Sorry, I'm a bit on the edge about game stuff this morning. And I downloaded the free Tri-Stat DX core rulebook, and the first thing I saw was the following manifesto.

Role-Playing Game Manifesto
These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.
When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.
Min/maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player.
The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.
The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.
A game that is no longer fun - it's a chore.
This book contains the answer to all things.
When the above does not apply, make it up.

I don't know about going down the tubes, but it does demonstrate the Grand Canyon divide that exists between different types of gamers.

For the record I've been preaching your list for years.

Does that mean they're list is invalid...well...perhaps not...but, I've never been shown anything to suggest that lists like that are anything more than the perpetual regurgitation of the same tired ill concieved stuff that has been written in gaming books since they began.

MAYBE they thought about the list. Maybe they actually analysed each statement they made and what the implications of believing them to be true really are. But I doubt it. I suspect their "manifesto" is nothing more than a bullet point list of all of the same old "rules of thumb" that continue to float through the collective gamer subconcious.

Guardians of Order demos very widely, including for the audience of interested non-gamers in anime fandom, and also has an audience who actually plays a lot with their games. I know that their views on these matters are not the concensus in these parts, but it's a stance also taken on the basis of experience - and at that, wider-ranging experience in terms of types of players than most game companies get. It works for them.

The fact that Bruce says it works for them is kinda telling. Presumably they *do* know what works for them. Here are some possible implications.

These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Possible Implication: If you find our product lacking in some way, we respect your view point.

Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
Possible Implication: This is how we think you'll enjoy our product best. But we're not intending to enforce our views.

If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
Possible Implication: These rules are not intended to be restrictive. [possibly: if it's not covered, go for it.]
I'd have a hard time defending this one as it literally reads though.

There are no official answers, only official opinions.
Possible Implication: We don't claim to have all the "right" answers.

When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.
Possible Implication: If a roll ruins the evening for you, and over-ruling it won't make matters worse under your groups social contract by all means, over-rule it. Don't go blaming us.

I kinda agree that if you're fudging dice rolls you're doing something wrong. The idea that it must be the game tho *boggles* me.

Min/maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player.
Possible Implication: A player who uses these rules in a way the group as a whole doesn't like is seeking conflict with the group. Address that issue.

* I think this *is* probably something I'd consider a problem wiht the game (but then I believe in the myth of game balance, so that's just the delusions talkin'). I think anyone who stays in a group they're having conflicts with is gettin' something out of the conflict, making the rules a tool and not a cause.

The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.
Possible Implication: The elected leader has power while in office.*

* Considering that a tradtional game stops if the GM quits, this, while somewhat abrutply put is essentially true. It's a veto power.

The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.
Possible Implication: however, with that power, comes the responsibility of leadership.

A game that is no longer fun - it's a chore.
Possible Implication: If it stops being fun stop playing.*

* indimnification? Maybe a calculated response to someone who says "BESM ate my dog and ruined my life for FIVE YEARS!"

This book contains the answer to all things.
Possible Implication: I have no idea. Even reading "about the game" into it doesn't work too well for me. Maybe: This is the bible. Read it and believe it. ... is this really part of the cannonical nonsense that gets floated everywhere?

When the above does not apply, make it up.
Possible Implication: We were joking. If we don't say, use your judgement.

Now, I'm okay with the hard-core approach that Valimir is talking about if you dig it. But I'm not sure every implication above is ill-considered. The idea that we're the only people who think about these things--or are smarter than everyone else about them is, itself, ill considered.

-Marco

Bruce, I'm not sure I get some parts of what you are saying. (Specifically, the "audience who actually plays a lot with their games" line -- does that mean to say gamers who tinker with rules / create house rules, or does it indicate simply people who play their games frequently?)

In total, though, it seems you are basically saying this list is ok because it "works for them."

This is not the first time I see you representing the Forge as a small, non-representative core of the gaming public, and point to sales of, say, Tri-stat as evidence of its views as generally irrelevant. Very likely, there are many, many more people buying and playing Tri-stat games, or even GoO D20 games, than there are people even aware of the Forge. But to assume that because those numbers exists, then this list is ok is a leap of logic that I can't see.

It's no secret that I'm far more in line with what Cadriel and Valamir are supporting. I don't think lists or comments like this one in the Tri-Stat book are the cause of any dire state in the industry as a business.

I do think that lists like these are indicative of weak thinking and problems with how RPGs are conceived as a hobby or entertainment medium. Plainly, such thinking just isn't being done on any significant level. If it were, then absurd contradictions in such lists like this one would hopefully be absent:

The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.

The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.

Is there really a "correct" way of thinking about this? Are you sure it's not preference? I mean, if there is, I pretty clearly think wrongly (or at least not *all the way correct*).

Is that a judgment you feel completely comfortable making?

And remember: your absurd contradiction is my "yeah, I get what he's saying."

-Marco

Yes, Marco, absolutely I'm comfortable with it. This list does everything but blurt out The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. I'm very comfortable with saying that is "incorrect."

