HERO/Diced vs. Low Mechanics/Diceless
David P. Summers
[OK, David's starting to "drift meanings" again....]
In article <5b65r7$1...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (David Berkman) wrote:
> No. That's not what you said, nor what I responded to. I claim that I
> can, and have, for three years, created details on the spot which have
> formed a solid foundation for further roleplay, have noy caused
> consistency problems, and have not undermined SOD. Therefore, not being
> baseless.
First of all, I pointed out (in text that was deleted) that while
that was my reading of your text, I found it reasonable to assume
that you meant something else. (ie that you claim that
you don't run into problems is based on the fact thay
you just don't care about things that really make
roleplaying worthwhile for me).
Second of all, what I have objected to is _not_ consistency
problems (though I may also have doubts on that score also)
but the fact that details you know not to be based on
any real knowledge about what might really have happened
to a character who was really in such a situation.
Also, no message by me (or those I've seen from others) in this
thread has "baselessness" been a problem with consistency but
with basing details on something credible.
> : This is something you do over and over. Claim that something
> : you don't even pay attention too (but is important for other
> : styles) is not a problem.
>
> No. I claim that I can pay attention to these things well enough, and
> possibly better on my own. That most of the mechanical aids are not very
> accurate, informative, or believable, and I don't find them a great help
> in those respects.
I don't agree. You have several times claimed something isn't
a problem because _you_ don't find it to be a problem (which
is a erroneous generalization from the specific to the
general in itself) when you have already stated that you
don't even consider the issue important. How can you
say you pay as much attention to a something you
don't even consider to important for your style
of gaming compared to someone who does find it
important for their style?
If someone says it _is_ a problem for them then
you either have to admit that it's a difference
in style (as opposed to superior roleplaying) or stake
out the dubious position that you know better what makes
roleplaying worthwhile to others than those people know
themselves.
> : The end result is that most of your
> : claims about what makes good gaming are just claims that
> : is makes for good gaming _in your style_.
>
> All claims are of this nature.
No. "That doesn't work with a my improvisational sytle" is
a lot different than "dice only get in the way of roleplaying".
Otherwise, why would you try to counter arguements where people
say your approach doesn't work for their styles (which
you do)?
David Berkman
David P. Summers (7155...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: First of all, I pointed out (in text that was deleted) that while
: that was my reading of your text, I found it reasonable to assume
: that you meant something else. (ie that you claim that
: you don't run into problems is based on the fact thay
: you just don't care about things that really make
: roleplaying worthwhile for me).
I am almost sure that they care very much about most of the same things.
The group happens to be composed of people who are sticklers for detail,
stubborn, rules lawyers.
: Second of all, what I have objected to is _not_ consistency
: problems (though I may also have doubts on that score also)
: but the fact that details you know not to be based on
: any real knowledge about what might really have happened
: to a character who was really in such a situation.
I'm not sure what that sentnce is supposed to mean. If the character is
in the situation, then the character must know what's going on. What's
happened. In order for the player to make decisions for the character,
the player must possess these details as well. Abstraction denies the
player his/her right to play the character. We will make up the details,
and base them as much as possible on real world knowledge. If that isn't
avialable we use common sense and personal experience. If that isn't
availaible, we guestimate in the most reasonable way we can. If that
isn't right, but does remain consistent, then I don't much care. I would
rather have the detail.
: Also, no message by me (or those I've seen from others) in this
: thread has "baselessness" been a problem with consistency but
: with basing details on something credible.
What's 'credible'. I certainly don't find most mechanics in systems at
all credible. They are useable. But that's different. Are our decisions
any less credible? Maybe sometimes. As often I would say they are more
credible.
: > No. I claim that I can pay attention to these things well enough, and
: > possibly better on my own. That most of the mechanical aids are not very
: > accurate, informative, or believable, and I don't find them a great help
: > in those respects.
: I don't agree. You have several times claimed something isn't
: a problem because _you_ don't find it to be a problem...
Such as...
: is a erroneous generalization from the specific to the
: general in itself) when you have already stated that you
: don't even consider the issue important. How can you
: say you pay as much attention to a something you
: don't even consider to important for your style
: of gaming compared to someone who does find it
: important for their style?
You must have failed to read all the revelant posts on this issue. I have
stated many time sin the past that consistency and realism are important
to me, and the primary guidelines for all decisions, whether improvised
or not.
I assume that if you say we have different styles that realism and
consistency are not important for you. If they are, then we must assume
that we botrh look for these things in our games.
: No. "That doesn't work with a my improvisational sytle" is
: a lot different than "dice only get in the way of roleplaying".
Yes, they are different. I've said both.
: Otherwise, why would you try to counter arguements where people
: say your approach doesn't work for their styles (which
: you do)?
I do not. I counter aguments that my approach doesn't work for my style,
or that my style is something other than what it is. I say that
improvisation works for me. I get assumptions that it works because we
don't care about consistency or realism. I counter. It works because we
care about consistency and realism.
David
russell wallace
>David P. Summers (7155...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
>: First of all, I pointed out (in text that was deleted) that while
>: that was my reading of your text, I found it reasonable to assume
>: that you meant something else. (ie that you claim that
>: you don't run into problems is based on the fact thay
>: you just don't care about things that really make
>: roleplaying worthwhile for me).
>I am almost sure that they care very much about most of the same things.
>The group happens to be composed of people who are sticklers for detail,
>stubborn, rules lawyers.
However, this statement is somewhat misleading. You've made it clear
that your group are indeed rules lawyers when playing Hero, but you must
abandon your penchant for rules lawyering when playing Theatrix,
perforce, Theatrix having so few rules to lawyer.
>I do not. I counter aguments that my approach doesn't work for my style,
>or that my style is something other than what it is. I say that
>improvisation works for me. I get assumptions that it works because we
>don't care about consistency or realism. I counter. It works because we
>care about consistency and realism.
Perhaps so, but it is also the case that what you regard as consistent
and realistic differs substantially from what I do.
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwal...@tcd.ie
David Berkman
russell wallace (rwal...@tcd.ie) wrote:
: However, this statement is somewhat misleading. You've made it clear
: that your group are indeed rules lawyers when playing Hero, but you must
: abandon your penchant for rules lawyering when playing Theatrix,
: perforce, Theatrix having so few rules to lawyer.
No, not at all. There are fewer rules in Theatrix (although this too has
been debated). However, I've noticed no lessening in their enjoyment over
lawyering the rules that there are.
: Perhaps so, but it is also the case that what you regard as consistent
: and realistic differs substantially from what I do.
I doubt that. We both live in the real world. We both have jobs. We both
have lives. We probably have similar problems and worries. We probably
have very similar expectations for what constitutes 'consistent' and
'real'. We may have some differences in aesthetic preference, but as we
are both gamers, these are probably more similar than most.
David
David P. Summers
In article <5bcgr4$9...@crl7.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (David Berkman) wrote:
> I am almost sure that they care very much about most of the same things.
> The group happens to be composed of people who are sticklers for detail,
> stubborn, rules lawyers.
Well, I'm not sure what being stubborn or a rules lawyer has
to do with it. I can say that, for me, details that are
"just made up" don't cut it so I can't say they care about
the same thigns.
> If the character is
> in the situation, then the character must know what's going on. What's
> happened. In order for the player to make decisions for the character,
> the player must possess these details as well. Abstraction denies the
> player his/her right to play the character.
Well, in fact "baseless" details _are_ an abstraction. They
have nothing more to do with would really have happened to
the character than a die roll.
> : Also, no message by me (or those I've seen from others) in this
> : thread has "baselessness" been a problem with consistency but
> : with basing details on something credible.
> What's 'credible'. I certainly don't find most mechanics in systems at
> all credible. They are useable. But that's different. Are our decisions
> any less credible? Maybe sometimes. As often I would say they are more
> credible.
As I said, credible means working in some way like it would have
if your character really was in that situation. You have claimed
that "almost all" game mechanics are no more likely to work
out like it would have in real life than details that were
"just made up". I have already pointed out how I find this
highly debatable.
> : I don't agree. You have several times claimed something isn't
> : a problem because _you_ don't find it to be a problem...
>
> Such as...
You are actually going to claim that you _never_ respond
to messages about problems people have with your approach
with messages saying you do it and it works? This is the
sort of time when an archive of a newgroups and
a really good search function would come in handy.
> You must have failed to read all the revelant posts on this issue. I have
> stated many time sin the past that consistency and realism are important
> to me, and the primary guidelines for all decisions, whether improvised
> or not.
Fine. I may have missed posts. I don't have the time to spend
on this you have (I don't think even god does :-). However,
my point was that I had a problem with the credibility of
the roleplaying experience so that you must have been mixing
me up with others who were addressing the consistency issue.
> I assume that if you say we have different styles that realism and
> consistency are not important for you. If they are, then we must assume
> that we botrh look for these things in our games.
Consistency is important for me. And not "just making up"
details is going to make things _more_ consistent. I just
don't happen to be willing to stake the position that
making up details will have consistency problems (in
addition to the "credibility problems I cite).
[Rest deleted to avoid repitition of ealier points.]
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 15 Jan 1997, David P. Summers wrote:
> Well, I'm not sure what being stubborn or a rules lawyer has
> to do with it. I can say that, for me, details that are
> "just made up" don't cut it so I can't say they care about
> the same thigns.
Its FANTASY Role Playing. At some level, its *all* made up, every bit of
it.
Indeed, even the most heavily quantified system is simply a framework for
"making things up." The idea is to create a vicarious, visceral
experience of an *imaginary*, made-up character--ROLE-play. For that to
happen, I think, you need to be able to engage your imagination. The
mechanics are simply a framework to do that--to guide your imagination, to
focus, as it were, your mind's eye. But it is all still happening in your
imagination--in "make believe."
Moreover, its a group process. The GM has some responsibility to ensure
that this "make believe" process occurs smoothly for all concerned. That
gets complicated by the fact that different people have different needs in
order to fully engage their imaginations. So the GM performs a balancing
act.
So this isn't really about "making things up." Its about authority. WHO
gets to make things up, and when, and how? Who has license to control the
description?
Obviously different people derive satisfaction from the game in varying
ways. So the real question is, what conditions have to be met in order
for *you* to enjoy the game?
Assuming, for the moment, that neither you nor David is acting in bad
faith, it would seem that you are talking past each other. Maybe you two
need to disengage and direct your attention back to the fundamental issues
at stake?
Just a thought :)
My best,
Kevin
Karen J. Cravens
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970115...@rac4.wam.umd.edu>,
"Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Its FANTASY Role Playing. At some level, its *all* made up, every bit of
>it.
There is, however, a difference between fiction and bogosity.
Sometimes it's a fine line, but most often, it's not.
>So this isn't really about "making things up." Its about authority. WHO
>gets to make things up, and when, and how? Who has license to control the
>description?
Not for me, it isn't.
-- Karen Cravens | Phoenyx Play-by-Email Roleplaying
pho...@southwind.net | Listserver: majo...@phoenyx.net
karen_...@phoenyx.net | WWW: www2.southwind.net/~phoenyx/
Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate clauses.
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970115...@rac4.wam.umd.edu>,
> "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> >Its FANTASY Role Playing. At some level, its *all* made up, every bit of
> >it.
>
> There is, however, a difference between fiction and bogosity.
> Sometimes it's a fine line, but most often, it's not.
How would you characterize the difference? Let's stipulate, for the
moment, that "bogosity" is only good in a game to the extent that
a. it does not undermine SOD; and
b. it does not violate game-world consistency.
Given those two stipulations, what is the difference between "fiction" and
"bogosity?"
> >So this isn't really about "making things up." Its about authority. WHO
> >gets to make things up, and when, and how? Who has license to control the
> >description?
>
> Not for me, it isn't.
OK. What *is* it about then? :)
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 16 Jan 1997, David P. Summers wrote:
> "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu>, Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:47:17 -0500;
> >On 15 Jan 1997, David P. Summers wrote:
> >Indeed, even the most heavily quantified system is simply a framework for
> >"making things up."
>
> Well, you make up the history, geography, and characters, but
> the basics of reality and (in most games) technology (from
> swords to riding horses) is not made up.
You are seriously suggesting that, in a FRPG, the game does *not* occur in
your imagination? You really want to argue that there is *no* difference
between reality *as portrayed in a game* and the real thing?
Maybe you need to see David in his professional capacity? :)
Your experience, if this is really what you mean, is so divergent from
mine that I doubt we have anything useful to talk about--there simply is
no common ground, I guess :(
Even LARPs occur mostly in the imagination, at least IME.
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 16 Jan 1997, David P. Summers wrote:
> (If you watch for a while, you will notice that Dave cycles through
> the same points regardless of what is being discussed. :-)
I have almost certainly been engaged in more substantive and extensive,
and also productive, dialogue with David than have you. This is
categorically not my experience, and I flat out do not believe that it is
yours, either.
Kevin
Karen J. Cravens
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.97011...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>,
"Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>How would you characterize the difference? Let's stipulate, for the
>moment, that "bogosity" is only good in a game to the extent that
>a. it does not undermine SOD; and
>b. it does not violate game-world consistency.
>Given those two stipulations, what is the difference between "fiction" and
>"bogosity?"
Er, Kevin, bogosity always does a or b. So the question is
unanswerable.
>> Not for me, it isn't.
>OK. What *is* it about then? :)
You make it out to be a control issue, with the implication that
any player who doesn't like the GM making things up really wants
control. I don't like the GM making things up because it annoys
me. It doesn't mean *I* want to make those things up.
-- Karen Cravens | Phoenyx Play-by-Email Roleplaying
pho...@southwind.net | Listserver: majo...@phoenyx.net
karen_...@phoenyx.net | WWW: www2.southwind.net/~phoenyx/
Sic semper telecommunicatis.
David P. Summers
jh...@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim), 16 Jan 1997 00:38:31 GMT;
>David and I seem agreed that most RPG systems simply make up bogus
>numbers and descriptions -- they use whatever feels right
>(_Theatrix_ included).
>
> OTOH, I happen to like systems and sourcebooks which are
>researched in the real world rather than simply using made-up
>bogus details. Not that I'll neccessarily play them by-the-book,
>but I pay attention to them nonetheless.
I guess I happen to be more optimistic than John. I've seen
a number of systems were I have some idea where some of
the mechanics came from and (or have tried doing some
of the things described and found the game did a reasonable
decent job) that they did do some real world reasearch.
Now this is only a few games, but I guess I'm just optimistic
enough to think they aren't that unique. (though I guess
I probably woudn't play those other games anyway so maybe it
doesn't make any difference to me).
Now I wouldn't be suprised if John's experience is different.
For example, I know he plays Hero (where I've heard it claimed
that it is just fine if you make up stats for a Kentucky
Long Rifle without regard to the stats of a real one).
Who's experience is more representative? Who can say?
>A key point here is whether
>you *want* any sort of "realism". On average, people don't, I would
>agree.
This isn't something you can prove either way, but I don't think it's
true. I find a lot of people are interested in realism.
russell wallace
>You are seriously suggesting that, in a FRPG, the game does *not* occur in
>your imagination? You really want to argue that there is *no* difference
>between reality *as portrayed in a game* and the real thing?
Kevin, this is a straw man argument. I'm surprised at you; I've
resorted to that type of rhetoric on occasion, but I thought you were
above such things :)
Obviously, nobody's arguing that there's no difference between games and
reality. The argument that *is* being made is that there is a
difference between game elements which are *based on* someone's
knowledge about the real world, and those which are not, and that many
people find gratuitous use of the latter type of elements, as
exemplified in David's car engine repair, damaging to SOD.
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.97011...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>,
> "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> >How would you characterize the difference? Let's stipulate, for the
> >moment, that "bogosity" is only good in a game to the extent that
> >a. it does not undermine SOD; and
> >b. it does not violate game-world consistency.
> >Given those two stipulations, what is the difference between "fiction" and
> >"bogosity?"
>
> Er, Kevin, bogosity always does a or b. So the question is
> unanswerable.
Hmm. Ok. In that case, I guess that most of what I do isn't bogus, since
for my group it does neither :)
So the distinction is less than useful :)
> >> Not for me, it isn't.
> >OK. What *is* it about then? :)
>
> You make it out to be a control issue, with the implication that
> any player who doesn't like the GM making things up really wants
> control. I don't like the GM making things up because it annoys
> me. It doesn't mean *I* want to make those things up.
But there most be some level of granularity at which you *don't* mind the
GM making it up. I mean, when you game, is *everything* expressed in
terms of the mechanics--hit points, success, failure, that sort of thing?
At what points, in the kind of game you enjoy, does detail and make
believe enter the game?
For example, were I GMing for you, would you find it disconcerting or
off-putting if I were to say:
"You enter the building. It has a single room, with an uneven flag-stone
floor. The dark wood rafters are exposed, and driblets of thatch hang
down into the room. Its dark, and smells of animal manure."
Obviously, all of that detail is made up, and by your definition, I would
seem to be indulging myself in bogosity. Or is this "fiction?" And if it
is fiction, and therefore acceptable, what separates it from bogosity?
My best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 17 Jan 1997, russell wallace wrote:
> In <Pine.SOL.3.95.97011...@rac3.wam.umd.edu> "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
>
> >You are seriously suggesting that, in a FRPG, the game does *not* occur in
> >your imagination? You really want to argue that there is *no* difference
> >between reality *as portrayed in a game* and the real thing?
>
> Kevin, this is a straw man argument. I'm surprised at you; I've
> resorted to that type of rhetoric on occasion, but I thought you were
> above such things :)
No, David Summers, it seemed to me, seriously advanced this argument. I
was quite clear, I thought, in the post to which David responded. Now I'm
willing to concede that he may have written hurriedly, but it did seem
very clear to me that he had not really tried to grasp my point,
that he had responded cavilierly--hence the irritated tone of my reply
above. It isn't a straw man at all--what it is is a reductio ad absurdam
argument. I think that this is a consequence of David's position, and I'm
asking him whether he really wants to argue that.
I'm happy to engage people with appropriate seriousness, as they
choose to engage me. I think my response to David was fair, under the
circumstances.
> Obviously, nobody's arguing that there's no difference between games and
> reality.
Good :) I hope that David also agrees. From what he wrote, this was not
at all obvious.
> The argument that *is* being made is that there is a
> difference between game elements which are *based on* someone's
> knowledge about the real world, and those which are not, and that many
> people find gratuitous use of the latter type of elements, as
> exemplified in David's car engine repair, damaging to SOD.
I would argue that the details were not gratuitous (see below). But that
is tangential, I think.
If I were to specify, in a game, that goat-fat lamps smoked a great deal
when they burned, would that damage SOD, for you?
How about Uryiscyx-fat lamps?
It seems to me that we improvise game world details all the time which are
not explicitly based on some-one's real world experience. For me, anyway,
these deepen the verisimilitude of the game, or at last can, potentially.
I think the car repair example grated because it violated various people's
real experience--they knew that real engines didn't behave like that. But
suppose that David had specified that it was a grav-sled engine repair,
based on c'vnxian gravitronic technology, and that the character making
the repair was a competant c'vnxian gravitronic engineer. Would the
example then have grated?
Would it continue to grate if the detail "gratuitiously" established in
the repair turned out to be an important diagnostic clue in a future
repair, thus maintaining coherence and consistency in the imaginary game
world?
My best,
Kevin
David P. Summers
In article <32DDD3...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Apolinski
<apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> He's saying that *all* the mechanics are made up, even in totally
> realistic genres, and he's right. If the authors want the system to be
> "realistic" then they do research about what kind of *results* occur in
> the real world, and create a mechanic that produces those results.
The question (at least for me) hasn't been if mechanics
are made up (I would say they have to be or they don't
exist) or if they are "just made up" without any care
or knowledge of how something might actually have worked.
(And so do represent something better than a GM who
"just makes up" details during a game). In your example
I would say the mechanics are not "just made up".
>But
> that doesn't mean that the *mechanic* is realistic.
I would say that a mechanic that produces the kind
of results that occur in the real world is the
definition of realistic.
> What is your opinion
> of a bogus mechanic that produces realistic results?
Well I don't see a mechanic that produces a realistic as bogus.
After all, the usage of bogus that has been employed here
(at least by me) is "not pertaining to any reality".
> How do you tell whether your painstakingly-researched game mechanics are
> truely "realistic"?
Well, in my example, I mentioned that the for the games in question
I not only had an idea that is was reasearch, but how they went
about modeling the mechanics (for example, in Guns, Guns, Guns
they use a kinetic energy divided by cross sectional area model
that has been developed by the FBI (or was it the army?)).
