Elven Thinblade?

[George W. Harris]

"Christopher Adams" <***@yahoo.invalid> wrote:

:Robert Singers wrote:
:>
:> So when you say a gamist highlights the game aspect, you're saying it's
:> someone who gets the most out of what the rules allow, rather than
:> someone who treats the game as a way of having fun?
:
:First of all, technically, "gamist" is a label applied to a system, not a
:player.

I'm afraid not. The simulatioinist/gamist/dramatist
distinction, at its most basic, applies to decisions made by
the GM. If a decision is made with regard to how the
decision would affect the game as a story, then the
decision is dramatist. If a decision is made with regard to
how the decision would affect the game as a game, then
the decision is gamist. If a decision is made without regard
to any metagame factors at all (that is, factors outside the
reality of the gameworld as the *characters* would
perceive it), then the decision is simulationist.

Naturally, any decision is going to be made with
consideration of a variety of factors, so very few decisions
are purely dramatist, gamist or simulationist. One can also
talk about where on the triangle a campaign lies, which
would depend on the collective nature of all the decisions
made in the campaign. Similarly, one can talk about
where on the triangle a particular GM can be placed, or
where on the triangle a particular players preferences lie,
but it is useful to keep in mind that the most fundamental
meaning of the threefold applies to individual decisions.

As to systems, while it's certainly true that some
systems (D&D, GURPS) lend themselves best to a gamist
style, others (Feng Shui, Heroquest) lend themselves to a
dramatist style, and a very few (RuneQuest come to mind)
lend themselves to a simulationist style, it is certainly
possible to play any system using any style of GMing.
:
:Second, even if you talk about "gamist" players, they *get* their fun from
:"get(ting) the most out of what the rules allow". I have friends who call them
:"tactical" players; the point of the game is to overcome challenges, so that's
:what they do, as efficiently as possible.

--
Want to help fund terrorism? Drive an SUV.

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

[Stephenls]

Post by George W. Harris
I'm afraid not. The simulatioinist/gamist/dramatist
distinction, at its most basic, applies to decisions made by
the GM. If a decision is made with regard to how the
decision would affect the game as a story, then the
decision is dramatist. If a decision is made with regard to
how the decision would affect the game as a game, then
the decision is gamist. If a decision is made without regard
to any metagame factors at all (that is, factors outside the
reality of the gameworld as the *characters* would
perceive it), then the decision is simulationist.
Naturally, any decision is going to be made with
consideration of a variety of factors, so very few decisions
are purely dramatist, gamist or simulationist. One can also
talk about where on the triangle a campaign lies, which
would depend on the collective nature of all the decisions
made in the campaign. Similarly, one can talk about
where on the triangle a particular GM can be placed, or
where on the triangle a particular players preferences lie,
but it is useful to keep in mind that the most fundamental
meaning of the threefold applies to individual decisions.
As to systems, while it's certainly true that some
systems (D&D, GURPS) lend themselves best to a gamist
style, others (Feng Shui, Heroquest) lend themselves to a
dramatist style, and a very few (RuneQuest come to mind)
lend themselves to a simulationist style, it is certainly
possible to play any system using any style of GMing.

For those of you watching from the sidelines, I'll mention at this point
that posts like this are why I'm not particularly happy with
gamist/narrativist/simulationist theory, in either its Forge-ian or
Advocacy-ian incarnation. The majority of discussions about it quickly
spiral into talk/argument about the definitions of the terms themselves,
with little energy put into how they apply to actual gaming.

Mr. Harris's assertion, here, that they only apply to decisions made by
the GM and /not/ to player preference is a perfectly good example of
that, as I imagine someone will quickly respond with something like "Not
true, I've seen non-GM players who display distinct preferences for one
of the three styles," which will spawn an argument.

[Robert Singers]

Stephenls startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom

Post by Stephenls
For those of you watching from the sidelines, I'll mention at this point
that posts like this are why I'm not particularly happy with
gamist/narrativist/simulationist theory, in either its Forge-ian or
Advocacy-ian incarnation. The majority of discussions about it quickly
spiral into talk/argument about the definitions of the terms themselves,
with little energy put into how they apply to actual gaming.

Well what do you suggest as an alternative?

Post by Stephenls
Mr. Harris's assertion, here, that they only apply to decisions made by
the GM and /not/ to player preference is a perfectly good example of
that, as I imagine someone will quickly respond with something like "Not
true, I've seen non-GM players who display distinct preferences for one
of the three styles," which will spawn an argument.

We can point at those people and laugh. No of course to be post whores,
but because they deserve it.

[Stephenls]

Post by Robert Singers
Well what do you suggest as an alternative?

More willingness to compose different divisions on-the-spot as they fit
the situation.

For instance, on the Mage forum at WWOnline, there was a long period of
time (over two years, IIRC), where people were using a set of
fan-created definitions to discuss the way the magic system works. They
were useful at first, but quickly ended up pretty much destroying all
relevant discussion on the topic, because every single discussion ended
up becoming just the same discussion, all over again.
Process-based-determinism! No, Effect-based-determinism! Hypothetical
Omniscient Observer! No, Hypothetical Average Observer! No, Harass
Yonder Passerby!

(These became known as Those Damn Acronyms -- two sets of axis, the
PBD/RBD axis and HAP/HOP/HYP axis. For those of you familiar with Mage,
the former is a way of arguing which spheres allow which effects, while
the latter is a set of ways of determining whether something is
coincidental or vulgar.)

Eventually I got really damn sick of it and posted something long and
angry about how, hey, hasn't anyone noticed that for the past two years
we haven't had a single discussion on this topic that didn't turn into
the same old argument of definitions? Somehow, I got one of the most
vocal argumentative types to listen (possibly because I had something of
a history there as a Guy Who Knows Things), and most people pretty much
agreed. So they stopped using those terms.

The end result was that everybody started spending more time defining
their arguments, and posts got longer, because they weren't using a
pre-defined vocabulary anymore, but at the same time the discussions
started getting interesting again because everybody (well, most people)
spent more time thinking about other ways things could be divided up.

At this point I'm going to reference Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance. Bear with me, please.

The author of said book talked about a concept he called (IIRC) a
conceptual knife -- it's the process by which we divide complex subjects
up into smaller parts so that we can examine their innards more closely.
The trick is, those divisions are of our own invention, and there's no
guarantee that any given division is going to be more useful than any
other. /All/ sets of divisions are ultimately artificial.

The Threefold Model is one set of divisions through which roleplaying
can be examined, but it's not the only one. Focus too much on it, and
you miss other potential sets of divisions that are just as useful. In
this case, I think the Threefold Model has outlived its usefulness --
it's not the only way to examine gaming, but at this point it's the one
way that's gotten the most attention.

So, yeah. I'd be interested in seeing some other way of dividing the
topic up. I don't know what that way would be, but I do think that the
division of RPing into gamism, narrativism, and simulationism is
artificial and that other, entirely different divisions are possible and
useful. The Threefold Model itself has now been examined so much that
almost any discussion about it turns into a somewhat incestuous
discussion of term definitions, discussions that new people can't
participate in and that never resolve or really accomplish anything.

Woo. Rambly, this post is. Am I making sense?

[Robert Singers]

Stephenls startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom

Post by Stephenls
Woo. Rambly, this post is. Am I making sense?

Totally and thanks for going to the trouble. In addition to your scenario
here we have an additional problem where people derail discussions by
insisting that in the common vernaqular[1] something means something
different to the dictionary, or arguing that it's a "term of art" (or
whatever MSB's little wank phrase is) to distort a phrase that is being
used according to a dictionary definition.

That being said a description for game play style and therefore outlook on
particular issues could be very handy locating people's positions in some
arguments, and actually moving that argument forward.

[1] Where it's patently obvious that being global NG a common vernaqular
does not effectively exist.

[Marc L.]

Post by Robert Singers
[1] Where it's patently obvious that being global NG a common
vernaqular does not effectively exist.

And if people keep that in mind when posting, and reading,
things might get better.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Marc L. and said

Post by Marc L.

Post by Robert Singers
[1] Where it's patently obvious that being global NG a common
vernacular does not effectively exist.

And if people keep that in mind when posting, and reading,
things might get better.

Unfortunately you do not necessarily know when writing or reading where
a colloquial difference exists.

[Marc L.]

Post by Robert Singers
Unfortunately you do not necessarily know when writing or reading
where a colloquial difference exists.

Right, hence my point about keeping that in mind when writing and
reading.

[Wayne Shaw]

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 05:26:44 GMT, Robert Singers

Post by Robert Singers
That being said a description for game play style and therefore outlook on
particular issues could be very handy locating people's positions in some
arguments, and actually moving that argument forward.

