What Type of Game Is This? (LONG)
Raymond C. Parks
I have watched the various terms (and now acronymic jargon)
being thrown around on RGFA for approximately two years. Quite
frankly, I don't think I understand their meanings and uses.
Actually, I don't think many of their users understand the
jargon in a common way. In an attempt to clarify my own
understanding, I ask you what terms and acronyms apply to my
current, on-going campaign.
We are playing Twilight: 2000 with highly modified James Bond
rules. Ignore for the purposes of this post my choice of setting
and mechanics.
The campaing setting is Poland in June, 2000 of GDW's Edition
2.2 alternate history. The original characters were all members
of the 5th Mechanized Division which collapsed under pressure
from Warsaw Pact forces near Kalisz at the end of the last major
offensive of a four-year war. I have used the original GDW
scenario books with some changes according to my taste - for
instance, they displayed their usual ignorance of computers in
the plot device of one scenario book. I also modified the
scenarios because I have better information in the form of old
topo maps of Poland.
The players generated their characters according to the
original game rules, which were the typical GDW terms of service
= skills type. As such, they had considerable influence over
their character's careers up to game time. They chose the
characters' careers during the terms. One player generated a
character based on his own experience in the Army, a scout turned
helicopter pilot. Another borrowed a concept I had come up with
during play-testing and added his own frills (hispanic civil
engineer from Chama, New Mexico turned combat engineer and
demolitions expert). The third player took a different idea and
modified it slightly (a Marine Reserve sniper and policeman who
competed in IPSC and Bianchi Cup matches). The fourth player
generated a character who is a psychotic combat monster (he's
playing himself with few modifications:-). None of these
characters included detailed backgrounds with plot hooks, etc.
The group did not start the game in some strange conjunction.
Instead, two players ran their characters through an initial
session where they escaped the surrounding New Warsaw Pact
forces. The third played in a separate session, wherein he
picked up several NPCs and arrived at a location near the
stopping point of the previous two. The three players then
arrived at the same town within a day of each other and met. I
did not work to contrive this, since the natural road network and
their goals of escaping to the South led them to meet. When the
fourth player wanted to join them, I ran him solo from yet
another starting point to the same town. From there, every
character movement has been the choice of the players, based on
their stated goal of returning home to the USA.
They chose to continue South as a group. When they passed
through Czestochowa (in ruins from a siege, a nuclear demolition
mine, and aerial nuclear strikes), the engineer's player chose to
add to his character's background with my concurrence. The
engineer became the one who set the nuclear demolition mine which
destroyed much of the city. He has since roleplayed the
character as rather proud of that ultimate demolitions
engineering feat.
Eventually, the characters arrived at the outskirts of the
Gliwice/Katowice industrial area. It, too, had been nuked, but
they found a small congregation at a church overlooking the
devastation from the East. During their travels, I used the
game's random encounters tables to provide them with events and
material not drawn from the topo maps. In fact, that was how
they found the church (a random encounter). Since the church had
to have a priest, I needed a description of that NPC. For the
hell of it, I decided that the priest was an Irish Jesuit. I
think that even then I may have been thinking of the background
for the NPC that I later used - an agent of the Vatican
attempting to restore a Catholic-friendly government to Poland.
The characters had not encountered any of the NPCs described in
the scenario book _The_Black_Madonna_. They had encountered
various groups of marauders who they promptly despatched. They
eventually became known for their heroic but efficient clearing
of the area of marauders.
I have run the campaign according to the characters' choices
which are frequently influenced by randomly chosen rumours or
encounters. Sometimes, if I think a particular course of action
might be interesting, the random rumour became directed. For
instance, they chose to explore Oswiecim and the nearby State
Chemical Factory after hearing from travelling merchants that the
town had been abandoned after a fire at the factory. I fed them
that particular information after I discovered that my maps
displayed the town in its entirety. When the characters did
travel to Oswiecim, they discovered that they knew it better by
its German name, Aushwitz. The characters ignored the death camp
museum and visited the chemical factory several times. Since the
GDW scenario book described the town as abandoned because of a
fire in the poison gas factory, I decided that a lot of loot had
been left behind by hastily departing workers and their families.
Therefore, the characters found old tins of food, tobacco, and
clothing in the factory town. They looked through the actual
factory complex. Since I had no idea what a chemical factory
would be like, and the scenario information had no details about
the fire, I made up the factory complex from a combination of
research and common sense. The characters explored the factory,
found the burned out munitions-filling building, the chemical
storage building with pallets of seeping poison gas drums, the
administrative building with its guard armoury, the medical
facility inside the chemical laboratory, the chemical mixing
sheds, the raw material storage, and the motor pool. I developed
this detail from one week's session to the next.
The characters (and the new players' characters) developed
details during play. They also developed relationships during
play, sometimes influenced by the details added to their
backgrounds. For instance, the scout/pilot's player has a soft
spot for children and gave this characteristic to his character
during play. The character always gives food to the emaciated,
refugee kids. I tested this once, by playing a random refugee
encounter in which he gave an MRE to a starving little girl in
front of a bombed-out house and letting him find out that her
parents had a stash of charitable donations just inside the
building. The killing machine nearly got wiped by the rest of
the party after he tossed a second grenade into a church from
which they had received enemy fire. The first grenade had led to
screams of women and children (hostages), but his hearing had
been ruined by proximity to a large explosion.
