Qualitative vs. Quantitative
Shane Dunbar
Anybody who thinks this is flame-bait, don't respond.
.
I recently started playing [yet another] computer
fantasy adventure RPG. When I went to design my
characters, I got to spend points on stats and skills.
Okay, so I want a strong character. I go to buy
Strength. I buy five points. Is that a lot? I
go to buy ten. I'm almost out of points. Is he
strong yet? I guess I could give all my other
characters '3's, but what do the monsters have? How
much do I need to kick in doors?
.
The point being, the quanititative approach only works
when you have a clear framework to work in, plenty of
other values to compare against and measure up against.
Then the system breaks down when you take two objects
that don't compare. And ant is a really strong bug,
but still doesn't compare to a human for total power.
And a human doesn't really compare to a tank when
trying to crush a car.
.
I'm trying to come up with a "qualitative" plan for
specifying stats. I consider the "Vampire" LARP
method of assigning a number of words to determine
ability, but that's still a number, isn't it? You
get three words, doesn't matter what the words are.
.
Then I REALLY get bogged down when you try and
throw randonimity in there. Dice are nice, but
a six-sided die has SIX SIDES, no grey area there.
No fuzzy spaces, no qualitative differences. The
dice or any other measurable random determinator
throw a huge factor of QUANTITATIVE measures into
a game, forcing some coversion between itself and
qualitative measures.
.
Does anyone have any ideas?
>>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<
The Alacorn Home Page ... http://members.gnn.com/alacorn/
Stretching the bounds of logic, reason, and sanity.
>>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<
Jered Moses
Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> writes:
>I'm trying to come up with a "qualitative" plan for
>specifying stats. I consider the "Vampire" LARP
>method of assigning a number of words to determine
>ability, but that's still a number, isn't it? You
>get three words, doesn't matter what the words are.
Omigosh. Maybe Shane is just another incarnation of David Berkman,
trolling the hell out of all of us? :)
No, really Shane, Berkman is the (co-?)author of THEATRIX, a diceless
roleplaying system which, among other features, uses precisely the
sort of qualitative attributes you seem to be looking for.
In THEATRIX, every characteristic *does* have a number (rated 1-10 or
0-10, can't remember which), but the scale differs depending on the
gameworld. Basically, 10 is the strongest (or most intelligent, or
agile, or whatever, as per stat) thing in the universe, 5 is average,
and everything scales from there. (This might not be precisely
correct--I'm sure David will post a follow-up within epsilon of this
one, if he isn't posting one already--but the basics are correct.)
Further, every characteristic (and ability) also has a verbal
descriptor to go with it; e.g., a 5 strength might mean "a totally
average Joe," or it might mean "Abs of steel, biceps of kleenex"
(apologies to Larry Niven), or whatever. The verbal descriptor
determines much more than the number; since the system is diceless,
the number per se never performs any quantitative function, but rather
serves as a general guideline for determining outcomes.
More from Berkson in epsilon... epsilon/2.... epsilon/4....
--Kid Kibbitz
--
"From childhood's hour I have not been | |
As others were -- I have not seen | "Alone," a poem by | kidkibtz@expert.
As others saw -- I could not bring | Edgar Allen Poe | cc.purdue.edu
My passions from a common spring." | |
Lise Mendel
Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> wrote:
> Anybody who thinks this is flame-bait, don't respond.
> .
> I recently started playing [yet another] computer
> fantasy adventure RPG. When I went to design my
> characters, I got to spend points on stats and skills.
> Okay, so I want a strong character. I go to buy
> Strength. I buy five points. Is that a lot? I
> go to buy ten. I'm almost out of points. Is he
> strong yet? I guess I could give all my other
> characters '3's, but what do the monsters have? How
> much do I need to kick in doors?
> .
> The point being, the quanititative approach only works
> when you have a clear framework to work in, plenty of
> other values to compare against and measure up against.
> Then the system breaks down when you take two objects
> that don't compare. And ant is a really strong bug,
> but still doesn't compare to a human for total power.
> And a human doesn't really compare to a tank when
> trying to crush a car.
> .
<snip>
> Does anyone have any ideas?
>
Have you taken a look at FUDGE? It addresses _exactly_ this problem.
I'm not sure it's the _best_ solution to the problem, but it's really
simple, and a good starting point. You might get some ideas to build
on....
--
Lise Mendel
Mommy to Abigail (5/9/93) and Dorothy (10/19/95)
http://www.access.digex.net/~catalyst/
I reserve the right to repost e-mailed flames wherever it amuses me to
Magnus Lie Hetland
Shane Dunbar wrote:
>
> Anybody who thinks this is flame-bait, don't respond.
> I'm trying to come up with a "qualitative" plan for
> specifying stats. I consider the "Vampire" LARP
> method of assigning a number of words to determine
> ability, but that's still a number, isn't it? You
> get three words, doesn't matter what the words are.
I agree that this is a good method in many ways. The
roleplaying game "Epiphany" uses a system much like it.
And - yeah, it is still a number but it seems to me that
the words matter too. I mean, you have to justify
whether or not a trait is usable in a certain situation,
which gives you some gray areas and a qualitative "feel".
If you want to go REALLY qualitative, try substituting
rankings with textual descriptions. (As in Theatrix,
if you disregard the numbers of the stats).
> Then I REALLY get bogged down when you try and
> throw randonimity in there. Dice are nice, but
> a six-sided die has SIX SIDES, no grey area there.
> No fuzzy spaces, no qualitative differences. The
> dice or any other measurable random determinator
> throw a huge factor of QUANTITATIVE measures into
> a game, forcing some coversion between itself and
> qualitative measures.
> .
> Does anyone have any ideas?
>
If you feel the need for a randomizer (you migh also consider
going diceless, which is quite compatible with qualitative
gaming) then the destiny deck in Everway might be interesting
to you. No numbers, no strict scales. The GM has to interpret
the importance and influence of a card in a certain situation.
(The cards are a bit like Tarot decks, but are tweaked to be
a bit more game-relevant).
> >>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<
> The Alacorn Home Page ... http://members.gnn.com/alacorn/
> Stretching the bounds of logic, reason, and sanity.
> >>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<
--
Magnus
Lie
Hetland
Shane Dunbar
In article <322EA7...@idt.unit.no> Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
>Shane Dunbar wrote:
>> I'm trying to come up with a "qualitative" plan for
>> specifying stats. I consider the "Vampire" LARP
>> method of assigning a number of words to determine
>> ability, but that's still a number, isn't it? You
>> get three words, doesn't matter what the words are.
>roleplaying game "Epiphany" uses a system much like it.
>And - yeah, it is still a number but it seems to me that
>the words matter too. I mean, you have to justify
>whether or not a trait is usable in a certain situation,
>which gives you some gray areas and a qualitative "feel".
As I said, I considered it and discarded it. I am
looking for something different.
.
>If you want to go REALLY qualitative, try substituting
>rankings with textual descriptions. (As in Theatrix,
>if you disregard the numbers of the stats).
But the number cannot be ignored. You are always
conscious that one word is "more" or "less" than
another word. It is inherently numeric.
.
>> Then I REALLY get bogged down when you try and
>> throw randonimity in there. Dice are nice, but
>> a six-sided die has SIX SIDES, no grey area there.
>> No fuzzy spaces, no qualitative differences. The
>> dice or any other measurable random determinator
>> throw a huge factor of QUANTITATIVE measures into
>> a game, forcing some coversion between itself and
>> qualitative measures.
>going diceless, which is quite compatible with qualitative
>gaming)
Truth be told, I am absolutely not interested in
diceless gaming. I think it is pointless. Next...
.
>then the destiny deck in Everway might be interesting
>to you. No numbers, no strict scales. The GM has to interpret
>the importance and influence of a card in a certain situation.
>(The cards are a bit like Tarot decks, but are tweaked to be
>a bit more game-relevant).
Hmmm ... I like the tarot idea, but I don't like
the deck idea. I could work with it, though. In
a recent thread in reg.games.miniatures.misc there
was a discussion on decks, and one poster pointed
out that Rain Man would be able to tell you what
cards were left, reducing the "random" effect and
tainting the uncertain outcome of the situation.
.
On the other hand, the game I am working on is
going to be "GM-less", so there must be rules
for interpretation. I like it, though.
Shane Dunbar
>> I recently started playing [yet another] computer
>> fantasy adventure RPG. When I went to design my
>> characters, I got to spend points on stats and skills.
>> Okay, so I want a strong character. I go to buy
>> Strength. I buy five points. Is that a lot? I
>> go to buy ten. I'm almost out of points. Is he
>> strong yet? I guess I could give all my other
>> characters '3's, but what do the monsters have? How
>> much do I need to kick in doors?
>> when you have a clear framework to work in, plenty of
>> other values to compare against and measure up against.
>> Then the system breaks down when you take two objects
>> that don't compare. And ant is a really strong bug,
>> but still doesn't compare to a human for total power.
>> And a human doesn't really compare to a tank when
>> trying to crush a car.
>I'm not sure it's the _best_ solution to the problem, but it's really
>simple, and a good starting point. You might get some ideas to build
>on....
I'd rather not "take a look at" anything. Could you
please explain the system briefly in this conference
so that discussion might ensue?
Tom Pope
> The point being, the quanititative approach only works
> when you have a clear framework to work in, plenty of
> other values to compare against and measure up against.
> Then the system breaks down when you take two objects
> that don't compare. And ant is a really strong bug,
> but still doesn't compare to a human for total power.
> And a human doesn't really compare to a tank when
> trying to crush a car.
> .
> I'm trying to come up with a "qualitative" plan for
> specifying stats. I consider the "Vampire" LARP
> method of assigning a number of words to determine
> ability, but that's still a number, isn't it? You
> get three words, doesn't matter what the words are.
Not being familiar with the Vampire LARP, I can't say anything about
that, but it seems to me that you would need some sort of framework
for a "qualitative" plan of assigning stats as well. I assume that
you would want some kind of description of the attribute (we'll keep
the strength example already presented) such that anyone could get a
rought feel for how "strong" that character wa from that description.
I can think of three ways offhand of doing this:
1) Describe strength in terms of "levels"
Puny
Very Weak
Weak
Average
Strong
Very Strong
Super Strong (or whatever)
2) Describe strength in terms of a known framework. Ie. Strong as a:
Ant
Mouse
Dog
Human (average implied, or skip this one)
Horse
Bear
Elephant
3) Describe strength in terms of lifting capacity.
Leaf
Stick
Log
Desk
Person
Sofa
Car
Using any of these systems, if you wanted to do a strength on strength
contest (for whatever reason) the GM could compare the strenght of the
character with the strength of the task (lifting something or kicking
in a door) or with the strength of the opponent (wrestling with a
tiger) and assign a chance for each outcome before rolling the dice.
This would be a very flexable system, and allow any reasonable range
of "strengths" the GM wished. As an example you could easily give a
superhero the strenght to "lift a building" and both the GM and
players would have a pretty good comception of what that meant.
The major bad point I can see is that all of these "qualitative"
differences I have mentioned are really not all that "qualitative" at
all. You could just as easily assign a number and get the same
results. For example:
Puny = As strong as an ant = Can lift a leaf = 1
Very Weak = As strong as a mouse = Can lift a stick = 2
Weak = As strong as a dog = Can lift a log = 3
...
Then the GM can just make an opposed roll against the opponent or task
with the appropriate modifier to the die:
Conan (Strong as a horse = 5) tries to kick in a door (GM
decides to be a Strength 3 task). Conan rolls d6 and adds 5
while the GM rolls d6 and adds a 3. If Conan's roll is
greater, he kicks in the door.
In my mind, the advantage of *not* assigning numbers to attributes is
that it allows the GM to run a little bit more "fast and loose" with
the system, discouraging munchkinsim among the players. So while you
*could* translate any of the qualitative system I have mentioned to
quantitative ones, you would lose some of that flexability.
Just my $.02
--
Thomas Pope
Human Computer Interaction Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
Andrew Finch
Jered Moses (kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
Wow, do I have a choice now? O.K., O.K....
: In THEATRIX, every characteristic *does* have a number (rated 1-10 or
: 0-10, can't remember which),
0.0 to 10.0, allowing a 0 to 100 granularity if you like, or we ever
need. We often use half points, like 6.5.
: but the scale differs depending on the
: gameworld. Basically, 10 is the strongest (or most intelligent, or
: agile, or whatever, as per stat) thing in the universe, 5 is average,
: and everything scales from there.
3 is average, to allow for more room at the top of the scale.
: (This might not be precisely
: correct--I'm sure David will post a follow-up within epsilon of this
: one, if he isn't posting one already--but the basics are correct.)
Yes, they are.
To answer Shane's question, the scale forces coersion between number and
description, allowing for both a qualitative and quantitative system to
reside side by side. Theatrix is diceless, and leans towards the
qualitative, but has an optional dice system, and, certainly, more
mathematical dicey systems could be grafted on without compromising the
system integrity (the whole thing is fairly modular, allowing you to use
parts of the system, but not others, without much work).
But the scale is the thing, which is simply a list of numbers beside
'good enough' descriptions of those numbers. What's 'good enough'? That
depends on the group. Good enough to be understand and provide for
commonality is good enough for us.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Makes of Theatrix - The Core Rules, and Theatrix - Ironwood
Shane Dunbar
In article <50kllb$f...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> Jered Moses wrote:
>Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> writes:
>>I'm trying to come up with a "qualitative" plan for
>>specifying stats. I consider the "Vampire" LARP
>>method of assigning a number of words to determine
>>ability, but that's still a number, isn't it? You
>>get three words, doesn't matter what the words are.
>trolling the hell out of all of us? :)
I'm confused ... I clearly said that if you want to
flame, don't bother responding. I don't think your
attitude is too cool.
.
>No, really Shane, Berkman is the (co-?)author of THEATRIX, a diceless
>roleplaying system which, among other features, uses precisely the
>sort of qualitative attributes you seem to be looking for.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not interested
in "diceless". In fact, I would VERY MUCH like to
keep the dice in the game if possible, or some
similar random determinator.
.
>In THEATRIX, every characteristic *does* have a number (rated 1-10 or
>gameworld. Basically, 10 is the strongest (or most intelligent, or
>agile, or whatever, as per stat) thing in the universe, 5 is average,
>correct--I'm sure David will post a follow-up within epsilon of this
>one, if he isn't posting one already--but the basics are correct.)
Yes, yes, terribly interesting. But it still uses
numbers, doesn't it? I was quite clear on the fact
that I want to get AWAY FROM numbers, like using NO
numbers.
.
What you are getting at can be useful, but is way
too close to "qualitative physics" which has a
completely different goal than I do. I don't need
to do "repeat experiments" and have "measureable
results".
.
>Further, every characteristic (and ability) also has a verbal
>descriptor to go with it; e.g., a 5 strength might mean "a totally
>average Joe," or it might mean "Abs of steel, biceps of kleenex"
>(apologies to Larry Niven), or whatever. The verbal descriptor
>determines much more than the number; since the system is diceless,
>the number per se never performs any quantitative function, but rather
>serves as a general guideline for determining outcomes.
As I said in the original post, I am aware of this
possibility. I have already discarded it. I seek
something with NO NUMBERS.
Shane Dunbar
In article <v0araog...@ux1.sp.cs.cmu.edu> Tom Pope wrote:
>In article <50kgkc$p...@news-e2c.gnn.com> Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> writes:
>> The point being, the quanititative approach only works
>> when you have a clear framework to work in, plenty of
>> other values to compare against and measure up against.
>> Then the system breaks down when you take two objects
>> that don't compare. And ant is a really strong bug,
>> but still doesn't compare to a human for total power.
>> And a human doesn't really compare to a tank when
>> trying to crush a car.
>> specifying stats. I consider the "Vampire" LARP
>> method of assigning a number of words to determine
>> ability, but that's still a number, isn't it? You
>> get three words, doesn't matter what the words are.
>that, but it seems to me that you would need some sort of framework
>for a "qualitative" plan of assigning stats as well.
Very nice. That's what I said.
.
>I assume that
>you would want some kind of description of the attribute (we'll keep
>the strength example already presented) such that anyone could get a
>rought feel for how "strong" that character wa from that description.
No, please don't assume. For one, I don't find it
necessary to have "attributes". Second, why would
you need to get a feel for how "strong" the character
was if strength is not a factor in its performance?
How strong is air? It isn't, until it gets speed up.
It still isn't strong then, not in the sense that we
are strong, but we call it "strong".
.
