For the last couple of months the GM in the game I play in and I have been, for lack of a better term, flirting with me getting some sort of a Dwarf Character. I had one for that I did not play but once or twice that I lost during the July 4 week of gaming in 2004 that I posted about earlier trying to keep an Elf maiden alive. She did not know she was an Elf as she was orphaned when she was very young. My Dwarf came across her and was smitten by the absolute beauty of unsullied innocence that I forswore my family and followed her around wherever she went as companion and protector. As I was on the tall end for a Dwarf I played myself off as a misshapen boy (I was beardless) who lived in the streets with the other homeless misfits and youths – and this is where she ran. We were in the south in Harrandor so no one knew what an Elf or a Dwarf was plus providence always managed to keep her identity a secret, as is the way providence seems to work for Elves. Through a long confluence of events she was sold to some Black Commandos for the fee of killing me by one of the other street urchins. I could not be found, and the Commandos were not going to bother with someone as insignificant as me anyway – so when the dust settled I pursued. The Black Commando’s seemed to treat her as a prize so I feared that they knew or at least had some idea of what she was. Against them I had NO hope – so I followed them all the way back to Aria where I took up residence with the only friend I had found in that whole hostile journey – the encircling mountains. I dug in and waited. Finally I “felt” that if I did not go in, I would never get the chance. As it turned out the portent I “felt” was the oncoming of the sack of Aria initiated by the Dunedain in revenge for Tharbad. Thousands of Vikings were brought in and turned loose and into this unforeseen maelstrom I entered to try and retrieve my beautiful unspoiled little gem. In the end I died but did manage to see her (barely) rescued by one of her kin. As the Elf carried the maiden off and I was dying upon my knees I called out, “Elda! Know this – it was I, Jahal, who died trying to save your kin…”

…and that ended my interest in Dwarves for a while.

Cut to –

…about two months ago. The GM is starting to assemble the “evil dungeon party” that one of the player’s has been agitating for a couple of years. A number of the players are getting their Characters and the GM and I are fumbling around trying to figure something out that is workable for the scenario and palatable for me as a player. One idea that he tossed out was that of a “dark Dwarf.” He was all hot and bothered about the idea of me playing an actively evil Dwarf from the Withered Heath – I was less sanguine. However, I would eventually need a Character for the “evil dungeon drop party” that was slowly forming and the idea of coming up with a story of a Dwarf from a line that no longer existed and had no love or truck with other Dwarves at all fascinated me. Dwarves as, we play them, are incredibly insular. They are not physically fast in a world where speed kills. Typically he who lands the first blow wins. The lingering effects of the seven Dwarven rings forged by Sauron in the second age are still felt in that race as they are all still tainted by the inflamed lust for gold and such – thus they are suspicious of all non-Dwarves. They have also been “peeled” a couple of times in their history and have long memories of other races NOT coming to their aid. Finally shall we forget the events surrounding the Nauglamir in the 1st Age and what happened in the Battle of Five Armies in the 3rd?

So I came up with a tale of a Dwarf being the sole survivor of his people who had ultimately perished in a great battle with dragons in the Withered Heath. I proposed that this Character still possessed the ancient knowledge of his line of how to enchant blades and such. He would be in the south forging whatever items he was contracted for to the wealthiest patron. Long ago his line moved into the Withered Heath in the far north for the unbelievably rich ores in the mountains and to put the wood to the dragons there. This line of Dwarves had much discourse with the Noldo and a strong and productive relationship grew between the two peoples. I claimed that my line basically liked how the Noldo “walked tall” in the world and were not cowed and did not live in abject fear of The Shadow and that they brought the fight to their enemies. In the end were wiped out in a last desperate push by the Dragons while our kin, under the influence of the 7 rings, would not come unless compensation was involved. We were so wrothful that our brothers would dicker over our survival that we told the other Dwarven Kings what they could do with their lusting after our wealth - and in the end we were overcome in our pride and avarice.

Since I was in to be in the extreme south I had decided that I would not let the world utterly forget the knowledge we had for so long nurtured by making magical items on a commission basis. While I was mortal and would in time pass from this world and all my knowledge with me, I vowed then to leave a legacy unto the world that would not forget who I was and that my people had mastered a mighty craft and that we had been abandoned to die. These items would, however, be full of my anger and malice so would not long bring weal to those who in their arrogance and ignorance think that one could merely employ a Dwarf of my heritage and lineage as a mere artisan. The idea I had was that I would have been contracted by one of the three, what could be called “guilds,” to create some item that would then somehow upset the balance of power/terror. Word got out and my patron was killed and I had to escape the city for my life and this would put in a position whereby I would need to travel and with others. Given my disposition I would not have been too particular that the group was composed of extremely evil personages. --- and this is one idea that I had written up and proposed to my GM.

However, before the actual group formed and I would have a chance to play this out, we played another scenario in this city and picked up a Character known as a Skin Walker. This is a type of lycanthrope. A PC in the city in question belonged to the most powerful of the 3 guilds and I thought it would be reeeeealy cool to play an “urban campaign” with a “below the radar of society” thief’s guilds wars. Actually there are only two established guildes in the city and the one I was in was an upstart literally clawing its way to the top, however it was still covert and while operating the other two guilds did not know that we existed as an entity, but they did know there was a new problem in their section of town with roving packs of “dogs and wolves.” So I wrote up a one-page description of me coming to in the rain in an alley at night, naked and covered in blood and gore with dead bodies all around. Basically a person from behind said that I had done all this and if I wished not to live in constant fear that I should follow him – and this was how I was inducted. So it appears now that this Character would be destined for the Evil Dungeon Drop™ group and that was cool by me. We played a short for that night and it ROCKED! With only a blank sheet we started in a dilapidated building with a man in dark robes and withered countenance commanding us to go out and take control of the night – and so we did. And in the next hour or so of play I created and discovered some of what this Character is made of and can do! Shape change to a wolf on the fly! Super human strength as watched one of my people smash down a door with his bare hands! I could communicate and command with “lesser hounds” (real dogs). I had heightened senses. It was awesome as we hunted down some of the members of the other guilds.

