Quote from: James J SkachOK.  So my question is, if detailing-things-as-much-as-possible-then-ad-hoc-where-required is too much, how is starting with less detail, which, by your logic, will require at least as much ad hoc an improvement?

Please note, I'm not saying it's an objective improvement or that either one of us is saying one or the other is better.  I'm trying to follow the logic you are following, that's all...

If you abstract resources (eg to a simple die roll), you have to make judgement calls less. If you try and account for objective factors, you will have to make many judgement calls. That's my experience.

Let's say that in RQ, you try and track all income and expenditure. Good lists here, with how much a meal costs, lodging costs etc. But no list of this nature covers everything, and expenditure patterns are abstract. For example, the costs of housework are rarely if ever factored in. There is an illusion of participating in another world, but it's an illusion nonetheless, and the further you go into it the more you can see the cracks.

Pendragon goes a step further. As a friend of mine put it, you need a certain basic amount of equipment in order to participate in the game (ie as a knight), but then you need little else and what you do need comes automatically. You can play PD without ever bothering with coins, though there is a price list (more for colour than anything else in my view) if you want things beyod what a knight usually has.

In HeroQuest, all wealth has been abstracted into a numerical resource. If you want something beyond what your station gives you, you can roll for it. Do you see why I say that means less judgement calls than RQ?

Quote from: droogIf you abstract resources (eg to a simple die roll), you have to make judgement calls less. If you try and account for objective factors, you will have to make many judgement calls. That's my experience.

Let's say that in RQ, you try and track all income and expenditure. Good lists here, with how much a meal costs, lodging costs etc. But no list of this nature covers everything, and expenditure patterns are abstract. For example, the costs of housework are rarely if ever factored in. There is an illusion of participating in another world, but it's an illusion nonetheless, and the further you go into it the more you can see the cracks.

Pendragon goes a step further. As a friend of mine put it, you need a certain basic amount of equipment in order to participate in the game (ie as a knight), but then you need little else and what you do need comes automatically. You can play PD without ever bothering with coins, though there is a price list (more for colour than anything else in my view) if you want things beyod what a knight usually has.

In HeroQuest, all wealth has been abstracted into a numerical resource. If you want something beyond what your station gives you, you can roll for it. Do you see why I say that means less judgement calls than RQ?

Before I answer, can I ask some more questions? I'll assume yes...

When you abstract, by what set of rules are you abstracting? When the little else you need arrives, how does it? Who decides, and by what rules?

What I can see, to be honest, is a different set of judgement calls made at a different time in the process and with possibly wide degrees of frequency. So I'm just trying to see why you see it differently. Do you see the act of the abstraction, or more particularly to take an example that Paka provided earlier in the thread, the point at which the GM says "Awesome. Roll Resource 3" as something other than a judgement call?

Quote from: James J SkachWhen you abstract, by what set of rules are you abstracting? When the little else you need arrives, how does it? Who decides, and by what rules?

What I can see, to be honest, is a different set of judgement calls made at a different time in the process and with possibly wide degrees of frequency. So I'm just trying to see why you see it differently. Do you see the act of the abstraction, or more particularly to take an example that Paka provided earlier in the thread, the point at which the GM says "Awesome. Roll Resource 3" as something other than a judgement call?

Instead of trying to chop my logic, why don't you talk about how you do it and what games you've used?

In a sense you're correct to say that different judgement calls are involved, but in another sense we're talking about different areas of the game when we start talking about when and how dice rolls are introduced in the first place.

Quote from: droogInstead of trying to chop my logic, why don't you talk about how you do it and what games you've used?

In a sense you're correct to say that different judgement calls are involved, but in another sense we're talking about different areas of the game when we start talking about when and how dice rolls are introduced in the first place.

Because my way is pretty well explained by what Sett is saying - without the vitriol and miscommunication.

So I'm trying to understand how you see it so I don't make assumption. Is there a problem with that?  I mean, if you don't see judgment calls the way I do, then we'll just talk past each other; then the frustration sets in, then we're getting upset, then we're hurling insults.  Whereas if I understand that you don't see those areas as pushing the judgement calls to other places, then I know where our disconnect is and we can avoid all that nonsense.

We're talking about two different approaches that affectively do the same thing here.  One is a game framed around ship based adventure that can result in crew based adventure, the other is crew based adventure that can result in ship based adventure.  What "color" is in either is a matter of scale during play.

Quote from: PakaI don't know what the trad rules are, Sett, you fucking prick.  I've never played Traveller.  Break it down for me, explain how it works at the table.  If you've said it earlier in the the thread, please link me.