>I can think of three ways offhand of doing this:
>1) Describe strength in terms of "levels"
As you may have gleaned from my original post, this
method will not work because each "level" can still
be assigned a number value. I do not want numbers
in any way.
.
>2) Describe strength in terms of a known framework. Ie. Strong as a:
> Ant Mouse Dog Human (average implied, or skip this one) Horse
> Bear Elephant
But how strong are they? How much stronger is an
elephant than a man? How long would it take one or
the other to move a mountain?
.
>3) Describe strength in terms of lifting capacity.
Again, this can be converted to numerical values. If
a couch weighs 50lbs, and you are "strong as a couch"
or whatever, then you can obviously lift 50lbs or less.
It is a numerical approach in disguise.
.
> Using any of these systems, if you wanted to do a strength on strength
>contest (for whatever reason) the GM could compare the strenght of the
>character with the strength of the task (lifting something or kicking
>in a door) or with the strength of the opponent (wrestling with a
>tiger) and assign a chance for each outcome before rolling the dice.
So you would have to make a list of every object in
the known universe and where it lays on this grand
scale of "strength"?
.
>This would be a very flexable system, and allow any reasonable range
>of "strengths" the GM wished. As an example you could easily give a
>superhero the strenght to "lift a building" and both the GM and
>players would have a pretty good comception of what that meant.
That might work for a game with a GM, but the use I
have in mind will not be mediated. It must be flexible
enough to cover all contingencies, yet robust enough
to preempt all disagreements WITHOUT mediation.
.
>The major bad point I can see is that all of these "qualitative"
>differences I have mentioned are really not all that "qualitative" at
>all. You could just as easily assign a number and get the same
>results. For example:
> Puny = As strong as an ant = Can lift a leaf = 1
> Very Weak = As strong as a mouse = Can lift a stick = 2
> Weak = As strong as a dog = Can lift a log = 3
> ...
But you posted them anyway. Thanks.
.
>Then the GM can just make an opposed roll against the opponent or task
>with the appropriate modifier to the die:
> Conan (Strong as a horse = 5) tries to kick in a door (GM
> decides to be a Strength 3 task). Conan rolls d6 and adds 5
> while the GM rolls d6 and adds a 3. If Conan's roll is
> greater, he kicks in the door.
WITHOUT numbers, please. WITHOUT NUMBERS.
.
>In my mind, the advantage of *not* assigning numbers to attributes is
>that it allows the GM to run a little bit more "fast and loose" with
>the system, discouraging munchkinsim among the players. So while you
>*could* translate any of the qualitative system I have mentioned to
>quantitative ones, you would lose some of that flexability.
Disagreed. The players and GM would, at least
unconsciously and perhaps consciously at first,
convert the words to numbers and numbers to
words. Especially when randonimity is involved
(sometimes the smaller dog wins).
Shane Dunbar
In article <50n26j$4...@crl.crl.com> Andrew Finch wrote:
>Jered Moses (kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>Wow, do I have a choice now? O.K., O.K....
>: 0-10, can't remember which),
>need. We often use half points, like 6.5.
>: gameworld. Basically, 10 is the strongest (or most intelligent, or
>: agile, or whatever, as per stat) thing in the universe, 5 is average,
>: and everything scales from there.
>: correct--I'm sure David will post a follow-up within epsilon of this
>: one, if he isn't posting one already--but the basics are correct.)
.
Could we PLEASE keep all numbers OUT of this thread?
There are a billion number-based (quantitative) systems
already out there, and I've come up with a couple good
ones myself. I'm trying to break some new ground.
.
>To answer Shane's question, the scale forces coersion between number and
>description, allowing for both a qualitative and quantitative system to
>reside side by side. Theatrix is diceless, and leans towards the
>qualitative, but has an optional dice system, and, certainly, more
>mathematical dicey systems could be grafted on without compromising the
>system integrity (the whole thing is fairly modular, allowing you to use
>parts of the system, but not others, without much work).
>But the scale is the thing, which is simply a list of numbers beside
>'good enough' descriptions of those numbers. What's 'good enough'? That
>depends on the group. Good enough to be understand and provide for
>commonality is good enough for us.
A scale is still a quantitative approach. You are
measuring up something and assigning it a particular
place as it compares to all other things. I'm trying
to get away from numerical, quantitative systems and
address the QUALITY of the factors involved. This
cannot be done with numbers unless you jump into some
fuzzy logic framework and I'm not really into the
current state of fuzzy logic. Too many numbers. Am
I the only one that hates math?
John Morrow
Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> writes:
>Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not interested
>in "diceless". In fact, I would VERY MUCH like to
>keep the dice in the game if possible, or some
>similar random determinator.
>Yes, yes, terribly interesting. But it still uses
>numbers, doesn't it? I was quite clear on the fact
>that I want to get AWAY FROM numbers, like using NO
>numbers.
You seem to be asking for two clashing things here. You want both
dice and no numbers. The problem is that dice use numbers to do what
they do. Even if you use special dice with no real numbers ala
_Throwing Stones_, you still generally have to count up how many of a
certain type of face came up. Dice not only tend to produce numeric
results but they also tend to require numbers to modify their results
-- how many you roll, what you add in from the get-go, etc. which are
all numbers.
Since dice require numbers to work, you usually need to have some
numbers by the time roll them as input (how many dice, modifiers,
target numbers, etc.) and you wind up getting them as a result (total
roll, how many dice came up a certain way, etc.). If the rest of the
game system doesn't operate based on numbers, then you are adding
translation steps -- translating non-numeric data into numeric data
and back again. A translation step often require a non-trivial amount
of time and it generally require some procedure for carrying it out.
At this point, one runs into your comments about a fixed sequence of
words being essentially numbers with different names. Yup, they are.
But unless you have some procedural way of converting those words into
numbers, the players and GM are left with no real way to interface the
dice and non-numeric information the rest of the game operates on.
And as long as there is a procedural way on converting the words into
numbers and back again, then generating a mental map that turns the
words into numbers is a fairly trivial and obvious shorthand for most
people. If the procedure is too complicated to do this with, then it
will increase the translation overhead. Computers could possibly
mitigate this problem but I'm not sure that is a good solution -- at
least not until cheap handheld PDA-type computers become so common
that you can assume everyone has one.
Perhaps the only way that you can do this sort of thing is a
subjective minimalist system where the results of the dice are treated
as a rough result which is interpreted in a very freeform way based on
description and prose write-ups. I believe this is what the Ennead
(Kip, Sarah, etc.) and Lea Crowe (currently AWOL from .advocacy) do.
I'm not really sure if this is so much a system as something you can
either do or not do, though, since if there is no precedure or method
to it beyond subjective interpretation, there is really nothing to
write down as the "rules".
Yes, I know this is more of a "why it won't work" than a "how it
can" but I think it is important to know what the problems are with
a new approach. Unless you can address the issue of numbers being
the "native language" of dice, then I'm not sure you will find a
solution.
John Morrow
Mark Apolinski
Hello Shane, this is the first time I've wrote something to you.
I've been using Theatrix for over a year now and I can swear to you
that the numbers just do not come up in play. They are useful (for me)
only as a guide. I dislike math in my games (in fact anything more than
one number at a time) and there is none in Theatrix. Unfortunately,
you're not interested in diceless, so this doesn't help you. :)
I personally can't even imagine a dice-using, numberless system.
Second, David was really responding to John's post so, why didn't you
just ignore it?
Sincerely,
Mark
Xiphias Gladius
Let's see. . . the system that you have in mind would:
1. Have no numbers, anywhere, nor anything that could be converted into
numbers.
2. Would have a diced, random element.
3. Would have no GM.
I see a number of potential pitfalls to this, as, I'm sure, do you.
Naturally, that means that a great deal of cleverness would be required to
get around these problems.
Hmm. First thing, I think, would be to make dice without numbers on their
sides. If the characters are numberless, I'd suspect that numberless dice
would also be appropriate. Perhaps they'd have, on their sides, somethig
like "Social Interaction" "Cowardice" "Confrontationalism" "Obliviousness"
"Trickery" "Pity", and if someone wanted to start a fight, and rolled
"COwardice", they'd be less effective than if they rolled
"Confrontationalism".
It would have to be completely obvious how these things modified actions,
because, without a GM, there can be little interpretation.
So, you'd define your character by saying what he or she was, and had
done. Then you'd roll characteristic dice to determine how well you could
do a particular type of thing at a particular time.
But I don't really have a handle on how this would work in practice -- if
I defined a character as a heavyweight boxer, and my friend had a
character who was a Marine, and they got into a fight, and I rolled
Confrontationalism, and he rolled Trickery, what happened?
Oh well, it was just a concept. I hope that there are some ideas
somewhere in this post that might get you closer to your goal.
- Ian
Shane Dunbar
In article <322F7C...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski wrote:
> I've been using Theatrix for over a year now and I can swear to you
>that the numbers just do not come up in play. They are useful (for me)
>only as a guide. I dislike math in my games (in fact anything more than
>one number at a time) and there is none in Theatrix. Unfortunately,
>you're not interested in diceless, so this doesn't help you. :)
Whether the concept of numbers "comes up" during play
or not, it is still a quantity-based system. Quality
"X" is less than quality "Y", because "Y" is higher up
the scale. End of story.
.
> I personally can't even imagine a dice-using, numberless system.
That shows limited imagination on your part. Fortunately,
I am not bound by such shortcomings.
.
> Second, David was really responding to John's post so, why didn't you
>just ignore it?
It was part of the discussion. As has been pointed
out billions of times to me, anyone is free to respond
to any post. I am attempting to keep the discussion
focused on the topic. If you want to talk about
Theatrix specifically, please change the subject
header.
Shane Dunbar
In article <ian.84...@pentagon.io.com> Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>Let's see. . . the system that you have in mind would:
>1. Have no numbers, anywhere, nor anything that could be converted into
>numbers.
"Numbers" is being a bit simplistic ... no "quanitities",
to be more specific.
.
>2. Would have a diced, random element.
I said "random", but I did not say "diced".
.
>3. Would have no GM.
Correct.
.
>I see a number of potential pitfalls to this, as, I'm sure, do you.
>Naturally, that means that a great deal of cleverness would be required to
>get around these problems.
I'm quite clever.
.
>Hmm. First thing, I think, would be to make dice without numbers on their
>sides. If the characters are numberless, I'd suspect that numberless dice
>would also be appropriate. Perhaps they'd have, on their sides, somethig
>like "Social Interaction" "Cowardice" "Confrontationalism" "Obliviousness"
>"Trickery" "Pity", and if someone wanted to start a fight, and rolled
>"COwardice", they'd be less effective than if they rolled
>"Confrontationalism".
Six sides is still six sides (a number) whether you
put number or pictures or whatever on them. You still
know the "odds" of success in a particular action using
particular dice, in a computation, mathematical,
quantitative sense.
.
>It would have to be completely obvious how these things modified actions,
>because, without a GM, there can be little interpretation.
I like the concept, though. I'm playing around with
something similar in my mind.
.
>So, you'd define your character by saying what he or she was, and had
>done. Then you'd roll characteristic dice to determine how well you could
>do a particular type of thing at a particular time.
>But I don't really have a handle on how this would work in practice -- if
>I defined a character as a heavyweight boxer, and my friend had a
>character who was a Marine, and they got into a fight, and I rolled
>Confrontationalism, and he rolled Trickery, what happened?
Yeah ... that kind of system might work better in a
moderated situation, or a non-competetive (players
cooperate) situation.
.
Or, as a couple of alternatives:
.
1) Certain stats always take precedence over others
. (for example, trickery always beats confrontationalism).
.
2) Other attributes could influence the outcome (in the
. example above, who was the aggressor?)
.
>Oh well, it was just a concept. I hope that there are some ideas
>somewhere in this post that might get you closer to your goal.
I was thinking of using the deck of cards idea (a sort
of "game tarot") with a "Re-Shuffle" card in the deck
to enhance the randonimity. By making a "tarot" spread,
you could determine the result of actions, or even compare
it against the spread of another player. But the cards
would be similar to your concept of "attributes" on the
dice. A confrontation card. A cowardice card. Etc.
Shane Dunbar
In article <morrow.8...@newton.crisp.net> John Morrow wrote:
>Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> writes:
>>Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not interested
>>in "diceless". In fact, I would VERY MUCH like to
>>keep the dice in the game if possible, or some
>>similar random determinator.
>>Yes, yes, terribly interesting. But it still uses
>>numbers, doesn't it? I was quite clear on the fact
>>that I want to get AWAY FROM numbers, like using NO
>>numbers.
>You seem to be asking for two clashing things here. You want both
>dice and no numbers. The problem is that dice use numbers to do what
>they do. Even if you use special dice with no real numbers ala
>_Throwing Stones_, you still generally have to count up how many of a
>certain type of face came up. Dice not only tend to produce numeric
>results but they also tend to require numbers to modify their results
>-- how many you roll, what you add in from the get-go, etc. which are
>all numbers.
Then tell me about something random other than dice.
Anybody can say, "it can't be done." How many people
have ideas they want to bat around, though?
.
>Since dice require numbers to work, you usually need to have some
>numbers by the time roll them as input (how many dice, modifiers,
>target numbers, etc.) and you wind up getting them as a result (total
>roll, how many dice came up a certain way, etc.). If the rest of the
>game system doesn't operate based on numbers, then you are adding
>translation steps -- translating non-numeric data into numeric data
>and back again. A translation step often require a non-trivial amount
>of time and it generally require some procedure for carrying it out.
I get the point.
.
>At this point, one runs into your comments about a fixed sequence of
>words being essentially numbers with different names. Yup, they are.
>But unless you have some procedural way of converting those words into
>numbers, the players and GM are left with no real way to interface the
>dice and non-numeric information the rest of the game operates on.
>And as long as there is a procedural way on converting the words into
>numbers and back again, then generating a mental map that turns the
>words into numbers is a fairly trivial and obvious shorthand for most
>people. If the procedure is too complicated to do this with, then it
>will increase the translation overhead. Computers could possibly
>mitigate this problem but I'm not sure that is a good solution -- at
>least not until cheap handheld PDA-type computers become so common
>that you can assume everyone has one.
I already made that point.
.
>Perhaps the only way that you can do this sort of thing is a
>subjective minimalist system where the results of the dice are treated
>as a rough result which is interpreted in a very freeform way based on
>description and prose write-ups. I believe this is what the Ennead
>(Kip, Sarah, etc.) and Lea Crowe (currently AWOL from .advocacy) do.
>I'm not really sure if this is so much a system as something you can
>either do or not do, though, since if there is no precedure or method
>to it beyond subjective interpretation, there is really nothing to
>write down as the "rules".
A "subjective minimalist" system. Very nice.
.
>Yes, I know this is more of a "why it won't work" than a "how it
>can" but I think it is important to know what the problems are with
>a new approach. Unless you can address the issue of numbers being
>the "native language" of dice, then I'm not sure you will find a
>solution.
Once again, it can be dice or something else. You
are thinking of using dice in a very traditional way.
Lise Mendel
John Morrow <mor...@newton.crisp.net> wrote:
> Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> writes:
> >Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not interested
> >in "diceless". In fact, I would VERY MUCH like to
> >keep the dice in the game if possible, or some
> >similar random determinator.
>
> >Yes, yes, terribly interesting. But it still uses
> >numbers, doesn't it? I was quite clear on the fact
> >that I want to get AWAY FROM numbers, like using NO
> >numbers.
>
> You seem to be asking for two clashing things here. You want both
> dice and no numbers. The problem is that dice use numbers to do what
> they do. Even if you use special dice with no real numbers ala
> _Throwing Stones_, you still generally have to count up how many of a
> certain type of face came up. Dice not only tend to produce numeric
> results but they also tend to require numbers to modify their results
> -- how many you roll, what you add in from the get-go, etc. which are
> all numbers.
Here's one way I can see to fit within Shane's paramaters. (GMless,
diced, no numerical attributes at all) but it's cumbersome.
Each character is described verbally, either in biography (i.e. Sharon
was an olympic caliber gymnast until she broke her arm. She never
recovered completely but was still able to get a soccer scholarship to
get to college where she majored in... yadda yadda yadda) or by
individual trait:
Intelligence: Excellent spatial perception, poor grasp of analogy, etc.
The individual traits would have to be selected carefully, such that no
trait describes something with mathematical content (no lift capacity,
running speed, etc.)
When two characters come into conflict each player _writes down_ the
tactic sie will pursue. The compare the tactics simultaneously, then
each one describes (either in turn or simultaneously (by writing,
again)) the desired outcome, taking into account the description of each
character.
