From: Graham Wills Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:56:10 -0600 Organization: Bell Laboratories Lines: 105 Message-ID: <38DF92AA.5DD7CF96@research.bell-labs.com> References: <38d841df.5486782@news.idt.net> <38D88E6B.F9D62C74@knutsen.dk> <8bb6sa$8m4$2@news.umbc.edu> <38D927F2.F38895F2@knutsen.dk> <8bdrmf$20g5$1@news.umbc.edu> <38DA7516.58C1F639@myriad.net> <38DA8BF9.CDE2E156@myriad.net> <38DB8508.29E89E4A@myriad.net> <677bOBpgn8H1APdCmLOkzk0J7Od9@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: twitch.research.bell-labs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-SGI [en] (X11; U; IRIX64 6.5 IP30) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!207.24.196.41!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!news Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1339 I appear to have written rather a long article instead of the brief addendum to Wayne's note I had intended. I welcome comments about the techniques I use, especially in reference to what other GMS have found improives the overall experience of gaming... Wayne Shaw wrote: > >It is a correct conclusion to take from the simulationist stance at its > >extremes. But just as there are no *competent* extremists in the dramatist > >camps (no competent dramatist GM has plots on rails) no *competent* > >extremists exist in the simulationist camps either (no competent > >simulationist GM will kill off the entire party on a die roll just to > >preserve his precious world). > Though there are groups who's ethos on the matter come pretty close. > I've certainly seen gamist/simulationist blends where if a fight went > wrong and the player group was all going to die, the GM would let it > happen without blinking and none of the player group expected anything > different. Though of course this is quite a rarity. I come pretty close. The last campaign I ran had half the party die (and came within two die rolls of having everyone die). My philosophy is to set up a situation I believe the players should be capable of coping with. In this particular case, they came up with a bad plan, were unlucky and continued to make bad choices. When the players looked back on the situation, they felt they were lucky some had made it out, rather than feeling aggrieved that some had died. The previous campaign ended with the party all dead, killed by Nazgul in some very exciting and tense chase scenes in Dol Guldur. It's a tricky balancing act, and requires careful thought and consistent application. Over the last 15 years or so, I've adapted my style and think the following elements are important: A) The GM must set up the situation so that the players will definitely survive if they are moderately clever, coming up with a good plan. B) The GM must set up the situation so that the players will probably survive even if they come up with a bad plan. They might not succeed, but failure probably shouldn't lead to death. C) If the players have a good plan and are unlucky, the GM should modify the world so that the player's success is more likely and death more unlikely. A corollary of (A) and (B) is that for players to die, both bad play and bad luck must be present. It's also important that the players know that this is the case. Knowing that a good plan ensures survival (if not success) leads them to think, deduce, observe and get more involved. Without this element, lazy players fall prey to the 'why bother planning - let's just charge in and kill em all' style of play. However it is also important for them to know that a bad plan does not necessarily doom them. If they do not know this, disagreements over what to do become very divisive. With this knowledge, players are more likely to be able to say "Well, I think we're going to get in real trouble, but OK, let's try it", becasue they know that even if their assessment of their fellow's plan is accurate, they'll still probably pull through. In (C) the important item to note is that I do not modify dice rolls. I modify the world. Thus if a good plan is going awry (the skilled archer just cannot seem to hit the oil with his flaming arrow), I will not have the monster just keep missing until the archer does succeed, I prefer to introduce a new element. Perhaps there's a torch burning beside one of the other players they could throw. Perhaps the monster is afraid of light and shies away from a reflection off a player's shield. For me, this introduces more interest to the game and allows the players more challenge than simply fixing numbers. They still have to work out what's going on and react to it. It also allows characters to fail gracefully. The great archer failed to do the job and the group was saved by the quick thought of the hired guard. Failure is a great way of developing character, and allowing graceful failure is a good way for a GM to facilitate character growth. Why do I do all this? The reason is that allowing failure allows meaningful success. When an adventure goes wrong, the tension in the room mounts and players start seeing success in terms of survival. One of my players most memorable sessions from a previous campaign is of a disastrous fight with an ice dragon, where after a few rounds, there was absolutely no question of victory. One character died and the rest were forced to give up nearly all their equipment bargaining with the dragon. Since that combat, my players plan combats with dragons very carefully. When they succeed (as they usually do), they are very pleased and very relieved. They know that if they plan badly, death is a possibility. Their success becomes highly meaningful. Losing a character can be very hard. As a GM, I have seen my wife almost on the point of tears as a much-loved character neared death. Fortunately, Brob survived, but she knew that that was not a given, and Brob's survival was a cause for joy. There would not have been that joy without the possibility of sorrow. "Only in darkness, light" "For a word to be spokem there must be silence, before and after" -Graham -- Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs gwills@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338 http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde! ###### From: Wayne Shaw Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Message-ID: References: <8bb6sa$8m4$2@news.umbc.edu> <38D927F2.F38895F2@knutsen.dk> <8bdrmf$20g5$1@news.umbc.edu> <38DA7516.58C1F639@myriad.net> <38DA8BF9.CDE2E156@myriad.net> <38DB8508.29E89E4A@myriad.net> <677bOBpgn8H1APdCmLOkzk0J7Od9@4ax.com> <38DF92AA.5DD7CF96@research.bell-labs.