Diced vs. Diceless
US...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Too many people are throwing that vague, sweeping, unfounded statement
around: "there are possible outcomes which can not be concluded from a
diced level of success."
Bullshit.
Name one.
Benjamin E. Sones
US...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
If I were to state that I find dice to be meaningful to the game, and
that I do not like diceless gaming as a whole because the premise of
such games is the preclusion of dice, in what way does a lack of
experience with diceless games invalidate my opinion?
I have never had radiation sickness, nor ever known anyone with radiation
sickness- I only understand it as a concept. I know that the basic premise
of having radiation sickness is contrary to what I find enjoyable, and
therefor I conclude that I would not enjoy having radiation sickness.
Benjamin E. Sones
US...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
of the action. A character who kills someone by accident is not
homicidal).
Characterization over time defines story... I agree. (but the reverse
would have to be true to support your next point. Dice deny a plotted
story, but this does not deny character, since story evolves from character
and not vice-versa).
Benjamin E. Sones
US...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
mechanics, then I will once again assert that it is a form of improvisational
theater and NOT a roleplaying game at all.
You say the players provide their own failures? Why would they do that?
My CHARACTER does not want to fail, and in a roleplaying game, I am
"playing" the part of my character. Another example of the loss of
suspension of disbelief- the decision to fail and/or the determination of
the nature of failure can only be made by stepping out of character.
As is the expenditure of plot points.
Good roleplaying should not require the player to step out of character,
but rather encourage the player to remain IN character as much as posible.
The "third-person" perspective which is encouraged in your examples
is not roleplaying, any more than the act of an author writing about a
character in a book is roleplaying.
And before someone brings up the argument that rolling dice is neither
roleplaying nor in character, I will defend that too. Rolling dice is
a neutral action. It does not require you to briefly discard your
character's motivations or desires- it represents them.
I am not saying that a roleplaying game can not be diceless; I am
saying that what Mr. Berkman is describing is neither roleplaying nor
a game, and therefor not a roleplaying game.
Benjamin E. Sones
kwp
wrote:
> Too many people are throwing that vague, sweeping, unfounded statement
> around: "there are possible outcomes which can not be concluded from a
> diced level of success."
> Bullshit.
> Name one.
Okay. Here's a class of activity that seems to fit better with diceless
games than diced success level games.
The character succeeds so wildly in an action that unanticipated and
unpleasant side effects, ones which the player couldn't predict, take the
scene in a new direction. For instance:
---------
Player: "I pull out all of the stops to prevent the computer from
launching the missiles"
GM: "Not only have you stopped the countdown to nuclear holocaust, but you
seem to have locked up the system. It now refuses to take orders from
anyone but you. The nearby soldiers appear to be looking at you rather
suspiciously, and a few are fingering their weapons."
----------
Now, one could suggest that the effect really failed. But this isn't so,
the desired effect was achieved in full measure and beyond. The effect
didn't blow up, it didn't directly hurt anyone.
One could also say that the effect was simply a great success, but a
player who's just made a superb roll might very well feel cheated that his
incredible success was "wasted" this way by his GM.
It's certainly possible to do this in a diced system, but is it really
practical?
Kurt
Paul Jackson
>Okay. Here's a class of activity that seems to fit better with diceless
>games than diced success level games.
>
>The character succeeds so wildly in an action that unanticipated and
>unpleasant side effects, ones which the player couldn't predict, take the
>scene in a new direction. For instance:
>
>---------
>Player: "I pull out all of the stops to prevent the computer from
>launching the missiles"
>
>GM: "Not only have you stopped the countdown to nuclear holocaust, but you
>seem to have locked up the system. It now refuses to take orders from
>anyone but you. The nearby soldiers appear to be looking at you rather
>suspiciously, and a few are fingering their weapons."
>
>----------
>
>Now, one could suggest that the effect really failed. But this isn't so,
>the desired effect was achieved in full measure and beyond. The effect
>didn't blow up, it didn't directly hurt anyone.
>
>One could also say that the effect was simply a great success, but a
>player who's just made a superb roll might very well feel cheated that his
>incredible success was "wasted" this way by his GM.
>
>It's certainly possible to do this in a diced system, but is it really
>practical?
This is a REALLY bad example. My reaction to the above, as a player
(assuming my character was a competent computer operator) would be
a) a complete disruption of my sense of disbelief as the GM does something
VERY stupid
b) a feeling that I might as well stop playing the game because, obviously,
my characters actions have little or any effect on the world. No matter what
I do, weird stuff is about to happen to me. At best, I get to influence the
type of weird stuff but that is about all.
If this happened on anything like a regular basis I'd probably either quit
the game or see what the effects of doing really weird stuff was (basically,
see if I could derail the GM or not). Clearly, acting rationally wouldn't
work in this game so the only alternative is to act irrationally.
If this happened in a diced game as a result of a fumble or a critical (from
the above description it sounds more like a fumble to me :-)) I'd probably
think that the GM had just made a silly interpretation of the dice (mistakes
happen, especially when one is rushed) and more or less ignore it (its often
less disruptive to ignore a GM mistake than to correct it).
--
Paul Jackson
Paul Andrew King
In article <kwpsc-05029...@kwpsc.sc.scruznet.com> kw...@scruznet.com
>games than diced success level games.
>
>The character succeeds so wildly in an action that unanticipated and
>unpleasant side effects, ones which the player couldn't predict, take the
>scene in a new direction. For instance:
>
>---------
>Player: "I pull out all of the stops to prevent the computer from
>launching the missiles"
>
>GM: "Not only have you stopped the countdown to nuclear holocaust, but you
>seem to have locked up the system. It now refuses to take orders from
>anyone but you. The nearby soldiers appear to be looking at you rather
>suspiciously, and a few are fingering their weapons."
>
>----------
>
>Now, one could suggest that the effect really failed. But this isn't so,
>the desired effect was achieved in full measure and beyond. The effect
>didn't blow up, it didn't directly hurt anyone.
>
>One could also say that the effect was simply a great success, but a
>player who's just made a superb roll might very well feel cheated that his
>incredible success was "wasted" this way by his GM.
>
>It's certainly possible to do this in a diced system, but is it really
>practical?
It fits in very nicely with Star Wars 2nd Edition. It's exactly the sort of
result you should get from a high roll combined with a '1' on the wild die.
(In SW2 you roll multiple d6 including 1 wild die. If you roll a 6 on the
wild die then you can roll an extra die, if you roll a 1 something bad
happens)
Paul K.
Reimer Behrends
: Mr. Berkman! I'm ashamed!
Love to, even though I am not David. Take the following situation (yes,
I know it's near instant death, but if people can toss those situations
at diceless advocates, why not the other way round? - Besides, this is
only to give an example and works on a less deadly level, too).
Ok, consider the following situation: A character is jumping across a
chasm to a slippery ledge, behind which there is a pool of piranhas.
The appropriate skill for the jump would be acrobatics, at a level of
70%. Neither falling down the chasm nor ending up in the pool of
piranhas is necessarily deadly, but in both cases the character has
about the same chances of survival. Now where does the character end up
if he fails the roll barely, noticeably, considerably, totally? The end
result must be determined from the level of success only, as you so
kindly offered. Another interesting question would be how to
differentiate between the 30 possible levels of failure as somebody
else said this could be done.
Have fun. ;-)
Reimer Behrends
Jeff
: Okay. Here's a class of activity that seems to fit better with diceless
: games than diced success level games.
: The character succeeds so wildly in an action that unanticipated and
: unpleasant side effects, ones which the player couldn't predict, take the
: scene in a new direction. For instance:
: ---------
: Player: "I pull out all of the stops to prevent the computer from
: launching the missiles"
: GM: "Not only have you stopped the countdown to nuclear holocaust, but you
: seem to have locked up the system. It now refuses to take orders from
: anyone but you. The nearby soldiers appear to be looking at you rather
: suspiciously, and a few are fingering their weapons."
: ----------
: Now, one could suggest that the effect really failed. But this isn't so,
: the desired effect was achieved in full measure and beyond. The effect
: didn't blow up, it didn't directly hurt anyone.
: One could also say that the effect was simply a great success, but a
: player who's just made a superb roll might very well feel cheated that his
: incredible success was "wasted" this way by his GM.
So is your argument that players who never roll dice (and thus, never get
incredibly good rolls) never have any right or reason to expect the GM
*not* to screw them over by sticking in some unwanted result along with
their success? Why is it a 'good thing' to free up GMs to screw with the
players as much as they want to in a diceless game, if you don't think
it's good in a game with dice?
: It's certainly possible to do this in a diced system, but is it really
: practical?
Sure. I do that kind of thing all the time.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
gaun...@bga.com Sic Gorgiamus Subjectatus Allos Nunc
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
A Lapalme
> US...@UConnVM.UConn.Edu wrote:
> : Mr. Berkman! I'm ashamed!
> I know it's near instant death, but if people can toss those situations
> at diceless advocates, why not the other way round? - Besides, this is
> only to give an example and works on a less deadly level, too).
>
> Ok, consider the following situation: A character is jumping across a
> chasm to a slippery ledge, behind which there is a pool of piranhas.
>
> The appropriate skill for the jump would be acrobatics, at a level of
> 70%. Neither falling down the chasm nor ending up in the pool of
> piranhas is necessarily deadly, but in both cases the character has
> about the same chances of survival. Now where does the character end up
> if he fails the roll barely, noticeably, considerably, totally? The end
> result must be determined from the level of success only, as you so
> kindly offered. Another interesting question would be how to
> differentiate between the 30 possible levels of failure as somebody
> else said this could be done.
>
> Have fun. ;-)
>
> Reimer Behrends
Make a roll, which decides if you make the jump. Make another roll to see
if you slip or maintain your footing.
Roll #1- if you miss by a lot, then, it's simple, you fall down the chasm.
if you make it by a lot, you land squarely on the edge and
this landing is so good that you probably should get a bonus on the slip roll.
if you barely make it, you land flat on your stomach, out of
breath and you don't really need a roll for the slip since the GM assumes
that landing on your stomach creates more friction and prevents the slipping.
or, if you barely make it, you land on the other side, unbalanced
and need to make the slip roll at a higher difficulty level.
Roll #2 -
depends on results of roll 1
Now, if the player says he is trying to land on his stomach to minimize
the chance of slipping in the pool, the GM shifts the difficulty level
accordingly and away you go.
So, where's the problem? where's the added dimension dice are missing here?
Alain
Andrew Finch
: Mr. Berkman! I'm ashamed!
You can get a more objective response from Charley Morrison. I'm running
him through a diceless combat, which will take a while by e-mail, but he
should be able to tell you if there are any differences soon.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: If his Mr. Berkman's last example is an inextricable element of Theatrix's
: mechanics, then I will once again assert that it is a form of improvisational
: theater and NOT a roleplaying game at all.
: You say the players provide their own failures? Why would they do that?
Why not? It in no way harms them in a Theatrix game. They are not playing
to succeeed at every action. Isn't it better to fail in a way that you
feel is appropriate to your character, when given the choice. It seems
like a kindness to me.
: My CHARACTER does not want to fail, and in a roleplaying game, I am
: "playing" the part of my character.
But the GM asked you, not your character. You can probably separate the
two? If you can't, then who is rolling the dice?
: Another example of the loss of
: suspension of disbelief- the decision to fail and/or the determination of
: the nature of failure can only be made by stepping out of character.
Just like making a dice rioll, but at least this has something directly
to do with your characterization and portrayal.
: As is the expenditure of plot points.
Again, like rolling dice and adding bonuses, except that it is more
fluid, and has something to do with the story and the character.
: Good roleplaying should not require the player to step out of character,
: but rather encourage the player to remain IN character as much as posible.
Exactly why we take this method. But you are always quite aware that you
are playing a role, and you never really lose sight of yourself as a
separate entity. It can come close in good moments, and this is just as
true for a Theatrix game, and we feel is more true, more often. You must
decide for yourslef. I take untired opinions on this with a grain of salt
though. Most people look at Theatrix and say it can't work, until they
try it. Not everyone loves it, but it works just fine. And a lot of
people do find they like the premise a lot.
: And before someone brings up the argument that rolling dice is neither
: roleplaying nor in character, I will defend that too.
Go ahead.
: Rolling dice is
: a neutral action.
Exactly its problem.
: It does not require you to briefly discard your
: character's motivations or desires- it represents them.
I thought it was neutral? And yes it does require you to discard those.
Anything but having those immediately in mind requires you to discard
them. You can either play your character, or do something else, but not
both, no matter how hard you try.
: I am not saying that a roleplaying game can not be diceless; I am
: saying that what Mr. Berkman is describing is neither roleplaying nor
: a game, and therefor not a roleplaying game.
Except for all the times I, and our playtesters, and people at cons, and
friends, have done this, and roleplayed, and had a game, and therefore a
roleplaying game. You haven't even tried it yet, dude. How the heck would
you know? You've got some guess from a single example I gave you. Leap to
whatever conclusions you like, but I'm not going to accept them like that.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: would have to be true to support your next point. Dice deny a plotted
: story, but this does not deny character, since story evolves from character
: and not vice-versa).
I think that to the extent that the dice deny dramatic structure, they do
indeed deny character.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: If I were to state that I find dice to be meaningful to the game, and
That is not a very good analogy. Radiation sickness is just that, a
sickness, a health risk. Are you saying that all the people oput there
who prefer diceless gaming like being ill and dying?
This is a preference thing. It's like enjoyng pumpkin pie, but hating
mushrooms. Niether one will make you keel over dead (unless you have some
rare allergy). If someone came up to me and said they had never had
mushrroms, but just knew they wouldn't like them from the way they look,
I would have to call that a prejudice. They might be right. They could
eat mushrooms and hate them. Or, they could eat mushrroms and decide that
they tasted better than they looked. But before you pop one in your
mouth, you just don't know. Until then, you have a prejudice, or a
superstition.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: Ok, consider the following situation: A character is jumping across a
: chasm to a slippery ledge, behind which there is a pool of piranhas.
That was very cute. You know, you are right. Dice are just a method of
dicing things fine enough. In a diceless system, you can ask whether you
want julianne, or criss cross, or ripples, or ...
The Theatrix Flowcharts would have no problem with that situation. Not
even a hesitation, assuming the GM knew why he was doing this. They would
provide the kind of support you would expect.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: Maybe I'm dense, but where's the problem?
: Make a roll, which decides if you make the jump. Make another roll to see
: if you slip or maintain your footing.
O.K. I have a 12 or less on acrobatics in Hero. I roll a 10. What happens
and why? What if I roll a 9, or an 11?
David Berkman
Backstage Press
nancy sauer
: I think that to the extent that the dice deny dramatic structure, they do
: indeed deny character.
(I just know I'm going to regret this.)
David, believe it or not, I am still trying to understand your position(s)
(even though you seem to have given up on trying to understand mine).
Could you please refresh our minds on what *your* definition of
dramatic structure is, and why you can't possibly have character
without it?
Nancy M. Sauer <*> "Then you will come to think of things in
Disciple of Bread Do: a wide sense and, taking the dough as the
The Way of the Way, you will see the Way is dough.
Flour Warrior In the dough there is virtue, and no evil."
Andrew Finch
: (I just know I'm going to regret this.)
Your choice.
: David, believe it or not, I am still trying to understand your position(s)
: (even though you seem to have given up on trying to understand mine).
I believe I understand your quite well. What I am doing is disagreeing.
Am I disagreeing because I'm dogmatic and insensitive, even in the face
of logical evidence, or am I disagreeing for good reasons? I think that's
the question (and I know I'll regret that).