Cut the Dwarf scenario I had written about several weeks ago with Gralin. My Dwarf was supposed to be introduced in this scenario. In fact the night literally started off in the extreme east at Cuiviénen with a PC Elf (already existing scenario several years old) who had gone to find the birth place of the Elves to see if any remained and to bring them back to utmost West in Arda. Then the GM did a bird’s eye travelling West across other scenarios with various PC’s along the way – and as we were approaching the Lonely Mountain he cut to a lone Dwarf hammering away at his forge who was utterly unconcerned with the world. At this I, as a player, immediately stood up and mimed myself at a forge with extreme intensity uttering to the flames – “obey me!” … and the camera moved on. As I had posted in my previous AP thread, as per the events of that game, we never ended up getting my Dwarf as the scenario veered so far away from what the GM had thought it would go.

Cut to:
Last Saturday. The game was called together only late Thursday evening so only 3 players in addition to the GM were available to play – myself, Chuck and Montana. This would be interesting as these two are very, very good players. I do not exactly recall how the session began, but it did so with so “work” on one of the other two players’ Characters. Not much that I can remember happened for about half an hour when the GM turned to me and started talking about a Dwarf. Long – Long have I forged … alone. My people came to the Withered Heath for the ores and the dragons and we had much discourse with the Noldo. There was much love (read - respect, sharing of intellectual gifts and knowledge) between us as peoples. We were proud – mighty and the masters of our own fate. Even the dragons feared us… for a while. Then they gathered and attacked again and again and we sent word out to our kin for aid – and they demanded recompense for their axes. We would not trade gold for blood and so we fell. All but one. I too would have fallen if I had not been buried under my own dead and thought to be the same. However I was left with the curse of remaining alive – so in my stubbornness and defiance of any remaining dragons I set about to bury all my kin and woe betide any who would hinder my works. The GM said I carved out 100 tombs in the mountainside and that in them I forged and placed 100 suits of armor, 100 helms, 100 shields and 99 swords. In the center of tombs was a Throne room where our king would have sat.

…and so I forged. The last sword. I added that I forged in a pit in the center of all the tombs as if they had been arranged in an amphitheater and I was the center stage. The GM made some comment to the effect that I shaped the whole construction as if it were a crown which I thought was pretty cool! He told me that the Noldo had taught me the langue of fire. That with this knowledge I could bend fires to my will. He had me roll a d20 and I rolled well. I had a “near mastery” of the language at 8th level and 8 checks – one more would put me at 9th! Then the Elves taught me Fire Songs/Chants and in this I rolled extremely well and had a 10th level skill. (At this point Chuck handed a note forward to the GM which he then read aloud – “How can one expect to forge is one cannot control the fire?” – right on!) He also started to say that, “Fire is your friend…” when I interrupted by saying, “No! Fire is never your friend… at best it is an untrustworthy servant.” The GM went on to say that the Noldo taught me three secrets of fire. First is that it is a thief and steals air. Second it is always hungry and is ever covetous of more fuel. Third – fire has no loyalty, it is a betrayer never to be trusted. The GM said with this knowledge that I was extraordinarily “resistant” to fire – but not immune. Nothing is immune to fire. Then he said I was forging a great helm – and I knew immediately this was to be a “dragon helm.” I had mentioned to him very early that I thought it would be cool to have some armor or a shield made from dragon scales or hide and to have a sword or weapon that had a special purpose against dragons. This would be mostly symbolic as since the death of Smaug was pretty much the end of Dragons in the world – besides I would not want to actually battle a dragon. That would be a short scenario!

Back to the helm. Immediately I interrupted him saying that this was to be my greatest work and that I started by creating a pit lined with gems as only they were sturdy enough to withstand the heat I would need. I did not make coal as was the norm but mined it from the very earth itsElf. This coal would be a gift from Mahal (Aule) and would not come from Yavanna. Then I forged a new set of tools for the sole task of making this helm. I said that I created tools to hold the mask in place so I could hammer with two-handed strokes. The GM altered this by saying that I hammered with two forge hammers and that the fire itsElf leapt under the hammers as they crashed upon the helm while I stood in the pit surround by flames!

And during this he said that in such matters there is a “madness” that sets in. Perhaps in my stubbornness I had halted the flow of time around me and this was how I was able to do so much – maybe. He also said that I could not remember if my father told me about Eol (the forger of the most powerful 2 weapons in the history of Middle Earth {Anglachel/Gurthang and Anguriel} – a “dark” Elf and one who lived and died in the 1st age) or that I had met him personally! Wow! What a fascinating thought! What an open ended source of speculation!! Did I tamper with time or am I just a little mad?

So I hammered on this enormous helm in the midst of mighty fires with two hammers that streaked like falling meteors wreathed in flame naked from the waist up when I heard something that I had not hear in ages – a voice. “We have come out of history. Will you array us?” The fires, the GM said, immediately banked and “seemed” to bow before the two. Two Noldorian Elves of the first age – PC’s. I said, “You have tarried overlong, but - yes.”

OK! This is way super cool for a number of reasons. First of all I’m going to be running with 2 first age Noldorian Elves – that says a huge amount about the nature of my Character. That Noldorian Elves of the first age would ask me to array them says much about my own smithing/enchanting skills! These two PC’s, Celemegil and Celemir, were run briefly several years ago and are accomplished magic item craftsmen so that they would be pleased with what I had to offer is a huge indication of the magnitude of what I can do. I have not “rolled any numbers” for this Character other than the two fire skills. I can’t wait to get to actually filling out a Character sheet, but this is already shaping up to be extreme coolness! Speaking of shape the GM also indicated that my shape was more mannish than is typical for Dwarves – I said that it was simply due to effects of moving my body like an Elf during the forging processes they taught me for so many years. Then the GM said that it was now time to put such thoughts away and that we were to start on the scenario he planned – Doh!!!!

I was not disappointed about what happened during the rest of the night and I hope to relate about that in another post in the future as that scenario captured my imagination so much that I had trouble sleeping that night – and that hasn’t happened in years. Though lots of fun I am uncertain why the rest of the night got under my skin so – but it was very interesting to me!

So here we have one example of our Character creation process. It can be complex and involved. The creation process can be woven into play or it much can happen in direct GM and player direct talk outside gaming sessions. This whole give and take, this peeling of the onion, this adding of parts (dare I say – Bricoling?) upon parts while being mindful of their history was exhilarating in a way that is hard to describe. I should note that there are “no” more “magic” crafters in the world – especially among the Dwarves. The echoes of the first age… I don’t know. I hope I haven’t bored too many people. Just posting more about how things work in our game. I hope it has been informative in some way. Thank you all for your time.

3132 Words

You know, I like to kid myself that I know a bit about Middle Earth. What's likely, at least, is that few people know as much as I do about it.