That _was_ originally the purpose of distinguishing between between
dramatism and simulationism was about, and later in adding gamism to
the mix when a few noted rather pointedly that a lot of people were
playing for non-dramatist reasons that simulationism didn't cover.

[Christopher Adams]

Post by Robert Singers
Totally and thanks for going to the trouble. In addition to your
scenario here we have an additional problem where people derail
discussions by insisting that in the common vernaqular[1] something
means something different to the dictionary, or arguing that it's a
"term of art" (or whatever MSB's little wank phrase is) to distort a
phrase that is being used according to a dictionary definition.

Though I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to shy from using terms which
*do* have a defined meaning in the system under discussion - like "enchantment"
in D&D - in other contexts. Sean K. Reynolds has a rant on his webpage (which
I'll link to later) about being sick and tired of seeing people use
"enchantment" to mean "magical property" in D&D supplements, because in the
context of D&D "enchantment" means, as he says, "affect(ing) the minds of
others, influencing or controlling their behavior", and relates specifically to
the Enchantment school of magic.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html

Anyway, the point is that I think it's entirely reasonable to ask people to
ignore the implications and ramifications of, say, a dictionary definition of
"charisma", because in D&D "charisma" is the name of a statistic that has a
defined set of game effects not necessarily directly related to the meaning
you'll find in the dictionary - and it's *not* legitimate to argue that Charisma
in the game can do X just because the dictionary you're using says that charisma
relates to X.

[Robert Singers]

Christopher Adams startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following
words of wisdom

[snip]

Post by Christopher Adams
Anyway, the point is that I think it's entirely reasonable to ask
people to ignore the implications and ramifications of, say, a
dictionary definition of "charisma", because in D&D "charisma" is the
name of a statistic that has a defined set of game effects not
necessarily directly related to the meaning you'll find in the
dictionary - and it's *not* legitimate to argue that Charisma in the
game can do X just because the dictionary you're using says that
charisma relates to X.

Of course but I'm not refering to that. I talking about people
delibrately being unreasonable. If it was a simple as asking someone to
use a synonym for a term specifically defined in D&D it would hardly be
an issue would it. What I'm talking about stretches to words like
respect and sentient, rather than simple things like charisma.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Christopher Adams, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Christopher Adams

Post by Robert Singers
Totally and thanks for going to the trouble. In addition to your
scenario here we have an additional problem where people derail
discussions by insisting that in the common vernaqular[1] something
means something different to the dictionary, or arguing that it's a
"term of art" (or whatever MSB's little wank phrase is) to distort a
phrase that is being used according to a dictionary definition.

Though I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to shy from using terms which
*do* have a defined meaning in the system under discussion - like "enchantment"
in D&D - in other contexts. Sean K. Reynolds has a rant on his webpage (which
I'll link to later) about being sick and tired of seeing people use
"enchantment" to mean "magical property" in D&D supplements, because in the
context of D&D "enchantment" means, as he says, "affect(ing) the minds of
others, influencing or controlling their behavior", and relates specifically to
the Enchantment school of magic.

Said rant has been the subject of a great deal of ridicule, much of it
justified IMO. (I can deal with the "enchantment" thing to a certain
extent, but flying off the handle for calling a character a
"sorceress," which also happened, deserves all the ridicule you can
throw at it.)

[Peter Knutsen]

Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
[Sean Reynold's rant against the mis-use of the term
"Enchantment" in D&D3]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Said rant has been the subject of a great deal of ridicule, much of it
justified IMO. (I can deal with the "enchantment" thing to a certain
extent, but flying off the handle for calling a character a
"sorceress," which also happened, deserves all the ridicule you can
throw at it.)

What's the point of the rant against sorceress?

[Wayne Shaw]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:52:31 +0200, Peter Knutsen

Post by Peter Knutsen
[Sean Reynold's rant against the mis-use of the term
"Enchantment" in D&D3]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Said rant has been the subject of a great deal of ridicule, much of it
justified IMO. (I can deal with the "enchantment" thing to a certain
extent, but flying off the handle for calling a character a
"sorceress," which also happened, deserves all the ridicule you can
throw at it.)

What's the point of the rant against sorceress?

I haven't seen it, but from context I'd bet he's arguing that in D&D
you shouldn't use "sorceress" as a term for a generic female
spellcaster when "sorcerer" has a specific game meaning. This is an
attitude I simultaneously understand and think people should get over
a little.

[Christopher Adams]

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Peter Knutsen
[Sean Reynold's rant against the mis-use of the term
"Enchantment" in D&D3]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Said rant has been the subject of a great deal of ridicule, much of it
justified IMO. (I can deal with the "enchantment" thing to a certain
extent, but flying off the handle for calling a character a
"sorceress," which also happened, deserves all the ridicule you can
throw at it.)

What's the point of the rant against sorceress?

I haven't seen it, but from context I'd bet he's arguing that in D&D
you shouldn't use "sorceress" as a term for a generic female
spellcaster when "sorcerer" has a specific game meaning. This is an
attitude I simultaneously understand and think people should get over
a little.

I agree with Wayne. To be absolutely fair, Reynolds was objecting to the misuse
of game terms in published material - adventures, supplements, and the like. You
*shouldn't* have a character statted as "LG human sorceress 12", she should be
"LG female human sorcerer 12".

In online discussions I don't think it's so important.

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by Stephenls
The end result was that everybody started spending more time defining
their arguments, and posts got longer, because they weren't using a
pre-defined vocabulary anymore, but at the same time the discussions
started getting interesting again because everybody (well, most people)
spent more time thinking about other ways things could be divided up.

All I've ever seen this do is regularly tying up more and more time
trying to clarify your meaning. It's essentially having to recreate
your tools before every work.

Post by Stephenls
The Threefold Model is one set of divisions through which roleplaying
can be examined, but it's not the only one. Focus too much on it, and
you miss other potential sets of divisions that are just as useful. In
this case, I think the Threefold Model has outlived its usefulness --
it's not the only way to examine gaming, but at this point it's the one
way that's gotten the most attention.

Whereas I disagree. I consider it a still perfectly useful set of
discussion tools, and see no reason to discard it just because it's
not the only one. It strikes me as being asked to throw away
something that allows me to talk about certain aspects of gaming just
because some other people have overused it.

Post by Stephenls
useful. The Threefold Model itself has now been examined so much that
almost any discussion about it turns into a somewhat incestuous
discussion of term definitions, discussions that new people can't
participate in and that never resolve or really accomplish anything.

I'm not interested in analyzing it; I'm simply interested in using it
as it was originally developed, to make certain discussions of game
conflicts easier.

Post by Stephenls
Woo. Rambly, this post is. Am I making sense?

Perhaps. I just disagree with your conclusion.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Stephenls
The Threefold Model is one set of divisions through which roleplaying
can be examined, but it's not the only one. Focus too much on it, and
you miss other potential sets of divisions that are just as useful. In
this case, I think the Threefold Model has outlived its usefulness --
it's not the only way to examine gaming, but at this point it's the one
way that's gotten the most attention.

Whereas I disagree. I consider it a still perfectly useful set of
discussion tools, and see no reason to discard it just because it's
not the only one. It strikes me as being asked to throw away
something that allows me to talk about certain aspects of gaming just
because some other people have overused it.

And in any case, you should have a replacement tool before you toss a
perfectly adequate one. If someone comes up with a better set of
terms, I'm sure they'll get used. And if they obsolete the Threefold
it will fall out of use.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Stephenls]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
And in any case, you should have a replacement tool before you toss a
perfectly adequate one. If someone comes up with a better set of
terms, I'm sure they'll get used. And if they obsolete the Threefold
it will fall out of use.

The Threefold Model, like HAP/HOP/HYP and RBD/PBD, would still be there.
It's more like a brief hiatus, with the setting aside of the
Threefold, during which an alternate tool is forged. After which, the
two would be compared. If the newer one is found lacking, people would
go back to using the old.

[Nockermensch]

Stephenls <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...

<snip excellent post>

Post by Stephenls
Woo. Rambly, this post is. Am I making sense?

Yes.

Now, how about creating another model? I see the different ways people
play RPGs as a continuum, with True Roleplayers in one end and
Wargamers in the other. Most groups lie somewhat in the middle of
these two extremes. Maybe this could be the basis of a simpler model.
There should little trouble on defining what a True Roleplayer and a
Wargamer are. In the traditional model, True Roleplayers should be the
Narrativist while the Wargamers collect the Gamist/Simulationist folk.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Nockermensch and said

Post by Nockermensch
Now, how about creating another model? I see the different ways people
play RPGs as a continuum, with True Roleplayers in one end and
Wargamers in the other. Most groups lie somewhat in the middle of
these two extremes. Maybe this could be the basis of a simpler model.
There should little trouble on defining what a True Roleplayer and a
Wargamer are. In the traditional model, True Roleplayers should be the
Narrativist while the Wargamers collect the Gamist/Simulationist folk.

