'Gamist' a pejorative?
Steven Howard
It seems to me that the neologism "gamist" has a generally negative
connotation -- especially in the "Fuzion by the cards" thread (which
is now, of course, about the use of Plot Points in Theatrix). I am
bemused to see a group of people who very obviously spend a great
deal of time playing and analyzing games so opposed to "gamism."
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word like "euphemism" doing in a sentence like this?
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 24 Jun 97 06:25:41 GMT, bl...@ibm.net (Steven Howard) wrote:
>It seems to me that the neologism "gamist" has a generally negative
>connotation -- especially in the "Fuzion by the cards" thread (which
>is now, of course, about the use of Plot Points in Theatrix). I am
>bemused to see a group of people who very obviously spend a great
>deal of time playing and analyzing games so opposed to "gamism."
I think there is some real question open as to what degree the
activity we are discussing is really a "game." Greg Costikyan
suggests that the essence of a good game is forcing the player to make
difficult, meaningful decisions. Such a concern, it seems to me, is
tangential, at least for players who participate in role play for the
IC experience. For such players "difficult, meaningful" decisions may
or may not be part of what it means to participate in "good"
role-play.
My best,
Kevin
Steven Howard
In <33b04342...@news.washingtonian.infi.net>, krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net writes:
>I think there is some real question open as to what degree the
>activity we are discussing is really a "game." Greg Costikyan
>suggests that the essence of a good game is forcing the player to make
>difficult, meaningful decisions. Such a concern, it seems to me, is
>tangential, at least for players who participate in role play for the
>IC experience. For such players "difficult, meaningful" decisions may
>or may not be part of what it means to participate in "good"
>role-play.
Hmm. Maybe. On the other hand, even the most die-hard plot-hating
characterization maven would probably admit that characters who never
make "difficult, meaningful" decisions aren't very interesting to play.
Jim Henley
Steven Howard wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the neologism "gamist" has a generally negative
> connotation -- especially in the "Fuzion by the cards" thread (which
> is now, of course, about the use of Plot Points in Theatrix). I am
> bemused to see a group of people who very obviously spend a great
> deal of time playing and analyzing games so opposed to "gamism."
Heh. Is there an echo in here?
Anyway, as the neologism coiner, I must say that we haven't really
nailed the term down yet, and tend to mix and match gamism as GM
approach, gamism as player approach and gamism as contract issue. If you
want to get into pathologizing people -- and hey! who doesn't? -- I'd
put my money on the insecurity that comes with knowing that, at bottom,
one gets one's kicks pretending to be an elf. We want it to sound ever
so much more refined than that.
There is a legitimate intellectual and esthetic issue to be dealt with,
for all of that. I am afraid that the term is being allowed to become a
synonym for wanting to succeed, when I conceive of it more as an
attachment to concepts of fair play common to games generally. I no
longer believe it is identical with simulationism, but believe that it
is closer to that stance than most simulationists find comfortable.
Best,
Jim
Jim Henley
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
>
> For such players "difficult, meaningful" decisions may
> or may not be part of what it means to participate in "good"
> role-play.
But I would argue that "difficult, meaningful" decisions have a lot to
do with revealing (and understanding) character, which certainly seems
like an aim of "good role play." Specifically, there is no drama without
difficult, meaningful decisions -- only melodrama.
Best,
Jim
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:10:21 -0400, Jim Henley <jlhe...@erols.com>
wrote:
>krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
>But I would argue that "difficult, meaningful" decisions have a lot to
>do with revealing (and understanding) character, which certainly seems
>like an aim of "good role play." Specifically, there is no drama without
>difficult, meaningful decisions -- only melodrama.
Well, I would agree with you--but not everyone here HAS accepted this
idea. And some of the people who object are awfully smart folk who I
hold in high esteem.
If character is best revealed through drama, then that implies that
some assistance from the GM in strcuturing drama can on occasion
assist a player in realizing character. Thus, some plotted games will
enhance characterization, from which I conclude that plotted games can
be condusive to IC and deep IC play.
This line of argument, however, has been criticized on a number of
occasions, on the basis that drama is not always necessary to produce
strong characterization.
My best,
Kevin
Mary K. Kuhner
>If character is best revealed through drama, then that implies that
>some assistance from the GM in strcuturing drama can on occasion
>assist a player in realizing character. Thus, some plotted games will
>enhance characterization, from which I conclude that plotted games can
>be condusive to IC and deep IC play.
>This line of argument, however, has been criticized on a number of
>occasions, on the basis that drama is not always necessary to produce
>strong characterization.
While I've been one of your consistent critics, I don't think I disagree
that "drama" (in the sense of difficult, meaningful decisionmaking) is
important to characterization. However, when one starts playing
*deliberately* for drama one incurs a number of risks: too much drama
(which will destroy rather than develop fragile characterizations);
player awareness of manipulation (which draws attention away from the
character altogether); pre-determining outcomes (which hampers
characterization by reducing player control); and de-emphasis of
"undramatic" scenes (which may equally be important for
characterization).
How people evaluate these risks will, of course, differ. But I think
even someone who accepts the premise that tough decisions are useful
in characterization may reasonably reject the conclusion that plotted
games, for them, are a good way to accomplish this.
Please be careful not to equivocate between "drama" meaning meaningful
decisions are there to be made, and "drama" meaning deliberate
manipulation in order to encourage such decisions; or we'll just
have another tedious repetition of the "But don't simulationists
want their games to be dramatic (sense 1)? Then how can they say
they are opposed to drama (sense 2)?"
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 25 Jun 1997 17:02:53 GMT, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu
(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>While I've been one of your consistent critics, I don't think I disagree
>that "drama" (in the sense of difficult, meaningful decisionmaking) is
>important to characterization.
OK. If I read you right, you are saying that you do think that drama
(in the sense Jim Henly suggested) is NECESSARY for strong
characterization? Or merely desirable, on occasion?
I don't mean to be antagonistic in asking that--it does seem to me
that Costikyan is arguing that in a game, difficult meaningful
decisions are NECESSARY--that it is in such decisions that the essence
of gaming lies.
So, if a role-playing game also is structered (leaving aside for the
moment just by who) to create difficult, meaningful decisions for the
players, then I would agree that it is (in Costikyan's sense; by his
definition) a game.
Yuck. Let me try again. I am proposing that we use Costikyan's
definition as our yardstick for determining just what is and is not a
game--it seems to me to be as good as any, and he is an awfully smart
fellow, and a fine designer. So I see some goodness in using his
definition.
Now if we provisionally agree to use THAT definition, then we can
narrow the question to "does it apply to role-play?"
Now for some types of role-play I would say clearly not. For example,
some people role-play to explore a fantasy universe--to play
"tourist," as Scott suggested long ago. For these people the goodness
of the experience is in the wonder of explorying an imaginary,
fantastic place, not in making difficult and meaningful decisions. So
for them, role-play is not game, or it least is not of necessity.
But that is hardly the dominant style, it seems to me. Most people
don't play that way--for most, I think, "tourist" is a subordinate
goal. IC and deep IC, on the other hand, seem to have a larger
following. So we can narrow the question even further. "Does Greg's
definition apply to those people who role-play for the sake of the IC
or deep IC experience? Can they be said, by his definition, to be
plaing a game?"
At this point the issue gets murkier, I think. I'm not sure that the
IC PLAYER is looking for difficult and meaningful decisions, save as a
means to an end (deeper characterization). Under this circumstance,
does it still qualify as a game, per GC's definition?
> However, when one starts playing
>*deliberately* for drama one incurs a number of risks: too much drama
>(which will destroy rather than develop fragile characterizations);
>player awareness of manipulation (which draws attention away from the
>character altogether); pre-determining outcomes (which hampers
>characterization by reducing player control); and de-emphasis of
>"undramatic" scenes (which may equally be important for
>characterization).