: Could you please refresh our minds on what *your* definition of
: dramatic structure is, and why you can't possibly have character
: without it?
Sure. I'll try. The easiest way to start is to ask what character is.
This may take a bit longer, but I think it's more effective to let you
prove it to me, if you are willing to play a little game of question and
answer.
So, what is character?
David Berkman
Backstage Press
US...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
I realize that the majority of a Theatrix game probably does not
involve the player stepping out of character- just as the majority of a diced
game does not involve rolling dice. Since we are discussing these two
specific mechanisms (dice and dramatic logic), however, I am keeping
the theory pretty narrow.
True, stepping out of character happens all the time. No problem.
My difficulty with the system of players choosing to fail, or expounding
on their failures, goes back to that "first-person perspective" vs.
"third-person perspective." In the first person role, I share my
character's ambitions and goals. I do not want to fail- why would I?
The bit where the player chooses outcomes which the *character* would
not prefer is where the "stepping out of character" bit comes in. This
switches the player to a third-person perspective of their character,
which is not bad in and of itself either. My only problem is that
diceless play, in my experience (which is limited to Amber, thus far),
tends to encourage more of this type of roleplay while I tend to
enjoy the first-person roleplay more. This is what I keep stressing
about the differences between the drama/simulation styles. An RPG
differs from the dramatic mediums in that it offers that "first-person"
view. The first person view is not an element of dice per se, but of the
presence of the GM (on stage, even in unscripted improvisation, if the
actress wants something interesting to happen to her character, then she
must provide it; in a game the GM provides adversity, leaving the
player free to *be* their character). It does seem to me that this
dependence on dramatic logic and encouragement of players to play their
characters in a more dramatic, third-person manner, takes the game away
from this unique aspect. Even your example of the players playing without
the GM seems to support this. If I am way off base here, let me know-
but also explain. I keep getting the feeling that we are not connecting here,
and I am trying to determine whether it is because of differing philosophies
of what is enjoyable in a game (as a side note- I, like yourself, enjoy
many different things in a game, and I do not dislike diceless. I am actually
excited to see how Theatrix will play... but my FAVORITE games have always
been those with dice, for the reasons which I have stated in this and past
posts).
Benjamin E. Sones
A Lapalme
> US...@UConnVM.UConn.Edu wrote:
> : Mr. Berkman! I'm ashamed!
> him through a diceless combat, which will take a while by e-mail, but he
> should be able to tell you if there are any differences soon.
>
Alain
A Lapalme
> : story, but this does not deny character, since story evolves from character
> : and not vice-versa).
>
> indeed deny character.
>
First, I don't think dice deny dramatic structure, I think they hinder it.
(some people would say that dice make the dramatic structure harder to
maintain so are better because they make the game more challenging but
that's another kettle of fish). Second, dice will deny player, I'm not so
sure about character. Let me explain.
A bad die roll can really annoy a player. No question about that. For
the character though, the die roll never existed. Just Fate showing her
hand. This can be an occasioon for the character to rise to the situation
or to become totally despondant (sp). In either case, where was the
character denied?
So, I guess we don't agree. Unless you accept the following statement:
Dice hinder dramatic structure (a meta game effect) and deny player but
have do not necessarily deny character.
Alain
A Lapalme
>
> : Maybe I'm dense, but where's the problem?
> : if you slip or maintain your footing.
>
> and why? What if I roll a 9, or an 11?
>
case, I
did provide a resolution for this example. Go back to the post and take a
look at it.
Alain
Andrew Finch
: > You can get a more objective response from Charley Morrison. I'm running
: > him through a diceless combat, which will take a while by e-mail, but he
: > should be able to tell you if there are any differences soon.
: >
: Why not do it here. It might illumniate some of us (me particularly).
I meant to, but Charly couldn't post to the news group for some reason,
so we did it by e-mail. I'll try to collect the mail, if I still have it,
and post it (but I just purged a bunch of stuff). If I don't have it,
Charly still might.
David
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: of what is enjoyable in a game (as a side note- I, like yourself, enjoy
: many different things in a game, and I do not dislike diceless. I am actually
: excited to see how Theatrix will play... but my FAVORITE games have always
: been those with dice, for the reasons which I have stated in this and past
: posts).
I think you got it. I just think you'll find that the third person
stepping out of character encouraged by Theatrix is less jarring than you
think, and possibly less jarring than rolling dice, totalling mods, and
keeping track of damage statistics, ranges, turn order, initiative, etc.
(I happen to think so).
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: > : would have to be true to support your next point. Dice deny a plotted
: > : story, but this does not deny character, since story evolves from character
: > : and not vice-versa).
: >
: > I think that to the extent that the dice deny dramatic structure, they do
: > indeed deny character.
: Maybe, just maybe, you might have a point there. Let's see.
Let me get up off the floor first.
: First, I don't think dice deny dramatic structure, I think they hinder it.
O.K. I agree.
: (some people would say that dice make the dramatic structure harder to
: maintain so are better because they make the game more challenging but
: that's another kettle of fish). Second, dice will deny player, I'm not so
: sure about character. Let me explain.
: A bad die roll can really annoy a player. No question about that. For
: the character though, the die roll never existed. Just Fate showing her
: hand. This can be an occasioon for the character to rise to the situation
: or to become totally despondant (sp). In either case, where was the
: character denied?
: So, I guess we don't agree. Unless you accept the following statement:
: Dice hinder dramatic structure (a meta game effect) and deny player but
: have do not necessarily deny character.
If we know character through action then I think the dice deny character.
You would be write in the above, except that there are certain instances,
certain actions a character takes that truely define them. These are the
ones we remember best. And these actions aren't just any actions, they
are dramatic. Thye have a purpose within the dramatic structure that both
evolves the structure, and evolves the character (or deepens the
characterization at the very least). So at the very least I think you
need Plot Points. But then the appropriate moment to use those Plot
Points may never come up, because it has been side-tracked by dice rolls.
So I guess I still maintain my original position.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: > O.K. I have a 12 or less on acrobatics in Hero. I roll a 10. What happens
: > and why? What if I roll a 9, or an 11?
: >
: Beats me. Never played Hero so I have no idea of the scale used. In any
: case, I
: did provide a resolution for this example. Go back to the post and take a
: look at it.
I did take another look. You stated makes or misses by a lot, a little,
etc. You gave no numbers. Reimer's example I think was right. Your
counter is deceptive. Try tagging numbers to those rolls. Use another
system besides Hero if you have to, but try it.
Your stuck at a crossroads. Your counter is actually diceless. If you
want to make it diced, you need to define those high and low marks, above
and below that roll. If you define those marks, then they may not stand
well for other situations. If you alter them to take into account the
difficulty of the situation, then the system might work, except that you
have now made it one dimensional (maybe two with the difficulty factor),
and removed most of its utility.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
James Christopher Ellis
So, what's the problem here? If I were the DM in this
situation, I would simply make a judgement call (after all,
that's what I'm there for; if it were just a matter of
mechanically tossing dice, there would be no need for a DM).
Character fails miserably: drop him into either the pit, or the
piranha's, depending upon how _I_ would like to see the
plot develop. I wouldn't put such a scenario into my
campaign if there weren't plot reasons.
Character narrowly fails: He's hanging by his fingertips on
the pit, or else has slid half into the pool. Again
which is motivated by plot concerns. It will require
at least one other roll to extricate himself from the
situation, and probably will still have some negative
connotations (ie. damage, etc.)
Character narrowly succeeds: Barely makes jump, off-balance
and may at any moment tumble into the pit/pool. Will
again require another roll to maintain balance (though
not as difficult as above, and no outright negative
effects). Alternatively, safely on ledge, but lands on
ass/belly, taking some slight damage. Again, descision
which is motivated by roleplay/plot concerns.
Character succeeds marvelously: Lands cat-like on ledge.
You may argue that I am using diceless methods in my
determination of what transpires, and I will fully agree with
you. The DM _must_ use his interpretation in borderline cases
such as this. The difference would be that my player would know
that he succeeded or failed _based on his own skill_, not for
some arcane reasons in my own head (don't tell me that if I were
a 'good' diceless DM he wouldn't feel that way; when a character
you invest a lot of time in suffers, you suffer with him). The
die roll is the ultimate in impartiality, to properly reflect a
universe that _is not_ driven by plot concerns, but is arbitrary.
I suspect we would agree in a lot of respects about how a
campaign should be run, but I would describe myself (to use the
terms introduced by another) as a dice-minimalist. A die roll
gives an impartial ruling one the outcome of some event that I,
as a biased party (no matter how fair I try to be) cannot.
However, the die roll is merely one tool in my repetoire, and not
the most important tool at that.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Renger
> A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
> : > O.K. I have a 12 or less on acrobatics in Hero. I roll a 10. What happens
> : > and why? What if I roll a 9, or an 11?
> : >
>
> : Beats me. Never played Hero so I have no idea of the scale used. In any
> : case, I
> : did provide a resolution for this example. Go back to the post and take a
> : look at it.
>
> I did take another look. You stated makes or misses by a lot, a little,
> etc. You gave no numbers. Reimer's example I think was right. Your
> counter is deceptive. Try tagging numbers to those rolls. Use another
> system besides Hero if you have to, but try it.
>
the chasm (unless it was a very wide one), now make another acrobatics check
(say -2) to see whether you manage to stay on the ledge after a long jump.
Actually I would take a slightly different approach than A.Lapalme and make the
second check independent of the first one (provided you made the first). If you
rolled a 9 the result is the same, with a 11 you did not really make it across,
but because I am feeling nice I will give you a climbing check -2 (some GMs
might think that STR is more appropriate) to see whether you can hold onto the
ledge.
> Your stuck at a crossroads. Your counter is actually diceless. If you
> want to make it diced, you need to define those high and low marks, above
> and below that roll. If you define those marks, then they may not stand
> well for other situations. If you alter them to take into account the
> difficulty of the situation, then the system might work, except that you
> have now made it one dimensional (maybe two with the difficulty factor),
> and removed most of its utility.
>
> David Berkman
> Backstage Press
I think that's one of the key misunderstandings here: None of the people who
prefer the diceless approach (btw I am not really sure which I prefer) pretend
that every problem should be solved with dice. Only because you use dice to
resolve some conflicts does not mean you stop thinking completely.
Walter
(blank lines to make a stupid newsserver happy)
A Lapalme
> A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
> : >
>
> : Beats me. Never played Hero so I have no idea of the scale used. In any
> : case, I
> : did provide a resolution for this example. Go back to the post and take a
> : look at it.
>
> etc. You gave no numbers. Reimer's example I think was right. Your
> counter is deceptive. Try tagging numbers to those rolls. Use another
> system besides Hero if you have to, but try it.
Either I'm totally misunderstanding you or you me. The point of this was
that dice do not limit you to failure success result. There's lots of
gray areas.
I'm not sure anyways where the onus of proof lies. You claim that dice
limit the number of possible outcomes. I disagree. Show me how the dice
do that (and please no talk about adding dimensions, it doesn't really
mean anything.)
>
> Your stuck at a crossroads. Your counter is actually diceless.
My counter is not diceless. I'm sure I use dice and that the dice role
impacts the event.
If you
> want to make it diced, you need to define those high and low marks, above
> and below that roll.
You define them as they occur, depending on
circumstances.
> If you define those marks, then they may not stand
> well for other situations.
That assumes inflexibility in ones use of dice. Different situations call
for different definitions.
And, btw, I have given an example with a diced system. Go back to my
FUDGE example.
Alain
Andrew Finch
: I think that's one of the key misunderstandings here: None of the people who
: prefer the diceless approach (btw I am not really sure which I prefer) pretend
: that every problem should be solved with dice. Only because you use dice to
: resolve some conflicts does not mean you stop thinking completely.
Well, you are right there, but the dice also don't help. I feel they have
a subtle hypnotic effect. The more you use them, the more addicted you
become.
On the slightly more serious side, since so much of a game really
requires diceless resoltuion, and is terribly bland without it (every
time I bring this up, the diced answer is to simply add description), and
since they don't add any fairness to decisions, and possibly add some
consistency at a high cost, and ignoring all my reasons if you want
because they are obviously self-serving, why do you use dice? Not anyone
who reads this, but you, since you seem to be a middle of the roader I
haven't heard from yet.
I'm not sure I'll have an argument for you, but I would be interested anyway.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
A Lapalme
>
> : > : would have to be true to support your next point. Dice deny a plotted
> : > : story, but this does not deny character, since story evolves from character
> : > : and not vice-versa).
> : >
> : > I think that to the extent that the dice deny dramatic structure, they do
> : > indeed deny character.
>
> : Maybe, just maybe, you might have a point there. Let's see.
>
>
>
> O.K. I agree.
>
> : (some people would say that dice make the dramatic structure harder to
> : maintain so are better because they make the game more challenging but
> : that's another kettle of fish). Second, dice will deny player, I'm not so
> : sure about character. Let me explain.
>
> : A bad die roll can really annoy a player. No question about that. For
> : the character though, the die roll never existed. Just Fate showing her
> : hand. This can be an occasioon for the character to rise to the situation
> : or to become totally despondant (sp). In either case, where was the
> : character denied?
>
> : So, I guess we don't agree. Unless you accept the following statement:
> : Dice hinder dramatic structure (a meta game effect) and deny player but
> : have do not necessarily deny character.
>
> You would be write in the above, except that there are certain instances,
> certain actions a character takes that truely define them. These are the
> ones we remember best. And these actions aren't just any actions, they
> are dramatic. Thye have a purpose within the dramatic structure that both
> evolves the structure, and evolves the character (or deepens the
> characterization at the very least). So at the very least I think you
> need Plot Points. But then the appropriate moment to use those Plot
> Points may never come up, because it has been side-tracked by dice rolls.
> So I guess I still maintain my original position.
>
bying a success)
Alain
James Christopher Ellis
>If we know character through action then I think the dice deny character.
>You would be write in the above, except that there are certain instances,
>certain actions a character takes that truely define them. These are the
>ones we remember best. And these actions aren't just any actions, they
>are dramatic. Thye have a purpose within the dramatic structure that both
>evolves the structure, and evolves the character (or deepens the
>characterization at the very least). So at the very least I think you
>need Plot Points. But then the appropriate moment to use those Plot
>Points may never come up, because it has been side-tracked by dice rolls.
>So I guess I still maintain my original position.
>
Shock! Horror! Agreement!
As a matter of fact, I (for one) have included 'Fate Points'
in my campaign so that in an event of unfair chance or twisted
destiny the player can sway the outcome of events in his favour
(by giving him a success at a roll, or causing a failure on
another's roll). These rare and marvelous things did help in
maintaining the plot of my campaigns, but within the overall
premise that the universe is a cruel and arbitrary place.
James Christopher Ellis
James Christopher Ellis <jce...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
as an addendum to my note;
>
> You may argue that I am using diceless methods in my
>determination of what transpires, and I will fully agree with
>you. The DM _must_ use his interpretation in borderline cases
>such as this. The difference would be that my player would know
>that he succeeded or failed _based on his own skill_, not for
>some arcane reasons in my own head (don't tell me that if I were
>a 'good' diceless DM he wouldn't feel that way; when a character
>you invest a lot of time in suffers, you suffer with him). The
>die roll is the ultimate in impartiality, to properly reflect a
>universe that _is not_ driven by plot concerns, but is arbitrary.