I object to an system that would categorise an angsty LARPing vampire
player as a true roleplayer. That's heresey that is.

[Peter Knutsen]

Post by Robert Singers
I object to an system that would categorise an angsty LARPing vampire
player as a true roleplayer. That's heresey that is.

I object to any system that categorizes "live" as roleplaying.
For roleplaying to be roleplaying, you must play a role, and
part of the definition of a role is that it must be potentially
different, in the capabilitistic aspects, from its player. And
you don't get that in "live", in practice. "Live" *always*
degenerates into SELF-playing.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Peter Knutsen and said

Post by Peter Knutsen

Post by Robert Singers
I object to an system that would categorise an angsty LARPing vampire
player as a true roleplayer. That's heresey that is.

I object to any system that categorizes "live" as roleplaying.
For roleplaying to be roleplaying, you must play a role, and
part of the definition of a role is that it must be potentially
different, in the capabilitistic aspects, from its player. And
you don't get that in "live", in practice. "Live" *always*
degenerates into SELF-playing.

Well it's not like it is really live, you can't introduce them to your
boomstick now can you.

[Wayne Shaw]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 05:49:37 +0200, Peter Knutsen

Post by Peter Knutsen

Post by Robert Singers
I object to an system that would categorise an angsty LARPing vampire
player as a true roleplayer. That's heresey that is.

I object to any system that categorizes "live" as roleplaying.
For roleplaying to be roleplaying, you must play a role, and
part of the definition of a role is that it must be potentially
different, in the capabilitistic aspects, from its player. And
you don't get that in "live", in practice. "Live" *always*
degenerates into SELF-playing.

You've obviously never seen live games that use resolution systems,
have you?

[Marc L.]

Post by Peter Knutsen
"Live" *always*
degenerates into SELF-playing.

Untrue.

[Peter Knutsen]

Nockermensch wrote:
[...]

Post by Nockermensch
Now, how about creating another model? I see the different ways people
play RPGs as a continuum, with True Roleplayers in one end and
Wargamers in the other. Most groups lie somewhat in the middle of
these two extremes. Maybe this could be the basis of a simpler model.
There should little trouble on defining what a True Roleplayer and a
Wargamer are. In the traditional model, True Roleplayers should be the
Narrativist while the Wargamers collect the Gamist/Simulationist folk.

Compeltely *wrong*. Simulationists are the only ones who make
their decisions from a *pure* in-character point of view, so
obviously *we* are the true roleplayers.

Both Gamists and Dramatists cheerfully bend over and let the
decisions of their "character's" be influenced by metagame
concerns. It particularly bothers me when some people (like
Joachim Schipper, who stopped posting in here because I
complained about him making that very mistake) assume that
Dramatists are true roleplayers.

[Christopher Adams]

Post by Peter Knutsen
Compeltely *wrong*. Simulationists are the only ones who make
their decisions from a *pure* in-character point of view, so
obviously *we* are the true roleplayers.
Both Gamists and Dramatists cheerfully bend over and let the
decisions of their "character's" be influenced by metagame
concerns. It particularly bothers me when some people (like
Joachim Schipper, who stopped posting in here because I
complained about him making that very mistake) assume that
Dramatists are true roleplayers.

On the other hand, I think there are two different kinds of simulationist
players. There are people who are concerned with simulating the conventions of a
particular gameworld first and foremost, and then there are those who are
interested in simulating the attitudes and actions of a certain kind of person
within a gameworld first and foremost.

My friend Gareth talks about "stance" a lot, though it's not his theory. There's
"authorial stance", which is sorta-kinda close to dramatist in that it's about
playing your character in such a way that you tell a story, the elements of
which are predetermined in general if not in specific. For example, "This
character's a reluctant hero, but by the end of the campaign he'll have accepted
that he has a role to play in the earth-shattering events of the End Times and
he'll deal with it."

Then there's "actor stance", which would be the kind of simulationism you're
talking about, Peter; "This is who my character is and this is how he reacts."

There's at least one more, but I cannot remember the details clearly at the
present ti^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^Wthe margins are too small to contain the proof.

[Christopher Adams]

Post by Christopher Adams
My friend Gareth talks about "stance" a lot, though it's not his theory.
There's "authorial stance", which is sorta-kinda close to dramatist in
that it's about playing your character in such a way that you tell a
story, the elements of which are predetermined in general if not in
specific. For example, "This character's a reluctant hero, but by the
end of the campaign he'll have accepted that he has a role to play in
the earth-shattering events of the End Times and he'll deal with it."
Then there's "actor stance", which would be the kind of simulationism
you're talking about, Peter; "This is who my character is and this is
how he reacts."
There's at least one more, but I cannot remember the details clearly at
the present ti^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^Wthe margins are too small to contain
the proof.

Rah. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/

Yeah, "director stance".

I think that this is much more useful than GNS.

[Robert Singers]

Christopher Adams startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following
words of wisdom

Post by Christopher Adams
Yeah, "director stance".
I think that this is much more useful than GNS.

Answering yourself is the first sign of madness young man.

[Christopher Adams]

Post by Robert Singers
Christopher Adams startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following
words of wisdom

Post by Christopher Adams
Yeah, "director stance".
I think that this is much more useful than GNS.

Answering yourself is the first sign of madness young man.

Really?

[Christopher Adams]

Post by Christopher Adams

Post by Robert Singers
Christopher Adams startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following
words of wisdom

Post by Christopher Adams
Yeah, "director stance".
I think that this is much more useful than GNS.

Answering yourself is the first sign of madness young man.

Really?

Why is that?

[George W. Harris]

"Christopher Adams" <***@yahoo.invalid> wrote:

:On the other hand, I think there are two different kinds of simulationist
:players. There are people who are concerned with simulating the conventions of a
:particular gameworld first and foremost, and then there are those who are
:interested in simulating the attitudes and actions of a certain kind of person
:within a gameworld first and foremost.

Actually, if I understand you correctly, the
first of those wouldn't be simulationist at all. It
sounds like decisions would be based on the
desire to reach a particular result ("I want the
gameworld to resemble that in Gibson's
_Neuromancer_"), which is a metagame
consideration. Simulationism avoids all metagame
considerations.

[Peter Knutsen]

Post by George W. Harris
:On the other hand, I think there are two different kinds of simulationist
:players. There are people who are concerned with simulating the conventions of a
:particular gameworld first and foremost, and then there are those who are
:interested in simulating the attitudes and actions of a certain kind of person
:within a gameworld first and foremost.
Actually, if I understand you correctly, the
first of those wouldn't be simulationist at all. It
sounds like decisions would be based on the
desire to reach a particular result ("I want the
gameworld to resemble that in Gibson's
_Neuromancer_"), which is a metagame
consideration. Simulationism avoids all metagame
considerations.

Not during world creation. The term "metagame" has no meaning in
the world-creation phase, prior to game-start.

There are a lot of worlds that a Simulationist can't emulate or
use, because they are not internally consistent and can not be
tweaked so as to become internally consistent.

[Wayne Shaw]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:07:00 GMT, George W. Harris

Post by George W. Harris
:On the other hand, I think there are two different kinds of simulationist
:players. There are people who are concerned with simulating the conventions of a
:particular gameworld first and foremost, and then there are those who are
:interested in simulating the attitudes and actions of a certain kind of person
:within a gameworld first and foremost.
Actually, if I understand you correctly, the
first of those wouldn't be simulationist at all. It
sounds like decisions would be based on the
desire to reach a particular result ("I want the
gameworld to resemble that in Gibson's
_Neuromancer_"), which is a metagame
consideration. Simulationism avoids all metagame
considerations.

So I gather you're of the school that says that heavily
genre-convention settings can't be simulationist?

[Peter Knutsen]

Wayne Shaw wrote:
[to George]

Post by Wayne Shaw
So I gather you're of the school that says that heavily
genre-convention settings can't be simulationist?

I'm undecided on the issue, albeit sceptical.

A character played by a Simulationist player will, to a degree
determined by his intellectual stats (e.g. INT and WIS in D&D),
try to formulate a model of the world he lives in, so that he
can make the best possible decisions, both to reach his personal
goals, and to get out of dangerous situations with minimal harm
(this, trying to formulate a model of the world, isn't specific
to RPG characters - we all do it. In fact we've been doing all
our lives, right from birth, and possibly also in the last weeks
before we were born).

