Pro-Forma Against..

[Mike Holmes]

Lev,

Let me try another tangent. Since I'm convinced that you aren't saying anything that I don't disagree with, how about this: You win. I agree with you.

There, are you satisfied now? I can't find anything that you're saying that goes against my position.

If what you're saying is that the rant needs to be rewritten, then be my guest. I think the thread serves to make all of these points just fine already. I don't think I'm obligated to write any more than I have.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Since I'm convinced that you aren't saying anything that I don't disagree with

Accidental double negative. That should be:

Since I'm convinced that you aren't saying anything that I disagree with...

Mike

[lev_lafayette]

What makes non-deterministic rules systems interesting is the unknown factor.  It creates a sense of tension so that outcomes may or may not ever be 100% guaranteed.  In game theory, this unknown factor makes for some very interesting play potential.   Of course this unknown factor can provide a sense of suspense and joy (when overcoming great odds) or it can be extremely frustrating (the whiff factor).  In reality though, that's the way ball bounces sometimes, but as the argument goes, this is a game and hence shouldn't necessarily model reality.  Irregardless though, humans are driven by the unknown.  But they are also driven by a feeling for the need to be in control.

I think you've raised a good point here. A fully deterministic system, whether that's determined by pre-existing stats or determined by the GMs ultimate fiat (including of course, player appeals to the narrative), is going to give a sense of "loss of control" to the player. It is the player that takes the risk to their character, and it is the player who has this independent system ("the rules") which they can, in a gamist sense, use to aid the survival of the character.

This is regardless of whether or not the game is combat-focussed or not. Very interesting point - and possibly why diceless systems (narrative orientated and simulation orientated)  are fraught with problems when it comes to trying to simulate the sheer madness and chaos that is a wild melee.

[Mike Holmes]

As you point out, this is a POV that supports Gamism. Would you admit that supporting other modes might not have such requirements?

I mean, I've seen freeformers create wonderfully realistic and compelling, and wild and mad combat narratives with no rules at all.

Again, you guys are talking about what supports certain styles of play. Nothing you've said is new. Yes, to have good gamism support you need certain of these things (I'm the guy around here who tells people who want to do gamism to check out Game Theory all the time, and who discusses imperfect knowledge and the like). Nobody has said that in these cases that one shouldn't have these elements. So I'm not sure why you persist in bringing these points up.

If in fact what you really want is to discuss good design techniques of this sort, then I suggest that you start a new thread on the subject that doesn't have the baggage of this thread attached to it. If you do so, do your research and find some of the many threads from the Forge that have looked at these issues, and link to them as background.

Mike

[lev_lafayette]

Nothing you've said is new... Nobody has said that in these cases that one shouldn't have these elements. So I'm not sure why you persist in bringing these points up.

Au contraire, from the thread that these issues was derived a great detail of new material has been added.

If in fact what you really want is to discuss good design techniques of this sort, then I suggest that you start a new thread on the subject that doesn't have the baggage of this thread attached to it. If you do so, do your research and find some of the many threads from the Forge that have looked at these issues, and link to them as background.

Personally, I find those statements as contradictory. On the one hand we're supposed to start no threads that don't have the "baggage" of previous discussions, whereas at the same time we're supposed to link previous threads as a background?

[M. J. Young]

Personally, I find those statements as contradictory. On the one hand we're supposed to start no threads that don't have the "baggage" of previous discussions, whereas at the same time we're supposed to link previous threads as a background?

The idea, I think, is that this particular thread has so far been about whether combat systems are necessary to all role playing game design; to shift it now to discuss good design for a particular play style would be a serious change of subject here, and the nearly three pages of posts currently here not only do not support that subject but would not lead anyone browsing the forums to anticipate that such a subject would arise on page four. At the same time, there probably are threads here that addressed such design questions, so a good solid discussion of them should begin with some consideration of what has been said on that subject, how to design good combat systems for games of a particular type, before--which has nothing to do, really, with this subject, being whether all games need a combat system.

So it's not really as contradictory as you took it.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

What MJ said.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

This thread's now closed. Lev, please feel free to start up new threads with the new topics.

Yes, you have it exactly right: new threads, with references to the old threads in them.

Best,
Ron