Then each player present (whether or not hir character was involved in
the conflict) votes on the outcome. This can be complicated by voting
on most likely then voting again on best plot advancement, whatever.
The results of the vote give the odds which are diced against. If
there's more than one vote, then they would be cross referenced by some
table to give final odds.
Does this fit the bill.
BTW: I'm still on Shane's killfile, so he'll never see it, but it seemed
an interesting intellectual challenge to devise... :-)
No, I don't think it's very playable, that wasn't a requirement.
Lise Mendel
Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> wrote:
>
> I was thinking of using the deck of cards idea (a sort
> of "game tarot") with a "Re-Shuffle" card in the deck
> to enhance the randonimity. By making a "tarot" spread,
> you could determine the result of actions, or even compare
> it against the spread of another player. But the cards
> would be similar to your concept of "attributes" on the
> dice. A confrontation card. A cowardice card. Etc.
Tarot readings _still_ require some sort of interpretation. Not
necessarily a GM, but a player not involved in the immediate conflict
would have to do the reading.
Andrew Finch
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: >Maybe Shane is just another incarnation of David Berkman,
: >trolling the hell out of all of us? :)
: I'm confused ... I clearly said that if you want to
: flame, don't bother responding. I don't think your
: attitude is too cool.
It wasn't actually a flame. More of a left handed compliment, or a right
handed insult, depending on how you look at it. I may be biased.
David
Andrew Finch
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: Could we PLEASE keep all numbers OUT of this thread?
O.K. I'll take you at face value. No numbers.
: I'm trying
: to get away from numerical, quantitative systems and
: address the QUALITY of the factors involved.
Quantity and quality are not orthogonal. Quantity is a ranked measure of
quality.
Now, as you don't want numbers, and have said so emphatically, and will
deal only with Quality, then we have descriptions, but *unranked* ones,
which is fine.
My question is, how do you make judgements as to the outcome of a
conflict without quantity, ie. a ranking system, as well?
Lets leave the actual system as a black box, and try to answer that in
the abstract. Is it possible? If so, how? And there's part of your
system. Now, how you intend to do that, and still keep dice, or an
objective randomizer, I don't know, as they would seem to necessitate
some for of ordered ranking system.
David
Shane Dunbar
In article <50pvo0$b...@crl.crl.com> Andrew Finch wrote:
>Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
>: > I personally can't even imagine a dice-using, numberless system.
>: That shows limited imagination on your part. Fortunately,
>: I am not bound by such shortcomings.
>will break down if you continue to do this. An admission such as the one
>above is both honest and slightly vulnerable, and therefore, human and
>valuable. Your response is mean and arrogant, and therefore, unnecessary.
>And you seem to have the brain cells to realize this, and to choose
>another way of responding. We all know you can be angry, we've seen it,
>and I personally don't find it very interesting.
.
Then don't post to this thread. I've received too
much positive feedback to be interested in your
inane ramblings.
.
>The poster is probably as imaginative as the rest of us, and you are no
>less bound by such shortcomings. If you have some ideas which might spark
>the imagination of the poster, or ours, then I think we would all like to
>hear them. That seems a far more creative way of handling a response, and
>is discussion positive, as opposed to anger and arrogance, which are
>disvussion negative.
.
What a load of crap. If I say "I cannot jump over
that fence", the simple fact is that I can't. If I
say "I might be able to jump over the fence, let's
see..." then I may or may not jump the fence. The
fact of the matter is, /I/ tried.
Shane Dunbar
>O.K. I'll take you at face value. No numbers.
>: I'm trying
>: to get away from numerical, quantitative systems and
>: address the QUALITY of the factors involved.
>Quantity and quality are not orthogonal. Quantity is a ranked measure of
>quality.
You say you'll keep numbers out and then immediately
fall back on numbers. Quality is not "ranked", by
definition. Quantity is ranked. From this point
forward, think of quality as "non-ranked descriptors".
.
For example, a good car may have many qualities. It
might be fast. It might be fuel efficient. It might
look good. No ONE of these makes a car "better" than
other cars (although one could argue for looks), even
though they are all QUALITIES that you use to compare
cars.
.
>My question is, how do you make judgements as to the outcome of a
>conflict without quantity, ie. a ranking system, as well?
Well, that's the real question, isn't it? In fact, it
is the question I posed in my original post. I guess
you saw the word "flame" and stopped there.
.
>Lets leave the actual system as a black box, and try to answer that in
>the abstract. Is it possible? If so, how? And there's part of your
>system. Now, how you intend to do that, and still keep dice, or an
>objective randomizer, I don't know, as they would seem to necessitate
>some for of ordered ranking system.
Gosh, you have this amazing ability to re-state the
question is pseudo-intellectual terms. Start your
own thread.
Andrew Finch
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: Truth be told, I am absolutely not interested in
: diceless gaming. I think it is pointless. Next...
Well, I am going to be sorry I asked, but I might as well, as Shane is
being relatively civil about this...
[stepping behind the iron and asbestos shielding]
Why do you think that diceless gaming is pointless, or, rather, to avoid
flames, what is the 'point' of diced gaming which is absent from the
diceless variety? Or, is it simply a personal aesthetic prefernce?
David
Andrew Finch
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: > I personally can't even imagine a dice-using, numberless system.
: That shows limited imagination on your part. Fortunately,
: I am not bound by such shortcomings.
Shane, the discussion is interesting, and possibly profitable, but it
will break down if you continue to do this. An admission such as the one
above is both honest and slightly vulnerable, and therefore, human and
valuable. Your response is mean and arrogant, and therefore, unnecessary.
And you seem to have the brain cells to realize this, and to choose
another way of responding. We all know you can be angry, we've seen it,
and I personally don't find it very interesting.
The poster is probably as imaginative as the rest of us, and you are no
less bound by such shortcomings. If you have some ideas which might spark
the imagination of the poster, or ours, then I think we would all like to
hear them. That seems a far more creative way of handling a response, and
is discussion positive, as opposed to anger and arrogance, which are
disvussion negative.
Your choice.
David
Shane Dunbar
>: >trolling the hell out of all of us? :)
>: I'm confused ... I clearly said that if you want to
>: flame, don't bother responding. I don't think your
>: attitude is too cool.
>It wasn't actually a flame. More of a left handed compliment, or a right
>handed insult, depending on how you look at it. I may be biased.
hey eat it heifer
Shane Dunbar
The toaster people told me so.
Shane Dunbar
In article <3230C7...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski wrote:
>Shane Dunbar wrote:
>> You say you'll keep numbers out and then immediately
>> fall back on numbers. Quality is not "ranked", by
>> definition. Quantity is ranked. From this point
>> forward, think of quality as "non-ranked descriptors".
>> might be fast. It might be fuel efficient. It might
>> look good. No ONE of these makes a car "better" than
>> other cars (although one could argue for looks), even
>> though they are all QUALITIES that you use to compare
>> cars.
>systems, where one can play a card "Fast Car" or "Portable Hole" or
>whatever other kind of Advantage is allowed by the system. Now I'm not
>suggesting cards, but perhaps this kind of assigning of advantages could
>be made to work.
.
I'm not a big CCG fan (in fact, I hate them), but I
believe I am leaning towards the card idea for
randonimity.
.
> If I'm not mistaken, _Teenagers_from_Outer_Space_ has as part of its
>system lists of "schticks" that PCs can have that work in a similar way.
>They simply activate them when needed. (e.g. Great Strength, Martial
>Arts, Gorgeous, etc)
.
Yeah ... wouldn't a limited number of "schticks" or
whatever mechanism sort of limit the flexibility of
the game? Any ideas for the same basic idea applied
to a few "universal" traits? Perhaps a "schtick" would
in actuality be a combination of "qualities".
John G. Blackwell
On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
> In article <50puni$a...@crl.crl.com> Andrew Finch wrote:
> >Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
> >: Truth be told, I am absolutely not interested in
> >: diceless gaming. I think it is pointless. Next...
> >Well, I am going to be sorry I asked, but I might as well, as Shane is
> >being relatively civil about this...
> >[stepping behind the iron and asbestos shielding]
> >Why do you think that diceless gaming is pointless, or, rather, to avoid
> >flames, what is the 'point' of diced gaming which is absent from the
> >diceless variety? Or, is it simply a personal aesthetic prefernce?
> .
> The toaster people told me so.
You promised you wouldn't reveal Our existence...
signed,
Your Favourite Toaster Person
Mark Apolinski
Shane Dunbar wrote:
> You say you'll keep numbers out and then immediately
> fall back on numbers. Quality is not "ranked", by
> definition. Quantity is ranked. From this point
> forward, think of quality as "non-ranked descriptors".
> .
> For example, a good car may have many qualities. It
> might be fast. It might be fuel efficient. It might
> look good. No ONE of these makes a car "better" than
> other cars (although one could argue for looks), even
> though they are all QUALITIES that you use to compare
> cars.
> >My question is, how do you make judgements as to the outcome of a
> >conflict without quantity, ie. a ranking system, as well?
>
What you just said reminds me of some of these recent card game
systems, where one can play a card "Fast Car" or "Portable Hole" or
whatever other kind of Advantage is allowed by the system. Now I'm not
suggesting cards, but perhaps this kind of assigning of advantages could
be made to work.
If I'm not mistaken, _Teenagers_from_Outer_Space_ has as part of its
system lists of "schticks" that PCs can have that work in a similar way.
They simply activate them when needed. (e.g. Great Strength, Martial
Arts, Gorgeous, etc)
Mark
Rick Cordes
In article <ian.84...@pentagon.io.com>, Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>Let's see. . . the system that you have in mind would:
I'm responding to the original but as Ian introduced the nice
summary of points, I'll start from here. Let me say from the get-go, I
am most interested in seeing this "GMless" idea developed. I'm also
responding to some of the points Ian has addressed.
>1. Have no numbers, anywhere, nor anything that could be converted into
>numbers.
It is hard to imagine a game without numbers explicitly or implicitly
defined because everything touching the real world is quantifiable. The
problem being posed seems to be, to jump in the water without getting
wet. Still the sentiment has merit as so much damage has been done to
RPGing by numeric fetishism.
>2. Would have a diced, random element.
The tarot card notion seems fruitful. Every player could have an
identical deck, and each would play from it according to their conception of
their character, e.g., in a confrontation, one player reveals a Cowardice
card as another reveals a Trickery card, and then both roll dice to see who
prevails over whom: outcomes may be defined for how one card prevails or ties
against the other.
At the end of a campaign/session, a player will have played some
cards and not others. This could be used to dictate the composition of
the player's deck for the next campaign: the use of one card could include
another particular card, and the whole deck would be connected this way
so that no cards would be forever precluded from a player. [For example,
card A signals the inclusion of B, and card B signals C; if during a session
a player uses A but not B or C, in the next game, the player would use a
deck with A and B in it but not C.] . Players could store their active and
inactive cards one way and the other.
To get around the Mouse/Elephant problem, perhaps Elephants could
have Trample cards that Mice and others wouldn't and vice-versa and so on.
I foresee numerous decks of cards but not without their economies.
>3. Would have no GM.
This aspect is most interesting to me. Do you have a mechanic for
how a campaign would be implemented? Is having no GM the same as everyone
being GM?
-Rick
Thomas R Scudder
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: In article <ian.84...@pentagon.io.com> Xiphias Gladius wrote:
snip
: >Hmm. First thing, I think, would be to make dice without numbers on their
: >sides. If the characters are numberless, I'd suspect that numberless dice
: >would also be appropriate. Perhaps they'd have, on their sides, somethig
: >like "Social Interaction" "Cowardice" "Confrontationalism" "Obliviousness"
: >"Trickery" "Pity", and if someone wanted to start a fight, and rolled
: >"COwardice", they'd be less effective than if they rolled
: >"Confrontationalism".
:
: Six sides is still six sides (a number) whether you
: put number or pictures or whatever on them. You still
: know the "odds" of success in a particular action using
: particular dice, in a computation, mathematical,
: quantitative sense.
Simple fix to that: Use a lot of such dice, each with a different set
of six things on it. Pull one out of a box at random. Roll it. Return
it to the box.
As a side issue, it might be fun to use two sets of dice, one "good" and
one "bad". Each contestant rolls a good die and a bad die, chucks any
modifiers that don't seem to apply, and applies all the remaining ones
to his/her actions.
So, getting into a fight, you could roll "trickery" and "cowardice", or
"inspiration" and "bad luck", or suchlike.
big snip
: >So, you'd define your character by saying what he or she was, and had
: >done. Then you'd roll characteristic dice to determine how well you could
: >do a particular type of thing at a particular time.
: >But I don't really have a handle on how this would work in practice -- if
: >I defined a character as a heavyweight boxer, and my friend had a
: >character who was a Marine, and they got into a fight, and I rolled
: >Confrontationalism, and he rolled Trickery, what happened?
: .
: Yeah ... that kind of system might work better in a
: moderated situation, or a non-competetive (players
: cooperate) situation.
:
: Or, as a couple of alternatives:
:
: 1) Certain stats always take precedence over others
: (for example, trickery always beats confrontationalism).
:
Ugh. I have visions of big, ugly charts dancing in my head, now.
Especially if you have more than a half-dozen or so attributes involved.
: 2) Other attributes could influence the outcome (in the
: example above, who was the aggressor?)
This would still need some moderation -- the issues won't always be clear
on either side -- the two characters, being predisposed for some reason
to dislike each other, each spot the other and charge.
I like the method mentioned elsewhere, of a vote taken among
the disinterested players. "Hmm... that's a 5.5, 5.3, 5.0, and
a 2.1 from the East German judge..."
: >Oh well, it was just a concept. I hope that there are some ideas
: >somewhere in this post that might get you closer to your goal.
: .
: I was thinking of using the deck of cards idea (a sort
: of "game tarot") with a "Re-Shuffle" card in the deck
: to enhance the randonimity. By making a "tarot" spread,
: you could determine the result of actions, or even compare
: it against the spread of another player. But the cards
: would be similar to your concept of "attributes" on the
: dice. A confrontation card. A cowardice card. Etc.
Hm. if 6 sides == numbers, then 52 cards (or however many) == numbers,
too. Unless everyone brings in/makes up their own set of 6-8 cards (or
more) and you shuffle them all up together to make up the game tarot.
You could do the same thing with the big bag of dice, but the advantage
of the game tarot would be that cards have a lot more room for people
to write legibly on -- just get a couple identical poker decks, or get
your local Magic addict to donate a hundred or so basic lands or commons.
The possible warped effects of summing up individual choices like this
certainly make me happy -- imagine a game where everyone brought in
a "treachery" card. Or a "lechery" card, for that matter.
--
Tom Scudder aka tom...@umich.edu <*> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tomscud
UNALTERED REPRODUCTION and ^ @
DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT | (this whitespace for rent) @
INFORMATION is ENCOURAGED +-- Perth @
Shane Dunbar
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.960906234602.3091B-100000@nova> John G. Blackwell wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
>> In article <50puni$a...@crl.crl.com> Andrew Finch wrote:
>> >Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
>> >: Truth be told, I am absolutely not interested in
>> >: diceless gaming. I think it is pointless. Next...
>> >Well, I am going to be sorry I asked, but I might as well, as Shane is
>> >being relatively civil about this...
>> >[stepping behind the iron and asbestos shielding]
>> >Why do you think that diceless gaming is pointless, or, rather, to avoid
>> >flames, what is the 'point' of diced gaming which is absent from the
>> >diceless variety? Or, is it simply a personal aesthetic prefernce?
>You promised you wouldn't reveal Our existence...
> signed,
>Your Favourite Toaster Person
Make the voices stop!
Bryan J. Jonker
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: .
: Hmmm ... I like the tarot idea, but I don't like
: the deck idea. I could work with it, though. In
: a recent thread in reg.games.miniatures.misc there
: was a discussion on decks, and one poster pointed
: out that Rain Man would be able to tell you what
: cards were left, reducing the "random" effect and
: tainting the uncertain outcome of the situation.
:
Simple solution: once a card is used, shuffle it back into the deck.
Also, there's probably going to be a lot of cards, thus reducing
the "card-counting" ability.
Another suggestion: as a character is created, give the character
X number of cards, chosen specifically for that character. An
ex-Marine may have: 5 "Superior Fight", 2 "Marine Friend", 4 "Dirty
Tactic", 2 "General Tactics", and so on, so each person would have
an individual character deck. Obviously, the more description would
warrant a more varied deck. At the beginning of the game, the player
draws five cards and can use them during play. This way, you get out of
the "Well, even though I described my character as dumber than a brick,
he still outsmarted the scientist 'cause the cards say so." problem. For
the lack-of-GM games, you can be even more flexible with the character
decks, having "Plot Twist", "Surprise Endings" cards and so on.