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 27 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:05:21 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.153.245.41 X-Trace: news2.randori.com 954180321 208.153.245.41 (Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:05:21 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:05:21 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1333 >> Though there are groups who's ethos on the matter come pretty close. >> I've certainly seen gamist/simulationist blends where if a fight went >> wrong and the player group was all going to die, the GM would let it >> happen without blinking and none of the player group expected anything >> different. Though of course this is quite a rarity. > >I come pretty close. The last campaign I ran had half the party die (and >came within two die rolls of having everyone die). My philosophy is to >set up a situation I believe the players should be capable of coping >with. >In this particular case, they came up with a bad plan, were unlucky and >continued to make bad choices. When the players looked back on the >situation, they felt they were lucky some had made it out, rather than >feeling aggrieved that some had died. The previous campaign ended with >the party all dead, killed by Nazgul in some very exciting and tense >chase scenes in Dol Guldur. Well, this may or may not be quite what I was thinking of; we're fairly gamist locally, and I have a simulationist streak. The difference between this and what a really heavy simulationist would seem to potentially be able to do is that since gamism is dominant, I make some effort to ensure that the PCs don't get into fights they can't win. As I understand the concept, a pure simulationist would make no such effort; they would or wouldn't do so at their own devices. ###### From: Peter Knutsen Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:59:52 +0200 Organization: http://www.knutsen.dk Lines: 40 Message-ID: <38E00408.99FA1369@knutsen.dk> References: <8bb6sa$8m4$2@news.umbc.edu> <38D927F2.F38895F2@knutsen.dk> <8bdrmf$20g5$1@news.umbc.edu> <38DA7516.58C1F639@myriad.net> <38DA8BF9.CDE2E156@myriad.net> <38DB8508.29E89E4A@myriad.net> <677bOBpgn8H1APdCmLOkzk0J7Od9@4ax.com> <38DF92AA.5DD7CF96@research.bell-labs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: msx-esp-39-4.ppp.cybercity.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.cybercity.dk 954205137 18659 212.242.17.132 (28 Mar 2000 00:58:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cybercity.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Mar 2000 00:58:57 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.cybercity.dk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1363 Wayne Shaw wrote: > Well, this may or may not be quite what I was thinking of; we're > fairly gamist locally, and I have a simulationist streak. The > difference between this and what a really heavy simulationist would > seem to potentially be able to do is that since gamism is dominant, I > make some effort to ensure that the PCs don't get into fights they > can't win. As I understand the concept, a pure simulationist would > make no such effort; they would or wouldn't do so at their own > devices. Yes, as a Simulationist GM, I don't try to make every fight that the PCs might pick winnable[1]. Note that they don't have to pick any fights at all, combat in Quest is risky, like it is in all mature rule systems. It's up to the player characters to decide whether to apply violence, and where to apply it. If they choose to apply it the wrong place, that's their problem. One good thing about the Quest combat system is that it's easier to become incapacitated than killed, so fights will often end with no casualties (armoured humans are actually rather hard to kill). Surrendering or fleeing will usually be alternatives to death, if the PCs does enter a fight that they shouldn't. I mean, I don't like killing PCs. Few NPCs are real killers, they like to win their fights but won't kill foes who have surrendered. Realism does not requires a high lethality, it only requires that death is actually *possible* (which is not the case in many Storytelling events, which are frequently mislabeled as roleplaying games). Too many bodies (PC or NPC) can disrupt suspension-of-disbelief as easily as a total absence of PC-bodies. -- Peter Knutsen [1] This is a feature of a strong "the world does **NOT** revolve around the Player Characters" attitude. ###### From: Wayne Shaw Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Message-ID: References: <8bdrmf$20g5$1@news.umbc.edu> <38DA7516.58C1F639@myriad.net> <38DA8BF9.CDE2E156@myriad.net> <38DB8508.29E89E4A@myriad.net> <677bOBpgn8H1APdCmLOkzk0J7Od9@4ax.com> <38DF92AA.5DD7CF96@research.bell-labs.com> <38E00408.99FA1369@knutsen.dk> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 24 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:29:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.153.245.41 X-Trace: news2.randori.com 954210565 208.153.245.41 (Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:29:25 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:29:25 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!206.132.58.120!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!news.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1447 On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:59:52 +0200, Peter Knutsen wrote: >Yes, as a Simulationist GM, I don't try to make every fight that the >PCs might pick winnable[1]. Note that they don't have to pick any >fights at all, combat in Quest is risky, like it is in all mature >rule systems. That's a pejorative phrase, Peter. There are perfectly mature rules system that make combat fairly UNrisky, just because they are simulating genres where many fights _aren't_ much of a hazard. > >It's up to the player characters to decide whether to apply >violence, and where to apply it. If they choose to apply it the >wrong place, that's their problem. And that's a very simulationist attitude. In a gamist perspective, sometimes that decision is part of the game, and sometimes information control has been managed just to lead people to that combat, and their ability to avoid it was comprimised from the start. ###### From: neelk@brick.cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: 28 Mar 2000 03:19:05 GMT Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <8bdrmf$20g5$1@news.umbc.edu> <38DA7516.58C1F639@myriad.net> <38DA8BF9.CDE2E156@myriad.net> <38DB8508.29E89E4A@myriad.net> <677bOBpgn8H1APdCmLOkzk0J7Od9@4ax.com> <38DF92AA.5DD7CF96@research.bell-labs.com> <38E00408.99FA1369@knutsen.dk> Reply-To: neelk@alum.mit.edu X-Trace: X/DI8o4D+o9lcMb77Vh1B7WvAdu207ac/t43UIoAzg8= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Mar 2000 03:19:05 GMT X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.5.2 UNIX) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!neelk Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1454 Wayne Shaw wrote: > > And that's a very simulationist attitude. In a gamist perspective, > sometimes that decision is part of the game, and sometimes > information control has been managed just to lead people to that > combat, and their ability to avoid it was comprimised from the > start. Interestingly, I just had an experience that might be of interest to the participants in the thread: In the Jovian Chronicles game I am playing in, the PCs were sold into slavery and to control them they were all fitted with lethal explosive collars that could be detonated if