>
I wish to remark that I have played Amber and a couple of
home-grown diceless games in addition to a vast number of diced
games and did make one observation; in Amber (for example) when
my swordsmaster was facing down even several (2-3) mundane
opponents, I never had _any_ fear for the character, as I knew
that skill-wise they had no chance, and that there was little
likelihood of the DM messing with the development of his epic
plot by arbitrarily causing me to lose (which would interfere
with my character big time, especially after all the effort I had
put into developing his warfare expertise).
On the other hand, in the _good_ diced games, which included
specific critical hits, the element of risk was present, and I
knew that every fight was for real, that even a novice opponent
could get in that lucky blow (however the odds were stacked
against it). This mimics true life better in my opinion, as there
are numerous historical examples of the tyro getting very lucky,
or else the master suffering a disastrous stroke of bad luck, in
contests of this sort. I even have _personal_ knowledge of this,
having taken 'lucky shots' while fencing an opponent who was
picking up a foil for the first time (despite having several
years experience myself). I do not see how one can mimic this
feeling of the fickle hand of fate in a diceless campaign where
chance plays no part.
Jeff Stehman
I don't think it would do much for me. pbem or pbun are not the same as
live, and timing is very important part of setting and keeping mood. I've
always run pbem pretty much diceless, since I have lots of time to
contemplate the situation and stumble upon inspiration.
--
Jeff Stehman Senior Systems Administrator
ste...@southwind.net SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
voice: (316)263-7963 Wichita, KS
Andrew Finch
: I don't think it would do much for me. pbem or pbun are not the same as
: live, and timing is very important part of setting and keeping mood. I've
: always run pbem pretty much diceless, since I have lots of time to
: contemplate the situation and stumble upon inspiration.
Well, it may make no difference, but I have posted the e-mail and
responses. The situation was choreogrphed in advance, and I responded to
each post right at that time, off the cuff, with no more thinking time
than I would have given myself in a game (or not substantially more
anyway). I'm fairly sure I had the answers in less time than it would
take to roll a die and determine the results.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
John H Kim
question was posed to name a possible outcome which can not be concluded
from a diced level of success. Reimer came up with an example...
My answer fails to meet Reimer's standards - but that is because
it reflects actual play rather than some abstract philosophical argument.
Reimer Behrends <behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>Ok, consider the following situation: A character is jumping across a
>chasm to a slippery ledge, behind which there is a pool of piranhas.
>
>The appropriate skill for the jump would be acrobatics, at a level of
>70%. Neither falling down the chasm nor ending up in the pool of
>piranhas is necessarily deadly, but in both cases the character has
>about the same chances of survival. Now where does the character end up
>if he fails the roll barely, noticeably, considerably, totally?
OK - a quick interpretation. I'm more used to 3d6 systems, so
let's say that the character has skill 15, and the difficulty of
succeeding in the jump is -3. Hence, he will nominally "succeed"
if he rolls a 12 or less on 3d6.
>
>The end result must be determined from the level of success only, as
>you so kindly offered.
Well, I am ignoring this, and instead offering how I would
handle this in actual play using a diced system with some attempt at
realism.
Personally, I would have a success roll to see how close to
perfect the character landed - and then a second roll to determine which
side he erred towards (i.e. whether he undershot and is by the chasm, or
overshot towards the pool). The player could change the odds of the
second roll by his choice (i.e. "I don't want to overshoot, so I'll aim
to land with my feet on the closest edge of the ledge.") - this will
increase the difficulty of the first roll, but control the odds of the
second roll.
This is straightforward, obvious, and fairly playable, IMO - and
hence I don't see why it should be ruled out as a solution.
-*-*-*-
If he failed barely (by 1-2), he is probably still on the ledge,
but landed badly. Undershot: banged up his ankles/shins on the edge, but
fell forward onto the ledge. Overshot: slipped as he landed, and fell
on his back hard (but didn't slide down towards the pool).
If he failed noticably (by 3-4), he is probably in a poor position,
and in danger of falling off. Undershot: he is half-on, half-off the ledge.
Overshot: he is sliding towards the pool.
If he failed considerably (by 5-6), he gets a chance to grab on
to something before he falls, but if not...
If he failed totally, then he is due for a Breakfall or
Swimming roll...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
US...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
pirranah example (and others) is the assumption that the GM is unable to
deal with decision-making in any way OTHER than dice. On that basis, I
will agree that, yes, dice would limit the game.
My point, however, is that I have never seen nor run a diced game in
which that was the case, or was even meant to be strictly by the rules of
the game.
I could come up with similar examples which "prove" diceless games to be
inferior by requiring, as a factor of the example, that the game was
being run by a poor GM. They would be no more meaningful than your own
argument.
BTW, Dave- that Rosencrantz & Guildenstern idea is pretty damn cool. I
think I will improvise on that idea for my playtest run of Theatrix. I
am surprised that you did not mention that such an idea would be difficult
to run well in a diced game...
Benjamin E. Sones
Reimer Behrends
US...@UConnVM.UConn.Edu wrote:
: Mr. Behrends-
: If I were to state that I find dice to be meaningful to the game, and
: that I do not like diceless gaming as a whole because the premise of
: such games is the preclusion of dice, in what way does a lack of
: experience with diceless games invalidate my opinion?
It does not invalidate your opinion if you use opinion in the sense of
conjecture, speculation, assumption. However, as a judgement, expert
opinion, well-founded argument concerning whether diceless gaming works
or doesn't work, the value of this opinion would be questionable.
: I have never had radiation sickness, nor ever known anyone with radiation
: sickness- I only understand it as a concept. I know that the basic premise
: of having radiation sickness is contrary to what I find enjoyable, and
: therefor I conclude that I would not enjoy having radiation sickness.
Your analogy is flawed. If diceless gaming were analogous to radiation
sickness, what would be the equivalent to diced games? Gastritis? A
better (but not perfect) analogy would be to compare diceless games to
Chinese food. You are certainly entitled to dislike Chinese food (in
preference to French cuisine), but if you haven't tried it so far, your
saying that Chinese food isn't digestible can fairly safely be ignored.
Reimer Behrends
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: BTW, Dave- that Rosencrantz & Guildenstern idea is pretty damn cool. I
: think I will improvise on that idea for my playtest run of Theatrix. I
: am surprised that you did not mention that such an idea would be difficult
: to run well in a diced game...
Thanks, I like it also. I may have to try that soon myself.
I didn't mention it before because although it would be difficult in a
diceless game, and quite possible in Theatrix, that is not the main
intent of the rule system. Theatrix will handle *any* genre, I'm fairly
sure, but we intnded it to do them in a more typical manner. I would
rather present the game as an alternative to diced play, rather than as a
product that excels at niche genres. The same flexibility that allows it
to handle Rozencrantz & Guildenstern, means that you will find no
limitations while doing superheroes, spies, or magi as well.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
nancy sauer
earth-shaking importance, but because otherwise I'll never find it
again.
The actual stuff on character occurs near the bottom of the post.
Andrew Finch (bcks...@crl.com) wrote:
: nancy sauer (nsa...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
: : (I just know I'm going to regret this.)
: Your choice.
Very true. I choose the hard road, because it challenges me and makes
me think.
: : David, believe it or not, I am still trying to understand your position(s)
: : (even though you seem to have given up on trying to understand mine).
: I believe I understand your quite well. What I am doing is disagreeing.
: Am I disagreeing because I'm dogmatic and insensitive, even in the face
: of logical evidence, or am I disagreeing for good reasons? I think that's
: the question (and I know I'll regret that).
I hope you don't regret it.
Actually David, I really do wonder if you *do* understand me. From my
point of view, our dialog has run on two barely-related tracks:
1. Dice. On the matter of using dice in games, you have posted
several statements which I condsider to be false. I consider them
false because I think I have experiments (or experience, if you like)
that contridicts them. (Others have also posted their experiences in
support of my view.)
In spite of experimental evidence, you refuse to alter your statements.
Normally this behaviour drives me into a passionate rage, but you are
in love, and I make allowances for people in love. (It's the romantic
in me.)
In this case, we are advisaries, though I hope we are friendly
advisaries.
2. Dicelessness. In the matter of using dice in games, you have
posted several statements which I consider to be very interesting.
I have never played diceless, but extrapolating from what I know of
gaming in general, and what I have observed of human nature, I can
form a crude mental model of what it might be like. Using that model
I can make predictions of what diceless gaming is like. For instance,
I do not believe that a diceless system offers your character the
opportunity to die a random, meaningless death.
Now, I am not claiming that my model is _correct_, but using the
responses made by you (and the others who have experienced it), I can
refine my model and make it more correct. The ultimate test of any
theoretical model is experiment, and some day I plan to make that
experiment, but until then you are stuck with me asking questions.
(Unless you tell me to go away.)
In this case I do not consider us advisaries.
Now, on to the heart of the matter:
: : Could you please refresh our minds on what *your* definition of
: : dramatic structure is, and why you can't possibly have character
: : without it?
: Sure. I'll try. The easiest way to start is to ask what character is.
: This may take a bit longer, but I think it's more effective to let you
: prove it to me, if you are willing to play a little game of question and
: answer.
I recognize this game.
Student: "Miss Sauer, I don't understand how to get the velocity in
this problem."
Me: "Okay, let's think about this. What kinds of energy does the
particle have?"
I'll play.
: So, what is character?
Character is that quality which makes one person different from
another. It includes habits, talents, interests, ethical system, and
taste (in the sense of esth^H^H^H eastheicts^H^H^H^H^H^ art-stuff).
Some people might identify it with personality, but I'm not sure I
would go with that. Two people might posses out-going personalities,
but have very different characters.
Is this what you were after, or do I need to get a dictionary?
David Hauth
: I wish to remark that I have played Amber and a couple of
: home-grown diceless games in addition to a vast number of diced
: games and did make one observation; in Amber (for example) when
: my swordsmaster was facing down even several (2-3) mundane
^^^^^^^
: opponents, I never had _any_ fear for the character, as I knew
^^^^^^^^^^
: that skill-wise they had no chance, and that there was little
: likelihood of the DM messing with the development of his epic
: plot by arbitrarily causing me to lose (which would interfere
: with my character big time, especially after all the effort I had
: put into developing his warfare expertise).
This is more a feature of Amber rather than of diceless games. Amberites
are so many orders of magnitude better than "mundane" that such a combat
you describe fails to take on any real dramatic meaning - your character
should defeat them out of hand so that the story could move on to
something important.
: On the other hand, in the _good_ diced games, which included
: specific critical hits, the element of risk was present, and I
: knew that every fight was for real, that even a novice opponent
: could get in that lucky blow (however the odds were stacked
: against it). This mimics true life better in my opinion, as there
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Many of us are not so interested in mimicking true life; e.g. in my games
I try to mimic the feel of a good fantasy or pulp novel.
: are numerous historical examples of the tyro getting very lucky,
: or else the master suffering a disastrous stroke of bad luck, in
: contests of this sort. I even have _personal_ knowledge of this,
: having taken 'lucky shots' while fencing an opponent who was
: picking up a foil for the first time (despite having several
: years experience myself). I do not see how one can mimic this
: feeling of the fickle hand of fate in a diceless campaign where
: chance plays no part.
It can be done - albeit with skill. Especially if the player is
overconfident.
Cheers,
Dave
Andrew Finch
: I hope you don't regret it.
I won't. Pax.
: Actually David, I really do wonder if you *do* understand me. From my
: point of view, our dialog has run on two barely-related tracks:
I really do. I had 15 years of understanding before I played my first
diceless game. I am naturally inclined as a rules lawyer, and every
argument I've heard against diceless play, I made to Tim Dunn several
years ago, when my group of friends first contemplated making a game. Two
years later, when we finally did, it did not begin as a diceless game. We
didn't even consider it. We started developing a theory in order to make
a Star Trek game that could really do Star Trek. As the theory
developed, and we found rule systems to encode it into, we began to see
its implications. And then in one night, all the implications came
together, and the whole thing changed into the game you can now see. If I
do not know where you are at, I have at least been close to where you are
standing.
[Snip]
: In spite of experimental evidence, you refuse to alter your statements.
Because the experimental evidence on my said says I shouldn't.
: Normally this behaviour drives me into a passionate rage, but you are
: in love, and I make allowances for people in love. (It's the romantic
: in me.)
Thank you.
: In this case, we are advisaries, though I hope we are friendly
: advisaries.
We are not even advisaries.
[Snip]
: I have never played diceless, but extrapolating from what I know of
: gaming in general, and what I have observed of human nature, I can
: form a crude mental model of what it might be like. Using that model
: I can make predictions of what diceless gaming is like. For instance,
: I do not believe that a diceless system offers your character the
: opportunity to die a random, meaningless death.
I personally dislike games of that nature. There are far better uses of a
charcters death, and I consider the random version absolutely wasteful.
However, were that to be the kind of game my players wanted, I assure you
that I am capable of delivering it without dice, and in a very
satisfactory manner. Could you accept my decision to kill your character?
: Now, I am not claiming that my model is _correct_, but using the
: responses made by you (and the others who have experienced it), I can
: refine my model and make it more correct. The ultimate test of any
: theoretical model is experiment, and some day I plan to make that
: experiment, but until then you are stuck with me asking questions.
: (Unless you tell me to go away.)
Never, you are a romantic. As I have so few romantic bones in me, I am
drawn to such behavior.
[Snip]
: : : Could you please refresh our minds on what *your* definition of
: : : dramatic structure is, and why you can't possibly have character
: : : without it?
: : Sure. I'll try. The easiest way to start is to ask what character is.
: : This may take a bit longer, but I think it's more effective to let you
: : prove it to me, if you are willing to play a little game of question and
: : answer.
: I recognize this game.
: Student: "Miss Sauer, I don't understand how to get the velocity in
: this problem."
: Me: "Okay, let's think about this. What kinds of energy does the
: particle have?"
Good, then the rules are clear.
: : So, what is character?
: Character is that quality which makes one person different from
: another. It includes habits, talents, interests, ethical system, and
: taste (in the sense of esth^H^H^H eastheicts^H^H^H^H^H^ art-stuff).
: Some people might identify it with personality, but I'm not sure I
: would go with that. Two people might posses out-going personalities,
: but have very different characters.
: Is this what you were after, or do I need to get a dictionary?
No, with someone else I might have, but we do not need that. I accept
your defintion. The second point is the most interesting.
So, how is this quality which makes one person different from another
expressed? How do you know of habits, talents, interests and tastes? And
even more so, how do you know the differences between two outgoing people?
To cut down reaction time here, I'll put forward that it is the things
that they do, and the things that they say. Even more importantly, single
instances only create imrpessions when they are salient (they stand out
in importance). If the trait comes out in less memorable moments, it
takes more of them to build the impression.
So character is composed of those qualities which make it possible to
predict a persons behavior, and especially those qualities which make
such prediction unique to the individual. Such prediction does not need
to be perfect, but only 'good enough'. Of course, the more often the
prediction holds true, the stronger the trait is percieved to be.
Now the trickier question, assuming you agree with the above statements.
What is a plot?
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: : contests of this sort. I even have _personal_ knowledge of this,
: : having taken 'lucky shots' while fencing an opponent who was
: : picking up a foil for the first time (despite having several
: : years experience myself). I do not see how one can mimic this
: : feeling of the fickle hand of fate in a diceless campaign where
: : chance plays no part.
: It can be done - albeit with skill. Especially if the player is
: overconfident.
I agree, but even more stringly. You need no great skill. It can be done,
simply because you have an interest in doing it. If you know what type of
feel you want to reproduce, you may simply reproduce it, and the above
poster obviously has the backgound to make that description convincing.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
John H Kim
am starting to do my best to crack at some of the centers of this
debate.