While not 100% certain, I find such an approach more credible
than "just making up detail". Additionally, when mechanics
match my own personal experience (such as rules for sailing
in a Harn supplement I read) that also adds additional
credibility.
> If it's just that the results map to a "reasonable" result range (known
> by doing real world research), then what is the difference whether those
> results are produced by a mechanic or "made up" by the GM as long as
> they *seem* realistic?
First of all, I like a game to teach me how it would be to
be that character. Just as a history book that "just made
up" a history that was "reasonable" doesn't cut it, neither
do such details.
> What if the GM is making an *informed* guess?
Then my commments don't apply. I was objecting to
the idea that is was OK for a GM to "just make up"
details.
David P. Summers
> David P. Summers (7155...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
> :Regarding fantasy games, sure
> : the magic is, to some degree, made up (some try to follow
> : historical beliefs etc.) but the idea that a sword in the gut
> : is bad for your health, that people like to hear a good
> : musician, if you get lost in the wilderness you could
> : starve to death, etc. are not "made up".
> Nor are they in a freeform game, where the same rules of 'reality'
> generally apply.
Well, in fact, I was objecting to the idea that it was perfectly
fine for a GM to "just make up" details. I don't necessarily
feel that a freefrom games _has_ to be run that way.
> I am not making the argument that's because it is an RPG gravity ought to
> send you flying upward.
> I'm saying that the 'simulation' provided by any
> useable objective rule system is so cheap as to gain you almost nothing in
> 'realism', beyond what you can do with some decent guidelines and
> subjectivity.
I'm not sure what you mean "guideines". I find that systems
(and other details in world books, etc.) from a number of
games provide me with better "realism" than I could do
myself without a significant investemtent in time and
effort in research on my part. Clearly if a GM were
to spend time researching the point he could do just
as well, but I will never have the time to match
all work that has been done by others. In any case
I definitely find either way better than "just making
up" details about something I know nothing about during
a game (and it is this that I find valueless)
> : And if he is playing a realistic games he need to pay attention to
> : how thing would really have worked. If he doesn't know the details,
> : then he might as just well skip over the subject than make up
> : bogus stuff and pretend he has done something significant.
>
> I disagree. I like the deatils, and they serve a wider purpose than a
> simulation of what would have actually happened. That's nice, when and if
> you can get it, but I odn't give up on the details just because I'm not a
> walking encyclopedia.
I can make up the details about things I don't know anything
about as well as he can. I would rather he just move on and
concentrate on something he _is_ in a position to do a credible
job and I'll just imagine the details myself.
> What I have trouble with is an argument that my
> rteasons for wanting such detail are unreasoned, or unapplicable.
>I'm not
> really sure if you've stated anything of the kind, but that's what I
> would take exception to.
I never, to my knowledge, said such things. If I inadvertantly
gave that impression, I state now that I _don't_ feel your
views are "unreasoned". I'm sure they are quite applicable
to your style of gaming. I do feel they don't apply to my
style of gaming (and I do happen to be in pretty much
general disagreement with them. :-)
> : Well, that may be. But I have argue with Dave before. I it is my
> : opinion that the reason :we talk past each other: is that he wants
> : it that way.
>
> No, not really.
To be honest, I would see less of a problem if you wouldn't do things
like (for example) switch between about arguing about diceless
issues and mechanicless issues in replies to messages where
I have just complained about your doing so. (Or the fact
that I suddenly find myself above having to point out that
I am _not_ talking about details, even reasearched ones,
in a freeform games, but I am talking about details
that were "just made up" in any sort of game.)
Perhaps if we both pay attention to such issues we could
make our discussion more useful.
________________________
(Disclaimer: If NASA had any position on any of this do you
think they would have ME give it?)
David Summers - DSum...@Mail.ARC.NASA.Gov
David P. Summers
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.97011...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>,
"Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> > the same points regardless of what is being discussed. :-)
> I have almost certainly been engaged in more substantive and extensive,
> and also productive, dialogue with David than have you. This is
> categorically not my experience
I'm glad it worked so well for you....
>I flat out do not believe that it is
> yours, either.
Well I don't agree that my experience must match yours or I'm...
a) "delusional"
b) "lying"
David's tatics are very different depending how much he
disagrees with one. However, I have made my
views clear on this before and have no interest
conducting a personal flamewar so this is my last
comment on this.
David P. Summers
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970117...@rac4.wam.umd.edu>,
> > In <Pine.SOL.3.95.97011...@rac3.wam.umd.edu> "Kevin
R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
> > >You are seriously suggesting that, in a FRPG, the game does *not* occur in
> > >your imagination? You really want to argue that there is *no* difference
> > >between reality *as portrayed in a game* and the real thing?
[And regarding to Mr. Wallace's correct comment that I didn't mean that...]
> No, David Summers, it seemed to me, seriously advanced this argument. I
> was quite clear, I thought, in the post to which David responded. Now I'm
> willing to concede that he may have written hurriedly, but it did seem
> very clear to me that he had not really tried to grasp my point,
> that he had responded cavilierly--hence the irritated tone of my reply
> above.
Well, I can say that Mr. Wallace is the one the correctly who
reiterated my point. While I felt my point was fairly clear
(and actually, having reread it, it stills seems so),
it seems that there was a breakdown in understanding
on one end or the other (and will nod humility to
not assume it is on the other guy's end :-).
> > The argument that *is* being made is that there is a
> > difference between game elements which are *based on* someone's
> > knowledge about the real world, and those which are not, and that many
> > people find gratuitous use of the latter type of elements, as
> > exemplified in David's car engine repair, damaging to SOD.
This is an acurate description of what I'm saying...
> If I were to specify, in a game, that goat-fat lamps smoked a great deal
> when they burned, would that damage SOD, for you?
This is based on the fact that fat does not burn cleanly. So
no, it doesn't
> How about Uryiscyx-fat lamps?
I would say that this is a detail based on the part of the reality
that the GM has made up.
> It seems to me that we improvise game world details all the time which are
> not explicitly based on some-one's real world experience. For me, anyway,
> these deepen the verisimilitude of the game, or at last can, potentially.
Well, again, you have the distinction between what the GM is making
up (creatures, magic, history, etc.) and what is being presented
as working it would work in reality.
> I think the car repair example grated because it violated various people's
> real experience--they knew that real engines didn't behave like that.
It was more than that. It was that the engine was _suppose_
to be working like a real engine, but it was clear that the
GM didn't care if it did or not.
>suppose that David had specified that it was a grav-sled engine repair,
>based on c'vnxian gravitronic technology, and that the character making
>the repair was a competant c'vnxian gravitronic engineer. Would the
>example then have grated?
Again, we have the same distinction...
You can make up details about fantastic elements of any
setting, but that in no way mitigates the expectation
that thing represented as working as they do in reality
will, in fact, work that way.
I will also add another caveat for the "made up" parts
of the setting. While one certainly make up any details
about something that isn't real, one should be careful
in doing so. Part of the suspension of disbelief that
allows unreal elements is that they do work for a reason
(albeit an unreal one) and they do so consistently. It
can be a mistake to just make up details without
giving the matter some thought. My experience is that
it is better to have, when you set up the background,
to have as good idea as possible about how "it" works
so one can just describe it in more detail when asked
about details.
John Jordan
In article <5bgkio$8...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com says...
>
>russell wallace (rwal...@tcd.ie) wrote:
>
>: However, this statement is somewhat misleading. You've made it clear
>: that your group are indeed rules lawyers when playing Hero, but you must
>: abandon your penchant for rules lawyering when playing Theatrix,
>: perforce, Theatrix having so few rules to lawyer.
>
>No, not at all. There are fewer rules in Theatrix (although this too has
>been debated). However, I've noticed no lessening in their enjoyment over
>lawyering the rules that there are.
I'm puzzled. From your description of the Theatrix rules I can't see how
they can be lawyered. Could you give an example of how this can be done?
--
John
Jeff Stehman
Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: I think the car repair example grated because it violated various people's
: real experience--they knew that real engines didn't behave like that. But
: suppose that David had specified that it was a grav-sled engine repair,
: based on c'vnxian gravitronic technology, and that the character making
: the repair was a competant c'vnxian gravitronic engineer. Would the
: example then have grated?
Yes. I don't see any difference between making decisions based on that
kind of detail and saying, "I'll take what's behind door number three."
It just doesn't feel like an informed decision to me, which makes the
details bogus.
Yes, I understand that if you work through enough of these situations,
using bogus, consistant details, they lose their bogosity. (As an aside,
what happens later if you're discussing your real world car problems with
your mechanic, conversation turns, you discover mutual gaming interests
and eventually invite the mechanic to joing your game?) For me, that's a
lot of effort with no gain. I don't roleplay so that I can make informed
decisions at that level of detail. Now deciding whether to take the time
to do the job right or hack it together with duct tape is a decision that
I might very well be interested in roleplaying, and the level of detail
in the engine repair example is not necessary in order for me to make that
decision.
--
Jeff Stehman Senior Systems Administrator
ste...@southwind.net SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
voice: (316)263-7963 Wichita, KS
URL for Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce: http://www.southwind.net/ict/
Mark Apolinski
David P. Summers wrote:
>
> The question (at least for me) hasn't been if mechanics
> are made up (I would say they have to be or they don't
> exist) or if they are "just made up" without any care
> or knowledge of how something might actually have worked.
> (And so do represent something better than a GM who
> "just makes up" details during a game). In your example
> I would say the mechanics are not "just made up".
Well what has it been about then?
> I would say that a mechanic that produces the kind
> of results that occur in the real world is the
> definition of realistic.
But is it the mechanic that's realistic or is it the results that are
realistic? What if you had two different game mechanics, that used
completely different algorithms in completely different ways to produce
identical "realistic" results? Are they both realistic? Even if they're
completely made-up?
> > What is your opinion
> > of a bogus mechanic that produces realistic results?
>
> Well I don't see a mechanic that produces a realistic as bogus.
> After all, the usage of bogus that has been employed here
> (at least by me) is "not pertaining to any reality".
*Any* reality? If I use stock market fluctuations to determine firearms
results then is that a bogus mechanic? The mechanic pertains to the
reality of the stock market, but does it pertain to firearms? I would
say that the mechanic is not realistic even though the results are. And
most important, the mechanic is *made up*. It's not the way things
"really" work. For me, it doesn't matter if the mechanic is made up or
not, as long as it gives realistic results.
> > How do you tell whether your painstakingly-researched game mechanics are
> > truely "realistic"?
>
> Well, in my example, I mentioned that the for the games in question
> I not only had an idea that is was reasearch, but how they went
> about modeling the mechanics (for example, in Guns, Guns, Guns
> they use a kinetic energy divided by cross sectional area model
> that has been developed by the FBI (or was it the army?)).
> While not 100% certain, I find such an approach more credible
> than "just making up detail". Additionally, when mechanics
> match my own personal experience (such as rules for sailing
> in a Harn supplement I read) that also adds additional
> credibility.
The *research* is realistic. The kinetic energy divided by cross-section
model is realistic. But they then "translate" those results into game
terminology. Even if the damages seem realistic, are the actual combat
mechanics realistic? Armor penetration? Graze results? Damage effects on
people?
One can make the results of a mechanic *map* to a resonable "realistic"
distribution, but that doesn't make the mechanic real. It's still made
up.
> > If it's just that the results map to a "reasonable" result range (known
> > by doing real world research), then what is the difference whether those
> > results are produced by a mechanic or "made up" by the GM as long as
> > they *seem* realistic?
>
> First of all, I like a game to teach me how it would be to
> be that character. Just as a history book that "just made
> up" a history that was "reasonable" doesn't cut it, neither
> do such details.
If the details are realistic *and* made up, then what is the problem?
> > What if the GM is making an *informed* guess?
>
> Then my commments don't apply. I was objecting to
> the idea that is was OK for a GM to "just make up"
> details.
Why do you put "just made up" in quotes? Does that phrase mean something
to you beyond what the words say? Are you implying that "just made up"
means that the GM doesn't care? Is that what you think David's attitude
is?
Mark
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 18 Jan 1997, David P. Summers wrote:
> > If I were to specify, in a game, that goat-fat lamps smoked a great deal
> > when they burned, would that damage SOD, for you?
>
> This is based on the fact that fat does not burn cleanly. So
> no, it doesn't
No--its not based on that "fact" at all. Whale oil--rendered blubber,
burns comparatively cleanly, for example. Moreover, neither I nor anyone
else in my game group knows, with any certainty, whether goat fat burns
cleanly. Its made up.
> > How about Uryiscyx-fat lamps?
>
> I would say that this is a detail based on the part of the reality
> that the GM has made up.
So it *is* about authority to make things up, after all. Karen,
please take note.
For you, when is it OK for the GM to "make things up" and when not? How
about players--when, if ever, can they "make things up?"
Let's stipulate, since it actually is important for me and is part of my
group contract, that the genre of the game-world is gritty and realistic.
My best,
Kevin
Mark Apolinski
David P. Summers wrote:
>
> Well, in fact, I was objecting to the idea that it was perfectly
> fine for a GM to "just make up" details. I don't necessarily
> feel that a freefrom games _has_ to be run that way.
What is the difference between "just making up" details and making up
details?
> I'm not sure what you mean "guideines". I find that systems
> (and other details in world books, etc.) from a number of
> games provide me with better "realism" than I could do
> myself without a significant investemtent in time and
> effort in research on my part. Clearly if a GM were
> to spend time researching the point he could do just
> as well, but I will never have the time to match
> all work that has been done by others. In any case
> I definitely find either way better than "just making
> up" details about something I know nothing about during
> a game (and it is this that I find valueless)
What if I call it "making an informed guess using a highly-developed
common sense combined with brilliant improvisational ability" rather
than "just making up" details? I like that better.
> I can make up the details about things I don't know anything
> about as well as he can. I would rather he just move on and
> concentrate on something he _is_ in a position to do a credible
> job and I'll just imagine the details myself.
Well *that's* a personal taste issue. So are you now saying that there's
no fundamental problem with detail improvisation, just that you don't
like it?
> > What I have trouble with is an argument that my
> > rteasons for wanting such detail are unreasoned, or unapplicable.
> >I'm not
> > really sure if you've stated anything of the kind, but that's what I
> > would take exception to.
>
> I never, to my knowledge, said such things. If I inadvertantly
> gave that impression, I state now that I _don't_ feel your
> views are "unreasoned". I'm sure they are quite applicable
> to your style of gaming. I do feel they don't apply to my
> style of gaming (and I do happen to be in pretty much
> general disagreement with them. :-)
You keep harping about "just making up" this and "just making up" that.
You're implying whether intentionally or not that David and anyone who
uses an improvisational method similar to his is doing so arbitrarily
and without concern for "realism". I think you've generated this
impression falsely.
> I am _not_ talking about details, even reasearched ones,
> in a freeform games, but I am talking about details
> that were "just made up" in any sort of game.)
Which implies that if they were "just made up" [sic] then they can't be
based on reality?
Mark
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 18 Jan 1997, Jeff Stehman wrote:
> Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>
> : I think the car repair example grated because it violated various people's
> : real experience--they knew that real engines didn't behave like that. But
> : suppose that David had specified that it was a grav-sled engine repair,
> : based on c'vnxian gravitronic technology, and that the character making
> : the repair was a competant c'vnxian gravitronic engineer. Would the
> : example then have grated?
>
> Yes. I don't see any difference between making decisions based on that
> kind of detail and saying, "I'll take what's behind door number three."
> It just doesn't feel like an informed decision to me, which makes the
> details bogus.
>
> Yes, I understand that if you work through enough of these situations,
> using bogus, consistant details, they lose their bogosity.
But that is entirely the point of the exercise, at least for me. What is
"bogus" in the immediate context of the decision ceases to be so later on
in the game--which makes it worthwhile, or at least potentially so. It
deepens everyone's understanding of the world. Obviously, YMMV and
probably does :)
My best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 18 Jan 1997, David P. Summers wrote:
> >I flat out do not believe that it is
> > yours, either.
>
> Well I don't agree that my experience must match yours or I'm...
> a) "delusional"
> b) "lying"
I was not intending to flame you (although on rereading what I wrote I can
see why you might think I was). I did not express myself very well here.
There is a third option, which, IMO, is more accurate. I do not believe
that you have attempted to enter David's world view--to see things the
way that he does, sympathetically. From my perspective, you have not
entered his paradigm, judging from the content of your posts.
As a consequence, I think that you talk past him--that you fail to engage
his real beliefs.
Now, "entering" someone else's paradigm does not imply that you *must*
agree with it. John Kim, Jeff Stehman, Mary Kuhner, and numerous others,
have made the effort to understand why David argues as he does, and still
disagree with much of what he says. But I do not think that you have done
so.
My best,
Kevin
Karen J. Cravens
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970117...@rac4.wam.umd.edu>,
"Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>> unanswerable.
>
>Hmm. Ok. In that case, I guess that most of what I do isn't bogus, since
>for my group it does neither :)
Well, that *is* the goal. :}
>> You make it out to be a control issue, with the implication that
>> any player who doesn't like the GM making things up really wants
>> control. I don't like the GM making things up because it annoys
>> me. It doesn't mean *I* want to make those things up.
>
>But there most be some level of granularity at which you *don't* mind the
>GM making it up. I mean, when you game, is *everything* expressed in
>terms of the mechanics--hit points, success, failure, that sort of thing?
Not necessarily "mechanics". However, when we're talking about
unimportant facts - *which* hose the character fixes in the car,
or whatever - there's a point at which abstraction, more likely
verbal than "rulesal" is preferred. The car in question is
fictional (though if the characters are played by someone who
DOES know from cars they're welcome to LARP on my car for awhile,
the A/C is miswired and the compressor kicks on whenever the
engine fan does), but the function of a car in a modern-day
campaign is a Real World Fact that can be proved or disproved.
>At what points, in the kind of game you enjoy, does detail and make
>believe enter the game?
>
>For example, were I GMing for you, would you find it disconcerting or
>off-putting if I were to say:
>"You enter the building. It has a single room, with an uneven flag-stone
>floor. The dark wood rafters are exposed, and driblets of thatch hang
>down into the room. Its dark, and smells of animal manure."
>Obviously, all of that detail is made up, and by your definition, I would
>seem to be indulging myself in bogosity. Or is this "fiction?" And if it
>is fiction, and therefore acceptable, what separates it from bogosity?
I think I just explained it. It's *possible*, so it's fictional.
If it leaps out and says "I'M IMPLAUSIBLE", or even "IF YOU
LOOKED THIS UP IN A BOOK YOU'D FIND OUT HOW WRONG YOU ARE," it's
bogus.
"Plausible," of course, relates to the overall plausibility of
the gameworld. In CHROME, it's acceptable to say that someone
robbed a mine to produce their own nukes, even though it's
implausible that anyone but a middle-sized country might have the
refining capability to produce the kind of nukes they did,
because CHROME is a high-tech adventure TV show genre. It's
animal manure in both cases, but if it belongs in the framework
it's okay. But when Storms, CHROME agent, crawls under his '69
Malibu, I would not want to make up what it is that he does.
*He* knows what he's doing. I don't, and neither does the GM,
and I'd be painfully aware of that fact. (Actually, the
*current* GM probably would know what he's saying, but it
wouldn't help me any.)
--..............Karen Cravens .. pho...@southwind.net ...............
One's eyes are what one is;
one's mouth is what one becomes.
-- John Galsworthy
Larry D. Hols
Hallo,
David P. Summers wrote:
Mr Summers speaks of the use of details in Mr Berkman's engine
example, and of the difference between details on completely fantastic
material (that wholly created by the GM/game designer) and those
details that purport to reflect reality.
> Again, we have the same distinction...
> You can make up details about fantastic elements of any
> setting, but that in no way mitigates the expectation
> that thing represented as working as they do in reality
> will, in fact, work that way.
This is an accurate description of the basis for .... objection to Mr
Berkman's example. Now, if David had indeed been dealing with
technology that was RL-based (say a grav-sled) then I wouldn't have
had any qualms about the details he provided. I may have wondered
about the gear box being mentioned (what does a grav sled need a gear
box for?) but I seriously doubt that David would have included a gear
box on a machine that probably would have had little use for one.
I do wonder about the advisibility of creating models on the fly in
this fashion, though. If something is important, wouldn't it be much
better to has a out a model outside of play? Playing through the
first time would be fine, but if the skill were one to be used often
or in important situations, wouldn't a stronger model of resolution
(derived outside of play) be preferable to a model that hasn't been
closely examined? If the future use of this skill is based on only
the seat-of-pants model hashed out in first play, then it seems
probable that a poor model could weigh down play forever after.