they rebelled or tried to escape. While some of the PCs were working on a slow-but-likely-to-work escape plan, another tried something that was frankly quite dumb (but in character, sigh) that led to us getting in a fight with a couple of camp guards. Because this was sure to be discovered within the hour, and we feared dire consequences, one of the techie PCs tried a desperate gamble to disable the collars (dousing them with freon and hoping that took them out of their operating temperature range before removing them). Realistically, this shouldn't have had much of a chance to succeed, and should have had fatal consequences if it failed -- trying it was just a case of trusting to blind luck since all of the alternatives seemed worse. But in fact, it did work. I couldn't help avoiding the feeling that this worked because otherwise multiple PCs would have been rendered unplayable in the 3rd session and terminated the campaign. We -- players and GM -- did tell each other repeatedly how lucky we had been, I think to reinforce the idea that it was a fluke that the PCs couldn't rely on again, and so to prevent this sort of thing from becoming a routine maneuver and changing the tone of the campaign. I now think that the players have a certain responsibility not to try things which lead to situations where the only alternatives are success or total death, not if the goal is a long-run game without a larger-than-life feel. Otherwise, the GM is put in the awkward position of killing everyone off (and wrecking the game) or fudging in a way that warps the long-term feel of the game in undesirable ways. This is partly the result of a pair of contradictory desires: first, the desire to have long-term characters, and second, to maintain the feel of a dangerous and uncertain world where most heroism is posthumously acknowledged. The only way to maintain the feel, I think, is if the PCs always act as if the world is dangerous. (Some of the players did a first-rate job of portraying panic and desperation, and this made things come out far better than they might have.) Neel ###### From: napoleon48@aol.com (Napoleon48) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Lines: 6 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 28 Mar 2000 03:28:40 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.129!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1419 You know, you people are neglecting the third faction in the Simulationalist vs. Dramatist gaming styles. Some of us play for fun. Many of us don't quantify how we play. So, I suppose, the third faction would be "People playing a Game-alist." ###### From: mkkuhner@kingman.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: 28 Mar 2000 03:39:25 GMT Organization: University of Washington Genetics Lines: 36 Message-ID: <8bp9hd$dj82$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> References: <8bdrmf$20g5$1@news.umbc.edu> <38E00408.99FA1369@knutsen.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: kingman.genetics.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 954214765 445698 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.u.washington.edu!kingman.genetics.washington.edu!mkkuhner Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1455 Neel Krishnaswami wrote: >I now think that the players have a certain responsibility not to try >things which lead to situations where the only alternatives are >success or total death, not if the goal is a long-run game without a >larger-than-life feel. Otherwise, the GM is put in the awkward >position of killing everyone off (and wrecking the game) or fudging in >a way that warps the long-term feel of the game in undesirable ways. My experience with a long-term campaign with strong script immunity is that this becomes absolutely essential. One thing that happens without such a player ethic is that cautious PCs who create plans where failure is survivable are simply inferior to gutsy PCs who go for do-or-die plans. After all, the GM needs failures to happen *somewhere*--so they happen in the places where they are survivable, and the cautious PC's plans fail yet again. But even without script immunity the players should try not to put the GM in a situation where he's got to either let them succeed completely or kill them all, at least in any but the most strongly simulationist campaigns or those totally accepting of mass PC death. It's really hard on the GM. The reciprocal GM responsibility is not to put the PCs in situations where they cannot make progress except by taking huge risks and succeeding all the time--again, assuming he's not looking for either larger-than-life heroes or high mortality. Situations should be crafted so that fall-back plans, hasty retreats, surrender, etc. are at least worth considering. I don't think I care for the insta-death collars in this regard. They make it so very clear that your first mistake will be your last. If even a little mistake is going to be lethal, the players will go for the whole enchilada--why not? Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com ###### From: Wayne Shaw Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Message-ID: <017gOOEWAgBbUXbalAiimLf7UWUN@4ax.com> References: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 11 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:27:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.153.245.41 X-Trace: news2.randori.com 954228446 208.153.245.41 (Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:27:26 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:27:26 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!news.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1445 On 28 Mar 2000 03:28:40 GMT, napoleon48@aol.com (Napoleon48) wrote: >You know, you people are neglecting the third faction in the Simulationalist >vs. Dramatist gaming styles. > >Some of us play for fun. >Many of us don't quantify how we play. >So, I suppose, the third faction would be "People playing a Game-alist." Actually, everyone plays for fun; it's just that what people get fun out of varies considerably. ###### From: "Frank T. Sronce" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:41:54 -0500 Organization: Oceanography Dept, Texas A&M Lines: 22 Message-ID: <38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net> References: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: deacon.tamu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Mar 2000 15:35:40 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!verio!news-feeds.jump.net!solomon.io.com!news.tamu.