So, without turning this into something that should be over on
RGFArchives, I ask again - what type of campaign am I running?
Is it simulationist? Is it Dramatic? Was it developed before
play? Is it ad-libbed? Are the characters DAS or DIP? Or shall
we return to the various spectra?
Raymond C. Parks, CCP rcp...@rt66.com
Wodehouse Nugget - "How absurdly simple these things are when
you have someone with elephantiasis of the brain, like myself,
directing the operations." _Uncle_Dynamite_, 1948
Scott A. H. Ruggels
As far as I can surmise from your description. The game as described
fits most of the criteria for a simulationist game.
1.) There is no overreaching story arc. The focus is on the character,
and the "story" is what happens when the PC's "do" something.
2.) Extensively researched background and scenery. There is more to your
Poland that in the published suppliments. You had your backgrounding
allready underway by the start of play.
3.) Characters were designed by Player choice, and not as "roles" to
fill in the Story arc. They defy an archetype description, and seem to
be taken as "people".
4.) There are consequences to their actions, but those consequences are
derived from the motives of the NPC's and not some moral sense on the
GM's part. Sometime heinous actions succeed without repercussions.
However, by going to a light mechanics system, such as james Bond, you
buck the trends of the usual simulationists in the use of detailed
tactical rule sets. Still the feeling is that the entertainment of the
game is not participating in a story, but more of enjoying watching what
the P.C.'s dfo when confronted with situations, and seeing if they might
eventually succeed in returning to the U.S.A.
I nopte that there does not seem to be a lot of "internal" exploration
of the characters, and there are no strong "themes" other than the basic
put forth by the T-2000 background. The lack of literary motivations
seems to indicate to me a simulationist bent as well.
I see this as a simulationist game in intent, but not "strongly" so.
Does this clear things up? If not keep asking questions.
Scott
Ennead
Kip here, but One of Nine...
Raymond C. Parks (rcp...@mack.rt66.com) wrote:
: I have watched the various terms (and now acronymic jargon)
: being thrown around on RGFA for approximately two years. Quite
: frankly, I don't think I understand their meanings and uses.
: Actually, I don't think many of their users understand the
: jargon in a common way.
Actually, that's a perception just about everyone here has -- just check
out the number of "You blockheads have no idea what PLOT means!" posts
that pop up from time to time. Seriously, though, we're (ahem) trying to
develop a critical vocabulary for a medium which has received little to no
critical attention during its short but volatile history. There's a lot
of disagreement as to what things mean, what they should mean, and what
meanings are important (as you are aware).
: In an attempt to clarify my own understanding, I ask you what terms and
: acronyms apply to my current, on-going campaign.
Gauntlet flung, challenge accepted. I've always felt we should have more
concrete examples to boot around; theory's all well and good, but it can
get awfully airy without some practice to sink its teeth into. Keep in
mind I am but a junior sage of rp theory, and what I set down here is my
own take on ideas generated by others; I do not speak for .advocacy as a
whole by any means. Prelims thus taken care of, bear with me while I snip
my way through your article...
: We are playing Twilight: 2000 with highly modified James Bond
: rules. Ignore for the purposes of this post my choice of setting
: and mechanics.
Actually, I appreciate your having gone into them at some length; it does
give some insight into how you developed aspects of your game. But, in
the interests of brevity...
[general background and character backgrounds snipped]
Okay, so none of them wrote up 20-page single-spaced biographies in tiny,
neat, spidery handwriting, beginning with their first impressions as a
tot. They do include plot hooks, however: for one thing, they are all
members of the Fifth Mechanized Division, and while they may not know each
other by sight (forgive my ignorance; I know Divisions are large chunks of
an army, but I'm not sure how large), they are going to have a similar set
of skills and outlooks and are going to recognize each other as kindred
spirits. You won't even have any Army vs. Marines sort of conflicts. And,
being members of the same Division, you can be reasonably assured that
they will be within the same geographic area. Also, as you point out later
in the article, all the characters are trying to get back to the States.
So, you have a couple of large hooks already. Anything which seems to
lead towards getting back to the States will grab the characters'
attention. Anything which leads towards a restoration of order will also
make them sit up and take notice. And you can reasonably state (as you do
later on) that these characters are all in the same area, and run into
each other, and discover they have simpatico goals.
But I digress.
: The group did not start the game in some strange conjunction.
: Instead, two players ran their characters through an initial
: session where they escaped the surrounding New Warsaw Pact
: forces. The third played in a separate session, wherein he
: picked up several NPCs and arrived at a location near the
: stopping point of the previous two. The three players then
: arrived at the same town within a day of each other and met. I
: did not work to contrive this, since the natural road network and
: their goals of escaping to the South led them to meet. When the
: fourth player wanted to join them, I ran him solo from yet
: another starting point to the same town. From there, every
: character movement has been the choice of the players, based on
: their stated goal of returning home to the USA.
