What the hell are you talking about?
Matthew Colville
Ok, what do all of you mean when you say "gamism" and what do you mean
when you say "simulationism?" Neither of them are words, so I can't look
them up.
And I don't need you to tell me to look at the FAQ. I want to know
what *you* think these tems mean. And by 'you' I mean 'anyone reading
this.'
Steven Howard
Actually, I don't know if "gamism" is even in the FAQ yet. At any rate,
that's a good question, since many people (including me) seem unclear
at times on exactly what they mean. This somewhat diminishes
their usefulness as jargon.
While heretics and freethinkers still abound, this is more-or-less current
doctrine, as I see it: There are (at least) three main approaches one can
take in running a role-playing game. These approaches include (but may
not be limited to) what we call "dramatism," "simulationism," and
"gamism". "Dramatism" is concerned with interesting stories.
"Simulationism" is concerned with verisimilitude. "Gamism" is
concerned with entertainment. These are, of course, gross over-
simplifications, but I think they're accurate, if imprecise.
Some people take the view that in an ideal game these three elements
will be balanced and no one goal will dominate. Others see this as an
impossible task, as the approaches often come into sharp conflict.
Those who value versimilitude very highly, ("simulationists") are often
especially reluctant to make decisions based on what would be
"interesting" or "fun," as opposed to what would "really happen."
Typically "dramatists" and "gamists" do not exhibit as strong an
aversion to the other "points of the triangle," probably because
verisimilitude is an important part of making a story interesting
or a game entertaining. With this in mind, somebody once suggested
characterizing the three approaches by their answer to the question
"When are you willing to break verisimilitude?" The "simulationist"
answer is "never." The "dramatist" answer is "When it will make
a better story." The "gamist" answer is "When it will make a
better game."
[Note to the humor-impaired: The first sentence of my second paragraph
above, the one that begins "While heretics . . . " is intended ironically
and was included solely for rhetorical effect. I am not seriously equating
the ongoing discussion here to an attempt to impose a religious
orthodoxy.]
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word like "euphemism" doing in a sentence like this?
Mark Apolinski
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
> Ok, what do all of you mean when you say "gamism" and what do you mean
> when you say "simulationism?" Neither of them are words, so I can't look
> them up.
>
> And I don't need you to tell me to look at the FAQ. I want to know
> what *you* think these tems mean. And by 'you' I mean 'anyone reading
> this.'
Everybody means something different. There is no agreement as to
definitions.
Mark
Matthew Colville
In article <33C919...@ix.netcom.com.spam>, Mark Apolinski
<apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> wrote:
So are you saying that *you* don't have an idea in *your head* about
what these terms mean? When you say them, they mean nothing?!
How can this be?
Matthew Colville
In article <33c91...@news2.ibm.net>, bl...@ibm.net wrote:
> While heretics and freethinkers still abound, this is more-or-less current
> doctrine, as I see it: There are (at least) three main approaches one can
> take in running a role-playing game. These approaches include (but may
> not be limited to) what we call "dramatism," "simulationism," and
> "gamism". "Dramatism" is concerned with interesting stories.
> "Simulationism" is concerned with verisimilitude. "Gamism" is
> concerned with entertainment. These are, of course, gross over-
> simplifications, but I think they're accurate, if imprecise.
But what benefit is there in thinking this way? Aren't you just
picking different things that may or may not happen during a gaming
session and turning them into quasi-paradigms? Couldn't you just as
easily, and just as validly, talk about Munchists? People who think that
munchies are an important part of gaming? Or Florescists? People who
think that good lighting is important?
When *you* GM, don't you worry about how realistic things are? How
much fun everyone's having? That certain things happen for drama's sake?
But you don't only do one of these at a time, do you? You do all of them
all the time. Amoung hundreds of other things. Why pick *these* three as
somehow being definitive?
A friend of mine tries to float the idea that the only reason he plays
RPGs is because the rest of his friends do. I pointed out that he's
lying, he enjoys role-playing just like the rest of us. He admitted this,
and said something to the effect of "Yeah, but if it came down to
role-playing, or my friends, I'd pick my friends." At first, I thought,
'well, shit, I would too," but *then* I thought "but I really like
role-playing, so I'd still seek it out." THEN, finally, I thought, "why
am I bothering to ask this question? Of what *possible* value is it?"
In other words, like this discussion, it's utterly meaningless. We
role-play for the same reason we do anything; it makes us happy.
Happiness (as Aristotle said) is the only end which is not a means to some
other end. Trying to turn any of them into styles is like trying to
figure out which of my internal organs I'm fondest of.
Jim Henley
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
>Ok, what do all of you mean when you say "gamism" and what do you mean
>when you say "simulationism?" Neither of them are words, so I can't look
>them up.
>
>And I don't need you to tell me to look at the FAQ. I want to know
>what *you* think these tems mean. And by 'you' I mean 'anyone reading
>this.'
Actually, they _are_ both words, they just aren't in the dictionary, any
more than "phat" is probably in your dictionary.
But here goes. RPGs are games where players pretend to be characters in
a world.
"Simulationism" is an approach to RPGs that foregrounds the internal
consistency of the game world.
"Gamism" foregrounds those aspects of the process that are
characteristic of games in general. (For instance, the fact that the RPG
is rule-based, the pursuit of goals, the concept of fair play. This last
probably contains the others, in large part.)
"Dramatism" (you didn't ask -- it's a bonus) foregrounds the shapes that
player characters cut in the texture of the world -- IOW, their stories.
There you go. What *I* think those terms mean, with a free term thrown
in.
Best,
Jim
George W. Harris
In Sat, 12 Jul 1997 21:59:43 -0700 of yore, mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew
Colville) wrote thusly:
= Ok, what do all of you mean when you say "gamism" and what do you mean
=when you say "simulationism?" Neither of them are words, so I can't look
=them up.
= And I don't need you to tell me to look at the FAQ. I want to know
=what *you* think these tems mean. And by 'you' I mean 'anyone reading
=this.'
I think they mean what it says they mean in the FAQ.
Go read it.
--
They say that there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For my actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
John S. Novak
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 11:06:26 -0700, Mark Apolinski
<apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> wrote:
>Everybody means something different. There is no agreement as to
>definitions.
A distinguishing feature of this newsgroup.
A feature not unlike a bug...
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
Jered Moses
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
> But what benefit is there in thinking this way? Aren't you just
>picking different things that may or may not happen during a gaming
>session and turning them into quasi-paradigms?
Because, contrary to what you apparently believe, many of us here try
to stress some or another of these facets above others. In other
words, a GM might be characterized by his/her answer to the following
questions:
1. If a situation arose in gameplay in which the only (game-world-
wise) "realistic" resolution is anticlimactic or otherwise undramatic,
would you allow it to occur anyway?
2. If a situation arose in gameplay in which the only (game-world-
wise) "realistic" resolution violated some aspect of the game-as-game
(e.g., it caused PC's of disparate focus, or created an "unwinnable
scenario"), would you allow it to occur anyway?
3. If a situation arose in gameplay in which the only game-balanced
resolution was anticlimactic or otherwise undramatic, would you allow
it to occur anyway?
You seem to imply that the proper answer to any of these questions is
"It depends." In most of my campaigns--and there are others here who
feel this way, like Warren, I think--the answer we would ALWAYS give
to 1 & 2 is "Yes." (We would probably answer "it depends" to #3,
though I don't know as much about Warren's preference here.)
Now, as it turns out, a lot of people here ALSO seem to believe that
this distinction really only makes sense from the "simulationist"
perspective--that is, that the only of the three which can be applied
exclusively is simulationism. (You cannot, in other words, have a
good drama OR a good game if there is NO sense of game-world
causality.) While I think there are a few genres which violate this
rule, I think it does apply in general.
If this is indeed the case, then you are probably NOT viewing things
from a simulationist perspective. Which is, of course, fine. But
there ARE those of us who think that simulationism can be applied
exclusively, without the use of drama or gamism, and who actually
prefer to run this way (or as close to it as possible) in practice.
For us, then, "striking a balance" between various elements of
game-play is NOT a desirable goal.
If you'd been around five years ago when Berkman happened along and
began all this mess, you'd understand why the classifications arose.
:) As it is, let's just say that some of us find them useful
distinctions to make; if they don't seem useful outside of the narrow
context of this forum, then don't take them there....
--Jered
(The Artist Formerly Known as Kid Kibbitz)
--
"From childhood's hour I have not been | |
As others were -- I have not seen | "Alone," a poem by | je...@purdue.edu
As others saw -- I could not bring | Edgar Allen Poe |
My passions from a common spring." | |
Jim Henley
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
> In other words, like this discussion, it's utterly meaningless. We
> role-play for the same reason we do anything; it makes us happy.
> Happiness (as Aristotle said) is the only end which is not a means to some
> other end. Trying to turn any of them into styles is like trying to
> figure out which of my internal organs I'm fondest of.
As they say on the politics NGs: Bzzt! Thank you for playing! Evidence
flies in the face of your conclusions.
Yes we role-play to make us happy. More accurately, we role-play for the
purpose of wish-fulfillment. But we ain't all got the same wishes and we
don't all get happy over the same things. A game that I might enjoy
might drive Doug Lampert crazy. Some of the reasons for that accord very
well with questions of style or stance. What the occasional "I am so
much wiser than the rest of you" poster seems not to realize is that
nobody founded this NG for the purpose of discussing dramatism,
simulationism and gamism. These terms arose through serious discussion
of role-playing issues because the people involved in that discussion
found that 1) Style was important; 2) Style seemed classifiable; 3) The
known styles seemed to have analogs in non-RPG media.
Attempts to codify the meaning of those terms have been no more nor less
vexed than attempts to codify the meaning of any number of critical
terms. I have practically gotten into arm-wrestling matches with RL
people over how certain lines of certain poems should be scanned. The
fact that there was disagreement among knowledgeable people does not
mean that scansion itself is utterly meaningless.
These stance discussions actually have practical value. I made a bad
decision just Thursday night that, thanks to spending too much time with
this newsgroup, I was able to realize had been made for gamist reasons
that I didn't want to have sway in this particular campaign. Since I'm
playing with some brand-new players, not just to this game but to RPGs,
it helps to be able to see that one of them looks like a budding
simulationist. From reading the posts of simulation advocates in this NG
I can make a provisional start on understanding what he is and isn't
likely to enjoy as the campaign continues.
So assuming Aristotle is right about happiness, thinking in terms of
what you malign as "style" is a powerful _means_ to that ultimate end.
Oh -- favorite organ? My heart. I wouldn't go anywhere without it. Not
that the analogy is any good.
Best,
Mark Apolinski
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
> In article <33c91...@news2.ibm.net>, bl...@ibm.net wrote:
> > While heretics and freethinkers still abound, this is more-or-less current
> > doctrine, as I see it: There are (at least) three main approaches one can
> > take in running a role-playing game. These approaches include (but may
> > not be limited to) what we call "dramatism," "simulationism," and
> > "gamism". "Dramatism" is concerned with interesting stories.
> > "Simulationism" is concerned with verisimilitude. "Gamism" is
> > concerned with entertainment. These are, of course, gross over-
> > simplifications, but I think they're accurate, if imprecise.
>
> picking different things that may or may not happen during a gaming
> easily, and just as validly, talk about Munchists? People who think that
> munchies are an important part of gaming? Or Florescists? People who
> think that good lighting is important?
>
> When *you* GM, don't you worry about how realistic things are? How
> much fun everyone's having? That certain things happen for drama's sake?
> But you don't only do one of these at a time, do you? You do all of them
> all the time. Amoung hundreds of other things. Why pick *these* three as
> somehow being definitive?
>
> In other words, like this discussion, it's utterly meaningless. We
> role-play for the same reason we do anything; it makes us happy.
> Happiness (as Aristotle said) is the only end which is not a means to some
> other end. Trying to turn any of them into styles is like trying to
> figure out which of my internal organs I'm fondest of.
Congratulations!! This is the most intelligent statement I've heard on
this newsgroup in two years! I totally agree.
[about the terms 'gamist', 'simulationist' and 'dramatist' ] Mark
Apolinski wrote:
> > Everybody means something different. There is no agreement as to
> > definitions.
>
> So are you saying that *you* don't have an idea in *your head* about
> what these terms mean? When you say them, they mean nothing?!
>
> How can this be?
Because I don't think in the highly encapsulated form that these terms
suggest, as you imply above. When I decide things as a GM, what I
*really* do, what I think everyone here really does, is simply decide
things the best I can, trying to produce the 'best' possible results
that present themselves at the moment. Only after the fact, will I
quite naturally attempt to rationalize my decision. The truth is that
the decision is made from some kind of internal aesthetic that is by
necessity fuzzy. After years of GMing, this is simply the current state
of the trial-and-error process that we all go through in our attempts to
enjoy ourselves.
Trying to break up my decision process into these three terms produces
fuzzy edges; my internal thought processes don't separate this neatly.
I have several definitions for each term that are slightly different.
There's no easy answer. Sorry.
In one sense, 'simulationist' is someone who likes to run their games
like a computer simulation. The dice simply provide a simple mechanic
for determining what happens. In another sense, 'simulationist' means
someone who prefers a high degree of 'realism' in their games.
In one sense, 'gamist' means someone who isn't concerned with roleplay
as much as 'winning'. In another, it means someone who pays a lot of
attention to things like play balance, and fair challenges.
It seems like the stricter interpretations are more useful, IMO, in that
they don't blend together like the more 'mellow' definitions. (ie. I
could easily give an example of a game that is 'both' simulationist and
'gamist' according to the second definitions of each term.) Another
large problem is that it's very tempting to try to encapsulate
everything into a single term and thus be able to classify every game
into one of the three categories, not that that could really work.
Mark
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <mcolville-130...@1cust44.max1.los-angeles.ca.ms.uu.net> mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
> When *you* GM, don't you worry about how realistic things are? How
>much fun everyone's having? That certain things happen for drama's sake?
>But you don't only do one of these at a time, do you? You do all of them
>all the time. Amoung hundreds of other things. Why pick *these* three as
>somehow being definitive?
Here are two specific ways in which the model's been useful to me in
the game I'm currently running. If it's not useful to you, though,
please feel free to start another thread! Diversity is a virtue.
(1) My previous two attempts to run a game like "Honolulu" collapsed
miserably because they became no fun for me to run, and were not
really doing what the player wanted (colorful action) either. Around
the beginning of Honolulu I realized that this was because I was
trying to use what are, for me, purely simulationist world-design
methods to run a game that was not simulationist. I deliberately
designed the world differently, giving up some of my concerns with
having it be a living process, in return for getting something that
would work in a non-simulationist game. This steered the campaign
around the rocks that sunk its two predecessors.
(2) Early on in Honolulu I was trying to arrange things for more
drama, and the player seemed dissatisfied. Somewhere about the
point that the Threefold model came out (we'd been thinking in
terms of the old Twofold) I realized, based on the newsgroup
discussion, that I was making a mistake. I had assumed that
if I wasn't prioritizing sim I must be prioritizing drama; whereas
what was really needed was a priority on *game* values such
as well-matched combats in interesting locations. My player wasn't
primarily looking for drama, and it was a mistake to push
for it--in fact, it risked making the game over-dramatic and
turning him off.
Very possibly you'd have handled this situation easily without
ever needing to think about prioritizing game/sim/drama, but
for me it was a really useful tool. It's also been helpful
in understanding other peoples's styles. Coming to realize
that I regard breaking sim for game as more "neutral" than
breaking it for story, but Sarah and Irina are the reverse,
could prevent a lot of trouble when/if I come to actually game
with them.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <mcolville-120...@1cust121.max14.los-angeles.ca.ms.uu.net> mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
> Ok, what do all of you mean when you say "gamism" and what do you mean
Game-oriented: the group is concerned with issues such as fairness,
appropriate challenge, equality among players, progress towards player
goals, and "victory" (loosely defined). Not all groups will care about
all of these (equality among players is not an issue in our one-on-one
games, for example).
Simulation-oriented (world-oriented): the group is concerned with
fidelity to the game-world and the characters. A "strict simulationist"
group is concerned about these to the active exclusion of game and
story issues.
Drama-oriented (story-oriented): the group is concerned with getting
good stories out of the game, leading to concern with issues like
closure, not leaving important issues unexplored, avoiding anticlimax,
and so forth.
A game can have elements from more than one group. Pure drama-oriented
games are rare or non-existant, and pure game-oriented games tend to
be dismissed as "not roleplaying" (though I believe they do exist).
Pure simulation games are not unheard of, though they're not very
common; it seems to be the mode most prone to an exclusive "simulation
and nothing else" approach.
The closest thing to a single issue that reveals all three points that
I've been able to come up with:
There exists an NPC who might help the PCs win a fight easily which
would otherwise have been challenging. Should the GM allow this?
A game-values approach would ask "Would this make the game unchallenging
or unfair?" A world-value approach would ask "Is this what the
NPC would actually do?" A story-value approach would ask "Would this
make a good storyline?"
There's no problem when the answers are the same, but when they differ
(for example, you think the NPC *would* do this, but it would make for
an anticlimatic story and a dull game) you have to make a choice, and
the Threefold is a look at how we make such choices.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John H Kim
This regards the definition of "Gamist", which is a relatively
new term on this forum. To Matt Colville: personally I agree that
some of the discussions over terminology can get rather pointless.
On the other hand, as someone who has been on the forum a long time,
I think we are a lot better off having the terminology than doing
without it.
The usefulness of divisions like Drama/Simulation/Gamism is
that it lets us speak about differing priorities. In fact, no,
as GM's we don't all make our decisions in the same manner...
We don't give equal weight to questions like "Is this dramatic
enough?" and "Is that what would _really_ happen?"
-*-*-*-
"Gamism" is a rather new term, as I said. I support it based
on my observation of games -- but there is some disagreement over what
it covers. I view it specifically about the GM erecting challenges
for the *players* which they will try to overcome to the best of their
ability within the limits of what is acceptable. The obstacles, then,
should be ones which the players can overcome if they are clever but
are challenging enough to tax them.
Some other posters appear to have dubbed "Gamism" as a bit
of a catch-all: i.e. if anything is not directed towards making a
better story or a more "realistic" simulation, then is is Gamist.
I would prefer to keep a more narrow definition, that Gamism is
about the intellectual challenge of overcoming game obstacles.
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
> Game-oriented: the group is concerned with issues such as fairness,
> appropriate challenge, equality among players, progress towards
> player goals, and "victory" (loosely defined). Not all groups will
> care about all of these (equality among players is not an issue in
> our one-on-one games, for example).
Fair enough. Gamism can be about the individuals pursuing
different (but presumably related) goals, competing to succeed,
or cooperating to overcome obstacles. A classic of Gamism in
my mind is my old AD&D tournament modules where the players and/or
the group gain points for coming up with clever ideas (i.e.
"+5 points if the players figure out this puzzle").