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1493 Napoleon48 wrote: > > You know, you people are neglecting the third faction in the Simulationalist > vs. Dramatist gaming styles. > > Some of us play for fun. > Many of us don't quantify how we play. > So, I suppose, the third faction would be "People playing a Game-alist." .Advocacy calls 'em Gamists. :-) I believe the basic idea is that a Dramatist wants the game to tell a great story, the Simulationist wants it to portray a believable and consistent world, and the Gamist wants the game to present clever challenges and interesting scenarios. Every game draws from all three to one degree or another. If _you_ don't analyze your game, that's great- but don't expect that to keep the people who do from trying to classify you. :-) Kiz ###### From: Bill McHale Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism Date: 29 Mar 2000 16:15:01 GMT Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Lines: 68 Message-ID: <8bta65$9ecq$1@news.umbc.edu> References: <8bb6sa$8m4$2@news.umbc.edu> <38DA7516.58C1F639@myriad.net> <38DA8BF9.CDE2E156@myriad.net> <38DB8508.29E89E4A@myriad.net> <677bOBpgn8H1APdCmLOkzk0J7Od9@4ax.com> <38DF92AA.5DD7CF96@research.bell-labs.com> <38E00408.99FA1369@knutsen.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc7.umbc.edu X-Trace: news.umbc.edu 954346501 309658 130.85.6.7 (29 Mar 2000 16:15:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@umbc.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Mar 2000 16:15:01 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (IRIX64/6.5 (IP19)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!korova.insync.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!feeder.qis.net!news.umbc.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1531 Peter Knutsen wrote: : Wayne Shaw wrote: :> Well, this may or may not be quite what I was thinking of; we're :> fairly gamist locally, and I have a simulationist streak. The :> difference between this and what a really heavy simulationist would :> seem to potentially be able to do is that since gamism is dominant, I :> make some effort to ensure that the PCs don't get into fights they :> can't win. As I understand the concept, a pure simulationist would :> make no such effort; they would or wouldn't do so at their own :> devices. : Yes, as a Simulationist GM, I don't try to make every fight that the : PCs might pick winnable[1]. Note that they don't have to pick any : fights at all, combat in Quest is risky, like it is in all mature : rule systems. You better define mature here because I can think of many mature systems where combat is only as risky as the GM wants it. : It's up to the player characters to decide whether to apply : violence, and where to apply it. If they choose to apply it the : wrong place, that's their problem. Or they can just develop the attitude that they need bigger better weapons so that they can handle any combat situation they encounter. : One good thing about the Quest combat system is that it's easier to : become incapacitated than killed, so fights will often end with : no casualties (armoured humans are actually rather hard to kill). I thought you just said Quest combat was risky? I don't consider a system that risky unless there is a significant chance of death or at least being maimed. : Surrendering or fleeing will usually be alternatives to death, if : the PCs does enter a fight that they shouldn't. I mean, I don't : like killing PCs. Few NPCs are real killers, they like to win : their fights but won't kill foes who have surrendered. You mean few NPCs in your world. In some worlds (like our own world) it might be very likely that those who are captured in combat will be tortured or killed. : Realism : does not requires a high lethality, it only requires that death : is actually *possible* (which is not the case in many Storytelling : events, which are frequently mislabeled as roleplaying games). : Too many bodies (PC or NPC) can disrupt suspension-of-disbelief as : easily as a total absence of PC-bodies. I can't think of a single game where death is impossible (well except perhaps Toon but it has different rules), rather some games simply make it something that should not be controled by the die roll. And again, you are privledging the simulationist point of view. Those of us who don't like worrying about having a rule for everything and are more interested in plots and adventure are just as much roleplayers as you are. Even the earliest edition of AD&D pointed out that a RPG is not a contest. -- Bill *************************************************************************** Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1 *************************************************************************** ###### From: "Brandon Blackmoor" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:56:13 -0500 Lines: 35 Message-ID: <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net> References: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> <38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net> X-Trace: ubl4cQUT8CT0Eth0pNkAFm1sf7kG3ljGZjRb7esQVdQ= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Mar 2000 06:56:16 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1546 "Frank T. Sronce" wrote in message news:38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net... > > If _you_ don't analyze your game, that's great- but don't expect that > to keep the people who do from trying to classify you. :-) I'm not sure I even see the point in the attempt. The classification schemes I've seen range from the simplistic (the game/simulation/drama folly being the most common) to abstruse multidimensional genre descriptors that would take a scientist to explain. I must admit I've even made an attempt or two at coming up with a workable categorization scheme myself, but mainly that was out of profound dissatisfaction with the schemes I saw others bandying about at the time (it's been quite a while). It was little more than mental gymnastics: I didn't see much practical use for it even when I was working on it. So, does anyone work on categorization schemes for games and the people who play for a practical purpose, or is it mainly an intellectual exercise? Assuming someone *has* come up with a categorization scheme that has been useful in some way, what has it been useful for? Has it made your games more fun, or helped you hook up with players you get along with? I realize I'm coming at it with kind of a negative spin, but I'd really be interested in hearing about cases where deconstructing someone's role-playing style was useful or fun. (This seems a propos for rgfadvocacy, so I've crossposted there.) Brandon Blackmoor BBlackmoor@blackgate.net 29.march.2000 ###### From: Wayne Shaw Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Message-ID: <46vhOH77muF9HzWnj2w5lPYggG8T@4ax.com> References: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> <38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net> <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 17 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:08:47 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.153.245.45 X-Trace: news2.randori.com 954313727 208.153.245.45 (Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:08:47 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:08:47 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!nntp.abs.net!news-feeder2.wcg.net!WCG!news.