Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

FAQ and Glossary

17 views
Skip to first unread message

A Lapalme

unread,
Aug 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/20/95
to
Glossary of Terms used on Rec.games.frp.advocacy

**********************

Following is my first crack at a glossary and FAQ. You will notice that
it is far from complete. I decided to post for two reasons:
1.- the list will never be complete
2.- I need feedback

In my definition of terms, I have decided to provide as many of the
common definitions I could remember. My purpose is not to provide a
definitive definition (a waste of time in my opinion) but to provide a
series of definition which have been promoted here, at one time or
another. Naturally, I would like to kn but
usually considered to be a seperate term) - what makes a character
tick, react; who that character is; often linked to potential game
conflict and drama

CHARACTER MOTIVATION - issues, concerns and goals which matter to
a character and which can be used by both GM and player to create RPG
plots - this may or may not lead to conflicts

upcoming terms : railroad, the four stances of play

****************************************************************
DICHOTOMIES

DICED - DICELESS

DICELESS- games in which dice are _not_ used, at all.

DICED - games in which dice are used. This includes games where
diced are use infrequently to games where dice are used on an on-
going basis.

*****************
MECHANICS - DESCRIPTIVE based games
m-b --> mechanics based games - games in which mechanics are used
( such as quantified attributes, skills, etc) to describe characters.

d-b --> description based games - games in which prose (ie words) are
used to describe characters

******************
PLOT - WORLD or
DRAMATIST - SIMULATIONIST or
STORY - WORLD

plot based (dramatist, story)-- games where plot/drama
considerations are given prominence

world based(simulationist) -- games where the simulation of the
setting is given prominence

The above definitions are simplistic and really do not capture the
heart of the matter. There are many schools of thought on this issue,
based on how and when GMs make their decisions. Namely:
1) during world creation - whether or not dramatic/plot
considerations will prevail during the world creation process - ie, is
the world created for the characters to interact in or is the world
created and then characters are created to interact with the world;

2) during play - if a GM has to make a decision, will the
decision be based on whether drama is enhanced or the simulation is
maintained (note that a decision could accomplish both);

3) integrity of the setting - whether a GM decision will
enhance drama/plot at the expense of the setting or vice versa (note
that many consider this aspect a different issue altogether (see
Natural vs Directed)).


NOTE: dramatic <> plot based for some people
world <> simulation for some people
story = plot based or
story <> plot based

*************

upcoming dichotomies
natural vs directed (once I understand some of it)
natural vs romantic

****************************************************************

Note: I would suggest that, if you wish to discuss some of the above
publicly, to create a new thread. I would rather that the FAQ not
generate subsequent post. All that will do is serve to confuse people.

Thanks

Alain

Carl D. Cravens

unread,
Aug 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/20/95
to
On Sun, 20 Aug 1995 11:53:11 GMT, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
>DICELESS- games in which dice are _not_ used, at all.
>
>DICED - games in which dice are used. This includes games where
>diced are use infrequently to games where dice are used on an on-
>going basis.

I believe, according to discussion I seem to recall, that "diced games"
would be better defined as games in which _randomizers_ are used,
whether they be dice, a deck of cards, etc. The importance not being
the dice, but whether or not the GM inserts randomness into his
decisions.

As well, I think it is important to define "diceless games" as being
more than just "diced games with the dice removed"... because a whole
new system of action resolution needs to be introduced, even though it's
all GM's decision. (And one could created a non-"diceless" game that
didn't use randomizers, but still resembled diced games with no dice...
if your skill is higher than his skill, you win. Your weapon does X
damage, subtracting his Y value armor, doing Z wounds. Or one could
assign a certain number of "action points" to the character that allow
him to modify the "always certain" results of a non-random system. All
the features of heavy-mechanics systems without using a randomizer...
but this kind of system would probably not fit well the "diceless"
paradigm presented in published diceless systems. Similar, but I think
there's a subtle difference.)

--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net)
* Gimme another clip--we're gonna change lanes!

A Lapalme

unread,
Aug 21, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/21/95
to
Let's be careful now....

Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net) writes:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 1995 11:53:11 GMT, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
>>DICELESS- games in which dice are _not_ used, at all.
>>
>>DICED - games in which dice are used. This includes games where
>>diced are use infrequently to games where dice are used on an on-
>>going basis.
>
> I believe, according to discussion I seem to recall, that "diced games"
> would be better defined as games in which _randomizers_ are used,
> whether they be dice, a deck of cards, etc. The importance not being
> the dice, but whether or not the GM inserts randomness into his
> decisions.
>

You're right. I slipped.


