Philosophies of Roleplaying & Design
Dave Nalle
and of roleplaying game design are. It seems like more and more the
dividing line between games is drawn on a purely philosophical level,
where players rule out certain games because they include a class of
mechanics or way of doing things which they find to be contrary to the way
that they believe roleplaying games should be done.
I've got a feeling that these divisions can be identified almost like
schools of philosophy or even political parties. Maybe if we can pin them
down, describe them and name them we could come closer to understanding
why people have such different interpretations of the term 'roleplaying'.
To that end, I'd like to lay out what I consider to be some of the main
branches of contemporary roleplaying and see what people can add to the
list or do to improve it.
Troupe-Style
Roleplaying where the interests of a group of characters are placed
ahead of the interests of individual characters. Sort of a socialist
approach to roleplaying.
Storytelling
Roleplaying where the advancement of the story is placed ahead of the
interests of characters as a group or as individuals. Not sure what the
political parallel would be, because I hesitate to say fascist.
Character-Oriented
Roleplaying where the development and 'realization' of character
personality and character interests is put ahead of story and group
success. Sort of a libertarian appraoch.
Goal-Oriented
Roleplaying where the achievement of goals and the acquisition of
material success are more important than achieving more abstract qualities
such as character realization, advancement of the story or party unity. I
might call this capitalist roleplaying.
Portrayal
Roleplaying where the highest emphasis is on portraying the character
and being 'in' character during play, rather than on dealing with the
character and game events on a more intellectual level. Can't think of a
political or philosophical equivalent.
Tactical
Roleplaying where the main interest is in action and solving problems
associated with combat and crisis situations. No political or
philosophical equivalent.
Game-Oriented
Roleplaying where solving puzzles and dealing with situations is of
primary importance.
There are probably more approaches (suggest some), and most campaigns
probably share elements of more than one of these styles. I also think
the last two might be sub-sets of the goal-oriented appraoch, or at least
those three seem to go together a lot.
All of these things are part of roleplaying. Your philosophy is
determined by which of them you choose to emphasize the most. I'd be
interested to see how people value each of these aspects of the game and
even how they would rate them relative to each other.
My ranking would be:
Character
Storytelling
(big gap)
Portrayal
Tactical
Troupe
Goal
Game
I imagine that game systems could also be classified this way. What I
would probaby do to classify them is pick 2 or 3 of these styles which
seem to be most present. Maybe we could even come up with a ratings
system.
Just musing...
Dave
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
I think yuor approach is only going to net a dictionary of industry buz
words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
than that.
Side 1 Side 2
______________ ______________
Romantic Realist
Mystic Dogmatic
Existential Logical Positivist
Humanist Scientist
Subjective Objective
Phenomenology Theophagy
Sometimes these two sides are at war with each other, as in Vampire,
sometimes a game is completely one sided, as in D&D (side 2 game), or
Amber (side 1). Sometimes only one side is used, but in attempt to find
the other, as with Hero (side 2 looking for side 1).
We are just starting to se a whole bunch of side 2 games hitting the
market, and there will be more. I think the philosophical differences
are both healthy, and here to stay, and a sign of a broadening market.
David
Bryan Maloney
>Storytelling
> Roleplaying where the advancement of the story is placed ahead of the
>interests of characters as a group or as individuals. Not sure what the
>political parallel would be, because I hesitate to say fascist.
I don't hesitate at all. FASCIST! FASCIST! FASCIST!
>Portrayal
> Roleplaying where the highest emphasis is on portraying the character
>and being 'in' character during play, rather than on dealing with the
>character and game events on a more intellectual level. Can't think of a
>political or philosophical equivalent.
Narcissism
>Tactical
> Roleplaying where the main interest is in action and solving problems
>associated with combat and crisis situations. No political or
>philosophical equivalent.
Technocracy
>Game-Oriented
> Roleplaying where solving puzzles and dealing with situations is of
>primary importance.
