Something about 'height advantage' and it's kin
Callan S.:
Hi Jim,
Quote
Not at all. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head with respect to where I stand. The rules of any tabletop RPG, as written, are what they are, but it's everyone's understanding of the SIS and how your group plays that counts. Same reason, I believe, so many RPG rulebooks go to great lengths to encourage you play by the rules you think make sense or are the most fun, even if they skirt or even openly contradict what the rulebook suggests. Why use a rule if it doesn't make sense to you and your group? And I believe that generally the house rules that stick are the ones that:
a) are just more fun, or more often
b) better fit the group's expectations of how the game (per the manual) is played and how to best reflect the SIS and spirit of the campaign/session being run.
So yes, to word it succinctly, I do believe the "real" component of an RPG depends on the hybrid of the game, house rules, and group. It's their knowledge and expectations that build the SIS, and become the reference point, even more so than the rulebook, even though what the group "expects" is often made up in large part of the written rules.
Well there you go! Probably the most productive on topic outcome for the thread! You prioritize what you'd call expectation! We both have written something that gives each other an understanding of what the others on about (instead of one person just saying the other 'doesn't understand' or such)!
Just celebrating that a bit - it's a good outcome! Thanks for contributing, Jim! :)
Now I'm not going to get into it heavily, because I'd rather wrap up this bit on a high. But here's a question: How many other gamers do you think prioritize expectation ahead of rules? If you were to say a large segment of them, I'd even agree that may be the case (even though I don't happen to prioritize expectation - I prioritize rules (where there are any)). Kind of a open ended question to finish off this bit with :)
Hi Christian,
I think I sounded too derogitory with the phrase 'talking shit'...I meant a kind of affectionate derogitory! I wasn't saying it's bad (except when it goes on for ages/hours and it's all talk and no walk). A small amount is valuable, a large amount is not good. What I was trying to describe, with the ten minute rule, is a good thing (in my estimate). I think have communicated poorly. There was something cool I wanted to describe to you, but did not do well at it at all.
Quote
In other cases, perhaps there should exist some kind of veto rule, I don't know... "When all other players roll their eyes, the narrator just shut up and grab the nachos". He he, what do you say ?
Just in terms of the USS enterprise sort of stuff? Hmmm, I think it's complicated. It depends on whether the issue is 'The USS enterprise was brought in at all' or 'The USS enterprise was brought in because the other person doesn't mean well'. With the latter, someone can mean well, but bug the crap out of you from something they do. We all know that. That's where playing with people you do other things with really matters, because we tolerate friends doing stuff that bugs us, sometimes.
I think with the latter, if your playing with friends/for people who buy this game, if they play it with friends - people you'll tolerate some being bugged by, just work without a net/no veto rule at all. If the person means well in their contribution - is it a bad thing? It's the thought that counts. Well to me it ceases to be about judging fiction and instead about appreciating that people care and are trying to give something. If the USS enterprise shows up but the person cares and is trying to give - well, that's the important thing, not some darn genre adherance! Note that up front in the games text, so people know they can't just play this with random people.
Also stick a time limit on talking. Make a rule that anyone can flip over an egg timer if they want things to wrap up and move on, for example. :)
What do you think?
Hi Roger,
When I linked it I looked at it and thought 'someones probably going to note that, but I'll take that on when it occurs'
If you asked me about any of the components like '...we've been hired to do a job...' I would say well actually the GM was just talking a bunch of shit and I was waiting around, to see what mechanic in the book would be invoked by him next.
I wouldn't say "Oh yes, totally there's money to be had and an adventurer has to eat you know!"
I would quit with the molasses. I would talk straight about what was actually there. A GM just talking shit and I was waiting around.
As opposed to, if height advantage is discussed, pouring on more molasses "totally your environment determines your combat advantage!"
And if it's discussed further, pouring even more molasses on "But it's not really some sort of 'environment', it's the GM deciding" "No look it's obvious the table is high, and the character just established they are on it, so it's just totally invoking the +2". Always more molasses rather than talking about the man behind the curtain.
Or maybe after the second layer of molasses, if you start up a thread like this they'll finally cut to the man behind the curtain.
There's quite a distinction there, I hope you can see it. Most non gamer people on the street would engage in one layer of molasses 'Cookie monster loves cookies' or 'Luke was a Jedi', but if pressed they'd say 'Well, it was just a puppet' and 'Well, actually it was just an actor in a movie'.