Sounds pretty DIP to me. What I mean is that you've allowed the group to
develop in play rather than contriving or directing a planned scenario
which would toss them together which you had developed at the start of the
game. Some questions, though: what if things hadn't turned out quite so
neatly? What if the first two players had decided to escape West, or
North? What if, for one reason or another, they decided not to end up in
the same town as the third player? What would you have been willing to do
to get things back on track? What did you do to make sure things would
stay on track?
For instance, were the players aware that they ought to be directing their
characters to a central meeting place? Did you make this town seem
attractive in any way? Would you have been willing to dream up big nasty
baddies to chase the characters back on track if they'd gone haring off
into the wilderness? Or some other encounter to convince them of the
error of their ways? Or would you have let things run their course until
the characters managed to meet on their own?
The answers to these questions will help classify you a little more.
Having a track in the first place -- intending for these 4 people, and
ONLY these 4, to meet up in all this chaos -- is dramatic; but since
most games tend to start with this sort of premise, people tend to
overlook it. Deciding not to pick out a meeting place, or to have any
place special in mind for them to be drawn to, is simulationist in
approach. Did you decide to gloss over the early stuff, before the
characters were all together, handling that with a faster pace than the
stuff that happened after they met? That would be a dramatic approach to
the pacing. Or did you play everything out with roughly the same
attention to detail, before and after the meeting? That would be
simulationist.
Making the town seem attractive to these characters would have been a
directed technique, as would cooking up some sort of encounter to get them
back on track had they started off in opposite directions. /Directed/, of
course, being the opposite of /naturalistic/, which is the approach you
seem to have taken: allowing the characters free reign to move about,
though within some broad, directed parameters -- the characters are all
headed South, though I wasn't sure why from your description, and the
roads seem to restrict their movements. These two being directive
techniques -- they impose some restrictions on the characters' movements,
and direct them all towards the same general area.
: They chose to continue South as a group. When they passed
: through Czestochowa (in ruins from a siege, a nuclear demolition
: mine, and aerial nuclear strikes), the engineer's player chose to
: add to his character's background with my concurrence. The
: engineer became the one who set the nuclear demolition mine which
: destroyed much of the city. He has since roleplayed the
: character as rather proud of that ultimate demolitions
: engineering feat.
An excellent example of a character's background developing in play, and
an example of retcon, or retroactive continuity. This is something that
can happen whether a character was only sketchily developed before play or
sprang fully formed from the player's brow at the first session --
something unforseen by player or GM occurs during the game and is so
unmistakably /right/ that it becomes part of that character's background
"a priori retroactively," as Emily Boss once put it.
: Eventually, the characters arrived at the outskirts of the
: Gliwice/Katowice industrial area. It, too, had been nuked, but
: they found a small congregation at a church overlooking the
: devastation from the East. During their travels, I used the
: game's random encounters tables to provide them with events and
: material not drawn from the topo maps. In fact, that was how
: they found the church (a random encounter).
Ah, yes, DIP and DAS, which I've brought up previously, and then ducked.
DIP and DAS being "Develop in Play" and "Develop at Start." The tricky
thing about these two acronyms is that you've got to be very, very careful
to specify WHAT, exactly, is being DIPped or DASsed before you start
tossing them about. As we've been using them, you can apply them to world
background, plot, character background -- just about anything which comes
up during the course of the game could have been thought up beforehand and
consciously implemented or improved on the spot. Your use of topo maps
and your decision to use the Twilight:2000 background indicate that some
of your background is DAS, but not all of it -- you rely on random
encounter tables, rather than setting up specific NPCs in specific places,
which is very much DIP. The plot of the game seems to be very much DIP,
though you make reference to "the Black Madonna" at one point, which
(based on a general knowledge of GDW modules; I've never read it
specifically, though I've heard about it -- ask Sarah at some point about
the time she ran in it) I'm assuming is a structured adventure, with
certain scenes which play out at specific junctures -- if you ran this, or
intend to run it, that's pretty DASsy, in terms of plot. It's impossible
to say about the characters based on your description -- their careers
seems to have been worked out in detail, but other than that, it's
difficult to say.
: So, without turning this into something that should be over on
: RGFArchives, I ask again - what type of campaign am I running?
: Is it simulationist? Is it Dramatic? Was it developed before
: play? Is it ad-libbed? Are the characters DAS or DIP? Or shall
: we return to the various spectra?
I'm hoping my point is coming through here -- it's impossible to judge and
pigeonhole any one game, GM, or player. All we can do is look at the
techniques that are used in role playing, and try to isolate and
categorize those. A technique is something quantifiable and describable,
like planting rumors to direct characters towards a choice encounter --
that's pretty clearly a directed technique. Yet a GM is a much more
slippery fellow -- you, for instance, who on the one hand disdains many
directed techniques, to the point of allowing your characters to wander
about the countryside before meeting up, are nonetheless not above
slipping those rumors to the characters about choice encounters. So. Are
you a naturalistic GM? Or does your willingness to use a directed
technique taint you in some way?