For this to work, the world must work after an understandable
model, and it must tolerace characters making intelligent
decisions based on that model. This rules out some genre
conventions, such as "the player characters can't die, but they
have to behave as if they think they can".

It also rules out any mechanical distinction between PCs and
NPCs, or between major characters and minor characters.

Even something as character levels becomes problematic. I
wouldn't be able to play under any edition of D&D without my
character eventually noticing the concept of levels. That
"people come in tiers, and (barring "level drains") progress
(only) upwardly, in a punctuated, abrupt fashion, meaning that
any character will remain capabilitistically static for a period
of time (it could be as little as days for an adventurer, or
decades for a non-adventurer) and then suddenly has a burst of
progression in some (almost never all) abilities".

My character would begin to think in such terms, because
character levels are obviously a part of the game world physics,
and he would begin to anticipate the next time that he himself
advances in character level, to the point where it would be
natural for him to share this discovery with his close friends.
He would probably also discover character classes, although that
might take him a bit more time. None of this would make
roleplaying - making all decisions from an in-character point of
view - impossible, but it would cause problems, especially for
the willing suspension of disbelief of the other players, which
would be threated by my character's talking about these
"discrete stages" that people obviously come in.

So the other players would criticize me, because my character
has discovered a law of physics of the game world, and is
inclined to discuss it (e.g. asking the other PCs about which of
their abilities they think will improve upon their next level gain).


Not all discretely quantified phenomena are problematic.
Attributes are almost always quantified according to a rather
coarsegrained scale (Rolemaster being the exception), but since
they are tested with dice rolls, there's no way for a character
to discover that a large portion of the population has the exact
same value, e.g. STR 10 or CHA 10.

Same with spell levels in most systems. FFRE, my homebrew
system, has six spell levels. Game-mechanically, they are
discrete, but from an in-character point of view I intend them
as a continuum so that characters are able to argue with each
other (or with themselves) about which spell from the same level
is the hardest. e.g. both Light I and Detect Magic are 1st level
spells. Game-mechanically they are the same difficulty to cast,
but one character could hold the position that Light is slightly
easier than Detect Magic, and another character could hold the
other position. Flash I is a 3rd level spell and Light Bolt I is
a 4th level spell, but even here a character could argue that
Flash I is only slightly easier to cast than Light Bolt I,
although arguing the other way around would be obviously wrong.

This works because there is nothing stopping any character, with
a spellcasting skill of 1 (in the appropriate Realm), from
trying to cast any spell (from that Realm). This is different
from D&D, where characters progress very abruptly, from being
totally inable to cast aparticular spell (e.g. a level 3 spell)
and to being perfectly capable of casting it (100% success chance).

That's "loud".

It's impossible to not *notice*. It doesn't prevent roleplaying,
but it can't go unnoticed by the characters. In fact in a
campaign with D&D-type spellcasting, any character of mine would
discover levels, at the very latest, by the time the PCs have
advanced to 5th level (4th if there's both a Sorcerer and a
Wizard or Cleric or Druid in the party). In a campaign where
there are no D&D-style spellcasters in the world, where
everybody are Rogues and Fighters and Barbarians and Commoners,
it might take quite a bit longer, before the hypothesis of
"people coming in tiers" will be fully formulated in my
character's mind. But he will discover it.

[Wayne Shaw]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:20:56 +0200, Peter Knutsen

Post by Peter Knutsen
[to George]

Post by Wayne Shaw
So I gather you're of the school that says that heavily
genre-convention settings can't be simulationist?

I'm undecided on the issue, albeit sceptical.

I'm of too minds myself, but I'm hardly a hard core simulationist, so
that may color my view.

Post by Peter Knutsen
A character played by a Simulationist player will, to a degree
determined by his intellectual stats (e.g. INT and WIS in D&D),
try to formulate a model of the world he lives in, so that he

I assume from this you're presuming all simulationist players play IC
or immersive? It's a defensible position for the hardcore types, but
that's a broad brush to use when talking about simulationist players.

Post by Peter Knutsen
For this to work, the world must work after an understandable
model, and it must tolerace characters making intelligent
decisions based on that model. This rules out some genre
conventions, such as "the player characters can't die, but they
have to behave as if they think they can".

I assume from this you can't tolerate characters with implaced
blindspots? I know most immersives can't, but it doesn't seem beyond
the ability of those playing from normal IC stance.

Post by Peter Knutsen
Even something as character levels becomes problematic. I
wouldn't be able to play under any edition of D&D without my
character eventually noticing the concept of levels. That
"people come in tiers, and (barring "level drains") progress
(only) upwardly, in a punctuated, abrupt fashion, meaning that

I think this is bogus, Peter; the punctuated fashion occurs to the
players, but I doubt seriously it's apparent to charcters other than
in the specialized case of spell levelling.

Post by Peter Knutsen
Not all discretely quantified phenomena are problematic.
Attributes are almost always quantified according to a rather
coarsegrained scale (Rolemaster being the exception), but since
they are tested with dice rolls, there's no way for a character
to discover that a large portion of the population has the exact
same value, e.g. STR 10 or CHA 10.

Which is also why he's unlikely to notice small increases in skill. I
doubt the difference in a single point of BAB or a couple skill ranks
is at all visible to a typical character, for example.

Post by Peter Knutsen
It's impossible to not *notice*. It doesn't prevent roleplaying,
but it can't go unnoticed by the characters. In fact in a
campaign with D&D-type spellcasting, any character of mine would
discover levels, at the very latest, by the time the PCs have
advanced to 5th level (4th if there's both a Sorcerer and a
Wizard or Cleric or Druid in the party). In a campaign where

I agree it's hard to not assume D&D spell casters don't have some
concept of spell levelling, but I think you're overextending that in
other areas.

[Peter Knutsen]

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Peter Knutsen
A character played by a Simulationist player will, to a degree
determined by his intellectual stats (e.g. INT and WIS in D&D),
try to formulate a model of the world he lives in, so that he

I assume from this you're presuming all simulationist players play IC
or immersive? It's a defensible position for the hardcore types, but

I'm not sure the distinction between Immersive and non-Immersive
is particularly useful.

Post by Wayne Shaw
that's a broad brush to use when talking about simulationist players.

Post by Peter Knutsen
For this to work, the world must work after an understandable
model, and it must tolerace characters making intelligent
decisions based on that model. This rules out some genre
conventions, such as "the player characters can't die, but they
have to behave as if they think they can".

I assume from this you can't tolerate characters with implaced
blindspots? I know most immersives can't, but it doesn't seem beyond

Not blind spots that others tell me my character must have. But
I sometimes invent blind spots of my own. That, of course, I do
for role playing reasons, rather than to work around problems
with the rules system or the world. Both of these must be
basically sound.

Post by Wayne Shaw
the ability of those playing from normal IC stance.

I want to be able to think like my character. I probably don't
do it 100% of the time, but anything that makes it difficult, or
prevents it, bothers me intensely.

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Peter Knutsen
Even something as character levels becomes problematic. I
wouldn't be able to play under any edition of D&D without my
character eventually noticing the concept of levels. That
"people come in tiers, and (barring "level drains") progress
(only) upwardly, in a punctuated, abrupt fashion, meaning that

I think this is bogus, Peter; the punctuated fashion occurs to the
players, but I doubt seriously it's apparent to charcters other than
in the specialized case of spell levelling.

After I wrote the first post, it occured to me that there's a
huge potential for a character to become addicted to level gain,
in a sense similar to "the quickening" from the Highlander
movies. He'd get a rush out of advancing from first to second
level, and suddenly feeling more powerful and capable.
Eventually (after a couple of level gains), he'd be hooked, and
spend more and more energy seeing out the experience. That may
sound good, because it makes him pro-actice and happy to engage
in conflicts, but he's liable to talk a lot about it too, with
the other characters ("what's it like for you?").

The same would happen with buff spells. I've never been buffed
in my entire life, but I can imagine it must be quite a rush. So
my character would seek out buff spells, or want to learn to
cast them himself. Then he'd want to save up money for ability
score-boosting items. The only question is, which buff would he
like the most?

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Peter Knutsen
Not all discretely quantified phenomena are problematic.
Attributes are almost always quantified according to a rather
coarsegrained scale (Rolemaster being the exception), but since
they are tested with dice rolls, there's no way for a character
to discover that a large portion of the population has the exact
same value, e.g. STR 10 or CHA 10.