Quite right--as you know, I recognize these dangers, agree with you
that they are meaningful and significant risks to this style of play,
and share your concern that they can overwhelm and destroy a "game."
They don't mitigate my original point, however, that some of the time,
for some people, under some circumstances, plotted diceless play can
(may, might, perhaps, qualify, qualify, qualify) be condusive to IC
and deep IC play. Grin. Don't take that wrong, please--I'm merely
trying to emphasize the degree to which I think this is all heavily
qualified--so I want absolutely to acknowledge that your preferences
are valid and make sense to me, and that I do understand why you might
very well choose to play differently than do I.
Of course, even that was an aside, a subordinate point in the larger
argument. The big question is the one posed by Jim Henly (most
recently). To what degree is drama necessary for strong
characterization?
>How people evaluate these risks will, of course, differ. But I think
>even someone who accepts the premise that tough decisions are useful
>in characterization may reasonably reject the conclusion that plotted
>games, for them, are a good way to accomplish this.
Absolutely. I did not mean to imply otherwise--which was the reason
why I chose to express the argument in the original post in such a
heavily qualified fashion, and why I call attention again to those
qualifications.
>Please be careful not to equivocate between "drama" meaning meaningful
>decisions are there to be made, and "drama" meaning deliberate
>manipulation in order to encourage such decisions
I think you are a step further down the line of argument than I
am--that you are focussing on where I might be going rather than on
where I am right now. While you are correct that that is the
direction in which my thinking is tending, I am not trying to defend
such a position just right now. And, depending on how this discussion
turns out, I may never chose to try to defend the position you imply
above.
But I think we have to address the basic issue that Jim has raised
first, before we discuss the implications of it. Whether or not the
premise "strong characterization requires drama" logically implies
"therefore the GM should strive to enhace drama in the game" is
interesting, but I think its a bit premature too. First we have to
establish that the premise is accurate. And I'm not sure that it is,
in which case, of course, consequent logic that assumes that the
premise is established is unwarranted :)
My best,
Kevin
Psychohist
Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
I'm not sure that the IC PLAYER is looking for difficult
and meaningful decisions, save as a means to an end
(deeper characterization).
Well, in my case, the player is exactly the one who is looking for
difficult and meaningful decisions. The character certainly isn't - the
character would generally prefer not have to sweat the decisions, and to
have success come easily. It's the player who wants the character to have
to make difficult and meaningful decisions - because this experience, even
though vicarious and second hand to me the player, may help me make future
decisions of my own with a little less difficulty.
Warren Dew
Jim Henley
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:10:21 -0400, Jim Henley <jlhe...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
>
> >But I would argue that "difficult, meaningful" decisions have a lot to
> >do with revealing (and understanding) character, which certainly seems
> >like an aim of "good role play." Specifically, there is no drama without
> >difficult, meaningful decisions -- only melodrama.
>
> Well, I would agree with you--but not everyone here HAS accepted this
> idea. And some of the people who object are awfully smart folk who I
> hold in high esteem.
>
> some assistance from the GM in strcuturing drama can on occasion
> assist a player in realizing character.
>
> occasions, on the basis that drama is not always necessary to produce
> strong characterization.
I think I would agree with them in good measure, in the sense that
character is not _only_ revealed through "difficult, meaningful"
decisions -- it'd revealed through habitual action, omission (what the
character _doesn't_ do) and something else that I forget. (Delaney
presents a triad somewhere in THE JEWEL-HINGED JAW, but I forget the
exact passage.)
Also, I firmly believe that "difficult, meaningful" decisions could
arise in unplotted games, indeed would arise if GM and player are going
at it conscientiously.
What I was really getting at was that "difficult, meaningful decisions"
struck me as a poor criterion for differentiating games from life. Of
course, I think disentangling the two concepts is problematic and have
said so before. But if they can be distinguished, this ain't the feature
to do it.
Best,
Jim
Jim Henley
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
>
> But I think we have to address the basic issue that Jim has raised
> first, before we discuss the implications of it. Whether or not the
> premise "strong characterization requires drama" logically implies
> "therefore the GM should strive to enhace drama in the game" is
> interesting, but I think its a bit premature too.
Just to clarify in case anyone misses my other message in response to
you. "My" thesis was not "strong characterization requires drama" so
much as it was "drama requires 'difficult, meaningful' decisions,
therefore 'difficult, meaningful decisions' will not do as the
distinguishing characteristic between game and nongame activities. See
Jim's Foolproof Recipe for Drama in the other interminable thread. I am
absolutely not trying to say that strong characterization of RPG
characters requires a campaign in which the GM adopts the dramatic
stance, even equivocally and temporarily. I have no doubt that "dramatic
decision points" can crop up in unplotted games as a consequence of
play.
Best,
Jim
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 25 Jun 1997 22:26:22 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
>Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
>
> I'm not sure that the IC PLAYER is looking for difficult
> and meaningful decisions, save as a means to an end
> (deeper characterization).
>
>Well, in my case, the player is exactly the one who is looking for
>difficult and meaningful decisions. The character certainly isn't - the
>character would generally prefer not have to sweat the decisions, and to
>have success come easily. It's the player who wants the character to have
>to make difficult and meaningful decisions - because this experience, even
>though vicarious and second hand to me the player, may help me make future
>decisions of my own with a little less difficulty.
OK--but take the next step. Do you think that, by GC's definition,
what you are engaged in is playing a game?
Consider, for example, a game like the Settlers of Catan (originally
published in Germany and the winner of numerous gaming awards there).
The game is a mixture of decisions about initial placement of
resources, management of resources, and trading of resources. The
player is constantly having to make decisions in which long range and
short range goals conflict. Do I make the trade that Harry is
offering me? Can I afford to wait another round before I cash in my
resources? And so on. What makes these decisions difficult is that
the best route to realizing your long range goals (winning the game,
by any of several possible ways) are difficult to see with clarity.
And what makes them meaningful is that each and every one has direct
bearing on the accomplishment of your goals. By GC's definition, this
is a game, and an extremely fine one, at that.
Now in an rpg, even one in which, as you describe, the PLAYER looks
for decisions that are hard and meaningful for his character, because
by doing so the player deepens his interpretation of character,
strikes me as less self-obviously a game. The goal--characterization,
is rather different than the goals in the activities that GC
describes. Where in GC's definition the difficult meaningful
decisions ARE the goal, in a sense--the player who best makes them
wins the game--that is less obviously so for the IC player in an rpg.
In an rpg, the IC player's pay-off is the feeling of identity with the
character.
Let me stop right there to say that this implies a curious state of
mind which I think is interesting. By distinguishing so sharply
between player and character (after all, as you say, the character may
very well prefer to AVIOD these situations) you imply a kind of
psychological disjunture between character and player--or between the
player, acting in author stance to direct the character towards these
character-defining situations, and the character himself, who prefers
to avoid them.
But leaving this aside, for the moment (I do hope we get the chance to
discuss it further, because I've never thought about IC in quite that
way before, and I think you may be on to something) I wonder if we are
still talking about a game in quite the same fashion as GC is.
Clearly, it IS possible and legitimate to play rpgs as a game. But
does the IC and deep IC stance necesarily imply that rpg is a game,
per GC's definition? I'm on the fence on this one--I'm torn in both
directions.
My best,
Kevin
Mary K. Kuhner
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net writes:
>OK. If I read you right, you are saying that you do think that drama
>(in the sense Jim Henly suggested) is NECESSARY for strong
>characterization? Or merely desirable, on occasion?
Speaking just for me, Big Decisions (I want to avoid "drama", it's
too murky a word) tell me some things about a character, and day-to-day
life tells me some other things. I think, though I am not quite
positive (it was several years ago) that I managed to develop a solid
IC sense of my character Valentine before I ever saw him in a
crisis situation where he had a Big Decision. Or perhaps it's
that Val's Big Decision was incredibly diffuse, spread over the whole
campaign and years of its backstory. ("Am I in love with Chernoi,
or just her friend?") He never did anything about it, for
over a year of realtime. But it was always there, and indecision
becomes a decision itself.