> As well, I think it is important to define "diceless games" as being
> more than just "diced games with the dice removed"... because a whole
> new system of action resolution needs to be introduced, even though it's
> all GM's decision. (And one could created a non-"diceless" game that
> didn't use randomizers, but still resembled diced games with no dice...
> if your skill is higher than his skill, you win. Your weapon does X
> damage, subtracting his Y value armor, doing Z wounds. Or one could
> assign a certain number of "action points" to the character that allow
> him to modify the "always certain" results of a non-random system. All
> the features of heavy-mechanics systems without using a randomizer...
> but this kind of system would probably not fit well the "diceless"
> paradigm presented in published diceless systems. Similar, but I think
> there's a subtle difference.)
>

Hmm... yes I do recall this too. Note that any definitions will not be
able to handle the full spectrum or implication of a style. These
definitions are a starting point so that people are talking from the same
base. From there, we can discuss variations within a style.

Does that help?

Alain

Carl D. Cravens

unread,
Aug 21, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/21/95
to
On Mon, 21 Aug 1995 13:16:27 GMT, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
>Hmm... yes I do recall this too. Note that any definitions will not be
>able to handle the full spectrum or implication of a style. These
>definitions are a starting point so that people are talking from the same
>base. From there, we can discuss variations within a style.

Sure... these are slippery things, trying to define the "diceless
paradigm" as more than "games without dice." Just thought the
definition (or disclaimers somewhere) needed to acknowledge this.

--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net)
* Why get even, when you can get odd?

David Dunham

unread,
Aug 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/24/95
to
In article <DDLyC...@freenet.carleton.ca>, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A
Lapalme) wrote:

> plot based (dramatist, story)-- games where plot/drama
> considerations are given prominence
>
> world based(simulationist) -- games where the simulation of the
> setting is given prominence
>
> The above definitions are simplistic and really do not capture the
> heart of the matter

That's because this isn't a dichotomy. I think Glenn Blacow's 4-fold way
[Different Worlds 10] is more accurate here:

Power Gaming
Roleplaying
Wargaming
Story Telling

In the first two, neither story nor world are important (both may be
important for roleplaying, but not necessarily). Wargaming is
simulationist (though the reverse is not necessarily true).

David Dunham Pensee Corporation dun...@nw.pensee.com
Voice/Fax 206 783 7404 http://www.pensee.com/dunham/
"I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want."
"What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams

John Morrow

unread,
Aug 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/24/95
to
rave...@southwind.net (Carl D. Cravens) writes:
>On Sun, 20 Aug 1995 11:53:11 GMT, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
>>DICELESS- games in which dice are _not_ used, at all.
>>
>>DICED - games in which dice are used. This includes games where
>>diced are use infrequently to games where dice are used on an on-
>>going basis.

>I believe, according to discussion I seem to recall, that "diced games"
>would be better defined as games in which _randomizers_ are used,
>whether they be dice, a deck of cards, etc. The importance not being
>the dice, but whether or not the GM inserts randomness into his
>decisions.

Not to pick on you, in particular, but I think this is a large part of
the "jargon" problem. There are a lot of good *general* terms that
just don't perfectly cover every single instance of what is being
talked about (for example, "diced" and "diceless"). So, instead of
using the imperfect general term that most people will understand
right away, people go off on a quest for something that fits perfectly
but has an extra four sylables and requires a dictionary to
understand. I think people should take a good look at a lot of the
terms that were used for quite some time and that are widely
understood and ask if they really need to be tossed out.

There is some need for the creation of new terminology when new
concepts are addressed. But "diced" and "diceless" have worked for
quite some time and are understood by most. Similarly, long before
all the talk of "plot-based", "world-based", "simulation", and "drama"
we had "cinematic" games and "realistic" or "gritty" games and GMs
either fudged to keep players alive and make certain things happen or
they didn't and protecting players was often called "player
priviledge" or "player immunity" or some such. It meant pretty much
the same thing and people didn't need a FAQ to understand it.