Or, does your overall reliance on naturalistic techniques and your use of
random encounters rather than staged set pieces mean you are a
simulationist? Perhaps. But I'd bet the tables you use are rigged more
towards ensuring Something Exciting Happens reasonably often rather than
ensuring that the number of marauders you encounter are realistic given
the economics of the region you're in -- which is a /dramatic/ concern,
and not a /simulationist/.
Sure, it's possible to look at someone's game, see a preponderance of one
technique or another, and label that person or that game. Just don't be
surprised when you find contradictions. It's like all generalizations --
wrong most of the time. I could go out on a limb and say that you seem to
be a naturalist simulationist DIP GM -- for the most part -- but splitting
such hairs is unimportant to me. I'd rather take a look at the techniques
you're willing to use, and how they work, and the techniques you find
disruptive, and find out what they disrupt for you and why.
Make sense? The thread Mary started about "The Great Divide" is also a
great place for some concrete discussion about fundamentals in approaching
gaming.
Also, you speak at the end there of returning to spectra. Most of what we
discuss are grouped according to opposite axes -- naturalist vs. dramatic,
etc. -- but it's recognized that techniques /tend/ towards one end or the
other, along, yes, a spectrum. There are no absolutes, though it's easy
to have gotten that impression from some of the discussion going on here.
Out of curiosity, what spectra did you have in mind?
Getting much too long. Gotta go. Hope this helps start some discussion,
at least.
kip
Kevin R. Hardwick
Uh, Scott. Given the level of distrust introduced to this board by Shane
and co., and given our past miscommunications :), I want to preface this
by assuring you I am *not* being snide, but am writing in good faith.
It seems to me that there is an implicit opposition operating here--that
you are implicitly contrasting "simulationist" with something else, which
I would assume to be "dramatist."
On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, Scott A. H. Ruggels wrote:
> As far as I can surmise from your description. The game as described
> fits most of the criteria for a simulationist game.
>
> 1.) There is no overreaching story arc. The focus is on the character,
> and the "story" is what happens when the PC's "do" something.
A simulationist game certainly stems from the actions of the PCs. But so
does a "dramatist" game. The difference is that in a dramatist game, the
actions and reactions of the setting are calculated to some degree to
"matter" to the PCs.
> 2.) Extensively researched background and scenery. There is more to your
> Poland that in the published suppliments. You had your backgrounding
> allready underway by the start of play.
Would you argue that a pure "dramatist" game would lack an extensively
researched background and scenery? I can imagine some situations in which
it might--but a dramatist game concerned with verisimiltude would have to
have a well researched background, it seems to me.
> 3.) Characters were designed by Player choice, and not as "roles" to
> fill in the Story arc. They defy an archetype description, and seem to
> be taken as "people".
Would you argue that in a dramatist game the PCs are *not* designed by
Player choice? Or that in such a game, there are forced 'roles' designed
to fit the requirements "in the story arc?" Or that in a dramatist game
the characters should not be "taken as 'people?'"
> 4.) There are consequences to their actions, but those consequences are
> derived from the motives of the NPC's and not some moral sense on the
> GM's part. Sometime heinous actions succeed without repercussions.
Would you argue that in a dramatist game, the consequences derivative from
PC actions tend to stem from the "moral sense on the GM's part?"
Obviously you did not write the above as a commentary on the distinction
between simulationist and dramatist. But it does seem to me that it
contains some assumptions about the nature of dramatist games. Is this a
fair reading on my part?
My best,
Kevin
Nancy M. Sauer
Ennead (enn...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Kip here, but One of Nine...
: Sure, it's possible to look at someone's game, see a preponderance of one
: technique or another, and label that person or that game. Just don't be
: surprised when you find contradictions. It's like all generalizations --
: wrong most of the time.
Kip, I think you are getting a little carried away here. The
fact that there are no "pure" types of games does not render labels or
generalizations invalid.
I consider Scott Ruggels a Simulationist GM, and David Berkman a
Dramatist GM. Does this mean that Scott *never* uses dramatic
techniques? Not in the least: I mean that overall, Scott uses fewer
of them, and uses them less often than David. Does this render my
label incorrect? I don't think so: By thinking of Scott as a
Simulationist, I have a framework to evaluate his statements with.
Given that I consider myself to be less of a Simulationist than Scott,
but nowhere near as Dramatic as David, I can decide whether or not
Scott's point has relevance to my game. Is this not useful?
As for finding "contradictions"--does the salt in a cookie
contradict its sugar?
: I could go out on a limb and say that you seem to
: be a naturalist simulationist DIP GM -- for the most part
Getting back to the original poster's question, I agree with your
use of these terms.
: Make sense? The thread Mary started about "The Great Divide" is also a
: great place for some concrete discussion about fundamentals in approaching
: gaming.
<SIGH>
Nancy M. Sauer <*> "Then you will come to think of things in
Disciple of Bread Do: a wide sense and, taking the dough as the
The Way of the Way, you will see the Way is dough.
Flour Warrior In the dough there is virtue, and no evil."