I do know that the day-to-day stuff is essential, and there has to be
quite a bit of it, whereas a very few Big Decisions are enough.
On the other hand, one of the Sun in Splendor PCs (of whom there were
a *really* excessive number, even for me) never developed an adequate
characterization until he finally had a Big Decision to make. (As
it turned out his Decision removed him from PC status, so I got to
play poor Barin properly for exactly one scene. Argh!) If it's
not essential for me, it's at least extremely helpful.
>At this point the issue gets murkier, I think. I'm not sure that the
>IC PLAYER is looking for difficult and meaningful decisions, save as a
>means to an end (deeper characterization). Under this circumstance,
>does it still qualify as a game, per GC's definition?
I can speak only for this particular Immersion junkie, but for me it's
*definitely* about making tough decisions, in character; if you asked
me to name the five high points of my gaming career I would promptly
give you four scenes involving key PC decisions. (And, um, a scene
of senseless violence. But that one was something of an exception,
and not really memorable for its Immersive qualities--more of
a pure Gamer pleasure.) The character's intensity of focus on his/her
decision feeds back into the intensity of the Immersive experience.
And decisionmaking, as opposed to skill use or physical action, is
something in which the player can participate very fully; especially
emotional or moral decisionmaking (probably all four of those scenes).
I suppose the question here is whether the *player* is making a hard
decision when the character is; subjectively it feels to me as though
I am. I recall the PBeM scene where Catalina refused magic, which she'd
been striving for her entire life. It felt--physically, emotionally,
intellectually--like making a wrenching decision myself. Such decisions
may not be "hard" in the optimization sense that Costikyan was probably
thinking of, but they are certainly emotionally challenging--the
sense that one could "fall off" the Immersive horse because it's
bucking so hard is very sharp, and not doing so is an accomplishment.
But at this point Greg's definition is getting awfully broad, isn't it?
Is an author struggling to write a scene to his satisfaction playing
a game? An actor struggling to depict a hard role perfectly? There
can be a particular pleasure in nothing that this scene/role was
remarkably tough and yet has been conquered, which seems quite analogous
to what Greg is talking about. An easier scene or role might not
be as much fun--challenge is appealing. And yet I'm not sure writing
or acting are really games. Maybe it's because the "gamist" (new
sense of that term, sorry) appeal is secondary to the other purpose.
Now that I've milked this topic for all the sordid self-advertisement
it's worth, I wonder if the answer is even important. Is RPG a game
or not? Does it matter? Whether it is or not, it will share some
qualities with other games, and have some unique qualities.... and
we'll still have to figure out what those are.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Psychohist
Regarding my comment:
Well, in my case, the player is exactly the one who is
looking for difficult and meaningful decisions. The
character certainly isn't - the character would generally
prefer not have to sweat the decisions, and to have
success come easily. It's the player who wants the
character to have to make difficult and meaningful
decisions - because this experience, even though vicarious
and second hand to me the player, may help me make future
decisions of my own with a little less difficulty.
Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
OK--but take the next step. Do you think that, by GC's
definition, what you are engaged in is playing a game?
... Now in an rpg, even one in which, as you describe,
the PLAYER looks for decisions that are hard and
meaningful for his character, because by doing so the
player deepens his interpretation of character,
strikes me as less self-obviously a game. The
goal--characterization, is rather different than the
goals in the activities that GC describes. Where in GC's
definition the difficult meaningful decisions ARE the
goal, in a sense--the player who best makes them
wins the game--that is less obviously so for the IC
player in an rpg. In an rpg, the IC player's pay-off is
the feeling of identity with the character.
One minor clarification before we get to the major point. In my example,
the player's goal is personality growth on the part of the player, not on
the part of the character. I realize that this is a different goal than
that of many other immersive players.
Actually, for one to be playing immersively, the character must already be
adequately characterized, so it's difficult for me to see how better
characterization could be the goal. In contrast, personality growth on
the part of the character could be a goal. That goal is more likely to be
a character goal than a player goal, though (Markus might prefer to be
less immature, but Mary might prefer to play him just as he is).
Anyway, on to the main point. I think the main respect in which role
playing games might not be games by the Costikyan (sp?) definition, or for
that matter by the game theoretic definition, is the lack of a clearly
defined goal, rather than the lack of meaningful decisions. I mean, if
player personality growth can be accepted as a 'goal' of the game, life is
a game - everything is a game. On the other hand, I suppose 'making
money' is almost as universal a player world goal as personality growth,
yet Costikyan would probably accept poker as a game.
This also leads back to the issue of the game oriented ('gamist') approach
to role playing games. One characteristic of game oriented players seems
to be that they like to have better defined goals - get the most powerful
or wisest or richest character - towards which to optimize their
decisions. Maybe Costikyan is on to something, after all.
Warren Dew
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 26 Jun 1997 03:48:23 GMT, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu
(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
Mary Kuhner writes much interesting stuff (none fo which struck me as
"sordid self-advertisement" :) and then concludes:
>Now that I've milked this topic for all the sordid self-advertisement
>it's worth, I wonder if the answer is even important. Is RPG a game
>or not? Does it matter? Whether it is or not, it will share some
>qualities with other games, and have some unique qualities.... and
>we'll still have to figure out what those are.
I'm beginning to think, based on the various replies in this thread,
that I've lead us down the garden path, as it were, in trying to apply
GC's definition of game to rpgs (of course, HE tries to do that too).
I suppose it is useful only in the sense that it may lead us to look
at other issues differently. But otherwise I'd tend to agree that it
is a pretty sterile topic . . .
So sorry to introduce this tangent. There was one additional point
that I thought was interesting, which I'd love hear people's reaction.
It was buried in a longer post and has gotten lost in the
discussion--I'll repost just the interesting bits.
My best,
Kevin
>
>Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
This is a repost of part of an earlier comment, which (maybe :) has
some merit and is worth discussion.
All of this comes out of my thought experiment applying Greg
Costikyan's analysis of games to rpgs.
Here's what I wrote (in response to a post of Warren's):
"Now in an rpg, even one in which, as you describe, the PLAYER looks
for decisions that are hard and meaningful for his character, because
by doing so the player deepens his interpretation of character,
strikes me as less self-obviously a game. The goal--characterization,
is rather different than the goals in the activities that GC
describes. Where in GC's definition the difficult meaningful
decisions ARE the goal, in a sense--the player who best makes them
wins the game--that is less obviously so for the IC player in an rpg.
In an rpg, the IC player's pay-off is the feeling of identity with the
character.
Let me stop right there to say that this implies a curious state of
mind which I think is interesting. By distinguishing so sharply
between player and character (after all, as you say, the character may
very well prefer to AVIOD these situations) you imply a kind of
psychological disjunture between character and player--or between the
player, acting in author stance to direct the character towards these
character-defining situations, and the character himself, who prefers
to avoid them."
I think I probably wrote poorly, above. As Warren has pointed out,
the goal of IC and deep IC play may be various--it is not necessarily
deeper characterization. Warren suggested that he looks to the IC and
deep IC stances for self-knoweldge (did I manage to get that right, I
hope?). It seems to me that you could also adopt these stances with
the goal not so much of deeper characterization as deeper identity
with the character. Doubtless there are other goals one could have
too.
Whatever, the point in the second paragraph might take us somewhere
interesting. If, in the back of your mind, you are looking for these
particular situations, even when you know that your character might
seek to AVOID them (I'm reminded of the Chinese curse--"may you live
in interesting times!"), what does that say about IC role-play? It
seems to me that this suggests a kind of deep interplay between
authorial and IC stances, at their most basic levels. What do the
rest of you think?
