Man, I miss the old .advocacy
Jason Corley
I miss the old .advocacy, where the flames were at least comprehensible
and nontechnical. I shimmy around in intent between gamisms,
simulationismsmsmsm and dramatsismsmsmsms and socialismsms and
whateverisms so much when I design a world, run it, play in it, write
plots in it, simulate it and game with it that this whole thing reads like
a bunch of gobbledygook. If I make a decision for the same reasons twice
it is a total surprise to me.
Why doesn't someone come in and say "WITE WOLF SUX" or "D1CELE55 RP
R00LZ!!!" or something and get us back to howling and screeching and
hollering like human beings again?
--
"He means well for his country, is always an honest man, often a wise man,
but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of his senses."
-----Benjamin Franklin, 1783
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
Timothy Little
> If I make a decision for the same reasons twice it is a total
>surprise to me.
>Why doesn't someone come in and say "WITE WOLF SUX" or "D1CELE55 RP
>R00LZ!!!" or something and get us back to howling and screeching and
>hollering like human beings again?
You should play systemless then. That would match your incoherent
inability to make even a simple decision in a consistent manner. Try
Amber or Fudge or Improvised Theater or something and stop bothering
all of us *real* roleplayers.
Better? ;^P
- Tim
Jason Corley
Raaaa! Yeah! Something like that.
The Grouchybeast
> Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
> >Why doesn't someone come in and say "WITE WOLF SUX" or "D1CELE55 RP
> >R00LZ!!!" or something and get us back to howling and screeching and
> >hollering like human beings again?
>
> You should play systemless then. That would match your incoherent
> inability to make even a simple decision in a consistent manner. Try
> Amber or Fudge or Improvised Theater or something and stop bothering
> all of us *real* roleplayers.
How dare you say Fudge is a systemless game? Fudge is a the *perfect*
roleplaying game system, usable straight out of the box and *infinately*
better than any other so-called system out there. Especially that
rubbish Quest thing. Now *there* is a game for sad rules-lawyers who
can't manage to wipe their noses without consulting a table.
> Better? ;^P
> - Tim
love
Anna
--
I see you standing there, far out along the way,
I want to touch you but, the night becomes the day.
I count the words that I am never going to say,
And I see you, in midnight blue. (ELO - Midnight Blue)
chromiu...@my-deja.com
The Grouchybeast <thegrou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Timothy Little wrote:
> > Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>
> > >R00LZ!!!" or something and get us back to howling and screeching and
> > >hollering like human beings again?
> >
> > You should play systemless then. That would match your incoherent
> > inability to make even a simple decision in a consistent manner. Try
> > Amber or Fudge or Improvised Theater or something and stop bothering
> > all of us *real* roleplayers.
>
> roleplaying game system, usable straight out of the box and *infinately*
> better than any other so-called system out there. Especially that
> rubbish Quest thing. Now *there* is a game for sad rules-lawyers who
> can't manage to wipe their noses without consulting a table.
>
> > Better? ;^P
> > - Tim
>
> love
> Anna
Quest is rubbish for *amateur* rules lawyers! The king of FRPG is RMSS.
RMSS gives you clear and concise tables for more or less everything. I've
created some extra tables of my own, of course, but overall it rules the
scene! And... wait for it... anybody who thinks differently is a *jerk*!
;)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Anthony Christopher
Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>
>Why doesn't someone come in and say "WITE WOLF SUX" or "D1CELE55 RP
>R00LZ!!!" or something and get us back to howling and screeching and
>hollering like human beings again?
AAAARRRR!!! D&D vs. Palladium! Champions vs. GURPS! GURPS vs. everything!
AAAARRRR!!!
Yeah, I miss the old days, too. ;)
--
Mark Christopher|Tech Editor|Shore.Net - a PRIMUS Company|www.shore.net
"Information causes change, and if it doesn't, it's not information.
You're sitting in a seat: that's not information. The person next to
you has a communicable disease: now that's information." -James Burke
James Ellis
>
> Why doesn't someone come in and say "WITE WOLF SUX" or "D1CELE55 RP
> R00LZ!!!" or something and get us back to howling and screeching and
> hollering like human beings again?
Well, discussing player-skill-based-Gamism in the Threefold thread
causes me to wonder whether a Gamist player can be truly satisfied in a
Diceless Game, or whether the hint of GM fiat must taint any victory. I
don't remember encountering that particular slant in past Diced/Diceless
flamewars.
Anyone interest in this topic (hopefully sans howling and screeching)?
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ducker
> Well, discussing player-skill-based-Gamism in the Threefold thread
>causes me to wonder whether a Gamist player can be truly satisfied in a
>Diceless Game, or whether the hint of GM fiat must taint any victory. I
>don't remember encountering that particular slant in past Diced/Diceless
>flamewars.
I've bumped into this before. Running straight combat in a diceless
system, it can frequently feel too arbitrary.
The players have to trust the GM to neither be too lenient on them (thus
taking all the fun out of it) or too hard (because he wants his plans to
succeed). As a GM I find that combat (the mostly likely favourite part of
the gamist player - "games" being mostly centered around "winning" and
therefore "conflict" of some kind) can seem very arbitrary without defined
rules. It also involves the least roleplaying (most of the time) and
therefore tends towards the simulationaist end of things. It's tricky.
Andy D
Larry D. Hols
chromiu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Quest is rubbish for *amateur* rules lawyers! The king of FRPG is RMSS.
> RMSS gives you clear and concise tables for more or less everything. I've
> created some extra tables of my own, of course, but overall it rules the
> scene! And... wait for it... anybody who thinks differently is a *jerk*!
You're obviously a beginner. RMSS is for sissies, as anybody with a
high enough IQ to read real books instead of comics knows. Sword's
Path: Glory, using the advanced books, is the only real set of
rules--anything else is for children, sissies, and munchkins!
Larry
Timothy Little
> You're obviously a beginner. RMSS is for sissies, as anybody
>with a high enough IQ to read real books instead of comics knows.
>Sword's Path: Glory, using the advanced books, is the only real set
>of rules--anything else is for children, sissies, and munchkins!
Lukewarm semi-flames like these are what happens when you try to
replicate the results of the "Usenet Flamewar" genre directly. The
*intent* is different, and that comes across in the result.
Now, to get a good flame going, you *really* need to focus on the
intent. *Become* the person who wants to flame their opponent into
crispy ashes! That's what's wrong with all you results-oriented
losers; people are too damn good at spotting intent, there's not much
point in trying to hide it behind cardboard "results".
That's why the Threefold is so much better than some slapdash 'result'
system -- by concentrating on intent it does a much better job of
helping to understand what's going on than anything else. People who
don't understand that are wasting their time posting. Even the
microscopic fraction of thought that goes into such posts would be
better spent on something more constructive, like building sand
castles below the high-tide mark.
I've never read Sword's Path: Glory, and I don't need to. Just from
the title I can already tell what its intent is, and such immature
wish-fulfilment can never be a basis for a good roleplaying game.
Grow up, and concentrate on more socioeconomically plausible
activities that actually have a sound basis in the game world. I
recommend starting with GURPS Traveller: Far Trader, which provides a
good foundation for realistic plotlines and characters that can be the
good guys *without* having to slaughter mounds of thoughtless grunts
with lumps of sharp metal.
- Tim
Bradd W. Szonye
>Timothy Little wrote:
>> Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>
>> >R00LZ!!!" or something and get us back to howling and screeching and
>> >hollering like human beings again?
>>
>> You should play systemless then. That would match your incoherent
>> inability to make even a simple decision in a consistent manner. Try
>> Amber or Fudge or Improvised Theater or something and stop bothering
>> all of us *real* roleplayers.
>
>roleplaying game system, usable straight out of the box and *infinately*
>better than any other so-called system out there. Especially that
>rubbish Quest thing. Now *there* is a game for sad rules-lawyers who
>can't manage to wipe their noses without consulting a table.
What?! are you Kidding??? Feng Shui is the most perfect gaming system,
and it has been converted on the Internet to every imaginable Game
Setting!!! PLUS Feng Shiu has a real *system* not something that you
have to invent yourself just to play a damn game!!! Fudge SUX!
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL Phone: 408-447-4832
Bradd W. Szonye
baby, you want the real king, you want DUNGEONS and DRAGONS. The third
edition is the Mack!
chromiu...@my-deja.com <chromiu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <3A150BAC...@hotmail.com>,
> The Grouchybeast <thegrou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Timothy Little wrote:
>> > Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >Why doesn't someone come in and say "WITE WOLF SUX" or "D1CELE55 RP
>> > >R00LZ!!!" or something and get us back to howling and screeching and
>> > >hollering like human beings again?
>> >
>> > You should play systemless then. That would match your incoherent
>> > inability to make even a simple decision in a consistent manner. Try
>> > Amber or Fudge or Improvised Theater or something and stop bothering
>> > all of us *real* roleplayers.
>>
>> How dare you say Fudge is a systemless game? Fudge is a the *perfect*
>> roleplaying game system, usable straight out of the box and *infinately*
>> better than any other so-called system out there. Especially that
>> rubbish Quest thing. Now *there* is a game for sad rules-lawyers who
>> can't manage to wipe their noses without consulting a table.
>>
>> > Better? ;^P
>> > - Tim
>>
>> love
>> Anna
>
>Quest is rubbish for *amateur* rules lawyers! The king of FRPG is RMSS.
>RMSS gives you clear and concise tables for more or less everything. I've
>created some extra tables of my own, of course, but overall it rules the
>scene! And... wait for it... anybody who thinks differently is a *jerk*!
>;)
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Bradd W. Szonye
>Jason Corley wrote:
>>
>> Why doesn't someone come in and say "WITE WOLF SUX" or "D1CELE55 RP
>> R00LZ!!!" or something and get us back to howling and screeching and
>> hollering like human beings again?
>
>causes me to wonder whether a Gamist player can be truly satisfied in a
>Diceless Game, or whether the hint of GM fiat must taint any victory. I
>don't remember encountering that particular slant in past Diced/Diceless
>flamewars.
>
Ah, you don't need dice to have a game. Ask anyone who plays Diplomacy.
They sneer at dice-users, and that's about as "player skill" as you get
other than chess. Now, the potential bias in GM fiat is problematic for
some players, but if you trust your GM (which does happen occasionally,
even among Gamists), you can have a rollicking-good skill-oriented time
in a diceless game.
Well, at least in theory. I like dice in my RPG. *grin*
Bradd W. Szonye
>Larry D. Hols <crkd...@grapevine.net> wrote:
>
>> You're obviously a beginner. RMSS is for sissies, as anybody
>>with a high enough IQ to read real books instead of comics knows.
>>Sword's Path: Glory, using the advanced books, is the only real set
>>of rules--anything else is for children, sissies, and munchkins!
>
>Lukewarm semi-flames like these are what happens when you try to
>replicate the results of the "Usenet Flamewar" genre directly. The
>*intent* is different, and that comes across in the result.
Ha!
Er, I mean... Jerk! This is your last warning! *plonk*
Kevin Lowe
t...@freeman.little-possums.net (Timothy Little) wrote:
> Now, to get a good flame going, you *really* need to focus on the
> intent. *Become* the person who wants to flame their opponent into
> crispy ashes! That's what's wrong with all you results-oriented
> losers; people are too damn good at spotting intent, there's not much
> point in trying to hide it behind cardboard "results".
>
> That's why the Threefold is so much better than some slapdash 'result'
> system -- by concentrating on intent it does a much better job of
> helping to understand what's going on than anything else. People who
> don't understand that are wasting their time posting. Even the
> microscopic fraction of thought that goes into such posts would be
> better spent on something more constructive, like building sand
> castles below the high-tide mark.
You think that 'cos you're a weak-ass ".advocate" who can't keep their
players in line. I'm such a kewl DM my players _never_ know why I do
anything. They live in fear! That's why my 1st Ed AD&D game is the
Ultimate Kewl Game.
This is how kewl I am: I just gave the half-drow half-dragon
paladin/archmage in the party a +20 sword of kick-ass fireballs, but
it's really a shapechanged demon! Next session it's gonna kill half the
party and level-drain the rest of the party into the stone age, and
there's nothing they can do about it, and they're gonna have to give all
their magic items to Dominus The Ultimate Archmage (my PC) and go on a
quest to get their levels back!
> I've never read Sword's Path: Glory, and I don't need to. Just from
> the title I can already tell what its intent is, and such immature
> wish-fulfilment can never be a basis for a good roleplaying game.
> Grow up, and concentrate on more socioeconomically plausible
> activities that actually have a sound basis in the game world. I
> recommend starting with GURPS Traveller: Far Trader, which provides a
> good foundation for realistic plotlines and characters that can be the
> good guys *without* having to slaughter mounds of thoughtless grunts
> with lumps of sharp metal.
How fun could that possibly be? Your players must all be sub-morons,
and you must bore them out of their skulls! Your games must suck more
than anything else in the universe! I'd never play in one of your games!