A Lapalme
Just a couple of additional comments...
Ennead(Kip) (enn...@teleport.com) writes:
[snip]
> I'm hoping my point is coming through here -- it's impossible to judge and
> pigeonhole any one game, GM, or player. All we can do is look at the
> techniques that are used in role playing, and try to isolate and
> categorize those. A technique is something quantifiable and describable,
> like planting rumors to direct characters towards a choice encounter --
> that's pretty clearly a directed technique. Yet a GM is a much more
> slippery fellow -- you, for instance, who on the one hand disdains many
> directed techniques, to the point of allowing your characters to wander
> about the countryside before meeting up, are nonetheless not above
> slipping those rumors to the characters about choice encounters. So. Are
> you a naturalistic GM? Or does your willingness to use a directed
> technique taint you in some way?
>
[snip]
>
> Also, you speak at the end there of returning to spectra. Most of what we
> discuss are grouped according to opposite axes -- naturalist vs. dramatic,
> etc. -- but it's recognized that techniques /tend/ towards one end or the
> other, along, yes, a spectrum. There are no absolutes, though it's easy
> to have gotten that impression from some of the discussion going on here.
>
It should be noted that there probably are not such animals as a purely
naturalist game, or a purely dramatic game, or a purely simulationist
game, etc... All of us use dramatic techniques, or directed techniques,
etc. The level of reliance on any one approach is what one could use to
"label" a GM's style but, as Kip so clearly states, there will be
exceptions within a GM's style.
Alain
Nancy M. Sauer
Kevin, I want you to know that I love you more than I love my
sister (not that that's difficult to achieve at the moment), and that
nothing in my post should be construed as a personal attack.
Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Would you argue that in a dramatist game the PCs are *not* designed by
: Player choice? Or that in such a game, there are forced 'roles' designed
: to fit the requirements "in the story arc?"
Well, one could argue that in a game with a pre-planned theme the
PCs are not *entirely* designed by Player choice--they are created so
as to fit within parameters laid down by the GM.
Of course, this arguement depends on the idea that a pre-planned
theme => dramatic game. I can't at the moment imagine a simulationist
game with a pre-planned theme, but I suppose it's not impossible.
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 17 Aug 1996, Nancy M. Sauer wrote:
> Kevin, I want you to know that I love you more than I love my
> sister (not that that's difficult to achieve at the moment), and that
> nothing in my post should be construed as a personal attack.
:)
> Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>
> : Would you argue that in a dramatist game the PCs are *not* designed by
> : Player choice? Or that in such a game, there are forced 'roles' designed
> : to fit the requirements "in the story arc?"
>
> Well, one could argue that in a game with a pre-planned theme the
> PCs are not *entirely* designed by Player choice--they are created so
> as to fit within parameters laid down by the GM.
Sure. But alternatively, perhaps the GM prepares the plot to fit within
the parameters laid down by the players? I know that is how I proceed,
roughly speaking. I do insist that there *be* a template (but then again,
my players are fully in agreement with me that this is desirable), but the
template is created by negotiation and common consensus. But within the
constraints of the template, pretty much anything goes, at least so long
as it fits the setting. Not that much different from a simulationist
game.
I would guess that with many "dramatist" troupes, the GM designs the plot
only once the characters are at least tentatively set.
But I take your point--for us, anyway, it is very much a synergistic
process.
Grin. Nancy, please know that it is my fervant hope that the
wellsprings of familial devotion flow strongly within you, and that you
love your sister *alot* :)
My best,
Kevin
John H Kim
OK -- this is another response to Raymond Parks regarding
"classifying" his _Twilight:2000_ campaign (using _James Bond_ rules -
good choice, BTW). I will try to note some sort of design and
conclusions regarding this, rather than just attaching labels.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
If you look at how the campaign was structured, the basic
framework was largely pre-defined by published _Twilight:2000_ material
and the players' more-or-less independent generation of their characters.
Note that this sort of start is more characteristic of "simulationist"
games: drop defined characters into a defined setting and just see
what happens.
However, there was a distinctly overlaid direction at
various points, which swayed a lot of the wide-scale stuff. The
GM directed the players to Oswiecim and the nearby State Chemical
Factory by a planted rumor. A player instituted a subplot by
ret-conning his background so that he was more dramatically
suited to the setting (i.e. defining that he was involved in
setting the nuclear demolition charge). These are dramatic devices,
which were inserted on-the-fly during play (by RGFA parlance, this is
"Develop-In-Play" or DIP).
And while as GM you note that you didn't have to fudge things
in order to bring the PC's to the same *place*, I suspect that it was
by dramatic device that everyone met at the same *time* (GM's influence)
and that they stuck together ever after (players influence).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
So this started with a largely simulationist framework, but
along the way both the GM and the players used DIP dramatic techniques
to guide the plot. I would have to ask: were you satisfied with how
everything turned out? Did you feel at times that the campaign lacked
direction or had other problems?
Hopefully, the terms and discussion we're developing here
can be helpful in analyzing what you might want to change if next
time you are looking for something different. How did you feel
about how the game turned out? What might you prefer to have
changed, and to what?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
Ennead
Kip here, but One of Nine...