-*-*-*-
>
>A game can have elements from more than one group. Pure drama-oriented
>games are rare or non-existant, and pure game-oriented games tend to
>be dismissed as "not roleplaying" (though I believe they do exist).
>Pure simulation games are not unheard of, though they're not very
>common; it seems to be the mode most prone to an exclusive "simulation
>and nothing else" approach.
Hmmm. It seems to me that strict drama-oriented games aren't
all that uncommon. I would put most of my one-shots in this
category, actually. They aren't really designed as that much of
a challenge... I try to ensure that the PC's will at least make
it through the sequence even if they aren't all that smart.
Technically I have used them in tournaments, which implies a
competition -- but the winner is determined by a vote amongst the
players.
The most common strict drama games I see are comedy-oriented,
i.e. games where laughs outweigh any realism and there isn't any
serious challenge. For example, I've seen _Paranoia_ and _Toon_
run this way frequently (in fact, I've never seen _Toon_ run
otherwise). This makes "Drama" a bit of a misnomer, but it's
still fundamentally about making an engaging tale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
Matthew Colville
In article <33CA34...@erols.com>, jlhe...@erols.com wrote:
> Matthew Colville wrote:
> >
> > In other words, like this discussion, it's utterly meaningless. We
> > role-play for the same reason we do anything; it makes us happy.
> > Happiness (as Aristotle said) is the only end which is not a means to some
> > other end. Trying to turn any of them into styles is like trying to
> > figure out which of my internal organs I'm fondest of.
>
> As they say on the politics NGs: Bzzt! Thank you for playing! Evidence
> flies in the face of your conclusions.
>
> Yes we role-play to make us happy. More accurately, we role-play for the
> purpose of wish-fulfillment.
Alright, if I must. . .
Why is wish fulfillment desireable?
Matthew Colville
In article <5qd8qi$m...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, je...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
(Jered Moses) wrote:
> mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>
> > But what benefit is there in thinking this way? Aren't you just
> >picking different things that may or may not happen during a gaming
> >session and turning them into quasi-paradigms?
>
> Because, contrary to what you apparently believe, many of us here try
> to stress some or another of these facets above others.
Why?
> In other
> words, a GM might be characterized by his/her answer to the following
> questions:
>
> 1. If a situation arose in gameplay in which the only (game-world-
> wise) "realistic" resolution is anticlimactic or otherwise undramatic,
> would you allow it to occur anyway?
>
> 2. If a situation arose in gameplay in which the only (game-world-
> wise) "realistic" resolution violated some aspect of the game-as-game
> (e.g., it caused PC's of disparate focus, or created an "unwinnable
> scenario"), would you allow it to occur anyway?
>
> 3. If a situation arose in gameplay in which the only game-balanced
> resolution was anticlimactic or otherwise undramatic, would you allow
> it to occur anyway?
>
> You seem to imply that the proper answer to any of these questions is
> "It depends." In most of my campaigns--and there are others here who
> feel this way, like Warren, I think--the answer we would ALWAYS give
> to 1 & 2 is "Yes." (We would probably answer "it depends" to #3,
> though I don't know as much about Warren's preference here.)
Whoah. You mean NO MATTER WHAT, even when large quantities of time and
energy and all the player's happiness depends on something minute and
inconsequential, yet possible unrealistic, happening, you'd stick with the
realistic outcome? Why? I mean, damn, what if you don't *know* what the
realistic outcome would be? Does your brain short out? And what the hell
value does realism have in an RPG anyway? Suspention of Disbelief is what
we're talking about and that's just a convenient way of saying "I know
this can't happen, but that doesn't matter to me." If it *did* matter to
you, then you'd end up playing napoleonics.
Matthew Colville
> Matthew Colville wrote:
> >
> >Ok, what do all of you mean when you say "gamism" and what do you mean
> >when you say "simulationism?" Neither of them are words, so I can't look
> >them up.
> >
> >And I don't need you to tell me to look at the FAQ. I want to know
> >what *you* think these tems mean. And by 'you' I mean 'anyone reading
> >this.'
>
> Actually, they _are_ both words, they just aren't in the dictionary, any
> more than "phat" is probably in your dictionary.
>
> But here goes. RPGs are games where players pretend to be characters in
> a world.
>
> "Simulationism" is an approach to RPGs that foregrounds the internal
> consistency of the game world.
>
> "Gamism" foregrounds those aspects of the process that are
> characteristic of games in general. (For instance, the fact that the RPG
> is rule-based, the pursuit of goals, the concept of fair play. This last
> probably contains the others, in large part.)
>
> "Dramatism" (you didn't ask -- it's a bonus) foregrounds the shapes that
> player characters cut in the texture of the world -- IOW, their stories.
>
> There you go. What *I* think those terms mean, with a free term thrown
> in.
Ok, now I'm forced to ask what you mean by 'foregrounds.'
John S. Novak
> But what benefit is there in thinking this way? Aren't you just
>picking different things that may or may not happen during a gaming
>session and turning them into quasi-paradigms? Couldn't you just as
>easily, and just as validly, talk about Munchists? People who think that
>munchies are an important part of gaming? Or Florescists? People who
>think that good lighting is important?
Yes, we could, but that would be boring, silly, unhelpful, and would
likely lead to your having a dialogue with yourself, because no one
else is worried about trivialities like lightning.(*)
> When *you* GM, don't you worry about how realistic things are? How
>much fun everyone's having? That certain things happen for drama's sake?
Yes, yes, and yes, all to different degrees.
_That_ is the point.
>But you don't only do one of these at a time, do you? You do all of them
>all the time. Amoung hundreds of other things. Why pick *these* three as
>somehow being definitive?
They seem useful.
You're invited to run another suggestion up the flag pole and see if
anyone salutes.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
* At this point, someone will inevitably pop up with a story
about a halloween campaign held by candle light. Consider yourself
sneered at, because you do see my point, I'm sure.
Jim Henley
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
> Ok, now I'm forced to ask what you mean by 'foregrounds.'
It's a term common to literary criticism with anything but a
particularly hifalutin meaning. Presumably you know what "foreground"
means as a noun; if not you are probably familiar with "background."
This is just a verbal form of the word. It means is "place in the
foreground; emphasize."
Best,
Jim
Jim Henley
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
> Alright, if I must. . .
>
> Why is wish fulfillment desireable?
I don't recall saying that it is. I said it's why people play RPGs. As a
personal opinion I'd be inclined to say that some wish fulfillment is
desirable and some isn't, and that deciding which wish is which is
incredibly vexed. But aren't you getting kind of far afield from the
point you seemed to be trying to make?
Best,
Jim
Matthew Colville
In article <33CA38...@ix.netcom.com.spam>, Mark Apolinski
<apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> wrote:
> Congratulations!! This is the most intelligent statement I've heard on
> this newsgroup in two years! I totally agree.
Oh, well. . .thank you (bow, bow.)
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <5qe6dg$4jp$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>Mary wrote:
>>Pure drama-oriented
>>games are rare or non-existant, and pure game-oriented games tend to
>>be dismissed as "not roleplaying" (though I believe they do exist).
> The most common strict drama games I see are comedy-oriented,
>i.e. games where laughs outweigh any realism and there isn't any
>serious challenge. For example, I've seen _Paranoia_ and _Toon_
>run this way frequently (in fact, I've never seen _Toon_ run
>otherwise). This makes "Drama" a bit of a misnomer, but it's
>still fundamentally about making an engaging tale.
You're right; I was totally forgetting the comedy games, which use
almost pure drama (maybe pastiche, too; you want cartoon characters
to do what they do in the cartoons, even if something else would be
just as funny).
I have no talent for comedy so tend to ignore it, but that's
no excuse when trying to generalize.
I'm curious, though, what kinds of convention games you're recalling
when you say that they were nearly pure drama. No concern for the
game-values such as finishing the scenario, equalizing chances among
players, or appropriate challenges? How well did this work in
practice? Almost all of the convention games I've played in
showed strong attention to game values, and the one that springs to
mind as an exception was exceedingly bad (though it was equally a
failure at drama and sim; truly a horrifying experience).
Come to think of it, it might make sense to run convention Call of
Cthulhu this way. You could say to yourself as GM, "If I can scare
the players it's a success, and nothing else matters." You can kill
off all the PCs unfairly and present impossible challenges, you can
wreck havoc on the world, as long as the game is *scary*. I played
in a fairly successful convention CoC that was much like this, and
quite enjoyed it. But the GM wasn't forbidding himself game or
world values, he just didn't give them much importance.
I suppose I could imagine a Toon or Paranoia game (I've never played
either) where it was actively forbidden to use gamist considerations,
just as it is in a strict simulationist game. "Don't think about how
to have Bugs beat up Elmer; that's not the *point*. Think of something
funny for Bugs to do. Obsession on winning spoils the game." It
is a little harder to imagine forbidding players to use world
considerations, though. I suppose "Stop worrying about where the
anvil came from; it's just there, okay? You're thinking too much
about the world. It's just a cartoon. Anvils are where they need
to be."
I have trouble imagining a serious game this far towards the point
of the triangle, though.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mark Grundy
Matthew Colville writes:
| But what benefit is there in thinking this way? Aren't you just
| picking different things that may or may not happen during a gaming
| session and turning them into quasi-paradigms? Couldn't you just as
| easily, and just as validly, talk about Munchists? People who think
| that munchies are an important part of gaming? Or Florescists?
| People who think that good lighting is important?
| When *you* GM, don't you worry about how realistic things are? How
| much fun everyone's having? That certain things happen for drama's
| sake? But you don't only do one of these at a time, do you? You do
| all of them all the time. Amoung hundreds of other things. Why pick
| *these* three as somehow being definitive?
I don't think there's any benefit in pushing `isms', and I've argued
against doing so repeatedly, but haven't really persuaded anyone who
wasn't already persuaded. Maybe your arguments will be more useful,
Matthew. :)
On the other hand, comprehensible world logic, good drama and
sensitivity to game-in-play issues are all sensible things to think
about, and we sometimes find they compete in our minds. They correspond
to intellectual, emotional and social elements of roleplaying, and so
this is why I think of them as `cornerstones' to roleplaying. I feel
they're worth discussing, but not worth flying banners about. For me,
the issues are:
Simulation: how easily players can infer effect from cause without
GM intervention, and just using game world knowledge. Obviously, this
is a useful thing, because it affects communication and expectation in
the game, and ultimately quality of play.
Drama: the flow of pacing, emphasis, description, and how it affects
the group. This is useful because it makes the game more exciting and
absorbing.
Game: everything to do with the game as a social forum -- lighting,
food, venue, travel, timing, how the players feel, external social
issues... This is useful because the game only happens when a group of
people come together to play it.
When I set out to achieve particular game goals, I usually have to
pay attention to each of these things at different times in design and
play... what's interesting to me is when I pay attention to what, and
how to keep these things from all competing in my head at once, and
getting into a deadlock over them, or having to sacrifice one for
another.
| A friend of mine tries to float the idea that the only reason he plays
| RPGs is because the rest of his friends do. I pointed out that he's
| lying, he enjoys role-playing just like the rest of us. He admitted
| this, and said something to the effect of "Yeah, but if it came down
| to role-playing, or my friends, I'd pick my friends." At first, I
| thought, 'well, shit, I would too," but *then* I thought "but I really
| like role-playing, so I'd still seek it out." THEN, finally, I
| thought, "why am I bothering to ask this question? Of what *possible*
| value is it?"
This generates two related questions -- what's the value of
roleplaying as a social activity with your friends, and the other is,
what is the value of your friends as coparticipants in a roleplaying
game? You can get very different answers from these. I have many
friends I like to roleplay with, but I don't try and pursue all my
roleplaying interests with each of my friends -- some friends work
better in some games than others. And with some friends, we don't
roleplay at all, but do other social things entirely.
| In other words, like this discussion, it's utterly meaningless. We
| role-play for the same reason we do anything; it makes us happy.
| Happiness (as Aristotle said) is the only end which is not a means to
| some other end. Trying to turn any of them into styles is like trying
| to figure out which of my internal organs I'm fondest of.
I agree. Styles and banner-flying aren't important. But knowledge
of technique can be important if you have expectations that you don't
want to disappoint.
In my recent 'Uses of Plans' post, I mentioned that `wanting the
group to be happy' isn't enough to plan a game by. You need more focus
than that if you want to plan effectively. But in some games you don't
want to plan at all, so how much you want to think about technical
aspects of roleplaying really depends on what you're setting out to do.
---
Dr Mark Grundy, DCS, Phone: +61-6-249 3785
Education Co-ordinator, Fax: +61-6-249 0010
CRC for Advanced Computational Systems,
The Australian National University, Web: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Mark.Grundy
0200 Australia Email: Mark....@anu.edu.au
Mary K. Kuhner
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>(Jered Moses) wrote:
>> Because, contrary to what you apparently believe, many of us here try
>> to stress some or another of these facets above others.
> Why?
For the fascination and awe of a fully-worked-out world that is
so intensely true to its own reality that visiting it is like
living in an actual place, and living within one of its characters
is like living another life besides your own--which is the highest
compliment I could give a world-emphasis game.
For the pure intellectual challenge of the most intricate wargame
around, a game in which you can try *any* plan, not just the paltry
few that most wargames allow, a game which tests the whole range of
the player's tactical and strategic abilities--which is the highest
compliment I could give a game-emphasis game.
For the chance to experience a well-crafted story, not as told
or as read, but from the *inside* as it happens, sharing the
characters' triumph or tragedy, and even helping to shape the
story itself and share in the pleasure of creation--which is the
highest compliment I could give a story-emphasis game.
Games which stick to the middle of the triangle can work well,
but they won't succeed as intensely, I feel, in any of these
ways as more extreme games can. I'm running a mid-triangle
game right now, but it's a diversion, not what I would want
from the hobby as a whole.
Matthew, you might want to seriously consider the concept that
different people enjoy RPGs in different ways, and therefore
it's sensible for them to run them in different ways.
Or of course, you could just keep on saying "Why?" and ignoring
the answers until we stop paying attention. Kind of dull, though.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John H Kim
This is a reply to Mary concerning strict Dramatist games.
While she accepts the idea of comedy games being run almost
strictly by the Drama, she has trouble with picturing more
serious games run that way.
My main point here is to suggest a parallel: It is
possible for dramatic events to occur in a 100% strict
simulationist game... If the PC's are engaged with things
they care about, drama will happen. Similarly, I would claim
it is acceptable for a realistic event to happen in a dramatic
game -- just so long as it is chosen because it keeps up the
atmosphere, to build suspense, or to retain believability, for
example.
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>I'm curious, though, what kinds of convention games you're recalling
>when you say that they were nearly pure drama. No concern for the
>game-values such as finishing the scenario, equalizing chances among
>players, or appropriate challenges? How well did this work in
>practice? Almost all of the convention games I've played in
>showed strong attention to game values, and the one that springs to
>mind as an exception was exceedingly bad (though it was equally a
>failure at drama and sim; truly a horrifying experience).
Hmmm. I had some pretty clear examples in mind, but I
guess they aren't 100% strict. When I think of strict Gamist
tournaments, there is usually no value placed on portraying your
character and a lot placed on solving all the puzzles within the
time limit. I've seen some of these. I have some tactical-challenge
tournaments, too. They are amusing, but as I think about it,
they are funny in concept, not in the story they produce...
Ex. My Kobolds Tournament (AD&D) came in two rounds. In Round
One, the PC's were mid-level adventurers who became separated
in a large expedition to clear out a kobold nest. They are set
upon by the *smartest* kobolds you have ever seen, and need all
the player's wits to survive.
In Round Two the players are handed out character sheets
for: the kobolds!! They have to play these little menaces
as they face a SWAT team of mid-level Rangers ("Hut, hut, hut!")
It is amusing, but not at all, I think, Dramatist.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
The Dramatic tournaments I was thinking of are quite
different. The PC's are all designed to be an "ensemble cast"
where each one should get a chance to shine. However, this
doesn't mean that they are equalized in terms of power. This
is balancing of Spotlight Time, but since it is a concern in
dramatic productions with ensemble casts, I see it as being
perfectly within the Dramatic end.
The tournaments here are judged purely on player
"performances", often by a vote among the players on who did
the most with their role. Whether they were the ones to
defeat the enemy is irrelevant -- they can win instead if
they play an annoying hindrance well. I have seen one game
which had the screaming female as a PC whose sole function was
to get into trouble -- this is what people call pastichism,
which I consider a subset of Dramatic. (i.e. there is drama
which is not pastichism.)
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> For the fascination and awe of a fully-worked-out world that is
> so intensely true to its own reality that visiting it is like
> living in an actual place, and living within one of its characters
> is like living another life besides your own--which is the highest
> compliment I could give a world-emphasis game.
>
> For the pure intellectual challenge of the most intricate wargame
> around, a game in which you can try *any* plan, not just the paltry
> few that most wargames allow, a game which tests the whole range of
> the player's tactical and strategic abilities--which is the highest
> compliment I could give a game-emphasis game.
>
> For the chance to experience a well-crafted story, not as told
> or as read, but from the *inside* as it happens, sharing the
> characters' triumph or tragedy, and even helping to shape the
> story itself and share in the pleasure of creation--which is the
> highest compliment I could give a story-emphasis game.
>
> Games which stick to the middle of the triangle can work well,
> but they won't succeed as intensely, I feel, in any of these
> ways as more extreme games can. I'm running a mid-triangle
> game right now, but it's a diversion, not what I would want
> from the hobby as a whole.
You know Mary, these last comments have reminded me that the most
'extreme' types of games that I've played in have all occurred at
conventions. And I don't mean just game-emphasis ones. The most highly
story-emphasis games I've ever seen were done at GenCon using the Hero
System. Several of the finals have seen audience members openly
crying. I wish I could produce such games with my usual groups; I keep
trying but it just doesn't happen. The games I see and run outside of
conventions have *always* been middle-of-the-triangle.
So how have you managed to produce the 'extreme' kinds? I think it
might be due to the fact that you have a stable and established gaming
group. In my situation, I've had three different gaming groups in two
years due to moving and changes in my real life. If things have
stabilized now, hopefully I'll be able to get some stability in my
gaming as well.
Mark
Jered Moses
Frankly, I'm a bit confused, Matt. Are you actually looking for
answers to your questions, are you just looking for a fight, or are
you just trolling?
Perhaps once you've answered that, I'll know better how to deal with
your questions. In the mean time...
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>In article <5qd8qi$m...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, je...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
>(Jered Moses) wrote:
>> Because, contrary to what you apparently believe, many of us here try
>> to stress some or another of these facets above others.
> Why?
I'll answer your question with another question. When you go to
Baskin Robins (or the equivalent local ice cream parlor), do you try
to get a mix of all the flavors? Do you cycle through the flavors,
making sure to get an equal quantity of each? Or is there some flavor
you get almost every time, with perhaps a bit of variety only
occasionally?
More to the point, would you express such disbelief of someone who DID
have a favorite flavor?