Joe Six-Pack (Where's that damned remote?)
Bryan Maloney
>I think yuor approach is only going to net a dictionary of industry buz
>words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
>than that.
Dichotomism Non-dichotomism
Ponder...
Dave Nalle
> Side 1 Side 2
> ______________ ______________
> Romantic Realist
> Mystic Dogmatic
> Existential Logical Positivist
> Humanist Scientist
> Subjective Objective
> Phenomenology Theophagy
I'm working up a more substantive response, but I would like you to
tell me about the Theophagic games you've seen. It's a new one on me.
Dave
Kevin Mowery
[Ponderings about how important classifying roleplaying styles might be]
: Troupe-Style
: Roleplaying where the interests of a group of characters are placed
: ahead of the interests of individual characters. Sort of a socialist
: approach to roleplaying.
I'd say that the approach isn't anything like that, from
experiencing Troupe-style in Ars Magica. It's more of an ensemble cast
approach. This week you might focus on this character, next week the game
might focus on that character. Like a lot of TV shows.
: Storytelling
: Roleplaying where the advancement of the story is placed ahead of the
: interests of characters as a group or as individuals. Not sure what the
: political parallel would be, because I hesitate to say fascist.
I think that you're thinking of "Railroading". A friend and I
were discussing something like this and we agreed that the story *is* the
thing. However, *the* story is different from *your* story, where you are
the GM. *The* story is a joint effort.
: Goal-Oriented
: Roleplaying where the achievement of goals and the acquisition of
: material success are more important than achieving more abstract qualities
: such as character realization, advancement of the story or party unity. I
: might call this capitalist roleplaying.
A campaign can be very goal-oriented and focus on character
realization. The goals *could* be the goals of the character, not of the GM.
[a bunch of other suggested styles deleted]
I think that you were trying too hard to link gaming philophies to
political philosophies (and making some very nasty conclusions about
certain roleplaying styles along the way, IMHO). A few of the styles I
deleted to save space didn't really have political equivalents.
--
Kevin Mowery --- kemo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This calls for a special blend of psychology and extreme violence."
--Vyvyan, "The Young Ones"
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> Dave Nalle (d...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
|>
|> [Snip]
|>
|> words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
|> than that.
|>
|>
|> ______________ ______________
|> Romantic Realist
|> Mystic Dogmatic
|> Existential Logical Positivist
|> Humanist Scientist
|> Subjective Objective
|> Phenomenology Theophagy
What does theophagy mean? My dictionary failed to list it. Also, I
would have put phemomenolgy on the other side, but I'll wait until
you tell me what theophagy means until I decide.
|> Sometimes these two sides are at war with each other, as in Vampire,
|> sometimes a game is completely one sided, as in D&D (side 2 game), or
|> Amber (side 1). Sometimes only one side is used, but in attempt to find
|> the other, as with Hero (side 2 looking for side 1).
Also, I don't belive you have listed a single side 2 game.
D&D -- not realistic, and makes no effort towards realism, so is
neither positivistic nor scientific.
Hero -- Definitely a humanistic game. It uses a couple of uniform
mechanics at the expense of realism, which makes it humanistic, since
after all, uniform mechanics are easy on the central figures of the
game, us humans. Also, it tries hard to do everything well, which
is a romantic goal if I ever heard of one.
(Why yes, my tongue is in my cheek. How could you tell? Seriously,
I can't see how your division divides anything.)
Neel
Dave Nalle
(Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote:
> What does theophagy mean? My dictionary failed to list it. Also, I
> would have put phemomenolgy on the other side, but I'll wait until
> you tell me what theophagy means until I decide.
It means god-eating...and even more than these other terms it makes very
little sense. I think if we're going to define roleplaying philosophies
it would be helpful to use terms which people can relate to.
Dave
Andrew Finch
: >I think yuor approach is only going to net a dictionary of industry buz
: >words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
: >than that.