My best,
Kevin
Fenyx3204
> I think the main respect in which role
> playing games might not be games by the Costikyan (sp?) definition, or
for
> that matter by the game theoretic definition, is the lack of a clearly
> defined goal, rather than the lack of meaningful decisions. I mean, if
> player personality growth can be accepted as a 'goal' of the game, life
is
> a game - everything is a game. On the other hand, I suppose 'making
> money' is almost as universal a player world goal as personality growth,
> yet Costikyan would probably accept poker as a game.
I think you're confusing the nebulous territory of what an activity
accomplishes and what a game's goal is.
The goal of poker is *not* to "make money" -- it is to put together a
better hand than those around you according the dictates of the rules of
poker. Making money is one thing which the activity of playing poker
accomplishes.
Playing Bridge is similar. The goal of the game is to cooperate with your
partner to defeat the other pair of partners according to the rules of
Bridge. Socializing is one thing which the activity of playing bridge
accomplishes.
The act of partaking in a role-playing "game" has one possible
accomplishment of achieving personal development, but socializing may also
be true. Personally I don't think a properly played role-playing game *is*
a game because it lacks a coherent game goal. I think that munchkins and
monty haulers and hack 'n slashers all fail because they all attempt to
*make* role-playing a game -- they try to give it a game goal.
Hack 'n slashers think the game goal is to kill as many monsters as
possible. Monty Haulers think the game goal is to collect as much treasure
and power as possible. Munchkins think making their character the most
powerful is the goal of the game.
They're all wrong (although I don't think there's anything particularly
negative in playing that way -- they're just missing something that's even
cooler and annoying all of us in the process :>) -- the one goal of
role-playing is role-playing; the reason we do it is because of all the
positive accomplishments which the activity has in itself.
We read a novel for the sake of reading a novel; actors act for the sake
of acting; we role-play for the sake of role-playing -- there are things
which are being accomplished BECAUSE we are doing these activities
(sometimes its money, sometimes its socializing, somtimes its a powertrip
of talent, whatever), but they are not things which are inherent in the
structure of the act itself.
Justin Bacon
red_arm...@hotmail.com
In article <33B1D6...@erols.com>,
jlhe...@erols.com wrote:
> What I was really getting at was that "difficult, meaningful decisions"
> struck me as a poor criterion for differentiating games from life. Of
> course, I think disentangling the two concepts is problematic and have
> said so before. But if they can be distinguished, this ain't the feature
> to do it.
I concur. Based on what I've read on game theory, which posits the idea
of interaction as its own goal and the method of that interaction as a
"game", I think that we are trying to get the tail to wag the dog. Erich
Berne did some excellent work on this principle, and argued that most
conversations are composed of "strokes", and that each person uses a
"stroke" as a prompt for how to reciprocate the "stroke". Applying this
model to RPG's leads me to conclude that "gaming" is an extended metaphor
for our daily lives and allows us the opportunity to experience
interactions otherwise not available to us.
I think we're getting hung up on the meaningful decsions, which are
simply a particularly jarring occurrence of this basic level, and is
therefore attracting an undue amount of attention. The real key is to
whether the interaction was succesful - this is, to my mind, the strength
of RPG's - if your game is fun, then it worked and was a "good game".
*cha-ching* £0.02
- red
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mary K. Kuhner
rhr...@washingtonian.infi.net writes:
>Let me stop right there to say that this implies a curious state of
>mind which I think is interesting. By distinguishing so sharply
>between player and character (after all, as you say, the character may
>very well prefer to AVIOD these situations) you imply a kind of
>psychological disjunture between character and player--or between the
>player, acting in author stance to direct the character towards these
>character-defining situations, and the character himself, who prefers
>to avoid them.
For me at least, the Author part has to be *very* deeply submerged when
actually playing Immersively. Immersion is a very non-self-conscious
pleasure, kind of like "flow": you can appreciate that it happened
afterwards, but think about that appreciation while it's happening
and it tends to pop like a soap bubble. (Sarah pointed out recently,
and this has been my experience too, that Immersive players may be
very bad at realizing the game has become too painful and should be
renegotiated; they don't ask themselves the necessary questions.)
I don't do a lot while I'm actually playing to direct the character
towards defining situations: I tend to rely on dickering with the
GM and/or good character design to insure that it will happen, thus
keeping Immersion and Author separated in time as far as possible.
In fact, we have a family rule that negotiation about the course
of the game should not happen right after a session, either; we
save it for later.
Whether my subconscious is playing Author I don't know. I suspect
it is--that character-crisis situations come up more often than
they naturally would if I could do an unbiassed simulation. (Though
the obvious character-growth issue "Can Vikki actually become
human?" has lain fallow for three years and shows no sign of doing
otherwise.) But it stays out of my way, so I don't care. If the
character actively tries to duck confronting their personal demons,
they seem reasonably likely to be successful, about as likely as
my real-life experiences would suggest.
If the subconscious *is* Authoring it probably takes the form of
continuations likely to produce interesting crises being perceived
as more likely--resonance for the player being sneakily substituted
for resonance for the character. I'm willing to take it at face
value, lest I become too self-conscious to make Immersion work at
all....
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Jim Henley
red_arm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <33B1D6...@erols.com>,
> jlhe...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > What I was really getting at was that "difficult, meaningful decisions"
> > struck me as a poor criterion for differentiating games from life. Of
> > course, I think disentangling the two concepts is problematic and have
> > said so before. But if they can be distinguished, this ain't the feature
> > to do it.
>
> I concur. Based on what I've read on game theory, which posits the idea
> of interaction as its own goal and the method of that interaction as a
> "game", I think that we are trying to get the tail to wag the dog.
> simply a particularly jarring occurrence of this basic level, and is
> therefore attracting an undue amount of attention. The real key is to
> whether the interaction was succesful - this is, to my mind, the strength
> of RPG's - if your game is fun, then it worked and was a "good game".
Makes sense to me. Another thing about getting hung up on stuff: put
aside the question, "Is it a game?" for a second and ask, "Is it play?"
The answer is clearly, IMHO, Yes, in many of the senses of that word. It
certainly has the subjunctive character of play.
I'm inclined to put the question to my four-year old niece. "Jenny," I
will ask, "I know you're pretending to be a doggie now. Are you playing
a game?"
Come to think of it, by Costikian's -- Costikyan's? -- Costykian's?? --
definition, CANDYLAND is not a game: there is no scope for decision in
it at all, which makes it harder than it should be to cheat so the kid
wins and you lose.
Best,
Jim
George W. Harris
In Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:40:39 GMT of yore, krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
wrote thusly:
=Whatever, the point in the second paragraph might take us somewhere
=interesting. If, in the back of your mind, you are looking for these
=particular situations, even when you know that your character might
=seek to AVOID them (I'm reminded of the Chinese curse--"may you live
=in interesting times!"), what does that say about IC role-play? It
=seems to me that this suggests a kind of deep interplay between
=authorial and IC stances, at their most basic levels. What do the
=rest of you think?
It is an interesting question, and one that I think can
be applicable to other forms of entertainment in which the
consumer (can't think of a better term) identifies with a fictional
person. I am here going to indulge in an exercise which I have
berated others for, and draw a parallel between rpgs and
movies.
To my mind, some of the attraction to movies is the
desire to experience emotional states vicariously which might
be undesirable to experience firsthand: fear, I think, is the
primary example of this, and relates to the high popularity of
the action and horror genres. One can desire to identify with
a character who is experiencing threatening situations without
desiring to experience them oneself. In other films, the viewer
is drawn into identification with a character or characters whose
mental state one might find repugnant, which generates a
strong and disturbing emotional response. Films which might
qualify under this description would include "Repulsion", "Dead
Ringers" and "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer."
However, although part of the draw of these films is
vicarious experience of mental/emotional states which usually
only arise in risky situations, the experience is not heightened by
the identified character acting deliberately to enter such
situations; rather, such action can be shattering to suspension of
disbelief. An example of this for me came in the movie "Jurassic
Park", when the T Rex first appears. In one jeep are two
children, a boy and a girl. Now, it would be reasonable for these
characters to behave in a somewhat irrational manner, since they
are in an unusual situation, and panic is a natural response.
