game has really came out and
>said "here are some suggestions on how to make your game like a good
>story". If my games have been like good stories, it hasn't been because of
>anything in the game /as published/, it has only been because of the way
>the game has been /played/. In short, there is no dramatic game for me.
This sounds pretty much like my pro-transparent-mechanics
position. i.e. The game mechanics do not help make good stories,
rather they should stay out of the way. However, there are games
like _Theatrix_ which so say that they are telling you how to make
better stories. Whether you agree with the authors is another
issue.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
>
> OK, I am starting a new thread here in an effort to broaden out
> debate some. Reading an old article of designer's notes on
> _Everway_, and seeing debate over _Runequest_ versus _Hero Wars_
> elsewhere got me thinking. I could distinguish two conflicting
> qualities for mechanics of dramatic games: "tranparent" and
> "inspirational".
>
> Transparent mechanics try to interfere with the narrative as little
> as possible -- i.e. so a minimum of game-time and game-speak is
> the game, or even suggest twists or subplots that would not
> otherwise have been thought of. The "Drama Deck" from Masterbook
> and Torg would be a clear example. Other games with deliberately
> flavorful mechanics might be _Castle Falkenstein_ and _Everway_.
I don't think I really understand this distinction. Let me describe a
piece of the mechanics from /Night Shift/, and you can tell me how it
fits into your schema. Now, /Night Shift/ is a horror-action game
about professional monster hunters. Obviously, one of the PCs' major
activities will be finding and trying to kill monsters.
Now, this puts me in a bit of a bind. The PCs are ordinary humans,
and are dramatically physically inferior to many of the monsters they
will hunt. In order for the hunts to feel realistic, the PCs have
to be in real, immediate danger when they are fighting a creature.
However, a high casualty rate will make it hard to run a game
with long-term character development -- average PCs will die
before the players can develop them.
So what I did is the following. The combat system proper is extremely
simple and stripped-down: attack, defense and damage is resolved with
a single die roll, and ordinarily, there's one die roll per turn per
character. Deliberately, there are very few tactical options for a
player, because once a fight starts I want to create the sense that
events are chaotic and hard to control.
The damage system, however, is more complex. Rather than using a
simple hit-point system, I looked up some books on body trauma and now
PCs can suffer distinct wounds based on the severity of the attack and
where he or she was hit.
Using real-world trauma as the description is intended to serve a
number of purposes. First, even though I've tweaked the tables to make
it likely that a PC will survive a fight, I can preserve the illusion
that these are just folks. Knowing that your PC has a broken arm, a
bleeding scalp, and a mild concussion is a lot more sobering than
seeing that you have taken 20 wound points of damage. At the same time
players won't have as much difficulty accepting that their PCs will
live.
Also, I can selectively drop the trauma rules for monsters, and make
them much more inhuman. This will play up the difference between the
PCs, who suffer all the cares that flesh is heir to, and the children
of the night, who don't. (If this seems unfair, that's because it's
meant to. :)
Third, having detailed wounds means that the rules for medicine can be
more intricate, and can offer interesting tradeoffs. Suppose an
unconscious PC has suffered a blow to the neck and is also bleeding
steadily from a torso wound. Then the PC medic can has a tradeoff:
lift the legs to autotransfuse blood into the core, at the risk of
moving a possibly-broken neck. Furthermore, in addition to adding
another viable character type, I get another reminder of the humanity
of the PCs.
While there's a fair amount of detail here, it's all exists to be
emotionally plausible, rather than realistic. For example: I've
basically ignored all the realworld data on how people function in
combat -- eg penalties from injuries kick in immediately, rather than
after the fight is over. (I don't think anyone will investigate, but
if they do there's a rationale for this in the game world, as it
happens.)
Neel
John Kim
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Just curious, what, then, is the purpose behind the mechanics?
>If the emphasis is on the story, and the mechanics are not
>intended to enhance the story, why bother with mechanics?
Well, I would say that transparent mechanics *do* enhance the
story. They do this by supporting consistency, reducing GM-player
assumption clash, and by simplifying resolution of situations.
My definition of "transparent" is that there is a minimum of
discussion at the table to resolve a given event. i.e. The mechanics
stay out of the way of the narrative, but they do enhance the story.
Again, my parallel would be behind-the-scenes work on a movie which
is there to enhance the story even though you don't directly notice
that work on-screen.
Note that diceless, mechanicless play isn't neccessarily
transparent in this sense. i.e. A freeform game can in some cases
spend a long time in player-GM Q&A, like "OK, if I attack with my
sword how difficult will it be, based on my expert skill?".
-*-*-*-
>
>But in reality, I question how "transparent" any mechanic can be.
>I mean, the main function of most mechanics is to determine success or
>failure of an action. And from a narrative standpoint, success and
>failure seem pretty darn important to the flow of the story.
Well, I suspect you are imagining a different view of "transparent"
here than I meant. "Transparent" in general means that something is
there and has a real effect, but you don't directly see it. i.e.
A glass wall still functions a wall. You seem to be implying that
to be transparent a mechanic must have no effect.
The choice of success and failure has consequences for the
flow of the narrative -- but in my experience it does not affect the
*quality* of the narrative. i.e. 99% of the time, I can tell just as
good a story regardless of whether an individual action succeeds or
fails. What is much more important for the quality of the narrative
is how that success is described, how the PC reacts to it, and so
forth.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Just curious, what, then, is the purpose behind the mechanics?
>>If the emphasis is on the story, and the mechanics are not
>>intended to enhance the story, why bother with mechanics?
>
> Well, I would say that transparent mechanics *do* enhance the
>story. They do this by supporting consistency,
Sorry for responding with another question, but...
How exactly do they do this?
> reducing GM-player
>assumption clash,
Which seems important for a game, but why is it important for a story?
Thinking back to the last book I read, I don't remember any mechanism
to reduce author/reader assumption clash.
(reading the next paragraph, this makes a bit more sense, assuming
what you are saying is that removing the assumption clash is good
because it helps minimize the discussion needed to resolve an event)
> and by simplifying resolution of situations.
You don't need mechanics at all to resolve situations.
>
> My definition of "transparent" is that there is a minimum of
>discussion at the table to resolve a given event. i.e. The mechanics
>stay out of the way of the narrative, but they do enhance the story.
>Again, my parallel would be behind-the-scenes work on a movie which
>is there to enhance the story even though you don't directly notice
>that work on-screen.
Ehhh... How do I word this...
It seems then that "transparent" and "inspirational" are independant
qualities.
If "transparent" is "easy to use, and requires little player
discussion/effort"
and "inspirational" is "adds elements to the story that might not have
been added otherwise"
then it seems like it's not an either/or choice. In a single rule,
you could be one, the other, both, or neither. They don't seem to be
opposed qualities.
>
> Note that diceless, mechanicless play isn't neccessarily
>transparent in this sense. i.e. A freeform game can in some cases
>spend a long time in player-GM Q&A, like "OK, if I attack with my
>sword how difficult will it be, based on my expert skill?".
>
>-*-*-*-
>>
>>But in reality, I question how "transparent" any mechanic can be.
>>I mean, the main function of most mechanics is to determine success or
>>failure of an action. And from a narrative standpoint, success and
>>failure seem pretty darn important to the flow of the story.
>
> Well, I suspect you are imagining a different view of "transparent"
>here than I meant. "Transparent" in general means that something is
>there and has a real effect, but you don't directly see it. i.e.
>A glass wall still functions a wall. You seem to be implying that
>to be transparent a mechanic must have no effect.
No, not really, see above. I said "transparent", assuming that it was
being used as the opposite of "inspirational", what I meant to say was
that to be non-inspirational, a mechanic has to have no effect.
Whether or not that means anything about being transparent is still an
issue.
>
> The choice of success and failure has consequences for the
>flow of the narrative -- but in my experience it does not affect the
>*quality* of the narrative. i.e. 99% of the time, I can tell just as
>good a story regardless of whether an individual action succeeds or
>fails. What is much more important for the quality of the narrative
>is how that success is described, how the PC reacts to it, and so
>forth.
>
This I have to strongly disagree with.
Sure, if you take any situation with multiple possible outcomes, you
can likely create an interesting story no matter what outcome you
pick. But that is different than creating the "story" up to that
point and then deciding the outcome randomly.
When creating a story, you are using different dramatic tools to
produce certain entertaining effects within a story. Many of these
tools require a high degree of control over outcomes (forshadowing,
parrallelism, symbolism, using parables, ...) If you have uncertain
outcomes, you are basically prevented from using many different
literary/dramatic tools. You can set them up, but then you might be
denied the pay-off.
Zoran Bekric
respond.
On Thursday 7 February 2002, Robert Scott Clark (cla...@mindspring.com)
wrote in <3c82e6c7...@news-central.giganews.com>:
> jh...@darkshire.org (John Kim) wrote:
>
>> Well, I would say that transparent mechanics *do* enhance the
>> story. They do this by supporting consistency,
>
> Sorry for responding with another question, but...
>
> How exactly do they do this?
By providing a way of resolving actions and events that is free of fear or
favour. Dice produce results without any concern for the desires or
circumstances of those rolling them, so any changes in those desires or
circumstances have no influence on the results produced. In that sense they
are consistent.
>> reducing GM-player
>> assumption clash,
>
> Which seems important for a game, but why is it important for a story?
> Thinking back to the last book I read, I don't remember any mechanism
> to reduce author/reader assumption clash.
Was the book the work of a single author or of two or more co-authors?
If it was the work of a single author, then obviously producing the story
didn't require any mechanisms to reduce assumption clash because there was
only one set of assumptions involved.
If the work was co-written, then I'm sure that the authors engaged in
extensive discussion and/or revision to bring their various assumptions into
line. If the authors had been working together for some time, this may not
have been the case with that specific book, but over the course of the
partnership they would have found various ways of harmonising their
assumptions. Either that, or they would have gone their separate ways.
I'm not really sure who would correspond to the position of "reader" in this
analogy, so I really don't see its relevancy to RPGs. In my experience, in a
RPG all the participants are functioning as co-authors to one extent or
anothe. If they aren't, then I don't think the activity they are engaging in
can be called a RPG. At least, not as I understand the term.
> (reading the next paragraph, this makes a bit more sense, assuming
> what you are saying is that removing the assumption clash is good
> because it helps minimize the discussion needed to resolve an event)
>
>> and by simplifying resolution of situations.
>
> You don't need mechanics at all to resolve situations.
You do if you want the resolution to be both:
i) fair and consistent;
and
ii) seen to be fair and consistent.
The second feature is as important as the first. In some ways, I think it's
actually more important.
>> My definition of "transparent" is that there is a minimum of
>> discussion at the table to resolve a given event. i.e. The mechanics
>> stay out of the way of the narrative, but they do enhance the story.
>> Again, my parallel would be behind-the-scenes work on a movie which
>> is there to enhance the story even though you don't directly notice
>> that work on-screen.
>
> Ehhh... How do I word this...
>
> It seems then that "transparent" and "inspirational" are independant
> qualities.
I would agree with this.
I tend to contrast "transparent" mechanics with "interpretative" ones.
Transparent mechanics are straightforward to use (note: this isn't the same
as saying they are "simple" or "easy") and require little discussion or
conscious attention in play. The analogy I would use is touch-typing. When
first learning to type one has to pay conscious attention to the process,
breaking every word down into its component letters and then finding and
hitting the appropriate keys. After a while, though, the entire process
becomes automated. One just composes sentences in one's head and the entire
process of translating those sentences to the screen is taken care of
automated mental and physical systems that require no conscious attention.
(Of course, in describing the process I've just become very self-conscious
of it, but normally it's entirely automatic.)
Transparent mechanics are like that; experienced participants can apply and
read them with minimal conscious attention.
By contrast, interpretive mechanics demand conscious attention. The
tarot-like deck in "Everyway" doesn't produce clear answers, rather whenever
a card is drawn it needs to be interpreted. The entire process seems to have
more in common with augury or other forms of divination than with any form
of straightforward resolution. Personally, I find that I can't automate the
process. Every time such mechanics are used in play, I have to drop out of
character and think about the game rules in order to interpret the result.
The mechanics constantly interrupt the flow of events in the game by
reminding participants that they are, indeed, involved in a game.
Of course, there may be people out there who can automate the use of such
mechanics, in which case those mechanics would be transparent to them. I
haven't met any such people, though that may say more about my circle of
acquaintances than it does about anything else.
<snip>
>> The choice of success and failure has consequences for the
>> flow of the narrative -- but in my experience it does not affect the
>> *quality* of the narrative. i.e. 99% of the time, I can tell just as
>> good a story regardless of whether an individual action succeeds or
>> fails. What is much more important for the quality of the narrative
>> is how that success is described, how the PC reacts to it, and so
>> forth.
>
> This I have to strongly disagree with.
>
> Sure, if you take any situation with multiple possible outcomes, you
> can likely create an interesting story no matter what outcome you
> pick. But that is different than creating the "story" up to that
> point and then deciding the outcome randomly.
>
> When creating a story, you are using different dramatic tools to
> produce certain entertaining effects within a story. Many of these
> tools require a high degree of control over outcomes (forshadowing,
> parrallelism, symbolism, using parables, ...) If you have uncertain
> outcomes, you are basically prevented from using many different
> literary/dramatic tools. You can set them up, but then you might be
> denied the pay-off.
That's probably why -- with the notable exception of Edgar Wallace and his
patented "Plot Wheel" -- writers don't use randomisers when creating
stories. Not sure what that observation has to do with roleplaying games,
though.
Regards,
Zoran
______________________________________________________________
"Good communication is as stimulating as black coffee,
and just as hard to sleep after."
-- Anne Morrow Lindbergh
Robert Scott Clark
>By providing a way of resolving actions and events that is free of fear or
>favour. Dice produce results without any concern for the desires or
>circumstances of those rolling them, so any changes in those desires or
>circumstances have no influence on the results produced. In that sense they
>are consistent.
No, they are randomly distributed, that doesn't mean consistent.
In fact, that seems pretty inconsistent to me.
>> Which seems important for a game, but why is it important for a story?
>> Thinking back to the last book I read, I don't remember any mechanism
>> to reduce author/reader assumption clash.
>
>Was the book the work of a single author or of two or more co-authors?
>
>If it was the work of a single author, then obviously producing the story
>didn't require any mechanisms to reduce assumption clash because there was
>only one set of assumptions involved.
I said author/reader assumption clash.
Did you choose to not read that part, or was it an accident?
>I'm not really sure who would correspond to the position of "reader" in this
>analogy, so I really don't see its relevancy to RPGs. In my experience, in a
>RPG all the participants are functioning as co-authors to one extent or
>anothe. If they aren't, then I don't think the activity they are engaging in
>can be called a RPG. At least, not as I understand the term.
If I am reading a book I am participating in the creation of the
experience. Without me, there are just words on paper - no life. I
read the words, and incorporate the imagery of the story into an
imaginative narrative going on in my mind.
Compared to what exists in my mind, what is there in the book is only
the barest of skeletons.
This is very analogous to what happens between a GM trying to tell a
story and a group of players. As a player I have somewhat more
control than I do as a reader, but this is a difference of degree, not
of type.
>
>> (reading the next paragraph, this makes a bit more sense, assuming
>> what you are saying is that removing the assumption clash is good
>> because it helps minimize the discussion needed to resolve an event)
>>
>>> and by simplifying resolution of situations.
>>
>> You don't need mechanics at all to resolve situations.
>
>You do if you want the resolution to be both:
> i) fair and consistent;
Random does not make consistent, neither does any other mechanic I can
think of.
>and
> ii) seen to be fair and consistent.
No one listed that as a requirement.
In fact, I'd have a difficult time thinking of a 'story" (book, movie,
tv show, whatever) that seemed "fair" to me. Most stories seem pretty
stacked, unfair, and arbitrary.
What type of "fair" stories do you read?
>
>The second feature is as important as the first. In some ways, I think it's
>actually more important.
>
>>> My definition of "transparent" is that there is a minimum of
>>> discussion at the table to resolve a given event. i.e. The mechanics
>>> stay out of the way of the narrative, but they do enhance the story.
>>> Again, my parallel would be behind-the-scenes work on a movie which
>>> is there to enhance the story even though you don't directly notice
>>> that work on-screen.
>>
>> Ehhh... How do I word this...
>>
>> It seems then that "transparent" and "inspirational" are independant
>> qualities.
>
>I would agree with this.
>
>I tend to contrast "transparent" mechanics with "interpretative" ones.
>
>
>Transparent mechanics are like that; experienced participants can apply and
>read them with minimal conscious attention.
>
>By contrast, interpretive mechanics demand conscious attention. The
>tarot-like deck in "Everyway" doesn't produce clear answers, rather whenever
>a card is drawn it needs to be interpreted. The entire process seems to have
>more in common with augury or other forms of divination than with any form
>of straightforward resolution. Personally, I find that I can't automate the
>process. Every time such mechanics are used in play, I have to drop out of
>character and think about the game rules in order to interpret the result.
>The mechanics constantly interrupt the flow of events in the game by
>reminding participants that they are, indeed, involved in a game.
>
In both naming and example you seem to be saying one thing, but that
leaves some rules out.
What if you have a rule that is not interpretive, it produces a rule
as unambiguous as any simple mechanic, but it requires player level
thought. The best examples I can think of would be "meaningful" card
play (playing cards where they are played strategically instead of
randomly) or a system that involves betting/spending some type of
resource.
They aren't interpretive in that they don't require additional
interpretation to determine result, but they aren't "transparent" in
that they require a strong break from character thought to use.
<snip me being longwinded>
>
>That's probably why -- with the notable exception of Edgar Wallace and his
>patented "Plot Wheel" -- writers don't use randomisers when creating
>stories. Not sure what that observation has to do with roleplaying games,
>though.
>
That if you're trying to make good stories, a stronger degree of
control is useful than that provided by strict adherence to
randomizers.
Or, put another way, telling a good story is at cross purposes with X.
Where X is whatever makes you want to use randomizers (or any
uncertain mechanic). The two don't work that well together.
Zoran Bekric
in <3c654183...@news-central.giganews.com>:
> Zoran Bekric <zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
>> By providing a way of resolving actions and events that is free of fear or
>> favour. Dice produce results without any concern for the desires or
>> circumstances of those rolling them, so any changes in those desires or
>> circumstances have no influence on the results produced. In that sense they
>> are consistent.