I can't help but thinking that some of the nit-picking is due to
people not liking the connotations of certain terms when applied to
their games. For instance, the term "railroading" seems to raise
cries of protest, even when properly applied. A "railroad" consists
of a train running on fixed tracks. It is the tracks that makes it a
train. If a game has a relatively small number of fixed specific
outcomes, it resembles a "railroad" in that the players are confined
by fixed tracks. It might help to point out that Ken Rolston
cheerfully refered to many of his games as "greased rail adventures"
(a "one track, one speed" railroad). Some players *don't mind*. But
don't advertize as a car rental agency and then put people on a train
and claim its a rental car. Stick to the people who want a train.

Finally, I'd like to suggest abolishing the suffix-like "-based" for
all terminology. In every example where it has been used, it only
seems to cause confusion because the word stuck in front of it is
rarely suitable or meaningful. It seems like otherwise intelligent
people's brains just turn right off once they start thinking in terms
of "-based". :-)

If you are going to pick on a particular part of this muck-raking
article, please change the subject appropriately. :-)

John Morrow

A Lapalme

unread,
Aug 25, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/25/95
to
David Dunham (dun...@nw.pensee.com) writes:
> In article <DDLyC...@freenet.carleton.ca>, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A
> Lapalme) wrote:
>
>> plot based (dramatist, story)-- games where plot/drama
>> considerations are given prominence
>>
>> world based(simulationist) -- games where the simulation of the
>> setting is given prominence
>>
>> The above definitions are simplistic and really do not capture the
>> heart of the matter
>
> That's because this isn't a dichotomy. I think Glenn Blacow's 4-fold way
> [Different Worlds 10] is more accurate here:
>
> Power Gaming
> Roleplaying
> Wargaming
> Story Telling

I see the above four as being different aspects of a game. I'm not clear
how they are helping here.

>
> In the first two, neither story nor world are important (both may be
> important for roleplaying, but not necessarily). Wargaming is
> simulationist (though the reverse is not necessarily true).
>

As a wargamer, I would not necessarily say that wargming in simulationist.
Some war games don't try to simulate anything.

Alain

A Lapalme

unread,
Aug 25, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/25/95
to
I'm not picking on anything :)

I tend to agree. I've been thinking today on how to update the FAQ and am
having two major problems:

1) what you say

2) continuously changing definitions which make it nearly
impossible to make the FAQ current.

My approach is going to be that, as I read posts and seem to see a
consensus emerging, I'll post the summary for that topic. Until this
happens, a topic will remain "open"

Comments?

Alain

David Dunham

unread,
Aug 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/26/95
to
In article <DDvDB...@freenet.carleton.ca>, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A
Lapalme) wrote:

> >> plot based (dramatist, story)-- games where plot/drama
> >> considerations are given prominence
> >>
> >> world based(simulationist) -- games where the simulation of the
> >> setting is given prominence
> >>
> >> The above definitions are simplistic and really do not capture the
> >> heart of the matter

> > That's because this isn't a dichotomy. I think Glenn Blacow's 4-fold way
> > [Different Worlds 10] is more accurate here:
> >
> > Power Gaming
> > Roleplaying
> > Wargaming
> > Story Telling

> I see the above four as being different aspects of a game. I'm not clear
> how they are helping here.

My point was, it's a tetrachotomy. Plot/world is not a valid dichotomy,
because there are game styles which are neither.

> > In the first two, neither story nor world are important (both may be
> > important for roleplaying, but not necessarily). Wargaming is
> > simulationist (though the reverse is not necessarily true).

> As a wargamer, I would not necessarily say that wargming in simulationist.
> Some war games don't try to simulate anything.

I'll accept this as true (tho I'm not sure I agree), but it's irrelevant
because we're not talking about playing wargames, we're talking about the
wargaming approach to roleplaying. A wargamer isn't interested in power
gaming (if you have infinite power, where's the challenge?), gets bored
with roleplayers ("stop telling us how you feel about this battle, let's
just fight!"), and can't understand story tellers ("Hey! We had the king
surrounded fair and sqaure! You can't just have Sir Lancelot gallop up and
rescue him just because you need him for a later scene!").