Still I couldn't follow that post.

Part of it is the mixing of player and character. Jay, you're not a dwarf. Too much description of the events of the game, not enough about the people playing. We weren't there and playing so...we just don't care what happened in-game. That's true of all RPGs and all people reading about them.

Mike

Mike, is everything OK? This is not the first snappish post I've seen from you in the last couple of days. I guess that's really an off-thread question, or a rhetorical one.

Jay, I always enjoy reading these posts about your game, because the whole thing is so crazily involved and intense. I dig that. However, I also very rarely know what to say, because I'm not seeing where you're trying to go in your analysis, or if you are analyzing, or what questions you have, etc. Not to mention the always-important stuff about the real world things going on. What are the relationships like between you and the players of the Noldor, for instance? Is any real-world stuff being negotiated in the new setup with your dwarf? What's going on here in terms of the social dynamics of the game?

Hey Sean,

Thank you for your gracious words.

Sean wrote: However, I also very rarely know what to say, because I'm not seeing where you're trying to go in your analysis, or if you are analyzing, or what questions you have, etc.

Sean wrote: What are the relationships like between you and the players of the Noldor, for instance? Is any real-world stuff being negotiated in the new setup with your dwarf? What's going on here in terms of the social dynamics of the game?

Mike Holmes wrote: Part of it is the mixing of player and character. Jay, you're not a dwarf. Too much description of the events of the game, not enough about the people playing.

Mike Holmes wrote: We weren't there and playing so...we just don't care what happened in-game

Silmenume wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: We weren't there and playing so...we just don't care what happened in-game

But that is what is important to Sim. Just as myths only cared about by those who create and use them, so it is with Sim. There is nothing of importance outside the act of creating, manipulating and the signifiying of the employed objects/symbols. The signification process happens after the lumpley principle; that is after credibility is assigned not before.

Hiya,

All points of preference aside, what I'm seeing in this account is mainly how much emotional investment and narration of fictional events are present ... prior to play. Even as you described it, your whole tone shifted from "me and I and how it was" to "Ye Olde Story of Yon Dwarfe." Even character creation is play, for you, in this case (consistent with some of my Sim points).

It reminds me a little bit of how much time and fun were involved for some Champions players back in the 1980s, who would say that everything after building the basic portrait of the character was downhill. Not that I'm implying that to be the case here - just the fun & effort, is the parallel.

Jay, what I'm interested in is how typical this degree of negotiation and investment is, for the folks in your group. As I recall, everyone has at least a couple of characters running at any one time, right? Do all the characters get this whole vetting and emotional buildup, for all the players?

Best,
Ron

What Justin said.

It's not at all about preference - I'm pretty simmy in some ways. I can show lots of posts about very simmy games that did not rely on recapitulating in-game events. In fact, your section with the capital THAT's was actually pretty good in some ways, except that it didn't say why these things were important.

My point about the output story being uninteresting is that, if I played a sim game, and put the output out, you'd snore just as much. Because RPGs aren't meant to be consumed post-play. They're fun only in play. Actual Play posts aren't about entertaining the reader at all, they're about trying to get the reader to understand your processes, and how the real people involved created what they created and why.

For example, I know this is problematic for you, since you've said that you don't have the mechanisms fully available to you, but it's hard for us to understand how the system interacts in play since there's nowhere for us to see what the system is like. Instead we have a very vauge impression of it. Heck, and this should concern you, from what I've heard, the systems nearest relative is Rolemaster, from what I can tell. I'm probably very wrong, but I can only work with the information I have.

In another way, I think that we are forced to assume that the system is actually, effectively, freeform for certain purposes.

In any case, other things are very much not clear. Like who has what sort of credibility. Can you as a player create a village? Or suggest to the GM that they do so? Do the GMs keep final say on everything? Is agreement given tacitly or verbally? How does the record-keeping play into it? Does it matter how much something has been written down?

Yadda, yadda. I mean, this is hard, but, try to step outside of your experiences, and imagine that you're explaining to somebody who had never played a RPG before just how the decisions are made and why. Because, given the far out methods that your group uses, we are, for all practical purposes, all completely new to this form of play. Oh, we might identify with this part or that. But the totality of it is so far from any other group that I've even heard of that it's very much like a new form entire.

Or, perhaps my perceptions are all wrong. But I'm just, again, working with what I have.

Mike

Hello,

Wait a minute. I think that's all backwards.

Mike and others, bear in mind that this thread is not a favor to us. It's for us to reach where Jay's coming from, not the other way 'round, or at least not yet.

Could I see some indication that people are interested in what's being said? I think I provided an example. Let's have this discussion be by and for people who can do the same.

Mike, you just might not be the right person to participate in this thread, unless you want to turn around your perspective and quit saying "no no you didn't post right."

Best,
Ron

Communication is always a two-way street. Before we can do anything for Jay, or reach some higher understanding of any of this, we all have to understand each other. Basically I'm saying that I can't participate because I'm getting all noise and no signal. Jay doesn't owe me or anyone a damn thing. But if he wants any sort of reasonable feedback, we have to be getting information from him.

If it's only me for whom this is problematic, then Jay should probably just ignore me and hope that he can work with others who are interested.

Mike

Right. Mike, your proper role at this time is to stop explaining yourself and wait silently. Thank you.

Best,
Ron

Silmenume wrote:
So here we have one example of our Character creation process. It can be complex and involved. The creation process can be woven into play or it much can happen in direct GM and player direct talk outside gaming sessions.

We used to play a lot like this, down to the between-play meetings for discussion among the upper echelon (we called them 'bull sessions'). Two-hour breaks to discuss social ramifications of a particular spell. Etc.

It's about the Ideal, or the Dream or whatever. You want to get the experience right. So yeah, character creation in itself needs to be woven in if the Dream is to maintain internal consistency. Every detail needs to be thought through. The arcane knowledge that builds up among the group is immense. Dissenters either fall into line or leave.

It's like doing history or archaeology rather than literature. I get the appeal--I've done years of it with RQ and Pendragon. But, with some others, I'm not so interested in the specific details of your research. I only read somebody's Master's thesis if I have to, and that goes for the Silmarillion as well.

I'd like to hear some general points about your techniques. How do you make Sim fun? Obviously the game has a great hold on you: is it as simple as your all being Tolkien fans or is it the game itself? Do you have any conscious techniques?