>
> No, they are randomly distributed, that doesn't mean consistent.
>
> In fact, that seems pretty inconsistent to me.
Sorry, I didn't realise that by "consistent" you meant "identical".
You are, of course, correct. The results are randomly distributed. However
they are randomly distributed in a predictable pattern and that pattern does
not change from one resolution to the next. Thus, they combine variability
with consistency. Not the sort of narrow consistency you seem to be talking
about, but consistency nevertheless.
>>> Which seems important for a game, but why is it important for a story?
>>> Thinking back to the last book I read, I don't remember any mechanism
>>> to reduce author/reader assumption clash.
>>
>> Was the book the work of a single author or of two or more co-authors?
>>
>> If it was the work of a single author, then obviously producing the story
>> didn't require any mechanisms to reduce assumption clash because there was
>> only one set of assumptions involved.
>
> I said author/reader assumption clash.
>
> Did you choose to not read that part, or was it an accident?
I read it. It just doesn't make any sense to me. The reader is a passive
consumer. If the reader's assumptions clash with the author's, the reader's
only options are to either stop reading the book or to try and adopt the
author's assumptions, if only temporarily.
To give a specific example --
WARNING! A bit of a spoiler for the first "Harry Potter" book ahead
-- I disliked the bit at the end of Rowling's "Harry Potter and the
Philosopher's Stone" where Harry asks Dumbledore 'Why didn't you tell me
there was this homicidal maniac trying to kill me' and Dumbledore answers
'You'll understand when you're older.' (I don't have the book to hand, so
the quotes are roughly from memory.) I didn't like the underlying
assumptions behind Dumbledore's answer when I was eleven years old and, lo
and behold, I still don't care for them now, some twenty-odd years later.
However, as far as I'm aware, the book has made no concessions to my
assumptions. It has kept its (Rowling's?) assumptions unchanged. My only
options are:
i) to not read any of the "Harry Potter" books because I disagree
with some of their underlying assumptions;
or
ii) to go along with those assumptions for the duration because
there are other aspects of the books I do enjoy.
In that sense, you are right. There are no mechanisms for reducing
author/reader assumption clash in literature. Given the nature of the
medium, such mechanisms are probably impossible or so difficult to implement
that they are practically impossible.
However, those practical considerations don't exist in roleplaying games and
I'm not really sure why you would want to import the limitations of one
medium into another. Participants in a RPG are not passive consumers and I
really don't see what there is to be gained by reducing them to such. Doing
so would certainly undermine one of main appeals that RPGs have for me --
that I can be actively involved in them.
>> I'm not really sure who would correspond to the position of "reader" in this
>> analogy, so I really don't see its relevancy to RPGs. In my experience, in a
>> RPG all the participants are functioning as co-authors to one extent or
>> anothe. If they aren't, then I don't think the activity they are engaging in
>> can be called a RPG. At least, not as I understand the term.
>
> If I am reading a book I am participating in the creation of the
> experience. Without me, there are just words on paper - no life. I
> read the words, and incorporate the imagery of the story into an
> imaginative narrative going on in my mind.
>
> Compared to what exists in my mind, what is there in the book is only
> the barest of skeletons.
>
> This is very analogous to what happens between a GM trying to tell a
> story and a group of players. As a player I have somewhat more
> control than I do as a reader, but this is a difference of degree, not
> of type.
I disagree. It is very much a difference of type.
A reader or viewer or other audience member is a passive consumer. They
cannot influence or change the elements of a story at all. No matter how you
make react to a particular book, the next reader to pick it up will
encounter the original text with no contribution from you.
The situation of a player in a RPG is more akin to that of one of the fans
who produced the various "Phantom Edits" -- re-edited versions of "Star
Wars: Episode 1 -- The Phantom Menace", see
<http://salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/11/05/phantom_edit/index.html>
for details.
The move from just consuming a work to actively changing or creating aspects
of it is very much a difference of type, not just degree.
>>> (reading the next paragraph, this makes a bit more sense, assuming
>>> what you are saying is that removing the assumption clash is good
>>> because it helps minimize the discussion needed to resolve an event)
>>>
>>>> and by simplifying resolution of situations.
>>>
>>> You don't need mechanics at all to resolve situations.
>>
>> You do if you want the resolution to be both:
>> i) fair and consistent;
>
> Random does not make consistent, neither does any other mechanic I can
> think of.
Random does not make identical. It does make for consistency, though.
>> and
>> ii) seen to be fair and consistent.
>
> No one listed that as a requirement.
I just did. And my name is not "No one" -- though I did once play Odysseus
in school play.
> In fact, I'd have a difficult time thinking of a 'story" (book, movie,
> tv show, whatever) that seemed "fair" to me. Most stories seem pretty
> stacked, unfair, and arbitrary.
>
> What type of "fair" stories do you read?
Fairness is a concept that only has meaning when there are multiple parties
involved. It is irrelevant when considering solitary pursuits such as
reading or writing a story. As I pointed out above, your options when
dealing with story are to either accept its underlying assumptions or to
walk away.
That's not the case in RPGs which involve multiple participants and are
participatory by their very nature.
You are right, the situation with stories is pretty unfair. Why do you want
to import that unfairness into RPGs?
>> By contrast, interpretive mechanics demand conscious attention. The
>> tarot-like deck in "Everyway" doesn't produce clear answers, rather whenever
>> a card is drawn it needs to be interpreted. The entire process seems to have
>> more in common with augury or other forms of divination than with any form
>> of straightforward resolution. Personally, I find that I can't automate the
>> process. Every time such mechanics are used in play, I have to drop out of
>> character and think about the game rules in order to interpret the result.
>> The mechanics constantly interrupt the flow of events in the game by
>> reminding participants that they are, indeed, involved in a game.
>
> In both naming and example you seem to be saying one thing, but that
> leaves some rules out.
>
> What if you have a rule that is not interpretive, it produces a rule
> as unambiguous as any simple mechanic, but it requires player level
> thought. The best examples I can think of would be "meaningful" card
> play (playing cards where they are played strategically instead of
> randomly) or a system that involves betting/spending some type of
> resource.
>
> They aren't interpretive in that they don't require additional
> interpretation to determine result, but they aren't "transparent" in
> that they require a strong break from character thought to use.
I was agreeing with your statement that "transparent" and "inspirational"
mechanics are independent qualities. I suggested that the actual opposite of
"transparent" mechanics would be "interpretative" mechanics.
Obviously there are all sorts of rules that don't fit into this neat
dichotomy. No real surprise there. It's a simple scheme and game rules are a
complex subject.
I would suggest that if the card play or resource management mechanics you
mention evoke an appropriate flavour, they would be examples of what John
Kim meant by "inspirational" mechanics -- at least as I understand him. If
I've got it wrong, I'm sure he will correct me.
<big snip>
>> That's probably why -- with the notable exception of Edgar Wallace and his
>> patented "Plot Wheel" -- writers don't use randomisers when creating
>> stories. Not sure what that observation has to do with roleplaying games,
>> though.
>
> That if you're trying to make good stories, a stronger degree of
> control is useful than that provided by strict adherence to
> randomizers.
>
> Or, put another way, telling a good story is at cross purposes with X.
> Where X is whatever makes you want to use randomizers (or any
> uncertain mechanic). The two don't work that well together.
Precisely. If you want to make a good story you sit down at a word processor
and proceed to make one. Or do your best to that end, anyway.
Still not sure what that has to do with RPGs. Perhaps we should take the
conversation to one of the various writing newsgroups.
Robert Scott Clark
>On Friday 8 February 2002, Robert Scott Clark (cla...@mindspring.com) wrote
>in <3c654183...@news-central.giganews.com>:
>
>> Zoran Bekric <zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>>
<snipped handled below>
>
>In that sense, you are right. There are no mechanisms for reducing
>author/reader assumption clash in literature. Given the nature of the
>medium, such mechanisms are probably impossible or so difficult to implement
>that they are practically impossible.
Yet, they seem perfectly capable of communicating a satisfying story.
>> This is very analogous to what happens between a GM trying to tell a
>> story and a group of players. As a player I have somewhat more
>> control than I do as a reader, but this is a difference of degree, not
>> of type.
>
>I disagree. It is very much a difference of type.
>
>A reader or viewer or other audience member is a passive consumer.
No, they are not. There is much more happening in my imagination than
is written on the paper - that's not passive.
>They
>cannot influence or change the elements of a story at all.
There are many things that are NOT detailed by an author, you can
assume whatever you want for these things, and what you assume can
have a significant impact on your interpretation of the events that
are detailed.
> No matter how you
>make react to a particular book, the next reader to pick it up will
>encounter the original text with no contribution from you.
Non sequiter much?
No matter how you play a RPG, the next time someone runs that
campaign, there will be no contribution from you.
>The move from just consuming a work to actively changing or creating aspects
>of it is very much a difference of type, not just degree.
Only if you are a lazy reader.
>
>>>> (reading the next paragraph, this makes a bit more sense, assuming
>>>> what you are saying is that removing the assumption clash is good
>>>> because it helps minimize the discussion needed to resolve an event)
>>>>
>>>>> and by simplifying resolution of situations.
>>>>
>>>> You don't need mechanics at all to resolve situations.
>>>
>>> You do if you want the resolution to be both:
>>> i) fair and consistent;
>>
>> Random does not make consistent, neither does any other mechanic I can
>> think of.
>
>Random does not make identical. It does make for consistency, though.
It might help if you said "consistent" with what? You can't just be
consistent unless you are consistent with something.
>
>>> and
>>> ii) seen to be fair and consistent.
>>
>> No one listed that as a requirement.
>
>I just did. And my name is not "No one" -- though I did once play Odysseus
>in school play.
Then keep reading.
>
>> In fact, I'd have a difficult time thinking of a 'story" (book, movie,
>> tv show, whatever) that seemed "fair" to me. Most stories seem pretty
>> stacked, unfair, and arbitrary.
>>
>> What type of "fair" stories do you read?
>
>Fairness is a concept that only has meaning when there are multiple parties
>involved.
There are multiple parties involved in a story. They are called
characters.
>It is irrelevant when considering solitary pursuits such as
>reading or writing a story. As I pointed out above, your options when
>dealing with story are to either accept its underlying assumptions or to
>walk away.
>
>That's not the case in RPGs which involve multiple participants and are
>participatory by their very nature.
>
>You are right, the situation with stories is pretty unfair. Why do you want
>to import that unfairness into RPGs?
We are not talking about RPGs in general. We are explicitly
discussing the case of an RPG being used as a medium to tell a story.
In this case, the unfairness would serve the same purpose it does in a
written story.
>
>> They aren't interpretive in that they don't require additional
>> interpretation to determine result, but they aren't "transparent" in
>> that they require a strong break from character thought to use.
>
>I was agreeing with your statement that "transparent" and "inspirational"
>mechanics are independent qualities. I suggested that the actual opposite of
>"transparent" mechanics would be "interpretative" mechanics.
And I am suggesting that you did not provide good opposites.
>
>Obviously there are all sorts of rules that don't fit into this neat
>dichotomy. No real surprise there. It's a simple scheme and game rules are a
>complex subject.
Actually, you can make things divide into two categories rather well
(or at least better) if you actually define the two categories as
opposites.
Dividing cars into "blue" and "not blue" is much easier than dividing
them into either "blue" or "made in America".
Dividing into either "transparent" or "interpretive" makes no more
sense than dividing into "transparent" or "inspirational". If you
want to say that a rule needs to be either "transparent" or something
else, then "non-transparent" seems a pretty good choice. Maybe come
up with a name that sounds better, but it should mean
"non-transparent".
Sure there are still boarderline cases, but at least to are only
trying to divide based on one quality at a time.
>
>I would suggest that if the card play or resource management mechanics you
>mention evoke an appropriate flavour, they would be examples of what John
>Kim meant by "inspirational" mechanics
Yes, they would, which would say nothing of where they fall on a
spectrum of "transparent" vs "whatever"
>-- at least as I understand him. If
>I've got it wrong, I'm sure he will correct me.
>
><big snip>
>
>>> That's probably why -- with the notable exception of Edgar Wallace and his
>>> patented "Plot Wheel" -- writers don't use randomisers when creating
>>> stories. Not sure what that observation has to do with roleplaying games,
>>> though.
>>
>> That if you're trying to make good stories, a stronger degree of
>> control is useful than that provided by strict adherence to
>> randomizers.
>>
>> Or, put another way, telling a good story is at cross purposes with X.
>> Where X is whatever makes you want to use randomizers (or any
>> uncertain mechanic). The two don't work that well together.
>
>Precisely. If you want to make a good story you sit down at a word processor
>and proceed to make one. Or do your best to that end, anyway.
>
>Still not sure what that has to do with RPGs.
Because we are discussing mechanisms used while attempting to tell a
good story in a RPG.
Were you not paying attention?
Maybe you should go back and read the thread from the beginning, until
you get up to speed with the rest of us.
Or, if you are just trying to say that RPGs shouldn't be used to tell
stories, then say it (preferably in as few words as possible), and
then let people who disagree continue to discuss the topic.
> Perhaps we should take the
>conversation to one of the various writing newsgroups.
Where they would be off topic?
Zoran Bekric
wrote in <3c65dc4...@news-central.giganews.com>:
> <snipped handled below>
No, it's not. You very carefully trimmed all the parts about importing the
limitations of other media into RPGs and don't handle them at all. You just
ignored those points.
> Yet, they seem perfectly capable of communicating a satisfying story.
So what? The point wasn't about whether or not they are capable of
communicating a satisfying story. The point was that they cannot reconcile
conflicting assumptions. You have yet to offer any evidence that they can.
Whether or not you find any resulting story satisfying or not is irrelevant.
>> A reader or viewer or other audience member is a passive consumer.
>
> No, they are not. There is much more happening in my imagination than
> is written on the paper - that's not passive.
Good for you. There's a lot more happening in my imagination as well. It
doesn't change what's written on the paper one whit. Until you're prepared
to demonstrate that it does, your point is a non sequitur.
>> They
>> cannot influence or change the elements of a story at all.
>
> There are many things that are NOT detailed by an author, you can
> assume whatever you want for these things, and what you assume can
> have a significant impact on your interpretation of the events that
> are detailed.
But you can't change or influence those that are specified by the author.
Are you trying to claim otherwise?
>> No matter how you
>> make react to a particular book, the next reader to pick it up will
>> encounter the original text with no contribution from you.
>
> Non sequiter much?
>
> No matter how you play a RPG, the next time someone runs that
> campaign, there will be no contribution from you.
And you're claiming that the campaign will run exactly the same way each
time? The next time it's run it will be different because there will be
different people involved making different contributions. The opening parts
of the campaign may be similar -- I very much doubt they will be identical
-- but the ending is likely to be very different based on the different
decisions made by the new set of contributors.
By contrast, a book or film will be exactly the same, time after time after
time.
And I noticed you cut the example I gave of the Phantom Edits -- people
whose interaction with the material does change it. Why is that?
>> The move from just consuming a work to actively changing or creating aspects
>> of it is very much a difference of type, not just degree.
>
> Only if you are a lazy reader.
That's what I said. A non-lazy reader -- one who goes and makes changes to
the work like the Phantom Editors -- constitute a difference of type, not
degree.
>> Random does not make identical. It does make for consistency, though.
>
> It might help if you said "consistent" with what?
I did. You just trimmed and ignored it though. Still, to reiterate:
>>> By providing a way of resolving actions and events that is free of fear or
>>> favour. Dice produce results without any concern for the desires or
>>> circumstances of those rolling them, so any changes in those desires or
>>> circumstances have no influence on the results produced.
And:
>>> The results are randomly distributed. However they are randomly distributed
>>> in a predictable pattern and that pattern does not change from one
>>> resolution to the next. Thus, they combine variability with consistency.
> You can't just be consistent unless you are consistent with something.
Shifting goal posts now?
Still, you are incorrect. From dictionary.com:
> con·sis·tent Pronunciation Key (kn-sstnt) adj.
> 1. In agreement; compatible:
> The testimony was consistent with the known facts.
> 2. Being in agreement with itself; coherent and uniform:
> a consistent pattern of behaviour.
> 3. Reliable; steady:
> demonstrated a consistent ability to impress the critics.
> 4. Mathematics. Having at least one common solution, as of two or more
> equations or inequalities.
> 5. Holding true as a group; not contradictory:
> a consistent set of statements.
You will note definition 2; it is possible for something to be consistent
even if it is only in agreement with itself over time. That is the sense in
which "consistent" is being used here. Dice mechanics are consistent with
themselves over time; they do not change arbitrarily from one resolution to
the next. The hundredth use of a particular dice mechanic has the same
probabilities as the first or the thousandth, and those probabilities can be
mapped and described.
>> I just did. And my name is not "No one" -- though I did once play Odysseus
>> in school play.
>
> Then keep reading.
I did. There's nothing about me playing Odysseus in any school play anywhere
in the rest of the post. And, even if there were, it wouldn't change the
fact that I brought up the issue that it's not enough for a resolution
system to be fair and consistent, it has to be seen to be fair and
consistent.
You do realise that trimming points out of your reply doesn't actually make
those points go away, don't you?
>> Fairness is a concept that only has meaning when there are multiple parties
>> involved.
>
> There are multiple parties involved in a story. They are called
> characters.
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between fiction and reality.
Either that or you have no idea of how stories are created.
The multiple parties I was referring to enjoy a different ontological status
to the characters in a story. The participants of a RPG exist independently
of the RPG, the characters in a story exist only within the story. Try to
keep up.
> We are not talking about RPGs in general. We are explicitly
> discussing the case of an RPG being used as a medium to tell a story.
> In this case, the unfairness would serve the same purpose it does in a
> written story.
What purpose is that? As far as I can tell, the unfairness exists in a
written story as an artefact of the medium (prose). You seem to want to
import that unfairness into RPGs for no discernibly good reason. I honestly
don't see what there is to be gained by mutilating one of the strengths of
RPGs to accommodate one of the limitations of prose.
>> I was agreeing with your statement that "transparent" and "inspirational"
>> mechanics are independent qualities. I suggested that the actual opposite of
>> "transparent" mechanics would be "interpretative" mechanics.