However, the girl's actions at this point, which are to go into the
back of the jeep, find a flashlight, turn it on, and start shining it out
the windows into the night, are so devoid of any possible rational
or irrational motivation except to get the dinosaur to attack the
jeep that I was completely jolted out of what little identification I
had achieved by the "Oh, come *on*!" response which occurs
when the audience is expected to accept something so
completely stupid.
So, to bring this back to roleplaying games (huzzah!) I
shall reproduce the portion of Kevin's original state to which this
whole longwinded diatribe relates:
"By distinguishing so sharply
between player and character (after all, as you say, the character may
very well prefer to AVIOD these situations) you imply a kind of
psychological disjunture between character and player--or between the
player, acting in author stance to direct the character towards these
character-defining situations, and the character himself, who prefers
to avoid them."
Now, commenting on this, I think rather than a
simulationist player "acting in author stance to direct the
character towards these character-defining situations", it is more
the case that the player's author stance comes a little earlier in
the game, and prefers to choose to play a character in a situation
where these character-defining situations are likely to occur,
despite the best efforts of the character to avoid them. If the
player does act in author stance to direct the character towards
situations which the character would prefer to avoid, this is likely
to cause the same break in identification as happens when movie
characters run blindly toward the danger, since the feeling of
reality of the character cannot survive forcing the character in a
direction it does not want to go. Rather, the player chooses a
character who is likely to find herself in such situations, such as,
say, the prophesied mother of the leader of a rebellion who is the
target of an assassin working for the evil ruler whose realm her
son shall overthrow, as in "Terminator". This choice allows one
to experience those character-defining situations without
betraying the immersive decision-making process which one
might feel necessary to maintain identification.
=My best,
=Kevin
--
They say that there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For my actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
scott....@3do.com
In article <5p0ipu$n...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
>
> >Let me stop right there to say that this implies a curious state of
> >between player and character (after all, as you say, the character may
> >very well prefer to AVIOD these situations) you imply a kind of
> >psychological disjunture between character and player--or between the
> >player, acting in author stance to direct the character towards these
> >character-defining situations, and the character himself, who prefers
> >to avoid them.
>
> actually playing Immersively. Immersion is a very non-self-conscious
> pleasure, kind of like "flow": you can appreciate that it happened
> afterwards, but think about that appreciation while it's happening
> and it tends to pop like a soap bubble. (Sarah pointed out recently,
> and this has been my experience too, that Immersive players may be
> very bad at realizing the game has become too painful and should be
> renegotiated; they don't ask themselves the necessary questions.)
>
As another Immersive player, I would tend to agree with mary here. When I
am deep in character, the Player is passive, and just sitting back
anjoying the show. Yes, I also agree that Immersive players are guilty
of very poor judgment >DURING< the conduct of the game. But then. i do
not mind the game cratering, because I like to play characters until they
are dead. For me the character is the thing.
Scott
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <33b189c...@news.washingtonian.infi.net>,
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
> Yuck. Let me try again. I am proposing that we use Costikyan's
> definition as our yardstick for determining just what is and is not a
> game--it seems to me to be as good as any, and he is an awfully smart
In that case, the following games are not games:
Baseball.
Checkers/Draughts
Haanentafel [sic]
Stools (an Elizabethan cricket-like game)
I could go on for probably a gigabyte of different games that do not
qualify under Mr. Costikyan's definition. I would say that this
definition is being quoted out of context or that Greg needs to get out
more.
--
To respond via email, remove non-licit characters to change my site to "cornell.edu".
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation."
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <19970625222...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
> Well, in my case, the player is exactly the one who is looking for
> difficult and meaningful decisions. The character certainly isn't - the
Bleagh! I get plenty of difficult and meaningful decisions in real life,
some of which basically boiled down to "get it wrong and starve". Who the
hell needs to play a game to get stress? I already went through enough
trouble getting rid of a real ulcer. I wish I had your cushy life.
Bryan J. Maloney
> But I would argue that "difficult, meaningful" decisions have a lot to
> do with revealing (and understanding) character, which certainly seems
> like an aim of "good role play." Specifically, there is no drama without
> difficult, meaningful decisions -- only melodrama.
Oooh, and that evil old melodrama will rot your brain, give us Peace
Without Honor, cause herpes, syphilis, and gangrene, too.
So, how do you get through doorways sitting on such a tall animal?
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <5osoq7$m...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> it's worth, I wonder if the answer is even important. Is RPG a game
> or not? Does it matter? Whether it is or not, it will share some
Wittgenstein would probably say "yes".
Bryan J. Maloney
Oh, I meant to say "Wittgenstein II". Wittgenstein I would have probably
gone into brain melt-down when posed with the question.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <19970626220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
feny...@aol.com (Fenyx3204) wrote:
> The act of partaking in a role-playing "game" has one possible
> accomplishment of achieving personal development, but socializing may also
> be true. Personally I don't think a properly played role-playing game *is*
> a game because it lacks a coherent game goal. I think that munchkins and
> monty haulers and hack 'n slashers all fail because they all attempt to
> *make* role-playing a game -- they try to give it a game goal.
You are taking one aspect of the family resemblance cluster of "game" and
saying that it is the sum and total of "game".
Consider another:
A voluntary activity governed by specific rules of conduct and outcome for
specific sub-activities within that activity.
Not perfect, but also could work. It also mentions nothing about goals.
Before you go further, yes, many activities, like language or politics,
could fall under this definition of "game".
Does that make my definition less than yours? After all, politics fits
your "goal-oriented" definition, as would warfare or drug dealing. Are
they games?
> cooler and annoying all of us in the process :>) -- the one goal of
> role-playing is role-playing; the reason we do it is because of all the
But does externality of goal from process define what a game is?
Irina Rempt
Jim Henley (jlhe...@erols.com) wrote:
> Makes sense to me. Another thing about getting hung up on stuff: put
> aside the question, "Is it a game?" for a second and ask, "Is it play?"
> The answer is clearly, IMHO, Yes, in many of the senses of that word. It
> certainly has the subjunctive character of play.
> I'm inclined to put the question to my four-year old niece. "Jenny," I
> will ask, "I know you're pretending to be a doggie now. Are you playing
> a game?"
To further confuse the issue :-), in Dutch "game" and "play" are *the
same word* (I tried to put the question to my three-year-old daughter
and realized I'd been thinking in English).
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
XXIII. "Latine loqui coacta sum."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ennead
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
: OK--but take the next step. Do you think that, by GC's definition,
: what you are engaged in is playing a game?
By GC's definition of "game," I know that I most _certainly_
do not consider my RPGs "games."
The sticking point for me, though, is not so much the
"difficult meaningful decisions" as it is the "to-win goals."
According to Costikyan, the computer game _Sim City_
is actually not a "game," but a "toy." His reasoning? The
game does not have any set to-win goals. The players might
choose to set such goals for themselves, but because these
goals are not regularized, not a set part of the game, they
don't really count.
He then goes on, of course, to explain that although
RPGs don't have universal to-win goals, nonetheless they _are_
games because... Well, because the players can set goals for
themselves and for their characters. So it's a game. Really.
I found this facile, to say the least.
Under Costikyan's definition, RPGs are not games, and
I must say that this makes good sense to me. Certainly RPGs
have never seemed very much like games to me.
"Difficult meaningful decisions," IMO, are a part of
life, and they will therefore inevitably arise in games which
seek to emulate life. Conscious dramatism in games can serve
to hurry this process along, ensuring that dramatic moments
arise more _often_ than they might otherwise have. Conscious
gamism can also serve to facilitate this, although in this
case, the "difficult meaningful decision" is just as likely
to be the player's as the character's. I don't, however, see
the phenomenon as absent in any style of RPG.