Larry
keast
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970117...@rac4.wam.umd.edu> on Fri,
17 Jan 1997 20:01:22 -0500, Kevin R. Hardwick says...
(sniped in the interest of space)
> From what he (David) wrote, this was not at all obvious.
>
>> The argument that *is* being made is that there is a
>> difference between game elements which are *based on* someone's
>> knowledge about the real world, and those which are not, and that many
>> people find gratuitous use of the latter type of elements, as
>> exemplified in David's car engine repair, damaging to SOD.
>
>I would argue that the details were not gratuitous (see below). But > that is
tangential, I think.
>
>If I were to specify, in a game, that goat-fat lamps smoked a great deal
>when they burned, would that damage SOD, for you?
>
>How about Uryiscyx-fat lamps?
>
>It seems to me that we improvise game world details all the time which are
>not explicitly based on some-one's real world experience. For me, anyway,
>these deepen the verisimilitude of the game, or at last can, potentially.
>
>I think the car repair example grated because it violated various people's
>real experience--they knew that real engines didn't behave like that. But
>suppose that David had specified that it was a grav-sled engine repair,
>based on c'vnxian gravitronic technology, and that the character making
>the repair was a competant c'vnxian gravitronic engineer. Would the
>example then have grated?
>
>Would it continue to grate if the detail "gratuitiously" established in
>the repair turned out to be an important diagnostic clue in a future
>repair, thus maintaining coherence and consistency in the imaginary game
>world?
>
>My best,
>Kevin
>
Hmmmmm. In my experience, the inclusion of 'bogus' elements which are not based
on real-world experience does have a definite place in RPGs. Provided they are
NOT gratuitious, of course.
A couple of examples (from Science Fiction RPGs) of blatantly fantastical
rules/situations may be of interest.
Example 1. In an SF-RPG which I've run, FTL travel and communication relied
upon technological enhancement of the psionic powers (teleportation, telepathy)
or 'talented' individuals. I'd suspect that such a system, lacking as it does
the 'hard-science' of other proposed FTl drives would be considered
unacceptably 'bogus'. However, this relatively minor piece of slight of hand,
results in enormous repercutions on the game world. Considerable economic and
political power becomes invested in a single group of 'talented' individuals.
The entire society is structured differently from our modern society as human
resources become more important than financial or technological resources, an
individual's position in society is not determined by the social position of
their parents but upon their psionic talent (blurring modern social divisions
and creating new ones). So, from a 'bogus' premise arises an interesting, and
different, game-universe in which to roleplay adventures.
Example 2: In another SF-RPG game-world, I decided that there would be NO FTL
communications/radio, but that FTL travel was possible (resulting in
interplanetary communication being in the form of physical mail). In addition,
crew and passengers would experience ZERO time while travelling FTL, while 1
week (per parsec travelled) would pass for those planet-bound (ie: If a ship
travelled from A to B (a distance of 1 parsec) and back to A, the crew would
experience ZERO travelling time, but to the people on planet A 2 weeks would
have passed). This produced a dichotomy between the planet-bound and
space-travellers, with space-travellers seeming to have longer lives (in terms
of the number of years between their birth and their death). This
results in sociological effects such as the development of two intersecting but
seperate societies. Again, a single 'BOGUS' element (in as much as I can give
you no sicentific reasons for why FTL should work in such a mannr) produces an
interesting and unussual social dynamic in which to roleplay.
For my players, and myself, who concetrate on roleplaying, nteresting / strange
/ unussual / different social conditions are both desirable and enjoyable.
Afterall, we roleplay to escape from reality for awhile, not to simulate
reality under another guise.
Phil K.
(who is another 'oldie' who has been RPing and GMing for 20 years).
James Ellis
Mark Apolinski wrote:
>
>
> You keep harping about "just making up" this and "just making up" that.
> You're implying whether intentionally or not that David and anyone who
> uses an improvisational method similar to his is doing so arbitrarily
> and without concern for "realism". I think you've generated this
> impression falsely.
>
No, I think that impression was generated when David permitted the
use of patently absurd details to influence the repair of the car in
that much-bandied-about example.
Biff
russell wallace
>David P. Summers wrote:
>> I would say that a mechanic that produces the kind
>> of results that occur in the real world is the
>> definition of realistic.
>But is it the mechanic that's realistic or is it the results that are
>realistic? What if you had two different game mechanics, that used
>completely different algorithms in completely different ways to produce
>identical "realistic" results? Are they both realistic? Even if they're
>completely made-up?
For my own part, I'll agree with David Summers and say that it's the
results that count, and the internals don't count, at least not for
purposes of deciding realism (though they might count for other factors,
such as complexity and intrusiveness).
An analogy: how do you define whether a weather forecasting program is
realistic or not? Answer: by whether or not it can successfully
predict the weather for the next few days given accurate data. You
don't care whether the code is written in FORTRAN or C. Such things can
matter for other purposes (you wouldn't write a weather forecasting
program in Visual Basic, because it would be too slow) but not for
deciding realism.
russell wallace
>What if I call it "making an informed guess using a highly-developed
>common sense combined with brilliant improvisational ability" rather
>than "just making up" details? I like that better.
Depends on how well informed the guess is, and how specific the
requirements are. In the engine repair example, if you don't know how
to fix an engine, then no amount of common sense or improvisational
ability is going to make a detailed description thereof on your part
accurate. OTOH, in many other cases you're quite right; all GMs to at
least some extent need to construct some details of the game world on
the fly using informed guesses and common sense; being good at this is a
significant part of being a skilled GM, regardless of whether or not
mechanics are being used.
russell wallace
>If I were to specify, in a game, that goat-fat lamps smoked a great deal
>when they burned, would that damage SOD, for you?
It sounds perfectly believable to me that they might, so the answer is
no, unless I had reason to believe they actually don't.
>How about Uryiscyx-fat lamps?
No, that would be fine.
>I think the car repair example grated because it violated various people's
>real experience--they knew that real engines didn't behave like that. But
>suppose that David had specified that it was a grav-sled engine repair,
>based on c'vnxian gravitronic technology, and that the character making
>the repair was a competant c'vnxian gravitronic engineer. Would the
>example then have grated?
Not as much so. To repeat an earlier analogy, if a GM pulls out a map
of Coruscant or R'lyeh or Shadar Logoth that he drew for the game,
that's fine; if he pulls out a map of New York that he drew for the
game, then I'd prefer it to be based on a real map, even though I've
never been there and wouldn't be able to point out any inaccuracies in
it. The other thing that grated - and more seriously - was that the
engine repair example didn't seem to have any consistent model behind it
(and even if it did, not being able to read the GM's mind, I wasn't
aware of any such model). It would bother me a lot as a player if I was
asked to make decisions in the middle of an action resolution without
having any idea what model the GM was using for how the activity worked.
>Would it continue to grate if the detail "gratuitiously" established in
>the repair turned out to be an important diagnostic clue in a future
>repair, thus maintaining coherence and consistency in the imaginary game
>world?
Maintaining coherence and consistency is important; I think this is more
likely to happen if models of how things work are decided outside game
time rather than being made up in the middle of an action resolution,
though I won't go so far as to say that the latter technique *can't*
preserve coherence and consistency.
And the other important factor is that if my character would know how
the activity in question works at the level of detail being used, then I
need to know it too, whether the explanation is given beforehand or on
the spot, rather than having to try to guess the GM's thought processes
during an action resolution.
If these two issues are satisfactorily resolved, and if either the
activity in question is one which doesn't exist in real life or else the
details are based on some knowledge of how it actually works in real
life, then I have absolutely no problem with the use of this sort of
detail.
Psychohist
Jeff Stehman:
Yes, I understand that if you work through enough of
these situations, using bogus, consistant details,
they lose their bogosity.
Kevin Hardwick:
But that is entirely the point of the exercise, at
least for me. What is "bogus" in the immediate context
of the decision ceases to be so later on in the
game--which makes it worthwhile, or at least potentially
so. It deepens everyone's understanding of the world.
In some cases, though, working through bogus details will will just make
them even more bogus, because the off the cuff initial description turns
out to have inconsistencies that can't be repaired.
Let me give an example that started with a considerably more innocuous
description than David Berkman's engine description. The setting is a
science fiction role playing game.
The gamesmaster, who is an astrophysicist, defines the power sources for
the space ships as being fusion engines. One of the players, a nuclear
engineer, is interested in the details - and has a character in a position
to find out more. (Ship's engineer, I think.) What kind of fusion? The
gamesmaster, very aware of the activation energies involved in the
reactions, says that it's deuterium-tritium fusion, which is relatively
easy to get.
Now, it's been defined that fusion fuel can be 'refined' from gaseous
hydrogen available from gas giant atmospheres. Is there enough tritium in
these gas giant atmospheres to fuel the reactor? Answer, which the
astrophysicist gamesmaster well knows, is no. So, how is the extra
tritium provided? Gamesmaster defines a new piece of equipment, which
turns deuterium into tritium.
How does this piece of equipment work? Well, it adds neutrons to
deuterium to provide the tritium. The neutrons come from a material that
is carried along with the ship.
The nuclear engineer player then calculates how much of this material is
needed for a typical trip. Turns out that even if it's pure neutronium,
the mass needed is greater than the mass of the ship. Player asks
gamesmaster how he's going to get out of this one. Answer: 'don't ask
any more questions, or I'll have to say it's magic'.
Trying to maintain consistency with off the cuff details sometimes just
results in more and more bogosity. In this case, and in most cases,
better research - or less detail - will work better in the long run.
Warren Dew
John H Kim
A quick followup on my statement that "most" RPG systems
make up their numbers without any particular real-world basis.
David P. Summers <7155...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>I guess I happen to be more optimistic than John. I've seen
>a number of systems were I have some idea where some of
>the mechanics came from and (or have tried doing some
>of the things described and found the game did a reasonable
>decent job) that they did do some real world reasearch.
>Now this is only a few games, but I guess I'm just optimistic
>enough to think they aren't that unique.
No, they're not *unique*, but they are the minority. Heck,
most RPG's are set in domains where reality checking only barely
applies. I'm not saying that reality-based RPG's don't exist,
just that they are outnumbered by games like _TORG_, _Feng Shui_,
_Hong Kong Action Theatre_, _James Bond_, _Star Wars_, _Shadowrun_,
_Amber_, _Paranoia_, _Toon_, _Mage_, _Wraith_, _Space:1889_,
_Rifts_, etc. All of these games specifically deny being about
reality.
Beyond this, you have lots of games which are set in
something resembling our reality, but whose numbers aren't checked
by anything past rough common sense: _Vampire_, _Over the Edge_,
_Werewolf_, _Call of Cthulhu_. This isn't meant to slam these
games: none of them consider realistic numbers to be of importance.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Now I wouldn't be suprised if John's experience is different.
>For example, I know he plays Hero (where I've heard it claimed
>that it is just fine if you make up stats for a Kentucky
>Long Rifle without regard to the stats of a real one).
>Who's experience is more representative? Who can say?
I have a great many RPG's which span a wide spectrum of
the market, and I'm certainly not basing my statement on one
system which I commonly play.
BTW, all of the guns in HERO seem to base their damage off
a logarithmic scale of bullet energy. Now, admittedly this scale is
very rough: each damage value covers a wide range of bullet energies.
Still, I'm pretty sure they don't just make it up since I haven't
seen any failure cases.
(Which is to say, the bullet damage in HERO is intentionally
unrealistic at base, but it is not baseless.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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_
Mark Apolinski
Psychohist wrote:
> Let me give an example that started with a considerably more innocuous
> description than David Berkman's engine description. The setting is a
> science fiction role playing game.
>
> The gamesmaster, who is an astrophysicist, defines the power sources for
> the space ships as being fusion engines. One of the players, a nuclear
> engineer, is interested in the details - and has a character in a position
> to find out more. (Ship's engineer, I think.) What kind of fusion? The
> gamesmaster, very aware of the activation energies involved in the
> reactions, says that it's deuterium-tritium fusion, which is relatively
> easy to get.
Right there is where you and David (and I) part. I don't think that
David would, and I know that I wouldn't, continue supplying completely
baseless details to a player who is as interested as your astrophysicist
above. If I didn't know enough to make up good explanations, I would
(and I would bet that David would) just ask the *player* to tell me.
This is the same kind of situation that countless rpg groups follow if
they have a member who is knowledgeable in the realities of modern
combat (assuming the game has a modern setting too). One just deferrs to
the group member who is the expert.
Do you seriously think that if any player in the car-repair example
complained about the inaccuracies of detail, that David would ignore
their very proper concerns?
Player "But hollow-point bullets CAN'T penetrate that kind of body
armor!"
GM "Shut up! I'M the GM!"
Mark
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, James Ellis wrote:
> Mark Apolinski wrote:
> > You're implying whether intentionally or not that David and anyone who
> > uses an improvisational method similar to his is doing so arbitrarily
> > and without concern for "realism". I think you've generated this
> > impression falsely.
>
> No, I think that impression was generated when David permitted the
> use of patently absurd details to influence the repair of the car in
> that much-bandied-about example.
I completely agree with you, with one major caveat. That is that *the
people in David's group* did not perceive the details to be "patently
absurd." None of them knew enough about car mechanics to recognize that
that was not the way that cars actually worked in real life. So for them
the detail did not damage SOD. Indeed, David knew that the example was a
bit extreme when he introduced it--that was in part the point of the
example.
Rexpectfully, I think what counts here is the SOD of the players, and not
of the commentators on this board :)
My best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 20 Jan 1997, Psychohist wrote:
> Jeff Stehman:
>
> Yes, I understand that if you work through enough of
> these situations, using bogus, consistant details,
> they lose their bogosity.
>
> Kevin Hardwick:
>
> But that is entirely the point of the exercise, at
> least for me. What is "bogus" in the immediate context
> of the decision ceases to be so later on in the
> game--which makes it worthwhile, or at least potentially
> so. It deepens everyone's understanding of the world.
>
> In some cases, though, working through bogus details will will just make
> them even more bogus, because the off the cuff initial description turns
> out to have inconsistencies that can't be repaired.
> Trying to maintain consistency with off the cuff details sometimes just
> results in more and more bogosity. In this case, and in most cases,
> better research - or less detail - will work better in the long run.
You are absolutely right. I use down time between games to double check
on these kinds of issues, and I sometimes use the time at dinner before a
game starts to lay the issue out to the group and ask for their input into
fixing the problem. I prefer to use that time because no one is IC then,
so it doesn't jar so hard to insert a patch.
The only other comment that I would add is that very often the models
being introduced stem from the player, not the GM. There are various
circumstances when I want authot level feedback from players during a
game--for example, were Scott Ruggles in my game, I would refer most
questions about the behavior of firearms to him for adjudication, for two
reasons. First, he knows much more about firearms than do I, and hence
I avoid destroying his SOD by deferring to his expertise (and as the most
knowledgable person at the table, his SOD is the most likely to get
hammered), and second, he can speak with greater authority than can I on
this issue, and thus can present a more compelling version of game reality
than can I. I give my players lots of license to improvise game reality,
based either on player knowledge or character skill (the character
*should* know X, and I haven't detailed it, so rather than come up with
*my* model of the game reality, why not use the player's instead?)
Now obviously, this style of game isn't for everyone. I know, for
example, that it would grate on Mary Kuhner :) But for others I can
confidently say based on personal experience that it is quite liberating
and effective, and leads to the players having a much greater personal
stake in the game (I also find that if I give potential powergamers a
share of ownership in the game, they tend to game more constructively.)
All my best,
Kevin
Psychohist
Regarding my fusion example, excerpted as follows:
The gamesmaster, who is an astrophysicist, defines the
power sources for the space ships as being fusion engines.
One of the players, a nuclear engineer, is interested in
the details - and has a character in a position to find
out more. (Ship's engineer, I think.) What kind of
fusion? The gamesmaster, very aware of the activation
energies involved in the reactions, says that it's
deuterium-tritium fusion, which is relatively easy to get.
Mark Apolinski posts, in part:
Right there is where you and David (and I) part. I don't
think that David would, and I know that I wouldn't,
continue supplying completely baseless details to a player
who is as interested as your astrophysicist above. If I
didn't know enough to make up good explanations, I would
(and I would bet that David would) just ask the *player*
to tell me.
Um, Mark - the astrophysicist was the gamesmaster, not the player. And
the details weren't baseless - the decision to define the fusion engines
as deuterium-tritium was based on the gamesmaster's knowledge of fusion
reactions, which was better than the player's. Yet, the astrophysicist
still got into trouble, as my example shows, because of the willingness to
provide detail without first researching it - and thinking about all the
ramifications - carefully.
Warren Dew
David P. Summers
[Combining replies on the same subject to the same person...]
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com>, Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:29:28 +0000;
>David P. Summers wrote:
>> -In another case mechanics are "just made up" without
>> even caring how that reality does work.
>> The latter case, (as I think Karen put it) damages
>> SOD for many people.
>Well, I think you're making a mistake in imagining that David or anyone
>who uses the improvisational method does so without caring how reality
>does work.
Well, that isn't what the original post said, but if you want
agree with me that "just making up" such details doesn't add
anything to game I shouldn't object!.
>No, I mean, if I use an algorithm which requires input from the stock
>market and produces an output of "realistic" firearms results, then is
>the mechanic realistic or bogus?
I find this "highly unlikely", but if a mechanic really does
produce results that model reality then who am I to object?
>> It basically that not being perfect doesn't mean that
>> something is worthless.
>Well that's exactly the case with the improvisational method, so what's
>the problem?
As I said before. I am not necessarily objecting to improvistional
gaming (I don't care for it, but that is for other reasons). I
was disagreeing with the idea that it adds something to the
game to "just make up" details (Iike the care engine example).
If you want to agree with me on that then we can declare our
agreement and stop here.
>I think you're blurring the line between "creative freedom" in
>improvisation and "arbitrary fantasy". There are differences in degree.
>At one end are "researched" game details; at the other is wild fantasy.
>You're lumping everything into the category of "just made up."
Actually I'm doing the opposite (and have made some effort to
in other posts). Clearly there are elements of a setting that
are, as part of the SOD, not realistic. The point is that
if an element is supposed to work like it doesn't in reality,
then the more you can make sure that it does then the better
the game is.
>> Well, in fact, the phrase "just make up" was used
>> to say it didn't matter where the details came from.
>> (It's OK to "just" make up the details.)
>
>I don't think so.
Well since you had to ask where it came from and clearly
didn't see the post in question, I would say you aren't
in a postion to tell me I'm wrong. But what does it matter?
If you agree with my position then it makes me happy (and
if David wanted to say that he now wants to agree with me
that would make me happier still :-).
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com>, Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:31:57 +0000;
>I just don't see why there is a fundamental link between improvisational
>detail and "hokeyness." It's impossible to have one without the other?
I never said there is. I said there was a link between "just
making up" details about something that is suppose to work as
it does in reality (without regard to wether it really does)
and "hokeyness".
David P. Summers
[combining two replies, to the same person, on the same subject,
into one post to increase efficiency...]
"Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu>, Sun, 19 Jan 1997 11:26:06 -0500;
>On 19 Jan 1997, David P. Summers wrote:
>
>> "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu>, Sat, 18 Jan 1997 15:19:46 -0500;
>> Actually, as a chemist, I can say that fats _do_ burn
>> less cleanly than many oils and things like paraffin wax.
>> Whale oil may burn more cleanly than _other fats_...
>"Clean" is a term that rather defies scientific explanation, doesn't it?
Well, not really. In this case it is based on the amount
of soot produced.
>It strikes me as rather subjective--as inherently relative. Since I
>didn't specify a referent, how can it violate SOD?
I don't agree. Most people would say it's the opposite of
sooty. And after all, it would pointless to give a discription
that didn't mean anythying.
[Here we are getting back into questioning people's motives, tatics,
understanding etc. I am not interested in such discussions
and will say no more on them past this message.]
>> On the other hand, making up a detail about how goat fat burns
>> wrt to other fats when you don't have the slightest idea
>> if it true adds nothing to the game for me.
>I can accept that. But you seem to want to go further--you seem to imply
>that it ought not to add anything to the game for anybody-- and you profess
>not to understand why it might be perfectly rational for me, or David, or
>Sarah to prefer to game this way.
All I have ever said is that "just making up" details damages
the SOD for me. Clearly I disagree with people who hold
different views on games, just as you do. I am perfectly
happy to say that, for my style of gaming, just making
up details isn't an adequate way to go, but that it seems
to work for you.