Like there's a *real* challenge in trading. Duh, duh, I buy stuff, I
sell stuff, look I made one million gold pieces. I really felt
challenged by that. Yeah, right! *My* players **earn** ***every***
xp!!!!!!!! THEY EVER GET!!! ***AND*** they're FIFTIETH LEVEL 'COS I
ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The session after that all the PCs are going to be turned into women
with huge knockers who have sex with Dominus The Ultimate Archmage (my
PC) and get pregnant and then they have to play the kids because their
PCs are all women now but they all get kewl powerups because they're my
PCs kids.
That's real roleplaying. I'm the best DM in the world.
Kevin Lowe,
Brisbane, Australia.
Brian Gleichman
news:3A158C...@cadvision.com...
> Well, discussing player-skill-based-Gamism in the Threefold thread
> causes me to wonder whether a Gamist player can be truly satisfied in a
> Diceless Game, or whether the hint of GM fiat must taint any victory.
With the exception of mystery/puzzle campaigns, I have a true and passionate
distain for mechanic-less resolution points. So much so that on my own I
would say that such campaigns cannot be in any sense gamist.
They are and must be dramatist as no objective test of skill ever tacks
place being nothing more than a group of people debating the best outcome
given the events and actions- i.e. a weird sort of story.
> I don't remember encountering that particular slant in past
Diced/Diceless
> flamewars.
Oh it was there. Red and I got into it big time.
--
Brian Gleichman
glei...@mindspring.com
Age of Heroes: http://gleichman.home.mindspring.com/
Free RPG Reviews: http://gleichman.home.mindspring.com/Reviews.htm
Timothy Dedeaux
>Kevin Lowe,
>Brisbane, Australia.
:)
- Tim
chromiu...@my-deja.com
"Brian Gleichman" <glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "James Ellis" <ell...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
> news:3A158C...@cadvision.com...
>
> > Well, discussing player-skill-based-Gamism in the Threefold thread
> > causes me to wonder whether a Gamist player can be truly satisfied in a
> > Diceless Game, or whether the hint of GM fiat must taint any victory.
>
> With the exception of mystery/puzzle campaigns, I have a true and passionate
> distain for mechanic-less resolution points. So much so that on my own I
> would say that such campaigns cannot be in any sense gamist.
>
> They are and must be dramatist as no objective test of skill ever tacks
> place being nothing more than a group of people debating the best outcome
> given the events and actions- i.e. a weird sort of story.
But a diceless game need not be systemless.
For example each character could have a pool of Plot Points and will
succeed at a task if his skill level plus number of Plot Points spent is
equal to or greater than a difficulty level.
Brian Gleichman
news:8v6rii$3n3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> But a diceless game need not be systemless.
People often mean systemless when they say diceless. In the post I was
responding to, that was my impression as simple lack of dice (say replaced
by cards or other methods) was not significant to bring up the issue being
discussed.
I could of course had been wrong.
Kevin Lowe
(Timothy Dedeaux) wrote:
> >That's real roleplaying. I'm the best DM in the world.
> >
> You suck.
>
> :)
> - Tim
Dang! The flames around here are too hot for me. All of you must hate
me. You .advocates are always sticking together and picking on new
guys, even if they've got lots of great ideas for AD&D games like I do.
You win. I'm going back to rec.games.frp.dnd, where it's kewl.
Justin Bacon
>With the exception of mystery/puzzle campaigns, I have a true and passionate
>distain for mechanic-less resolution points. So much so that on my own I
>would say that such campaigns cannot be in any sense gamist.
>
>They are and must be dramatist as no objective test of skill ever tacks
>place being nothing more than a group of people debating the best outcome
>given the events and actions- i.e. a weird sort of story.
I have yet to see a diceless RPG system which, to my mind, would satisfy gamist
sensibilities. However, the ability for diceless games such as DIPLOMACY to
exist suggest me that it would be *possible* to design such an RPG system.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Angela
gamist
> sensibilities. However, the ability for diceless games such as DIPLOMACY
to
> exist suggest me that it would be *possible* to design such an RPG system.
>
> Justin Bacon
Yeah, I like Diplomacy, but in Diplomacy, you are playing against the other
PLAYERS. When I play Dip., I am figuring out my next move not on what I
think Chris will do in an attempt to act like Russia, but what Chris will do
as Chris. I have to react to Chris' personality and strategic skills. In
any game in which the players aren't playing just themselves, you need
mechanics. How else could I play a master strategist (I'm certainly not, or
even a good one), etc? That's why I think it is possible to design board
games that are diceless, but not roleplaying games.
Also on that note, I am a firm believer in the dice as representing the
chaotic system. If I have a high Guns skill, and I miss a shot on my roll,
it may not be just because I sucked. Sweat could have trickled into my eyes
at the wrong moment, steam from a nearby grate might have blown in his
direction, etc etc. Now, if we codified all of these possibilities (let's
see, 1% chance of random steam in the way... nope.... um, 2% chance of sweat
in the eyes... nope... er, only two more pages of charts before we can
determine all your modifiers...), the game would bog down. Instead, we take
a few predictable and consistent ones (like darkness, and cover), and codify
those, and then abstract the rest into the die roll. So, I really don't
LIKE diceless systems, because they strike me as less realistic. The GM, or
whoever, has to then become, in effect, a randomizer, if the resolution is
going to have any degree of Realism (Hey, Mary, would that be Consistency?).
Like I say... "There's almost always a chance!" I loathe it when GMs decide
on lots of miscellaneous characteristics for bystander NPCs... I think
things like that should be randomly determined, unless there is a persuasive
reason why a particular kind of person would be present at that place and
time. Most of my experience with GMs simply determining such things by fiat
has been that they have used it to control the flow of the game, often to
the point of stifiling player creativity.
Angela
No .sig
No .thing else today
Jeff Stehman
><glei...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>>They are and must be dramatist as no objective test of skill ever tacks
>>place being nothing more than a group of people debating the best
>>outcome given the events and actions- i.e. a weird sort of story.
Whatever happened to our resident diceless simulationist?
--jeff
Brian Gleichman
news:20001209000335...@nso-ct.aol.com...
> I have yet to see a diceless RPG system which, to my mind, would satisfy
gamist
> sensibilities. However, the ability for diceless games such as DIPLOMACY
to
> exist suggest me that it would be *possible* to design such an RPG system.
I've never played DIPLOMACY (or even looked at more than the box cover) so I
wouldn't know.
Is it truly mechanic-less (not just dice-less, MtG is diceless except for a
handful of flip a coin cards and I consider it gamist)? I thought it had a
map, turn sequence and some sort of resolution method.
Brian Gleichman
news:9004E58EFjbste...@207.217.77.24...
> >>They are and must be dramatist as no objective test of skill ever tacks
> >>place being nothing more than a group of people debating the best
> >>outcome given the events and actions- i.e. a weird sort of story.
>
> Whatever happened to our resident diceless simulationist?
I've forgotten who that was.
I think Warren and Irina fit in part with their use of 'channeling'. The FAQ
threefold definition of simulationist works fine with mechanic-less play-
all one must do is restrict any meta-game concerns from influencing their
decisions.
However from my limited POV, there is little difference from dramatist and
simulationist mechanic-less campaigns. One is using less input than the
other (in-game instead of both in-game and meta-game), but are otherwise
equally without the objective value so important to such as I.
Brian Gleichman
news:JVjY5.55875$iy3.13...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> Most of my experience with GMs simply determining such things by fiat
> has been that they have used it to control the flow of the game, often to
> the point of stifiling player creativity.
I would agree with that. In general I see two types of GMs who go
mechanic-less.
The first you've identified, the dramatist GM who desires near unrestricted
control over the flow of events in his game. The second is the simulationist
GM (term not used in the Threefold sense, but rather it's common one) who
doesn't understand/accept the role of abstraction in game design.
They first can actually be a very good GM for many players who are actually
seeking only limited input in the first place. I do question if they are
playing a rpg: the game part of rpg seems to me to require rules and their
activities strike me as simply group story creation.
The second type is more diffcult to understand.
Jeff Stehman
<90tglq$a3n$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
>> Whatever happened to our resident diceless simulationist?
>
>I've forgotten who that was.
I think it was Alain, but I could be mistaken.
--jeff
Kevin Murphy
> I have yet to see a diceless RPG system which, to my mind, would satisfy gamist
> sensibilities. However, the ability for diceless games such as DIPLOMACY to
> exist suggest me that it would be *possible* to design such an RPG system.
I could see how the card system in Castle Falkenstien could appeal to
gamists, but the rest of the system is too freeform and dramatist.
A hyopthetical gamist diceless mechanic might look something like this (
my example is for combat, but could be extended to any contest of traits
):
Each combatant chooses a maneuver in secret. The maneuvers have known
interactions - for every combination of two maneuvers there is a
deterministic modification to attack value, defense value, and damage
value for each combatant. The combatants simultaneously reveal their
choices, combat traits are modified accordingly, and damage is
determined by modifying the damage result by the weapon used versus the
target armor.
The combat trait used determines the available list of maneuvers. The
better you are with your weapon, the more complex are the maneuvers
available.
If this seems TOO deterministic, perhaps a pool of points ( based on
Endurance, or Luck, or both, or whatever ) could be used to modify the
contest. To satisfy a gamist player, though, I think that these points
would have to regenerate or be earned in a deterministic fashion, not
given out by GM fiat like Fudge points.
Hmm. Might just have to toss something together in Fudge and playtest
this.
It seems to me that a system like this addresses gamist concerns, and
could satisfy simulationists ( if the manueuver system was extensivly
reality-checked ). I think that it might require too much tactical
consideration on the part of the player for character-stance dramatists.
Do the gamists here feel that such a system would satisfy their needs?
--
Kevin | "Philosophy, improperly applied, inevitably
Murphy | leads to paralysis."
Brian Gleichman
news:3A32831B...@eorbit.net...
> Do the gamists here feel that such a system would satisfy their needs?
Not me.
Too much like rock/scissors/paper for my tastes.
Jason Corley
Again, this is substituting some other set of preferences (that do mean
something) for what "gamism" is defined as and claiming that because of
those preferences, "gamism" has an independent meaning in this context.
My players love having the challenge of flexing their OOC social skills to
try to fast-talk, wheedle, and cajole information out of various quirky
NPCs. If I /touch/ the dice for this, they complain that I am taking the
challenge away.
There is a narrower preference than "gamism" at work in both your dislike
of diceless systems for resolving some issues and my players' dislike of
dice for resolving others. Those preferences meaningfully distinguish you
from my players. "Gamism" cannot.
--
"He means well for his country, is always an honest man, often a wise man,
but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of his senses."
-----Benjamin Franklin, 1783
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
Robert Scott Clark
>Too much like rock/scissors/paper for my tastes.
And r/p/s isn't a game in what way?
lam...@my-deja.com
"Brian Gleichman" <glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001209000335...@nso-ct.aol.com...
>
> > I have yet to see a diceless RPG system which, to my mind, would
satisfy
> gamist
> > sensibilities. However, the ability for diceless games such as
DIPLOMACY
> to
> > exist suggest me that it would be *possible* to design such an RPG
system.
>
> I've never played DIPLOMACY (or even looked at more than the box
cover) so I
> wouldn't know.
>
> Is it truly mechanic-less (not just dice-less, MtG is diceless except
for a
> handful of flip a coin cards and I consider it gamist)? I thought it
had a
> map, turn sequence and some sort of resolution method.
Yep, movement is simultanious and secret, and the resolution of who
goes where can be rather complicated. The game is diceless but is no
more mechanicsless than Go or Chess.
DougL
tded...@excite.com
"Angela" <angelab...@home.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I like Diplomacy, but in Diplomacy, you are playing against
> the other PLAYERS. When I play Dip., I am figuring out my next move
> not on what I think Chris will do in an attempt to act like Russia,
> but what Chris will do as Chris. I have to react to Chris'
> personality and strategic skills. In any game in which the players
> aren't playing just themselves, you need mechanics. How else could I
> play a master strategist (I'm certainly not, or even a good one),
I don't want to sound overly contrary, and certainly not patronizing,
but in some games and some campaigns (mostly gamist ones), part of the
contract involves the importance of player skill. In other words, the
player is responsible for at least faking the tactical abilities of the
character, and so should not expect any help from the system.
The prime example I'm thinking of here comes from Brian's descriptions
of his _Age of Heroes_ game, which is certainly not diceless. Diceless
games take this to another level, and one many people don't like.
[For the record, I generally only use Diceless/very low mechanics
systems for short games with a limited time to play, such as con games
(which are, in my case, more dramatist than my longer campaigns, for a
number of reasons I won't get into here).]
> etc? That's why I think it is possible to design board
> games that are diceless, but not roleplaying games.
Uh, what about _Amber_ and _Theatrix_? Both rpgs exist (though I think
only _Amber_ is still in print), certainly, and have even been played
from time to time :)
It's not only possible, it's been done (unless you're going to rehash
the idea that they're not really roleplaying games). Aside from the
diceless resolution, what strikes me most about _Amber_ is how
conventional it is - point based chargen, with plenty of room to
min/max, GM-Player divide as usual, etc.
