Classical, modern & postmodern roleplaying
simonh...@my-dejanews.com
If so, presumably AD&D is classical. It's defining characteristic is that it
categorizes everything, and then provides completely unrelated rules to deal
with different classes of activity. (Note I'm not using the term 'class' in
it's AD&D sense). A character can be a fighter or he can be a thief, but not
both. They must neatly fit into their chosen category and preferably stay
there.
Modern roleplaying games weren't long in coming. These games are notable for
their unified approach to game mechanics. A minimum number of game mechanics
are provided, then adapted to as many different situations as possible.
Runequest and traveller were among the first such games, with Rolemaster not
far behind.
So, what does a post-modern roleplaying game look like? Perhaps the most
obvious candidates are Amber and Over the Edge. Amber does away with dice,
and has a serious go at getting rid of rules in general. The game medium is
no longer the rules, but rather it is an ongoing dialogue between the players
of the game. Over the Edge keeps dice (barely), but does away with fixed
characteristics or skills. Instead characters are described in terms most
meaningful to the gaming group.
In this context, what is the status of such games as 'Once upon a time' and
'Baron von Munchausen'? The latter is clearly a roleplaying game since the
players take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters, yet it's scope
is limited to a specific environment and situation - telling tall tales in a
tavern or club.
Roleplaying has evolved rapidly, perhaps so rapidly that many of the avenues
of experimentation are already well travelled. Are there any more great leaps
to be made? If so, how much of an impact are they likely to have on the
average AD&D player out there?
How would you all describe yourselves? Do you prefer classical games? Are you
a modernist, or perhaps a postmodernist? Are you happy with your gaming
style, or do you feel that there is more that can be done to advance the art
of roleplaying?
Simon Hibbs
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Dallman
() wrote:
> Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
Err, maybe. Your classification seems to be loosely based on the structure
of the rules. This is very different from the structure of the themes that
are addressed in the play.
> If so, presumably AD&D is classical...
The game as she is played doesn't fit this view very well. Because AD&D's
intrinsic world views are implausible, adding elements from other
backgrounds doesn't feel like breaking the game, so unstructured games
(Space Opera is another prime example) are fertile territory for
post-modern themes.
> So, what does a post-modern roleplaying game look like? Perhaps the most
> obvious candidates are Amber and Over the Edge.
OK within the context of your analysis, but note that such games don't
tend to be post-modern in terms of themes - their subjects of discourse
tend to stay within the bounds of the game (which are, admittedly, pretty
broad).
> In this context, what is the status of such games as 'Once upon a time'
> and 'Baron von Munchausen'? The latter is clearly a roleplaying game
> since the players take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters,
> yet it's scope is limited to a specific environment and situation -
> telling tall tales in a tavern or club.
No it isn't. It's also dual-level roleplaying: one has to role-play ones
adventures within one's tall tale, and the material that can be used in
the tall-tale level is pretty well unlimited. Mind you, Amber manages an
element of this, if you consider the way that the player is notionally in
change of the environment and the referee has to work within that.
> Are there any more great leaps to be made? If so, how much of an impact
> are they likely to have on the average AD&D player out there?
One has already been made, but it's harder to play. Gloranthan-style
heroquesting is another form of two-level roleplaying, where one plays
one's character and the character has to play a role themselves. This is a
bit subtle for the average AD&D player who hasn't separated his character
from his own self-image but it's really good when it works.
I tried an experiment with several players jointly running one character
(I used Amber, but only because I felt like it, and Amber characters are
fairly death-resistant). That was another, different, role-playing
experience, but again, a more difficult one.
As for others, you have the basic futurologist problem: how do you know
what ideas people will have without having the ideas?
---
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk. Enlightenment available, UKP23.00 plus
accommodation at http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Baroquon/Main.html
Sheila Thomas
simonh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>How would you all describe yourselves? Do you prefer classical games? Are you
>a modernist, or perhaps a postmodernist?
Tending towards postmodernist, I suspect, since I view the
development of a satisfying story as the most important thing when
playing.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
home: mal...@granta.demon.co.uk http://www.granta.demon.co.uk
work: smth...@twi.co.uk http://www.twi.co.uk
Lap tops? Make mine small and feline!
____________________________________________________________________________
back...@my-dejanews.com
simonh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In this context, what is the status of such games as 'Once upon a time' and
> 'Baron von Munchausen'? The latter is clearly a roleplaying game since the
> players take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters, yet it's scope
> is limited to a specific environment and situation - telling tall tales in a
> tavern or club.
They are Medieval - in the transition from fragments of stories as in the
Canterbury tales to full Epics such as Paradise Lost.
This kind of discussion take place in other areas about how to understand the
Post-Modern reaction to the unification accomplished by the modern approach.
Where the classical approach 'classifies' everything (consistency and
coherence are not as important as classification - hence different systems,
dice, approaches) , the modern approach has a small number of systems for
everything (often the same system) with consistency and coherence being very
important modernist values. The post-modern approach is far more casual -
sort of a fragmentation with narrative being everything or supreme value. The
'tall tale' approach is even more fragmentary and lacking in consistency.
Wilf K. Backhaus
Nick Johnston
other day about something similar - We're both from Yorkshire, where our
experience was of RPG/Wargame clubs, with commensurate complexity -
Rolemaster is an extreme example, but one which had a lot of fans in
Rotherham. Down here though, most of the players seem to be into the
storyteller stuff, Teenager:The Angst and the rest, which I have to admit,
bores the socks off me. Give me a handful of dice and a rabid axe-wielding
maniac anyday...
Nick.
>How would you all describe yourselves? Do you prefer classical games? Are
you
Andy Staples
>>a modernist, or perhaps a postmodernist?
>
>development of a satisfying story as the most important thing when
>playing.
I'd have to agree. If I could, I'd do away with rules altogether, but
sometimes they're just so useful to have around - particularly
inspirational character generation rules.
--
Andy Staples (andy.s...@minarsas.demon.co.uk)
That very night in Max's room a forest grew, and grew, and grew, until his
ceiling hung with vines, and the walls became the world all around.
- Maurice Sendak, "Where the Wild Things Are".
Bryan J. Maloney
I'm Post-Raphaelite.
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Ameen of the Dausha
Hmmmm. So, would FUDGE be considered modern or post? I should think it
is a bit more like the post-modern version of GURPS--which is Modern.
This is a very interesting way of analysing the games.
I would have to say that I'm more experienced with the classical
version of the game, having played AD&D since 1982. However, I burned
out a few years ago (because I tend to DM on the fly with a very open
style) and in my return I'm being more attracted to FUDGE (especially
since my peers are sick of AD&D).
>Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
>
>If so, presumably AD&D is classical. It's defining characteristic is that it
>categorizes everything, and then provides completely unrelated rules to deal
>with different classes of activity. (Note I'm not using the term 'class' in
>it's AD&D sense). A character can be a fighter or he can be a thief, but not
>both. They must neatly fit into their chosen category and preferably stay
>there.
>
>Modern roleplaying games weren't long in coming. These games are notable for
>their unified approach to game mechanics. A minimum number of game mechanics
>are provided, then adapted to as many different situations as possible.
>Runequest and traveller were among the first such games, with Rolemaster not
>far behind.
>
>So, what does a post-modern roleplaying game look like? Perhaps the most
>obvious candidates are Amber and Over the Edge. Amber does away with dice,
>and has a serious go at getting rid of rules in general. The game medium is
>no longer the rules, but rather it is an ongoing dialogue between the players
>of the game. Over the Edge keeps dice (barely), but does away with fixed
>characteristics or skills. Instead characters are described in terms most
>meaningful to the gaming group.
>
>In this context, what is the status of such games as 'Once upon a time' and
>'Baron von Munchausen'? The latter is clearly a roleplaying game since the
>players take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters, yet it's scope
>is limited to a specific environment and situation - telling tall tales in a
>tavern or club.
>
>Roleplaying has evolved rapidly, perhaps so rapidly that many of the avenues
>of experimentation are already well travelled. Are there any more great leaps
>to be made? If so, how much of an impact are they likely to have on the
>average AD&D player out there?
>
>How would you all describe yourselves? Do you prefer classical games? Are you
>a modernist, or perhaps a postmodernist? Are you happy with your gaming
>style, or do you feel that there is more that can be done to advance the art
>of roleplaying?
>
>
>Simon Hibbs
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ameen Dausha
_________________________
"To some Patriotism is more than an attitude--it is a religion
Fear them. For to these people life is a means to an end rather than
and end to itself."
To email a responce please remove the .spamless from the address. Thanks.
Chris Camfield
>Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
No. :-P
Hm, the post-modernist RPG...
"You see an orc come around the corner."
"From my point of view, the orc does not exist. I ignore it."
"Okay, he stabs you. You're dead."
Or something like that... (and, I dislike the term "classical" being
used to refer to RPGs... I'm being pedantic, I know, but I think you
meant to use "classic".)
The most fun I've had roleplaying was, I think, in an Amber
campaign... not necessarily because it was rules-light but because
Important Stuff was Going On, and my character Mattered. :-) What I
mean is, in fiction, adventures often happen to people because of who
they are or who they're related to, rather than random happenstance.
It's more fun coming up with a background when the GM uses it.
CC
David Thomas
> Sheila Thomas <mal...@granta.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <7c12sr$e69$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> > simonh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >
> >>a modernist, or perhaps a postmodernist?
> >
> >development of a satisfying story as the most important thing when
> >playing.
>
> I'd have to agree. If I could, I'd do away with rules altogether, but
> sometimes they're just so useful to have around - particularly
> inspirational character generation rules.
I prefer rules-light things too. Published rules do set a minimum
standard though, which can be handy in fire-fights or on similar
occasions when outdomes might be in doubt. Sometimes, the results of a
highly structured games can be fun - the Greek fire projector fumble
table from RM, for instance, cut they're seldom worth the effort.
The only problem with systemless games is that they don't encourage RPGS
as a commercial enterprise.
Incidentally, Simon, what do you mean by "classical?" I thought it had
the sense of "definitive" or "complete," rather than "accidental
byproduct of a moribund set of wargames rules."
DT
simonh...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
>
> of the rules. This is very different from the structure of the themes that
> are addressed in the play.
That's a very good point. I did think about this when I wrote the post, but
decided to stick with just looking at the rules as writ. I've actualy played
an Amber game set in the Amber universe using the AD&D rules. This was back
in the 80s before the Amber diceless rpg was released and it worked extremely
well. However the fact that it did was down to the GM and the way he adapted
the game to the game world. It's success was not written in to the AD&D
rules, and would ahve been awfull if we had used unmodified rules.
> > If so, presumably AD&D is classical...
>
> The game as she is played doesn't fit this view very well. Because AD&D's
> intrinsic world views are implausible, adding elements from other
> backgrounds doesn't feel like breaking the game, so unstructured games
> (Space Opera is another prime example) are fertile territory for
> post-modern themes.
I've never heard of AD&D being described as unstructured. The game as writ
does everything possible to direct you on a specific course. Yes it can be
adapted, but such adaptation is the work of the adaptor, not the material
that is being adapted.
> > Are there any more great leaps to be made? If so, how much of an impact
> > are they likely to have on the average AD&D player out there?
>
> One has already been made, but it's harder to play. Gloranthan-style
> heroquesting is another form of two-level roleplaying, where one plays
> one's character and the character has to play a role themselves. This is a
> bit subtle for the average AD&D player who hasn't separated his character
> from his own self-image but it's really good when it works.
This reminds me of one of the sandman graphic novells. At one point Gaiman
manages something like 6 or 7 levels of nesting of storytelling. Stories,
within stories, within.... etc. and yet done with great subtlety and style.
simonh...@my-dejanews.com
Andy Staples <andy.s...@minarsas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Sheila Thomas <mal...@granta.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <7c12sr$e69$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> > simonh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >
> >>How would you all describe yourselves? Do you prefer classical games? Are
you
> >>a modernist, or perhaps a postmodernist?