Also, I have posted very little (if anything)
in disagreement with Sarah. Perhaps you are
reading your discussions with others into
what I've said.
>So far as I can tell, you have made no effort to
>understand why my preferences might be based on a rationally derived
>aesthetic. It is this lack of willingness to enter someone else's
>paradigm that makes your responses so unconstructive and
>impoverished--your critiques simply miss the point, because you fail to
>apprehend what the point might be, *for me*. We wind up talking past each
>other.
To be honest, I think you might look to yourself before going
down this tangent. All I have ever done is state that the
approach in question doesn't work for me and answer why
it doesn't. Conversely, it has been _you_ who has attempted
to gainsay my views with the claim that all details are made
up.
Now if you feel you have been misunderstood you can certainly
point out where your points aren't being addressed (as I
did in response to your "all details are made up" post)
but you also need to remember that just because someone
doesn't agree with your points doesn't mean they don't
understand them.
>I can live with this. However, very often no one in the game group
>*knows* how "reality does indeed work." This is most obviously true for
>fantastic or futuristic settings, but is, IME, very often true as well for
>every day settings too.
Well, the distinction between made up setting elements and those
that are based on reality has been made. Clearly any GM
who is not omniscient may not know how reality works. As
has been said before, the preference of many would be
that the GM just handles what happens, moves on to
things he can do a better job on, and lets the players
handle their own details.
"Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu>, Sun, 19 Jan 1997 11:34:08 -0500;
>On 19 Jan 1997, David P. Summers wrote:
>> You have a part of a setting that is suppose to work as
>> it would in reality....
>> -In one case you look at how reality works and make
>> up mechanics that match, as well as can be reasonably
>> expected, how reality works.
>Lets call this case A.
>> -In another case mechanics are "just made up" without
>> even caring how that reality does work.
>And this case B.
>> The latter case, (as I think Karen put it) damages
>> SOD for many people.
>No one, not even David, has disputed this.
Well the original statement did dispute that. But if you are
going to agree with me, who am I too look at gift horse
in the mouth!
John L. Jones II
Mark Apolinski wrote:
> What if I call it "making an informed guess using a highly-developed
> common sense combined with brilliant improvisational ability" rather
> than "just making up" details? I like that better.
You can dress up a pig . . . .
> Mark
--
John L. Jones II E-Mail: bi...@nis.lanl.gov
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in
a very narrow field.
Niels Bohr (1885-1962)
Rodney Payne
ke...@melb.alexia.net.au (keast) writes:
>For my players, and myself, who concetrate on roleplaying, nteresting / strange
>/ unussual / different social conditions are both desirable and enjoyable.
>Afterall, we roleplay to escape from reality for awhile, not to simulate
>reality under another guise.
Not sure if that's a general or specific `we', but in any case some thoughts.
Involvement in any fictional narrative is escapist, by definition.
However, I disagree rather strongly with the claim--implied or
stated--that since some elements of any created story must be
`unrealistic', nothing in that same narrative can or should be `realistic'.
By realistic, the proponents of verisimilitude do not mean `real'--that
is clearly impossible. However, it is quite reasonable to create
something that `resembles' reality to a greater or lesser degree. The
claim that should be challenged is that `reality' doesn't matter at
all--after all, a fictional account makes sense to us in that it
reflects, in some way or another, reality. Even a completely nonsensical
milieu will be interpreted in the ways it conflicts with reality.
Since it is clear that the aspects of a particular story or setting
must, either by reflection or contrast, use reality as a model, is it
then so hard to accept that different players will have different
interests with regard to the extent to which the game matches their view
of reality?
(Counterclaims that `realism' is itself a genre miss the point in this
case. Firstly, they are based on an equivocation between genre as general
and genre as by definition fantastic, a la:
Everything is a genre, therefore `reality' is a genre. Pulp and fantasy
are also genres, and are unrealistic. Therefore, all genres are
unrealistic. Therefore, the reality genre is unrealistic.
Further, the assertion that `realism' is just a series of conventions that
may not be any more `realistic' than anything else misses the point--
what is believable varies from person to person, and the desire to model
what one believes to _be_ reality also varies. A realistic game is one
which matches its participants view of reality, and that is a perfectly
valid goal.)
Rant mode off.
--
Rodney Payne | The artist should organise his life. Here
| is a precise record of the time taken by
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | my daily chores: I get up at 7.18,
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | inspiration 10.23 to 11.47.... Erik Satie
David P. Summers
In article <5c3nr6$l...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (David Berkman) wrote:
> David P. Summers (7155...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
> : I'm saying that the approach in question damages the suspension
> : of disbelief for a lot of people and makes the game seem "hokey".
> Since it's done when no one has information to the contrary, then the
> problem must stem from the fact that those involved do not what the
> correct answer is, not that the answer given contradicts any held knowledge.
It stems from the fact that they know that the answer is "just
made up" so they have no reason to believe it represents
anything that might really have happened to their characters
in that situation.
> Many things are made up even in otherwise 'historical' games, without
> those rule sets being described as 'hokey'.
It depends on "many" and "made up". A decent historical
will do enough research that the details are at least educated
guesses (ie based on real knowledge and not "just made up").
If necessary, they may have to present plausible conjecture
to make the setting playable but this a) is at least based
on a general knowledge of the real history, and b) is
part of the SOD.
But the idea that a historical world book should go ahead
and "just make up" stuff to add detail invalidates the
point of a historical setting for me. I would not
buy such a world book.
> Well, now the only problem must be a property of the fact that stuff is
> made up in the first place. No one has knowledge to the contrary.
If you are saying that you just mislead you players into
thinking you know something when you don't, I think that
sooner or later it will catch up with you (if I later read
something on the subject at hand, something roleplaying
often leads me to do, and find out that what happened was
bogus, it tends to destroy what I got out it.).
Even if it didn't, I don't want my GM to engage in such
dishonesty with me.
> : I would say that is a fundamental problem.
>
> I don't believe that.
It may not be for your style of play. It is for mine.
David P. Summers
In article <5c102f$g6t$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
jh...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) wrote:
[On the idea that most games make up mechanics for play balance
only and never consider how things work in the real world.]
> No, they're not *unique*, but they are the minority. Heck,
> most RPG's are set in domains where reality checking only barely
> applies. I'm not saying that reality-based RPG's don't exist,
> just that they are outnumbered by games like [list deleted]
> All of these games specifically deny being about
> reality.
First of all, even games that aren't reality based have
aspects that are based on reality (to varing degrees).
> Beyond this, you have lots of games which are set in
> something resembling our reality, but whose numbers aren't checked
> by anything past rough common sense: _Vampire_, _Over the Edge_,
> _Werewolf_, _Call of Cthulhu_. This isn't meant to slam these
> games: none of them consider realistic numbers to be of importance.
Well, in fact Call of Cthulhu is based on Runequest which is
based SCA experiences and other realworld factors (I know
this from having talked to an author of an early edition). Now
I can't say what attention they applied when they added
Victorian elements, but at the least you have some attention
to reality and Runequest alone represents a large example
of a game that didn't "just make up" details (and probably
not the best one).
Now such games may or may not be the majority (and you can
start arguing whether you count usage or just number of
games, whether AD&D "fixes" represents shifing the game
away from "just making up" details, how much
a cinematic game emulates reality wrt a realistic
game). But I think that claim of "almost all"
just doesn't hold up and even claims of "most"
have yet to demonstrated.
John H Kim
OK -- this is a combined reply to David Berkman and
David Summers concerning accuracy to what is "real". First of
all, as I have noted with Kevin, I believe that there is in
many games and gamers a desire for something more than just
"believability" -- a desire for what is real.
That said, it is my opinion that "most" RPG numbers aren't
tested beyond common sense and playtesting comments (i.e. common
sense of the players, usually). I would say that reality-based
commercial games are in the minority -- there are a number of
them, but my impression is that they are outweighed by other
games. (David Summers replied to me speaking against "almost
all" -- I never said that. I happen to think that the ratio is
over 50%, but I won't go further than that.)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
David P. Summers <7155...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>John H Kim <jh...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>wrote:
>> Heck, most RPG's are set in domains where reality checking only
>> barely applies. I'm not saying that reality-based RPG's don't exist,
>> just that they are outnumbered by games like [list deleted]
>> All of these games specifically deny being about reality.
>
>First of all, even games that aren't reality based have
>aspects that are based on reality (to varing degrees).
Right, but that doesn't mean that their numbers are
researched. D&D is set in something resembling our world,
but I would clearly put it in the "not researched" category.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>> Beyond this, you have lots of games which are set in something
>> resembling our reality, but whose numbers aren't checked by
>> anything past rough common sense: _Vampire_, _Over the Edge_,
>> _Werewolf_, _Call of Cthulhu_. This isn't meant to slam these
>> games: none of them consider realistic numbers to be of importance.
>
>Well, in fact Call of Cthulhu is based on Runequest which is
>based SCA experiences and other realworld factors (I know this
>from having talked to an author of an early edition). Now I can't
>say what attention they applied when they added Victorian elements,
>but at the least you have some attention to reality and Runequest
>alone represents a large example of a game that didn't "just make
>up" details (and probably not the best one).
Hmm. Well, I would more-or-less agree on _Runequest_
(they tried, which is good for that time period). However, that
doesn't mean that CoC is "researched" -- they took mechanics
based on SCA combat, and altered them significantly (for example,
removing hit location), and then used it for a game with guns,
dynamite, and completely different fighting styles (18th century).
IMO, that doesn't count as researched.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean here by a "large example".
Sure, there are reality-based games which use non-made-up numbers:
say _Daredevils_, _Top Secret_, _Millenium's End_, _CORPS_, _TimeLords_,
and _Cyberpunk_. In my opinion, that's still a short list compared
to the pure fantasy games and the rules-don't-matter games.
On the other hand, I agree that it is a legitimate
issue and one that I at least take seriously.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
David P. Summers <7155...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>> David P. Summers (7155...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
>> Many things are made up even in otherwise 'historical' games,
>> without those rule sets being described as 'hokey'.
>
>It depends on "many" and "made up". A decent historical will do
>enough research that the details are at least educated guesses
>(ie based on real knowledge and not "just made up"). If necessary,
>they may have to present plausible conjecture to make the setting
>playable but this a) is at least based on a general knowledge of
>the real history, and b) is part of the SOD.
I tend to agree. I describe a lot of pseudo-historical
games as "hokey" -- this is one of my complaints about _Ars
Magica_, for example.
To David B.: what sort of stuff are you talking about
that is "made up" but not "hokey"? Most "historical" games do
have fantasy elements added in (time travel, mythology, etc.) --
but that's different than making up history.
David Berkman
John H Kim (jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: Also, I'm not sure what you mean here by a "large example".
: Sure, there are reality-based games which use non-made-up numbers:
: say _Daredevils_, _Top Secret_, _Millenium's End_, _CORPS_, _TimeLords_,
: and _Cyberpunk_. In my opinion, that's still a short list compared
: to the pure fantasy games and the rules-don't-matter games.
I don't think it matters if they did research the numbers, they're still
bare guesses, no better than the games which are not researched and based
solely on feel and common sense. The problem is that any real world model
is several times too complex to fit into the basic formula plus die roll
plus modifier which every game uses. All the reserach does is provide a
slightly better basis upon which to judge feel and common sense, and in
the end, designer bias will outweight research objectivity. That is, if
the reserach could even provide the data upon which to build a model of
in-game actions, which I don't believe it can. For example, a lot is
known about the survival rate of gunshot victims. For example, in San
Francisco for instance, your chance of dying from a gunshot is 25%
(assuming a hand gun). What does that tell us about damage systems for
guns and medical skill rolls? Nothing. Too many factors we have no way of
separating from that data. It helps us judge common sense and feel,
that's it. Lots of stuff is known about gun accuracy, bullet
trajectories, and field performnace of shooters. What does that tell us
about how good someone at skill rank 5 should be? Nothing until you have
a way of ranking the shooters who comprise your statistical data, and
raking them in the field, and not on the range. But those breakdowns are
not part of that data, are probably not available, are very difficult to
even do (on what basis do you rank?), and, even if you had them, relating
those kind of real world rankings to skill level 5 in your game is
totally prone to error as well. All that's left is a fact-let which helps
to provide a common sense basis for judgement.
And that's hand guns, a very well researched field. Climbing, medical
skill, debating? Forget it. Even swordsmanship. What data? The difference
between a researched game and a non-researched one is the difference
between an educated guess and a non-eductaed one. That's a difference,
I'll admit. But these systems aren't *simulating* anything. They are
providing random, made-up, answers in ways that are objective, and their
real purpose is that objectivity. People like it. There are good reasons
that they like it, but you pay for it in flexibility and detail, because
detailed and flexible these simple randomizations are not.
However, if your not hooked on objectivity, you can get just as much
realism subjectively, without the mechanics, by providing the background
and data which will allow the GM to make an educated guess on the spot.
And often more detail, at least easier detail because you don't need to
justify a random result, and more flexibility.
: I tend to agree. I describe a lot of pseudo-historical
: games as "hokey" -- this is one of my complaints about _Ars
: Magica_, for example.
: To David B.: what sort of stuff are you talking about
: that is "made up" but not "hokey"?
I would not describe Ars Magica as 'hokey' for one, even though much of
it is obviously not factual.
David
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 22 Jan 1997, Rodney Payne wrote:
> By realistic, the proponents of verisimilitude do not mean `real'--that
> is clearly impossible. However, it is quite reasonable to create
> something that `resembles' reality to a greater or lesser degree.
Exactly. But from my POV, what matters is *whose* sense of reality will
get privileged, and how is that negotiated.
I think the point where I part ways with Jeff S. and John Kim is over the
notion that there is a single unambiguous, "correct" perception of reality
. . .
My best,
Kevin
John Jordan
In article <5cb1e3$s...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com says...
>
>I don't think it matters if they did research the numbers, they're still
>bare guesses, no better than the games which are not researched and based
>solely on feel and common sense. The problem is that any real world model
>is several times too complex to fit into the basic formula plus die roll
>plus modifier which every game uses. All the reserach does is provide a
>slightly better basis upon which to judge feel and common sense, and in
>the end, designer bias will outweight research objectivity.
[goes on to handgun example]
I agree with almost everything you wrote here (which surprised me), but I
think you may be missing a couple of points about the advantages of
research.
Sticking with the firearms example (the others are much more difficult
to justify research for), it's generally easy to spot a non-researched game
because of a lack of balance. Often there will be one specific gun or type
of gun that is far more desirable due to a rules quirk, or statistics which
are clearly not true, for example two similar sized 9mm pistols having
radically different damage ratings or assault rifles doing three times the
damage of some submachine guns.
IMO research can help reduce many consistency and balance problems for the
reason that the real life situation is fairly balanced; people use
different weapons for different tasks, they are nearly all fairly effective
in one way or another, no single weapon is clearly better than all of the
rest and any gun is perfectly capable of breaking plate glass if fired into
it at point blank range.
Of course, it is possible to create a non-researched firearms system which
is both balanced and consistent, but I've seen too many mistakes to accept
that this is easy.
--
John
David Berkman
John Jordan (ja...@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: I agree with almost everything you wrote here (which surprised me), but I
: think you may be missing a couple of points about the advantages of
: research.
I have np problem with research. I think it's a good thing.
I have a problem with thinking that any research you do will provide the
kind of information you need to build statistical models of real world
interactions, or thinking that even if you had the right kind of data,
that the complexity of the process useable for an RPG can in any way
encapsulate that.
All you can do is try to get the right kind of feel out of the simple
randomization of result.
David
russell wallace
>Exactly. But from my POV, what matters is *whose* sense of reality will
>get privileged, and how is that negotiated.
This is an interesting point, and one on which my style tends to differ
from yours. If there's someone in the group who knows more about a
subject than I do, of course I'll normally defer to him when it comes up
in the game. But if it comes to a situation where I know what would be
realistic and none of the players know or care (and it often does, when
I'm running SF) then I find it important to enforce what I consider
realistic, not only for the sake of directly improving my enjoyment of
the game, but because to do otherwise would damage my ability to
maintain a consistent, believable mental model of the game world, which
in turn would damage my ability to run a good game in that world. (If
you want to put a narrative stance label on this, it's probably what
people have been calling Deep Author.)
David P. Summers
In article <5cb1e3$s...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (David Berkman) wrote:
> I don't think it matters if they did research the numbers, they're still
> bare guesses, no better than the games which are not researched and based
> solely on feel and common sense.
I couldn't disagree more. I ran across some well research rules
on sailing an was struck that it gave results that jived with
my own sailing experience (rather than leave the feeling
that the author didn't know sailing from sitting in his
bathtub).
> The problem is that any real world model
> is several times too complex to fit into the basic formula plus die roll
> plus modifier which every game uses.
Well you also fit it into when you have to roll and what are
the results of success and failure. However, it is true
that it is impossible to fit _everything_ in the real world
in a mechanic. That in no way means that a rule that fits
the salient factors doesn't provide results that are more
in line with what would really have happened.
> For example, in San
> Francisco for instance, your chance of dying from a gunshot is 25%
> (assuming a hand gun). What does that tell us about damage systems for
> guns and medical skill rolls? Nothing. Too many factors we have no way of
> separating from that data.
In fact, most rules that I use (obvioulys I can't speek for
the one I don't use) use a lot more info than a simple 75% chance
of survival for wounds from all guns under all circumstances.
However, even with this small start I would say you are
clearly better off than someone who has no idea at all
and might well decided that almost every gunshot wound
is going to be fatal.
(Regarding less research areas)
Even here a little research and/or personal experience
makes a significant difference (as in my sailing example
above).
John Jordan
In article <5ciqam$6...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com says...
>
>John Jordan (ja...@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: I agree with almost everything you wrote here (which surprised me), but
>: I think you may be missing a couple of points about the advantages of
>: research.
>
>I have np problem with research. I think it's a good thing.
>
>I have a problem with thinking that any research you do will provide the
>kind of information you need to build statistical models of real world
>interactions, or thinking that even if you had the right kind of data,
>that the complexity of the process useable for an RPG can in any way
>encapsulate that.
I'm not convinced about what you mean by 'statistical model' here.
AFAIK statistical models are almost always approximations and often very
rough ones. An innacurate or unreliable model based on statistics is surely
still a statistical model.
By this definition a damage system based on real-world statistics (such as
the notorious takedown chance tables) is still a statistical model. Of
course, it's not a very sophisticated one because it takes account of so
few factors.
I think your argument still stands, but note that you don't always have to
make a model (and therefore a mechanics system) more complex in order to
refine it.
>All you can do is try to get the right kind of feel out of the simple
>randomization of result.
I think it's a little more than that. What did you think about my comments
on balance and consistency in my previous post?
--
John
John H Kim
A reply concerning modelling the real world...
John Jordan <ja...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>> I have a problem with thinking that any research you do will provide
>> the kind of information you need to build statistical models of real
>> world interactions, or thinking that even if you had the right kind
>> of data, that the complexity of the process useable for an RPG can
>> in any way encapsulate that.
>
>I'm not convinced about what you mean by 'statistical model' here.
>AFAIK statistical models are almost always approximations and often
>very rough ones. An innacurate or unreliable model based on statistics
>is surely still a statistical model.
As someone who works on a statistical model as part of my
thesis, I have to agree with John. There is nothing magical about
real-world statistical modelling. In fact, making them often involves
exactly the same sort of guesswork that you find in an RPG.
It's not like "real" statistical models are particularly more
sophisticated. RPG combat systems are usually more detailed than the
sort of models used by the military, say, or economists. They also
are more carefully run, because the GM and players are watching over
each event and will often correct or modify certain effects on a
case-by-case basis.
The thing about statistical models is that they are generally
employed on thousands or millions of samples to look for large-scale
effects. RPG's are usually about just a few people.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>> All you can do is try to get the right kind of feel out of the
>> simple randomization of result.
>
>I think it's a little more than that. What did you think about my
>comments on balance and consistency in my previous post?
It all depends on what you are trying to do.
For example, if you are simply trying to convey a "feel" of
realism to the players -- then obviously, the most you are going to
convey is a proper "feeling". Research won't neccessarily enhance
this, although it can help.
However, my point has been that there are players and GM's
who care about the reality as itself -- because as *people* they
are interested in reality. This is what drives historical-game
GM's (like Kevin) to inform their players about real history rather
than just making things up that conform to their expectations.
Obviously, this sort of "realism" has to be balanced against
other concerns, so there's a limit as to how far you will take it --
but it certainly exists as a goal. You can argue about whether
a mechanical approach is any more "realistic" than a common-sense
guess, but it certainly is an issue in many people's minds.
