Philosophies of Roleplaying & Design
Dave Nalle
and of roleplaying game design are. It seems like more and more the
dividing line between games is drawn on a purely philosophical level,
where players rule out certain games because they include a class of
mechanics or way of doing things which they find to be contrary to the way
that they believe roleplaying games should be done.
I've got a feeling that these divisions can be identified almost like
schools of philosophy or even political parties. Maybe if we can pin them
down, describe them and name them we could come closer to understanding
why people have such different interpretations of the term 'roleplaying'.
To that end, I'd like to lay out what I consider to be some of the main
branches of contemporary roleplaying and see what people can add to the
list or do to improve it.
Troupe-Style
Roleplaying where the interests of a group of characters are placed
ahead of the interests of individual characters. Sort of a socialist
approach to roleplaying.
Storytelling
Roleplaying where the advancement of the story is placed ahead of the
interests of characters as a group or as individuals. Not sure what the
political parallel would be, because I hesitate to say fascist.
Character-Oriented
Roleplaying where the development and 'realization' of character
personality and character interests is put ahead of story and group
success. Sort of a libertarian appraoch.
Goal-Oriented
Roleplaying where the achievement of goals and the acquisition of
material success are more important than achieving more abstract qualities
such as character realization, advancement of the story or party unity. I
might call this capitalist roleplaying.
Portrayal
Roleplaying where the highest emphasis is on portraying the character
and being 'in' character during play, rather than on dealing with the
character and game events on a more intellectual level. Can't think of a
political or philosophical equivalent.
Tactical
Roleplaying where the main interest is in action and solving problems
associated with combat and crisis situations. No political or
philosophical equivalent.
Game-Oriented
Roleplaying where solving puzzles and dealing with situations is of
primary importance.
There are probably more approaches (suggest some), and most campaigns
probably share elements of more than one of these styles. I also think
the last two might be sub-sets of the goal-oriented appraoch, or at least
those three seem to go together a lot.
All of these things are part of roleplaying. Your philosophy is
determined by which of them you choose to emphasize the most. I'd be
interested to see how people value each of these aspects of the game and
even how they would rate them relative to each other.
My ranking would be:
Character
Storytelling
(big gap)
Portrayal
Tactical
Troupe
Goal
Game
I imagine that game systems could also be classified this way. What I
would probaby do to classify them is pick 2 or 3 of these styles which
seem to be most present. Maybe we could even come up with a ratings
system.
Just musing...
Dave
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
I think yuor approach is only going to net a dictionary of industry buz
words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
than that.
Side 1 Side 2
______________ ______________
Romantic Realist
Mystic Dogmatic
Existential Logical Positivist
Humanist Scientist
Subjective Objective
Phenomenology Theophagy
Sometimes these two sides are at war with each other, as in Vampire,
sometimes a game is completely one sided, as in D&D (side 2 game), or
Amber (side 1). Sometimes only one side is used, but in attempt to find
the other, as with Hero (side 2 looking for side 1).
We are just starting to se a whole bunch of side 2 games hitting the
market, and there will be more. I think the philosophical differences
are both healthy, and here to stay, and a sign of a broadening market.
David
Bryan Maloney
>Storytelling
> Roleplaying where the advancement of the story is placed ahead of the
>interests of characters as a group or as individuals. Not sure what the
>political parallel would be, because I hesitate to say fascist.
I don't hesitate at all. FASCIST! FASCIST! FASCIST!
>Portrayal
> Roleplaying where the highest emphasis is on portraying the character
>and being 'in' character during play, rather than on dealing with the
>character and game events on a more intellectual level. Can't think of a
>political or philosophical equivalent.
Narcissism
>Tactical
> Roleplaying where the main interest is in action and solving problems
>associated with combat and crisis situations. No political or
>philosophical equivalent.
Technocracy
>Game-Oriented
> Roleplaying where solving puzzles and dealing with situations is of
>primary importance.
Joe Six-Pack (Where's that damned remote?)
Bryan Maloney
>I think yuor approach is only going to net a dictionary of industry buz
>words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
>than that.
Dichotomism Non-dichotomism
Ponder...
Dave Nalle
> Side 1 Side 2
> ______________ ______________
> Romantic Realist
> Mystic Dogmatic
> Existential Logical Positivist
> Humanist Scientist
> Subjective Objective
> Phenomenology Theophagy
I'm working up a more substantive response, but I would like you to
tell me about the Theophagic games you've seen. It's a new one on me.
Dave
Kevin Mowery
[Ponderings about how important classifying roleplaying styles might be]
: Troupe-Style
: Roleplaying where the interests of a group of characters are placed
: ahead of the interests of individual characters. Sort of a socialist
: approach to roleplaying.
I'd say that the approach isn't anything like that, from
experiencing Troupe-style in Ars Magica. It's more of an ensemble cast
approach. This week you might focus on this character, next week the game
might focus on that character. Like a lot of TV shows.
: Storytelling
: Roleplaying where the advancement of the story is placed ahead of the
: interests of characters as a group or as individuals. Not sure what the
: political parallel would be, because I hesitate to say fascist.
I think that you're thinking of "Railroading". A friend and I
were discussing something like this and we agreed that the story *is* the
thing. However, *the* story is different from *your* story, where you are
the GM. *The* story is a joint effort.
: Goal-Oriented
: Roleplaying where the achievement of goals and the acquisition of
: material success are more important than achieving more abstract qualities
: such as character realization, advancement of the story or party unity. I
: might call this capitalist roleplaying.
A campaign can be very goal-oriented and focus on character
realization. The goals *could* be the goals of the character, not of the GM.
[a bunch of other suggested styles deleted]
I think that you were trying too hard to link gaming philophies to
political philosophies (and making some very nasty conclusions about
certain roleplaying styles along the way, IMHO). A few of the styles I
deleted to save space didn't really have political equivalents.
--
Kevin Mowery --- kemo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This calls for a special blend of psychology and extreme violence."
--Vyvyan, "The Young Ones"
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> Dave Nalle (d...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
|>
|> [Snip]
|>
|> words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
|> than that.
|>
|>
|> ______________ ______________
|> Romantic Realist
|> Mystic Dogmatic
|> Existential Logical Positivist
|> Humanist Scientist
|> Subjective Objective
|> Phenomenology Theophagy
What does theophagy mean? My dictionary failed to list it. Also, I
would have put phemomenolgy on the other side, but I'll wait until
you tell me what theophagy means until I decide.
|> Sometimes these two sides are at war with each other, as in Vampire,
|> sometimes a game is completely one sided, as in D&D (side 2 game), or
|> Amber (side 1). Sometimes only one side is used, but in attempt to find
|> the other, as with Hero (side 2 looking for side 1).
Also, I don't belive you have listed a single side 2 game.
D&D -- not realistic, and makes no effort towards realism, so is
neither positivistic nor scientific.
Hero -- Definitely a humanistic game. It uses a couple of uniform
mechanics at the expense of realism, which makes it humanistic, since
after all, uniform mechanics are easy on the central figures of the
game, us humans. Also, it tries hard to do everything well, which
is a romantic goal if I ever heard of one.
(Why yes, my tongue is in my cheek. How could you tell? Seriously,
I can't see how your division divides anything.)
Neel
Dave Nalle
(Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote:
> What does theophagy mean? My dictionary failed to list it. Also, I
> would have put phemomenolgy on the other side, but I'll wait until
> you tell me what theophagy means until I decide.
It means god-eating...and even more than these other terms it makes very
little sense. I think if we're going to define roleplaying philosophies
it would be helpful to use terms which people can relate to.
Dave
Andrew Finch
: >I think yuor approach is only going to net a dictionary of industry buz
: >words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
: >than that.
: Dichotomism Non-dichotomism
That's actually:
Non-dichotomy Dichotomy
Logical positivist, objective outlooks are base on dichotomies.
Existential, subjective outlooks don't make dichotomies, which are
all resolved in the unity of self and other.
David
MCV Fenderson
: Dave Nalle (d...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
: : Goal-Oriented
: : Roleplaying where the achievement of goals and the acquisition of
: : material success are more important than achieving more abstract qualities
: : such as character realization, advancement of the story or party unity. I
: : might call this capitalist roleplaying.
: A campaign can be very goal-oriented and focus on character
: realization. The goals *could* be the goals of the character, not of the GM.
I think he was more talking about _Player_ goals than about
_Character_ goals. Think of munchkins who want to make their characters
as powerful and wealthy as possible.
: [a bunch of other suggested styles deleted]
: I think that you were trying too hard to link gaming philophies to
: political philosophies (and making some very nasty conclusions about
: certain roleplaying styles along the way, IMHO).
It looks like in games I'm a narcisist libertarian, while in RL
politics (poly-ticks) I'm an environmentalist/socialist/liberal
(I don't know which of the many definitions of 'liberal', though.
The European definition differs from the American definition, and
both differ from the original definition. My main problem with the Dutch
liberals is that they're liberal when they shouldn't, and not liberal
when they should be; conservative when progressive is better, and
progressive when doing so would destroy beautiful old stuff.
But enough of politics.)
<suffering from a major identity crisis>
Regards,
mcv. <><
Kevin R. Hardwick
I rather suspect that David used the term as a kind of intellectual
short-hand for a complex of values and assumptions. That said, I have to
confess that I am at a loss to identify them--are you referring to Nietzsche?
Best,
Kevin
Francis P. Hwang
> I think yuor approach is only going to net a dictionary of industry buz
> words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
> than that.
>
>
> Side 1 Side 2
> ______________ ______________
> Romantic Realist
> Mystic Dogmatic
> Existential Logical Positivist
> Humanist Scientist
> Subjective Objective
> Phenomenology Theophagy
>
> Sometimes these two sides are at war with each other, as in Vampire,
> sometimes a game is completely one sided, as in D&D (side 2 game), or
> Amber (side 1). Sometimes only one side is used, but in attempt to find
> the other, as with Hero (side 2 looking for side 1).
>
> We are just starting to se a whole bunch of side 2 games hitting the
> market, and there will be more. I think the philosophical differences
> are both healthy, and here to stay, and a sign of a broadening market.
Could you explain this a little more in depth? I can't see what this
has to do with RPG system design.
In article <3pdrc8$b...@crl4.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) wrote:
> Bryan Maloney (bj...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> : Dichotomism Non-dichotomism
>
> That's actually:
>
> Non-dichotomy Dichotomy
>
>
> Logical positivist, objective outlooks are base on dichotomies.
>
> Existential, subjective outlooks don't make dichotomies, which are
> all resolved in the unity of self and other.
I think he was making a joke about the very idea of classifying RPG
system design by dichotomy. Not adding to your dichotomies, just adding
his own meta-dichotomy.
--
Francis Hwang
Editor, The Idolum Quarterly
hwan...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Andrew Finch
: I rather suspect that David used the term as a kind of intellectual
: short-hand for a complex of values and assumptions. That said, I have to
: confess that I am at a loss to identify them--are you referring to Nietzsche?
Actually, I was referring to the Eucharist. Phenomenology is the study of
existence as the product of sense experience, where the 'other' is a black
box. The Eucharist is a denial of the subjective (it was a *metaphor* for
the act of betrayal and martyrdom, not an endorsement for cannibalism) in
a demand for a true, external, rock to reach out and hold on to.
Phenomenology is the study of God in the self, the Eucharist is an act of
God as other.
David
Andrew Finch
: > Side 1 Side 2
: > ______________ ______________
: > Romantic Realist
: > Mystic Dogmatic
: > Existential Logical Positivist
: > Humanist Scientist
: > Subjective Objective
: > Phenomenology Theophagy
: Could you explain this a little more in depth? I can't see what this
: has to do with RPG system design.
Think about the complaints which diced/mechanics advocates level against
diceless play. Think of the arguments which diceless/mechanicless
advocates level against diced play.
Consider that roleplay is a psychic exploration which is only *fun*
because of its potent psychological properties. Even those who demand
that roleplay is *only a game* are immersed in this. A game makes you
feel good by empowering you in a fantasy environment, which is why
roleplay is so strong among adolescent males who have problems finding or
accepting their own power. They are playing with issues like authority,
popularity, empowerment, etc., part harmless fantasy (or probably healthy
when taken with the right perspective), part self-exploration. The
*mature* gamer is in a stage of life and condition where they have
accepted their role of potent adult in charge of ones own life. In which
case those who continue to roleplay do so more for 'the character', ie.
more as self exploration and a healthy play with life possibilities.
RPG rules are written to appeal to a market segment, and aimed at a
particular style of play. A demand for dice and rules to cover any
possibility in which a character might be hurt, to remove the source of
that damage to an objective, external force against which one can battle,
is the adolescent position. At its base is a breach of trust, especially
with authority figures. That's why adolescents make so many demands to be
treated 'fairly'. It's a demand to be treated and respected as powerful,
equal, and important. To be differentiated from 'a child'. You want to
sell to this market, you give good hard rules to adjudicate action,
plenty of power, and an ever increasing and visible rise in power for the
characters. If you can cloak it all in 'adult' values, that's even
better. Goths aren't doing anything adult, they're doing stuff that they
think is adult.