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1588 On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:56:13 -0500, "Brandon Blackmoor" wrote: >"Frank T. Sronce" wrote in message >news:38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net... >> >> If _you_ don't analyze your game, that's great- but don't expect that >> to keep the people who do from trying to classify you. :-) > >I'm not sure I even see the point in the attempt. The classification schemes >I've seen range from the simplistic (the game/simulation/drama folly being >the most common) to abstruse multidimensional genre descriptors that would >take a scientist to explain. The best and simplest answer is that even the game/drama/sim breakdown has been useful to some of us. What reason other than that is classification ever developed? ###### From: Wayne Shaw Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Message-ID: References: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> <38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net> <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 27 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:17:47 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.153.245.45 X-Trace: news2.randori.com 954314267 208.153.245.45 (Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:17:47 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:17:47 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!news.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1578 On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:56:13 -0500, "Brandon Blackmoor" wrote: To elaborate on this since I accidently sent only the first part of it... >Assuming someone *has* come up with a categorization scheme that has been >useful in some way, what has it been useful for? Has it made your games more >fun, or helped you hook up with players you get along with? I realize I'm >coming at it with kind of a negative spin, but I'd really be interested in >hearing about cases where deconstructing someone's role-playing style was >useful or fun. The most useful thing it's allowed me to do (the sim/game/drama breakdown that is) is to analyze the apparent posture people seem to be coming from in disagreements about gamesmastering methods, and strip them down to assumption clash. In the past, I've seen far too much accusation of other people doing things "wrong" or "badly" when what was really happening was differences in expectation creating differences in output. The game/drama breakdown is actually the more common of these (simulationists are, on the whole, not an extremely common group in RPGing) and being able to talk about things in those terms has been rather fruitful on several occasions where otherwise I suspect bad feeling would have ensued because people would have persisted in seeing other people's methodologies as the consequence of either poor intentions or insufficient skills rather than different aims. ###### From: edromia@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:45:24 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 18 Message-ID: <8bt1dh$qch$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> <38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net> <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.17.12.66 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 29 13:45:24 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 95; DigExt) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x21.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 12.17.12.66 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDedromia Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1534 In article <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Brandon Blackmoor" wrote: > Assuming someone *has* come up with a categorization scheme that has > been useful in some way, what has it been useful for? Has it made > your games more fun, or helped you hook up with players you get along > with? The latter. It provides a simple, common language with which I can say, "I have these sorts of leanings, and this is the style in which I plan to run this game. If you have these other sorts of leanings, then you may not have as much fun playing in my campaign, unless you're willing to try something different." -M. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Wayne Shaw Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism Message-ID: References: <38DA7516.58C1F639@myriad.net> <38DA8BF9.CDE2E156@myriad.net> <38DB8508.29E89E4A@myriad.net> <677bOBpgn8H1APdCmLOkzk0J7Od9@4ax.com> <38DF92AA.5DD7CF96@research.bell-labs.com> <38E00408.99FA1369@knutsen.dk> <8bta65$9ecq$1@news.umbc.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 11 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:02:13 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.153.245.33 X-Trace: news2.randori.com 954356533 208.153.245.33 (Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:02:13 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:02:13 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!nyc-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!europa.netcrusader.net!63.208.208.143!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!news.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1791 On 29 Mar 2000 16:15:01 GMT, Bill McHale wrote: >Peter Knutsen wrote: > >: Wayne Shaw wrote: Poor attribution, Bill. I wrote the quoted text, not the general text you were responding to. ###### From: triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 30 Mar 2000 04:33:47 GMT References: <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!triton.skycache.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1758 Brandon Blackmoor wrote: >Assuming someone *has* come up with a categorization scheme that has been >useful in some way, what has it been useful for? Has it made your games more >fun, or helped you hook up with players you get along with? I realize I'm >coming at it with kind of a negative spin, but I'd really be interested in >hearing about cases where deconstructing someone's role-playing style was >useful or fun. Well, on a personal level, my first encounter with the Threefold helped rejuvenate my respect for gamist playing styles. I stopped feeling all snooty towards the Tomb of Horrors, which let me have rollicking good time playing through it in FUDGE awhile ago. The Threefold has also allowed me to diagnose discussions to help me understand where a particular poster is coming from, and thus defuse a potentially hostile flamefest which would have resulted from our mutually different presumptions of "what gaming is all about". It has also proved invaluable to me in the actual playing of roleplaying games, because it provides an intellectual framework which lets me specifically tailor a specific game. For example, my FENG SHUI games become more dramatic; while my Tekumel games become more simulationist. (YMMV) This allows me to create more consistent and enjoyable gaming experiences. (The Tomb of Horrors example, above, is another instance of this. If I had tried to approach the Tomb with my standard gestalt mode it would have failed terribly. By shedding the