Script immunity

[Russell Wallace]

It took me some decades to figure this out, so maybe it might be of use
to other people.

Assume you want some degree of script immunity, but not such as to
render the representation of the game world not a significant
representation of a reasonable measure of the Tegmark multiverse (i.e.
you don't want to frig up suspension of disbelief) - no "I run at the
dragon waving my regular sword!" *fumble fumble* "Zounds! you've slain
the dragon! who'd'a thunk it?"

What's the difference between the criteria applied to a PC or beloved
NPC vs a bad guy?

I now swipe terms from the legal profession: "balance of probability" vs
"beyond reasonable doubt".

Ithaqua the Windwalker swipes at a Guardian PC. Dice go smack, critical
success. Balance of probability is death, but Guardians are tougher than
ordinary men, so it's within reasonable doubt that the PC goes bounce
bounce thump, comes to a halt with half a dozen broken bones,
unconscious, but still alive.

The Knight of Dawn (Guardian PC) takes a similar swipe at a Horror of
similar toughness and rolls a critical hit. The balance of probability
is that the target dies. Ergo it dies, poof.

Obviously this won't be useful to people who want to run high-lethality
games where PCs die on probability, but to the rest of us it might be of
use.

--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.

[gleichman]

On Apr 27, 1:13 am, Russell Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously this won't be useful to people who want to run high-lethality
> games where PCs die on probability, but to the rest of us it might be of
> use.

On occassion I wonder just what people consider high-lethality.

I'm betting it's really not that high at all.


And I also wonder about the need to double dip the concept of script
immunity. After all many game systems have already built in the
concept advised here mechancally- thus it would seem to be of use only
for those games systems that have not. And then the question arises,
why not just use a game system that does this for you?

I think an answer to the last question is that it isn't really a
question of "Balance of probability", it's really a question of "I
want it to go down the way I want it to go down".

[Russell Wallace]

gleichman wrote:
> On occassion I wonder just what people consider high-lethality.

In this context, I consider it high-lethality if PCs go splat from
random dice rolls. (This is similar to a criterion used in
non-interactive fiction. Not identical, since a literal random number
generator isn't used, but when a novel or movie protagonist dies from
something like a stray bullet that _looks_ random, we consider this
unusually lethal.)

> And I also wonder about the need to double dip the concept of script
> immunity. After all many game systems have already built in the
> concept advised here mechancally- thus it would seem to be of use only
> for those games systems that have not. And then the question arises,
> why not just use a game system that does this for you?

Which ones? I've never seen one that does as far as I can recall, but
while I've seen a lot of game systems, there are undoubtedly also a lot
that I haven't seeen; maybe I've missed some.

--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.

[gleichman]

On Apr 27, 10:17 am, Russell Wallace <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Which ones? I've never seen one that does as far as I can recall, but
> while I've seen a lot of game systems, there are undoubtedly also a lot
> that I haven't seeen; maybe I've missed some.

Age of Heroes does this with the built in assumption that it requires
massive overdamage in a vital location to actually kill a PC. NPCs
don't always get the same assumption.

HERO System manages it in the same way, by requiring immense damage
and/or the use of optional rules to make lethal attacks actually
lethal to PC. This can be further enchanced by the construction
methods used including building NPCs less survivable to have different
points on the line for different types of characters.

Deadlands (like many other games) manages it by the use of Fate Chips
which can be spent to overturn a lethal result. NPCs don't get as many
Fate Chips, again making them less survivable.

I forgot the exact game, but I've even read one where the rules
specifically state that a PC can't die (but can be disabled) without
the agreement of the owning player that it is "plot reasonable".

And so on. The list is actually rather endless including original D&D
which had a Pace of Decision low enough (and magic powerful enough)
that in most cases only someone who wanted to die would stick around
long enough to do so.

All those pick a line that defines a place where "balance of
probability" turns into "beyond reasonable doubt". Now they might not
pick the same point on the line that you would, but the concepts are
there and thus can be adjusted to taste (especially in the case of
HERO System which I have extensive experience in).

The very concept of Script immunity as used in this newsgroup is
actually nothing more than a rejection of where the chosen game system
draws that line. Be it a rejection of detail (at what point) or of
concept (i.e. the point doesn't matter, inside the player wants what
the player wants and that desire is inconsistent mechanically)

[Russell Wallace]

gleichman wrote:
> All those pick a line that defines a place where "balance of
> probability" turns into "beyond reasonable doubt". Now they might not
> pick the same point on the line that you would, but the concepts are
> there

Well no, by and large they aren't; game systems, including most of the
ones you cite, typically handle the issue by making all combatants
physically tougher, not by stepping back and looking at the concept of
probability and how it's used. Lots of games have something along the
lines of fate points, but these are general-purpose tools, turning
"dead" into "unconscious" is only one of their uses. Few games
distinguish between PCs and bad guys, and I'm still not aware of any
that puts cherished NPCs (e.g. PCs' noncombatant family and friends, or
the little girl they're trying to rescue in the middle of a disaster or
war zone) on the same footing as PCs as far as script immunity goes.

> and thus can be adjusted to taste

Naturally. I'm explaining a method of adjusting.

> The very concept of Script immunity as used in this newsgroup is
> actually nothing more than a rejection of where the chosen game system
> draws that line.

Of course! If one were completely satisfied with the way the game system
in use handles the issue, there would be no need to do anything else.

--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.

[gleichman]

On Apr 27, 12:43 pm, Russell Wallace <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Well no, by and large they aren't; game systems, including most of the
> ones you cite, typically handle the issue by making all combatants
> physically tougher, not by stepping back and looking at the concept of
> probability and how it's used.

Only the poorly designed ones. All those I noted (except Deadlands)
certain did look at probabilities.


> Lots of games have something along the
> lines of fate points, but these are general-purpose tools, turning
> "dead" into "unconscious" is only one of their uses. Few games
> distinguish between PCs and bad guys, and I'm still not aware of any
> that puts cherished NPCs (e.g. PCs' noncombatant family and friends, or
> the little girl they're trying to rescue in the middle of a disaster or
> war zone) on the same footing as PCs as far as script immunity goes.

Again, all the ones I noted do exactly that.

[Russell Wallace]

gleichman wrote:
> On Apr 27, 12:43 pm, Russell Wallace <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>Lots of games have something along the
>>lines of fate points, but these are general-purpose tools, turning
>>"dead" into "unconscious" is only one of their uses. Few games
>>distinguish between PCs and bad guys, and I'm still not aware of any
>>that puts cherished NPCs (e.g. PCs' noncombatant family and friends, or
>>the little girl they're trying to rescue in the middle of a disaster or
>>war zone) on the same footing as PCs as far as script immunity goes.
>
> Again, all the ones I noted do exactly that.

It seems we've discovered a proof of the many-worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics; by some strange trick of router configuration, our
newsfeeds are propagating between two Everett branches, in each of which
there is a set of games titled "D&D", "Hero" etc, but where the actual
content of the games is completely different between your branch and mine ;)

...you know, there's probably a good scenario premise in that ^.^

--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.

[gleichman]

On Apr 27, 12:55 pm, Russell Wallace <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It seems we've discovered a proof of the many-worlds interpretation of
> quantum mechanics; by some strange trick of router configuration, our
> newsfeeds are propagating between two Everett branches, in each of which
> there is a set of games titled "D&D", "Hero" etc, but where the actual
> content of the games is completely different between your branch and mine ;)

I think it's just more likely that you don't actually understand the
mechanics in those games.

[Ben Finney]

Russell Wallace <***@gmail.com> writes:

> In this context, I consider it high-lethality if PCs go splat from
> random dice rolls.

You'd better abandon that term, then. "PCs die from random dice rolls"
says nothing about the lethality rate being high or low. If the
probability of PC death on those diice is very low, it would be silly
to still call that "high lethality".

It sounds rather that you're trying to avoid PC deaths that are
*inappropriate* for the game you want to play. In which case, why is
"PC dies" even allowed to be a result from those dice at all?

If "PC death" means "PC is removed from the game", that's something
that should only ever happen when it's appropriate to the fun you're
trying to have, not something that should be left to the throw of the
dice.

--
\ "If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it |
`\ works, we've already failed." -- Peter Lee, Disney |
_o__) corporation, 2005 |
Ben Finney

[gleichman]

"Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote in message
news:87tzv1fa4p.fsf_-***@benfinney.id.au...
> It sounds rather that you're trying to avoid PC deaths that are
> *inappropriate* for the game you want to play. In which case, why is
> "PC dies" even allowed to be a result from those dice at all?

That's typically what's meant when people talk about Script Immunity IME.


> If "PC death" means "PC is removed from the game", that's something
> that should only ever happen when it's appropriate to the fun you're
> trying to have, not something that should be left to the throw of the
> dice.

It can be fun to leave it to the throw of the dice.

[Ben Finney]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > If "PC death" means "PC is removed from the game", that's
> > something that should only ever happen when it's appropriate to
> > the fun you're trying to have, not something that should be left
> > to the throw of the dice.
>
> It can be fun to leave it to the throw of the dice.

Either the PC's death would be fun, in which case go for it: make it a
possible result (or simply contrive that it happens). Or, the PC's
death would *not* be fun, in which case don't allow that option to be
left to a dice roll.

Make sure, before rolling the dice, that the range of possible results
from the dice roll would *all* be entertaining, and don't let non-fun
ones be possible.

--
\ "I doubt, therefore I might be." -- Anonymous |
`\ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

[Simon Smith]

In message <***@benfinney.id.au>
Ben Finney <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote:

> "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > "Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > > If "PC death" means "PC is removed from the game", that's
> > > something that should only ever happen when it's appropriate to
> > > the fun you're trying to have, not something that should be left
> > > to the throw of the dice.
> >
> > It can be fun to leave it to the throw of the dice.
>
> Either the PC's death would be fun, in which case go for it: make it a
> possible result (or simply contrive that it happens). Or, the PC's
> death would *not* be fun, in which case don't allow that option to be
> left to a dice roll.
>
> Make sure, before rolling the dice, that the range of possible results
> from the dice roll would *all* be entertaining, and don't let non-fun
> ones be possible.

Nice try, but in many cases it's the small risk of an unpleasant outcome
that helps generate the fun. Which means you must make some space in the
spectrum of possible results for the less pleasant results, and run with
them when they happen. The question then becomes how big a probability gap
to allow. A 10% chance is pretty much certain to show up after a session or
two, and even one-in-a-thousand flukes happen.

--
Simon Smith

When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org

[Ben Finney]

Simon Smith <***@zen.co.uk> writes:

> Ben Finney <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > Make sure, before rolling the dice, that the range of possible
> > results from the dice roll would *all* be entertaining, and don't
> > let non-fun ones be possible.
>
> Nice try, but in many cases it's the small risk of an unpleasant
> outcome that helps generate the fun. Which means you must make some
> space in the spectrum of possible results for the less pleasant
> results, and run with them when they happen.

That's just another way of saying that an "unpleasant outcome" (for
the PC) is a possible fun result (for the players). The thing to do is
ensure that the dice don't give any result that would detract from the
entertainment, whatever that means in the context of the game.

If removing the PC from the game would not be entertaining at this
juncture, don't ever let it be possible for a roll of the dice to do
that; decide before the dice are rolled what range of outcomes will be
permitted.

--
\ "To label any subject unsuitable for comedy is to admit |
`\ defeat." -- Peter Sellers |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

[George W Harris]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:31:24 +1000, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote:

:That's just another way of saying that an "unpleasant outcome" (for
:the PC) is a possible fun result (for the players).