On the other side, a rejection of diced mechanics, hard rules, and the
wargame aspects of RPGs, is a more mature position. It is based in trust,
and in a knowledge of one's own power that's firm enough to be comfortable
in allowing someone else to be 'in control'. The emphasis is placed on
'character', and 'story', and a playful experimentation with life concepts
and ways of being. Incidentally, this ease in passing 'control' and
'power' back and forth, playing in both the dominant and submissive
positions, and being comfortable with both, based upon open communication
and trust, is what makes for really good human relationships. So roleplay
becomes a 'life' play and learning experience, which increases the
enjoyment a lot. Improvisation is then really a natural.
Further, you may come to the conclusion that the real difference between
an adolescent (of any age), and an adult, is that an adolescent has not
yet accepted their own mortality and death. They avoid it, they run from
it, they challenge it, but they haven't accepted it (think of what this
means for relationships, and the ways in which adolescents interact). An
adult has accepted their own mortality as a real and natural process.
They know the basic equality of life, and their power and limits within
it (think of the changes people go through when they have kids, and what
that does for your view of the importance of your own existence).
Now, I wonder why immortal, powerful, darkly sexual Vampires are so
poular. Or Werewolves. Or...
(actually, I think there's a lot of psychdrama potential in WW stuff, and
I like that, and I wish the system backed that aspect up a bit more).
Flame On
David
Bryan Maloney
>That's actually:
>Non-dichotomy Dichotomy
>Logical positivist, objective outlooks are base on dichotomies.
>Existential, subjective outlooks don't make dichotomies, which are
>all resolved in the unity of self and other.
So you've basically identified yourself as a logical positivist, since you
decided to classify all games in terms of a set of dichotomies.
Me, I prefer a more Zen plus Aristotele approach. There is this
"gamishness" that is inherent in all games, but it isn't a reflection of some
kind of _eidos_ of "game", and you understand it better by experiencing it
than by talking about it.
What kinds of games are there? There are no games.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> In article <3pdk0c$9...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, ne...@mit.edu
|> (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote:
|>
|> > What does theophagy mean? My dictionary failed to list it. Also, I
|> > would have put phemomenolgy on the other side, but I'll wait until
|> > you tell me what theophagy means until I decide.
|>
|> It means god-eating...and even more than these other terms it makes very
|> little sense. I think if we're going to define roleplaying philosophies
|> it would be helpful to use terms which people can relate to.
Okay, that makes sense. (I mean the word roots mean what I thought they meant,
not that it makes sense in the list.)
But I guess it does mean old D&D is side 2, since I have participated in
D&D god roasts...(admit it -- you've wiped out D&D pantheons, and enjoyed it)
:)
Neel
Loren Miller
: In article <3pd543$h...@crl5.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
: |> Phenomenology Theophagy
: What does theophagy mean? My dictionary failed to list it. Also, I
Theophagy would mean "eating the gods," and I think that Andrew was
seriously delusional when he typed it in. Perhaps he meant to
contrast phenomenology with plain old *theology*?
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller <lo...@hops.wharton.upenn.edu>
"I don't have to practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of
person I'm preaching to!" The Book of The Subgenius
Kevin R. Hardwick
Thank you--that makes a great deal of sense; I had never thought to think
of phenemonolgy in religious terms, but now that you express it that way,
it makes a great deal of sense.
Just out of curiosity, would you equate logical positivism with
theophagy? Inasmuch as Descarte's philosophy was in part an exercize in
demonstrating the existence of God as the guarantor of objectivity, (and
surely logical positivism is ultimately rooted in Cartesian philosophy)
this makes sense, no?
Thanks again--nice, neat, clean and concise explanation.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Thu, 18 May 1995, Bryan Maloney wrote:
> >That's actually:
>
> >Non-dichotomy Dichotomy
>
> >Logical positivist, objective outlooks are base on dichotomies.
>
> >Existential, subjective outlooks don't make dichotomies, which are
> >all resolved in the unity of self and other.
>
> So you've basically identified yourself as a logical positivist, since you
> decided to classify all games in terms of a set of dichotomies.
I realize you are being playful here, but (sourpuss that I am) your
argument strikes me as something of a non-sequitor. David could, it
strikes me anyway, argue that the two categories require each other in
order to make sense. This kind of deconstructive move priveleges the
whole over its peices, retaining (in David's words) the "unity of self
and other."
Best,
Kevin
Andrew Finch
: I realize you are being playful here, but (sourpuss that I am) your
: argument strikes me as something of a non-sequitor. David could, it
: strikes me anyway, argue that the two categories require each other in
: order to make sense. This kind of deconstructive move priveleges the
: whole over its peices, retaining (in David's words) the "unity of self
: and other."
I would argue as a Buddhist, however, that neither view is correct. There
are most obviously two, and there is most obviously only one. The exitence
is only a reflection of a movement of mind. The question is 'what is the
nature of mind?'. Since I don't believe there is a thinker behind the
thoughts, nor a feeler behind the feelings (none that you can ever find in
any case), then mind must be essentially empty (not empty in the western
sense of the absense of someting, which is a dichotomy, but empty in the
Hindu sense of 'nirvana' - form is emptyness, and emptyness is form). So
when I use the words to describe the difference I'm pointing to, they are
just that, pointers which can never touch the actuallity which is an
existential experience of subjectivity.
David
Charlie Luce
>Think about the complaints which diced/mechanics advocates level against
>diceless play. Think of the arguments which diceless/mechanicless
>advocates level against diced play.
[Argument that diceless=mature not repeated for space reasons]
A very well-written position, which naturally brings out the devil's advocate
in those with a tendency towards debate :-)
Two situations come to mind which do not fit into the general philosophy put
forth in the previous posting.
First is the person whose motivation for running games is because of the
feeling of power over others which the activity gives them. This person is
likely to be an advocate of diceless/mechanicless systems in order to
minimize any adverse impact on their authority. I wonder how many of the
people who are arguing in favor of diceless systems expect to be running the
game, as opposed to playing it?
Second is the person who likes to run games but does not feel qualified to
make every decision in a deterministic fashion, or feels that it is too much
work to do for their hobby. Game mechanics thus function much like
high-level programming languages, simplifying the task of running a game at
the cost of reducing flexibility and adding a layer of abstraction.
Charlie Luce / People's motivations are seldom neatly categorizable]
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: Two situations come to mind which do not fit into the general philosophy put
: forth in the previous posting.
: First is the person whose motivation for running games is because of the
: feeling of power over others which the activity gives them. This person is
: likely to be an advocate of diceless/mechanicless systems in order to
: minimize any adverse impact on their authority.
Sort of. I wasn't referring to the adolescent stance as an unhealthy one,
no matter what it may seem. I think it's perfectly healthy, for
adolescents, and probably necessary.
Their are those who are so socially inept, and so personally needy, that
playing with them is painful (we've all met them, the hobby attracts
them), and a diceless game in these hands will only be another
narcissistic tool, true. Diceless play puts the responsibility for the
game right on the shoulders of the parties involved. If the GM wishes to
hog that power, then the GM had best be either very good, or not mind
players who wish to be used as narcissistic tools. You can spot either
type from a mile away. The inpet ones you avoid like the plague, the
great ones run these fantastic games with 30 players in them.
The best way to use that power, however, is to distribute it, share it,
play with it, etc. In which case the GM will find himself/herself with
less power than is normally granted by a diced game.
: I wonder how many of the
: people who are arguing in favor of diceless systems expect to be running the
: game, as opposed to playing it?
I'm one.
: Second is the person who likes to run games but does not feel qualified to
: make every decision in a deterministic fashion, or feels that it is too much
: work to do for their hobby. Game mechanics thus function much like
: high-level programming languages, simplifying the task of running a game at
: the cost of reducing flexibility and adding a layer of abstraction.
Everyone is qualified. They may not feel qualified, but that's another
empowerment issue. They are.
The second complaint I understand, and it's probably right. I've found
diceless play to be more work, it requires learning new stuff, and
practicing what you've learned to get it right. I don't think it's
easier. For me, the extra effort is worth the results. Others will
obviously disagree.
David
Bryan Maloney
>are most obviously two, and there is most obviously only one. The exitence
>is only a reflection of a movement of mind. The question is 'what is the
>nature of mind?'. Since I don't believe there is a thinker behind the
>thoughts, nor a feeler behind the feelings (none that you can ever find in
>any case), then mind must be essentially empty (not empty in the western
>sense of the absense of someting, which is a dichotomy, but empty in the
>Hindu sense of 'nirvana' - form is emptyness, and emptyness is form). So
>when I use the words to describe the difference I'm pointing to, they are
>just that, pointers which can never touch the actuallity which is an
>existential experience of subjectivity.
NO!
I agree completely.
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 18 May 1995, Charlie Luce wrote:
> [Argument that diceless=mature not repeated for space reasons]
[snip]
> Two situations come to mind which do not fit into the general philosophy put
> forth in the previous posting.
>
> First is the person whose motivation for running games is because of the
> feeling of power over others which the activity gives them. This person is
> likely to be an advocate of diceless/mechanicless systems in order to
> minimize any adverse impact on their authority. I wonder how many of the
> people who are arguing in favor of diceless systems expect to be running the
> game, as opposed to playing it?
Hmm. Having been experimenting with "low dice" resolution methods for
the last several gaming sessions, I have to confess that I do not see how
this could work AND be a fun game for the rest of my troupe if my
authority were not shared.
Charle's point here is similar to a post advanced on a parallel
thread (which I took to be a parody of David Berkman's argument, if a
rather poor one) by Brian Mulroony [sp?]. Unlike what Charles and Brian
suggest (or worry about) I have found that running diceless (or low dice
in my case--in my last game to my knowledge we collectively rolled dice
maybe five times, in a relatively action-dense scene) requires a diffusion
of authorial license--I have to grant my players more power in the game,
not less, in order to make this work. So, while Charles and Brian's
positions may make some intuitive sense, when they comes face to face with
real experience their worries turn out to be unfounded, and their
argument fallacious.
Not every thing that is commensensical is true, Brian--as an empiricist
you of all people should appreciate that. Go read the foundational
philosopher of modern empiricism, David Hume--he can make this case more
elgantly than I can.
At any rate, under this method of RPG, my role as GM devolves much more
to maintaining the setting and the story (which is not a whole lot
different in a situation based plot, what I have earlier called weak
plotting, as in the "strongly" plotted THEATRIX/Syd Field kind of
story.) A great deal of the ajudication of the action is actually done by
the players.
An example:
In our most recent game one character was particularly susceptible to an
infernal influence. Since I know that the player of this character HATES
to lose control of his character, I took him aside early and explained
some of the situation to him. When his character, later in the evening,
entered the situation, I cued him and let HIM decide how to run his
character, given the parameters we had discussed earlier. From my
perspective dice never entered it--I simply described the situation, and
left it to the player work out for himself what was happening and how to
describe it to the rest of the troupe.
With players less resistant to this sort of thing, I don't even have to
have the pregame discussion. The players in this troupe thrive on this
kind of decision--with this group of players, for me to implement the full
set of mechanics at our disposal (in this case Ars Magica) would just get
in the way of the story, the role playing, the action, the drama, and
ultimately the game. They are there if we need them, but I can count on
my fingers the number of times we have collectively needed them.
Best,
Kevin
Carl Perkins
}In article <3pd543$h...@crl5.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) wrote:
}> Side 1 Side 2
}> ______________ ______________
}> Romantic Realist
}> Mystic Dogmatic
}> Existential Logical Positivist
}> Humanist Scientist
}> Subjective Objective
}> Phenomenology Theophagy
}>
}>
}> Non-dichotomy Dichotomy
}>
}
}system design by dichotomy. Not adding to your dichotomies, just adding
}his own meta-dichotomy.
}--
}Francis Hwang
Or, for the dichotomy-imparied:
"There are two kinds of people, those who divide things into two groups and
those who don't."
--- Carl
Carl Perkins
}wargame aspects of RPGs, is a more mature position.
}
Which is, of course, nonsense.
You like to play that way, therfore you think it is more mature. How mature
is going around saying "I am more mature than all you adolescents"? Then
again, it might have something to do with your selling a game that is
diceless...
Dice have nothing to do with maturity. Ranting, on the other hand does -
at least with the lack thereof.
--- Carl
Charles M Seaton
: Francis P. Hwang (hwan...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: : > Side 1 Side 2
: : > ______________ ______________
: : > Romantic Realist
: : > Mystic Dogmatic
: : > Existential Logical Positivist
: : > Humanist Scientist
: : > Subjective Objective
: : > Phenomenology Theophagy
: : Could you explain this a little more in depth? I can't see what this
: : has to do with RPG system design.
: Think about the complaints which diced/mechanics advocates level against
: diceless play.
Okay. Let's see. They say that diceless play is "unfair."
That it disempowers the individual player in favor of communal
goals. That it is biased, and therefore less simulationist. That
it is linked to pre-destined plot lines and a corresponding lack of
individual free will.
Oh, dear. So that means that the anti-diceless folk are
Romantic, Humanist, Realist, and Objective, yes?
: Think of the arguments which diceless/mechanicless
: advocates level against diced play.