> Whoah. You mean NO MATTER WHAT, even when large quantities of time and
>energy and all the player's happiness depends on something minute and
>inconsequential, yet possible unrealistic, happening, you'd stick with the
>realistic outcome?
It seems to me you've created a straw-man here, first of all. In what
sense is an event "minute and inconsequential," if in it is invested
"large quantities of time and enegery and all the players' happiness"?
Could you give us an example?
Secondly, yes, I would usually stick with the realistic outcome,
because that is the "contract" that I usually make with my players
before play begins: the way this campaign will be run is that I will
resolve events based strictly on "simulation," though I will use
"fast-forwarding" and other asimulationist techniques to avoid the
"boring stuff" as much as possible.
Now, that's not ALWAYS my contract, of course; sometimes I DO run
dramatically-organized campaigns, and I often try to incorporate
gamist values when setting up a campaign. Every campaign is
different. My preferred style, however, for my preferred genres, is
largely simulationist.
> Why? I mean, damn, what if you don't *know* what the
>realistic outcome would be? Does your brain short out?
Warren would say that he "channels" (or, as I prefer, "apprehends")
the correct (realistic) outcome. For those who are less mystical,
a nice rhobust mechanical (diced) system will resolve most issues.
(It's not "unreal" to say "our world follows precisely the laws as
established by Game System X, including addenda P,D, & Q," so long as
these rules remain consistently applied. At least, not to me.)
> And what the hell
>value does realism have in an RPG anyway? Suspention of Disbelief is what
>we're talking about and that's just a convenient way of saying "I know
>this can't happen, but that doesn't matter to me." If it *did* matter to
>you, then you'd end up playing napoleonics.
What value does ANYTHING have in RPG's, anyway? None whatsoever,
except the value that you (the players) import. So if we say "What we
value is a simulation without dramatic or gamist interference in
play," from what grounding can you possibly be drawing your objection,
except to say that "Well, I prefer otherwise"? Is there some Official
Test of RPGdom that I've failed? Is there some established criteria
of What Makes a Good Game (TM) that I've been missing out on for lo
these many years?
I suspect, in fact, that you are merely projecting YOUR values for a
good game onto others, and misinterpreting terminology to boot. But
that's for another post....
Mark Apolinski
> >energy and all the player's happiness depends on something minute and
> >inconsequential, yet possible unrealistic, happening, you'd stick with the
> >realistic outcome?
>
> It seems to me you've created a straw-man here, first of all. In what
> sense is an event "minute and inconsequential," if in it is invested
> "large quantities of time and enegery and all the players' happiness"?
> Could you give us an example?
He hasn't created a straw man, he's just asking a question.
Also, he didn't say that an event is minute and inconsequential and
invested in large quantities... Read the post again.
Millions of examples exist. Say that a particular character in an RPG
has been developed for over a year of in-game play. The character is
deep, and enjoyed by all, their story is engaging and approaching a
climax, and they happen to botch a dexterity roll, slip on a banana
peel, and fall off a cliff to their death. (and assuming that nothing
saved them)
The character is 'invested in large quantities of time and energy' and
the banana peel is 'minute and inconsequential'.
> Secondly, yes, I would usually stick with the realistic outcome,
> because that is the "contract" that I usually make with my players
> before play begins: the way this campaign will be run is that I will
> resolve events based strictly on "simulation," though I will use
> "fast-forwarding" and other asimulationist techniques to avoid the
> "boring stuff" as much as possible.
So you're saying that NOT slipping on the banana peel is NOT realistic?
I would have thought that both possibilities exist.
What Matt is asking is why *choosing* another possible realistic outcome
that preserves the investment in the character is considered a sin?
Matt, apparently the answer is that the Virtue of
Sticking-with-the-simulated-result-above-all-else is considered a higher
virtue than preserving the investment. Only MHO, of course, since I
don't accept this myself.
> > Why? I mean, damn, what if you don't *know* what the
> >realistic outcome would be? Does your brain short out?
>
> Warren would say that he "channels" (or, as I prefer, "apprehends")
> the correct (realistic) outcome.
But Warren uses dice. If he can apprehend the correct outcome, why does
he need dice?
And I don't think 'correct' means 'realistic' here. A 'realistic'
outcome is only one that *could* have happened in the RW and there are
usually several possible realistic outcomes to every situation. What I
think Warren would say about the 'correct outcome is that that is the
outcome that *did, in-fact occur* and that he apprehended.
Apprehension is after-the-fact. Dice-rolling is before-the-fact. (or at
least during-the-fact)
Mark
Steven Howard
In <mcolville-130...@1cust44.max1.los-angeles.ca.ms.uu.net>, mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
> But what benefit is there in thinking this way? Aren't you just
>picking different things that may or may not happen during a gaming
>session and turning them into quasi-paradigms? Couldn't you just as
>easily, and just as validly, talk about Munchists? People who think that
>munchies are an important part of gaming? Or Florescists? People who
>think that good lighting is important?
Not really. I realize that your "munchies"/"lighting" examples are
intentionally absurd, but they really are different from what we're
talking about here.
The thing is, I think there really is, somewhere buried in all this
flapdoodle, the core of an important idea. People really do run games
in different styles, and it's useful to be able to distinguish between
them. Ideally, this sort of discussion would result in a relatively
well-defined set of game styles, which would facilitate the exchange
of ideas on how best to run games in that style, how to utilize
aspects of other styles, and so on.
For example, Sid, Paul, and I each run Call of Cthulhu campaigns, but
our styles are quite different. Anyone familiar with all three campaigns
could read a transcript of a game session with the names removed and
tell who the GM was. What I'd like to be able to do, in discussing
GMing techniques, is compare how different methods can achieve
different results, which requires me to find an easy way to describe
the differences to someone who is NOT familiar with all three
campaigns.
I'm not convinced (and I'm becoming less convinced by the day) that
this current "Threefold Model" is the best way to get to that stage,
but I still believe it's a useful and realistic goal.
> When *you* GM, don't you worry about how realistic things are? How
>much fun everyone's having? That certain things happen for drama's sake?
>But you don't only do one of these at a time, do you? You do all of them
>all the time. Amoung hundreds of other things. Why pick *these* three as
>somehow being definitive?
Actually, I don't. Not all at the same time, and not all to the same extent.
If I'm in the middle of a Feng Shui combat scene, I couldn't care less about
realism. I'm interested in cool-looking stunts.
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word like "euphemism" doing in a sentence like this?
Steven Howard
In <5qftp4$e...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, je...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jered Moses) writes:
>mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>
>> Whoah. You mean NO MATTER WHAT, even when large quantities of time and
>>energy and all the player's happiness depends on something minute and
>>inconsequential, yet possible unrealistic, happening, you'd stick with the
>>realistic outcome?
>
>It seems to me you've created a straw-man here, first of all. In what
>sense is an event "minute and inconsequential," if in it is invested
>"large quantities of time and enegery and all the players' happiness"?
>Could you give us an example?
It seems to me that you've misread the question. He's asking whether
you'd allow a relatively trivial "unrealistic" event to occur in order to
salvage your entire game. Suppose, through no fault of their own, the
players have somehow gotten their characters into a situation where
the death of the entire party is imminent. The realistic, logical
thing to do would be to kill the lot of them. Matt's asking if you
wouldn't, instead, allow some amazing coincidence to save them,
especially if that coincidence didn't have any long-term or large-
scale consequences.
Personally, I've known GMs who SAID they'd just kill off the party
in such a situation, but I've never seen anyone actually do it.
Matthew Colville
Ah, ok. So why would you want to emphasize Gamism, Simulationism, or
Dramatism over each other or any of the many other 'isms' we could invent?
I will also take this opportunity to wonder why people on this
newsgroup insist on using words like 'foregrounds' when perfectly good,
and more common, words like 'emphasize,' exist that mean exactly the same
thing.
Matthew Colville
In article <5qenll$f...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
> >(Jered Moses) wrote:
>
> >> Because, contrary to what you apparently believe, many of us here try
> >> to stress some or another of these facets above others.
>
> > Why?
>
> For the fascination and awe of a fully-worked-out world that is
> so intensely true to its own reality that visiting it is like
> living in an actual place, and living within one of its characters
> is like living another life besides your own--which is the highest
> compliment I could give a world-emphasis game.
>
> For the pure intellectual challenge of the most intricate wargame
> around, a game in which you can try *any* plan, not just the paltry
> few that most wargames allow, a game which tests the whole range of
> the player's tactical and strategic abilities--which is the highest
> compliment I could give a game-emphasis game.
>
> For the chance to experience a well-crafted story, not as told
> or as read, but from the *inside* as it happens, sharing the
> characters' triumph or tragedy, and even helping to shape the
> story itself and share in the pleasure of creation--which is the
> highest compliment I could give a story-emphasis game.
>
> Games which stick to the middle of the triangle can work well,
> but they won't succeed as intensely.
They won't? That's absurd. What suceeds are games in which all the
players and the GM come away from the session happy that they played.
Acting like concentrating on one of the above three ideas, and not on the
other two, or the other three hundred that you *could* have concentrated
on, makes everyone happier is foolish in the extreme.
I can do all of the above in a single session, hell in 10 minutes, and
have a great time, or do none of the above and have a great time, all
within the context of role-playing. I GMed an entire session in which the
players sat on thier spaceship arguing about what to do next. For 4
hours. It was truly fantastic, because everyone stayed in character. The
'fully worked-out' world didn't impinge, except peripherally, into the
discussion, there was no wargame element involved, and there was no
triumph or tragedy.
This is being held up, not as the way everything does, or must, go, but
as one of the hundreds of ways it *can* go. And if I had worried about
Gamism, Simulationism, or Dramatism, I would have been wasting precious
mental energy that I was otherwise using to steer the discussion in
interesting directions, and occationally throw a spanner into the works.
>
> Matthew, you might want to seriously consider the concept that
> different people enjoy RPGs in different ways, and therefore
> it's sensible for them to run them in different ways.
I'm really not worried about that. I knew that even before I knew what
an RPG was, because it's true of everything. We all do things in
different ways. But, ultimately, we do them for the same reason. . .it
makes us happy.
> Or of course, you could just keep on saying "Why?" and ignoring
> the answers until we stop paying attention. Kind of dull, though.
I could stand on my head and recicte songs from Gilbert and Sullivan
musicals too, but I don't think I'm gonna. Dull or not.
Psychohist
Regarding the threefold model, Matthew Colville posts, in part:
But what benefit is there in thinking this way? ...
Couldn't you just as easily, and just as validly, talk
about Munchists? People who think that munchies are an
important part of gaming? Or Florescists? People who
think that good lighting is important?
You would be talking about a different aspect of gaming. Story, world,
and game describe different approaches to what happens in the game world.
Munchies and lighting are 'metagame' issues - they are aspects of the
player world, not the game world.
Warren
Matthew Colville
> Matthew Colville wrote:
> >
> > Alright, if I must. . .
> >
> > Why is wish fulfillment desireable?
>
> I don't recall saying that it is.
But you did say it was one of the reasons people play RPGs, holding it
up as a contrary goal to "happiness." So, by definition, if it's one of
the reasons people do it, it must be deisrable, otherwise they wouldn't do
it.
> I said it's why people play RPGs.
Good, I'm glad there isn't any disagreement on this point.
>As a
> personal opinion I'd be inclined to say that some wish fulfillment is
> desirable and some isn't, and that deciding which wish is which is
> incredibly vexed.
So I think we can safely say the undesirable kind isn't desired, so we
can ignore it. Concentrating on the desirable kind. Which brings me back
to my original question: why is wish fulfillment desireable?
> But aren't you getting kind of far afield from the point you seemed to
be trying to make?
A: only in this thread. With other people, my discussion continues
unabated. You're the one who tried to assert that there exist things we
do in spite of the fact that they will, ultimately, make us happy.
B: I'm even further afield now, since I had to waste a whole message.
If you had merely answered my question, we would have progressed farther
by now.
Matthew Colville
In article <slrn5slcg...@mariner.cris.com>, J...@mariner.cris.com
(John S. Novak) wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 22:44:59 -0700, Matthew Colville
> <mcol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > But what benefit is there in thinking this way? Aren't you just
> >picking different things that may or may not happen during a gaming
> >session and turning them into quasi-paradigms? Couldn't you just as
> >easily, and just as validly, talk about Munchists? People who think that
> >munchies are an important part of gaming? Or Florescists? People who
> >think that good lighting is important?
>
> Yes, we could, but that would be boring, silly, unhelpful, and would
> likely lead to your having a dialogue with yourself, because no one
> else is worried about trivialities like lightning.(*)
I'm confused. It seems as though you're agreeing with me. I.e. that
discuission role-playing in terms of Gamism/Dramatism, etc. . . is 'boring
silly and unhelpful.'
> > When *you* GM, don't you worry about how realistic things are? How
> >much fun everyone's having? That certain things happen for drama's sake?
>
> Yes, yes, and yes, all to different degrees.
> _That_ is the point.
It's my point. That talking about these things as though they were
paradigms is 'boring silly and unhelpful.' Since they all occur to
different degrees, including not at all, from one moment to another, along
with hundreds of other things.
>
> >But you don't only do one of these at a time, do you? You do all of them
> >all the time. Amoung hundreds of other things. Why pick *these* three as
> >somehow being definitive?
>
> They seem useful.
> You're invited to run another suggestion up the flag pole and see if
> anyone salutes.
Um, I think I have. I.e. that these things aren't 'isms.' They're
just stuff. Stuff you might do, or you might not. no more valid than any
number of other things.
Including, as one friend of mine said when laughing at these ideas 'or
diceism. The need to have really cool dice.'
Jim Henley
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
> Ah, ok. So why would you want to emphasize Gamism, Simulationism, or
> Dramatism over each other or any of the many other 'isms' we could invent?
>
> I will also take this opportunity to wonder why people on this
> newsgroup insist on using words like 'foregrounds' when perfectly good,
> and more common, words like 'emphasize,' exist that mean exactly the same
> thing.
Frankly Matthew, I think only someone determinedly obtuse or plain
stupid could fail to deduce the meaning of "foregrounds" from the
context of my original message. I'll leave your first question for the
extraordinarily patient among us, particularly those who don't mind
repeating the same things over and over on the off chance they might
sink in.
Best,
Jim
Jered Moses
Strangely, I've received Matt's "Seal of Approval" to Mark Apolinski's
response to me, but not Mark's response itself. Ah, the wonders of
Usenet. Fortunately, Matt appears to have been considerate enough to
quote virutally all of Mark's post just to insert a few "Me too!"
comments, so I'll comment from there...
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>In article <33CB88...@ix.netcom.com.spam>, Mark Apolinski
><apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> wrote:
>> Jered Moses wrote:
>> >
>> > mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>> >
>> > > Whoah. You mean NO MATTER WHAT, even when large quantities of time and
>> > >energy and all the player's happiness depends on something minute and
>> > >inconsequential, yet possible unrealistic, happening, you'd stick with the
>> > >realistic outcome?
>> >
>> > It seems to me you've created a straw-man here, first of all. In what
>> > sense is an event "minute and inconsequential," if in it is invested
>> > "large quantities of time and enegery and all the players' happiness"?
>> > Could you give us an example?
>>
>> He hasn't created a straw man, he's just asking a question.
He's implicitly hypothesized the existence of a "trivial event" upon
which large quantities of time, energy, and happiness depend. My
point is that ANY item upon which large quantities of time, energy,
and happiness depend is, by definition, not "minute and
inconsequential." This is the straw man.
>> Also, he didn't say that an event is minute and inconsequential and
>> invested in large quantities... Read the post again.
I read the post, thank you. Yes, I probably could have written more
carefully, and asked "In what sense is a `something' `minute and
inconsequential'...?" rather than an event. I don't think the
oversight in word selection is especially crippling, however, unless
you have a broomstick where it oughtn't be.
>> Millions of examples exist. Say that a particular character in an RPG
>> has been developed for over a year of in-game play. The character is
>> deep, and enjoyed by all, their story is engaging and approaching a
>> climax, and they happen to botch a dexterity roll, slip on a banana
>> peel, and fall off a cliff to their death. (and assuming that nothing
>> saved them)
>>
>> The character is 'invested in large quantities of time and energy' and
>> the banana peel is 'minute and inconsequential'.
No, the banana peel is NOT "minute and inconsequential," precisely
BECAUSE large quantities of invested time and energy and enjoyment
ride upon it. I refer you to my previous analogy to a Big Mac and a
starving man; while in "ordinary circumstances" (whatever those are) a
Big Mac is "minute and inconsequential." To a starving man, however,
it is anything but.
The moral of the story, I suppose, is don't go running around
half-blind on cliffs without watching for banana peels!
>> > Secondly, yes, I would usually stick with the realistic outcome,
>> > because that is the "contract" that I usually make with my players
>> > before play begins: the way this campaign will be run is that I will
>> > resolve events based strictly on "simulation," though I will use
>> > "fast-forwarding" and other asimulationist techniques to avoid the
>> > "boring stuff" as much as possible.
>>
>> So you're saying that NOT slipping on the banana peel is NOT realistic?
>> I would have thought that both possibilities exist.
The banana-peel scenario was YOURS, not mine; don't fault me for its
weakness.
But, to be less combative (though, I must say, nobody else seems to be
concerned about such), you are right; both possibilities exist.
However, the other part of "simulationism" is a resolution mechanism
which has been agreed upon before the game begins. This mechanism
might be "channeling" ("apprehending"), it might be a set of diced
mechanics (say, "4th. Ed. Hero System"), or any of several other
possibilities.
The real question at hand is, I think, two-fold:
1) Does my resolution mechanism include plot-like or game-like
concerns (e.g., the Theatrix diceless resolution system); and
2) Will I ever forego the resolution mechanism in favor of plot-like
or game-like considerations?
If the answer to both of these is "no," then you're running a game
that I would call "simulationist." If the answer to one of these is
"yes," then probably not.
>> What Matt is asking is why *choosing* another possible realistic outcome
>> that preserves the investment in the character is considered a sin?
You're the one making this into holy writ, not me. I'm just saying
that it is a valid gaming preference to answer the previous two
questions as "no," and that I don't, empirically, wind up with a less
enjoyable game because of it.
Matt--and, by proxy, you--seem to be asserting that I cannot possibly
have a role-playing game which does not balance simulationist, gamist,
and dramatic concerns. Perhaps you have lost sight of the topic at
hand--the forest for the proverbial trees--, but you've rather
reversed the position. What Matt is REALLY asking is, "Why isn't
refusing to select an alternative `realistic' outcome that preserves
investment in the character considered a sin?"
>> > > Why? I mean, damn, what if you don't *know* what the
>> > >realistic outcome would be? Does your brain short out?
>> >
>> > Warren would say that he "channels" (or, as I prefer, "apprehends")
>> > the correct (realistic) outcome.
>>
>> But Warren uses dice. If he can apprehend the correct outcome, why does
>> he need dice?