Hey Ron,

Ron Edwards wrote: All points of preference aside, what I'm seeing in this account is mainly how much emotional investment and narration of fictional events are present ... prior to play. Even as you described it, your whole tone shifted from "me and I and how it was" to "Ye Olde Story of Yon Dwarfe." Even character creation is play, for you, in this case (consistent with some of my Sim points).

Ron Edwards wrote: Jay, what I'm interested in is how typical this degree of negotiation and investment is, for the folks in your group. As I recall, everyone has at least a couple of characters running at any one time, right? Do all the characters get this whole vetting and emotional buildup, for all the players?

Silmenume wrote: Everyone else who took the time to post I will address in following posts. This one was already getting too long!

Wow, now that's an informative post.

Silmenume wrote: This process is not looked upon as play – and given the choice of whether to “roll up” new Characters or discuss or “play them into existence” the majority of the time we choose the latter. It’s not much different than actually play – truth be told.

Ron Edwards wrote: If I recall correctly the number of Characters that each player has varies from about 15 to 40+.

We spend a lot of time out of game session just “talking [about] D&D.”

Sometimes we’ll sit down to play and the GM will tell a number of players to roll some numbers as we are getting some new Characters. Once done the GM goes into the back-stories and interrelationships of the various PC’s as the lead-in to the situation/scenario.

As we play we “build” our Characters through actions, not petitions, ...

Hey Justin,

You’re not butting in at all!

jdagna wrote: …the important part is not whether you use a horse or a starship, but what happened among the people and why it worked or didn't.

jdagna wrote: For example, in skimming through your post, the only part that jumps out as being interesting (in an analysis sense) is when you somehow get stuck with a character other than the one you put all the effort into.

jdagna wrote: Here's where I think Mike is really criticizing. We don't know how that happened... there must have been some discussion among the group and you must have had some opinion about this event.

jdagna wrote: The social/GNS/play issues are going to be identical between the two. We just don't need to know anything about the characters or the setting that doesn't directly relate to what happened between the people.

jdagna wrote: In fact, here's the whole of your post boiled down into its essentials, as I can see:
- you played a character that didn't really appeal to you once
- later, you came up with an idea for a similar character that did appeal to you
- but you got assigned a different one
- and when you tried to bring in the one you liked, the GM didn't find an appropriate place to do it
- the GM made up for it by giving you a cool cut scene and interesting powers, items and companions
- you enjoyed this a lot (apparently, enough make up for not having actually played the character)

jdagna wrote: If I had to pick some analysis out of that, I'd say that perhaps you're playing RPGs for entirely the wrong reason. You might be better off simply writing fiction. Your group might be better off too, because there's never any mention of them really contributing to what's going on. In fact, the group appears to be trying to stifle it and you appear unaware of this (and unaware of them in general from the post).

Jay, thanks for your response... I do understand what was going on a lot better and I'm definitely glad to see that it's a much more functional process than what I'd gotten out of the first post.

Some of my assumptions are just based on what I didn't see in that post. For example, using the term "stuck" for the new character, where I really had no idea of how you felt about it or really how you'd gotten to that point. It seems like where we're having the most misunderstandings is probably when you describe the in-game effects of the out of character discussions that you and the other players are having. In this case, "stuck" was the word I used because the majority of players I know would have been unhappy even with a similar character. I just come from a background where the biggest dysfunction centers around total player control of PC creation (which I think they learned while playing with GMs who gave them absolutely no control over anything else for the rest of the game).

In any event, I really do think this example shows why the color details are not that important, even for Sim. I knew a lot about the new and old characters and how they fit into the world. What I did not know was how you felt about it, how you arrived at that character, and how the rest of the group felt about it. What kind of negotiation was going on there?

So, in talking specifically about the negotiation process, is it basically a point where everyone has authority to add and change things, and it just goes back and forth until everyone stops adding and changing things? Does anyone have final authority in this? Is there a point at which the player says "No, I really wanted a two-handed hammer," or the GM says "Look, that's really not going to work in this campaign"? Do the games' character creation rules figure into this? I didn't see any real mention of things like rolling or assigning attributes and picking/buying classes, skills, equipment and the like. Most systems (as used by most players) have a lot to say about these things. Are you guys ignoring the system's rules, working with a system that permits this, or coming up with a concept that you later fit into the rules?

I know that you say there's no one fixed process for handling this, but ultimately it's going to come down to a set of rules, procedures or expectations. You guys might not notice them, perhaps because everyone adheres to an unspoken code. But, for example, if someone joined your group for a night, saw you making character and decided to try his hand at it with "My character is, um, God. He knows everything, so you guys can't keep any secrets, and he's all powerful, so he can do anything he wants to and no one can stop him. And since he's perfect, it all always turns out OK." Are you going to let him do that? If not, what do you say or do? What part of it would bother you most? That will probably reveal a lot about the rules for the process.

Oh, and I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of Sim play. It's pretty much my preferred play style. I just feel like I'm looking at the results of the process more than the process itself, if you know what I mean.

Hey James!

Can you explain to me why this particular mode of Sim sounds or seems unenjoyable to you. I am hoping that by you providing a foil to my understanding that I might then get a reference point by which to self-examine my game experiences more effectively. Are you a Sim player or are you, say, a Nar player who has never had much use for or played in a coherent and functional Sim game so as to have never experienced what the brouhaha is all about?

Hey Droog!

You’re right; I did wander a bit far and wide. I do think though it is indicative of the CA as well. There are no real “concepts” governing play that help provide boundaries, as it were. But I shall do my best! However, on the whole, it appears that our game experiences are very similar.

While it is true that I need not repeat the Silmarillion, but if someone asks why this seemingly insignificant detail was included, then I must place it into context – and in this case the Silmarillion provided the context for the significance of the event I was describing. Nothing in Sim can or does stand on its own – everything only has importance in relationship to everything else. Thus it becomes extremely difficult to decide what to include and what to exclude when those very cuts do remove the necessary context. IOW the more one excludes the less meaningful any particular action becomes. So it is a very tough line to walk. Anyway…

droog wrote: I'd like to hear some general points about your techniques. How do you make Sim fun? … Do you have any conscious techniques?

droog wrote: Obviously the game has a great hold on you: is it as simple as your all being Tolkien fans or is it the game itself?

droog wrote: I did a lot of maps when doing RQ, Lovingly hand-drawn maps, multiple maps to a region, economic maps, political maps, linguistic maps, tactical maps, social maps. I also drew many of the characters, multiple times and in various situations. It was all part of making that solid in our minds; understanding what the characters were going through.