They say that diced play is "unrealistic," because it
divides human capabilities into artificially distinct quantified
units, and because the probability curves utilized by the diced
systems are skewed. They say that it disempowers the individual
player in favor of communal goals, by disallowing free character
generation in the name of system and by removing resolution from the
hands of the participants of the game. They say that it is biased,
and therefore less simulationist.
So...in other words, the diceless/mechanicless folk are ALSO
Romantic, Humanist, Realist, and Objective, aren't they?
Uh-oh...
I think I'll stick with the "Dichotomized/Non-dichotomized"
theory myself, David. ;)
[highly inflammatory explanation of why diceless or mechanicless
gaming styles may be seen as a reflection of a "mature" perspective
snipped]
Heh heh heh. Oh, DAVID. You ARE in an asbestos mood
tonight, aren't you?
I'm not even sure I want to *comment* on this one. Maybe
later. When I'm feeling a bit more politic. And less craven.
-- Sarah
Kevin R. Hardwick
Bryan. I have a quarrel with many of your ideas, but it is not my intent
to be deliberately uncivil.
My best,
Kevin
Charles M Seaton
: First is the person whose motivation for running games is because of the
: feeling of power over others which the activity gives them. This person is
: likely to be an advocate of diceless/mechanicless systems in order to
: minimize any adverse impact on their authority.
David may scoff, but I hear you. I've met one or two people
who have tried to use diceless resolution in this way. In my
experience, their games have not lasted long. In all the cases of
this sort of thing I have witnessed, the players either left the
game in disgust, or actively rebelled, wresting control of the game
from the GM entirely. It *does* happen. But it doesn't happen for
very *long.*
Most diceless or mechanicless games I have seen, however,
have not fallen into this category, largely because, really,
diceless or d-b resolution is a very, very POOR tool for maintaining
GM control. The GM is actually far LESS powerful in such games, and
GMs who don't realize that this will be the case end up
very, very disappointed. They generally do not make that mistake a
second time.
: I wonder how many of the
: people who are arguing in favor of diceless systems expect to be running the
: game, as opposed to playing it?
I've got a double-standard, it is true, but it is *not* the
one you are thinking of.
As a GM, I don't mind using dice. As a player, I *vastly*
prefer diceless systems.
I always dislike mechanics, but again, I find them much more
irritating as a player than as a GM.
-- Sarah
Bryan Maloney
>The best way to use that power, however, is to distribute it, share it,
>play with it, etc. In which case the GM will find himself/herself with
>less power than is normally granted by a diced game.
However, this advice is good, regardless of the set of mechanics you use.
It has two benefits:
Players tend to have more fun.
Your workload is greatly reduced.
I've told my players that if they want to come up with stuff for the
campaign, that's fine, I'd act as a sort of editor/creative consultant.
Also, the vast majority of the activity in my campaign is player-initiated.
I go with the flow that the players set. (This does demand more from
many players than they are used to giving, though.) My approach is
that there's a whole wide world out there, and your characters can try
whatever they want. If they just want to sit on their butts and wait for
adventure to come to them, they'll do a lot of butt-sitting, like most
adventurer wannabes who hang around the taverns do. If they want
to try something, ANYTHING, they at least get to give it a shot.
Of course, this requires me to actually go to the work to inform my
players of far much more potential "threads" to follow than in a
conventional linear campaign.
Bryan Maloney
>rather poor one) by Brian Mulroony [sp?]. Unlike what Charles and Brian
I am not Canadian.
I am not Conservative.
I am not nearly as dense, either.
>Not every thing that is commensensical is true, Brian--as an empiricist
>you of all people should appreciate that. Go read the foundational
>philosopher of modern empiricism, David Hume--he can make this case more
>elgantly than I can.
However, the original post did not steep itself in empirical terms, it was a
purely posit-ive one. Had it dipped into the empirical, things would have
been different.
Theory is meaningless without evidence.
Bryan Maloney
Are your game preferences as a player different from your preferences as
a gamemaster?
I know mine are quite different.
As a player, I'll play, and probably enjoy, anything. Any rules, virtually any
setting. I'll comply with whatever rules are in force. The only thing I have
explicitly objected to was when a gamemaster openly attempted to use one
of his campaigns to "teach us" something about life, especially since it
wasn't well done.
As a gamemaster, I have a much more limited set of preferences.
Maybe it's the "free beer" phenomenon.
Andrew Finch
: Which is, of course, nonsense.
Possibly. Depends on what you mean by mature, but I take it you disagree
with both statement and definition.
: You like to play that way, therfore you think it is more mature. How mature
: is going around saying "I am more mature than all you adolescents"? Then
: again, it might have something to do with your selling a game that is
: diceless...
It certainly could, if you assume a causal relationship where I develop a
diceless game, then change my viewpoints to sell the thing. More likely
it's that those viewpoints created the game (along with those of several
other people), and that I'm merely reiterating my side of that creation
here. Which means that I'm saying what I believe. Which is *not* that all
diced GMs are immature, which is obviously not ture, but that on the
*average*, they'll be more adolescent, which may be true. On a pure age
basis, taking the average of both groups, I think that would be correct,
and I think there's a reason for that. I think that diced games offer more
incentive for the adolescent, and what adolescents need to accomplish at
that stage of life, and that diceless/mechanicless games offer more
rewards for an adult. I don't think there's any reason not to drop back to
boyhood and have that kind of fun though, as long as you're aware of where
that's at. And people probably cringe or bristle at my use of the terms
'adolescent' and 'adult', but they do have a psychological as well as
temporal meaning.
: Dice have nothing to do with maturity. Ranting, on the other hand does -
: at least with the lack thereof.
You're right, dice have nothing to do with maturity, they are small
plastic polyhedrals. It's the will, and the method of enjoyment behind
simulationist dice mechanics that I'm talking about. I've labeled that an
'adolescent' position, and I wonder whether you disagree as to there
being a difference, disagree as to what labels I should be using, or
are taking the term 'adolescent' is an insult?
And I, of course, disagree that this is a rant.
David
Andrew Finch
: So...in other words, the diceless/mechanicless folk are ALSO
: Romantic, Humanist, Realist, and Objective, aren't they?
: Uh-oh...
<clearing my throat, and stepping up to the soapbox>
In other words, both sides of the debate here, are trying for exactly the
same thing, but coming at it from two different angles. Have I got that
right? Let's so if we can get what's behind those complaints, and see
what those angles are?
<addition of asbestos armor>
1) The diced camp says that removal of the dice would remove protections
which guarantee freedom and consistency.
2) The diceless camp says that the addition of dice is like putting freedom
behind walls, and removing all the detail.
I don't call the first position Romantic or Humanist. I would call it
Realist and Objective.
I don't call the second Realist or Objective. I would call it Romantic
and Humanist.
: I think I'll stick with the "Dichotomized/Non-dichotomized"
: theory myself, David. ;)
I have.
Realists - Dichotomized - Simulationsit Dice Mechanics
Romantics - Non-dichtomized - Story Oriented
: [highly inflammatory explanation of why diceless or mechanicless
: gaming styles may be seen as a reflection of a "mature" perspective
: snipped]
: Heh heh heh. Oh, DAVID. You ARE in an asbestos mood
: tonight, aren't you?
Just setting out some food for thought for the Internet crew to chew over.
: I'm not even sure I want to *comment* on this one. Maybe
: later. When I'm feeling a bit more politic. And less craven.
I appologize for any upset you're feeling over these opinions, but they
are both harsher, and not as harsh as they are made out to be.
David
Andrew Finch
: David may scoff, but I hear you.
I didn't scoff, and I can't think of a reason to disagree with the rest
of your post.
Niceley put.
David
Andrew Finch
: If they want
: to try something, ANYTHING, they at least get to give it a shot.
: Of course, this requires me to actually go to the work to inform my
: players of far much more potential "threads" to follow than in a
: conventional linear campaign.
I agree 100%. If you do the right work on those 'threads' then anything
the players do will be really interesting. I like to keep at least 5
going at once.
David
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Fri, 19 May 1995, Bryan Maloney wrote:
>
> >rather poor one) by Brian Mulroony [sp?]. Unlike what Charles and Brian
>
> I am not Canadian.
> I am not Conservative.
> I am not nearly as dense, either.
I DID apologize, Bryan. Grin. PM of Canada, huh? What odd tricks one's
brain plays . . .
> >Not every thing that is commensensical is true, Brian--as an empiricist
> >you of all people should appreciate that. Go read the foundational
> >philosopher of modern empiricism, David Hume--he can make this case more
> >elgantly than I can.
>
> However, the original post did not steep itself in empirical terms, it was a
> purely posit-ive one. Had it dipped into the empirical, things would have
> been different.
Logical positivism IS a form of empiricism. Think of the verifiability
principle.
The verifiability principle states that the truth conditions of
non-tautological assertions must be confirmed by perception--the meaning
of a term must be something that can be pointed to or otherwise
indicated, via sensory experience, either directly or indirectly.
Propositions are meaningless unless grounded in sensed experience.
Hence, concepts like form (Plato), God (say, Augustine), Mind
(Descartes), noumena (Kant), to list a few, have no meaning.
> Theory is meaningless without evidence.
Exactly. This is not something that, for example, Descartes would have
agreed with, at least in the sense I take you to convey. Or the later
Wittgenstein, or Hegel, or Heidegger, or even Kant.
I suspect that you and Frankie Pitt would see eye to eye on most things.
My point is that the paradigm within which you operate, while prevalent,
is not the only one out there. David B. clearly inhabits a different
world view--the two of you, it seems to me, wind up speaking past each
other more often than not.
Best,
Kevin
Charles M Seaton
: Charles M Seaton (ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
: <addition of asbestos armor>
Oh, come now. I'm one of the NICE people here. You don't
really think that I'd flame YOU, now, do you, David?
[Sarah tries to grin in a feral manner, and only succeeds in
looking goofy -- she's never quite got the hang of that "intimidation
thing"]
: 1) The diced camp says that removal of the dice would remove protections
: which guarantee freedom and consistency.
: 2) The diceless camp says that the addition of dice is like putting freedom
: behind walls, and removing all the detail.
: I don't call the first position Romantic or Humanist. I would call it
: Realist and Objective.
: I don't call the second Realist or Objective. I would call it Romantic
: and Humanist.
Well...I would say that the objection that dice or mechanics
reduce the level of detail DOES reflect a concern with realism.
I would therefore call the second position "Realist."
And I would also say that an overriding concern with
individual freedoms is a classic symptom of Romanticism. I would
therefore call the first position "Romantic."
But as I can make equally compelling cases for calling the
first group "Realist" and the second group "Romantic," I prefer to
chalk it all down to semantics and have done with it. Perhaps I
fall into the "Dismissive" camp. ;)
: : [highly inflammatory explanation of why diceless or mechanicless
: : gaming styles may be seen as a reflection of a "mature" perspective
: : snipped]
: : Heh heh heh. Oh, DAVID. You ARE in an asbestos mood
: : tonight, aren't you?
: Just setting out some food for thought for the Internet crew to chew over.
Sure, I understand. You went pretty heavy on the cayunne,
though, didn't you? We're gonna need a LOT of rice with this
particular dish, and a good dollop of sour cream as well.
: : I'm not even sure I want to *comment* on this one. Maybe
: : later. When I'm feeling a bit more politic. And less craven.
: I appologize for any upset you're feeling over these opinions, but they
: are both harsher, and not as harsh as they are made out to be.
I appreciate your concern, but you didn't upset me. You
amused me, and you rather impressed me. I'm just anticipating the
reactions of others and feeling my pulse beat weakly in my throat,
that's all. You know how funny we cowards can GET about
confrontation, don't you? It makes us go all watery inside.
-- Sarah
Charles M Seaton
: : David may scoff, but I hear you.
: I didn't scoff, and I can't think of a reason to disagree with the rest
: of your post.
: Niceley put.
I thank you, David, and I apologize for putting words into
your mouth, particularly as they were not the right ones.
-- Sarah
Bryan Maloney
>Realists - Dichotomized - Simulationsit Dice Mechanics
>Romantics - Non-dichtomized - Story Oriented
You: dichotomized, splitting all games into one of two camps.
Bryan Maloney
>My point is that the paradigm within which you operate, while prevalent,
>is not the only one out there. David B. clearly inhabits a different
>world view--the two of you, it seems to me, wind up speaking past each
>other more often than not.
My paradigm will save your butt if you get a disease or major injury.
Andrew Finch
: > Theory is meaningless without evidence.
Evidence is meaningless withot theory.
David
Andrew Finch
[Sniped]
: Well...I would say that the objection that dice or mechanics
: reduce the level of detail DOES reflect a concern with realism.
: I would therefore call the second position "Realist."
It reflects a concern for genre, which can be a very different thing, and
that concern is not that the path of a bullet be accurately depicted, but
that the concrete has a grain to it, and liitle blades of grass stick out
from cracks in the motar. It is Romantic fidelity rather than an impirical
fact.
: And I would also say that an overriding concern with
: individual freedoms is a classic symptom of Romanticism. I would
: therefore call the first position "Romantic."