You're denying the hypothesis. Warren's general working principle
seems to me to be that the dice are a mechanism for determining what
the "realistic" ("correct"--more below) outcome is, in fact. The
hypothesis of the question is that I DON'T know what the "realistic"
(correct) outcome is.
Perhaps a better answer to Matt's question is, "Give me an example."
Because I've never had it actually arise in play that I couldn't find
a way to figure out what the "realistic" (correct) outcome is.
>> And I don't think 'correct' means 'realistic' here. A 'realistic'
>> outcome is only one that *could* have happened in the RW and there are
>> usually several possible realistic outcomes to every situation. What I
>> think Warren would say about the 'correct outcome is that that is the
>> outcome that *did, in-fact occur* and that he apprehended.
>> Apprehension is after-the-fact. Dice-rolling is before-the-fact. (or at
>> least during-the-fact)
I agree that we've been a bit fast-and-loose with "realistic" versus
"correct," though I will note that a long sequence of
plotwise-selected "realistic" results will tend to yield an
unrealistic gestalt. John Kim has written a whole lot about this in
the past, and I hope we don't have to rehash that all again...
In any case, as I mentioned earlier in this post, any game will have a
pre-arranged resolution mechanism. To me, "realistic" results mean,
at least for the purposes of this discussion, "Those determined by the
pre-arranged resolution mechanism," provided that the answers to the
non-sim questions concerning the mechanism itself are both "no."
Well, I've wasted a lot of bits now, anyway; hopefully somebody has
even read this all the way through....
Jim Henley
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
> In article <33CAE2...@erols.com>, jlhe...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > I don't recall saying that it is.
>
> But you did say [wish fulfillment] was one of the reasons
>people play RPGs, holding it up as a contrary goal to "happiness."
>So, by definition, if it's one of the reasons people do it,
>it must be deisrable, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
"Desirable" is a pretty tricky word there, Matthew. IIRC, it's a word
that you introduced into the conversation, so you may have had a
particular sense of it in mind that I don't automatically share. Things
can only be desirable from a certain standpoint. If your wish is to flay
Susie and eat her spleen, fulfilling the wish may be desirable to you
but likely not to Susie. If your wish is to experience your AD&D
character to an extent that means you will flunk out of school, that may
be undesirable indeed from the standpoint of your mom. If you wish to
experience "life on the edge" by engaging in unprotected anal
receptivity, fulfilling that wish may be desirable from an emotional
standpoint and very much less so from that of your physical health.
I actually said that wish fulfillment was _the_ reason people play RPGs,
not _a_ reason, but I accept that I probably can't defend that
particular proposition. Regardless, if you believe that people will only
do things that are "desirable" in an uncomplicated way, you need to get
out more.
> >As a
> >personal opinion I'd be inclined to say that some wish fulfillment
is
> >desirable and some isn't, and that deciding which wish is which is
> >incredibly vexed.
>
> So I think we can safely say the undesirable kind isn't desired, so
we
>can ignore it. Concentrating on the desirable kind. Which brings me
back
>to my original question: why is wish fulfillment desireable?
We can say no such thing. In another thread attempting to define
"blackness" or "vileness" in genres, Warren gave an example of someone
who role-played an act of torture in such detail that he himself
expressed considerable unease at even typing it. Now, I have no trouble
saying that if someone actually has such wishes, that even pretending to
fulfill them via role-play is undesirable. If you want to restrict the
scope of "desirable" to the standpoint of the player or person in
question, leaving aside Susie, Mom, me, the cops, your therapist,
abstract moral codes and reason itself, then your question seems to come
down to "Why do people desire to fulfill their wishes?" The question
collapses into triteness, since the answer is a matter of simple
definition.
To me the far more interesting phenomenon is that what is undesirable
from one standpoint can be deeply desired from another. It even bears on
the relation of intragame to metagame issues in RPG play. (E.g. the
person who pursues gaming to the point of failing school; the person who
roleplays "darkness" to the point of creeping out his RL acquaintances;
the person who is so attached to their own personal ethics and opinions
that they can't enter into a living relation with a game character whose
outlook is at odds with them.)
> > But aren't you getting kind of far afield from the point you
seemed to
>be trying to make?
>
> A: only in this thread. With other people, my discussion continues
>unabated. You're the one who tried to assert that there exist things
we
>do in spite of the fact that they will, ultimately, make us happy.
> B: I'm even further afield now, since I had to waste a whole
message.
>If you had merely answered my question, we would have progressed
farther
>by now.
Your question was based upon very shaky premises. Even now, your
assertion in the last sentence of A: seems nonsensical and utterly
unrelated to anything I actually said. And the truth is, I have come to
enjoy your posts little enough that I just don't care.
Best,
Jim
Steven Howard
Okay, we're still discussing this question:
Whoah. You mean NO MATTER WHAT, even when large quantities of time
and energy and all the player's happiness depends on something minute and
inconsequential, yet possible unrealistic, happening, you'd stick with
the realistic outcome?
In <5qgfvd$b...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, je...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jered Moses) writes:
>bl...@ibm.net (Steven Howard) writes:
>
>>It seems to me that you've misread the question. He's asking whether
>>you'd allow a relatively trivial "unrealistic" event to occur in order to
>>salvage your entire game. Suppose, through no fault of their own, the
>>players have somehow gotten their characters into a situation where
>>the death of the entire party is imminent. The realistic, logical
>>thing to do would be to kill the lot of them. Matt's asking if you
>>wouldn't, instead, allow some amazing coincidence to save them,
>>especially if that coincidence didn't have any long-term or large-
>>scale consequences.
>
>No, I didn't misread the question at all; I just disagree with the
>assertion that such a solution is "trivial" or "minute." This is, if
>I may, like telling a starving man that a Big Mac is no big deal. In
>normal circumstances, I'd agree; a Big Mac is no big deal. I suspect
>the starving man will disagree.
See, that's why I wrote "RELATIVELY trivial" and "didn't have any
LONG-TERM or LARGE-SCALE consequences." (emphasis, of course,
added.) The point is that while life-or-death decisions affecting the
PCs are central to the game, they are rarely central to the world.
The world as a whole doesn't seem to care if one more person starves.
It likewise doesn't seem to care about the disposition of any given
Big Mac. Thus, while having a starving man "just happen" to find
a Big Mac somewhere is horribly unrealistic, it's also "relatively
trivial" and has no "long-term or large-scale consequences."
>So, too, with any resolution upon which hangs the "entire game."
>Under some "ordinary" set of circumstances the event might be "minute"
>or "trivial," but clearly in a situation where the entire game hangs
>in the balance, the event is not--CANNOT BE--trivial.
Trivial to game, no. Trivial in the larger scheme of things, though,
possibly.
>Now, with that all out of the way, let me address the substance of
>your example. To be succinct: yes, I would let them die, assuming I
>was in a "standard contract" game.
>All of my players know this going in. And if a player preferred not
>to play that way, s/he probably wouldn't like to be in my gaming
>group. Which is fine.
You write that you "would" do it? Have you ever actually done it?
Actually killed off an entire party, tossing out an entire set of characters
that had been played for a long time, for the sole reason that to do
otherwise would have been "unrealistic"? How did your players feel
about that? For that matter, how did *you* feel about it?
>>Personally, I've known GMs who SAID they'd just kill off the party
>>in such a situation, but I've never seen anyone actually do it.
>
>Two possibilities there. One is that players in such groups are
>better at not putting themselves in such situations [or are more apt
>to avoid such situations, knowing the potential outcome]. The other
>is that you don't get out much.
>:)
A third possibility is that those GMs were not telling me the truth.
John H Kim
This is a reply to Steven Howard and Matt Collville regarding
fudging for party or PC survival...
Steven Howard <bl...@ibm.net> wrote:
>He's asking whether you'd allow a relatively trivial "unrealistic"
>event to occur in order to salvage your entire game. Suppose,
>through no fault of their own, the players have somehow gotten
>their characters into a situation where the death of the entire
>party is imminent. The realistic, logical thing to do would be to
>kill the lot of them. Matt's asking if you wouldn't, instead,
>allow some amazing coincidence to save them, especially if that
>coincidence didn't have any long-term or large-scale consequences.
All I can really say is that it depends on the campaign.
My first Star Trek campaign ended when the ship was defeated in
battle and captured by Klingons. All the officers were taken
back as prisoners. Of course, this wasn't really a trivial event,
but just the same I could have come up with some excuse to save
them.
Actually, after the fact, as GM I actually offered to go
back and ret-con away the ship's capture. The players turned down
my offer.
Anyhow, for my more simulationist games I wouldn't tend
to run about very lethal situations. However, I would stick by
such results, yes.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Personally, I've known GMs who SAID they'd just kill off the party
>in such a situation, but I've never seen anyone actually do it.
I've never seen a campaign game where the entire party
was killed off by something literally trivial -- but then,
I think it is pretty damn unlikely. I mean, if it's enough to
kill off the entire party, then in general I would say it is
pretty damn major.
Could you (Matt or Steven) give a plausible example of
what you mean by "trivial"?
Jered Moses
I apologize in advance for the excessive quoting here; I just wanted
to keep things in context....
bl...@ibm.net (Steven Howard) writes:
>In <5qftp4$e...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, je...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jered Moses) writes:
>>mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>>
>>> Whoah. You mean NO MATTER WHAT, even when large quantities of time and
>>>energy and all the player's happiness depends on something minute and
>>>inconsequential, yet possible unrealistic, happening, you'd stick with the
>>>realistic outcome?
>>
>>It seems to me you've created a straw-man here, first of all. In what
>>sense is an event "minute and inconsequential," if in it is invested
>>"large quantities of time and enegery and all the players' happiness"?
>It seems to me that you've misread the question. He's asking whether
>you'd allow a relatively trivial "unrealistic" event to occur in order to
>salvage your entire game. Suppose, through no fault of their own, the
>players have somehow gotten their characters into a situation where
>the death of the entire party is imminent. The realistic, logical
>thing to do would be to kill the lot of them. Matt's asking if you
>wouldn't, instead, allow some amazing coincidence to save them,
>especially if that coincidence didn't have any long-term or large-
>scale consequences.
No, I didn't misread the question at all; I just disagree with the
assertion that such a solution is "trivial" or "minute." This is, if
I may, like telling a starving man that a Big Mac is no big deal. In
normal circumstances, I'd agree; a Big Mac is no big deal. I suspect
the starving man will disagree.
So, too, with any resolution upon which hangs the "entire game."
Under some "ordinary" set of circumstances the event might be "minute"
or "trivial," but clearly in a situation where the entire game hangs
in the balance, the event is not--CANNOT BE--trivial.
Now, with that all out of the way, let me address the substance of
your example. To be succinct: yes, I would let them die, assuming I
was in a "standard contract" game. [As I discussed in a previous
post, my normal gaming contract is fairly strict simulationist; I do
sometimes run dramatic games, or games with some script immunity. I'm
not talking about those here, however.]
All of my players know this going in. And if a player preferred not
to play that way, s/he probably wouldn't like to be in my gaming
group. Which is fine.
>Personally, I've known GMs who SAID they'd just kill off the party
>in such a situation, but I've never seen anyone actually do it.
Two possibilities there. One is that players in such groups are
better at not putting themselves in such situations [or are more apt
to avoid such situations, knowing the potential outcome]. The other
is that you don't get out much.
:)
--Jered
Matthew Colville
> Matthew Colville writes:
>
> | But what benefit is there in thinking this way? Aren't you just
> | picking different things that may or may not happen during a gaming
> | session and turning them into quasi-paradigms? Couldn't you just as
> | easily, and just as validly, talk about Munchists? People who think
> | that munchies are an important part of gaming? Or Florescists?
> | People who think that good lighting is important?
>
> | When *you* GM, don't you worry about how realistic things are? How
> | much fun everyone's having? That certain things happen for drama's
> | sake? But you don't only do one of these at a time, do you? You do
> | all of them all the time. Amoung hundreds of other things. Why pick
> | *these* three as somehow being definitive?
>
> I don't think there's any benefit in pushing `isms', and I've argued
> against doing so repeatedly, but haven't really persuaded anyone who
> wasn't already persuaded. Maybe your arguments will be more useful,
> Matthew. :)
Boo Ya! You, me, Mark, and Steve are going to kill this idea if it's
the last thing we do! Viva le Revolution!
> On the other hand, comprehensible world logic, good drama and
> sensitivity to game-in-play issues are all sensible things to think
> about, and we sometimes find they compete in our minds.
Of course they are, that's my point (reference my second paragraph, above.)
> In my recent 'Uses of Plans' post, I mentioned that `wanting the
> group to be happy' isn't enough to plan a game by.
You're right. It's necessary, but not sufficient. You start with
hoping everyone leaves happy. In fact, to this end, when I started my
Birthright campaign, I brought pizza for everyone. Just because that's
the kind of guy I am. And everyone came to the table in a good mood and
the game flowed well.
The point, that people seem to miss when you start talking about
happiness being the only end which is itself not a means to some other
end, is that there are different levels/types of happiness.
We should begin with just hoping everyone leaves happy. From there, we
can progress to everyone leaving happy specifically because we've acheived
things we can only acheive via role-playing. From there we can progress
to leaving happy because we've done those things you can only do in
role-playing, and we did them really, really well!
Matthew Colville
In article <33CB88...@ix.netcom.com.spam>, Mark Apolinski
<apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> wrote:
> Jered Moses wrote:
> >
> >
> > mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
> >
> > > Whoah. You mean NO MATTER WHAT, even when large quantities of time and
> > >energy and all the player's happiness depends on something minute and
> > >inconsequential, yet possible unrealistic, happening, you'd stick with the
> > >realistic outcome?
> >
> > It seems to me you've created a straw-man here, first of all. In what
> > sense is an event "minute and inconsequential," if in it is invested
> > "large quantities of time and enegery and all the players' happiness"?
> > Could you give us an example?
>
> He hasn't created a straw man, he's just asking a question.
>
> Also, he didn't say that an event is minute and inconsequential and
> invested in large quantities... Read the post again.
>
> Millions of examples exist. Say that a particular character in an RPG
> has been developed for over a year of in-game play. The character is
> deep, and enjoyed by all, their story is engaging and approaching a
> climax, and they happen to botch a dexterity roll, slip on a banana
> peel, and fall off a cliff to their death. (and assuming that nothing
> saved them)
>
> The character is 'invested in large quantities of time and energy' and
> the banana peel is 'minute and inconsequential'.
Hah! This is exactly what I'm talking about! I, personally, was going
to try and come up with a situation in which the same things depended on a
flip of a coin, but this is just as good. I havn't actually gotten
Jered's response yet, so I'll have to settle for your defending me, which
you do a fine job of.
> > Secondly, yes, I would usually stick with the realistic outcome,
> > because that is the "contract" that I usually make with my players
> > before play begins: the way this campaign will be run is that I will
> > resolve events based strictly on "simulation," though I will use
> > "fast-forwarding" and other asimulationist techniques to avoid the
> > "boring stuff" as much as possible.
>
> So you're saying that NOT slipping on the banana peel is NOT realistic?
> I would have thought that both possibilities exist.
>
> What Matt is asking is why *choosing* another possible realistic outcome
> that preserves the investment in the character is considered a sin?
> Matt, apparently the answer is that the Virtue of
> Sticking-with-the-simulated-result-above-all-else is considered a higher
> virtue than preserving the investment. Only MHO, of course, since I
> don't accept this myself.
>
> > > Why? I mean, damn, what if you don't *know* what the
> > >realistic outcome would be? Does your brain short out?
> >
> > Warren would say that he "channels" (or, as I prefer, "apprehends")
> > the correct (realistic) outcome.
>
> But Warren uses dice. If he can apprehend the correct outcome, why does
> he need dice?
>
> And I don't think 'correct' means 'realistic' here. A 'realistic'
> outcome is only one that *could* have happened in the RW and there are
> usually several possible realistic outcomes to every situation. What I
> think Warren would say about the 'correct outcome is that that is the
> outcome that *did, in-fact occur* and that he apprehended.
> Apprehension is after-the-fact. Dice-rolling is before-the-fact. (or at
> least during-the-fact)
>
>
> Mark
You are a god.
GlennW2160
Matthew Colville wrote:
>Ah, ok. So why would you want to emphasize Gamism, Simulationism, or
>Dramatism over each other or any of the many other 'isms' we could
>invent?
The Gamism/Simulationism/Dramatism model is based on arbitrary
distinctions. This does not mean that it is not a useful model. It is
important that you understand exactly what is meant by the word model. We
realize that the Gamism/Simulationism/Dramatism model is not 'the one and
only true path', but we use it because, for *our* purposes, it is the best
model. If you find that a Munchist/Florescist model is more useful for
you, then, by all means, use it :)
> I will also take this opportunity to wonder why people on this
>newsgroup insist on using words like 'foregrounds' when perfectly good,
>and more common, words like 'emphasize,' exist that mean exactly the
>same thing.
Because we like to. Why don't you write to the Oxford English Dictionary
and ask that they remove 'foregrounds' since it is obseleted by the word
'emphasize'?
Matthew Colville
> Frankly Matthew, I think only someone determinedly obtuse or plain
> stupid could fail to deduce the meaning of "foregrounds" from the
> context of my original message.
Oh, I had a fairly good idea of what you might have meant, but I
envisioned a situation in whch I presumed what 'forgrounds' meant and you
jumped on me because it was somehow, minutely, different from 'emphasize.'
And considering how mired in minutae people on this newsgroup seem to
be, it seemed far too likely. I also don't like to give people the
opportunity to hide thier inability to argue behind purposefully obscure
language, so I tried to make sure we understood each other. . .
> I'll leave your first question for the
> extraordinarily patient among us, particularly those who don't mind
> repeating the same things over and over on the off chance they might
> sink in.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Jim
WhateverŠ
John H Kim
This is a reply to Matt Colville. As I understand it, he
is suggesting that all good games are created by spreading your
concentration on all factors more-or-less evenly -- i.e. not
giving any more thought to Drama as to Game Balance, and so
forth.
On a more general note... Matt, if you don't think the
current discussion topics are useful or relevant, then why don't
you start a thread about what you think *is* useful?
Matthew Colville <mcol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>> Games which stick to the middle of the triangle can work well,
>> but they won't succeed as intensely.
>
>They won't? That's absurd. What suceeds are games in which all the
>players and the GM come away from the session happy that they played.
>Acting like concentrating on one of the above three ideas, and not on
>the other two, or the other three hundred that you *could* have
>concentrated on, makes everyone happier is foolish in the extreme.
Eh? OK, I have a _Paranoia_ adventure which I run from
time to time, called _Bill and Ted's Heinous Mission_. It is
a jumble of jokes, mostly a parody of various time travel
movies. I pay no attention to world logic here: characters
will appear for no particular reason from popular time-travel
shows and movies. There is also no balanced challenge: I have
thrown in clauses such that the PC's will inevitably be drawn
to the next sequence.