[in RPGs, often the _player_ wants the character to
be forced to confront difficult and meaningful
decisions, while the character would most certainly
prefer to avoid them]
: But leaving this aside, for the moment (I do hope we get the chance to
: discuss it further, because I've never thought about IC in quite that
: way before, and I think you may be on to something) I wonder if we are
: still talking about a game in quite the same fashion as GC is.
: Clearly, it IS possible and legitimate to play rpgs as a game. But
: does the IC and deep IC stance necesarily imply that rpg is a game,
: per GC's definition? I'm on the fence on this one--I'm torn in both
: directions.
I'm abashed to admit that I didn't quite follow all of
your leaps of logic, Kevin.
What relevance does the IC stance have to GC's definition
of "game?" I'm not quite following your reasoning.
-- Sarah
Steven Howard
It occurred to me that we're tossing around the phrase "Greg Costikyan's
definition of a game" and that not everyone has read "I Have No Words and I Must
Design", so here it is:
A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make
decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the
pursuit of a goal.
To see this in context, look at:
http://www.crossover.com/~costik/greg.html
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word like "euphemism" doing in a sentence like this?
Jim Henley
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> In article <33B09A...@erols.com>, jlhe...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > Specifically, there is no drama without
> > difficult, meaningful decisions -- only melodrama.
>
Attn: Martin Mertens
Re: Your "Deities" Question
FYI: A God of Irony definitely exists. Suggest incorporating this datum
into your ethical inquiry.
Best,
Jim
Bryan J. Maloney
> It occurred to me that we're tossing around the phrase "Greg Costikyan's
> definition of a game" and that not everyone has read "I Have No Words
and I Must
> Design", so here it is:
>
> A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make
> decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the
> pursuit of a goal.
By this definition, if you use his own RPG-wiggle, SimCity 2000 is a
game. Since I, as the player, can (and often did) set my own goals within
the context of playing it.
James C. Ellis
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> I can speak only for this particular Immersion junkie, but for me it's
> *definitely* about making tough decisions, in character; if you asked
> me to name the five high points of my gaming career I would promptly
> give you four scenes involving key PC decisions.
I don't know if this was an off-the-cuff remark, or an exercise you
conduct regularly, but it really struck a chord in me.
Thinking back about the high points I can recall in my gaming career
(and those GM or player decisions which kept them from being even more
powerful) has really opened my eyes a lot about what aspects of
characterization really can work for me. I plan on asking my players to
do this exercise for me next session (though I won't demand more depth
than they are willing to share).
Another gem!
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ennead
James C. Ellis wrote:
: Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
: >
: > I can speak only for this particular Immersion junkie, but for me it's
: > *definitely* about making tough decisions, in character; if you asked
: > me to name the five high points of my gaming career I would promptly
: > give you four scenes involving key PC decisions.
: I don't know if this was an off-the-cuff remark, or an exercise you
: conduct regularly, but it really struck a chord in me.
This _was_ an illuminating exercise. Oddly, while I expected
to find the same thing Mary did, when I actually started listing
my own gaming high points, I found something very different. My
own high points were nearly all moments of character _revelation,_
and with very few exception, these took place outside of the context
of any immediate IC decision making.
For example, possibly the first one on my list would be
the moment when Cory realized that his legal guardian -- a stern,
dull, and emotionally-withholding individual -- really _did_ love
him far more than the more indulgent, charismatic, and openly
affectionate rivals for the role of father-figure in his life. I
remember the next realization, which followed immediately on its
heels: that those other men didn't really care about him at all;
that they just wanted to use him; that he had been utterly duped.
I remember the way in which Cory's entire interpretation
of his situation shattered and then reformed, the anger he felt
at having been so cunningly manipulated, and the intense feeling
of shame at having so disregarded and mistreated the one person
who really was trying to look out for his best interests. Suddenly,
the character's entire inner landscape was changed, and it all
happened with breath-taking speed and intensity.
That was a stunning gaming moment for me, and I remember
it with something approaching awe. And yet Cory wasn't forced to
make any decisions in that scene; on the contrary, he was playing
a very passive role in the events which led him to the important
revelation. The realization itself certainly affected decisions he
made later on in the game, but it is the moment of revelation that I
remember with such affection, not the decision-making moments which
came afterward.
Nearly all of my "top gaming moments" are similarly
moments of IC revelation or recognition. Those which are not
are moments of "accidental plot:" world events which combined
in serindipitous ways to link themes in ways that none of the
participants had intended or planned for.
(Interestingly, when I asked two of my housemates about
their "gaming high points," one of them cited a chraracter revelation
moment, and the other one cited a serindipitous accidental plot
moment. Neither cited an IC decision-making moment as their
first response.)
I'm not sure what this may reveal about my gaming
preferences. I suspect that it relates to my interest in the
internal lives of the characters, but since difficult IC
decision-making is also largely an internal matter, that
can't be all of the equation.
-- Sarah
Mary K. Kuhner
> That was a stunning gaming moment for me, and I remember
>it with something approaching awe. And yet Cory wasn't forced to
>make any decisions in that scene; on the contrary, he was playing
>a very passive role in the events which led him to the important
>revelation. The realization itself certainly affected decisions he
>made later on in the game, but it is the moment of revelation that I
>remember with such affection, not the decision-making moments which
>came afterward.
I'm not sure I could draw such a sharp line between revelation and
decision. I may not disagree with you at all: just different
vocabulary.
After years of pursuing magic to the risk of life, soul and sanity,
Catalina was offered it. From the outside point of view this was a
"choice" scene; but from the inside it felt very much like a
self-realization. The character's words in the game's internal
monologue (PBeM game) were to the effect that in considering
the offer she cut herself open to the bone on the knife of her own
fundamental morality; she *could not* make the other choice no matter
how badly she wanted to. (And nearly killed herself as a result.)
I think of this one as a "choice" because that's what prompted it, but
the key thing--I think I do agree with you here--is the insight.
I'd think of Cory's as a choice too; do I believe the comfortable
old worldview, or do I allow myself to see things as they actually
are, painful though it will be? It's a decision with no immediate
external effects, but a very important internal one. Like Catalina's,
it may not be seen as a choice by the PC--there's the mystery of
free will in action.
Being able to touch such a fundamental mystery is really an amazing
thing to get out of a game. "Awe" is a good word for it.
I cheated, incidentally, in my original posting. I didn't actually sit
down and make a list--I just guessed. Now that I come to make a list,
there might be a few things on it that were intense in some other
regard--Markus' temptation of Jade was a choice for Jade (an NPC)
but not really for Markus, but I remember the intensity of it, and
the fact that we played it out in the heart of a park, at night,
with the comet burning overhead, and it had that uncanny quality you
sometimes get when GM and player are on the same wavelength, and seem
to know each others' thoughts. A different kind of magic, perhaps.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
>Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>>
>> I can speak only for this particular Immersion junkie, but for me it's
>> *definitely* about making tough decisions, in character; if you asked
>> me to name the five high points of my gaming career I would promptly
>> give you four scenes involving key PC decisions.
Interesting. I'm not sure how I would characterize my personal "best"
Immersive experiences. They have almost always occurred at places in
which there was a real tension between what I the player knew was a
strong course of action, and what the character would actually do.
When I have done what I knew was right for the character, despite the
ways in which I knew that this action was imprudent--that is when I
have felt most "at one" with my character. (A very odd thing to
produce immersion, if you think about it--since it is the disjuncture
between character and my own "real" self that produces the powerful
identification with the character.)
Let me give you an example. In a Rune Quest game several years ago I
was playing a Samurai-type, rather self-consciously modelled on the
49-Ronin (the GM and worked it out together). I was in the capitol
of the Red Empire, tracking down the man who had stolen my dead Lord's
ancestral sword--my character was committed to finding and returning
the sword to the Lord's heir. If I succeeded, the sword itself
provided the evidence necessary to justify vendetta against the family
that killed my Lord. For the purposes of the quest, my character had
assumed the name "Giri," which should tell you something about the
character :)
For a variety of reasons I would not recommend this approach to
character design--but that is another story.