(snip)
Tim Dedeaux
Angela
> only _Amber_ is still in print), certainly, and have even been played
> from time to time :)
>
> It's not only possible, it's been done (unless you're going to rehash
> the idea that they're not really roleplaying games). Aside from the
> diceless resolution, what strikes me most about _Amber_ is how
> conventional it is - point based chargen, with plenty of room to
> min/max, GM-Player divide as usual, etc.
> Tim Dedeaux
Hm. Good point - it's /been done/, though my issues with Amber and Theatrix
are many and varied (and I own, and have played and run, them both). I tend
to blend some player skill with character ability in my games, though the
player skill that I try to emphasize is mostly logical and observational
skill; players in my games wind up using their skills to gain information,
distilled into "layman's terms," as it were, so that they can employ their
own logical faculties to arrive at the decision (though one player, with
more skill in an area than another, might receive more information on which
to base his decision, so he is not penalized for having invested more in his
skill). In short, I agree more than I initially appeared, or even
personally believed. :)
Angela
No .sig
No .sleep at finals time
Justin Bacon
writes:
>Each combatant chooses a maneuver in secret. The maneuvers have known
>interactions - for every combination of two maneuvers there is a
>deterministic modification to attack value, defense value, and damage
>value for each combatant. The combatants simultaneously reveal their
>choices, combat traits are modified accordingly, and damage is
>determined by modifying the damage result by the weapon used versus the
>target armor.
This is pretty much exactly along the lines that I was thinking. I wouldn't
mind seeing a really good diceless combat resolution system that could handle
swords, guns, and hand-to-hand -- with a goodly number of offensive and
defensive manuevers for each one (and interactions between different types of
combat). That could make for a really interesting and compelling gaming
experience.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
[regarding DIPLOMACY]
>Is it truly mechanic-less (not just dice-less, MtG is diceless except for a
>handful of flip a coin cards and I consider it gamist)?
Err... no. Which is why I said "diceless", not "mechanicless".
I'll agree that a mechanicless gamist RPG is probably impossible. Although I
wouldn't strictly rule it out, particularly if the source of gamism comes not
from the rule system but from situations intrinsic to the game world. (Simple
example from the classic dungeon crawl: Working out a trap or puzzling your way
through a maze.) Although, technically, all you've done there is move the
system from the metagame and put it into the game world.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>Yeah, I like Diplomacy, but in Diplomacy, you are playing against the other
>PLAYERS. When I play Dip., I am figuring out my next move not on what I
>think Chris will do in an attempt to act like Russia, but what Chris will do
>as Chris. I have to react to Chris' personality and strategic skills. In
>any game in which the players aren't playing just themselves, you need
>mechanics. How else could I play a master strategist (I'm certainly not, or
>even a good one), etc?
And the answer is: You don't.
>Also on that note, I am a firm believer in the dice as representing the
>chaotic system. If I have a high Guns skill, and I miss a shot on my roll,
>it may not be just because I sucked. Sweat could have trickled into my eyes
>at the wrong moment, steam from a nearby grate might have blown in his
>direction, etc etc. Now, if we codified all of these possibilities (let's
>see, 1% chance of random steam in the way... nope.... um, 2% chance of sweat
>in the eyes... nope... er, only two more pages of charts before we can
>determine all your modifiers...), the game would bog down.
But this is simply a statement of your personal preference -- not the
practicality of actually designing the system. I mean, you've already admitted
that you like DIPLOMACY -- which, of course, uses a diceless resolution system
that completely glosses over the top of *huge* amounts of chaotic
possibilities.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Robert Scott Clark
>[regarding DIPLOMACY]
>>Is it truly mechanic-less (not just dice-less, MtG is diceless except for a
>>handful of flip a coin cards and I consider it gamist)?
>
>Err... no. Which is why I said "diceless", not "mechanicless".
Just a comment on MtG, you can't even say that it is "diceless" with
respect to lacking randomizers, given that the entire game is built
around using a shuffled deck.
>
Brian Gleichman
> Err... no. Which is why I said "diceless", not "mechanicless".
Too many people mean mechanic-less when they say diceless. Since I was
specifically speaking of mechanic-less in the post you first replied to, I
hope you can understand my confusion as your reply seems to have wandered
far from the turf I was considering.
The answer is: yes, there can be diceless gamist systems.
The Wraith
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20001209000335...@nso-ct.aol.com...
>
>> I have yet to see a diceless RPG system which, to my mind, would satisfy
>gamist
>> sensibilities. However, the ability for diceless games such as DIPLOMACY
>to
>> exist suggest me that it would be *possible* to design such an RPG system.
>
>I've never played DIPLOMACY (or even looked at more than the box cover) so I
>wouldn't know.
Think of chess, then. It is a game which does not incorporate any
randomness, but provides very good game play.
>Is it truly mechanic-less (not just dice-less, MtG is diceless except for a
>handful of flip a coin cards and I consider it gamist)? I thought it had a
>map, turn sequence and some sort of resolution method.
He did say dice-less, not mechanic-less.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
Kevin Murphy
> Too much like rock/scissors/paper for my tastes.
Hmm. I can see that. Of course, the domain of possible interactions
between manuevers is considerably larger than in rock/paper/scissors.
The system would favor the better fighter, while allowing the kinds of
"lucky shots" that occur in games with randomizers. Once you throw in
Luck or Effort points and situational modifiers, the range of
possiblities is easily as large as in a game with a random element.
Additionaly, unlike r/p/s, the contest would rarely be settled in a
single exchange.
Of course, this is a matter of taste, and if it feels too much like
r/p/s to you, then it's failed to satisfy at least one gamist player. :)
I'd be interested in a more detailed explanation of your feelings about
such a mechanic - what requirements are met by a diced mechanic that the
r/p/s idiom fails to achieve?
Kevin Murphy
> This is pretty much exactly along the lines that I was thinking. I wouldn't
> mind seeing a really good diceless combat resolution system that could handle
> swords, guns, and hand-to-hand -- with a goodly number of offensive and
> defensive manuevers for each one (and interactions between different types of
> combat). That could make for a really interesting and compelling gaming
> experience.
The only problem I see with it is that it would require either an
extensive maneuver chart or a simple formula for determining the
combinations of modifiers which comprise a legal maneuver. I think that
the chart would provide more "flavor", as the player could state "I
Parry and Riposte" instead of rattling off a set of modifiers, but chart
lookups are slow for beginners to a system.
As a game of tactical combat, it could definitely be interesting and
entertaining. I have a feeling that it would tend to bog down an RPG
session until all the players had internalized the maneuver chart, much
as Rolemaster combat tends to drag until all participants have mastered
the system.
Overall, though, I would find it preferable to the common diceless
mechanic of "Highest skill wins. End of story". Even if system ends up
awarding victory to the skilled warrior most of the time (as it should
for many genres), I prefer thrill of uncertainty and the ring of
clashing blades to a dry comparison of numbers on a page.
Eric Lestrade
> I'll agree that a mechanicless gamist RPG is probably impossible. Although I
> wouldn't strictly rule it out, particularly if the source of gamism comes not
> from the rule system but from situations intrinsic to the game world. (Simple
> example from the classic dungeon crawl: Working out a trap or puzzling your way
> through a maze.) Although, technically, all you've done there is move the
> system from the metagame and put it into the game world.
To go further, it is really possible to play systemless and gamist.
Last year I played (8 hours long) an adventure which mainly consisted
in a enigma (you say puzzle)[the plot was overcomplicated!]
that the PC have to solve.
I think the style of play fit the definition of "gamist": the only
interest of the game was to see if we (players...) succeed
in solving the enigma.
In fact it appears to be easy to play a CoC adventure
both systemless (there isn't many actions you have to
solve, it can be almost only an inquiry) and gamist
(will the player find the solution?), don't you think ?
Eric Lestrade
Introduction to systemless RPG
http://perso.spray.fr/anthologie/eng/
Brian Gleichman
> Of course, the domain of possible interactions
> between manuevers is considerably larger than in rock/paper/scissors.
The doesn't improve things any.
> I'd be interested in a more detailed explanation of your feelings about
> such a mechanic - what requirements are met by a diced mechanic that the
> r/p/s idiom fails to achieve?
In the better diced systems (there are bad ones, being diced doesn't mean
that the system is gamist) the main control of the result resides not in the
dice, but in the maneuver and option selections of the players. Thus one
does not win with a using a Honey tank vs. a Tiger by relying upon luck
against the frontal armor, instead one maneuvers to fire at close range at
its rear.
The only purpose of dice is to abstract out those factors effecting the
outcome that are too complex to either represent or not completely
understood to begin with.
All r/p/s systems I've seen have had two major problems.
The first is that one chooses a maneuver with little input from anything
other than 'these are the range of maneuvers I can chose'. Besides the fact
that actual battle has a much greater range of important information than
that, such systems are a guessing game rather than a test of skill (there is
some reading of the opposing player, a pure meta-game method that gives me
little to no happiness).
The second part is the lack of the dice abstraction I spoke of above. There
is little room for abstracted events to hide in. Do X against Y and Z
happens every time. The appearance is of a system that has no abstraction,
thus SOD problems arise as I know for a fact that no world I'm interested in
would be so simple and predictable.
Kevin Murphy
> The second part is the lack of the dice abstraction I spoke of above. There
> is little room for abstracted events to hide in. Do X against Y and Z
> happens every time. The appearance is of a system that has no abstraction,
> thus SOD problems arise as I know for a fact that no world I'm interested in
> would be so simple and predictable.
Okay. I think I understand where you're coming from. To you, the dice
represent all of the chaotic environmental factors which are too minor
to provide a direct bonus or penalty, but which prevent absoloute
repeatability of action.
Hmm. It seems, then, that no mechanic without randomizers of some type
will satisfy this particular gamist. :)
It seems to me, however, that your reason for disliking randomless
systems has more to do with simulationist concerns than gamist. (Don't
worry, Brian, I'm not labeling you a simulationist in general. ;) )
Given a choice between a "wargame" or "chess" style mechanic, you'll
choose the wargame every time because even though both systems are
interesting as "games", the deterministic system undermines your sense
of how the world should work.
Angela
Yeah, I like Diplomacy... as a board game. As a roleplaying game, it ISN'T.
And it's precisely BECAUSE it glosses over "*huge* amounts of chaotic
possibilities." That's sort of my point. If I am in a roleplaying game,
and because of the lack of mechanics, I can't play a character whose skills
I cannot personally back up (which begs the question of whether it is a ROLE
playing game, at that point), and I certain things always turn out the same
way, with very little variation in the results (as in Diplomacy), then I
don't really think that's much of a game. Maybe it's personal preference,
but it does violate at least ONE crucial element of rpgs, and certainly
undercuts a lot of others (simulationism, for instance, which is an element
of rpgs by necessity, even to those who place it near the bottom on their
list of game-priorities).
Angela
No .sig
No .clue, really, but just felt like typing :) I love you guys
Warren J. Dew
Okay. I think I understand where you're coming from. To
you, the dice represent all of the chaotic environmental
factors which are too minor to provide a direct bonus or
penalty, but which prevent absoloute repeatability of
action.
Hmm. It seems, then, that no mechanic without randomizers
of some type will satisfy this particular gamist. :)
While it won't satisfy Brian, randomization can be provided through a
rock-paper-scissors style mechanic - in fact, in some 'live action' games,
that's exactly what is used as a randomizer. The game is 'diceless' in the
sense that no randomizers are built in, but correct strategy on both sides
produces a random result.
This does provide the opportunity for those not versed in game theory to
achieve worse than normal 'luck', though, which might be considered
unrealistic. There is also a problem with it as a game, as correct play does
not provide much scope for application of skill on the part of the player.
I note that some of the tactical play in Diplomacy is of this type, though
that's not the primary attraction of the game. Chess, on the other hand, does
not have this kind of concern.
Angela:
Yeah, I like Diplomacy... as a board game. As a roleplaying
game, it ISN'T. And it's precisely BECAUSE it glosses over
"*huge* amounts of chaotic possibilities." ... If I am in
a roleplaying game, and ... I can't play a character whose
skills I cannot personally back up ... and I certain
things always turn out ... with very little variation
in the results (as in Diplomacy), then I don't really think
that's much of a [roleplaying] game.
Yes. You point out the difficulty of roleplaying when the player is limited by
her own abilities; I'd note that rock-paper-scissors style resolution further
intrudes on roleplaying because it forces the player to play the part of the
randomizer as well as playing the character.
Your other point is an interesting one. Indeed, one attraction of board games
is that one is dealing with a familiar situation (except for the first time one
plays). But one of the attractions of roleplaying games is that the situations
one is dealing with are constantly changing.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
John Kim
>> factors which are too minor to provide a direct bonus or
>> penalty, but which prevent absoloute repeatability of action.