Now, you seem to be telling me that I am stupid for
designing it this way -- that everyone would have more fun if
instead of spending all my time on funny gags I should also
pay attention to game balance and realism for this adventure.
I am open to your suggestions, and I would be happy to
provide more details (although I would want to throw in some
spoilers here -- this is the sort of thing I might run at the
Gathering or something).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>> Matthew, you might want to seriously consider the concept that
>> different people enjoy RPGs in different ways, and therefore
>> it's sensible for them to run them in different ways.
>
> I'm really not worried about that. I knew that even before I knew
>what an RPG was, because it's true of everything. We all do things in
>different ways. But, ultimately, we do them for the same reason. . .
>it makes us happy.
But everyone's happiness is predicated upon different things.
Let's take this down to earth: as a GM, I am faced with a
PC who has opened herself up to being ambushed by enemies. She knows
about the danger, but was unwilling to endanger the innocents of
where she was previously staying and thus took to the road. Looking
at her ambushers, it seems perfectly possible for them to overpower
and kill her without her having a chance at retaliation. Do I fudge
things so that she survives, or not?
As a player who was in this position, I can say I would prefer
to have my PC die. For me, if the GM applies this sort of Script
Immunity or "Fair Play" to the game, it can kill my enjoyment of
that game entirely. I would prefer to make a new character than
to play my old one in a game I can't believe in.
However, other players would answer the opposite: that they
would hate to have their character killed from ambush regardless.
In my mind, it is pretty useless to only give advice of
"Do whatever makes you and your players happy." That's no advice
at all. Instead, we can try to come up with some categories of
different ways of running games are and give conditional advice.
i.e. "If you run in Style X, it has the following pro's and
con's. These are the types of players who like Style X."
This at least has some content to it.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>I can do all of the above in a single session, hell in 10 minutes,
>and have a great time, or do none of the above and have a great time,
>all within the context of role-playing. I GMed an entire session in
>which the players sat on thier spaceship arguing about what to do
>next. For 4 hours. It was truly fantastic, because everyone stayed
>in character. The 'fully worked-out' world didn't impinge, except
>peripherally, into the discussion, there was no wargame element
>involved, and there was no triumph or tragedy.
OK. So how can I make that happen in *my* game? What
advice do you have?
Mark Apolinski
Jered Moses wrote:
>
> mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>
> >In article <33CB88...@ix.netcom.com.spam>, Mark Apolinski
> ><apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> wrote:
>
> >> He hasn't created a straw man, he's just asking a question.
>
> He's implicitly hypothesized the existence of a "trivial event" upon
> which large quantities of time, energy, and happiness depend. My
> point is that ANY item upon which large quantities of time, energy,
> and happiness depend is, by definition, not "minute and
> inconsequential." This is the straw man.
>
> >> the banana peel is 'minute and inconsequential'.
>
> No, the banana peel is NOT "minute and inconsequential," precisely
> BECAUSE large quantities of invested time and energy and enjoyment
> ride upon it. I refer you to my previous analogy to a Big Mac and a
> starving man; while in "ordinary circumstances" (whatever those are) a
> Big Mac is "minute and inconsequential." To a starving man, however,
> it is anything but.
>
> The moral of the story, I suppose, is don't go running around
> half-blind on cliffs without watching for banana peels!
Different strokes...
> >> > Secondly, yes, I would usually stick with the realistic outcome,
> >> > because that is the "contract" that I usually make with my players
> >> > before play begins: the way this campaign will be run is that I will
> >> > resolve events based strictly on "simulation," though I will use
> >> > "fast-forwarding" and other asimulationist techniques to avoid the
> >> > "boring stuff" as much as possible.
> >>
> >> So you're saying that NOT slipping on the banana peel is NOT realistic?
> >> I would have thought that both possibilities exist.
>
> But, to be less combative (though, I must say, nobody else seems to be
> concerned about such), you are right; both possibilities exist.
> However, the other part of "simulationism" is a resolution mechanism
> which has been agreed upon before the game begins. This mechanism
> might be "channeling" ("apprehending"), it might be a set of diced
> mechanics (say, "4th. Ed. Hero System"), or any of several other
> possibilities.
>
> The real question at hand is, I think, two-fold:
> 1) Does my resolution mechanism include plot-like or game-like
> concerns (e.g., the Theatrix diceless resolution system); and
>
> 2) Will I ever forego the resolution mechanism in favor of plot-like
> or game-like considerations?
>
> If the answer to both of these is "no," then you're running a game
> that I would call "simulationist." If the answer to one of these is
> "yes," then probably not.
A rather restrictive definition of the word 'simulationist'. IMHO of
course. How would you classify a game where the answers to 1) and 2)
are, respectively:
a) Rarely.
b) Sometimes.
c) Often.
d) Always.
(increasing occurence)
> >> What Matt is asking is why *choosing* another possible realistic outcome
> >> that preserves the investment in the character is considered a sin?
>
> You're the one making this into holy writ, not me. I'm just saying
> that it is a valid gaming preference to answer the previous two
> questions as "no," and that I don't, empirically, wind up with a less
> enjoyable game because of it.
Well I of course agree with that.
> >> > Warren would say that he "channels" (or, as I prefer, "apprehends")
> >> > the correct (realistic) outcome.
> >>
> >> But Warren uses dice. If he can apprehend the correct outcome, why does
> >> he need dice?
>
> You're denying the hypothesis. Warren's general working principle
> seems to me to be that the dice are a mechanism for determining what
> the "realistic" ("correct"--more below) outcome is, in fact. The
> hypothesis of the question is that I DON'T know what the "realistic"
> (correct) outcome is.
I only question it because it doesn't make sense to me. If the world is
'out there' and I roll dice 'in here', I don't see the causal
connection. But that's just me.
> In any case, as I mentioned earlier in this post, any game will have a
> pre-arranged resolution mechanism. To me, "realistic" results mean,
> at least for the purposes of this discussion, "Those determined by the
> pre-arranged resolution mechanism," provided that the answers to the
> non-sim questions concerning the mechanism itself are both "no."
Whenever you see the word 'realistic' in any of *my* posts, it will mean
'one of the full range of possible outcomes.'
Mark
Mark Apolinski
Psychohist wrote:
>
> Regarding the threefold model, Matthew Colville posts, in part:
>
> Couldn't you just as easily, and just as validly, talk
> about Munchists? People who think that munchies are an
> important part of gaming? Or Florescists? People who
> think that good lighting is important?
>
> and game describe different approaches to what happens in the game world.
> Munchies and lighting are 'metagame' issues - they are aspects of the
> player world, not the game world.
I have been chastised on several occasions for suggesting that game and
story concerns are part of the game world. In fact, by your own
definition, they are not.
Mark
Matthew Colville
In article <33CBE1...@erols.com>, jlhe...@erols.com wrote:
> Your question was based upon very shaky premises. Even now, your
> assertion in the last sentence of A: seems nonsensical and utterly
> unrelated to anything I actually said. And the truth is, I have come to
> enjoy your posts little enough that I just don't care.
Well, I had a response, but in light of this I figured, why bother.
John S. Novak
> Ah, ok. So why would you want to emphasize Gamism, Simulationism, or
>Dramatism over each other or any of the many other 'isms' we could invent?
Personal preference.
Excessive dramatism, for example, tends to drive me absolutely nuts
during gameplay.
(If you really want to get hairsplitting, I would place myself about
at the center of the triangle _during game background creation_ and
then move immediately to about halfway between the gamist and sim'ist
points when the game begins. Maybe a bit closer to sim'ist.)
> I will also take this opportunity to wonder why people on this
>newsgroup insist on using words like 'foregrounds' when perfectly good,
>and more common, words like 'emphasize,' exist that mean exactly the same
>thing.
Just to confuse you.
Besides, chicks love a guy with a big vocabulary.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
Mary K. Kuhner
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>> Games which stick to the middle of the triangle can work well,
>> but they won't succeed as intensely.
> They won't? That's absurd.
The rest of your message boils down to you saying "I'm right" over
and over. I'm sure you are right for yourself. I have found
a degree of specialization useful for me. Probably you wouldn't
like my games; possibly I wouldn't like yours.
I don't suppose you care how I run my games, since you're dismissing
my fundamental concerns as "absurd", but in that case I have to wonder
what you hope to gain from this newsgroup. If you don't have any
real interest in other styles of play, you are in the wrong
place. Try rec.games.frp.misc for general discussions of RPGs.
I don't think you'll find anything to interest you here.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John S. Novak
>> Because, contrary to what you apparently believe, many of us here try
>> to stress some or another of these facets above others.
> Why?
Why do some people prefer Indian food to Chinese food?
It's a fundamentally meaningless question. The fact exists, people
_do_ differ in their gaming preferences.
Fenyx3204
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) wrote:
> In other words, like this discussion, it's utterly meaningless.
Go to the FAQ. Do not pass GO. Do not collect 200 replies. ;)
"http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles.html"
Seriously, your initial question had worth (because you were promoting
discussion on relative definitions as they currently exist in the mindsets
of people on this newsgroup) -- but this one's answered in the FAQ, and
you should at least look it over before proceeding.
For my two-bits, an abstract discussion of role-playing is as valuable as
an abstract discussion of painting. Yeah, there are very few "pure"
cubists (painting) or "pure" simulationists (role-playing) -- but by
considering them in abstract, pure form you have more precise terms with
which to discuss reality (which blurs the edges between various
abstracts).
As for definitions, I started a thread just before reading this, so I
won't repeat myself a third time. ;)
Justin Bacon
Fenyx3204
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) wrote:
>> I don't think there's any benefit in pushing `isms', and I've
argued
>> against doing so repeatedly, but haven't really persuaded anyone
who
>> wasn't already persuaded. Maybe your arguments will be more
useful,
>> Matthew. :)
> Boo Ya! You, me, Mark, and Steve are going to kill this idea if it's
> the last thing we do! Viva le Revolution!
I think your problem is that you think because we discuss each of these
three things as separate entities that we do not acknowledge that they can
be mixed together.
You argue that because we discuss them separately and they rarely appear
completely separate in the real world there is no use in discussing them.
This is, of course, absurd. It would be like arguing that because
Capitalism and Socialism rarely occur unsullied in the real world (the
U.S., for example, mixes them) that there is no use in discussing them.
Justin Bacon
Fenyx3204
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) wrote:
> I will also take this opportunity to wonder why people on this
> newsgroup insist on using words like 'foregrounds' when perfectly good,
> and more common, words like 'emphasize,' exist that mean exactly the
same
> thing.
My primary concern has never been whether or not others are incapable of
following my legitimate word choices, but whether those word choices
express my idea in the most accurate manner.
My main concern is not with your comprehension, but with how specific I am
being.
I am mainly worried about being as exact as possible, not with the
literacy level of my readers.
Take your pick. I don't personally care this time.
However, in general, I like to be as specific as possible (especially when
discussing technical or abstract issues as I do in this newsgroup) -- and
if it means using "Greetings." instead of "How ya doin'?" I'll probably go
for the slightly more esoteric over common slang every time.
Justin Bacon
Psychohist
Justin Bacon posts, in part:
No one makes a game decision based on their
conviction that they need more food.
At least, not in role playing games. Though I have heard "If you will get
pizza, I will concede seven no trump, doubled and redoubled ... with an
overtrick."
Warren Dew
Mary K. Kuhner
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> writes:
>So how have you managed to produce the 'extreme' kinds? I think it
>might be due to the fact that you have a stable and established gaming
>group. In my situation, I've had three different gaming groups in two
>years due to moving and changes in my real life. If things have
>stabilized now, hopefully I'll be able to get some stability in my
>gaming as well.
A stable group is a great blessing, certainly. I had a core group
of players in Berkeley for 5 years, here in Seattle (including two
of the same people) for 3 more. The games got a lot better once
GM and players were really on the same wavelength. I talk a lot
about _Sunrise War_ from Berkeley, but you'll notice I don't have
much to say about the campaign before it, because honestly it was
pretty bad stuff. Assumption clash, style clash, railroading
of GM by players and players by GM, the works. It took about
a year to get the bugs out.
Most of the examples I've actually given come from games with my
husband, which I trust is a *very* stable group indeed.
I think the various extreme corners of the triangle impose certain
restrongions on the campaign. Note: the following are observations,
not perscriptions; if someone's game is an exception, more power
to them!
Strong simulationist games fare best if they're long. Since challenge
is not guaranteed, and drama is not guaranteed, there are going to
be dull parts in between the interesting parts--almost no matter
how your group defines interesting. And the particular glories
of such games take lots of time to develop. It doesn't matter
how good the GM's grasp of the world is if the players only see
it for a couple of hours; he might as well be using stage-scenery
for all the players will be able to tell.
As a player I'd be unlikely to commit strongly to such a game--a
prerequisite for tears shed or ephiphanies gained--unless I thought
the gaming group was stable and likely to last. It's just not
a good risk--too easy to struggle through the bad parts and then
never get to the good parts.
Strong gamist games need a group which really knows the rules and
the important aspects of the setting--just as wargames are the
most fun if everyone plays them proficiently. I could enjoy
playing Hero with a bunch of hard-core tacticians, but save me
from players with the same mindset who are hazy on the rules!
I don't know much about strong dramatist games, but I have some
suspicion that, opposite to simulationist ones, they may fare
best if relatively short. Then you can focus on the most
stunning moments of the character's life, without the unrealism
which may occur if you try to have stunning moments every session
for the same character. I think you also need players who are
comfortable with showing and feeling emotion. Paradoxically,
this may be easier with a convention group of strangers than
with a gaming group which is social, but not intimate. Strangers
don't worry as much about "what will the other players think of
me?" It will get easier again as intimacy develops, assuming
the group lets it develop.
I know that in the GURPs group I played in briefly I'd not
have felt comfortable at all about crying; it would
have been terribly embarrassing, and probably a violation
of the rather macho game contract. Such a group just isn't
going to reach the heights of drama no matter what the GM does.
It's too emotionally risky. So though you want short games,
you probably want a long-established group (or a constant
series of strangers).
Of course, this all boils down to "Have excellent players" which
is not the world's most useful advice....
It's possible that talking to your players about what they really
want from gaming might suggest a more specialized form of campaign;
or it might reveal that they all have different preferences, in which
case mid-triangle is the place to be. It's also quite possible that
your players have no idea. It's taken me about 19 years to come
to my current understanding (I started playing when I was 15) and
I still can't fully answer "What's your dream game?" (Part of
the problem is that my answer involves "Suprise me. But a *good*
surprise, please. No, I can't tell you what that means; it's
supposed to be a surprise!" Which is neither helpful nor fair.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Psychohist
Me, responding to Matthew Colvilles Munchists and Florescists:
You would be talking about a different aspect of
gaming. Story, world, and game describe different
approaches to what happens in the game world.
Munchies and lighting are 'metagame' issues - they
are aspects of the player world, not the game world.
Mark Apolinski:
I have been chastised on several occasions for
suggesting that game and story concerns are part of
the game world. In fact, by your own definition,
they are not.
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
Story, world, and game describe different approaches to determining what
happens at the character level. Munchies and lighting are 'metagame'
issues - they apply only at the player level, and don't affect the
characters.
Warren Dew
Psychohist
Steven Howard asks of Jered Moses:
You write that you "would" do it? Have you ever
actually done it? Actually killed off an entire party,
tossing out an entire set of characters that had been
played for a long time, for the sole reason that to do
otherwise would have been "unrealistic"?
I don't know about Jered, but it's happened in Laratoa.
How did your players feel about that?
Well, it was a solo expedition, so only one player was involved. He'd
just lost his most experienced character - the most experienced player
character in the game, in fact - so he was understandably unhappy.
Nonetheless, he understood that it was in keeping with the game contract.
He kept playing for a while, losing his next most experienced character
not too long thereafter. He hasn't played much since.
For that matter, how did *you* feel about it?
I thought it was unfortunate that the character had not planned his
actions so as to be more certain of success.
Actually, I've wiped out entire parties on a number of other occasions -
but they've generally included some relatively inexperienced characters,
so I wasn't sure that they'd qualify under your "characters that had been
played for a long time" criterion.
I've also killed off large majorities of the characters in multicharacter
parties which would have qualified - but since the cases I can think of
involved at least one character surviving, the parties weren't completely
wiped out. It's really pretty hard to wipe out every single member of a
large party composed entirely of experienced characters - experienced
adventurers tend to be good at surviving.
Warren Dew
Jered Moses
bl...@ibm.net (Steven Howard) writes:
>Okay, we're still discussing this question:
> Whoah. You mean NO MATTER WHAT, even when large quantities of time
> and energy and all the player's happiness depends on something minute and
> inconsequential, yet possible unrealistic, happening, you'd stick with
> the realistic outcome?
>In <5qgfvd$b...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, je...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jered Moses) writes:
>>
>>No, I didn't misread the question at all; I just disagree with the
>>assertion that such a solution is "trivial" or "minute." This is, if
>>I may, like telling a starving man that a Big Mac is no big deal. In
>>normal circumstances, I'd agree; a Big Mac is no big deal. I suspect
>>the starving man will disagree.
>See, that's why I wrote "RELATIVELY trivial" and "didn't have any
>LONG-TERM or LARGE-SCALE consequences." (emphasis, of course,
>added.) The point is that while life-or-death decisions affecting the
>PCs are central to the game, they are rarely central to the world.
>The world as a whole doesn't seem to care if one more person starves.
That's true. And if I were playing "Solar System: The RPG," I
probably wouldn't care much if one of the humans on the planet I was
playing met an unfortunate demise; it would, as you say, be trivial.
Look, I think we're really arguing cross-wise here. I agree with you
that from the perspective of the gameworld, the life or death of a PC
is probably relatively trivial. I just don't see what bearing that
has on the discussion, because I never roleplay from the wholistic
perspective of a gameworld.
Let's get back to the point at hand. The question (really, the
expression of shock and possibly abhorrence) was this: "Would you let
a `trivial' event/object (Mark A. used the example of a banana peel
on a cliff) cause the demise of (a/some) PC(s) in which lots of time,
energy, and enjoyment had been invested, simply because this was the
`correct' outcome in the situation?" My answer was, "Yes, when I am
running [what I consider to be] simulationist games."
Now, perhaps we can discuss this on the merits, rather than mining
the fruitless vein of whether or not such an event/object is "trivial"
given the context. My claim has been, all along, that this is the
type of game that I and my players enjoy, and the type of game that we
prefer when we engage in such a contract. Frankly, I'm pretty sure
nobody here has actually ever PLAYED in one of my simulationist games,
and so is hardly in a position to argue with me on that point;
nevertheless, I'm open to those (like Matt) who want to try to
convince me otherwise...
>>Now, with that all out of the way, let me address the substance of
>>your example. To be succinct: yes, I would let them die, assuming I
>>was in a "standard contract" game.
>>All of my players know this going in. And if a player preferred not
>>to play that way, s/he probably wouldn't like to be in my gaming
>>group. Which is fine.