<---------------Bryan Jonker-------...@prairienet.org------------->
"Genetic Engineering, Inc. A we-will-make-you-an-equal employer."
-Sidney Harris, "Einstein Simplified"
Shane Dunbar
In article <50sd1p$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> Bryan J. Jonker wrote:
>Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
>: the deck idea. I could work with it, though. In
>: a recent thread in reg.games.miniatures.misc there
>: was a discussion on decks, and one poster pointed
>: out that Rain Man would be able to tell you what
>: cards were left, reducing the "random" effect and
>: tainting the uncertain outcome of the situation.
>Simple solution: once a card is used, shuffle it back into the deck.
>Also, there's probably going to be a lot of cards, thus reducing
>the "card-counting" ability.
Actually, I decided to have a single "RESHUFFLE"
card in each deck. When you drew that card, you
reshuffle the deck no matter how many card have
been used. It might be the first card, it might
be the last, or anywhere in between.
.
>Another suggestion: as a character is created, give the character
>X number of cards, chosen specifically for that character. An
>ex-Marine may have: 5 "Superior Fight", 2 "Marine Friend", 4 "Dirty
>Tactic", 2 "General Tactics", and so on, so each person would have
>an individual character deck. Obviously, the more description would
>warrant a more varied deck. At the beginning of the game, the player
>draws five cards and can use them during play. This way, you get out of
>the "Well, even though I described my character as dumber than a brick,
>he still outsmarted the scientist 'cause the cards say so." problem. For
>the lack-of-GM games, you can be even more flexible with the character
>decks, having "Plot Twist", "Surprise Endings" cards and so on.
I thought of that, but that would really suck from
a player perspective. It's nice, when you have a
card, to be able to use it. To have it as "part of
a character" would preclude its use elsewhere.
Either that, or constant confusion would arise as
you use the cards to other purposes and then forget
what your character was "made of".
.
This would also suck from a GM perspective. The GM
may want to do something that he doesn't have a card
for, and be stuck. Or he might want to make several
NPCs and lack the cards to do so. The whole thing
is just too limiting.
.
It's also good to be able to look at a character
sheet and see what a character is made of, instead
of shuffling through a deck and having to deduce it.
Warren Grant
Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> wrote:
>Hmmm ... I like the tarot idea, but I don't like
>the deck idea. I could work with it, though. In
>a recent thread in reg.games.miniatures.misc there
>was a discussion on decks, and one poster pointed
>out that Rain Man would be able to tell you what
>cards were left, reducing the "random" effect and
>tainting the uncertain outcome of the situation.
Perhaps not exactly what you are looking for,
but I would suggest you might use a regular playing
card deck (since they are readily available, and cheap)
and work out an interpretation of the value of a card
as a randomizer. You could even shade the values by
incorporating meanings for the suits and whether or not
it is a face card as opposed to a number card.
I know, it still deals with numbers but its not
"diceless" in the loose sense of the word, and it could
potentially be much more flexible than dice for a flavoured
resolution of a situtation.
Just my $0.02 worth,
Warren Grant
Shane Dunbar
If you know that it involves numbers, why did you
bring it up? Have I not been VOCAL enough about my
desire to leave numbers out of this? No? Please
let me clarify it, then. NO NUMBERS. NONE AT ALL.
.
Secondly, I'm not looking for "flexible". I'm looking
for "different". Your idea is not that, and has been
covered and covered better by other posters. In other
words, you contributed NOTHING.
Jeffrey A. Ruszczyk
Shane Dunbar wrote:
> .
> You say you'll keep numbers out and then immediately
> fall back on numbers. Quality is not "ranked", by
> definition. Quantity is ranked. From this point
> forward, think of quality as "non-ranked descriptors".
> .
> For example, a good car may have many qualities. It
> might be fast. It might be fuel efficient. It might
> look good. No ONE of these makes a car "better" than
> other cars (although one could argue for looks), even
> though they are all QUALITIES that you use to compare
> cars.
Yet you have still ranked them: they are all comparisons,
and all relative (e.g., "fast" implies "compared to other
cars", which begs ranking). In fact, no system of
comparative qualities can be anything but ranked. Qualities
such as "red" are not comparative, but they don't seem to
offer any way out of your dilemma: comparison without
ranking.
Jeff
--
Amanuensis and Nomologue
Jeffrey Straszheim
Shane Dunbar wrote:
> As I said in the original post, I am aware of this
> possibility. I have already discarded it. I seek
> something with NO NUMBERS.
I don't see a big problem with "NO NUMBERS" per se. There are many
free-form style systems that do it now. The difficulty arises from the
"NO GM" stipulation.
I think, ultimately, that all resolutions in role-playing result from
either mechanics or psychology (or, as is more often the case, a
combination of the two). I don't think you can eliminate numbers and
still have mechanics.
Mechanics refers to resolution systems which are formal and precise and
not subject to the whim of an arbiter. Any such system can be reduced to
a numerical system. The effort to make the reduction can be quite
involved, but a system simple enough for role-playing is likely to be
very amicable to automation.
In case I'm not being clear, let me restate. If a system is automatic
and precise it can be reduced to numbers. (BTW, there exist mathematical
proofs of this, but considering what the 'Pygmallion Effect' thread has
turned into I wont attempt to present any. If you're interested read
_Godel, Escher, Bach_ and _Metamagical Themas_ by Douglas Hofstadter.)
Systems which rely on human psychology, on the other hand, cannot be
reduced to formal mathematical procedures (well, not yet at least). This
is the area where I think Shane should search for his solution. Up until
now systems which maximized the psychological aspect of gaming fell into
either the free-form of diceless variety. Both types seem to me to
require a GM (and a darn good one at that).
One dirt simple suggestion is to just have the group vote on the outcome
(this is, in effect, what Lise was suggesting in her post). The group
could be instruced to take into account the characters traits, the draw
of a descriptive card, and meta-game issues in equal weight. I actually
know a group which does something very similar to this. The system that
they use has numbers, but that is simply a matter of convienence and
could be removed.
--
Jeffrey L. Straszheim | Man is born free, and
<mailto:jeff...@shadow.net> | everywhere he is in chains.
<http://www.shadow.net/~jeffreys> | (Rousseau)
Keith Kornelsen
There are two problems with numbered systems.
1. Some people just don't like math. It's a pain.
2. Some people think that in order to simulate *well*
with numbers, you need many, many, many, numbers.
and then each moment of simulation often relies on
equation. Witness some RP combats.
There is one problem with unnumbered systems, but it's
a big one.
1. Your judgement system must be 'organic'; ie. the
rules must flex widely and the non-deciders must
trust the decider(s).
I'd like to talk about this...
--Intrepid
Shane Dunbar
In article <323173...@earthsat.com> Jeffrey A. Ruszczyk wrote:
>Shane Dunbar wrote:
>> You say you'll keep numbers out and then immediately
>> fall back on numbers. Quality is not "ranked", by
>> definition. Quantity is ranked. From this point
>> forward, think of quality as "non-ranked descriptors".
>> might be fast. It might be fuel efficient. It might
>> look good. No ONE of these makes a car "better" than
>> other cars (although one could argue for looks), even
>> though they are all QUALITIES that you use to compare
>> cars.
>Yet you have still ranked them: they are all comparisons,
>and all relative (e.g., "fast" implies "compared to other
>cars", which begs ranking). In fact, no system of
>comparative qualities can be anything but ranked. Qualities
>such as "red" are not comparative, but they don't seem to
>offer any way out of your dilemma: comparison without
>ranking.
I have not ranked them, you are completely full of
shyt! I have not ranked anything. I have provided
no list of relative words. I have produced no
comparative qualities.
.
So if you don't have anything constructive to add
to the conversation to help solve the dilemma,
SHUT THE PHUCK UP!
Shane Dunbar
In article <3231FD...@shadow.net> Jeffrey Straszheim wrote:
>Shane Dunbar wrote:
>> As I said in the original post, I am aware of this
>> possibility. I have already discarded it. I seek
>> something with NO NUMBERS.
>I don't see a big problem with "NO NUMBERS" per se. There are many
>free-form style systems that do it now. The difficulty arises from the
>"NO GM" stipulation.
I see the problem, too. What I am looking for are
IDEAS and ANSWERS. Have any? No? Then leave off.
.
>I think, ultimately, that all resolutions in role-playing result from
>either mechanics or psychology (or, as is more often the case, a
>combination of the two). I don't think you can eliminate numbers and
>still have mechanics.
I think one can, and that is the difference between
you and me. Did you just write to tell me that you
don't think it can be done? Then I don't want to
hear it.
.
>Mechanics refers to resolution systems which are formal and precise and
>not subject to the whim of an arbiter. Any such system can be reduced to
>a numerical system. The effort to make the reduction can be quite
>involved, but a system simple enough for role-playing is likely to be
>very amicable to automation.
You have a firm grasp of the obvious.
.
>In case I'm not being clear, let me restate. If a system is automatic
>and precise it can be reduced to numbers. (BTW, there exist mathematical
>proofs of this, but considering what the 'Pygmallion Effect' thread has
>turned into I wont attempt to present any. If you're interested read
>_Godel, Escher, Bach_ and _Metamagical Themas_ by Douglas Hofstadter.)
Ah, some pseudo-intellectual mish-mash to make you
seem smart. Very nice.
.
>Systems which rely on human psychology, on the other hand, cannot be
>reduced to formal mathematical procedures (well, not yet at least). This
>is the area where I think Shane should search for his solution. Up until
>now systems which maximized the psychological aspect of gaming fell into
>either the free-form of diceless variety. Both types seem to me to
>require a GM (and a darn good one at that).
Duh ... you assume that I've done no research on
this? You are just making an ass of yourself. I
was asking for ideas, not criticism.
.
>One dirt simple suggestion is to just have the group vote on the outcome
>(this is, in effect, what Lise was suggesting in her post). The group
>could be instruced to take into account the characters traits, the draw
>of a descriptive card, and meta-game issues in equal weight. I actually
>know a group which does something very similar to this. The system that
>they use has numbers, but that is simply a matter of convienence and
>could be removed.
Oh, now won't that be fair in a competetive game?
Jeff
has meaning in isolation. *You cannot*. This is actually
a problem with all terms, including my example of "red."
Things can be "red" or "not-red"; and those that are
"red" can have degrees of "redness." What problem do
you have with this?
> So if you don't have anything constructive to add
> to the conversation to help solve the dilemma,
> SHUT THE PHUCK UP!
> I will post as I please; the degree of constructiveness of
my posts will be judged by more than just you.
Simply stated: even in a binary system of qualities (A &
not-A), they are still ranked. A task resolution system
such as you want will still "rank" the person with quality
A above the person who lacks A, when attempting some task
calling for A.
Leave aside your insults, and say something constructive:
criticize my arguments, not my (admittedly) not-Shaneness.
--
Jeff
INSTANT CARDS and GAMES
http://instantgames.com
questions to je...@instantgames.com
Lise Mendel
Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> wrote:
> I have not ranked them, you are completely full of
> shyt! I have not ranked anything. I have provided
> no list of relative words. I have produced no
> comparative qualities.
> .
> So if you don't have anything constructive to add
> to the conversation to help solve the dilemma,
> SHUT THE PHUCK UP!
>
I thought you said this thread was not flame bait?!?
If you don't like what someone writes, and you're not _looking_ for a
flame war, why not 1) politely point out how it's not helpfulr or 2)
ignore it and concentrate on the productive comments.
Lise Mendel
Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> wrote:
> >One dirt simple suggestion is to just have the group vote on the outcome
> >(this is, in effect, what Lise was suggesting in her post). The group
> >could be instruced to take into account the characters traits, the draw
> >of a descriptive card, and meta-game issues in equal weight. I actually
> >know a group which does something very similar to this. The system that
> >they use has numbers, but that is simply a matter of convienence and
> >could be removed.
> .
> Oh, now won't that be fair in a competetive game?
If it's to be competitive, than why are you ruling out the concept of a
referee?
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
> A scale is still a quantitative approach. You are
> measuring up something and assigning it a particular
> place as it compares to all other things. I'm trying
> to get away from numerical, quantitative systems and
> address the QUALITY of the factors involved. This
> cannot be done with numbers unless you jump into some
> fuzzy logic framework and I'm not really into the
> current state of fuzzy logic. Too many numbers. Am
> I the only one that hates math?
So--you are looking for a non-hierarchical, qualitative system that still
uses a random factor?
How about this--
Describe the character qualitatively, with a fairly extensive written
description. The player and GM negotiate the character, and include
whatever they think relevant.
When it is time for action adjudication, the GM consults a pre-generated
random factor--I favor a tarot draw, using just the major arcana. I
generate four or five such per player per evening, but our games are on
the short side. I pregenerate the random factors because I haven't got
the tarot memorized, so I consult a book at times :) The descriptions I
get from the random factor then get factored in to the adjudication--I
tend to weigh character descriptions and character actions more than the
random factor. I tend to apply the effects of the random factor across an
entire scene--obviously you can do this for shorter time periods too, if
you want.
As part of our group contract, my adjudications are the final
authority--although I tend to delegate alot of this authority to the
players. This is very close to a typical diceless group contract, FWIIW.
If the character's description is inadequate or deficient in some relevant
way, the player and I "write" the character up on the spot, and I then ask
the player to fill in the description as appropiate after the play is
over.
There you have it--very close to diceless, mechanicless play, but with a
random factor. Probably not your cup of tea, but it does meet the
qualifications you specified :)
My best,
Kevin
Mormegil of Ket
All this talk of diceless and LARP reminds me of the good old days at
Lincoln Junior High where I was king of the nerds as founder and president
of the DandD club.
> There are two problems with numbered systems.
>
> 1. Some people just don't like math. It's a pain.
We hated the math too. It really got in the way of cheating. Too
cheat properly quantitative rules and restrictions just aren't going to
cut it.
> 2. Some people think that in order to simulate *well*
> with numbers, you need many, many, many, numbers.
> and then each moment of simulation often relies on
> equation. Witness some RP combats.
We at the nerdy DandD club did away with numbers to simulate reality.
The action flowed smoothly and wonderfully.
Player: "OK, man, I pull out my +12 long sword that shoots black
lightning bolts and I hit Demagorgon."
DM: Depending on the DM's mood, hormone levels (junior high kids
are unstable at best), and other complicated factors the response might
be, "His head explodes into a billion pieces, but the bone fragments blind
you for life."
> There is one problem with unnumbered systems, but it's
> a big one.
>
> 1. Your judgement system must be 'organic'; ie. the
> rules must flex widely and the non-deciders must
> trust the decider(s).
In our game if the non-decider did not trust the decider there was
usually a fist fight or name calling session. Such outbursts threatended
the existence of the DandD club as the advisor shhok her head and mumbled,
"What a bunch of pimply geeks."
Now that I think about it I'm still a nerd, still have acne, but I
don't cheat anymore. Maybe there's hope.
-Mormegil the former king of the Nerds at the DandD Club
--
**********************************************
The preceding was brought to you courtesy of
orbital mind control lasers
fun to be had at http://users.deltanet.com/~mormegil
*****************************************************
Thomas Biskup
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
> In article <322F7C...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski wrote:
> > I personally can't even imagine a dice-using, numberless system.
> That shows limited imagination on your part. Fortunately,
> I am not bound by such shortcomings.
I might have missed your post about your idea of such a system. Would
you please repost your ideas on a dice-using numberless system?
The only thing I could think off would be using dice with symbols
instead of numbers but then you probably could use cards right away.
--
Thomas Biskup EMail to: bis...@saranxis.ruhr.de
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code."
Rick Cordes
In article <3231FD...@shadow.net>,
Jeffrey Straszheim <jeff...@shadow.net> wrote:
...
>I think, ultimately, that all resolutions in role-playing result from
>either mechanics or psychology (or, as is more often the case, a
>combination of the two). I don't think you can eliminate numbers and
>still have mechanics.
How, if at all, do you think connections may be made between
these two resolution modes and the roleplaying and gaming elements of
RPGs? My sense is that if roleplaying could be incorporated formally
into the mechanic, roleplaying would cross into a golden age. There are
ways to encourage roleplaying by using one mechanic rather than another,
or of course by reliance upon psychology, but the two are yet immiscible.