But even if the list doesn't violate the Impossible Thing, I'm still comfortable with the position that such language still is problematic for a number of reasons. One is that it violates the principle of System Does Matter, which I agree with strongly. Another is that the text is suspiciously derivitive of things past, with no acknowledgment of game designs and thinking that really could benefit the way people play games. Breaking, for example, the paradigm of the GM as Almighty Creative Master (even if it IS "correct") is something many games would benefit from.

In short, these rules, if not violating the Impossible Thing, are a treatise on Illusionism. Illusionism is a functional, valid way to play. But the text presumes 1) that it's the only way to play and 2) that it's the only way to play THIS GAME (without any critical thought on whether that's true).

EDIT: And your "I get what he is saying" does less than nothing for me. I do not expect readers of games I design to read between the lines when I'm being plainly instructive of how to play the game. Marco, I read many threads in which you debate this issue of interpretation with many folks. I'd MUCH rather avoid such potential confusion in games I read and especially games I write.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Hmm. I may not agree with all the points on the Tri-Stat manifesto, but I'm having trouble seeing why it's so irritating. Unfortunately, there are folks out there who bring all sorts of dysfunctional behavior to games - and who interpret the rule book in what can only be characterized as a fundamentalist manner. I think the manifesto is aimed at them. Overall, the gestalt message there is "Have fun. Remember it's a game. Play nice. Don't treat this as gospel; change what you want to change." It's boilerplate, and I expect boilerplate to include broad common-sensical catechisms, much like the absurd disclaimers like, "This is only a game. Do not sacrifice your sister to the Black Goat of the Abyss. Do not whack your buddies with meat cleavers."

Pretty much the only place I differ from Tri-Stat significantly is in the GM discretion part - but that goes to my particular playing style.

Best,

Blake

Fair enough, Blake, I can see that. But why cater to this crowd? Is there really any pleasing such dysfunctional approaches? Why in the world waste space on these people. Devote that space and instruction to people who WILL play the game in a more functional manner. And, hopefully, they'll be more apt to become viral marketers and repeat buyers for you.

Boilerplate is for insurance forms. The very idea of such instruciton as boiler plate flies in the face of System Does Matter.


The reason that it's so irritating to me is that this becomes part of the tradition. That gamers assume this is the way gaming Is Done. And the next ambitious soul who hits a home run with a game like BESM keeps this kind of boilerplate stuff in his game to cater to the fundamentalist majority. I view this as profoundly unhelpful to the hobby of RPGs, an I don't really care too damn much what it might mean to GoO's business model.

Matt Snyder wrote: Yes, Marco, absolutely I'm comfortable with it. This list does everything but blurt out The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. I'm very comfortable with saying that is "incorrect."

But even if the list doesn't violate the Impossible Thing, I'm still comfortable with the position that such language still is problematic for a number of reasons. One is that it violates the principle of System Does Matter, which I agree with strongly. Another is that the text is suspiciously derivitive of things past, with no acknowledgment of game designs and thinking that really could benefit the way people play games. Breaking, for example, the paradigm of the GM as Almighty Creative Master (even if it IS "correct") is something many games would benefit from.

In short, these rules, if not violating the Impossible Thing, are a treatise on Illusionism. Illusionism is a functional, valid way to play. But the text presumes 1) that it's the only way to play and 2) that it's the only way to play THIS GAME (without any critical thought on whether that's true).

I'm at a loss, Matt. I thought that the meaning of my words would be plain. I'll try again.

Guardians of Order has a lot of experience dealing with a very wide range of customers. Their total sales are relatively small - they're not about to displace any of the top three or five companies - but they're spread widely in terms of player interest and experience. And from what I can tell, a relatively high fraction of their customers actually play their games. This isn't trivial, in an industry where too many copies of books get bought and then never used. It's a sign of doing something right.

I doubt that Guardians would ever claim to have universal truths. But they can claim that their advice stands up under repeated testing.

As for the position of the Forge...

I should distinguish here between actual and potential results. I make no secret of the fact that I think there's a substantial population of subcultures whose members would take to gaming that's as in sync with their outlook and interests as Vampire and Big Eyes, Small Mouth proved to be for theirs. I'm quite sure that we haven't come anywhere close to exhausting the pool of folks who could and would game if they had the right game, and I'm equally certain that reaching them will require games that turn away from the conventional wisdom in ways big and small. In many cases, the right answer for a particular audience will prove to be one I don't care for or that challenges my wisdom, too - I'm certainly not claiming to have all the answers, and if I ever do, you are authorized to beat me with a trout the next time we're in the same room. The Forge is as likely a seed bed for some of these breakthroughs as any place, too, given the admirable emphasis on actually trying things out. Work trumps guessing.