Which is also why he's unlikely to notice small increases in skill. I

True. If a character improves his skills by 1 rank per level, or
even sometimes 2 ranks (at higher levels), it's not much of a
problem. But D&D3 permits much greater improvements. A Human
Rogue with INT 14 gets 11 skill points per level. This means
that as soon as he reaches level 8, he could go from zero ranks
to eleven ranks in one skill, upon levelling.

That's noticable. Especially if he puts those 11 ranks into a
skill that can't be used untrained.

Now imagine a skill focus on top, taken at the same time he
takes those 11 ranks. He goes from being unable to do something,
and to being able to do it with a +13, +14 or +15 bonus
(assuming his ability score modifier is -1, 0 or +1).

Again, that's "loud".

Post by Wayne Shaw
doubt the difference in a single point of BAB or a couple skill ranks
is at all visible to a typical character, for example.

A single point isn't. A point of BAB, taken simultaneously with
Weapon Focus, probably isn't either. Nor is increasing Sneak
Attack bonus.

But for skills, huge gains are possible. The rules do nothing to
prevent this (unlike, e.g., Rolemaster).

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Peter Knutsen
It's impossible to not *notice*. It doesn't prevent roleplaying,
but it can't go unnoticed by the characters. In fact in a
campaign with D&D-type spellcasting, any character of mine would
discover levels, at the very latest, by the time the PCs have
advanced to 5th level (4th if there's both a Sorcerer and a
Wizard or Cleric or Druid in the party). In a campaign where

I agree it's hard to not assume D&D spell casters don't have some
concept of spell levelling, but I think you're overextending that in
other areas.

You're probably right. Hitpoint gain going from 1st to end level
isn't huge either, given that your 1st level hitpoints are
maxed. It is possible to double your current hitpoints, which
should be noticable, and this is more likely to occur with
low-HD classes like Wizards or Rogues.

But the big problem is skills and spells.

Skills, apart from potentially huge increases at level gain,
also can't be improved at other times. That also causes a
modelling problem. If my character suddenly felt a need to
become better at Diplomacy, he'd be unable to improve. That
would frustrate him. Eventually he'd realize that upon level
gain, he becomes better at those skills that are useful for him,
even if he has no experience of it being a personal choice made
by himself. he'd be more likely to think in terms of destiny, or
some guardian angel.

[George W. Harris]

Wayne Shaw <***@caprica.com> wrote:

:On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:07:00 GMT, George W. Harris
:<***@mundsprung.com> wrote:
:
:>"Christopher Adams" <***@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
:>
:>:On the other hand, I think there are two different kinds of simulationist
:>:players. There are people who are concerned with simulating the conventions of a
:>:particular gameworld first and foremost, and then there are those who are
:>:interested in simulating the attitudes and actions of a certain kind of person
:>:within a gameworld first and foremost.
:>
:> Actually, if I understand you correctly, the
:>first of those wouldn't be simulationist at all. It
:>sounds like decisions would be based on the
:>desire to reach a particular result ("I want the
:>gameworld to resemble that in Gibson's
:>_Neuromancer_"), which is a metagame
:>consideration. Simulationism avoids all metagame
:>considerations.
:
:So I gather you're of the school that says that heavily
:genre-convention settings can't be simulationist?

I don't say it's categorically impossible, but
the logic of it doesn't work. There isn't really a
good answer to the question "Why don't the
inhabitants of the world notice?" and having the
people notice breaks the convention.

[Wayne Shaw]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:09:16 GMT, George W. Harris

Post by George W. Harris
I don't say it's categorically impossible, but
the logic of it doesn't work. There isn't really a
good answer to the question "Why don't the
inhabitants of the world notice?" and having the
people notice breaks the convention.

I gather from this the concept of selective blindspots doesn't work
for you? I know it won't for most immersives, but I can do so when
playing IC so I'm wondering if it's really off the table.

[George W. Harris]

Wayne Shaw <***@caprica.com> wrote:

:On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:09:16 GMT, George W. Harris
:<***@mundsprung.com> wrote:
:
:> I don't say it's categorically impossible, but
:>the logic of it doesn't work. There isn't really a
:>good answer to the question "Why don't the
:>inhabitants of the world notice?" and having the
:>people notice breaks the convention.
:
:I gather from this the concept of selective blindspots doesn't work
:for you? I know it won't for most immersives, but I can do so when
:playing IC so I'm wondering if it's really off the table.

No, I really can't get my head around a
character if she *can't* notice something.

[David Meadows]

Post by George W. Harris
:On the other hand, I think there are two different kinds of simulationist
:players. There are people who are concerned with simulating the conventions of a
:particular gameworld first and foremost, and then there are those who are
:interested in simulating the attitudes and actions of a certain kind of person
:within a gameworld first and foremost.
Actually, if I understand you correctly, the
first of those wouldn't be simulationist at all. It
sounds like decisions would be based on the
desire to reach a particular result ("I want the
gameworld to resemble that in Gibson's
_Neuromancer_"), which is a metagame
consideration. Simulationism avoids all metagame
considerations.

That implies that simulationism can never exist. Because in order to
simulate *anything* (real or fictional) you have to take a conscious
decision to simulate it, thus invalidating the simulation with a metagame
decision.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped David Meadows and said

Post by David Meadows
That implies that simulationism can never exist. Because in order to
simulate *anything* (real or fictional) you have to take a conscious
decision to simulate it, thus invalidating the simulation with a metagame
decision.

<golfclap>

[George W. Harris]

"David Meadows" <***@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:

:"George W. Harris" <***@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
:news:***@4ax.com...
:> "Christopher Adams" <***@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
:>
:> :On the other hand, I think there are two different kinds of simulationist
:> :players. There are people who are concerned with simulating the
:conventions of a
:> :particular gameworld first and foremost, and then there are those who are
:> :interested in simulating the attitudes and actions of a certain kind of
:person
:> :within a gameworld first and foremost.
:>
:> Actually, if I understand you correctly, the
:> first of those wouldn't be simulationist at all. It
:> sounds like decisions would be based on the
:> desire to reach a particular result ("I want the
:> gameworld to resemble that in Gibson's
:> _Neuromancer_"), which is a metagame
:> consideration. Simulationism avoids all metagame
:> considerations.
:
:That implies that simulationism can never exist. Because in order to
:simulate *anything* (real or fictional) you have to take a conscious
:decision to simulate it, thus invalidating the simulation with a metagame
:decision.

Let me clarify. Decisions about what
happens in the gameworld (how certain people
act) is based on a preferred result (you want
them to act in a particular way so as to match
the conventions of a particular world) rather
than just their in-world situation.

[Wayne Shaw]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:27:12 GMT, "Christopher Adams"

Post by Christopher Adams
My friend Gareth talks about "stance" a lot, though it's not his theory. There's
"authorial stance", which is sorta-kinda close to dramatist in that it's about
playing your character in such a way that you tell a story, the elements of
which are predetermined in general if not in specific. For example, "This
character's a reluctant hero, but by the end of the campaign he'll have accepted
that he has a role to play in the earth-shattering events of the End Times and
he'll deal with it."
Then there's "actor stance", which would be the kind of simulationism you're
talking about, Peter; "This is who my character is and this is how he reacts."
There's at least one more, but I cannot remember the details clearly at the
present ti^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^Wthe margins are too small to contain the proof.

Actually, what you've called "actor" is usually refered to as "IC
stance" in the model that was developed on r.g.f.a. "Actor" stance is
one step removed from that in that it will sometimes allow exterior
things to influence it; the desire to make a scene particularly strong
for example.

There's also a "directorial stance" who's distinction I can't bring
immediately to mind, and there's a notoriously contraversial version
of IC stance, sometimes called "Deep IC" or immersion, where the
player tries as much as possible to _be_ the character when operating
them, to the point it's sometimes hard to actually make a decision the
character wouldn't, even when it causes metagame problems. I've seen
this much more on MUSHes than FTF (I do it myself when I used to MUSH,
but I tend to play Actor when face to face).

[David Meadows]

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Nockermensch
Now, how about creating another model? I see the different ways people
play RPGs as a continuum, with True Roleplayers in one end and
Wargamers in the other. Most groups lie somewhat in the middle of
these two extremes. Maybe this could be the basis of a simpler model.
There should little trouble on defining what a True Roleplayer and a
Wargamer are. In the traditional model, True Roleplayers should be the
Narrativist while the Wargamers collect the Gamist/Simulationist folk.

Compeltely *wrong*. Simulationists are the only ones who make
their decisions from a *pure* in-character point of view, so
obviously *we* are the true roleplayers.

Makes sense to me.

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Nockermensch
<snip excellent post>

Post by Stephenls
Woo. Rambly, this post is. Am I making sense?