>
> And I am suggesting that you did not provide good opposites.
Transparent mechanics allow for enraptment -- what would correspond to
immersion in terms of the FAQ.
Interpretive mechanics deliberately disrupt that immersion, in much the same
way that Brecht's alienation techniques disrupt the enraptment of the
audience, creating critical distance between the audience and the drama.
Both approaches are valid and serve different ends. Presumably, game
designers would use one or the other, depending on what effect they wished
to accomplish.
However, encouraging immersion <--> disrupting immersion seem to be
opposites to me. They certainly are mutually exclusive goals.
What would you suggest the opposite of "transparent" mechanics should be?
>> Obviously there are all sorts of rules that don't fit into this neat
>> dichotomy. No real surprise there. It's a simple scheme and game rules are a
>> complex subject.
>
> Actually, you can make things divide into two categories rather well
> (or at least better) if you actually define the two categories as
> opposites.
>
> Dividing cars into "blue" and "not blue" is much easier than dividing
> them into either "blue" or "made in America".
>
> Dividing into either "transparent" or "interpretive" makes no more
> sense than dividing into "transparent" or "inspirational". If you
> want to say that a rule needs to be either "transparent" or something
> else, then "non-transparent" seems a pretty good choice. Maybe come
> up with a name that sounds better, but it should mean
> "non-transparent".
>
> Sure there are still boarderline cases, but at least to are only
> trying to divide based on one quality at a time.
So you're saying that immersion does not constitute a single quality?
>> I would suggest that if the card play or resource management mechanics you
>> mention evoke an appropriate flavour, they would be examples of what John
>> Kim meant by "inspirational" mechanics
>
> Yes, they would, which would say nothing of where they fall on a
> spectrum of "transparent" vs "whatever"
Not everything fits onto a single spectrum. The universe is a lot more
complex than that. Stop trying to force everything onto your Procrustean
Bed.
The proposed spectrum is only one tool in a box full of them. It's not
supposed to measure everything, in the same way that a sprit-level isn't the
same as a tape-measure. Complaining that a sprit-level cannot distinguish
between pieces of wood of different lengths does not invalidate the
spirit-level as a useful tool.
>> Precisely. If you want to make a good story you sit down at a word processor
>> and proceed to make one. Or do your best to that end, anyway.
>>
>> Still not sure what that has to do with RPGs.
>
> Because we are discussing mechanisms used while attempting to tell a
> good story in a RPG.
Yes. And the question is: How does imposing the limitations of one medium
(prose) onto another (RPGs) aid that goal? As far as I can tell, it doesn't.
It just smacks of laziness.
> Or, if you are just trying to say that RPGs shouldn't be used to tell
> stories, then say it (preferably in as few words as possible), and
> then let people who disagree continue to discuss the topic.
No, I think that RPGs can be used to tell stories. I just think that those
trying to do so would be better off playing to the strengths of the medium
rather than seeking to impose the limitations of another medium onto the
form.
By analogy, films tell stories differently to books. It is possible to tell
a story in a film in exactly the same way that story is told in a book, but
the result is inevitably a lousy movie. I think we get much better results
when film-makers work to the strengths of their particular medium when
adapting works from prose. Similarly, I think we get better results when
novelists work to the strengths of their medium rather than trying to
produce ersatz films.
Same with RPGs and other media.
>> Perhaps we should take the
>> conversation to one of the various writing newsgroups.
>
> Where they would be off topic?
To the extent that you seem determined to stay within the limitations of
prose, they would be entirely on-topic.
RPGs are a medium in their own right, with their own distinctive strengths
and limitations. If you don't want to work with those strengths and
limitations, preferring instead to embrace the strengths and limitations of
prose, I honestly think you would be better off in one of the writing
newsgroups where those strengths and limitations are the accepted standard.
The subject of this thread contains both the words "dramatic" and "games".
You seem to want to discuss only "dramatic" and ignore "games". I think that
would be better suited to newsgroup dedicated to that purpose.
Robert Scott Clark
>> Yet, they seem perfectly capable of communicating a satisfying story.
>
>So what? The point wasn't about whether or not they are capable of
>communicating a satisfying story. The point was that they cannot reconcile
>conflicting assumptions. You have yet to offer any evidence that they can.
I have not offered any evidence that they can, because it was my point
that they cannot (or at least normally do not) and that it isn't
important.
>Whether or not you find any resulting story satisfying or not is irrelevant.
No, one reason given for including mechanics in a RPG being used to
tell a story was to "reconcile conflict assumptions". I pointed out
that you don't need to be able to "reconcile conflict assumptions" to
be able to tell a good story. You seem to now be agreeing with that
asertion, so I don't understand why you think there is an argument
there.
>
>>> A reader or viewer or other audience member is a passive consumer.
>>
>> No, they are not. There is much more happening in my imagination than
>> is written on the paper - that's not passive.
>
>Good for you. There's a lot more happening in my imagination as well. It
>doesn't change what's written on the paper one whit.
Why does that matter?
>Until you're prepared
>to demonstrate that it does, your point is a non sequitur.
Only if you have a really bizarre definition of "passive".
>
>>> They
>>> cannot influence or change the elements of a story at all.
>>
>> There are many things that are NOT detailed by an author, you can
>> assume whatever you want for these things, and what you assume can
>> have a significant impact on your interpretation of the events that
>> are detailed.
>
>But you can't change or influence those that are specified by the author.
If the GM says, "it's raining", I normally cannot influence that
either.
degree not type
>>
>> No matter how you play a RPG, the next time someone runs that
>> campaign, there will be no contribution from you.
>
>And you're claiming that the campaign will run exactly the same way each
>time?
Are you're claiming that a book that is read will be experienced
exactly the same by every reader?
>The next time it's run it will be different because there will be
>different people involved making different contributions. The opening parts
>of the campaign may be similar -- I very much doubt they will be identical
>-- but the ending is likely to be very different based on the different
>decisions made by the new set of contributors.
>
>By contrast, a book or film will be exactly the same, time after time after
>time.
Only if you have no audience.
>
>And I noticed you cut the example I gave of the Phantom Edits -- people
>whose interaction with the material does change it. Why is that?
Because it was irrelevant to anything I am discussing. I can write a
couple of paragraphs about me dancing in my underwear and eating
jello, but I don't see how it would further this discussion.
>
>You will note definition 2; it is possible for something to be consistent
>even if it is only in agreement with itself over time.
Then is that what you are saying?
Are you saying "consistent with itself"?
If so, why is that important?
Hey, we're going to add these mechanics.
Why?
They are consistent.
Consistent with what?
Consistent with themselves.
OK, well back to the original question, why are you adding them in the
first place.
>That is the sense in
>which "consistent" is being used here. Dice mechanics are consistent with
>themselves over time; they do not change arbitrarily from one resolution to
>the next.
If being used correctly, GM arbitration does not change arbitrarily
from one resolution to another.
>
>You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between fiction and reality.
>Either that or you have no idea of how stories are created.
>
>The multiple parties I was referring to enjoy a different ontological status
>to the characters in a story.
Then when using terms like fair, you should make it clear what parties
you are refering to.
Given that you are now apparently talking about fairness between
players instead of fairness between characters, I can attempt to
actually make a relevant statement...
How does fairness between players contribute to telling a better
story?
>The participants of a RPG exist independently
>of the RPG, the characters in a story exist only within the story. Try to
>keep up.
>
>> We are not talking about RPGs in general. We are explicitly
>> discussing the case of an RPG being used as a medium to tell a story.
>> In this case, the unfairness would serve the same purpose it does in a
>> written story.
>
>What purpose is that? As far as I can tell, the unfairness exists in a
>written story as an artefact of the medium (prose). You seem to want to
>import that unfairness into RPGs for no discernibly good reason. I honestly
>don't see what there is to be gained by mutilating one of the strengths of
>RPGs to accommodate one of the limitations of prose.
"Unfairness" between who? You are still not being clear about who is
being "unfair"ed.
>
>Transparent mechanics allow for enraptment -- what would correspond to
>immersion in terms of the FAQ.
>
>Interpretive mechanics deliberately disrupt that immersion, in much the same
>way that Brecht's alienation techniques disrupt the enraptment of the
>audience, creating critical distance between the audience and the drama.
>
>Both approaches are valid and serve different ends. Presumably, game
>designers would use one or the other, depending on what effect they wished
>to accomplish.
Achieving different ends does not make them opposites.
>
>However, encouraging immersion <--> disrupting immersion seem to be
>opposites to me. They certainly are mutually exclusive goals.
>
>What would you suggest the opposite of "transparent" mechanics should be?
non-transparent
maybe "opaque" if you don't like "non"-words
>> Dividing into either "transparent" or "interpretive" makes no more
>> sense than dividing into "transparent" or "inspirational". If you
>> want to say that a rule needs to be either "transparent" or something
>> else, then "non-transparent" seems a pretty good choice. Maybe come
>> up with a name that sounds better, but it should mean
>> "non-transparent".
>>
>> Sure there are still boarderline cases, but at least to are only
>> trying to divide based on one quality at a time.
>
>So you're saying that immersion does not constitute a single quality?
Yes, I would say just that. At least the way you are attempting to use
it.
"Interpretive" carries more meaning than just "disrupts immersion".
Maybe the problem is poor word choice.
Do you mean for "interpretive" to mean nothing more than "mechanics of
a degree or type that distract from immersion"? Because that's not
how you originally described them.
Originally, you said that they were mechanics that required
interpretation. And while requiring interpretation might distract
from immersion (and then again, it might not), it isn't the only way.
Therefore, one end of the spectrum is incomplete.
>
>>> I would suggest that if the card play or resource management mechanics you
>>> mention evoke an appropriate flavour, they would be examples of what John
>>> Kim meant by "inspirational" mechanics
>>
>> Yes, they would, which would say nothing of where they fall on a
>> spectrum of "transparent" vs "whatever"
>
>Not everything fits onto a single spectrum.
Actually, everything does. A single spectrum does not fully define
anything, but if you have a line defining a specific characteristic of
x's then x will have a value somewhere on that line.
The above described mechaincs would, as you correctly state, fall
rather high on the "inspirational" vs "non-inspitational" line, but it
should still be able to have a value on the transparency line. You
just seem to want to confuse the line by putting "0" on one end and
"red" on the other - that makes it pretty hard to plot points.
>The universe is a lot more
>complex than that. Stop trying to force everything onto your Procrustean
>Bed.
>
>The proposed spectrum is only one tool in a box full of them. It's not
>supposed to measure everything, in the same way that a sprit-level isn't the
>same as a tape-measure. Complaining that a sprit-level cannot distinguish
>between pieces of wood of different lengths does not invalidate the
>spirit-level as a useful tool.
Yes, but that tape measure can measure any object.
>
>>> Precisely. If you want to make a good story you sit down at a word processor
>>> and proceed to make one. Or do your best to that end, anyway.
>>>
>>> Still not sure what that has to do with RPGs.
>>
>> Because we are discussing mechanisms used while attempting to tell a
>> good story in a RPG.
>
>Yes. And the question is: How does imposing the limitations of one medium
>(prose) onto another (RPGs) aid that goal?
What limitations are you talking about?
Control? I spent a fucking long post detailing why added control
enhances story quality.
It makes perfect sense, if you are attempting to tell a story, to use
the tools from other media that are used to tell storys. No real
point in re-inventing the wheel.
> As far as I can tell, it doesn't.
>It just smacks of laziness.
>
>> Or, if you are just trying to say that RPGs shouldn't be used to tell
>> stories, then say it (preferably in as few words as possible), and
>> then let people who disagree continue to discuss the topic.
>
>No, I think that RPGs can be used to tell stories. I just think that those
>trying to do so would be better off playing to the strengths of the medium
>rather than seeking to impose the limitations of another medium onto the
>form.
As far as I can tell, RPGs don't have a lot of strengths when it comes
to telling stories.
Would you care to list some things intrinsic to RPGs that make telling
a better story easier?
>The subject of this thread contains both the words "dramatic" and "games".
>You seem to want to discuss only "dramatic" and ignore "games". I think that
>would be better suited to newsgroup dedicated to that purpose.
I will not, here, go into my opinion of RPGs as "games", other than do
say it makes me laugh to see the two written in the same sentence.
"Games" when used in reference to RPGs is pretty far from any real
definition of "game".
And I don't play RPGs as stories or games, so there you go.
Zoran Bekric
topic. You just trim all the points you don't like. You apparently cannot
think outside of the autocratic box you're in and insist on trying to impose
that autocratic view on others.
Still, lets deal with your latest round of inanities (trimmed to keep things
relatively brief):
On Sunday 10 February 2002, Robert Scott Clark (cla...@mindspring.com)
wrote in <3c682cb...@news-central.giganews.com>:
> Zoran Bekric <zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
>> So what? The point wasn't about whether or not they are capable of
>> communicating a satisfying story. The point was that they cannot reconcile
>> conflicting assumptions. You have yet to offer any evidence that they can.
>
> I have not offered any evidence that they can, because it was my point
> that they cannot (or at least normally do not) and that it isn't
> important.
Actually, I suspect that you haven't offered any evidence because you don't
have any. Reconciling conflicting assumptions is important whenever you have
multiple parties involved in playing a RPG or creating a story. The only
time it's not important is when one of the parties is given absolute
autocratic power and all the others act just as passive consumers. That
works fine for certain forms of storytelling -- books, movies, operas,
ballads, etc. -- but anything that works that way is not an RPG. That's why
I suggest that you should take your views off to a writing newsgroup because
they obviously have nothing to do with roleplaying games.
>> Whether or not you find any resulting story satisfying or not is irrelevant.
>
> No, one reason given for including mechanics in a RPG being used to
> tell a story was to "reconcile conflict assumptions". I pointed out
> that you don't need to be able to "reconcile conflict assumptions" to
> be able to tell a good story. You seem to now be agreeing with that
> asertion, so I don't understand why you think there is an argument
> there.
No, you just assumed that RPGs work exactly the same as movies or prose
fiction. They don't. RPGs are a group activity, not a solitary endeavour.
That's why reconciling conflict assumptions is important.
Until you're actually prepared to deal with the question of telling stories
through a RPG rather than just the question of telling a story, your points
are irrelevant.
>> Good for you. There's a lot more happening in my imagination as well. It
>> doesn't change what's written on the paper one whit.
>
> Why does that matter?
You claim that the reader of the book changes the book. I'm pointing out
that there is no evidence of it. After the reader is gone, the book remains
unchanged.
>> Until you're prepared
>> to demonstrate that it does, your point is a non sequitur.
>
> Only if you have a really bizarre definition of "passive".
No, I'm using passive in the standard sense. In fact I've contrasted it with
and example of active involvement in changing a work -- the Phantom Editors.
You keep cutting that example.
Still, lets take your approach for a moment. If you are actively
contributing to the creation of a story by reading it, then part of that
story is yours. Thus, you would have rights in the modified story. If you
have rights, you should be able to collect royalties for your contribution.
Either that, or a one-time payment for work made for hire.
So, to return to an earlier example, how much have you collected in
royalties form your reading of the Harry Potter books. I'm willing to bet
that the answer is "nothing" because, your delusions aside, I'd say that
J.K. Rowling's contribution to the creation of the books is of an entirely
different type to any minuscule embellishments you may have made to the text
while reading it. Her contribution was active -- she started with a blank
sheet of paper and filled it; yours was passive -- you simply exercised the
faculties necessary to actually read any text.
If you disagree, I suggest that you sue the publisher of the Harry Potter
books (Bloomsbury here in Australia) for your share of the royalties. Then
you'll see how the real world treats your notions.
>> But you can't change or influence those that are specified by the author.
>
> If the GM says, "it's raining", I normally cannot influence that
> either.
I notice you include the qualifier "normally". That suggests that there are
occasions where you can influence that sort of GM pronouncement. Contrast
that with a book or a film, where if the text says "It's raining" you cannot
influence it at all.
> degree not type
Being able to influence it sometimes vs. having no effect at all. Difference
of type, not degree.
>> And you're claiming that the campaign will run exactly the same way each
>> time?
>
> Are you're claiming that a book that is read will be experienced
> exactly the same by every reader?
I notice you have to retreat to subjective criteria for your response. The
campaign will have very obvious differences of action, event, incident,
character and possibly even outcome. Big differences, easily seen.
Not all actors will deliver a line the same way. The words of the line,
however, remain unchanged. That's why we still can recognise a line such as
"Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of
York" as being by Shakespeare, no matter how many actors have delivered it
at different times and places.
>> By contrast, a book or film will be exactly the same, time after time after
>> time.
>
> Only if you have no audience.
So you're saying that the characters, events, incidents and outcome of a
book or film change to accommodate each new audience. Magical thinking at
its finest.
Still, I'm willing to look at whatever evidence you have to support such an
extraordinary claim -- though I suspect that, as with your other claims, you
don't actually have any such evidence.
>> And I noticed you cut the example I gave of the Phantom Edits -- people
>> whose interaction with the material does change it. Why is that?
>
> Because it was irrelevant to anything I am discussing. I can write a
> couple of paragraphs about me dancing in my underwear and eating
> jello, but I don't see how it would further this discussion.
You're right. Your contribution wouldn't further this discussion at all. My
contribution, on the other hand, gave an example of non-passive engagement
with a work as opposed to the passive consumption you keep championing.
>> You will note definition 2; it is possible for something to be consistent
>> even if it is only in agreement with itself over time.
>
> Then is that what you are saying?
>
> Are you saying "consistent with itself"?
Yes. Congratulations on finally figuring it out.
> If so, why is that important?
To resolve conflicts in a way that is not only fair, but can also be seen to
be fair.
> Hey, we're going to add these mechanics.
> Why?
> They are consistent.
> Consistent with what?
> Consistent with themselves.
> OK, well back to the original question, why are you adding them in the
> first place.
Given that I answered the final question in my very first post to this
thread and that you have consistently trimmed and ignored it, I'd say that
your going "back to the original question" is a sign of deliberate
obtuseness.
>> That is the sense in
>> which "consistent" is being used here. Dice mechanics are consistent with
>> themselves over time; they do not change arbitrarily from one resolution to
>> the next.
>
> If being used correctly, GM arbitration does not change arbitrarily
> from one resolution to another.