> >
> >Tending towards postmodernist, I suspect, since I view the
> >development of a satisfying story as the most important thing when
> >playing.
>
> I'd have to agree. If I could, I'd do away with rules altogether, but
> sometimes they're just so useful to have around - particularly
> inspirational character generation rules.
I think postmodern roleplaying is partly about using rules when they are
apropriate, and not using them when they aren't. Characetr generation is a
good example of a situation where rules are usefull. They provide a common
frame of refference for players and referees so that everyone understands the
abilities of the character, relative to other characters and the game world.
Game rules do the same thing. They tell you whether your psionic character
can lift a few grams with her TK ability, or a few tons. They don't tell you
how good she is a faking her orgasms.
simonh...@my-dejanews.com
ab...@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 1999 17:54:40 GMT, simonh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
>
>
> Hm, the post-modernist RPG...
>
> "You see an orc come around the corner."
>
> "From my point of view, the orc does not exist. I ignore it."
>
> "Okay, he stabs you. You're dead."
I believe you're thinking of surrealism.
> Or something like that... (and, I dislike the term "classical" being
> used to refer to RPGs... I'm being pedantic, I know, but I think you
> meant to use "classic".)
I mean classical RPGs in the same way that we say Classical music, or
Classical dance, as against modern or postmodern dance.
> The most fun I've had roleplaying was, I think, in an Amber
> campaign... not necessarily because it was rules-light but because
> Important Stuff was Going On, and my character Mattered. :-) What I
> mean is, in fiction, adventures often happen to people because of who
> they are or who they're related to, rather than random happenstance.
> It's more fun coming up with a background when the GM uses it.
This I agree with completely. In the RPG of the Poseidon adventure, who wants
to play the 'grey haired old lady with a heart condition' character? It's
nice to feel at least relevant.
simonh...@my-dejanews.com
David Thomas <thom...@parliament.uk> wrote:
> The only problem with systemless games is that they don't encourage RPGS
> as a commercial enterprise.
>
> Incidentally, Simon, what do you mean by "classical?" I thought it had
> the sense of "definitive" or "complete," rather than "accidental
> byproduct of a moribund set of wargames rules."
I mean classical in the sense of empirical.
Simon
Phil Masters
writes:
> I think postmodern roleplaying is partly about using rules when they are
> apropriate, and not using them when they aren't. Characetr generation is
> a good example of a situation where rules are usefull. They provide a
> common frame of refference for players and referees so that everyone
> understands the abilities of the character, relative to other characters
> and the game world. Game rules do the same thing. They tell you whether
> your psionic character can lift a few grams with her TK ability, or a few
> tons. They don't tell you how good she is a faking her orgasms.
But they can be just as important in the latter case. If I'm playing a
female character who's defined to be a skilled, manipulative actress, I'm
damned if I'm going to start hyperventilating and screaming in the middle
of a living room - let alone the middle of a games convention - in a dodgy
attempt to convince the GM that my character is doing something that she's
defined to have been practising successfully for years.
Now, you can argue that rule's shouldn't say how she *feels* about faking
orgasms - whether she regards it as demeaning, amusing, charitable,
whatever - and I'll quite possibly agree with you. But "Acting" skill
belongs on character sheets just as much as "Telekinesis."
--
Phil Masters
* Home Page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Phil_Masters
* Membership Secretary, BAROQUON, the independent UK RPG convention, 1999:
http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Baroquon/Main.html
* "Battle not with flamers, lest you become a flamer; and stare not too
deeply into the 'net, or you will find the 'net staring into you."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche (loosely translated)
pan...@ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp
simonh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In this context, what is the status of such games as 'Once upon a time' and
> 'Baron von Munchausen'? The latter is clearly a roleplaying game since the
> players take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters
Yes, and what of Usenet? This is clearly a roleplaying game since the players
take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters
And so on.
With Monopoly, Doom, acting and a thousand other silly examples, ad nauseam.
---
Best wishes
Paul Mason
pan...@ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp
simonh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <memo.1999030...@jgd.compulink.co.uk>,
> j...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > > Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
> >
> > of the rules. This is very different from the structure of the themes that
> > are addressed in the play.
>
> That's a very good point.
I agree with John that there is a confusion arising from applying these terms
to role-playing game rules, viewed in isolation from themes and play styles.
I'd go a step further: for the application of terms such as these to be of
any use (and that's questionable, plucked as they are from another dimension)
you'd have to apply them to the composite 'game' of each group, made up of
rules (of which zero is an option), theme, and play style. The problem then
is that the debate seems to become less useful, because we have to talk about
a lot of things that are not open to examination by other participants in the
discussion.
> I've never heard of AD&D being described as unstructured. The game as writ
> does everything possible to direct you on a specific course. Yes it can be
> adapted, but such adaptation is the work of the adaptor, not the material
> that is being adapted.
The AD&D _rules_ are unstructured. However AD&D attempts to produce a highly
structured game experience.
This is another reason why the classical-modernist-postmodernist
classification is probably inappropriate (and the very act of attempting to
classify such things probably makes you a classicist, eh?).
In your definition, 'post-modernist' seems to turn into a term which
describes those games which consider 'storytelling' (whatever that is:
another problem to be resolved) most important. But this doesn't match very
well with the use of 'post-modernist' in, say, literature. Indeed, an
obsession with 'storytelling' is probably more of a classical romantic
characteristic.
Levels of narrative ('frames' or 'Chinese boxes') is perhaps more of a post-
modernist trait, but with the exception of Baron Munchausen (which raises
other problems), few games have this explicitly built into them. I've run
nested games: we had one, for example, where one of my players refereed a
game which was the dream of his player character. The problem with the
post-modernist approach is that it's often designed to foreground the
artificiality and constructed nature of the project. This may work well with
literature or movies, because we've been conditioned to suspend disbelief
with them; with role-playing games it's less of a clever trick, because it's
dead easy to foreground the artificiality and constructed nature of the
project - the difficulty has always been encouraging the suspension of
disbelief.
> > > Are there any more great leaps to be made? If so, how much of an impact
> > > are they likely to have on the average AD&D player out there?
The answer to the latter question will always be: minimal. These things
trickle through very slowly. It's like science: physicists may be studying
string theory, but the man on the Clapham omnibus still has a view of the
universe little advanced from that of medieval times.
> This reminds me of one of the sandman graphic novells. At one point Gaiman
> manages something like 6 or 7 levels of nesting of storytelling. Stories,
> within stories, within.... etc. and yet done with great subtlety and style.
There's a fundamental difference between Gaiman's art and role-playing, and I
think it's a shame that so often people seem to think we have to shackle
ourselves with the constraints of other forms in order to improve
role-playing. Comic writing, like any form of its kind, is an Author-Audience
activity. The great Auteur bestows from on high, and the audience gratefully
laps up its crumbs of pleasure. Role-playing's great innovation, however was
to provide a means of fusing the Author-Audience roles into one. This is
taken to extremes in those games (like Baron Munchausen) which dispense with
a referee.
Sorry to waffle on.
S. John Ross
| > In this context, what is the status of such games as 'Once upon a time'
and
| > 'Baron von Munchausen'? The latter is clearly a roleplaying game since
the
| > players take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters
|
| Yes, and what of Usenet? This is clearly a roleplaying game since the
players
| take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters
You're right: Baron Munchausen is an RPG for many many more reasons than
that.
--
|| S. John Ross
|| Husband · Cook · Writer
|| In That Order
|| http://www.io.com/~sjohn/blue.htm · sj...@io.com
arc...@table.jps.net
: Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
RoLplAy iS dEaD!@# LoNg live the Elephant!
Here! Have A BanNana in SuPporT of tHe wOrkerS tyranNy agAinSt the
gM. SuPpoRt tHe oRc in HIS q u e s t AGainST mY ArMor ClasS!!.$
- Dadaist Roleplay anyone?
:)
On to serious matters...
If I used this set of definitions I'd be post modern. Having a preference for
near freeform systems like Theatrix and Everway. And being in the process of
designing one (see signature below for details).
: In this context, what is the status of such games as 'Once upon a time' and
: 'Baron von Munchausen'? The latter is clearly a roleplaying game since the
Perhaps it is the 'Punk' movement of RPGs? being post-post-modern...
Arcady WebRPG Town Hall Magistrate townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
Alluvia FreeRPG: http://www.rad-inet.com/~rook/alluvia/AlluviaRPG/
/.)\ Projects: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Portal/1865/
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/
arc...@table.jps.net
:|> In this context, what is the status of such games as 'Once upon a time' and
:|> 'Baron von Munchausen'? The latter is clearly a roleplaying game since the
:|> players take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters
:|
:| Yes, and what of Usenet? This is clearly a roleplaying game since the players
:| take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters
: You're right: Baron Munchausen is an RPG for many many more reasons than
: that.
BM is different only in that you play a massively munchkin PC and all
the adventures start in the tavern...
Hmm... wait a second... That sounds familiar.
Oh, ok. Your character comes premade. But then, that's true of
several RPGs.
--
The Philosopher's Stone
>Yes, and what of Usenet? This is clearly a roleplaying game since the players
>take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters
lets go of the rope and shakes the rain and shards of glass from his
black leather cloak and wide brimmed felt hat and walks to the bar*
What? did I miss something?
Jonathan McCalmont ~ Thoth(at)jmccalmont(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk
Guerilla Epistemologist - Quixotic deviant - World's greatest liar.
simonh...@my-dejanews.com
pan...@ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp wrote:
{Much that I basicaly agree with deleted}
> There's a fundamental difference between Gaiman's art and role-playing, and I
> think it's a shame that so often people seem to think we have to shackle
> ourselves with the constraints of other forms in order to improve
> role-playing. Comic writing, like any form of its kind, is an Author-Audience
> activity. The great Auteur bestows from on high, and the audience gratefully
> laps up its crumbs of pleasure. Role-playing's great innovation, however was
> to provide a means of fusing the Author-Audience roles into one. This is
> taken to extremes in those games (like Baron Munchausen) which dispense with
> a referee.
Maybe it's not so much dispensing with rules that is post modern, as
dispensing with preconceptions about the role of the referee and the players.
Another poster has already pointed out that Amber can do this by giving the
players more controll of the environemnt than the GM, at least under some
circumstances.
Personaly I'm a big fan of modern roleplaying, but with rules-lite
tendencies. Idealy I like to get players to drive the plot too, at least to
some extent. I rarely actualy achieve this satisfactorily though. Most of my
games are actualy fairly traditional.
Simon Hibbs
simonh...@my-dejanews.com
Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article: <7c308v$3ls$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> simonh...@my-dejanews.com
> writes:
> > I think postmodern roleplaying is partly about using rules when they are
> > apropriate, and not using them when they aren't. Characetr generation is
> > a good example of a situation where rules are usefull. They provide a
> > common frame of refference for players and referees so that everyone
> > understands the abilities of the character, relative to other characters
> > and the game world. Game rules do the same thing. They tell you whether
> > your psionic character can lift a few grams with her TK ability, or a few
> > tons. They don't tell you how good she is a faking her orgasms.
>
> Now, you can argue that rule's shouldn't say how she *feels* about faking
> orgasms - whether she regards it as demeaning, amusing, charitable,
> whatever - and I'll quite possibly agree with you. But "Acting" skill
> belongs on character sheets just as much as "Telekinesis."
My apologies. What I mean is that the character is not simply the sum of the
description on the character sheet. I like the idea that the character might
have talents, or weaknesses or other dimensions to her character that are not
defined according to standard metrics from the outset of the game.
GURPS is a good example of a game which tries (or at least offers the
opportunity) to define every concievable sttribute of a character. Using
quirks this can go down to very fine detail.