majority of my simulationist and dramatist inclinations, though, it was a lot of fun.) Justin Bacon triad@prairie.lakes.com ###### From: "Brandon Blackmoor" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 01:24:49 -0500 Lines: 26 Message-ID: <8burvk$o7t$1@bob.news.rcn.net> References: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> <38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net> <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8bt1dh$qch$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Trace: whob3FqWxHyiDpDZNGt/BC7Zm3GNVNL7TJA/fvQCYI8= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Mar 2000 06:24:52 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1720 wrote in message news:8bt1dh$qch$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > In article <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, > "Brandon Blackmoor" wrote: >> Has it made your games more fun, or helped you hook up with >> players you get along with? > > The latter. It provides a simple, common language with which I can > say, "I have these sorts of leanings, and this is the style in which I > plan to run this game. If you have these other sorts of leanings, then > you may not have as much fun playing in my campaign, unless you're > willing to try something different." That's generally what I thought would be the most likely use. If you can describe your gaming style to a potential player or GM such that they get a feel for what you prefer, chances are you might avoid unpleasantness later. For myself, I've never found a simple way to do this efficiently. The most effective way to communicate the kind of game I like to play in seems to be for me to run one and let someone play in it. :/ BBlackmoor@blackgate.net 30.march.2000 ###### From: bruce-baugh@sff.net (Bruce Baugh) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 06:30:46 GMT Organization: Zenrei Bunraku Lines: 13 Message-ID: <8busam$39c_004@enews.newsguy.com> References: <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-253.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mycroft Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1774 In article <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com>, triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote: >Well, on a personal level, my first encounter with the Threefold helped >rejuvenate my respect for gamist playing styles. That sounds like an idea doing a good thing. -- Bruce Baugh / bruce-baugh@sff.net http://bruce-baugh.users.spiretech.com/ - finally, small but current. "Never let it be be said, especially by large men with big guns, that I failed to help." - Dave Weinstein ###### From: triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Lines: 45 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 30 Mar 2000 18:28:55 GMT References: <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!feeder.qis.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1750 Justin Bacon wrote: >It has also proved invaluable to me in the actual playing of roleplaying games, >because it provides an intellectual framework which lets me specifically tailor >a specific game. Another small note to add on to this: The Threefold has come under attack, upon occasion, for not being "inclusive". I.E., there are many factors to what makes up a game which the Threefold pretty much ignores. For example, just because Feng Shui is a game with dramatist inclinations doesn't mean all dramatists are going to like it. Maybe they don't like HK action (setting), or maybe they don't like 0-average traits (system). Or maybe they're just in the mood for some fantasy, dammit, and they want to play D&D. The Threefold isn't a cure-all -- it's a way of looking at a very specific section of the gaming experience (playing styles) with some loosely precise terminology that makes it easier to discuss. I think the reason the Threefold proves itself so useful so often, however, is that the issue of playing styles is often an unanalyzed assumption. People are consciously cognizant (for example) of the fact that there are some people who don't like fantasy or SF or HK action -- and they respect the fact that not everyone likes the same things. You'll occasionally get into rip-roaring debates over whether or not GURPS or AD&D actually "suck" or not, but most people don't question the fact that people have different tastes in what makes a good gaming system. But lots of people believe that munchkins don't have a right to game. Or that hack 'n slash games are "lesser" forms of entertainment, and therefore unworthy of being played. (The first clause of that second sentence might be true, but I seriously question the second.) Far more commonly you'll see dissention at the "table-level". For example, a simulationist GM (one who is attempting to accurately model a world) might not quail at letting a random dice roll wipe out the party (assuming they were the variety of simulationist who believes that the Dice are God as far as the fictional world is concerned). A dramatist, OTOH, would quail at the assumption. If you got a simulationist GM running dramatist players there's a fundamental discord of what everybody wants out of the game, and that can result in some bad vibes when the assumptions come into conflict with one another. Justin Bacon triad@prairie.lakes.com ###### From: bruce-baugh@sff.net (Bruce Baugh) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:33:03 GMT Organization: Zenrei Bunraku Lines: 15 Message-ID: <8c0dlv$2og_002@enews.newsguy.com> References: <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-764.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mycroft Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:2062 In article <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com>, triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote: >I think the reason the Threefold proves itself so useful so often, however, is >that the issue of playing styles is often an unanalyzed assumption. People are I agree strongly with this. I'm perennially started at how many people haven't thought about precisely what they find fun in gaming, nor what might get them more of that and less of other things. -- Bruce Baugh / bruce-baugh@sff.net http://bruce-baugh.users.spiretech.com/ - finally, small but current. "Never let it be be said, especially by large men with big guns, that I failed to help." - Dave Weinstein ###### From: Wayne Shaw Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Message-ID: References: <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:55:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.153.245.26 X-Trace: news2.randori.com 954449752 208.153.245.26 (Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:55:52 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:55:52 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!nyc-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:2088 On 30 Mar 2000 18:28:55 GMT, triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote: >Far more commonly you'll see dissention at