Nancy M. Sauer (nsa...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
: Kip (enn...@teleport.com) wrote:
: : Sure, it's possible to look at someone's game, see a preponderance of one
: : technique or another, and label that person or that game. Just don't be
: : surprised when you find contradictions. It's like all generalizations --
: : wrong most of the time.
: Kip, I think you are getting a little carried away here. The
: fact that there are no "pure" types of games does not render labels or
: generalizations invalid.
Sigh. Post in haste, repent in leisure. I wasn't trying to say that
labels or generalizations are invalid. I was trying to point out that if
you label someone a simulationist, don't expect them to be a pure
simulationist. Sorry for getting carried away, but, to use your example,
it seemed to me that Raymond was saying, "Okay, I've got this thing, and
it has a lot of sugar in it, but it also has some salt. So is it a cookie
or a potato chip?" I was trying to point out that it was most likely a
cookie, despite the salt -- but that it could also be a sweet potato chip.
Or something. Methinks the baked goods analogy just went too far.
Besides, a cookie without /some/ salt would be icky.
: : Make sense? The thread Mary started about "The Great Divide" is also a
: : great place for some concrete discussion about fundamentals in approaching
: : gaming.
: <SIGH>
Sorry; meant to say "fundamental DIFFERENCES in approaching gaming."
Whyfore sighest thou?
kip
Ennead
Sarah here.
Ennead (enn...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Kip here, but One of Nine...
: Nancy M. Sauer (nsa...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
: : : Make sense? The thread Mary started about "The Great Divide" is also a
: : : great place for some concrete discussion about fundamentals in approaching
: : : gaming.
: : <SIGH>
: Sorry; meant to say "fundamental DIFFERENCES in approaching gaming."
: Whyfore sighest thou?
She sigheth, Kip, because _she_ started "The Great Divide" thread.
My God. It's true. *No* one, not even my own housemate, can tell
women apart. This bodes ill.
-- Sarah
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
>
> Uh, Scott. Given the level of distrust introduced to this board by Shane
> and co., and given our past miscommunications :), I want to preface this
> by assuring you I am *not* being snide, but am writing in good faith.
No offense taken. I have simply been ignoring most of the Shane Dunbar
Contoversy becaus it is not on topic.
>
> It seems to me that there is an implicit opposition operating here--that
> you are implicitly contrasting "simulationist" with something else, which
> I would assume to be "dramatist."
You would be correct.
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, Scott A. H. Ruggels wrote:
>
> > As far as I can surmise from your description. The game as described
> > fits most of the criteria for a simulationist game.
> >
> > 1.) There is no overreaching story arc. The focus is on the character,
> > and the "story" is what happens when the PC's "do" something.
>
> A simulationist game certainly stems from the actions of the PCs. But so
> does a "dramatist" game. The difference is that in a dramatist game, the
> actions and reactions of the setting are calculated to some degree to
> "matter" to the PCs.
Or matter to the "Players" and appeal to their sense of story.
>
> > 2.) Extensively researched background and scenery. There is more to your
> > Poland that in the published suppliments. You had your backgrounding
> > allready underway by the start of play.
>
> Would you argue that a pure "dramatist" game would lack an extensively
> researched background and scenery? I can imagine some situations in which
> it might--but a dramatist game concerned with verisimiltude would have to
> have a well researched background, it seems to me.
It would, but often (again in my experience) The more "literary" the
less emphasis put on the details of the setting.
>
> > 3.) Characters were designed by Player choice, and not as "roles" to
> > fill in the Story arc. They defy an archetype description, and seem to
> > be taken as "people".
>
> Would you argue that in a dramatist game the PCs are *not* designed by
> Player choice? Or that in such a game, there are forced 'roles' designed
> to fit the requirements "in the story arc?" Or that in a dramatist game
> the characters should not be "taken as 'people?'"
Well, you yourself put forward the template concept. I would say that a
simulationis t games can be all over the place in regards to templates
(all members of the game must be enlisteds from 3rd. Plt. A co. 5th Bat.
24th Mechanized Infantry) or loose (Build a guy from New York) But a
Lot of the Dr4amatist games tend to have more "constructed parties" than
not.
>
> > 4.) There are consequences to their actions, but those consequences are
> > derived from the motives of the NPC's and not some moral sense on the
> > GM's part. Sometime heinous actions succeed without repercussions.
>
> Would you argue that in a dramatist game, the consequences derivative from
> PC actions tend to stem from the "moral sense on the GM's part?"
Yes.
>
> Obviously you did not write the above as a commentary on the distinction
> between simulationist and dramatist. But it does seem to me that it
> contains some assumptions about the nature of dramatist games. Is this a
> fair reading on my part?
It's a fair reading, but as to my motives. i was just trying to place
this guys game into the definitions of the newsgroup, as >I < see them.
No slight was intended.
>
> My best,
> Kevin
Regards
Scott
Raymond C. Parks
In reply to John:
> If you look at how the campaign was structured, the basic
>framework was largely pre-defined by published _Twilight:2000_ material
>and the players' more-or-less independent generation of their characters.