Fifty years of evidence from neuro-science fails to support that assertion.
A drunk GM does not arbitrate the same as a sober GM; a happy GM does not
arbitrate the same as an angry GM; a tired GM does not arbitrate the same as
a fresh GM; and so on. Dice mechanics arbitrate in exactly the same way,
time after time, regardless of changes in desire or circumstance.
>> You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between fiction and reality.
>> Either that or you have no idea of how stories are created.
>>
>> The multiple parties I was referring to enjoy a different ontological status
>> to the characters in a story.
>
> Then when using terms like fair, you should make it clear what parties
> you are refering to.
Sorry. I was referring to those creating the story.
> Given that you are now apparently talking about fairness between
> players instead of fairness between characters, I can attempt to
> actually make a relevant statement...
>
> How does fairness between players contribute to telling a better
> story?
It alleviates anger, resolves resentment and keeps everyone's focus on the
story rather than the interpersonal relationships of the participants.
Such things may not be a problem for arbitrary autocrats, but they are an
issue among those who gather as equals.
>> What purpose is that? As far as I can tell, the unfairness exists in a
>> written story as an artefact of the medium (prose). You seem to want to
>> import that unfairness into RPGs for no discernibly good reason. I honestly
>> don't see what there is to be gained by mutilating one of the strengths of
>> RPGs to accommodate one of the limitations of prose.
>
> "Unfairness" between who? You are still not being clear about who is
> being "unfair"ed.
Those participating in the creation of the story. Those who have an
ontological status of being real people as opposed to fictional constructs.
I find it interesting that you seem to be more concerned with the fair
treatment of imaginary entities than with the fair treatment of your fellow
human beings.
>> Both approaches are valid and serve different ends. Presumably, game
>> designers would use one or the other, depending on what effect they wished
>> to accomplish.
>
> Achieving different ends does not make them opposites.
Achieving opposite ends does.
>> However, encouraging immersion <--> disrupting immersion seem to be
>> opposites to me. They certainly are mutually exclusive goals.
>>
>> What would you suggest the opposite of "transparent" mechanics should be?
>
> non-transparent
>
> maybe "opaque" if you don't like "non"-words
And what makes a mechanic "non-transparent" or "opaque"? Please give an
example of what you mean.
While you're playing semantic games, others are trying to describe real
phenomena.
>> So you're saying that immersion does not constitute a single quality?
>
> Yes, I would say just that. At least the way you are attempting to use
> it.
>
> "Interpretive" carries more meaning than just "disrupts immersion".
> Maybe the problem is poor word choice.
>
> Do you mean for "interpretive" to mean nothing more than "mechanics of
> a degree or type that distract from immersion"? Because that's not
> how you originally described them.
>
> Originally, you said that they were mechanics that required
> interpretation. And while requiring interpretation might distract
> from immersion (and then again, it might not), it isn't the only way.
> Therefore, one end of the spectrum is incomplete.
Requiring interpretation would always distract from immersion since it
requires the participant to look at a result and decipher it in ways
impossible to the character. Interpretive mechanics, by their very nature,
require an authorial stance. Transparent mechanics allow for immersion,
interpretive mechanics deliberately disrupt it. On that scale, the two are
opposite ends of the spectrum.
As far as I know, there are no mechanics that actually encourage immersion.
If a player doesn't want to go there, no mechanics are going to get them
there.
>> Not everything fits onto a single spectrum.
>
> Actually, everything does. A single spectrum does not fully define
> anything, but if you have a line defining a specific characteristic of
> x's then x will have a value somewhere on that line.
And if I add a y axis I can have multiple y's that all have the same value
of x but which are not the same. I can also add a z axis to differentiate
those things that have the same value of x and y, but still aren't the same.
And so on, adding axis as necessary.
Of course, I can also ignore those axis on which there is no differentiation
and use only the axis on which there is. Appropriate tool for the job and
all that.
> The above described mechaincs would, as you correctly state, fall
> rather high on the "inspirational" vs "non-inspitational" line, but it
> should still be able to have a value on the transparency line. You
> just seem to want to confuse the line by putting "0" on one end and
> "red" on the other - that makes it pretty hard to plot points.
No, I'm trying to describe the different ends of the spectrum based on how
they actually work. You're just playing word games.
Designers don't use interpretive mechanics because they are opposed to
transparency, they use them because interpretive mechanics give them some
other quality they desire. Generally, as far as I can tell, simplicity in
the written rules. A consequence of that simplicity in the written rules is
complexity in the actual resolution during play, which has the side effect
(intended or otherwise) of disrupting immersion.
Opposites are rarely formed in a logical manner. In the real world, the
opposite of "pro-life" isn't "anti-life", it's "pro-choice". Opposites are
made by people being *for* different things which, in certain circumstances,
lead to opposite conclusions.
I assume that those who embrace "non-transparent" mechanics don't do so
because they are opposed to transparency, I assume they do so because they
are in favour of some other quality and I'm trying to identify and describe
that quality.
>> The proposed spectrum is only one tool in a box full of them. It's not
>> supposed to measure everything, in the same way that a sprit-level isn't the
>> same as a tape-measure. Complaining that a sprit-level cannot distinguish
>> between pieces of wood of different lengths does not invalidate the
>> spirit-level as a useful tool.
>
> Yes, but that tape measure can measure any object.
But it can't tell you whether it's on the level or not.
>> Yes. And the question is: How does imposing the limitations of one medium
>> (prose) onto another (RPGs) aid that goal?
>
> What limitations are you talking about?
>
> Control? I spent a fucking long post detailing why added control
> enhances story quality.
If you'll direct me to that post, I'll read it. Does the post deal with how
control enhances story quality *in a RPG*? If not, then it probably belongs
in a writing newsgroup.
> It makes perfect sense, if you are attempting to tell a story, to use
> the tools from other media that are used to tell storys. No real
> point in re-inventing the wheel.
So you're saying all those film-makers who work out ways of telling stories
appropriate to the medium of film are wasting their time. They should just
adopt all the solutions developed by novelists. And that novelists, in turn,
should have just taken on the solutions developed by balladeers.
A new medium presents new problems, new challenges, new strengths, new
limitations. Some people are up to dealing with that. Others obviously
aren't.
>> No, I think that RPGs can be used to tell stories. I just think that those
>> trying to do so would be better off playing to the strengths of the medium
>> rather than seeking to impose the limitations of another medium onto the
>> form.
>
> As far as I can tell, RPGs don't have a lot of strengths when it comes
> to telling stories.
If you think that, why are you wasting your time with them? Go off and tell
your stories in a medium you think is more suited to it.
> Would you care to list some things intrinsic to RPGs that make telling
> a better story easier?
Given that you're the one advocating using RPGs to tell stories, that's your
problem.
I'm interested in using RPGs to explore situations and to create story-like
experiences -- experiences which participants can readily turn into stories
afterwards, but which do not actually function as stories in their own right
-- and I find that RPGs have a number of strengths in those areas.
If someone wants to use RPGs to tell stories, then solving the problems of
how to do so is up to them. As far as I can tell, those advocating RPGs as a
story-telling medium aren't making any effort to solve those problems.
Instead, they are just importing aesthetic theories developed for other
media and imposing them on RPGs wholesale. As I said, that smacks of
laziness.
>> The subject of this thread contains both the words "dramatic" and "games".
>> You seem to want to discuss only "dramatic" and ignore "games". I think that
>> would be better suited to newsgroup dedicated to that purpose.
>
> I will not, here, go into my opinion of RPGs as "games", other than do
> say it makes me laugh to see the two written in the same sentence.
>
> "Games" when used in reference to RPGs is pretty far from any real
> definition of "game".
In his essay "I Have No Words & I Must Design" (which used to be available
on-line at <http://www.crossover.com/~costik/>, but which doesn't seem to be
there any more) Greg Costikyan offers the following definition of a game:
> Do all the myriad forms of gaming have anything in common? Most
> assuredly. All involve decision making, managing resources in
> pursuit of a goal; thatąs true whether weąre talking about Chess
> or Seventh Guest, Mario Brothers or Vampire, Roulette or Magic:
> The Gathering. Itąs a universal; itąs what defines a game.
It seems to fit what players in a RPG do. They make decisions, they manage
resources, they pursue goals. He includes "Vampire" as one of his examples.
> And I don't play RPGs as stories or games, so there you go.
But you argue for using RPGs to tell stories, and that's all that matters.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>Actually, I suspect that you haven't offered any evidence because you don't
>have any.
Why would I offer evidence to support something I don't believe?
This is a serious question. You accuse me of not offering evidence of
something that is counter to my point - why would I want to do that in
the first place?
>Reconciling conflicting assumptions is important whenever you have
>multiple parties involved in playing a RPG or creating a story.
Which is different than saying that you need special mechanisms to do
so.
>
>
>No, you just assumed that RPGs work exactly the same as movies or prose
>fiction. They don't. RPGs are a group activity, not a solitary endeavour.
>That's why reconciling conflict assumptions is important.
In what way does reconciling conflict assumptions enhance the quality
of the story?
>
>Until you're actually prepared to deal with the question of telling stories
>through a RPG rather than just the question of telling a story, your points
>are irrelevant.
Your way of playing RPGs is not the only way.
>
>>> Good for you. There's a lot more happening in my imagination as well. It
>>> doesn't change what's written on the paper one whit.
>>
>> Why does that matter?
>
>You claim that the reader of the book changes the book.
No, I claim that reading a book changes the experience that one gets
from reading a book.
Why, the fuck, should I care what happens to the book?
>
>>> Until you're prepared
>>> to demonstrate that it does, your point is a non sequitur.
>>
>> Only if you have a really bizarre definition of "passive".
>
>No, I'm using passive in the standard sense. In fact I've contrasted it with
>and example of active involvement in changing a work -- the Phantom Editors.
>You keep cutting that example.
Because it is irrelevant.
The fact that it is possible to produce MORE change does not
invalidate the contribution you are able to make while just reading.
>
>Still, lets take your approach for a moment. If you are actively
>contributing to the creation of a story by reading it, then part of that
>story is yours. Thus, you would have rights in the modified story. If you
>have rights, you should be able to collect royalties for your contribution.
>Either that, or a one-time payment for work made for hire.
You are now being an idiot.
Given that you are the only person who gets to experience this altered
story, you would only be collecting money from yourself.
>
>>> But you can't change or influence those that are specified by the author.
>>
>> If the GM says, "it's raining", I normally cannot influence that
>> either.
>
>I notice you include the qualifier "normally".
Because, I realize, unlike you, that people play RPGs differently from
each other.
>That suggests that there are
>occasions where you can influence that sort of GM pronouncement. Contrast
>that with a book or a film, where if the text says "It's raining" you cannot
>influence it at all.
And there are some books where you can make choices that influence the
outcome of things. They are limited to children's books to the best
of my knowledge, but there is nothing that mandates this.
Which is more common, this type of book, or the RPG style where one
can change the weather, I do not know.
>
>> degree not type
>
>Being able to influence it sometimes vs. having no effect at all. Difference
>of type, not degree.
No, being able to influence it in special cases where it is
specifically designed to allow your to, or not at all. Same in both
cases.
>
>>> And you're claiming that the campaign will run exactly the same way each
>>> time?
>>
>> Are you're claiming that a book that is read will be experienced
>> exactly the same by every reader?
>
>I notice you have to retreat to subjective criteria for your response.
To expecience a book OR an RPG is subjective. Judging the experience
by non-subjective criteria is silly.
>The
>campaign will have very obvious differences of action, event, incident,
>character and possibly even outcome. Big differences, easily seen.
"easily seen" <> "more important"
>>> By contrast, a book or film will be exactly the same, time after time after
>>> time.
>>
>> Only if you have no audience.
>
>So you're saying that the characters, events, incidents and outcome of a
>book or film change to accommodate each new audience.
The consumer interpretation of those events certainly does change from
viewer to viewer.
>You're right. Your contribution wouldn't further this discussion at all. My
>contribution, on the other hand, gave an example of non-passive engagement
>with a work as opposed to the passive consumption you keep championing.
I answered this above, but, being as you are, you would accuse me of
selective snipping if I do not answer your innane points every time
you mention them, so, here goes again...
Yes, that is an example of changing a work. But giving one example of
a changing work does not invalidate other examples, even if they are
of a lesser degree.
>
>>> You will note definition 2; it is possible for something to be consistent
>>> even if it is only in agreement with itself over time.
>>
>> Then is that what you are saying?
>>
>> Are you saying "consistent with itself"?
>
>Yes. Congratulations on finally figuring it out.
>
>> If so, why is that important?
>
>To resolve conflicts in a way that is not only fair, but can also be seen to
>be fair.
#1 Fair to whom? Could you please start expressing complete thoughts,
it would speed things up a bit?
#2 How does this "fairness" enhance the quality of the story?
>
>> Hey, we're going to add these mechanics.
>> Why?
>> They are consistent.
>> Consistent with what?
>> Consistent with themselves.
>> OK, well back to the original question, why are you adding them in the
>> first place.
>
>Given that I answered the final question in my very first post to this
>thread and that you have consistently trimmed and ignored it, I'd say that
>your going "back to the original question" is a sign of deliberate
>obtuseness.
No, the only answer you have given ammounts to nothing more than
"because I want to."
>> How does fairness between players contribute to telling a better
>> story?
>
>It alleviates anger, resolves resentment and keeps everyone's focus on the
>story rather than the interpersonal relationships of the participants.
#1 that is not an example of you making a better story.
#2 If the purpose is to tell a story, why should anyone feel anger for
lack of "fairness"? If you are there to work together to tell a good
story, and the unfairness is in service of telling a better story,
then to become angry over the unfairness is a sign that you shouldn't
be taking part in that game. You need to be playing in a game where
the purpose is to do something other than tell a good story.
If you are instead playing in a game where the purpose is to tell a
good story AND to do something else (X), AND "fairness" would be
useful for this something else (X), THEN it would likely make sense to
work for fairness. BUT, by doing so, you have still not made
"fairness" valuable for telling a story, you have just chosen to
sacrifice part of your ability to make a better story for this other
added goal (X).
(god damn, it was difficult to write that part without being offensive
to someone's style)
>
>>> Both approaches are valid and serve different ends. Presumably, game
>>> designers would use one or the other, depending on what effect they wished
>>> to accomplish.
>>
>> Achieving different ends does not make them opposites.
>
>Achieving opposite ends does.
Actually no. Achieving opposite ends makes them things that achieve
opposite ends - not opposites themselves.
>>> What would you suggest the opposite of "transparent" mechanics should be?
>>
>> non-transparent
>>
>> maybe "opaque" if you don't like "non"-words
>
>And what makes a mechanic "non-transparent" or "opaque"? Please give an
>example of what you mean.
Using your definition of "transparent"...
"transparent" - a descriptor for game mechanics which do not disrupt
immersion.
"opaque" - a descriptor for game mechanics which do disrupt immersion.
It's when you start adding additional qualifications onto the second
definition that you make the spectrum incomplete - by further limiting
the second definition, you start leaving things out..
>Requiring interpretation would always distract from immersion since it
>requires the participant to look at a result and decipher it in ways
>impossible to the character. Interpretive mechanics, by their very nature,
>require an authorial stance. Transparent mechanics allow for immersion,
>interpretive mechanics deliberately disrupt it. On that scale, the two are
>opposite ends of the spectrum.
Yes, interpretive would BE on the opposite end of the spectrum, but it
would not DEFINE the opposite end of the spectrum. Your words make
the spectrum incomplete.
>
>As far as I know, there are no mechanics that actually encourage immersion.
>If a player doesn't want to go there, no mechanics are going to get them
>there.
Agreed, but not relevant to the discussion.
>
>Of course, I can also ignore those axis on which there is no differentiation
>and use only the axis on which there is. Appropriate tool for the job and
>all that.
Yes, and you have a flawed system when there is a point which has no
value on the Y axis at all.
>Opposites are rarely formed in a logical manner. In the real world, the
>opposite of "pro-life" isn't "anti-life", it's "pro-choice". Opposites are
>made by people being *for* different things which, in certain circumstances,
>lead to opposite conclusions.
If "pro-life" people were actually "pro-life" and "pro-choice" people
were actually "pro-choice" then you might have a point. Both groups
use "pro" words because it makes your side sound better to be for
something instead of against something.
>
>I assume that those who embrace "non-transparent" mechanics don't do so
>because they are opposed to transparency,
Nope. My guess would be because they do so for several different
reasons. That's why you shouldn't try to pigeon-hole that entire end
of the spectrum.
>I assume they do so because they
>are in favour of some other quality and I'm trying to identify and describe
>that quality.
You are trying to describe ONE such quality, and then by stating that
it constitutes the other end of the spectrum, discount all others.
>
>If you'll direct me to that post, I'll read it. Does the post deal with how
>control enhances story quality *in a RPG*? If not, then it probably belongs
>in a writing newsgroup.
I detailed how control enhances a story. Period. Basic ideas do not
change because the medium does
>
>> It makes perfect sense, if you are attempting to tell a story, to use
>> the tools from other media that are used to tell storys. No real
>> point in re-inventing the wheel.
>
>So you're saying all those film-makers who work out ways of telling stories
>appropriate to the medium of film are wasting their time.
I'm saying that they are silly to discount all that has come before
them.
You keep that which works, eliminate that which does not work, and
maybe create a few new things.
Ignoring an idea just because it originated elsewhere is throwing the
baby out with the bathwater.
> They should just
>adopt all the solutions developed by novelists. And that novelists, in turn,
>should have just taken on the solutions developed by balladeers.
Both would have to be rather silly to ignore several centuries of
development and refinement.
>
>A new medium presents new problems, new challenges, new strengths, new
>limitations. Some people are up to dealing with that. Others obviously
>aren't.
And none of this, of necessity, invalidates any of the old ideas.
Innovation and change are not inherent goods.
>
>>> No, I think that RPGs can be used to tell stories. I just think that those
>>> trying to do so would be better off playing to the strengths of the medium
>>> rather than seeking to impose the limitations of another medium onto the
>>> form.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, RPGs don't have a lot of strengths when it comes
>> to telling stories.
>
>If you think that, why are you wasting your time with them?
Because I don't happen to use RPGs to tell stories. But that happens
to be what the current discussion is about.