: Dichotomism Non-dichotomism
That's actually:
Non-dichotomy Dichotomy
Logical positivist, objective outlooks are base on dichotomies.
Existential, subjective outlooks don't make dichotomies, which are
all resolved in the unity of self and other.
David
MCV Fenderson
: Dave Nalle (d...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
: : Goal-Oriented
: : Roleplaying where the achievement of goals and the acquisition of
: : material success are more important than achieving more abstract qualities
: : such as character realization, advancement of the story or party unity. I
: : might call this capitalist roleplaying.
: A campaign can be very goal-oriented and focus on character
: realization. The goals *could* be the goals of the character, not of the GM.
I think he was more talking about _Player_ goals than about
_Character_ goals. Think of munchkins who want to make their characters
as powerful and wealthy as possible.
: [a bunch of other suggested styles deleted]
: I think that you were trying too hard to link gaming philophies to
: political philosophies (and making some very nasty conclusions about
: certain roleplaying styles along the way, IMHO).
It looks like in games I'm a narcisist libertarian, while in RL
politics (poly-ticks) I'm an environmentalist/socialist/liberal
(I don't know which of the many definitions of 'liberal', though.
The European definition differs from the American definition, and
both differ from the original definition. My main problem with the Dutch
liberals is that they're liberal when they shouldn't, and not liberal
when they should be; conservative when progressive is better, and
progressive when doing so would destroy beautiful old stuff.
But enough of politics.)
<suffering from a major identity crisis>
Regards,
mcv. <><
Kevin R. Hardwick
I rather suspect that David used the term as a kind of intellectual
short-hand for a complex of values and assumptions. That said, I have to
confess that I am at a loss to identify them--are you referring to Nietzsche?
Best,
Kevin
Francis P. Hwang
> I think yuor approach is only going to net a dictionary of industry buz
> words. The real philosophical differences are more fundamental, and older
> than that.
>
>
> Side 1 Side 2
> ______________ ______________
> Romantic Realist
> Mystic Dogmatic
> Existential Logical Positivist
> Humanist Scientist
> Subjective Objective
> Phenomenology Theophagy
>
> Sometimes these two sides are at war with each other, as in Vampire,
> sometimes a game is completely one sided, as in D&D (side 2 game), or
> Amber (side 1). Sometimes only one side is used, but in attempt to find
> the other, as with Hero (side 2 looking for side 1).
>
> We are just starting to se a whole bunch of side 2 games hitting the
> market, and there will be more. I think the philosophical differences
> are both healthy, and here to stay, and a sign of a broadening market.
Could you explain this a little more in depth? I can't see what this
has to do with RPG system design.
In article <3pdrc8$b...@crl4.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) wrote:
> Bryan Maloney (bj...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> : Dichotomism Non-dichotomism
>
> That's actually:
>
> Non-dichotomy Dichotomy
>
>
> Logical positivist, objective outlooks are base on dichotomies.
>
> Existential, subjective outlooks don't make dichotomies, which are
> all resolved in the unity of self and other.
I think he was making a joke about the very idea of classifying RPG
system design by dichotomy. Not adding to your dichotomies, just adding
his own meta-dichotomy.
--
Francis Hwang
Editor, The Idolum Quarterly
hwan...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Andrew Finch
: I rather suspect that David used the term as a kind of intellectual
: short-hand for a complex of values and assumptions. That said, I have to
: confess that I am at a loss to identify them--are you referring to Nietzsche?
Actually, I was referring to the Eucharist. Phenomenology is the study of
existence as the product of sense experience, where the 'other' is a black
box. The Eucharist is a denial of the subjective (it was a *metaphor* for
the act of betrayal and martyrdom, not an endorsement for cannibalism) in
a demand for a true, external, rock to reach out and hold on to.
Phenomenology is the study of God in the self, the Eucharist is an act of
God as other.