I'm not your literal Larry after all. But nor am I a molasses Monty, either.
But if you want to clump it all into the same thing, well there we part *shrug*
Back to the moderation
And finally, who'd be a moderator for a lark?
I blame myself for adding a 'you can return and post if' statement and then not defining that 'if'
Okay, this is no good
"There's serious problems in your understanding of what I've written."
Only with qualifier or caveat is it good
"There's serious problems in your understanding of what I've written, unless there's something I'm missing on the matter."
Or something along those lines. It doesn't matter if you've said prior your considering you could be wrong. If you can't say it in the same sentence then do not post.
Also atleast for myself, unless it's somehow impossible to communicate with the other guy, it's not just him failing to understand, it'd be me failing to communicate.
Anyway, that identification of expectations being prioritised ahead of rules was a good result for the thread!
lumpley:
Callan, come the fuck on. I don't take the position you ascribe to me. I mean, I don't, unless there's something I'm seriously fucking missing on the matter. Let me reiterate my position: Your DM decided. Luke Skywalker is a Jedi; Mark Hamill's not. Cookie Monster loves to eat cookies, but Cookie Monster is a muppet and his muppeteer can't really eat cookies through his hand. Duh.
Unless there's something I'm missing, you've drawn the wrong conclusions from what I've written.
I've given up trying to explain myself to you -- that was a long, frustrating, and (here we are!) fruitless effort -- but I am inclined to answer when you ascribe bullshit nonsense to me.
-Vincent
Christian:
Callan : yeah, you're right, I don't think this talking shit is a serious problem, and that is a matter of people playing together, and trust and affinities. I say, let people decide. I'd be the gm and that thing comes up early, I'd say "why not?". Science fantasy's good. No veto rule. Or the rule should be "if you can't agree, stop playing together!"
I like the idea of the timer ! I'm gonna think about it. Seriously, how cool would that be? "Ok, devise your plan. Timer." I like it !
Thanks for your thoughts.
Filip Luszczyk:
Callan,
Quote from: Callan S.
Take one hundred people and put them in seperate rooms. They have a piece of graph paper and two little cardboard figures. They are told to put one above the other at the very minimum needed for height advantage.
Take one hundred computers created by different producers, varying in technical capabilities and loaded with different operating systems. Run the same program. Do you get exactly the same performance?
The fact that you're dealing with a flawed hardware doesn't make it less of a hardware. It only means that when designing for human-hardware, you need to account for its seemingly chaotic performance.
Computers are good at processing numbers, but currently suck at processing words and concepts. Human-hardware is good at processing words and concepts, but sucks at math compared to machine. Still hardware enough for practical purposes, I'd say.
Anyway.
Recently, it occurred to me that for all your talk about measuring physical objects and all, you seem to be largely ignoring fine branches of science that deal with measuring stuff in the realm of those "height advantage" and describe its processing in computational algorithms. Like this one or this one. I'm not an expert in any of those, obviously, but neither are you, it unfortunately seems.
The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to believe this "height advantage" should actually be referred to in the same terms as the physical ball in your roulette wheel's slot, as in concrete representations of game data. At this point I'm specifically not sure if on this level, other than means of storage, there's any practical difference between the physical prop, bites on your hard drive or neurons firing in your head. All seem to carry concrete game data.
Regarding Christian's design:
Quote
Do you have any AP accounts of people doing that?
Yes.
Quote
Would you do it? You wouldn't find it more fun to shape your words around 'Raised in a tavern'? And so be inclined to say something closer to 'Raised in a tavern' not because you have to, but because it's more fun to?
I don't know.
Quote
I can't quite describe why, but I've got a bad feeling on your list of 'you can't because'.
Well, I asked my questions to Christian specifically expecting to see quite a lot of "you can't just because" answers.
I recall having a design not unlike Christian's, where it didn't matter what weapon your character was using, it only mattered what attack value and resource points you had on your sheet. It didn't even matter if your character was using any weapon at all or some wild kung-fu, since you could describe your attacks according to your aesthetic preferences, all being mechanically equal. This addressed some of my issues with Exalted at that time, which punished the player mechanically for most weapon choices other than the grand daiklave (boring). When I pitched this game to some gamers I used to hang out with (not my regular gaming group at the time), here's what they told me: "You're kidding? Everybody will go overboard with weapons!"