>
>rock-paper-scissors style mechanic - in fact, in some 'live action' games,
>that's exactly what is used as a randomizer. The game is 'diceless' in the
>sense that no randomizers are built in, but correct strategy on both sides
>produces a random result.
One of the annoying things to me about Mind's Eye Theatre
(the White Wolf LARP system which uses rock-paper-scissors) is that
RPS is *not* random. In practice, it is a game of psych out which
is strongly effected by player skill at reading your opponent,
hiding or faking your intention, and so forth. A skilled RPS player
can trounce a poor player fairly consistently.
In the system, RPS is really intended to be a randomizer, so
I'm not sure that it should really be called "diceless"... just as
replacing a die roll in a tabletop game with a card draw, computer
function, or other method isn't really making it "diceless".
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Angela writes:
>> If I am in a roleplaying game, and ... I can't play a character whose
>> skills I cannot personally back up ... and I certain things always turn
>> out ... with very little variation in the results (as in Diplomacy),
>> then I don't really think that's much of a [roleplaying] game.
>
>Yes. You point out the difficulty of roleplaying when the player is
>limited by her own abilities; I'd note that rock-paper-scissors style
>resolution further intrudes on roleplaying because it forces the player
>to play the part of the randomizer as well as playing the character.
Well, you are not strictly limited to your own abilities.
For example, in MET a challenges can go either way depending on your
character skill in the task, your player skill at RPS, and luck. While
it is true that RPS intrudes -- I'm not sure that the intrusion is
neccessarily worse than various tabletop mechanics.
MET uses stat comparison in case of a tie, and there is a
"trump" mechanic if your stat is 2x your opponent's. Thus, if RPS
were actually random, the possible odds are 0%, 33%, 67%, or 100%.
Greg Porter's game _Epiphany_ uses a somewhat related system
which more smoothly takes into account character skill. Each player
has a number of pips from 1 to 10 and can split these between her
right and left hands. The players then hold out their hands
simultaneously and compare the amounts in each hand. This gives
somewhat smoother probabilities but is harder to use in practice.
--
John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
Jeff Stehman
<9135mg$34n$1...@news.service.uci.edu>:
>A skilled RPS player
>can trounce a poor player fairly consistently.
"Good ol' rock. Nothing beats rock."
--jeff
Robert Scott Clark
>Hmm. It seems, then, that no mechanic without randomizers of some type
>will satisfy this particular gamist. :)
>
>It seems to me, however, that your reason for disliking randomless
>systems has more to do with simulationist concerns than gamist.
Just a "Me, too" post.
Robert Scott Clark
>This does provide the opportunity for those not versed in game theory to
>achieve worse than normal 'luck', though, which might be considered
>unrealistic. There is also a problem with it as a game, as correct play does
>not provide much scope for application of skill on the part of the player.
I assume you are talking about a situation where there is a character
skill, and resolution is handles r/p/s. If I am correct in this
assumption, then I disagree wholeheartedly. The very fact that the
player can manipulate the situation so as to bring into play those
skills his character has at the highest level, he can have an extreme
effect on the outcome of any action. (ie exercise player skill)
>
Brian Gleichman
> It seems to me, however, that your reason for disliking randomless
> systems has more to do with simulationist concerns than gamist.
If one is using the term simulationist in its more common sense, that would
be correct.
From a purely gamist point of view, one is left with the concern of finding
suitable use for player skill without the use of dice or other randomizer
(even MtG uses the shuffle of the deck to achieve the effect that one might
with dice).
For this one is forced to consider a chess style mechanic rather than
rock/scissors/paper style. Considering that chess draws its interest from a
vast number of possibilities each building upon the preceding moves, one is
left with a lengthy resolution method. This is made worse by the rpg
requirement of numerous players acting upon the same event in such a fashion
as to require the interrelationships to be defined and handled.
In addition to the simple conerns of 'is this possible' *and* 'is this
playable in an rpg', I would think such a system would have the same
relationship to the actual in-games events that chess does to war. For any
with desires outside those of pure gamist, this is true problem as one has
lost any meaningful mental image of what is in fact occurring.
And let's not even get into the idea of trying to find 'balanced' but
different styles.
The Wraith
wrote:
>
>Of course, this is a matter of taste, and if it feels too much like
>r/p/s to you, then it's failed to satisfy at least one gamist player. :)
Of course, you can be pretty certain that any mechanic you might
happen to pick will fail to satisfy at least one gamist player.
The Wraith
<eric.l...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>
>To go further, it is really possible to play systemless and gamist.
Other examples would include many "paper-chase" freeforms (using
"freeform" in the Australian sense, meaning a game with a large number
of PCs, involving mostly interaction between those PCs rather than
with NPCs or the environment and generally acted out rather than
played on the tabletop). In the freeforms sometimes labelled
"paper-chases", the PCs spend a lot of time trying to track down
various items (or other resources), and if they get the right ones by
the end of the game, they satisfy their objectives.
Brian Gleichman
news:3A34844B...@libertysurf.fr...
> To go further, it is really possible to play systemless and gamist.
> Last year I played (8 hours long) an adventure which mainly consisted
> in a enigma (you say puzzle)[the plot was overcomplicated!]
> that the PC have to solve.
The mystery solving style of gamist play is noted specifically in the FAQ
but wasn't really being considered in this thread as few such campaigns use
mechanics for much of the core pursuit even if they are available.
Andy Gibson
>Justin Bacon wrote:
>> This is pretty much exactly along the lines that I was thinking. I wouldn't
>> mind seeing a really good diceless combat resolution system that could handle
>> swords, guns, and hand-to-hand -- with a goodly number of offensive and
>> defensive manuevers for each one (and interactions between different types of
>> combat). That could make for a really interesting and compelling gaming
>> experience.
>
>The only problem I see with it is that it would require either an
>extensive maneuver chart or a simple formula for determining the
>combinations of modifiers which comprise a legal maneuver. I think that
>the chart would provide more "flavor", as the player could state "I
>Parry and Riposte" instead of rattling off a set of modifiers, but chart
>lookups are slow for beginners to a system.
>
duelling rules extended to a very crude RPG, originally by GDW). Here
each player plots a sequence of actions which combine into manoeuvres.
Each player must plot complete manoeuvres several actions ahead (how
many, and how many extra "rest" actions included depends on character
skill). Example manoeuvres would be:
Lunge: -rest-lunge-rest-
Parry: -parry-(riposte if parry met lunge)-
Slash: -(rest unless last manoeuvre ended in rest)-rest-slash-
Furious Lunge: -lunge-rest-rest-cut-rest-rest-rest-
Etc., etc.
Damage is by a table indexing attack action vs. defence action. I once
started to convert this to a medieval (well, Conanesque) rather than
duelling setting, but I never got very far.
Cheers,
Andy
Justin Bacon
<angelab...@home.com> writes:
>If I am in a roleplaying game,
>and because of the lack of mechanics, I can't play a character whose skills
>I cannot personally back up (which begs the question of whether it is a ROLE
>playing game, at that point), and I certain things always turn out the same
>way, with very little variation in the results (as in Diplomacy), then I
>don't really think that's much of a game.
And as I said, that's an incredibly limiting definition of "roleplaying game".
Hell, I'd argue that your mechanical crutch style of play takes the roleplaying
out of the game.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Robert Scott Clark
>And as I said, that's an incredibly limiting definition of "roleplaying game".
>Hell, I'd argue that your mechanical crutch style of play takes the roleplaying
>out of the game.
How else would you play someone with skills beyond your own.
One of these days I really want to get a group of roleplayers together
and see what they think of their combat abilities being determined by
how well they fight. Crutch using bastards.
Rupert Boleyn
As long as we're allowed guns I'm OK with this :) Do all the NPCs
fight at the GM's level of competence?
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Brian Gleichman
> And as I said, that's an incredibly limiting definition of "roleplaying
game".
> Hell, I'd argue that your mechanical crutch style of play takes the
roleplaying
> out of the game.
I think you're expanding Angela statement well past the point she intended
to make in order to draw this conclusion.
Robert Scott Clark
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:49:17 GMT, cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott
>Clark) wrote:
>
>>
>>>And as I said, that's an incredibly limiting definition of "roleplaying game".
>>>Hell, I'd argue that your mechanical crutch style of play takes the roleplaying
>>>out of the game.
>>
>>How else would you play someone with skills beyond your own.
>>
>>One of these days I really want to get a group of roleplayers together
>>and see what they think of their combat abilities being determined by
>>how well they fight. Crutch using bastards.
>
>As long as we're allowed guns I'm OK with this :) Do all the NPCs
>fight at the GM's level of competence?
At GM level or lower, I don't see how anything else is possible
without some mechanical "crutch".
Angela
...
"Mechanical crutch?" I'm not sure if there is ANY way I can personally
roleplay a character with, say, high Engineering skills without some sort of
mechanical crutch - I AM NOT AN ENGINEER! I mean, assuming the /role/ is
something I don't need any mechanics to help me with, per se, but in order
to interact as an engineer I need them. That is, I thought, the point of
mechanics - in a group "let's play pretend" situation, there won't always be
a consensus of what is going to happen, or even what COULD happen. Rules -
mechanics, that is - provide a neutral arbiter of how to resolve certain
situations, that don't necessarily rely on any one person's biases (though,
of course, we all know that the actual enforecement and use of the rules is
colored by the attitudes of the GM and his group, toward the situation, each
other, the game itself, etc). In order for me to even have a clear idea of
what I can do, and how effectively I can do it, when playing a character
like, say, and engineer, whose realm of knowledge is pretty far outside of
mine, I need some sort of mechnical system to show me what I can accomplish
reliably, and what I can accomplish potentially. My understanding, as a
gamer, of my capabilities within the mechanics of the system thus acts in
stead of a real engineer's understanding of his field. It isn't an exact
match, naturally, but it is something. It's also a damn sight better than
my comprehension of my own capabilities being limited to "whatever the GM
feels like at the moment."
Angela
No .sig
No .dumb remark either :)
Justin Bacon
cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott Clark) writes:
>How else would you play someone with skills beyond your own.
And, like I said, there's no reason you *have* to play someone with skills
beyond your own in a roleplaying game.
And, further, mechanicless play does not mean that you have to actually go out
and start shooting evil masterminds in order to play James Bond.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Robert Scott Clark
>>How else would you play someone with skills beyond your own.
>
>And, like I said, there's no reason you *have* to play someone with skills
>beyond your own in a roleplaying game.
Then let's say that...
Without what you refered to as a mechanical "crutch", you can still
play a tiny subset of possible RPGs.
>
>And, further, mechanicless play does not mean that you have to actually go out
>and start shooting evil masterminds in order to play James Bond.
>
How else would you know what happened?
Maybe we are talking past each other, as I consider "GM decides" to be
a game mechanic.
Timothy Little
>Maybe we are talking past each other, as I consider "GM decides" to
>be a game mechanic.
That's odd. I thought our personality mechanics thread a few months
back pretty much established that you vehemently did not believe such
a thing.
- Tim
Robert Scott Clark
I consider it an arbitrary mechanic, and I don't particularly like it
in most situations, but I don't ever recall saying it wasn't a
mechanic.
In fact, in my big post on "uses for personality mechanics", one of
the mechanics I listed was a version of "GM decides" - I believe I
called it "convince the GM".
Bradd W. Szonye
>Yeah, I like Diplomacy, but in Diplomacy, you are playing against the
>other PLAYERS. When I play Dip., I am figuring out my next move not on
>what I think Chris will do in an attempt to act like Russia, but what
>Chris will do as Chris. I have to react to Chris' personality and
>strategic skills.
Okay.
>In any game in which the players aren't playing just themselves, you
>need mechanics. How else could I play a master strategist (I'm
>certainly not, or even a good one), etc? That's why I think it is
>possible to design board games that are diceless, but not roleplaying
>games.
I agree that mechanics help to differentiate player skill from character
skill, and to help keep GM bias from introducing unfairness. However,
you've made the assumption that mechanics require randomizers.
Diplomacy has mechanics too, they're just very abstract and not very
random. (No more random than the players, anyway.)
I suspect that either you didn't explain some of your argument,
expecting us to grasp it intuitively, or your feelings are more
intuitive than reasoned out. I really don't see how mechanics
necessarily imply a need for randomization.
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL Phone: 408-447-4832
Bradd W. Szonye
>
>And r/p/s isn't a game in what way?
It's a game, but it isn't Gamist, in the same way that Chutes & Ladders
isn't, even though it's a board game. RPS is essentially random, with no
good reason to make one choice over another. It does not allow for
player skill. (Practically speaking, there are psych-out tactics for
RPS, but it's such a limited skill that it doesn't satisfy your typical
gamist's need for player influence.)
It's extremely difficult to design an RPS-like resolution system that is
not either (1) biased in favor of certain choices to the point that
there is no skill once you find the "favored" choices, or (2) random.