>You write that you "would" do it? Have you ever actually done it?
>Actually killed off an entire party, tossing out an entire set of characters
>that had been played for a long time, for the sole reason that to do
>otherwise would have been "unrealistic"? How did your players feel
>about that? For that matter, how did *you* feel about it?
Yes, I've actually done it. One fairly early example I can remember
was when an AD&D party, who had chosen to rest in a room in a cave-
system/dungeon/whatever-it-was after having cleared out its
inhabitants, was surprise-attacked by a second group of whatever-the-
inhabitants-were. One PC mage, in a panic, grabbed his nearest
weapon: a Wand of Wonder. He fired it off, hoping for the best, and
came up with the worst--a fireball. Toasted most of the party, and
the rest were easy pickin's for the third wave of inhabitants.
Now, I could have fudged the die roll, maybe had the wand produce
butterflies or something. But I didn't. Nor did the players expect
me to; they were annoyed at the mage (and his player), cursed the
fates, and moved on.
Now, my current preferred world--sort of a Gamma World/cyberpunk/dark
heroes cross run under Hero system--is also simulationist, and has
moderate lethality (i.e., PC's don't, as a rule, die episodically, but
it wouldn't be a huge shock if they did die, either). However, I took
some time and care in constructing it to compensate as much as
possible for the lethality effect by making re-introduction of PC's
relatively seamless in most circumstances; it's population-dense,
there are LOTS of unfleshed NPC's whom one might run into on a daily
basis, and there are lots of alliances/treaties/pacts in place with
them (as well, of course, as a lot of nemeses/enemies/general
miscreants). Most players will have a second character "on deck,"
just in case, and a reasonably good idea of how he's connected with
the group.
This, incidentally, is also my response to whomever was asking about
re-introducing PC's in a simulationist game, if you're reading...
Mark Apolinski
Psychohist wrote:
>
> Sorry, I should have been more specific.
>
> Story, world, and game describe different approaches to determining what
> happens at the character level. Munchies and lighting are 'metagame'
> issues - they apply only at the player level, and don't affect the
> characters.
Depends on what you mean by 'the character level'. I thought that it's
been established that story and game factors are metagame factors.
Or perhaps it's the term 'metagame'? Doesn't 'metagame' refer to things
associated with the game but not actually being modelled? So dice, for
example, are metagame along with food, lighting and a desire for a
heroic ending to the story. As opposed to 'in-game' factors like my
character's desire for revenge.
Story and game issues certainly aren't 'in-game'.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> writes:
>
> >So how have you managed to produce the 'extreme' kinds? I think it
> >might be due to the fact that you have a stable and established gaming
> >group. In my situation, I've had three different gaming groups in two
> >years due to moving and changes in my real life. If things have
> >stabilized now, hopefully I'll be able to get some stability in my
> >gaming as well.
>
> A stable group is a great blessing, certainly. I had a core group
> of players in Berkeley for 5 years, here in Seattle (including two
> of the same people) for 3 more. The games got a lot better once
> GM and players were really on the same wavelength. I talk a lot
> about _Sunrise War_ from Berkeley, but you'll notice I don't have
> much to say about the campaign before it, because honestly it was
> pretty bad stuff. Assumption clash, style clash, railroading
> of GM by players and players by GM, the works. It took about
> a year to get the bugs out.
>
> Most of the examples I've actually given come from games with my
> husband, which I trust is a *very* stable group indeed.
Heh. When you say it took a year to work the bugs out, can I assume that
this means that the GM and Players learned what worked and what didn't
and changed to work better together? Did you have to let anyone go
because they were fundamentally incompatible? Do you believe that
anyone can be fundamentally incompatible?
I ask because I think my new group is fairly unstable. One player, for
example, has told me specifically that he only runs one of three
characters in *any* game. The skills and profession may vary, but the
core personality and motivations are *always* one of his three choices.
This boggles my mind and I don't really think he'll fit in with my
overall style, and it seems clear that he just *isn't* going to change
to suit me.
> I think the various extreme corners of the triangle impose certain
> restrongions on the campaign. Note: the following are observations,
> not perscriptions; if someone's game is an exception, more power
> to them!
[observations snipped]
Thanks, good comments! I agree with your observations about strongly
dramatic games. You mention one of the problems I have in trying to
encourage strong emotions in a group of people who aren't close yet.
Hopefully, if I'm here for awhile, we will begin to trust each other
more in this regard.
Mark
Jered Moses
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> writes:
>Jered Moses wrote:
>>
>> The real question at hand is, I think, two-fold:
>> 1) Does my resolution mechanism include plot-like or game-like
>> concerns (e.g., the Theatrix diceless resolution system); and
>>
>> 2) Will I ever forego the resolution mechanism in favor of plot-like
>> or game-like considerations?
>>
>> If the answer to both of these is "no," then you're running a game
>> that I would call "simulationist." If the answer to one of these is
>> "yes," then probably not.
>A rather restrictive definition of the word 'simulationist'. IMHO of
>course. How would you classify a game where the answers to 1) and 2)
>are, respectively: a) Rarely. b) Sometimes. c) Often. d) Always.
Ok, I was being a bit sloppy with my last sentence, because I don't
really think that "simulationist" is Boolean. I think a "strict
simulationist" would answer "no" to both 1 and 2, but that one is
still "pretty" simulationist (to varying degrees) if they answer
"rarely" or "sometimes." "Often" would imply, to me, that
"simulationist" isn't the best descriptor for your style of play;
"Always," of course, means that you are emphatically NOT a
simulationist.
>> >> What Matt is asking is why *choosing* another possible realistic outcome
>> >> that preserves the investment in the character is considered a sin?
>>
>> You're the one making this into holy writ, not me. I'm just saying
>> that it is a valid gaming preference to answer the previous two
>> questions as "no," and that I don't, empirically, wind up with a less
>> enjoyable game because of it.
>Well I of course agree with that.
Good; now let's find out what Matt has to say... :)
>> >> > Warren would say that he "channels" (or, as I prefer, "apprehends")
>> >> > the correct (realistic) outcome.
>> >>
>> >> But Warren uses dice. If he can apprehend the correct outcome, why does
>> >> he need dice?
>>
>> You're denying the hypothesis. Warren's general working principle
>> seems to me to be that the dice are a mechanism for determining what
>> the "realistic" ("correct"--more below) outcome is, in fact. The
>> hypothesis of the question is that I DON'T know what the "realistic"
>> (correct) outcome is.
>I only question it because it doesn't make sense to me. If the world is
>'out there' and I roll dice 'in here', I don't see the causal
>connection. But that's just me.
Well, the way I've read Warren, using dice for him is like using Tarot
cards or a Ouija board. I.e., it reveals to him truths about the
world that he didn't know before, and wouldn't have known otherwise,
but are truths nevertheless.
While I find Warren's mystical approach to gaming inherently
fascinating, my own explanation is mundane--and, indeed, I notice that
you've clipped it from my last response. I simply say that my world
works the way that the Hero System (or whatever) says it does,
including optional rules X, Y, and Z and homebrews P, D, and Q.
Matt's question implied that at some point, a situation could arise in
which I didn't know how to acquire the "correct" ("realistic") result;
my answer is, "It ain't ever happened yet, so the question is
meaningless to me."
Jered Moses
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>In article <5qgu5h$8nq$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>,
>jh...@labdien.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) wrote:
>> This is a reply to Matt Colville. As I understand it, he
>> is suggesting that all good games are created by spreading your
>> concentration on all factors more-or-less evenly -- i.e. not
>> giving any more thought to Drama as to Game Balance, and so
>> forth.
> Well, that's not entirely accurate. Specifically, my position is that
>the three 'isms' you guys have been brutally sing over and over are no
>more valuable than any number of other things, and therefore deserve no
>more attention. I do not believe they represent definitive paradigms.
I don't believe anybody's ever claimed that they represent "definitive
paradigms." People have claimed that they found the terms useful for
distinguishing different elements of their play. Are you proposing
that some of us are wrong, and that we really haven't found the terms
useful at all?
>...while in my gaming group,
>we often have long, involved conversations about the ontology of
>role-playing,... *here* I find people speaking in terms so alien
>to my normal experience that I find it difficult to take it seriously.
>And I don't see it provoking any more insightful conclusions. So I
>dissaprove, and my dissaproval registers in discussions like this.
I'm curious, Matt: how long did you spend "lurking" before you
decided to post? How much did you try to understand what people were
attempting before casting your dissaproval [sic]?
Now, granted, we can't expect that everybody in the discussion was
here ~5 years ago when Berkman started all this silliness; in fact,
some of my favorite contributors here came after that. But I don't
think it's unreasonable to suggest that a more constructive approach
to initiating oneself into an intellectual community is to ask a few
questions and try to understand what issues they have dealt with and
are dealing with, rather than to immediately denounce their entire
endeavor as absurd and misdirected.
> I thought about the name of the newsgroup. 'Advocacy.' 'The act of
>pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, an idea, or a
>policy; active support.' I really don't see anyone arguing or pleading in
>favor of role-playing.
While I'm not a(n) historian by any means, let me try to help you here
as best I can; perhaps John Kim or Berkman or somebody else can fill
in the details.
This group was originally founded mostly to separate "Hero vs. GURPS"
and similiar arguments from frp.misc; it was, in other words, founded
for the advocacy of various role-playing systems (read: flame-wars).
Then, about '92 or so, David Berkman came along with THEATRIX, an RPG
with a decidedly different paradigm of gaming from the mainstream of
publications. From his advocacy of that game--and others' disapproval
or skepticism of it--game a wider discussion of the perspective of
"plot-oriented" gaming (which is, I think it's fair to say, the
paradigm shift that Berkman sought to instill with Theatrix) versus
"world-oriented" gaming.
Those two have become, over time, refined to "dramatic" and
"simulationist" respectively. "Gamism" is a relatively recent
addition to the discussion.
So, while this group is ostensibly to serve as a siphon for the flame-
wars of advocates of different systems, it has evolved into a
discussion of abstract ideas about gaming. I do think it's valuable
to know the roots, though, as this provides a valuable perspective on
why the discussion has taken the tack that it has.
(John, David, Seawasp if you're out there, others--how'd I do? :)
Irina Rempt
Mary K. Kuhner (mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu) wrote:
> It doesn't matter
> how good the GM's grasp of the world is if the players only see
> it for a couple of hours; he might as well be using stage-scenery
> for all the players will be able to tell.
I don't think I can agree: if the GM's (or at least this GM's) grasp of
the world isn't good enough, the stage scenery will be so rickety that
the players could blow it over just by raising their voices. So I might
as well go the whole way and use the real thing which is in no danger
of falling apart.
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
II. "Visne scire quod credam? Credo orbes volantes exstare."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Apolinski
Psychohist wrote:
>
> Steven Howard asks of Jered Moses:
>
> actually done it? Actually killed off an entire party,
> tossing out an entire set of characters that had been
> played for a long time, for the sole reason that to do
> otherwise would have been "unrealistic"?
>
>
>
> just lost his most experienced character - the most experienced player
> character in the game, in fact - so he was understandably unhappy.
> Nonetheless, he understood that it was in keeping with the game contract.
>
> He kept playing for a while, losing his next most experienced character
> not too long thereafter. He hasn't played much since.
It doesn't sound to me as if he enjoyed himself then.
Mark
Jered Moses
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
> If Jared, presuming I've got this right,...
Well, it's Jered, but otherwise you're fine so far...
> really would sacrifice months
>of work because, say, someone failed thier perception roll and didn't
>notice a bananna peel on the ground, or some other inconsequential rule,
>then I can't *imagine* that they'd have players who enjoyed the game.
As my mother-in-law would say, "A possibility is not prevented by your
lack of ability to imagine it."
>Saying "Adhering to what is the most realistic is SO MUCH MORE important
>than any other element that I'd never violate it," doesn't sound like
>anything anyone would actually do. it sounds much more like the GMs who
>lie to you about what they have done in thier old campaigns.
If you want to enter this discussion with the presupposition that
anybody who disagrees with you is lying, that is your prerogative; I
suspect, however, that you won't get very far that way.
Now, perhaps instead of expressing your abhorrence and disbelief for
my gaming choices, you might have been more productive and asked
instead, "Ok, Jered, suppose one does play `simulationally' as you've
described. How do you handle or mitigate the fact that your campaign
might blow up at any time?"
Had you done this, I might have given you a short dissertation on what
I consider to be effective game-world creation considerations for
aspiring simulationists. And it's possible that from that might have
ensued an interesting discussion about the gameworld design
necessities of various style considerations.
But you didn't, and I didn't, and it didn't.
Irina Rempt
Mary K. Kuhner (mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu) wrote:
> It's possible that talking to your players about what they really
> want from gaming might suggest a more specialized form of campaign;
> or it might reveal that they all have different preferences, in which
> case mid-triangle is the place to be.
A thought experiment. Suppose some of you were coming to the
Netherlands and I'd agreed to show you my native town, Haarlem, which I
know very well though I've been living elsewhere for about two years
now. We would only have about an afternoon, and it would be a concern
of mine for everybody to have a good time.
(Note that I'm using simulations of you, which are naturally skewed and
grossly simplified).
Scott, obviously, would be easy to please; he wants to look around.
Warren insists on the things he sees being real: no problem, because
I'll be taking you to the real Haarlem anyway; building a stage set of
it would be a waste of effort and probably beyond my capabilities.
Sarah and Mary, too, would pose little difficulty: Sarah enjoys seeing
new places and meeting new people, and Mary is happy if she can talk to
someone interesting. I know a lot of places and people there, so that
can be arranged. Mark would prefer something to happen: that takes a
bit more effort, but I can read the local papers and see if anything
interesting is going on; if not, try and get an event going myself.
David is still harder to provide for, as he wants to be able to have an
influence on events - this is where I start to panic, because it would
still fall to me not to spoil everybody else's fun, but I'm an
experienced Tour Master, so I'll take him along. I can't think of any
self-avowed gamists, except possibly Brian, but they can come if they
want, and I'll try to pay enough attention to everybody to please them.
Yes, we definitely end up mid-triangle - in the best restaurant in town :-)
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
XIII. "Non erravi perniciose!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Jones II
Steven Howard wrote:
>
> Personally, I've known GMs who SAID they'd just kill off the party
> in such a situation, but I've never seen anyone actually do it.
I have. And to answer the next question, no, no one had a problem
with it. We *did* have to start a new campaign (for obvious reasons).
Personally, I prefer games like this (there are all too few of them in
my opinion). My preferences are about as strictly simulationist as you
can get.
> Steven Howard
--
John L. Jones II E-Mail: bi...@nis.lanl.gov
Iacta alea est.
Gaius Iulius Caesar (circa 100 B.C. - 44 B.C.)
Fenyx3204
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) wrote:
> But aren't there other things which drive you nuts too? And aren't
> there other things you prefer over any of the previous three thingys?
> This is the crux of my argument. Drop the pretense and get down to what
> matters.
Well, for me, there *are* other things which I take not of during the
gaming session. For example, I have problems both when there is no food
available -- and when people are sloppy in their eating habits. I can't
stand people who have bad personal hygiene. I generally prefer a round
table to a square one so that everyone feels a little more equal and
connected.
However, none of these things exist on the same measurement level of the
Simulationist-Dramatist-Gamist triangle of values (which, in my mind,
measure the the considerations the GM makes for game-impacting decisions
-- the "Definition" thread). To attempt to add "munchies" into this model
would be like trying to incorporate a theory of painting into a theory of
economics -- interesting, but generally pointless and probably impossible.
So, is there more to the gaming experience than the Three Styles. Yeah, of
course there is. But as long as we're discussing *style* (and not munchie,
lighting, or table-design) preferences than to have these three terms is
useful -- because, as of this moment, they seem to encompass all of the
styles with which we are familiar.
Please feel free to debate whether or not there is a Fourth Style
(Pastichism is one example of a recent attempt to expand them), but to
tell us that we are all deluding ourselves into thinking we're actually
accomplishing anything is more than just stupid -- it's insulting.
[ Note: In case I haven't been totally clear, your munchy example is *not*
a fourth style. ]
Justin Bacon
John H Kim
OK, another reply to Matt Colville here. The question is
whether talking in terms of general paradigms (such as "Gamism")
is useful. On the one hand: sure, no real game is going to
exactly match what the paradigm is. However, how else are you
going to give actual advice about a game?
One option is to try to declare universals: i.e. "If you're
not playing Storyteller, then you're just rolling dice."
"PC's shouldn't be killed unless you think the player has done
something stupid or wrong." We've had a lot of that in the past
on this group, and it inevitably either dies or goes into a flamewar.
There are always some people who disagree with these supposed
universals. Personally, my enjoyment of campaigns is often
seriously harmed by the GMing fudging to save PC's as in the
latter example.
The other option I see is to only talk about specific
examples of people's campaigns. i.e. We might discuss Joe's players
and game in a particular situation, and suggest what might be the
best course of action. Would the same be true for a different
game? The only answer seems to be, "It depends." If you try to
say what it depends on, then you are inventing categories.
That is, if you say "Only do that for serious campaigns" then
you have suggested that "serious" games are a category. This
will then provoke fights over which games are "serious".
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
For example, I asked a question about your game. You had a
session which was interesting simply by the players discussing
among themselves. How can I make that happen in my game?
No, that wasn't a rhetorical question. I have had such things
happen at times in my games, but I can't say for sure what
encourages or discourages it.
If you try to come up with a general answer, then I suspect
it is going to need clauses like "If the game is like such, then
this technique can work. But in other cases, it seems dubious."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
To Matt -- have you read my FAQ? I would like to quote it
on this general point...
" 8) What is the point of all this abstract discussion?
Many times the discussion in .advocacy seems purely academic,
unrelated to any practical issues of actually running or playing in
a game. However, some of us feel that by some analysis of the
techniques and styles which occur in RPG's, we can help improve
actual game play. Some possibilities:
-> Creating tools - like the questionaire in Part II of the FAQ -
to help GM's and player's figure out their style differences
and reach a compromise (or simply avoid playing together if
their styles are too different)
-> Give GM's and player's new ideas for methods and style of
play, which may help them to stretch out to different and
interesting variations.
-> Analyze what techniques work best with what styles -- i.e.
pro's and con's based on classification. (i.e. If you have
Develop-In-Play players, then explicitly announced campaign
themes might not be that useful).
-> Allow for easier discussion when different GM's or players
are comparing notes, by creating a common vocabulary of how
to refer to certain features
-> Keep up interest level in games"
Psychohist
Regarding my example of a player who gafiated from my campaign after
losing two experienced characters in which he'd invested over a decade of
work, Mark Apolinski posts:
It doesn't sound to me as if he enjoyed himself then.
Very perceptive. I still consider his overall participation to be a
success. Perhaps Matthew Colville will consider this a rebuttal to his
theory that the only objective of role playing games is to have fun.