No, it's saying that the possibility of an unpleasant
outcome is a fun situation. I may not enjoy the particular
outcome, but having that outcome be impossible will have a
greater negative impact on my long-term enjoyment.

:The thing to do is
:ensure that the dice don't give any result that would detract from the
:entertainment, whatever that means in the context of the game.
--
Firefly Fan Since September 20th, 2002 - Browncoat Since Birth

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:21:49 -0400, George W Harris
<***@mundsprung.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:31:24 +1000, Ben Finney
><bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>
>:That's just another way of saying that an "unpleasant outcome" (for
>:the PC) is a possible fun result (for the players).
>
> No, it's saying that the possibility of an unpleasant
>outcome is a fun situation. I may not enjoy the particular
>outcome, but having that outcome be impossible will have a
>greater negative impact on my long-term enjoyment.
>
>:The thing to do is
>:ensure that the dice don't give any result that would detract from the
>:entertainment, whatever that means in the context of the game.

I want to note that probability matters. People have been talking
about "a chance" of PC death or other unpleasantness, but the size of
the chance can vary by orders of magnitude. And depending on the size
of the chance, the result can vary from "fun" to "intensely unfun."

A PC party might experience a chance of PC death amounting to the loss
of one party member an average of once per 1000 sessions, or once per
100 sessions, or once per 10 sessions, or once per session. Even if
the players are such that find the chance of PC death to be fun (not
all players are), it's unlikely that the players will find *all* these
chances of PC death to be *equally* fun. There is an optimum for any
given group.

It also seems to me that PC deaths are subject to the various forces
that cause game systems to overproduce "dramatic" and "interesting"
results with the expectation that the GM will fudge many or most of
them. (Or that the players are macho types who revel in the excess,
with those who gripe about the excess being labeled "wimps" and
"munchkins" and other bad names. See the thread "Difficulty Balance"
of a few months back.)

There's also the difficulty of fine-tuning very low probabilities in
most game systems.

For myself, I've decided that a purely mechanical system for
determining PC death can't be made to work to my satisfaction. My
standard house rule for all systems, then, is to chuck out any
"bleeding" rules, and to say that any character reduced to "dying, but
not instantly killed" (-1 to -9 HP in D&D, -1 to -9 BODY in HERO,
etc.) will live or die at the will of the controlling player (or GM,
in the case of NPCs). They may drop dead at once, die after gasping
out their last words, or cling to life until healed - or even until
they recover via "natural" healing.

I find that this provides the sort of limited "script immunity" that
Russell Wallace wrote about in his original post. PCs and "special"
NPCs tend to survive and recover from being badly injured, while
normal NPCs tend to die if badly injured. And if you're the sort of
player who wants a chance for the dice to kill your PC outright,
there's still the chance of taking enough damage to put the PC into
the "instantly killed" degree of injury.


--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[gleichman]

"Erol K. Bayburt" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> For myself, I've decided that a purely mechanical system for
> determining PC death can't be made to work to my satisfaction. My
> standard house rule for all systems, then, is to chuck out any
> "bleeding" rules, and to say that any character reduced to "dying, but
> not instantly killed" (-1 to -9 HP in D&D, -1 to -9 BODY in HERO,
> etc.) will live or die at the will of the controlling player (or GM,
> in the case of NPCs).

In what is it, 27 years of playing HERO system in a wide range of systems?
In all that time, I've seen ONE character bleed to death. Same with Age of
Heroes or close to.

[Peter Knutsen]

gleichman wrote:
> "Erol K. Bayburt" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>For myself, I've decided that a purely mechanical system for
>>determining PC death can't be made to work to my satisfaction. My
>>standard house rule for all systems, then, is to chuck out any
>>"bleeding" rules, and to say that any character reduced to "dying, but
>>not instantly killed" (-1 to -9 HP in D&D, -1 to -9 BODY in HERO,
>>etc.) will live or die at the will of the controlling player (or GM,
>>in the case of NPCs).
>
> In what is it, 27 years of playing HERO system in a wide range of systems?
> In all that time, I've seen ONE character bleed to death. Same with Age of
> Heroes or close to.

Besides, having rules for bleeding opens up for greater capabilitistic
diversity among the characters.

Not only do you have a sometimes-occuring undesirable state which a
medical skill can alleviate, but in campaigns with mystical elements you
also have characters who are or can become immune to bleeding (i.e.
using Ki or a faqir-like bio-feedback powers).

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:43:45 +0200, Peter Knutsen
<***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>Besides, having rules for bleeding opens up for greater capabilitistic
>diversity among the characters.
>

"Greater capabilistic diversity" is not always a good thing.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[gleichman]

"Erol K. Bayburt" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:43:45 +0200, Peter Knutsen
> <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Besides, having rules for bleeding opens up for greater capabilitistic
>>diversity among the characters.
>>
>
> "Greater capabilistic diversity" is not always a good thing.

Nor is it's reverse.

[Peter Knutsen]

Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
> <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>Besides, having rules for bleeding opens up for greater capabilitistic
>>diversity among the characters.
>
> "Greater capabilistic diversity" is not always a good thing.

Yes it is.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:10:37 -0500, "gleichman"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Erol K. Bayburt" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> For myself, I've decided that a purely mechanical system for
>> determining PC death can't be made to work to my satisfaction. My
>> standard house rule for all systems, then, is to chuck out any
>> "bleeding" rules, and to say that any character reduced to "dying, but
>> not instantly killed" (-1 to -9 HP in D&D, -1 to -9 BODY in HERO,
>> etc.) will live or die at the will of the controlling player (or GM,
>> in the case of NPCs).
>
>In what is it, 27 years of playing HERO system in a wide range of systems?
>In all that time, I've seen ONE character bleed to death. Same with Age of
>Heroes or close to.

Your exeperiences, and style of play, are sufficiently far from mine
that I have to discount them very very heavily. (For example you
mentioned else-thread that you consider this sort of "player decides"
mechanic to be cheating.)

In any case, the useful metric isn't "how many characters you've seen
bleed to death" but "how many character would have bled to death if
the rest of the party hadn't rallied 'round to save them."

Furthermore my rule is useful for letting "unimportant" NPCs die
instantly rather than keeping track of their bleeding to death,
stabilization rolls, etc.

In short, it works for me despite my generally looking askance at
Dramatist methods. There are occasions, I've concluded, where a
fudge-heavy Dramatist-type "mechanic" is the Right Thing for the sort
of games I want to run and play in.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[gleichman]

"Erol K. Bayburt" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> In any case, the useful metric isn't "how many characters you've seen
> bleed to death" but "how many character would have bled to death if
> the rest of the party hadn't rallied 'round to save them."

Foolish concept.

How many characters would be dead if the rest of party sat on there hands in
combat in just about any system.

> Furthermore my rule is useful for letting "unimportant" NPCs die
> instantly rather than keeping track of their bleeding to death,
> stabilization rolls, etc.

I already have rules to allow that.


> In short, it works for me despite my generally looking askance at
> Dramatist methods. There are occasions, I've concluded, where a
> fudge-heavy Dramatist-type "mechanic" is the Right Thing for the sort
> of games I want to run and play in.

I wonder. You've seriously over estimated and/or failed to understand the
point of common bleeding rules. Makes me wonder if the game you're playing
isn't an overeaction to a bunch of stuff and thus heavily bent to ends that
didn't matter.

[Ben Finney]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> I wonder. You've seriously over estimated and/or failed to
> understand the point of common bleeding rules. Makes me wonder if
> the game you're playing isn't an overeaction to a bunch of stuff and
> thus heavily bent to ends that didn't matter.

That's pretty much the point in this thread: the "ends that.. matter"
are to be decided by the group playing. If you like event lethality at
a certain level, or choose to leave certain events to the fall of the
dice, that is entirely up to you and your group. If it's fun for you,
it's good.

That doesn't mean that people who choose differently, and have fun
doing it, are having BadWrongFun. There are no absolute "ends that
matter" except as defined by what each gaming group finds fun.

--
\ "I hope some animal never bores a hole in my head and lays its |
`\ eggs in my brain, because later you might think you're having a |
_o__) good idea but it's just eggs hatching." -- Jack Handey |
Ben Finney

[gleichman]

"Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote in message
news:***@benfinney.id.au...

> That doesn't mean that people who choose differently, and have fun
> doing it, are having BadWrongFun. There are no absolute "ends that
> matter" except as defined by what each gaming group finds fun.

I would agree in this case, although again I would wish to have nothing to
do with their campaigns.

However I disagree with that statement in any of a number of areas. There
are things that are BadWrongFun in gaming.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
hastily scrawled:

>There are things that are BadWrongFun in gaming.

Like?



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[gleichman]

On May 1, 1:38 pm, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mere moments before death, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
> hastily scrawled:
>
> >There are things that are BadWrongFun in gaming.
>
> Like?

All sorts of things.

A simple example is the classic "let's rape all the characters of the
female players because it's fun". Effectively virtual abuse of other
players.

Most problems are not BadWrongFun in the sense that it's a problem of
style or mechanics, but in the sense that there is something wrong
with the person(s) playing- and either that they carry that wrongness
into or out of the game. Thus it's almost always a meta-game matter.



One is harder pressed to come up with BadWrongFun caused by mechanics
or style- or at least generally accepted rpg mechanics or styles
(although Ron Edwards claimed that brain damage can result from
playing the wrong games, and thus proved to the world who really was
brain damaged).

One could try for example to link Power Gaming or playing Evil PCs to
negative personality traits the same way one could try to link playing
Grand Thief Auto to the same, and with similar problems in the
attempt.

I do think there's something to be said for such a link, but I
couldn't really prove it- and it likely pales in comparison to other
influences or may well be an outgrowth rather than a cause. Much like
most sexual criminals are heavily into porn, but not all users of porn
are sexual criminals. Very difficult to press the case there to the
satisfaction of any not willing to decide on moral or religious
grounds.

Of course, I'd claim that it's basically impossible to decide much of
anything if moral or religious grounds are rejected :)

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, gleichman <***@hotmail.com> hastily
scrawled:

>On May 1, 1:38 pm, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
>> hastily scrawled:
>>
>> >There are things that are BadWrongFun in gaming.
>>
>> Like?
>
>All sorts of things.
>
>A simple example is the classic "let's rape all the characters of the
>female players because it's fun". Effectively virtual abuse of other
>players.

That's no longer roleplaying and not even worthy of discussion.

That said, given the right game and players, there's no reason to say
that it's Bad or Wrong to have Fun in a game where one player's
character gets attacked by another's. It does happen, quite
literally, All The Time. If the players are capable of handling it,
and it is appropriate in the game then it doesn't matter if that
attack takes the form of shooting, torture or even rape.




--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[gleichman]

On May 1, 3:35 pm, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> That said, given the right game and players, there's no reason to say
> that it's Bad or Wrong to have Fun in a game where one player's
> character gets attacked by another's. It does happen, quite
> literally, All The Time. If the players are capable of handling it,
> and it is appropriate in the game then it doesn't matter if that
> attack takes the form of shooting, torture or even rape.

In general, and without knowing specifics or the people involved- I
will have to disagree on this point.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, gleichman <***@hotmail.com> hastily
scrawled:

>On May 1, 3:35 pm, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That said, given the right game and players, there's no reason to say
>> that it's Bad or Wrong to have Fun in a game where one player's
>> character gets attacked by another's. It does happen, quite
>> literally, All The Time. If the players are capable of handling it,
>> and it is appropriate in the game then it doesn't matter if that
>> attack takes the form of shooting, torture or even rape.
>
>In general, and without knowing specifics or the people involved- I
>will have to disagree on this point.