But I can also look at sales data to see about impact in the market as it actually exists. In Indie Successes and Failures?, I see folks reporting sales in the dozens of copies a year, some getting over a hundred. Looking at sales data for projects I've been involved in the last few years, I see several with net sales - that's after returns and all - in the range of eight to twelve thousand, and some better than that. Some are worse off, with maybe only a couple thousand sold in the last couple years. Some projects I had to drop out of or am just watching as a friend are in that spread as well: maybe one to three thousand for smaller companies (GURPS books and such), five to fifteen thousand for smaller lines at larger companies, up some from there for the bigger-ticket ventures. (I'm going to be fascinated to see what Gamma World sales are, though I expect I won't be allowed to say much about it in public.)

A hundred happy customers is no trivial thing: it is a hundred happy customers. I have no idea what portion of customers for these games play them, but I'm guessing it's pretty high. Call it half. That'd be fifty players in the course of a year, plus the influence had on readers who don't play, and sometimes that influence can be pretty significant. Take one of my ten-thousand-copy releases. Say that a tenth of its customers play it. (It's higher than that, but I don't want to stack the deck.) That'd be a thousand players, plus the influence on readers - twenty for each one playing the indie game that moved a hundred copies. If total sales or fraction of players is higher, then the discrepancy grows.

Now, small communities can matter. Alarums & Excursions, Lee Gold's gaming amateur press association, had somewhere around 700-1000 subscribers in its heyday, I believe, dropping down to 100-200 in the late '80s/early '90s. That's obviously not a large group. But it proved the incubating ground for several folks who influenced gaming in the '90s, in obvious and unobvious ways: Robin Laws, Jonathan Tweet, Rob Heinsoo, Mark Rein*Hagen, Spike Y. Jones, John Nephew, Nicole Lindroos, and me, among others. And then there were the folks who shaped us, including the crucial role of folks uninterested in being pros but who shed illumination constantly, like Glenn Blacow, Carl Rigney, and Wayne Shaw, and the people I think of as belonging to the preceding "generation" of creators, like Phil Masters and Scott Bennie.

So in saying that I don't think the Forge has yet had any significant impact on the shape or course of gaming, I'm not saying that I think it can't. I see an absence of influence on both the market and the surrounding community of gamers; I also know from my own experience of the possibility for both kinds of influence.

A quick follow-up: No, I don't worship the market. But if we're talking about how much influence any game can have, starting with how many copies of it are out there makes sense. There'll be some folks influenced by discussion about it who never get it, but that's not going to be a large group ever, I don't think.

Marco, with respect, I'm not going to argue the existence of the Impossible Thing with you, as has been done elsewhere to exhaustion. It exists. There's more to it than semantics and apologetic interpreations.

Further, I'm not interested in your specific interpretations of game texts. I think I understand your position. I've certainly read your position many times in many threads. I'm far more interested in what I can do and what I believe Joe Gamer can read plainly from texts I write.

Finally, it's not my theory, so I'm having a hard time understanding your criticism ("Hey, where's MY THEORY ... ?"). I believe the text is strongly indicative of illusionist play. That's fine. Such play exists functionally in many, many games. My point, as I've already stated, was that I see no evidence, and strongly doubt that illusionism is the "default" viewpoint of the creators without any significant consideration on the creator's part on 1) whether illusionism is really what the game does best and 2) even whether illusionism as a form exists or what else might exist outside of that.

Matt Snyder wrote: Fair enough, Blake, I can see that. But why cater to this crowd? Is there really any pleasing such dysfunctional approaches? Why in the world waste space on these people. Devote that space and instruction to people who WILL play the game in a more functional manner. And, hopefully, they'll be more apt to become viral marketers and repeat buyers for you.

Boilerplate is for insurance forms. The very idea of such instruciton as boiler plate flies in the face of System Does Matter.
.

Bruce, our disagreement is fundamental and very simple.

You are saying that games which contain certain small amount of instructive text (among many other things, perhaps entirely functional -- as in the game may be great, the intro text misguided) have become financially successful. Therefore, they must know something about writing said instructive text, and therefore, said instructive text is right on (and especially right on for their audience).

I am saying that in the case of said instructive text (written, I imagine, before a single copy was sold, but well after age-old RPG assumptions have set in), total number of sales is entirely, totally irrelevant to whether instuctive text is critically thoughtful, helpful and functional.

That's it. If we still disagree, cool with me if it's cool with you.

EDIT: Yes, this means that I think 12,000 people CAN be wrong. As in "Product X: 12,000 people can't be wrong." That's because I'm not, nor have I said at any point in this discussion that the entire game is flawed, incoherent or dysfunctional. Tri-Stat may be wondrously crafted -- I'm only rougly knowledgable. However, this list Cadriel's highlighted is flawed for reasons I and others have said.

A quick follow-up: No, I don't worship the market. But if we're talking about how much influence any game can have, starting with how many copies of it are out there makes sense. There'll be some folks influenced by discussion about it who never get it, but that's not going to be a large group ever, I don't think.

Matt Snyder wrote: Marco, with respect, I'm not going to argue the existence of the Impossible Thing with you, as has been done elsewhere to exhaustion. It exists. There's more to it than semantics and apologetic interpreations.