>Mechanics refers to resolution systems which are formal and precise and
>not subject to the whim of an arbiter. Any such system can be reduced to
>a numerical system. The effort to make the reduction can be quite
>involved, but a system simple enough for role-playing is likely to be
>very amicable to automation.
Roleplaying is defined by what characters will do and how they'll
go about doing it, and ways to simulate the processes or outcomes
of those means and ends can be devised. Such a mechanic may imaginably
be fair to both GM and player with respect to the tactical resolution
of the whims of the players or the GM but I am also concerned with the
adjudication of the indulgence of whim. I think there should be a
mechanic whereby characters must cope with their personal quirks amd
proclivities at a tactical, if not at least at a strategic, level.
Likewise, I think GMs should observe an ettiquette in counterpart.
...
>Systems which rely on human psychology, on the other hand, cannot be
>reduced to formal mathematical procedures (well, not yet at least). This
>is the area where I think Shane should search for his solution. Up until
>now systems which maximized the psychological aspect of gaming fell into
>either the free-form of diceless variety. Both types seem to me to
>require a GM (and a darn good one at that).
The same yardstick that measures darn good GMing, is probably
the same that gauges roleplaying. Mechanics seem to corrupt roleplaying
but since mechanics are not all alike there may be reason to hope that
something in one form that so adversely effects something else, might
in another, prove to be of great benefit. One thing that has not changed
much between dice and diceless games is the dichotomy between GM and
players, and this touches the GMless question.
>One dirt simple suggestion is to just have the group vote on the outcome
>(this is, in effect, what Lise was suggesting in her post). The group
>could be instruced to take into account the characters traits, the draw
>of a descriptive card, and meta-game issues in equal weight. I actually
>know a group which does something very similar to this. The system that
>they use has numbers, but that is simply a matter of convienence and
>could be removed.
Rather than just a straight forward vote, I would let the vote
determine the odds, or let each player toss a coin and those who won,
would vote.
-Rick
Lise Mendel
Rick Cordes <cor...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>
> >1. Have no numbers, anywhere, nor anything that could be converted into
> >numbers.
>
Actually, I think it was use neither numbers nor number substitutes in
the character sheets. That makes it a bit easier.
> It is hard to imagine a game without numbers explicitly or implicitly
> defined because everything touching the real world is quantifiable. The
> problem being posed seems to be, to jump in the water without getting
> wet. Still the sentiment has merit as so much damage has been done to
> RPGing by numeric fetishism.
There are many human qualities that can't be described adequately by
numbers. Intelligence, for example (IQ tests notwithstanding), empathic
capacity, charisma, coloration, sexual attitudes...
It means that strenght, running speed, stride length, and shoe size must
be omitted from the character description, though.
Kevin R. Hardwick
Shane has introduced for discussion the notion of a GMless system. If we
want to discuss the viability of such, it seems to me, we need to pin down
just what we expect the GM to *do*, in a "normal" game, and then ask how
the responsibility for those tasks can be distributed to the group as a
whole.
So, here is a list of things that I see the GM as doing. This is hardly
comprehensive--no doubt I've left plenty out :)
1. The GM has primary responsibility for the setting. This may include:
a. *creating* the setting,
b. determining what happens in the setting, in the short run
(how does the NPC shop-keeper respond to the PC's question?)
c. and in the long run (what is the NPC King trying to
accomplish, and how?)
d. maintaining the coherence and consistency of the setting--that
is, ensuring that the setting operates consistently across time.
It seems to me that with care and a great deal of negotiation, all of
these could be shifted to the group as a whole, rather than resting solely
with the GM. However, it also seems to me that to the extent that you do
so, you sacrifice the interests of the IC player--when these "setting
responsibilities" are delegated to the group as a whole, it seems to me
that authorial stances will perforce impinge on just about everyone, on a
more or less regular basis. It also seems to me that this aspect of
GMless gaming risks death by committee--pacing could very easily
degenerate as the game shifts to these more authorial, and possibly
interminable, discussion.
2. The GM bears primary responsibility for adjudicating PC interactions
with the setting--the GM determines what happens when a PC tries to do
something. To a certain extent the game mechanics provide a way for
decentering the authority of the GM. As Alain has suggested, however, I
think this is largely illusory--in practice, at least IME, the GM is just
as active in adjudicating stuff using a heavy mechanics system as using a
light--and perversely, IME heavy mechanics tend to highlight the authority
of the GM (the GM is the persons who determines what happens when the
mechanics are ambiguous) while light mechanics tend to open the
adjudication out more to the group as a whole. YMMV, obviously.
3. The GM is responsible for pacing the evening--for making sure that
each of the players gets adequate stage time, and for making sure that the
game doesn't lag or get boring.
I don't see an easy mechanism to replace this in a GMless game.
4. The GM is responsible, at least in some styles of rpg, for producing a
plot that appeals to the motivations of the PCs. This can be thought of
as an aspect of the setting (point 1c, above) although a purely
simulationist game, it seems to me, will not go out of its way to ensure
that the long term stuff happening in the setting will have appeal to the
PCs.
In a GMless game, it is still possible to have such plots, but they cannot
be surprises--since the plots are the collective product of the group,
everyone will know what is happening "behind the scenes," as it were.
My best,
Kevin
Andrew Finch
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: You say you'll keep numbers out and then immediately
: fall back on numbers. Quality is not "ranked", by
: definition.
That was my point. Your needs seem to embody an inherent contradiction.
You want no numbers, therefore no ranking. How do you make 'ranked'
decisions without ranking, ie. when there is conflict, who wins? And why?
: Well, that's the real question, isn't it? In fact, it
: is the question I posed in my original post. I guess
: you saw the word "flame" and stopped there.
Obviously not.
: Gosh, you have this amazing ability to re-state the
: question is pseudo-intellectual terms.
Thank you.
: Start your
: own thread.
No, I don't think I will. And I think I'll feel free to re-state the
question in whatever terms I please.
David
Mary K. Kuhner
"Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
>So, here is a list of things that I see the GM as doing. This is hardly
>comprehensive--no doubt I've left plenty out :)
[snip]
>3. The GM is responsible for pacing the evening--for making sure that
>each of the players gets adequate stage time, and for making sure that the
>game doesn't lag or get boring.
>I don't see an easy mechanism to replace this in a GMless game.
You could use some type of mechanical division-of-attention setup, such
having every player hold a certain number of "start a subplot" cards
from a Whimsy Deck, to handle spotlight time. You could handle pacing
by group consensus, as my last multi-player group did: anyone could say
"Hey, this is *too* slow" and everyone would then work to speed things
up.
>4. The GM is responsible, at least in some styles of rpg, for producing a
>plot that appeals to the motivations of the PCs. This can be thought of
>as an aspect of the setting (point 1c, above) although a purely
>simulationist game, it seems to me, will not go out of its way to ensure
>that the long term stuff happening in the setting will have appeal to the
>PCs.
>In a GMless game, it is still possible to have such plots, but they cannot
>be surprises--since the plots are the collective product of the group,
>everyone will know what is happening "behind the scenes," as it were.
You might be able to replace this by assigning various factions to
various players, so that some degree of surprise would be produced
by the interactions between factions. But it is very difficult without
some kind of referee to resolve situations involving secrecy or
covert action. How can I determine, as player of faction A, whether
faction B notices my spy whom I've infiltrated into their ranks?
You can do this with dice in a wargame, but RPGs are seldom mechanical
to that extent. And it is *very* hard for your spy to bring you back
info about faction B without letting faction B's player know that
he is there--at which point you may have character surprise, but you
have lost player surprise.
Firewalling will clearly be an important skill.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Andrew Finch
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: Secondly, I'm not looking for "flexible". I'm looking
: for "different". Your idea is not that, and has been
: covered and covered better by other posters. In other
: words, you contributed NOTHING.
There you go, Shane, being an arrogant little fuck again, you small minded
man. Anyone who offers the kindness to post to your question at all has
contributed something, ie. their time and effort. If you don't appreciate
it, don't ask the question. It's a news group. Everyone is welcome. Well,
I'm beginning to suspect that everyone is welcome but you.
David
Andrew Finch
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: I think one can, and that is the difference between
: you and me. Did you just write to tell me that you
: don't think it can be done? Then I don't want to
: hear it.
Wewre you physically abused as a child or what?
: Ah, some pseudo-intellectual mish-mash to make you
: seem smart. Very nice.
: Duh ... you assume that I've done no research on
: this? You are just making an ass of yourself. I
: was asking for ideas, not criticism.
The only one making an ass of themselves is you Shane.
David
Shane Dunbar
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.960908...@rac5.wam.umd.edu> Kevin R. Hardwick
wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
>> A scale is still a quantitative approach. You are
>> measuring up something and assigning it a particular
>> place as it compares to all other things. I'm trying
>> to get away from numerical, quantitative systems and
>> address the QUALITY of the factors involved. This
>> cannot be done with numbers unless you jump into some
>> fuzzy logic framework and I'm not really into the
>> current state of fuzzy logic. Too many numbers. Am
>> I the only one that hates math?
>So--you are looking for a non-hierarchical, qualitative system that still
>uses a random factor?
>How about this--
>Describe the character qualitatively, with a fairly extensive written
>description. The player and GM negotiate the character, and include
>whatever they think relevant.
Nope. No GM. I'm looking for a SYSTEM, not a
space for judgement. I could "have the player and
GM sit down and talk about it" without a SYSTEM.
.
>When it is time for action adjudication, the GM consults a pre-generated
>random factor--I favor a tarot draw, using just the major arcana. I
>generate four or five such per player per evening, but our games are on
>the short side. I pregenerate the random factors because I haven't got
>the tarot memorized, so I consult a book at times :) The descriptions I
>get from the random factor then get factored in to the adjudication--I
>tend to weigh character descriptions and character actions more than the
>random factor. I tend to apply the effects of the random factor across an
>entire scene--obviously you can do this for shorter time periods too, if
>you want.
>As part of our group contract, my adjudications are the final
>authority--although I tend to delegate alot of this authority to the
>players. This is very close to a typical diceless group contract, FWIIW.
>If the character's description is inadequate or deficient in some relevant
>way, the player and I "write" the character up on the spot, and I then ask
>the player to fill in the description as appropiate after the play is
>over.
>There you have it--very close to diceless, mechanicless play, but with a
>random factor. Probably not your cup of tea, but it does meet the
>qualifications you specified :)
The rest of this is moot. I'm looking for a game,
not a group-grope, not a "let's sit down and write
a book together" touchy-feely.
Shane Dunbar
In article <mormegil-080...@enc0197.deltanet.com> Mormegil of Ket wrote:
> All this talk of diceless and LARP reminds me of the good old days at
>Lincoln Junior High where I was king of the nerds as founder and president
>of the DandD club.
Well, that would make you an idiot, because this is
not about "diceless" and it's not about "LARP". I
strongly suggest you hold off on your weak sarcasm
until you know what the phuck is going on, you dim-
witted stub of a human being.
.
>> There are two problems with numbered systems.
>> 1. Some people just don't like math. It's a pain.
> We hated the math too. It really got in the way of cheating. Too
>cheat properly quantitative rules and restrictions just aren't going to
>cut it.
>> 2. Some people think that in order to simulate *well*
>> with numbers, you need many, many, many, numbers.
>> and then each moment of simulation often relies on
>> equation. Witness some RP combats.
> We at the nerdy DandD club did away with numbers to simulate reality.
>The action flowed smoothly and wonderfully.
> Player: "OK, man, I pull out my +12 long sword that shoots black
>lightning bolts and I hit Demagorgon."
> DM: Depending on the DM's mood, hormone levels (junior high kids
>are unstable at best), and other complicated factors the response might
>be, "His head explodes into a billion pieces, but the bone fragments blind
>you for life."
Oh, ha ha ha. Good one.
.
>> There is one problem with unnumbered systems, but it's
>> a big one.
>> 1. Your judgement system must be 'organic'; ie. the
>> rules must flex widely and the non-deciders must
>> trust the decider(s).
> In our game if the non-decider did not trust the decider there was
>usually a fist fight or name calling session. Such outbursts threatended
>the existence of the DandD club as the advisor shhok her head and mumbled,
>"What a bunch of pimply geeks."
> Now that I think about it I'm still a nerd, still have acne, but I
>don't cheat anymore. Maybe there's hope.
I think not.
Shane Dunbar
In article <511hqk$g...@crl.crl.com> Andrew Finch wrote:
>Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
>: Secondly, I'm not looking for "flexible". I'm looking
>: for "different". Your idea is not that, and has been
>: covered and covered better by other posters. In other
>: words, you contributed NOTHING.
>There you go, Shane, being an arrogant little fuck again, you small minded
>man.
It's easy to be arrogant when I'm surrounded by complete
boobs like you.
.
>Anyone who offers the kindness to post to your question at all has
>contributed something, ie. their time and effort.
Your time and effort are worth nothing; therefore, you
have contributed nothing.
.
>If you don't appreciate
>it, don't ask the question. It's a news group. Everyone is welcome. Well,
>I'm beginning to suspect that everyone is welcome but you.
Then I, too, am welcome to express my opinion. It is
my opinion that you are an ass.
Andrew Finch
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: Then don't post to this thread. I've received too
: much positive feedback to be interested in your
: inane ramblings.
But, Shane, I've made you my personal pet project. You start insulting, I
turn the thread into a flame war, you little fuck. You want insults. I'm
happy to oblige. You want to talk, you'll find a way to do it without
getting personal. Your choice.
: What a load of crap. If I say "I cannot jump over
: that fence", the simple fact is that I can't. If I
: say "I might be able to jump over the fence, let's
: see..." then I may or may not jump the fence. The
: fact of the matter is, /I/ tried.
I don't care what you think you can or can't do. And neither does anyone
else. You're a weasel. The choices are to treat others who respond to you
respectfully, or have the thread turned into a shouting match. I'm happy
either way.
David
Andrew Finch
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
: hey eat it heifer
I don't think I could find it on you Shane. Anyone got an electron
microscope?
David
Shane Dunbar
In article <50ru8v$s...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> Thomas R Scudder wrote:
>Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
>: >Hmm. First thing, I think, would be to make dice without numbers on their
>: >sides. If the characters are numberless, I'd suspect that numberless dice
>: >would also be appropriate. Perhaps they'd have, on their sides, somethig
>: >like "Social Interaction" "Cowardice" "Confrontationalism" "Obliviousness"
>: >"Trickery" "Pity", and if someone wanted to start a fight, and rolled
>: >"COwardice", they'd be less effective than if they rolled
>: >"Confrontationalism".
>: Six sides is still six sides (a number) whether you
>: put number or pictures or whatever on them. You still
>: know the "odds" of success in a particular action using
>: particular dice, in a computation, mathematical,
>: quantitative sense.
>Simple fix to that: Use a lot of such dice, each with a different set
>of six things on it. Pull one out of a box at random. Roll it. Return
>it to the box.
.
I guess you weren't listening: A SIX SIDED DIE HAS SIX
SIDES, PERIOD.
.
>As a side issue, it might be fun to use two sets of dice, one "good" and
>one "bad". Each contestant rolls a good die and a bad die, chucks any
>modifiers that don't seem to apply, and applies all the remaining ones
>to his/her actions.
.
The still have a quanitifiable effect on the game.
.
>: >So, you'd define your character by saying what he or she was, and had
>: >done. Then you'd roll characteristic dice to determine how well you could
>: >do a particular type of thing at a particular time.
>: >But I don't really have a handle on how this would work in practice -- if
>: >I defined a character as a heavyweight boxer, and my friend had a
>: >character who was a Marine, and they got into a fight, and I rolled
>: >Confrontationalism, and he rolled Trickery, what happened?
>: Yeah ... that kind of system might work better in a
>: moderated situation, or a non-competetive (players
>: cooperate) situation.
>: Or, as a couple of alternatives:
>: 1) Certain stats always take precedence over others
>: (for example, trickery always beats confrontationalism).
>Ugh. I have visions of big, ugly charts dancing in my head, now.
>Especially if you have more than a half-dozen or so attributes involved.
>: 2) Other attributes could influence the outcome (in the
>: example above, who was the aggressor?)
>This would still need some moderation -- the issues won't always be clear
>on either side -- the two characters, being predisposed for some reason
>to dislike each other, each spot the other and charge.
.
Not if the rest of the rules are set up to preempt
such situations.
.
>: >Oh well, it was just a concept. I hope that there are some ideas
>: >somewhere in this post that might get you closer to your goal.