Freedom of expression or freedom of choice. The Romantic knows their is no
freedom of choice, and wishes freedom of expression. The realist wants
freedom not for its aesthetics, but rather to be free of control. To be
able to manipulate withot being manipulated. Its a maneuvering to win,
where the Romatic sees only a dance.
: But as I can make equally compelling cases for calling the
: first group "Realist" and the second group "Romantic," I prefer to
: chalk it all down to semantics and have done with it. Perhaps I
: fall into the "Dismissive" camp. ;)
Possibly. You can disolve the argument in symatics if you wish, but I
think there is something worthwhile to be gained from engaging in it as
well. There is a little too much truth to it for comfort.
: : I appologize for any upset you're feeling over these opinions, but they
: : are both harsher, and not as harsh as they are made out to be.
: I appreciate your concern, but you didn't upset me. You
: amused me, and you rather impressed me.
Now I'm impressed.
: I'm just anticipating the
: reactions of others and feeling my pulse beat weakly in my throat,
: that's all. You know how funny we cowards can GET about
: confrontation, don't you? It makes us go all watery inside.
Well, the reaction is not so one sided as the last time I made basically
the same statements. It's an interesting barometer of change within this
group.
David
John H Kim
Bryan Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Are your game preferences as a player different from your preferences
>as a gamemaster?
Basically, yes. As a GM, I find that I run the sort of campaign
which *I* would like to play in. Unfortunately, I have found that what
I like as a player is often not the same thing as what my players like.
As a player, I am almost never bothered by lack of plot - if there
isn't stuff going on in the game, I will do things. (This gets into my
preference for active characters.) I don't neccessarily mind plot-based
games, but frequently I find that I do things which "break" the intended
plot (off we go to Burma).
I have a preference for motivated and active characters, but I
try to vary the types of characters I play.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
As a GM, my first interest has always been world-building: making
histories, characters, cultures, etc. As long as the setting has a lot
of depth to it, I could probably run a campaign. My main limitation is
what the players are interested in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
Paul J. Zanca
sometimes outright contempt because I don't always have a "plot". So
long as the game is entertaining to me and to my players, so what? And
besides, I don't usually tell my players, "By the way, guys, I'm pulling
this stuff out of my ass," so they don't know the difference anyway. At
least, they never tell me if they do.
Some of my most fantastic and entertaining game sessions have been
completely improvised; I went in the door with absolutely no idea what I
was going to present. To me, that's some of the stongest juju to be had
in gaming.
Charles M Seaton
: Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: : > Theory is meaningless without evidence.
: Evidence is meaningless withot theory.
Argument is meaningless without content.
-- S.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128
|> X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B]
|> Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu rec.games.frp.misc:72656 rec.games.frp.advocacy:21921
Heh? Paradigms don't cure diseases, doctors and medicine do. To be
sure, many researchers have an empirical philosophy, but again, it
isn't the philosophy that made the discoveries, it was the
researchers.
It is an entirely defensible, if somewhat iconoclastic, contention that
there is no one scientific paradigm, or even a small set of them.
More to the point, this comment reads like an insult directed at
David B. I can understand frustration with him, having felt it
myself, but there really is no reason to be uncivil.
Neel
Francis P. Hwang
> RPG rules are written to appeal to a market segment, and aimed at a
> particular style of play. A demand for dice and rules to cover any
> possibility in which a character might be hurt, to remove the source of
> that damage to an objective, external force against which one can battle,
> is the adolescent position. At its base is a breach of trust, especially
> with authority figures. That's why adolescents make so many demands to be
> treated 'fairly'. It's a demand to be treated and respected as powerful,
> equal, and important. To be differentiated from 'a child'. You want to
> sell to this market, you give good hard rules to adjudicate action,
> plenty of power, and an ever increasing and visible rise in power for the
> characters. If you can cloak it all in 'adult' values, that's even
> better. Goths aren't doing anything adult, they're doing stuff that they
> think is adult.
>
> On the other side, a rejection of diced mechanics, hard rules, and the
> wargame aspects of RPGs, is a more mature position. It is based in trust,
> and in a knowledge of one's own power that's firm enough to be comfortable
> in allowing someone else to be 'in control'. The emphasis is placed on
> 'character', and 'story', and a playful experimentation with life concepts
> and ways of being. Incidentally, this ease in passing 'control' and
> 'power' back and forth, playing in both the dominant and submissive
> positions, and being comfortable with both, based upon open communication
> and trust, is what makes for really good human relationships. So roleplay
> becomes a 'life' play and learning experience, which increases the
> enjoyment a lot. Improvisation is then really a natural.
This is certainly quite interesting, but I'm not really sure which side
you're associating which side. Is maturity/dicelessness scientist or
humanist?
And as a diced player, I think that the issue of trust in diced games
is a little more complicated than that. Dice in no way guarantee anything
close to complete impartiality, and although rules lawyers may fool
themselves otherwise, any system of reading numbers into a simulation is
going to have bias somewhere in it.
I tend to think of dice as most useful for adjucating details that I
don't care to think about too much in detail. Specifically, combat is one
of them. I am still trusting something, however. I'm not trusting the dice
as much as I'm trusting all the players to be able to pull a decent story
out of the result of a string of really wacked rolls.
Now, I don't have any experience yet with diceless, much less
systemless, so any comments/guesses I might make on this regard might be
somewhat worthless. But in general I think the issue of trust (in story,
in fellow players) is far from dead in a lot of diced games.
--
Francis Hwang
Editor, The Idolum Quarterly
hwan...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
A Lapalme
"Kevin R. Hardwick" (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) writes:
>
> An example:
>
> In our most recent game one character was particularly susceptible to an
> infernal influence. Since I know that the player of this character HATES
> to lose control of his character, I took him aside early and explained
> some of the situation to him. When his character, later in the evening,
> entered the situation, I cued him and let HIM decide how to run his
> character, given the parameters we had discussed earlier. From my
> perspective dice never entered it--I simply described the situation, and
> left it to the player work out for himself what was happening and how to
> describe it to the rest of the troupe.
>
I have tried the above (telling the player ahead of time that something is
going to happen and that he/she has to play in consequence). Some players
just love this type of things, others don't. The ones that don't, at
least currently in my group, do not like this because they don't want to
know ahead of time what will happen. It breaks their suspension of
disbelief. And, honestly speaking, I tend to be in the latter camp.
Any suggestions on how to deal with this?
Alain
A Lapalme
>
>>
>> >rather poor one) by Brian Mulroony [sp?]. Unlike what Charles and Brian
>>
>> I am not Canadian.
>> I am not Conservative.
>> I am not nearly as dense, either.
>
> brain plays . . .
ex-PM gang, and he spells his name: Brian Mulroney.
Alain (the accuracy freak)
Ian Hyde
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: something in (say) a cyberpunk world. But this is not a distinction
: of content, not form.
Yes. So what are the differences in form between a game designed by a
mystic, and one designed by a realist? I thought it was a worthwhile
question. Just talking the cerebelum out for a bit of stroll and seeing
where it leads.
: The distinction between role-playing as game,
: role-playing as story, and role-playing as group ("troup") exercise
: seem to be much better pointers to the different types of games
: that actually exist.
: Phenomenology vs Theophagy. Oh deary, deary, deary me.
I also think it's worthwhile testing the ontological container of the
argument as well, otherwise you eliminate promising avenues of insight
with preconceptions as to what is acceptable within the framework.
David
Andrew Finch
: Er...so why not say "protestant vs catholics".
Because that's not what I meant, nor do I believe that holds the same
connotations.
: I love your use of the past tense, btw...
Do you? Thanks.
: the Eucharist
: "was" a metaphor for betrayal and martyrdom.
That too.
: But the idea that you know
: what it originally was and what it should have been is ambtious, to say the
: least.
Not really. You seem to be willing to take on that mantle as well. I
think it's called a discussion.
: This is by the way. The distinction you are drawing is between the
: "symbolic" and "literal" or "ritualistic" and "magical" or something.
: I still have not the remotest idea how any of this pertains to RPGs design
That I believe. Was there some specific question I could attempt to answer?
David
Andrew Rilstone
alec remarks about Star Trek, er, sorry, *writing a Warhammer FRP
supplement* to post before now.
> I think yuor approach is only going to net a dictionary of industry buz
> words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
> than that.
>
>
> Side 1 Side 2
> ______________ ______________
> Romantic Realist
> Mystic Dogmatic
> Existential Logical Positivist
> Humanist Scientist
> Subjective Objective
> Phenomenology Theophagy
>
The advantage of David's original list of types of games was that
I had some idea what it means. The distinction between romanticism
and realism, is a good one, but beyond that: what the heck is
the diference between an mystical game and dogamtic one? Doubtless
a believer in mysticism might right a game that contained mysticism
(e.g nephilim) while a dogmatist might be more likely to produce
something in (say) a cyberpunk world. But this is not a distinction
of content, not form. The distinction between role-playing as game,
role-playing as story, and role-playing as group ("troup") exercise
seem to be much better pointers to the different types of games
that actually exist.
Phenomenology vs Theophagy. Oh deary, deary, deary me.
--
Andrew Rilstone
Andrew Rilstone
> Actually, I was referring to the Eucharist. Phenomenology is the study of
> existence as the product of sense experience, where the 'other' is a black
> box. The Eucharist is a denial of the subjective (it was a *metaphor* for
> the act of betrayal and martyrdom, not an endorsement for cannibalism) in
> a demand for a true, external, rock to reach out and hold on to.
> Phenomenology is the study of God in the self, the Eucharist is an act of
> God as other.
Er...so why not say "protestant vs catholics".
I love your use of the past tense, btw: the Eucharist
"was" a metaphor for betrayal and martyrdom. (Surely in both tradtions it
"was" a symbol of Christ's sacrificial death?). But the idea that you know
what it originally was and what it should have been is ambtious, to say the
least.
This is by the way. The distinction you are drawing is between the
"symbolic" and "literal" or "ritualistic" and "magical" or something.
I still have not the remotest idea how any of this pertains to RPGs design
--
Andrew Rilstone
Bret Indrelee
Charlie Luce <cha...@eql12.caltech.edu> wrote:
>In article <3pfrn0$a...@crl3.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes...
>>Think about the complaints which diced/mechanics advocates level against
>>diceless play. Think of the arguments which diceless/mechanicless
>>advocates level against diced play.
>
>[Argument that diceless=mature not repeated for space reasons]
>
>A very well-written position, which naturally brings out the devil's advocate
>in those with a tendency towards debate :-)
>
>Two situations come to mind which do not fit into the general philosophy put
>forth in the previous posting.
>
>First is the person whose motivation for running games is because of the
>feeling of power over others which the activity gives them. This person is
>likely to be an advocate of diceless/mechanicless systems in order to
>minimize any adverse impact on their authority. I wonder how many of the
>people who are arguing in favor of diceless systems expect to be running the
>game, as opposed to playing it?
>Second is the person who likes to run games but does not feel qualified to
>make every decision in a deterministic fashion, or feels that it is too much
>work to do for their hobby. Game mechanics thus function much like
>high-level programming languages, simplifying the task of running a game at
>the cost of reducing flexibility and adding a layer of abstraction.
Third is the strategist, who looks at the problems in the game as an
intellectual challenge. They might not like the mass combat of the
traditional wargame, but still like to use some strategy in battle.
The random element can bring a certain amount of tension and drama to
a battle.
-Bret
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bret Indrelee | ...and if I feel a rage, I won't deny it.
br...@winternet.com |
Bret Indrelee
>Kevin Mowery (kemo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
>: Dave Nalle (d...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
>
>: : Goal-Oriented
>: : Roleplaying where the achievement of goals and the acquisition of
>: : material success are more important than achieving more abstract qualities
>: : such as character realization, advancement of the story or party unity. I
>: : might call this capitalist roleplaying.
>
>: A campaign can be very goal-oriented and focus on character
>: realization. The goals *could* be the goals of the character, not of
>: the GM.
>
>I think he was more talking about _Player_ goals than about
>_Character_ goals. Think of munchkins who want to make their characters
>as powerful and wealthy as possible.
So Vampire is a munchin game?
I thought a lot of that was about gaining power within the Vampire
heirarchy. Or doesn't political power count?
Andrew Rilstone
> Was there some specific question I could attempt to answer?
These, to start with.
"What is historical or theological source for your unsubstantiated assertions
about the origin and meaning of Holy Communion?"
"Why do you couch it in such deliberately obscure language?"
"How would a game based on the assumption that the Eucharist is a
commemorative act differ from one based on the assumption that
the elements become the literal body and blood of Christ?"
"Can you give examples of games that fall into each catergory?"
"What is the relevence of this to the majority of gamers who are not Christian,
nor very interested in religious issues?"
--
Andrew Rilstone
nancy sauer
: 1) The diced camp says that removal of the dice would remove protections
: which guarantee freedom and consistency.
Point of order!
I wish to point out that this is not universally true of the dice
camp. I myself feel that the presence/absence of dice have nothing to
do with freedom. I am fond of dice because, used properly, they can
create situations that neither the player nor the GM forsaw.
: Realists - Dichotomized - Simulationsit Dice Mechanics
: Romantics - Non-dichtomized - Story Oriented
I find this very amusing, David, considering you once accused me
of being a romantic.