Anyway, word of what I was doing had preceded me to the capitol.
There, various imperial factions sought to manipulate me for their own
purposes. I located the sword and was preparing to commit Holy
Vengeance to retrieve it (I was Rune Lord status by that time and a
pretty studly fellow, in my limited way :) when the owner of the sword
surprised me by walking into the inn where I was plotting. He made me
an offer--I would make arrangements to return the sword to the East,
to my family. In exchange for the sword I had to perform a small task
for him--assasinate the Red Emperor.
Now for my character this is not a difficult decision at all. Its in
fact extremely straightforward. The sword has limited value outside
of my home islands--I can reasonably expect that if I accept the
offer, the sword WILL get back home. So despite the fact that the
attack on the RE will be suicidal, Giri has no real choice here.
Accepting the deal is the right thing to do.
Not so for me, of course. Here I am throwing away the character I've
spent the last year and a half developing! That is not easy,
especially when the character's end is coming right out of the
blue--no chance for me to adjust to the idea.
We played the whole thing out. I described the preparations I made in
great detail: the hours of mediation before the attempt--Giri will
die with a clear mind and focussed intent; the small package of
personal goods I enclosed with my Lord's Sword, to be sent to my
sister; the black silk head band I tied around my fore-head. It was
some of the most intense, most immersive role playing I've ever had.
And it only got better when we played out the assault itself. I was
magicked to the nines, and I cut through the first rank of guards
almost effortlessly. The Razoress met me at the entrance to the
personal quarters, smiled sweetly and stepped aside; it didn't matter.
I had no interest on the intricacies of court politics, who was in on
the attack and who loyal to the RE. I was a walking dead man, death
in-carnate; most appropriate for a Humachti sub-cult rune-lord.
I'd been playing the character for a year and a half, and I understood
him better, felt him, lived him better, in that one half-hour of play
than at any time prior to the night he died. It was some of the most
intense role play I've ever been part of. It was great.
And it all happened because of the tension between what was an easy
decision--no decision at all, really--for the character, and what was
a rather difficult decision for me the player.
The postscript. The GM was gamist after all--it wasn't fair to
"force" a player into such a powerful expression of dramatic necessity
without providing an out. So there was a rather cheesy outcome, in
which the character didn't die after all. That was, in comparison to
the prior events, quite a let down, and I stopped playing the
character shortly thereafter.
My best,
Kevin
Psychohist
Regarding my comment:
Well, in my case, the player is exactly the one who
is looking for difficult and meaningful decisions.
The character certainly isn't ...
Bryan J. Maloney posts, in part:
I get plenty of difficult and meaningful decisions
in real life, some of which basically boiled down
to "get it wrong and starve".
I hope it was clear from the remainder of my post that I was talking about
the player wanting the character to have difficult decisions, rather than
wanting them for himself. Isn't 'get it wrong and the character starves'
better than 'get it wrong and the player starves'?
Warren
Ennead
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
: I cheated, incidentally, in my original posting. I didn't actually sit
: down and make a list--I just guessed. Now that I come to make a list,
: there might be a few things on it that were intense in some other
: regard--Markus' temptation of Jade was a choice for Jade (an NPC)
: but not really for Markus, but I remember the intensity of it, and
: the fact that we played it out in the heart of a park, at night,
: with the comet burning overhead, and it had that uncanny quality you
: sometimes get when GM and player are on the same wavelength, and seem
: to know each others' thoughts. A different kind of magic, perhaps.
The one top moment on my list that was neither a revelation
nor an "accidental plot" was something akin, I think, to what you
describe.
We were playing outdoors, on a friend's family farm. The
farm itself was a place with a certain...atmosphere. (It had been
the site of some poltergeist research, and while I tend towards
skepticism about such matters, doors _did_ tend to slam shut at
unexpected moments, there were odd cold pockets of air, and I
found distances on the property peculiarly difficult to gage.)
It was an unusually intense session, possibly because
of its live-action qualities, and all the participants were
in very good synch. The moment I remember came at a very
quiet time in the game. It was not a dramatic moment -- it
was dusk, and the PCs were building a fire to cook dinner --
but tension had been rising steadily throughout the afternoon.
This was a grim time for the characters, who were preparing
a desperate assault on their enemy and did not really hold
much hope of success.
At just the _perfect_ moment (although I would be
hard-pressed to say why it was such), a giant heron flapped
up from the river bank to the east, ghostly in the failing
light. It flew directly over our heads and then disappeared
into the gloaming off to the west somewhere -- the direction
of the mountain where our enemy lived.
It was a long, long time before anyone spoke after that.
That one has got to make the list. A "different kind
of magic," indeed.
-- Sarah
Martin Mertens
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
> The postscript. The GM was gamist after all--it wasn't fair to
> "force" a player into such a powerful expression of dramatic necessity
> without providing an out. So there was a rather cheesy outcome, in
> which the character didn't die after all. That was, in comparison to
> the prior events, quite a let down, and I stopped playing the
> character shortly thereafter.
One of my best moments was quite similar (I continued to play the
character, though) ...
At one point, the group's NPC-allies decided to stay behind to buy the
PCs time to escape and carry out an important mission (a "greetings to
my wife"-type-situation)... For several minutes, I (IC) struggled with
myself, trying to decide what to do. In the end, my PC stayed behind as
well, because he/I knew that he could never look into a mirror again if
he didn't. Mind you, on a meta-level I did not want to lose that PC -
but I knew he would have been irreversably damaged if he didn't stay.
The situation was quite unusual because it was a highly plotted, high-SI
game.
In the end, my PC stayed behind AND was yet saved -- fortunately not by
GM intervention, but by a rather clever ploy devised by another PC
(granted, the GM judged it favorably). But for me, that was beside the
point: I had made the decision IC, and without having to firewall
"likely GM intervention/SI will activate" -- the important thing was
that I thought I/he would die.
I had no problems in continuing to play that PC; in fact, identification
with and understanding of that PC increased dramatically (click, click,
click ;-)) ...
---
But what about our greatest moments as GMs???
Outside the game, the praise I remembered fondest was that a player said
that she had had vivid dreams about our last session.
The most recent thing that comes to my mind is surprising PCs AND
players... I dropped several clues as to the sinister nature of a
NPC-ally, yet his final betrayal caught everyone unawares.
This train of thought leads me to comment on differing player/GM
perceptions...
Several times in the past, players have had a great time whereas the GM
was crushed (de-railed ;-() and/or had perceived the players enjoyment
differently!
And vice versa...
Gotta go, Greetinx, Martin
--
Martin....@post.rwth-aachen.de
"Well, Dirk, if you're going to die, could
you at least die in a strategically
useful position?"
-Norman Steele (Phoenix Command)
Mischa Damon Krilov
Bryan J. Maloney (bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du) wrote:
: By this definition, if you use his own RPG-wiggle, SimCity 2000 is a
: game.
Well, of course it's a game. One might argue that it comes very close to a
pure simulationist game.
Me.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mischa Krilov | I have seen the future
mkr...@tiger.lsu.edu | and it works.
http://wwwlfpl.forestry.lsu.edu/mischa/ | - Lincoln Steffens
John R. Snead
While reading this thread I got to thinking about "high points" I've had.
Two of them are very unusual for me. I'm fairly shy and am not a terribly
gifted storyteller. Twice I've played PCs who were. One was a professional
entertainer in a Lace & Steel game, the other is my current PC, Anders, who
is a sculptor by trade, but comes from a culture where storytelling is highly
valued, and so is fairly good at it.