An addendum, by the way: this player just called this morning, and
subsequently emailed a 46k document describing how to bring his remaining
characters up to date. Perhaps he just needed a brief seven year break
from the game.
Warren Dew
David Berkman
Fenyx3204 (feny...@aol.com) wrote:
: However, none of these things exist on the same measurement level of the
: Simulationist-Dramatist-Gamist triangle of values (which, in my mind,
: measure the the considerations the GM makes for game-impacting decisions
: -- the "Definition" thread). To attempt to add "munchies" into this model
: would be like trying to incorporate a theory of painting into a theory of
: economics -- interesting, but generally pointless and probably impossible.
Leading to the...
Pizza
*
* *
* *
* *
* * * * *
Table Lighting
...theory of roleplay.
David
Matthew Colville
In article <19970716194...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
> Regarding my example of a player who gafiated from my campaign after
> losing two experienced characters in which he'd invested over a decade of
> work, Mark Apolinski posts:
>
> It doesn't sound to me as if he enjoyed himself then.
>
> Very perceptive. I still consider his overall participation to be a
> success. Perhaps Matthew Colville will consider this a rebuttal to his
> theory that the only objective of role playing games is to have fun.
Nope. Sit him down and ask him why he wanted to play. Eventually, if
you keep asking him "why?" he will eventually have to answer "Because to
do so made me happy."
This is not to say that everyone always has a good time at everything
they do, that's absurd and not what I asserted. But the *reason* we do
anything, i.e. work, order a big mac instead of a quarter pounder, decide
to do the dishes rather than be punished by our parents, are because the
alternatives would not have made us as happy as what we chose.
Happiness is the only end which is itself not a means to some other end.
Matthew Colville
In article <5qip26$mja$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>,
jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) wrote:
> OK, another reply to Matt Colville here. The question is
> whether talking in terms of general paradigms (such as "Gamism")
> is useful. On the one hand: sure, no real game is going to
> exactly match what the paradigm is. However, how else are you
> going to give actual advice about a game?
I'm not poo-pooing the use of specialized terminology. THAC0 doesn't
bother me, to give a silly example. What I think we could all do without
is manifesting ideas and then holding them up as universals. The
GamiSimulDramatists seem to be (and I started this thread to make sure
they are, and they are) inventing these ideas, and then desiring to
believe that they represent empirical differences in games, when they
don't. They are invented categories, and as I've said, they could have
invented totally different ones that I'm sure would have seemed just as
realistic. It's taxonomy for the sake of taxonomy. Ick.
> For example, I asked a question about your game. You had a
> session which was interesting simply by the players discussing
> among themselves. How can I make that happen in my game?
> No, that wasn't a rhetorical question. I have had such things
> happen at times in my games, but I can't say for sure what
> encourages or discourages it.
>
> If you try to come up with a general answer, then I suspect
> it is going to need clauses like "If the game is like such, then
> this technique can work. But in other cases, it seems dubious."
Ok, let me tell you.
The PCs were playing the remaining command crew of The Black Company.
One of six companies defending the Earth against invasion by the
Drinadii. All the other companies had been destroyed, the Black Company's
capital ship had been jumped to a random location, and the Earth had
falled to the Drinadii. The question was, as they sat on thier gunship,
The Brutus, thinking about what had just happened (i.e. the most stunning
military defeat in the history of man) "what do we do next?"
1) Each player was impressed with and interested in the campaign world I
had developed. None of them were sitting around, wonderng when we were
going to get to play L5R.
2) I had designed a method via which each player's 'Class' for lack of a
better term, was very compartmental. I.e. clearly distinct from all the
others. There was no 'Class' duplication, so each player (there were 6
players) was the absolute authority in thier field. No-one felt they had
been railroaded into picking a class so it wouldn't duplicate one of the
others ("oh, well, we've got two fighters already, I guess I'll be the
cleric," in other words.)
3) There were many things that *could* happen. There were many avenues
they could explore. It was a Galactic Empire campaign and the group had
many issues they had to address and keep in thier heads.
4) All the players were intelligent and capable of role-playing. Also, on
this particular night, all of them were really interested in role-playing.
5) I, as GM, didn't say "Ok, here's what's true, what are you going to do
next," and then listen to everyone, then say "Ok, then this happens. Now
what are you going to do?" When everyone was ready, the Commander said
(having been thinking about it since the week before, when everyone had
seen the defeat of the Terran Military) "Ok, here are our options, as I
see them: _____, and here are our priorities." After that, everyone just
brainstormed about what they thought had happened, should happen next,
etc. I hovered around the table, prompting people every once in a while,
taking people out of the room to give them information their character had
that the player didn't know about, and generally enjoying watching the
drama unfold.
It was truly spectacular. The reason I GM. Very rewarding. Each
player, not me, got to drop thier own bombshells on the rest of the group
(I.e. the engineer got to say, "I believe that, with the equipment I have
here, I could jury-rig a cloaking device." Cloaks are abhorrent to the
Black Company, bringing dishonor to the group. But aren't these
extenuating circumstances? The Medical officer invented, on his own
without my help, the idea of Forging (something like cloning) the
remaining members of the Black Comany and rebuilding thier army. The
Security officer pointed out that they still had a responsibility to the
citizens of the Terran Empire. Perhaps they should try to liberate those
they could, and move the empire to a different star system? The
Communications officer broached the idea that maybe there *wasn't* a Black
Company anymore. What point continuing to act like a military company
when everyone else had been defeated? Maybe they'd best serve what was
left of the Empire by becoming mercenaries.)
All I had to do was delicately steer the conversation. I wasn't
sitting behind a GMs screen, giving orders or waiting for what AC someone
hit. I was up and walking around the table.
So there certainly are general answers here. Yet I wasn't thinking
about "how realistic is this? How dramatic am I being?" I was trying to
make sure that everyone spoke up, which some people assert is an element
of 'gamism," but what the hell, we're playing a game. I don't want people
to walk away from the session unhappy because someone else was stepping on
thier role-playing toes. And, as the only authority in the room, it's my
responsability to make sure things go well.
Afterwards, many of us talked about why things went so well, and how
cool it was. No-one brought up any of the issues I've seen talked about
in the GamiSimulDramatist discussion.
> To Matt -- have you read my FAQ?
Yes I have. I think it's groovy.
> I would like to quote it
> on this general point...
>
> " 8) What is the point of all this abstract discussion?
>
> Many times the discussion in .advocacy seems purely academic,
> unrelated to any practical issues of actually running or playing in
> a game.
Yeah, but isn't it possible that the reason it seems that way is
because it *is* that way? And if it is purely academic and debate for
debate sake, wouldn't it be a good thing to recognize that and try to
avoid it?
> However, some of us feel that by some analysis of the
> techniques and styles which occur in RPG's, we can help improve
> actual game play. Some possibilities:
>
> -> Creating tools - like the questionaire in Part II of the FAQ -
> to help GM's and player's figure out their style differences
> and reach a compromise (or simply avoid playing together if
> their styles are too different)
I've found many things in the FAQ that have actually added to my
vocabulary about role-playing. The Develop In Play and Develop At Start
discussion was really eye-opening for me. But this isn't an *artificial*
distinction, like the GamiSimulDramatism discussion. There is an actual
point in time before which you're not yet playing, and after which you
are. So you can discuss what happens before then and after then.
Not only that, but people really do *either* spend a lot of time during
character creation thinking about thier characer, or not. So there is a
benefit from this discussion.
Jim Henley
Jered Moses wrote:
>
> mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>
> >...while in my gaming group,
> >we often have long, involved conversations about the ontology of
> >role-playing,...
Ontology. That's a pretty fancy jargony word there.
> > I thought about the name of the newsgroup. 'Advocacy.'
> >I really don't see anyone arguing or pleading in
> >favor of role-playing.
>
> This group was originally founded mostly to separate "Hero vs. GURPS"
> and similiar arguments from frp.misc; it was, in other words, founded
> for the advocacy of various role-playing systems (read: flame-wars).
Hey, but maybe we're missing a bet here. Maybe we _should_ try to be
more like, say, the comp.os.*.advocacy groups. Jered, why don't you get
the ball rolling by crossposting an anti-Scrabble message in the
rec.games.boardgames tree. I'd do it myself, except I got a 75-point
play just last week, so I'm feeling kindly disposed toward Scrabble
right now. But we could start devoting our energy toward getting, oh,
poker players to stop wasting their time with cards and take up our own
vastly superior hobby. Or any White Wolf types on the NG could crosspost
to some of the fundamentalist NGs about how they need to loosen up,
baby.
Best,
Jim
Mary K. Kuhner
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> writes:
>Heh. When you say it took a year to work the bugs out, can I assume that
>this means that the GM and Players learned what worked and what didn't
>and changed to work better together? Did you have to let anyone go
>because they were fundamentally incompatible? Do you believe that
>anyone can be fundamentally incompatible?
I was president of the UCB gamers' club at the time, so I had a lot
of players to choose among. They came in three flavors: players
who did fit in, players who left almost immediately because it was
obviously impossible, and players who liked the game just well enough
to stick with it, but kept trying to change it. The third class,
of whom I had at least two in Berkeley, caused me a lot of grief.
I ended up throwing both players out. So yes, I do believe in
fundamental incompatibility. If the GM won't bend any further, and
the player won't bend any further (everyone has their limits),
and they still aren't meeting in the middle--it's not a good idea
to continue.
The players who left immediately tended to note very obvious style
differences; many found the requirement of treating NPCs as people
hopelessly tedious, others thought the game was too slow and
didn't have enough advancement or enough combat, or required too
much effort on learning the background, or had too many house
rules. In other words, generally speaking it wasn't a good gamist's
game, and they picked this up quickly. (And my core players would
breathe a big sigh of relief....)
The players who left after a long struggle had more subtle conflicts.
For one player they hinged on improv. He liked to use improv very
heavily; I felt pushed around by it, and after my first game with him
got pushed off base I started disallowing a lot of his improvs, which
upset him. We essentially got into a world-control struggle which
I felt I had to win in order to keep GMing, and he felt he had to
win in order to enjoy the game.
For the other player problems hinged on two specific game/
simulation clashes; ironically, in one case I went with sim, and in
the other with game, and he wanted me to reverse both choices. He
wanted to be able to have tons of NPC followers, whereas I stuck to
the gamist principle "Don't let the NPCs bog down the game and become
the main way the PCs get things done." He wanted me to intervene to
stop PC/PC conflicts for the good of the game, whereas I took a more
laissez-faire attitude. Neither he nor I would give ground.
Later in my years in Berkeley I had some success with talking at
length with new players before accepting them; this got rid of
most of the quick dropouts, especially if I asked the new player
to watch a session before joining. (Of course, this requires that
you have a group already.) I don't know how it would
do for getting rid of the subtle problems; I didn't have any more,
but I only added 2 players after adopting the strategy. Both of them
did stay, and fit in well.
What we worked out in the first year were issues like "How is Mary
going to react when one of her house rules turns out to be bad?" and
"How hard are we going to work on game balance?" and "What are the
really important things for this campaign, and what are we willing
to gloss over?" and "How much realism in character portrayal is
acceptable?" and "How much attention do we need to pay to drama?"
Play got a lot smoother after that. For one thing, my players
stopped looking for the predetermined plot that wasn't there, and
realized that if they wanted appropriate challenges they had to
be a bit selective, not trust be to make everything they might tackle
appropriate. Conversely, I learned to be less wishy-washy and
to extert more control to keep one player from overshadowing another.
>I ask because I think my new group is fairly unstable. One player, for
>example, has told me specifically that he only runs one of three
>characters in *any* game. The skills and profession may vary, but the
>core personality and motivations are *always* one of his three choices.
I have met quite a few players like this. How troublesome it is
depends on how often you make new characters; if you are only going
to see 1-3 characters from him in the lifetime of the group it
could be okay, but if you're going to see 10-15 you'll probably get
very tired of the three archetypes, and it may be hard for the other
players (or the GM) to treat the "new" character as really new, and
not carry over understandings gained from his archetype-siblings.
You'll also want to find out how possessive he is about his characters,
how strongly he wants them to *stick* to that static conception; if
the archetype is so precious to him that the character's not allowed
to change, he's probably not going to be a fun or happy player in
a drama-oriented game.
It is a good sign that he told you this, rather than keeping it to
himself. At least you're communicating.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com.spam> writes:
>Psychohist wrote:
>> He kept playing for a while, losing his next most experienced character
>> not too long thereafter. He hasn't played much since.
>It doesn't sound to me as if he enjoyed himself then.
Two things:
(1) The player in question, it sounds like, played for a *long*
time; he must have enjoyed a lot of it, even if not all of it.
(2) To resort to a gamist analogy; I've played in a lot of chess
tournaments, and I did it because, on the whole, I enjoyed them. But
a couple of them were depressing, frustrating experiences; I
particularly remember one where I nearly lost every game (something
it was my personal goal never to do) and was saved from that only
because I dishonorably offered a draw in a position I knew was lost,
and my opponent took it. I nearly, but not quite, gave up chess
on the spot. Yet I wouldn't support changes to the rules that
prevented disasterous strings of losses from happening; they are
a part of the game, and the thrill of victory is based partly on
the agony of defeat.
I personally can't take this attitude towards RPGs at the moment,
but some people can; for them it's a good trade even though it
has the potential, like my tournaments did, to make them miserable
now and again.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
David Berkman
Jered Moses (je...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: So, while this group is ostensibly to serve as a siphon for the flame-
: wars of advocates of different systems, it has evolved into a
: discussion of abstract ideas about gaming. I do think it's valuable
: to know the roots, though, as this provides a valuable perspective on
: why the discussion has taken the tack that it has.
: (John, David, Seawasp if you're out there, others--how'd I do? :)
Fine, as usual, although it was my impression that there had always been
a cycle of plot/world/dice/diceless/game/theatre arguments, for years
before I blundered into the group, making most of the possible newbie
netiquette mistakes, as much as I might like to think otherwise.
I may have helped focus the discussions in that direction through
prolific posting and general stubornness (eliminating some bright
contributors in the process, whose only personal flaws were in being
slightly less stuborn than myself), but the seeds were already planted
before I arrived.
My only salvation for these acts may be in the fact that the group has
grown into a unique resource for its community, mostly due to more level
heads than mine, like Johns, Kevins, Marys, Sarahs, Marks, yourself,
and others in a list too long to go through here.
However, well phrased and intelligent disgust, and just a pinch of
self-righteousness, are the fuel which feeds the constant low-heat
debate/flamewar here, so I wouldnt knock them too badly. My response is,
come on and blunder in and tell us what were doing wrong, but be prepared
to take some heat, and stick it out a bit, because we may not get your
point in the first few hundred tries.
:)
David
John S. Novak
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:05:50 -0700, Matthew Colville
<mcol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Personal preference.
>> Excessive dramatism, for example, tends to drive me absolutely nuts
>> during gameplay.
> But aren't there other things which drive you nuts too?
In the context of gaming styles and GMing philosophies? No. Not
nearly as much as this, anyway.
> And aren't
>there other things you prefer over any of the previous three thingys?
In this context?
<Shrug> Nope.
How many more times are you going to rephrase your question until you
figure out that most of us here mean exactly what we say?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
Irina Rempt
Matthew Colville (mcol...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> And if it is purely academic and debate for
> debate sake, wouldn't it be a good thing to recognize that and try to
> avoid it?
All right, I recognize that it's debate for debate's sake. If you don't
enjoy that, why don't *you* try to avoid it? There's nothing that
forces you to stay on this newsgroup.
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
XII. "Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Novak
> Well, that's not entirely accurate. Specifically, my position is that
>the three 'isms' you guys have been brutally sing over and over are no
>more valuable than any number of other things, and therefore deserve no
>more attention. I do not believe they represent definitive paradigms.
You know, I hate to be blunt about this, but you have earned the
semi-polite version of my generalized response to self-styled
iconoclasts:(*) Put up or shut up.
Specifically:
o Come up with some classification scheme, vocabulary tool, or
system of thought you think is as worthwhile as what we've developed
over the last several years.
o Make someone else care.
So far, all you're doing is laying about with a sledge-hammer, for no
reason I have been able to discern. You have _not_ offered anything
of comparable worth.
> That's a good question, and it deserves a reply. I, myself, was just
>thinking "I've been awfully negative on r.g.f.a, I should try and
>contribute something more positive." However, while in my gaming group,
>we often have long, involved conversations about the ontology of
>role-playing (and let's, for the sake of argument, presume these are
>complex discussions, involving complex ideas, hard though that may be for
>some people to believe,) *here* I find people speaking in terms so alien
>to my normal experience that I find it difficult to take it seriously.
It's a somewhat specialized terminology, built up by a relatively
small group over a number of years. Did you _expect_ to find
commonly-used words?
> I thought about the name of the newsgroup.
That was your first mistake.
Long story, but the group was originally designed as the have for "D*D
is beter than Paranoia!" and "GURPS ROOLZ!"
For various reasons, it ain't that no more.
Deal with what is.
>I honestly think a more apt name for this
>newsgroup would be rec.games.frp.minutae.
So leave.
> Ok, here's my point. Thinking "Ok, I'm going to sacrifice gamism and
>simulationism for dramatism [or whatever the right combination is]" is
>*not* productive. Thinking "This is going to be kind of wacky" and
>keeping in your head the idea that this game is going to be different than
>others, and wondering how you can make it different the way you want it to
>be, while making it something the players can enjoy is productive.
> You see? The things I'm talking about not only don't use the terms you
>use, it's doesn't use the concepts.
Likely that's because the former statement-- while vastly
oversimplified and not really representative of the way anyone I know
thinks about games-- concentrates on a method for achieving a desired
goal. The latter statement is only a very vague definition of a gaol
("Want to make the players have fun!") without the hint of a plan of
attack.
>> Let's take this down to earth: as a GM, I am faced with a
>> PC who has opened herself up to being ambushed by enemies. She knows
>> about the danger, but was unwilling to endanger the innocents of
>> where she was previously staying and thus took to the road. Looking
>> at her ambushers, it seems perfectly possible for them to overpower
>> and kill her without her having a chance at retaliation. Do I fudge
>> things so that she survives, or not?
> I don't know, do you? If you think "Ok, well, I'm a simulationist, so
>I have to do X" then what we're talking about is relevant.
No, I think most people would think, "I would do this, therefore I
seem to have sim'ist tendencies. I wonder what else that says about
me and my gaming style? i wonder if that matches how my players think
about things. I bet that affects how much they enjoy the games."
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
* Ain't that cute? We have an iconoclast...
John H Kim
A note here on the history of discussion on this newsgroup,
following up on Jered's post...
Jered Moses <je...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
>> I thought about the name of the newsgroup. 'Advocacy.' 'The act of
>> pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, an idea,
>> or a policy; active support.' I really don't see anyone arguing or
>> pleading in favor of role-playing.