Why would you have to know the people involved? Don't you think it's
possible to have fun in a game where player characters can and do
attack one another?



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[gleichman]

"Ed Chauvin IV" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
>>In general, and without knowing specifics or the people involved- I
>>will have to disagree on this point.
>
> Why would you have to know the people involved? Don't you think it's
> possible to have fun in a game where player characters can and do
> attack one another?

To the first question, I'd have to know the people involved to have an idea
as to their reasons and goals. It would require a lot for my to set aside my
skepticism however.

To the second, it would seem obvious that at least some people can and do
have fun. I didn't contend that. I contended what kind of fun was involved.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
hastily scrawled:

>
>"Ed Chauvin IV" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>In general, and without knowing specifics or the people involved- I
>>>will have to disagree on this point.
>>
>> Why would you have to know the people involved? Don't you think it's
>> possible to have fun in a game where player characters can and do
>> attack one another?
>
>To the first question, I'd have to know the people involved to have an idea
>as to their reasons and goals.

So, you admit that there are people who can have GoodRightFun in a
game where one player's character attacked another's? Otherwise, why
would their reasons or goals matter?

>To the second, it would seem obvious that at least some people can and do
>have fun. I didn't contend that. I contended what kind of fun was involved.

Look, things are either fun or they're not. You either enjoy doing
something or you don't. The only reason to apply a label to different
"kinds" of fun is to condemn certain activities as NotFun even if some
people are quite obviously having fun doing those activities.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[gleichman]

"Ed Chauvin IV" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> So, you admit that there are people who can have GoodRightFun in a
> game where one player's character attacked another's? Otherwise, why
> would their reasons or goals matter?

If the game involved is not one of RP, but say little more than a wargame-
sure players may attack other players tokens. But it isn't a RPG at that
point. A game of Knights and Courts might see players vs. player conflict as
a outcome due to conflicts of in-game honor rather than a player's desire to
injury another PC. A mind controlled character may find themselves attacking
another.

Those are reasons (desire to harm another PC) and goals.

However rape would not be part of any of that. So from that POV, consider
the statement withdrawn.


> Look, things are either fun or they're not. You either enjoy doing
> something or you don't.

Considering how much fun people have in real life inflicting harm and death
upon one another, do you really what to use 'fun' as the be all end of moral
judgement?

If so, you are making my point for me.

[Ben Finney]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> Considering how much fun people have in real life inflicting harm
> and death upon one another, do you really what to use 'fun' as the
> be all end of moral judgement?

Again, the context in this thread is "fun for all involved"; your "in
real life ... inflicting harm and death" clearly isn't part of that.

Do you have any examples of RPG activities that *are* fun for all
involved, which you would consider to be BadWrongFun?

--
\ "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- |
`\ Aldous Huxley |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

[gleichman]

On May 2, 7:45 am, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au>
wrote:
> Again, the context in this thread is "fun for all involved"; your "in
> real life ... inflicting harm and death" clearly isn't part of that.

Masochism is indeed clearly part of that. There is a whole area of
victim psychology that deals with enabling and willingness to be on
the receiving end of harm and even death such as the recent (UK I
believe) case of someone hiring another to kill and eat him.

Such mind sets IME are more common at the RPG table which is typically
viewed as "harmless.

"Fun for All" is a crappy moral reasoning. Are you seriously this
willing to prove my every point? Even stating it shows that you're on
moral rejectionist ground.



> Do you have any examples of RPG activities that *are* fun for all
> involved, which you would consider to be BadWrongFun?

I already have.

Any PC who rapes any other PC (or NPC for that matter). The general
running of Evil Characters. Both of these are seen by many as solid
RPG activities and they are BadWrongFun.

Unlike you and others here, I consider any activity that applies to
the RPG table to be part of the RPG scene. Thus screwing with peoples
minds and such that you wish you could dismiss count. It's BadWrongFun
in the same way that I would say that somewho who murdered another
with a firearm is BadWrongFun with my hobby of firearms.

And then there is the category of StupidDumbFun, but that's a whole
another thing.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 2, 9:38 am, gleichman <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 7:45 am, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au>
> wrote:
>
> > Again, the context in this thread is "fun for all involved"; your "in
> > real life ... inflicting harm and death" clearly isn't part of that.
>
> Masochism is indeed clearly part of that. There is a whole area of
> victim psychology that deals with enabling and willingness to be on
> the receiving end of harm and even death such as the recent (UK I
> believe) case of someone hiring another to kill and eat him.
>
> Such mind sets IME are more common at the RPG table which is typically
> viewed as "harmless.
>
> "Fun for All" is a crappy moral reasoning. Are you seriously this
> willing to prove my every point? Even stating it shows that you're on
> moral rejectionist ground.
>
> > Do you have any examples of RPG activities that *are* fun for all
> > involved, which you would consider to be BadWrongFun?
>
> I already have.
>
> Any PC who rapes any other PC (or NPC for that matter). The general
> running of Evil Characters. Both of these are seen by many as solid
> RPG activities and they are BadWrongFun.

Without being as certain as this writer who won't read my reply, I
have to admit that I pretty much feel the same way. It is, in my
opinion, really ugly to run evil characters, even with the shelter of
an alignment system. I am particularly displeased by the common
mistreatment of NPCs by many PCs.

I can and have been involved in situations where PCs were on different
sides in a conflict and it was fun but I have never enjoyed
interacting with or playing evil characters. While I am less willing
to be judgmental than gleichman, but who isn't, I certainly no longer
willingly play with people who do these things. I have only so much
time and only so much of that time for RPG. Why waste it playing with
incompatible groups.

>
> Unlike you and others here, I consider any activity that applies to
> the RPG table to be part of the RPG scene. Thus screwing with peoples
> minds and such that you wish you could dismiss count. It's BadWrongFun
> in the same way that I would say that somewho who murdered another
> with a firearm is BadWrongFun with my hobby of firearms.

Even if he killed a man in Reno, just to watch him die? I don't agree
with "in the same way" here. Actually killing people is a far
different thing.

>
> And then there is the category of StupidDumbFun, but that's a whole
> another thing.

You mean like a Ren and Stimpy campaign that a friend of mine is
running? It is on a bad night for me and I wouldn't want to play in it
regularly but I do wish I could see a session.

Will in New Haven

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, gleichman <***@hotmail.com> hastily
scrawled:

>
>> Do you have any examples of RPG activities that *are* fun for all
>> involved, which you would consider to be BadWrongFun?
>
>I already have.

You most certainly have not.

>Any PC who rapes any other PC (or NPC for that matter). The general
>running of Evil Characters. Both of these are seen by many as solid
>RPG activities and they are BadWrongFun.
>
>Unlike you and others here, I consider any activity that applies to
>the RPG table to be part of the RPG scene. Thus screwing with peoples
>minds and such that you wish you could dismiss count. It's BadWrongFun
>in the same way that I would say that somewho who murdered another
>with a firearm is BadWrongFun with my hobby of firearms.

I think you've got some serious firewall issues.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[gleichman]

On May 2, 9:49 am, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you've got some serious firewall issues.

>From the player PoV, I think firewall is a myth- a self-deception
RPers used to justify immoral fantasy actions.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, gleichman <***@hotmail.com> hastily
scrawled:

>On May 2, 9:49 am, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think you've got some serious firewall issues.
>
>>From the player PoV, I think firewall is a myth- a self-deception
>RPers used to justify immoral fantasy actions.

Of course it's a self-deception. That's the point. As to it being a
justification for immorality, I think you've got some serious
psychological issues.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[Ben Finney]

gleichman <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Fun for All" is a crappy moral reasoning. Are you seriously this
> willing to prove my every point?

In the sense of "test", yes.

> > Do you have any examples of RPG activities that *are* fun for all
> > involved, which you would consider to be BadWrongFun?
>
> I already have.

You have in this message, thank you.

> Any PC who rapes any other PC (or NPC for that matter).

I've played in one game where this was an interesting event for the
story, and everyone enjoyed the challenge. No-one in the real world
was harmed, and everyone safely explored an interesting character
portrayal. It's interesting that you label this "wrong".

> The general running of Evil Characters.

I don't think I've known an RPG group which *hasn't* had entertaining,
harmless fun with the portrayal of truly Evil Characters.

> Both of these are seen by many as solid RPG activities and they are
> BadWrongFun.

Thanks for the more specific examples.

> Unlike you and others here, I consider any activity that applies to
> the RPG table to be part of the RPG scene.

Given a sufficiently broad definition of "RPG scene", that would seem
to be true. I don't know who would disagree with it stated like that.

> Thus screwing with peoples minds and such that you wish you could
> dismiss count. It's BadWrongFun in the same way that I would say
> that somewho who murdered another with a firearm is BadWrongFun with
> my hobby of firearms.

The significant difference between those two is that with "screwing
with people's minds" is quite commonly done with consent, and can be
stopped at any point if consent is withdrawn; whereas murdering
another with a firearm is irrevocable, and is almost certainly without
the consent of the one on the receiving end.

Consent, and adult understandings of how to handle sensitive topics,
are a big factor in not letting roleplaying games get out of hand. I'd
say that in your examples of roleplaying events, the ones where
everyone gave, and continued to give, their consent, are not bad or
wrong at all.

It seems you disagree. Care to explain why?

> And then there is the category of StupidDumbFun, but that's a whole
> another thing.

This is indeed a separate topic to what we're now discussing. It is,
though, much closer to the meaning of BadWrongFun as I've always seen
it used: i.e. "you're playing the game wrong, that's not how it's
supposed to be done!" as opposed to the real-world nastiness you're
now talking about.

--
\ "I used to be a narrator for bad mimes." -- Steven Wright |
`\ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

[psychohist]

Ben Finney posts, in part:

The significant difference between those two is that
with "screwing with people's minds" is quite commonly
done with consent, and can be stopped at any point if
consent is withdrawn

My experience is the opposite: I've seen a lot of it, and I've never
seen it done with consent, at least not with informed consent.
Furthermore, it frequently has permanent personality effects to the
point where "can be stopped at any point" really becomes irrelevant.
You can stop shooting someone with a firearm at any point, but they're
still dead.

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

"psychohist" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Ben Finney posts, in part:
>
> The significant difference between those two is that
> with "screwing with people's minds" is quite commonly
> done with consent, and can be stopped at any point if
> consent is withdrawn
>
> My experience is the opposite: I've seen a lot of it, and I've never
> seen it done with consent, at least not with informed consent.
> Furthermore, it frequently has permanent personality effects to the
> point where "can be stopped at any point" really becomes irrelevant.
> You can stop shooting someone with a firearm at any point, but they're
> still dead.

I'm with Warren on this and I've already mentioned the psychology of willing
victim- this has if course included people killed with firearms and other
methods.

Now it's quite common to consider death the worse thing that can be
inflicted upon someone so there is a degree of difference of that's one's
PoV- but not really of kind. If you like, change the firearm used from
killed to injuried.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
hastily scrawled:

>
>"Ed Chauvin IV" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> So, you admit that there are people who can have GoodRightFun in a
>> game where one player's character attacked another's? Otherwise, why
>> would their reasons or goals matter?
>
>If the game involved is not one of RP, but say little more than a wargame-
>sure players may attack other players tokens. But it isn't a RPG at that
>point.

I would say exactly the opposite. As soon as you begin to remove
freedom of action, you've taken a step away from RPG and towards more
resembling a wargame.