>: I was thinking of using the deck of cards idea (a sort
>: of "game tarot") with a "Re-Shuffle" card in the deck
>: to enhance the randonimity. By making a "tarot" spread,
>: you could determine the result of actions, or even compare
>: it against the spread of another player. But the cards
>: would be similar to your concept of "attributes" on the
>: dice. A confrontation card. A cowardice card. Etc.
>Hm. if 6 sides == numbers, then 52 cards (or however many) == numbers,
>too. Unless everyone brings in/makes up their own set of 6-8 cards (or
>more) and you shuffle them all up together to make up the game tarot.
.
Each player gets his own deck and he can alter
it and there need not be a limit on the number
of cards in the deck.
.
>You could do the same thing with the big bag of dice, but the advantage
>of the game tarot would be that cards have a lot more room for people
>to write legibly on -- just get a couple identical poker decks, or get
>your local Magic addict to donate a hundred or so basic lands or commons.
.
The difference is that once a card has been drawn, it
is used and cannot be used again. You could also come
up with some wacky stuff that you simply could not with
dice. You could also make a "sub-game" from the playing
of the cards (held secretly in hand) that couldn't happen
with dice unless you rolled them secretly, but if you
roll in secret, why not cheat?
.
>The possible warped effects of summing up individual choices like this
>certainly make me happy -- imagine a game where everyone brought in
>a "treachery" card. Or a "lechery" card, for that matter.
.
Life is not cooperation. Life /may/ be cooperation,
/may/ be competition. This should plan for both, and
not assume utopia.
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
> The rest of this is moot. I'm looking for a game,
> not a group-grope, not a "let's sit down and write
> a book together" touchy-feely.
First, regardless of what happens it won't be a book. And when it comes
to rpgs, I'm not interested in groping.
That said, just what do you mean by "game," Shane?
I did miss the part where you said you were looking for a GMless system,
although I picked that up in a later post. I addressed that in a thread
titled "GMless rpgs?" or some such.
So--what do you want your "system" to accomplish? You have stated several
times that you want one, but you have not itemized the tasks you want it
to accomplish. Until you do, I don't think this conversation can go
anywhere.
Kevin
Magnus Lie Hetland
[simple analysis]
[estimate of mental age]
[subject: Shane Dunbar]
[initial estimated range: 10-40 yrs]
Shane Dunbar wrote:
>
> In article <511hqk$g...@crl.crl.com> Andrew Finch wrote:
> >Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
> >: Secondly, I'm not looking for "flexible". I'm looking
> >: for "different". Your idea is not that, and has been
> >: covered and covered better by other posters. In other
> >: words, you contributed NOTHING.
[running estimate: 8-30]
> >There you go, Shane, being an arrogant little fuck again, you small minded
> >man.
> .
> It's easy to be arrogant when I'm surrounded by complete
> boobs like you.
> .
[running estimate: 8-20]
> >Anyone who offers the kindness to post to your question at all has
> >contributed something, ie. their time and effort.
> .
> Your time and effort are worth nothing; therefore, you
> have contributed nothing.
> .
[running estimate: 6-15]
> >If you don't appreciate
> >it, don't ask the question. It's a news group. Everyone is welcome. Well,
> >I'm beginning to suspect that everyone is welcome but you.
> .
> Then I, too, am welcome to express my opinion. It is
> my opinion that you are an ass.
>
[running estimate: 5-6]
> >>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<
> The Alacorn Home Page ... http://members.gnn.com/alacorn/
> Stretching the bounds of logic, reason, and stupidity.
> >>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<
[conclusion: mental age low compared to physical age
social intelligence abnormally low]
[predicted response to this analysis: mindless flame and low-brow
witticism]
Shane Dunbar
In article <512ama$f...@crl.crl.com> Andrew Finch wrote:
>Date: 9 Sep 1996 16:53:46 -0700
>From: bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch)
>Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
>Subject: Re: Qualitative vs. Quantitative
Funny, when I say "it", that's the first thing that
pops into your mind.
>>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<
The Alacorn Home Page ... http://members.gnn.com/alacorn/
Stretching the bounds of logic, reason, and sanity.
>>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<
Shane Dunbar
In article <1996Sep8.1...@saranxis.ruhr.de> Thomas Biskup wrote:
>Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
>> > I personally can't even imagine a dice-using, numberless system.
>> I am not bound by such shortcomings.
>you please repost your ideas on a dice-using numberless system?
>The only thing I could think off would be using dice with symbols
>instead of numbers but then you probably could use cards right away.
Oh me oh my...
.
A) I have no ideas of a "dice-using numberless" system
. to post, so how could I have posted them and how
. could I post them now?
.
B) I never specified that the game had to have dice,
. it simply had to have randomness. So it would be
. more accurate to say a "random-using numberless"
. system.
Shane Dunbar
In article <512aju$f...@crl.crl.com> Andrew Finch wrote:
>Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) wrote:
>: Then don't post to this thread. I've received too
>: much positive feedback to be interested in your
>: inane ramblings.
>But, Shane, I've made you my personal pet project. You start insulting, I
>turn the thread into a flame war, you little fuck. You want insults. I'm
>happy to oblige. You want to talk, you'll find a way to do it without
>getting personal. Your choice.
.
I'm not impressed.
.
>: What a load of crap. If I say "I cannot jump over
>: that fence", the simple fact is that I can't. If I
>: say "I might be able to jump over the fence, let's
>: see..." then I may or may not jump the fence. The
>: fact of the matter is, /I/ tried.
>I don't care what you think you can or can't do. And neither does anyone
>else. You're a weasel. The choices are to treat others who respond to you
>respectfully, or have the thread turned into a shouting match. I'm happy
>either way.
.
The other responses belie your negative attitude.
If you think that by barking at me you are making
yourself a better man, then you are sadder than I
had originally thought.
Shane Dunbar
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.96090...@rac7.wam.umd.edu> Kevin R. Hardwick
wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
>> The rest of this is moot. I'm looking for a game,
>> not a group-grope, not a "let's sit down and write
>> a book together" touchy-feely.
>First, regardless of what happens it won't be a book. And when it comes
>to rpgs, I'm not interested in groping.
That is not consistent with the message you deleted
from the quoted text.
.
>That said, just what do you mean by "game," Shane?
Game: n. amusement, diversion, sport, fun; v. to play
. for a stake.
.
>I did miss the part where you said you were looking for a GMless system,
>although I picked that up in a later post. I addressed that in a thread
>titled "GMless rpgs?" or some such.
Yeah. I wasn't interested.
.
>So--what do you want your "system" to accomplish? You have stated several
>times that you want one, but you have not itemized the tasks you want it
>to accomplish. Until you do, I don't think this conversation can go
>anywhere.
I don't want the "system" to accomplish anything.
My questions are, is there a QUALITATIVE way to
describe things, and is there a QUALITATIVE way
to compete or compare things, and is there a
QUALITATIVE way to randomize?
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.96090...@rac7.wam.umd.edu> Kevin R. Hardwick
> wrote:
> >On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
> >> The rest of this is moot. I'm looking for a game,
> >> not a group-grope, not a "let's sit down and write
> >> a book together" touchy-feely.
> >First, regardless of what happens it won't be a book. And when it comes
> >to rpgs, I'm not interested in groping.
> .
> That is not consistent with the message you deleted
> from the quoted text.
Oh really? Care to actually make that case, rather than just assert it?
> >That said, just what do you mean by "game," Shane?
> .
> Game: n. amusement, diversion, sport, fun; v. to play
> . for a stake.
This definition is so broad as to be just about meaningless. Would
Rilstone's "Once Upon a Time" qualify, in your opinion, as a game? If so,
what separates it from being "touchy-feely" or a "group-grope?"
> Yeah. I wasn't interested.
Doesn't surprise me. But that post does give you a method by which you
can answer your question.
> >So--what do you want your "system" to accomplish? You have stated several
> >times that you want one, but you have not itemized the tasks you want it
> >to accomplish. Until you do, I don't think this conversation can go
> >anywhere.
> I don't want the "system" to accomplish anything.
> My questions are, is there a QUALITATIVE way to
> describe things,
Yes.
> and is there a QUALITATIVE way
> to compete or compare things,
In the sense that you mean it, no.
> and is there a
> QUALITATIVE way to randomize?
Yes.
Kevin
Shane Dunbar
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.96091...@rac4.wam.umd.edu> Kevin R. Hardwick
>On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
>> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.96090...@rac7.wam.umd.edu> Kevin R.
> Hardwick
>> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
>> >> The rest of this is moot. I'm looking for a game,
>> >> not a group-grope, not a "let's sit down and write
>> >> a book together" touchy-feely.
>> >First, regardless of what happens it won't be a book. And when it comes
>> >to rpgs, I'm not interested in groping.
>> from the quoted text.
>Oh really? Care to actually make that case, rather than just assert it?
Sure. Re-insert the deleted text.
.
>> >That said, just what do you mean by "game," Shane?
>> . for a stake.
>This definition is so broad as to be just about meaningless. Would
>Rilstone's "Once Upon a Time" qualify, in your opinion, as a game? If so,
>what separates it from being "touchy-feely" or a "group-grope?"
Never heard of it.
.
>> Yeah. I wasn't interested.
>Doesn't surprise me. But that post does give you a method by which you
>can answer your question.
What post? You keep deleting shyt.
.
>> >So--what do you want your "system" to accomplish? You have stated several
>> >times that you want one, but you have not itemized the tasks you want it
>> >to accomplish. Until you do, I don't think this conversation can go
>> >anywhere.
>> I don't want the "system" to accomplish anything.
>> My questions are, is there a QUALITATIVE way to
>> describe things,
>Yes.
Yes there is, and you know it, but you won't share
it with any of us? Isn't that a selfish use of
knowledge?
.
>> and is there a QUALITATIVE way
>> to compete or compare things,
>In the sense that you mean it, no.
I disagree. I will find it.
.
>> and is there a
>> QUALITATIVE way to randomize?
>Yes.
Once again, you are privy to the ultimate knowledge
of the universe, but, like all the greatest forces of
nature, remain a mystery.
A Lapalme
Shane Dunbar (Ala...@gnn.com) writes:
> .
> I don't want the "system" to accomplish anything.
> My questions are, is there a QUALITATIVE way to
> describe things,
Yes.
and is there a QUALITATIVE way
> to compete or compare things,
Yes
>and is there a
> QUALITATIVE way to randomize?
>
Yes.
Just read any of the threads here.
Shane Dunbar
In article <50tf3u$2...@news.Hawaii.Edu> Rick Cordes wrote:
>In article <3231FD...@shadow.net>,
>Jeffrey Straszheim <jeff...@shadow.net> wrote:
>>I think, ultimately, that all resolutions in role-playing result from
>>either mechanics or psychology (or, as is more often the case, a
>>combination of the two). I don't think you can eliminate numbers and
>>still have mechanics.
> How, if at all, do you think connections may be made between
> these two resolution modes and the roleplaying and gaming elements of
> RPGs? My sense is that if roleplaying could be incorporated formally
> into the mechanic, roleplaying would cross into a golden age. There are
> ways to encourage roleplaying by using one mechanic rather than another,
> or of course by reliance upon psychology, but the two are yet immiscible.
Aha! This is exactly what I am talking about. Of
course we say now, "there is no way to do it," but
that is just because we cannot see it yet. I believe
that, as you say, proper game design from the outset
will encourage better play.
William Clifford
Well, I'm back. Please keep the howls of dismay to a minimum. There's
nothing you can do about it. Thank you.
"Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> hath writ:
>So, here is a list of things that I see the GM as doing. This is hardly
>comprehensive--no doubt I've left plenty out :)
>1. The GM has primary responsibility for the setting. This may include:
> a. *creating* the setting,
> b. determining what happens in the setting, in the short run
> (how does the NPC shop-keeper respond to the PC's question?)
> c. and in the long run (what is the NPC King trying to
> accomplish, and how?)
> d. maintaining the coherence and consistency of the setting--that
> is, ensuring that the setting operates consistently across time.
Just a nitpick here, but what you describe in this list is not simply
the setting but also where plot and setting interact. In all the RPG's
I've ever seen this is exclusively GM territory (regardless of who
actually created the setting). Players are in charge of where plot and
character intersect. Perhaps it's time for me to repost "The Structure
of Games" now that it's been revised. It may be of some use here.
The GM's power over the Setting-->Plot aspect of the game is going to
be difficult to adequately replace. I've thought of a couple of ways
this could be done and still keep it a storytelling game but I have to
think about them some more before I post.
>2. The GM bears primary responsibility for adjudicating PC interactions
>with the setting--the GM determines what happens when a PC tries to do
>something. To a certain extent the game mechanics provide a way for
>decentering the authority of the GM. As Alain has suggested, however, I
>think this is largely illusory--in practice, at least IME, the GM is just
>as active in adjudicating stuff using a heavy mechanics system as using a
>light--and perversely, IME heavy mechanics tend to highlight the authority
>of the GM (the GM is the persons who determines what happens when the
>mechanics are ambiguous) while light mechanics tend to open the
>adjudication out more to the group as a whole. YMMV, obviously.
Good point. Imagine Monopoly with a GM (naturally the Banker) and a
poor one at that.
Player: "Ha HA! I've landed on Park Place. Now I have a monoploy. I
think this looks like a nice place for a whole neighborhood what "
GM: "Park Place is not for sale."
Player: "What?! Why?"
GM: "The government is building a new interstate highway through
there. You can't buy it. Can you say 'emminent domain.'? Come to think
of it, you're trespassing on government property. Can you say 'Go to
jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pas Go, do not collect $200'?"
Player: "Can you say-
Well, enough of that example. The point is that while rules lawyers
can manipulate the rules to their advantage the GM is in control of
the setting-->plot which is a lot more in-play power than the PCs
have.
>3. The GM is responsible for pacing the evening--for making sure that
>each of the players gets adequate stage time, and for making sure that the
>game doesn't lag or get boring.
>I don't see an easy mechanism to replace this in a GMless game.
Another nitpick. This strikes me as a non-issue. RPGs are the only
kind of game that needs a GM. As far as I can tell the reasons has
nothing to do with pacing. Most other games pace and govern
themselves nicely provided that all the players are co-operative.
What other games have is narrow range of objectives, a restricted set
of in-play resources for the players, and limited number of legitamate
ways of using those resources to further the objectives. Traditional
RPGs don't have these. That's why they need GM's. Part of the GM's job
regulate the game as a whole and decide what resources the PC's have
and what are legitimate ways of using them thus playing the part of
Referee. This is less true with games with extensive and detailed
rules but more true for rules-light games.
I'll bet Shane's not interesting in reinventing the traditional RPG
wheel here.
Well that's my two cents for now. If for some reason the formatting in
this message is a weird please let me know. I'm still putting this all
together here. Thanks.
-William Clifford
Kharzom is coming soon.
Simon Smith
In message <Pine.SOL.3.95.96090...@rac7.wam.umd.edu> "Kevin R. Hardwick" wrote:
[snipped all except point 3.) ]
> 3. The GM is responsible for pacing the evening--for making sure that
> each of the players gets adequate stage time, and for making sure that the
> game doesn't lag or get boring.
>
> I don't see an easy mechanism to replace this in a GMless game.
The problem is somewhat less likely to arise in a GMless game, because all
players have some authority over the setting, and can actually get on with
roleplaying with one another without having to stop for (relatively) trivial
rulings from the GM. That means more things can get done at once, and
certainly once there are more than, say, half-a-dozen people this technique
can really come into its own. In addition, if an impartial ruling is
required, there is likely to be more than one person to ask. Therefore
playing out a scene doesn't have to wait until that one person - the
traditional GM - has finished doing whatever he's doing. 'Partial
surprises' are still possible, because one player may be kept in the dark of
certain developments simply by the protagonists getting all game-relevant
rulings from elsewhere. And individual player-GMs can concentrate on their
GMing strengths knowing that other player-GMs can handle the areas they're
not so good at.
With practice, I reckon this could work very well, and indeed games like
Amber and Ars Magica use it to a greater or lesser degree already.
--
Simon Smith
Caffeine *is too* a substitute for sleep.
Edward V Balyka
In <516raf$3...@news.cns.net> wi...@gr.cns.net (William Clifford) writes:
>
>Well, I'm back. Please keep the howls of dismay to a minimum. There's
>nothing you can do about it. Thank you.
include:
>> a. *creating* the setting,
>> b. determining what happens in the setting, in the short run
>> (how does the NPC shop-keeper respond to the PC's question?)
>> c. and in the long run (what is the NPC King trying to
>> accomplish, and how?)