David
Andrew Finch
: > Side 1 Side 2
: > ______________ ______________
: > Romantic Realist
: > Mystic Dogmatic
: > Existential Logical Positivist
: > Humanist Scientist
: > Subjective Objective
: > Phenomenology Theophagy
: Could you explain this a little more in depth? I can't see what this
: has to do with RPG system design.
Think about the complaints which diced/mechanics advocates level against
diceless play. Think of the arguments which diceless/mechanicless
advocates level against diced play.
Consider that roleplay is a psychic exploration which is only *fun*
because of its potent psychological properties. Even those who demand
that roleplay is *only a game* are immersed in this. A game makes you
feel good by empowering you in a fantasy environment, which is why
roleplay is so strong among adolescent males who have problems finding or
accepting their own power. They are playing with issues like authority,
popularity, empowerment, etc., part harmless fantasy (or probably healthy
when taken with the right perspective), part self-exploration. The
*mature* gamer is in a stage of life and condition where they have
accepted their role of potent adult in charge of ones own life. In which
case those who continue to roleplay do so more for 'the character', ie.
more as self exploration and a healthy play with life possibilities.
RPG rules are written to appeal to a market segment, and aimed at a
particular style of play. A demand for dice and rules to cover any
possibility in which a character might be hurt, to remove the source of
that damage to an objective, external force against which one can battle,
is the adolescent position. At its base is a breach of trust, especially
with authority figures. That's why adolescents make so many demands to be
treated 'fairly'. It's a demand to be treated and respected as powerful,
equal, and important. To be differentiated from 'a child'. You want to
sell to this market, you give good hard rules to adjudicate action,
plenty of power, and an ever increasing and visible rise in power for the
characters. If you can cloak it all in 'adult' values, that's even
better. Goths aren't doing anything adult, they're doing stuff that they
think is adult.
On the other side, a rejection of diced mechanics, hard rules, and the
wargame aspects of RPGs, is a more mature position. It is based in trust,
and in a knowledge of one's own power that's firm enough to be comfortable
in allowing someone else to be 'in control'. The emphasis is placed on
'character', and 'story', and a playful experimentation with life concepts
and ways of being. Incidentally, this ease in passing 'control' and
'power' back and forth, playing in both the dominant and submissive
positions, and being comfortable with both, based upon open communication
and trust, is what makes for really good human relationships. So roleplay
becomes a 'life' play and learning experience, which increases the
enjoyment a lot. Improvisation is then really a natural.
Further, you may come to the conclusion that the real difference between
an adolescent (of any age), and an adult, is that an adolescent has not
yet accepted their own mortality and death. They avoid it, they run from
it, they challenge it, but they haven't accepted it (think of what this
means for relationships, and the ways in which adolescents interact). An
adult has accepted their own mortality as a real and natural process.
They know the basic equality of life, and their power and limits within
it (think of the changes people go through when they have kids, and what
that does for your view of the importance of your own existence).
Now, I wonder why immortal, powerful, darkly sexual Vampires are so
poular. Or Werewolves. Or...
(actually, I think there's a lot of psychdrama potential in WW stuff, and
I like that, and I wish the system backed that aspect up a bit more).
Flame On
David
Bryan Maloney
>That's actually:
>Non-dichotomy Dichotomy
>Logical positivist, objective outlooks are base on dichotomies.
>Existential, subjective outlooks don't make dichotomies, which are
>all resolved in the unity of self and other.
So you've basically identified yourself as a logical positivist, since you
decided to classify all games in terms of a set of dichotomies.
Me, I prefer a more Zen plus Aristotele approach. There is this
"gamishness" that is inherent in all games, but it isn't a reflection of some
kind of _eidos_ of "game", and you understand it better by experiencing it
than by talking about it.
What kinds of games are there? There are no games.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> In article <3pdk0c$9...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, ne...@mit.edu
|> (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) wrote:
|>
|> > What does theophagy mean? My dictionary failed to list it. Also, I
|> > would have put phemomenolgy on the other side, but I'll wait until
|> > you tell me what theophagy means until I decide.
|>
|> It means god-eating...and even more than these other terms it makes very
|> little sense. I think if we're going to define roleplaying philosophies
|> it would be helpful to use terms which people can relate to.