To start, I will posit that roleplaying differs *fundamentally*
from a viewed performance, such as plays or movies.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>If we know character through action then I think the dice deny character.
>You would be write in the above, except that there are certain instances,
>certain actions a character takes that truely define them.
I disagree. In roleplaying, we do NOT know character through
action. Rather, character is inherently defined, and we get to know
_action through character_. Thus, roleplaying is the opposite of theatre
in this respect.
In a study of theatre/cinema, you will read that character is
known only through action. This is because they are speaking in terms
of how the finished product communicates to the passive viewer. The
viewer sees the action - and then based on that, he extrapolates what
is hidden: the mind of the character.
In roleplaying, this is reversed. The *player* already knows
his character to a fair degree. Then, based on this character, the
player extrapolates what the action is to be. Now, of course, the
player character will evolve through the results of his actions - but
these effects will simply alter a predefined character, they do not
_define_ that character. The character is defined in the mind of his
player (since, after all, that is where the characterization comes
from).
-*-*-*-
As a more concrete example: I played in a game once with a character
who had a secret. To the world he seemed like a dumb miscreant with
teleportation powers of enormous potential. In reality, he was a fanatic
who was determined to overthrow the oppressive world government.
Through half of the campaign, none of the other players knew my
character's secret. And as I came around to retiring him - I discovered in
shock that the GM had a quite different view of the character than I did.
The point is - it didn't matter. It was still interesting to
*me* to play this intense, paranoid character. In that way, roleplaying
can be a personal experience (as opposed to social). Of course, it is
nice to share these things with others - but that is not the essence of
the experience.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
This, in turn, leads to a fundamental difference in plot. The
plot of a film or play is designed to _present_ the main character(s)
to the audience. In an RPG, the participants already know their own
characters. A "storytelling" type GM will try to test or evolve these
characters - but he does not introduce or define them.
Thus, an RPG plot, even at its most theatrical, is focussed
differently than a movie/play plot.
Jeff
: US...@UConnVM.UConn.Edu wrote:
: : I have never had radiation sickness, nor ever known anyone with radiation
: : sickness- I only understand it as a concept. I know that the basic premise
: : of having radiation sickness is contrary to what I find enjoyable, and
: : therefor I conclude that I would not enjoy having radiation sickness.
: That is not a very good analogy. Radiation sickness is just that, a
: sickness, a health risk. Are you saying that all the people oput there
: who prefer diceless gaming like being ill and dying?
His analogy was not about relative heath risks. His analogy was about
realtive ability to evaluate desirability, and as far as it goes it was a
perfectly good analogy. You made a poor *interpretation* of his analogy.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
gaun...@bga.com Sic Gorgiamus Subjectatus Allos Nunc
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Jeff
: Take the following situation (yes,
: I know it's near instant death, but if people can toss those situations
: at diceless advocates, why not the other way round? - Besides, this is
: only to give an example and works on a less deadly level, too).
: Ok, consider the following situation: A character is jumping across a
: chasm to a slippery ledge, behind which there is a pool of piranhas.
: The appropriate skill for the jump would be acrobatics, at a level of
: 70%. Neither falling down the chasm nor ending up in the pool of
: piranhas is necessarily deadly, but in both cases the character has
: about the same chances of survival. Now where does the character end up
: if he fails the roll barely, noticeably, considerably, totally? The end
: result must be determined from the level of success only, as you so
: kindly offered.
You've introduced an additional consideration, which is 'which bad place
does he end up in?' If it's a choice between exactly 2, I often apply a
rule of thumb that says, 'failed roll that's an even number results in
bad place A, failed roll that's an odd number results in bad place B'.
But in this case it seems more likely that a failure will drop him in the
chasm, since it's closer, so I'd make an additional weighted roll to
decide that - *or* I'd decide myself, as GM, based on what would be more
interesting to the storyline. The degree of failure would be used as an
inspiration to me for deciding how far away from the ledge the character
winds up, and thus how much danger they wind up facing. With a
near-success, I'd probably place them within easy reach of the ledge, so
that they get a scare but are alright. With a catastrophic failure they'd
fall all the way to the bottom of the chasm or land smack in the middle
of a school of piranha-fish, suffering some immediate physical injury in
either case. Again, I *may* factor in plot or drama considerations to my
interpretation, if I so choose.
: Another interesting question would be how to
: differentiate between the 30 possible levels of failure as somebody
: else said this could be done.
Well, if there were 30 meaningful levels of failure, I could. As it is,
the 4 different levels of failure you mentioned seem to pretty much cover it.
Jeff
: A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: : > You can get a more objective response from Charley Morrison.
Who is Charley Morrison, and what is the evidence that we will get a more
objective response from him? This is not meant as an attack, I think it's
a fair question.
: : > I'm running
: : > him through a diceless combat, which will take a while by e-mail, but he
: : > should be able to tell you if there are any differences soon.
: : Why not do it here. It might illumniate some of us (me particularly).
: I meant to, but Charly couldn't post to the news group for some reason,
: so we did it by e-mail. I'll try to collect the mail, if I still have it,
: and post it (but I just purged a bunch of stuff). If I don't have it,
: Charly still might.
If you truly mean to try to influence anyone's opinion with this
experiment, you'll have to set it up better than this. Where are the
control subjects? Now you're saying you may not even be able to provide
copies of the email exchange. This is very shoddy science.
Jeff
: Walter Renger (wal...@cs.missouri.edu) wrote:
: : I think that's one of the key misunderstandings here: None of the people who
: : prefer the diceless approach (btw I am not really sure which I prefer) pretend
: : that every problem should be solved with dice. Only because you use dice to
: : resolve some conflicts does not mean you stop thinking completely.
: Well, you are right there, but the dice also don't help. I feel they have
: a subtle hypnotic effect. The more you use them, the more addicted you
: become.
Now we're not only 'prejudiced', we're 'addicted' as well, are we? How
very eager you are to label anyone who happens to prefer something
different from you.
Jeff
: US...@UConnVM.UConn.Edu wrote:
: : I have never had radiation sickness, nor ever known anyone with radiation
: : sickness- I only understand it as a concept. I know that the basic premise
: : of having radiation sickness is contrary to what I find enjoyable, and
: : therefor I conclude that I would not enjoy having radiation sickness.
: Your analogy is flawed. If diceless gaming were analogous to radiation
: sickness, what would be the equivalent to diced games? Gastritis? A
: better (but not perfect) analogy would be to compare diceless games to
: Chinese food. You are certainly entitled to dislike Chinese food (in
: preference to French cuisine), but if you haven't tried it so far, your
: saying that Chinese food isn't digestible can fairly safely be ignored.
You are over-reacting to the use of 'radiation sickness' in the analogy,
just as Mr. Berkman did. The issue is not a comparison of Theatrix to an
illness (despite Mr. Berkman's recent accusation that the use of dice is
an 'addiction'). The analogy is meant to demonstrate that is is possible
to hold a valid opinion about something without ever having directly
experienced it, if the person holding the opinion has a clear enough idea
of exactly what that thing is. Now, if you want to make the claim that it
is *not* possible to have a clear idea of what diceless gaming is without
actually trying it, then what are you and Mr. Berkman doing posting all
these lengthy explanations? Anyway, those of us who still prefer dice
argue that we *have* had enough exposure to diceless gaming (by virtue of
the undisputed necessity of some diceless resolution even in games with
dice) to form a valid opinion about whether *we* would like to go totally
diceless or not.
Andrew Finch
: Who is Charley Morrison, and what is the evidence that we will get a more
: objective response from him? This is not meant as an attack, I think it's
: a fair question.
Charley is the guy who asked me for an example of diceless combat, so we
went through one, and he is a diced player with diceless reservations, so
I guess he is more objective than I am.
: If you truly mean to try to influence anyone's opinion with this
: experiment, you'll have to set it up better than this. Where are the
: control subjects? Now you're saying you may not even be able to provide
: copies of the email exchange. This is very shoddy science.
Yeah, right. I've already posted the e-mail responses as a thread, and
I'm ordering the labratory mice as control subjects.
David
Andrew Finch
: You are over-reacting to the use of 'radiation sickness' in the analogy,
: just as Mr. Berkman did. The issue is not a comparison of Theatrix to an
: illness (despite Mr. Berkman's recent accusation that the use of dice is
: an 'addiction'). The analogy is meant to demonstrate that is is possible
: to hold a valid opinion about something without ever having directly
: experienced it, if the person holding the opinion has a clear enough idea
: of exactly what that thing is. Now, if you want to make the claim that it
: is *not* possible to have a clear idea of what diceless gaming is without
: actually trying it, then what are you and Mr. Berkman doing posting all
: these lengthy explanations?
To inform people who may not have considered this playing style a viable
option, and to see if we can get people to try it. Or, at least that's my
hope.
David
James Christopher Ellis
Maybe I have the terminology to describe it, but could I do so
in a manner in which the player won't get pissed at me for
arbitrarily 'forcing' him to lose? And can I detach my emotions
enough to be properly arbitrary about applying this situation?
Personally I don't think so - at least about myself. Thus I guess
this type of situation _does_ require great skill: beyond that
which I possess. I'll stick in this respect to dice; they may be
arbitrary as hell, but this is a ground rule all of my players
would understand. To DM this situation in a diceless game seems
beyond me...
Douglas L. Vandenburgh
Reimer Behrends
a kind soul emailed me this posting, as my newsfeed is still several
days behind its usual schedule.
A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: In a previous posting, Reimer Behrends (behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de)
: writes:
: > US...@UConnVM.UConn.Edu wrote:
: > : Mr. Berkman! I'm ashamed!
: > : Too many people are throwing that vague, sweeping, unfounded statement
: > : around: "there are possible outcomes which can not be concluded from a
: > : diced level of success."
[...]
: > Ok, consider the following situation: A character is jumping across a
: > chasm to a slippery ledge, behind which there is a pool of piranhas.
[...]
: Maybe I'm dense, but where's the problem?
The main problem is that the character may make the jump, but still
keel over backwards. (I can testify to this from first-hand experience;
fond, if somewhat wet, remembrances of a certain gymkhana come to
mind.)
The situation also has some other interesting factors; while the chasm
and the pool have about the same lethality rate, they are still
different; the chasm does not give the the player another chance to
extricate his character's head from the noose, whereas the pool does.
So the alternatives are not equivalent.
: Make a roll, which decides if you make the jump. Make another roll to see
: if you slip or maintain your footing.
You can even stipulate whether the character makes the jump or not. For
that I do not care. The problem is, which way will he go once he
reached the ledge? (Of course I could be nasty and ask how do you
determine whether the character jumped too far in the first place or
too short?)
[...]
: So, where's the problem? where's the added dimension dice are missing here?
Well, the problem is still to decide _by the level of success alone_
whether the character will end up in the chasm or in the pool.
And yes, I know that this problem looks construed; but only to
eliminate certain backdoors people might try to circumvent my question,
as it is only meant to demonstrate that there are limitations to what
the level of success tells us.
Reimer Behrends
Joseph Teller
>
>: Well, you are right there, but the dice also don't help. I feel they have
>: a subtle hypnotic effect. The more you use them, the more addicted you
>: become.
>
>Now we're not only 'prejudiced', we're 'addicted' as well, are we? How
>very eager you are to label anyone who happens to prefer something
>different from you.
Dehumanize your enemy when possible. Show him to be obviously under the
control of any outside force if you cannot..... Simple standard tactics
in rhetoric debates. He's good at it, it comes from his rudimentary
Psychology background, but such fails against intelligent people that
can see thru him.
Welcome to the club of people who can see thru the tactics. Of course
now he'll try labeling those in opposition to him an 'Theatrix' as
either 'Elitist', 'Devilspawn', 'Mind-controled' or 'Intelligencia in
Ivory towers made of dice'.
:-)
[Don't worry, I'm a member of the same club in his book, which is why he
almost never replies to my posts]
Andrew Finch
: Maybe I have the terminology to describe it, but could I do so
: in a manner in which the player won't get pissed at me for
: arbitrarily 'forcing' him to lose?
If a palyer does not have the maturity to rely upon the GMs decision,
then he shouldn't play diceless, I agree. BUt I have a problem with
thinking that acceptance of the arbitrary roll of a die is better than
the reasoned decsion of the GM.
: And can I detach my emotions
: enough to be properly arbitrary about applying this situation?
You're not supposed to detach your emotions. You are not a vulcan, and we
are not asking you to be. Your emotions are a critical tool for intuiting
the appropriate response in human situations. We just want you to use
them wisely, which is not that hard. You've had years of practice at it.
: Personally I don't think so - at least about myself. Thus I guess
: this type of situation _does_ require great skill: beyond that
: which I possess.
How can you be so certain. You have done trickier things your whole life.
Negotaited between friends, got along at a job despite office politics,
learned to relate in love relationships. We're just asking you to take a
small fraction of this and apply it to playing a game. You are even
allowed to make mistakes.
: I'll stick in this respect to dice; they may be
: arbitrary as hell, but this is a ground rule all of my players
: would understand. To DM this situation in a diceless game seems
: beyond me...
Well, that's honest, but I think it's only beyond you because you don't
see hwo it can be done, and not because you can't do it. I'll be happy to
suggest several ways in which it can be done, all of which I'm sure you
are more than capable of.
I'm no wizard. I've had 2 years of practice, but it took me at least that
long to get any good at diced play. And I was running diceless, at least
with some confidence, after my very first game.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: >: Well, you are right there, but the dice also don't help. I feel they have
: >: a subtle hypnotic effect. The more you use them, the more addicted you
: >: become.
: Dehumanize your enemy when possible. Show him to be obviously under the
: control of any outside force if you cannot..... Simple standard tactics
: in rhetoric debates. He's good at it, it comes from his rudimentary
: Psychology background, but such fails against intelligent people that
: can see thru him.
You've got me. I'm caught in your web of logic. However, I have
discovered the substance they use in those dice, and reproduced a
cyberspace equivalent, which I then sprinkled on this post before sending
it. You can feel its power even now.
'Dice Baaaaad' 'Nooo Diiiiiiiiiiiice Goooooooooooooooood'
:-)
David 'Devil Spawn in an Ivory Tower made of No Dice' Berkman
Backstage Press
US...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
they can be applied to RPGs, it requires that they be taken a bit out
of context.
It is probably more meaningful to describe the systems in philosophical
terms. The logic which drives a diced game world is one which ascribes a
great deal of importance to chance. Things do not always happen for a
predetermined reason, and the emphasis is on the character's articulation
of events which may or may not have any more purpose than what the character
makes of them (much like real life, yes?). This is an existentialist
attitude, almost to the letter.
In the diceless game world, things always happen for a reason. Even if
the GM is running a "show the PCs the cheapness of life" type of game,
there is concious guidance on the outcome of every event. This is a
deterministic attitude (and while others may hold different opinions, I
find determinism to be irrational in the context of real life, and just
as much so in a game).
Benjamin E. Sones
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: It is probably more meaningful to describe the systems in philosophical
: terms. The logic which drives a diced game world is one which ascribes a
: great deal of importance to chance. Things do not always happen for a
: predetermined reason, and the emphasis is on the character's articulation
: of events which may or may not have any more purpose than what the character
: makes of them (much like real life, yes?). This is an existentialist
: attitude, almost to the letter.
I disagree. Dice are a mechanistic modeling method. It's like a newtonian
universe. If you can decide all the factors which come to make up an
event, then you can provide a formula, and an input, and get the result
out. It's deterministic.