What sort of things do you use? Is this always part of Sim? Are the bull sessions, too?

droog wrote: Is this a useful technique for Sim? More characters=broader view thus deeper Dreaming?

droog wrote: Our group also gave overwhelming support to the GM in questions concerning Setting. Is this something that must occur in Sim?

Silmenume wrote: Hey James!

Can you explain to me why this particular mode of Sim sounds or seems unenjoyable to you. I am hoping that by you providing a foil to my understanding that I might then get a reference point by which to self-examine my game experiences more effectively. Are you a Sim player or are you, say, a Nar player who has never had much use for or played in a coherent and functional Sim game so as to have never experienced what the brouhaha is all about?

Silmenume wrote:

I’ll give you a sample listing of some of the “techniques” he has offered to me – they all work but there is no easily explained principle as to when or how to use them.


• The players must invest in the world – good advise, but how do one go about “making” the players invest and what does “invest” mean? Yet he always seems to pull players in emotionally.• Create lots of social bonds between the PC and his surrounding community – and then put it in jeopardy.• Have lots of NPC’s pulling from different directions at the PC.• Have the NPC’s act like “real people with real motives” independent of the PC’s interests.• Make death real and permanent.• Have the players’ decision have a real effect on important matters in the world, but not like D&D where 1st level strangers are hired by a king to save his kingdom. Frex – • Make other PC’s lives depend on the decisions the player makes.• Play a game of perceptions and not objective reality. Make the players figure out what is going on instead of telling them what is going on. Give them their perceptions and filter them through the Character.• Give players the freedom to leave the scenario if their Character would do so.• Reward play that stays in Character especially if it results in losses to the player. (This is a big one!).•

I do believe that Setting is not just the background or milieu in Sim in which play transpire, but is the vital and necessary other half of the dialectic which the players and the GM are engaged in. Where as in Nar players address Premise and in Gam players address Challenge, in Sim the players are engaged in a dialectic process between Character/culture and Setting/nature.

Hey Mike,

Thanks for your questions. They will help me explain to you what is important or not understood by or you or fill in what I neglected to include.

Mike Holmes wrote: At one point you make this sound like a two step process, and at others you make it sound like you can forgo one for another. Are there two chargen methods going on here? That is, do you sometimes get a concept and then "roll it up," and at other times, just make up the stats? Or is there always a point at which you have to roll for stats (or otherwise use mechanics to build them)? Does it vary, or is the same method used each time?

Mike Holmes wrote:

Silmenume wrote: If I recall correctly the number of Characters that each player has varies from about 15 to 40+.

This is the total that a player will have developed over time, correct? As opposed to the number that they'll play in one session? Or is it the latter? If the former, how often are older characters revisited? Or are they basically retired (with the understanding that they still exist, and could be brought back into play should events make it sensible)?

Mike Holmes wrote:

We spend a lot of time out of game session just “talking [about] D&D.”

You refer to the game as D&D? Is it close to D&D then? Or is that just traditional?

Mike Holmes wrote:

Sometimes we’ll sit down to play and the GM will tell a number of players to roll some numbers as we are getting some new Characters. Once done the GM goes into the back-stories and interrelationships of the various PC’s as the lead-in to the situation/scenario.

I'm not parsing this. What do you mean by "roll some numbers?" Generating stats for characters? Pools of stats like some chargen systems use? What's being done here? Why is it done?

Mike Holmes wrote:

As we play we “build” our Characters through actions, not petitions, ...

Petitions? You mean instead of asking for a certain kind of character from the GM?

Silmenume wrote: If the Character is human and one of the attributes exceeds human maximum via this rolling process then the “negotiations” begin!

...

Pushing for too much though can lose the player credibility so one must be careful – this makes this particular event very interesting!

As the player in this particular arrangement does not know what kind of Character he is getting usually he does not have much input into such items as weapons, armor or secondary skills.

Finally when the sheet comes back over the screen the player is usually given even more “checks” to add to his secondaries than is typical.

It also not unheard of for a player to trade down a high attribute for consideration regarding secondary or weapons skills.

However, in all of this, we never start rolling numbers and then come up with a concept.

Yes, we do have mages and clerics, but they aren’t considered classes (mages are “awoken” and clerics are “called” and there is no inherent reason why it cannot happen to any human.) and there are no restrictions regarding armor for the mages and weapons for clerics.

Actually, for all this new players are told not to worry about their Character sheets and to “just play the Character.”

What’s important is when something is outside of the norm – then that skill and by extension the owning Character will stand out.

“Retirement” is an overt act which entails handing the Character sheet in and an understanding that that Character is forever removed from the Player’s control (that is he is NPC’d unless the player says that said Character is retiring within the game world).

Another player at the table absolutely refuses to hand in any Character until said Character is declared dead, even if he hasn’t played the Character in 15 years. Go figure…

Mike Holmes wrote:

As we play we “build” our Characters through actions, not petitions, ...

Petitions? You mean instead of asking for a certain kind of character from the GM?

Just to make sure were in the context, the above made reference to a style of game whereby we would “generate” a Character through concrete actions within the SIS as opposed to discussing the Character using “concepts.” For example if I wanted the (unformed) Character to be strong then I would look to find an opportunity whereby I could demonstrate a great feat of strength – however, this occasion must arise logically out of the events that are unfolding. Even then a good roll of a die is typically necessary to demonstrate the successful completion of said act. IOW just because I say that I bend the bars of the jail to save my life does not mean I will automatically succeed. This I contrast with just saying, “I want my Character to be strong – say, a 17 strength.” This style of Character creation is very rare and I included to demonstrate the variety of ways in which we do create Characters.

Hey Justin,

Regarding the whole issue of “stuck,” I’m totally cool and in turn cry, “Mea culpa,” for not being more explicit! I am interested by this statement here –

jdagna wrote: It seems like where we're having the most misunderstandings is probably when you describe the in-game effects of the out of character discussions that you and the other players are having.

jdagna wrote: In any event, I really do think this example shows why the color details are not that important, even for Sim. I knew a lot about the new and old characters and how they fit into the world. What I did not know was how you felt about it, how you arrived at that character, and how the rest of the group felt about it. What kind of negotiation was going on there?