>> d. maintaining the coherence and consistency of the
setting--that
>> is, ensuring that the setting operates consistently across time.
>
>Just a nitpick here, but what you describe in this list is not simply
>the setting but also where plot and setting interact. In all the RPG's
>I've ever seen this is exclusively GM territory (regardless of who
>actually created the setting). Players are in charge of where plot and
>character intersect. Perhaps it's time for me to repost "The Structure
>of Games" now that it's been revised. It may be of some use here.
>
>The GM's power over the Setting-->Plot aspect of the game is going to
>be difficult to adequately replace. I've thought of a couple of ways
>this could be done and still keep it a storytelling game but I have to
>think about them some more before I post.
>
to randomize play. Or perhaps a plot book with similarly random
elements. Whether this can result into a story as opposed to a hodge-
podge of unrelated events remains to be seen. Of course their would be
many nackneyed plots created this way, and I doubt it coukld last long
enough to become a campaign. A diversion maybe, but not a campaign.
Also, with such a thing if the PCs know their opponents' stats (if any)
might lead to some "cheesy" paly on their parts. It is something that
would require a lot of work -- or a computer more advanced tha what we
have...
Shane Dunbar
In article <518b9m$l...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> Edward V Balyka wrote:
>In <516raf$3...@news.cns.net> wi...@gr.cns.net (William Clifford) writes:
>>nothing you can do about it. Thank you.
>>> b. determining what happens in the setting, in the short run
>>> (how does the NPC shop-keeper respond to the PC's question?)
>>> c. and in the long run (what is the NPC King trying to
>>> accomplish, and how?)
>>> d. maintaining the coherence and consistency of the
>>Just a nitpick here, but what you describe in this list is not simply
>>the setting but also where plot and setting interact. In all the RPG's
>>I've ever seen this is exclusively GM territory (regardless of who
>>actually created the setting). Players are in charge of where plot and
>>character intersect. Perhaps it's time for me to repost "The Structure
>>of Games" now that it's been revised. It may be of some use here.
>>The GM's power over the Setting-->Plot aspect of the game is going to
>>be difficult to adequately replace. I've thought of a couple of ways
>>this could be done and still keep it a storytelling game but I have to
>>think about them some more before I post.
>to randomize play. Or perhaps a plot book with similarly random
>elements. Whether this can result into a story as opposed to a hodge-
>podge of unrelated events remains to be seen. Of course their would be
>many nackneyed plots created this way, and I doubt it coukld last long
>enough to become a campaign. A diversion maybe, but not a campaign.
>Also, with such a thing if the PCs know their opponents' stats (if any)
>might lead to some "cheesy" paly on their parts. It is something that
>would require a lot of work -- or a computer more advanced tha what we
>have...
What about a game where players "take turns" being
the GM, and design their adventures within well-
established guidelines?
:
How about a game where there are different "groups"
of players (good vs. evil, empire vs. rebels, etc.)
and one group plays against the other group. They
could all be playing at the same time, together,
making "plot moves" and countermoves against one
another.
:
A good system design could accomplish either of
these fairly easily; the players, on the other hand,
might have a more difficult time.
:
For an example of a weird[ish] game mechanic, go to
my web page and download Combat Sports. It takes a
break from the traditional idea of "turns" and
"actions" to such a degree that players balk against
it at first, but rapidly become accustomed to it, to
the point where they accidentally incorporate it into
other games!
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Shane Dunbar wrote:
> >> My questions are, is there a QUALITATIVE way to
> >> describe things,
> >Yes.
> .
> Yes there is, and you know it, but you won't share
> it with any of us? Isn't that a selfish use of
> knowledge?
Written description.
> .
> >> and is there a QUALITATIVE way
> >> to compete or compare things,
> >In the sense that you mean it, no.
> .
> I disagree. I will find it.
Good luck.
> >> and is there a
> >> QUALITATIVE way to randomize?
> >Yes.
> .
> Once again, you are privy to the ultimate knowledge
> of the universe, but, like all the greatest forces of
> nature, remain a mystery.
Tarot card draw.
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, William Clifford wrote:
> Well, I'm back. Please keep the howls of dismay to a minimum. There's
> nothing you can do about it. Thank you.
Welcome back :)
> "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> hath writ:
> >1. The GM has primary responsibility for the setting. This may include:
> > a. *creating* the setting,
> > b. determining what happens in the setting, in the short run
> > (how does the NPC shop-keeper respond to the PC's question?)
> > c. and in the long run (what is the NPC King trying to
> > accomplish, and how?)
> > d. maintaining the coherence and consistency of the setting--that
> > is, ensuring that the setting operates consistently across time.
>
> Just a nitpick here, but what you describe in this list is not simply
> the setting but also where plot and setting interact.
I don't think so--but I have a particular definition of plot in mind.
Plot is what happens when the dynamic elements of the setting intersect
with the motivations or "things that matter" of the characters. If what
the NPC king is trying to accomplish doesn't matter especially to the
players, then you don't have a plot. But a simulationist GM may very well
choose to detail it anyway.
By "dynamic element" I mean simply a place where something active is
happening in the setting--usually it is NPCs with motivations, but
sometimes it can be just natural forces--flood, drought, volcanic
eruption, or whatever.
> In all the RPG's
> I've ever seen this is exclusively GM territory (regardless of who
> actually created the setting). Players are in charge of where plot and
> character intersect.
This is not true of all games, however. In our recent Becon-in-Flames
campaign, the "dynamic elements" of the setting were at least in part
joint property--the various NPCs with their various motivations were
written by various people in the game. In general, this will tend to be
true of most or maybe all troupe style games.
> The GM's power over the Setting-->Plot aspect of the game is going to
> be difficult to adequately replace. I've thought of a couple of ways
> this could be done and still keep it a storytelling game but I have to
> think about them some more before I post.
Take a look at Ars Magica or Theatrix or any other troupe style game.
All my best,
Kevin
Necros
Many years ago in High School one of my civics classes did this
experiment with the University of Michigan. We were supposed to role
play differnt world leaders. Each student was assigned a leader to play
and what we did was sent each week to the UofM server. There was no GM
so as a result for three weeks all the student/leaders did zippo. I
decided as the leader of the Sunni Muslems and as a Role Player I would
start doing terrorist activitys in the game. Suddenly the game got
interesting and every other leader got involed. The point I am trying to
make is some input is required to have a reason to role play and
interact. At the time I started blowing things up in the game I became
the GM and everyone reacted to my plot line. So I don't think a GMless
RPG would be fun, but one with nothing but GMs might be.
Drain a shifter,
Necros
Larry D.Hols
Shane Dunbar wrote:
> .
> I don't want the "system" to accomplish anything.
> to compete or compare things, and is there a
> QUALITATIVE way to randomize?
>
Hallo,
Yup.
Yup, but not conducive to gaming.
Nope.
Larry
Rick Cordes
In article <1996090909...@a-ko.digex.net>,
>Lise Mendel <cata...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>>Rick Cordes <cor...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>> It is hard to imagine a game without numbers explicitly or implicitly
>> defined because everything touching the real world is quantifiable. The
>> problem being posed seems to be, to jump in the water without getting
>> wet. Still the sentiment has merit as so much damage has been done to
>> RPGing by numeric fetishism.
>There are many human qualities that can't be described adequately by
>numbers. Intelligence, for example (IQ tests notwithstanding), empathic
>capacity, charisma, coloration, sexual attitudes...
I think I know exactly what you talking about but for game purposes
I'm content to assign numbers to some facets, and let them serve as best
they may though I do strive to exclude anything in a game that will not
pay for itself. As you allude, the use of IQ to define INT in a fantasy
setting is tantamount to saying that magical ability is related to the
ability to do well on tests and make money, and that it is unrelated to
creative, musical or artistic intelligence. Contrawise, quantifying charisma
is perhap best left to how players choose for their characters to behave.
If numbers are not parsimoniously used, a mishmash ensues.
So, yes, numbers are an elemental force, not always sympathetic to
the human condition. The beach has its attraction, but no one should always
trust their back to the ocean.
William Clifford
"Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>> >1. The GM has primary responsibility for the setting. This may include:
>> > a. *creating* the setting,
>> > b. determining what happens in the setting, in the short run
>> > (how does the NPC shop-keeper respond to the PC's question?)
>> > c. and in the long run (what is the NPC King trying to
>> > accomplish, and how?)
>> > d. maintaining the coherence and consistency of the setting--that
>> > is, ensuring that the setting operates consistently across time.
around. Our various responses to it aren't.
Kevin. We have once again entered the realm of vocabulary clash
concerning plot. Oddly enough I don't think we were really disagreeing
with each other just hair splitting. I strongly reccomend a new
subject header for further discussion on this issue. Perhaps we could
call it "Battleship Plotinkin" or something equally cute. But probably
"Story elements in RPGs" would be better (of course there's nothing
like a good Rocky and Bullwinkle double header either).
Back to role-playing without a GM.
>Take a look at Ars Magica or Theatrix or any other troupe style game.
Actually I've never seriously taken a look at either, nor even thought
about doing so until I stumbled upon this newsgroup. Having read
David's many descriptions of the parts of a Syd Feild plot (midpoint,
twist, etc) one of the ideas I had for getting rid of the GM would be
to lay these out on a board and have the players as a group what fate
befell their characters during various scenes. They could move around
a single representative of the entire party or have a number of
representatives for each individual character (telling multiple
stories at once). This would require a pre-made setting of course. You
could also use 3GG's Storypath cards (they were reviewed on .misc a
while back) to home on on specific PC stories. To define characters
subjective FUDGE immediately springs to mind (no numbers unless you
want 'em). However the elegance and simplicity of Puppetland
characters (no numbers at all) has always appealed to me and I'd lean
to using more schtick control and Puppetland-like character
definitions were I to do something like that.
It seems that there would be less IC role-playing (as I think of it
anyway) and it would become much more of a storytelling game
demanding more of author mode of the players. But I don't think the
difference would be greatly noticable for a lot of people. Action
resolution would be determined by consensus rather than fiat or
complicated mechanics which would be real cool. Definitely a dice
optional game also. Roll to see how many cards the player has to
draw==how much stuff happens to the character good and bad.
That's pretty much the best suggestion I have for going GMless.
Andrew Finch
William Clifford (wi...@gr.cns.net) wrote:
: To define characters
: subjective FUDGE immediately springs to mind (no numbers unless you
: want 'em). However the elegance and simplicity of Puppetland
: characters (no numbers at all) has always appealed to me and I'd lean
: to using more schtick control and Puppetland-like character
: definitions were I to do something like that.
I haven't seen Puppetland about. What's it like, if you wouldn't mind a
quick description (feel free to send via e-mail, or post in another thread).
Thanks
David
Shane Dunbar
In article <3238E0...@tdsi.net> Larry D.Hols wrote:
You are a phucking ass. If I wanted stupid monosyllabic
answers I'd flip a phucking coin! Asshole.
John Cox
Shane Dunbar wrote:
>
>
> .
> Then don't post to this thread. I've received too
> much positive feedback to be interested in your
> inane ramblings.
Mr. Dunbar,
But as you pointed out it's a free net. Meaning we can jump into any
thread we want and torch it.
> What a load of crap. If I say "I cannot jump over
> that fence", the simple fact is that I can't. If I
> say "I might be able to jump over the fence, let's
> see..." then I may or may not jump the fence. The
> fact of the matter is, /I/ tried.
>
As for the person who you opted to flame instead of discourseing with.
You might of found a kindred soul if you'd only tried. Instead you
seemed to be more intent in ... lets see tossing out abuse. That's cool.
John Cox
John Cox
> .
> The other responses belie your negative attitude.
> If you think that by barking at me you are making
> yourself a better man, then you are sadder than I
> had originally thought.
>
> The Alacorn Home Page ... http://members.gnn.com/alacorn/
> Stretching the bounds of logic, reason, and sanity.
> >>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<
Mr. Dunbar,
I don't think Dave's posts are intended to make him a "better
man". I think Dave's just looking for a little love and
understanding. Or at least a modicum of civilised behavior
from you.
John Cox
John Cox
> I was thinking of using the deck of cards idea (a sort
> of "game tarot") with a "Re-Shuffle" card in the deck
> to enhance the randonimity. By making a "tarot" spread,
> you could determine the result of actions, or even compare
> it against the spread of another player. But the cards
> would be similar to your concept of "attributes" on the
> dice. A confrontation card. A cowardice card. Etc.
>
Mr Dunbar,
Ummm but if you use a deck of cards there well be a number of cards in
the deck. If that number is known then you will be able to caculate the
odds of drawing say the redeal card. In other words it's still able to
be summed up with numbers.
John Cox
John Cox
Shane Dunbar wrote:
>
> I don't want the "system" to accomplish anything.
> My questions are, is there a QUALITATIVE way to
> describe things, and is there a QUALITATIVE way
> to compete or compare things, and is there a
> QUALITATIVE way to randomize?
Mr. Dunbar,
That's it? No problem. No, No, and No.
John Cox
William Clifford
[Shameless plug begins here]
In my opinion Puppetland is *the* best net RPG out there. No it's not
a generic system. It has a very specific setting with a very specific
range of stories that can be told. But it rocks mightily I tell you.
John Tynes wrote it. It's available free on his webpage at:
http://www.halcyon.com/rev/rl_puppetland
and well worth downloading. It's short. After I downloaded it I
reformatted to word 6 and printed it up. Took up a mere eleven pages.
The rules themselves take up probably 20% of that.
There aren't any mechanics (as defined in the FAQs) to speak of. Nor
are there any dice required. Characters are defined by what amount to
classes and by what they can and cannot do as described by the player.
It's what we've been calling in the FAQs a "description-based game."
The other rules make it a pure storytelling game appropriate for the
setting and the medium of RPGs (which is where it's real genius lies
IMO). I haven't played it yet because I can only find a few people
around here who are willing and able to play that way but they don't
have time (arrrgh!).
Yes it kicked my ass when I read it. I've never seen anything like it
myself (maybe you have). I love the rules, the setting, the whole
works. Even unplayed, it's damn cool. After reading it I wrote John
and told him I was going to make a character sheet for it (which I
did) and asked would he like to have it so it could be made available
for everyone else (which he did). You can download that too.
Could the system be made more generic? Certainly. Would you lose a lot
of the original atmosphere of Puppetland? Yes. However you could
certainly adjust the rules of declaration, play, and character
definition to be more fitting for another genre. Would adding dice
cause it to suck rocks? I'm afraid so. Puppetland is a storytelling
game more than anything else. Dice and charts and the rest have no
place there.
Not being a representative of John Tynes or of Puppetland I'm obliged
to say: Do not take my word for any of this.
However being a big fan of gaming in general and Puppetland
specifically (even unplayed :( ) I must add: Do do yourself a big, big
favor and get it.
-William Clifford
William Clifford
First things first.
wi...@gr.cns.net (William Clifford) wrote:
>Kevin. We have once again entered the realm of vocabulary clash
>concerning plot. Oddly enough I don't think we were really disagreeing
>with each other just hair splitting. I strongly reccomend a new
>subject header for further discussion on this issue. Perhaps we could
>call it "Battleship Plotinkin" or something equally cute. But probably
>"Story elements in RPGs" would be better (of course there's nothing
>like a good Rocky and Bullwinkle double header either).
Upon rereading the above I realize I have confused Grigori with Mandy
and punned wrongly. I'm not sure how I could ever make up for this
offense. My humblest, most abased, apologies all around.
And now the real business of this post.
!!!WARNING!!!
!!!THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS A HIGH 'FEY'* CONTENT!!!
!!!YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!
This newsgroup has had in the past real problems with the word "plot."
Harsh words have been typed, dictionaries have been hurled, the words
of experts have been flung, the nerves of many have been rubbed raw.
The FAQ's have pretty much given up on the issue. But it is still with
us, try as we like to ignore it.
Now I realize that half the fun of usenet is lies in misunderstanding,
incomprehension, and befuddlement but someone has to make a stand
(it's obligatory). So I have donned my intellectual asbestos and am
prepared to make such a stand. I stand for the idealism of having a
definition of plot we can all grok and enjoy and apply to our games
and our discussions of related issues.
Cynics may step forth and say that it cannot be done and that may be
true. However I will not be swayed by mere cynicism. Even if we have
to split hairs for eternity I am sharpening what few wits I have to be
ready for the task. I will find definition for 'plot' we can all agree
on or log off trying.
Having said that I shall begin the arguement with the following
definition of Story:
Something happens to somebody, somewhere, so somebody does
something about it.