Further, I'm not interested in your specific interpretations of game texts. I think I understand your position. I've certainly read your position many times in many threads. I'm far more interested in what I can do and what I believe Joe Gamer can read plainly from texts I write.

Finally, it's not my theory, so I'm having a hard time understanding your criticism ("Hey, where's MY THEORY ... ?"). I believe the text is strongly indicative of illusionist play. That's fine. Such play exists functionally in many, many games. My point, as I've already stated, was that I see no evidence, and strongly doubt that illusionism is the "default" viewpoint of the creators without any significant consideration on the creator's part on 1) whether illusionism is really what the game does best and 2) even whether illusionism as a form exists or what else might exist outside of that.

I think this thread is a waste of time. I'd probably agree that the manifesto in question is to some extent ill-concieved. But what if it is? So what? It isn't new news that there's theory here that supports the idea, nor, in fact, that it's a contentios notion. People who believe that this is problematic text can respond accordingly in their designs, and those who think otherwise can do what they see fit. Unless this is to become yet another rehash of the actual question (and so far it's just been people posturing at each otther), I don't see the purpose of it.

Is there some new issue here that I'm missing? Some new angling on it?

Mike

Matt, I don't think I'm saying what you think I'm saying, but I also don't see my efforts at clarification or expansion getting anywhere toward an agreement on my actual words, which I'd take as a prerequisite to establishing their truth or relevance. So I'm done with this. Sorry for being unable to communicate just right now. I may perhaps revisit the subject at a time when there's less on my plate.

Fair 'nough, Bruce. I can certainly understand the all-too-full-plate, as mine's overflowing with stuff to do, also. I'll take one last stab at it here, and let you respond if/when you like.

I've read, re-read, and re-read again your posts. I think I do indeed see more of what you're getting at.

I doubt that Guardians would ever claim to have universal truths. But they can claim that their advice stands up under repeated testing.

It's also likely GOO assumes some segment of their market is either young or relatively inexperienced with roleplaying. This kind of manifesto goes to that kind of customer, in my opinion. It's the kind of de rigeur boilerplate I don't find offensive. Nor do I hold it to any ideological standard. We've discussed social contract issues all over The Forge, and I tend to view the so-called "Golden Rule" as a codification of the primacy of social contract issues. Much of this manifesto is style-oriented, sure, but I think it's also geared toward profiling a social contract baseline, a kind of ur-context within which GOO suggests the rules be viewed. That said, it's guidance and suggestions here, not rules.

I still don't see the irritation factor. Doesn't mean you don't; it just ain't there for me.

Best,

Blake

Marco wrote: The fact that they're successful with that boiler plate might say something very profound about System Does Matter.

10pt penalty for Politicking the Gaming Discussion.

Yeah. It might not say anything at all. I agree. And yah, people believe all kinds of crap. No doubt.

But I do question the idea (or my perception of the idea) that the RPG experience is one predominantly characterized by dysfunction.

And I question that people really mean what you think they mean when they say System Doesn't Matter.

-Marco

Hmm...I go hang out for a bit and my bit of angriness pops out into a bunch more angriness.

Anyway...I don't care that this philosophy works for GoO in some commercial way. I don't care that a lot of people would agree 100% with the assessment offered in the manifesto. Because, frankly, I think it perpetuates the kind of gaming that has caused everything I ran in college - except for a short Call of Cthulhu game and a joyously Gamist D&D campaign - to trickle down to nothing. They put the entire style of gaming that proliferates in the non-D&D segment of commercial RPGs (not exactly big moneymakers) into one handy little set of bullet points. And I think it's this kind of attitude that isn't helping the hobby one bit.

And it doesn't say anything about System Does Matter. At all. I've seen Tri-Stat. It's cobbled together from every known assumption about what an RPG needs and recycled as a "rules light" package. The game is playable for the same reason that all the other games designed exactly like it are playable: large portions of the actual system are in the form of unstated assumptions about play.

-Wayne

When I saw this manifesto, I hat a kneejerk reaction of "Hey that's wrong." But something crytalised in my head when I saw

Cadriel wrote: large portions of the actual system are in the form of unstated assumptions about play.

Marco wrote: 10pt penalty for Politicking the Gaming Discussion.

Yeah. It might not say anything at all. I agree. And yah, people believe all kinds of crap. No doubt. But I do question the idea (or my perception of the idea) that the RPG experience is one predominantly characterized by dysfunction. And I question that people really mean what you think they mean when they say System Doesn't Matter.

Thomas Tamblyn wrote: but a manifesto of that kind combined with the game rules does create functional play. Maybe not the best possible play, but tried and true play.

Greyorm,

The Impossible Thing: Yeah, okay--well, I didn't bring it up in this thread (and the offending words *weren't* mentioned in the manifesto). And once you get into 9/11 the discussion gets all out of context/loaded.

Firstly I'd say that a person's mistaken belifief about who was on the planes for 9/11 has nothing to do with their own personal assessment of whether they themselves are having fun roleplaying. So it's apples and oranges. RPG's aren't movies that get good word of mouth and then fizzle out over a week.