>A game of Knights and Courts might see players vs. player conflict as
>a outcome due to conflicts of in-game honor rather than a player's desire to
>injury another PC. A mind controlled character may find themselves attacking
>another.
>
>Those are reasons (desire to harm another PC) and goals.

Honor and mind-control? That's all you can come up with?

>However rape would not be part of any of that.

That would depend on the characters, now wouldn't it?

>So from that POV, consider the statement withdrawn.
>
>
>> Look, things are either fun or they're not. You either enjoy doing
>> something or you don't.
>
>Considering how much fun people have in real life inflicting harm and death
>upon one another, do you really what to use 'fun' as the be all end of moral
>judgement?

This discussion isn't about real life morality, it's about what sorts
of roleplaying people can have fun doing.

>If so, you are making my point for me.

If that's your point, then it's a stupid one.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[gleichman]

On May 2, 9:49 am, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> >If so, you are making my point for me.
>
> If that's your point, then it's a stupid one.

I believe we've reach the end of the exchange. You consider me stupid.

I consider you basically an morally immature or even willfully
ignorant (at best) person who would be rejected from my gaming group
in a flash.

Sounds even to me.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 2, 11:16 am, gleichman <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 9:49 am, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >If so, you are making my point for me.
>
> > If that's your point, then it's a stupid one.
>
> I believe we've reach the end of the exchange. You consider me stupid.
>
> I consider you basically an morally immature or even willfully
> ignorant (at best) person who would be rejected from my gaming group
> in a flash.
>
> Sounds even to me.

Even though I think you mostly have the right of it here, I can't
imagine you will be talking with ANYBODY by this time next year.

Will in New Haven

--

[gleichman]

On May 2, 10:49 am, Will in New Haven
<***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

> Even though I think you mostly have the right of it here, I can't
> imagine you will be talking with ANYBODY by this time next year.

I haven't killfiled him. You're the only person in my killfile (which
doesn't work from this client sadly).

I'm just pointed out that we have nothing more to say on this specific
subject if that's his only line of debate remaining. If he wishes an
exchange on something else in the future, that's up to him.

Further, I have no drive in me that requires that I speak to anyone on
the Internet. Over the years I've decided that it's more important for
me to be honest and forthright then it is to pretend and roll over for
no greater goal then to speak with people who frankly I wouldn't allow
at my table anyway.

If people are willing to accept that, and disagree with at least some
amount of respect- we can talk because even exchanges between complete
opposites can be interesting. If they can't accept that from me, they
can go to hell.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 2, 11:57 am, gleichman <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 10:49 am, Will in New Haven
>
> <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > Even though I think you mostly have the right of it here, I can't
> > imagine you will be talking with ANYBODY by this time next year.
>
> I haven't killfiled him. You're the only person in my killfile (which
> doesn't work from this client sadly).
>
> I'm just pointed out that we have nothing more to say on this specific
> subject if that's his only line of debate remaining. If he wishes an
> exchange on something else in the future, that's up to him.
>
> Further, I have no drive in me that requires that I speak to anyone on
> the Internet. Over the years I've decided that it's more important for
> me to be honest and forthright then it is to pretend and roll over for
> no greater goal then to speak with people who frankly I wouldn't allow
> at my table anyway.
>
> If people are willing to accept that, and disagree with at least some
> amount of respect- we can talk because even exchanges between complete
> opposites can be interesting. If they can't accept that from me, they
> can go to hell.

Well, I find myself agreeing with a great deal of your position here.
However, I don't say that one player character attacking another is
always bad/wrong/fun. There are other reasons to fight other than one
of you being evil. A misunderstanding has been known to start a fight.
It is also possible to be on different sides of a war because you are
serving different monarchs or other governmental entities without
either of you being evil. There have also been several characters in
my experience, one of whom I have played, with an inclination to
combat similar to that of an Airedale terrier. They just LIKED to
fight and didn't need much reason. It is true that my version of that
idiot character type didn't get into LETHAL conflict with his allies,
or tried not to, but he did attack one of them on a couple of
occasions.

I just don't see how this can be extended to rape or at least not in a
setting I would want to game. And I don't see playing evil characters
as being any fun because evil, as opposed to bad-tempered or mistaken,
is going to stick with you.

Will in New Haven

--

[gleichman]

On May 2, 11:09 am, Will in New Haven
<***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> Well, I find myself agreeing with a great deal of your position here.
> However, I don't say that one player character attacking another is
> always bad/wrong/fun.

In a wargame or other heavily game like setting? No, of course not
(unless sick thinks like rape are part of the game). Does character
vs., character conflict on par with, say the movie 'Donovan's Reef'
count? No, of course not. Does Gimli tossing threats Legolas' way
count? Of course not.

But because someone wanted to run a Wolverine character; and then
decides to roll his potentially lethal and almost certainly seriously
injuring 3d6+1 HtH Kill attack against Cyclops because he has the hots
for Marvel Girl? Sorry, he has crossed the line and it counts in
spades.

The cry that "I'm only RPing" is unacceptable. Players are responsible
for their actions and decisions no matter if it is in or out of the
game. They must be held to that responsibility.

I can hear now objections that "it's acceptable under that group's
game contract", and I reply that the game contract itself is immoral
and thus BadWrongFun. Responsibility for one's decisions and actions
cannot be waived because the victim agrees.

[Ben Finney]

gleichman <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> But because someone wanted to run a Wolverine character; and then
> decides to roll his potentially lethal and almost certainly seriously
> injuring 3d6+1 HtH Kill attack against Cyclops because he has the hots
> for Marvel Girl? Sorry, he has crossed the line and it counts in
> spades.
>
> The cry that "I'm only RPing" is unacceptable. Players are responsible
> for their actions and decisions no matter if it is in or out of the
> game. They must be held to that responsibility.

You seem to be speaking against the *entire point* of playing another
character. If one is playing a character with a *different* morality
to oneself, why is it unacceptable to play that character according to
their morality?

It is an exercise in safely being someone else for a while, which is
the entire premise of an RPG.

If it gets to the point where it's *not* safe -- e.g., covering topics
that someone involved doesn't want to address in this game -- *then*
there is legitimate reason to call for a stop. The topics themselves,
though, are not "wrong" -- they are merely innapropriate *for that
group*.

--
\ "People's Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: Stop the Laurasian |
`\ Separatist Movement!" -- wiredog, http://kuro5hin.org/ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

[gleichman]

"Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote in message
news:***@benfinney.id.au...
> You seem to be speaking against the *entire point* of playing another
> character. If one is playing a character with a *different* morality
> to oneself, why is it unacceptable to play that character according to
> their morality?

I'm against using RPGs as an excuse to publicly explore sick and twisted
fantasies of rape and other evils- especially on other Player Characters.

If you think that is the *entire point* of RPGs, then we have reach an
impasse and I don't think there is anything more to say.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

If a player who runs an evil character is a bad person who should
not be admitted to games, why is a GM who runs an evil character
not a bad person who should not be admitted to games?

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[gleichman]

On May 2, 12:28 pm, ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K.
Kuhner) wrote:
> If a player who runs an evil character is a bad person who should
> not be admitted to games, why is a GM who runs an evil character
> not a bad person who should not be admitted to games?

If he is advancing the goals of the Evil NPCs with the same intentions
as a player (who should be advancing the goals of the PC by
definition), he is as bad.

[Russell Wallace]

Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> If a player who runs an evil character is a bad person who should
> not be admitted to games, why is a GM who runs an evil character
> not a bad person who should not be admitted to games?

The distinction is that the GM, when he plays the bad guys, is playing
to lose, whereas players play to win. This is essentially the reason for
the existence of GMs in the first place.

Mind you, I think Gleichman's full of it; I don't allow evil PCs in my
games, but if other people want to play in a style that allows PCs to
commit torture, rape, murder or whatever, and all involved consent to it
and are having fun, it's certainly not my business to claim they're
doing anything wrong.

But, within game dynamics, there is the above distinction between PC and
NPC villains.

--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <Sg6_h.19362$***@news.indigo.ie>,
Russell Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>> If a player who runs an evil character is a bad person who should
>> not be admitted to games, why is a GM who runs an evil character
>> not a bad person who should not be admitted to games?

>The distinction is that the GM, when he plays the bad guys, is playing
>to lose, whereas players play to win. This is essentially the reason for
>the existence of GMs in the first place.

>But, within game dynamics, there is the above distinction between PC and
>NPC villains.

Or can be: one of the ways that playing an evil PC can work well is
if the player plays him to "lose" in the sense of actually wanting
the villainy to catch up with the character, aiming for either
redemption or retribution.

I played in a Shadowrun game which was set up as a deliberately finite
run (four sessions) where the PCs were insect spirits attempting to
rescue their Queen from a corporation. They were clearly, unequivocally
bad guys, and the group agreed from the start that they would fail
and die.

The first session worked really well: there was a lot of creepiness
in watching the Insect Spirits try to entrap some victims to get them
started on the road to the corporate crackdown. One victim managed
to elude them for a long time, and the player sympathy was more and more
with her rather than with the PCs, but it still worked.

I didn't enjoy the rest of the sessions. Despite knowing that the PCs
would fail and die, I didn't like playing it out. But I don't see the
game as invalid, just somewhat unsuccessful; and it might have worked
for different players.

As a more general note, I think it's really interesting how people often
see the GM's role as insulating against criticisms which they might level
at a player. I've met several people who are aghast at a player
doing a PC of opposite gender, but don't even notice particularly
that the GM is doing an NPC of opposite gender. This must tie in to
general ideas about a player's role or goals in the game.

There are also things which are routinely permitted to players but tend
not to be permitted to GMs.

My group has experimented with breaking most of those guidelines from
time to time, in various directions. We had one game where the PCs were
henchmen of a super-powerful wizard run by the GM and present in almost
every scenario, which broke just about every GMing guideline imaginable
but worked perfectly (a great mix of character personalities, mainly).

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Russell Wallace]

Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> Or can be: one of the ways that playing an evil PC can work well is
> if the player plays him to "lose" in the sense of actually wanting
> the villainy to catch up with the character, aiming for either
> redemption or retribution.

*nods* In theory I could see that working well. In practice I'd hesitate
to allow it, because I can see ways for it to go badly wrong - one of
which you described in your case study, thank you.

> My group has experimented with breaking most of those guidelines from
> time to time, in various directions. We had one game where the PCs were
> henchmen of a super-powerful wizard run by the GM and present in almost
> every scenario, which broke just about every GMing guideline imaginable
> but worked perfectly (a great mix of character personalities, mainly).

I was in a campaign a bit like that once, which went even further - both
the super-powerful NPC and the campaign itself were named after the GM's
online name, and yes, the NPC was just as much of a Mary Sue as you
might guess from this. To this day I don't know exactly why it worked so
well; I think much of it was the GM's "live and let live" attitude,
where he was having so much fun playing his NPC, he didn't mind letting
the players strut their stuff too.

--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Some random thoughts from past experience with evil player-characters:

One archetype I've seen quite often is what D&D would call the extreme
end of Lawful Evil. The character has no personal morality to speak of,
or a deeply alien one, but he is pragmatic and hard-headed to a fault
and knows that he needs the rest of the party and must get along with
them. The main thing that distinguishes him from other pragmatic PCs
is that he's got no hesitation about proposing awful courses of action,
except for the concern that other PCs or NPCs might think worse of
him--no instinctive revulsion at the idea of doing really bad stuff.