: : Heh heh heh. Oh, DAVID. You ARE in an asbestos mood
: : tonight, aren't you?
: Just setting out some food for thought for the Internet crew to chew over.
You can't fool me. You've been taking lessons from Trollmaster,
haven't you?
Nancy M. Sauer <*> "Then you will come to think of things in
Disciple of Bread Do: a wide sense and, taking the dough as the
The Way of the Way, you will see the Way is dough.
Flour Warrior In the dough there is virtue, and no evil."
Andrew Finch
: These, to start with.
: "What is historical or theological source for your unsubstantiated assertions
: about the origin and meaning of Holy Communion?"
What? That it was a metaphor for betrayal and martyrdom? That assersion?
As opposed to your metaphor for Christ's sacrificial death? I think they
both come from the same place. The Bible. For me, the Q sources as well,
and the Naag Hamadi writings.
: "Why do you couch it in such deliberately obscure language?"
I say what I mean in the way I think best expresses that meaning.
: "How would a game based on the assumption that the Eucharist is a
: commemorative act differ from one based on the assumption that
: the elements become the literal body and blood of Christ?"
I don't know. But it's an interesting question. Not the question I posed
however. I wonder what the design of a game would be like which was
created by a mind that believed the Eucharist was only a commemorative
act, as opposed to one created by a mind which believed in the actual
transubstantiation of bread and wine?
I'm not sure there is a difference, but it was not the only question
posed. I think that Romantic and Realist, Existentialist and Logical
Positivist, are at least as valid, and probably more appropriate.
: "Can you give examples of games that fall into each catergory?"
I have, in the original post.
: "What is the relevence of this to the majority of gamers who are not Christian,
: nor very interested in religious issues?"
It's an issue of philosophy, and not just religion, although you have
chosen to focus on the one word with religious connotations, so I assume
that you, for one, are interested.
I don't think there's any relevance for gamers that are not interested in
philosophical issues. And those uninterested will probably not be forced
into this discussion at gunpoint.
David
Bryan Maloney
>I don't think there's any relevance for gamers that are not interested in
>philosophical issues. And those uninterested will probably not be forced
>into this discussion at gunpoint.
Don't TEMPT me like that!!!!
My wife has had to bodily drag me away from philosophical discussions.
The last thing I need is for somebody to come up with neatfun things like
that to do.
Bryan Maloney
When I play music, I prefer to use a violin.
I know that a synthesizer can do a whole bunch of wonderful stuff, but
I still prefer the violin--I already know how to use it and have very
little time to learn a different instrument.
Charlie Luce
>Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: > Theory is meaningless without evidence.
>
>Evidence is meaningless withot theory.
This is getting pretty far off newsgroup, but in an odd way it's also
relevant...
The Romans prduced some pretty impressive engineering without really having
much of a theory of geometry. What they _did_ have was a collection of
rules-of-thumb and methods that had been proven by experiment to work.
Later civilizations developed engineering much further by developing theories
based on axioms that were gotten from the empirical evidence, and using them
to develop more theories that could them be tested, and so on, but it's an
overstatement to say that evidence is meaningless without theory. Less
meaningful, but not meaningless. (English is a funny language :-)
How this is relevant to the topic has to do with two sub-philosophies of game
mechanics design. Some games try and invent special methods for handling
each process that is likely to come up, in the name of realism (Evidence
supreme). Other games start with a fundamental model and then map the
processes to the model, in the name of playability (Theory supreme).
On one end you have games with pages of rules for this situation or that,
special modifiers, charts and subsections; on the other, you have "The GM
decides how hard it is and A) Has the player roll against the how-hard-it-is
number B) Compares that to the PC's Spiffyness Attribute to see if it
succeded C) Decides how cool it would be if it worked/ didn't work and
informs the player"
Note that diceless/diced does not enter into this, despite the common
stereotype. One may design a game which goes to great complexity to end up
with a deterministic result, or "guide" the GM toward a conclusion;
contrariwise, a mechanically simple game can still resolve most situations
randomly.
Charlie Luce / Is it something about having "Philosophy" in a topic title?
Andrew Finch
: There you go, using that word "is" again.
Yeah, it's predicate logic.
: I am tempted to throw "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" at you here: "To
: generalise is to be an idiot."
That's a generalization.
: You know my views on rpgs from Interactive
: Fantasy and my postings here, yet even I would be very reluctant to say
: that roleplay "is" psychic (do you mean psycholigical?) exploration.
What else could it possibly be? I think very few people, with the
exception of roleplayers, would have a problem classifying the behavior
as psychological in nature.
However, roleplay is 'psychic' exploration, to differentiate from the
merely hylic, or even pnuematic.
: That
: is one of the things it can be, certainly: possibly even the most important.
Not that I didn't sai 'is only' which is a completely different magic
phrase. So I agree.
: My own feeling is that for most people, the social element (doing something
: creative and stimulating with your mates) is more important.
A social element, but not a psychological one? Group dynamics, self
expression, role analysis, personal growth, social functioning, family
dynamics, etc.
: At any rate,
: I would have a problem defining, say, an amusing game of "Toon" as "psychic
: exploration." I contend that you have created a narrow definition of
: RPGs that includes those games you approve of, and excludes those that
: you disaprove of.
You would content incorrrectly. Toon is lighthearted, and amusing, and a
psychological exploration. What do you call pretending to be someone
else, in someplace else? A fantasy? A light hearted spoof without social
relevance?
Roleplay is *fun*, otherwise people wouldn't do it for leisure time
enjoyment. But that doesn't say *why* it's fun.
: If we accept that your theory that roleplay "is" psychic exploration, I
: still do not think that you have advanced one iota in explaining what
: a "logical postivist" game (for example) might be like.
D&D is logical positivist to the core. So are most games by FGU, as much
as I like them. Hero, as much as I like it.
David
Charlie Luce
>>: : > Theory is meaningless without evidence.
>
>>: Evidence is meaningless withot theory.
>
>
>
>
Presentation is meaningless without an audience.
(Or was that a fish without a bicycle? :-}
Charles M Seaton
: "Kevin R. Hardwick" (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) writes:
: >
: > An example:
: >
: > In our most recent game one character was particularly susceptible to an
: > infernal influence. Since I know that the player of this character HATES
: > to lose control of his character, I took him aside early and explained
: > some of the situation to him. When his character, later in the evening,
: > entered the situation, I cued him and let HIM decide how to run his
: > character, given the parameters we had discussed earlier...
: I have tried the above (telling the player ahead of time that something is
: going to happen and that he/she has to play in consequence). Some players
: just love this type of things, others don't. The ones that don't, at
: least currently in my group, do not like this because they don't want to
: know ahead of time what will happen. It breaks their suspension of
: disbelief. And, honestly speaking, I tend to be in the latter camp.
: Any suggestions on how to deal with this?
Well, there's always that good, old-fashioned note business.
"You are now under an infernal influence. Play accordingly."
Of course, you would have had to have worked the precise
parameters of infernal influence in your game into casual
conversation somehow earlier, so that your player would know
precisely HOW they were supposed to go about this. It wouldn't do
to have the character start foaming at the mouth and attacking
people, if you had intended for him to be making subtle attempts at
corrupting them.
-- Sarah
Bryan Maloney
> Well, there's always that good, old-fashioned note business.
>"You are now under an infernal influence. Play accordingly."
> Of course, you would have had to have worked the precise
>parameters of infernal influence in your game into casual
>conversation somehow earlier, so that your player would know
>precisely HOW they were supposed to go about this. It wouldn't do
>to have the character start foaming at the mouth and attacking
>people, if you had intended for him to be making subtle attempts at
>corrupting them.
Hey, if all the detail I give is a one-line note, I take what I get as
a GM and am happy they do ANYTHING.
Roll with the stream, don't try to hold back the ocean in a paper cup.
Mr. Tines
jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu "John H Kim" writes:
> Basically, yes. As a GM, I find that I run the sort of campaign
> which *I* would like to play in. Unfortunately, I have found that what
> I like as a player is often not the same thing as what my players like.
I recognise that complaint. Up to recently, that's what I'd've said. Except
that now I've realised that my characterisation skills and ability to
give characters motivation is sufficiently rudimentary that I've given up
worrying about playing (and almost given up the actual playing).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6ui
iQCVAgUBL8Gg7YoUd45Z7dNFAQGNfgQAlJYhroiLgwcXFYkhQGaodKyKSrZPJuxZ
jMmo0qj08LgummdAPlTLKevhI2nubu9DOAABv7UUEkCZuqQdB1YAeedr+yKzwt82
M4P3Cikg5vS5C5IEbkU7MVIunL2Kd5fQjhjON/9v/0wJfab5V/KrJFQFY3cxdnp1
oJAsNTjLZmA=
=W39U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
_______ PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< "So. Who is the real Mr. Tines?"
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (PGP preferred on principle)
uda...@bay.cc.kcl.ac.uk
> In article <3ppaik$8...@crl10.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com "Andrew Finch" writes:
>
> commemorative act differ from one based on the assumption that
> the elements become the literal body and blood of Christ?"
>
>
> "What is the relevence of this to the majority of gamers who are not Christian,
> nor very interested in religious issues?"
>
Cheers, Keith
Bryan Maloney
>>>: : > Theory is meaningless without evidence.
>>
>>>: Evidence is meaningless withot theory.
>>
>>
>>> Argument is meaningless without content.
>>
>> Content is meaningless without presentation.
>>
> Presentation is meaningless without an audience.
An audience is meaningless without an event.
Andrew Rilstone
Andrew: I am interested in your set of philosophical dichotomies
regarding RPGs. However, I find them obscure, and am trying to
tease a meaning out of them. If you do not wish to engage with
me in discussion, then I wish you would say so. It would save
us both a lot of time.
(Source of assertions about the Eucharist are "The Bible. For me, the Q
sources as well, and the Naag Hamadi writings.")
Ha.
Q "as well as" the Bible.
Ha.
Q is, of course, a scholarly conjecture. The "Q material" is those bits
of Christ's teaching that appear in Matthew's Gospel, but not in Mark
or Luke. (The theory is that "Matthew" compile his gospel from two documents
- what we call "Mark's Gospel" and a lost book scholars call "Q".) The idea
that you have been reading "Q" as well as the Bible is actually rather funny.
In any case, the story of the Last Supper isn't in the "Q" material,
since it appears in all the synoptic gospels.
I confess to not knowing all that much about the gnostic liturgy,
but I find it difficult to believe that they were interested in something
as mundane as betrayal and martyrdom. Which paprys in particular were
you referring to?
I'm not going to embark on a detailed discussion of the Sacrament here.
Suffice it to say that there are a number of different views of it:
in Matthew's gospel (presumably what you had in mind when you referred to
Q) Jesus says "This blood is the new covenant in my blood, poured out
for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins." (I shan't
even get into the eucharistic passages in the Fourth Gospel.) I find
your assertion that the matter is quite settled, that the Catholics
have always been wrong, and it is obvious that when Christ talked
about sealing the covenant with his blood he meant something quite different
to be rather superficial and ill-informed.
> : "Why do you couch it in such deliberately obscure language?"
>
> I say what I mean in the way I think best expresses that meaning.
It does not express it very well if people cannot understand it,
and I have certainly never come across the word "theophagic" before.
(I have a degree in English, and have read a fair bit of theology.)
Therefore it didn't express it very well. And you shouldn't take
offence at other people asking you to clarify what you meant.
(How does one's view of Holy Communion effect one's role-playing games?)
> I'm not sure there is a difference, but it was not the only question
> posed. I think that Romantic and Realist, Existentialist and Logical
> Positivist, are at least as valid, and probably more appropriate.
This has evaded the question in a quite scintillating manner. I can
see (as I said) the meaning and usefulness of distinguishing between
romanticism and realism in game design. I have no idea what the
phenomenoligical and the theophagic dichotomy is trying to refer to.
When I asked you before, you sneered "that doesn't surprise me in the
least." Fair enough. If the purpose of using vocabulary is to make
you feel superior to me, then that is your perogative. If, on the
other hand, you were trying to communicate something, then you
shouldn't object that I ask you to restate it in plain English.
> : "Can you give examples of games that fall into each catergory?"
>
> I have, in the original post.
You said that D&D belonged in column 1 and Vampire in column 2 (I think)
but you did not demonstrate in what sense these games had romantic, mystical,
existentialist or theophagic attributes. You still haven't. Not in a way
that is clear to me, at any rate.
> : "What is the relevence of this to the majority of gamers who are not
> Christian,
> : nor very interested in religious issues?"
>
> It's an issue of philosophy, and not just religion, although you have
> chosen to focus on the one word with religious connotations, so I assume
> that you, for one, are interested.
Er... You may have spotted that I am interested in religion. My question
was "How is this relevant to the majority who are not." If, as I suspect,
the answer is "not at all" then it does not strike me as a very useful
axis to align RPGs along.
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk
************************************************************
"Only the shallow know themselves."