James

unread,
Aug 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/26/95
to
In article: <DDvyq...@freenet.carleton.ca> ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A
Lapalme) writes:
> My approach is going to be that, as I read posts and seem to see a
> consensus emerging, I'll post the summary for that topic. Until this
> happens, a topic will remain "open"
>
> Comments?
>
> Alain
>
Sounds good to me.--

-- James --


Bruce Baugh

unread,
Aug 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/27/95
to
In article <41jf3j$3...@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
mor...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) wrote:

:understand. I think people should take a good look at a lot of the


:terms that were used for quite some time and that are widely
:understood and ask if they really need to be tossed out.

Hearty, hearty agreement - almost always, the simpler term is the better one.
Ditto for the fuzzier term, as long as it's not _too_ fuzzy.

Judging from the reactions to David Dunham's recent post, I guess that a fair
number of posters aren't familiar with Glenn Blacow's Four-Fold Way of Gaming
(with later modifications from Wayne Shaw and others). I'll reiterate it.

According to the late Glenn, there are, broadly speaking, four motivations
among gamers. Most of us are a mix of one or more, though generally one is
strongest. The ways are...

- Roleplaying
- Storytelling
- Powergaming
- Wargaming

There is no necessary opposition between any of these; they vary
independently. Wayne proposed a fifth way...

- Sightseeing

The Fourfold Way was Much Discussed in THE WILD HUNT, ALARUMS AND EXCURSIONS,
and DIFFERENT WORLDS in the late '70s through mid '80s.


bruceab@teleport.com____________________http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab
List Manager, Christlib, where Christian & libertarian concerns hang out
Preview S.M. Stirling's novel DRAKON at my home page
"Encrypt! Encrypt! OK! All-One-Key-Steganography-Privacy!
God's law prevents decryption above 1042 bytes! Exceptions? None!"

Daniel Delaney

unread,
Aug 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/28/95
to

On Sun, 27 Aug 1995, Bruce Baugh wrote:

> Judging from the reactions to David Dunham's recent post, I guess that a fair
> number of posters aren't familiar with Glenn Blacow's Four-Fold Way of Gaming
> (with later modifications from Wayne Shaw and others). I'll reiterate it.
>
> According to the late Glenn, there are, broadly speaking, four motivations
> among gamers. Most of us are a mix of one or more, though generally one is
> strongest. The ways are...
>
> - Roleplaying
> - Storytelling
> - Powergaming
> - Wargaming
>
> There is no necessary opposition between any of these; they vary
> independently. Wayne proposed a fifth way...
>
> - Sightseeing
>

I would probably change two of the motivations to powermongering and
gaming. Those two (IMO) are actually somewhat opposed to each other.
The purpose of powermongering is to make your character unstoppable and
able to defeat whatever they face.

This is in opposition to the gamer (sounds like a tarot card) who wants
situations where such things as plans, tactics, or strategies are used to
overcome whatever situation they may face. Gamers want to work within the
rules (letter and spirit) and be challenged, otherwise they cannot show
any skill at games.

Powermongers (powegaming, like mil intel, is a contradiction in terms)
don't want challenge, they want to "rape the rules" (local term describing
using the letter to voilate the spirit of the rules) and (in their minds)
win, win, win! Though, in truth, you can't win (IMO) if you find a cheap
trick and use it to get whatever you want.

I would also add one other, socializing, to cover the people who are
there because they want to be with friends. This is there in most
players as it can be a determining factor in _what_ game to play. In the
DC area I could probably find games every day and a few on weekends. I
have to balance this with who I want to associate with and how much time
I can spend gaming.

Other than that, this is a good basis for describing player motivations
for games.

Dan
Delaney

Mary K. Kuhner

unread,
Aug 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/28/95
to
Daniel Delaney <ddel...@wam.umd.edu> writes:

>Powermongers (powegaming, like mil intel, is a contradiction in terms)
>don't want challenge, they want to "rape the rules" (local term describing
>using the letter to voilate the spirit of the rules) and (in their minds)
>win, win, win! Though, in truth, you can't win (IMO) if you find a cheap
>trick and use it to get whatever you want.

>Dan
>Delaney

You're describing the bad kind. There do exist reasonable
powergamers--players who are fascinated by competant, powerful
characters and the chance to exercise that power, but don't rape rules
or run roughshod over other players to do it. It's a perfectly
reasonable motivation for playing--often a central one in genres such as
heroic fantasy or superheroes. What is it like to be really powerful?
What could I do? The sense of competance is pleasurable, and so is
being able to solve really large problems with relative ease.