Sean Dunlap
>
> In article <36e4ca11...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>,
> ab...@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
> >
> > >Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
> >
> >
> > Hm, the post-modernist RPG...
> >
> > "You see an orc come around the corner."
> >
> > "From my point of view, the orc does not exist. I ignore it."
> >
> > "Okay, he stabs you. You're dead."
>
> I believe you're thinking of surrealism.
>
No, he had it right. Postmodernism is the absurd belief (blame the
french) that there is no objective reality. The point of view of the
observer determines reality.
Sean
Bryan J. Maloney
wrote:
> I think postmodern roleplaying is partly about using rules when they are
> apropriate, and not using them when they aren't. Characetr generation is a
That's called "let's wing that mutha", and I've been doing it since 1979.
Gee, I've been postmodern since before the "modern" period.
Bryan J. Maloney
wrote:
> I believe you're thinking of surrealism.
An elephant is surreal, but a giraffe is avante-garde.
> This I agree with completely. In the RPG of the Poseidon adventure, who wants
> to play the 'grey haired old lady with a heart condition' character? It's
> nice to feel at least relevant.
But isn't the heart and soul of "advanced" roleplaying to have
insignificant characters to be led along by the nose through the GM's
plotlines?
back...@my-dejanews.com
Sean Dunlap <michael.s...@nd.edu> wrote:
> simonh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <36e4ca11...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>,
> > ab...@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08 Mar 1999 17:54:40 GMT, simonh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
> > >
> > > No. :-P
> > >
> > > Hm, the post-modernist RPG...
> > >
> > > "You see an orc come around the corner."
> > >
> > > "From my point of view, the orc does not exist. I ignore it."
> > >
> > > "Okay, he stabs you. You're dead."
> >
> >
>
> french) that there is no objective reality. The point of view of the
> observer determines reality.
But the Postmodernist view is not a totally absurd belief given Bell's
Theorem - 'local' reality may be totally subjective or rather the result of
social construction but it is only one of the 'realities' present in a
situation so, the non-existent Orc might still be able to kill you.
Wilf K. Backhaus
Robin Low
Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> writes
>> This I agree with completely. In the RPG of the Poseidon adventure, who wants
>> to play the 'grey haired old lady with a heart condition' character? It's
>> nice to feel at least relevant.
>
>But isn't the heart and soul of "advanced" roleplaying to have
>insignificant characters to be led along by the nose through the GM's
>plotlines?
>
Who's to say this little old lady is irrelevant or insignificant?
Certainly, she may not be much use in a dungeon bash, but in this
hypothetical Poseidon Adventure game, who's to say she isn't the woman
who designed the ship in the first place and knows its layout like the
back of her hand? Who's to say that she can't the roleplayed as someone
who's simply an interesting character to *talk* to? Who's to say she's
not going to be the former midwife who's going to look after the
pregnant mother and deliver the baby? Who's to say she isn't going to
the one who sacrifices herself to save the others?
I've played in games where PCs have been elderly blind women, barmaids,
and writers with writers' block. I played in a Mage game where my
character's magic was only capable of affecting invertebrates (after a
while I just forgot about magic and concentrated on talking to people)
and an Amber throne-war where I was Stan Laurel.
I don't think roleplaying is in need of novel new approaches, but I do
think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
regards
Robin
--
Robin Low
Doktor Pete
>If I used this set of definitions I'd be post modern.
>
As the estimable Mr Mason says elsewhere in this thead, no you
wouldn't. The tendency to categorise and classify is a classical one.
There seems to be a desire to use "postmodern" as a synonym for
"trendy", and whilst polo-necked espresso-sipping pomo hipsters may
approve of this, it ain't necessarily so.
Of couse, the postmodern tendency is to reappropriate the meaning of
words, Humpty Dumpty style, so I shouldn't bite your head off here.
I'm very dubious that the term "postmodernism" can yet be applied to
roleplaying in any meaningful way.
>: In this context, what is the status of such games as 'Once upon a time' and
>: 'Baron von Munchausen'? The latter is clearly a roleplaying game since the
>
> Perhaps it is the 'Punk' movement of RPGs? being post-post-modern...
>
Sir, if you would like to move your throat towards the tip of my epee,
perhaps you might be so good as to explain to me why I should be
considered part of this "punk" movement to which you refer? Stop that
pogoing while I'm talking to you; this is, truly, the most remarkable
statement I have ever heard.
I assume you wish to associate postmodernism with the aberrant
practices of the unwashed French, with their mollusc-eating claims
that "everything is relative"? Sheer fancy, as I was telling Voltaire
just the other day, over a glass of rather pleasant Tokay. Why,
Alexander of Macedon himself admitted that I was the greatest liar in
all of Europe - how then could these tales that I tell you be
considered in any way "the truth"?
--
"I would insult your intelligence, but what would be the point?" -
Doklands Mafia | http://www.dok.clara.net/ | Read the Complete Clovis
David G. Bell
> In article <7c12sr$e69$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> simonh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In this context, what is the status of such games as 'Once upon a time' and
> > 'Baron von Munchausen'? The latter is clearly a roleplaying game since the
> > players take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters
>
> Yes, and what of Usenet? This is clearly a roleplaying game since the players
> take on the roles of outrageous fictional characters
There are at least two distinct threads which come together in
roleplaying games. One descends from wargaming, especially the
miniatures-based wargaming (See "Wargames Campaigns" by Tony Bath, for
one of many published examples of the use of _characters_ in wargaming).
The other thread has common roots with improvisational theatre. How
much of these two threads, and whichever others you care to define, is
in the weave of a particular game will vary. Perhaps a comparison
between the original games and the GURPS versions of Vampire, or Mage,
or Bunnies & Burrows, might be instructive.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
The Philosopher's Stone
>In your definition, 'post-modernist' seems to turn into a term which
>describes those games which consider 'storytelling' (whatever that is:
>another problem to be resolved) most important. But this doesn't match very
>well with the use of 'post-modernist' in, say, literature. Indeed, an
>obsession with 'storytelling' is probably more of a classical romantic
>characteristic.
I think that Post-modernism can be applied to RPGs. The
Storyteller, Ars Mag and other games in this genre are post-modern as
the act of simulation is part of the gaming experience in and of itself.
We're dealing with meta-levels here. Classical RPGing was all
ground floor action, rules were there to simulate reality. You didn't
worry about them, you just followed them. Modernist games brought the
idea of character creation and advancement forward, the gamers grew
aware of the first floor. Post-modernism then incorporated ground and
first floor into the enjoyment of the game. It was no longer a question
of what your characters did but also what you as a player do. I think
it's a valid paradigm. but post-modernism is still a load of toss :-)
Consider the Over The Edge adventure where the PCs met their
players... that's as post modern as the credits at the beginning of the
Ateam where "Face" reacts when a Cylon walks past. Post modern as fuck
:-)
The Philosopher's Stone
>No, he had it right. Postmodernism is the absurd belief (blame the
>french) that there is no objective reality. The point of view of the
>observer determines reality.
no, that's an implicit result. Post-Modernism is basically the idea
that no belief-system is better than any other as long as they are
logically consistent. There are no provileged frames of reference.
but you're right, it is absurd.
The Philosopher's Stone
>But the Postmodernist view is not a totally absurd belief given Bell's
>Theorem - 'local' reality may be totally subjective or rather the result of
>social construction but it is only one of the 'realities' present in a
>situation so, the non-existent Orc might still be able to kill you.
Firsly mathematics and philosophy don't entail each other. you need
complex arguments and logical reductionism to make any cross-genre
claims. Secondly you're actually wrong about Bell's theorem but here is
not the place to discuss that.
The Philosopher's Stone
> - Dadaist Roleplay anyone?
the arrogant trees sneeze bluely.
> Perhaps it is the 'Punk' movement of RPGs? being post-post-modern...
deconstruction for the sake of deconstruction? Don't think so. A RPG
wheere everyone plays Gamers would be better. then Whitewolf could do a
version of it where we all wear eye make-up and have skeletony ear-
rings.
I can imagine it now "You get 4 XP for your rendition of sad gamer
with no girlfriend but Dave gets 6 points as he was playing a gamer who
never tunrs up and he didn't turn up!"
Phil Masters
writes:
> My apologies. What I mean is that the character is not simply the sum of
> the description on the character sheet. I like the idea that the
> character might have talents, or weaknesses or other dimensions to her
> character that are not defined according to standard metrics from the
> outset of the game.
Actually, in most games, they're defined by default. One of the first signs
of a clunky, ill-thought-out rule system is when they aren't.
Okay, so neither your character sheet nor the rulebook mentions "Faking
Orgasm" skill, or perhaps even "Acting." (I'm sorry - I didn't start this
example, you know.) So how do you administer the crucial question, in the
middle of play, of how well the character fakes it?
In GURPS, Acting has various defaults - I'd ask for a contest of skills for
that vs. the other participant's IQ at -3. (He's distracted, right?) Okay,
so GURPS is maybe a tad over-detailed and even anal (though I like it, and
that's despite spending the last few months tweaking 52+ GURPS character
sheets, for reasons that should become clear next month) - but ask
long-time GMs from other systems:
Runequest: Umm, Roll (IQ + Charisma) x2 on percentiles?
Over the Edge: If it isn't covered by your character sheet, roll two dice -
difficulty five?
Everway: Turn the card. (Oops; "Drowning in Armour" - "Protective measures
turn dangerous.")
Storyteller: Manipulation + Seduction, difficulty 5?
Amber: What suits the great and wondrous GM's sacred plot?
AD&D: Save vs. wands?
And so on. The rules are there; they may or may not cover a specific
situation specifically, but if they're any good, the mechanisms should
suggest themselves.
back...@my-dejanews.com
Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <bjm10-09039...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>, "Bryan J.
> Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> writes
> >In article <7c30t2$44f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, simonh...@my-dejanews.com
> >wrote:
>
>
> think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
> existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
> snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
> situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
>
> regards
>
> Robin
Dead On!!! People keep asking Ed and I why we continue to have Serfs and
other down and outs as PCs in C&S - well - from the very beginning we always
imagined that players would be motivated by the challenge to play interesting
but extremely weak characters. Its the cudo you get for coming through with
a weak character which is the reward. Besides not every weak character is as
weak as they may appear - the gods [ GM] might be on their side.
Nightshade
Let's try this again, since my last reply somehow went out with an
empty body according to my newserver.
>I don't think roleplaying is in need of novel new approaches, but I do
>think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
>existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
>snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
>situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
Have to and want to are two different things. The latter can never be
anything but a matter of taste. Personally, I have no interest
whatsoever in roleplaying the mundane, no matter how 'interesting'
they may be in some senses. YMMV.
David Thomas
> Okay, so neither your character sheet nor the rulebook mentions "Faking
> Orgasm" skill, or perhaps even "Acting." (I'm sorry - I didn't start this
> example, you know.) So how do you administer the crucial question, in the
> middle of play, of how well the character fakes it?
>
> In GURPS, Acting has various defaults - I'd ask for a contest of skills for
> that vs. the other participant's IQ at -3. (He's distracted, right?)
Isn't it Sex Appeal vs. Will?
In a LARP, there's toothpaste and pot noodles.
DT.
Phil Masters
> > Okay, so neither your character sheet nor the rulebook mentions "Faking
> > Orgasm" skill, or perhaps even "Acting." (I'm sorry - I didn't start
> > this example, you know.) So how do you administer the crucial question,
> > in the middle of play, of how well the character fakes it?
> >
> > In GURPS, Acting has various defaults - I'd ask for a contest of skills
> > for that vs. the other participant's IQ at -3. (He's distracted,
> > right?)
>
> Isn't it Sex Appeal vs. Will?
Sex Appeal is sort of relevant, though actually, reading the book, Acting
comes closer. I might let 'em roll on Sex Appeal at -3, if that was their
best chance, or borrow the Hero System "Complimentary Skills" rule. It
might depend *why* they were faking it.