Okay, that makes sense. (I mean the word roots mean what I thought they meant,
not that it makes sense in the list.)
But I guess it does mean old D&D is side 2, since I have participated in
D&D god roasts...(admit it -- you've wiped out D&D pantheons, and enjoyed it)
:)
Neel
Loren Miller
: In article <3pd543$h...@crl5.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
: |> Phenomenology Theophagy
: What does theophagy mean? My dictionary failed to list it. Also, I
Theophagy would mean "eating the gods," and I think that Andrew was
seriously delusional when he typed it in. Perhaps he meant to
contrast phenomenology with plain old *theology*?
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller <lo...@hops.wharton.upenn.edu>
"I don't have to practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of
person I'm preaching to!" The Book of The Subgenius
Kevin R. Hardwick
Thank you--that makes a great deal of sense; I had never thought to think
of phenemonolgy in religious terms, but now that you express it that way,
it makes a great deal of sense.
Just out of curiosity, would you equate logical positivism with
theophagy? Inasmuch as Descarte's philosophy was in part an exercize in
demonstrating the existence of God as the guarantor of objectivity, (and
surely logical positivism is ultimately rooted in Cartesian philosophy)
this makes sense, no?
Thanks again--nice, neat, clean and concise explanation.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Thu, 18 May 1995, Bryan Maloney wrote:
> >That's actually:
>
> >Non-dichotomy Dichotomy
>
> >Logical positivist, objective outlooks are base on dichotomies.
>
> >Existential, subjective outlooks don't make dichotomies, which are
> >all resolved in the unity of self and other.
>
> So you've basically identified yourself as a logical positivist, since you
> decided to classify all games in terms of a set of dichotomies.
I realize you are being playful here, but (sourpuss that I am) your
argument strikes me as something of a non-sequitor. David could, it
strikes me anyway, argue that the two categories require each other in
order to make sense. This kind of deconstructive move priveleges the
whole over its peices, retaining (in David's words) the "unity of self
and other."
Best,
Kevin
Andrew Finch
: I realize you are being playful here, but (sourpuss that I am) your
: argument strikes me as something of a non-sequitor. David could, it
: strikes me anyway, argue that the two categories require each other in
: order to make sense. This kind of deconstructive move priveleges the
: whole over its peices, retaining (in David's words) the "unity of self
: and other."
I would argue as a Buddhist, however, that neither view is correct. There
are most obviously two, and there is most obviously only one. The exitence
is only a reflection of a movement of mind. The question is 'what is the
nature of mind?'. Since I don't believe there is a thinker behind the
thoughts, nor a feeler behind the feelings (none that you can ever find in
any case), then mind must be essentially empty (not empty in the western
sense of the absense of someting, which is a dichotomy, but empty in the
Hindu sense of 'nirvana' - form is emptyness, and emptyness is form). So
when I use the words to describe the difference I'm pointing to, they are
just that, pointers which can never touch the actuallity which is an
existential experience of subjectivity.
David
Charlie Luce
>Think about the complaints which diced/mechanics advocates level against
>diceless play. Think of the arguments which diceless/mechanicless
>advocates level against diced play.
[Argument that diceless=mature not repeated for space reasons]
A very well-written position, which naturally brings out the devil's advocate
in those with a tendency towards debate :-)
Two situations come to mind which do not fit into the general philosophy put
forth in the previous posting.
First is the person whose motivation for running games is because of the
feeling of power over others which the activity gives them. This person is
likely to be an advocate of diceless/mechanicless systems in order to
minimize any adverse impact on their authority. I wonder how many of the
people who are arguing in favor of diceless systems expect to be running the
game, as opposed to playing it?