An existential method exists in the now moment. It takes complete
responsibility for itself. The universe is non-deterministic, and the act
of consiousness is the defining parameter. Diceless resolution is an
expression of the consciousness in this state. It deals with perception
and moments, not models and probabilities.
We built Theatrix in part off of behavioral and existential psychology.
Thus both the behavioral abstracted token economy, and the emphasis on
the importance of character and empowerment, to provide a 'safe'
existential ground from which to explore the game possibilities.
: In the diceless game world, things always happen for a reason. Even if
: the GM is running a "show the PCs the cheapness of life" type of game,
: there is concious guidance on the outcome of every event. This is a
: deterministic attitude (and while others may hold different opinions, I
: find determinism to be irrational in the context of real life, and just
: as much so in a game).
There is a reason that the first chapter of our book opens with a quote
from Henry David Thoreau. I will quote it here:
'If you build castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is
where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.'
We are far closer to Thoreau, Kirkegard, and Satre, than to Nitzche.
David
Hans M Dykstra
Reimer Behrends <behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>Ok, consider the following situation: A character is jumping across a
>chasm to a slippery ledge, behind which there is a pool of piranhas.
>
>70%. Neither falling down the chasm nor ending up in the pool of
>piranhas is necessarily deadly, but in both cases the character has
>about the same chances of survival. Now where does the character end up
>if he fails the roll barely, noticeably, considerably, totally? The end
>result must be determined from the level of success only, as you so
>differentiate between the 30 possible levels of failure as somebody
>else said this could be done.
Others have given this a shot, but I'll pitch mine in as well, now
that the original article has finally made it to my site.
(Well, not to differentiate between the 30 possible levels...)
First, I will have to make some assumptions about the situation.
We'll assume that the jump is not particularly difficult, except for
the small landing area...That 70% represents the chance of actually
clearing the chasm, not taking into consideration the piranha pool
just beyond.
I'll first ask the player (or better, try to determine it from his/her
initial description) whether the character would rather go in the chasm
or in the piranhas. That will help me determine the failure modes.
Assume that the player considers the pit less deadly than the pool.
First, then, roll against jumping or acrobatics skill. If this is made,
there is no problem clearing the pit, so follow up with another roll
against Agility or acrobatics or something to maintain balance on the
landing. If this is made, the jump was made safely...the character lands
on his feet and dances along the edge of the pool, barely avoiding it.
If it fails by a little bit, the landing was off balance and the character
falls but avoids the pool. If the second roll fails more noticeably,
the landing is sufficiently off balance that the fall is more serious.
He controls the fall to go backwards, avoiding the pool but starting
to slip back into the pit. One last chance for him to grab the edge...
and he is left hanging over the abyss. If the second roll fails
considerably, he will actually overshoot by a bit, falling in the
edge of the pool. Probably he'll suffer some nips before he manages
to pull himself out. A critical failure means that he skids right into
the pool, and starts thrashing around as the fish attacks him. If he
pulls himself right out, he'll probably survive, but he'll be a bloody
mess. (Unless the pool is so steep he can't pull out...)
Now if the first roll fails, that means that he didn't quite get
across the chasm. A mild failure means that he hits the other edge
and has to grab on and roll up onto the ledge..."As you fly toward the
ledge, you can see that you aren't high enough; you hit the edge with
your side and scramble to grab a hold..." Probably with the wind
knocked out of him or something. A more serious failure means that he
tries to get a purchase on the other edge but fails, and starts
sliding down the edge into the chasm..."Your foot twisted a bit as you
took off, and you didn't get a good jump. You are well short,
slamming into the opposite face and sliding down as you desperately
try to stop yourself." A really bad failure would mean that he
bounces off the edge and right into the pit. A critical failure might
mean that his foot slipped even as he set himself to take off, he
maybe takes a slight injury to his ankle, and doesn't even get off the
ground.
I've assumed here that this action is something that we want to spend
some time on, so it is okay to drag it out and spend several die rolls
on it. If this were part of a chase scene, for example, I might want
to get it over with faster, so I'd just use a single roll and apply
say a -20% difficulty modifier for the small landing area. The
principle stays similar though--near misses are interpreted in the
direction closer to the characters wishes (avoiding the pool more
than the pit in this case) and critical failures being the furthest.
I really don't see this as being all that difficult. We do stuff like
this all the time in our AD&D game. Not pits and piranhas, but
dangerous situations where there is more than one way to fail.
The GM has to use a little creativity, yes. The dice can't tell you
everything, but they can suggest a direction in which to apply that
creativity.
***
hmd
US...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
the philosophical theory of existentialism fits diced games pretty closely
(not perfectly, since such games still incorporate a GM, but much more
closely than diceless games do).
I get the idea that you are referring to game philosophy from the perspective
of the players and the GM. I was referring to the game philosophy from the
perspective of the character. From the character's point of view, a diceless
world functions in a deterministic manner.
Benjamin E. Sones
A Lapalme
In a previous posting, Andrew Finch (bcks...@crl.com) writes:
> nancy sauer (nsa...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
>
>
> : In spite of experimental evidence, you refuse to alter your statements.
>
> Because the experimental evidence on my said says I shouldn't.
Which begs the question: how valid are the experimental methods then if
the conclusion reached are so different? Or if the
methods are valid, then the only thing left is Results and Conclusion, an
area always open to interpretation and bias.
>
> : Normally this behaviour drives me into a passionate rage, but you are
> : in love, and I make allowances for people in love. (It's the romantic
> : in me.)
>
Ah, there's the bias.
> : I have never played diceless, but extrapolating from what I know of
> : gaming in general, and what I have observed of human nature, I can
> : form a crude mental model of what it might be like. Using that model
> : I can make predictions of what diceless gaming is like. For instance,
> : I do not believe that a diceless system offers your character the
> : opportunity to die a random, meaningless death.
>
> I personally dislike games of that nature. There are far better uses of a
> charcters death, and I consider the random version absolutely wasteful.
> However, were that to be the kind of game my players wanted, I assure you
> that I am capable of delivering it without dice, and in a very
> satisfactory manner. Could you accept my decision to kill your character?
>
If it's satisfactory, then how can it be meaningless?
[snip]
>
> : : So, what is character?
>
> : Character is that quality which makes one person different from
> : another. It includes habits, talents, interests, ethical system, and
> : taste (in the sense of esth^H^H^H eastheicts^H^H^H^H^H^ art-stuff).
>
> : Some people might identify it with personality, but I'm not sure I
> : would go with that. Two people might posses out-going personalities,
> : but have very different characters.
>
> : Is this what you were after, or do I need to get a dictionary?
>
> No, with someone else I might have, but we do not need that. I accept
> your defintion. The second point is the most interesting.
>
> So, how is this quality which makes one person different from another
> expressed? How do you know of habits, talents, interests and tastes? And
> even more so, how do you know the differences between two outgoing people?
>
> To cut down reaction time here, I'll put forward that it is the things
> that they do, and the things that they say. Even more importantly, single
> instances only create imrpessions when they are salient (they stand out
> in importance). If the trait comes out in less memorable moments, it
> takes more of them to build the impression.
>
> So character is composed of those qualities which make it possible to
> predict a persons behavior, and especially those qualities which make
> such prediction unique to the individual. Such prediction does not need
> to be perfect, but only 'good enough'. Of course, the more often the
> prediction holds true, the stronger the trait is percieved to be.
>
> Now the trickier question, assuming you agree with the above statements.
>
> What is a plot?
Good luck on defining that one Nancy (or rather on defending whatever
definition you come up with).
Alain
Andrew Finch
: Which begs the question: how valid are the experimental methods then if
: the conclusion reached are so different? Or if the
: methods are valid, then the only thing left is Results and Conclusion, an
: area always open to interpretation and bias.
We were never conducting the same experiment (never mind the highly
subjective nature of the interpretation).
: > I personally dislike games of that nature. There are far better uses of a
: > charcters death, and I consider the random version absolutely wasteful.
: > However, were that to be the kind of game my players wanted, I assure you
: > that I am capable of delivering it without dice, and in a very
: > satisfactory manner. Could you accept my decision to kill your character?
: If it's satisfactory, then how can it be meaningless?
I was saying that if meaningless was what the players wanted, I could
deliver it in a satisfying way ... the deliver that is ... not the death,
which would be meaningless, at least to me.
[Snip]
: > predict a persons behavior, and especially those qualities which make
: > such prediction unique to the individual. Such prediction does not need
: > to be perfect, but only 'good enough'. Of course, the more often the
: > prediction holds true, the stronger the trait is percieved to be.
: >
: > Now the trickier question, assuming you agree with the above statements.
: >
: > What is a plot?
: Good luck on defining that one Nancy (or rather on defending whatever
: definition you come up with).
Awwww. Don't give away all the surprises.
David
Alexander Williams
A Lapalme <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Yes, Dave. You have a problem with this. so do I. However, that does
>not invalidate the issue. Some people will accept a roll of the die over
>the GM decision. That is sad, true but nonetheless it is still a fact.
I wouldn't even call it sad, I'd call it necessary. In my
experience (Warning: Blatant experimental evidence here which David
will contradict with /his/ experience and since he's so much better
than me, his is more conclusive) my players and I start without a
significant amount of trust shared amongst us in terms of
understanding that the /other/ has read and understood the
background, the setting, and the physics of a given universe. The
fact that the authors bothered to encode the basis of the underlying
physics in probablistic terms helps us, as a group, to make certain
that we do understand them.
As we go along, we use the dice as a full-out resolution method
less and less, feeling more secure in our interpretations of the
universe. Without that early support from the dice, however, we'd
never develop an innate trust and understanding in each other's
ability in that setting, despite how we might feel about each other
out of the game. When we introduce a new player, or when someone
within the troupe takes over as a new GM, we go through a
more-detailed use of dice again, til we all reach an unconscious
understanding once more.
Should we start using a diceless system, such as Theatrix,
perhaps, despite the fact that we've been gaming together for more
than a short time, there would /be/ no consensus reality. Only what
exists in the current GM's head is applicable, and none of us can
share the vision of the other in understanding. None of the
essential trust gets built up in a timely manner, and changing the
orientation, either with a new player or a new GM, completely
disrupts the fabric of trust much further back than in a diced game
where we have at least the basic interactions amendable to
understanding.
--
tha...@runic.mind.org (Alexander Williams) | PGP 2.6 key avail
Should we shed our mental pants and compare | DF 22 16 CE CA 7F
the size of our consciousnesses? | 98 47 13 EE 8E EC
Jan Sand to Marvin Minsky | 9C 2D 9B 9B
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> US...@UConnVM.UConn.Edu wrote:
|>
|> : I get the idea that you are referring to game philosophy from the perspective
|> : of the players and the GM. I was referring to the game philosophy from the
|> : perspective of the character. From the character's point of view, a diceless
|> : world functions in a deterministic manner.
|>
|>
|> You are Mr. Spock. You arte faced with 2 Capt. Kirks (not an unusual
|> circumstance), and you are running out of time fast. You need to deiced
|> which is the right one. One of them is a Romulan spy (no you don't have a
|> tricorder). What do you do? Which is the right decision in this diceless
|> situation, which from the character's point of view should now be
|> entirely deterministic.
|>
|> O.K. you say. That wasn't a stochastic process. Very good. You are now
|> Luke Skywalker flolowing a Tie Fighter in your X-Wing. You've almost got
|> lock on, but the pilot is very good. Suddenly, from behind you, out pops
|> another Tie fighter, and he gets lock-on on you, just as your lock-on
|> sounds on your target. What happens? If you fire, do you hit? Can you
|> fire and get out of there fast enough? Will you get hit? What happens in
|> this completely determined diceless situation?
As any true space opera buff will tell you, the answer to both of these
problems is identical:
"Mr. Kinnison, USE YOUR F---ING LENS!"
<insert smiley>
More seriously, Mr. Spock, being an intelligent Vulcan, has deduced that
the enemy (whoever they are this week) will mysteriously develop a case
of the stupids whenever things get serious. He will therefore shout "Hey
you!" in Romulan and vaporize^H^H^H stun the one that responds.
Luke is a weenie, so he'll blithely trust in his script immunity
and ignore the second fighter. He blasts the first TIE fighter, saving
the transport full of refugees, but is hit by the second fighter. His fusion
reactor destabilizes and the X-wing explodes, taking the second fighter
with it. A couple of weeks later, Luke's pressure suit is discovered by a
an alien that scavenges the sites of old battles. But wait! Luke is alive!
It turns out he bailed at the last second, and then he used his Jedi powers
to go into a trance and conserve his air supply. Unfortunately, the lowered
oxygen supply gave him amnesia, and the Emperor has detected this. Sensing
an opportunity to corrupt Luke while his guard is down, he sends a dozen
Star Destroyers after the junk trader.
How's that?
Neel
A Lapalme
>
> : I get the idea that you are referring to game philosophy from the perspective
> : of the players and the GM. I was referring to the game philosophy from the
> : perspective of the character. From the character's point of view, a diceless
> : world functions in a deterministic manner.
>
>
> You are Mr. Spock. You arte faced with 2 Capt. Kirks (not an unusual
> circumstance), and you are running out of time fast. You need to deiced
> which is the right one. One of them is a Romulan spy (no you don't have a
> tricorder). What do you do? Which is the right decision in this diceless
> situation, which from the character's point of view should now be
> entirely deterministic.
>
> O.K. you say. That wasn't a stochastic process. Very good. You are now
> Luke Skywalker flolowing a Tie Fighter in your X-Wing. You've almost got
> lock on, but the pilot is very good. Suddenly, from behind you, out pops
> another Tie fighter, and he gets lock-on on you, just as your lock-on
> sounds on your target. What happens? If you fire, do you hit? Can you
> fire and get out of there fast enough? Will you get hit? What happens in
> this completely determined diceless situation?
>
> can't tell, and what ever happens will be plausible from the viewpoint of
> all previous information. From the inside, these are indeterminate
> situations, just like you would expect them to be.
>
> Go on take a guess at iether of these. I've already decided on the outcomes.
>
Assume I'm plyaing one of these characters:
If you've already decided the
outcome, why in the name of heaven should I
bother taking a guess at either these. All you've done is attempted
to make me believe that what I do actually has an impact on my character's
life. However, this impact is minimal. If the GM has decided this
character fails, then no matter how many options are apparently there, it
has no major impact on the final result.
I realize that, even as a player, I may not know the exact choice you have
made. However, I do know that you have made a choice, a choice which might
based on things outside me, as a player or outside my character (overall
plot, structure, mood, timing, etc..) Knowing that the outcome is
pre-ordained takes away from the game for me.
Why didn't I say this before? Maybe I hadn't thought it through.
However, reading that last sentence of your post really triggered it.
Alain
Andrew Finch
: > Go on take a guess at iether of these. I've already decided on the outcomes.
: Assume I'm plyaing one of these characters:
: If you've already decided the
: outcome, why in the name of heaven should I
: bother taking a guess at either these.
To make a point.
: All you've done is attempted
: to make me believe that what I do actually has an impact on my character's
: life. However, this impact is minimal. If the GM has decided this
: character fails, then no matter how many options are apparently there, it
: has no major impact on the final result.
Correct. But the character doesn't know it. Now, lets back off one step.
I have something in mind, a feel, some genre, something that might
happen, but it's all changeable, depending upon what you do. Now the
player can't know either. Now I am both plotted and free, capable of both
simulation and drama. And that is the space I'm seraching for.
Now what do you do?
David
Jeff
: Yeah, right. I've already posted the e-mail responses as a thread, and
: I'm ordering the labratory mice as control subjects.