Games like VtM get players coming back again and again (and on RPGnet a buncha people recently suggested VtM as a great game for beginners). No one on the thread suggested the game was a smouldering pile of crap (a bit angsty, yes). If the game were as irrevocably broken as you seem to think--or required as much work for functional play as I think you imply, I doubt that'd be the case.

Secondly: the belief that RPGing is characterized by GNS dysfunction to any special degree and that game-text/systems play a part in that has to overcome two major obstacles:

a. The fact that there seem to be many persistent "traditional" role-players who choose it as a leasure-time-activity. Yes, most people have a horror story. Every college student has a college horror story. Everyone who dates has a date horror story, etc. That's not evidence of systemic dysfunction. People have Everquest horror stories and ebay horror stories. They have Internet and USENET horror stories. The people who have a "bad experience" doing something and then continue to do it are getting something out of it. If they're not being forced, they're not being honest. The activity/relationship/whatever *is* working for them (and I believe, *pretty much exactly the way they want it to*).

The fact that the field is expanding with completely traditional games is an Occam-Razor indication that the games (yes, with text like the above) work. And I don't think everyone involved is interested in dysfunction either. Certainly not my experience.

b. A lack of clarity that explains how a person holds a clearly paradoxical belief or misconception and then makes decisions at all. A person who believes the GM must provide a complete, immutable story and that then their character will be able to effect the outcome should be unable to reconcile those beliefs, no? They're *impossible.*

Show me a gamer who belives, really and clearly, in TIT as interperted (as stated it's clearly possible, right?). Have them explain to me how that's supposed to work. I don't believe in them. I don't believe people actually believe in the interpertation you describe. Despite what you say, I don't think the offending passage in many RPGs has to be read that way. And I don't think people do.

I think it's refering to a somewhat fuzzy conception held by some GM's (mostly, right?*) that during play the PC's should be predictable and easy to motivate (so they'll act on what the GM gives them and do what the GM expects them to).

Thus the GM expects that the players, once turned loose will predictably play out the action so that it fits "his story." Possibly even extending to the idea that the players will be so interested in his version of what-happens-next that they will make decisions to drive that.

This springs, I think, from the general and persistent belief that people see everything the same way you do (i.e. the players assessment of situation and reaction to it will be as the GM intended). The common collary to that is that no one could see things any other way.

Game rules and manifestos don't cause that. I see no evidence they can cure it either.

-Marco
* Another weakness of TIT is that for *players* the read is pretty much correct, no? If a player says "My actions should have signifcant impact on the course of events, whether it be killing the arch fiend ... or deciding to join him ..." very few GM's would disagree with that, I think.

Greyorm wrote: Tom,

Greyorm wrote: A philosophy of play, yes, but not a system or method...and I don't think the philosophy has much ground for adherents to stand together on from a gaming-together standpoint.

What I find interesting about the manifesto is not what I agree or disagree with about it so much as the fact that I disagree with pieces of it I used to agree with. I'm having a little bit more fun with my current view, but I was having fun before too...

Role-Playing Game Manifesto wrote: The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.

Role-Playing Game Manifesto wrote: When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.
The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.
The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.

I'm going to hop right back up to the beginning since I'm first arriving here, and offer my take. Iappears to me that many of the people attacking the Manifesto are reading in social contract things that aren't necessarily there. Here's my take on it, section by section:

Role-Playing Game Manifesto
These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.

When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.

Min/maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player.

The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.
The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.

A game that is no longer fun - it's a chore.
This book contains the answer to all things.
When the above does not apply, make it up.

jdagna wrote: I'm going to hop right back up to the beginning since I'm first arriving here, and offer my take. Iappears to me that many of the people attacking the Manifesto are reading in social contract things that aren't necessarily there. Here's my take on it, section by section:

Role-Playing Game Manifesto
These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.

Sounds to me like a boiler-plate indictment against rules lawyers, as well as an affirmation of the group's power over their own game. No problems here, though I'd state some of these a little differently, since the seemed aimed a rules lawyers to begin with.

When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.

This one I do disagree with. If I were going to rephrase it, I'd say "When dice conflict with the story, you're too committed to a story."

I'd also add "Dice are unpredictable, but not random. Trust them."

I would certainly not jump to Cadriel's conclusion that there must be a system problem when story and dice have conflicts.

Of course, I recognize my own Sim and Fortune preferences in my two statements, so I'd leave all versions out of the Manifesto. What a GM does with dice/story conflicts is his own business (with the group's input), but this affirmation of GM power is already in the Manifesto.

Min/maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player.

Not so sure I agree with this one either. It's like saying alcohol isn't responsible for alcoholism because some people are genetically predisposed to addiction. Yes, there's a problem with the player; but many systems encourage the problem.

However, despite my disagreement, I think newbie role-players will benefit from this statement and so I'd leave it in. It takes many players a long time to recognize that munchkins are a problem in and of themselves, not just symptoms of a flawed system.

The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.
The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.