Will isn't the stat for noticing stuff; that's IQ + Alertness. I might
require a Will roll for them to be paying enough attention to be able to
make the perception roll - especially if the faker had made a few Sex
Appeal or Erotic Art rolls earlier in the course of events.
(Look, you asked. And I'm probably a semi-official third-line GURPS Guru
these days. Anyway, I think that getting rules-detailed on this sort of
stuff is at least as interesting as doing so with combat rules.)
simonh...@my-dejanews.com
Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <bjm10-09039...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>, "Bryan J.
> Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> writes
> >In article <7c30t2$44f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, simonh...@my-dejanews.com
> >wrote:
>
wants
> >> to play the 'grey haired old lady with a heart condition' character? It's
> >> nice to feel at least relevant.
> >
> >But isn't the heart and soul of "advanced" roleplaying to have
> >insignificant characters to be led along by the nose through the GM's
> >plotlines?
>
> Who's to say this little old lady is irrelevant or insignificant?
> Certainly, she may not be much use in a dungeon bash, but in this
> hypothetical Poseidon Adventure game, who's to say she isn't the woman
> who designed the ship in the first place and knows its layout like the
> back of her hand?
I'm not talking about a hytpothetical scenario based loosely on the poseidon
adventure, I'm talkign about the poseidon adventure as is run as a roleplaying
game. I think that's pretty obvious, otherwise it would be irrelevent as an
example.
> ....Who's to say that she can't the roleplayed as someone
> who's simply an interesting character to *talk* to?
Fine, we'll just sit here deep in the bowels of this upside down, sinking,
burning ship with our oxygen running out having a cosy chat. Lovely. Anyone
for a game of Baron Munchausen?
> ....Who's to say she's
> not going to be the former midwife who's going to look after the
> pregnant mother and deliver the baby?
Because she wasn't. I gave an example of a character. You're turning her into
a different character in a different situation, which is completely beside
the point.
> .....Who's to say she isn't going to
> the one who sacrifices herself to save the others?
"Hi Robin, wlecome to the game. Here's your character. She's a crippled
angina sufferer with no relevent skills. But don't worry, there's a big
machine she can throw herself into to save the party three sessions into the
game. Have fun."
> I've played in games where PCs have been elderly blind women, barmaids,
> and writers with writers' block. I played in a Mage game where my
> character's magic was only capable of affecting invertebrates (after a
> while I just forgot about magic and concentrated on talking to people)
> and an Amber throne-war where I was Stan Laurel.
All of which could well be a lot of fun. Playing a receptionist at an embasy
in london might be a great part to play in a diplomatic freeform, or other
game where the role is relevent. Playing the receptionist in an embasy siege,
spending several days tied down with a blindfold over her eyes not allowed to
talk to anyone isn't. Personaly I'd rather play a terrorist, or negotiator,
or SAS guy, or the captured policeman allowed to talk to the negotiators. All
I'm saying is it's nice to play a character that's relevent to the game being
played. Is that an unreasonable point to make?
> I don't think roleplaying is in need of novel new approaches, but I do
> think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
> existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
> snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
> situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
Of course you don't, but that's simply not the point.
Simon Hibbs
was...@my-dejanews.com
Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article: <36E645...@parliament.uk> David Thomas
> <thom...@parliament.uk> writes:
> > > Okay, so neither your character sheet nor the rulebook mentions "Faking
> > > Orgasm" skill, or perhaps even "Acting." (I'm sorry - I didn't start
> > > this example, you know.) So how do you administer the crucial question,
> > > in the middle of play, of how well the character fakes it?
> > >
> > > In GURPS, Acting has various defaults - I'd ask for a contest of skills
> > > for that vs. the other participant's IQ at -3. (He's distracted,
> > > right?)
> >
> > Isn't it Sex Appeal vs. Will?
>
> Sex Appeal is sort of relevant, though actually, reading the book, Acting
> comes closer. I might let 'em roll on Sex Appeal at -3, if that was their
> best chance, or borrow the Hero System "Complimentary Skills" rule. It
> might depend *why* they were faking it.
>
> Will isn't the stat for noticing stuff; that's IQ + Alertness. I might
> require a Will roll for them to be paying enough attention to be able to
> make the perception roll - especially if the faker had made a few Sex
> Appeal or Erotic Art rolls earlier in the course of events.
Men never can tell anyway so no alertness rolls allowed. It is the old joke:
Q:How do you make a woman come?
A: Who cares!
Will rolls might be appropriate for men trying to prolong the whole sordid
affair, or maybe Hobby Skills: Baseball.
It must be the silly season.
Steve
Tina Monk & Chris Carrigan
>In article <bjm10-09039...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>, "Bryan J.
>Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> writes
>>In article <7c30t2$44f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, simonh...@my-dejanews.com
>>wrote:
>
>>> This I agree with completely. In the RPG of the Poseidon adventure, who wants
>>> to play the 'grey haired old lady with a heart condition' character? It's
>>> nice to feel at least relevant.
>>
>>But isn't the heart and soul of "advanced" roleplaying to have
>>insignificant characters to be led along by the nose through the GM's
>>plotlines?
>>
>
>Who's to say this little old lady is irrelevant or insignificant?
>Certainly, she may not be much use in a dungeon bash,
Then they've clearly never met Mad Meg inadvertently leading a charge by
riding a drug-crazed bantha...
Beware also of Mistress Quickly in 'Shakespeare's Lost Play' LRP in
Retford on 20/21st March!
Regards,
--
Tina Monk
Bryan J. Maloney
> Dead On!!! People keep asking Ed and I why we continue to have Serfs and
> other down and outs as PCs in C&S - well - from the very beginning we always
> imagined that players would be motivated by the challenge to play interesting
> but extremely weak characters. Its the cudo you get for coming through with
But the Old Lady from Scene 37 has just one function: To sit there and
have a heart attack. She does nothing else. THAT is what was being
referred to.
Robin Low
<Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article: <7c3mrc$nd7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> simonh...@my-dejanews.com
>writes:
>> My apologies. What I mean is that the character is not simply the sum of
>> the description on the character sheet. I like the idea that the
>> character might have talents, or weaknesses or other dimensions to her
>> character that are not defined according to standard metrics from the
>> outset of the game.
>
>Actually, in most games, they're defined by default. One of the first signs
>of a clunky, ill-thought-out rule system is when they aren't.
>
>Orgasm" skill, or perhaps even "Acting." (I'm sorry - I didn't start this
>example, you know.) So how do you administer the crucial question, in the
>middle of play, of how well the character fakes it?
The important question here is does it matter? Unless there is something
specific in the character's background which says she's hopeless at
false pretences why waste time rolling at all? Just accept that she's
faked an orgasm. If you really need some sort of expression of quality
just roll a die: high good, low bad.
>And so on. The rules are there; they may or may not cover a specific
>situation specifically, but if they're any good, the mechanisms should
>suggest themselves.
Very true. And even if the rules are useless, just roll a die: high
good, low bad.
Robin Low
>In article <LsJEmFAa...@celephais.demon.co.uk>,
> Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think roleplaying is in need of novel new approaches, but I do
>> think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
>> existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
>> snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
>> situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
>>
>
>other down and outs as PCs in C&S - well - from the very beginning we always
>imagined that players would be motivated by the challenge to play interesting
>but extremely weak characters. Its the cudo you get for coming through with
>weak as they may appear - the gods [ GM] might be on their side.
>
A friend of mine has an anecdote about a game she ran in which a guy
took his PC off to town and hired a prostitute. The player was really
annoyed when his PC woke-up the following morning and found that said
prostitute has nicked all the PC's money. As far as the player was
concerned, this prostitue was just meant to just a bit of a laugh and
shouldn't have been allowed to pinch the money. The idea that such an
NPC might have a personality, motivations and the capacity to perform
significant actions was apparently beyond him.
regards
robin
--
Robin Low
Robin Low
<Night...@nightdark.com> writes
>Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I don't think roleplaying is in need of novel new approaches, but I do
>>think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
>>existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
>>snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
>>situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
>
>Have to and want to are two different things. The latter can never be
>anything but a matter of taste.
True enough
>Personally, I have no interest
>whatsoever in roleplaying the mundane, no matter how 'interesting'
>they may be in some senses.
Fair enough, but I'm interested in knowing why not.
> YMMV.
I've no idea what this means, I'm afraid.
Robin Low
dejanews.com writes
>> >In article <7c30t2$44f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, simonh...@my-dejanews.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> This I agree with completely. In the RPG of the Poseidon adventure, who
>wants
>> >> to play the 'grey haired old lady with a heart condition' character? It's
>> >> nice to feel at least relevant.
>> >
>>
>> Who's to say this little old lady is irrelevant or insignificant?
>> Certainly, she may not be much use in a dungeon bash, but in this
>> hypothetical Poseidon Adventure game, who's to say she isn't the woman
>> who designed the ship in the first place and knows its layout like the
>> back of her hand?
>
>I'm not talking about a hytpothetical scenario based loosely on the poseidon
>adventure, I'm talkign about the poseidon adventure as is run as a roleplaying
>game. I think that's pretty obvious, otherwise it would be irrelevent as an
>example.
I was talking about the Poseidon Adventure run as a roleplaying game
too! I thought that was obvious.
>
>> ....Who's to say that she can't the roleplayed as someone
>> who's simply an interesting character to *talk* to?
>
>Fine, we'll just sit here deep in the bowels of this upside down, sinking,
>burning ship with our oxygen running out having a cosy chat. Lovely. Anyone
>for a game of Baron Munchausen?
Oh for Heaven's sake, characters can talk on the move.
>
>> ....Who's to say she's
>> not going to be the former midwife who's going to look after the
>> pregnant mother and deliver the baby?
>
>Because she wasn't. I gave an example of a character. You're turning her into
>a different character in a different situation, which is completely beside
>the point.
So you're saying that this character is *just* a little old lady with a
heart condition and nothing more? She's become old, but has *no* past
experiences or skills. There isn't a human being on the planet that
bland, so I don't see why a character in a rpg should be either.
>
>> .....Who's to say she isn't going to
>> the one who sacrifices herself to save the others?
>
>"Hi Robin, wlecome to the game. Here's your character. She's a crippled
>angina sufferer with no relevent skills. But don't worry, there's a big
>machine she can throw herself into to save the party three sessions into the
>game. Have fun."
I probably would have fun. I've had fun already just developing the
character a little. Actually roleplaying her would be better. Oh, and in
the Posiedon Adventure the hero didn't have to sacrifice himself until
the last few minutes of the film. The end is the best place for heroic
sacrifices.
>
>> I've played in games where PCs have been elderly blind women, barmaids,
>> and writers with writers' block. I played in a Mage game where my
>> character's magic was only capable of affecting invertebrates (after a
>> while I just forgot about magic and concentrated on talking to people)
>> and an Amber throne-war where I was Stan Laurel.
>
>All of which could well be a lot of fun. Playing a receptionist at an embasy
>in london might be a great part to play in a diplomatic freeform, or other
>game where the role is relevent. Playing the receptionist in an embasy siege,
>spending several days tied down with a blindfold over her eyes not allowed to
>talk to anyone isn't. Personaly I'd rather play a terrorist, or negotiator,
>or SAS guy, or the captured policeman allowed to talk to the negotiators. All
>I'm saying is it's nice to play a character that's relevent to the game being
>played. Is that an unreasonable point to make?
Is it unreasonable to suggest that the receptionist doesn't have to be
irrelevant to the game? Just because the terrorists have told her not to
speak doesn't mean she won't try. They might threaten to kill her, but
she can keep her wits about her and point out that killing her means
they have one less hostage and will lose any sympathy there might be for
their actions. It's not unknown for hostages and terrorists to form
relationships in seige situations. She can find out what the terrosists'
motive is - hell, she may even agree with them and know about the
undeground exit which the SAS will use if the terrorists don't secure it
in time. She might manage to get her hands free and make a break for it
or bash one of the terrorists over the head and grab his gun before the
others can react.