Fucking hell and blood.

Paka, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Look at it again.

Quote from: Settembrini1) We have, like, trade rules?
2) And we have, like, star maps?
3) And we have, like, a model for markets?
4) And we have, like, supply & demand structure derived from the interaction of the star systems?

Quote from: PakaI don't give a fuck about living up to your notions of trad rules or what you think gamers should be doing. That's clear, right?

Quote from: PakaI was saying that I don't give a fuck about living up to your idea of what trad gaming is.

You're confusing "trade rules" with "trad rules" or "traditional rules".

Settembrini was talking about rules which govern the exchange of goods and services in a science fiction interstellar setting. Your misreading was that he was talking about "traditional" roleplaying.

You see? You two exchanged abuse for no real reason. All those fuck yous could have been avoided simply by reading what the person actually wrote, or by stopping to think, "this guy's response doesn't make sense, perhaps he misunderstood me?" A little effort and empathy goes a long way to avoiding needless insults.

By all means we should go ahead and call each-other fuksticks if we really think that, but let's abuse each-other over what we've really said, not some misunderstood thing.

Speaking of misunderstandings and poor reading, Abyssal Maw, I don't think K Berg's post here indicated he felt his play style was superior at all. You're reading into things he didn't write there.

Quote from: Abyssal MawYou can riff all night and all day, and still never have a game. You will have adults playing make believe, which is idealized in some places, (and considered weird anywhere else on earth). But the real point is, that's not a game [...]

Quote from: TempleThis is bullshit. You dont get to define what is a game or not.

We play "roleplaying games". A "game" is an activity undertaken for amusement which has varying amounts of choice and chance; something like chess is mostly choice, something like snakes & ladders is mostly chance. "Roleplaying" is portraying by words and actions a role, a character in some situation and their response to it.

If you take away all chance, it's no longer a game; even chess has elements of chance, in that the response of your opponent is not predetermined, the multiplicity of choices available give the effect of chance. If you take away all choice, it's no longer a game, people won't be amused by it since they're unable in any way to affect the outcome; in roulette, they're unable to affect the outcome, so their choice of 32 or 11 is meaningless in fact, but it doesn't feel meaningless, the choice of the number is enough to keep it a game for them.

If you sit around a campfire telling stories, or if you engage in improvisational theatre, that's not a roleplaying game. Certainly is shares elements which roleplaying games do (playing a role), but then so does craps in a casino (rolling dice), and we do not say that craps is a roleplaying game.

Quote from: droogI don't think playing with the word 'game' will get us very far--Wittgenstein already demonstrated that.

He was German. They're not known for their understanding of good fun and laughs. I think that if we go with something simple, the common everyday understanding of what a "game" is, we do alright.

There are things which have some roleplaying in them, but are not roleplaying games. There are things which have some game in them, but are not roleplaying games. In this respect, it might be worth it for Temple to have a look at that discussion we had about We All Had Names, his thing which at first looked like a roleplaying game, but then over discussion with us he agreed it wasn't. There was some choice, but no chance, and no uncertainty of final outcome, you just sat there exploring your feelings about the Holocaust. Which may or may not be useful and entertaining, but isn't a roleplaying game, any more than roulette is.

Quote from: Kyle AaronPaka, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Look at it again.



You're confusing "trade rules" with "trad rules" or "traditional rules".

Kyle, I'm pretty certain that Sett edited his post and added the -e- later, man.  I could be wrong but I dunno.

Could you have put that in a nicer, less condescending way?

Quote from: PakaKyle, I'm pretty certain that Sett edited his post and added the -e- later, man.  I could be wrong but I dunno.

No. Because when you quoted him, the quote said "trade". If you quote someone and they later alter their post, it doesn't change the quote. In this case it was not Settembrini's typo, but your misreading of what he'd typed. So "trade" was the original word. But you misread it, and it seems you were so eager to have a stoush with the guy that you leapt on in without thinking about the context, etc. And he was as eager for it, too.

But let's suppose he did make a typo as "trad". That's why I said both you and he needed to use your empathy and imaginations, to say, "hang on, that doesn't seem right - what's he really trying to say here?" Given that Settembrini was talking about Traveller, that his first question would be about "traditional roleplaying" and the other three about star maps, markets, and supply & demand - that doesn't make sense. Whereas "trade" fits in with the other three questions. It'd be easy to look at the context and say, by "trad" he meant "trade". Remembering that English isn't his first language would help, too.