Emphasis added

jdagna wrote: So, in talking specifically about the negotiation process, is it basically a point where everyone has authority to add and change things, and it just goes back and forth until everyone stops adding and changing things? Does anyone have final authority in this?

jdagna wrote: Is there a point at which the player says "No, I really wanted a two-handed hammer," or the GM says "Look, that's really not going to work in this campaign"?

jdagna wrote: Do the games' character creation rules figure into this? I didn't see any real mention of things like rolling or assigning attributes and picking/buying classes, skills, equipment and the like. Most systems (as used by most players) have a lot to say about these things. Are you guys ignoring the system's rules, working with a system that permits this, or coming up with a concept that you later fit into the rules?

jdagna wrote: I know that you say there's no one fixed process for handling this, but ultimately it's going to come down to a set of rules, procedures or expectations.

jdagna wrote: … if someone joined your group for a night, saw you making character and decided to try his hand at it with "My character is, um, God. He knows everything, so you guys can't keep any secrets, and he's all powerful, so he can do anything he wants to and no one can stop him. And since he's perfect, it all always turns out OK."Are you going to let him do that? If not, what do you say or do? What part of it would bother you most?

Hey there Mike,

Mike Holmes wrote:

Silmenume wrote: If the Character is human and one of the attributes exceeds human maximum via this rolling process then the “negotiations” begin!

...

Pushing for too much though can lose the player credibility so one must be careful – this makes this particular event very interesting!

This is fascinating. It speaks to a strong dose of gamism. I mean, if the player doesn't have a need for a more effective character (and I'm betting that the comparison here is with other PCs), then why negotiate at all?

Mike Holmes wrote: Why not accept the dice rolling as a simulation of the effect of the character being born and having developed as they have?

Mike Holmes wrote: You say something like this more than once, and it's very confusing. You talk about how the concepts are negotiated between player and character, but then on a couple of occasions, you make it sound like the player doesn't know what their character will be like. What's going on here? What's the "particular arrangement" that you refer to that makes this true? How is the normal situation different? Are you talking about when the GM throws a concept the player's way? How often does this happen percentage-wise?

Mike Holmes wrote: Why is this done sometimes, and other times the player comes up with a concept? Can the player refuse to play a GM concept?

Mike Holmes wrote:

Finally when the sheet comes back over the screen the player is usually given even more “checks” to add to his secondaries than is typical.

Why is this? A reward for the player taking the initiative to come up with concepts on their own?

Mike Holmes wrote:

However, in all of this, we never start rolling numbers and then come up with a concept.

I may be reading in, but from the emphasis, I'm guessing that there is some stigma attached to something about playing this way. What's being avoided by not rolling up stats first? Rather, what's accomplished by putting the concept out first? How is this more satisfactory for this sort of play?

Mike Holmes wrote:

Yes, we do have mages and clerics, but they aren’t considered classes (mages are “awoken” and clerics are “called” and there is no inherent reason why it cannot happen to any human.) and there are no restrictions regarding armor for the mages and weapons for clerics.

I find this interesting. It's certainly vestigal from the D&D origin. I mean, you guys balk at the LOTR movies (which I think are great), yet you allow the system to have clerics in it? What from the canon would support this? Even mages seem mostly unsupported - from my reading basically you have to be touched in some way by the West to have any magic (Elves, Maiar, or humans using their artifacts).

Mike Holmes wrote: Even the idea of spells and spell points and such seem to me to be pretty alien to Tolkien's work. Given that the mechanics tend to get ignored, are these abilities handled without much regard for the system? Just what can a cleric do?

Hi Jay,

Are you familiar with The Window?

I think you guys' system, in play (and including PC creation) is effectively the same thing as The Window.

Best,
Ron

Silmenume wrote: This is not a matter of besting or defeating Challenge, it’s a matter of retaining the ability to remain in the game and accomplish whatever one has set out to do.

A player must have a strong will and courage to survive, or they simply will not.

So when we are in a situation where we get to pry something from the evil grasping hands of the GM – of course we get to revel in it! We get to stick it to him for a change! Of course this is all light hearted but he does like this negotiation process, as he is curious to see where it will lead.

In reading your question again I want to make sure that you understood that the negotiation I am talking about only happens when an attribute exceeds human maximum. That is why the negotiation begins. That attribute must be dropped back to within the human maximums but rather than doing it unilaterally he involves the player in the process. Thus how much the attribute is dropped (the minimum being to the human maximum value) and what kinds of considerations are to be made are open to negotiation.

Go too far and it starts to become obvious that one is mongering for naked power and that is a definite no-no.

But when the system leads to illogical or impossible conclusions instead of just “erasing” the error we get to do a little bricoling. Finally it is a nod to fate that is an important element of the game. Rather than discard the impossible outcome the player is allowed to “redirect” that “gift,” as it were, so that it can find another outlet of fulfillment.

In this “particular arrangement” the player does not know anything about the Character he is rolling dice for.

That’s like asking why a player chose a particular moment to spend a coin in Universalis.

So much of it is based on the ephemeral dynamics of mood, player desires, GM needs as far as the scenario goes, etc. that it is difficult at least for me because I am so deeply involved to be more objective.

Can a player refuse a GM concept? Yes, but that too depends on the prevailing circumstances. Outright refusal is very rare and is skirting precariously close to missing the core of Sim.

In a way it’s like a player saying, “I don’t want to bind a demon in Sorcerer. That’s stooopid.”

Characters are not static, they grow and change and there may be a great arc in store for the Character.

Also, by having a folio of Characters you get some kick ass Characters and some fairly down home Characters. That there are contrasts is vital because if everyone is strong, no one is strong. If everyone is fast, no one is fast. If everyone is powerful, no one is powerful. In fact the Characters in a given night tend to be very heterogeneous as well as within a given player’s folder.

The better way to deal with a Character concept that you don’t like is to try and talk it out and find a way to make it more interesting/palatable.

This thread contains an example of that very process.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Finally when the sheet comes back over the screen the player is usually given even more “checks” to add to his secondaries than is typical.

Why is this? A reward for the player taking the initiative to come up with concepts on their own?

In the main, yes. But also to allow the player addition room to customize the Character. Ultimately though, it is not just because the player took the initiative, but that he expanded the game and thus the Dream in general by creating something new.

I think I should clarify here that just creating a new Fighter that uses two fighting knives instead of a sword does not really qualify as something “new” to the world as it does not really expand the Dream by opening up new possibilities. Such a “Character” would be more of a caricature than an effort to add to the Dream or cover new territory.

Procedurally it is impossible to handle the attributes unless we know what race the Character is.