Now, Diplomacy does involve some RPS-like situations, where you win if
you and your opponent choose differently, but you lose if you choose the
same option. However, the *context* of those mini-RPS situations makes
it so that it's more than just an RPS game. They feed into a larger
situation where you must discover which battles you *must* win, and how
you deal with the ones you lose. While the individual decisions are
RPS-like, the game as a whole is far more complex, and the active use of
negotiation makes a big difference as to how other people act and what
you can expect.
Robert Scott Clark
>Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Too much like rock/scissors/paper for my tastes.
>>
>>And r/p/s isn't a game in what way?
>
>It's a game, but it isn't Gamist, in the same way that Chutes & Ladders
>isn't, even though it's a board game.
I agree that chutes and ladders isn't very game-like, but not rps
> RPS is essentially random, with no
>good reason to make one choice over another. It does not allow for
>player skill. (Practically speaking, there are psych-out tactics for
>RPS, but it's such a limited skill that it doesn't satisfy your typical
>gamist's need for player influence.)
>
It seems you are just not used to playing against skilled players.
There is as much skill in rps as in poker.
Jeff Stehman
>RPS is essentially random, with no
>good reason to make one choice over another. It does not allow for
>player skill.
Unless you are talking about a single instance of RPS, I disagree.
There is skill involved in predicting what your opponent will choose
while trying to be unpredictable yourself.
--jeff
Bradd W. Szonye
You're not the only one to make this comment. There are a few
counterarguments; one of them is in my comment quoted above.
1. It's a very narrow, limited skill.
2. The skill is not very representative: RPS-style resolutions do a good
job of letting you play out the psychological part of a conflict, but
not much else.
3. The pace of RPG resolution isn't particularly well-suited to
developing and using RPS skill.
4. A good Gamist game, in my opinion, requires a strong mix of skills,
so that a player who dominates one aspect of the game won't dominate
the whole game. When something like RPS skill (or the ability to
cheat at dice) dominates player skill, there is little opportunity
for players to develop different strengths and complement each other.
Now, the first two points aren't very strong. After all, it *is* a
skill, and a Gamist doesn't necessarily care how representative of the
game-world that skill is. The last two points, however, are why I think
most Gamists despise RPS-type resolution. The fact that RPG pacing is
relatively slow and that you typically take turns around a table means
that your ability to apply RPS skill will be very inconsistent. It will
work fairly well in a duel-like situation, but not nearly as well in a
mass combat. In those cases where RPS skill does apply, it will dominate
resolution in the same way that cheating at dice does; there is no good
opportunity to apply a different skill to counter that advantage.
Now it is possible to set up a game so that a basically RPS system has
some real tactical depth or other skill; Diplomacy is a great example.
There are also ways to extend RPS so that there are more trade-offs and
less randomness. In general, however, game designers regard RPS-type
mechanics as a poor foundation for any kind of rich gameplay. (I've read
a couple of great articles which discuss this; I wish I could remember
what they are.)
By the way, I suspect that point 2 above is a big factor for most, but
not all, Gamists. While it is not a core part of the Gamist style, I
have found in practice that Gamists don't mind abstraction, but they do
like the game representation and the "in-world reality" to match. For
example, the high level of abstraction in Axis & Allies is fine, because
it's still representative of troop movements and battles. However, if
you were to replace the A&A resolution systems with a Parcheesi-like
mini-game, you'd upset a lot of gamers -- the skills used to play
Parcheesi are so irrelevant to strategic combat that the game just
wouldn't feel right. (It's not a wargame anymore, it's Parcheesi with a
backstory.) While the psych warfare of RPS makes sense for resolving
*some* things (pistol duels come to mind), they don't "fit" well as a
general mechanic.
Summary: As a randomizer, RPS is poor, because the outcome is too easily
influenced, which causes the same kinds of problems as unfair dice in a
game where you're expecting true randomness. As a skill input, RPS is
poor, because it is inconsistent, generally non-representative, and it
tends to discourage a broad mix of skills.
Angela
> I suspect that either you didn't explain some of your argument,
> expecting us to grasp it intuitively, or your feelings are more
> intuitive than reasoned out. I really don't see how mechanics
> necessarily imply a need for randomization.
> --
> Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Good point. I didn't make myself very clear on that. Mechanics don't
necessarily imply a need for randomization. My point that, in my opinion,
some sort of randomization is needed to adequately simulate very complex
situations with many variables without either abstracting them grossly or
bogging down the game into unplayability is only somewhat related to the
discussion on mechanics per se, and should have been established separately.
The point about needing mechanics to simulate skills the players don't have
has been pretty well made, by more people than just me, and really doesn't
need to be reiterated.
Angela
:)
Bradd W. Szonye
>(snip a bunch stuff from me and brad and whatnot)
>> I suspect that either you didn't explain some of your argument,
>> expecting us to grasp it intuitively, or your feelings are more
>> intuitive than reasoned out. I really don't see how mechanics
>> necessarily imply a need for randomization.
>
By the way, sorry if I sounded snippy. I had a hard time expressing the
point ("I think you skipped a step somewhere") without sounding
condescending.
>Mechanics don't necessarily imply a need for randomization. My point
>that, in my opinion, some sort of randomization is needed to adequately
>simulate very complex situations with many variables without either
>abstracting them grossly or bogging down the game into unplayability...
Well, different folks have varying tastes on desired level of detail;
some gamists actually *do* want tables of every sort of influence on a
situation they can think of. However, I think that "gross abstraction"
is actually a reasonable approach to removing randomness from gamist
play. That's how chess and Diplomacy do it, after all. What's difficult
is making the abstractions in a way that they don't also remove all the
skill. Game (ie., wargame) designers don't think much of simple RPS type
resolutions, for example, unless you can inject enough complexity into
the interactions that it's no longer *just* RPS. (One common way to do
this is to add resource management into the mix, or to change the "X
beats Y" relationships in certain circumstances. For example, wargames
often use something like "infantry beats cavalry beats artillery beats
infantry" for dug-in, close-combat situations, but cavalry beats
infantry in the open field, and infantry is very inexpensive.)
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Justin Bacon
<angelab...@home.com> writes:
>I'm not sure if there is ANY way I can personally
>roleplay a character with, say, high Engineering skills without some sort of
>mechanical crutch - I AM NOT AN ENGINEER!
Sure there is. Watch:
"I fix the nuclear power plant."
Now -- trust me on this -- I don't know the first thing about actually fixing a
nuclear power plant. And yet, somehow, without ever using one single mechanic,
I just roleplayed a character who fixed a nuclear power plant!
Astounding!
>My understanding, as a
>gamer, of my capabilities within the mechanics of the system thus acts in
>stead of a real engineer's understanding of his field.
Sounds like a crutch.
Crutches are very useful, of course. But millions of people walk without them
-- so I'm not going too far out on a limb in saying that they are not an
essential part of the process.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
(I'm counting small blessings here, though. RSC hasn't started redefining terms
yet. <scans ahead> Whoops, I stand corrected.)
Angela
> In article <qbw_5.75760$iy3.17...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>, "Angela"
> <angelab...@home.com> writes:
>
> >I'm not sure if there is ANY way I can personally
> >roleplay a character with, say, high Engineering skills without some sort
of
> >mechanical crutch - I AM NOT AN ENGINEER!
>
> Sure there is. Watch:
>
> "I fix the nuclear power plant."
>
> Now -- trust me on this -- I don't know the first thing about actually
fixing a
> nuclear power plant. And yet, somehow, without ever using one single
mechanic,
> I just roleplayed a character who fixed a nuclear power plant!
>
> Astounding!
>
> >My understanding, as a
> >gamer, of my capabilities within the mechanics of the system thus acts in
> >stead of a real engineer's understanding of his field.
>
> Sounds like a crutch.
>
I don't consider being able to make a reasonable estimation of my chances of
being able to fix the reactor, or how long it might take, or whether I
should call more qualified help, or how good a nuclear reactor fixxer upper
I am in comparison to others crutches. There's a lot more to roleplaying
/well/ than simply declaring that such-and-such happened. That's what sets
us apart from five year olds, or delusionals for that matter. "Sounds like
a crutch" doesn't communicate a lot of information. It doesn't point to the
manner in which mechanics, as I have defended them, are not necessary; it
doesn't address the issue how a mutual GM-player(s) relativitic
understanding of a given character's abilities can be reached without them;
nor does it answer the problem of mutually exclusive interpretations of the
outcome of a given action by GM and player(s) or amongst players; and
neither does it give an adequate response to the problem of logical
consistency within a game world. Also, it makes you sound inarticulate and
obtuse. I rather suspect you /aren't/ either of those things, but your
simplistic and dismissive response is something I would expect to hear from
some fourth graders on a playground, shouting "am not"/"are too." It does
not befit the rational person with well-honed abstracting faculties whom I
know from your other posts you seem be.
Angela
No .sig
No .worries
Robert Scott Clark
>In article <qbw_5.75760$iy3.17...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>, "Angela"
><angelab...@home.com> writes:
>
>>I'm not sure if there is ANY way I can personally
>>roleplay a character with, say, high Engineering skills without some sort of
>>mechanical crutch - I AM NOT AN ENGINEER!
>
>Sure there is. Watch:
>
>"I fix the nuclear power plant."
>
>Now -- trust me on this -- I don't know the first thing about actually fixing a
>nuclear power plant. And yet, somehow, without ever using one single mechanic,
>I just roleplayed a character who fixed a nuclear power plant!
>
>Astounding!
How do you know if it is possible for you to fix it. The character
would know, and his actions would be influenced by this knowledge.
Timothy Little
>tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
>>"I fix the nuclear power plant."
>How do you know if it is possible for you to fix it. The character
>would know, and his actions would be influenced by this knowledge.
Who cares? It's a game. There is absolutely no doubt though, that he
did in fact roleplay a character with more engineering skill than
himself without machanics.
Of course, mechanics may help him to be more realistic in his
portrayal. They may also detract from it. They may be either
appropriate or inappropriate to genre. But there is no doubt that
they are not necessary for playing a character with different skills
from yourself.
- Tim
Robert Scott Clark
Ok, let's reword it then...
They are necessisary in those 90% of games where the players are not
allowed to just say that they succeed.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
>
> I don't consider being able to make a reasonable estimation of my
> chances of being able to fix the reactor, or how long it might take,
> or whether I should call more qualified help, or how good a nuclear
> reactor fixxer upper I am in comparison to others crutches.
None of the games I own with nuclear engineering as a skill (GURPS,
HERO, and Blue Planet) answer any of those questions. They are good
questions, too.
> It doesn't point to the manner in which mechanics, as I have
> defended them, are not necessary; it doesn't address the issue how a
> mutual GM-player(s) relativitic understanding of a given character's
> abilities can be reached without them; nor does it answer the
> problem of mutually exclusive interpretations of the outcome of a
> given action by GM and player(s) or amongst players; and neither
> does it give an adequate response to the problem of logical
> consistency within a game world.
In order for a skill rating to be useful, you need several pieces
of information:
o What are the difficulties of reference activities for different
levels of skill?
o How does the PC's skill compare to the general population, both
in terms of how common the skill is and how skilled the PC
is in comparison to other characters with the skill?
o What kinds of activities will we actually see during play?
o How does the PC's skill compare with the sorts of characters
actually encountered in play?
Most game systems provide the answer to only the first of these four
questions (and not all of the time, either!). They offer no guidance
at all wrt the other three questions. The answers to the second is
setting-dependent, and to the last two are campaign-specific. It's a
nasty feeling (and IME common experience) to discover that the 6d12
Poker skill you thought made your PC a top-league player actually
makes him good enough to beat the Devil himself at cards. And the
chance of this sort of discovery is not intrinsically reduced at all
IME by having a plain skill mechanic.
To deal with this, I try to draw up tables showing skill levels for
the general populace, the opposition the PCs will face, how hard
different tasks are, and what the PCs will face, and what the
boundaries are for a skill, for every skill in the game. This is extra
work above and beyond what a rule system provides, and can just as
easily be done for a game without formal mechanics as for one
with. (One of the best examples of this are the activity flowcharts
in Theatrix.)
Neel
Timothy Little
You mean ones where they aren't allowed to do without mechanics? Then
I agree with you.
Your definition of "mechanics" is far broader than mine, though. I
wouldn't call checking with the GM or other players a mechanic.
- Tim
Brian Gleichman
news:Vrv06.94038$iy3.22...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> but your
> simplistic and dismissive response is something I would expect to hear
from
> some fourth graders on a playground, shouting "am not"/"are too." It does
> not befit the rational person with well-honed abstracting faculties whom I
> know from your other posts you seem be.
Justin does that. Some of the time he is reasonable and enjoyable to read,
much of the time he's a fourth grader. The sad thing is that he thinks
disagreement with him indicates stupidity that must be stamped and if a bit
of naming calling gets tossed in- so much the better. His goal is to make
you look stupid in such cases, nothing more.
In general, a good idea is to avoid any conversation with Justin in which
you disagree with him (unless you like flame wars).
On the subject itself, you've walked into the old mechanics vs.
mechanic-less thread. Heavy flamewar bait. For myself, I agree with you
although for slightly different reasons then those you present.