Oscar Wilde
************************************************************
John H Kim
>Andrew Rilstone (And...@aslan.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: You know my views on rpgs from Interactive Fantasy and my postings here,
>: yet even I would be very reluctant to say that roleplay "is" psychic
>: (do you mean psycholigical?) exploration.
>
>What else could it possibly be? I think very few people, with the
>exception of roleplayers, would have a problem classifying the behavior
>as psychological in nature.
Hmmm. As I understand it, "psychology" is the study of human
behavior. What sort of behavior is *not* psychological in nature?
Is roleplay "more psychological" than other behaviors? What would that
mean?
-*-*-*-
>
>However, roleplay is 'psychic' exploration, to differentiate from the
>merely hylic, or even pnuematic.
I believe the main issue which Andrew was complaining about was
your use of confusing terminology and statements in the discussion.
-*-*-*-
For example, I am still confused by your characterization of
dice-using games as "adolescent" (in some psychological sense?) as
opposed to diceless games as "mature". What does this mean?
In my experience, diceless role-playing seems extremely common
in pre-adolescence and early adolescence. At first, I and my friends
used role-playing games in much the same manner as less formal games
of make-believe -- acting out fantasies (without using dice or rules).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
Charlie Luce
writes...
>
and context is provided by experience,
which is fueled by interaction with evidence!
Charlie Luce / and experience is then used to formulate theories...
Andrew Rilstone
scott....@3do.com "Scott A. H. Ruggels" writes:
> Uh....what?
Thank you. That is the first intelligent or intelligible
thing anyone has said all day.
Andrew Rilstone
> : I am tempted to throw "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" at you here: "To
> : generalise is to be an idiot."
>
> That's a generalization.
Is it? By Jove. A century of study of Blake, and you, the first person
to notice that he makes his case in the form of paradox and aphorism.
(That was sarcasm, by the way.)
//Psychic investigation...?//
> What else could it possibly be? I think very few people, with the
> exception of roleplayers, would have a problem classifying the behavior
> as psychological in nature.
Er... It could possibly be entertainment, story telling, a tactical
exercise, an activity to fill up the gaps in conversation when a group
of mates meet for a beer, an excuse to brag about the length of your
penis, a form of shamanic inititiation, a training ground for hack
fantasy writers, a means of exploring and experiencing different
cultures, a device for teaching people about medieval economincs,
a device for teaching people how to speak a new language, a method
of indoctrinating and educating people about black magic, a method
of indoctrinating and educating people about Christianity. That's
off the top of my head, you understand. All positions that I have
heard seriously put forward.
> However, roleplay is 'psychic' exploration, to differentiate from the
> merely hylic, or even pnuematic.
Andrew, the use of obscure vocabulary doesn't help your argument. It makes
you look rather ridiculous. I am not sure what "psychic" means, as opposed
to "psychological" - the word is only in common use to refer to supposed
paranormal mental powers, which is not, I assume, what you mean. "Pneumatic"
means pertaining to the air or the spirit, and is usually used to refer to
ecstatic religious experiences. (Someone who got converted at a Billy Graham
meeting might be said to have had a "pneumatic" experience.) I have never
before heard the word "hylic." I would venture to say that I am of
above average education. My guess, from context, would be that you mean
"Roleplay is about exploring the mind at a deep level (psychic) as opposed
to exploring the conscious mind (hylic) or of having religious experiences."
Am I right? If not, then you have not argued your case clearly.
>
> : That
> : is one of the things it can be, certainly: possibly even the most important.
>
> Not that I didn't sai 'is only' which is a completely different magic
> phrase. So I agree.
Ah. Roleplaying is "among many other things " psychic investigation. OK.
I'll go along with that.
> A social element, but not a psychological one? Group dynamics, self
> expression, role analysis, personal growth, social functioning, family
> dynamics, etc.
Ha. You know very well what I meant. "For most people, roleplaying is
an excuse to do something entertaining with their friends, not to explore
their own minds." Undoubtedly a psychologist would have things to say
about how that entertaining something works, but to say that a psycholgist
could usefully investigate role-playing is very different from saying
that roleplaying is psychological investigation!
> You would content incorrrectly. Toon is lighthearted, and amusing, and a
> psychological exploration. What do you call pretending to be someone
> else, in someplace else? A fantasy? A light hearted spoof without social
> relevance?
I would certainly call most games of Toon that I have played a light
hearted spoof without social relevance, yes.
> : If we accept that your theory that roleplay "is" psychic exploration, I
> : still do not think that you have advanced one iota in explaining what
> : a "logical postivist" game (for example) might be like.
>
> D&D is logical positivist to the core. So are most games by FGU, as much
> as I like them. Hero, as much as I like it.
You are being awkward, here, aren't you. Please explain, clearly,
for the benefit of those of us who only have post graduate qualifications,
how and in what way these games exhibit "logical positivist" characteristics;
starting off by explaining what you mean by "logical positivism."
Doug Easterly
>Interesting question. I think that I'm much more picky as a player. I'm
>willing to GM almost any setting and a wide variety of game systems, but as
>a player there are only two or three games I think are worth my while and
>I have definite setting preferences. This might have something to do with
>not getting to play nearly as often as aI GM, and therefore wanting my
>play time to be optimized.
>
>Dave
Actually, I agree with Dave. I am much less picky as a GM than as a player.
I tend to see my role as GM as being much more of a host or entertainer to my players, and thus feel like their desires in a game te=
nd to shape mine. Plus, I GM more often. I am picky about the games I play, however, and want one that gives me enough lattitude and=
meat to keep me interested.
Doug
Andrew Rilstone
> Consider that roleplay is a psychic exploration which is only *fun*
> because of its potent psychological properties. Even those who demand
> that roleplay is *only a game* are immersed in this. A game makes you
> feel good by empowering you in a fantasy environment, which is why
> roleplay is so strong among adolescent males who have problems finding or
> accepting their own power.
There you go, using that word "is" again.
I am tempted to throw "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" at you here: "To
generalise is to be an idiot." You know my views on rpgs from Interactive
Fantasy and my postings here, yet even I would be very reluctant to say
that roleplay "is" psychic (do you mean psycholigical?) exploration. That
is one of the things it can be, certainly: possibly even the most important.
My own feeling is that for most people, the social element (doing something
creative and stimulating with your mates) is more important. At any rate,
I would have a problem defining, say, an amusing game of "Toon" as "psychic
exploration." I contend that you have created a narrow definition of
RPGs that includes those games you approve of, and excludes those that
you disaprove of.
If we accept that your theory that roleplay "is" psychic exploration, I
still do not think that you have advanced one iota in explaining what
a "logical postivist" game (for example) might be like.
--
Eric Tolle
>In article <D8qw5s....@cs.vu.nl>, MCV Fenderson <mc...@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>>Kevin Mowery (kemo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
>>: Dave Nalle (d...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
>>
>>: A campaign can be very goal-oriented and focus on character
>>: realization. The goals *could* be the goals of the character, not of
>>: the GM.
>>I think he was more talking about _Player_ goals than about
>>_Character_ goals. Think of munchkins who want to make their characters
>>as powerful and wealthy as possible.
>So Vampire is a munchin game?
>I thought a lot of that was about gaining power within the Vampire
>heirarchy. Or doesn't political power count?
*grin*.....by that token, _any_ game where there's character advancement
would count as a 'munchkin game'..
I can have any number of characters who want to get power, in any number of
systems. As long as I play fairly....likewise, I've seen vampire characters
who _don't_ want power, just want to stay alive. Unfortunatly, it was the
prince.....
Remember, Munchkin game is the guy who at the _beginning_ shows up with the
+100 sword of dlaughtering anything, or who does neet things in Champions
like a nuclear blast bought on one charge.
I don't consider there to be an inherint dichotomy between player goals,
character goals, and the GM's goals. if there is, there probably is some
level of discomfort in the game: ' "I want to have a heroic, light and
funny character" "No! I want you characters to be grim and dragged through
the slime!"' or '"I want a comedy four-color game" "Uhhhh...i want to bring
in a killing machine...but he can kill with laughter see...."'
A lot of that can be cleared up by getting it straight with the GM before the
game. As long as you know what your getting into....
Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
I read the section on familiers. Looked at my cat. "Why can't you do all
that neat stuff?" I just couldnt give him an answer, either.
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Yoshitoshi
: In article <3pfrn0$a...@crl3.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) wrote:
:
: I tend to think of dice as most useful for adjucating details that I
: don't care to think about too much in detail. Specifically, combat is one
: of them. I am still trusting something, however. I'm not trusting the dice
: as much as I'm trusting all the players to be able to pull a decent story
: out of the result of a string of really wacked rolls.
Boy, am I glad to see that I'm not the only one <g>.
: --
: Francis Hwang
: Editor, The Idolum Quarterly
: hwan...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Abayo,
- Dorian
A pine-cricket/ All in vain is chirping now/ In my weed-grown house.
(Shohaku 1443-1527)
Andrew Finch
: The change was phenominal. The only rule system they had for dice was
: what they made up out of their heads (as far as I could tell, just
: high=good), but it was enough: they were cooperative, they behaved
: themselves and they had fun. I even witnessed the spark of roleplaying
: (or at least histrionics) in them a few times. Yet, when the weekend was
: over, their afternoons were again filled with their shouting, punching
: D&D games. Eventually, just to preserve my sanity, I let them keep their
: dice in the equipment lockers, so they would never again have to resolve
: the issue of "railroading" with a punch to the kidneys.
And what does this anecdote teach us? That adolescents should play with
dice. They're good for containing part of the game and teaching
adolescents things they need to learn at that age. They mediate
cooperation.
When I first rode a bike, I used training wheels. They would only slow me
down now. It's a growth path.
David
Andrew Finch
: > What else could it possibly be? I think very few people, with the
: > exception of roleplayers, would have a problem classifying the behavior
: > as psychological in nature.
: Er... It could possibly be entertainment
Entertainment? O.K. What's enjoyable about entertainment?
: story telling
O.K. What's fun about story telling?
: a tactical exercise
Usually called a wargame. Yes, many RPGs are used this way. Not what I
prefer, but perfectly valid. What's so interesting about a tactical exercise?
: of mates meet for a beer, an excuse to brag about the length of your
: penis, a form of shamanic inititiation, a training ground for hack
: fantasy writers, a means of exploring and experiencing different
: cultures, a device for teaching people about medieval economincs,
: a device for teaching people how to speak a new language, a method
: of indoctrinating and educating people about black magic, a method
: of indoctrinating and educating people about Christianity. That's
: off the top of my head, you understand. All positions that I have
: heard seriously put forward.
I agree with them all, but would ask the same question of each. We don't
do something 'because it's fun', things are fun because they have some
meaning. I wish to explore that meaning.
: > However, roleplay is 'psychic' exploration, to differentiate from the
: > merely hylic, or even pnuematic.
: Andrew,
It's David.
: the use of obscure vocabulary doesn't help your argument. It makes you
: look ridiculous.
Oh, sorry. I'll user smaller words. Or shall I just speak more slowly.
: I am not sure what "psychic" means, as opposed
: to "psychological" - the word is only in common use to refer to supposed
: paranormal mental powers, which is not, I assume, what you mean.
It's Greek, and pertains to the Psyche, which in the Gnostic formulation
is the driving force of life, ie. the breath of God. Roleplay is all of
the things you mentioned above because it has fairly deep psychological
and personal meanings to those who engage in it. Or they wouldn't do it.
I think it's a valid question to ask what aspects of RPG design have in
common with the various personal meanings and uses RPGs have. It seems
silly to deny the connection, since although you can get any type of
game from any rules, people interested in certain types of games
gravitate to different rules systems, and these systems seem to have some
important connotations to the people who use them. Even people who use no
system seem to stand by that decision vigorously. A lot of 'psychic'
energy there. It seems the sort of question a writer for IF might be
interested in, rather than going to great lengths to prove that it's
meaningless claptrap that shouldn't be asked.
: "Pneumatic"
: means pertaining to the air or the spirit, and is usually used to refer to
: ecstatic religious experiences. (Someone who got converted at a Billy Graham
: meeting might be said to have had a "pneumatic" experience.)
Of the spirit, rather than the soul (which would be psychic). The
pneumatic was all that teh Archon Sophia could give to Adam, the first
man, who crawled in the mud until God took pity and gave him the breath
of true life, a soul. MAn and the world are premature and flawed
creations in this cosmology.
: I have never
: before heard the word "hylic." I would venture to say that I am of
: above average education. My guess, from context, would be that you mean
: "Roleplay is about exploring the mind at a deep level (psychic) as opposed
: to exploring the conscious mind (hylic) or of having religious experiences."
: Am I right? If not, then you have not argued your case clearly.
Close. The Hylic is the case matter of earth. I used 'psychic' to
differentiate roleplay, which I believe to be a psychic experience, from
say, watching an Arnold film, which I would classify as cathartic, but
'pnuematic', from say, eating cotton candy at a amusement park, which I
would say was normally 'hylic' in nature.
Now you may agree, or disagree, but if you understood those
differentiations, then maybe I'm not such a fool after all.
: > A social element, but not a psychological one? Group dynamics, self
: > expression, role analysis, personal growth, social functioning, family
: > dynamics, etc.