In the first case, Orlando (the entertainer) had gotten himself into a
position to tell stories and otherwise entertain a noble family. He
did some tricks and such, and ten he got down to telling fabulous stories
of far-off places. I had no idea this would happen before-hand, and was
entirely unprepared, but I told several such tales and when I was done,
there was silence form PCs and players alike. I had done a (unexpectedly)
wonderful job.
With Anders, the situation was a bit different. He comes from a world which
had a nuclear war around 100 years ago. He is on another world which is
quite advanced, but never developed nuclear weapons. However, he ran into
some people who were talking about solving some (admittedly severe) social
injustice through open rebellion of a potentially horrific variety.
He has been working very hard to end this injustice, but deeply feels that
war is not an answer to anything. At the end of one game he asked to
talk to Diane (the rebel leader) and said he had an important message for
her.
When I went home that night the story he was going to tell came to me in
great detail. Unfortunately, next weeks game was canceled, and so I had
to wait two weeks to tell it. Anders was in the back of my mind the whole
time, rehearsing the story, anxious to tell it. I found myself doing odd
things like emailing a fundy hate-spammer who spammed on alt.pagan
to try to convince him that the hate he felt was harmful to himself and to
others...
Then, the next game arrived, and shortly into it, in an effort to show her
how terrible war could be (folks on this world had not had a war for a
*long* time), Anders told Diane the story of the war on his world and
the rituals all children went through so that they would not forget the
dangers of war. That's one of the few times I've actually cried real tears
while IC, he cried and kept telling the story.
In the first case the storytelling was merely an interlude, in the second
it was somewhat of a critical moment, but in both cases storytelling.
I wonder if that says more about immersive role-playing or more
about me...
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <5pfv5r$su8$1...@its1.ocs.lsu.edu>, mkr...@tiger3.ocs.lsu.edu
(Mischa Damon Krilov) wrote:
> Bryan J. Maloney (bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du) wrote:
>
> : By this definition, if you use his own RPG-wiggle, SimCity 2000 is a
> : game.
>
> Well, of course it's a game. One might argue that it comes very close to a
> pure simulationist game.
However, Costikyan, originator of the definition, stated that SimCity 2000
is not a game, but a "toy". Nevertheless, by his own definition, if
allowed to wiggle as he permits it to to let in RPGs, and contrary to his
statement, it is a game.
Thus, how valid is the "Costikyan game" model?
Sea Wasp
Wasp High points:
1) Playing in a superhero universe based on the Saint Seiya anime
series crossed with the Samurai Troopers (Ronin Warriors here). My
character, Erik Nygard, (who can be seen in a fanfic based on the first
section of the game, Wild Card) was sort of a high point in himself;
based on me as a younger man, he went through more character interaction
and development than just about any other character I've seen. First, he
met up with the Saints of Athena and fell in love with their youngest
member, Shun. But through an amazing series of coincidences, he never
addressed Shun as "She" and none of the other characters called Shun
"He"... so Shun, who was gay, thought that Erik was gay... and Erik, who
was straight, thought Shun was a girl. Through mystical (and previously
unsuspected) forces, Shun temporarily WAS female at one point, and the
two ended up intimate. The next morning, Erik woke up in bed with a
young boy... and had to IMMEDIATELY, before Shun woke up, deal with that
fact AND decide just where his emotional and honorable duties lay. In
the end he and Shun stayed together, because Erik found that he'd
somehow fallen truly in love with Shun, regardless of what sex he was.
2) Same characters, later on: after a series of events exposed the
Saints for what they were, the organization to which they belonged was
sued in international court for all sorts of abuses, and the court was
petitioned to have the Saints (virtually all minors by law) taken away
from the foundation's custody and returned to their rightful countries
and parents. This would naturally devastate the Saints, who were
essentially a family by now, and they fought this suit desperately.
Finally, after an exhausting courtroom battle, they won. Emerging into
the sunlight, laughing after their victory, Shun declared that this was
the best birthday present he could have asked for... and at that moment,
an energy-sheathed spear impaled him from behind, smashing him into
Erik's arms. He gazed up at Erik, and said, "Erik... Erik-san... I
lo...."
That uncompleted line... unable to even finish "...love..."... the
emotional baggage of the scene... for a moment, I WAS Erik, screaming,
tears running down my face. He descended in the next couple of game
months into an almost catatonic state...until finally someone got
through to him and he realized that killing a Saint was not an easy job.
He went out to find Shun. "...Heaven and Hell together cannot keep us
apart..." And found his soul in the keeping of Hela, daughter of his
worst enemy, Loki...
3) Game: A sort of space opera with a hard edge, based somewhat in the
Gundam universe. Character: Hannibal Bellerophon Gunn, space marine
force leader. Forced to make a bargain with a being calling himself
Lucifer, Gunn agreed that if Lucifer carried through with his part of
the bargain, Gunn would serve him. He knew that Lucifer would attempt to
use him to do great evil if he could. He also had to watch helplessly as
all his crew were tempted by Lucifer's offers of great power, pleasure,
or whatever else they might want. One of those crewmembers, Harmon, was
essentially a villain who was in Gunn's custody only because everyone
else wanted to execute her. Another was "Warrior Prime", a member of a
race of creatures called "the Omega Lifeform", basically something sort
of like the Alien with intelligence and much tougher; considered to be
the ultimate lifeform. Despite being unable to interfere, Gunn placed
his trust in his crew... and even Harmon, offered the rulership of the
solar system that she had so desperately tried for more than once,
finally rejected Lucifer's offers, and sided with Gunn. Lucifer conceded
defeat in this area, with no little chagrin, but reminded Gunn of their
bargain; he had led them to the area that they would never have found
without him, and therefore Gunn's word was binding. He stood before
Gunn, smiling in anticipation, for he knew that Gunn never broke his
word.
"You're right, Luce. And I never forget a promise. Prime? Dinner is
SERVED."
For one split second Lucifer was able to stare in blank shock before
his mortal form was ripped to shreds.
I have a few more, but that'll have to wait 'til later, it's getting
late...
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Mischa Damon Krilov
Bryan J. Maloney (bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du) wrote:
: However, Costikyan, originator of the definition, stated that SimCity 2000
: is not a game, but a "toy". Nevertheless, by his own definition, if
: allowed to wiggle as he permits it to to let in RPGs, and contrary to his
: statement, it is a game.
Oh, that's right- I haven't read that article in a while. Let's assume
that one has started SimCity without a real 'goal' in mind (trying to
stay away from a gamist discussion here), but with the intention of
tweaking the simulation, to grok the ripple effects, et al. Then, I think
we can say that we have a nearly pure simulationist 'game'- Every action
confirms to the world model, with repercussions, &c; nothing in the game
reality steps aside for purposes of drama; and the player has no real goal
in mind.
: Thus, how valid is the "Costikyan game" model?
When I last read it, I determined that it had validity, but I needed to
tweak my accepted definitions to fully understand what he was saying. I
recall having a hard time wrapping my head round his thoughts. In any
case, I'll need to re-read it.
Frank G. Pitt
In article <33BB36...@post.rwth-aachen.de>,
Martin Mertens <Martin....@post.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
One of mine was probably when I "channelled" a major government offensive
against the Commnist Chinese, in a particular area of China, on a particular
day in the early thirties while GMimg a Daredevils game, where
the players were running guns to the Maoist rebels
On a whim, and largely for fun, I had the player's plane suddenly find
itself in the middle of a squadron of bombers, and later while
taking off, they had to disable a tank that would have blocked their
runway.
It was accepted by the players as a good game but at least one
felt his SOD had been damaged by the heavy committment of
government hardware.
Several weeks later, the same player discovered that there had, in fact,
been a major government offensive in that area within a week or so of
the date of our game, and, unusually for that part of the conflict,
both tanks and bombers had been involved in the attack.
I definitely had no prior conscious remembrance of this detail of Chinese
history, but it certainly fitted in to the story well.
Frankie