Second is the person who likes to run games but does not feel qualified to
make every decision in a deterministic fashion, or feels that it is too much
work to do for their hobby. Game mechanics thus function much like
high-level programming languages, simplifying the task of running a game at
the cost of reducing flexibility and adding a layer of abstraction.
Charlie Luce / People's motivations are seldom neatly categorizable]
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: Two situations come to mind which do not fit into the general philosophy put
: forth in the previous posting.
: First is the person whose motivation for running games is because of the
: feeling of power over others which the activity gives them. This person is
: likely to be an advocate of diceless/mechanicless systems in order to
: minimize any adverse impact on their authority.
Sort of. I wasn't referring to the adolescent stance as an unhealthy one,
no matter what it may seem. I think it's perfectly healthy, for
adolescents, and probably necessary.
Their are those who are so socially inept, and so personally needy, that
playing with them is painful (we've all met them, the hobby attracts
them), and a diceless game in these hands will only be another
narcissistic tool, true. Diceless play puts the responsibility for the
game right on the shoulders of the parties involved. If the GM wishes to
hog that power, then the GM had best be either very good, or not mind
players who wish to be used as narcissistic tools. You can spot either
type from a mile away. The inpet ones you avoid like the plague, the
great ones run these fantastic games with 30 players in them.
The best way to use that power, however, is to distribute it, share it,
play with it, etc. In which case the GM will find himself/herself with
less power than is normally granted by a diced game.
: I wonder how many of the
: people who are arguing in favor of diceless systems expect to be running the
: game, as opposed to playing it?
I'm one.
: Second is the person who likes to run games but does not feel qualified to
: make every decision in a deterministic fashion, or feels that it is too much
: work to do for their hobby. Game mechanics thus function much like
: high-level programming languages, simplifying the task of running a game at
: the cost of reducing flexibility and adding a layer of abstraction.
Everyone is qualified. They may not feel qualified, but that's another
empowerment issue. They are.
The second complaint I understand, and it's probably right. I've found
diceless play to be more work, it requires learning new stuff, and
practicing what you've learned to get it right. I don't think it's
easier. For me, the extra effort is worth the results. Others will
obviously disagree.
David
Bryan Maloney
>are most obviously two, and there is most obviously only one. The exitence
>is only a reflection of a movement of mind. The question is 'what is the
>nature of mind?'. Since I don't believe there is a thinker behind the
>thoughts, nor a feeler behind the feelings (none that you can ever find in
>any case), then mind must be essentially empty (not empty in the western
>sense of the absense of someting, which is a dichotomy, but empty in the
>Hindu sense of 'nirvana' - form is emptyness, and emptyness is form). So
>when I use the words to describe the difference I'm pointing to, they are
>just that, pointers which can never touch the actuallity which is an
>existential experience of subjectivity.
NO!
I agree completely.
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 18 May 1995, Charlie Luce wrote:
> [Argument that diceless=mature not repeated for space reasons]
[snip]
> Two situations come to mind which do not fit into the general philosophy put
> forth in the previous posting.
>
> First is the person whose motivation for running games is because of the
> feeling of power over others which the activity gives them. This person is
> likely to be an advocate of diceless/mechanicless systems in order to
> minimize any adverse impact on their authority. I wonder how many of the
> people who are arguing in favor of diceless systems expect to be running the
> game, as opposed to playing it?
Hmm. Having been experimenting with "low dice" resolution methods for
the last several gaming sessions, I have to confess that I do not see how
this could work AND be a fun game for the rest of my troupe if my
authority were not shared.
Charle's point here is similar to a post advanced on a parallel
thread (which I took to be a parody of David Berkman's argument, if a
rather poor one) by Brian Mulroony [sp?]. Unlike what Charles and Brian
suggest (or worry about) I have found that running diceless (or low dice
in my case--in my last game to my knowledge we collectively rolled dice
maybe five times, in a relatively action-dense scene) requires a diffusion
of authorial license--I have to grant my players more power in the game,
not less, in order to make this work. So, while Charles and Brian's
positions may make some intuitive sense, when they comes face to face with
real experience their worries turn out to be unfounded, and their
argument fallacious.