Yes.
Now, how about creating another model? I see the different ways people
play RPGs as a continuum, with True Roleplayers in one end and
Wargamers in the other. Most groups lie somewhat in the middle of
these two extremes. Maybe this could be the basis of a simpler model.
There should little trouble on defining what a True Roleplayer and a
Wargamer are. In the traditional model, True Roleplayers should be the
Narrativist while the Wargamers collect the Gamist/Simulationist folk.

Let the War begin.

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by Nockermensch
<snip excellent post>

Post by Stephenls
Woo. Rambly, this post is. Am I making sense?

Yes.
Now, how about creating another model? I see the different ways people
play RPGs as a continuum, with True Roleplayers in one end and
Wargamers in the other. Most groups lie somewhat in the middle of
these two extremes. Maybe this could be the basis of a simpler model.
There should little trouble on defining what a True Roleplayer and a
Wargamer are. In the traditional model, True Roleplayers should be the
Narrativist while the Wargamers collect the Gamist/Simulationist folk.

The problem with that is many gamists will do things utterly against
the game ethic of a simulationist; whether you want your world to hold
water coherently doesn't have a thing to do whether you want a good
game, and in fact it can sometimes work against it (using game in a
narrow sense).

The most obvious example is coherent worlds aren't necessarily
balanced; a proper simulation can end up producing plenty of
completely unbalanced encounters.

[~consul]

Post by Stephenls
Eventually I got really damn sick of it and posted something long and
angry about how, hey, hasn't anyone noticed that for the past two years
we haven't had a single discussion on this topic that didn't turn into
the same old argument of definitions? Somehow, I got one of the most
vocal argumentative types to listen (possibly because I had something of
a history there as a Guy Who Knows Things), and most people pretty much
agreed. So they stopped using those terms.

Well, regardless of how I'm going to be labeled, I like the Elven Thinblade (from what
little I've seen so far) because it 'looks nice'. If I can figure out a way to kill
someone with it, all the better (in a gaming mode). That it doesn't say, have the best
stats doesn't really matter, as I'll just have someone magick it up for me anyways. The
criteria's for best speed/damage, imo, is relatively moot, given how easy and directed it
is to enchant such items.
I don't think I'm into total flash and style, but something's should be visible.

[Marc L.]

Post by Robert Singers
Well what do you suggest as an alternative?

That we drop the subject as no need for it exists?

[Robert Singers]

Marc L. startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom

Post by Marc L.

Post by Robert Singers
Well what do you suggest as an alternative?

That we drop the subject as no need for it exists?

Are you asking me to stop Usenet so you can get off?

[Marc L.]

Post by Robert Singers

Post by Marc L.

Post by Robert Singers
Well what do you suggest as an alternative?

That we drop the subject as no need for it exists?

Are you asking me to stop Usenet so you can get off?

Did I ask that? No. Your question appears a useless strawman.

[Certic]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Robert Singers

Post by Marc L.

Post by Robert Singers
Well what do you suggest as an alternative?

That we drop the subject as no need for it exists?

Are you asking me to stop Usenet so you can get off?

Did I ask that? No. Your question appears a useless strawman.

---------
Godwin v.2

--
You are Not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
All important political action should be
aimed at persuading people of the
necessity of further sacrifices.
- Ardian Vehbiu, "Handbook for
Aspiring Stalinists"
--

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Marc L. and said

Post by Marc L.

Post by Robert Singers

Post by Marc L.

Post by Robert Singers
Well what do you suggest as an alternative?

That we drop the subject as no need for it exists?

Are you asking me to stop Usenet so you can get off?

Did I ask that? No. Your question appears a useless strawman.

You're not the sharpest tool in the pile are you Marc. Have you ever
noticed that there is no need for many of the conversations on Usenet. You
also need to do some research as to what a strawman is, because asking
someone to clarify a point is not creating a strawman.

[Marc L.]

Post by Robert Singers
You're not the sharpest tool in the pile are you Marc.

Right now I appear smarter than you. YHBH HAND.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Marc L. and said

Post by Marc L.

Post by Robert Singers
You're not the sharpest tool in the pile are you Marc.

Right now I appear smarter than you. YHBH HAND.

Look, it's Ed II.

[Marc L.]

Post by Robert Singers

Post by Marc L.
Right now I appear smarter than you. YHBH HAND.

Look, it's Ed II.

*yawn* Look it's MSB JR

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Robert Singers
Well what do you suggest as an alternative?

That we drop the subject as no need for it exists?

Tools for classifying people's tastes may not be necessary but if you
think they're never useful you need to get out more.

[Marc L.]

Post by Wayne Shaw
Tools for classifying people's tastes may not be necessary but if
you think they're never useful you need to get out more.

Never said that. I simply clarified what I believed someone
else's point was. As for them never being useful, no, I never found
any use for the socalled three-fold classification of role playing
gamers.

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Wayne Shaw
Tools for classifying people's tastes may not be necessary but if
you think they're never useful you need to get out more.

Never said that. I simply clarified what I believed someone
else's point was. As for them never being useful, no, I never found
any use for the socalled three-fold classification of role playing
gamers.

And tools don't have to be useful to you to be useful. You aren't the
only one who might want or need them.

[Marc L.]

Post by Wayne Shaw
And tools don't have to be useful to you to be useful. You aren't
the only one who might want or need them.

What part, oh bright one, of "I never found the useful." did you
fail to comprehend? Where, oh smart one, did I say that they had no
use to anyone? Sheesh.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Marc L. and said

Post by Marc L.

Post by Wayne Shaw
And tools don't have to be useful to you to be useful. You aren't

What part, oh bright one, of "I never found the useful." did you
fail to comprehend? Where, oh smart one, did I say that they had no
use to anyone? Sheesh.

Why are you bothering with Usenet when you don't actually want to be
involved in a discussion with someone else?

[Marc L.]

Post by Robert Singers
Why are you bothering with Usenet when you don't actually want to
be involved in a discussion with someone else?

You sir, appear as a moron. You can't even get a thread right,
let alone a discussion. All you do is pretend people said something
so you can attack them for it.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Marc L. and said

Post by Marc L.
You sir, appear as a moron. You can't even get a thread right,
let alone a discussion. All you do is pretend people said something
so you can attack them for it.

LOL. You're certainly challenging for the title of King Dim this month. I
love the MSB-wannabe wrapping as well. Nice touch.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Marc L., worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Marc L.

Post by Wayne Shaw
And tools don't have to be useful to you to be useful. You aren't
the only one who might want or need them.

What part, oh bright one, of "I never found the useful." did you
fail to comprehend? Where, oh smart one, did I say that they had no
use to anyone? Sheesh.

You appear to be bitching about the very fact that they exist, so it
seems reasonable to conclude that you think they shouldn't. If that's
not what you're bitching about, then why you're bothering to post about
the subject at all becomes a rather interesting question, no?

[Marc L.]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
You appear to be bitching about the very fact that they exist, so it

Nope, not at all, thanks for playing, next.

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Wayne Shaw
And tools don't have to be useful to you to be useful. You aren't
the only one who might want or need them.

What part, oh bright one, of "I never found the useful." did you
fail to comprehend? Where, oh smart one, did I say that they had no
use to anyone? Sheesh.

When you use the phrase "no need for it exists" that's _exactly_ what
you're doing. If you mean "I have no need for it", say so.

[Marc L.]

Post by Wayne Shaw
When you use the phrase "no need for it exists" that's _exactly_ what
you're doing. If you mean "I have no need for it", say so.

When I say, "No need for it exists?" Nope, never said that. As I
wrote, I clarified a point someone else wrote.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Wayne Shaw
When you use the phrase "no need for it exists" that's _exactly_

what

Post by Wayne Shaw
you're doing. If you mean "I have no need for it", say so.

When I say, "No need for it exists?" Nope, never said that.

***@207.35.177.135




Ed Chauvin IV

[George W. Harris]

Stephenls <***@shaw.ca> wrote:

:Mr. Harris's assertion, here, that they only apply to decisions made by
:the GM and /not/ to player preference is a perfectly good example of
:that, as I imagine someone will quickly respond with something like "Not
:true, I've seen non-GM players who display distinct preferences for one
:of the three styles," which will spawn an argument.

That's not what I said. I said that they
*fundamentally* apply to GM decisions, and they
can be applied to player preference wrt what sort
of campaign a player prefers.

Here's what I wrote, which you quoted but
apparently did not read:

:Similarly, one can talk about
:where on the triangle a particular GM can be placed, or
:where on the triangle a particular players preferences lie,
:but it is useful to keep in mind that the most fundamental
:meaning of the threefold applies to individual decisions.