If however you want to explore why people play that way in a flameless
manner, ignore Justin and see if you can get the attention of the more
reasonable proponents of such play. It is an interesting mindset.
Angela
Neelakantan Krishnaswami <ne...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:slrn945nen...@alum.mit.edu...
That sounds like a very good idea. I do my best to make exhaustive
comparisons of skill levels and difficulties for my players, so they will
know what they are getting into in advance. Of course, it helps to be
obsessive-compulsive (Only an OC GURPS player would consider her
undergraduate catalog a gaming supplement). In GURPS, I've drawn up lists
of what skills, with how many points, a college graduate would theoretically
have, assuming she put the suggested amount of study into the courses - just
in case you are interested. Anyway, I agree with the need to have these
questions answered; I think GURPS answers some of the others in an indirect
fashion, in that it establishes the point values and average stats of
"normals," as well as providing that charmingly vague little comparison
chart at the beginning of the skills section. And hey, I really enjoyed
Theatrix. Nice to know someone else has /heard/ of it, much less played it.
Angela
No .sig
No .more Jerry (sniff - I always get sentimental when listening to "Muddy
River")
Justin Bacon
<glei...@mindspring.com> writes:
>The sad thing is that he thinks
>disagreement with him indicates stupidity that must be stamped and if a bit
>of naming calling gets tossed in- so much the better. His goal is to make
>you look stupid in such cases, nothing more.
No. I think stupidity is stupidity. For example, ignoring all the cases in
which I've disagreed with people who weren't stupid and ignoring all the cases
in which I've admitted that I've made a mistake in order to make a cheap
attack: That's stupidity.
Now, generally, you're not stupid. But when you get into flame mode, your brain
cells seem to start dying off.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott Clark) writes:
>Ok, let's reword it then...
>
>They are necessisary in those 90% of games where the players are not
>allowed to just say that they succeed.
Brilliant.
"Mechanics are necessary in games which have mechanics."
Can't argue with that.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
cla...@mindspring.com (Robert Scott Clark) writes:
>>"I fix the nuclear power plant."
>>
>>Now -- trust me on this -- I don't know the first thing about actually fixing
a
>>nuclear power plant. And yet, somehow, without ever using one single
mechanic,
>>I just roleplayed a character who fixed a nuclear power plant!
>>
>>Astounding!
>
>How do you know if it is possible for you to fix it.
If I didn't know how to fix it, then I couldn't have fixed it. Since I did,
clearly I can.
Wait a minute, you're not one of those crazy loons who think that JRR Tolkien
rolled a crit hit before Gandalf fell down the pit in Moria, are you?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
<angelab...@home.com> writes:
>I don't consider being able to make a reasonable estimation of my chances of
>being able to fix the reactor, or how long it might take, or whether I
>should call more qualified help, or how good a nuclear reactor fixxer upper
>I am in comparison to others crutches.
All of this is irrelevant, Angela. You claimed I needed mechanics to roleplay a
character who has more engineering knowledge than myself. This is clearly
untrue. It has been proven to be untrue.
Now, you can argue until you're blue in the face that mechanics do X, Y, and Z.
It's irrelevant. You need to show that X, Y, and Z can't be accomplished
without them.
And, trust me on this, there's absolutely nothing in terms of roleplaying that
I need a mechanic to do.
>There's a lot more to roleplaying
>/well/ than simply declaring that such-and-such happened
Yes. But nothing mechanical. Playing a role was done for years before the first
RPG was invented. It was called acting. Writers created characters without ever
rolling a die or distributing a point pool. Mechanics aren't necessary.
>"Sounds like
>a crutch" doesn't communicate a lot of information.
It conveys precisely enough information. You cited an example of mechanics
doing a job which you would have otherwise had to do by yourself. This is,
clearly, one of the advantages of having mechanics. But it's also a crutch.
Just as a crutch operates as a replacement for a leg, so these mechanics
operate as a replacement for your own skills. Now, in some cases, a crutch is
really nice idea. Assuming cyberpunk, a crutch might actually end up being
better than your leg all by itself.
But, at the end of the day, it's a crutch. And you don't *need* it.
You've already lost this argument, Angela. Let it go.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Warren J. Dew
They are necessisary in those 90% of games where the
players are not allowed to just say that they succeed.
Justin Bacon posts:
Brilliant.
"Mechanics are necessary in games which have mechanics."
Can't argue with that.
Actually, I'd say there are games where players are not allowed to unilaterally
declare success which still lack formal mechanics: where the gamesmaster, for
example, makes a judgement call, informed or otherwise.
On the other hand, your original point still stands. If the player doesn't
initially know what the character does about his chances of success, the player
can inquire of the gamesmaster; formal mechanics are still not required.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Brian Gleichman
> No. I think stupidity is stupidity. For example, ignoring all the cases in
> which I've disagreed with people who weren't stupid and ignoring all the
cases
> in which I've admitted that I've made a mistake in order to make a cheap
> attack: That's stupidity.
I ignored no such thing. As I said, "Some of the time he is reasonable and
enjoyable to read, much of the time he's a fourth grader".
I made no attempt to break out when you're one and when you're another. Yes,
you're occasionally a cool guy who's big enough to admit errors. And yes,
too often you're in there trying to be a baby Terry Austin.
> Now, generally, you're not stupid. But when you get into flame mode, your
brain
> cells seem to start dying off.
I have no doubt this is true in your opinion. But this line only proves the
point I made to Angela. For example you were right in there with me when I
was arguing with RSC, but since my post was critical of you- I have brain
cells dying off. Agree with Justin- Good Guy (or at least "not stupid").
Disagree with Justin- Idiot.
Can anyone offer the opinion that you often go too far without having huge
globs of dying brain cells? If so and given the large number of people I've
seen express that same viewpoint on rpg.net and Usenet, when can we expect
the mass dying off and the resulting rise in world intelligence?
Brian Gleichman
> All of this is irrelevant, Angela. You claimed I needed mechanics to
roleplay a
> character who has more engineering knowledge than myself. This is clearly
> untrue. It has been proven to be untrue.
Actually, I don't remember her making that claim. I remember her claiming
that for herself and expressing some confusion that others can or would want
to do otherwise.
Rather than offer a nice explanation of mechanic-less play, you accuse her
of needing crutches (as in she is lame and partially dysfunctional), in
effect calling her a impaired role-player.
Was that really the best approach you could come up with? Or have you just
decide that it's time to beat up on the poor helpless new girl even when she
has expressed willingness to learn about and from this group?
Angela
Ah. I see the difference. It's not about winning and losing, Justin, it's
about trying to analyze the topic. You say that mechanics aren't necessary
to play a character who has more engineering knowledge than myself, and it
has been proven. Well, as someone who holds a different view, I am very
interested in finding out /why/ you say this. Defining what a crutch is
doesn't answer that question. I am really intriguied at your proposition
that the mechanics aren't necessary to roleplay a character with knowledge I
don't have. Maybe we are using different applications of "role play" in
this case. Let me ask -
* why are "being able to make a reasonable estimation of my chances of being
able to fix the reactor, or how long it might take, or whether I should call
more qualified help, or how good a nuclear reactor fixxer upper I am in
comparison to others" irrelevant to roleplaying my character?
*corollary to that, what is relevant to roleplaying my character; i.e., what
defines roleplaying my character well, by your paradigm?
*how does your paradigm distinguish "roleplaying" in the sense of what we do
as a hobby from "playing a role" in the sense of what actor do in plays, or
even "role playing" in the sense of the psychotherpeutic exercise? Are
there any distinctions? This may be a lot of the point of your thesis I am
missing right here.
*what defines a mechanic for you? This may also clear up a bit.
*corollary to that, what is the function of a mechanic, in the game?
Clearly it is not a function that relates to roleplaying, or at least, not
one that is essential to it, by your paradigm.
The thrust of my whole propsition, to put it slightly another way than
previously, was that to remove the mechanics from roleplaying (in essence,
to turn it into some declarations) removes the gamist element completely,
thus subverting an important part of the concept of the "role playing game."
Without the use of an objective mechanic, like rules and skills levels and
what, or a subjective mechanic, such as the GM providing information and
estimation of chances of success, how do we address the following -
*player knowledge of his character's abilities relative to the rest of the
characters and game world
and
*informed player choice within the game
or
*do they need to be addressed at all?
As you can see, the answer to that last question is rather important, and
ties into the discussion on what sort of thing defines a mechanic. If
asking the GM whether I can do this-or-that doesn't count as a mechanic,
then we may actually be in agreement and just not know it, since I think it
does. Just a matter of different definitions, which is why it is important
in any discourse to establish such things at the outset.
Let us, however, imagine that asking the GM /does/ count as a mechanic, and
that we stipulate that since we can roleplay completely without mechanics,
we shall have none. So, the players create a concept, and... what, sit
around and decide what is happening? If asking the GM counts as a mechanic,
they cannot know the likely results of their actions until they have taken
them. This creates a curious situation; if we have some truly dedicated
players, I imagine they will continue to play "in character," but their
decision making process could rely only on past experience /in the game/ and
their own estimation of their abilities. Now, you could rightly suggest at
this point, that - lacking a character sheet for ourselves - that is all any
of us have in real life, and I would agree. But, we also have much more
time logged, and many more decisions made, than these characters... unless
some sort of surrogate is provided for the time these characters have lived
that we, as players, haven't been able to play through. Without that, I
propose, they are somewhat amnesiac - with no accumulated experience upon
which to base their decisions other than the self conception of the player
(which is not guaranteed to be "accurate" - in this case, meaning "the same
as the GMs." I'm not saying GMs are always right, but as they determine the
responses of the rest of the world, that is, they stand in stead of all
natural laws and what, if a player thinks his character can do something,
and the GM does not, then - sans mechanics - the player's interpretation of
his character's abilities is, by definition, inaccurate).
Now, clearly, this is roleplaying, at least as far as I understand the
definition of it (which is why I asked for your definition of roleplaying).
The player has conceived a character, and is acting in faith with that
conception. But without a mechanic as suggested above, the decisions he
makes - in other words, how he is role playing his character - necessarily
take on an aspect of dementia; that is, his character is likely to blithely
do things that he has no rational chance at accomplishing, because he does
not have the ability to do so in the GMs estimation. This may not happen as
often when the GM has a truly deep understanding of the character, and is
willing to let the players argue for their case. Still, it is an uncertain
situation.
It does improve if we decide that asking the GM if you can do this-or-that,
or how much better you are at such-and-such than your neighbor you are, is
not a mechanic. In that case, it is possible to have a prosporous
roleplaying game with no mechanics. However, as someone who has been in and
run several such games, in standard and somewhat "experimental" genres, a
common problem I encounter is player frustration over having no objective
measure. GMs are only human, and we all know this. In the examples of
these sorts of games in which I have been involved, it has been an article
of faith that the estimations of ability provided by the GM were rough at
best, and - without a GM who holds unnaturally profound respect with his
players - I can't see how any group would think otherwise. In instances
where the players were truly concerned, in a personal fashion, with the
outcome of a certain situation (as happens in what I consider to be good
games), the seeming arbitrariness of the GMs fiats can be rankling. I have
seen this produce many long winded arguments over what should or would
happen. Ruling out these arguments would only make the game even more
one-sided, however. Someone more broad minded than myself might actually
propose that the argumentation itself is the mechanic for determing player
character capability :) but I won't. I have a hard time calling RPS a
mechanic. :) In any case, while a game that does not consider getting
appraisals from the GM a mechanic could certainly fulfill your criteria,
such games are, in my experience, very troublesome (but not unrewarding - to
date, one of the games which my group remembers most fondly is just such a
game... however, they have also stated they never, never want to do it
again. They remember it fondly for the plot and circumstances which
unfolded, IN SPITE of the "rulesless" nature of the game, not BECAUSE of
it).
Anyway, I hope I have addressed the points you were interested in. I would
appreciate it if, in the future, you could return the same courtesy. And,
for the record, a declaration of "wrong" or "irrelevant" is /not/
"addressing" a point. To produce a conclusion with no supporting arguments
is very poor indeed; you would have flunked Argumentation that way.
Granted, I understand that rhetorical criticism is a skill, and that while I
could not design an AC cricuit to save my life (or even recognize one if I
saw it, I wager), I similarly recognize that many people, who have no
serious grounding in philosophy or the humanities, are not polished
debaters. To be clear about my intentions, when I put forth something in a
post, I intend for it to be questioned, refuted, or analyzed. I learn more
about the structure of my own ideas when that happens. But for someone to
simply tell me it's wrong is about as useful as someone pointing out the sky
is blue (or teal, at that). Nothing has been established in so doing,
except that our opinions differ. And, without definition of terms, even
that hasn't been established (we may only /think/ our opinions differ, when
in reality it is out method of defining certain key aspects that differ). A
pointer - try to separate the argument or opinion into fundamental
assertations, and dissect each one individually. There are some wonderful
books on the subject I can recommend, too, if you like.