>
>While I'm not a(n) historian by any means, let me try to help you here
>as best I can; perhaps John Kim or Berkman or somebody else can fill
>in the details.
>
>This group was originally founded mostly to separate "Hero vs. GURPS"
>and similiar arguments from frp.misc; it was, in other words, founded
>for the advocacy of various role-playing systems (read: flame-wars).
>
>Then, about '92 or so, David Berkman came along with THEATRIX, an RPG
>with a decidedly different paradigm of gaming from the mainstream of
>publications. From his advocacy of that game--and others' disapproval
>or skepticism of it--game a wider discussion of the perspective of
>"plot-oriented" gaming (which is, I think it's fair to say, the
>paradigm shift that Berkman sought to instill with Theatrix) versus
>"world-oriented" gaming.
Hmmm. My own impression (admittedly hazy) of the progression
goes something like:
- Originally, the group was founded for "Hero vs. GURPS". It
never really did it's job very well, however. The Hero vs.
GURPS threads here mutated into discussion of specific
mechanics choices between the two: i.e. cost of attributes
versus skills, paying points for gadgets, etc. The actual
flames continued to plague rgf.misc
- There was discussion of diceless gaming on here before David
Berkman and _Theatrix_, but most of it hinged on mechanics.
I was among those argued for the possibility of "fair"
diceless gaming -- suggesting that something like _Epiphany_
was possible. (My experiences with diceless were quite
negative, however.)
- David Berkman and _Theatrix_ sparked a years-long set of flames
of diced versus diceless. Similar two-sided debates would
break out over time, but often with a high degree of overlap
of participants. (i.e. "diceless" and "plot-based" versus
"diced" and "world-based").
- Slowly, other discussions tended to suggest a multiplicity
of styles, rather than the great opposition. Random example:
Sarah's advocacy against the numerical stats used by both
_Theatrix_ and dice-users.
- Various attempts have been made to try to characterize
different styles without having it erupt into a flamewar,
to some degree of success.
-*-*-*-
>
>(John, David, Seawasp if you're out there, others--how'd I do? :)
Pretty good. I wouldn't say that _Theatrix_ is an
attempt to shift paradigm to "Dramatic" or "plot-based" games.
Lots of games are essentially plot-based. A common style is
for the GM to pitch an adventure at the PC's, and they either
take it or they don't.
The main concern of _Theatrix_ is to encourage "plot-based"
GM's to design their plots around the Dramatic needs of the PC's.
Rather than pitching a generic adventure, the GM should think
about the particular PC's and design a dramatic plot around
them.
Fenyx3204
David Berkman wrote:
>Leading to the...
>
>
> Pizza
> *
> * *
> * *
> * *
> * * * * *
> Table Lighting
>
>
>...theory of roleplay.
>snort!< You can't do that! Here I am peacefully drinking milk and
suddenly I'm choking to death. ;)
Seriously, I was thinking more about separate little scales for all of
these. You know:
Style: Simulationist-Dramatist-Gamist
Table: Round-Square-Triangle (with flavors of large-small, wood-metal,
etc.)
Munchies/Food: Pizza-Bag Snacks-Cookies/Bars
Munchies/Drink: Caffeinated-Noncaffeinated
Lighting: Natural-Flourescent-Bulb
I think there's possibilities here. ;)
Justin Bacon
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 16 Jul 1997 15:24:27 GMT, je...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jered Moses)
wrote:
Well, I *am* an historian :) I came into this group about a year
after the discussion about plot and diceless gaming got started.
Jared's account certainly rings true to me.
I would say that by the time I began posting here, which I guess is
going on four or five years now, the shift to a more analytical
discussion of role play was already well under way. I can recall very
few of the kind of posts for which advocacy was originally formed.
I would think that a better name for our board would be rgf.theory or
rgf.analysis rather than rgf.advocacy, but I think the name is pretty
well entrenched now. Anyway, the original type of advocacy posts now
seem to be made to rgfm, which as far as I am concerned can keep them
:)
>While I'm not a(n) historian by any means, let me try to help you here
>as best I can; perhaps John Kim or Berkman or somebody else can fill
>in the details.
>
>This group was originally founded mostly to separate "Hero vs. GURPS"
>and similiar arguments from frp.misc; it was, in other words, founded
>for the advocacy of various role-playing systems (read: flame-wars).
>
>Then, about '92 or so, David Berkman came along with THEATRIX, an RPG
>with a decidedly different paradigm of gaming from the mainstream of
>publications. From his advocacy of that game--and others' disapproval
>or skepticism of it--game a wider discussion of the perspective of
>"plot-oriented" gaming (which is, I think it's fair to say, the
>paradigm shift that Berkman sought to instill with Theatrix) versus
>"world-oriented" gaming.
>
>Those two have become, over time, refined to "dramatic" and
>"simulationist" respectively. "Gamism" is a relatively recent
>addition to the discussion.
>
>So, while this group is ostensibly to serve as a siphon for the flame-
>wars of advocates of different systems, it has evolved into a
>discussion of abstract ideas about gaming. I do think it's valuable
>to know the roots, though, as this provides a valuable perspective on
>why the discussion has taken the tack that it has.
>
>(John, David, Seawasp if you're out there, others--how'd I do? :)
>
>
>--Jered
>(The Artist Formerly Known as Kid Kibbitz)
Best,
Kevin
Fenyx3204
Matt, I'm not sure how to make this more clear to you:
It can't be taxonomy for the sake of taxonomy if people are getting use
out of the taxonomy. Several people (including myself, Mary Kuhner, and
Warren Dew to name a few off the top of my head) have related to you
situations in which this taxonomy has helped us on a very personal level.
If the taxonomy is proving itself useful -- what the hell is your problem?
> The
> GamiSimulDramatists seem to be (and I started this thread to make sure
> they are, and they are) inventing these ideas, and then desiring to
> believe that they represent empirical differences in games, when they
don't.
You've said this several times now and I still have one major problem with
it:
You haven't suggested a fourth complement to the Three Styles.
If the Simulationist-Dramatist-Gamist set isn't actually as inclusive of
all gaming styles as we seem to think it is -- could you please provide a
valid fourth example?
In fact, to really hold up your claim I'd expect to have at least three or
four additions to our canon -- to prove that we really are thinking "far
too narrowly" (to paraphrase your words from another message).
If you can't give me (or any of us) a valid fourth style then apparently
*we* aren't the ones off-base in what we're saying here.
Justin Bacon
Russell Wallace
> Heh. When you say it took a year to work the bugs out, can I assume that
> this means that the GM and Players learned what worked and what didn't
> and changed to work better together? Did you have to let anyone go
> because they were fundamentally incompatible? Do you believe that
> anyone can be fundamentally incompatible?
I can't speak for Mary, but personally I'm quite certain people can be
fundamentally incompatible...
> I ask because I think my new group is fairly unstable. One player, for
> example, has told me specifically that he only runs one of three
> characters in *any* game. The skills and profession may vary, but the
> core personality and motivations are *always* one of his three choices.
> This boggles my mind and I don't really think he'll fit in with my
> overall style, and it seems clear that he just *isn't* going to change
> to suit me.
but I'm curious about this. What exactly do you see as being wrong with
this player's style? Is each of the three character concepts completely
inappropriate for your game? In the same way, or in different ways? I'm
rather surprised that a reasonable selection of three core personalities
and motivations would find *none* of them suitable for a given campaign.
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mano...@iol.ie
John L. Jones II
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
> This is not to say that everyone always has a good time at
> everything they do, that's absurd and not what I asserted. But the
> *reason* we do anything, i.e. work, order a big mac instead of a
> quarter pounder, decide to do the dishes rather than be punished by
> our parents, are because the alternatives would not have made us as
> happy as what we chose.
>
> Happiness is the only end which is itself not a means to some other
> end.
You really ought to read Aristotle a little more carefully.
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:58:58 -0400, Jim Henley <jlhe...@erols.com>
wrote:
>Frankly Matthew, I think only someone determinedly obtuse or plain
>stupid could fail to deduce the meaning of "foregrounds" from the
>context of my original message. I'll leave your first question for the
>extraordinarily patient among us, particularly those who don't mind
>repeating the same things over and over on the off chance they might
>sink in.
I think you are perhaps being a bit harsh, Jim :)
Matthew's point, which is that we tend to use specialized language
when there really are other ways of speaking about this, is
legitimate.
Now that said, there are a number of very good reasons to prefer the
specialized vocabulary. Our conversation--and our ways of thinking
about these issues--are influenced by, I would argue, are PART of, a
larger conversation. And the people who inhabit that larger
conversation tend to use words like "foreground" rather than
"emphasize." When we use those terms, they carry with them the
connotations of the analysis of film, theatre, and literature. So it
is appropriate--I would argue desirable--to use those terms in the
specialized sense, because by doing so we are signalling the larger
intellectual context of the conversation.
Now someone who disagreed with me, and did not think there was any
validity to the larger conversation about how to analyze various
narrative media, or who did not see the relevance of THAT conversation
to OUR conversation, might argue as Matthew has argued. He might very
well say "why use this specialized vocabulary when we have everyday
terms that will work just as well?" And in so doing, he will be
making a back-handed attack on the kind of analysis that I and I think
you and many others have found to me informative and useful. Just a
guess, but perhaps it was that implied subtext in Mattew's post that
irked you.
Matthew--if that was what you intended to argue, then I think you are
better off making such an argument explicitly. When claims are buried
inside an argument about definition or vocabulary--and it is my
experience that arguments about semantics very often conceal a larger
claim or agenda--it is often very difficult to get at the real issue
when framed in this way.
Just my .02. I'll butt out now :)
My best,
Kevin
John S. Novak
On 17 Jul 1997 21:26:34 GMT, Russell Wallace <mano...@iol.ie> wrote:
>I can't speak for Mary, but personally I'm quite certain people can be
>fundamentally incompatible...
USENET is, in fact, a large device constructed to demonstrate exactly
this hypothesis...
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <01bc92f8$86213840$9f297dc2@default> "Russell Wallace" <mano...@iol.ie> writes:
[Mark describes a player who only has three characters]
>but I'm curious about this. What exactly do you see as being wrong with
>this player's style? Is each of the three character concepts completely
>inappropriate for your game? In the same way, or in different ways? I'm
>rather surprised that a reasonable selection of three core personalities
>and motivations would find *none* of them suitable for a given campaign.
I'd have some worries:
Am I going to end up seeing the same character multiple times
from this player? Most of the players I've known who are like this
have only one or two options (three is certainly better) and it
can be distracting to recognize character B as being a clone of
character A. Not a problem, of course, if you're only going to
see one character from him in the first place.
Will the player resist any pressure to adapt the archetype, either
to the setting, the premise, or events in play? (The classical
"I want to play a Samurai." "But we're in Victorian England." "I
don't care." problem.) Will the GM have to limit adventure choices?
I know a player whose only character is a Ranger; if the GM wants
to run a city adventure, this is annoying.
And...is the inclination only to do three characters part of a general
package of "I won't experiment"? Is the player going to be similarly
unwilling to try other new things?
I think I only really had two core characters till we took up the
multiple-PC style; it broke me of the habit promptly. For several
years I believed that no two PCs in a single-player party could have the
same archetype, or they would fail to differentiate. I have now
seen one counterexample, but I think the general rule still holds.
All this said, he might still turn out to be a fine player; I had
a definite one-character player in Berkeley and, while not a
campaign driver, he was quite fun to play with. Admittedly I only
saw two characters from him, and would have felt differently if
I'd seen ten all the same.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
cyberMessiah
On 18 Jul 1997 03:03:13 John S. Novak wrote about "Re: What the hell are you
talking about?":
>
> On 17 Jul 1997 21:26:34 GMT, Russell Wallace <mano...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
> >I can't speak for Mary, but personally I'm quite certain people can be
> >fundamentally incompatible...
>
> USENET is, in fact, a large device constructed to demonstrate exactly
> this hypothesis...
>
>
I'll agree--- Many people will instantly hate a Nihilist or existentialist the
minute they find out who they are, for no real, absolutely necessary reasons..
and the people who think they are roleplayers often have the most Rules
Lawyerish D.M/G.M
When really-- Mixed Dramatist/Simulationalist games are the best to go... ( At
least that's how I always run them, and are the ones I most enjoy) I don't care for Game Balance as long as it ends up a Good story or roleplaying experience.
When People Mature, they'll get out of the "everyone has to be a snotling scrub
and play to the Whims of the mighty GM to survive..." that is common in Gamist Games or people who do everything by some set of religously mandated rules..
( though I think some of this might be Simulationalist as well)
but in the Real World, people can get away with not quivering before their
bosses, because there are usually better jobs, Laws, blackmailingmethods,etc to ensure that one won't be beset with constant strife..and in Games, this is easily more so..
( and less possible in Non Diced Games/ Non Randomized Games ( without using
cards, value reading, pathfinding methods)
Thomas Lindgren
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) writes:
> I've found many things in the FAQ that have actually added to my
> vocabulary about role-playing. The Develop In Play and Develop At Start
> discussion was really eye-opening for me. But this isn't an *artificial*
> distinction, like the GamiSimulDramatism discussion. There is an actual
> point in time before which you're not yet playing, and after which you
> are. So you can discuss what happens before then and after then.
I don't think Gamism/Dramatism/Simulationism is artificial at all.
It's an attempt to describe what we find interesting in gaming.
For example, why was I dissatisfied with the pointlessness
of random adventuring in the campaigns of olden days?
I was probably more of a dramatist than my fellow players.
When I GM'd, I used to work hard to make challenges make
sense in the context of the world and let the dice fall where
they might. Which made me a mostly-simulationist GM; I have
now learned how to spice things up a bit by using dramatist
techniques if necessary.
Another example, one of the most aggravating on this group:
should the game master be impartial and let the characters
explore the world as they will, or _direct_ events to make
for an interesting game? (Simulationism or dramatism.)
Here's where people usually agree to disagree.
Finally, another great idea is the game contract: detailing
and negotiating the assumptions beforehand so that the _metagame_
is clear to everyone. For example, the people I play with are
more gamist than I. So I can take that into account in writing
up games and campaigns. And so on.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren, Uppsala University How many apps can dance on
e-mail: thomasl csd uu se, lindgren sics se the head of the pin?
http://www.csd.uu.se/~thomasl/
Irina Rempt
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
> Our conversation--and our ways of thinking
> about these issues--are influenced by, I would argue, are PART of, a
> larger conversation. And the people who inhabit that larger
> conversation tend to use words like "foreground" rather than
> "emphasize." When we use those terms, they carry with them the
> connotations of the analysis of film, theatre, and literature.
I have little experience with the visual arts (having no TV, and only
rarely able to find the time to go to the cinema of the theatre) and
though I read a lot I can't for the life of me get the hang of lit crit
- but 'foreground' has a very different connotation for me than
'emphasize'. Emphasis calls attention to something because it's bigger,
bolder or louder, foregrounding because it's closer to you or more
clearly detailed. I much prefer clarity to shouting :-)
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
XIX. "In catillo est, cibus esse debet."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
> Nope. Sit him down and ask him why he wanted to play. Eventually, if
>you keep asking him "why?" he will eventually have to answer "Because to
>do so made me happy."
>
> This is not to say that everyone always has a good time at everything
>they do, that's absurd and not what I asserted. But the *reason* we do
>anything, i.e. work, order a big mac instead of a quarter pounder, decide
>to do the dishes rather than be punished by our parents, are because the
>alternatives would not have made us as happy as what we chose.
>
> Happiness is the only end which is itself not a means to some other end.
Well, you have left out another fundamental source of human
motivation, which is avoidance of pain. All action is either to
produce pleasure or to avoid pain.
At least, so said Epicurus.
Such a view of human nature, of course, is rather explicitly
criticized by Aristotle. As a basis for modern ethics, Epicurus has
had some impact--but his is hardly the only or even the dominant
school of ethical thinking out there. I think its a bit brash to
suggest that I should adopt YOUR ethical outlook merely because you
have asserted it.
My best,
Kevin
Mark Apolinski
Fenyx3204 wrote:
>
> If the Simulationist-Dramatist-Gamist set isn't actually as inclusive of
> all gaming styles as we seem to think it is -- could you please provide a
> valid fourth example?
>
> In fact, to really hold up your claim I'd expect to have at least three or
> four additions to our canon -- to prove that we really are thinking "far
> too narrowly" (to paraphrase your words from another message).
>
> If you can't give me (or any of us) a valid fourth style then apparently
> *we* aren't the ones off-base in what we're saying here.
Character-based. Simulationist is World-based. Dramatist is plot or
story-based. Gamist is what I would term challenge or goal-based. None
of these is specifically character-based.
Mark
Steven Howard
In <19970717201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, feny...@aol.com (Fenyx3204) writes:
>mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) wrote:
>> The
>> GamiSimulDramatists seem to be (and I started this thread to make sure
>> they are, and they are) inventing these ideas, and then desiring to
>> believe that they represent empirical differences in games, when they
>don't.
>
>it:
>
>You haven't suggested a fourth complement to the Three Styles.
How many do you want?
Okay, we've got:
Simulation -- how much "realism" the game has
Drama -- how much "conflict" the game has
Game -- how much "challenge" and/or "fairness" the game has
I'll give you three more, just for starters:
Mood -- how well the game evokes a particular emotional response
Theme -- how well the game explores an idea
Mimesis -- (aka Pastichism) how well the game duplicates the
experience of a fictional work or genre
Yes, all games have these, to a greater or lesser extent, but the
same is true of the "Big 3" as well.
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word like "euphemism" doing in a sentence like this?
Larry D. Hols
cyberMessiah wrote:
>
Why cyberMessy, who on rgf.misc let you out of your cage?
Larry
Matthew Colville
In article <slrn5so4c...@voyager.cris.com>, J...@voyager.cris.com
(John S. Novak) wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:17:55 -0700, Matthew Colville
> <mcol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> Because, contrary to what you apparently believe, many of us here try
> >> to stress some or another of these facets above others.
>
> > Why?
>
> Why do some people prefer Indian food to Chinese food?
What does that have to do with it?
> It's a fundamentally meaningless question.
No, it's not. If there's no *reason* to stress one facet over another,
why do it? If there is a reason, then that reason is the answer to my
question.
Matthew Colville
In article <3m3epcq...@pierce.csd.uu.se>, Thomas Lindgren
<tho...@pierce.csd.uu.se> wrote:
> I don't think Gamism/Dramatism/Simulationism is artificial at all.
> It's an attempt to describe what we find interesting in gaming.
I understand this. I just think its a poor attempt. See below:
> For example, why was I dissatisfied with the pointlessness
> of random adventuring in the campaigns of olden days?
> I was probably more of a dramatist than my fellow players.
I don't think so. I think you answer your question answers itself. I
would *guess* that the reason you were dissatisfied was *because* the
adventures were 'random and pointless'. Nowhere in the descriptions I've
gotten about GamiSimulDramatism involves random, pointless encounters. By
definition, every style of role-playing must have a point.