If you're going to object to something I said,
do so; but don't claim to object to something I said
and then specify something completely contradictory
to what I said.

:Stephenls
:Geek
:"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

[Robert Singers]

George W. Harris startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following
words of wisdom

Post by George W. Harris
Here's what I wrote, which you quoted but

You do realise that your inane decision to use a non standard quote
character actually helps obfuscate any point you might have. Just
because Forte allows you to do it doesn't mean you should.

[George W. Harris]

Robert Singers <***@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:

:George W. Harris startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following
:words of wisdom
:
:> Here's what I wrote, which you quoted but
:> apparently did not read:
:
:You do realise that your inane decision to use a non standard quote
:character actually helps obfuscate any point you might have. Just
:because Forte allows you to do it doesn't mean you should.

I apologize to you and everyone else too
stupid to figure it out.
--
"It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."
-Hermann Goering

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

[Robert Singers]

George W. Harris startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
of wisdom

Post by George W. Harris
:You do realise that your inane decision to use a non standard quote
:character actually helps obfuscate any point you might have. Just
:because Forte allows you to do it doesn't mean you should.
I apologize to you and everyone else too
stupid to figure it out.

We realise you're rude and stupid. You don't need to highlight the fact.

I'll spell this out simply for you. News Readers, the software people use
to access Usenet ... are you still with me? .... look for the standard
quote character to recognise quoted material. Various News Readers use it
to indent or colour code the various levels of the conversation .... I've
lost you now haven't I, I'm sorry for using such big words.

Look why don't you go pull this shit in news.software.readers. Some of the
lads there are down right masters at roasting fools like you.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Robert Singers
George W. Harris startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words
of wisdom

Post by George W. Harris
:You do realise that your inane decision to use a non standard quote
:character actually helps obfuscate any point you might have. Just
:because Forte allows you to do it doesn't mean you should.
I apologize to you and everyone else too
stupid to figure it out.

We realise you're rude and stupid. You don't need to highlight the fact.
I'll spell this out simply for you. News Readers, the software people use
to access Usenet ... are you still with me? .... look for the standard
quote character to recognise quoted material. Various News Readers use it
to indent or colour code the various levels of the conversation .... I've
lost you now haven't I, I'm sorry for using such big words.

Now it just looks like you're deliberately ignoring what George
actually said so as to tear down an argument he didn't actually make.

Post by Robert Singers
Look why don't you go pull this shit in news.software.readers. Some of the
lads there are down right masters at roasting fools like you.

Why don't *YOU* take it to n.s.r? You're the one who's apparently
having trouble reading simple text.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Marc L.]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
Why don't *YOU* take it to n.s.r? You're the one who's apparently
having trouble reading simple text.

Perhaps he needs a better newsreader, one that can recognize
other symbols as the quote character. I suggest Xnews, works great,
you don't need to pay for it, and doesn't have the Outlook Express
problem of active x.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Marc L. and said

Post by Marc L.
Perhaps he needs a better newsreader, one that can recognize
other symbols as the quote character. I suggest Xnews, works great,
you don't need to pay for it, and doesn't have the Outlook Express
problem of active x.

I use XNews. That however does not stop other Newsreaders screwing up the
quoting levels because of George's idiocy.

The point remains that George shouldn't complain about other people having
trouble following his arguments when he has altered the standard quoting
character causing other's Newsreaders to have problems.

[Marc L.]

Post by Robert Singers
I use XNews. That however does not stop other Newsreaders
screwing up the quoting levels because of George's idiocy.

Doesn't seem to screw up things for me.

[Rick Pikul]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Robert Singers
I use XNews. That however does not stop other Newsreaders screwing up
the quoting levels because of George's idiocy.

Doesn't seem to screw up things for me.

Pan recognises, by default, : > | and } as quote characters, and I've
seen : and | used fairly often since I started with usenet.

[Hong Ooi]

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped Marc L. and said

Post by Marc L.
Perhaps he needs a better newsreader, one that can recognize
other symbols as the quote character. I suggest Xnews, works great,
you don't need to pay for it, and doesn't have the Outlook Express
problem of active x.

I use XNews. That however does not stop other Newsreaders screwing up the
quoting levels because of George's idiocy.
The point remains that George shouldn't complain about other people having
trouble following his arguments when he has altered the standard quoting
character causing other's Newsreaders to have problems.

Y'know d00d, even Google recognises : as a quote character. Are you
pining for the alignment wars, or something?


Hong

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Hong Ooi and said

Post by Hong Ooi
Y'know d00d, even Google recognises : as a quote character. Are you
pining for the alignment wars, or something?

Nope and surely you know better than to use google as a benchmark. Shame
on you Mr Ooi, shame.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped Marc L. and said

Post by Marc L.
Perhaps he needs a better newsreader, one that can recognize
other symbols as the quote character. I suggest Xnews, works great,
you don't need to pay for it, and doesn't have the Outlook Express
problem of active x.

I use XNews. That however does not stop other Newsreaders screwing up the
quoting levels because of George's idiocy.
The point remains that George shouldn't complain about other people having
trouble following his arguments when he has altered the standard quoting
character causing other's Newsreaders to have problems.

How about you address the fucking point? Or are you too stupid to
decipher the alternate quotemark?



Ed Chauvin IV

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Ed Chauvin IV, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped Marc L. and said

Post by Marc L.
Perhaps he needs a better newsreader, one that can recognize
other symbols as the quote character. I suggest Xnews, works great,
you don't need to pay for it, and doesn't have the Outlook Express
problem of active x.

I use XNews. That however does not stop other Newsreaders screwing up the
quoting levels because of George's idiocy.
The point remains that George shouldn't complain about other people having
trouble following his arguments when he has altered the standard quoting
character causing other's Newsreaders to have problems.

How about you address the fucking point? Or are you too stupid to
decipher the alternate quotemark?

The problem is with how (some) newsreaders treat it, not with anyone's
ability to read it manually - as you know well, or should.

Let me come at it a different way. What reason is there FOR using a
nonstandard quote character? It has at least one drawback and no
discernable advantage compared to just using >.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Jeff Heikkinen and said

Post by Jeff Heikkinen

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
How about you address the fucking point? Or are you too stupid to
decipher the alternate quotemark?

The problem is with how (some) newsreaders treat it, not with anyone's
ability to read it manually - as you know well, or should.

Ed and his pals are just trying to provoke a silly arguement, being honest
isn't an option. It's sad what the Dims will flock to in attempt to look
the intellectual hardmen.

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Let me come at it a different way. What reason is there FOR using a
nonstandard quote character? It has at least one drawback and no
discernable advantage compared to just using >.

Don't go talking sense Jeff. You'll get evicted from Usenet :-)

[Marc L.]

Post by Robert Singers
Ed and his pals are just trying to provoke a silly arguement,
being honest isn't an option. It's sad what the Dims will flock
to in attempt to look

Black.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped Jeff Heikkinen and said

Post by Jeff Heikkinen

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
How about you address the fucking point? Or are you too stupid to
decipher the alternate quotemark?

The problem is with how (some) newsreaders treat it, not with anyone's
ability to read it manually - as you know well, or should.

Ed and his pals are just trying to provoke a silly arguement

It's your argument, dumbass. Nobody else gives a flying fuck what
quotemark George uses.

Post by Robert Singers
being honest isn't an option.

IRONY!



Ed Chauvin IV

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Ed Chauvin IV and said

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Robert Singers
Ed and his pals are just trying to provoke a silly arguement

It's your argument, dumbass. Nobody else gives a flying fuck what
quotemark George uses.

So shut up then.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped Ed Chauvin IV and said

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Robert Singers
Ed and his pals are just trying to provoke a silly arguement

It's your argument, dumbass. Nobody else gives a flying fuck what
quotemark George uses.

So shut up then.

No. If you pay some fucking attention and read what I've been
writing, you'll find that I've been asking you all along to address
the fucking point.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Hong Ooi]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Ed Chauvin IV, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped Marc L. and said

Post by Marc L.
Perhaps he needs a better newsreader, one that can recognize
other symbols as the quote character. I suggest Xnews, works great,
you don't need to pay for it, and doesn't have the Outlook Express
problem of active x.

I use XNews. That however does not stop other Newsreaders screwing up the
quoting levels because of George's idiocy.
The point remains that George shouldn't complain about other people having
trouble following his arguments when he has altered the standard quoting
character causing other's Newsreaders to have problems.

How about you address the fucking point? Or are you too stupid to
decipher the alternate quotemark?

The problem is with how (some) newsreaders treat it, not with anyone's
ability to read it manually - as you know well, or should.

Every newsreader I know can handle : as a quoting mark.