Where does everyone get Illusionism and the Impossible Thing here?

What I'm reading is a statement that says the buck stops with the GM, but he works on behalf of the players' interests. Thus, it's only encouraging Illusionism if that's what the players want. There's nothing here that limits player input or control anywhere short of saying they can't overrule the GM. And (in any game that has a GM), it's important that players accept his authority without constant conflict.

A game that is no longer fun - it's a chore.
This book contains the answer to all things.
When the above does not apply, make it up.

All of this section sounds good to me, though it appears to have a little contradiction for the sake of humor more than anything else.

Cadriel, you wanted to dicker over the game/chore distinction. I think they're perhaps over stating their point, but is it really different from your own admonishment? The point is to do something different if you're not having fun and we can all agree on that.

I can understand how a Manifesto like that might bring back bad memories. Dysfunctional GMs often say things like "I'm the GM so my word goes." But functional GMs should say the same thing - the difference between them is when they say and what has lead to them saying it. Likewise with many of the other statements. However, taken as a whole, I believe it discourages dysfuntional play (even if it fails to necessarily encourage functional play).

I firmly believe that this is good advice for an amateur player or GM picking up their first game book. Perhaps they'd want a different manifesto after a decade of play - but you can bet that your first grade English teacher gave you different advice than your Lit 101 professor. It would be absolutely innappropriate to haul GNS out in front of a brand new player or expect them to understand the finer points.

Cruciel,

Great post. And very clearly and well said on a number of points. I agree with your extension of the "GM has all the power" line. Yes, it would be good to say that. There are probably very definite reasons why they don't write all their text that way--but I like your version *much* better.

I also agree that the behavior you cite is real. Absolutely.

I don't think it comes from misunderstandings and I don't think it comes from game books. I've seen (and everyone else has seen too, if they think about it) that behavior across a wide spectrum of situations that have no instructions nor anything to do with gaming.

Since I don't believe any single person actually *does* believe the impossible thing, it comes down to a GM running the game in a naive or overbearing manner ... and players deciding that's a perfect place to scratch their power-struggle itch (IMO).

I agree that people can and will read into things what they want to. They'll ignore what they don't want to hear. Yes. At that point though, you have people doing what they want to regardless of instructions. Therefore, the instructions are not the cause. An excuse, perhaps. But not the cause.

An attempt to make the rules a less vaild excuse is fine--but here, in doing so, I think people blame the rules themselves, that loses sight of real cause of the behavior (or, at least, what I precieve it to be): the need to power-struggle.

-Marco

Role-Playing Game Manifesto
These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.

Cadriel wrote:
-Don't say you're using a set of rules if you're not going to use them.

Cadriel wrote:
-Find rules that suit the game you want to play. Never settle for less.

Cadriel wrote:
-If the group agrees on the set of rules, then they are rules and not guidelines.

Cadriel wrote:
-The Game Master does not have full discretionary power over the game. It belongs to the players as much as to the GM.

Cadriel wrote:
-Know what you want from a roleplaying game. And don't be afraid to demand it.

Cadriel wrote:

jdagna wrote: I'm going to hop right back up to the beginning since I'm first arriving here, and offer my take. Iappears to me that many of the people attacking the Manifesto are reading in social contract things that aren't necessarily there. Here's my take on it, section by section:

Role-Playing Game Manifesto
These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.

Sounds to me like a boiler-plate indictment against rules lawyers, as well as an affirmation of the group's power over their own game. No problems here, though I'd state some of these a little differently, since the seemed aimed a rules lawyers to begin with.

I have a lot of problems here; my counterpoint was actually in large part because of some of these very "standard" assumptions. I see "System Doesn't Matter" implicit in these points. Many people don't, but I find that when you start saying "Rules are suggested guidelines" you're justifying a trivialization of the rules that is very "System Doesn't Matter." And frankly, my reading of Big Eyes, Small Mouth suggests to me that GoO feels this very strongly; the system is "rules light," implying that intervening in most areas will upset the flow of the game.

-Wayne

efindel wrote:

Role-Playing Game Manifesto
These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.

Cadriel takes these as implying "System Doesn't Matter" -- and taking them that way, I can definitely see the objection. However, to me, these seem more to be saying "System Does Matter -- so if part of our system doesn't work for you, you can change it".

IMHO, "System Does Matter" does not imply "you're not allowed to change the system". What it does imply to me is that "before you change a system, you should ask yourself why you're changing it -- and whether or not you might be better off just starting with a different system".

And some reactions from me to Cadriel's manifesto (leaving out some bits I have no comment on):

Cadriel wrote:
-Don't say you're using a set of rules if you're not going to use them.

- But you can take part of a set of rules without taking the whole thing, as long as it's clear to everyone involved.

Cadriel wrote:
-Find rules that suit the game you want to play. Never settle for less.

- Or make them yourself.

Cadriel wrote:
-If the group agrees on the set of rules, then they are rules and not guidelines.

- But only insofar as the group agrees that they are rules instead of guidelines.