In our hands, the problem with these characters is that they can go
along with a party just fine, be roleplayed well and contribute
usefully, sometimes for a really long time--but if they ever become
convinced that the other PCs are no longer allies, you get the kind of
sudden-death no-quarter attacks that the PC party is accustomed to
dish out to its enemies, but within the party. This is hard on player
group cohesion. We had a near-TPK from such a character in an early
game I GMed, and the repercussions were really unpleasant.

I've run and played with such characters in successful games, but
nowadays I'd ask the player to make someone who will tend to like the other
PCs as well as need them--since needing them can suddenly fall through.

Another archetype is the character who was raised in a markedly evil
environment, but is seen by the other PCs (and the player) as having the
potential to overcome their history. The other PCs are therefore asked
not to accept the character's evilness, but to try to redeem it. I
haven't seen as many problems with these characters, though they can
be frightful spotlight hogs in some campaigns. There's a potential
problem if the evil character's actions turn out to be too bad for the
other PCs to forgive, but I haven't seen that happen in play.

I personally find redemption a powerful theme, and I'm reluctant to
leave it solely in the hands of NPCs; but you almost have to allow PCs
to become, at least temporarily, evil in some regard before you can
have a game arc that is about redemption. If you take control of a PC
away from the player as soon as that PC falters morally, you're really
ruling out doing anything with this theme. (And I think
you will get morally shallower behavior from the PCs, too, because the
players won't want to lose control of their PCs and will stick to the
"straight and narrow" even if other possibilities would be more in
character.)

I would like to see if my ex-paladin ever manages to recover her faith,
or find faith in something else. The "she becomes an NPC"
school of thought means I can never explore this. (And in a prolonged
game, can contribute an unwanted "Evil is stronger than good, because
good people can be corrupted but evil ones cannot be redeemed or
forgiven" moral point. Shackled City has this, unfortunately.)

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[gleichman]

On May 2, 4:03 pm, ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
wrote:
> I would like to see if my ex-paladin ever manages to recover her faith,
> or find faith in something else.

Paladins don't have to become evil to lose their faith, nor to embark
upon a story of recovery and redemption.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, gleichman <***@hotmail.com> hastily
scrawled:

>On May 2, 4:03 pm, ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
>wrote:
>> I would like to see if my ex-paladin ever manages to recover her faith,
>> or find faith in something else.
>
>Paladins don't have to become evil to lose their faith, nor to embark
>upon a story of recovery and redemption.

Which doesn't mean that if one did, it wouldn't be an interesting and
fun game to play in for all involved.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[Russell Wallace]

Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> I would like to see if my ex-paladin ever manages to recover her faith,
> or find faith in something else. The "she becomes an NPC"
> school of thought means I can never explore this.

Yeah, that sort of thing can be interesting; and I wouldn't take away
control of a PC just because she lost her faith, or lied or blasphemed
or stole or even had "evil" written in the box on her sheet where it
said "alignment".

If she tried to stab the other PCs in the back, or to massacre a bunch
of innocent people for personal convenience, at that point I would step
in on the theory that the cost reliably outweighs any possible gain. But
there are plenty of shades of grey that can be explored short of that. I
have no problem with shades-of-grey characters.

--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <Oe8_h.19366$***@news.indigo.ie>,
Russell Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>> I would like to see if my ex-paladin ever manages to recover her faith,
>> or find faith in something else. The "she becomes an NPC"
>> school of thought means I can never explore this.

>Yeah, that sort of thing can be interesting; and I wouldn't take away
>control of a PC just because she lost her faith, or lied or blasphemed
>or stole or even had "evil" written in the box on her sheet where it
>said "alignment".

>If she tried to stab the other PCs in the back, or to massacre a bunch
>of innocent people for personal convenience, at that point I would step
>in on the theory that the cost reliably outweighs any possible gain. But
>there are plenty of shades of grey that can be explored short of that. I
>have no problem with shades-of-grey characters.

I ended up writing "lawful neutral" in that box. But she has to a
large degree abdicated her moral decision-making to another character:
if Jules said "Kill these innocent people" she'd probably do it. The
only shade of gray available here, as far as I can see, is that she
knows Jules to be a fairly decent person (though, gods know, not a
saint). Otherwise it's fundamentally an evil mindset.

Interestingly, the beginning of the end for Charis was in fact a
massacre. The PCs found that a magic item badly wanted by their
enemies was being held in the shrine to an evil scorpion-god, guarded
by drow. After some debate they resolved to take it by force--they
didn't think they could succeed by non-lethal means. Charis came to
feel, afterwards, that she had been in the wrong to permit this: but
for various reasons flowing out of the game setting, it seemed to her
that the celestial powers actually expected and condoned that degree
of wrongdoing. In other words, if she held to her ethics she was
going to pit herself inexorably against Heaven.

(The other characters, with less stringent ethical codes, eventually
said "Damn, we shouldn't have done that" and resolved to improve in
the future. Charis was less flexible, as paladins tend to be.)

This conclusion was nailed down by the duel-with-the-angel story
I posted about earlier, and from that point on Charis was, as best
as I can tell, pretty much looking for a clean way to die. When
she *did* manage to die, and Jules raised her from the dead and said
"I won't let you die, I need you" it was shattering.

At the moment, Charis describes herself as "bound to Jules' service."
The other PCs confronted Jules on this, and Jules sighed and said,
"If it was me binding her, I'd unbind her in a flash. But it's her,
and there's nothing I can do about that. Ask her if you don't believe
me." The PCs were reluctant to believe this--Jules is arguably a demon
prince--but have finally decided that it's true. They would like to
help Charis but have no idea how. (Neither do I, neither does the
GM.) I'm waiting to see what happens.

There are certainly places a character could go that I wouldn't be
willing to follow. I support the right of any gaming group to decide
for itself where those places are. This particular character is well
short of my dividing line, even though the cold-blooded killing frenzy
which is her current approach to combat is somewhat disturbing.
(If Jules did become a demon prince in behavior as well as office,
I'd bail out. Too nasty for me.)

There are groups which draw the line so close to "white" that I don't
think I could get interested in playing in their games: it would feel
like a campaign where the GM said "By the way, you're never allowed to
lose a fight." I'm not saying they're wrong, but I wouldn't be very
interested. I'm not sure I have personally encountered a serious game
which went too far toward "black", but I can certainly imagine one.
I don't think I want to find out first-hand what the soldiers at the
Mai Lai massacre were thinking or feeling.

I do think, however, that probably 90% of the trouble I've experienced
or heard about with evil PCs in gaming groups is metagame trouble--
the evil PC is being used as a tool for one player to exert some
form of dominance over another player (and I do mean player, not
player-character). "*I* get to do what I want, and *you* have to
accomodate me." It may be weakly consensual in that the other player
prefers to knuckle under rather than leave (especially in areas where
gaming groups are rare) but it's not consensual in the sense of
being directed toward everyone actually enjoying themselves.
Certainly every single time my gender has caused me grief in gaming,
it has been a metagame issue, not an in-game one: someone would like
to use the game rules or situations to behave toward me in a way that
otherwise wouldn't be condoned.

The classical problematic evil PC--"I'm going to steal from the other
PCs, even attack or betray them, and the other players have to accept
that" is precisely that, a player dominance ploy: the player wants the
other players to be forced to accept his PC's behavior no matter how
bad. You can sometimes resolve these situations by the simple expedient
of saying to the group as a whole, "If X is not required to make his
character attractive, the group is not required to accept him, or even
spare his life. You don't get to benefit from 'PC glow' if you play
a character who doesn't deserve it."

I have seen evil PCs played in situations and contexts where I am
100% sure that player dominance was not an issue. They can still lead
to bad results either due to game instability or due to player dislike
for nasty stuff, but the *kind* of problem you get is very different.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Will in New Haven]

On May 2, 8:05 pm, ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
wrote:
> In article <Oe8_h.19366$***@news.indigo.ie>,
> Russell Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> >> I would like to see if my ex-paladin ever manages to recover her faith,
> >> or find faith in something else. The "she becomes an NPC"
> >> school of thought means I can never explore this.
> >Yeah, that sort of thing can be interesting; and I wouldn't take away
> >control of a PC just because she lost her faith, or lied or blasphemed
> >or stole or even had "evil" written in the box on her sheet where it
> >said "alignment".
> >If she tried to stab the other PCs in the back, or to massacre a bunch
> >of innocent people for personal convenience, at that point I would step
> >in on the theory that the cost reliably outweighs any possible gain. But
> >there are plenty of shades of grey that can be explored short of that. I
> >have no problem with shades-of-grey characters.
>
> I ended up writing "lawful neutral" in that box. But she has to a
> large degree abdicated her moral decision-making to another character:
> if Jules said "Kill these innocent people" she'd probably do it. The
> only shade of gray available here, as far as I can see, is that she
> knows Jules to be a fairly decent person (though, gods know, not a
> saint). Otherwise it's fundamentally an evil mindset.

Is she so distanced from her deity that she cannot have a hint of what
the deity wants of her?

>
> Interestingly, the beginning of the end for Charis was in fact a
> massacre. The PCs found that a magic item badly wanted by their
> enemies was being held in the shrine to an evil scorpion-god, guarded
> by drow. After some debate they resolved to take it by force--they
> didn't think they could succeed by non-lethal means. Charis came to
> feel, afterwards, that she had been in the wrong to permit this: but
> for various reasons flowing out of the game setting, it seemed to her
> that the celestial powers actually expected and condoned that degree
> of wrongdoing. In other words, if she held to her ethics she was
> going to pit herself inexorably against Heaven.

Reminds me of the famous scene in <Huckleberry Finn> but Huck decides
to defy God and help Jim. On the other hand, I don't know that most
PCs would be terribly upset at killing Drow who were guarding the
shrine of an evil scorpion god. Or humans guarding the shrine of an
evil scorpion god, for that matter. What in her faith/religion/cult/
order forbids the killing of enemies? I have had characters who would
make some attempt to run the guards off, rather than kill them, but I
don't think this encounter would make me feel that my character was
going down the dark path.

> (The other characters, with less stringent ethical codes, eventually
> said "Damn, we shouldn't have done that" and resolved to improve in
> the future. Charis was less flexible, as paladins tend to be.)

So they all shared this feeling. Am I missing some truce or other
circumstance that made attacking this shrine a bad thing. Attacking
them simply because they were DROW would be ok for most campaigns,
although not mine. However, their employment renders them the enemy,
even if their ethnicity does not. Of course, I don't have Drow in my
campaign but you could replace it with Goblin or whatever.

> This conclusion was nailed down by the duel-with-the-angel story
> I posted about earlier, and from that point on Charis was, as best
> as I can tell, pretty much looking for a clean way to die. When
> she *did* manage to die, and Jules raised her from the dead and said
> "I won't let you die, I need you" it was shattering.

> At the moment, Charis describes herself as "bound to Jules' service."
> The other PCs confronted Jules on this, and Jules sighed and said,
> "If it was me binding her, I'd unbind her in a flash. But it's her,
> and there's nothing I can do about that. Ask her if you don't believe
> me." The PCs were reluctant to believe this--Jules is arguably a demon
> prince--but have finally decided that it's true. They would like to
> help Charis but have no idea how. (Neither do I, neither does the
> GM.) I'm waiting to see what happens.
>
> There are certainly places a character could go that I wouldn't be
> willing to follow. I support the right of any gaming group to decide
> for itself where those places are. This particular character is well
> short of my dividing line, even though the cold-blooded killing frenzy
> which is her current approach to combat is somewhat disturbing.
> (If Jules did become a demon prince in behavior as well as office,
> I'd bail out. Too nasty for me.)