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Let me come at it a different way. What reason is there FOR using a
nonstandard quote character? It has at least one drawback and no
discernable advantage compared to just using >.

Who cares?


Hong

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
The problem is with how (some) newsreaders treat it, not with anyone's
ability to read it manually - as you know well, or should.

The problem is that Rob is refusing to address the issues and is
claiming that the fact that George is using a non-standard quote
marker is actually obfuscating his point (which just so happened to be
that Rob was being misleading about what George said). If he honestly
believes this to be true, then he's a fucking idiot.

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Let me come at it a different way. What reason is there FOR using a
nonstandard quote character? It has at least one drawback and no
discernable advantage compared to just using >.

The only real drawback is that people like Rob will try to turn the
discussion into an argument about quotemarks. Anything else is a
failure of the reader and/or his software.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:59:32 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
The only real drawback is that people like Rob will try to turn the
discussion into an argument about quotemarks. Anything else is a
failure of the reader and/or his software.

You know, the odd thing is that no-one, including the person with the
colon for a quotemark, has explained why he has that instead of the
more common '>'. Free Agent and Agent use the '>' mark as the default,
so it was changed to a colon. Why?

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Rupert Boleyn and said

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
The only real drawback is that people like Rob will try to turn the
discussion into an argument about quotemarks. Anything else is a
failure of the reader and/or his software.

You know, the odd thing is that no-one, including the person with the
colon for a quotemark, has explained why he has that instead of the
more common '>'. Free Agent and Agent use the '>' mark as the default,
so it was changed to a colon. Why?

I believe I did - stupid and rude. For more see http://www.winternet.com/
~mikelr/flame75.html.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On 27 Jul 2004 03:41:54 GMT, Robert Singers

Post by Robert Singers
I believe I did - stupid and rude. For more see http://www.winternet.com/
~mikelr/flame75.html.

Yeah, but you were the one complaining. I don't generally consider
reasons given for someone's behaviour by the compalainer to be very
useful.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Rupert Boleyn and said

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Yeah, but you were the one complaining. I don't generally consider
reasons given for someone's behaviour by the compalainer to be very
useful.

<ahem> I wasn't complaining. He was complaining. I was pointing out a
possible communication difficulty. I'm good like that.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, Rupert Boleyn hastily scrawled:
»On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:59:32 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV
»<***@wherethefuckaremypants.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
»
»> The only real drawback is that people like Rob will try to turn the
»> discussion into an argument about quotemarks. Anything else is a
»> failure of the reader and/or his software.
»
»You know, the odd thing is that no-one, including the person with the
»colon for a quotemark, has explained why he has that instead of the
»more common '>'. Free Agent and Agent use the '>' mark as the default,
»so it was changed to a colon. Why?

Why not? Why shouldn't we be able to use whatever quote mark we
please?



Ed Chauvin IV

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Ed Chauvin IV and said

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
The problem is with how (some) newsreaders treat it, not with anyone's
ability to read it manually - as you know well, or should.

The problem is that Rob is refusing to address the issues and is
claiming that the fact that George is using a non-standard quote
marker is actually obfuscating his point (which just so happened to be
that Rob was being misleading about what George said). If he honestly
believes this to be true, then he's a fucking idiot.

What? When George complained that people weren't reading what I wrote I
pointed out a habit of his that might exacerbate the situation. The
reason I did was that XNews had been stuffing up the colour coding of
random lines from the text that George has quoted. I’m running the
latest test release and George’s posts are the only one that do it so
it’s very obvious that it’s his quote character that’s causing it.

I haven’t been misleading about anything George said. You on the other
hand have been up to your normal tricks.

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Let me come at it a different way. What reason is there FOR using a
nonstandard quote character? It has at least one drawback and no
discernable advantage compared to just using >.

The only real drawback is that people like Rob will try to turn the
discussion into an argument about quotemarks. Anything else is a
failure of the reader and/or his software.

Perhaps you, Marc and Aaron could have just kept your pie holes shut.
Then it would have been a minor two post sub-thread and wouldn’t still
be going on. if there's any drawback it's you and the other Dims.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped Ed Chauvin IV and said

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
The problem is with how (some) newsreaders treat it, not with anyone's
ability to read it manually - as you know well, or should.

The problem is that Rob is refusing to address the issues and is
claiming that the fact that George is using a non-standard quote
marker is actually obfuscating his point (which just so happened to be
that Rob was being misleading about what George said). If he honestly
believes this to be true, then he's a fucking idiot.

What? When George complained that people weren't reading what I wrote I
pointed out a habit of his that might exacerbate the situation.

Which in fact does no such thing.

Post by Robert Singers
The
reason I did was that XNews had been stuffing up the colour coding of

Oh NO! The color coding is stuffed up! What ever shall we do?

Post by Robert Singers
random lines from the text that George has quoted. I’m running the
latest test release and George’s posts are the only one that do it so
it’s very obvious that it’s his quote character that’s causing it.

It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you've uncovered a
potential bug?

Post by Robert Singers
I haven’t been misleading about anything George said.

By ignoring what he said and babbling about your inability to read
plain text?

Post by Robert Singers
You on the other hand have been up to your normal tricks.

Yup, I've been pissing you off.

Post by Robert Singers

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Let me come at it a different way. What reason is there FOR using a
nonstandard quote character? It has at least one drawback and no
discernable advantage compared to just using >.

The only real drawback is that people like Rob will try to turn the
discussion into an argument about quotemarks. Anything else is a
failure of the reader and/or his software.

Perhaps you, Marc and Aaron could have just kept your pie holes shut.
Then it would have been a minor two post sub-thread and wouldn’t still
be going on. if there's any drawback it's you and the other Dims.

Your paranoid delusions are showing.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Marc L.]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
How about you address the fucking point? Or are you too stupid to
decipher the alternate quotemark?

That was a given.

[Robert Singers]

Out from under a rock popped Ed Chauvin IV and said

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
Now it just looks like you're deliberately ignoring what George
actually said so as to tear down an argument he didn't actually make.

Go away idiot.

[Marc L.]

Post by Robert Singers
Go away idiot.

Stop talking to yourself.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Robert Singers
Out from under a rock popped Ed Chauvin IV and said

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
Now it just looks like you're deliberately ignoring what George
actually said so as to tear down an argument he didn't actually make.

Go away idiot.

You're the one building strawmen and blaming your inability to cope
with a minor stylistic feature.



Ed Chauvin IV

[~consul]

Post by George W. Harris
I apologize to you and everyone else too
stupid to figure it out.

Go back to the Beattles, and stop drinking so much.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Stephenls

Post by George W. Harris
I'm afraid not. The simulatioinist/gamist/dramatist
distinction, at its most basic, applies to decisions made by
the GM. If a decision is made with regard to how the
decision would affect the game as a story, then the
decision is dramatist. If a decision is made with regard to
how the decision would affect the game as a game, then
the decision is gamist. If a decision is made without regard
to any metagame factors at all (that is, factors outside the
reality of the gameworld as the *characters* would
perceive it), then the decision is simulationist.
Naturally, any decision is going to be made with
consideration of a variety of factors, so very few decisions
are purely dramatist, gamist or simulationist. One can also
talk about where on the triangle a campaign lies, which
would depend on the collective nature of all the decisions
made in the campaign. Similarly, one can talk about
where on the triangle a particular GM can be placed, or
where on the triangle a particular players preferences lie,
but it is useful to keep in mind that the most fundamental
meaning of the threefold applies to individual decisions.
As to systems, while it's certainly true that some
systems (D&D, GURPS) lend themselves best to a gamist
style, others (Feng Shui, Heroquest) lend themselves to a
dramatist style, and a very few (RuneQuest come to mind)
lend themselves to a simulationist style, it is certainly
possible to play any system using any style of GMing.

For those of you watching from the sidelines, I'll mention at this point
that posts like this are why I'm not particularly happy with
gamist/narrativist/simulationist theory, in either its Forge-ian or
Advocacy-ian incarnation. The majority of discussions about it quickly
spiral into talk/argument about the definitions of the terms themselves,
with little energy put into how they apply to actual gaming.
Mr. Harris's assertion, here, that they only apply to decisions made by
the GM and /not/ to player preference is a perfectly good example of
that,

Would that it were true, but as anyone with a 4th grade reading
capability can see, Mr. Harris not only didn't say that the theory
only applied to GM decisions, but he specifically said that it does
apply to player preferences.

Post by Stephenls
as I imagine someone will quickly respond with something like "Not
true, I've seen non-GM players who display distinct preferences for one
of the three styles," which will spawn an argument.

LIAR!



Ed Chauvin IV