the "table-level". For example, a >simulationist GM (one who is attempting to accurately model a world) might not >quail at letting a random dice roll wipe out the party (assuming they were the >variety of simulationist who believes that the Dice are God as far as the >fictional world is concerned). A dramatist, OTOH, would quail at the >assumption. If you got a simulationist GM running dramatist players there's a >fundamental discord of what everybody wants out of the game, and that can >result in some bad vibes when the assumptions come into conflict with one >another. And it can splay in any direction. A gamist GM with simulationist/dramatist players can well seem to not be taking the game seriously, when in fact he's just focusing on aspects of it (the game play) that are peripheral to his players interest. This causes no end of grief and conflict for really no good reason. ###### From: bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:52:27 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Lines: 28 Sender: verified_for_usenet@cornell.edu (bjm10 on potato.cit.cornell.edu) Message-ID: References: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> <38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net> <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 954460346 4533 132.236.156.18 (30 Mar 2000 23:52:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Mar 2000 23:52:26 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!bjm10 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:2179 In article <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Brandon Blackmoor" wrote: > So, does anyone work on categorization schemes for games and the people who > play for a practical purpose, or is it mainly an intellectual exercise? Yup. Here it is: "Run Screaming" "Only if You Paid Me" "Only if My Wife Plays Too" "I Might Think About It" "Sure I'll Play, If I Don't Have Anything Else To Do" "I'll Play That" "Let Me In" "PLAY NOW!!!" Oddly enough, I can't seem to fit that to rules systems, only to individual campaigns. -- "Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are dealing with our mental health crisis today." ###### From: bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:54:30 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Lines: 26 Sender: verified_for_usenet@cornell.edu (bjm10 on potato.cit.cornell.edu) Message-ID: References: <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 954460469 4533 132.236.156.18 (30 Mar 2000 23:54:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Mar 2000 23:54:29 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!bjm10 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:2171 In article <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com>, triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote: > But lots of people believe that munchkins don't have a right to game. Or that > hack 'n slash games are "lesser" forms of entertainment, and therefore unworthy Such people need a heavy dose of Edmund Burke. > Far more commonly you'll see dissention at the "table-level". For example, a > simulationist GM (one who is attempting to accurately model a world) might not > quail at letting a random dice roll wipe out the party (assuming they were the > variety of simulationist who believes that the Dice are God as far as the > fictional world is concerned). A dramatist, OTOH, would quail at the > assumption. If you got a simulationist GM running dramatist players there's a Then there's the "I want my players to come back next week and not pound me" GM. Gaming is fundamentally a social enterprise. -- "Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are dealing with our mental health crisis today." ###### From: bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:55:03 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Lines: 21 Sender: verified_for_usenet@cornell.edu (bjm10 on potato.cit.cornell.edu) Message-ID: References: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> <38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net> <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8bt1dh$qch$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 954460502 4533 132.236.156.18 (30 Mar 2000 23:55:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Mar 2000 23:55:02 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!bjm10 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:2173 In article <8bt1dh$qch$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, edromia@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, > "Brandon Blackmoor" wrote: > > Assuming someone *has* come up with a categorization scheme that has > > been useful in some way, what has it been useful for? Has it made > > your games more fun, or helped you hook up with players you get along > > with? > > The latter. It provides a simple, common language with which I can > say, "I have these sorts of leanings, and this is the style in which I > plan to run this game. If you have these other sorts of leanings, then > you may not have as much fun playing in my campaign, unless you're > willing to try something different." Why not do 'em all at once? -- "Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are dealing with our mental health crisis today." ###### From: Wayne Shaw Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Message-ID: References: <20000327222840.27015.00001579@ng-fo1.aol.com> <38E0C4B2.84255C@myriad.net> <8bs9eg$het$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <8bt1dh$qch$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:47:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.153.245.26 X-Trace: news2.randori.com 954463672 208.153.245.26 (Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:47:52 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:47:52 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!63.208.208.143!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!news.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:2085 On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:55:03 -0500, bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote: >> The latter. It provides a simple, common language with which I can >> say, "I have these sorts of leanings, and this is the style in which I >> plan to run this game. If you have these other sorts of leanings, then >> you may not have as much fun playing in my campaign, unless you're >> willing to try something different." > >Why not do 'em all at once? Because to some extent, the more you do of one, the less you do of others. At least to my view; game heavy concerns preclude some degree of drama because at certain points you have to preterb the process to get some dramatic situations, in a way that may not be acceptable from a gamist perspective. The same works on most of the other combinations. This doesn't mean you can't combine aspects, but it does mean you have to do trade-offs to do so, and sometimes the tradeoffs aren't acceptable. ###### From: Barbara Robson Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: 31 Mar 2000 10:13:34 +0800 Organization: The University of Western Australia Lines: 25 Message-ID: <8c11ke$sed$1@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> References: <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-No-Archive: yes X-No-repost: yes X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #118 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.ecn.ou.