>Go off and tell
>your stories in a medium you think is more suited to it.
>
>> Would you care to list some things intrinsic to RPGs that make telling
>> a better story easier?
>
>Given that you're the one advocating using RPGs to tell stories, that's your
>problem.
I have advocated no such thing. I merely described how I thought it
could best be done. That in no way implies that I think it is the
best avenue to take.
On the other hand, I do acknowledge that others may believe that RPGs
are actually good at telling stories, which is why I left the question
open.
>
>I'm interested in using RPGs to explore situations and to create story-like
>experiences -- experiences which participants can readily turn into stories
>afterwards, but which do not actually function as stories in their own right
>-- and I find that RPGs have a number of strengths in those areas.
Different animal.
>
>If someone wants to use RPGs to tell stories, then solving the problems of
>how to do so is up to them.
And maybe they come here and ask. And when you answer them, it would
be best to stick to the topic.
>As far as I can tell, those advocating RPGs as a
>story-telling medium aren't making any effort to solve those problems.
That's what this thread was supposed to be about.
>Instead, they are just importing aesthetic theories developed for other
>media and imposing them on RPGs wholesale. As I said, that smacks of
>laziness.
If the method works, why not go with it?
>
>But you argue for using RPGs to tell stories, and that's all that matters.
This is your biggest mistake. I do no such thing.
Someone (john) started a discussion about that topic. I found that
some of his decisions seemed to run counter to that goal. To state
differently, it seemed to me that if his goal were to tell a story,
then that could be more directly accomplished by making different
decisions
That at no point requires me to "argue for" anything. I only need be
able to consider a hypothetical - "IF" I want to do X, what is the
most efficient road for me to take.
And now, to restate the general hypothesis here...
If your goal is to tell stories using RPGs, then one element that can
assist greatly in enhancing the quality of the story is to increase
control over what happens.
This may be to the detriment of other things you are trying to
achieve, but that wasn't the question.
Zoran Bekric
wrote in <3c66882...@news-central.giganews.com>:
> Zoran Bekric <zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I suspect that you haven't offered any evidence because you don't
>> have any.
>
> Why would I offer evidence to support something I don't believe?
>
> This is a serious question. You accuse me of not offering evidence of
> something that is counter to my point - why would I want to do that in
> the first place?
I have no idea what you believe. You keep changing your story with every
post. Initially you claimed that there was no need for mechanisms to resolve
assumption clashes because books don't have mechanisms for reducing
author/reader assumption clash. When I pointed out that the relationship of
parties in a RPG is more like co-authors than author/reader, you responded
with the non-sequitur "Yet, they seem perfectly capable of communicating a
satisfying story." As I said then, I'll say now: So what?
If you think that RPGs don't need mechanisms for resolving assumption clash,
then you need to present evidence that assumption clash does not occur. If
you don't believe that, then why are you making such silly claims.
As I said, I don't think you have any such evidence, which makes your entire
point irrelevant.
>> Reconciling conflicting assumptions is important whenever you have
>> multiple parties involved in playing a RPG or creating a story.
>
> Which is different than saying that you need special mechanisms to do
> so.
You're right, the mechanisms need not be special. I never claimed that they
did. Like any other group activity, RPGs do need such mechanisms, though.
You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
>> No, you just assumed that RPGs work exactly the same as movies or prose
>> fiction. They don't. RPGs are a group activity, not a solitary endeavour.
>> That's why reconciling conflict assumptions is important.
>
> In what way does reconciling conflict assumptions enhance the quality
> of the story?
It will make the process of creating the story more pleasurable -- or, at
least, less disagreeable -- for those involved.
Your attitude seems to be that of a bored aristocrat who only cares about
their personal satisfaction -- the quality of the story, the comfort of the
sneakers, etc. -- with no concern or even an active disdain for the
conditions of those producing the material. So long as you're satisfied,
everyone else doesn't matter.
>> Until you're actually prepared to deal with the question of telling stories
>> through a RPG rather than just the question of telling a story, your points
>> are irrelevant.
>
> Your way of playing RPGs is not the only way.
How do you get that out of what I wrote? I'm not the one trying to impose
his autocratic views on others; that's you.
More significantly: Your way of playing RPGs isn't the only way.
>> You claim that the reader of the book changes the book.
>
> No, I claim that reading a book changes the experience that one gets
> from reading a book.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Are suggesting that the experience alters
itself recursively? How does it do that? Is some form of time travel
involved?
> Why, the fuck, should I care what happens to the book?
Because that would provide independently verifiable evidence to support your
claim.
>> No, I'm using passive in the standard sense. In fact I've contrasted it with
>> and example of active involvement in changing a work -- the Phantom Editors.
>> You keep cutting that example.
>
> Because it is irrelevant.
>
> The fact that it is possible to produce MORE change does not
> invalidate the contribution you are able to make while just reading.
The fact that some people can produce ANY change is a difference of type
from those that can produce NO change.
Your entire argument rests on the claim that people can change a book by
just reading it, yet you have not produced any evidence of such an effect
and ignore evidence of those who have changed a work by interacting with it.
>> Still, lets take your approach for a moment. If you are actively
>> contributing to the creation of a story by reading it, then part of that
>> story is yours. Thus, you would have rights in the modified story. If you
>> have rights, you should be able to collect royalties for your contribution.
>> Either that, or a one-time payment for work made for hire.
>
> You are now being an idiot.
No, I suggesting an objective, independently verifiable test for your ideas.
The fact that you reject such a test suggests to me that you know your ideas
are so much crap.
>>> If the GM says, "it's raining", I normally cannot influence that
>>> either.
>>
>> I notice you include the qualifier "normally".
>
> Because, I realize, unlike you, that people play RPGs differently from
> each other.
If you realise that, then why are you trying to impose your autocratic views
on others?
I assumed that when you wrote "normally" you were contrast different
occasions within the same gaming group. As such, all the other variables
would be minimised since it would be all the same participants, same rules,
same campaign. If you meant to contrast different gaming groups, you really
should be clearer about that.
>> That suggests that there are
>> occasions where you can influence that sort of GM pronouncement. Contrast
>> that with a book or a film, where if the text says "It's raining" you cannot
>> influence it at all.
>
> And there are some books where you can make choices that influence the
> outcome of things. They are limited to children's books to the best
> of my knowledge, but there is nothing that mandates this.
>
> Which is more common, this type of book, or the RPG style where one
> can change the weather, I do not know.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that you were talking about "Choose Your Own
Adventure" type books. I thought all your references to "books" were to
regular works of fiction in which a story is just presented to be read.
Again, you really should be clearer about what you mean.
>> Being able to influence it sometimes vs. having no effect at all. Difference
>> of type, not degree.
>
> No, being able to influence it in special cases where it is
> specifically designed to allow your to, or not at all. Same in both
> cases.
Since I now realise that you are talking only about that subset of books
that feature "Choose Your Own Adventure" type stories, I grant the point.
The difference between a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book and a RPG is a
difference of degree not type. You are quite right; I misunderstood.
The difference between a regular book or film and a RPG, however, remains a
difference of type, not just degree.
>> I notice you have to retreat to subjective criteria for your response.
>
> To expecience a book OR an RPG is subjective. Judging the experience
> by non-subjective criteria is silly.
You claim that reading a book changes the book. Unless you are using some
really bizarre definition of "changes", that means the book will be
different after it is read than it was before. These differences should be
detectable by independently verifiable means. To be independently
verifiable, something needs to be objective.
If you are only going to use subjective criteria, then your experiences are
valid for you and no-one else. How do you know they aren't dreams, delusions
or similarly unreliable experiences? They certainly aren't any basis upon
which to make the generalised claims you've have been making.
>> The
>> campaign will have very obvious differences of action, event, incident,
>> character and possibly even outcome. Big differences, easily seen.
>
> "easily seen" <> "more important"
Your observation is correct and utterly irrelevant. The question isn't about
importance; it's about independent verifiability.
>> So you're saying that the characters, events, incidents and outcome of a
>> book or film change to accommodate each new audience.
>
> The consumer interpretation of those events certainly does change from
> viewer to viewer.
So? The claim was that the book or film is changed. You're shifting the goal
posts again.
One of the things that distinguishes RPGs from media such as prose or film
is that the decisions made by the audience/participants will change the
characters, events, incidents and outcomes in a RPG, but not in those other
media. That's why I said the pariticipants in a RPG are more like co-authors
than readers.
If you want to claim otherwise, please present your evidence. As the saying
has it: Put up or shut up.
>> You're right. Your contribution wouldn't further this discussion at all. My
>> contribution, on the other hand, gave an example of non-passive engagement
>> with a work as opposed to the passive consumption you keep championing.
>
> I answered this above, but, being as you are, you would accuse me of
> selective snipping if I do not answer your innane points every time
> you mention them, so, here goes again...
>
> Yes, that is an example of changing a work. But giving one example of
> a changing work does not invalidate other examples, even if they are
> of a lesser degree.
You have yet to give any examples of changing a work of any degree. You
simply claim such changes happen and then refuse to support that claim with
any sort of evidence.
>> To resolve conflicts in a way that is not only fair, but can also be seen to
>> be fair.
>
> #1 Fair to whom? Could you please start expressing complete thoughts,
> it would speed things up a bit?
To those participating in creating the story. We've been over this ground
before. You're just trying to obfuscate the point by being deliberately
obtuse.
> #2 How does this "fairness" enhance the quality of the story?
It makes the experience of creating the story less disagreeable to those
involved. Again, you are emphasising the "dramatic" in the subject line and
ignoring the "games". Your egotistical preoccupation with only your own
satisfaction in the quality of the story is becoming quite tiresome.
>> Given that I answered the final question in my very first post to this
>> thread and that you have consistently trimmed and ignored it, I'd say that
>> your going "back to the original question" is a sign of deliberate
>> obtuseness.
>
> No, the only answer you have given ammounts to nothing more than
> "because I want to."
Now you're just lying. The answer had nothing to do with my "want"s at all.
To wit:
> By providing a way of resolving actions and events that is free of fear or
> favour. Dice produce results without any concern for the desires or
> circumstances of those rolling them, so any changes in those desires or
> circumstances have no influence on the results produced.
If anything, my answer was more concerned with others. The one prioratising
his own wants and desires in all this is you.
>>> How does fairness between players contribute to telling a better
>>> story?
>>
>> It alleviates anger, resolves resentment and keeps everyone's focus on the
>> story rather than the interpersonal relationships of the participants.
>
> #1 that is not an example of you making a better story.
Whoop-de-doo. There's more to the world than just your satisfaction. You
don't care about other people? Fine. That's your failing.
> #2 If the purpose is to tell a story, why should anyone feel anger for
> lack of "fairness"? If you are there to work together to tell a good
> story, and the unfairness is in service of telling a better story,
> then to become angry over the unfairness is a sign that you shouldn't
> be taking part in that game. You need to be playing in a game where
> the purpose is to do something other than tell a good story.
I co-write scripts for a living. I know from experience that a bunch of
people working together to produce a good story with no concern at all for
any sort of game can, and do, experience anger, frustration and a sense of
unfairness unless steps are taken to make things fair and reconcile
conflicting assumptions.
As I said, fairness is an issue whenever you have multiple parties involved
in an activity. RPGs are just a special case of the observation.
> If you are instead playing in a game where the purpose is to tell a
> good story AND to do something else (X), AND "fairness" would be
> useful for this something else (X), THEN it would likely make sense to
> work for fairness. BUT, by doing so, you have still not made
> "fairness" valuable for telling a story, you have just chosen to
> sacrifice part of your ability to make a better story for this other
> added goal (X).
As I noted above, fairness is an issue whenever multiple parties are
involved, whether the goal of those parties is to tell a good story, tell a
good story and do something else or just do something else.
> (god damn, it was difficult to write that part without being offensive
> to someone's style)
You don't like the way I write? Fuck you. I write to communicate, not to
impress literary snobs. And your prose isn't exactly Joycean, so be careful
casting stones or the walls you shatter will be of your own little glass
house.
>> Achieving opposite ends does.
>
> Actually no. Achieving opposite ends makes them things that achieve
> opposite ends - not opposites themselves.
Semantics. Okay, they are things that achieve opposite ends. For someone who
could go something like five posts without clarifying that he was talking
about "Choose Your Own Adventure" type books, you're really in no position
to get picky.
>> And what makes a mechanic "non-transparent" or "opaque"? Please give an
>> example of what you mean.
>
> Using your definition of "transparent"...
>
> "transparent" - a descriptor for game mechanics which do not disrupt
> immersion.
>
> "opaque" - a descriptor for game mechanics which do disrupt immersion.
Calling them "opaque" tells us nothing about what those who use such
mechanics are trying to achieve. I have not yet met anyone who is just
opposed to transparency, those who use "opaque" mechanics are just prepared
to sacrifice transparency in pursuit of another goal. I'm trying to identify
that goal.
> It's when you start adding additional qualifications onto the second
> definition that you make the spectrum incomplete - by further limiting
> the second definition, you start leaving things out..
People rarely identify themselves purely by opposition to something. I try
to recognise this fact and accommodate it.
As you pointed out above, your way of playing RPGs isn't the only way. Those
who play their games different to the way you do aren't doing so because
they are opposed to your values, they do so because they are committed to a
different set of values. I really don't see what defining people purely in
terms of opposition to a particular goal accomplishes.
>> Requiring interpretation would always distract from immersion since it
>> requires the participant to look at a result and decipher it in ways
>> impossible to the character. Interpretive mechanics, by their very nature,
>> require an authorial stance. Transparent mechanics allow for immersion,
>> interpretive mechanics deliberately disrupt it. On that scale, the two are
>> opposite ends of the spectrum.
>
> Yes, interpretive would BE on the opposite end of the spectrum, but it
> would not DEFINE the opposite end of the spectrum. Your words make
> the spectrum incomplete.
The opposite of the spectrum are defined by what's found there. If what's
found there changes over time, the description of the spectrum changes along
with them.
>> Of course, I can also ignore those axis on which there is no differentiation
>> and use only the axis on which there is. Appropriate tool for the job and
>> all that.
>
> Yes, and you have a flawed system when there is a point which has no
> value on the Y axis at all.
Yes. It's the point where the x-axis crosses over the y-axis. The fact that
all the x values have a value of zero for y doesn't make them invalid. It
just means they have a value of zero for y.
>> Opposites are rarely formed in a logical manner. In the real world, the
>> opposite of "pro-life" isn't "anti-life", it's "pro-choice". Opposites are
>> made by people being *for* different things which, in certain circumstances,
>> lead to opposite conclusions.
>
> If "pro-life" people were actually "pro-life" and "pro-choice" people
> were actually "pro-choice" then you might have a point. Both groups
> use "pro" words because it makes your side sound better to be for
> something instead of against something.
You really don't get out much, do you? In the real world, the opposite of
"pro-life" is "pro-choice" and the opposite of "pro-choice" is "pro-life".
Doubtless you are correct in the reasons why the supports of each position
picked the names for that position they did, but that doesn't stop them from
being opposites.
As I noted above, people rarely define themselves purely in opposition to
something. Opposition to something is usually a side-effect of their support
of something else. I just think its more productive to try and figure out
what people are supporting than to just define them as being opposed to
something.
>> I assume that those who embrace "non-transparent" mechanics don't do so
>> because they are opposed to transparency,
>
> Nope. My guess would be because they do so for several different
> reasons. That's why you shouldn't try to pigeon-hole that entire end
> of the spectrum.
This response makes no sense. You seem to disagree with my assumption that
those who embrace "non-transparent" mechanics do so for other reasons than
simple opposition to transparent mechanics with your "Nope", suggesting that
you think that the only reason they have is such opposition. Then the rest
of your response essentially agrees with my assumption.
You seem very confused.
>> I assume they do so because they
>> are in favour of some other quality and I'm trying to identify and describe
>> that quality.
>
> You are trying to describe ONE such quality, and then by stating that
> it constitutes the other end of the spectrum, discount all others.
I haven't discounted all others. I just haven't listed any others. Nor have
you suggested any. What else would you include?
>> If you'll direct me to that post, I'll read it. Does the post deal with how
>> control enhances story quality *in a RPG*? If not, then it probably belongs
>> in a writing newsgroup.
>
> I detailed how control enhances a story. Period. Basic ideas do not
> change because the medium does
No URL or message number?
Who exercises this "control"? How do they do it? What happens when different
parties in the creative process want to exercise their "control" towards
incompatible ends?
>> So you're saying all those film-makers who work out ways of telling stories
>> appropriate to the medium of film are wasting their time.
>
> I'm saying that they are silly to discount all that has come before
> them.
I didn't say they discounted all that had come before. If you look at the
history of film or the novel, you'll find that early examples of the form
stuck fairly closely to the aesthetic precepts they creators had inherited
from those that had come before them and worked in other media. It was only
over time that novelists and film-makers began to adapt what they had
inherited to the actual strengths and limitations of their chosen medium.
And started producing better works in the process.
> You keep that which works, eliminate that which does not work, and
> maybe create a few new things.
Indeed. You keep that which works and eliminate that which does not work.
And one of the things that works in films and novels is strong, auteur-like
control of the narrative by a single party. That doesn't work in a RPG --
or, rather, imposing it causes the product to stop being a RPG in any
meaningful sense of the term. That's not say the product may not be
enjoyable or desirable, but it will not be a "dramatic game" as per the
subject line.
>> They should just
>> adopt all the solutions developed by novelists. And that novelists, in turn,
>> should have just taken on the solutions developed by balladeers.
>
> Both would have to be rather silly to ignore several centuries of
> development and refinement.
They'd have to be even sillier to assume that the solutions evolved by
balladeers or epic poets would work in all places, at all times and in all
media. As you said above, keep what works, eliminate what doesn't.
>> A new medium presents new problems, new challenges, new strengths, new
>> limitations. Some people are up to dealing with that. Others obviously
>> aren't.
>
> And none of this, of necessity, invalidates any of the old ideas.
> Innovation and change are not inherent goods.
You're desperately trying to set up a straw man here. No-one has suggested
that a new medium invalidates old ideas. I know I certainly haven't. I said
a new medium presents new problems, new challenges, new strengths, new
limitations. That requires adaptation and evolution -- no more, no less.