Cadriel wrote:
-The Game Master does not have full discretionary power over the game. It belongs to the players as much as to the GM.

- Power over the game belongs to whoever the group assigns it to. If a group is happy with a "GM" having full power over the game, then that's fine. Just remember that that's not the only way to do things.

Cadriel wrote:
-Know what you want from a roleplaying game. And don't be afraid to demand it.

- Or to make it yourself.

I suspect that there's a clash of assumptions at work on the matter of comprehensiveness. It looks to me like most Forge games are intended to do precisely one kind of thing well and to do it with laser-like intensity. If you like that thing and like the framework of concepts, you can count on liking the game as it; if you try doing anything significantly different with it, you're going to end up re-writing a substantial fraction of it (as in the various Sorcerer mini-games - they're obviously drawing on the same root resources, but changing one piece usually means changing a lot else). Games intended for the general marketplace seldom find that they can make a success at that, and very often the creators just plain don't want to. The systems and settings are set up to do a bunch of things related in varying degrees. This is not a matter of any failure in the system or in the people playing it - it's just a different relationship with the player.

I can buy a prepared baking mix or a paint-by-numbers kit and (assuming the supplier's done their job) count on getting a mighty fine dessert or pretty picture out of it. And that's a good thing. I can also buy a recipe book for people with various allergies and raw ingredients and see about adapting the recipes to my particular allergies and diet issues and get something far more tuned to my particular situation, but requiring a different sort of effort on my part. And that's a good thing, too. Sometimes I compose HTML in a bare-bones text editor, and sometimes I use one that has a lot of support for tag balancing, syntax highlighting, and such. Each of those has their place, too.

(By the way, I realize that these are inexact comparisons. I don't quite have a good word for what it is that Forge games most often seem to specify in rigor and detail. It's not "setting" in the sense of something like the World of Darkness or Glorantha - usually I'd end up building my own world. "Style", perhaps? I don't mean to suggest that either general approach ends up detailing everything equally, in any event, but to contrast different types of preparation.)

Marco,

1) It's Raven, please.

2) The hijacker example was just that, an example to show that just because a majority believe something doesn't make it true or especially relevant to the actual facts of a situation. You're putting way more context into the example than intended.

I'm also wondering why you refer to it as a "political" example...what the heck is political about it? Not too important, but just mentioning Iraq or 9/11 is not inherently political, so I'm confused as to your denouncement of it as such.

3) Whoa, whoa, WHOA...if the game were as irrevocably broken as I seem to think? Where are you getting this from? I've stated nothing about V:tM or Tri-stat being broken in any fashion. We are talking about a philosophy of play here, right? Not mechanics?

It seems to me the majority of your problems with both SDM and TIT come from context you are adding into both that doesn't exist, just as your problems with my statements are coming from context you have added into my statements that simply do not exist.

4) There's a similar leap of logic on your part I'm not fully following: where you say I imply the amount of work required for functional play is intense.

The problem is that functional play for a specific group (in this case for V:tM) requires Drift -- whether that Drift is conscious or unconcious on their part -- hence the rules do not work "as written" because no one uses the rules "as written," though everyone believes they are doing so.

How can I claim this? By having seen it and heard about it repeatedly. The typical story is as such: when these same folk join other groups playing the same game, however, suddenly the rules they're used to become treated as alien things that are not the rules "as written." If you've never ecnountered this personally, or heard other gamers describing the situation, you're either sheltered or lucky.

Thus, I'm not saying there is this intense amount of Drift required for functional play -- rather, the Drift required happens almost subconsciously in each group, and is only highlighted and brought to the fore when members of these groups break off and play in other (unrelated) groups.

5) This is a sub-point of 3 & 4: simply, I can't engage in discourse with you if you're going to be putting assumptions into my mouth and responding to such as though I'm arguing what you've said. Knock it off, ok?

Secondly: the belief that RPGing is characterized by GNS dysfunction to any special degree and that game-text/systems play a part in that has to overcome two major obstacles:

The fact that there seem to be many persistent "traditional" role-players who choose it as a leasure-time-activity. Yes, most people have a horror story.

The fact that the field is expanding with completely traditional games is an Occam-Razor indication that the games (yes, with text like the above) work.

Show me a gamer who belives, really and clearly, in TIT as interperted (as stated it's clearly possible, right?). Have them explain to me how that's supposed to work. I don't believe in them. I don't believe people actually believe in the interpertation you describe. Despite what you say, I don't think the offending passage in many RPGs has to be read that way. And I don't think people do.

Game rules and manifestos don't cause that. I see no evidence they can cure it either.

Thomas Tamblyn wrote: I'm a Thomas, not a Tom by the way.

Yes, its a philosophy of play rather than a method to play, but its a philosophy of play that combines with a conventional system to create the tried and true play.

Bruce Baugh wrote: Games intended for the general marketplace seldom find that they can make a success at that, and very often the creators just plain don't want to.

I can buy a prepared baking mix or a paint-by-numbers kit and (assuming the supplier's done their job) count on getting a mighty fine dessert or pretty picture out of it...