Anyway, have a happy holiday season! Not just you, but everyone on the
list! Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Yule, Solstice, Christmas... whatever! Be well,
love you all!
Angela
Fiat nix, fiat nix, fiat nix
Justin Bacon
<glei...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>But when you get into flame mode, your brain
>> cells seem to start dying off.
>
>I have no doubt this is true in your opinion. But this line only proves the
>point I made to Angela. For example you were right in there with me when I
>was arguing with RSC, but since my post was critical of you- I have brain
>cells dying off. Agree with Justin- Good Guy (or at least "not stupid").
>Disagree with Justin- Idiot.
It doesn't really matter who you decided to flame without provocation, cause,
or accuracy, Brian. I find people who flame without provocation, cause, or
accuracy to be behaving in a fairly stupid manner.
You can disagree with me (for example, by claiming that people who flame
without provocation, cause, or accuracy are actually nascent geniuses) -- but
this has absolutely nothing to do with you disagreeing with me. It has to do
with you *flaming* me.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
<glei...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> All of this is irrelevant, Angela. You claimed I needed mechanics to
roleplay a
>> character who has more engineering knowledge than myself. This is clearly
>> untrue. It has been proven to be untrue.
>
>Actually, I don't remember her making that claim.
Then you should try reading the thread before flaming me.
On 12/09 she wrote: "That's why I think it is possible to design board games
that are diceless, but not roleplaying games."
On 12/09 she wrote: "In any game in which the players aren't playing just
themselves, you need mechanics."
On 12/11 she wrote: " If I am in a roleplaying game, and because of the lack of
mechanics, I can't play a character whose skills I cannot personally back up
(which begs the question of whether it is a ROLE playing game, at that point)"
On 12/11 she wrote: "Maybe it's personal preference, but it does violate at
least ONE crucial element of rpgs, and certainly undercuts a lot of others"
On 12/15 she wrote: "I'm not sure if there is ANY way I can personally roleplay
a character with, say, high Engineering skills without some sort of mechanical
crutch - I AM NOT AN ENGINEER!"
On 12/15 she wrote: " In order for me to even have a clear idea of what I
can do, and how effectively I can do it, when playing a character like, say,
and engineer, whose realm of knowledge is pretty far outside of mine, I need
some sort of mechnical system to show me what I can accomplish reliably, and
what I can accomplish potentially."
You'll also note that the message in which I said, "Sounds like a crutch", I
also included an entire paragraph explaining what I *meant* be "Sounds like a
crutch". Thus when Angela flamed me at length because (12/21): ""Sounds like a
crutch" doesn't communicate a lot of information", she was, in fact, being
entirely innaccurate and unfair.
When you supported her flame by saying (12/22) "Justin does that", you were, in
fact, showing your ignorance of the thread. Just as your failure to recognize
her standing position and previous statements within this thread showed your
ignorance of the thread.
In the future, Brian, I would suggest getting just a little bit informed before
you decide to needlessly, thoughtlessly, and inaccurately attack someone.
Particularly me, who you *know* will go straight to Deja and check out the
actual history of the thread.
>Rather than offer a nice explanation of mechanic-less play, you accuse her
>of needing crutches
This is a blatant lie. I offered an explanation of mechanic-less play. I
offered an example of mechanic-less play. I noted that mechanics are a crutch,
and I defined crutch.
> (as in she is lame and partially dysfunctional)
Another blatant lie. Hell, even Angela didn't take it that way: "I'm not sure
if there is ANY way I can personally roleplay a character [...] without some
sort of mechanical crutch..."
I expect better from you Bryan. I really do. I also expect an apology.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Brian Gleichman
So Justin attempts to produce quotes indicating that Angela said that Justin
Bacon could not run an engineer without mechanics. Not that she could not,
not that she thinks others could not, but that Justin Bacon for a *fact*
cannot.
> On 12/09 she wrote: "That's why I think it is possible to design board
games
> that are diceless, but not roleplaying games."
> On 12/09 she wrote: "In any game in which the players aren't playing just
> themselves, you need mechanics."
Nice split you did here. Making it look like two posts in order to generate
the illusion of multiple statements backing your claims.
Let's do the full paragraph so we can judge it in context.
>> Yeah, I like Diplomacy, but in Diplomacy, you are playing against the
other
>> PLAYERS. When I play Dip., I am figuring out my next move not on what I
think
>> Chris will do in an attempt to act like Russia, but what Chris will do as
Chris.
>>I have to react to Chris' personality and strategic skills. In any game
in which the
>> players aren't playing just themselves, you need mechanics. How else
could I
>> play a master strategist (I'm certainly not, or even a good one), etc?
That's
>> why I think it is possible to design board games that are diceless, but
not roleplaying
>> games.
Notice the words "I think" as she reaches her concluding sentence. She was
speaking for her own thoughts and opinions while providing the mindset
behind it. You attempting to take her backing history as her conclusion.
> On 12/11 she wrote: " If I am in a roleplaying game, and because of the
lack of
> mechanics, I can't play a character whose skills I cannot personally back
up
> (which begs the question of whether it is a ROLE playing game, at that
point)"
> On 12/11 she wrote: "Maybe it's personal preference, but it does violate
at
> least ONE crucial element of rpgs, and certainly undercuts a lot of
others"
Again the neat trick of breaking up one paragraph in a single post to give
the illusion you wish.
Let's redo the whole paragraph again shall we?
> Yeah, I like Diplomacy... as a board game. As a roleplaying game, it
ISN'T. And it's
> precisely BECAUSE it glosses over "*huge* amounts of chaotic
possibilities." That's
> sort of my point. If I am in a roleplaying game, and because of the lack
of mechanics,
> I can't play a character whose skills I cannot personally back up (which
begs the
> question of whether it is a ROLE playing game, at that point), and I
certain things
> always turn out the same way, with very little variation in the results
(as in Diplomacy),
> then I don't really think that's much of a game. Maybe it's personal
preference, but it
> does violate at least ONE crucial element of rpgs, and certainly undercuts
a lot of
> others (simulationism, for instance, which is an element of rpgs by
necessity, even to
> those who place it near the bottom on their list of game-priorities).
Again note the use of the word "I" thoughout. For her, a mechanic-less
system is not a role-playing game. She did not say it was not a role-playing
game for Justin Bacon.
She is explaining why she has problems with the concept- not claiming *you*
have problems with the concept.
> On 12/15 she wrote: "I'm not sure if there is ANY way I can personally
roleplay
> a character with, say, high Engineering skills without some sort of
mechanical
> crutch - I AM NOT AN ENGINEER!"
Please note: "I can personally roleplay". Once again, nothing here about the
vast abilities of Justin Bacon.
> On 12/15 she wrote: " In order for me to even have a clear idea of what I
> can do, and how effectively I can do it, when playing a character like,
say,
> and engineer, whose realm of knowledge is pretty far outside of mine, I
need
> some sort of mechnical system to show me what I can accomplish reliably,
and
> what I can accomplish potentially."
Please note the use of the words "I" and "me" thoughout. Please not the lack
of "everyone", "no one" or "Justin Bacon".
> You'll also note that the message in which I said, "Sounds like a crutch",
I
> also included an entire paragraph explaining what I *meant* be "Sounds
like a
> crutch".
Yes, I took offense at that as well. The word 'crutch' is negative pure and
simple. You'd have the same reaction if someone came here and called rpgs
delusional.
> Thus when Angela flamed me at length because (12/21): ""Sounds like a
> crutch" doesn't communicate a lot of information", she was, in fact, being
> entirely innaccurate and unfair.
Please.
Here is what you said:
>> Sounds like a crutch.
>> Crutches are very useful, of course. But millions of people walk without
them -- so
>> I'm not going too far out on a limb in saying that they are not an
essential part of the
>> process.
Let's say I said that rpg games are delusional, but millions of people think
while delusional, etc. Would you have taken that as anything but a flame on
your hobby?
Why in the world would you think any would take the word 'crutch' as
anything but a flame?
> When you supported her flame by saying (12/22) "Justin does that", you
were, in
> fact, showing your ignorance of the thread. Just as your failure to
recognize
> her standing position and previous statements within this thread showed
your
> ignorance of the thread.
Did I now?
Again, where in all the quotes of above did she say the Justin Bacon could
not run a engineer without mechanics? Who is ignorant of what thread?
> >Rather than offer a nice explanation of mechanic-less play, you accuse
her
> >of needing crutches
>
> This is a blatant lie. I offered an explanation of mechanic-less play. I
> offered an example of mechanic-less play. I noted that mechanics are a
crutch,
> and I defined crutch.
I said a nice explanation. Instead you did said this:
>> Sure there is. Watch:
>>
>> "I fix the nuclear power plant."
>>
>> Now -- trust me on this -- I don't know the first thing about actually
>> fixing a nuclear power plant. And yet, somehow, without ever using one
single
>> mechanic, I just roleplayed a character who fixed a nuclear power plant!
>>
> >Astounding!
That explained nothing. And the Astounding on the end was completely
condescending.
And lets put this in perceptive.
In answer to her question: "How else could I play a master strategist (I'm
certainly not, or even a good one), etc?" you said:
>>And the answer is: You don't.
Nothing more. Just "You don't"
How is anyone supposed to make sense of "Just say you do" and "You don't"?
Is that what you call an explanation?
I know what you are talking about. I've played mechanic-less, I've read
hundreds of post from those who still do. She has not. And she wouldn't have
a clue what in the world you are saying.
Simply condescending throughout. The debate is old to you and so you
belittle those who have never seen it before with one sentence burbs that
sound like they came from the guru from the Wizard of Id strip.
> > (as in she is lame and partially dysfunctional)
>
> Another blatant lie. Hell, even Angela didn't take it that way: "I'm not
sure
> if there is ANY way I can personally roleplay a character [...] without
some
> sort of mechanical crutch..."
Oh please. You just said above that she flamed you for that crutch crack.
I'd say Angela took it badly.
And let's remember this line of yours:
>>Hell, I'd argue that your mechanical crutch style of play takes the
roleplaying out of
>>the game"
> I expect better from you Bryan. I really do.
You do no such thing. If you did you'd ask how I could come to believe as I
do instead of saying my brain cells are dying off.
Moreover I well remember your statements to me in August of 98. Pity deja
doesn't go that far back anymore.
You don't expect 'better' from me. You're only out of my killfile due to the
fact that it got wiped a while back. Silly me, I forgot to re-add you since
you weren't posting in r.g.f.a at the time.
> I also expect an apology.
For what exactly?
For saying that Angela never said that Justin Bacon couldn't play
mechanic-less? I can't apologize for that until you produce a quote showing
that she did say such a thing. Maybe it exists. I've been know to make
errors. If so, you will have my apology immediately.
Perhaps for you believing that she said such a thing? Sorry, that's your
chip on your own shoulder. Understandable in a way, but still your problem.
Most likely you like an apology for saying that you tend to go off on people
that disagree with you. Actually I'd like to as I wish it wasn't true.
Perhaps you can make it not true in the future. Perhaps you'll be the first
person to be reclaimed from my killfile. You might be the one to prove that
people deserve second and third chances.
Can I get an apology for the two 'crutch statements', which I can only take
as slams against any player who uses formal mechanics (including myself)?
Can I get an apology for the 'dying brain cells' and other 'you're an idiot'
comments you've made to me since I've entered this thread? Can I get a
apology for the things you said in 98 that (together with watching you on
rpg.net) led to my current opinion of you? Further, can Angela get an
apology for the condescending tone that you took with her as noted above
(assuming she wishes one, she's actually rather laid back. You can check by
email)?
I'd love a peaceful and friendly ending to this. I'd love it to be no more
than just a case of tempers flaring during the holidays and old pass
mis-understandings. I'd love to be on speaking terms with you.
Can you help make that true?
If so, I can certainly apologize for letting old history cloud current
events.
Brian Gleichman
Let me try to answer some of these for you as I'm uncertain at this point if
you're going to get a good response anywhere else.
I played mechanic-less for a year or two before DO&DO came into existence
and I found better ways to do things. In the pass we've had mechanic-less
players come through here who could do a better job than I at giving you a
good explanation. Right now they seem to be in short supply although we have
losts of mechanics-light people.
> * why are "being able to make a reasonable estimation of my chances of
being
> able to fix the reactor, or how long it might take, or whether I should
call
> more qualified help, or how good a nuclear reactor fixxer upper I am in
> comparison to others" irrelevant to roleplaying my character?
In the same way that one would reach the result in a novel, movie or TV
show. The people writing or acting in those don't have mechanical methods to
determine if Scotty can fix the Warp Drive in time, they simple decide if
Scotty should fix the Warp Drive in time.
A decision completely unrelated to mechanics. Instead it is related to how
one views the events and character in question.
> *corollary to that, what is relevant to roleplaying my character; i.e.,
what
> defines roleplaying my character well, by your paradigm?
That one is specific to Justin, but I try to answer it in general (which
means that I really only answer it in relation to styles that I know of, but
that's assumed).