>> If you think that, why are you wasting your time with them?
>
> Because I don't happen to use RPGs to tell stories. But that happens
> to be what the current discussion is about.
Fair enough. Why do you keep insisting on concentrating only on the stories
and ignoring the RPGs? Why the emphasis on the "dramatic" and the rejection
of the "games"? As I've pointed out before, the subject line contains both.
>>> Would you care to list some things intrinsic to RPGs that make telling
>>> a better story easier?
>>
>> Given that you're the one advocating using RPGs to tell stories, that's your
>> problem.
>
> I have advocated no such thing. I merely described how I thought it
> could best be done. That in no way implies that I think it is the
> best avenue to take.
No, you haven't described how it could be done. You have only talked about
how you think stories could best be told, with no discussion of how RPGs fit
into the equation at all.
> On the other hand, I do acknowledge that others may believe that RPGs
> are actually good at telling stories, which is why I left the question
> open.
Interestingly, none of them have stepped forward to offer any suggestions of
things intrinsic to RPGs that make a telling a better story easier.
>> If someone wants to use RPGs to tell stories, then solving the problems of
>> how to do so is up to them.
>
> And maybe they come here and ask. And when you answer them, it would
> be best to stick to the topic.
I am sticking to the topic. I'm talking about both "dramatic" and "games".
You're the one who keeps trying to metaphorically cut the "games" off the
subject line and talk only about stories.
>> As far as I can tell, those advocating RPGs as a
>> story-telling medium aren't making any effort to solve those problems.
>
> That's what this thread was supposed to be about.
Then why do you keep trying to derail it by insisting that any talk about
RPGs is invalid? How can people discuss RPGs as a story-telling medium if
you insist on talking about stories only in terms of books? Even if they are
"Choose Your Own Adventure" type books?
>> Instead, they are just importing aesthetic theories developed for other
>> media and imposing them on RPGs wholesale. As I said, that smacks of
>> laziness.
>
> If the method works, why not go with it?
Because the result isn't a RPG. It's something else. And that violates the
stated goal of telling a story *through a RPG*. Just telling a story isn't
enough to satisfy that condition.
>> But you argue for using RPGs to tell stories, and that's all that matters.
>
> This is your biggest mistake. I do no such thing.
Then somebody who keeps whining about "quality of the story" while ignoring
quality of the game has been sending posts under your name. I know, I keep
responding to them -- though I'll probably come to my senses on that front
directly.
If it wasn't you doing so, then please take it up with whoever has been
impersonating you. It has nothing to do with me.
> Someone (john) started a discussion about that topic. I found that
> some of his decisions seemed to run counter to that goal. To state
> differently, it seemed to me that if his goal were to tell a story,
> then that could be more directly accomplished by making different
> decisions
That, as far as I can tell, is where you made your mistake. The topic was
about telling stories through RPGs, not just telling stories. You truncated
the topic and so have only been talking about telling stories. Which, as I
have suggested before, would be more on-topic in one of the various writing
groups.
> That at no point requires me to "argue for" anything. I only need be
> able to consider a hypothetical - "IF" I want to do X, what is the
> most efficient road for me to take.
If you wish to present a particular path as the "most efficient" you have to
present your reasons for reaching that conclusion. This involves "arguing
for" that particular conclusion. What I think you are trying to say is that
you don't actually have to be committed to a goal to argue for a particular
solution as being the best way of achieving that goal. Fair enough. But you
still have to argue for your conclusions, not just make blanket assertions.
> And now, to restate the general hypothesis here...
>
> If your goal is to tell stories using RPGs, then one element that can
> assist greatly in enhancing the quality of the story is to increase
> control over what happens.
To state the general problem with that hypothesis: Increasing one person's
control over what happens diminishes the quality of the game, making the
result less of an RPG. As such, the proposed solution sacrifices one of the
elements (RPGs) on the alter of the other (stories).
Thus, the proposed solution is inadequate because it does not address the
actual goal which is to tell stories using RPGs, not just to tell stories.
> This may be to the detriment of other things you are trying to
> achieve, but that wasn't the question.
Actually, it was. You just misconstrued the question.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>If you think that RPGs don't need mechanisms for resolving assumption clash,
>then you need to present evidence that assumption clash does not occur.
Sorry, wrong.
My point was... there is no mechanism to avoid assumption clashed is a
written work, yet those written works seem perfectly capable of
communicating a satisfying story.
Skilled communication and SoD prevent enough assumption clash to allow
for a perfectly good story, there is no reason to believe that a
"mechanism" to do so would be needed, or even effective. If it can
already be accomplished WITHOUT a mechanism, then a mechanism is not
needed. That's pretty straightforward logic there.
>If
>you don't believe that, then why are you making such silly claims.
>
>As I said, I don't think you have any such evidence, which makes your entire
>point irrelevant.
Again, no evidence, because I don't believe it's true.
>
>>> Reconciling conflicting assumptions is important whenever you have
>>> multiple parties involved in playing a RPG or creating a story.
>>
>> Which is different than saying that you need special mechanisms to do
>> so.
>
>You're right, the mechanisms need not be special. I never claimed that they
>did. Like any other group activity, RPGs do need such mechanisms, though.
>You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
I think you are using a funny definition of "mechanism".
Would "talk to the other people involved" count as a mechanism?
>
>>> No, you just assumed that RPGs work exactly the same as movies or prose
>>> fiction. They don't. RPGs are a group activity, not a solitary endeavour.
>>> That's why reconciling conflict assumptions is important.
>>
>> In what way does reconciling conflict assumptions enhance the quality
>> of the story?
>
>It will make the process of creating the story more pleasurable -- or, at
>least, less disagreeable -- for those involved.
#1 How would lowering the assumption clash make the process more
enjoyable?
You seem to now be telling me what I should enjoy doing.
#2 Even if I concede this extremely weak link, how would making the
experience more "enjoyable" enhance the quality of the story?
If I "enjoy" creating the best story possible, then lowering the
enjoyment of the process somewhat may still increase my overall
enjoyment of the activity.
Are you ever going to give any reason that amounts to something more
than "I like to play this way, so you should too"?
>
>Your attitude seems to be that of a bored aristocrat who only cares about
>their personal satisfaction -- the quality of the story, the comfort of the
>sneakers, etc. -- with no concern or even an active disdain for the
>conditions of those producing the material. So long as you're satisfied,
>everyone else doesn't matter.
I thought we were talking about a group that wanted to tell a good
story.
If you're going to change this into a discussion about conflicting
playstyles, then you should probably start a new thread.
I have seen nothing about this thread that indicated we were
discussing a situation of a GM attempting to force a story on the
other players against their wills.
Are you changing the subject as a deliberate smokescreen, or did you
just take a detour for an easy personal attack?
Zoran Bekric
wrote in <3c6a82a...@news-central.giganews.com>:
> Zoran Bekric <zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
>> If you think that RPGs don't need mechanisms for resolving assumption clash,
>> then you need to present evidence that assumption clash does not occur.
>
> Sorry, wrong.
>
> My point was... there is no mechanism to avoid assumption clashed is a
> written work, yet those written works seem perfectly capable of
> communicating a satisfying story.
Which brings us back to my initial question: Was the written work by a
single author or by two or more authors?
If it was by two or more authors, how do you know that there were no
mechanisms to reduce assumption clash? As far as I can tell, you're just
assuming there weren't. Whether or not that's what you believe, that's the
claim you're presenting.
If the written work was by a single author, the entire question is moot
since there was nothing for the author's assumptions to clash against.
> Skilled communication and SoD prevent enough assumption clash to allow
> for a perfectly good story, there is no reason to believe that a
> "mechanism" to do so would be needed, or even effective. If it can
> already be accomplished WITHOUT a mechanism, then a mechanism is not
> needed. That's pretty straightforward logic there.
Skilled communication is such a mechanism -- at least, if by "Skilled
communication" you mean "dialogue" rather than "monologue". Skilled dialogue
is such a mechanism; monologue is not.
At best, the rest of your point devolves down to "No additional mechanism is
needed", which is very different to "No mechanism is needed".
Beyond that, you have yet to present any evidence to support your assertion
that multiple authors of a single work employ no such mechanism. Without
such support, your point is irrelevant, no matter how often you repeat it.
>> If
>> you don't believe that, then why are you making such silly claims.
>>
>> As I said, I don't think you have any such evidence, which makes your entire
>> point irrelevant.
>
> Again, no evidence, because I don't believe it's true.
Whether or not you believe it to be true is irrelevant. It is the claim you
are presenting. Support your claim or withdraw it.
>> You're right, the mechanisms need not be special. I never claimed that they
>> did. Like any other group activity, RPGs do need such mechanisms, though.
>> You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
>
> I think you are using a funny definition of "mechanism".
>
> Would "talk to the other people involved" count as a mechanism?
Obviously. Sometimes that's enough. Other times, more is needed. It all
depends on how far apart the various initial assumptions are -- the further
apart, the more is needed.
>> It will make the process of creating the story more pleasurable -- or, at
>> least, less disagreeable -- for those involved.
>
> #1 How would lowering the assumption clash make the process more
> enjoyable?
By reducing the anger, frustration and sense of unfairness experienced by
those creating the story.
> You seem to now be telling me what I should enjoy doing.
I am doing no such thing. You are trying to set up a straw man. Again.
> #2 Even if I concede this extremely weak link, how would making the
> experience more "enjoyable" enhance the quality of the story?
Again, you seek to define the discussion purely in terms of your personal
satisfaction, ignoring everyone else involved. If that's not what you are
doing, then provide a means of determining the "quality of the story"
independent of your opinion of it.
> If I "enjoy" creating the best story possible, then lowering the
> enjoyment of the process somewhat may still increase my overall
> enjoyment of the activity.
If you are the only one involved in the activity, you are probably right.
However, I was under the impression that we were discussing telling stories
through RPGs. If you are the only one involved, it's not a RPG by
definition.
Again, you are sacrificing one element (games) on the altar of the other
element (dramatic). As such, any proposed solution you offer fails because
it doesn't meet the criteria of being a dramatic game, it's just dramatic.
> Are you ever going to give any reason that amounts to something more
> than "I like to play this way, so you should too"?
I've given several such reasons. You just ignore them and keep repeating the
same nonsense you started with. You like to do things a certain way and so
assume that's the "best" way of doing them. If that's not attempting to
impose your preferences on others, I'm hard pressed to know what would be.
My point has nothing to do with personal preferences at all. It is based
entirely on the terms being used. The subject line refers to "dramatic
games". You keep talking only about the "dramatic" and ignoring the "games".
It requires no more than simple logic and reading comprehension to see this.
>> Your attitude seems to be that of a bored aristocrat who only cares about
>> their personal satisfaction -- the quality of the story, the comfort of the
>> sneakers, etc. -- with no concern or even an active disdain for the
>> conditions of those producing the material. So long as you're satisfied,
>> everyone else doesn't matter.
>
> I thought we were talking about a group that wanted to tell a good
> story.
That's what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, keep talking only
about your personal satisfaction in the "quality of the story".
Unless all the members of the group have identical opinions as to what
constitutes a "good" story, then they are going to have to reconcile their
differing assumptions on that front before they can agree whether or not any
new contribution adds to the quality of the story or diminishes it. That's
the case whenever there are multiple parties involved in a creative
activity. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
> If you're going to change this into a discussion about conflicting
> playstyles, then you should probably start a new thread.
Another straw man. Give it up already.
> I have seen nothing about this thread that indicated we were
> discussing a situation of a GM attempting to force a story on the
> other players against their wills.
From your post of Thursday 7 February 2002:
>> jh...@darkshire.org (John Kim) wrote:
(...)
>>> reducing GM-player
>>> assumption clash,
>>
>> Which seems important for a game, but why is it important for a story?
>> Thinking back to the last book I read, I don't remember any mechanism
>> to reduce author/reader assumption clash.
You were obviously comparing the GM-player relationship to the author/reader
relationship.
In the author/reader relationship the author tells the story and the reader
consumes it. Thus, there is no need to reduce assumption clash.
The only way that holds true for the GM-player relationship is if you assume
that it directly parallels the author/reader relationship, with the GM as
author and the players as readers.
That's why the first thing I pointed out in my initial post to this thread
was that the relationship of those trying to tell a story through a RPG is
more akin to that of co-authors, not to author/reader. A point you have
steadily been ignoring ever since.
> Are you changing the subject as a deliberate smokescreen, or did you
> just take a detour for an easy personal attack?
No, I'm just resisting your attempts to change the subject. And responding
to the various snide comments you've made along the way in a manner that
serves to distinguish me from a doormat.
>>> And now, to restate the general hypothesis here...
>>>
>>> If your goal is to tell stories using RPGs, then one element that can
>>> assist greatly in enhancing the quality of the story is to increase
>>> control over what happens.
>>
>> To state the general problem with that hypothesis: Increasing one person's
>> control over what happens diminishes the quality of the game, making the
>> result less of an RPG. As such, the proposed solution sacrifices one of the
>> elements (RPGs) on the alter of the other (stories).
>>
>> Thus, the proposed solution is inadequate because it does not address the
>> actual goal which is to tell stories using RPGs, not just to tell stories.
Regards,
Robert Scott Clark
>
>If the written work was by a single author, the entire question is moot
>since there was nothing for the author's assumptions to clash against.
The assumptions of the readers.
>Skilled communication is such a mechanism
Not by any useful definition of mechanism.
A "mechanism" is applied "mechanically". It's part of the word.
>-- at least, if by "Skilled
>communication" you mean "dialogue" rather than "monologue". Skilled dialogue
>is such a mechanism; monologue is not.
>
>At best, the rest of your point devolves down to "No additional mechanism is
>needed", which is very different to "No mechanism is needed".
And you have a silly definiton of "mechanism".
>
>Whether or not you believe it to be true is irrelevant. It is the claim you
>are presenting. Support your claim or withdraw it.
I have never made that claim. That is the exact OPPOSITE of my claim.
I don't provide evidence supporting the opposite of my claim, that
would be silly.
>
>>> You're right, the mechanisms need not be special. I never claimed that they
>>> did. Like any other group activity, RPGs do need such mechanisms, though.
>>> You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
>>
>> I think you are using a funny definition of "mechanism".
>>
>> Would "talk to the other people involved" count as a mechanism?
>
>Obviously. Sometimes that's enough. Other times, more is needed. It all
>depends on how far apart the various initial assumptions are -- the further
>apart, the more is needed.
Then this is the source of the misunderstanding here, as that is not a
mechanism.
So, back to the original point (using your definition of "mechanism"
to hopefully ease communication)...
Using nothing except "talking to my players", I can avoid assumption
clash, why would I need the addition of rules as another mechanism?
>
>>> It will make the process of creating the story more pleasurable -- or, at
>>> least, less disagreeable -- for those involved.
>>
>> #1 How would lowering the assumption clash make the process more
>> enjoyable?
>
>By reducing the anger, frustration and sense of unfairness experienced by
>those creating the story.
If you become "angry, frustrated, and experience a sense of
unfairness" when trying to tell a story, then, probably, you should
not be engaged in a RPG to tell a good story.
>> #2 Even if I concede this extremely weak link, how would making the
>> experience more "enjoyable" enhance the quality of the story?
>
>Again, you seek to define the discussion purely in terms of your personal
>satisfaction, ignoring everyone else involved.
Bullshit. I am attempting to define the discussion simply in terms of
the assumed goals of the game.
>If that's not what you are
>doing, then provide a means of determining the "quality of the story"
>independent of your opinion of it.
Well, my opinion and the opinion of the players IS all that matters.
You seem to want to include elements seperate from the story in the
evaluation.
>
>> If I "enjoy" creating the best story possible, then lowering the
>> enjoyment of the process somewhat may still increase my overall
>> enjoyment of the activity.
>
>If you are the only one involved in the activity, you are probably right.
>However, I was under the impression that we were discussing telling stories
>through RPGs. If you are the only one involved, it's not a RPG by
>definition.
But, if the goal of the game is to tell a good story, then hopefully,
all of the players have the same goal.
If one player is not interested in "telling a good story" at all,
then, of course, there is going to be a conflict of interests. He
shouldn't be playing with a group that has that as the defined goal of
the game.
>
>Again, you are sacrificing one element (games) on the altar of the other
>element (dramatic).
YES. That's the point. The discussion was about a game intended to
tell a story. Not every game played has to have equal parts of every
possible element. Not every game has to have even a small part of
every element.
>As such, any proposed solution you offer fails because
>it doesn't meet the criteria of being a dramatic game, it's just dramatic.
Who cares if it's a game at all? That wasn't part of the original
formulation.
As I have said before, I play RPGs all the time with no concession to
them being "games". It's not required.
>
>> Are you ever going to give any reason that amounts to something more
>> than "I like to play this way, so you should too"?
>
>I've given several such reasons. You just ignore them and keep repeating the
>same nonsense you started with. You like to do things a certain way and so
>assume that's the "best" way of doing them.
I have never, in this thread, described ANYTHING the "way I do it".
I have been discussing how to craft the best story in an RPG. Given
that I DO NOT play RPGs to tell a story, it is, obviously, not the way
I play.
>If that's not attempting to
>impose your preferences on others, I'm hard pressed to know what would be.
>
>My point has nothing to do with personal preferences at all. It is based
>entirely on the terms being used. The subject line refers to "dramatic
>games". You keep talking only about the "dramatic" and ignoring the "games".
>It requires no more than simple logic and reading comprehension to see this.
"Games" has, unfortunately, become the shorthand for RPGs. That in no
way means that all RPGs must be *games* in the technical sense.
It is entirely about you expressing a personal preference that RPGs
should include game elements.
>> I thought we were talking about a group that wanted to tell a good
>> story.
>
>That's what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, keep talking only
>about your personal satisfaction in the "quality of the story".
I have never limited anything to my personal evaluation. That is a
strawman you keep throwing up.
>
>Unless all the members of the group have identical opinions as to what
>constitutes a "good" story, then they are going to have to reconcile their
>differing assumptions on that front before they can agree whether or not any
>new contribution adds to the quality of the story or diminishes it.
And the "mechanism" for that is called "talking to people".
As a further comment...
How would a set of rules do ANYTHING to reduce this type of assumption
clash.