My husband has a good streak of this. "You don't have to make every
encounter challenging. Part of the enjoyment of this character is that
she *can* win many encounters with ease. It lets me taste a flavor I'm
interested in." I have trouble accepting this as GM because I'm caught
up in the challenge-the-PC wargaming mindset, but I don't regard it as
an unreasonable desire.

Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu

A Lapalme

unread,
Aug 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/29/95
to
Rodney Payne (spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) writes:
>
> I have a request: that people stop trying to flaw the current discussion
> using the terms plot and world; we threw them out weeks ago.

You threw them out, Rodney. I don't think thre is a concensus on that
yet. The terms come up often enough in the discussions.

Alain

Daniel Delaney

unread,
Aug 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/29/95
to

On 28 Aug 1995, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

> You're describing the bad kind. There do exist reasonable
> powergamers--players who are fascinated by competant, powerful
> characters and the chance to exercise that power, but don't rape rules
> or run roughshod over other players to do it. It's a perfectly
> reasonable motivation for playing--often a central one in genres such as
> heroic fantasy or superheroes. What is it like to be really powerful?
> What could I do? The sense of competance is pleasurable, and so is
> being able to solve really large problems with relative ease.
>
> My husband has a good streak of this. "You don't have to make every
> encounter challenging. Part of the enjoyment of this character is that
> she *can* win many encounters with ease. It lets me taste a flavor I'm
> interested in." I have trouble accepting this as GM because I'm caught
> up in the challenge-the-PC wargaming mindset, but I don't regard it as
> an unreasonable desire.
>
> Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
>

I was describing a worst case scenario, but your example does agree with
my belief that power and gaming are hard to combine. This is different
from superhero games which are "high-powered", but have challenges anyway.
Either the villians are on the same level or force won't solve the problem
(hostages and the like).

Any of the motivations are OK if all of the participants agree to them,
but too much of any of them by a minority of the participants (player or
GM) can lead to problems.

It was this sort of problem I was describing in my previous post.

Dan
Delaney

James

unread,
Aug 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/29/95
to
In article: <41tc7e$f...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
> My husband has a good streak of this. "You don't have to make every
> encounter challenging. Part of the enjoyment of this character is that
> she *can* win many encounters with ease. It lets me taste a flavor I'm
> interested in." I have trouble accepting this as GM because I'm caught
> up in the challenge-the-PC wargaming mindset, but I don't regard it as
> an unreasonable desire.

I once tried running for my group a mindlessly heroic adventure. I told the
players flatly that they were going to win regardless; the issue was to do
it with style. In my mind I saw this as a chance to take a break from the
result-orientated mould and just enjoy playing in a colourful enviornment.
It was terrible. It wasn't even a game anymore.

Then there was that time I tried to get my Amber characters to Sesame
Street...

-- James --


Rodney Payne

unread,
Aug 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/29/95
to
dun...@nw.pensee.com (David Dunham) writes:

[I think this is all David's; apologies if it isn't]

>> > That's because this isn't a dichotomy. I think Glenn Blacow's 4-fold way
>> > [Different Worlds 10] is more accurate here:

More accurate for what? This discussion here is
largely concerned with describing gamers that fall into two of these
groups: roleplaying (which I prefer to call characterisation; power
gamers et al are still roleplaying) and story telling. The power gaming
and wargaming categories are useless.

>> I see the above four as being different aspects of a game. I'm not clear
>> how they are helping here.

>My point was, it's a tetrachotomy. Plot/world is not a valid dichotomy,
>because there are game styles which are neither.

I have a request: that people stop trying to flaw the current discussion

using the terms plot and world; we threw them out weeks ago.

In any case, it was never meant to be a dichotomy; it's a continuum.

--
Rodney Payne | What is the meaning of life? Life has no
| meaning. It's just a fortunate coincidence
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | of carbon chemistry. Forget about it.
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | Anonymous

Bruce Baugh

unread,
Aug 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/30/95
to
In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.950828...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>,
Daniel Delaney <ddel...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:

:Powermongers (powegaming, like mil intel, is a contradiction in terms)

You really should read something by Keegan or Codevilla (or Linebarger or
Sunze, come to that) and then come back to the military intelligence line. In
any event, "power-" is as legitimate a prefix to "-game" as "role-" or
"roleplaying", or "board" or anything else.