: Ha. You know very well what I meant. "For most people, roleplaying is
: an excuse to do something entertaining with their friends, not to explore
: their own minds."
I fully disagree. There's a social stigma about self-exploration, but why
the choice of roleplay as fun? Many ropleplayers are socially stigmatized,
although this is changing as the hobby expands, but it is still present.
The psychological connotations seem obvious enough. Roleplay helps us
integrate poorly explored aspects of self, which is why it's fun. That's
why adolescents play an adolescent sort of RPG (not dealing with mechanics
yet). That's why most of the angry people I've met want confrontational
games, etc. As the stigma of the hobby eases, it draws more people in,
for the same reasons we see plays, read books, and watch movies. They are
fun in a personally engaging, emotionally activating, psychologically
powerful way.
Leary once said that students should be required to show a good cause for
the removal of mind altering books from the school library, in parody of
Havard's then policy on acid experiments in the psychology department.
: Undoubtedly a psychologist would have things to say
: about how that entertaining something works, but to say that a psycholgist
: could usefully investigate role-playing is very different from saying
: that roleplaying is psychological investigation!
Roleplay. Look at the word. Take it apart. It's psychological in meaning
and intent.
: I would certainly call most games of Toon that I have played a light
: hearted spoof without social relevance, yes.
Cartoons were created, the good ones that is, with a lot of social
relevance. Yes, they're art, and so is agoo dgame of Toon. Maybe only
pneumatic though.
: > D&D is logical positivist to the core. So are most games by FGU, as much
: > as I like them. Hero, as much as I like it.
: You are being awkward, here, aren't you. Please explain, clearly,
: for the benefit of those of us who only have post graduate qualifications,
: how and in what way these games exhibit "logical positivist" characteristics;
: starting off by explaining what you mean by "logical positivism."
I'll let logical positivist stand, because it's shorter that way.
D&D breaks everything down by clear quantifications and models. The
entire thing. Very little if anything is trusted to subjective
interpretation. Character creation, at least by the die rolling method,
almost assumes a tabula rasa charater. The character is created from the
quantifications, rather than the quantifications being some rough and
incomplete description of the character.
More?
David
Andrew Finch
: Ha.
Ha?
: or Luke. (The theory is that "Matthew" compile his gospel from two documents
: - what we call "Mark's Gospel" and a lost book scholars call "Q".) The idea
: that you have been reading "Q" as well as the Bible is actually rather funny.
Except of course that certain Gnostic scholars believe they have found
someof the Q aources, especially since they dat from the right time,
there are sections which appear in the Bible nearly unaltered, and many
sections which do not appear at all, but they are given as sayings and
anechdotes of Christ. They are very interesting reading material.
: In any case, the story of the Last Supper isn't in the "Q" material,
: since it appears in all the synoptic gospels.
Christ didn't develop( or maybe he did, but I hope not) an entirely new
philosphical construct for that moment. I assume the meaning is an
extension of the previous message. Goofy, I know.
: I confess to not knowing all that much about the gnostic liturgy,
: but I find it difficult to believe that they were interested in something
: as mundane as betrayal and martyrdom. Which paprys in particular were
: you referring to?
They were very much interested in betrayal, maryrdom, and ressurection.
I'll refer you to the Pistis Sophia, the Book of Enoch, and the
Apocryphon of John.
: I'm not going to embark on a detailed discussion of the Sacrament here.
: Suffice it to say that there are a number of different views of it:
Good, and yes.
: in Matthew's gospel (presumably what you had in mind when you referred to
: Q) Jesus says "This blood is the new covenant in my blood, poured out
: for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins." (I shan't
: even get into the eucharistic passages in the Fourth Gospel.) I find
: your assertion that the matter is quite settled, that the Catholics
: have always been wrong, and it is obvious that when Christ talked
: about sealing the covenant with his blood he meant something quite different
: to be rather superficial and ill-informed.
Something different than the belief in transubstantiation as necessary
fact. Yes, I think so.
: It does not express it very well if people cannot understand it,
: and I have certainly never come across the word "theophagic" before.
: (I have a degree in English, and have read a fair bit of theology.)
: Therefore it didn't express it very well. And you shouldn't take
: offence at other people asking you to clarify what you meant.
I haven't taken offense at being asked for clarification.
: least." Fair enough. If the purpose of using vocabulary is to make
: you feel superior to me, then that is your perogative.
Certainly not the sole pupose. I think Kevin got the distinction I was
trying to make without too much fuss over the particulars of the religious
connotations.
: Er... You may have spotted that I am interested in religion. My question
: was "How is this relevant to the majority who are not." If, as I suspect,
: the answer is "not at all" then it does not strike me as a very useful
: axis to align RPGs along.
Obviously, not to you. I have answered as to why I think there is meaning
and useful exploration here. Take it or leave it. Your choice.
David
John H Kim
Mike Dalton's post, which was evidently a story of getting kids to try
ruleless play (?) -- but they uncontrollably switched back to dice-using
D&D play.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>And what does this anecdote teach us? That adolescents should play with
>dice. They're good for containing part of the game and teaching
>adolescents things they need to learn at that age. They mediate
>cooperation.
>
>When I first rode a bike, I used training wheels. They would only slow me
>down now. It's a growth path.
Hmmm. I'm still confused on this issue.
I am quite certain that diceless, ruleless play is practiced
heavily among pre-adolescents. At least in my case, this continued
well into my introduction to formal RPG's. My friends and I would still
play diceless games involving our D&D or Champions characters. They
were silly and wild flights of fancy, in general. Should we have been
using dice, in your psychological opinion?
Really, I don't see any clear progression here. Is learning to
use dice a growth path, and then learning to do without them again
another growth path? Perhaps there is another growth path of learning
to use the dice after you have given them up? Or is diceless play
really a retreat towards pre-adolescent simplicity? @-)
-*-*-*-
Perhaps I'm odd here, but in retrospect on my own childhood I
see a progression from freeform fantasies to more structured games,
including mechanics. As I said, early games were very much communal
fantasies -- getting lots of treasure and adoring women were a natural
feature.
We slowly started putting depth into the games -- architecture
to the dungeons; back stories on the _Champions_ villians; etc. Somewhere
in high school I got around to believable, human characters.
When I went to college, the big step was having worlds with
detailed history, cosmology, religion, and more -- independent of the
current adventure.
-*-*-*-
Do other people see a clear progression to diceless games?
Personally, I see it as a growing niche at the moment -- it has been
around a while, but it is gaining popularity. I know a number of people
who have been "converted" to diceless games, but I also know people who
experienced it and went back to their dice-using rule systems.
Douglas L. Vandenburgh
<cute anecdote snipped>
: And what does this anecdote teach us? That adolescents should play with
: dice. They're good for containing part of the game and teaching
: adolescents things they need to learn at that age. They mediate
: cooperation.
: When I first rode a bike, I used training wheels. They would only slow me
: down now. It's a growth path.
*giggle* If Dave's ego gets any bigger, they're gonna give it a zip code.
- Doug
Andrew Finch
: Hmmm. As I understand it, "psychology" is the study of human
: behavior. What sort of behavior is *not* psychological in nature?
None. However, there are more orless applicable behaviors for study.
: Is roleplay "more psychological" than other behaviors? What would that
: mean?
Yes. It means that there are deeper associations with the structure of
self, learning, role definement, etc. Children roleplay to learn how to
be adults. People roleplay all the time to figure out what situations
they have not encountered will be like, and what they should do. Same
thing in other words. Roleplay is self exploration, and self integration.
Adolescents integrate becoming adults, having power, dealing with
authority, etc. Less magical and more subtle than the play of children.
Adults play some very subtle games. They play them with different roles.
The one for office politics, the one for Saturday nigh out, and the
various caps they try on in roleplaying games. What do they mean? Why is
it fun? What does that mean for roleplaying game design?
Yes, I think psychology is a useful tool in designing a psychological
game, which is becoming more and more appropriate as RPGs distance
themselves from pure tactical simulations. And I think the wish for a
closer association with such tactical simulations has psychological
determinants as well.
I'm proposing theories which have some basis in accepted study and
experimentation. I'm proposing some theories out of my own philosophical
beliefs, and attempting to provide some substantiation for them. I'm
asking a few questions.
: I believe the main issue which Andrew was complaining about was
: your use of confusing terminology and statements in the discussion.
To get into the discussion I would really be interested in would require
the free use of a lot of heavily laden words. The ones people can argue
over forever, or use and come to terms with in all their connotations.
: -*-*-*-
: For example, I am still confused by your characterization of
: dice-using games as "adolescent" (in some psychological sense?) as
: opposed to diceless games as "mature". What does this mean?
That diced games provide mediation mechanisms for things which are
difficult to handle at an adolescent stage of life, so that attention may
be focused on the issues which need to be resolved then.
For an adult, the issues and necessities are entirely different, and I
think another type of game is more appropriate, or rather, that an adult
*can* get more out of a different format.
: In my experience, diceless role-playing seems extremely common
: in pre-adolescence and early adolescence. At first, I and my friends
: used role-playing games in much the same manner as less formal games
: of make-believe -- acting out fantasies (without using dice or rules).
Yes. In pre-adolescence deffinitely. But there were problems. Who died
when who got shot. These worked out latency aged issues (latency is the
age from about 8 to 11 years old). Adolescenst are not so much concerned
with who dies, as how to live. They are engaged in tactical fights which
will hold them in good stead in adulthood, after they learn to use them
with subtlety, just as the lessons of the latency period will as well.
Adolescents are engaged in learning what it is to be powerful, unique,
and alone. They are learning to break away from authority figures, and
yet cope with the demands of responsibility. Dice handle mediation and a
'fair' playing field, and 'fairness' is very important to adolescents.
Adults have matured with most of these issues, and are learning subtle
things about themselves, about how to live in a competitive world and be
happy, and about deeper human relationships. Fairness is something you
trust to friends, and communicate openly about when there is a problem.
How you live has become almost more important than what you gain (not
that D&D bases experience on material gains, which is an adolescent
view).
I'm asking what these bits point to in RPG design, if anything. Or
rather, I've put forward conjectures, and am listening for responses.
David
Carl Perkins
}
}These, to start with.
Pardoning me for butting in, but...
}"What is historical or theological source for your unsubstantiated assertions
}about the origin and meaning of Holy Communion?"
Well, none of course. Why would anybody need sources for *unnsubstantiated*
assertions?
}"Why do you couch it in such deliberately obscure language?"
Becasue the chair was already occupied?
}"How would a game based on the assumption that the Eucharist is a
}commemorative act differ from one based on the assumption that
}the elements become the literal body and blood of Christ?"
Well, there would be a lot less canibalism. Except maybe in the Navy.
}"Can you give examples of games that fall into each catergory?"
Bingo?
}"What is the relevence of this to the majority of gamers who are not Christian,
}nor very interested in religious issues?"
}--
}Andrew Rilstone
"I thought everybody was supposed to strive for the utmost accuracy in their
role-playing and religion was a major part of medieval life"?
Or maybe not.
--- Carl
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 19 May 1995, Andrew Finch wrote:
> Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>
> : > Theory is meaningless without evidence.
I did NOT write this--Bryan Malony did. I am not, for reasons I will be
happy to discuss off this board (it being a tangential subject) a logical
positivist, or even a Humean empiricist.
> Evidence is meaningless withot theory.
I could not agree with you more--indeed, I would want to make this
statement stronger: theory defines the terms that permit the
categorization and interpretation of evidence.
Best,
Kevin
David A Bonar
: d...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Nalle) wrote:
: >Interesting question. I think that I'm much more picky as a player. I'm
: >willing to GM almost any setting and a wide variety of game systems, but as
: >a player there are only two or three games I think are worth my while and
: >I have definite setting preferences. This might have something to do with
: >not getting to play nearly as often as aI GM, and therefore wanting my
: >play time to be optimized.
: Actually, I agree with Dave. I am much less picky as a GM than as a player.
: I tend to see my role as GM as being much more of a host or entertainer to my players, and thus feel like their desires in a game te=
: nd to shape mine. Plus, I GM more often. I am picky about the games I play, however, and want one that gives me enough lattitude and=
: meat to keep me interested.
I'm the opposite. I'll play many games in many genres (although
it would take a lot to get me into a WW game). But if I'm going to put
the energy into GMing I must be working with a game/world/genre that I
like.
Dave
J. Thaddeus Klopcic
On Tue, 23 May 1995, Bryan Maloney wrote:
> >>>: : > Theory is meaningless without evidence.
> >>
> >>>: Evidence is meaningless withot theory.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Argument is meaningless without content.
> >>
> >> Content is meaningless without presentation.
> >>
> > Presentation is meaningless without an audience.
>
> An audience is meaningless without an event.
Hey, we're getting back to the "RPG defined by Theatrical Terms"
discussion which my newsserver managed to snarf up. To sum up, if you
want to analyse a RPG session as Theatre, who's the audience? Who are
the actors? Where/what is the stage? Script? Fun things to ponder in
the shower or wherever you do your deep thinking.
JTK
Francis P. Hwang
> Andrew Rilstone (And...@aslan.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : These, to start with.