You idiot. Mice can't roll dice! Use spider monkeys.
Jeff
: [Snip]
: Dice are a mechanistic modeling method. It's like a newtonian
: universe. If you can decide all the factors which come to make up an
: event, then you can provide a formula, and an input, and get the result
: out. It's deterministic.
No it isn't. The roll of the dice keeps things from being totally
predictable, thus it's not deterministic. That's the whole *point*. If
anything, they have more in common with Chaos Theory - sure, if you
could take everything into account (including all the suble effects of
the sweat on the palm of the dice roller), you could exactly predict the
outcome. But it's not practical, so you get an effectively random
outcome. You can get an idea of the probabilities, but you can't predict
the result.
: We built Theatrix in part off of behavioral and existential psychology.
Just curious - what's 'existential psychology'?
A Lapalme
>
> : > Go on take a guess at iether of these. I've already decided on the outcomes.
>
> : Assume I'm plyaing one of these characters:
> : If you've already decided the
> : outcome, why in the name of heaven should I
> : bother taking a guess at either these.
>
>
> : All you've done is attempted
> : to make me believe that what I do actually has an impact on my character's
> : life. However, this impact is minimal. If the GM has decided this
> : character fails, then no matter how many options are apparently there, it
> : has no major impact on the final result.
>
all the time.
>Now, lets back off one step.
> I have something in mind, a feel, some genre, something that might
> happen, but it's all changeable, depending upon what you do. Now the
> player can't know either. Now I am both plotted and free, capable of both
> simulation and drama. And that is the space I'm seraching for.
>
> Now what do you do?
>
Now, that's better. However, your plot is pretty weak (pratically
non-existant to my eyes) so how do you make your decisions. What looks
good at the moment? That's OK with me but I can't see plot structure
surviving this. I'm not saying that's bad just that it seesm to go
counter what you've said before.
Alain
A Lapalme
> A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> : >
> : diced games are poor indicators of what 100% diceless play would be. I
> : will claim that one cannot fully understand the dynamics of diceless play
> : without actually trying it.
>
> : Naturally, this is from my own experience. I tried diceless, am
> : uncomfortable with some aspects of it, and use it only when appropriate.
> : So, there it is...
>
> If Mr. Berkman would please refrain from commenting (because you seem to
> be unbiased, while he does not), I'd be interested in asking you to
> describe how they are different. Personally, I've tried both and have
> found no real difference other than that, in the diceless game, I didn't
> have dice as a tool to fall back on.
>
Having no dice to fall back unto was one of the changes. Every piddly
little thing has to be decided. that, by itself forces you, the GM, to
get rid of these piddly little things unless you really want them. That's
probably a good thing since it would tighten up play.
I don't like diceless combat. It's too detailed and requires a heck of a
lot from the GM. If the players don't participate you end up with very
little. (I will say that if players don't participate in a diced game you
also have the same problem - however, the effect is more pronounced in
diceless since that's all you've got). I find detailed combat a bore.
Once is fun, twice is ok, but more often than that and I get bored, my
descriptions get repetitive and then everyone gets bored. also, I was
told by players that I tend to telegraph inadvertently my desired outcome.
Not a good thing. Sure I could probably find a way to change that but
since the whole diceless combat portion is not to my liking, why bother.
Skill resolution was not very much different than diced games.
Player trust was also not an issue (at least I didn't see it). If plauers
dpm't trust their GM, then dice won't solve the problem.
One aspect of diceless (a la Theatrix anyways), is the power the GM has
been given over the plot line. It is much easier to maintain (in my
experience anyways, the players were very reluctant to make Statements or
use plot points) a storyline, without having to continuously fudge die
rolls, etc, etc.. While this might seem minor, it has a large impact on
the game and how it runs. Suddenly, all the time you have spend in
preparation is starting to pay off. Therefore, the incentive to prepare
increases which, usually means that the game is better.
I consider diceless an option. In a couple of weeks, I'll be starting a
Star Trek game. I intend to use FUDGE ratings but will use Theatrix
structure to run the game (ie no dice, etc). However, last fall we went
through 8 weeks of intense roleplaying (using FUDGE) and I still can't see how
the game would have worked as well using the Theatrix methods.
So, that's my opinion, very much summarized. Hopes it helped.
Alain
BTW, I am biased. Just differently.
nancy sauer
: No, please go right ahead. I'm arrogant (see, I assumed you were talking
: about me), heartless, manipulative, and twisted. Definitely. And these
: traits might indeed be drawbacks if I weren't so damn good.
: David
Speaking entirely for myself, I don't think its for a _man_ to decide
whether he's damn good. :)
(Happy Valentine's Day everyone!)
Nancy M. Sauer <*> "Then you will come to think of things in
Disciple of Bread Do: a wide sense and, taking the dough as the
The Way of the Way, you will see the Way is dough.
Flour Warrior In the dough there is virtue, and no evil."
Andrew Finch
: >Now, lets back off one step.
: > I have something in mind, a feel, some genre, something that might
: > happen, but it's all changeable, depending upon what you do. Now the
: > player can't know either. Now I am both plotted and free, capable of both
: > simulation and drama. And that is the space I'm seraching for.
: >
: > Now what do you do?
: >
: Now, that's better. However, your plot is pretty weak (pratically
: non-existant to my eyes) so how do you make your decisions. What looks
: good at the moment? That's OK with me but I can't see plot structure
: surviving this. I'm not saying that's bad just that it seesm to go
: counter what you've said before.
That's why the plot structure needs to be tight (in my viewpoint). When
you know everything about it, you know exactly what changes need to be
made due to character actions. Yes, the plot should always be
non-existent to the player's eyes, ie. the players should feel free to
act in any way they wish, and should feel (rightly) that their actions
have the appropriate effects upon the world. In order to get a plot tight
enough to give you the information you need, and flexible enough to alter
at will, you use the plotting structure given in Chapter 10. It works
quite well, as least for us, and we figured it would for others as well.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: Andrew Finch (bcks...@crl.com) wrote:
: : No, please go right ahead. I'm arrogant (see, I assumed you were talking
: : about me), heartless, manipulative, and twisted. Definitely. And these
: : traits might indeed be drawbacks if I weren't so damn good.
: : David
: Speaking entirely for myself, I don't think its for a _man_ to decide
: whether he's damn good. :)
: (Happy Valentine's Day everyone!)
No I agree, that would take a _woman_. But as it happens, I was just
pulling Jeff Dees chain.
Happy Valentine's Day
David
Andrew Finch
: This is my point of contention with you David, all wrapped up and tied
: with a bow.
Oh, I didn't know we had a point of contention.
: At present, I DON'T have any arguments against diceless play. I can't
: argue because I haven't tried it yet. I can postulate, predict,
: hypothisize, extrapolate, and question, but I can't _argue_ because I
: have no data to argue with.
O.K. So, what was that point of contention again?
: I CAN argue about diced play, because I have played with dice. You
: have made several statements about dice of the form "Dice cannot do X"
: which I know to be false because I have evidence that dice DO do X.
: Whether or not diceless does or does not do X is completely irrelevant
: to the discussion.
Alright. Of course your world view is in conflict with mine, since my
data says that dice can't do X. Of course, maybe you just think dice can,
and you haven't really gotten where I'm coming from, because you haven't
been there yet. Which could be because I don't argue well, or we're on
just too abstract a level, or you haven't dropped acid recently.
: (I just know I've screwed up my verb forms in that paragraph. Serves
: me right for trying to argue proof with a psychologist...)
WEven worse, an insane psychologist. Ahahahahahah!!!!
: See above. Your evidence always seems to be of the form "But diceless
: does X better".
Well, there is the slim but obscure chance that I'm right. At least for
me. Maybe for you to, but I don't know yet.
**********************************************************
: Yes, I could accept you killing my character. However, I'm not sure
: that I would believe it was random. In fact, I'm quite sure that I
: would think, "Hmm, David must have decided that it would be very
: dramatic if, in the midst of her relentless campaign to stamp out bad
: grammar in .advocacy postings, Matilda Tuscany died from food
: poisoning contracted from drinking bad Zima."
You could think that, but you would be wrong. Honestly, if what you
desire is the possibility of meaningless death, I would give that to you.
I respect you that much.
: As for random death being wasteful, I suppose maybe it is. On the
: other hand, it does communicate to the players that their characters
: are dealing with a world that feels no particular obligations to them.
: Heros struggle on anyway.
I think I can manage that communication without the meaningless death.
There are so many creul things to do to a character that death seems
kind of light. Umph! It's over. Make up a new character. Far better to
strip away the things the character loves, one by one, without mercy.
: You, Sir, are a shameless flatterer. ;)
You've noticed.
[Snip]
: First off, I am going to simplify things and assume that we are
: discusing _the_ character of _a_ character in a roleplaying game.
That's fine, although I think much of this is applicable to the way we
form impressions in general.But that's not th edebate I wish to have.
[Snip]
: "Okay, good, fine," or something along those lines. After Hekata make
: the decision to (literally) throw some of her crew to the wolves to
: insure the continued existstance of a Federation listening post they
: unquestionably had a strong impression of what her character was like.
Yep. That's what I mean. That's an impression that will be fairly
resistant to even direct contradictory evidence.
: : So character is composed of those qualities which make it possible to
: : predict a persons behavior, and especially those qualities which make
: : such prediction unique to the individual. Such prediction does not need
: : to be perfect, but only 'good enough'. Of course, the more often the
: : prediction holds true, the stronger the trait is percieved to be.
: This again is true, but I don't see the point. Hekata's character
: existed before the wolf incident: I had created it weeks before when I
: invented her. Before the wolf incident maybe no one else could have
: predicted how much she was willing to risk, but I could have.
Yes. But roleplay has 2 sides. The first is that of the Actor's side. You
know the character. However, all the knowledge in the world will not do
very much good if it's never shown. In fact, if the character was
actually easy going, loose about Federation regs., etc., people would
have a different impression, and that impression would be the character,
no matter how much you protested the opposite. The other players, and the
GM would judge based off of your actions. Now, you could be hiding
something, and that could be part of the character, in which case you're
playing one way to the other players, and another way to the GM, which is
O.K. as long as both are getting the right idea. It's when your actions
and your intended characterization don't match up that there is a problem.
: In short, character pre-exists the events that make it apparent to
: outside observers.
well, the design of the character pre-exists, and your actions create
that character. Good roleplay means creating a charcter which matches
your intentions.
: : Now the trickier question, assuming you agree with the above statements.
: : What is a plot?
: A plot is a sequence of events which combine to tell a story.
: What now?
Give me a better answer. You've failed to define 'story'. Is a plot just
any sequence of events? Is, 'I got some money, and went down to the
store, and bought some milk, and came home' a story? And if so, does that
sequence of events define a plot? If not, what is missing?
Second question, does the above 'milk buying' story give us any
indication of character? If we wanted to know something about the
character, what would have to happen to the story? And would those
changes to the story have anything in common with a better definiton of
'plot'?
David Berkman
Backstage Press
A Lapalme
>
> : Ray Trent said something which bears repeating:
> : "The fundamental reasons for a person's failures/successes are rarely
> : obvious."
> : I would accept that as an axiom.
>
> Actually, there is a large body of solid experimental evidence on just
> this question. The fact is that the reasons are almost always obvious.
> They are not always correct, but they are almost always obvious.
>
I'll go along with that. People will imagine anything to explain
something. that seems to be how we're built. Rationalize everything
whether or not the rationalization makes any sense.
> The problem is that it's a matter of perception. We are built for
> survival. To survive, you must learn quickly. We must know why we got
> hurt, why we failed, or why we succeeded, and we need to know fast. The
> more drastic the success or failure, the more salient the stimuli around
> it, the faster the prognosis will be, and the more resistant to change it
> will be, even in the face of contradictory evidence.
>
> So we may not always be right, but we almost always have a reason.
>
> However, when the perceptions are obscured, this is still an easy
> situation to handle, at least diecless. You just say why the perception
> is obscured, as in 'You can't tell who shot you through this terrible fog.'
>
> Heck, you can probably even do that much in a diced game. :-).
>
Really!??? How?? :)
Alain
nancy sauer
Andrew Finch (bcks...@crl.com) wrote:
: nancy sauer (nsa...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
: : This is my point of contention with you David, all wrapped up and tied
: : with a bow.
: Oh, I didn't know we had a point of contention.
Arg! Men! You never pay attention.
: : At present, I DON'T have any arguments against diceless play. I can't
: : argue because I haven't tried it yet. I can postulate, predict,
: : hypothisize, extrapolate, and question, but I can't _argue_ because I
: : have no data to argue with.
: O.K. So, what was that point of contention again?
DICE. Our point of contention is DICE.
: : [Snip]
: Alright. Of course your world view is in conflict with mine, since my
: data says that dice can't do X. Of course, maybe you just think dice can,
: and you haven't really gotten where I'm coming from, because you haven't
: been there yet. Which could be because I don't argue well, or we're on
: just too abstract a level, or you haven't dropped acid recently.
If acid is what it takes, then we are never going to agree: I confine
my recreational drug use to alcohol (in the form of good wine or
beer), caffine (in the form of tea or Dr. Pepper), and chocolate (in
any form).
And I don't know how to cope with your rampant disregard for logic.
The fact that I can get around town better (in some ways) in a car
than in a bus does not mean I _can't_ get around town in a bus. The
fact that you can do some things better (in some ways) in a diceless
system does not mean that you _can't_ do them in a diced system. Why
is this so difficult for you?
: : (I just know I've screwed up my verb forms in that paragraph. Serves
: : me right for trying to argue proof with a psychologist...)
: WEven worse, an insane psychologist. Ahahahahahah!!!!
Lovesick. Deeply and incurable lovesick.
: **********************************************************
: : Yes, I could accept you killing my character. However, I'm not sure
: : that I would believe it was random. In fact, I'm quite sure that I
: : would think, "Hmm, David must have decided that it would be very
: : dramatic if, in the midst of her relentless campaign to stamp out bad
: : grammar in .advocacy postings, Matilda Tuscany died from food
: : poisoning contracted from drinking bad Zima."
: You could think that, but you would be wrong. Honestly, if what you
: desire is the possibility of meaningless death, I would give that to you.
: I respect you that much.
Gee, that's so sweet of you. Seriously, thank you. (I think.) (I
just thank God I'll never have to explain this conversiontion to my
mother.)
As one GM to another, how do you manage this without derailing your
plot?
: : As for random death being wasteful, I suppose maybe it is. On the
: : other hand, it does communicate to the players that their characters
: : are dealing with a world that feels no particular obligations to them.
: : Heros struggle on anyway.
: I think I can manage that communication without the meaningless death.
: There are so many creul things to do to a character that death seems
: kind of light. Umph! It's over. Make up a new character. Far better to
: strip away the things the character loves, one by one, without mercy.
As they say on Hekata's homeworld, "The Lazure kill their enemies, but
the Ramsis let their's live." *Intelligent* enemies may embrace the
Ramsis philosophy, but the universe is not intelligent, or even really
an enemy.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
: [Snip]
: : First off, I am going to simplify things and assume that we are
: : discusing _the_ character of _a_ character in a roleplaying game.
: That's fine, although I think much of this is applicable to the way we
: form impressions in general.But that's not th edebate I wish to have.
Actually, I think you are probably right. I adopted the assumption
because it made for easier syntax. If you like, we can mentally add
the phrase "without loss of generality" to my statement.
: [Snip]
: : In short, character pre-exists the events that make it apparent to
: : outside observers.