Apparently, this reaction was grounded in their actual play history, when the GM allowed too much leeway when it came to equipment and powers, and then someone declared his character a God. Perhaps the group was terribly dysfynctional, I don't know; those guys used to game together regularly like that, and they found it fun. So, perhaps I was the only dysfunctional person there, with my perverse mechanical ideas?
Either way, they were all adults. 18-20-something age range, but still adults by my country's laws. For all I care "grownup" is an empty word. If you consider all the shit going on in the world, it was all caused by grownups, didn't it? Still, somehow people expect others to magically do one thing or another based on them being grownup. In a game, of all things, when most adults I know don't even accept games to be a particularly grownup thing to do.
And here, you're referring to "grownup" as if it was a physical and objectively measurable quality, when it's pure personal value judgment of yours. About as physical and real as various "height advantages", incidentally, if not less so.
Anyway, all in all, I find it interesting what happens when the rules allow you to say anything you want and you actually say something you weren't allowed to, as it turns out. I'm especially interested in whether it's different when you genuinely believe you're saying something proper and fine, versus when you have other reasons or no reasons at all.
Callan S.:
Quote from: Filip
Quote from: Me
Take one hundred people and put them in seperate rooms. They have a piece of graph paper and two little cardboard figures. They are told to put one above the other at the very minimum needed for height advantage.
Take one hundred computers created by different producers, varying in technical capabilities and loaded with different operating systems. Run the same program. Do you get exactly the same performance?
I'd expect the same result each time. Either that or there has been human error in choosing the hardware set up. Machines don't make mistakes, only humans do.
You can only blame your tools for so long. No, if your getting chaotic results from putting in 'height advantage' you can either keep blaming your tools, or realise what your putting in is flawed. It's one reason I recommend to roleplay designers as part of their theory development to go do some programming on a computer instead of something/someone that makes up for your logistical shortfalls. Trying to program is an excercise in humility. It exposes your own shortfalls to you nakedly, while other people cover them up and paper them over, if only to avoid angry responces from you. I still write code, expecting it to just damn well work, yet no. And I have no 'dick' at a table to blame, no flawed hardware to blame. If anything I am the flawed hardware in such a case. But who wants to admit that? With RP no one has to admit it! You can always blame the other guy.
Actually that might have made a good mod requirement - describe a RP theory or AP situation where you were wrong, or don't participate. Bit late to add that now, but noting the idea, all the same.
Quote
The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to believe this "height advantage" should actually be referred to in the same terms as the physical ball in your roulette wheel's slot, as in concrete representations of game data.
I'm not sure why 'height advantage' doesn't sound the same as 'how long is a piece of string' to you, as in it asks an arbitrary, subjective value?
Quote
I recall having a design not unlike Christian's, where it didn't matter what weapon your character was using, it only mattered what attack value and resource points you had on your sheet. It didn't even matter if your character was using any weapon at all or some wild kung-fu, since you could describe your attacks according to your aesthetic preferences, all being mechanically equal. This addressed some of my issues with Exalted at that time, which punished the player mechanically for most weapon choices other than the grand daiklave (boring). When I pitched this game to some gamers I used to hang out with (not my regular gaming group at the time), here's what they told me: "You're kidding? Everybody will go overboard with weapons!"
I think Ron has an anecdote about writing a game called 'bullshit less' and someone he played with read it and said 'you can't just read this - you'd have to play'...and that was a stumbling block, apparently. People invent hurdles.
Quote
Anyway, all in all, I find it interesting what happens when the rules allow you to say anything you want and you actually say something you weren't allowed to, as it turns out.
No, that'd be someone breaking the rules, if you can't say some particular thing (smelly chamberlain style, actually. As in a secret rule breaking agenda emerging at surprise moment).
But upthread we already had a discussion of expectations being prioritised ahead of rules. So me saying it's the rules being broken will sound pretty meaningless to anyone who prioritises expectations ahead of rules (when expectations are being broken by regular rules use). When rules don't come first, who cares if they are being broken, eh? But by the same token, if the rules say 'you can say anything you want' you aught not listen to them for the fact of the matter, since they don't come first. So it's not particularly interesting - it's either cheating, or expectations have priority over rules. The vaunted 'spirit of the game' perhaps?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page