>
> : "What is historical or theological source for your unsubstantiated
assertions
> : about the origin and meaning of Holy Communion?"
>
> What? That it was a metaphor for betrayal and martyrdom? That assersion?
> As opposed to your metaphor for Christ's sacrificial death? I think they
> both come from the same place. The Bible. For me, the Q sources as well,
> and the Naag Hamadi writings.
You know, we could hem and haw about worldviews all day, but the bottom
line is that for Catholics, the Communion is not symbolic for anything, it
simply is part of the ultimate truth. The Eucharist quite literally
becomes the body & blood of Christ when ingested, and essentially means
nothing outside of itself. (Andrew, please correct me if I'm
oversimplifying.) For others, it seems to be a more vaguely symbolic
issue, a reference to a greater issue of truth-seeking, and not the final
truth in and of itself.
This certainly makes an interesting debate, but 1) It's hardly the kind
of debate that ever gets settled, and 2) To base a very complicated,
under-explained argument on one side of it presumes a lot about the
beliefs of your target audience. The generally atheistic character of the
role-playing community notwithstanding, Andrew's presence alone proves
that such a presumption is wrong.
In article <801253...@aslan.demon.co.uk>, And...@aslan.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <3prapr$c...@crl6.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com "David Berkman" writes:
> > : If we accept that your theory that roleplay "is" psychic exploration, I
> > : still do not think that you have advanced one iota in explaining what
> > : a "logical postivist" game (for example) might be like.
> >
> > D&D is logical positivist to the core. So are most games by FGU, as much
> > as I like them. Hero, as much as I like it.
>
> You are being awkward, here, aren't you. Please explain, clearly,
> for the benefit of those of us who only have post graduate qualifications,
> how and in what way these games exhibit "logical positivist" characteristics;
> starting off by explaining what you mean by "logical positivism."
Hear, hear. I'd actually be willing to hear what you have to say about
this, but please don't start dropping neologisms when you run out of
things to say - it's just makes discussion more frustrating.
Bryan Maloney
>> However, roleplay is 'psychic' exploration, to differentiate from the
>> merely hylic, or even pnuematic.
>paranormal mental powers, which is not, I assume, what you mean. "Pneumatic"
>means pertaining to the air or the spirit, and is usually used to refer to
>ecstatic religious experiences. (Someone who got converted at a Billy Graham
Actually, "pneumatic" is USUALLY used to refer to "inflated by air pressure",
as in "pneumatic tire", "pneumatic jack", "pneumatic brakes". Thus, he must
obviously be referring to people who puff up their cheeks like bullfrogs for
entertainment instead of roleplaying.
Andrew Rilstone
(My list of possible things that RPGS could be)
> I agree with them all, but would ask the same question of each. We don't
> do something 'because it's fun', things are fun because they have some
> meaning. I wish to explore that meaning.
I certainly agree that "fun" is not irreducible, and that the question
"Why is this fun?" is one worth asking. (See my editorial in the
first issue of *IF*, for example.) I do not think that it is
in any way self evident that the fun in all RPGs can be reduced to
"exploring the psyche", let alone that exploring the psyche is
what role-playing "is".
You vacillate rather badly here. One minute you say that *one*
of the things roleplaying *can* be is "psychic investigation"; the
next, that (at a fundemental level) that is what it always is. I agree
strongly with the former, and disagree with the latter.
> : Andrew,
>
> It's David.
Sorry. The "Andrew Finch says" at the top of your message confused me.
(My complaint about the use of the word hylic.)
> Oh, sorry. I'll user smaller words. Or shall I just speak more slowly.
Off you go again. I must be stupid, because I don't follow your
obscurely worded argument. I wasn't complaining about the use
of long words, as you well know: I was complaining about the
use of technical words without explanation.
According to Phil Masters "hylic" has a technical meaning relevant
only to the study of "gnostic theology". I have not studied gnostic
theology. Many people reading this probably don't know who the gnostics
were. It is plain good manners to explain your terms as you go along.
(Meaning of "Psychic"?)
> It's Greek, and pertains to the Psyche, which in the Gnostic formulation
> is the driving force of life, ie. the breath of God.
Right, so you were not only using obscure vocabularly, but using
it in a non-standard way. We could only have picked up that "psyche"
meant "driving force of life" if we knew that what you were talking
about was gnosticism. Which I, at any rate, didn't.
> Roleplay is all of
> the things you mentioned above because it has fairly deep psychological
> and personal meanings to those who engage in it. Or they wouldn't do it.
Write out 1000 times: assertion is not argument, assertion is not argument.
You can *assert* that people play games because of their deep psychological
meanings from now until doomsday, and that won't make it true. Would
a little evidence really be too much to ask for?
> I think it's a valid question to ask what aspects of RPG design have in
> common with the various personal meanings and uses RPGs have.
Agreed. I disagree with your conclusions and your rhetoric, not
with your project.
> energy there. It seems the sort of question a writer for IF might be
> interested in, rather than going to great lengths to prove that it's
> meaningless claptrap that shouldn't be asked.
Please introduce me to the IF writer who said that the question was
meaningless claptrap that shouldn't be asked. I think that a straw
doll would make an interesting contributor.
An article entitled "Gnostic Mysticism and Roleplaying Design" would
certainly get a sympathetic reading if it landed on my desk (particular
in the light of the explicitly gnostic games like Kult and Nephilim.)
But the writer would be expected to conform to our writers' guidelines -
aim your article at intelligent non specialists. By all means talk
about post-structuralism or Chinese Jam Making if it is relevent,
but explain your terms for the benefit of people who are from different
backgrounds.
> I fully disagree. There's a social stigma about self-exploration, but why
> the choice of roleplay as fun?
Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear it enough. I think that one of the things
that RPGs sometimes are is self-exploration, but I reject your generalistion
that that is all they ever are. I am not aware of any social stigma attached
to self exploration (I thought that in the US, psychotherapy was rather
fashionable?), and I was certainly not trying to discount this possibility
to evade the stigma. I merely query your very far fetched generalisations.
I think that bringing in "social stigma" is a rhetorical device, implying
that disagreeing with you somehow makes me a traitor.
> Roleplay. Look at the word. Take it apart. It's psychological in meaning
> and intent.
No, it isn't. "Role" the part taken on my an actor. "Play" to take
part in a game, or a sport, or to take on an imaginary part in a play.
The word was coined by a psychologist, but it doesn't follow
from that that all RPGs are psychological in their nature. Once again,
I am arguing only against your reductionism, your one-true-wayism, you
arrogance. I fully accept and believe that the psychological element in
some RPGs is one of the many things that makes them rewarding.
> D&D breaks everything down by clear quantifications and models. The
> entire thing. //comments on D&D deleted//
I dunno if that is the same as being "logical postivist", but
it is certainly a fair critique of some forms of D&D.
Andrew Rilstone
> Except of course that certain Gnostic scholars believe they have found
> someof the Q aources, especially since they dat from the right time,
> there are sections which appear in the Bible nearly unaltered, and many
> sections which do not appear at all, but they are given as sayings and
> anechdotes of Christ. They are very interesting reading material.
Assuming that this is true (and "gnostic scholarship" includes a lot
of crackpots) you've done your normal stunt of misusing language. I
have read the standard works on the composition of the New Testament,
and understand the meaning of "Q" from them. If you want to use
it in a quite different context, then you should say that that is
what you are doing. e.g "The Bible and the Gnostic documents which
some scholars think may be the source of some passages"
Not having seen the writings of the scholars you refer to, I have
no idea if there is evidence that a document corresponding to
"Q" may actually have been found. But your habit of presenting
contentious theories as if they were accepted facts is childish
and pretentious.
> Christ didn't develop( or maybe he did, but I hope not) an entirely new
> philosphical construct for that moment. I assume the meaning is an
> extension of the previous message. Goofy, I know.
I don't understand what point you are making, here. You seemed to me
to be saying that the original version of the Last Supper was to be
found in a (conjectural) text which didn't contain the story of the
Last Supper. This is clearly nonsense. Please clarify your terms.
> They were very much interested in betrayal, maryrdom, and ressurection.
> I'll refer you to the Pistis Sophia, the Book of Enoch, and the
> Apocryphon of John.
I'll look them up. Enoch is a pre-Christian text though, isn't it? I hope
you aren't using "Gnostic" and "Apocryphal" interchangably.
(Sniping deleted.)
Questions of Church history apart, I still await your explanation
of what relevance this has to rolegame design with considerable
interest.
Bryan Maloney
>things about themselves, about how to live in a competitive world and be
>happy, and about deeper human relationships. Fairness is something you
>trust to friends, and communicate openly about when there is a problem.
And this has nothing to do with why I use a dice-using set of rules in my
RuneQuest campaign. I don't use the dice to be fair, I use the dice because
our group has agreed that dice are FUN. We have all had experience with
diceless gaming, and all agree that it's fine, but it's like wine and beer.
Some people like beer more than wine, and verse-visa [sic]. Imputing
lack of "maturity" onto the beer or wine camp as the determinative factor
in this preference is hightly questionable, however you define "maturity".
I will grant that it may be possible, in the scientific sense of "it may be
possible" (meaning, there is no good evidence against it at the moment,
but not necessarily any solid evidence for it), that "adolescents", defined
as "people who are in a specific developmental stage in which they are
beginning to realize their autonomy and leave a completely dependent
client status in relationship to authority behind for a full membership
in society but are still in transit between the full-client status and true
autonomy", may feel more comfortable with a set of objective mechanics,
in that these can be referred to upon times of disagreement.
Now, does it necessarily follow that ALL people who prefer games with
objective mechanics must, therefore, be "adolescent", even in the
relatively value-neutral sense given above?
All cats are Order Carnivora.
Therefore, all member of Order Carnivora are cats?
>How you live has become almost more important than what you gain (note
>that D&D bases experience on material gains, which is an adolescent
>view).
Fine, I will grant this for "D&D". Now, what is your evidence to extend
your reasoning to a more general position?
>I'm asking what these bits point to in RPG design, if anything. Or
>rather, I've put forward conjectures, and am listening for responses.
You have put forward conjecture, I am asking for a clarification of your
conjecture. Is an adolescent stage of development, or the desire to
"play at being a boy again" the ONLY motivation for preferring one
set of mechanics over another? What is your evidence for your
answer?
Kevin Mowery
: Ah, so are you then stating that anybody who uses dice is in a state of
: arrested development?
: Can you give evidence for your mass "diagnosis"?
Jeez, check out the use of terms like "hylic" and "pneumatic" (in
it's Gnostic sense, of course) elsewhere in the discussion. Someone with
such an obscure vocabulary, meaningless to 99% of the population doesn't
need evidence, as is made obvious by the lack of any evidence.
Apparently, these arguments stand up merely by being stated and coming
from the folks at backstage.com... ;)
: Is the governing board of your profession aware of your incredible
: abilities of diagnosis, across the world, without ever meeting thousands
: of those you have diagnosed?
In my opinion, as a semi-professional curmudgeon, I'd say that
we're dealing with one of two instances:
a) either backstage.com has a couple of godlike intelligences
posting from the site, fit to make pronouncements about the entire
roleplaying community and equate the act of roleplaying to a Gnostic
psychological exploration based upon theoretical lost sources of the
Bible. If we can't follow their arguments, it's only because we are mere
mortals trying to understand supreme beings. They won't offer any proof
for their arguments because proof denies faith.
b) we have the authors of a diceless game based on a specific
theory of screenwriting touting diceless games and their own theories, and
retreating into pointless jargon and obfuscation when questioned.
Hm, this looks sort of like a multiple-choice question, so I'll
add a third possibility:
c) everyone on this newsgroup is stupid. Arguments based on the
meanings of words not used in 100 years are actually very frequent in the
modern world, we just don't have the capacity to realize it. Rolling dice
is commonly accepted as a psychological substitute for fondling the male
sexual organs upon the advent of physical maturity, and once the
adolescent stage has passed we'll all feel no need to use dice because
we're confident in our manhood, but we were all out that day in Psych class.
Well, as an avowed atheist, I obviously don't believe that 'a' is
the case. And I never missed a day of Psych class, so 'c' is out.
--
Kevin Mowery --- kemo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This calls for a special blend of psychology and extreme violence."
--Vyvyan, "The Young Ones"
John H Kim
[re: games of make-believe]
>
>Yes. In pre-adolescence deffinitely. But there were problems. Who died
>when who got shot. These worked out latency aged issues (latency is the
>age from about 8 to 11 years old).
Ack - it must be the end of the world! David has defined one
of his terms. Head for the hills! @-)
-*-*-*-
But seriously - good going. My dictionary didn't list "hylic"
or "theophagy". It makes it much easier to communicate when you include
definitions like this.
Maybe next week we can start on "plot" again...
Bryan Maloney
>And what does this anecdote teach us? That adolescents should play with
>dice. They're good for containing part of the game and teaching
>adolescents things they need to learn at that age. They mediate
>cooperation.
>When I first rode a bike, I used training wheels. They would only slow me
>down now. It's a growth path.
Ah, so are you then stating that anybody who uses dice is in a state of
arrested development?
Can you give evidence for your mass "diagnosis"?
Is the governing board of your profession aware of your incredible