: well, the design of the character pre-exists, and your actions create
: that character. Good roleplay means creating a charcter which matches
: your intentions.
Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with this. I'll think it over, and in the
meantime let it stand for arguement's sake.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
: : : What is a plot?
: : A plot is a sequence of events which combine to tell a story.
: : What now?
: Give me a better answer. You've failed to define 'story'. Is a plot just
: any sequence of events? Is, 'I got some money, and went down to the
: store, and bought some milk, and came home' a story? And if so, does that
: sequence of events define a plot? If not, what is missing?
If you wanted a *$#!@! definition for 'story' why didn't you ask for
it first?
And would you mind very much telling me which of the above questions
you want me to answer, because I don't have time (or patience) to
answer them all?
: Second question, does the above 'milk buying' story give us any
: indication of character? If we wanted to know something about the
: character, what would have to happen to the story? And would those
: changes to the story have anything in common with a better definiton of
: 'plot'?
That is your FIFTH question, not your second one, and it'll have to
wait in line with the others.
<sigh> I'll be back later, with another definition of plot.
Reimer Behrends
: Mr. Behrends, an integral part of your argument in regards to your
: pirranah example (and others) is the assumption that the GM is unable to
: deal with decision-making in any way OTHER than dice. On that basis, I
: will agree that, yes, dice would limit the game.
Actually I do not assume that. The piranha example was just meant to
put an end to the claim that the level of success always suffices to
establish an result.
But back to dice and their being limiting. I am of course not claiming
that you can't 'step sideways' in a diced game. It's just that dice and
their level of success discourage such behaviour to the point of being
clearly noticeable.
Further, the more you stray away from the natural interpretation of the
rolled result, the more you are turning a simulation instrument into a
random plot-generating device, and that's where I question their
purpose. Because humans are so much better at that.
: My point, however, is that I have never seen nor run a diced game in
: which that was the case, or was even meant to be strictly by the rules of
: the game.
Of course not. But die rolls have this ugly tendency to congest the
pivotal moments of a game.
: I could come up with similar examples which "prove" diceless games to be
: inferior by requiring, as a factor of the example, that the game was
: being run by a poor GM. They would be no more meaningful than your own
: argument.
As a matter of fact, I would agree with you. I find running diceless
more demanding than running diced (but also more rewarding if done
well).
I am, btw, not asserting that diced games are generally 'inferior'
(whatever that may mean). I contend, however, that dice have problems
and have certain drawbacks compared to diceless games. (So do diceless
games, but in this case I find the problems much less of a nuisance.) I
have already mentioned the point about not properly structuring the
space of all possible outcomes; but until I started diceless games,
this was a fairly secondary concern of mine. What always irritated me
most was that dice as a decision mechanism could not be integrated into
roleplay. This was most obvious during combat, but also on lots of
other occasions, where rolling disturbed the flow of the game.
Reimer Behrends
Reimer Behrends
: Reimer Behrends (behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
[Radiation sickness analogy deleted]
: : Your analogy is flawed. If diceless gaming were analogous to radiation
: : sickness, what would be the equivalent to diced games? Gastritis? A
: : better (but not perfect) analogy would be to compare diceless games to
: : Chinese food. You are certainly entitled to dislike Chinese food (in
: : preference to French cuisine), but if you haven't tried it so far, your
: : saying that Chinese food isn't digestible can fairly safely be ignored.
: You are over-reacting to the use of 'radiation sickness' in the analogy,
: just as Mr. Berkman did.
Overreacting? I think not. I just stated my objections.
: The issue is not a comparison of Theatrix to an
: illness (despite Mr. Berkman's recent accusation that the use of dice is
: an 'addiction'). The analogy is meant to demonstrate that is is possible
: to hold a valid opinion about something without ever having directly
: experienced it, if the person holding the opinion has a clear enough idea
: of exactly what that thing is.
I perfectly understood the meaning of the analogy, thank you. But the
reason why I think that it is flawed is that it is sometimes possible
to give a qualified opinion without having experienced something,
whereas in other cases you can't. Mr. Sones chose an example of the
former category as a way to prove something for the latter case; and
that's why I say that his analogy is flawed.
: Now, if you want to make the claim that it
: is *not* possible to have a clear idea of what diceless gaming is without
: actually trying it, then what are you and Mr. Berkman doing posting all
: these lengthy explanations?
I do not know about David, but you may have noticed that most of my
posts revolved around problems I perceive with diced resolution, a
subject all readers of this group should be familiar with. And of
course it's also fun to theorize about things even if you don't have
intimate knowledge. What is no fun is having to say over and over
things like "No, it is not only GM whim. No, it is not about forcing a
plot down the players' throats." Etc.
; Anyway, those of us who still prefer dice
: argue that we *have* had enough exposure to diceless gaming (by virtue of
: the undisputed necessity of some diceless resolution even in games with
: dice) to form a valid opinion about whether *we* would like to go totally
: diceless or not.
I would certainly respect this opinion, if diceless games were always
just like diced games with the dice taken away. Point is, they are not.
The phrase 'paradigm shift' comes to mind.
Reimer Behrends
Andrew Finch
: : Oh, I didn't know we had a point of contention.
: Arg! Men! You never pay attention.
: DICE. Our point of contention is DICE.
It would be DICE then. Not a nice game of chess. Not a little getting to
know one another first. No romance. Just straight to the DICE. I feel used.
: If acid is what it takes, then we are never going to agree: I confine
: my recreational drug use to alcohol (in the form of good wine or
: beer), caffine (in the form of tea or Dr. Pepper), and chocolate (in
: any form).
I do too, except for the occasional side trip (oh no man, not the red ones).
: And I don't know how to cope with your rampant disregard for logic.
Get used to it. Not everything is logical.
: The fact that I can get around town better (in some ways) in a car
: than in a bus does not mean I _can't_ get around town in a bus. The
: fact that you can do some things better (in some ways) in a diceless
: system does not mean that you _can't_ do them in a diced system. Why
: is this so difficult for you?
I think we are in the process of that explanation.
: : Even worse, an insane psychologist. Ahahahahahah!!!!
: Lovesick. Deeply and incurable lovesick.
Is that an expert prognosis doctor?
**********************************************************
: : You could think that, but you would be wrong. Honestly, if what you
: : desire is the possibility of meaningless death, I would give that to you.
: : I respect you that much.
: Gee, that's so sweet of you. Seriously, thank you. (I think.) (I
: just thank God I'll never have to explain this conversiontion to my
: mother.)
: As one GM to another, how do you manage this without derailing your
: plot?
I make plots that demand death. We can give you love and blood without
the rhetoric. Or rhetoric and blood without the love. Or love and
rhetoric and blood, all three simultaneously, or in sequence. But we can
not give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood, you see, is
mandatory.
I made the mistake of designing such a plot and running it as a con game,
and realized too late. It was called Death in DisneyNet. It's bad form to
kill the players one by one in a con game, because then they've paid to
sit on their thumbs. So I had to redesign as I went, and things went well
enough, but it wasn't what I wanted. I learned not to do that at cons.
I plan to run a group of scientists in a Sci Fi game. They go to map out
a new planet. They have a cadre of marines along as well, and I'll have
the players make up the marines, and each take one, as secondary
charcters. Then, at Plot Turn 1, I'll start killing the scientists. When
the players get their first gimplse of the Aliens (yes, from the movie),
I'll tell them to switch primary and secondary characters. They now play
a cadre of marines, trying to protect a bunch of sccientists long enough
to get picked up, alive. Instant secondary characters to kill off, to
buffer the game a bit and make it last. Secondary characters the players
designed, played, and got to know well, before I murder them one by one.
I think it's a great idea.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
: Actually, I think you are probably right. I adopted the assumption
: because it made for easier syntax. If you like, we can mentally add
: the phrase "without loss of generality" to my statement.
That's fine. We agree enough then, which is all we need.
: : well, the design of the character pre-exists, and your actions create
: : that character. Good roleplay means creating a charcter which matches
: : your intentions.
: Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with this. I'll think it over, and in the
: meantime let it stand for arguement's sake.
O.K.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
: : Give me a better answer. You've failed to define 'story'. Is a plot just
: : any sequence of events? Is, 'I got some money, and went down to the
: : store, and bought some milk, and came home' a story? And if so, does that
: : sequence of events define a plot? If not, what is missing?
: If you wanted a *$#!@! definition for 'story' why didn't you ask for
: it first?
I did. We're just forming communal definitions. Some cross-talk is
inevitable.
: And would you mind very much telling me which of the above questions
: you want me to answer, because I don't have time (or patience) to
: answer them all?
What is missing to make it a story?
: : Second question, does the above 'milk buying' story give us any
: : indication of character? If we wanted to know something about the
: : character, what would have to happen to the story? And would those
: : changes to the story have anything in common with a better definiton of
: : 'plot'?
: That is your FIFTH question, not your second one, and it'll have to
: wait in line with the others.
O.K. But that second set of questions is important.
: <sigh> I'll be back later, with another definition of plot.
I'll just wait here then, shall I?
David
nancy sauer
Having had time to reflect, I have adopted the following positions:
_Plot_ is the plan or outline of a story.
_Story_ is the account of events in the life of a character or
character, real or imagined.
The relation of plot to story is analagous to the relationship of the
skeleton to the human body. Story needs plot for structure, but it
also needs character(s) and background in order to be complete.
As a concrete example, I offer to you the movie _Under Siege_, which
David B has admitted seeing. (I personally thought it was a great
flick, but I have a weakness for action/adventure movies.) The plot of
this movie can be summed up as "Heroic navy-type struggles to prevent
a group of terrorists out to make a buck from stealing something from
his ship."
In _Under Siege_ the heroic navy-type was a US Navy SEAL (can't
remember the character's name) and the background was a USN
battleship. (Can't remember the ship's name either. Embarasssing)
However, there was a Star Trek:Next Gen episode that had the _exact_
same plot. (No, I don't remember the title. What did you expect?)
In this case the navy-type was Capt. Picard and the background was
the Starship Enterprise.
Here then, we have the same plot but two different stories. The
stories differ because of the characters and backgounds combine to
give different events in the course of fufilling the plot.
Is this better?
Jeff Stehman
>I make plots that demand death. We can give you love and blood without
>the rhetoric. Or rhetoric and blood without the love. Or love and
>rhetoric and blood, all three simultaneously, or in sequence. But we can
>not give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood, you see, is
>mandatory.
Hey, hey, hey, David, attribute your quotes, please. Particularly to the
good ones.
--
Jeff Stehman Senior Systems Administrator
ste...@southwind.net SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
voice: (316)263-7963 Wichita, KS
Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce URL: http://www.southwind.net/ict
Andrew Finch
: Having had time to reflect, I have adopted the following positions:
: _Plot_ is the plan or outline of a story.
[Snip]
: Here then, we have the same plot but two different stories. The
: stories differ because of the characters and backgounds combine to
: give different events in the course of fufilling the plot.
: Is this better?
Closer, but not quite.
I'm not sure we have the same plot in those two cases because I
haven't seen that Star Trek episode. I would say that we might have the
same plot in two different genres, as in the case with Yojimbo and The
Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
So, my next question is, if plot is the plan or outline of a story, is
'She goes down to the store, gives a man some money for milk, gets the
milk, and goes home' a plot?
If not, what is missing?
David
PS - I loved Under Seige as well.
Andrew Finch
: bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
: >I make plots that demand death. We can give you love and blood without
: >the rhetoric. Or rhetoric and blood without the love. Or love and
: >rhetoric and blood, all three simultaneously, or in sequence. But we can
: >not give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood, you see, is
: >mandatory.
: Hey, hey, hey, David, attribute your quotes, please. Particularly to the
: good ones.
I assumed the person I was speaking with would know. If not, she should
go and find out.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
David
Peter Timothy Jackson
In article <17342145F...@UConnVM.UConn.Edu>, US...@UConnVM.UConn.Edu writes...
>It is probably more meaningful to describe the systems in philosophical
>terms. The logic which drives a diced game world is one which ascribes a
>great deal of importance to chance. Things do not always happen for a
This is not true for me. For me the dice represent the unknown but potentially
knowable factors that affect the outcome of actions.
Peter
Alternative email address - p...@uvo.dec.com
BE3_038
> : > Now the trickier question, assuming you agree with the above statements.
> : >
> : > What is a plot?
>
> : Good luck on defining that one Nancy (or rather on defending whatever
> : definition you come up with).
Hey, since you are the one eschewing random events, and using the plot, the whole plot,
and nothing but the plot, shouldn't you be the one who gets to define it?
The major problem I have in diceless is that it is too easy for the GM. All he has to do is
write a script, and then tell the players why any action they come up with that isn't in the
script has failed. The system must be entirely logic based - strong person beats weak person
***every time***, and so the players know that there is no point risking all on a million to one
shot, becuase it won't ever come off. (or if it does, its because the ref had already decided it
would.) I'm not saying this isn't fun and enjoyable, (I have played such stuff and enjoyed it immensely)
but if all actions are pre-ordained, why not just read a book?
Whereas in a diced system, if a desperate player makes a last ditch attempt to save the world,
and knows damn well he needs to roll 5 or less on a percentile, there is true tension in the air.
And imagine the celebrations that occur if he makes it!
OK, I'm being a little harsher than necessary on diceless. But I never could shake that feeling when
I was playing that as long as I continued to roleplay properly, everthing would happen in its correct and
pre-ordained manner. Whereas with dice, you can always expect the unexpected.
The best sysem I have see at the moment is the Castle Falkenstien game. Here the player
plays a playing card from his hand of four, adds his skill level to the face value, and compares it to the
difficulty of the task. The twist is that the ref can also play a card from his hand to increase the
difficulty. Since both the ref and player choose, its not as random. But because the hand of four cards
that he has to choose from IS random, the success or failure is not pre-ordained.
Shaun, Portsmouth, England
"The only thing wrong with existance is the kind of people it attracts."
A Lapalme
> Having had time to reflect, I have adopted the following positions:
>
> _Plot_ is the plan or outline of a story.
>
> _Story_ is the account of events in the life of a character or
> character, real or imagined.
Your a brave woman nancy! Now you have to defend this position.
>
> The relation of plot to story is analagous to the relationship of the
> skeleton to the human body. Story needs plot for structure, but it
> also needs character(s) and background in order to be complete.
>
> As a concrete example, I offer to you the movie _Under Siege_, which
> David B has admitted seeing. (I personally thought it was a great
> flick, but I have a weakness for action/adventure movies.) The plot of
> this movie can be summed up as "Heroic navy-type struggles to prevent
> a group of terrorists out to make a buck from stealing something from
> his ship."
>
> In _Under Siege_ the heroic navy-type was a US Navy SEAL (can't
> remember the character's name) and the background was a USN
> battleship. (Can't remember the ship's name either. Embarasssing)
>
> However, there was a Star Trek:Next Gen episode that had the _exact_
> same plot. (No, I don't remember the title. What did you expect?)
> In this case the navy-type was Capt. Picard and the background was
> the Starship Enterprise.
>
> Here then, we have the same plot but two different stories. The
> stories differ because of the characters and backgounds combine to
> give different events in the course of fufilling the plot.
>
If you define the plot as the outline or plan of the story, (which you do
at the beginning of this post), then, for two things to have the same
plot, they should have the same plan (ie A, then B then C then D,etc).
Now, I haven't either of the above examples (well I might have seen the
TNG episode but I can't remember it) but, if the two things have the same
plot, the story should be very similar in terms of how it moves along. How
the character react and how to add or take away from the story would be
different, though.