In general, what you or I would consider success/failure points (i.e.
resolution points) don't happen in mechanic-less play. It isn't really
important that Scotty fixes the Warp Drive in time, rather the important
point is if Scotty fixes the Warp Drive or the Photon Torpedoes Tubes.
Viewed simply, it is not the resolution of the action that matters in
mechanic-less role-playing, it's which of the possible actions that you
chose. This of course leaves aside the question of portraying your
character, which is often confused with role-playing your character.
Most mechanic-less systems do relate the skill of the characters to 'world
values'. We know for example that Scotty is one of the best engineers in
Starfleet. If he can't do it, it likely can't be done. But that is simple
knowledge about the character, unrelated to any mechanical value.
> *how does your paradigm distinguish "roleplaying" in the sense of what we
do
> as a hobby from "playing a role" in the sense of what actor do in plays,
or
> even "role playing" in the sense of the psychotherpeutic exercise? Are
> there any distinctions? This may be a lot of the point of your thesis I
am
> missing right here.
The answer to that one depends entirely upon who it is directed to. Some
would claim there is no difference, others (most I would think) would claim
there is a lot- but would then disagree was to what exactly where the
differences.
> *what defines a mechanic for you? This may also clear up a bit.
The general answer to this is in the FAQ as I recall.
My own definition: Basically any formal system that would produce
predictable results when used by anyone capable of following said system.
> *corollary to that, what is the function of a mechanic, in the game?
> Clearly it is not a function that relates to roleplaying, or at least, not
> one that is essential to it, by your paradigm.
I think few would say that mechanics are the method by which one role-plays.
IMO, role-playing is in deciding which actions to take, not in the success
or failure thereof.
Rather mechanics are an abstracted model the provides a simpler replacement
for information that one would use in real life to determine what actions to
take, and the method for determine the success and failure of those actions.
Consistency of resolution is a very important aspect of mechanics for it is
due to consistency that one can reasonable expect to make rational choices
for their character.
> The thrust of my whole propsition, to put it slightly another way than
> previously, was that to remove the mechanics from roleplaying (in essence,
> to turn it into some declarations) removes the gamist element completely,
> thus subverting an important part of the concept of the "role playing
game."
There have been a large number of flame heavy debates on if a mechanic-less
system can be a role-playing game. You might check dejanews for references.
I certainly agree that it can be role-playing. But I don't really see any
place for game theory as it is commonly thought of. One instead must go into
game theory as it applies to real world events which is IMO outside the
realm of rpgs as they should be defined.
> Without the use of an objective mechanic, like rules and skills levels and
> what, or a subjective mechanic, such as the GM providing information and
> estimation of chances of success, how do we address the following -
Actually mechanic-less play allows subjective estimation. It just doesn't
follow any formal and visible rules.
> *player knowledge of his character's abilities relative to the rest of the
> characters and game world
Stated in any way the player wishes and viewed in any way the GM desires.
> *informed player choice within the game
Generally informed choice comes from understanding the GM on a personal
level.
Will the GM rule in your favor if your decision makes a good story? If you
present a good argument that it would happen that way?, If you 'act' the
part well and provide an excellent image? If your action is in keeping with
the genre?
Different GMs will rule differently and you have to be able to read the GM
in question. Only then can you understand the information provided you and
make informed choices.
> *do they need to be addressed at all?
In some mechanic-less campaigns they don't. The players may have complete
control over their own success and failure and even the environment. The GM
is required to flow with them as much as they are with him.
The point of such games is to never disagree, but to continue on with the
events assuming what has happened before did in fact happen.
Shani & Levi
Good vocabulary as well.
I rate the Angela's post with a 91%
(4 % removed for lack of newsgroup information; not your fault)
(4 % removed because you're responding this well to someone who has not
shown the desire to overcome technical quibbles of speech in order to
communicate).
(1% removed for using big words when little word would have served)
(Snippity snip.)
> You say that mechanics aren't necessary
> to play a character who has more engineering knowledge than myself, and it
> has been proven.
S'true.
You actually could just say "I fix the reactor, if I can", and similar
statements, and that's it.
Not my preffered style, but you could do that.
> * why are "being able to make a reasonable estimation of my chances of
being
> able to fix the reactor, or how long it might take, or whether I should
call
> more qualified help, or how good a nuclear reactor fixxer upper I am in
> comparison to others" irrelevant to roleplaying my character?
Depends how necessary this information is to you getting into character.
I, for one, couldn't get into a character without reasonably being able to
estimate their capabilities.
Others can, or at least say that they can.
>I have a hard time calling RPS a mechanic. :)
Hey! I take exception!
I like RPS.......
> To be clear about my intentions, when I put forth something in a
> post, I intend for it to be questioned, refuted, or analyzed.
....Rated?
> Anyway, have a happy holiday season! Not just you, but everyone on the
> list! Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Yule, Solstice, Christmas... whatever! Be well,
> love you all!
Blink. Blink.
Nonsexual, pointless giving of Love on usenet.
I'll swear this didn't happen tommorow.
That being the case...
Yeah!
You Too!
Merry Happymas!
--Levi
Alain Lapalme
> Maybe we are talking past each other, as I consider "GM decides" to be
> a game mechanic.
Which makes the term "mechanics" to be meaningless
Alain
Alain Lapalme
The following is mostly in response to Angela. Since I'm jumping in the middle
here, and that I haven't really discussed these things formally for a few years
and that I'm rusty at having net discussions, you'll have to forgive me if I
repeat things that have already been said or am totally missing the point.
Anyways, here goes...
Shani & Levi wrote:
> Angela:
> > You say that mechanics aren't necessary
> > to play a character who has more engineering knowledge than myself, and it
> > has been proven.
>
> S'true.
> You actually could just say "I fix the reactor, if I can", and similar
> statements, and that's it.
> Not my preffered style, but you could do that.
I prefer low to zippo mechanics and there's no way I would want to play in a
game where the above is the standard way of resolving actions.
>
> > * why are "being able to make a reasonable estimation of my chances of
> being
> > able to fix the reactor, or how long it might take, or whether I should
> call
> > more qualified help, or how good a nuclear reactor fixxer upper I am in
> > comparison to others" irrelevant to roleplaying my character?
Maybe to some. Being able to make a reasonable estimation of your chance of
success is, in my view, part of roleplaying your character. However, a
reasonable estimation of your chance of success does not mean that you have a
precise estimation. The way I've approach mechanicless play is to look at it as
if it is real life. In real life, no one really knows what their chance of
fixing the reactor is. One has an idea (impossible, unlikely, maybe, likely,
very likely, I'm the expert) but for any particular situation, one does not know
for any particular situation. So, say that your character has been defined as a
well trained nuclear reactor trained technician (what I mean by that is that
your character sheet simply says: "Well trained trained nuclear reactor
technician and 5 years experience working at X as such."). As a player you know
nothing about reactors, but you have an idea that you character is competent,
but probably not an expert. That should give you enough information to decide
whether or not you have a chance at fixing the problem (whatever the problem
is).
The above does not tell you exactly how the GM is going to decide. He/she may
have already decided that the problem is simple and that any competent tech fix
the problem so, in that case, you succeed. If the GM is any good, the
description you get back should tell you that not only did you succeed but that
it was a very simple fix. On the other hand, the situation, as setup by the GM,
requires arcane knowledge about that particular reactor, knowledge that your
character does not have. In this case, the GM can provide a variety of
responses:
1- "Well, you spend an hour looking at the dials, trying a few things, but
nothing seems to work. Seems that things are getting worse." In this case, the
GM has decided that your character is at a lost.
2- "Well, you spend an hour looking at the dials, trying a few things. After
a while, many of the warning lights are no longer blinking. You're not sure,
but you think you've licked the problem." In this case, the GM is telling the
player that his character thinks he has the situation in hand when in reality,
his lack of knowledge about this particular reactor has led him to a false
conclusion.
3- "Well, you spend a few minutes and you realize that, while this reactor is
one you should be able to handle, there has been a few modifications made and,
since you don't know what those are, it would be folly to try to fix it." In
this case, the GM has decided that your character is competent enough to
recognize that this reactor is beyond your character's ken.
The list of possible GM responses goes on and on. Each one draws on the
character's stated abilities without requiring actual domain knowledge on either
the GM or the player's part and, also, does not require that the character's
skill be clearly and precisely defined.
Alain
Justin Bacon
<glei...@mindspring.com> writes:
>So Justin attempts to produce quotes indicating that Angela said that Justin
>Bacon could not run an engineer without mechanics. Not that she could not,
>not that she thinks others could not, but that Justin Bacon for a *fact*
>cannot.
On 12/09 she wrote: "In any game in which the players aren't playing just
themselves, you need mechanics."
I am not an engineer.
End of argument, Brian.
I'm still waiting for my apology.
>>> Crutches are very useful, of course. But millions of people walk without
>>>them -- so I'm not going too far out on a limb in saying that they are not
an
>>>essential part of the process.
>
>Let's say I said that rpg games are delusional, but millions of people think
>while delusional, etc.
Then I would say: "Wow, that's a pretty lousy analogy."
How about: "Being delusional can be useful, of course. But millions of people
think without being delusional -- so I'm not going too far out on a limb in
saying that it is not an essential part of the process."
But, of course, crutches actually *are* a useful tool -- whereas being
delusional doesn't actually have any really decent upsides. So it's still a
sucky analogy. But at least it's a functional one -- unlike yours.
>> When you supported her flame by saying (12/22) "Justin does that", you
>> were, in fact, showing your ignorance of the thread. Just as your failure
to
>> recognize her standing position and previous statements within this thread
>> showed your ignorance of the thread.
>
>Did I now?
Yup. As I noted, if you had been following the thread then you would have known
that there was far more information conveyed than just "sounds like a crutch".
Her characterization was inaccurate. Your support of it ignorant.
>Again, where in all the quotes of above did she say the Justin Bacon could
>not run a engineer without mechanics? Who is ignorant of what thread?
Absolutely zero relevance to whether or not "sounds like a crutch" was the
extent of my message's content.
>I know what you are talking about. I've played mechanic-less, I've read
>hundreds of post from those who still do. She has not. And she wouldn't have
>a clue what in the world you are saying.
You say she has not. And yet, by the content of her replies, she has. Looks
like you're simply wrong once again, Brian.
>> Another blatant lie. Hell, even Angela didn't take it that way: "I'm not
sure
>> if there is ANY way I can personally roleplay a character [...] without some
>> sort of mechanical crutch..."
>
>Oh please. You just said above that she flamed you for that crutch crack.
>I'd say Angela took it badly.
And you'd be wrong. You'll note, once again, that she said she couldn't imagine
playing *without* mechanical crutches.
>> I expect better from you Bryan. I really do.
>
>You do no such thing. If you did you'd ask how I could come to believe as I
>do instead of saying my brain cells are dying off.
No. I if I didn't, I wouldn't presume there were brain cells there *to* die
off.
>> I also expect an apology.
>
>For what exactly?
For lying and flaming. You've been caught, hypocritically, in both.
Unsurprisingly, you're unwilling to admit your own mistakes and let this one
go. You'd rather embarass yourself in front of the entire newsgroup.
>Can I get an apology for the two 'crutch statements', which I can only take
>as slams against any player who uses formal mechanics (including myself)?
Sure. You took it badly, and I apologize for the misconception and any
inadvertent insult you may have received as a result.
Mechanics in a roleplaying game replace something that we are capable of doing
without them -- just as a crutch replaces a healthy leg. Now, if the mechanic
is capable of performing better than we would under normal circumstances -- if
the crutch is capable of letting you walk better than your healthy leg -- then
there's probably even a good argument for using the crutch all the time.
(Unless you're playing an R. Talsorian game -- in which case the cybernetic
crutch will most likely drive you insane.)
Mechanics are tools.
>Can I get an apology for the 'dying brain cells' and other 'you're an idiot'
>comments you've made to me since I've entered this thread?
No. You attacked me without provocation. You lied. (Case in point, I never
called you an idiot during the course of this thread.) I consider these stupid
activities. And I have labelled them as such.
Nor have I said "you're stupid". In fact, I have said the exact *opposite* of
that.
>Can I get a
>apology for the things you said in 98 that (together with watching you on
>rpg.net) led to my current opinion of you?
I don't recall either of these offhand, and my earliest archives only go back
to Xmas of last year. It is, however, possible that I owe you an apology for
these things.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Brian Gleichman
> End of argument, Brian.
Indeed.
Ego and Pride define you. You cannot see another person's viewpoint if your
life depended upon it.
This is the last you'll hear from me. Back into the killfile for you.
Justin Bacon
<glei...@mindspring.com> writes:
>This is the last you'll hear from me. Back into the killfile for you.
Thankfully I don't rely on them to do my thinking for me, otherwise you'd be in
mine. Anyone who can hypocritically attempt to get up on a high horse by lying
about and flaming someone is below contempt.
>Ego and Pride define you. You cannot see another person's viewpoint if your
>life depended upon it.
Yet another lie. How low can you go, exactly?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com