Mark Apolinski
David P. Summers wrote:
> I couldn't disagree more. I ran across some well research rules
> on sailing an was struck that it gave results that jived with
> my own sailing experience (rather than leave the feeling
> that the author didn't know sailing from sitting in his
> bathtub).
But there's a big difference between "jiving with your own experience"
and being *THE correct results*.
Mathematically speaking, lets call the difference between the "true"
results and the game results, x. Minimizing x is the goal of all
simulationist games and GMs. Now lets call the difference between my
educated "guess" and the "true" results, y. If y is similar to x, what's
the difference between using the mechanics and not?
Even if y is significantly different from x, I don't have a problem *to
a point*. That point will differ from GM to GM. However, the real
question is whether *your personal Y* is larger than X to a degree that
is unacceptable *for you*.
If it is, you should use the mechanics. If it isn't, then both mechanics
or mechanicless are equally acceptable.
It seems obvious to me that David is very comfortable with his Y.
> > The problem is that any real world model
> > is several times too complex to fit into the basic formula plus die roll
> > plus modifier which every game uses.
>
> Well you also fit it into when you have to roll and what are
> the results of success and failure. However, it is true
> that it is impossible to fit _everything_ in the real world
> in a mechanic. That in no way means that a rule that fits
> the salient factors doesn't provide results that are more
> in line with what would really have happened.
From my own experience with more mechanical systems, I also base a lot
of my acceptance of a mechanic on how it *feels*. If it feels good, I
keep it. If it feels bad, I tweak it until it feels good. However I am a
perfectionist as well and I do research to make sure that what I feel is
also the correct answer. This could be called training my instincts. I
use both real world research and volumes upon volumes of all kinds of
role-playing games.
At the point that I'm at now, with all the experience I've gained, since
I'm going to base my acceptance of a mechanic upon my instincts and
experience anyway, why shouldn't I just save a step and use my instincts
and experience directly to adjudicate a situation?
Having the mechanics only *adds* work because in addition to everything
I do in a mechanicless game, I have to "police" the rules as well.
All above comments are IME and "for me".
Mark
David Berkman
John Jordan (ja...@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: I think your argument still stands, but note that you don't always have to
: make a model (and therefore a mechanics system) more complex in order to
: refine it.
Yes. What I'm saying is that the mechanic doesn't really buy you anything
more than a good presentation of the research would, except in the
objective/subjective area. The meaningful tradeoff has always seemed to me
to be one of objective/abstracted/rigid Vs. subjective/detailed/flexible.
I think most people would agree that a human decision is more sensitive
to detail and subtelty of situation, than a very simple mechanical
decision. And that simple mechanics are of necessity highly abstracted
and insenstitive, therefore more rigid.
The objective school would argue that the GM is there to add the necessary
flexibility, and to translate the abstrcated outcome into something
meaningful for the situation.
I would argue that the abstracted outcome has already greatly limited
both the possibilities and the GMs thinking. And the abstraction has
already taken its toll, and is not greatly made up for by attempting to
justify a simplified random outcome.
The objective school would argue that the mechanic, by virtue of being
objective, is fairer, and more consistent.
I would argue that fair is a subjective quality, and that objective
mechanics are simply random, and often unfair. And that the GM is there
to handle the necessary consistency (which would be fairly countered with
the fact that in reality the GM will probably always be less consistent
than the mechanic).
All this has been gone over. I reject the argument that the objective
mechanic is more realistic, because no realistic simulation would ever fit
inside such a mechanic, even if you could get the data you need to build
such a model, which you can't. Instead of being more realsitic, the
necessary abstraction, and rigid result process, makes the objective
mechanic often harder to work with and less realistic. That's where we are
now.
: I think it's a little more than that. What did you think about my comments
: on balance and consistency in my previous post?
What I'm saying is that the mechanic doesn't really buy you anything
more than a good presentation of the research would, not that such a
presentation is unecessary. Research is good. A randomization mechanic is
unnecessary. It may buy you some extra consistency, it will cause
problems in balance, and, for me, it isn't worth it.
David
Psychohist
David Berkman posts, in part:
The meaningful tradeoff has always seemed to me to be one
of objective/abstracted/rigid Vs. subjective/detailed/flexible.
I think most people would agree that a human decision is more
sensitive to detail and subtelty of situation, than a very
simple mechanical decision.
I think most people with experience in research and modeling would
disagree. Human decisions without the help of objective models are more
sensitive to imagined detail and subtlety that is actually absent from the
situation than to the real detail and subtlety that is present.
The dichotomy is rather between objective/accurate/fair and
subjective/inaccurate/biased.
Warren Dew
Steve Cooper
Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: The only other comment that I would add is that very often the models
: being introduced stem from the player, not the GM. There are various
: circumstances when I want authot level feedback from players during a
: game--for example, were Scott Ruggles in my game, I would refer most
: questions about the behavior of firearms to him for adjudication, for two
: reasons. First, he knows much more about firearms than do I, and hence
: I avoid destroying his SOD by deferring to his expertise (and as the most
: knowledgable person at the table, his SOD is the most likely to get
: hammered), and second, he can speak with greater authority than can I on
: this issue, and thus can present a more compelling version of game reality
: than can I. I give my players lots of license to improvise game reality,
: based either on player knowledge or character skill (the character
: *should* know X, and I haven't detailed it, so rather than come up with
: *my* model of the game reality, why not use the player's instead?)
How does that work, exactly? I'm having trouble figuring out how that
would work - not in general terms, but in specific example. Say you as a
GM intend for someone with a SMG to burst in on the players and open up.
You think that the players are going to jump out of the way, dive into
cover, and take out the gunman; something along those lines. Now, you turn
to Scott and say 'what do you think are likely outcomes?' He comes back to
you with 'No question about it. We'd all be killed instantly.' An answer
you didn't expect, which will spoil the game.
On the other hand, if you want to avoid that kind of problems, do you talk
to Scott before the game and say 'what are the likely outcomes of a gunman
bursting into a room and trying to kill five lightly armed people?' Then
Scott has a good idea what is coming and has to partition that knowledge
away, and pretend that you've not asked the question.
Could you tell me how you'd handle that situation? I'd be interested to
know.
--
Steve Cooper sc...@york.ac.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'The World is a weeble; It wobbles, but it doesn't fall down'
(cheap vodka philosophy)
David Berkman
Psychohist (psych...@aol.com) wrote:
: David Berkman posts, in part:
: I think most people with experience in research and modeling would
: disagree. Human decisions without the help of objective models are more
: sensitive to imagined detail and subtlety that is actually absent from the
: situation than to the real detail and subtlety that is present.
Actually, I have experience in just such models, and humans are very
sensitive to detail which is actually there, and, as far as social
interactions and situations go, far more sensitive than any mechanical
measure we might devise.
But lets get on real street here for a moment. We are not talking about
human capacity Vs. some fine, well researched, accurate, statistical
model. We are talking human judgement Vs. a course, rough, guestimate, of
what might feel like something real, abstracted to cover all situations
with a single simple formula, a die roll, and a single numerical modifier,
also based on a course, rough guestimate, whose ultimate outcome will be a
result meaningless in the situation unless human judgement is once again
applied in gross and free ways.
We do not, can not, model. No system models. They simply randomize, and
not in any sensitive or flexible way, either.
So taking the methodologies which are actually available, as opposed to
those which might be available for mechanics if we had large research
grants, plenty of fast computer time, and PhDs in this sort of stuff (and
even then, the simple act of statistically modelling, lets say, the
single act of wrestling, would be daunting, and nigh impossible), and
looking at what we actually have to work with, I will bet you dollars to
donuts that a roughly educated human is many times more sensitive than
any useable mechanical system you can come up with.
Even better, by educating rather than expressing in formulae and numbers,
the human GM becomes better able to handle the nuances of each situation
believably and flexibly. The mechanical system never becomes less
abstract, or more flexible, no matter how much practice it gets. The
human GM can become better at compensating for that, by practicing using
the mechanic. But it isn't the same thing. I am very good with the Hero
system mechanics. I know them well. I've used them for years. I really
like them. But I can run faster, more fluid combats, with greater detail,
and allow far more flexibility and options in handling the players actual
descriptions of actions, by shrugging the mechanics.
: The dichotomy is rather between objective/accurate/fair and
: subjective/inaccurate/biased.
An objective mechanic can not be fair, and I have never seen one that is.
Fairness is fairness to the moment. If you believe that applying an
inflexible rule across all situations is fairness, it's your right. But I
would rather the spirit than the letter of the law, even when the spirit
is a fragile and subjective thing. Lose that, and you've lost the purpose
of the law.
Accurate? Mechanics? Show me one that can do better than I can. Which
fantastical mechanic are we talking about; AD&D, Cyberpunk, RoleMaster,
Hero, RuneQuest, what? I am not impressed. I don;t believe that any of
these is any more accurate than I am, and in most real situations, far
less. Nor do I believe that this is any great feat on my part.
Biased? Of course. That's what a GM is for. If I didn't want the GMs
biases, judgements, sensitivity, insight... decisions really, I would
play board games.
David
David Berkman
David P. Summers (7155...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: I couldn't disagree more. I ran across some well research rules
: on sailing an was struck that it gave results that jived with
: my own sailing experience (rather than leave the feeling
: that the author didn't know sailing from sitting in his
: bathtub).
Please, I've said this a lot in this very thread.
***I LIKE RESEARCH***
Rsearched rules are great. Please present that research.
What I doubt is that the mechanics available in RPGs can in any accurate
way represent that research. More improtantly, that they are incapable of
representing it more accurately than a human would if that research was
presented in an informational way, as opposed to mechanics and die roll
modifiers.
: Well you also fit it into when you have to roll and what are
: the results of success and failure. However, it is true
: that it is impossible to fit _everything_ in the real world
: in a mechanic.
Almost _nothing_ fits into the mechanic.
: That in no way means that a rule that fits
: the salient factors doesn't provide results that are more
: in line with what would really have happened.
Than one which doesn't take into account the salient factors? Absolutely,
I agree.
But what method can take into account more salient factors, weighted in a
finer and more subtle way, and even take into account the relationships
between those factors:
1) The simple die roll mechanics we have to live with for 'models' in RPGs.
2) A human educated in the area, at how things work, and why?
: In fact, most rules that I use (obvioulys I can't speek for
: the one I don't use) use a lot more info than a simple 75% chance
: of survival for wounds from all guns under all circumstances.
: However, even with this small start I would say you are
: clearly better off than someone who has no idea at all
: and might well decided that almost every gunshot wound
: is going to be fatal.
I am not against information. Please don;t take any of this that way.
David
John H Kim
Another word regarding mechanics...
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>What I'm saying is that the mechanic doesn't really buy you anything
>more than a good presentation of the research would, except in the ob-
>jective/subjective area. The meaningful tradeoff has always seemed to me
>to be one of objective/abstracted/rigid Vs. subjective/detailed/flexible.
>I think most people would agree that a human decision is more sensitive
>to detail and subtelty of situation, than a very simple mechanical
>decision.
But that's not the trade-off that I see. Nearly all of the
RPG rule systems that I have read encourage the GM to tailor the
results as makes sense to him -- often specifically that the GM
overrules the mechanics.
Sure, the mechanic applied by an uninterested rules-lawyer
or computer is rigid and abstracted -- but if instead it is used
to guide a thinking GM, then the difference becomes more subtle.
-*-*-*-
The main problem I have is that it is hard to talk from
experience here -- I have rarely seen an concise and usable
presentation of equivalant research to RPG mechanics. It seems
like a fine idea to me, but I have no experience with it in
practice.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>I reject the argument that the objective mechanic is more realistic,
>because no realistic simulation would ever fit inside such a mechanic,
>even if you could get the data you need to build such a model, which
>you can't. Instead of being more realsitic, the necessary abstraction,
>and rigid result process, makes the objective mechanic often harder
>to work with and less realistic.
Harder to work with and less realistic than what? I agree
that a usable presentation of the research *might* be better than
these objective mechanics: but can you give any examples of such
a presentation? Do you have experience with it in use?
The comparison I more often see in practice is:
1) GM decision based on "common sense"
2) GM decision guided by a mechanic based on research
3) GM decision guided by a mechanic which is "just made up"
Now, perhaps a hypothetical (4) of a GM using well-presented
research would be better than all three of these, but I have yet
to see it. As an example, which do you think is more realistic:
a GM using the objective mechanics in _GURPS Space_ for vacuum
exposure, or a GM using the description in _Theatrix_?
Larry D. Hols
Hallo,
Psychohist wrote:
>
> David Berkman posts, in part:
>
> The meaningful tradeoff has always seemed to me to be one
> of objective/abstracted/rigid Vs. subjective/detailed/flexible.
> I think most people would agree that a human decision is more
> sensitive to detail and subtelty of situation, than a very
> simple mechanical decision.
>
> I think most people with experience in research and modeling would
> disagree. Human decisions without the help of objective models are more
> sensitive to imagined detail and subtlety that is actually absent from the
> situation than to the real detail and subtlety that is present.
>
> The dichotomy is rather between objective/accurate/fair and
> subjective/inaccurate/biased.
David also posts:
> I would argue that the abstracted outcome has already greatly
> limited both the possibilities and the GMs thinking. And the
> abstraction has already taken its toll, and is not greatly
> made up for by attempting to justify a simplified random outcome.
As Warren points out, the dichotomy is not as David states. I take
issue with the "/abstracted/rigid" and "/detailed/flexible" portion of
the dichotomy David lists.
The more abstracted a mechanic is, the more room the GM actually has
to manuever around in while adjudicating matters. He can add as much
detail and use that detail as he sees fit while still adhering to the
spirit and intent of the mechanic. Likewise, he can feel free to use
the mechanic at the level of abstraction it is built at.
Such is part and parcel of being a gamemaster.
A good GM will take the highly abstracted mechanic and use it as best
fits the situation in question. He will add detail to the level that
he and the player reasonable can --and are comfortable using-- to
make the game that much more interesting.
A mechanic that is not abstracted to the same degree is more limiting,
in that it provides less room for the GM to maneuver in. It mirrors
the "real" activity much better, but fails to provide for those
occasions where greater abstraction is preferred.
Ideally a system would provide guidelines for adjusting the level of
abstraction when using mechanics.
David once again argues that the "abstracted outcome" limits the GMs
thinking, etc. Once again I will ask for better substantiation of
this assertion. He certainly hasn't shown this to be the case prior
to this, but I'll certainly give him the chance to convince me this
time.
Larry
John H Kim
Hmmm. This is in reply to Mark concerning the "feel" of
a mechanic. I suppose I am a bit biased because of my work in
physics -- where I frequently find that my "common sense" impression
of phenomena is wrong.
This will happen less frequently in a modern-world campaign,
where our common sense more easily applies (since our sense is
based on normal modern-world life). Still, I think that "feel"
is often a poor indication especially for technical phenomena.
This is certainly the case in Hard Sci-Fi games.
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>David P. Summers wrote:
>> It is true that it is impossible to fit _everything_ in the real
>> world in a mechanic. That in no way means that a rule that fits
>> the salient factors doesn't provide results that are more in line
>> with what would really have happened.
>
>From my own experience with more mechanical systems, I also base a
>lot of my acceptance of a mechanic on how it *feels*. If it feels good,
>I keep it. If it feels bad, I tweak it until it feels good. However I
>am a perfectionist as well and I do research to make sure that what I
>feel is also the correct answer. This could be called training my
>instincts. I use both real world research and volumes upon volumes of
>all kinds of role-playing games.
>
>At the point that I'm at now, with all the experience I've gained,
>since I'm going to base my acceptance of a mechanic upon my instincts
>and experience anyway, why shouldn't I just save a step and use my
>instincts and experience directly to adjudicate a situation?
So let's say this is a historical game set in the 1870's
American frontier. There are various rifles and pistols, and you
want to know how accurate and damaging they are in comparison to
each other. You could mechanically derive their accuracy and damage
using a system like _Guns, Guns, Guns_ ... or you could just go with
what feels right. Which would you do?
John H Kim
A quick reply concerning mechanics versus "real
knowledge"...
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>I will bet you dollars to donuts that a roughly educated human is
>many times more sensitive than any useable mechanical system you
>can come up with.
>
>Even better, by educating rather than expressing in formulae and
>numbers, the human GM becomes better able to handle the nuances of
>each situation believably and flexibly. The mechanical system never
>becomes less abstract, or more flexible, no matter how much practice
>it gets.
Uh, this seems to indicate that formulae and numbers don't
qualify as "education". As a physicist, I take issue with that @-).
Formulae and numbers *do* educate: the best examples I can think of
are _Traveller_ and _Guns, Guns, Guns_. Both of these introduce
a lot of straight physics as game mechanics -- put into usable
form.
The Navy seems to disagree with you as well, since they
use a set of mechanics like _Harpoon_ to teach cadets principles
of naval tactics.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>I am very good with the Hero system mechanics. I know them well.
>I've used them for years. I really like them. But I can run faster,
>more fluid combats, with greater detail, and allow far more flexibility
>and options in handling the players actual descriptions of actions,
>by shrugging the mechanics.
I would agree with this -- my impression is that you are
much more flexible without the mechanics. On the other hand, you
have expressed a rather extreme devotion to rules-lawyering
(i.e. it is always best to stick to the letter of the rules).
As for myself, I'm not sure that my combats are any more
fluid or detailed freeform than in HERO (although they are
faster).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Accurate? Mechanics? Show me one that can do better than I can. Which
>fantastical mechanic are we talking about; AD&D, Cyberpunk, RoleMaster,
>Hero, RuneQuest, what? I am not impressed. I don;t believe that any of
>these is any more accurate than I am, and in most real situations, far
>less. Nor do I believe that this is any great feat on my part.
Well, I was endeavoring to test exactly this -- cf. the
situation test. @-)
Richard Bartrop
Mark Apolinski wrote:
>
> David P. Summers wrote:
>
> > on sailing an was struck that it gave results that jived with
> > my own sailing experience (rather than leave the feeling
> > that the author didn't know sailing from sitting in his
> > bathtub).
>
> and being *THE correct results*.
yes there is but the difference isn't that important for a game. But
with the mechanics closely jiving wth one's experience, on then has a
far better understanding of the model, and can use it sas a springboard
for other 'events' with more vatriables tracked. If you know sailing,
and you know that the model handles most events well, and
satisfactorilly, then one can see where modification is necessary for
the handling of that situation.
>
> Mathematically speaking, lets call the difference between the "true"
> results and the game results, x. Minimizing x is the goal of all
> simulationist games and GMs. Now lets call the difference between my
> educated "guess" and the "true" results, y. If y is similar to x, what's
> the difference between using the mechanics and not?
Because a guess is a guess, Better t make a complicated decision with
some tools, than a naked decision.
>
> Even if y is significantly different from x, I don't have a problem *to
> a point*. That point will differ from GM to GM. However, the real
> question is whether *your personal Y* is larger than X to a degree that
> is unacceptable *for you*.
> If it is, you should use the mechanics. If it isn't, then both mechanics
> or mechanicless are equally acceptable.
Wrong. For a simulationist GM, the model is important because of its
assumption of unbiassed objectivity, and that statistically it produces
an average range of results. Rae or unique events are still the purview
of the GM but if the model is sound, decions reached assisted by the
model, may not branch out into impossibility or unbelievability. Truth
is stranger than fiction. But too much 'strangeness is not a good thing
with results, and the model may have to take a step back so that the
occurance of ratre events stays ratre. with the common and mundane
events remaining both, within their acceptable ranges.
>
> It seems obvious to me that David is very comfortable with his Y.
>
> > > The problem is that any real world model
> > > is several times too complex to fit into the basic formula plus die roll
> > > plus modifier which every game uses.
Flying is a lot more complicated in real life than what is portrayed in
a simulator, but the simulators are still a valuable, and valid building
of experience for military and commercial airline pilots. For the table
top game we need not wory about display memory and resolution, or
realtime phisics modelling, but a sound model can be a good foujndation
for learning. Sand table warges are still valuable teaching tools for
our officers at Carlysle Barracks and West point. I do not consider
Wargaming to be inimicable to roleplaying, but I agree that some
mechanics and resolution systems can be intrusive to I.C. I would
prefer an unbiassed, 'black Box' solution to mechanics in the future,
but until then I can habituate the mechanics with minimal I.C.
disruption, Far less than arbitrary decisions than dramatic resolution.
> >
> > Well you also fit it into when you have to roll and what are
> > the results of success and failure. However, it is true
> > that it is impossible to fit _everything_ in the real world
> > in a mechanic. That in no way means that a rule that fits
> > the salient factors doesn't provide results that are more
> > in line with what would really have happened.