Not every thing that is commensensical is true, Brian--as an empiricist
you of all people should appreciate that. Go read the foundational
philosopher of modern empiricism, David Hume--he can make this case more
elgantly than I can.
At any rate, under this method of RPG, my role as GM devolves much more
to maintaining the setting and the story (which is not a whole lot
different in a situation based plot, what I have earlier called weak
plotting, as in the "strongly" plotted THEATRIX/Syd Field kind of
story.) A great deal of the ajudication of the action is actually done by
the players.
An example:
In our most recent game one character was particularly susceptible to an
infernal influence. Since I know that the player of this character HATES
to lose control of his character, I took him aside early and explained
some of the situation to him. When his character, later in the evening,
entered the situation, I cued him and let HIM decide how to run his
character, given the parameters we had discussed earlier. From my
perspective dice never entered it--I simply described the situation, and
left it to the player work out for himself what was happening and how to
describe it to the rest of the troupe.
With players less resistant to this sort of thing, I don't even have to
have the pregame discussion. The players in this troupe thrive on this
kind of decision--with this group of players, for me to implement the full
set of mechanics at our disposal (in this case Ars Magica) would just get
in the way of the story, the role playing, the action, the drama, and
ultimately the game. They are there if we need them, but I can count on
my fingers the number of times we have collectively needed them.
Best,
Kevin
Carl Perkins
}In article <3pd543$h...@crl5.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) wrote:
}> Side 1 Side 2
}> ______________ ______________
}> Romantic Realist
}> Mystic Dogmatic
}> Existential Logical Positivist
}> Humanist Scientist
}> Subjective Objective
}> Phenomenology Theophagy
}>
}>
}> Non-dichotomy Dichotomy
}>
}
}system design by dichotomy. Not adding to your dichotomies, just adding
}his own meta-dichotomy.
}--
}Francis Hwang
Or, for the dichotomy-imparied:
"There are two kinds of people, those who divide things into two groups and
those who don't."
--- Carl
Carl Perkins
}wargame aspects of RPGs, is a more mature position.
}
Which is, of course, nonsense.
You like to play that way, therfore you think it is more mature. How mature
is going around saying "I am more mature than all you adolescents"? Then
again, it might have something to do with your selling a game that is
diceless...
Dice have nothing to do with maturity. Ranting, on the other hand does -
at least with the lack thereof.
--- Carl
Charles M Seaton
: Francis P. Hwang (hwan...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: : > Side 1 Side 2
: : > ______________ ______________
: : > Romantic Realist
: : > Mystic Dogmatic
: : > Existential Logical Positivist
: : > Humanist Scientist
: : > Subjective Objective
: : > Phenomenology Theophagy
: : Could you explain this a little more in depth? I can't see what this
: : has to do with RPG system design.
: Think about the complaints which diced/mechanics advocates level against
: diceless play.
Okay. Let's see. They say that diceless play is "unfair."
That it disempowers the individual player in favor of communal
goals. That it is biased, and therefore less simulationist. That
it is linked to pre-destined plot lines and a corresponding lack of
individual free will.
Oh, dear. So that means that the anti-diceless folk are
Romantic, Humanist, Realist, and Objective, yes?
: Think of the arguments which diceless/mechanicless
: advocates level against diced play.
They say that diced play is "unrealistic," because it
divides human capabilities into artificially distinct quantified
units, and because the probability curves utilized by the diced
systems are skewed. They say that it disempowers the individual
player in favor of communal goals, by disallowing free character
generation in the name of system and by removing resolution from the
hands of the participants of the game. They say that it is biased,
and therefore less simulationist.
So...in other words, the diceless/mechanicless folk are ALSO
Romantic, Humanist, Realist, and Objective, aren't they?