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.uwa.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:2007 bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes: >triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote: >> Far more commonly you'll see dissention at the "table-level". For example, a >> simulationist GM (one who is attempting to accurately model a world) might >> not quail at letting a random dice roll wipe out the party (assuming they >> were the variety of simulationist who believes that the Dice are God as far >> as the fictional world is concerned). A dramatist, OTOH, would quail at the >> assumption. If you got a simulationist GM running dramatist players there's >Then there's the "I want my players to come back next week and not pound me" >GM. >Gaming is fundamentally a social enterprise. Exactly. So it helps if the GM knows what the players want, and vice versa. The dramatist players of a simulationist GM might be upset if the GM didn't fudge the dice rolls in this instance, but the simulationist players of a dramatist GM would probably be even more upset if the GM *did* fudge. Barbara -- [Change the "aus" in my address to "au" to reply]. ###### From: bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:31:36 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Lines: 16 Sender: verified_for_usenet@cornell.edu (bjm10 on potato.cit.cornell.edu) Message-ID: References: <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com> <8c11ke$sed$1@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 954527497 29920 132.236.156.18 (31 Mar 2000 18:31:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Mar 2000 18:31:37 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!bjm10 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:2163 In article <8c11ke$sed$1@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>, Barbara Robson wrote: > Exactly. So it helps if the GM knows what the players want, and vice > versa. The dramatist players of a simulationist GM might be upset if > the GM didn't fudge the dice rolls in this instance, but the simulationist > players of a dramatist GM would probably be even more upset if the GM > *did* fudge. And the yappledapplist players of a zabazingiwioopist GM fazoop dayorp nazingpoo! -- "Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are dealing with our mental health crisis today." ###### From: "Brandon Blackmoor" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:21:06 -0500 Lines: 18 Message-ID: <8c38cv$7ar$1@bob.news.rcn.net> References: <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com> <8c11ke$sed$1@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> X-Trace: TFdGcfTfKchIdeJFHDE9h9+CrLlSPspxRmbvn05dT2M= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:21:19 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!outgoing.news.rcn.net.MISMATCH!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1962 "Barbara Robson" wrote in message news:8c11ke$sed$1@cyllene.uwa.edu.au... > > Exactly. So it helps if the GM knows what the players want, and vice > versa. The dramatist players of a simulationist GM might be upset if > the GM didn't fudge the dice rolls in this instance, but the simulationist > players of a dramatist GM would probably be even more upset if the GM > *did* fudge. It would be so much easier if the players I knew fit into cubbyholes like this. It'd be like buying an appropriate gift for someone you know who likes the color red and only the color red. BBlackmoor@blackgate.net 31.march.2000 ###### From: Wayne Shaw Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Message-ID: References: <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com> <8c11ke$sed$1@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> <8c38cv$7ar$1@bob.news.rcn.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:42:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.153.245.32 X-Trace: news2.randori.com 954549774 208.153.245.32 (Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:42:54 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:42:54 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!triton.skycache.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!gw12.bcandid.com.MISMATCH!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!news.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:2089 On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:21:06 -0500, "Brandon Blackmoor" wrote: >"Barbara Robson" wrote in message >news:8c11ke$sed$1@cyllene.uwa.edu.au... >> >> Exactly. So it helps if the GM knows what the players want, and vice >> versa. The dramatist players of a simulationist GM might be upset if >> the GM didn't fudge the dice rolls in this instance, but the simulationist >> players of a dramatist GM would probably be even more upset if the GM >> *did* fudge. > >It would be so much easier if the players I knew fit into cubbyholes like >this. It'd be like buying an appropriate gift for someone you know who likes >the color red and only the color red. They don't have to fit into it perfectly. I can know someone likes red in clothing but not in jewelry, but having the concept of "red" was still useful. Similarly, most people have dramatist/gamist/simulationist tendencies in a mix, and often a mix that varies according to game type. Didn't mean the concept of those breakdowns weren't useful in evaluating what would work for them. ###### From: Barbara Robson Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: Simulational extremism (was: Over the Edge) Date: 2 Apr 2000 10:49:19 +0800 Organization: The University of Western Australia Lines: 17 Message-ID: <8c6cff$6pd$1@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> References: <20000329233347.13628.00002282@ng-cp1.aol.com> <20000330132855.18404.00000067@ng-co1.aol.com> <8c11ke$sed$1@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: cyllene.uwa.edu.au X-No-Archive: yes X-No-Repost: yes X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #118 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.uwa.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:2329 bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes: >And the yappledapplist players of a zabazingiwioopist GM fazoop dayorp >nazingpoo! Quite possibly. Of course, whether that matters depends on the degree to which the interests of yappledapple and zabazingiwioop might clash. But if they did, and if these were things important to the players or GM, I'd want to know about it (and be able to discuss it). (IOW: yes, "dramatist" and "simulationist" are jargon. But they are useful jargon). Barbara -- [Change the "aus" in my address to "au" to reply]