Just look at the context, and then it makes more sense, even with typos. For Settembrini's part, he should have looked at your angry response and said, "why is he now talking about traditional gaming? What's that got to do with what I posted?" He should then have realised he'd made a typo (if he had, which in this case he hadn't), or else realised that you'd misread what he'd typed.

Sometimes we're so eager to respond to something we don't stop to listen to it before that response spurts out. Settembrini says enough crazy things without your having to misread him to find something to flip out about.

Quote from: PakaCould you have put that in a nicer, less condescending way?

You misread a guy's post, and as a result trade fuckyous for fifty posts with some guy, turning what was a heated but productive and informative discussion into a flamefest, and you're criticising my manners?

This has kinda been a fun conversation.

Yup, I misread his post.  My bad.

And I put in one eff word that I didn't mean to in response to a guy who a few posts previous said that he was morally and intellectually superior to me.

Ah well, somehow I will sleep tonight.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis has kinda been a fun conversation.

What have you found fun?

I found it...I dunno, a whole lotta effort for a conversation about gaming.

Quote from: GunslingerWe're talking about two different approaches that affectively do the same thing here.  One is a game framed around ship based adventure that can result in crew based adventure, the other is crew based adventure that can result in ship based adventure.  What "color" is in either is a matter of scale during play.

Totally not.

Conceptually you are somehow right.

But the resulting difference is constitual and very grave. It makes games unplayable or undesirable for majority of gamers, me included.

Mostly because reality is not evolving around individuals, so fake realities are not expected to do that either.

Universes that have PCs as their navel are very limited in certain aspects. So I cannot use them.

Colour is a concept for PC-are-navels-of-universe-games. In Traveller, there is no colour, because everything exists on it´s own right. Doesn´t matter if there´s a starship or not, all the NPCs have theirs, and build theirs in their wharfs and they trade along the trade routes and fight their wars on the defined number of planets etc. ad nauseam

Yo Kyle don't go all out on Paka, the shit flew both ways. I tried to show how I saw the difference between the two playstyles and got a faceful of flame from Abyssmal M, so Paka might have misread. Who gives a fuck. You are asking us to read a condecending spam-machine with empathy.

I tried. Got a bloody nose to show for it. Its a learning process. Guess I crossed the line I didn't want to cross.

Here is the thing.

I game. I use dice, tokens, the unpredicability of my players response to get the ... well unpredicability or the moment of chance into my game. Which happens to produce stories as we play.

We game to role-play. There I said it. I stepped out of a gamer closet. Happy now?

I still don't agree with your definition of what a roleplaying game is because it is limiting to what a roleplaying game can be and still be a game. There is too much of a value judgement in this definition. But I can spot a minefield when I see it so I'll hunker doown to await the flames passing on this one.

With regards to being lazy.
Now it is my turn to say You don't get it.

Yes, being Lazy doesn't remove all prep work. Never said it does. What it does, is it makes me focus my limited pool of creative effort on what I need to play. In my book that doesn't involve stating out a star-system 6 months in advance.

But that is in my book.

For me unless it reflects directly on play (as in something that can influence a die-roll, coin flip or token bid and thus affect resolution) I don't need to know its stats to include it in my game-world.
Until it suddenly enters a conflict. And at this stage having rules that seemlessly turns color into mechanics is a forte. Because it keeps the game fairer.

BE and BWr rocks on this part. Because you can scale the detail you need out of the resolution mechanics and you can make the details matter when they do. Not six months in advance.

Which is how I play.

QuoteColour is a concept for PC-are-navels-of-universe-games. In Traveller, there is no colour, because everything exists on it´s own right. Doesn´t matter if there´s a starship or not, all the NPCs have theirs, and build theirs in their wharfs and they trade along the trade routes and fight their wars on the defined number of planets etc. ad nauseam

Plain wrong sett. Color is the glue that makes the world come alive in your imagination. Color might be the most misunderstood underused little lovely thing about roleplaying games.

You given an NPC an eye color, that is color in the game. A detail that is significant for your imagination, yet not mechanically significant for you game.

This might be why we are not comunitcating. Because we use this term differently.

I fear you don´t understand.

If you make up details only as they relate to your "conflict", you are already firmly in the PCs-at the navel of the universe paradigm. good for you. but don´t assume everyone is wanting that.

If the central star is not defined, I don´t need to play in your Sci Fi game. it´s useless to me.

EDIT: "conflict" is just such a concept that is destroying any purpose in a game for me. There´s is situation and there surely is conflict between inhabitants of a world. But "conflict"? Please spare me.