One aspect of roleplaying is problem solving, not to mention winning
through in the face of overwhelming odds. Your example hasn't presented
me with a boring, useless character, but with an interesting challenge.
>
>> I don't think roleplaying is in need of novel new approaches, but I do
>> think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
>> existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
>> snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
>> situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
>
>Of course you don't, but that's simply not the point.
On the basis of your comments, I think it may well be.
Chihiro Yamada
Phil Masters wrote:
(though I like it, and
> that's despite spending the last few months tweaking 52+ GURPS character
> sheets, for reasons that should become clear next month) - but ask
> long-time GMs from other systems:
Aha, you are going to present us with a uk.games.roleplay Pirelli style
calendar. One Babe or Hunk beautifully crafted as a GURPS character a
week!
Chihiro
John R. Snead
: Sean Dunlap <michael.s...@nd.edu> writes
: >No, he had it right. Postmodernism is the absurd belief (blame the
: >french) that there is no objective reality. The point of view of the
: >observer determines reality.
: no, that's an implicit result. Post-Modernism is basically the idea
: that no belief-system is better than any other as long as they are
: logically consistent. There are no provileged frames of reference.
: but you're right, it is absurd.
Only if you have some omniscient way of determining which belief-systems
are correct and which ones are not. Lacking that, (a lack shared by all
people I've known) it seems a pretty reasonable way of looking at the
world.
Post-Modernism does not say you can't prefer one belief system to another,
it simply says that your liking one belief system and disliking another
does not make the one you like "true" and the one you dislike "false".
Basically, there are many options out there to choose from. Individual's
choices differ based on personality, choice, and circumstance, but right
for you =/= right or better in any larger sense. Given the multitude of
belief systems out there, and the rather serious lack of any obvious clues
as to which one(s) are more correct the Post-Modernist viewpoint seems
pretty obvious to me.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
diehard post-modernist
Chihiro Yamada
simonh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
I have to say that IMHO that trying to categorise RPGs in this way isn't
terribly instructive. Firstly because you have to decide what you are
defining those terms in relation to. Rule mechanics? Influence of
rules on plot? Affect of pre-written plot on gameplay? Influence of
players on plot? Style of play? Secondly because the term "modern"
inplies a revolutionary reaction to the past, which I don't think
happened to the hobby as a whole.
You have defined them in terms of mechanics, but still how you do this
is open to argument. I might argue that Amber was the first game with
truly "modern" mechanics since it completely dispensed with dice. Or I
could say almost all RPGs are "modern" in that they had mechanics at
all, and that games like Baron Munchausen are "classical" because they
hark back to roleplaying without rules. As you can see we could talk
ourselves in circles until we're blue in the face.
Roleplaying has a great number of facets, some of which come from the
rules and setting, some from the style of GM and players. When it
come to the latter everyone is different, and thus categorising RPGs is
even harder than categorising books, which I think is impossible
anyway.
Just a few thoughts
Chihiro
Bryan J. Maloney
Snead) wrote:
> Post-Modernism does not say you can't prefer one belief system to another,
> it simply says that your liking one belief system and disliking another
> does not make the one you like "true" and the one you dislike "false".
Does not *necessarily* make it so. It's the *necessarily* that so many
people forget. Likewise, many hacks and mediocre minds latch onto a
"postmodernism" that is really nothing more than the ancient Academic
Skepticism--they *posit* that it is *impossible* to know the truth--which
is actually a statement of faith every bit as unprovable as any they wish
to try to knock over.
> choices differ based on personality, choice, and circumstance, but right
> for you =/= right or better in any larger sense. Given the multitude of
But let us not forget that this is "not necessarily" not an absolute "is
not and cannot be".
aeth...@my-dejanews.com
Your Milage May Vary. It means that he's speaking of his personal experience,
and realizes that other people may not have the same experience in similar
surroundings.
Mike (aetherson)
John R. Snead
: In article <jsneadF8...@netcom.com>, jsn...@netcom.com (John R.
: Snead) wrote:
: > Post-Modernism does not say you can't prefer one belief system to another,
: > it simply says that your liking one belief system and disliking another
: > does not make the one you like "true" and the one you dislike "false".
: Does not *necessarily* make it so. It's the *necessarily* that so many
: people forget. Likewise, many hacks and mediocre minds latch onto a
: "postmodernism" that is really nothing more than the ancient Academic
: Skepticism--they *posit* that it is *impossible* to know the truth--which
: is actually a statement of faith every bit as unprovable as any they wish
: to try to knock over.
: > choices differ based on personality, choice, and circumstance, but right
: > for you =/= right or better in any larger sense. Given the multitude of
: But let us not forget that this is "not necessarily" not an absolute "is
: not and cannot be".
Well said. I was a bit careless in my explanation.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Deathdog The Assassin
Actually, doesn't this definition of postmodernism go against what
postmodernism professes? You can't define something that clearly states it
is undefinable, since by it's very definition it cannot be defined.
Postmodernism sucks...just a bunch of French idiots.
--
****************************************
Brad Everman aka Deathdog
http://www.io.com/~deathdog
"Diplomats! The best diplomat I know is
The Philosopher's Stone
>Only if you have some omniscient way of determining which belief-systems
>are correct and which ones are not. Lacking that, (a lack shared by all
>people I've known) it seems a pretty reasonable way of looking at the
>world.
"Truth" is such a value.
>Post-Modernism does not say you can't prefer one belief system to another,
>it simply says that your liking one belief system and disliking another
>does not make the one you like "true" and the one you dislike "false".
Which is what i said, no belief system is intrinsically better than
any other.
>Given the multitude of
>belief systems out there, and the rather serious lack of any obvious clues
>as to which one(s) are more correct the Post-Modernist viewpoint seems
>pretty obvious to me.
"Lack of oobvious clues as to which ones are more correct"? um...
sorry but ever heard of something called "Science"? Rather popular in
some areas and guess what... it rules out most systems of belief as the
toss they are. Predictive success down to 10 decimal places.
A philosopher of education (I forget who) said that there are several
stages of education; First you know nothing. Second, you learn some
things (school). Then you think you know everything (adolescence), then
you realise you know nothing (beginning of adult life) then you realise
that if this is true, then neither can anyone else (about the level of
the average English litterature or humanities B.A.) Finally you realise
that we DO know things but that sceptical doubts are tools to keep us
from slipping. Maybe when the post modernists finish their educations
they'll realise that they're talking like stoned humanities
undergraduates.
Frank Rafaelsen
>Hm, the post-modernist RPG...
>
>"You see an orc come around the corner."
>
>"From my point of view, the orc does not exist. I ignore it."
>
>"Okay, he stabs you. You're dead."
At this point I think it is appropriate to point out the post-modern
emphasis on praxis. Disbelieving the orc wouldn't be post-modern, it would
be silly.
--
Frank Rafaelsen
was...@my-dejanews.com
AD&D: pre-structuralist: full of assumption, things taken for granted.
WoD and particularly RQ, Aria: structuralist: effort made to lay bare the
world's asumptions, how things relate to each other and the underlying
structures.
OTE, Everway (Mage tries and fails): post-structuralist: the realisation that
structures are de facto linked to a paradigm, that all you can ask for is
internal consistency with maybe some kind of check to experience, that in
these circumstances you have to define what you want as nothing is natural
(not even Nature).
So I'm with John in the post-? pre-tensious camp.
Steve
Nightshade
>In article <36e7cb2f.5572965@news>, Nightshade
><Night...@nightdark.com> writes
>>Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>I don't think roleplaying is in need of novel new approaches, but I do
>>>think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
>>>existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
>>>snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
>>>situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
>>
>>Have to and want to are two different things. The latter can never be
>>anything but a matter of taste.
>
>True enough
>
>>Personally, I have no interest
>>whatsoever in roleplaying the mundane, no matter how 'interesting'
>>they may be in some senses.
>
>Fair enough, but I'm interested in knowing why not.
Well, on it's simplest level, because I have enough contact with the
mundane in my real life; I have no particular urge to explore it in my
entertainment.
John Rudd
>
> Can roleplaying games be described as classical, modern and post modern?
>
> categorizes everything, and then provides completely unrelated rules to deal
> with different classes of activity. (Note I'm not using the term 'class' in
> it's AD&D sense). A character can be a fighter or he can be a thief, but not
> both. They must neatly fit into their chosen category and preferably stay
> there.
>
Up to here, I agree with your classification -- AD&D makes hard
catagorizations that fit well with classical and neoclassical modes of
thought. I'm not sure I'd generalize that to say that AD&D is generally
(Neo)classical, however, but that's largely because I'm having some
trouble remembering the OTHER features of (neo)classical thought.
<humor>In some ways I'd call it impressionist -- from a distance you get
the "impression of reality", but up close, when you study the details,
everything is just blurry and confusing.</humor>
> Modern roleplaying games weren't long in coming. These games are notable for
> their unified approach to game mechanics. A minimum number of game mechanics
> are provided, then adapted to as many different situations as possible.
> Runequest and traveller were among the first such games, with Rolemaster not
> far behind.
>
> So, what does a post-modern roleplaying game look like? Perhaps the most
> obvious candidates are Amber and Over the Edge. Amber does away with dice,
> and has a serious go at getting rid of rules in general. The game medium is
> no longer the rules, but rather it is an ongoing dialogue between the players
> of the game. Over the Edge keeps dice (barely), but does away with fixed
> characteristics or skills. Instead characters are described in terms most
> meaningful to the gaming group.
>
I think that here you're trying to say "things that happened after the
first generation of gaming", and trying to apply labels (modernism and
post-modernism) that come after "classical" to those situations, without
actually understanding those labels.
In a sense, "modern roleplaying" must embody the features of modernism
-- such as "role playing for role playing's sake" to steal the term for
modern art. I know people who do that, to some extent -- in situations
that are otherwise idle, like while waiting for the main course at a
restaurant, they'll break into character. They're not trying to solve
some plot, they're just role playing one of their characters to either
develop the character, or to just have something to do. That, to me, is
modernist role playing. Systemless role-playing usually also lends
itself to that type of situation -- you don't need a rule system if
you're not doing anything other than actually character playing and
character interaction (non-combat and non-skill based type stuff). I
think to some extent many LAPRs are oriented around this (not the rules,
but the game groups running them)... and MUDs as well (I haven't played
many MUDs, but for the ones I did, they were all senario-less ... sorta
like chat programs with atmosphere .. that's modernist, but I can't say
that all MUDs are similarly modernist). Though, I have come across
LAPRs that fall into both groups.
I don't know what to say about Post-modernist gaming .. I'd have to
restudy the period of thought. I don't recall, for example, if
"Deconstructionism" is part of post-modernism, or if it comes after
post-modernism. Besides, what would a good deconstructionist RPG look
like?
Backing up from the paragraph on modernism, though, I'd say that the
pre-modernist games are those that focus on a senario or systematic
plotline. So, for example, the episodic nature of the AD&D dungeon
crawl where you show up for a game and you're there to accomplish a very
specific objective (take the "Castle Inverness" adventure, for
example).. and at the end of that specific objective you recieve
experience and move on to a new "episode" which may have some connection
but may have no connection at all. That is role playing limited to a
specific purpose -- you are only there to accomplish a particular
objective, and in most games the only character description that
actually matters to the game are those which can interact with game
objectives.. you don't get things like style points, and the experience
system is oriented around, say, specifically killing monsters. AD&D
typifies pre-modernist games, but maybe not classical games
specifically.
I think in some ways AD&D lacks some classical features. It does not
assume simple well organized principles, but rather conflicting chaotic
game mechanics that vary arbitrarily from mechanic to mechanic. Maybe
that fits classicism, but I don't think it fits Neo-Classicism. I think
it more likely fits a baroque-type game system.