But most important of all we are prioritizing Characters as individual and persons and not some set of numbers or kits or any other abstraction or mechanical construct.. By taking the concrete step of placing mechanical Character creation after some concept of the Character is discussed/established as an individual rather than before we are establishing and reinforcing the Sim CA priorities via practice. It is how the Character interacts with the world that is important and his relationship to the world is vastly more central to play and CA expression than numbers.

Rolling numbers first changes the frame of mind. This is so ingrained into our game that numbers frequently are massaged or altered to fit the Character concept.

Mechanics are necessarily outside the SIS, and thus direct player employment of them empowers (by facilitation) the players to alter the SIS ad extra; which is contrary to the Sim process.

In Sim the role of mechanics is to make sure the norms of the physical world are consistent – that is the likely will frequently come to pass and the unlikely will infrequently come to pass. I am coming to the conclusion that Sim is the creation of social “rules” (culture, personality, mores, etc.) in response to unfolding events as constrained by the physical “laws” of the world.

Thus the Character sheet in Sim is more of a representational construct than a functioning tool. To mechanically create Character before considering any concepts concerning said Character is akin to using fortune tools to design Kickers.

Well, actually 2 of the “mages” are PC Istari.

But I do have a “mage” who is not Istari, Elf, or otherwise uses artifacts. As for support of the possibility of mannish dwimmer crafters I offer that the Lord of the Nazgul was a “witch” before he was turned. It is also said that the evil men who occupied the Rhudaur after its fall practiced sorcery.

Finally from the LOTR book regarding the walking sticks given to Frodo and Sam by Faramir – “…The men of the White Mountains use them…They are made of the fair tree lebethron, beloved of the woodwrights of Gondor, and a virtue has been laid upon them of finding and returning.”

So, all the above laid the groundwork for the plausible/justifiable workings of magic by men.

What is even more important is the false notion that Setting is or must be static in Sim. Sim is not the mindless regurgitation or mimicry of a fixed canon.

This is exactly why bricolage cannot be limit to what is covered by mechanics as bricolage necessarily effects, changes and adds to both Setting and Character. I think this is an incredibly important and central idea of Sim that is either frequently glossed over or more often completely misunderstood.

My cleric is a full-blown cleric and I have only played him 3 minutes! So what they can do is yet to be determined and that is exactly the kind of stuff Sim is amenable to doing.

Clerics have “true sight” whereby they can “see” the condition of the soul of any individual. Whereas powerful creatures such as a vampire or wraiths or wights are extremely resistant to magic, they are exceedingly susceptible to clerical “magics.”

So the system is kind of a highly-drifted, frequently-ignored post-D&D legacy, kept going because the GM and the players who have been in the game forever all have a very similar understanding of how they want things to proceed? That sounds about par for the course in these very long-running fantasy games. It's how sim-inclined groups played and continue to play AD&D and its inheritors, surely.

As for Middle-Earth canon, surely whether things are strictly canonical is (as Mike has pointed out) neither here nor there. But it's certainly true that elements of the setting that indicate a certain play style are being emphasized, specifically one of very tense, uncertain "tactical" conflict, expected to develop naturally from the Situation. It reminds me a wee bit of.

Gamism: Step On Up wrote:
This person prefers a role-playing game that combines Gamist potential with Simulationist hybrid support, such that a highly Explorative Situation can evolve, in-game and without effort, into a Challenge Situation.

Hey Mike,

Mike Holmes wrote: You realize that this speaks strongly of the "System Doesn't Matter" attitude. I mean it very much sounds like your GMs played D&D, found it lacking, made modifications that were like D&D, found that lacking, and basically decided to pitch it all for freeform. Keeping the rules in case they need justification for certain things, and to make players understand that they can't "get away" with just anything. Like they're afraid that if they just go completely freeform that the players will run amok.

That probably sounds judgemental, but it's meant to be analytical, and to provoke corrections. Do correct it where it's not accurate.

Silmenume wrote: First of all let me address something that I am unclear about. By “System Doesn’t Matter” should I interpret that are picking up the feeling from my postings you that I am presenting a POV that implies “Mechanics Doesn’t Matter”? Of the latter, and given the nature this medium, I can understand how someone might draw that conclusion (one I disagree with!), but the former doesn’t make sense to me as the Lumpley Principle falls under System. Most of the following post will be based on the Mechanics interpretation, but please do let me know if I am incorrect. I most certainly am not trying to put words in your mouth!

...I can tell you this much – he and Chuck spent about 4 years “designing” the mechanics without any play testing. IOW the system was not drifted and patched a little at a time until they were happy, rather they waited until they felt it was more or less “done” and introduced the new system whole cloth. In philosophy and function, the new game system was and is about 180 degrees apart from D&D, though there are a number of superficial similarities in form.

The single greatest philosophical change, and this did evolve over time, was the realization that the players did not need to know the mechanics outside the combat system.

The mechanics of the combat system were retained for what turns out to be for the reason of speed of communication. Even here many times mechanics are not fully employed – again what matters is that causality be preserved, not how that happens.

Another paradigm employed during the (re)design process was the notion of removing everything that added a layer of abstraction between the players and the fictional world (SIS) so that they could more “directly experience” the results of their actions and start building their own systems of meanings and significations – that is, their own alternate realities: the Dream.

Finally anything that externally constrained personality was dumped – no deprotagonizing alignments, no mechanically deprotagonizing personality behaviors, etc.

If a player acted to erratically then they would be damaging the Dream for all the other players because everyone needs to be on the same page regarding how the world works. If someone is acting without rhyme or reason and there is no explainable cause then that player is damaging the induction and signification process for all the rest of the players. Thus while it may seem that no one cares what the other players are doing, we are actually deeply invested in how everyone else at the table operates because everyone’s actions have the potential to tweak or alter everyone else’s inductive process. Break the rules too much and the whole internal model (which is the foundation for the system of signification) collapses and the Dream comes to an abrupt end.

Thus, its not that they found their own system of mechanics lacking, but that it was discovered that the role of mechanics was decidedly different than the conventional wisdom had up till that point held.

We make frequent use of Fortune mechanics but we don’t need to know the mechanical process by which the content of the narration is decided upon.

Once the GM gets the “feel” of them, that is get a feel for the norms of the world, then the “calling” or the overt labeling of the employed task resolution mechanics are no longer strictly “necessary.”

The mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself. “What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?”

Hey Mike,

I apologize for the tardiness of my reply, but I was really tied up prepping and then giving a seminar on role-play theory at a local con – my first. Any way ---

Mike Holmes wrote:

What’s important is when something is outside of the norm – then that skill and by extension the owning Character will stand out.