What we talk about when most commonly talk about plot occurs in these
two aspects of a Story: "something happens," and "somebody does
something about it." Much of characterization is revealed in "somebody
does something about it" aspect as well as the "to somebody" (hey look
everyone, it's DIP and DAS characterization). This relates to RPGs in
a number of ways. In all the RPGs I've seen the GM is in charge of the
"Something happens" aspect, PC is in charge of the "Somebody does
something about it" aspect. In what is generally agreed to as a
plotted game the GM will have most or all of the "something happens"
aspect developed in advance and anticipated some possibilities of the
"Somebody does something about it" aspect. A railroaded game the GM
will try to get control over the "Somebody does something about it"
aspect by limiting the successful possibilities to the ones he or she
likes.
Some words about the "somewhere" aspect in RPGs. Since all respectable
scientists consider space and time to be the same thing the
"somewhere" aspect shall refer to both even though linguistically it
only describes the properties of space. In RPGs the "somewhere" aspect
is decided in advance but the GM certainly can change the "somewhere"
aspect if they feel necessary. We've been calling this
'Schrodingering' (thus verbing what should have remained nouned and
earning the emnity of grammarians everywhere).
That's what I have for now. All dissenters, quibblers, plot mavens,
simulationists, vocab fanatics, and merry punsters are welcome. It's a
pleasure to burn.
-William Clifford
*For the periodically impaired, 'Fey' is irony.
Michael W. Ryan
John Cox <jc...@p3.net> wrote:
> Shane Dunbar wrote:
> >
> Mr. Dunbar,
> John Cox
Well, given my background (I'm a chemist), I tend to associate these
terms with analysis. My functional difference between "qualitative"
and "quantitative" is that in qualitative, you deal primarily in
yes/no evaluations. I.e. is X present, is Y possible?
In quantitative terms, you start putting numbers to things. I.e. how
much of X is present, how likely is Y?
In short, if you limit yourself to qualitative evaluations only,
things get rather limited. Comparisons are rather weak. It's real
hard to answer the question "is the Hulk stronger than Superman" in
purely qualitative terms. Since you're asking for a comparison, you
need to have a basis of comparison, which is quantitative.
About the only kind of randomization that you can make is a "coin
flip" as to "yes" or "no".
Incidentally, this doesn't, in any way, imply a mechanical or systemic
basis. You can make quantitative evaluations without a mechanical
system. We do that all the time in real life.
Michael W. Ryan
Email: mr...@netaxs.com
WWW: http://www.netaxs.com/~mryan/
Keith Kornelsen
I went to the site.
The logo came on the screen.
That was it.
Is the problem on my end, or theirs?
--Intrepid
Ennead
Great article, Kevin. Some comments...
Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: So, here is a list of things that I see the GM as doing. This is hardly
: comprehensive--no doubt I've left plenty out :)
: 1. The GM has primary responsibility for the setting. This may include:
: a. *creating* the setting,
Many gamers already treat this as a shared activity. Troupe-style
games like ArM handle setting creation in this manner as a matter of
course.
: b. determining what happens in the setting, in the short run
: (how does the NPC shop-keeper respond to the PC's question?)
: c. and in the long run (what is the NPC King trying to
: accomplish, and how?)
Of these two, it seems to me that (b) is by far the more
difficult. The disadvantage to sharing (c), of course, is that you lose
the element of surprise, and therefore make some types of puzzle solving
less enjoyable as in-game elements. Nonetheless, it is not difficult to
accomplish as a group activity -- in fact, once the group has embarked on
(a), (c) will often follow as a matter of course.
But (b) is tricky. The GMless sessions my group has played have
all been "covenant sessions," games which take place solely within the
covenant. This limits the characters to a finite number, each of whom the
players know already, and each of whom is at least partially "owned" by
someone in the group.
In other words, should it come up in such a game that one of the
characters needs to go talk to a blacksmith, we already *know* who the
smith is, what he is like, what his familial relations to the rest of the
village are, and so forth. We also know that he is Charles' character, so
that in such an eventuality, Charles would step in to play him.
This works fine, but we've only tried it in the limited context of
"covenant sessions." I'm honestly at a loss to imagine how (b) would be
handled in a less limited type of game. If anyone has any insight, I'd
love to hear it, as so far my group has never tried to run GMless outside
of covenant sessions, and we would very much like to be able to.
: d. maintaining the coherence and consistency of the setting--that
: is, ensuring that the setting operates consistently across time.
Like (c), I think that this tends to evolve naturally from shared
setting creation. If the group can manage to create the setting together,
then chances of serious assumption clash over that setting are much
reduced (although, alas, never quite eliminated, at least IME). The same
communication and consensus skills required for (a) and (c), though, can
be equally well-applied to (d).
In fact, world continuity and consistency often benefits from
group control. This is, I think, mainly because the group acts as a check
to any single member's passing whim or short-lived enthusiasm for some
fad, to which the game world might otherwise be extremely vulnerable.
Group world maintenance is also advantageous to world coherence because it
reduces the likelihood that inconsistencies or oversights will slip by
unnoticed. If one member forgets some detail or overlooks an incongruity,
chances are that one of the other members will catch it _before_ it can
have an adverse effect on the actual game-in-play.
: It seems to me that with care and a great deal of negotiation, all of
: these could be shifted to the group as a whole, rather than resting solely
: with the GM. However, it also seems to me that to the extent that you do
: so, you sacrifice the interests of the IC player--when these "setting
: responsibilities" are delegated to the group as a whole, it seems to me
: that authorial stances will perforce impinge on just about everyone, on a
: more or less regular basis.
Hmmm. I can't really see how this is the case with (a) or (d) at
all. On the contrary, I've found joint world creation to be extremely
IC-enhancing, because it facilitates the internalization of IC knowledge
as *player* knowledge. The problem of learning enough about the game
world to convincingly play a character raised in said world is greatly
reduced when the player is also one of the world builders. My characters
really _know_ the mythology and folk legends of their culture, and it's
easy for me to play them that way...because I know the mythos too. I
should know it. After all, I wrote it.
I agree, though, that (b) and (c) do require the adoption of the
Authorial stance in-play, which many people might find damaging to IC. I
personally don't mind jumping from IC to Author and back again, but it
doesn't provide the optimal deep IC experience, no. And, as I've said,
(c) kills suspense, which can be very harmful to both IC and Audience.
I think that (b) might be particularly hard on IC in a GMless
game. We've pretty much avoided this issue by only playing covenant
sessions GMless, but when I try to imagine running some other type of game
without a GM, (b) seems to me the most threatening IC-killer of the bunch.
: It also seems to me that this aspect of
: GMless gaming risks death by committee--pacing could very easily
: degenerate as the game shifts to these more authorial, and possibly
: interminable, discussion.
This is, of course, the drawback to consensus in general, and one
which is acknowledged by even the most steadfast advocates of this form of
decision-making. It is slow, slower even than democracy and _far_ slower
than any authoritarian system. This is by far the most common reason
given for communes and other such organizations abandoning the system in
favor of less time-consuming approaches.
Is it too slow for gaming purposes, though? I would say that this
really all depends upon the group -- both on how quickly the group can
generally achieve consensus *and* on how much time seems "too much" to
spend in such deliberations.
My group uses consensus for an enormous number of in-game
adjudications, even in games which have a GM, and we've been very happy
with it. We may, however, be unusual in the speed with which we can
reach consensus in-game: often, in our games, a proposal is simply
accepted without _any_ discussion at all, which makes it the equivalent of
GM fiat in terms of speed. We are also not, as a group, terribly
concerned with keeping the pace of the game up to speed: we _like_ slow
pacing and digression, and if some point of contention does arise within
the game, we are usually sufficiently interested in the point to enjoy the
ensuing discussion -- the fact that we are all equally invested in the
game world has much to do with this. So consensus is a very good tool for
us, but others might have to work harder to learn to use it well, and for
some, it may simply not be an effective tool at all.
: 2. The GM bears primary responsibility for adjudicating PC interactions
: with the setting--the GM determines what happens when a PC tries to do
: something.
What's the difference between this and 1(b) above?
: 3. The GM is responsible for pacing the evening--for making sure that
: each of the players gets adequate stage time, and for making sure that the
: game doesn't lag or get boring.
: I don't see an easy mechanism to replace this in a GMless game.
That's curious, as I see this as the easiest thing to do without,
but this is probably because I don't care for GM control of pacing in the
first place. I deeply resent attempts by the GM to control the pacing of
the game, and as a player, I have a nasty tendency to try to obstruct it
when I encounter it. I far prefer for pacing and spotlight time to be a
matter of group control whether the game has a GM or not. YMMV.
: 4. The GM is responsible, at least in some styles of rpg, for producing a
: plot that appeals to the motivations of the PCs. This can be thought of
: as an aspect of the setting (point 1c, above) although a purely
: simulationist game, it seems to me, will not go out of its way to ensure
: that the long term stuff happening in the setting will have appeal to the
: PCs.
: In a GMless game, it is still possible to have such plots, but they cannot
: be surprises--since the plots are the collective product of the group,
: everyone will know what is happening "behind the scenes," as it were.
True. Really, I think that GMless play is far better suited to
"plotless," or DIP-plotted games.
Take care,
Sarah
Rick Cordes
The following originates from the notion that there should
be a symmtetry between how players play their characters and how GMs
play their worlds. This notion shares a sensibility in accord both
with the idea that the roles of player and GM should be combined,
and the ideal of a social or group contract. I believe both are
conducive to better roleplay and gaming.
In article <5199h2$g...@news-e2d.gnn.com>,
Shane Dunbar <Ala...@gnn.com> wrote:
...
>What about a game where players "take turns" being
>the GM, and design their adventures within well-
>established guidelines?
This may be accomplished by a deck of cards. The cards
each represent a different kind of story element or plot device.
I use a deck of sixty cards because it can be equally dealt out
among 2,3,4,5 or 6 players. The cards may be dealt at the pick-up of
a session or in advance so that players may plan ahead. Before the
game players may randomly trade some or all of their cards on a card
for card basis. Cards may not be revealed before they are traded or
played.
"PM" may be taken to mean "Play Master" or "Prime Minister",
and denotes the player whose turn it is at the helm.
The initial order of play may be decided as deemed appropriate.
Players may each remain PM as long as they have cards to lay and develop.
A turn as PM may be over when a player has discarded or played at least
one card. PMship follows in turn; the turns of players who have played all
their cards are skipped. Jokers allow a player to commandeer the PM
cowl but afterwards play returns to where it had been interrupted. There
are a wild card and other such cards to assist improvisation. (The jokers
may also be used at the commencement of a campaign to determine its
starting point.)
PMs are constrained to develop only material as is covered
by their cards: if there is an objection as to the fittingness of
the material being broached with respect to the card being layed, a
roll whose odds are based on a yes/no vote may be used to decide the
issue.
This appproach may be used with diced, diceless, numberless
and games "where players "take turns" being the GM, and design their
adventures within well-established guidelines".
As players have had to deal with whatever GMs handed them, now
GMs can get to play with whatever hands they are dealt.
-Rick
Jeffrey Straszheim
I ran into the same problem. I deleted the last word from the URL and
found it.
<http://www.halcyon.com/rev/rl_puppetland.html> is a working URL.
--
Jeffrey L. Straszheim | Man is born free, and
<mailto:jeff...@shadow.net> | everywhere he is in chains.
<http://www.shadow.net/~jeffreys> | (Rousseau)
Magnus Lie Hetland
Keith Kornelsen wrote:
>
> I went to the site.
>
> The logo came on the screen.
>
> That was it.
>
> Is the problem on my end, or theirs?
You should have looked around, like I did :)
The game is at:
http://www.halcyon.com/rev/rl_puppetland.html
Or you could just check out http://www.halcyon.com/rev/revland.html
>
> --Intrepid
--
Magnus
Lie
Hetland
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, William Clifford wrote:
> Kevin. We have once again entered the realm of vocabulary clash
> concerning plot. Oddly enough I don't think we were really disagreeing
> with each other just hair splitting. I strongly reccomend a new
> subject header for further discussion on this issue. Perhaps we could
> call it "Battleship Plotinkin" or something equally cute. But probably
> "Story elements in RPGs" would be better (of course there's nothing
> like a good Rocky and Bullwinkle double header either).
Oh, I don't doubt that you are correct :) I'm not trying to split
hairs--really. I wanted to be very explicit about just what *I* mean when
I use the term "plot," in the hope that would reduce future confusion.
There are multiple definitions of plot floating around on this board, and
your statement was true for only some of them. Most importantly, it was
not true for the particular idiosyncratic definition I personally favor
<grin>.
All my best,
Kevin
Shane Dunbar
In article <323B7A...@p3.net> John Cox wrote:
>> I was thinking of using the deck of cards idea (a sort
>> of "game tarot") with a "Re-Shuffle" card in the deck
>> to enhance the randonimity. By making a "tarot" spread,
>> you could determine the result of actions, or even compare
>> it against the spread of another player. But the cards
>> would be similar to your concept of "attributes" on the
>> dice. A confrontation card. A cowardice card. Etc.
>the deck. If that number is known then you will be able to caculate the
>odds of drawing say the redeal card. In other words it's still able to
>be summed up with numbers.
Ummm but if you put a "reshuffle" card in the deck that
card could come along at any time and screw up your
careful calculations so it takes the numbers effectively
out so there.
.
Ummm but Another solution is to let the players hold
cards and play them at their discretion. This, combined
with being able to "design your own deck", would totally
blow your calculations out of the water.
Shane Dunbar
Blah blah blah. It is not a question of "should we
use numbers or not" you fool. It is a question of
"what is the best method of describing things WITHOUT
using numbers".
.
You are perfectly free to limit yourself however you
like. I am not interested in sharing your tunnel
vision, though.
Shane Dunbar
In article <51gugk$1...@netaxs.com> Michael W. Ryan wrote:
>John Cox <jc...@p3.net> wrote:
>> Shane Dunbar wrote:
>> > I don't want the "system" to accomplish anything.
>> > My questions are, is there a QUALITATIVE way to
>> > describe things, and is there a QUALITATIVE way
>> > to compete or compare things, and is there a
>> > QUALITATIVE way to randomize?
>terms with analysis. My functional difference between "qualitative"
>and "quantitative" is that in qualitative, you deal primarily in
>yes/no evaluations. I.e. is X present, is Y possible?
>In quantitative terms, you start putting numbers to things. I.e. how
>much of X is present, how likely is Y?
>In short, if you limit yourself to qualitative evaluations only,
>things get rather limited. Comparisons are rather weak. It's real
>hard to answer the question "is the Hulk stronger than Superman" in
>purely qualitative terms. Since you're asking for a comparison, you
>need to have a basis of comparison, which is quantitative.
>About the only kind of randomization that you can make is a "coin
>flip" as to "yes" or "no".
>Incidentally, this doesn't, in any way, imply a mechanical or systemic
>basis. You can make quantitative evaluations without a mechanical
>system. We do that all the time in real life.
Leave it to a scientist to tell me that the only way
to view the universe is through numbers.
.
Let me try this again:
.
I'M NOT INTERESTED IN "NO" ANSWERS. I'VE ALREADY
TAKEN GREAT STEPS FORWARD THAT BELIE YOUR POSITION.
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, William Clifford wrote:
> a number of ways. In all the RPGs I've seen the GM is in charge of the
> "Something happens" aspect, PC is in charge of the "Somebody does
> something about it" aspect. In what is generally agreed to as a
> plotted game the GM will have most or all of the "something happens"
> aspect developed in advance and anticipated some possibilities of the
> "Somebody does something about it" aspect.
Our experiences are somewhat different. In at least some styles of game,
responsibility for the "something happens" aspect is shared. I believe it
is still meaningful to consider such games "plotted," at least under some
circumstances.
For me, plots start with the characters. The characters must have
commitments of some sort, it seems to me, before we can meaningfully talk
about a plot. Something *matters* to the characters. Plot is what
happens when something moves or changes or happens in the setting (the
"dynamic elements of the setting") that engages the "things that matter"
to the characters. That produces a conflict, and the complete plot is the
story of the resolution of that conflict. Plot is what happens when the
dynamic elements of the setting engage the things that matter to the
characters. Whenever that happens you will get a plot, willy-nilly. The
question for the GM who is concerned to shape that plot into a strong
experience is how best to intervene in the resulting structure to
accomplish that. Many people here on rgfa would argue that this is not a
concern that many troupes should have at all.
While this conception is similar to yours, I think it is somewhat
different in emphasis.
:)
All my best,
Kevin