Heavily scripted games are definitely pre-modern. The first Indiana
Jones game, for example, only allowed each "Scene" to have a very
specific set of outcomes -- if the scene intends for "the girl" to get
kidnapped, she does.. no matter what the PC's do to prevent it. That
strikes me as very Neo-Classical. Things happen like clockwork, and all
things are pre-defined.
aeth...@my-dejanews.com
> are correct and which ones are not. Lacking that, (a lack shared by all
> people I've known) it seems a pretty reasonable way of looking at the
> world.
Post-modernism takes a quite well-grounded and reasonable fact (though trying
to get it through to people that it is well-grounded and reasonable can be
stunningly difficult), that it is impossible for us to /know/ which of
internally consistent philosophical frameworks are True, which is undeniable
to reasonable people, and makes a somewhat less universal claim based on this
fact. To wit, it claims (as you say) that no philosophical framework
/actually is/ True, and that personal preference is all there is.
I, as an old-fashioned absolutist, would claim that, while I can not prove my
belief system to be true, I can make a leap of faith and act as if I could
absolutely know it to be true, and then work from there. One should, however,
be honest with onesself and realize that one's belief system is based not on
logical fact, but an act of faith.
Just to try to steer this back towards a discussion of roleplaying, the
post-modernistic viewpoint is somewhat championed in the White Wolf game
Mage: The Ascension, in which the beliefs of the characters (a very conscious
act of belief in the face of evidence to the contrary, in my opinion) have
demonstrable effects on the world as a whole. However, in that it is
canonical in M:tA that reality is subjective, and hence there is a
"meta-paradigm" of belief affecting physical law, the entire thing collapses
back down into a fairly ordinary metaphysic which is squarely within
classical belief.
<snipped John's remaining, quite cogent, argument for post-modernism>
Mike (aetherson)
Frank T. Sronce
>
> >All of which could well be a lot of fun. Playing a receptionist at an embasy
> >in london might be a great part to play in a diplomatic freeform, or other
> >game where the role is relevent. Playing the receptionist in an embasy siege,
> >spending several days tied down with a blindfold over her eyes not allowed to
> >talk to anyone isn't. Personaly I'd rather play a terrorist, or negotiator,
> >or SAS guy, or the captured policeman allowed to talk to the negotiators. All
> >I'm saying is it's nice to play a character that's relevent to the game being
> >played. Is that an unreasonable point to make?
>
> Is it unreasonable to suggest that the receptionist doesn't have to be
> irrelevant to the game? Just because the terrorists have told her not to
> speak doesn't mean she won't try. They might threaten to kill her, but
> she can keep her wits about her and point out that killing her means
> they have one less hostage and will lose any sympathy there might be for
> their actions. It's not unknown for hostages and terrorists to form
> relationships in seige situations. She can find out what the terrosists'
> motive is - hell, she may even agree with them and know about the
> undeground exit which the SAS will use if the terrorists don't secure it
> in time. She might manage to get her hands free and make a break for it
> or bash one of the terrorists over the head and grab his gun before the
> others can react.
>
> One aspect of roleplaying is problem solving, not to mention winning
> through in the face of overwhelming odds. Your example hasn't presented
> me with a boring, useless character, but with an interesting challenge.
>
Okay, for the next game you get to play the coma victim while everyone
else plays police investigating the attack that put you in your coma.
This is a realistic game, so no psychic powers are available, but people
may occasionally come and talk at you. :-)
Seriously, there is bound to be an extreme point wherein a character
becomes no fun to play. Exactly where that will be will vary from
person to person, but it's not unreasonable to expect that your
character be able to actively contribute in SOME fashion to the game.
Kiz
Robin Low
<Night...@nightdark.com> writes
>Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <36e7cb2f.5572965@news>, Nightshade
>><Night...@nightdark.com> writes
>>>Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
>>>>existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
>>>>snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
>>>>situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
>>
>>>Personally, I have no interest
>>>whatsoever in roleplaying the mundane, no matter how 'interesting'
>>>they may be in some senses.
>>
>>Fair enough, but I'm interested in knowing why not.
>
>Well, on it's simplest level, because I have enough contact with the
>mundane in my real life; I have no particular urge to explore it in my
>entertainment.
Not unreasonbable. However, I'd argue that there's nothing inherently
wrong with mundane characters - the problem lies in mundane situations.
Give a mundane character something exciting to do and there's nothing
really wrong with them.
Look at is this way: I assume that you, like me, are a fairly normal
person. Now imagine you're staying in an old house you've rented for the
holidays. Weird stuff happens. You think you see ghost, or at least
something suspicious. I doubt your response would be, "Oh well, I can't
swing a sword to save my life and shapeshifting's never been my strong
point, so I won't bother investigating this". You'd be off to the
library to the local history section, down the pub to see if the
regulars know any tales about the house and then sitting up all night
with a torch, blanket and thermos flask. I know I would.
Now, in the real world not much may happen, but in a game... well,
anything can happen.
I don't think there's anything really wrong with a mundane PC which a
bizarre or exciting situation couldn't put right.
Bryan J. Maloney
> Post-modernism takes a quite well-grounded and reasonable fact (though trying
> to get it through to people that it is well-grounded and reasonable can be
> stunningly difficult), that it is impossible for us to /know/ which of
> internally consistent philosophical frameworks are True, which is undeniable
Actually, that's not a fact, that's a position. How do you demonstrate
the absolute truth of this posited "impossibility"? All that can be
stated from a completely rigorous position is that it has not been done so
*up to this point as far as you or I know*.
Bryan J. Maloney
<ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> something suspicious. I doubt your response would be, "Oh well, I can't
> swing a sword to save my life and shapeshifting's never been my strong
> point, so I won't bother investigating this". You'd be off to the
Well, while shapeshifting and I have never gotten along, I *can* swing a
sword to save my life (likewise fire a gun, climb, find water, etc.).
However, I can do the research thing, too.
> I don't think there's anything really wrong with a mundane PC which a
> bizarre or exciting situation couldn't put right.
Ah, but now you're taking the original situation beyond the bounds
originally implied for it.
John Dallman
wrote:
> > > If so, presumably AD&D is classical...
> >
> > The game as she is played doesn't fit this view very well. Because
> > AD&D's intrinsic world views are implausible, adding elements from
> > other backgrounds doesn't feel like breaking the game, so
> > unstructured games (Space Opera is another prime example) are fertile
> > territory for post-modern themes.
>
> I've never heard of AD&D being described as unstructured. The game as
> writ does everything possible to direct you on a specific course.
... but so unsuccessfully, at least in the case of everyone I know who
plays it, that they might as well not bother.
> This reminds me of one of the sandman graphic novells. At one point
> Gaiman manages something like 6 or 7 levels of nesting of storytelling.
> Stories within stories, within.... etc. and yet done with great subtlety
> and style.
Not the same as role-playing though, is it? I did once start writing the
rules for GURPS GURPS, the role-playing game of role-playing GURPS
players, at as many levels of recursion as you liked, but then I woke up
screaming.
---
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk. Enlightenment available, UKP23.00 plus
accommodation at http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Baroquon/Main.html
The Philosopher's Stone
>Post-modernism takes a quite well-grounded and reasonable fact (though trying
>to get it through to people that it is well-grounded and reasonable can be
>stunningly difficult), that it is impossible for us to /know/ which of
>internally consistent philosophical frameworks are True, which is undeniable
>to reasonable people, and makes a somewhat less universal claim based on this
>fact.
If you're an internalist about the justification of knowledge then
fine. Consider people like Nozick who consider belief systems in
externalist terms. Science is better than medieval spiritualism because
it has predictive success and in general, it tracks the truth better.
Post-modernism is basically naive coherentism and fails for many of
the same reasons.
>I, as an old-fashioned absolutist, would claim that, while I can not prove my
>belief system to be true, I can make a leap of faith and act as if I could
>absolutely know it to be true, and then work from there. One should, however,
>be honest with onesself and realize that one's belief system is based not on
>logical fact, but an act of faith.
Of course, that's Goedel isn't it? Given any complex closed system
(assuming the best case scenario for the post modernist in which
knowledge systems are closaed and logically coherent) ther are going to
be axioms which cannot be proved BY that system. Which is why i'm an
externalist, externalism solves ALL of these problems and more :-)
Robin Low
Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> writes
>> I don't think there's anything really wrong with a mundane PC which a
>> bizarre or exciting situation couldn't put right.
>
>Ah, but now you're taking the original situation beyond the bounds
>originally implied for it.
>
We were talking about whether mundane characters are interesting and
worthwhile to roleplay. I say they *are* as long the situations they are
put in are interesting.
Jens Hage
> aeth...@my-dejanews.com writes
>>Post-modernism takes a quite well-grounded and reasonable fact (though trying
>>to get it through to people that it is well-grounded and reasonable can be
>>stunningly difficult), that it is impossible for us to /know/ which of
>>internally consistent philosophical frameworks are True, which is undeniable
>>to reasonable people, and makes a somewhat less universal claim based on this
>>fact.
> If you're an internalist about the justification of knowledge then
> fine. Consider people like Nozick who consider belief systems in
> externalist terms. Science is better than medieval spiritualism because
> it has predictive success and in general, it tracks the truth better.
> Post-modernism is basically naive coherentism and fails for many of
> the same reasons.
Given the excellent track record science has had, it is in fact an even
-better- arguement -for- postmodernism.
Why? It keeps changing. From the plum pudding atom to the orbiting
atom to the quarks, etc, it never stops and says "This is truth." It does
say "This is as good as we've gotten."
The constant changing in nutrition (wine is good! It's bad! It's
wet!) is an example. All science, all changing. We keep learning new stuff
all the time, some of which completely invalidates existing wordviews.
Since even science, the hardest thing -I- know of about the real world,
can't pin down "reality", I really doubt philosophers, who have been
complaining back and forth since, oh, say, Socrates and still can't decide
on anything, have any more of a clue.
Post modern philosophers aren't. ;)
aeth...@my-dejanews.com
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
> In article <7c8pef$6fj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, aeth...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
trying
> > to get it through to people that it is well-grounded and reasonable can be
> > stunningly difficult), that it is impossible for us to /know/ which of
> > internally consistent philosophical frameworks are True, which is undeniable
>
> the absolute truth of this posited "impossibility"? All that can be
> stated from a completely rigorous position is that it has not been done so
> *up to this point as far as you or I know*.
Well, there could be an argument made that Goedel's incompleteness theorum
could be carried over into a not-purely-mathematical realm.
However, I'm willing to concede "up to this point as far as you or I know,"
on the grounds that it doesn't really change the argument -- you and I can
not (at this point in time) prove what we believe to be True. Thus, if we
believe it to be absolutely True, we make a leap of faith. If, on the other
hand, we take our inability to prove it to be True as an acknowledgement that
there is no absolute Truth, we head down the road to pure post-modernism.
Michael T. Richter
<7c9e6k$qcl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Well, there could be an argument made that Goedel's incompleteness theorum
>could be carried over into a not-purely-mathematical realm.
Goedel's incompleteness theorum applied only to axiomatic systems, I
thought.
The Philosopher's Stone
>Goedel's incompleteness theorum applied only to axiomatic systems, I
>thought.
If you've got an element of coherentism in your epistemology then
this is okay. you have a belief system connected by logical implication
and a few axioms whicjh cannot be proven or justified in terms of that
belief system. Things like "There is an external world", "Truth is
inherrently vaqluable" and stuff like that.
Of course you have to admit that knowledge IS a logically closed
system which is very much open to debate but still, Goedel's proof of
imcompleteness can be applied to epistemic structures.
Frank & Jennifer Sronce
Robin Low wrote:
> I don't think there's anything really wrong with a mundane PC which a
> bizarre or exciting situation couldn't put right.