>
> From my own experience with more mechanical systems, I also base a lot
> of my acceptance of a mechanic on how it *feels*. If it feels good, I
> keep it. If it feels bad, I tweak it until it feels good. However I am a
> perfectionist as well and I do research to make sure that what I feel is
> also the correct answer. This could be called training my instincts. I
> use both real world research and volumes upon volumes of all kinds of
> role-playing games.
So do I, but at some point you have to stop reading and start gaming.
There are the playability versus complexityu issues to be adressed, as
well as the time and method of statistical portraiture to be selected
for a semi-common gaming incident. Some people are good at it on the
fly. Som people have to fall back on published mechanics and find the
closest match. Some peoples perfectionism does not motivate them to
continuously tweak and modify , or kitbash mechanics. That they are
consistent and generate predictable ranges of probabilities , regardless
or realism is enough, and allows them to make decisions on a consistent
environment. That's what is improtant.
>
> At the point that I'm at now, with all the experience I've gained, since
> I'm going to base my acceptance of a mechanic upon my instincts and
> experience anyway, why shouldn't I just save a step and use my instincts
> and experience directly to adjudicate a situation?
Because perhaps a few people are not comfortable with arbitrary
subjective decisions regardless of the person making it? Check lists
many times prevent pilots from taking up unairworthy aircraft.
Mechanics and proceedures are like that checklist. It removed the
suspicions of the reason for that dscision being ' I felt like it' or,
'The plot demanded it.' with is an anathema to simulationist players.
>
> Having the mechanics only *adds* work because in addition to everything
> I do in a mechanicless game, I have to "police" the rules as well.
Well nothign worth having is gainned without a little work :-)
>
> All above comments are IME and "for me".
>
> Mark
> > > For example, in San
> > > Francisco for instance, your chance of dying from a gunshot is 25%
> > > (assuming a hand gun). What does that tell us about damage systems for
> > > guns and medical skill rolls? Nothing. Too many factors we have no way of
> > > separating from that data.
Exactly. You dig for better data. Or go make some yourself. That is
called 'Experimentation, and it has a grand old tradition is western
science.
> >
> > In fact, most rules that I use (obvioulys I can't speek for
> > the one I don't use) use a lot more info than a simple 75% chance
> > of survival for wounds from all guns under all circumstances.
> > However, even with this small start I would say you are
> > clearly better off than someone who has no idea at all
> > and might well decided that almost every gunshot wound
> > is going to be fatal.
True, but in that case I might talk to the GM over a dinner, and dump
reams of collected firearms data and a few video tapes on their lap.
Half the work is done. The other half, reading it, is up to the GM and
if that Gm doesn't care to, then I look for another game.
> >
> > (Regarding less research areas)
> > Even here a little research and/or personal experience
> > makes a significant difference (as in my sailing example
> > above).
Very much agreed. That is why I do the crazy stuff i do sometimes like
Shootng things, re-enactments, and doing donuts and powerslides in empty
parking lots on rainy days (horseback riding too, but that is a little
uncomfortable). so I know how things behave. I feel sorry for the mousey
shut ins with little or no life experience. People like that , had
better be mechanistic or I can take none of their GMing decisions
seriously, and Zplayer SOD is what Character IC is built upon, at least
for me. Reasearch is good, research with some personal experience is
better.
Scott
Richard Bartrop
It depends on what the situation was. Mostly an SMG is not a long range
weapon (no matter how the Germans try to accurize them :-)) The act of
recoil from the first round makes the subsequent rounds harde to aim,
until the humans firing the weapon compensates for it, and brings the
barrel back on line. Now I can see where the subgun could kill a couple
of people at the start, but most of the rounds would rattle around the
area. However if the shooter had a large drum magazine, and was not
afraid to use it, he could paint the rounds across likely targets.
If asked i will be accurate and hionest, and if the opposition is
clever, and set up their ambush well. We all get killed. Oh well. As I
have said before, i do not consider a game to be 'crashed' or ruined' by
that outcome, but apparently I am in the minority here :-)
In any case planning the scene before hand might bring up frewalling
problems for me, unless the wquestioning GM was non specific in her
questions, and wanted to know about SMG's in general. Hell I could give
the GM a videotape that would visually demonstrate the effects far
better than I could explain them.
Scott
Mark Apolinski
John H Kim wrote:
> The comparison I more often see in practice is:
>
> 1) GM decision based on "common sense"
>
> 2) GM decision guided by a mechanic based on research
>
> 3) GM decision guided by a mechanic which is "just made up"
>
> Now, perhaps a hypothetical (4) of a GM using well-presented
> research would be better than all three of these, but I have yet
> to see it. As an example, which do you think is more realistic:
> a GM using the objective mechanics in _GURPS Space_ for vacuum
> exposure, or a GM using the description in _Theatrix_?
Hypothetical? The method I use most of the time is 1.5) GM decision
based on "common sense" based on research.
As for the vacuum exposure rule, remember that the Core_Rules are
intended to be a generic explanation of the Theatrix system. Any Space
Sourcebooks would have more detailed rules about vacuum exposure, zero
gravity effects and acceleration. I wouldn't expect a base system to go
into detail on *everything*.
Until all the Theatrix sourcebooks come out, I use other rpg supplements
to supply the "realistic" details and translate them into the diceless
Theatrix environment. You're not seriously telling me that you believed
that brief mention of vacuum exposure in the Core_Rules was intended to
be the sole basis for a diceless adjudication? I can't believe anyone
would even imagine that!
Mark
Mark Apolinski
John H Kim wrote:
> So let's say this is a historical game set in the 1870's
> American frontier. There are various rifles and pistols, and you
> want to know how accurate and damaging they are in comparison to
> each other. You could mechanically derive their accuracy and damage
> using a system like _Guns, Guns, Guns_ ... or you could just go with
> what feels right. Which would you do?
I never said that I base my adjudications *solely* on feel. If a
mechanic gives forth a "Murphy's Rules" kind of result, almost everyone
would take one look and dismiss the result as "wrong" based on common
sense.
Less obvious is my experience with the weapon statistics in Ars Magica.
I know that a Greatsword does more damage than a dagger, but is the
"correct" modifier +10 or +12? Who can say? It's a judgement call. I
know what a Greatsword can do via a real world demonstration with a side
of beef, but that doesn't always translate well into mechanics. When the
game designers were coming up with these modifiers, I guarantee that
they owe their present form more to common sense than any actual
research.
And that's just Damage. What about Weapon speed or Attack modifier or
Defense modifier? I didn't agree with a lot of the modifiers given in
the rules, and no one could *proove* that my set of modifiers were more
or less correct than the "official" ones. That's what I mean by "feel".
For the Old West scenario, I would research. I would pick up my copy of
Guns, Guns, Guns as well as other game supplements I own about the Old
West genre where such weapon data could be found and I would
"internalize" it. Not memorize, since I'm not using any of those
systems. But I would have a gestalt understanding of the weapons of the
period and I would use that understanding to make my decisions.
Also, that doesn't mean that accuracy is adversely affected. If weapon X
were the first revolver produced, and I was interested in historical
accuracy, weapon X would have the appropriate qualities in my game. If
weapon Y carries 7 rounds in it's magazine, then that's true for my game
also. But for decisions like how much damage you would take from a 30-30
rifle shot at 500 yards, I would use instinct backed up by research.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
Richard Bartrop wrote:
>
> Mark Apolinski wrote:
> > Mathematically speaking, lets call the difference between the "true"
> > results and the game results, x. Minimizing x is the goal of all
> > simulationist games and GMs. Now lets call the difference between my
> > educated "guess" and the "true" results, y. If y is similar to x, what's
> > the difference between using the mechanics and not?
>
> some tools, than a naked decision.
Why? Objectively speaking.
> > Even if y is significantly different from x, I don't have a problem *to
> > a point*. That point will differ from GM to GM. However, the real
> > question is whether *your personal Y* is larger than X to a degree that
> > is unacceptable *for you*.
> > If it is, you should use the mechanics. If it isn't, then both mechanics
> > or mechanicless are equally acceptable.
>
> Wrong. For a simulationist GM, the model is important because of its
> assumption of unbiased objectivity, and that statistically it produces
> an average range of results. .
That's inconceivable. If some person's instincts gave equal or better
results than a mechanic considered "realistic" you would say that the
mechanic is preferred?! How come we still go to doctors then, when one
can use a sophisticated Medical Expert System?
> I would
> prefer an unbiased, 'black Box' solution to mechanics in the future,
> but until then I can habituate the mechanics with minimal I.C.
> disruption, Far less than arbitrary decisions than dramatic resolution.
So what if I already have a 'black box'?
> > From my own experience with more mechanical systems, I also base a lot
> > of my acceptance of a mechanic on how it *feels*. If it feels good, I
> > keep it. If it feels bad, I tweak it until it feels good. However I am a
> > perfectionist as well and I do research to make sure that what I feel is
> > also the correct answer. This could be called training my instincts. I
> > use both real world research and volumes upon volumes of all kinds of
> > role-playing games.
>
> So do I, but at some point you have to stop reading and start gaming.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
> There are the playability versus complexity issues to be adressed, as
> well as the time and method of statistical portraiture to be selected
> for a semi-common gaming incident. Some people are good at it on the
> fly. Som people have to fall back on published mechanics and find the
> closest match. Some peoples perfectionism does not motivate them to
> continuously tweak and modify , or kibbitz mechanics. That they are
> consistent and generate predictable ranges of probabilities , regardless
> of realism is enough, and allows them to make decisions on a consistent
> environment. That's what is important.
Thank you for telling me what is important. I had thought that I knew,
but you obviously know better than I what is best for me.
Seriously though, I hope what you meant was that that is what's
important *for you*. This is only a matter of personal taste. *There is
no method that is INHERENTLY better than another.* You can tell me that
you prefer a mechanic to an educated guess, but you can't make me
believe that mechanics are objectively superior to instinct.
> > At the point that I'm at now, with all the experience I've gained, since
> > I'm going to base my acceptance of a mechanic upon my instincts and
> > experience anyway, why shouldn't I just save a step and use my instincts
> > and experience directly to adjudicate a situation?
>
> Because perhaps a few people are not comfortable with arbitrary
> subjective decisions regardless of the person making it? Check lists
> many times prevent pilots from taking up unairworthy aircraft.
> Mechanics and proceedures are like that checklist. It removed the
> suspicions of the reason for that dscision being ' I felt like it' or,
> 'The plot demanded it.' with is an anathema to simulationist players.
Then they don't have to play with me.
Gamers select their GMs for a lot less trivial issues than this.
What I meant was, what does it gain me to use mechanics rather than
instinct? Actually not that either. What I really mean is that the extra
work involved in using the mechanic isn't worth the added consistency
and objectivity for me.
> > Having the mechanics only *adds* work because in addition to everything
> > I do in a mechanicless game, I have to "police" the rules as well.
>
> Well nothign worth having is gained without a little work :-)
There's work and then there's wasted effort. I don't suppose you craft
all your own furniture by hand, or build your car from the ground up, or
your house? Or walk everywhere rather than use modern transportation?
Mark
John L. Jones II
David Berkman wrote:
>
> : Psychohist wrote:
>
> But lets get on real street here for a moment.
I guess what they say is true, if you tell yourself something enough
times, you start to believe it. Statements like these make me seriously
question whether you've actually played in a diced game as opposed to having
just read them. Nothing you mention in this post even remotely matches
anything which I have experienced in diced gaming. Even the worst sets of
mechanics don't come close to what you're describing here.
> : The dichotomy is rather between objective/accurate/fair and
> : subjective/inaccurate/biased.
>
> An objective mechanic can not be fair, and I have never seen one that is.
> Fairness is fairness to the moment. If you believe that applying an
> inflexible rule across all situations is fairness, it's your right. But I
> would rather the spirit than the letter of the law, even when the spirit
> is a fragile and subjective thing. Lose that, and you've lost the purpose
> of the law.
If you want to redefine fairness to mean a subjective event that never
has any concrete meaning, then I suppose you are correct. While it is
certainly the case that what is fair in one instance may not be fair in
another, I have yet to see a situation where it would be desirable to limit
objectivity in order to ensure fairness.
> Accurate? Mechanics? Show me one that can do better than I can. Which
> fantastical mechanic are we talking about; AD&D, Cyberpunk, RoleMaster,
> Hero, RuneQuest, what?
All/Any of the above? Really, what are we talking about here? Every
mechanic I've ever seen does a better job than your car engine example, but
I'm under the impression that you don't adjudicate that way in most
situations. Genre issues aside, the dichotomy here is between what feels
good to you, and researched mechanic systems. Given what you've written in
the past, I'll go with the published system.
> Biased? Of course. That's what a GM is for. If I didn't want the GMs
> biases, judgements, sensitivity, insight... decisions really, I would
> play board games.
Railroading, pig-headedness, blindness to the facts . . . . You have to
take the bad with the good. A certain amount of GM input is necessary to be
sure, but one can have too much of a good thing.
> David
--
John L. Jones II E-Mail: bi...@nis.lanl.gov
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in
a very narrow field.
Niels Bohr (1885-1962)
Larry D. Hols
Hallo,
Just playing the part of the vulture again!
David Berkman wrote:
>
> Psychohist (psych...@aol.com) wrote:
> : David Berkman posts, in part:
>
> : I think most people with experience in research and modeling would
> : disagree. Human decisions without the help of objective models are more
> : sensitive to imagined detail and subtlety that is actually absent from the
> : situation than to the real detail and subtlety that is present.
>
> Actually, I have experience in just such models,
We figured that....
> and humans are very
> sensitive to detail which is actually there, and, as far as social
> interactions and situations go, far more sensitive than any mechanical
> measure we might devise.
"...as far as social interactions" and such are concerned. Well, yes,
in such limited arenas. But those aren't where most adjudication
takes place.
> But lets get on real street here for a moment. We are not talking about
> human capacity Vs. some fine, well researched, accurate, statistical
<snip>
> result meaningless in the situation unless human judgement is once again
> applied in gross and free ways.
Let's see, aren't you a major activist for adjudicating games using
human judgement in "gross and free ways"? I refer, of course, to the
engine repair example.
> We do not, can not, model. No system models. They simply randomize, and
> not in any sensitive or flexible way, either.
A small blade is not a sensitive and flexible instrument. The fashion
in which the craftsman wields his tool can be said to involve
sensitivity and flexibility. Such is the same with game mechanics and
GMs. A good GM will use his tools well.
> Even better, by educating rather than expressing in formulae and numbers,
> the human GM becomes better able to handle the nuances of each situation
Think back to the engine repair example. You defended that by saying
that such education of the GM/players wasn't necessary. Which is it?
> believably and flexibly. The mechanical system never becomes less
> abstract, or more flexible, no matter how much practice it gets. The
> human GM can become better at compensating for that, by practicing using
> the mechanic. But it isn't the same thing. I am very good with the Hero
> system mechanics. I know them well. I've used them for years. I really
> like them. But I can run faster, more fluid combats, with greater detail,
> and allow far more flexibility and options in handling the players actual
> descriptions of actions, by shrugging the mechanics.
You've described your use of the HERO mechanics to us. You and your
group (of rules-lawyers) use them in a very mechanical, restricted
fashion. You are the only group I have ever heard of to do so. That
means that no one else uses in the fashion that you do, so your
fashion of playing is not ordinary -- that means examples from your
ecperience using HERO have little relevance to others on the NG.
Others can and do run fast, fluid combats using HERO rules.
> An objective mechanic can not be fair, and I have never seen one that is.
> Fairness is fairness to the moment. If you believe that applying an
> inflexible rule across all situations is fairness, it's your right. But I
> would rather the spirit than the letter of the law, even when the spirit
> is a fragile and subjective thing. Lose that, and you've lost the purpose
> of the law.
One more time....
Mechanics are tools. A GM uses those tools. 'Fairness' comes about
from how those tools are used.
> Accurate? Mechanics? Show me one that can do better than I can. Which
> fantastical mechanic are we talking about; AD&D, Cyberpunk, RoleMaster,
> Hero, RuneQuest, what?
How about the damage resolution from Sword's Path: Glory? Yeah,
written by med students and other such knockabouts. I don't think you
could come close to the detail and accuracy in their mechanics.
> I am not impressed. I don;t believe that any of
> these is any more accurate than I am, and in most real situations, far
> less.
Why, yes. Your knowledge of auto mechanics is impressive.
Nor do I believe that this is any great feat on my part.
It certainly wasn't.
Larry
Karen J. Cravens
In article <5co133$8...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (David Berkman) wrote:
>Rsearched rules are great. Please present that research.
The argument seems to be straying. The original peeve was with a
gamemaster who provided an unnecessary amount of detail - quite
independent of "rules" - that did not reflect reality.
-- Karen Cravens | Phoenyx Play-by-Email Roleplaying
pho...@southwind.net | Listserver: majo...@phoenyx.net
sil...@phoenyx.net | WWW: www2.southwind.net/~phoenyx/
PATH=C:\LESS\TRAVELED
Larry D. Hols
Hallo,
David Berkman wrote:
>
> ***I LIKE RESEARCH***
But, David, you said in the discussion following your engine repair
example that research wasn't necessary. You said that any details
could be created on the spot for use in play -- and that making them
up was superior to actually doing the research.
So what are we supposed to believe here? Is research good or not?
> Rsearched rules are great. Please present that research.
>
> What I doubt is that the mechanics available in RPGs can in any accurate
> way represent that research.
Then I wager you haven't actually studied a good many game systems.
> More improtantly, that they are incapable of
> representing it more accurately than a human would if that research was
> presented in an informational way, as opposed to mechanics and die roll
> modifiers.
You seem to forget that the mechanics were designed by humans to
represent exactly what they cover.
> Almost _nothing_ fits into the mechanic.
Really? What games -- exactly -- are you speaking of?
> But what method can take into account more salient factors, weighted in a
> finer and more subtle way, and even take into account the relationships
> between those factors:
>
> 1) The simple die roll mechanics we have to live with for 'models' in RPGs.
As many people have (repeatedly) pointed out, there are many games
that do not use your generic model of a mechanic, so this breakdown
into two choices is not valid reasoning.
As many people have (repeatedly) pointed out, GMs do not have to use,
and actually do not use, mechanics in the fashion you constantly
bemoan.
Just doin' my vulture-ly duty.
Larry
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 29 Jan 1997, Steve Cooper wrote:
> : than can I. I give my players lots of license to improvise game reality,
> : based either on player knowledge or character skill (the character
> : *should* know X, and I haven't detailed it, so rather than come up with
> : *my* model of the game reality, why not use the player's instead?)
>
> How does that work, exactly?
Usually I frame it around PC actions, not NPC actions--that is out of
fairness to the players.
Thus, say Scott's character is the one using the SMG to mow down the
lightly armed thugs, in the example you gave. If I don't have much of a
feel for how that works, I'll simply ask Scott to adjudicate the initial
part of the scene. "Ok. You burst into the room. Tell me what you do and
what happens."
Scott will say something like "The machine pistol bucks in my hands. It
makes an impressive amount of noise in the enclosed space. My first shots
are pretty accurate, but after that I'm just spraying lead." Or whatever.
And then I will adjudicate the final outcome, based on the
reliable information that Scott has provided, not just to me, but to the
group as a whole.
Now the cost of this is that Scott has to drop, for a moment, the IC
stance in order to put *his* real life expertise to work for the group.
But what you gain is an increased sense of realism for everybody, and
hopefully I will learn enough so that *next* time Scott doesn't have to
drop out of IC.
Does that help?
My best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Mark Apolinski wrote:
> Hypothetical? The method I use most of the time is 1.5) GM decision
> based on "common sense" based on research.
I'm with Mark on this, John.
The way I would phrase this is "GM decision based on the common sense of
the group." I play with the following sorts of people:
a physician
a senior manager at a software design firm
a computer programmer
a computer security specialist who can only tell you for whom he works if
you have a compelling national security need to know :)
a biologist in a gene-mapping lab
an editor
a free-lance journalist.
These people all have different takes on what seems real to them--and
moreover, in their personal and profesional lives, they embody a great
deal of knowledge about how the world works. That knowledge is
considerably more nuanced and subtle and sophisticated than any simple
rules mechanic can encapsulate (and still be a simple, usable mechanic).
Consider. John Kim has praised CORPS, and rightly so, as being a game
system that is based on real research. But if I had a choice in handling
a situation involving firearms between CORPS' game mechanic and Scott
Ruggle's common sense (which is based on deep experience with and interest
in and use of firearms) which would *you* choose, if you wanted the most
realistic simulation possible?