Naturally, this assumes I understood what you said.
Alain
Andrew Finch
: The point of contention is *your* statement that you've heard 'arguments
: against diceless play' - a statement which you *snipped* when posting the
: question above. Now, why did you snip that if not to hide the fact that
: you said something goofy? Just curious.
I did it to make you confused, and now you've fallen into my carefully
laid trap.
: Or maybe it's because she has the *ability* to do X with dice, and you
: never did, leaving you with an impression that the dice were responsible
: when in fact it was your own inability.
Maybe you're just so peeved over this whole thread that you can't see
straight, so you have a hard time figuring out what's going on in these
posts. So far, I think we're having a nice conversation, so keep the tone
down.
: I'm wondering whether you're suggesting that drug use is vital to an
: understanding of your viewpoint.
Suggesting, yes, as long as your an adult with an open mind, are careful
with your bod, and increase the dosages slowly.
David
Jeff
: Jeff (gaun...@bga.com) wrote:
: : Or maybe it's because she has the *ability* to do X with dice, and you
: : never did, leaving you with an impression that the dice were responsible
: : when in fact it was your own inability.
: Maybe you're just so peeved over this whole thread that you can't see
: straight, so you have a hard time figuring out what's going on in these
: posts. So far, I think we're having a nice conversation, so keep the tone
: down.
How about commenting on my statement, instead of trying to change the
subject?
: : I'm wondering whether you're suggesting that drug use is vital to an
: : understanding of your viewpoint.
: Suggesting, yes, as long as your an adult with an open mind, are careful
: with your bod, and increase the dosages slowly.
I think a disclaimer to that effect, printed on the back cover of your
game, might be in order. Something like: 'Theatrix is not a complete
game. Careful drug use is also required'.
nancy sauer
: : DICE. Our point of contention is DICE.
: It would be DICE then. Not a nice game of chess. Not a little getting to
: know one another first. No romance. Just straight to the DICE. I feel used.
How odd. Most men like skipping the romance and getting straight to
the used part. Okay, I'll make it up to you: How about popcorn and
my second favorite thing in the universe?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
: : And I don't know how to cope with your rampant disregard for logic.
: Get used to it. Not everything is logical.
Correct: Not everything is logical. However, matters-of-fact can
be discussed in a logical framework, and you have made statements
about dice in a way that indicates you consider them to be
matters-of-fact. If you wish to reformat your statements as
matters-of-opinion, I will be happy to drop my logic-based objections.
: : fact that you can do some things better (in some ways) in a diceless
: : system does not mean that you _can't_ do them in a diced system. Why
: : is this so difficult for you?
: I think we are in the process of that explanation.
You cannot explain champaigne by comparing it with burgandy.
: : : Even worse, an insane psychologist. Ahahahahahah!!!!
: : Lovesick. Deeply and incurable lovesick.
: Is that an expert prognosis doctor?
If having witnessed numerous instances of friends being smitten by
Cupid and immediatly losing control of their higher mental functions
makes me an expert, then yes.
: **********************************************************
: : : Give me a better answer. You've failed to define 'story'. Is a plot just
: : : any sequence of events? Is, 'I got some money, and went down to the
: : : store, and bought some milk, and came home' a story? And if so, does that
: : : sequence of events define a plot? If not, what is missing?
: : If you wanted a *$#!@! definition for 'story' why didn't you ask for
: : it first?
: I did. We're just forming communal definitions. Some cross-talk is
: inevitable.
Whenever you say something like that I am irrestably reminded of a
used-car salesman. "Just trust me."
: : And would you mind very much telling me which of the above questions
: : you want me to answer, because I don't have time (or patience) to
: : answer them all?
: What is missing to make it a story?
Characters and background.
nancy sauer
: [Snip]
: : Here then, we have the same plot but two different stories. The
: : stories differ because of the characters and backgounds combine to
: : give different events in the course of fufilling the plot.
: : Is this better?
: Closer, but not quite.
: I'm not sure we have the same plot in those two cases because I
: haven't seen that Star Trek episode. I would say that we might have the
: same plot in two different genres, as in the case with Yojimbo and The
: Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
Which, of course, I have not seen.
: So, my next question is, if plot is the plan or outline of a story, is
: 'She goes down to the store, gives a man some money for milk, gets the
: milk, and goes home' a plot?
Under my definition, yes. It is an extremely simple plot, but it is a
plot.
nancy sauer
: : >I make plots that demand death. We can give you love and blood without
[Snip]
: : Hey, hey, hey, David, attribute your quotes, please. Particularly to the
: : good ones.
: I assumed the person I was speaking with would know. If not, she should
: go and find out.
: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
<Sigh> I am familiar with the plot, but have never actually gotten to
see the play. It only shows up in Lincoln when I am supposed to be
out of town with my Girl Scout troop...
Nancy <*>
nancy sauer
: In a previous posting, nancy sauer (nsa...@unlinfo.unl.edu) writes:
: > Having had time to reflect, I have adopted the following positions:
: > _Plot_ is the plan or outline of a story.
: Your a brave woman nancy! Now you have to defend this position.
While _playing_ rpgs I have been forced to issue DIP orders, now I am
forced to carry them out while _arguing_ about rpgs. Poetic justice
rears it's ugly head...
: > The relation of plot to story is analagous to the relationship of the
: > skeleton to the human body. Story needs plot for structure, but it
: > also needs character(s) and background in order to be complete.
: If you define the plot as the outline or plan of the story, (which you do
: at the beginning of this post), then, for two things to have the same
: plot, they should have the same plan (ie A, then B then C then D,etc).
: Now, I haven't either of the above examples (well I might have seen the
: TNG episode but I can't remember it) but, if the two things have the same
: plot, the story should be very similar in terms of how it moves along. How
: the character react and how to add or take away from the story would be
: different, though.
: Naturally, this assumes I understood what you said.
I'm not sure you did, though it's hard for me to tell from your post.
When I think of the plot of a story, I think generally of something
without a lot of detail. (If it has a lot of detail, it becomes a
summary.) Plot is literally the "bare bones" of a story, hence my
skeleton analogy. When you start talking about scenes and events, you
are adding muscle and ligaments.
Your A-B-C-D comment makes me suspect you are thinking of something
like a computer program, which isn't what I have in mind at all.
Does this help?
MATOC...@news.delphi.com
>Andrew Finch (bcks...@crl.com) wrote:
>: nancy sauer (nsa...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
>: [Snip]
{SNIP!}
>: So, my next question is, if plot is the plan or outline of a story, is
>: 'She goes down to the store, gives a man some money for milk, gets the
>: milk, and goes home' a plot?
>Under my definition, yes. It is an extremely simple plot, but it is a
>plot.
Umm, OK, delurking for a minute here with an interjection: If plot is
the simple sequence of what happens in a game/movie/book/what have you,
and story includes auxiliary elements such as motivation, character, an
exploration of consequnces, what have you... is there any place in role
playing for a serious exploration of theme: morality, reasoning, the
meaning of life, whatever you want to call it?
Actually, I'd also quibble the basic point a little. Plot is not the
sequence of events. The sequence of events is the story. The plot is
merely the basic conflict: if you have no conflict, you have no plot.
It can be a very subtle conflict (do I remain my own person or conform to
society?) or whatever: someone once said that there are only 36 basic
plots,m with *numerous* variations.
Story is the sequence of events.
A good game or book is made up of :
Plot, Story. Theme, Character, Symbolism. (Symbolism may be a subset of
theme.)
Of these, four are the GM's job. One is the player's.
A dungeon crawl has not plot. (We go into the dungeon and bash the
monsters.) (Well, what's the conflict? Uh, we wanted money? OK, so
maybe, if you stretch it, it might be plot. I'd call it a story.)
-Little Bear
A Lapalme
>
> : > The relation of plot to story is analagous to the relationship of the
> : > also needs character(s) and background in order to be complete.
>
> : at the beginning of this post), then, for two things to have the same
> : plot, they should have the same plan (ie A, then B then C then D,etc).
> : Now, I haven't either of the above examples (well I might have seen the
> : TNG episode but I can't remember it) but, if the two things have the same
> : plot, the story should be very similar in terms of how it moves along. How
> : the character react and how to add or take away from the story would be
> : different, though.
>
> : Naturally, this assumes I understood what you said.
>
>
>
> When I think of the plot of a story, I think generally of something
> without a lot of detail. (If it has a lot of detail, it becomes a
> summary.) Plot is literally the "bare bones" of a story, hence my
> skeleton analogy. When you start talking about scenes and events, you
> are adding muscle and ligaments.
>
> Your A-B-C-D comment makes me suspect you are thinking of something
> like a computer program, which isn't what I have in mind at all.
No I wasn't. I was thinking more in terms of the plan you originally
talked about. When I think plan, I think details. So, if you say that a
plot is the plan of the story, then I visualize the plot as being very
detailed. We could be getting stuck on definitions here.
However, I agree with the skeleton analogy. I might have got sidetracked
with the plan part.
>
> Does this help?
>
I hope so.
Alain
US...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
just did not realize it. Both methods have inherents problems which the
other does not- preferrence is merely a matter of which problems you would
rather have to deal with.
Although I still disagree about the "levels of success/failure" matter.
I agree that GMs are better at generating story devices, which is why I
try to disassociate their generation with dice. Dice generate an abstract
figure which represents how well the character succeeded (or failed), but
the GM must put that into context. If a character rolls a "Marginal Success,"
while jumping across your pit/chasm, I can think of many possible outcomes
off the top of my head. I choose one- yes, arbitrarily. However, my result
must have continuity with the game world, and regardless of its specifics
it must be definable as a "Marginal Success."
The Theatrix flowcharts are more limiting. You are confined to thirty basic,
preconceived results which do little justice to the variety of possibilities.
Excepting the basic difference that Theatrix decisions are determined by the
needs of the plot rather than by skill and circumstance, they almost exactly
resemble the charts in RoleMaster. I dislike them for the same reasons.
I prefer my mechanics to provide a more abstract result- a simple indicator
of success/failure/magnitude- and leave the interpretation to me. Is this
a perfect simulation? No. No game is. I like it, though. The GM can't think
of everything, and a little probability accounts for all of those factors
which are unknowable and might as well be random.
I have not played Theatrix yet (read the rules, though). I can see the
flowcharts being problematical- threading through them constantly is very
RoleMaster-esque (I tend to despise charts on general principles). I will
try to use them when we playtest, despite the fact that I do not see what
they provide that common sense does not (given that your adjudications are
plot-based, I think a GM could come up with results just as appropriate, and
faster, without using the charts).
There are other things which I like and dislike about the system, but I will
save them for my review.
Benjamin E. Sones---> KRF9...@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU
Andrew Finch
: : It would be DICE then. Not a nice game of chess. Not a little getting to
: : know one another first. No romance. Just straight to the DICE. I feel used.
: How odd. Most men like skipping the romance and getting straight to
: the used part. Okay, I'll make it up to you: How about popcorn and
: my second favorite thing in the universe?
If we are watching the same TV shows, then I accept.
: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
: Correct: Not everything is logical. However, matters-of-fact can
: be discussed in a logical framework, and you have made statements
: about dice in a way that indicates you consider them to be
: matters-of-fact. If you wish to reformat your statements as
: matters-of-opinion, I will be happy to drop my logic-based objections.
Naw, that would be no fun. How about if I assure you that there is some
method to my madness, and you keep being the way you are.
: : I think we are in the process of that explanation.
: You cannot explain champaigne by comparing it with burgandy.
I diesagree, but in this case you have admitted to not being a champaigne
drinker, and all I have is this poor bottle of burgandy, so I am forced to
go the long way around, but the scenery is always better this way.
: : : Lovesick. Deeply and incurable lovesick.
: : Is that an expert prognosis doctor?
: If having witnessed numerous instances of friends being smitten by
: Cupid and immediatly losing control of their higher mental functions
: makes me an expert, then yes.
Well, then you are an expert. I would get a second opinion, but I'm not
sure who to ask?
: : **********************************************************
: : I did. We're just forming communal definitions. Some cross-talk is
: : inevitable.
: Whenever you say something like that I am irrestably reminded of a
: used-car salesman. "Just trust me."
Like a used car salesman, trust is all I'm selling really.
: : : And would you mind very much telling me which of the above questions
: : : you want me to answer, because I don't have time (or patience) to
: : : answer them all?
: : What is missing to make it a story?
: Characters and background.
I agree with the character part. What do you mean by background?
David
Andrew Finch
: : Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
: <Sigh> I am familiar with the plot, but have never actually gotten to
: see the play. It only shows up in Lincoln when I am supposed to be
: out of town with my Girl Scout troop...
Hey, now you didn't say you were a Girl Scout. I always love a woman in
uniform.
David
nancy sauer
: nsa...@unlinfo.unl.edu (nancy sauer) writes:
: Umm, OK, delurking for a minute here with an interjection: If plot is
: the simple sequence of what happens in a game/movie/book/what have you,
: and story includes auxiliary elements such as motivation, character, an
: exploration of consequnces, what have you... is there any place in role
: playing for a serious exploration of theme: morality, reasoning, the
: meaning of life, whatever you want to call it?
Yes, absolutely. However (in my current working model) these things
arise out of the interaction of the character(s) with their
enviroment.
: Actually, I'd also quibble the basic point a little. Plot is not the
: sequence of events. The sequence of events is the story. The plot is
: merely the basic conflict: if you have no conflict, you have no plot.
I disagree with the identification of plot with conflict. As you
undoubtably remember from your junior high lit classes, there are only
three kinds of conflict: Man Against Man, Man Against Nature, and Man
Against Himself. Both _Under Siege_ and _The Princess Bride_ have the
conflict Man Against Man, but they have VERY different plots.
As for needing conflict for plot, I'm not sure of this either. A
friend of mine claims that the Gilbert&Sullivan operetta _The
Godoliers_(sp?) has *no* conflict in it at all. I haven't seen it
myself, so I'm taking her word for it, but I would believe it of G&S.
Now, conflict may be necessary for an interesting plot, but that is a
different issue.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
: someone once said that there are only 36 basic
: plots,m with *numerous* variations.
Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. How could
this be proved?
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
: A good game or book is made up of :
: Plot, Story. Theme, Character, Symbolism. (Symbolism may be a subset of
: theme.)
Hmmm. Interesting. What is Theme, and why is it necessary for a good
game?
: A dungeon crawl has not plot. (We go into the dungeon and bash the
: monsters.) (Well, what's the conflict? Uh, we wanted money? OK, so
: maybe, if you stretch it, it might be plot. I'd call it a story.)
Until we agree to definitions of 'plot' and 'story' I can't even begin
to discuss this. Stay tuned! :)
nancy sauer
: : Okay, I'll make it up to you: How about popcorn and
: : my second favorite thing in the universe?
: If we are watching the same TV shows, then I accept.
<grin> I thought you would probably be a fellow devotee...
: : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
: : : What is missing to make it a story?
: : Characters and background.
: I agree with the character part. What do you mean by background?
Background is where the characters are, the world they inhabit. In
this concept I include not only the _physical_ properties of the world
(whether it is mundane, s-f, fantasy, etc) but also it's mood or
tone--it's zeitgeist, if you will.
Background serves to define the choices that the characters can make
in response to the events in the plot. It can also be interesting in
and of itself: the plot and characters of the book _Five Twelves of
Heaven_ by Melissa Scott aren't earth-shatteringly original, but the
universe she sets it in is endlessly fascinating. (It would make,IMO,
a really good background for an RPG, if anyone is listening.)