> There are groups which draw the line so close to "white" that I don't
> think I could get interested in playing in their games: it would feel
> like a campaign where the GM said "By the way, you're never allowed to
> lose a fight." I'm not saying they're wrong, but I wouldn't be very
> interested. I'm not sure I have personally encountered a serious game
> which went too far toward "black", but I can certainly imagine one.
> I don't think I want to find out first-hand what the soldiers at the
> Mai Lai massacre were thinking or feeling.

The villagers weren't guarding the shrine of an evil scorpion god.

> I do think, however, that probably 90% of the trouble I've experienced
> or heard about with evil PCs in gaming groups is metagame trouble--
> the evil PC is being used as a tool for one player to exert some
> form of dominance over another player (and I do mean player, not
> player-character). "*I* get to do what I want, and *you* have to
> accomodate me." It may be weakly consensual in that the other player
> prefers to knuckle under rather than leave (especially in areas where
> gaming groups are rare) but it's not consensual in the sense of
> being directed toward everyone actually enjoying themselves.
> Certainly every single time my gender has caused me grief in gaming,
> it has been a metagame issue, not an in-game one: someone would like
> to use the game rules or situations to behave toward me in a way that
> otherwise wouldn't be condoned.

We had people behave like that when we were new to gaming. They left,
the other players didn't.

> The classical problematic evil PC--"I'm going to steal from the other
> PCs, even attack or betray them, and the other players have to accept
> that" is precisely that, a player dominance ploy: the player wants the
> other players to be forced to accept his PC's behavior no matter how
> bad. You can sometimes resolve these situations by the simple expedient
> of saying to the group as a whole, "If X is not required to make his
> character attractive, the group is not required to accept him, or even
> spare his life. You don't get to benefit from 'PC glow' if you play
> a character who doesn't deserve it."

We don't have PC glow. The other players have to accept your
character's behavior if their characters accept it or don't find out
about it. We had a very long campaign where one character, not evil
but politically opposed to the goals of the rest, betrayed them big-
time but didn't succeed in gaining the object of his desire, the
maguffin around which the whole adventure revolved. . His player
didn't even think about begging for mercy. He shouted defiance and
died where he stood. It was a good ending for him. We have had mildly
evil characters, people who would steal if they could get the chance.
Sometimes they wen't undetected, sometimes not.

Will in New Haven

--

"Do you have tiger
Nature? Strike without anger;
Kill without feeling."
Feather in <Poker for Cats>


> I have seen evil PCs played in situations and contexts where I am
> 100% sure that player dominance was not an issue. They can still lead
> to bad results either due to game instability or due to player dislike
> for nasty stuff, but the *kind* of problem you get is very different.


> Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 8:05 pm, ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
>wrote:

>Is she so distanced from her deity that she cannot have a hint of what
>the deity wants of her?

Unfortunately she's a Law paladin, not a deity paladin. (The only
one I've ever seen; I always thought it was a goofy idea, but when
I started playing Charis it was immediately apparent that that's
what she was.)

The deities in the campaign setting are not helping her out any:
the lawful-good ones are really open to objections about their
goodness, much as the angels are. St. Cuthbert, oddly, might
suit her, but I don't know what it would take to convince her of
this. The party as a whole favors Wee Jas, the Lady of Death
and Magic--not an evil goddess per se, but not likely to help
Charis out either.

>Reminds me of the famous scene in <Huckleberry Finn> but Huck decides
>to defy God and help Jim. On the other hand, I don't know that most
>PCs would be terribly upset at killing Drow who were guarding the
>shrine of an evil scorpion god.

It was a brisk debate. A party NPC is half-drow, which rubs in that
they are not racially irremediable. But mostly, the problem was that
the drow hadn't done anything wrong, as far as the PCs knew or could
discover. They had put their temple deliberately far from anyone
who might be troubled by it, and they had no known crimes to their
names. Their "crime" was that they were too weak to keep the
artifact they were guarding out of the bad guys' hands, and for that
the PCs slaughtered every last one of them. It was possible to make
"they were evil and they ought to die" arguments but Charis felt that
these were merely a mask over a decision made for expedience. (Usually
the PCs have tried not to do this sort of thing. But the drow were
tough, and they thought they might lose if they tried to spare lives.)

After they killed the drow it became a lot more apparent that they
weren't using the artifact, they were trying to prevent its use.
(At that point the PCs resolved not to use it themselves, and they
never have.) It is possible that they were neutral drow and not
evil at all.

The PCs can't afford to take the attitude "evil cult == kill on
sight". One of them is a priest of Wee Jas, who accepts evil
worshippers as well as good ones: the Temple in Cauldron (to the
PC's dismay) turned out to be more evil than not. If the drow
deserved killing on no more evidence than that, so does he.

(Wee Jas is an LN cult in the books, but I have *never* seen a
published module that didn't make her worshippers LE. She's just
got a bad rep. She's my favorite by far of the core rulebook
deities, though.)

I don't think the drow would have been conclusive. The encounter
much later where they slaughtered a mindflayer on the surprise
round and then systematically killed every one of his followers,
even those that tried to run--and then found holy swords on the
follower's bodies.... that was bad. And the angel was very bad.
And "The gods of light and goodness want one of you to become lord
of a plane of the Abyss" was bad, especially when the PCs saw what
was involved.

The module series we're following wants the PCs to be good guys,
but a kind of good guys who routinely do rather bad things. Charis
was eventually impaled on the contradictions of this. (One could
argue that Jules was too. She'd be the first to admit that her
previous self might be horrified by what she's become.)

Well. It's interesting, if not altogether pleasant. I think
she's liable to get herself killed, though, the way she fights now.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[gleichman]

"Mary K. Kuhner" <***@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:f1bo5m$g2m$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Unfortunately she's a Law paladin, not a deity paladin.

She's not a Paladin and there is no question of faith.

And not have a connect to "Good" in the first place, she should have been
greatly concerned about killing anyone- and only had a reluctance to do so
as a default stance.

Bad use of the class. Worse use of the alignment rules.

[gleichman]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4639c356$0$19403$***@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Mary K. Kuhner" <***@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:f1bo5m$g2m$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>> Unfortunately she's a Law paladin, not a deity paladin.
>
> She's not a Paladin and there is no question of faith.
>
> And not have a connect to "Good" in the first place, she should have been
> greatly concerned about killing anyone- and only had a reluctance to do so
> as a default stance.
>
> Bad use of the class. Worse use of the alignment rules.


This by the way is a case of StupidDumbFun. It's completely counter to the
defined D&D 3.x Paladin class and shows a serious inability to understand
D&D alignment.

Both of those could be labeled house rules except that Mary insisted upon
keeping the class name of Paladin which indicates that either she is
ignorant of the core concepts of the class or wishes to further ignorance of
it (by speaking of it here as if it as a default for the concept instead of
a perversion). Further her misuse has seems to have greatly impaired her
understanding of the common traditional Paladin concepts. A problem that
also can be passed on to those who don't know better.

But she is having fun with it, and I'm sure that's all that was considered.

I'd rather call it BadStupidFun now that I think about it. Such things have
over time resulted in a horrid rep for Paladins in D&D (although typically
it's of the religious mass murder style rep).

[psychohist]

Mary Kuhner posts, in part:

But she has to a large degree abdicated her moral
decision-making to another character: if Jules said
"Kill these innocent people" she'd probably do it.
The only shade of gray available here, as far as I
can see, is that she knows Jules to be a fairly
decent person (though, gods know, not a saint).
Otherwise it's fundamentally an evil mindset.

What's the "fundamentally evil mindset" here? Delegating moral
decisions to an agent?

They would like to help Charis but have no idea how.
(Neither do I, neither does the GM.)

Two methods seem fairly obvious to me, but they might not be
compatible with your play style.

Honestly, I don't see Charis as the evil one here. Jules is the one
who forced her to come back to life against her wishes. Then again,
he's the demon prince, after all.

I don't think I want to find out first-hand what
the soldiers at the Mai Lai massacre were thinking
or feeling.

As Will alluded to obliquely, I think you already have.

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

On May 2, 3:45 pm, ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
wrote:
> Or can be: one of the ways that playing an evil PC can work well is
> if the player plays him to "lose" in the sense of actually wanting
> the villainy to catch up with the character, aiming for either
> redemption or retribution.

In practical terms however this is impossible. Either the character
succeeds at doing evil at some point, or one is not running an evil
character so much as they are running an evil want-to-be. If evil acts
occur along the way, I see the final story end as nothing more than an
excuse and justification to commit the evil acts up front. It's like
buying an Indulgence. This is even more true if redemption is the
planned outcome IMO.

The concept can work if the evil is the character's background story,
or if the character was an NPC taken over by a player after its turn
from darkness.

[Brandon Blackmoor]

gleichman wrote:
> ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
> wrote:
>> Or can be: one of the ways that playing an evil PC can work well is
>> if the player plays him to "lose" in the sense of actually wanting
>> the villainy to catch up with the character, aiming for either
>> redemption or retribution.
>
> In practical terms however this is impossible.

I did this in the very first D&D campaign I played in. It took a long
while for the other characters to figure out what was going on, but when
they did, my character met a fitting and well-deserved end. It was great
fun all around.

I am not quite that experimental these days. Nonetheless, it is both
possible and feasible, even for role-players far less experienced than
yourself.

--
***@blackgate.net
2007-05-03

[gleichman]

"Brandon Blackmoor" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:46396f70$0$9174$***@news.teranews.com...
> gleichman wrote:
>> ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
>> wrote:
>>> Or can be: one of the ways that playing an evil PC can work well is
>>> if the player plays him to "lose" in the sense of actually wanting
>>> the villainy to catch up with the character, aiming for either
>>> redemption or retribution.
>>
>> In practical terms however this is impossible.
>
> I did this in the very first D&D campaign I played in. It took a long
> while for the other characters to figure out what was going on, but when
> they did, my character met a fitting and well-deserved end. It was great
> fun all around.

Did that character ever commit an Evil act successful?

If so, you played to Win. The fact that you eventually lost doesn't alter
that.

[psychohist]

Russell Wallace posts regarding Mary's response to Brian Gleichman
asking about why play of evil gamesmaster characters is different from
that of evil player characters:

The distinction is that the GM, when he plays the
bad guys, is playing to lose, whereas players play
to win. This is essentially the reason for the
existence of GMs in the first place.

I don't think "playing to lose" is quite an accurate description. I'm
pretty sure Brian thinks that the gamemaster should go ahead and have
the bad guys win if the player characters mess things up badly enough.

I think - though Brian could probably clarify more here - that it's
more an issue of identification. In most campaigns, player characters
are the players' avatars in the game; the same is not true, in
general, for the characters played by the gamesmaster.

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

"psychohist" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> I don't think "playing to lose" is quite an accurate description. I'm
> pretty sure Brian thinks that the gamemaster should go ahead and have
> the bad guys win if the player characters mess things up badly enough.
>
> I think - though Brian could probably clarify more here - that it's
> more an issue of identification. In most campaigns, player characters
> are the players' avatars in the game; the same is not true, in
> general, for the characters played by the gamesmaster.

Yes, this is indeed the more important element IMO although a bad GM can
identify with one or more NPCs with horrid results and isn't at all
uncommon. So that makes its a difficult point to stand on alone.