Uh-oh...
I think I'll stick with the "Dichotomized/Non-dichotomized"
theory myself, David. ;)
[highly inflammatory explanation of why diceless or mechanicless
gaming styles may be seen as a reflection of a "mature" perspective
snipped]
Heh heh heh. Oh, DAVID. You ARE in an asbestos mood
tonight, aren't you?
I'm not even sure I want to *comment* on this one. Maybe
later. When I'm feeling a bit more politic. And less craven.
-- Sarah
Kevin R. Hardwick
Bryan. I have a quarrel with many of your ideas, but it is not my intent
to be deliberately uncivil.
My best,
Kevin
Charles M Seaton
: First is the person whose motivation for running games is because of the
: feeling of power over others which the activity gives them. This person is
: likely to be an advocate of diceless/mechanicless systems in order to
: minimize any adverse impact on their authority.
David may scoff, but I hear you. I've met one or two people
who have tried to use diceless resolution in this way. In my
experience, their games have not lasted long. In all the cases of
this sort of thing I have witnessed, the players either left the
game in disgust, or actively rebelled, wresting control of the game
from the GM entirely. It *does* happen. But it doesn't happen for
very *long.*
Most diceless or mechanicless games I have seen, however,
have not fallen into this category, largely because, really,
diceless or d-b resolution is a very, very POOR tool for maintaining
GM control. The GM is actually far LESS powerful in such games, and
GMs who don't realize that this will be the case end up
very, very disappointed. They generally do not make that mistake a
second time.
: I wonder how many of the
: people who are arguing in favor of diceless systems expect to be running the
: game, as opposed to playing it?
I've got a double-standard, it is true, but it is *not* the
one you are thinking of.
As a GM, I don't mind using dice. As a player, I *vastly*
prefer diceless systems.
I always dislike mechanics, but again, I find them much more
irritating as a player than as a GM.
-- Sarah
Bryan Maloney
>The best way to use that power, however, is to distribute it, share it,
>play with it, etc. In which case the GM will find himself/herself with
>less power than is normally granted by a diced game.
However, this advice is good, regardless of the set of mechanics you use.
It has two benefits:
Players tend to have more fun.
Your workload is greatly reduced.
I've told my players that if they want to come up with stuff for the
campaign, that's fine, I'd act as a sort of editor/creative consultant.
Also, the vast majority of the activity in my campaign is player-initiated.
I go with the flow that the players set. (This does demand more from
many players than they are used to giving, though.) My approach is
that there's a whole wide world out there, and your characters can try
whatever they want. If they just want to sit on their butts and wait for
adventure to come to them, they'll do a lot of butt-sitting, like most
adventurer wannabes who hang around the taverns do. If they want
to try something, ANYTHING, they at least get to give it a shot.
Of course, this requires me to actually go to the work to inform my
players of far much more potential "threads" to follow than in a
conventional linear campaign.
Bryan Maloney
>rather poor one) by Brian Mulroony [sp?]. Unlike what Charles and Brian
I am not Canadian.
I am not Conservative.
I am not nearly as dense, either.
>Not every thing that is commensensical is true, Brian--as an empiricist
>you of all people should appreciate that. Go read the foundational
>philosopher of modern empiricism, David Hume--he can make this case more
>elgantly than I can.
However, the original post did not steep itself in empirical terms, it was a
purely posit-ive one. Had it dipped into the empirical, things would have
been different.
Theory is meaningless without evidence.
Bryan Maloney
Are your game preferences as a player different from your preferences as
a gamemaster?
I know mine are quite different.
As a player, I'll play, and probably enjoy, anything. Any rules, virtually any
setting. I'll comply with whatever rules are in force. The only thing I have
explicitly objected to was when a gamemaster openly attempted to use one
of his campaigns to "teach us" something about life, especially since it
wasn't well done.
As a gamemaster, I have a much more limited set of preferences.
Maybe it's the "free beer" phenomenon.