I'll go with Scott's judgement, every time. I have absolutely no doubt
that whatever description and adjudication he would make in a given
firearms-related situation would be more realistic, nuanced, detailed, and
all around superior than a comparable description and adjudication by an
uninformed GM (say me, for example) using CORPS.
Which is what Mark and David having been saying all along, at least as I
read them.
My best,
Kevin
Psychohist
David Berkman posts, in part:
But lets get on real street here for a moment. We are not
talking about human capacity Vs. some fine, well
researched, accurate, statistical model. We are talking
human judgement Vs. a course, rough, guestimate, of
what might feel like something real, abstracted to cover
all situations with a single simple formula, a die roll,
and a single numerical modifier, also based on a course,
rough guestimate, whose ultimate outcome will be a
result meaningless in the situation unless human judgement
is once again applied in gross and free ways.
What's this "we", white man?
Even better, by educating rather than expressing in
formulae and numbers, the human GM becomes better able
to handle the nuances of each situation believably and
flexibly. The mechanical system never becomes less
abstract, or more flexible, no matter how much practice
it gets.
You mean your models never improve? Mine do. As I get more data, and
spend more time, and get more experience with which algorithms work and
which don't, my models get more accurate, more efficient, and more
elegant. And so do my role playing mechanics.
Warren J. Dew
David P. Summers
In article <32EE4A...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Apolinski
<apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > I couldn't disagree more. I ran across some well research rules
> > on sailing an was struck that it gave results that jived with
> > my own sailing experience (rather than leave the feeling
> > that the author didn't know sailing from sitting in his
> > bathtub).
> But there's a big difference between "jiving with your own experience"
> and being *THE correct results*.
I'm not sure what you mean. The point I'm making is that
I can tell the difference between rules that give results
that are just balances and rules that give results
that actually correspond to what really is likely
to have happened. Is that "the correct result"?
> Mathematically speaking, lets call the difference between the "true"
> results and the game results, x. Minimizing x is the goal of all
> simulationist games and GMs. Now lets call the difference between my
> educated "guess" and the "true" results, y. If y is similar to x, what's
> the difference between using the mechanics and not?
I was comparing mechanics that were researched
with those that were just "bare guesses". It is my experience
that "s", in such a comparison, is a lot better
than "y".
David P. Summers
> David P. Summers (7155...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
> : I couldn't disagree more. I ran across some well research rules
> : on sailing an was struck that it gave results that jived with
> : my own sailing experience (rather than leave the feeling
> : that the author didn't know sailing from sitting in his
> : bathtub).
> Please, I've said this a lot in this very thread.
> ***I LIKE RESEARCH***
> Rsearched rules are great. Please present that research.
> What I doubt is that the mechanics available in RPGs can in any accurate
> way represent that research.
And, as I said, the fact that I can tell tell the
difference between reasearched and unresearch mechanics,
leads me to completely disagree. Research is
good, both in mechanics and in details supplied
by the GM. In fact, as I said in the earlier
thread, details that are "just made up" have
almost no value for me.
[Now, addressing David's new point....]
> More improtantly, that they are incapable of
> representing it more accurately than a human would if that research was
> presented in an informational way, as opposed to mechanics and die roll
> modifiers.
I don't agree here either. In addition to complaints about
skewing the probabilities and other issues (which I
don't have time to revisit here) the fact is that
while a GM has the advantage of knowing the exact
details of the situation at hand, a game designer
has the luxury of being able to consider the situation
(I can think of a number of time when I decided
that, after the game is over, I would have decided
differently if I had time to think about it). For
me the best way is to have mechanics which the
GM overules if the sees fit....
> Almost _nothing_ fits into the mechanic.
This I also agree wtih. But since it is nother
more than a bald assertion there is little more
than can be said.
> I am not against information. Please don;t take any of this that way.
From this am I correct in thinking that you don't
a problem (or no longer have a problem) with the
idea that details that are "just made up" (without
any basis in reality) add little or nothing to a game?
Rodney Payne
sc...@york.ac.uk (Steve Cooper) writes:
>Could you tell me how you'd handle that situation? I'd be interested to
>know.
Simple. You just don't let Scott play.
;)
Seriously though, it really depends on the player in question.
The first thing to do is to ask the players what sort of things are
likely to bother them. If Scott doesn't care how SMGs are adjudicated,
then the problem ends there. However, if Scott says he will be concerned
about how firearms are run in the game, then I'd ask him to give me a few
pointers--ranges, damages, likely malfunctions--and perhaps clear up any
common misconceptions. Then, hopefully, the problem would be less likely
to occur.
This isn't perfect, of course. But there really isn't a perfect
solution to this dilemma.
--
Rodney Payne | The artist should organise his life. Here
| is a precise record of the time taken by
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | my daily chores: I get up at 7.18,
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | inspiration 10.23 to 11.47.... Erik Satie
Rodney Payne
bcks...@crl.com (David Berkman) writes:
>We do not, can not, model. No system models. They simply randomize, and
>not in any sensitive or flexible way, either.
This is not correct.
For example, I can take a group of 200 people who've never shot a
pistol before. They each fire 20 shots, two per week (to minimize
learning) at human shaped targets at ranges of 10', 20', 30', 40', and 50'.
I take the data, and work out the average chance to hit at each of those
distances, expressed as a percentage.
Then, during the game, I declare that a roll of less that or equal to
each of these numbers will be a hit.
I now have a model of the the shooting accuracy of untrained pistol
shooters.
Whether or not this is practical is irelevent, it counters your claim
that `no system models'. I could make an even stronger claim with, say,
billiard balls, or aircraft acceleration.
Now I extrapolate the chance to hit at 25'. The system has just become
sensitive and flexible.
It also stands a good chance of being more accurate than unresearched
guesswork.
>: The dichotomy is rather between objective/accurate/fair and
>: subjective/inaccurate/biased.
>An objective mechanic can not be fair, and I have never seen one that is.
>Fairness is fairness to the moment.
Fairness is entirely subjective. Claims about its relation to
objectivity, equally so.
>Accurate? Mechanics? Show me one that can do better than I can. Which
>fantastical mechanic are we talking about; AD&D, Cyberpunk, RoleMaster,
>Hero, RuneQuest, what? I am not impressed. I don;t believe that any of
>these is any more accurate than I am, and in most real situations, far
>less. Nor do I believe that this is any great feat on my part.
Whether or not you are more accurate than a given mechanic, is, of
course, as difficult as designing the mechanic realistically to begin
with. Nonetheless, it may be reassuring to some to know that the model
they are using is based on real world data--game systems vary in the
degree to which this is achieved.
Larry D. Hols
Hallo,
>
> If asked i will be accurate and hionest, and if the opposition is
> clever, and set up their ambush well. We all get killed. Oh well. As I
> have said before, i do not consider a game to be 'crashed' or ruined' by
> that outcome, but apparently I am in the minority here :-)
You're in good company, at least. ; ))
I have had the "pleasure" of having a character fall from a very high
cliff in arctic conditions and live. Nothing broken or even strained,
no worry about falling unconscious, no worry about being risking
hypothermia whilst awaiting rescue. The character was able to stand
up, shake off the bump, and begin climbing back up the cliff.
So, when he reached the top, the point where he had fallen from
before, I had him jump. Play stopped abruptly. I'm afraid it killed
SOD for others at the table, but the circumstances of the original
fall busted SOD for me. A clean death would have been acceptable.
Indeed, it was necessary for me to maintain SOD.
Larry
John H Kim
A reply to Kevin concerning how to produce a "realistic"
simulation, and also to Mark. First of all, there seems to be
a misunderstanding. Mark has said that for the example of how to
handle vacuum exposure, he would use other RPG supplements and
translate them into a diceless environment.
This is what I would call using a mechanic: he hasn't rolled
dice, but he has based his decision on a mechanical model. Of course,
he will merge that with his own common sense -- but the same is true
of most dice-mechanical GM's, who will add modifiers and alter
results to fit the exact situation.
So I think now we are in agreement on this point.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Kevin additionally has added a fourth category, which is
using a player's knowledge to adjudicate.
1) GM decision based only on her knowledge and common sense
2) GM decision using a researched mechanic, and his knowledge/sense
3) GM decision using an unresearched mechanic, and her knowledge/sense
4) GM decision based on a player's "expert" knowledge and his
own common sense
Each of these have their pro's and con's, in my opinion.
I should note that nearly all games use at least three of these.
Even a game with explicit dice-and-numbers formulae for gunplay
might leave, say, diplomatic negotiations to the GM's common
sense and understanding of social skills.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Consider. John Kim has praised CORPS, and rightly so, as being a game
>system that is based on real research. But if I had a choice in handling
>a situation involving firearms between CORPS' game mechanic and Scott
>Ruggle's common sense (which is based on deep experience with and
>interest in and use of firearms) which would *you* choose, if you
>wanted the most realistic simulation possible?
First of all, I don't have to choose -- I can get *both*!!!
This is what I keep telling David. As a GM, I can use _CORPS_ as a
system, and still consult Scott to *add* his knowledge to this
handling.
While I will use a player's "expert" knowledge, there are
numerous pitfalls in my experience -- such that I usually prefer
to have a mechanic. This is a problem which we've come up against
head-on in our _Call of Cthulhu_ game, since we have no mechanics
or established practice for handling some of our investigation
methods. Let me give an example of a game with an "expert player":
GM: "OK, a killer from the upper platform opens up with a tommygun
at you."
Player: "Does the first shot hit?"
GM: "What do you think?"
Player: "Probably not, but there's a chance."
GM: "That's fine, it misses, but he's still firing away."
Player: "That's fine -- I've got side cover and without anything to
brace on, the recoil is going to pull his shot into the ceiling.
I pull out my pistol and start shooting back. I should have him
pretty cold."
GM: "Wait, I guess firing from the unrailed platform wasn't a good
idea -- this guy is supposed to be an experienced killer. Where
should he be firing from?"
Player: "Hmmm. How much does he know about where we are?"
GM: "Well, he's been told to expect you coming in from Springheel
Street."
Player: "OK, well, why wouldn't he be at the warehouse desk we
passed before? Then we wouldn't have any cover and he could
brace his elbow on the desk to control his fire."
GM: "I thought he would get more of a jump on you if he was
firing from above."
Player: "Yeah, but his position's lousy. Unless his first burst
takes out more than one of us, he's toast."
GM: "OK, I guess the ambush takes place back at the desk, instead."
Player: "Well, I guess we're pretty screwed. I'm going to try to
duck behind the other characters -- maybe some of us can make it
back to the street."
The model might be less strictly accurate than the expert
knowledge, but it becomes very hard for anyone except the "expert"
to play *characters* who are experts.
Something very close to this happened in my _Ars Magica_
game, when the GM had us attacked by pirates. Chris and Liz were
well-read in all sorts of sailing adventure novels, and in
consequence the pirates ended up looking like pretty foolish
and ignorant sailors.
Larry D. Hols
Hallo,
David Berkman wrote:
>
> Two questions (and sub-questions) if you will...
>
> 1) O.K. So, now I'm ducking in a darkened alleyway, with sporadic partial
> cover, shooting at an opponent who is in the same situation, and firing
> back. How good are your numbers derived from the range now? How do you
> account for the differences in situation, lighting, movement, etc?
>
> I am not saying, by the way, that such data as you've gathered is not
> useful. It is. But knowing that data, having looked at the chart and
> numbers, even having it as a reference, will your mechanic handle this
> more accurately than I will, accounting for the differneces in situation
> in an intuitive/reasoned way?
It seems the game designer will have been able to look at the
situation in an intuitive/reasoned fashion. Who's to say that what
you come up with will be any better than what he comes up with? He
would also be able to fashion the mechanic so that it meshes with all
the rest of the mechanics which he designed.
What are you going to do -- specifically -- that the designer can't
do?
> 2) To use the data, you have to rate people on that range. You rate them
> by their accuracy, most probably. You then produce a curve, and provide
> even breakdowns along it (or uneven), and assign skill level ranks to
> them. In your game system, a character with that rank shoots that well at
> the range. Is that a goo dindicator of hwo they'll handle themselves
> inthe situation presented above? If it isn't, on what else do you base
> your mechanic to make it a good representation? Where do you get that
> data? How do you rank it?
First, the designer can do this as well as the GM.
Second, if this material is desired by the GM and players, then they
can add it to their game, working it into the mechanics they use.
Such provides every participant a guideline on which to base
expectations of results.
Larry
John L. Jones II
Larry D. Hols wrote:
>
> Hallo,
>
> >
> > If asked i will be accurate and hionest, and if the opposition is
> > clever, and set up their ambush well. We all get killed. Oh well. As I
> > have said before, i do not consider a game to be 'crashed' or ruined' by
> > that outcome, but apparently I am in the minority here :-)
>
> You're in good company, at least. ; ))
Definitely.
> So, when he reached the top, the point where he had fallen from
> before, I had him jump. Play stopped abruptly. I'm afraid it killed
> SOD for others at the table, but the circumstances of the original
> fall busted SOD for me. A clean death would have been acceptable.
> Indeed, it was necessary for me to maintain SOD.
You make an excellent point. I take it that the GM let your character
die this time?
> Larry
Mark Apolinski
David P. Summers wrote:
>
> In article <32EE4A...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Apolinski
> <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > But there's a big difference between "jiving with your own experience"
> > and being *THE correct results*.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. The point I'm making is that
> I can tell the difference between rules that give results
> that are just balances and rules that give results
> that actually correspond to what really is likely
> to have happened. Is that "the correct result"?
Great. Me too. But I just take the next logical step. Since we can tell
the difference, we must have some kind of internal database that we are
consulting. I just use that database directly to adjudicate things
rather than limiting it to consistency-checking of a mechanic.
*My* point is that this is a completely valid approach if one is not
concerned with "objectivity".
Mark
John H Kim
I guess I'm repeating myself here, but I think it bears
saying more clearly.
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Until all the Theatrix sourcebooks come out, I use other rpg supplements
>to supply the "realistic" details and translate them into the diceless
>Theatrix environment. You're not seriously telling me that you believed
>that brief mention of vacuum exposure in the Core_Rules was intended to
>be the sole basis for a diceless adjudication?
No -- but I call unpublished/unwritten sourcebooks as
"hypothetical" sources of information. What I was interested in
was what you *actually* used -- not what you would use in theory if
there were just plain information without mechanics.
What you have answered is that you use *mechanics* to base
your decision on. You don't roll dice as the original game suggests,
but that is the source for your details. That's fine by me.
David Berkman
John H Kim (jh...@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: >Even better, by educating rather than expressing in formulae and
: >numbers, the human GM becomes better able to handle the nuances of
: >each situation believably and flexibly. The mechanical system never
: >becomes less abstract, or more flexible, no matter how much practice
: >it gets.
: Uh, this seems to indicate that formulae and numbers don't
: qualify as "education".
They don't.
: As a physicist, I take issue with that @-).
: Formulae and numbers *do* educate:
No. You could show me all the numbers you want, and I will stare at you
blankly. First you must show me what the numbers *mean*. Then they become
a vocabulary. Then they work well, in conjunction with further education.
They are the media, but not the message.
The problem with RPG mechanics is that there is no message. Well, first
off, no attempt is made to convey any meaning besides a bit of
mini-maxing, which creates small amounts of game world physics, most
often very poorly related to the real world, because you have neither the
data nor methods available to make the numbers more meaningful. And
second, no attempt is made to convey meaning because these are not
simulations, but simply randomizations, and there is no meaning.
: the best examples I can think of
: are _Traveller_ and _Guns, Guns, Guns_. Both of these introduce
: a lot of straight physics as game mechanics -- put into usable
: form.
I have not seen anything but the original Traveller, and I haven't seen
Guns, Guns, Guns, but if they do actually provide, in english, the
meaning and theory behind their numbers, that's great. I think those
words are many times more useful than the very simplistic and poor
capturing the numbers will reflect, and the decisions that can be made
based of the theory taught will be better than the numbers will make.
: The Navy seems to disagree with you as well, since they
: use a set of mechanics like _Harpoon_ to teach cadets principles
: of naval tactics.
No, they don't. Yes, yes, yes, yes, I know they use mechanics like
Harpoon as teaching aids. But look at the process. I had a game called
Carrier Command, which was supposedly a very good simulation of WWII
naval tactics during the batlle of Midway. I played it a lot. I lost a
lot. Not because the game wasn't a good simulation, but because I didn't
know anytjhing about naval tactics of any period. The game came with some
tactical hints. I read those, and did a slight bit better.
You can play chess for many years, and become merely eh. You can read a
few chess books, and then practice, and be far better. Harpoon is a great
stage upon which to practice theory which has been actually taught. It is
a very blunt instrument on its own.
And, that's *highly abstracted* naval tactics. A gross congregate event
which has been highly studied, and for which basic principles and
theories can be built up in numerical form. And it still takes a computer
game, or a big rule book and baord game, to do it right. I don;t want to
play Harpoon in my RPG. I don;t want to abstract to that extent. ANd I
don't want every move to take that long.
Lets take Martial Arts for example. Studied and practiced and refined for
thousands of years. The basic phsyiological principles which underlie the
forms are well known. Yet, you could argue forever aming very
knowledgeable people about what actually works. And, the very best
Martial Arts RPGs out there, the cream of the crop, what do they actually
teach you about martial arts? What meaning do the mechanics of Hero, or
GURPS, or Roelmaster, or whatever, tell you about what works and doesn't
in the actual practice of martial forms? Nothing. What they do tell you
is probably wrong. And if it some of it is right, what principles are
learned? Nothing. Just some minimaxing in those game terms.
What would 20 or 30 pages on the theory and principles of martial arts,
and how various forms attempt to embody these, tell you about the
practice? Much more.
And a GM who read those 20 or 30 pages could probably make more realistic
decisions (certainly as realistic as roll a die, add a modifier, apply a
formula), based on actual details of described action, more fluidly, than
the best martial arts RPG.
: I would agree with this -- my impression is that you are
: much more flexible without the mechanics. On the other hand, you
: have expressed a rather extreme devotion to rules-lawyering
: (i.e. it is always best to stick to the letter of the rules).
No, John, I have not. You van attempt to reduce my argument to that, but
you will simply miss it. Once again, my problem with abstracting.
What I said was that for a balanced game like Hero, I found it best to
stick with the rules as written, because changing generally produced
situations worse than the fix. Your changes were reasonable, and yet
would greatly hurt several character concepts I've actually played.
Concept gets embodied in the rules, very much so in a game like Hero, and
I've found that even seeemingly benign changes have some very odd effects
*in that game*.
Change the VtM rules all you want, and I probably wouldn;'t have nearly
the same problems. I might encourage it.
: As for myself, I'm not sure that my combats are any more
: fluid or detailed freeform than in HERO (although they are
: faster).
We'll find out soon, I guess.
: Well, I was endeavoring to test exactly this -- cf. the
: situation test. @-)
Wether I am right or wrong, I am looking forward to it.
David
David Berkman
Richard Bartrop (rbar...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca) wrote:
: Because a guess is a guess, Better t make a complicated decision with
: some tools, than a naked decision.
I don;t think anyone is advocating a naked decision. We are questioning
the value of the mechanical tool, over an educated human mind. Or, at
least the value of those mechanical tools that can be usefully employed
in an RPG.
: Wrong. For a simulationist GM, the model is important because of its
: assumption of unbiassed objectivity, and that statistically it produces
: an average range of results...
Yes!!
I totally agree. Objective mechanics were developed, not for their
realism, not for their virisimilitude, but because they are objective.
What I'm saying is that if you are willing to give up objectivity, which
many are not, that a human can handle more detail, with greater
sensitivity, and far gerater freedom of action and result.
Now, the argument which John Kim is making, and which we'll begin
testing, is that the mechanic can handle the objectivity, while the GM
can add the detail and flexibility. My argument is that the mechanic has
already constrained too much, and removed freedom too far, in order to
build numerical abstractions upon which it can work, that the GM will
simply be justifying a limited and abstracted decision.
: Rae or unique events are still the purview
: of the GM but if the model is sound, decions reached assisted by the
: model, may not branch out into impossibility or unbelievability.
Sure. But then a GM may easily avoid the impossible or unbelievable as
well, as both are really held by the group, and diceless decisions are
not made in absence of group beliefs and goals.
: Flying is a lot more complicated in real life than what is portrayed in
: a simulator, but the simulators are still a valuable, and valid building
: of experience for military and commercial airline pilots.