>Note that this sort of start is more characteristic of "simulationist"
>games: drop defined characters into a defined setting and just see
>what happens.
I did exercise some restrictions on characters - but very few.
Not surprisingly, the players chose concepts oriented towards the
military nature of the campaign.
>setting the nuclear demolition charge). These are dramatic devices,
>which were inserted on-the-fly during play (by RGFA parlance, this is
>"Develop-In-Play" or DIP).
Ah, that's a term I missed during my period of non-lurking. I
do hope there is no implied statement about the player or GM
indulging in that technique. BTW, this is a frequent occurrence
in games I have run or played. Primary reason - the GM or player
find out something new or missed in scanning the background.
That is why I find it rather restrictive to only use the concepts
developed before play. None of us has the time or compulsive
interest to memorize canned background or fully develop original
settings.
> And while as GM you note that you didn't have to fudge things
>in order to bring the PC's to the same *place*, I suspect that it was
>by dramatic device that everyone met at the same *time* (GM's influence)
>and that they stuck together ever after (players influence).
Actually, there are a limited number of good roads south of
Kalisz. The original situation poses the threat of attacking
forces from NorthWest and SouthWest, herding forces to the North,
and the forces which held off an attack by the PC's unit to the
East. Effectively, the PC's have little choice with respect to
general direction. A small amount of coincidence occurred in
that they all chose the same road into the same town. Sticking
together is strictly part of the group contract thing - I don't
run different characters doing entirely unrelated things in the
same gaming session.
>I would have to ask: were you satisfied with how everything
>turned out?
Past tense is not necessary, the campaign is still underway.
Overall, I have enjoyed the campaign. The players seem to keep
coming back, so they must like it, also.
>Did you feel at times that the campaign lacked
>direction or had other problems?
Occassionally, I feed the characters rumours out of the
prepared material rather than let them get the rumours as part of
some random encounter sequence. I do this to help generate some
activity. Eventually, they would have received the rumour via
the game mechanic of random encounters, I merely hasten the
process. The Oswiecim/Dwory rumour arrived in this way.
Frequently, a random encounter called for by some table in a
scenario book grows beyond the original meaning. For example,
the characters are now traveling down the Wisla river from Kracow
to Warsaw. The random encounter table roll (and character
perception rolls) called for discovering that they had just run
over an underwater wreck. Since it didn't seem reasonable that
the NPC boat captain wouldn't know of a wreck close to Kracow, I
made it a plane wreck (Flight 800 may have inspired me). The
characters saw JP-5 roiled to the surface of the river after the
boat and barge passed over the wreck. The players then spent an
entire gaming session on this minor encounter. I described to
them the aircraft wing stuck in the mud two meters under the
water's surface. They tried to salvage the wreckage but failed.
Next they checked out the fresh foliage in the woods to the east
of the river, finding signs of a fire and wreckage picked over by
local scavengers. They crossed the river to the west side and
the brown mud scar across the swamp to find the cockpit section.
Next, one of the characters decided to crawl inside the partially
sunken cockpit, through the mud, causing me to come up with
details about the shape, equipment, and dead bodies. I had
envisioned none of the details beyond the sunken piece of wing
when this started.
One interesting "problem" I have had is that on those few
occasions that I decided to arrange events for dramatic impact,
the players have unwittingly undone the drama. For example, I
decided that the various local war-lords and other entities would
hear about the group's activities at the Dwory State Chemical
Works. Each group would obviously investigate. I decided that
all five local groups would send an armed force to Dwory at the
same time as the characters were exploring for their third trip.
If all went well, the characters would find themselves in the
middle of a five-way battle. Instead, they went out of their way
to broker an agreement between two factions, recruited new NPCs
from units overrun by a third faction, worked to destroy the
factories with a fourth faction, and discovered that the fifth
had booby-trapped the gasoline the PCs had originally intended to
obtain. Considerable drama but not what I originally envisioned.
Sometimes drama arose from what I considered outright
railroading. During the course of the game, some of the
developed in play hooks caused the characters to accrue a large
number of NPCs and equipment. Maybe I tend toward Mony Haulism
or perhaps I just can't come up with good reasons why not. I
decided that separating the PCs from some of this power base
would make for more interesting play. I used a canned plot idea
in the Free City of Kracow module to accomplish this goal. The
plot idea seemed pretty blatant to me and I just hoped that the
players would go along with me. However, they swallowed the
whole thing, hook, line, and sinker, and were genuinely surprised
when I fulfilled my purpose. I had even mentioned my eventual
intentions to some of them, yet they tell me that the events were
truly unexpected.
>How did you feel
>about how the game turned out? What might you prefer to have
>changed, and to what?
I don't know, yet. I might not try to create as much drama.
The players play their characters well enough to create drama on
their own. The ad-libbing seems to create adventure without
intentional development.