It seems like this is allowed for players who show that they can be trusted not to be "abusive" meaning to play gamism.

Mike Holmes wrote:

“Retirement” is an overt act which entails handing the Character sheet in and an understanding that that Character is forever removed from the Player’s control (that is he is NPC’d unless the player says that said Character is retiring within the game world).

Do characters ever become "unretired"? I mean, if a player can start playing another NPC, what's the problem with going back and playing a character that had been, as you put it, "NPC'd"? Especially if events seem to bring the character back into prominence? Does it relate to closure?

Mike Holmes wrote:

Another player at the table absolutely refuses to hand in any Character until said Character is declared dead, even if he hasn’t played the Character in 15 years. Go figure…

Well, if he sees the possibility that the character might come back into play...well why retire the character indeed? Same question as above, basically: what's the purpose of retirement as it exists?

Mike Holmes wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote:

As we play we “build” our Characters through actions, not petitions, ...

Petitions? You mean instead of asking for a certain kind of character from the GM?

Just to make sure were in the context, the above made reference to a style of game whereby we would “generate” a Character through concrete actions within the SIS as opposed to discussing the Character using “concepts.” For example if I wanted the (unformed) Character to be strong then I would look to find an opportunity whereby I could demonstrate a great feat of strength – however, this occasion must arise logically out of the events that are unfolding. Even then a good roll of a die is typically necessary to demonstrate the successful completion of said act. IOW just because I say that I bend the bars of the jail to save my life does not mean I will automatically succeed. This I contrast with just saying, “I want my Character to be strong – say, a 17 strength.” This style of Character creation is very rare and I included to demonstrate the variety of ways in which we do create Characters.

So by "petition" you mean by anything that's not creating the ability using the in-game method? Do these methods tend to be mutually exclusive? Or do they get mixed? That is, let's say you start a character by using the in-game method. Do you ever then later switch to the other method to flesh the character out?

Jay -

I think from your descriptions it probably makes more overall sense to talk about your group as having a Simulationist CA, as you think, but Mike's point about how some of your group's 'System', rules, and norms of play support a Gamist CA seem accurate as well.

Just a question about that - it seems clear that there are substantial social rewards in your game for exploring imaginary material. But you also talk a lot about climactic scenes, low level characters holding off Black Commandos, the dwarf who's smithy skills are paid this incredible compliment by having two elves solicit him, and so forth. Are these moments rewarded too? Does the player feel like it's a personal achievement, something good that he did, when his character does something heroic or stands out as an exceptional individual, and is that supported by the approval and/or envy of other members of the group?

This sort of feeling is I believe (maybe this tells something about me?) present in every game in every CA. But there's a big difference between it being what people are playing for and it being something that happens on the road to something else, a sort of 'pat on the back' for discovering or 'bricoling' (have to find a better word, that's a barbarism) something or for taking the story in a new and unexpected direction.

Though it is incoherent in Big Model terms, the kind of Sim/Gam mix which Mike is talking about and which was my dominant form of play in groups from 1979-1983 is extremely psychologically powerful for some people. The Gamism produces a deeply personal psychological investement in an ever-growing and -expanding fantasy life addressed by the Sim focus on exploration. The disruptions that the incoherent CA sometimes produce in play are partly compensated for, in such players, by the incredibly rich discovery of the possibility of deeply identifying with a shared fantasy life.

The way you describe the intensity of some sessions, with large groups of shouting men, also suggests a gamist-type personal investment. Pure Simulationist intensity on a similar level would I suspect look more like a shared trance.

I think Chris Lehrich and you have made a huge contribution to my understanding of Simulationism, and I suspect to that of some other people as well. I have no doubt that there's a lot of that going on too and that it's supported by what you're doing together as a group.

wrote: that I am late with this post and I apologize, but I felt that I should respond to those who have taken their own precious time to post in response to me. So –

Mike Holmes wrote: The "System Doesn't Matter" POV is that mechanics are system, and that no mechanics can ever work well across all of play to deliver what's needed. So we should just chuck the pretense that one system is better than another, and just use whatever is at hand, altering it as/when needed to make it produce what we want. This is the very common attitude that Ron's essay is against.

It is, in fact, a failure to understand Lumpley that leads to this idea. That we can be making stuff up and not have a system. Lumply points out that everyone has a system, and hence why it must automatically matter.

Your designers, not seeing Lumpley have created a system where the mechanics are to some extent ignored for an actual system that's largely freeform. Again, they get there by, instead of finding a system with mechanics that work for them, by deciding that no mechanics ever will.

What seems to have emerged I call freeform in one of it's standard meanings, that being that the method for creating the SIS, is constantly negotiated. Mostly it's whatever the GM wants at the time. This is a system. But it's one that seems to have been arrived at by assuming that System Doesn't Matter - only the GM's judgment can make things right. Basically we'll sorta have rules, but they'll only pertain when the GM rules that they should.

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, this is all just a matter of your POV. I don't dispute the timeframes or how it was presented, but none of that is counter to what I indicated. In fact a mechanical system in which it's a rule that the GM can choose to ignore the system at any time simply has drift encoded into the system.

Put another way, when we give examples of drift and System Doesn't Matter, we're thinking precisely of people like Chuck. We've all known, or even have been Chuck. I've been Chuck.

Narrativism: Story Now essay]

Narrativist Premises focus on producing Theme via events during play. Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events.

underling added

You guys might be surprised at this, but I am bored to death by this thread.

Can we get back to talking about making and playing the dwarf? Jay, have you played this character yet, with others? If so, what's happened?

And also, I'm very curious as to how your group typically inserts a new character into play. I have my suspicions about how this is done, but I'd rather hear about it from you.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

Ron Edwards wrote: You guys might be surprised at this, but I am bored to death by this thread.

Can we get back to talking about making and playing the dwarf? Jay, have you played this character yet, with others? If so, what's happened?

Ron Edwards wrote: And also, I'm very curious as to how your group typically inserts a new character into play. I have my suspicions about how this is done, but I'd rather hear about it from you.

Sean wrote: The way you describe the intensity of some sessions, with large groups of shouting men, also suggests a gamist-type personal investment. Pure Simulationist intensity on a similar level would I suspect look more like a shared trance.

Hey Ron,

Ron Edwards wrote: And also, I'm very curious as to how your group typically inserts a new character into play. I have my suspicions about how this is done, but I'd rather hear about it from you.