>
>> I have seen nothing about this thread that indicated we were
>> discussing a situation of a GM attempting to force a story on the
>> other players against their wills.
>
>From your post of Thursday 7 February 2002:
>
>>> jh...@darkshire.org (John Kim) wrote:
>
>(...)
>
>>>> reducing GM-player
>>>> assumption clash,
>>>
>>> Which seems important for a game, but why is it important for a story?
>>> Thinking back to the last book I read, I don't remember any mechanism
>>> to reduce author/reader assumption clash.
>
>You were obviously comparing the GM-player relationship to the author/reader
>relationship.
>
>In the author/reader relationship the author tells the story and the reader
>consumes it. Thus, there is no need to reduce assumption clash.
Not of the type you are discussing about, but that is not the type of
assumption clash that was being mentioned by John.
How do I know this?
Well, the type of assumption clash he mentioned was supposed to be
reduced by the addition of rules. The type you mention (what makes a
good story) would not, so that wasn't what he was talking about.
The assumption clash he mentioned and I responded to is of the variety
(what will happen in the game world if I do X, what are the
limitations of my abilities, what are the normal constraints on people
in the world) All of these are clashes that can be reduced (rather
easily) by the addition of rules. I merely question whether or not
this type of assumption clash is necessarily harmful to the telling of
a good story.
If you thought, all along, that we were talking about assumption clash
between what would and would not be a "good story", then please
enlighten me as to how a set of rules would help reduce that type of
assumption clash. Or did you not bother thinking about what was being
discussed before you responded.
If you can't, then you must have, at some point, understood what was
actually being discussed.
>
>The only way that holds true for the GM-player relationship is if you assume
>that it directly parallels the author/reader relationship, with the GM as
>author and the players as readers.
Which is a fine, and perfectly valid way to play.
>
>That's why the first thing I pointed out in my initial post to this thread
>was that the relationship of those trying to tell a story through a RPG is
>more akin to that of co-authors, not to author/reader. A point you have
>steadily been ignoring ever since.
Because I disagree. There is not the strict division you seem to
think there is.
>>>> And now, to restate the general hypothesis here...
>>>>
>>>> If your goal is to tell stories using RPGs, then one element that can
>>>> assist greatly in enhancing the quality of the story is to increase
>>>> control over what happens.
>>>
>>> To state the general problem with that hypothesis: Increasing one person's
>>> control over what happens diminishes the quality of the game,
Something that was not listed as a priority.
I agree with the statement, but I am not sure why you believe it is
relevant to the discussion.
>making the
>>> result less of an RPG. As such, the proposed solution sacrifices one of the
>>> elements (RPGs) on the alter of the other (stories).
Which is fine. That's where style differences come in, you sacrifice
one element for another.
What do you think "playing by a different style" means if it does not
involve sacrificing one element for another?
>>>
>>> Thus, the proposed solution is inadequate because it does not address the
>>> actual goal which is to tell stories using RPGs, not just to tell stories.
Now you are playing the exclusion game. It's pretty much become
standard practice to say that different playstyles are valid. So, you
know you can't attack a game style, so you try subterfuge. You
instead want to say, "hey, that's not a different style, that is a
different activity, I'm allowed to say that is wrong."
So, I will repeat.
You can play a RPG perfectly fine with no game elements whatsoever.
They are not required for the activity, and some choose to play
without them.
The fact that "being a game" was not listed in the desires for this
game cause me to NOT take them into consideration.
Warren J. Dew
I get the strong impression from various sets of White Wolf
rules, which are fairly strongly in this 'transparent story
oriented mechanics' category, that they are intended to
provide players with enough of a framework or rules to allow
players to play the game as a game, while giving the
gamesmaster the ability to create a story without too much
interference.
Robert Scott Clark:
But then WW rules don't exactly make a spectacular game.
Maybe it's enough to have the superficial characteristics of
a game - calling moves and rolling dice.
Certainly for some players it seems to be. It's also true that in the area of
combat - which is where players most frequently want objective rules - the
White Wolf mechanics tend to be much more rigorously defined. In other areas,
the gamesmaster - 'storyteller' - can pretty much set difficulty levels and
such to bend the narrative to his will; in combat, he has to do it by setting
the strength of the combatants.
Basically, you're correct, though. White Wolf rules seem to be largely a
compromise between story concerns and game challenge concerns, with the latter
getting shorter shrift.
How would transparent mechanics be beneficial to a player
who wanted to advance his character?
Only in the sense of being better than no mechanics at all, really. Having
some mechanics provides at least some ability to judge, objectively, whether
the character is advancing and by how much.
Zoran Bekric
wrote in <3c6a7ab...@news-central.giganews.com>:
> Zoran Bekric <zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
>> If the written work was by a single author, the entire question is moot
>> since there was nothing for the author's assumptions to clash against.
>
> The assumptions of the readers.
And round and round we go. As I've already pointed out, a book makes no
concessions to the assumptions of the reader. The reader's choices are
limited to either going along with the assumptions of the author or putting
the book to one side.
You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. You just keep
repeating the same silly assertion as if through sheer parroting you can
make it so. That's not how it works in the real world.
>> Skilled communication is such a mechanism
>
> Not by any useful definition of mechanism.
>
> A "mechanism" is applied "mechanically". It's part of the word.
Skilled communication is an ability that can be taught and consciously
applied. Counsellors of all types consider it an important part of their box
of tools. Call it a tool rather than a mechanism if you want, the point
remains.
>> Whether or not you believe it to be true is irrelevant. It is the claim you
>> are presenting. Support your claim or withdraw it.
>
> I have never made that claim. That is the exact OPPOSITE of my claim.
>
> I don't provide evidence supporting the opposite of my claim, that
> would be silly.
I'll take that as an admission that you do accept that there is a need for
mechanisms to deal with assumption clash.
>>> Would "talk to the other people involved" count as a mechanism?
>>
>> Obviously. Sometimes that's enough. Other times, more is needed. It all
>> depends on how far apart the various initial assumptions are -- the further
>> apart, the more is needed.
>
> Then this is the source of the misunderstanding here, as that is not a
> mechanism.
What is it then? Seriously. As far as I can tell, you're just playing word
games for no better reason than because you are an ass.
> So, back to the original point (using your definition of "mechanism"
> to hopefully ease communication)...
>
> Using nothing except "talking to my players", I can avoid assumption
> clash, why would I need the addition of rules as another mechanism?
You can't avoid assumption clash just by "talking *to* your players", you
have to "talk *with* your players". You need the actual mechanism of
dialogue.
>>> #1 How would lowering the assumption clash make the process more
>>> enjoyable?
>>
>> By reducing the anger, frustration and sense of unfairness experienced by
>> those creating the story.
>
> If you become "angry, frustrated, and experience a sense of
> unfairness" when trying to tell a story, then, probably, you should
> not be engaged in a RPG to tell a good story.
[sarcasm]
Oh, of course, everyone must agree with your definition of what constitutes
a good story. If they don't, and become angry or frustrated with your
infantile bullying, then, obviously, they can't be interested in telling a
good story, since a good story is, by definition, only what you like.
[/sarcasm]
Stop trying to impose your own preferences on others. Your way of playing
RPGs isn't the only way.
>>> #2 Even if I concede this extremely weak link, how would making the
>>> experience more "enjoyable" enhance the quality of the story?
>>
>> Again, you seek to define the discussion purely in terms of your personal
>> satisfaction, ignoring everyone else involved.
>
> Bullshit. I am attempting to define the discussion simply in terms of
> the assumed goals of the game.
No. You are attempting to redefine the discussion in terms of your own
preferences. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you only want what you
consider to be a good story and the preferences of everyone else involved in
the game be damned.
>> If that's not what you are
>> doing, then provide a means of determining the "quality of the story"
>> independent of your opinion of it.
>
> Well, my opinion and the opinion of the players IS all that matters.
This is the first time you have even admitted that the players may have an
opinion. What happens if the opinion of one or more of the players disagrees
with yours? What if the players assumptions as to what makes a good story
differs from yours.
Oh, that's right, the players correspond to "readers" in your worldview, so
they can either choose to go along with your assumptions or leave the game.
Thus, we see that, in the end, as far as you're concerned, it's only your
opinion that matters.
Autocratic nonsense.
> You seem to want to include elements seperate from the story in the
> evaluation.
Nope. I want to include all the participants in the process. You want to
concentrate only on the evaluation -- and to limit the evaluation only to
your own tastes.
>> If you are the only one involved in the activity, you are probably right.
>> However, I was under the impression that we were discussing telling stories
>> through RPGs. If you are the only one involved, it's not a RPG by
>> definition.
>
> But, if the goal of the game is to tell a good story, then hopefully,
> all of the players have the same goal.
They can all have the goal of "telling a good story", but they can all have
very different ideas as to what constitutes a "good story".
> If one player is not interested in "telling a good story" at all,
> then, of course, there is going to be a conflict of interests. He
> shouldn't be playing with a group that has that as the defined goal of
> the game.
Another straw man. Unless you are trying to argue that there is a single
objective standard as to what constitutes a "good story" -- and if that is
what you are trying to say, then please provide some evidence to support
such an assertion -- then I think you will have to acknowledge that
different people can have different preferences in what makes a story
"good". If that's the case, there can be a conflict of interests without
having to introduce any other goals at all. That's what assumption clash is
all about, after all.
Of course, what you really mean is that your preferred mechanism for dealing
with assumption clash is to simply exile everyone that disagrees with your
assumptions.
>> Again, you are sacrificing one element (games) on the altar of the other
>> element (dramatic).
>
> YES. That's the point. The discussion was about a game intended to
> tell a story. Not every game played has to have equal parts of every
> possible element. Not every game has to have even a small part of
> every element.
I never said they had to have equal parts of every possible element. That's
yet another straw man.
>> As such, any proposed solution you offer fails because
>> it doesn't meet the criteria of being a dramatic game, it's just dramatic.
>
> Who cares if it's a game at all? That wasn't part of the original
> formulation.
The subject line reads "Mechanics for dramatic games". The formulation you
use in your "general hypothesis" is "to tell stories using RPGs".
"Dramatic *GAMES*". "To tell stories using RPGs (Role-Playing *GAMES*)".
Games are part of the original formulation. Claiming otherwise is a lie.
> As I have said before, I play RPGs all the time with no concession to
> them being "games". It's not required.
Thank you for clarifying exactly who it is that is trying to impose their
preferences onto the discussion. You don't like the games aspect of RPGs?
Fine. I'm not saying you have to. But your preferences aren't the be all and
end all of the hobby.
Your way of playing RPGs isn't the only way. Stop trying to impose it on
everyone else.
>> I've given several such reasons. You just ignore them and keep repeating the
>> same nonsense you started with. You like to do things a certain way and so
>> assume that's the "best" way of doing them.
>
> I have never, in this thread, described ANYTHING the "way I do it".
Yet, you repeatedly have accused me of basing my entire argument on "I like
to play this way, so you should too". You don't like it when others do it to
you, but you're quite happy -- eager even -- to do it to others. What a
hypocrite.
>> My point has nothing to do with personal preferences at all. It is based
>> entirely on the terms being used. The subject line refers to "dramatic
>> games". You keep talking only about the "dramatic" and ignoring the "games".
>> It requires no more than simple logic and reading comprehension to see this.
>
> "Games" has, unfortunately, become the shorthand for RPGs. That in no
> way means that all RPGs must be *games* in the technical sense.
I don't care whether this it the way you do things or not, this is a classic
example of you seeking to impose your own preferences onto others.
RPG is a contraction of Role-Playing Game. I didn't coin the term. I didn't
invent the hobby. I'm just bright enough to see that something called a game
is a game.
> It is entirely about you expressing a personal preference that RPGs
> should include game elements.
No, it's about you attempting to redefine a term to suit your own
preferences and then to impose that redefinition on everyone else.
It's not my preference that RPGs should contain game elements, it's part of
the basic definition of the term RPG that they must contain game elements,
otherwise they aren't RPGs. They may involve RP, but they aren't RPGs.
That's why I suggested that you take your ideas to one of the writing
newsgroups. You can discuss story there as much as you like, without ever
encountering any talk of games.
>> That's what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, keep talking only
>> about your personal satisfaction in the "quality of the story".
>
> I have never limited anything to my personal evaluation. That is a
> strawman you keep throwing up.
You keep talking about the "quality of the story". If you have an objective
way of determining that, please present it. Otherwise it's just a subjective
judgement and by insisting on it you are elevating your own subjective
judgement over everyone else's.
>> Unless all the members of the group have identical opinions as to what
>> constitutes a "good" story, then they are going to have to reconcile their
>> differing assumptions on that front before they can agree whether or not any
>> new contribution adds to the quality of the story or diminishes it.
>
> And the "mechanism" for that is called "talking to people".
No, one of the mechanisms for this is called "talking *with* people". Try to
step outside your own egotism for once.
> As a further comment...
>
> How would a set of rules do ANYTHING to reduce this type of assumption
> clash.
By defining a independent set of standards that can be known in advance
(anyone can read the rules) and which can be used to arbitrate disputes in a
manner that is not only impartial and fair, but which can be seen to be
impartial and fair.
Of course, since it is impartial and fair, it could rule against you, so I
can see why you would dislike it.
> Not of the type you are discussing about, but that is not the type of
> assumption clash that was being mentioned by John.
>
> How do I know this?
>
> Well, the type of assumption clash he mentioned was supposed to be
> reduced by the addition of rules. The type you mention (what makes a
> good story) would not, so that wasn't what he was talking about.
Assumptions can clash on all sorts of levels. The difference between your
position on this issue and mine is that I've known that all along, whereas
you seem to have only just figured it out.
Still, congratulations on the conceptual breakthrough.
> The assumption clash he mentioned and I responded to is of the variety
> (what will happen in the game world if I do X, what are the
> limitations of my abilities, what are the normal constraints on people
> in the world) All of these are clashes that can be reduced (rather
> easily) by the addition of rules. I merely question whether or not
> this type of assumption clash is necessarily harmful to the telling of
> a good story.
To the extent that any sort of unresolved assumption clash leads to
resentment, anger and frustration it distracts participants away from the
goal of "telling a (good) story". In that sense, anything that can alleviate
any type of assumption clash will lead, even if only indirectly, to a
greater concentration on the actual goal of the game.
Since RPGs are games by definition (your own preferences on the subject
aside), mechanisms that can reduce the assumption clash engendered by the
game side of the exercise help the story-telling side by keeping game-side
problems out of the story-telling focus.
> If you thought, all along, that we were talking about assumption clash
> between what would and would not be a "good story", then please
> enlighten me as to how a set of rules would help reduce that type of
> assumption clash. Or did you not bother thinking about what was being
> discussed before you responded.
I thought all along that we were talking about assumption clash. Unlike you,
I just understood all along that it can encompass many different subjects
and levels. In that sense, you've just caught up.
> If you can't, then you must have, at some point, understood what was
> actually being discussed.
No, I understood what was being discussed. I also understood that you were
trying to subvert what was being discussed in order to impose your own
limited notions onto everyone else. I just wasn't willing to go along with
that agenda. Hence my efforts to keep the discussion on-topic.
>> The only way that holds true for the GM-player relationship is if you assume
>> that it directly parallels the author/reader relationship, with the GM as
>> author and the players as readers.
>
> Which is a fine, and perfectly valid way to play.
Again, you seek to impose your own preferences onto everyone else and to
subvert the term RPG in the process. If the players don't get to make
decisions and if those decisions don't affect the development of the
narrative, then it's not a RPG by definition.
If you have a definition of "game" that doesn't involve players making
decisions in pursuit of a goal, then please present it. Until, then I'll
stick with the one Greg Costikyan formulated, which quite simply excludes
what you describe above.
This is not to say that what you describe may not be a perfectly valid and
enjoyable activity in its own right. Many things which aren't RPGs are
perfectly valid and enjoyable.
>> That's why the first thing I pointed out in my initial post to this thread
>> was that the relationship of those trying to tell a story through a RPG is
>> more akin to that of co-authors, not to author/reader. A point you have
>> steadily been ignoring ever since.
>
> Because I disagree. There is not the strict division you seem to
> think there is.
And you couldn't have said that a week ago? Instead you chose to ignore it
and to go round and round in circles like an idiot.
And I'm not saying that there's any sort of strict division. That's why I
said that players and GM are like co-authors -- indicating a basic
similarity of roles. The GM is more like the chairperson of a meeting than
like the author of a novel.
And, incidentally, your disagreement is that there *is* a strict division
between the two -- GMs are like authors and tell the story while players are
like readers and only consume it and never the twain shall meet. Otherwise
it's not a disagreement.
>>>> To state the general problem with that hypothesis: Increasing one person's
>>>> control over what happens diminishes the quality of the game,
>
> Something that was not listed as a priority.
>
> I agree with the statement, but I am not sure why you believe it is
> relevant to the discussion.
Again you seek to impose your preferences onto the discussion. "Dramatic"
and "games" are given equal weight in the subject line. While they need not
have equal weight in any example of a dramatic game, both must be present.
Your proposed solution eliminates the "game" entirely.
>>>> making the
>>>> result less of an RPG. As such, the proposed solution sacrifices one of the
>>>> elements (RPGs) on the alter of the other (stories).
>
> Which is fine. That's where style differences come in, you sacrifice
> one element for another.
>
> What do you think "playing by a different style" means if it does not
> involve sacrificing one element for another?
Different play styles give different weight and emphasis to the various
elements. If one or more elements is eliminated entirely, the result is not
a RPG.
That's what your general hypothesis does: it eliminates one of the elements
entirely. Which may be fine for what you want to do, but the result isn't a
RPG and you should stop trying to impose it one everyone else as a RPG.
>>>> Thus, the proposed solution is inadequate because it does not address the
>>>> actual goal which is to tell stories using RPGs, not just to tell stories.
>
> Now you are playing the exclusion game. It's pretty much become
> standard practice to say that different playstyles are valid. So, you
> know you can't attack a game style, so you try subterfuge. You
> instead want to say, "hey, that's not a different style, that is a
> different activity, I'm allowed to say that is wrong."
I'm not attacking any game style. You keep throwing up that strawman, but
that's all it is: a strawman. And when I point out out that it's actually
you that keeps trying to impose his preferences onto everyone else, you get
angry.