In combination with "playing to lose", one getting closer to defining the
matter. However playing to lose doesn't override allowing the bad guys to
win if the players mess things up badly enough. And the result of the player
failure (and how the results are implemented) matter greatly of course as
well.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, gleichman <***@hotmail.com> hastily
scrawled:

>On May 2, 9:49 am, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >If so, you are making my point for me.
>>
>> If that's your point, then it's a stupid one.
>
>I believe we've reach the end of the exchange. You consider me stupid.

No, your point is stupid. You, on the other hand, are an asshole.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[Justin Fang]

In article <***@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
gleichman <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 2, 11:09 am, Will in New Haven
><***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> Well, I find myself agreeing with a great deal of your position here.
>> However, I don't say that one player character attacking another is
>> always bad/wrong/fun.

>In a wargame or other heavily game like setting? No, of course not

What about a comedic setting, like Paranoia?

--
Justin Fang (***@panix.com)

[gleichman]

On May 2, 11:49 am, ***@panix.com (Justin Fang) wrote:
> In article <***@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> What about a comedic setting, like Paranoia?

I don't think I'd make a call on those without specific details. It's
meant to be a joke, and there is some merit in dark humor.

However if it often dipped into rape, explicit torture, and the like-
I'd have to question why. Humor can slip from dark to vulgar to vile
too quickly these days. And "It's only a joke" is nearly as common a
false excuse as "I'm only RPing" IME.

[psychohist]

Ed Chauvin IV posts, in part:

This discussion isn't about real life morality, it's about
what sorts of roleplaying people can have fun doing.

To the extent that it affects people at the player level rather than
at the character level, it does indeed implicate player world
morality.

Brian's original example involved game world rape based on the sex of
the victimized character's player, not of the victimized character.
This makes it fairly clear that the motivation is a player world one,
not just a character level one; not only is the character being
victimized, but the character's player is being victimized as well.

So the discussion does indeed involve player world morality, and not
just what sorts of roleplaying people can have fun doing.

Warren J. Dew

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, psychohist <***@aol.com> hastily
scrawled:

>Ed Chauvin IV posts, in part:
>
> This discussion isn't about real life morality, it's about
> what sorts of roleplaying people can have fun doing.
>
>To the extent that it affects people at the player level rather than
>at the character level, it does indeed implicate player world
>morality.
>
>Brian's original example involved game world rape based on the sex of
>the victimized character's player, not of the victimized character.

An example I have already denounced as obviously *not* roleplaying and
completely unworthy of discussion. That is simply an example of one
person being an asshole. Nothing more.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[psychohist]

Ed Chauvin IV posts regarding Brian Gleichman's example of undesirable
gaming:

An example I have already denounced as obviously *not*
roleplaying and completely unworthy of discussion.

It's fairly common behavior among people starting to play roleplaying
games while at a high school age. When people start limiting their
definition of roleplaying to forms they personally like, discussion
tends to break down into useless accusations of "not roleplaying".

Warren J. Dew

[Ben Finney]

gleichman <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> On May 1, 1:38 pm, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "gleichman" wrote:
> >
> > >There are things that are BadWrongFun in gaming.
> >
> > Like?
>
> All sorts of things.

BadWrongFun refers to a label placed on what a gaming group is doing,
*regardless* of whether everyone in that group is enjoying it.

> A simple example is the classic "let's rape all the characters of
> the female players because it's fun". Effectively virtual abuse of
> other players.

This example clearly doesn't qualify, except in the unlikely case that
all the players are enjoying this.

Do you have any examples of roleplaying game styles that you would
label BadWrongFun?

--
\ "When I was a baby I kept a diary. Recently I was re-reading |
`\ it, it said 'Day 1: Still tired from the move. Day 2: Everybody |
_o__) talks to me like I'm an idiot.'" -- Steven Wright |
Ben Finney

[gleichman]

"Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote in message
news:***@benfinney.id.au...
> Do you have any examples of roleplaying game styles that you would
> label BadWrongFun?

I already addressed that.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
hastily scrawled:

>
>"Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote in message
>news:***@benfinney.id.au...
>> Do you have any examples of roleplaying game styles that you would
>> label BadWrongFun?
>
>I already addressed that.

No, you didn't. You gave an example of someone acting completely
outside the realm of roleplaying as a BadWrongFun way of roleplaying.
That is not addressing the question of a roleplaying style that is
BadWrongFun.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[Simon Smith]

In message <***@4ax.com>
Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mere moments before death, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
> hastily scrawled:
>
> >
> >"Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote in message
> >news:***@benfinney.id.au...
> >> Do you have any examples of roleplaying game styles that you would
> >> label BadWrongFun?
> >
> >I already addressed that.
>
> No, you didn't. You gave an example of someone acting completely
> outside the realm of roleplaying as a BadWrongFun way of roleplaying.
> That is not addressing the question of a roleplaying style that is
> BadWrongFun.


Might I point out a distinction you may both have overlooked; gleichman
originally said "There are things that are BadWrongFun in /gaming/."

Ed's reply a little later: "That's no longer /roleplaying/ and not even
worthy of discussion."

My emphasis.

Bearing in ming that one can play an RPG without roleplaying (although most
people here would consider that either rather pointless, or at best 'playing
badly'), are you two quite sure you're not just getting wound up over an
overlooked semantic difference?

Given that I /do/ draw a distinction between 'gaming' and 'roleplaying', I
think you're both right.

--
Simon Smith

When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, Simon Smith <***@zen.co.uk>
hastily scrawled:

>In message <***@4ax.com>
> Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mere moments before death, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
>> hastily scrawled:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote in message
>> >news:***@benfinney.id.au...
>> >> Do you have any examples of roleplaying game styles that you would
>> >> label BadWrongFun?
>> >
>> >I already addressed that.
>>
>> No, you didn't. You gave an example of someone acting completely
>> outside the realm of roleplaying as a BadWrongFun way of roleplaying.
>> That is not addressing the question of a roleplaying style that is
>> BadWrongFun.
>
>
>Might I point out a distinction you may both have overlooked; gleichman
>originally said "There are things that are BadWrongFun in /gaming/."
>
>Ed's reply a little later: "That's no longer /roleplaying/ and not even
>worthy of discussion."
>
>My emphasis.

Yes, your emphasis. I thought then, and still do, that gleichman's
"gaming" referred specifically to RPing. His total lack of objection
to my rejection of not discussing non-RP examples, and every post he's
made since then indicate that.

>Bearing in ming that one can play an RPG without roleplaying (although most
>people here would consider that either rather pointless, or at best 'playing
>badly'), are you two quite sure you're not just getting wound up over an
>overlooked semantic difference?

Absolutely not. If that's what's happening, then gleichman's stepped
beyond stupidity and right into the realm of absurdity.

>Given that I /do/ draw a distinction between 'gaming' and 'roleplaying', I
>think you're both right.

If he's referring to all of gaming, then he's Even More Wrong. The
vast majority of non-RP games involving more than one player have the
player's tokens in direct conflict and to say that it's BadWrongFun to
attack another player's tokens in say Battleship would be the height
of stupidity.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[gleichman]

"Ed Chauvin IV" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...

> No, you didn't. You gave an example of someone acting completely
> outside the realm of roleplaying as a BadWrongFun way of roleplaying.
> That is not addressing the question of a roleplaying style that is
> BadWrongFun.

Look at the second point of my post on the subject. I specifically addressed
styles that are common in RPGs including the running of Evil Characters.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
hastily scrawled:

>
>"Ed Chauvin IV" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>
>> No, you didn't. You gave an example of someone acting completely
>> outside the realm of roleplaying as a BadWrongFun way of roleplaying.
>> That is not addressing the question of a roleplaying style that is
>> BadWrongFun.
>
>Look at the second point of my post on the subject. I specifically addressed
>styles that are common in RPGs including the running of Evil Characters.

You're going to have to be more specific than that. It's impossible
to discern what you're referring to here.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:04:59 -0500, "gleichman"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Erol K. Bayburt" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> In any case, the useful metric isn't "how many characters you've seen
>> bleed to death" but "how many character would have bled to death if
>> the rest of the party hadn't rallied 'round to save them."
>
>Foolish concept.
>
>How many characters would be dead if the rest of party sat on there hands in
>combat in just about any system.
>
>> Furthermore my rule is useful for letting "unimportant" NPCs die
>> instantly rather than keeping track of their bleeding to death,
>> stabilization rolls, etc.
>
>I already have rules to allow that.
>
>
>> In short, it works for me despite my generally looking askance at
>> Dramatist methods. There are occasions, I've concluded, where a
>> fudge-heavy Dramatist-type "mechanic" is the Right Thing for the sort
>> of games I want to run and play in.
>
>I wonder. You've seriously over estimated and/or failed to understand the
>point of common bleeding rules. Makes me wonder if the game you're playing
>isn't an overeaction to a bunch of stuff and thus heavily bent to ends that
>didn't matter.
>

*Plonk*

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Erol K. Bayburt <***@comcast.net> wrote:

>It also seems to me that PC deaths are subject to the various forces
>that cause game systems to overproduce "dramatic" and "interesting"
>results with the expectation that the GM will fudge many or most of
>them.

There was an interesting thread on one of the Paizo discussion boards
about this recently. People were discussing an encounter in one of the
Adventure Paths which is exceptionally difficult for its listed level,
and a series of GMs posted "how my PCs managed to triumph" stories.

Nearly every single story involved either "I didn't play it to its
full capacity, of course" or a detectable rules violation. The GMs in
the first category knew they were fudging, but the GMs in the second
category generally didn't. I suspect there's pressure to make
mistakes in the direction of PC survival, especially if you know already
that the encounter is probably too hard.

The rules violations were all over the place: forgetting one of the
creature's immunities, allowing something to overcome the immunity
that doesn't do so according to the rules, lowering the ceiling
from 80' to 15', reading a key duration in minutes as being in rounds,
etc.

I have two first-hand experiences of that encounter to add. In mine,
the GM didn't fudge, I didn't fudge, and it was indeed frightfully
hard and unpleasant--the PCs actually won, but it didn't feel like a
win, and it was gruelling. In the other, the players mysteriously
rolled a whole bunch of 20's, which shows another way in which
mechanical issues can be gotten around.

>For myself, I've decided that a purely mechanical system for
>determining PC death can't be made to work to my satisfaction. My
>standard house rule for all systems, then, is to chuck out any
>"bleeding" rules, and to say that any character reduced to "dying, but
>not instantly killed" (-1 to -9 HP in D&D, -1 to -9 BODY in HERO,
>etc.) will live or die at the will of the controlling player (or GM,
>in the case of NPCs). They may drop dead at once, die after gasping
>out their last words, or cling to life until healed - or even until
>they recover via "natural" healing.

I went back over the seven PC fatalities in our last two games and this
would only have helped once, but it depends very strongly on
the adversaries. Adversaries with large-damage attacks tend, in our
hands, to leave outright dead PCs. But one could widen the range
of "dying but not dead" suitably. Our v1.0-variant homebrew used
Con+Level as the threshhold.

I remember a fight where Aon the monk got hit with a lot of thorns
that caused protracted bleeding. The fight was too desperate for
him to stop and pluck them. At the end, the other PCs turned to
Aon and said, "Are you okay?" and he said, "I'm a radish."

"A radish?"

"Completely red on the outside and completely white on the inside."
And fainted dead away. None of us (including me) had realized
that he'd collected *all* of the extend-your-death-interval and
fight-while-dying abilities and items the system offered; and was,
in fact, at -39.

I'd have felt awful if he'd been at -40 and dead. I don't think the
player would have tolerated my fudging, though.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Russell Wallace]

Ben Finney wrote:
> That's just another way of saying that an "unpleasant outcome" (for
> the PC) is a possible fun result (for the players).