>
> regards
>
> Robin
> --
> Robin Low
Similarly, you're unlikely to get a lot of thrills out of having your superhero
character fly down to the post office and mail a letter. :-)
Kiz
Bryan J. Maloney
> believe it to be absolutely True, we make a leap of faith. If, on the other
> hand, we take our inability to prove it to be True as an acknowledgement that
> there is no absolute Truth, we head down the road to pure post-modernism.
But that is still just a leap of faith.
Bryan J. Maloney
wrote:
> Why? It keeps changing. From the plum pudding atom to the orbiting
> atom to the quarks, etc, it never stops and says "This is truth." It does
> say "This is as good as we've gotten."
But science then doesn't take the leap of blind faith to claim that it
shall NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be possible to discover something that is
absolutely true.
Bryan J. Maloney
<ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> We were talking about whether mundane characters are interesting and
> worthwhile to roleplay. I say they *are* as long the situations they are
> put in are interesting.
But if the situation is interesting, there will be no mundane characters
around to see if they're interesting and worthwhile to roleplay. As soon
as they enter the situation, the characters cease being mundane.
Ian Sturrock
<raf...@nvg.ntnu.no> writes
if the very rules of the game (and we all thought AD&D was classical...)
render said goblin non-existent.
A referee of my acquaintance, on first running AD&D, told his players,
"You see a goblin come round the corner,"
then flipped through his Monster Manual: "goblins, goblins, ah, hit
points D8 minus 1, where's me D8," rolled a 1, "1 minus 1," announced:
"It dies."
--
"I am a free prince, and I have as much authority to make war on the whole world
as he who has a hundred sail of ships at sea, and an army of 100,000 men in the
field, and thus my conscience tells me." (Captain Bellamy. A Pirate)
Nightshade
>>Well, on it's simplest level, because I have enough contact with the
>>mundane in my real life; I have no particular urge to explore it in my
>>entertainment.
>
>Not unreasonbable. However, I'd argue that there's nothing inherently
>wrong with mundane characters - the problem lies in mundane situations.
>Give a mundane character something exciting to do and there's nothing
>really wrong with them.
>
>Look at is this way: I assume that you, like me, are a fairly normal
>person. Now imagine you're staying in an old house you've rented for the
>holidays. Weird stuff happens. You think you see ghost, or at least
>something suspicious. I doubt your response would be, "Oh well, I can't
>swing a sword to save my life and shapeshifting's never been my strong
>point, so I won't bother investigating this". You'd be off to the
>library to the local history section, down the pub to see if the
>regulars know any tales about the house and then sitting up all night
>with a torch, blanket and thermos flask. I know I would.
I will give you that a comparitively mundane character's interaction
with the transmundane can be interesting...but even there I find
there's limits.
pan...@ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp
Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Not unreasonbable. However, I'd argue that there's nothing inherently
> wrong with mundane characters - the problem lies in mundane situations.
> Give a mundane character something exciting to do and there's nothing
> really wrong with them.
I agree entirely with this comment, and with the example that followed it.
Perhaps Nightshade should simply rent the movie 'A Chinese Ghost Story' to see
what can happen to mundane characters?
---
Best wishes
Paul Mason
Eric Stevenson
: In article <7c9a8t$bsq$1...@hiram.io.com>, Jens Hage <jh...@dillinger.io.com>
: wrote:
: > Why? It keeps changing. From the plum pudding atom to the orbiting
: > atom to the quarks, etc, it never stops and says "This is truth." It does
: > say "This is as good as we've gotten."
: But science then doesn't take the leap of blind faith to claim that it
: shall NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be possible to discover something that is
: absolutely true.
And in science, you can easily get 'true enough.' Sure, we know Newton's
laws aren't completely accurate, but they're good enough for everyday use.
Jens Hage
> In article <7c9a8t$bsq$1...@hiram.io.com>, Jens Hage <jh...@dillinger.io.com>
> wrote:
>> Why? It keeps changing. From the plum pudding atom to the orbiting
>> atom to the quarks, etc, it never stops and says "This is truth." It does
>> say "This is as good as we've gotten."
> But science then doesn't take the leap of blind faith to claim that it
> shall NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be possible to discover something that is
> absolutely true.
Science takes the assumption that something can only be proven false. At
least that's what I got from my chemistry, physics, hell, math classes. It
can be tested to kingdom come and back six times, and it won't help if
there's -one- bad spot. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of truth.
-Philosophers- and moralists claim to track truth. And they've had a
-real- spotty record. I don't believe in morals. I do believe in ethics.
The Wraith
<ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Who's to say this little old lady is irrelevant or insignificant?
>Certainly, she may not be much use in a dungeon bash, but in this
>hypothetical Poseidon Adventure game, who's to say she isn't the woman
>who designed the ship in the first place and knows its layout like the
>back of her hand? Who's to say that she can't the roleplayed as someone
>who's simply an interesting character to *talk* to? Who's to say she's
>not going to be the former midwife who's going to look after the
>pregnant mother and deliver the baby? Who's to say she isn't going to
>the one who sacrifices herself to save the others?
I think you are missing the point, Robin. If the story was to be about
anything, in any possible style, then yes, you could make any
character significant. However, the suggestion was that this old woman
isn't really significant in a fairly specific game, presumably
intended to have a similar style to the movie "The Poseidon
Adventure". This means that the game will be pretty much
action-adventure oriented, if I correctly recall the movie's style.
Sure, the little old lady is a viable character, but she is much more
viable in a game better suited to her. A character fitting the
suggested style would be much more suitable for that game.
>I've played in games where PCs have been elderly blind women, barmaids,
>and writers with writers' block. I played in a Mage game where my
>character's magic was only capable of affecting invertebrates (after a
>while I just forgot about magic and concentrated on talking to people)
>and an Amber throne-war where I was Stan Laurel.
Admittedly, I haven't done a writer with writer's block, but I have
played an elderly blind woman myself, and a barmaid, and characters
with strong limitations on their abilities, and characters who found
themselves out of place. However, most players find these characters
to be more enjoyable when they are played in an appropriate context,
and games to be more enjoyable when characters fit their context. That
doesn't mean you can't find an innovative context for innovative
characters.
>I don't think roleplaying is in need of novel new approaches, but I do
>think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
>existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
>snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
>situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
Not the point at all.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
simonh...@my-dejanews.com
Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Who's to say this little old lady is irrelevant or insignificant?
> >> Certainly, she may not be much use in a dungeon bash, but in this
> >> hypothetical Poseidon Adventure game, who's to say she isn't the woman
> >> who designed the ship in the first place and knows its layout like the
> >> back of her hand?
> >
> >I'm not talking about a hytpothetical scenario based loosely on the poseidon
> >adventure, I'm talkign about the poseidon adventure as is run as a
roleplaying
> >game. I think that's pretty obvious, otherwise it would be irrelevent as an
> >example.
>
> I was talking about the Poseidon Adventure run as a roleplaying game
> too! I thought that was obvious.
But in the poseidon adventure the little old lady was not the designer of the
ship. You're talkign about a different character that happens to look like
her, which is irrelevent to my point.
> So you're saying that this character is *just* a little old lady with a
> heart condition and nothing more? She's become old, but has *no* past
> experiences or skills. There isn't a human being on the planet that
> bland, so I don't see why a character in a rpg should be either.
Wel,, the character in the poseidon adventure was, which was the point I was
making.
> Is it unreasonable to suggest that the receptionist doesn't have to be
> irrelevant to the game?
She doesn't have to be, no, and to make her an interestign character to
roleplay she would have to become involved. That's the whole point. As is,
without any involvement she's not an interesting character to play. Do you
see what I'm trying to get across here?
> One aspect of roleplaying is problem solving, not to mention winning
> through in the face of overwhelming odds. Your example hasn't presented
> me with a boring, useless character, but with an interesting challenge.
Suppose she's told to keep her mouth shut, doesn't and the terrorists decide
to kill a hostage. Bang. Wow, that was fun, wasn't it. I fully understand
your point, it _is_ possible to adapt the character and work out her
involvement between the player and GM. However if the GM knows before hand
that the terrorists are going to kill one of the hostages does it make sense
to make that hostage a player character? I don't think so, but you're free to
disagree.
Roleplaying is not simply a simulation of reality. If it were there is a
hugely high chance that your feisty secretary would simply be kicked
unconcious or shot. If the game is about a group of ordinary people captured
by terrorists, but who barvely and resourcefully manage to effect their own
escape then that's a great game to play. If it's about crack SAS men rescuing
bound, gagged and helpless hostages then playing a bound gagged and helpless
hostage is by definition not a fun role to play.
If you were hell bent on playing a hostage, I as GM would work out a
compromise. Most of the players are SAS men, but one of the hostages might
manage to get signals out to the team, or persuade the terrorists to
negotiate, etc. However these are all seperate games with different ground
rules.
Simon Hibbs
The Wraith
<ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>We were talking about whether mundane characters are interesting and
>worthwhile to roleplay. I say they *are* as long the situations they are
>put in are interesting.
I would say that saying that mundane characters *are* interesting and
worthwhile to roleplay is going a bit too far. Rather, I would say
they *can be*, depending on the objectives of the game. In that
Poseidon Adventure game, for example, 97-year-old Granny Mae will
probably drown in the first five minutes of play, and even if doesn't,
won't prove useful at any stage during the adventure. Basically, she
isn't suited to the game, or it to her, because the game is intended
to be action-oriented, and Granny just doesn't provide that.
Now, in a different game, Granny Mae might be quite interesting, but
that's not all the time.
Michael T. Richter
<7iTABIBS...@jmccalmont.demon.co.uk>...
>>Goedel's incompleteness theorum applied only to axiomatic systems, I
>>thought.
> If you've got an element of coherentism in your epistemology then
>this is okay. you have a belief system connected by logical implication
>and a few axioms whicjh cannot be proven or justified in terms of that
>belief system. Things like "There is an external world", "Truth is
>inherrently vaqluable" and stuff like that.
> Of course you have to admit that knowledge IS a logically closed
>system which is very much open to debate but still, Goedel's proof of
>imcompleteness can be applied to epistemic structures.
Is there a rigorous work-up of this somewhere? I'm not convinced, but I can
see that a plausible line of argument could hypothetically be constructed.
aeth...@my-dejanews.com
"Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> aeth...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7c9e6k$qcl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >Well, there could be an argument made that Goedel's incompleteness theorum
> >could be carried over into a not-purely-mathematical realm.
>
> thought.
That's correct (as far as I know -- I'm a fuzzy liberal arts major, and hence
was never exposed to the full mathematical rigor of Goedel's theorum). I'd
argue that any kind of coherent metaphysical belief system must be axiomatic
in nature.
For (an extreme) example, a "pure" classical scientist might be 100%
experimentalist. He believes only in what is verifiable through statistical
study. His (unstated) axiom is that many-times repeated experiments have
predictive power -- that if you have dropped this spoon 100,000 times and
found that it accelerated towards the earth at 9.8 m/s/s, that this is
evidence of a physical law which causes spoons (at least) to accelerate
towards the earth at 9.8 m/s/s.
Conversely, the "pure" religious orthodox might have an axiom which says that
/everything/ happens only because God wills it. Thus, dropping that spoon
100,000 times indicates /only/ that God willed the spoon to accelerate
towards the earth at that rate each of those times. And, a further axiom
might go, God is ineffable and works in mysterious ways, and, as such, there
is no particular guarantee that the spoon will accelerate towards the earth
again if you drop it again.
And then the egoist might claim that all of this is his dream, and that it's
only the vagrancies of his subconscious that make the spoon drop, and besides,
you probably stop existing when he turns his back to you, so how does he know
you /really/ dropped the spoon?
I don't think that it's possible to prove or disprove these axioms, and that
arguing them with each other is futile, as each is a choice of belief.
While that's not a logically strict argument for why Goedel's incompleteness
theorum holds for philosophical discourse, it's as close as somebody who got
up only to multi-variable calculus and no philo courses is gonna give you.