Yet, for all your hypocrisy and projection, the fact remains that it is you
who keeps trying to impose his preferences onto everyone else and to
redefine terms to suit himself.
> So, I will repeat.
>
> You can play a RPG perfectly fine with no game elements whatsoever.
> They are not required for the activity, and some choose to play
> without them.
No. You can role-play without any game elements and, having done so on a
number of occasions, I can see why some would choose to do so. However, I'm
not silly enough to consider just role-playing to be an RPG. Knowing what
RPG stands for, I recognise that an RPG has to involve game elements by
definition, otherwise it's not a Role-Playing *Game*.
You are seeking to blur the term to accommodate your own preferences -- or
if not for your own preferences, then you are seeking to blur it for some
other reason.
I did not coin the term RPG. I did not invent the hobby. If you don't like
the term RPG, I suggest you take it up with those who did coin it and/or
those who did invent the hobby. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean
that everyone has to accept your self-serving redefinition. The term means
what it means and it has stood for over a quarter of a century now, so it's
not going to change just to accomodate you.
> The fact that "being a game" was not listed in the desires for this
> game cause me to NOT take them into consideration.
Now you're claiming that "games" isn't part of the subject line? Please.
The stated "desires for this game (sic)" are that it be a "dramatic game
(sic)" and that it "tell stories using RPGs (Role-Playing Games (sic))".
Claiming otherwise is just a lie, pure and simple.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>It's not my preference that RPGs should contain game elements, it's part of
>the basic definition of the term RPG that they must contain game elements,
>otherwise they aren't RPGs.
I rest my case. This entire discussion is based upon YOU getting to
define terms by whay you enjoy and above, you state that directly.
Thanks for finally admitting it.
You continue to make absolute statements "they must contain game
elements". I do not. I have made no statement stronger than saying
you do not HAVE to include or exclude something. That means that YOU
are the one being exclusionary, you just think that saying "that's not
an RPG" is somehow better, or less offensive, than saying "that's a
bad way to play."
To repeat, your above absolutinst statement is WRONG. I can prove it
is wrong. I have played a RPG with no game elements. There, done.
That doesn't mean that I think everyone must, it is simply one
datapoint. Luckily for me, all you need is one conflicting datapoint
to disprove a "for all" statement.
Zoran, take a second to think. If one person uses phrases like "can"
and "I do" and "don't have to" and the other person uses words like
"all" and "must", which person is trying to say their way is the only
way?
The rest of the post is skipped, because if you can't understand this,
simple, point, then there is no reason to continue talking to you.
>
Zoran Bekric
wrote in <3c6bcb4...@news-central.giganews.com>:
> Zoran Bekric <zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
>> It's not my preference that RPGs should contain game elements, it's part of
>> the basic definition of the term RPG that they must contain game elements,
>> otherwise they aren't RPGs.
>
> I rest my case. This entire discussion is based upon YOU getting to
> define terms by whay you enjoy and above, you state that directly.
> Thanks for finally admitting it.
I'm not the one defining terms. I've quoted a number of outside authorities
from dictionary.com to Greg Costikyan.
You, by contrast, make bold assertions like 'reading a book changes the
book' and then offer absolutely no support. None. Nada. Zip.
> You continue to make absolute statements "they must contain game
> elements". I do not. I have made no statement stronger than saying
> you do not HAVE to include or exclude something. That means that YOU
> are the one being exclusionary, you just think that saying "that's not
> an RPG" is somehow better, or less offensive, than saying "that's a
> bad way to play."
You, sir, are an idiot.
Over two hundred years ago, in his "Critique of Pure Reason", Immanuel Kant
(1772 - 1804) -- yet another outside authority, not just my opinion --
pointed out the difference between analytical and synthetical judgements. To
summarise:
In Analytical judgements, the predicate is covertly contained in the subject
and may be obtained by analysing the subject. The statement "The rose is a
flower" is an analytical judgement because being a flower is part of the
definition of what a rose is.
Synthetical judgements are those in which the predicate is *not* contained
in the subject. The statement "The rose is red" is a synthetical judgement
because being red is not part of the definition of what a rose is. Roses
come in a variety of colours.
That a RPG is a game is part of the definition of RPG -- "game" being what
the "G" in RPG stands for. In that sense, the predicate is rather overtly
contained in the subject. It's not a question of style or preference or
anything else, it's straight analysis.
You are confusing the two types of judgements and pretending to be
open-minded by treating an Analytical judgement as if it were a Synthetical
one. It's not. And all that you have managed to demonstrate in the process
is that you are an ignoramus.
> To repeat, your above absolutinst statement is WRONG. I can prove it
> is wrong. I have played a RPG with no game elements. There, done.
Let me see if I've got this straight: you have played a Role-Playing Game
with no game elements. Is that right? That's what you are saying?
Does the contradiction of "playing" a "game" with "no game elements" even
impinge on your consciousness? Or are you so arrogant as to be impervious to
common sense?
Wait, what am I saying? Of course you are that arrogant. I've just spent a
week interacting with your conviction that your taste as to what constitutes
a "good" story represents a universal standard and that anyone who disagrees
with that taste can only be doing so because they are secretly pursuing some
goal other than a "good" story.
You have role-played without that role-playing being part of a role-playing
game. So have I. So have lots of people. Role-playing is not confined to
RPGs. It never has been. As far as I know, no-one has ever claimed that
role-playing is unique to RPGs.
You may consider your point to be a brilliant riposte, but all you have
managed to demonstrate is that role-playing is not confined to RPGs.
Congratulations, we are in complete agreement on that point.
> That doesn't mean that I think everyone must, it is simply one
> datapoint. Luckily for me, all you need is one conflicting datapoint
> to disprove a "for all" statement.
I have never said that everyone must do anything. That, sir, is yet another
slander.
And you have yet to provide a conflicting datapoint. If something involves
role-playing but no game elements, it's not a RPG by simple definition of
the terms involved. A straightforward analytical judgement.
> Zoran, take a second to think. If one person uses phrases like "can"
> and "I do" and "don't have to" and the other person uses words like
> "all" and "must", which person is trying to say their way is the only
> way?
You keep returning to this strawman that by making a simple analytical
judgement I am somehow secretly trying to impose my personal preferences
onto everyone else. I'm not. I never have been.
When I say that two plus two equals four, it's not because I prefer it that
way. It's because the universe is such that my preferences in the matter are
irrelevant. I'm just acknowledging an aspect of reality.
When I say that whales and fruit bats are mammals, it's not because I prefer
it that way, it's because the definition of the various terms -- "whales",
"fruit bats" and "mammals" -- makes it so. I may prefer not to lump small
flying creatures and large ocean-going ones in the same category, but my
preferences are irrelevant. Again, this is an aspect of reality that I just
have to acknowledge.
When I say that RPGs are games, that statement has no element of preference
in it whatsoever. It's a straightforward analytical reading of the term RPG.
It's an aspect of reality that I have to acknowledge whether I like it or
not.
It's also an aspect of reality you have to acknowledge. Blaming me for it
won't help because, as I've pointed out before, it's nothing to do with me.
I didn't coin the term RPG. I didn't invent the hobby.
In essence, your position is the RPG equivalent of "creation science"; a
triumph of personal preference over the evidence.
> The rest of the post is skipped, because if you can't understand this,
> simple, point, then there is no reason to continue talking to you.
Please let it be so. After a week of trying to communicate with you and
getting only absolutist statements, unsupported claims, moved goal posts and
personal attacks, I've reached the point where I've finally realised I'm
wasting my time.
Your particular combination of ignorance and arrogance is apparently
impregnable.
Robert Scott Clark
>On Friday 15 February 2002, Robert Scott Clark (cla...@mindspring.com)
>wrote in <3c6bcb4...@news-central.giganews.com>:
>
>> Zoran Bekric <zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> It's not my preference that RPGs should contain game elements, it's part of
>>> the basic definition of the term RPG that they must contain game elements,
>>> otherwise they aren't RPGs.
>>
>> I rest my case. This entire discussion is based upon YOU getting to
>> define terms by whay you enjoy and above, you state that directly.
>> Thanks for finally admitting it.
>
>I'm not the one defining terms. I've quoted a number of outside authorities
>from dictionary.com to Greg Costikyan.
Outside authorities? On RPGs?
Bwaaa haaa haaa haaa
>
>You, by contrast, make bold assertions like 'reading a book changes the
>book'
And you blatantly lie about what I have said.
Idiots I can handle, liars are scum.
I'm done with you.
Robert Scott Clark
Been holding the response to this one for a while...
> But then WW rules don't exactly make a spectacular game.
> Maybe it's enough to have the superficial characteristics of
> a game - calling moves and rolling dice.
>
>Certainly for some players it seems to be. It's also true that in the area of
>combat - which is where players most frequently want objective rules - the
>White Wolf mechanics tend to be much more rigorously defined.
Yes, and no. It's been a while since I bought a WW book (or even
opened one), so things might have changed, but as I recall the +/- 3
to the target number based on GM evaluation applied to all skill
rolls, even in combat. And +/- 3 out of 10 is pretty extreme.
Additionally, I don't remember any hard and fast rules on movement,
positioning, or suprise (this is the one I'm most likely wrong about).
So basically, everything except picking what move/ability to use this
round had no effect except for GM fiat.
This is a problem because the different combat "moves" aren't really
that balanced. In many cases, one is distinctly and obviously better
than the others. Maybe it's a player ability thing, but it's unlikely
I would be playing with someone who wouldn't be able to figure out
what action would be mathematically optimal in a given situation under
WW rules. When the lowest skill in the group is higher than the
difficult game decisions, it makes for a dull game. Basically,
everything comes down to how the dice fall.
> In other areas,
>the gamesmaster - 'storyteller' - can pretty much set difficulty levels and
>such to bend the narrative to his will; in combat, he has to do it by setting
>the strength of the combatants.
>
>Basically, you're correct, though. White Wolf rules seem to be largely a
>compromise between story concerns and game challenge concerns, with the latter
>getting shorter shrift.
As for the rules, I don't think they were really disigned to make
storytelling easier. When you look at combat, and you need something
like 10 rolls (each with a big pile of dice) to settle one exchange
between 2 combatants, then it seems they weren't to concerned about
storytelling.
I'd say they came up with a mechanic that sounded good, but didn't
bother to test it too much to find out what it was good for.
(explaining why between vampire, werewolf, and the hardbacks of each
there are at least 3 different combat systems) The mechanics were
just there because it was expected that they be there, but the game
was meant to be played without much reference to them.
The seduction rules are very similar in this regard. They sound fine
on first reading, but in play they are some of my least favorite ever.
My theory is they wanted to emphasize the social aspect over combat
(the same reason mental/social/physical attributes are all treated the
same), but instead of de-emphasizing combat, they decided to apply the
same design strategy to the other elements.
Not something I disagree with on principle, but just a failure on
various grounds in practice.
>
> How would transparent mechanics be beneficial to a player
> who wanted to advance his character?
>
>Only in the sense of being better than no mechanics at all, really. Having
>some mechanics provides at least some ability to judge, objectively, whether
>the character is advancing and by how much.
I'd say that was a *different* way of measuring advancement rather
than better.
In various areas of the game, advancement is measured without any
mechanical or numeric system.
If you have been courting the princess for several months, and tonight
you manage a stole kiss in the gardens, then you have experienced
advancement.
Likewise, if the captain bested you in your last 5 duels, and you have
spent the last three months studying his fighting style, only to beat
him at the official tournament, then you have advanced there as well.
And really, this is a more accurate description than some "+1 skill"
that might be written on your character sheet.
What mechanics gain in giving specifics without some in-game "test" of
advancement, it looses in the added granularity you get from any
system. And by that I mean, I can't think of any system that would
really be able to model either of the situation described above, yet,
they seem like more natural ways of expressing advancement than any of
those systems.
You also say it's about "objectively" measuring advancement, and I can
see how you might sometimes want that, but many advancements *are*
subjective. You only become better relative to something/someone
else. While you can express this with an "objective" system, it isn't
the most direct way of doing so. This seems especially true is you
are going storyteller style, where you are much more likely to be "the
second best archer in all of france" than "the guy who can hit a 4 mm
bullseye at 100 paces 9 out of 10 times".
Jason Corley
> Yes, and no. It's been a while since I bought a WW book (or even
> opened one), so things might have changed, but as I recall the +/- 3
> to the target number based on GM evaluation applied to all skill
> rolls, even in combat. And +/- 3 out of 10 is pretty extreme.
Yeah. There were limits and guidelines, though.
> Additionally, I don't remember any hard and fast rules on movement,
> positioning, or suprise (this is the one I'm most likely wrong about).
You're wrong about all three.
Oh, unless you mean that the whole system is not "hard and fast", which is
plausible. The movement, positioning and surprise rules were just as hard
and fast as everything else in the game.
> As for the rules, I don't think they were really disigned to make
> storytelling easier. When you look at combat, and you need something
> like 10 rolls (each with a big pile of dice) to settle one exchange
> between 2 combatants, then it seems they weren't to concerned about
> storytelling.
That's not exactly true. Even in dice-heavy First edition Vampire you
could only maximally have 3 rolls per combatant per round without a
supernatural ability that allowed someone to take more than one action per
round.
It's definitely definitely definitely not true today, 4 systems later.
> The seduction rules are very similar in this regard. They sound fine
> on first reading, but in play they are some of my least favorite ever.
I never used them in any manner except for bookkeeping, so I didn't pay a
lot of attention to them.
--
***************************************************************************
"Today's public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books,
and there is some evidence that they can't read them either." ---Gore Vidal
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
Robert Scott Clark
>Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, and no. It's been a while since I bought a WW book (or even
>> opened one), so things might have changed, but as I recall the +/- 3
>> to the target number based on GM evaluation applied to all skill
>> rolls, even in combat. And +/- 3 out of 10 is pretty extreme.
>
>Yeah. There were limits and guidelines, though.
>
>> Additionally, I don't remember any hard and fast rules on movement,
>> positioning, or suprise (this is the one I'm most likely wrong about).
>
>You're wrong about all three.
>
>Oh, unless you mean that the whole system is not "hard and fast", which is
>plausible. The movement, positioning and surprise rules were just as hard
>and fast as everything else in the game.
Flipping through my vampire hardback (which has been sitting on my
shelf so long untouched that the pages are stuck together and warped
and I don't even know what was spilled on it), The only reference I
see to positioning is a reference to multiple opponents in close
combat, and flank or rear attacks. Now given that there is no
suggested use of a board or map, and no other mechanism described for
determining WHEN you are in position to make a flank or rear attack,
this information seems less than useful. It's just another example of
the GM settign the difficulty as he sees fit. Compare this to the
fairly straightforward attack/soak combat rules where GM arbitration
isn't needed.
(ranged combat fares somewhat better with rules for shooting while
moving and cover, but with the lack of a battle map, it still smells a
lot like GM fiat)
I have nothing against a loose, descriptive combat over the dry, hex
counting type, but once you loose the objectivity of the boardgame
style play, all the modifiers that are based on positioning seem out
of place.
For movement, the only references I see are a penalty to ranged
attacks while moving, and the pursuit rules. Actual combat movement
is suspiciously absent. (heck, I'm not looking too hard, but I can't
even find movement rates, let alone anything more complex)
As for suprise, I don't even see the word in my book.
>
>
>> As for the rules, I don't think they were really disigned to make
>> storytelling easier. When you look at combat, and you need something
>> like 10 rolls (each with a big pile of dice) to settle one exchange
>> between 2 combatants, then it seems they weren't to concerned about
>> storytelling.
>
>That's not exactly true. Even in dice-heavy First edition Vampire you
>could only maximally have 3 rolls per combatant per round without a
>supernatural ability
I said per exchange, not per attack
Initiative
Attack
Dodge
Damage
Soak
X2 opponents = 10 (or maybe 8 as I don't remember if you automatically
got dodge or not - nope, just checked, you could dodge if you wanted
to, so it stays 10)
> that allowed someone to take more than one action per
>round.
>
>It's definitely definitely definitely not true today, 4 systems later.
>
>> The seduction rules are very similar in this regard. They sound fine
>> on first reading, but in play they are some of my least favorite ever.
>
>I never used them in any manner except for bookkeeping, so I didn't pay a
>lot of attention to them.
I don't quite understand this statement. How would they be used for
bookkeeping?
Jason Corley
> As for suprise, I don't even see the word in my book.
Check the Alertness section. Note that I have sold my 1ed Vampire book so
I don't have it in front of me. It's possible that it might have been in
the ineptly named "Player's Guide" too.
>>
>>I never used them in any manner except for bookkeeping, so I didn't pay a
>>lot of attention to them.
> I don't quite understand this statement. How would they be used for
> bookkeeping?
In Vampire, a fair amount of time every few evenings is spent as a PC goes
and hunts for prey. However, that nearly always was not the focus of what
my game was about. So I would use the seduction rules as a guideline for
how successful the PC was at hunting, not play out the scene, and quickly
get back to the actual game. Thus I wasn't really using it to simulate any
kind of seduction, or compare it to others sorts of systems in the game,
it was isolated. Blood-bookkeeping was what the seduction rules were for
in my game. I have no idea whether this is what they were intended for.
Knowing the degree to which I torque WW game settings and ideas, it's
probably not.
Zoran Bekric
> Zoran Bekric <zbe...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
>> You, by contrast, make bold assertions like 'reading a book changes the
>> book'
>
> And you blatantly lie about what I have said.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all.
In our recent exchange I kept pointing out that reading a book or watching a
movie does not change the book or movie and you kept disagreeing with me.
What was the basis of your disagreement if you don't believe that reading a
book or watching a movie *does* change the book or movie?
Similarly, you kept claiming that the difference between reading a book and
playing a RPG is one of degree, not type. This only makes sense if you
believe that the decisions that a reader makes while reading a book
influence the development of the narrative presented in that book -- that
is, that they in some way change the book. If that's not what you believe,
then the difference is one of type -- between narratives that can be
influenced and those that cannot.
So, if you accept that reading a book does not change the book, what was the
basis of your claim that the difference is one of degree, not type?
When I wrote "You make assertions like 'reading a book changes the book'" it
was because, as far as I can tell, that's what you were claiming. I may have
been mistaken, but I was not lying.
If I have it wrong, please correct me.