Sure. That does not make teh available formula plus die plus modifier a
'simulation' of any kind. We are talking RPGs, not flight simulators, not
naval tactical simulations. If we had the modles and computer power to
assist GMS in that way, I might not be making this argument. What we do
have is a few simple randomizers.
We are both really looking for the same thing. The 'feel' of realism, and
that's a subjective thing. For me, mechanics are too abstracted and
bland, and too difficult for the GM to make up for. I like my described
detail to work in a different way.
Neither of us will be simulating. We'll just be deciding in hopefully
realistic ways.
****************************************************************
My argument is that mechanics are not related to realism in any direct,
modeled way, they aren't meant to be, they doin't need to be. But that
also means that their loss in not necessarily a loss of realism.
David
russell wallace
> For example, I can take a group of 200 people who've never shot a
>pistol before. They each fire 20 shots, two per week (to minimize
>learning) at human shaped targets at ranges of 10', 20', 30', 40', and 50'.
>I take the data, and work out the average chance to hit at each of those
>distances, expressed as a percentage.
> Then, during the game, I declare that a roll of less that or equal to
>each of these numbers will be a hit.
Unfortunately, this will not be at all accurate. The reason is that how
well someone can hit a target on the firing range, with time to aim,
giving the task all their concentration, bears virtually no resemblance
to how well they can hit a target during a typical combat when the
targets are shooting back and the people involved are generally paying
more attention to staying alive than to accurate aim.
I've seen a figure of 10% for the proportion of shots that actually hit
anyone, in a typical street firefight involving criminals, or criminals
versus cops, in the US - and this is despite the fact that many, perhaps
most, of the people involved are quite skilled, and could probably hit
with 10 shots out of 10 on the firing range with the same weapons at the
same range. In military firefights, it's not uncommon for thousands of
rounds to be expended for every casualty inflicted.
Furthermore, this variance of accuracy is something it is very difficult
to precisely quantify; there is no real way of creating anywhere near a
complete list of the factors that could typically be involved, let alone
assigning accurate numerical modifiers to them.
Now, I'm all in favor of using mechanics, and I'm certainly all in favor
of well-researched mechanics, and I agree that well-researched mechanics
can be more realistic than uneducated guesswork. But I *don't* agree
that even well-researched mechanics can be as realistic as the judgement
of a person who has equivalent knowledge of the area in question. I
simply don't find realism to be an argument for using mechanics; on the
whole, I find it goes the other way around. (My reasons for using
mechanics are related to issues other than realism.)
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwal...@tcd.ie
David Berkman
Rodney Payne (spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
: >We do not, can not, model. No system models. They simply randomize, and
: >not in any sensitive or flexible way, either.
: This is not correct.
: For example, I can take a group of 200 people who've never shot a
: pistol before. They each fire 20 shots, two per week (to minimize
: learning) at human shaped targets at ranges of 10', 20', 30', 40', and 50'.
: I take the data, and work out the average chance to hit at each of those
: distances, expressed as a percentage.
First, I need to appologize to you. I've stopped your post here, and I'm
not responding to the rest, which is somewhat rude, but I really want to
get into this discussion withyou and see where it leads, and I'm selfish
enough to do this in my own way.
Two questions (and sub-questions) if you will...
1) O.K. So, now I'm ducking in a darkened alleyway, with sporadic partial
cover, shooting at an opponent who is in the same situation, and firing
back. How good are your numbers derived from the range now? How do you
account for the differences in situation, lighting, movement, etc?
I am not saying, by the way, that such data as you've gathered is not
useful. It is. But knowing that data, having looked at the chart and
numbers, even having it as a reference, will your mechanic handle this
more accurately than I will, accounting for the differneces in situation
in an intuitive/reasoned way?
2) To use the data, you have to rate people on that range. You rate them
by their accuracy, most probably. You then produce a curve, and provide
even breakdowns along it (or uneven), and assign skill level ranks to
them. In your game system, a character with that rank shoots that well at
the range. Is that a goo dindicator of hwo they'll handle themselves
inthe situation presented above? If it isn't, on what else do you base
your mechanic to make it a good representation? Where do you get that
data? How do you rank it?
Thanks for your patience.
David
David Berkman
Larry D. Hols (hols...@tdsi.net) wrote:
: > ***I LIKE RESEARCH***
: But, David, you said in the discussion following your engine repair
: example that research wasn't necessary. You said that any details
: could be created on the spot for use in play -- and that making them
: up was superior to actually doing the research.
Bull cookies. I agree with everything right up to the last line.
Research isn't necessary. That's right. I also said, which you've
conveniently not restated here, despite it being repeated many times,
that research is not necessary when *real details are not important to
any of teh participants*, ie. no one knows, and no one really cares to go
look it up. In that case, consistent improvisation works very well.
I have never said, and you are a liar for putting the words in my mouth,
and I don't appreciate it, 'that making up details was superior to doing
the research'.
If you are going to paraphrase, rather than quote me in context, I would
appreciate that you do so accurately.
: > Rsearched rules are great. Please present that research.
: >
: > What I doubt is that the mechanics available in RPGs can in any accurate
: > way represent that research.
: Then I wager you haven't actually studied a good many game systems.
You would lose that wager. But please, educate me. Show me the research
upon which these statistical 'models' were created, and the methodology. I
am very ignorant, and would like to learn.
: > More improtantly, that they are incapable of
: > representing it more accurately than a human would if that research was
: > presented in an informational way, as opposed to mechanics and die roll
: > modifiers.
: You seem to forget that the mechanics were designed by humans to
: represent exactly what they cover.
No. But I do agree. what they were meant to cover is a simple
randomization process for producing reasonable sounding random results,
via abstraction over a wide range of situations, without any special
regard for accurate modeling, and, due to necessity, no special attention
to the actual situation or the description of action of the various
participants.
: > Almost _nothing_ fits into the mechanic.
: Really? What games -- exactly -- are you speaking of?
All.
: As many people have (repeatedly) pointed out, there are many games
: that do not use your generic model of a mechanic, so this breakdown
: into two choices is not valid reasoning.
Really. Which games?
: As many people have (repeatedly) pointed out, GMs do not have to use,
: and actually do not use, mechanics in the fashion you constantly
: bemoan.
: Just doin' my vulture-ly duty.
I don't mind the argument, or the dessenting opinion, but please try to
really understand where I'm coming from before speaking for me.
David
Larry D. Hols
Hallo,
John L. Jones II wrote:
>
> You make an excellent point. I take it that the GM let your character
> die this time?
Yup. There was a quick splat of splintering bones and the body just
lay there in on the snow and rocks, oozing blood out from under him.
I looked down from the cliff and saw that It Was a Good Thing.
Larry
James Ellis
David Berkman wrote:
>
> But lets get on real street here for a moment. We are not talking about
> human capacity Vs. some fine, well researched, accurate, statistical
> model. We are talking human judgement Vs. a course, rough, guestimate, of
> what might feel like something real, abstracted to cover all situations
> with a single simple formula, a die roll, and a single numerical modifier,
> also based on a course, rough guestimate, whose ultimate outcome will be a
> result meaningless in the situation unless human judgement is once again
> applied in gross and free ways.
>
Not this again!
Shit, I'm going to go talk to a cabbage. It is more open to
alternative opinions than David has shown himself to be.
Disgustedly,
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Ellis
David Berkman wrote:
>
> But what method can take into account more salient factors, weighted in a
> finer and more subtle way, and even take into account the relationships
> between those factors:
>
> 1) The simple die roll mechanics we have to live with for 'models' in RPGs.
>
So _you_ are "educated" in every possible area which might arise in
one of your games? I suppose this could theoretically be true, but I
find it hard to believe. Well, o master of lore, us "lesser mortals"
sometimes may prefer to abstract those esoteric branches of lore which
arise unexpectedly in a campaign, rather than impiously claiming
omnipotence.
Rodney Payne
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Mathematically speaking, lets call the difference between the "true"
>results and the game results, x. Minimizing x is the goal of all
>simulationist games and GMs.
Whoa there. The term simulationist has been getting out of hand for a
while now, so I'll take this opportunity to reel it in.
A Simulationist is a GM who uses neither Dramatic or Directed plotting
techniques. The consequences of this combination are often that the game
world is more `realistic', but the approach does not necessitate that the
game use realistic mechanics.
John H Kim
A reply to Russell concerning "realistic" mechanics...
Russell wallace <rwal...@tcd.ie> wrote:
>Rodney Payne <spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> writes:
>> For example, I can take a group of 200 people who've never shot a
>> pistol before. They each fire 20 shots, two per week (to minimize
>> learning) at human shaped targets at ranges of 10', 20', 30', 40',
>> and 50'. I take the data, and work out the average chance to hit at
>> each of those distances, expressed as a percentage.
[...
>Unfortunately, this will not be at all accurate.
Uh, but this is exactly what Rodney said. He *said* that
this is a very rough model, etc. The point is that this is exactly
how models work in the real world. Lots of real-world models are
inaccurate -- even "scientific" ones.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Now, I'm all in favor of using mechanics, and I'm certainly all in
>favor of well-researched mechanics, and I agree that well-researched
>mechanics can be more realistic than uneducated guesswork. But I
>*don't* agree that even well-researched mechanics can be as realistic
>as the judgement of a person who has equivalent knowledge of the
>area in question.
But what is "equivalent knowledge"? What would be the
non-mechanical way for me to gain equal knowledge about, say,
running a firefight as, say, _Millenium's End_? This *is* the issue.
I have never held a real gun before in my life. I am not
a buff of documentaries or fact-books on guns. What would you
suggest to me if, say, in two weeks I wanted to run a game involving
firefights?
Should I read 20-30 pages about guns and then use my
"equivalent knowledge"? Or should I run using, say, _Millenium's
End_ and throw in modifiers?
This is the issue on my mind.
John H Kim
Hmmm. This is a reply to David concerning the teaching
ability of mechanics. BTW, Russell has suggested in reply that
in general, mechanics don't add to realism -- that his use of
mechanics was for reasons other than realism. I agree with this,
*in general*. Note my statement earlier that most mechanics are
not researched.
However, that doesn't mean that they don't exist, which
is what my argument has been about. First of all, many mechanics
aren't even trying for realism. Second, every mechanics system
will have its flaws -- but there are certainly realistic mechanics
and subsystems which work.
-*-*-*-
David's claim is that 20 or 30 pages of non-mechanical text,
say, on the theory and practice of martial arts would allow a GM
to adjudicate dicelessly and teach more than any dice-mechanical RPG
(specifically, he mentioned HERO, GURPS, and Rolemaster).
I say: Show me! I have yet to see a single realistic example
or information out of you or _Theatrix_ (with the possible exception
of the Gull Island PBEM -- but I suspect that's because the only
action thus far has been dialogue).
Suggest to me *anything* which could possibly support your
point. But it grates to hear just how spectacularly you out-realism
these systems when your examples are all about outlandish pulp, and
even your request for a situation was a cartoon where the hero
drives his car up and down cliffs.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
I asked Mark about an example like vacuum, and he said he
would use exactly the dice-mechanical RPG's you decry for his
information. Let me quote below from _GURPS Space_, p75.
"_You can't hold your breath in a vacuum, and you might rupture your
lungs if you try. The only safe way to enter vacuum is to exhale and
leave your mouth open. You can then operate on the oxygen in your
blood for (HT) turns if active, or (HTx4) turns if moving slowly, or
(HTx10) turns if passively waiting. Double these times if you
hyperventilate first, quadruple them if you use pure oxygen.
Once out of breath, one Fatigue is lost per turn; when ST
reaches 0, the victim falls unconscious. Four minutes later, he
dies. There is a chance of brain damage (permanent -1 to IQ) if
the victim is saved after more than two minutes without air;
roll vs. HT to avoid this."
"`Blowout,' or _explosive decompression_, happens when an area suddenly
goes from normal pressure to little or none. This could occur, for
instance, when a ship loses all its air to a meteor strike, or when
someone is tossed out the airlock.
Fifty years of pulp fiction to the contrary, explosive decom-
pression does not turn its victims inside-out and quick-freeze them.
What _does_ happen is that the body fluids begin to boil away. Small
blood vessels rupture, and the mucous membranes dry out. The eardrums
pop violently. The victim takes 1 die of damage, but _does not die_
until he runs out of breath, as described in the main text. However,
if rescued, he must make separate rolls, as follows, or suffer
_permanent_ ill effects as follows:
HT+2 for each eye, to avoid blindness;
HT to avoid -1 DX due to ``bends'' from boiling blood;
HT-1 to avoid permanent Hard of Hearing disadvantage."
-*-*-*-
I asked this because the comparable _Theatrix_ description
was as follows (from page 96):
"Vacuum -- Is very nasty indeed. You are cut off immediately from
the vital process of breathing, exposed to deadly cold, baked by
radiation, and stretched like a drum, all at the same time. When
this happens, you have precious little time before its all over.
Even if you get to safety after a few seconds, you'll still suffer
Incapacitating Damage that will be very slow to heal. If you're
exposed for more than a few seconds... well, it's pretty much over."
Now, obviously, the _GURPS_ sample of text is about three
times as long, and from a dedicated sourcebook. Thus, the comparison
is unfair. However, I would be interested to see the diceless text
example which communicates so much more than the GURPS version possibly
could.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: Uh, this seems to indicate that formulae and numbers don't
>: qualify as "education". As a physicist, I take issue with that @-).
>: Formulae and numbers *do* educate:
>
>No. You could show me all the numbers you want, and I will stare at
>you blankly. First you must show me what the numbers *mean*.
[...]
>The problem with RPG mechanics is that there is no message. Well,
>first off, no attempt is made to convey any meaning besides a bit of
>mini-maxing, which creates small amounts of game world physics, most
>often very poorly related to the real world, because you have neither
>the data nor methods available to make the numbers more meaningful.
I'm going to quote from the original _Traveller_ (which you
said you were familiar with) on page 10 of the Starships book.
"T=2*(D/A)^0.5 D=A*(T^2)/4 A=4*D/(T^2)"
"The three travel formulae assume constant acceleration to midpoint,
turnaround, and constant deceleration to arrive at the destination at
rest, as shown in the diagram above. There are three variables; if
any two are known, the third can be determined using one of the
formulae above. The variables are time (T) in seconds, distance (D)
in meters, and acceleration (A) in meters/second^2. Other units
must be converted using these three before using the formulae."
[Example and table skipped]
-*-*-*-
>
>I have not seen anything but the original _Traveller_, and I haven't
>seen _Guns, Guns, Guns_, but if they do actually provide, in english,
>the meaning and theory behind their numbers, that's great. I think those
>words are many times more useful than the very simplistic and poor
>capturing the numbers will reflect, and the decisions that can be made
>based of the theory taught will be better than the numbers will make.
Uh, sure. I'm curious to see how you would communicate
the meaning and theory of interplanetary travel without all those
pesky numbers. How exactly are they such a simplistic and poor
capturing of the concept?
Larry D. Hols
Hallo,
Mark Apolinski wrote:
>
> But for decisions like how much damage you would take from a 30-30
> rifle shot at 500 yards, I would use instinct backed up by research.
You wouldn't take damage from a 30-30 at 500 yards, unless it were a
lucky shot. The 30-30 is a notoriously inaccurate weapon beyond, say,
200 yards. The Hollywood version is more accurate, but I suspect it
is a .272 in disguise. : )
Larry
Larry D. Hols
Hallo,
David Berkman wrote:
>
> Harpoon is a great
> stage upon which to practice theory which has been actually taught. It is
> a very blunt instrument on its own.
Precisely the point! How many times has someone noted that a tool is
only as useful as the GM using it? You've never agreed with that
before, but now look at you. You agree!
> And, that's *highly abstracted* naval tactics. A gross congregate event
> which has been highly studied, and for which basic principles and
> theories can be built up in numerical form. And it still takes a computer
> game, or a big rule book and baord game, to do it right. I don;t want to
> play Harpoon in my RPG. I don;t want to abstract to that extent. ANd I
> don't want every move to take that long.
Have you ever really played Harpoon with miniatures? The tactics used
are identical to those used by naval commanders in actual combats.
They aren't "abstracted" versions of naval tactics, they are naval
tactics. The part of the game that takes the longest is the pysical
movement of the miniature, if that part is taken away, the engagements
go quickly -- much more quickly than an actual battle would.
> And, the very best
> Martial Arts RPGs out there, the cream of the crop, what do they actually
> teach you about martial arts?
And what would playing a rpg teach about martial arts, anyway? Not a
whole hell of a lot, whether the game uses mechanics or just GM
description.
> What would 20 or 30 pages on the theory and principles of martial arts,
> and how various forms attempt to embody these, tell you about the
> practice? Much more.
It wouldn't say shit about how to use them in a game. The problem
with your contention here is that you seem to assume that from reading
a very brief overview of a handful of arts, a person would be able to
learn the best approach to using the arts in an encounter. Won't
happen -- not enough info, and no such 'best approach' exists.
> And a GM who read those 20 or 30 pages could probably make more realistic
> decisions (certainly as realistic as roll a die, add a modifier, apply a
> formula), based on actual details of described action, more fluidly, than
> the best martial arts RPG.
This is simply ludicrous.
> Your changes were reasonable, and yet
> would greatly hurt several character concepts I've actually played.
> Concept gets embodied in the rules,
Then you must have created the character to take advantage of the
rules. A bit of min-maxing, eh?
Larry
Kevin R. Hardwick
Uh, John. I don;t follow you here.
Suppose we strip out the GURPS mechanics but leave the explanatory text
intact:
> "_You can't hold your breath in a vacuum, and you might rupture your
> lungs if you try. The only safe way to enter vacuum is to exhale and
> leave your mouth open. You can then operate on the oxygen in your
> blood for [a short period of time] if active, or [a little bit longer]
> if moving slowly, or
> [even longer still] turns if passively waiting.
[We all have experience holding our breath under water--use that as a
guideline here. Obviously, you can operate much longer under water than
you can in a vauum, since in the one case you can hold your breath and in
the other you cannot. So our real life experience sets an outer bound,
at best--most likely you can operate in a vacuum for only a very short
period of time. Finally, note that GURPS does not provide a mechanic to
handle the case in which a character *does* hold her breath in a vacuum.
Sure, you risk permanent lung damage, but the extra time you get may be
significant.]
> Double these times if
> you
> hyperventilate first, quadruple them if you use pure oxygen.
Now this strikes me as being purely made up. I would ask the physician in
my group for better information. Certainly the neat arithmetic
relationship posed here (double for hyperventilate; quadruple for oxygen)
is incorrect. I don;t know what a reasonable figure would be, but it
should be easy enough to find out. Note also that GURP's use of HT as the
basis for this is pure fabrication--it overstates the variability between
healthy and unhealthy people by a considerable margin.
[When a person runs out of breath they rapidly lose consiousness.]
> Four minutes later, he
> dies. There is a chance of brain damage [. . .] if
> the victim is saved after more than two minutes without air
The longer they have been unconscious, the greater the chance that this is
so.
[Again, note the way in which the GURPS mechanic constrains outcomes--in
the GURPS example, the *worst* outcome, assuming that the victim does not
die, is -1 INT! Makes you wonder if these mechanics were ever
playtested.
By contrast, the *description* of what being in a vacuum does to a person
is quite good, even if the mechanics that the GURPS author derives from it
are kind of dumb.]
> "`Blowout,' or _explosive decompression_, happens when an area suddenly
> goes from normal pressure to little or none. This could occur, for
> instance, when a ship loses all its air to a meteor strike, or when
> someone is tossed out the airlock.
> Fifty years of pulp fiction to the contrary, explosive decom-
> pression does not turn its victims inside-out and quick-freeze them.
> What _does_ happen is that the body fluids begin to boil away. Small
> blood vessels rupture, and the mucous membranes dry out. The eardrums
> pop violently. The victim takes [. . .] damage, but _does not die_
> until he runs out of breath, [. . .] However,
> if rescued, [. . .]
he risks permanent damage to his eyes, ears, and cardiovasular system
(from the 'bends,' due to boiling blood.)
*****
Just stripping out the GURPS mechanics and using the descriptive material
in the text (which, as you note, is much more dense than the comparable
Theatrix description--the result, no doubt, from the dedicated nature of
the GURPS setting book, vs. the short description that one can reasonably
expect from a generic system book) provides the diceless GM with a great
deal of information to work from. Lacking a physician in ones' group,
this strikes me as a useful source of information.
I likely misread Mark, but it was my understanding that he was arguing for
using GURPS in this fashion--for the description, but not for the
mechanics.
My best,
Kevin