:)
Mike (aetherson)
aeth...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > believe it to be absolutely True, we make a leap of faith. If, on the other
> > hand, we take our inability to prove it to be True as an acknowledgement
that
> > there is no absolute Truth, we head down the road to pure post-modernism.
>
> But that is still just a leap of faith.
>
Uh, yeah. That's what I said. I'm not sure why you've got a "just" in there.
Ian Sturrock
>Given the excellent track record science has had, it is in fact an even
>-better- arguement -for- postmodernism.
>
>atom to the quarks, etc, it never stops and says "This is truth." It does
>say "This is as good as we've gotten."
Such changes aren't so much changes as refinements. As another poster
pointed out, Newtonian physics still works perfectly in almost all
cases. Einsteinian physics is just a slight variation on Newtonian that
only has measurable effects under very unusual, extreme circumstances
(extremely fast-moving objects), and quantum mechanics likewise
(extremely small particles).
FWIW I'm still a big fan of postmodernism though - how else can I excuse
my dress sense? ;)
Ian Sturrock
><ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> We were talking about whether mundane characters are interesting and
>> worthwhile to roleplay. I say they *are* as long the situations they are
>> put in are interesting.
>
>around to see if they're interesting and worthwhile to roleplay. As soon
>as they enter the situation, the characters cease being mundane.
>
has been that of the mundane character thrust unwilling & unprepared
into a bizarre situation. Often by the *end* of his/her experiences
s/he is no longer mundane, but the gradual changes/realisations/
awakenings s/he must go through in the process could be a lot of fun to
roleplay.
aeth...@my-dejanews.com
Ian Sturrock <i...@ty-gath.demon.co.ukfnordfnord> wrote:
> > Why? It keeps changing. From the plum pudding atom to the orbiting
> >atom to the quarks, etc, it never stops and says "This is truth." It does
> >say "This is as good as we've gotten."
>
> Such changes aren't so much changes as refinements. As another poster
> pointed out, Newtonian physics still works perfectly in almost all
> cases. Einsteinian physics is just a slight variation on Newtonian that
> only has measurable effects under very unusual, extreme circumstances
> (extremely fast-moving objects), and quantum mechanics likewise
> (extremely small particles).
That's an interesting way of looking at it. However, both Einsteinian
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have totally reworked the way physicists
have looked at the universe. While it may be computationally acceptable to
ignore those theories for macroscopic, low-energy situations, neither
Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics could be described as incremental
refinements as to the basic theories which drove science. Rather, they were
full-fledged revolutions (as was, for example, the non-geocentric cosmic
model), and they were amply resisted by established theoreticians with a
vigor fully proportional to the fundamental changes they proposed.
woodelf
> post-modernism. Besides, what would a good deconstructionist RPG look
> like?
HoL?
woodelf <*>
nbar...@students.wisc.edu
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~woodelf/
I did not realize that similarity was required for the exercise of
compassion. --Delenn
woodelf
your superhero
> character fly down to the post office and mail a letter. :-)
ever seen Space Ghost Coast to Coast? ;-)
The Philosopher's Stone
>see that a plausible line of argument could hypothetically be constructed.
coherentism, any book on epistemology should have a chapter on it.
As far as Goedel is concerned I'm not sure of my sources. If you
read about coherentism then you'll see how plausible it is.
If Goedel's proof applies to all formal logical systems and knowledge
is such a system, why should there be a problem? Actually, it's upside
down as coherentism states the stuff about axioms is the case and I say
that this mirrors Goedel rather than it being the other way round as it
is in maths.
Patrick Juola
Jens Hage <jh...@dillinger.io.com> wrote:
>In rec.games.frp.misc The Philosopher's Stone <Th...@LAAAAAaaaaaaaarge.Mice.com> wrote:
>> aeth...@my-dejanews.com writes
>
>>>to get it through to people that it is well-grounded and reasonable can be
>>>stunningly difficult), that it is impossible for us to /know/ which of
>>>internally consistent philosophical frameworks are True, which is undeniable
>>>fact.
>> If you're an internalist about the justification of knowledge then
>> fine. Consider people like Nozick who consider belief systems in
>> externalist terms. Science is better than medieval spiritualism because
>> it has predictive success and in general, it tracks the truth better.
>> Post-modernism is basically naive coherentism and fails for many of
>> the same reasons.
>
>-better- arguement -for- postmodernism.
>
>atom to the quarks, etc, it never stops and says "This is truth." It does
>say "This is as good as we've gotten."
You're forgetting the other half of scientific progress -- "What
we *used* to regard as 'good' has been disproven."
Living theories need not stay alive. But dead ones tend to stay
dead.
The plum pudding model isn't just another worldview under the scientific
model. It's WRONG. QM may not turn out to be correct.... but plum
pudding atoms will not be ressurected.
-kitten
David G. Bell
simonh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> Suppose she's told to keep her mouth shut, doesn't and the terrorists decide
> to kill a hostage. Bang. Wow, that was fun, wasn't it. I fully understand
> your point, it _is_ possible to adapt the character and work out her
> involvement between the player and GM. However if the GM knows before hand
> that the terrorists are going to kill one of the hostages does it make sense
> to make that hostage a player character? I don't think so, but you're free to
> disagree.
I once did something like this, with the agreement of the player
involved. He wasn't sure that he could find the time for more than a
couple of sessions. It was a WW2 resistance scenario, and the players
were slipping in 'Allo,'Allo mode when they were caught up in a German
security sweep. The character involved was carrying the rather too
distinctive suitcase that contained the radio transmitter.
As we'd agreed, he made a roll, and I told him that one of the German
officers was looking intently at his suitcase. The PC tried to make a
dash for it. He couldn't out-run bullets.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Jens Hage
> In article <7c9a8t$bsq$1...@hiram.io.com>,
> Jens Hage <jh...@dillinger.io.com> wrote:
>>Given the excellent track record science has had, it is in fact an even
>>-better- arguement -for- postmodernism.
>>
>> Why? It keeps changing. From the plum pudding atom to the orbiting
>>atom to the quarks, etc, it never stops and says "This is truth." It does
>>say "This is as good as we've gotten."
> You're forgetting the other half of scientific progress -- "What
> we *used* to regard as 'good' has been disproven."
True enough, but that's not saying "What we have now is true" either.
> Living theories need not stay alive. But dead ones tend to stay
> dead.
> The plum pudding model isn't just another worldview under the scientific
> model. It's WRONG. QM may not turn out to be correct.... but plum
> pudding atoms will not be ressurected.
However, there -are- other theories that won't stay dead. I can think of a
few, mostly in nutrition, that keep going round and round and round and
round...
Robin Low
writes
>Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Look at is this way: I assume that you, like me, are a fairly normal
>>person. Now imagine you're staying in an old house you've rented for the
>>holidays. Weird stuff happens. You think you see ghost, or at least
>>something suspicious. I doubt your response would be, "Oh well, I can't
>>swing a sword to save my life and shapeshifting's never been my strong
>>point, so I won't bother investigating this". You'd be off to the
>>library to the local history section, down the pub to see if the
>>regulars know any tales about the house and then sitting up all night
>>with a torch, blanket and thermos flask. I know I would.
>
>I will give you that a comparitively mundane character's interaction
>with the transmundane can be interesting...but even there I find
>there's limits.
There's a balance to be struck, and individual character viability has
to be considered for individual games, but this is true for any
character, god or mortal.
In practice I want to play both approaches depending on the game. The
only reason I argue so strongly in favour of mundane characters is
because some folk seem convinced that such PCs are inherently boring and
useless. So, not only I do I think that's untrue, as I'm just a mundane
sort of chap myself part of me takes it personally.
Robin Low
dejanews.com writes
>In article <HZBXrrA6...@celephais.demon.co.uk>,
> Robin Low <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> Who's to say this little old lady is irrelevant or insignificant?
>But in the poseidon adventure the little old lady was not the designer of the
>ship. You're talkign about a different character that happens to look like
>her, which is irrelevent to my point.
I'm with you. I thought you were talking about a hypothetical mundane
character in an example situation. I suspect I've lost so much of your
original point, it's best if we leave this one alone now or we'll just
wind each other up.
>> Is it unreasonable to suggest that the receptionist doesn't have to be
>> irrelevant to the game?
>
>She doesn't have to be, no, and to make her an interestign character to
>roleplay she would have to become involved. That's the whole point. As is,
>without any involvement she's not an interesting character to play. Do you
>see what I'm trying to get across here?
I think we've reached the argumentative equivalent of standing back to
back and trying to prove to each other that we are looking at the same
thing.
(Please don't ask me to explain that.)
>
>> One aspect of roleplaying is problem solving, not to mention winning
>> through in the face of overwhelming odds. Your example hasn't presented
>> me with a boring, useless character, but with an interesting challenge.
>
>Suppose she's told to keep her mouth shut, doesn't and the terrorists decide
>to kill a hostage. Bang. Wow, that was fun, wasn't it. I fully understand
>your point, it _is_ possible to adapt the character and work out her
>involvement between the player and GM. However if the GM knows before hand
>that the terrorists are going to kill one of the hostages does it make sense
>to make that hostage a player character? I don't think so, but you're free to
>disagree.
I think your point is fair enough, but I'd assume that the GM would be
kind enough *not* have the terrorists *automatically* select the PC
hostage. The player has to be given at least a chance. Mind you, if the
player played the PC stupidly, trying to be foolishly gung-ho or
continually mouthing off abusively, the GM would be within his rights to
have the terrorists take pot shots at the PC.
>
>Roleplaying is not simply a simulation of reality. If it were there is a
>hugely high chance that your feisty secretary would simply be kicked
>unconcious or shot. If the game is about a group of ordinary people captured
>by terrorists, but who barvely and resourcefully manage to effect their own
>escape then that's a great game to play. If it's about crack SAS men rescuing
>bound, gagged and helpless hostages then playing a bound gagged and helpless
>hostage is by definition not a fun role to play.
>
>If you were hell bent on playing a hostage, I as GM would work out a
>compromise. Most of the players are SAS men, but one of the hostages might
>manage to get signals out to the team, or persuade the terrorists to
>negotiate, etc. However these are all seperate games with different ground
>rules.
This is precisely the point I was trying to make: thought and
imagination. You've taken a mundane character and given her a useful
role in a game. The character makes a contribution, the player makes a
contribution.
Robin Low
<wra...@powerup.com.au> writes
>I think you are missing the point, Robin.
It wouldn't be the first time.
>Sure, the little old lady is a viable character, but she is much more
>viable in a game better suited to her. A character fitting the
>suggested style would be much more suitable for that game.
So what exactly are we arguing about? My only point was that mundane
characters are worthwhile roleplaying sometimes.
It sounds like we're arguing over a point we both agree on.
>>I don't think roleplaying is in need of novel new approaches, but I do
>>think roleplayers need to have more open minds about what can be done in
>>existing roleplaying games. You don't *have* to have high stats and some
>>snazzy powers to roleplay interesting characters in interesting
>>situations. You just need some thought and imagination.
>
>Not the point at all.
I'm buggered if I know what *the* point was now!
regards
Robin
--
"Ho hum," said Pooh, and Piglet agreed.
- If you don't know the source you should be ashamed of yourself.
Robin Low
><ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> We were talking about whether mundane characters are interesting and
>> worthwhile to roleplay. I say they *are* as long the situations they are
>> put in are interesting.
>
>But if the situation is interesting, there will be no mundane characters
>around to see if they're interesting and worthwhile to roleplay. As soon
>as they enter the situation, the characters cease being mundane.
Eh?
Bryan J. Maloney
> Science takes the assumption that something can only be proven false. At
> least that's what I got from my chemistry, physics, hell, math classes. It
Waaaaal, not quite. The presumption is that something can be accepted if
not contradicted.