Not quite.

In my current campaign, I had to remove a PC a couple of weeks ago - not
by death, by expulsion from the military order of which the PCs are
members, but the effect was similar in that the player (since he didn't
choose to come back with another character) was out of the game.

This was _not_ fun for the player concerned, nor for me, nor for the
group in general; I had one player approve of the decision but regret
its necessity, and two criticize it and ask could I not have fudged it
to keep the character in the game. (The other players didn't comment; I
don't know whether they approved or not.) My answer was and is that I
could not have done so without breaking the consistency of the game
world, and the loss of fun from said loss of consistency would outweight
that from the loss of a PC.

Nor were dice even used at all in that incident, it was pure
roleplaying, but the criterion was the one I articulated at the start of
this thread: it had been established _beyond reasonable doubt_ that the
character's psychological problems rendered him ineligible for continued
membership.

It's not even a case of "sacrifice one for the sake of the others"; I
cannot at this point discount the possibility that the campaign may end
with the death of the whole party and even the end of the world. I think
it will be avoidable, and certainly any PC plan to avert it that falls
into the "could go either way" category I will look for ways it can
consistently work, but the criterion still applies: if disaster ends up
being beyond reasonable doubt, then I will narrate it to the best of my
ability and roll credits, rather than break the consistency of the game
world, because I believe the benefits accruing from such consistency
outweigh the potential costs.

I agree, though, with your other point: it is better to decide in
advance what range of outcomes will be left to the dice, than to roll
and then be faced with fudging the roll.

--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.

[Peter Knutsen]

Russell Wallace wrote:
[...]
> In my current campaign, I had to remove a PC a couple of weeks ago - not
> by death, by expulsion from the military order of which the PCs are
> members, but the effect was similar in that the player (since he didn't
> choose to come back with another character) was out of the game.
[...]
> Nor were dice even used at all in that incident, it was pure

You don't have to roll any dice if a character is at ground zero in a
thermonuclear blast.

> roleplaying, but the criterion was the one I articulated at the start of
> this thread: it had been established _beyond reasonable doubt_ that the
> character's psychological problems rendered him ineligible for continued
> membership.
[...]


--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

[gleichman]

"Peter Knutsen" <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:46352047$0$7612$***@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
> You don't have to roll any dice if a character is at ground zero in a
> thermonuclear blast.

Depends upon the character now doesn't it? There a number in campagins of
mine that wouldn't be all that brothered.

[Peter Knutsen]

gleichman wrote:
> "Peter Knutsen" <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>>You don't have to roll any dice if a character is at ground zero in a
>>thermonuclear blast.
>
> Depends upon the character now doesn't it? There a number in campagins of
> mine that wouldn't be all that brothered.

That's true.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

[Peter Knutsen]

gleichman wrote:
> "Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote in message
>>If "PC death" means "PC is removed from the game", that's something
>>that should only ever happen when it's appropriate to the fun you're
>>trying to have, not something that should be left to the throw of the
>>dice.
>
> It can be fun to leave it to the throw of the dice.

Yes. Not only that, but I find it *intensely* un-fun when the decision,
about whether a PC shall live or die, is made by a metagame entity.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

[gleichman]

"Peter Knutsen" <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:4633f712$0$7610$***@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
>> Yes. Not only that, but I find it *intensely* un-fun when the decision,
> about whether a PC shall live or die, is made by a metagame entity.

I feel that any thing that takes it out of the hands of mechanics and puts
it up to the owning player- is cheating. Perhaps acceptable cheating for
that group, but cheating in my eyes in any event. I would never play in such
a campaign.

[Peter Knutsen]

gleichman wrote:
> "Peter Knutsen" <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>>Yes. Not only that, but I find it *intensely* un-fun when the decision,
>>about whether a PC shall live or die, is made by a metagame entity.
>
> I feel that any thing that takes it out of the hands of mechanics and puts
> it up to the owning player- is cheating. Perhaps acceptable cheating for
> that group, but cheating in my eyes in any event. I would never play in such
> a campaign.

Sure, but I'm talking about the GM as well. I don't want the GM to
produce outcomes. That's what the rules, and the dice, and the character
sheets are for. The GM is there only to produce situations.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid>
hastily scrawled:

>gleichman wrote:
>> "Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote in message
>>>If "PC death" means "PC is removed from the game", that's something
>>>that should only ever happen when it's appropriate to the fun you're
>>>trying to have, not something that should be left to the throw of the
>>>dice.
>>
>> It can be fun to leave it to the throw of the dice.
>
>Yes. Not only that, but I find it *intensely* un-fun when the decision,
>about whether a PC shall live or die, is made by a metagame entity.

Such decisions are *always* made by a metagame entity. You always
make a choice to play at a given level of script immunity, whether
it's through system choice or pure DM fiat doesn't matter. You can
hide the decision behind layers of game mechanics, but it is always
made by the players and not the game.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[Simon Smith]

In message <***@4ax.com>
Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mere moments before death, Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid>
> hastily scrawled:
>
> >gleichman wrote:
> >> "Ben Finney" <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au> wrote in message
> >>>If "PC death" means "PC is removed from the game", that's something
> >>>that should only ever happen when it's appropriate to the fun you're
> >>>trying to have, not something that should be left to the throw of the
> >>>dice.
> >>
> >> It can be fun to leave it to the throw of the dice.
> >
> >Yes. Not only that, but I find it *intensely* un-fun when the decision,
> >about whether a PC shall live or die, is made by a metagame entity.
>
> Such decisions are *always* made by a metagame entity. You always
> make a choice to play at a given level of script immunity, whether
> it's through system choice or pure DM fiat doesn't matter. You can
> hide the decision behind layers of game mechanics, but it is always
> made by the players and not the game.

The nice thing about leaving it to a die mechanic, though, is that it tells
all players ahead of time exactly how likely a death is under given
circumstances. You can even calculate the probability. Leaving it to the
'whim' of a GM means you don't know for sure until it happens, even if that
GM is a paragon of consistency.

Having to rely on the GM in this way was one of the things that put me off
diceless Amber. To reuse a famous phrase of Douglas Adams', when it comes to
character deaths, I want 'rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.'


--
Simon Smith

When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org

[Peter Knutsen]

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid>
> hastily scrawled:
>>Yes. Not only that, but I find it *intensely* un-fun when the decision,
>>about whether a PC shall live or die, is made by a metagame entity.
>
> Such decisions are *always* made by a metagame entity. You always
> make a choice to play at a given level of script immunity, whether
> it's through system choice or pure DM fiat doesn't matter. You can
> hide the decision behind layers of game mechanics, but it is always
> made by the players and not the game.

Incorrect.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid>
hastily scrawled:

>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid>
>> hastily scrawled:
>>>Yes. Not only that, but I find it *intensely* un-fun when the decision,
>>>about whether a PC shall live or die, is made by a metagame entity.
>>
>> Such decisions are *always* made by a metagame entity. You always
>> make a choice to play at a given level of script immunity, whether
>> it's through system choice or pure DM fiat doesn't matter. You can
>> hide the decision behind layers of game mechanics, but it is always
>> made by the players and not the game.
>
>Incorrect.

I don't see how you can seriously make that claim without having
grossly misinterpreted my post.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[psychohist]

Ed Chauvin IV responds to Peter Knutsen:

I don't see how you can seriously make that claim
without having grossly misinterpreted my post.

Given that four different people, most of whom don't generally agree
with Peter, expressed the same objection in different words, you might
want to consider the possibility that they are reading the words as
written, and that the disconnect is that the words are not accurately
reflecting what you meant to say.

It's not realistic to expect them to read your mind.

Warren J. Dew

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, psychohist <***@aol.com> hastily
scrawled:

>Ed Chauvin IV responds to Peter Knutsen:
>
> I don't see how you can seriously make that claim
> without having grossly misinterpreted my post.
>
>Given that four different people, most of whom don't generally agree
>with Peter, expressed the same objection in different words,

Not one single response to that post was related to another. Only one
was even remotely sensible, and it didn't truly address the issue.

>you might
>want to consider the possibility that they are reading the words as
>written, and that the disconnect is that the words are not accurately
>reflecting what you meant to say.

I always consider that possibility before I write my words, and that
is why I always use the words I mean to say. Why you would think I
meant something other than what I said in what was a completely
unambiguous post is beyond me.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[George W Harris]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:07:54 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

:>Yes. Not only that, but I find it *intensely* un-fun when the decision,
:>about whether a PC shall live or die, is made by a metagame entity.
:
:Such decisions are *always* made by a metagame entity. You always
:make a choice to play at a given level of script immunity, whether
:it's through system choice or pure DM fiat doesn't matter. You can
:hide the decision behind layers of game mechanics, but it is always
:made by the players and not the game.
:
Confusing the level of decision of in-game events
with the level of decision of how to decide in-game
events is not helpful.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'

[gleichman]

"Ed Chauvin IV" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Such decisions are *always* made by a metagame entity. You always
> make a choice to play at a given level of script immunity, whether
> it's through system choice or pure DM fiat doesn't matter. You can
> hide the decision behind layers of game mechanics, but it is always
> made by the players and not the game.

That response is a joke. One not even worthy of a freshman debater trying to
score points.

[Will in New Haven]

On Apr 27, 2:13 am, Russell Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> It took me some decades to figure this out, so maybe it might be of use
> to other people.
>
> Assume you want some degree of script immunity, but not such as to
> render the representation of the game world not a significant
> representation of a reasonable measure of the Tegmark multiverse (i.e.
> you don't want to frig up suspension of disbelief) - no "I run at the
> dragon waving my regular sword!" *fumble fumble* "Zounds! you've slain
> the dragon! who'd'a thunk it?"
>
> What's the difference between the criteria applied to a PC or beloved
> NPC vs a bad guy?
>
> I now swipe terms from the legal profession: "balance of probability" vs
> "beyond reasonable doubt".
>
> Ithaqua the Windwalker swipes at a Guardian PC. Dice go smack, critical
> success. Balance of probability is death, but Guardians are tougher than
> ordinary men, so it's within reasonable doubt that the PC goes bounce
> bounce thump, comes to a halt with half a dozen broken bones,
> unconscious, but still alive.
>
> The Knight of Dawn (Guardian PC) takes a similar swipe at a Horror of
> similar toughness and rolls a critical hit. The balance of probability
> is that the target dies. Ergo it dies, poof.
>
> Obviously this won't be useful to people who want to run high-lethality
> games where PCs die on probability, but to the rest of us it might be of
> use.

Our methods, and they were our methods back when we ran the first
edition of AD&D, just as they are today, running the local rules, have
been to have extremely liberal "survive while below zero" and healing
rules, making it fairly likely that a character who was down could be
saved if his or her side won or the other side wanted the character
alive for some reason.

We had the liberal rules to largely replace the huge numbers of people
who came back to life in that version of AD&D as we didn't much like
that aspect of the game. However, we did want our characters to
survive more than could "realistically" be expected. When I wrote my
own rules I retained this emphasis.

The rules are the same for PC and NPC but it is more likely that an
ally, PC or NPC, will get prompt healing. Being healed by the bad guys
has happened but it is usually a very bad fate. Not always as the PCs
will sometimes be fighting someone not so heinous. On at least one
occasion, it was a wounded and captured PC who found out that the
percieved bad guys were not so bad and could be dealt with.

Will in New Haven

--


>
> --
> "Always look on the bright side of life."
> To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.