Raymond C. Parks, CCP rcp...@rt66.com
http://www.rt66.com/~rcparks
Wodehouse Nugget - "The best-laid plans of mice and men end up
on the cutting room floor." _Pearls,_Girls,_and_Monty_Bodkin,
1972
John Novak
> Kevin, I want you to know that I love you more than I love my
>sister (not that that's difficult to achieve at the moment), and that
>nothing in my post should be construed as a personal attack.
Nancy, I want you to know I love you more than all my sisters
combined. But then, I have no siblings...
> Well, one could argue that in a game with a pre-planned theme the
>PCs are not *entirely* designed by Player choice--they are created so
>as to fit within parameters laid down by the GM.
One could follow that argument to its logical extreme and claim that
nont allowing a Japanese samurai in a 10th century Viking campaign is
the same thing.
There are campaigns I've seen where the GM said, "No, just make up a
GURPs character. No, I don't care, any background you want. No,
really, anything. Fred is playing a Superhero, and Bob is playing
Roman centurion, so anything goes."
I have never deigned to play in one of these, however.
There is _always_ going to be some amount of give and take to match
the background of the GM, unless you're in one of the games I
described above, which appeal to me not at all.
> Of course, this arguement depends on the idea that a pre-planned
>theme => dramatic game. I can't at the moment imagine a simulationist
>game with a pre-planned theme, but I suppose it's not impossible.
Um, my Portent campaign, which I regarded as a sim campaign.
The intended themes (though I hardly told the players about this, in
case they weren't interested) would be an examination of free will
versus fate. Didn't last long enough to really get into the themes,
though.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
The Humblest Man on the Net
A Lapalme
Ennead (enn...@teleport.com) writes:
> Sarah here.
>
> Ennead (enn...@teleport.com) wrote:
> : Kip here, but One of Nine...
>
> : Nancy M. Sauer (nsa...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
>
> : : : Make sense? The thread Mary started about "The Great Divide" is also a
> : : : great place for some concrete discussion about fundamentals in approaching
> : : : gaming.
>
> : : <SIGH>
>
> : Sorry; meant to say "fundamental DIFFERENCES in approaching gaming."
> : Whyfore sighest thou?
>
>
> She sigheth, Kip, because _she_ started "The Great Divide" thread.
>
> My God. It's true. *No* one, not even my own housemate, can tell
> women apart. This bodes ill.
>
As long as one is not concerned about sexual orientation, it's not really
a major problem [unless, of course, the target of one's advances is
concerned about such things - some people are so particular ;) ]
Alain
Bruce Baugh
In article <4vbcr5$8...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
>And, just to be blasphemous, I nearly never use salt in any baking or
>cooking (except for yeast baking - the yeast acts funny without salt around).
Ditto. Given the right sweetener, the salt serves no useful purpose. And
I _like_ sweetening with honey or (for muffins and such) apple juice
concentrate, rather than sugar.
And here's our next contestant, to explain the gaming relevance of all
this....
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@kenosis.com <*> http://www.kenosis.com/bruce
See my Web pages for...
Daedalus Entertainment, makers of Feng Shui and Shadowfist
Christlib, the mailing list of Christian & libertarian ideas
New sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $50/hr, min $100
Ennead
Sarah (enn...@teleport.com) wrote:
: She (Nancy) sigheth, Kip, because _she_ started "The Great Divide"
thread (as opposed to Mary).
: My God. It's true. *No* one, not even my own housemate, can tell
: women apart. This bodes ill.
I knew that. That's why I was wondering why she sighed. Twice I read
through that post of mine, and both times I read "Mary" as "Nancy."
Repenting at leisure...
Must be all those games of Five Card Mary we play.
kip
thoroughly off-topic
A Lapalme
Ennead (enn...@teleport.com) writes:
> Kip here, but One of Nine...
>
> Or something. Methinks the baked goods analogy just went too far.
> Besides, a cookie without /some/ salt would be icky.
>
Kip, don't you know salt is bad for you. At least, it used to be.
And, just to be blasphemous, I nearly never use salt in any baking or
cooking (except for yeast baking - the yeast acts funny without salt around).
oops... wrong sig. What were we talking about? Ah yes, how the
ingredients combine to create a campaign of a certain type...
Alain
A Lapalme
Bruce Baugh (br...@kenosis.com) writes:
> In article <4vbcr5$8...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
>
>>And, just to be blasphemous, I nearly never use salt in any baking or
>>cooking (except for yeast baking - the yeast acts funny without salt around).
>
> Ditto. Given the right sweetener, the salt serves no useful purpose. And
> I _like_ sweetening with honey or (for muffins and such) apple juice
> concentrate, rather than sugar.
>
> And here's our next contestant, to explain the gaming relevance of all
> this....
>
Ah, but there is relevance. One of my old group, back in Guelph, used to
play every other week and we used to play 10-12 hour sessions. Naturally,
we had to eat. At first we had munchies and ordered in pizza but that go
old (and expensive) pretty quick. The solution was to have pot luck dinners
and half
the discussion at the dinning table was the food we were eating (like the
time I put some ginger in chili con carne and one guy actually picked it out
- my wife and I were impressed).
<sigh> I miss those days....
Alain