:don't want challenge, they want to "rape the rules" (local term describing


:using the letter to voilate the spirit of the rules) and (in their minds)
:win, win, win!

Glenn Blacow would have described that as a species of wargaming. Rules
Lawyering might warrant a category of its own, though. :-)

:I would also add one other, socializing, to cover the people who are

:there because they want to be with friends.

An excellent addition, yes.

Jeff Freeman

unread,
Aug 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/30/95
to
I don't think it is fair to catagorize women at all -- and especially not with the
derogatory title of this thread.

But as long as we're on the topic, didja ever notice that there are basically two types
of nurses? There's the wide-butted, hair-bun type, then the thin, sharp-edged, haggard
type.

Not all nurses, obviously, but those two catagories seem to cover most broads in the
profession.


Scott A. H. Ruggels

unread,
Aug 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/30/95
to
Besides, World/Plot seems to work well as not an either or, but a
degree, when it relates to Pre-production of a campaign.

Scott

Rodney Payne

unread,
Aug 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/30/95
to
ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) writes:

>Rodney Payne (spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) writes:
>>
>> I have a request: that people stop trying to flaw the current discussion
>> using the terms plot and world; we threw them out weeks ago.

>You threw them out, Rodney. I don't think thre is a concensus on that


>yet. The terms come up often enough in the discussions.

Sorry, that was too strong. What I meant was that when someone
crtiticises the current conversational direction on the bases that `plot'
and `world' are unclear, s/he should be aware that we've been aware of
that for some time now.

A Lapalme

unread,
Aug 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM8/31/95
to
Rodney Payne (spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) writes:
> ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) writes:
>
>>Rodney Payne (spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) writes:
>>>
>>> I have a request: that people stop trying to flaw the current discussion
>>> using the terms plot and world; we threw them out weeks ago.
>
>>You threw them out, Rodney. I don't think thre is a concensus on that
>>yet. The terms come up often enough in the discussions.
>
> Sorry, that was too strong. What I meant was that when someone
> crtiticises the current conversational direction on the bases that `plot'
> and `world' are unclear, s/he should be aware that we've been aware of
> that for some time now.
>
Exactly. All these threads are a result of world/plot creating more
confusion than helping.

Alain

Tim Dedeaux

unread,
Sep 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/6/95
to
Mary K. Kuhner (mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu) wrote:
> Daniel Delaney <ddel...@wam.umd.edu> writes:

> >Powermongers (powegaming, like mil intel, is a contradiction in terms)

> >don't want challenge, they want to "rape the rules" (local term describing
> >using the letter to voilate the spirit of the rules) and (in their minds)

> >win, win, win! Though, in truth, you can't win (IMO) if you find a cheap
> >trick and use it to get whatever you want.

> >Dan
> >Delaney

> You're describing the bad kind. There do exist reasonable


> powergamers--players who are fascinated by competant, powerful
> characters and the chance to exercise that power, but don't rape rules
> or run roughshod over other players to do it. It's a perfectly
> reasonable motivation for playing--often a central one in genres such as
> heroic fantasy or superheroes. What is it like to be really powerful?
> What could I do? The sense of competance is pleasurable, and so is
> being able to solve really large problems with relative ease.

*(*Raises Hand*)*

Guilty! :) I *love* heroic fantasy (it's been too long since I've played ...)
and I like exploring the capabilities of extremely powerful and often
ancient people (like "Highlander" or the many vampire stories I write and
the diceless, non Whitewolf vampire games I run (not that I've got
anything against WW, just not usually my cup of tea)). The romance of it
all (old meaning a la Malory and Chretien De Troyes, not Judy Collins or
Harlequin :), the different motivations, the "shuffling off of the mortal
coil" so to speak, if only vicariously.

> My husband has a good streak of this. "You don't have to make every
> encounter challenging. Part of the enjoyment of this character is that
> she *can* win many encounters with ease. It lets me taste a flavor I'm
> interested in." I have trouble accepting this as GM because I'm caught
> up in the challenge-the-PC wargaming mindset, but I don't regard it as
> an unreasonable desire.

> Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu

Ever played Amber? You (and particularly your husband) might like it.
--
Timothy I heard an old voice say "Don't go far from the land
Dedeaux The seasons have their way no mortal can understand."
tdedeaux Loreena McKennitt,
@csc.mc.edu "Courtyard Lullaby"

0 new messages