Hi folks,

I think a key point that's always overlooked when we're talking fuzzy stuff like style, philosophy, etc, is that the reason why ideals like this, that push this sort of play as functional, fail to provide guidelines to make it happen.

That is to say, the reason that games like Donjon, or Inspectres can be successful in terms of their philosophy to actual play, is that their intended goal is written right into the rules. Games that typically promote the TIT do not have guidelines, or examples of functional play.

The key reason that TIT stays impossible, or many of the ideals that are pushed in this sort of philosophy are rarely functional, is that we're talking about a communication impasse.

Consider these implicit assumptions-
-"The players have full control of their characters"
-"The GM controls the world & story."
-"The players are supposed to do what the GM wants(whether a prescripted plot, module adventure, or 'freeform' story created by GM), without the GM communicating what are the 'correct' choices"

You can see that the first and the last statements are contradictory, and that the last statement by itself is tantamount to "Read my mind!".

The sort of play you can make with these games can either be protagonistic or participationist, but only if you choose to either drop the player control and "read my mind" factor, or else if you drop the GM controls story aspect.

In other words, the ideals promoted by such advice cannot be acheived without making a commited choice one way or another, and this advice gives you no sort of help in determining this vital, vital aspect of play. TIT wants its cake and to eat it too, but you just can't. You have to make a choice, and drop one or the other for functional play.

This is probably the reason these games come up as incoherent so often, because coherent play can't happen without a clear decision. And TIT dodges the responsibility of making that decision, or of even giving folks the tools necessary to resolve that decision.

Chris

Okay Raven, let me see if I've got it.

People believe a lot of things that aren't so (I agree)

The fact that something sells well doesn't mean it's good. (This smacks of "You think you're having fun but I know you aren't" to me--in this context--but it's arguably true for other contexts so I guess it's a toss up).

It's your experience that VtM is drifted. (It certainly is your experience. I'd need to see more to know what you think the implications of this are).

I don't understand The Impossible Thing. (okay)

Good rules will prevent dysfunction that's caused by bad rules (how much of that there is, you don't say. I think any kind of persistent dysfunction is something people actively seek and rules won't stop it or cause it. I don't think *misunderstandings* lead to persistent dysfunctional play).

From the above you conclude:

That the existence of the boilerplate doesn't say anything about System Does/Doesn't Matter (because an inferior game can still sell well and continue to sell despite better alternatives being offered).

Do I get it?

From the above I'd say: I think people can tell when they're having fun. I think the rule-sets in question enable people to have fun as written (note, I mean as the book is printed--I don't purport to know if they play with all the rules as I'd interpert them).

Unlike software--or really almost any other analogy you might choose--RPGs are a medium for creative expression, not the end-result of an act of creation (I mean, the physical RPG is--but once created it's a medium for someone else's creative expression). As such Drift is pretty much a non-issue and manifestos are pretty much a non-issue save to say where the authors stood on their work.

Something like GoO's manifesto might make some more people feel at home engaging in their creative expression with it.

-Marco

Matt Snyder wrote: Fair enough, Blake, I can see that. But why cater to this crowd? Is there really any pleasing such dysfunctional approaches? Why in the world waste space on these people. Devote that space and instruction to people who WILL play the game in a more functional manner. And, hopefully, they'll be more apt to become viral marketers and repeat buyers for you.

Matt Snyder wrote: Boilerplate is for insurance forms. The very idea of such instruciton as boiler plate flies in the face of System Does Matter.

Matt Snyder wrote: The reason that it's so irritating to me is that this becomes part of the tradition. That gamers assume this is the way gaming Is Done. And the next ambitious soul who hits a home run with a game like BESM keeps this kind of boilerplate stuff in his game to cater to the fundamentalist majority. I view this as profoundly unhelpful to the hobby of RPGs, an I don't really care too damn much what it might mean to GoO's business model.

Cadriel wrote: I have a lot of problems here; my counterpoint was actually in large part because of some of these very "standard" assumptions. I see "System Doesn't Matter" implicit in these points. Many people don't, but I find that when you start saying "Rules are suggested guidelines" you're justifying a trivialization of the rules that is very "System Doesn't Matter." And frankly, my reading of Big Eyes, Small Mouth suggests to me that GoO feels this very strongly; the system is "rules light," implying that intervening in most areas will upset the flow of the game.

greyorm wrote:

Bruce Baugh wrote: Games intended for the general marketplace seldom find that they can make a success at that, and very often the creators just plain don't want to.

I've heard this a number of times over the past few months...and I just don't agree. How do you know they find they cannot make a success at that (given that I'm sure the majority have never thought about it)?

Cadriel wrote:

efindel wrote:

Role-Playing Game Manifesto
These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.

Cadriel takes these as implying "System Doesn't Matter" -- and taking them that way, I can definitely see the objection. However, to me, these seem more to be saying "System Does Matter -- so if part of our system doesn't work for you, you can change it".

That's exactly the opposite of what the essay "System Does Matter" was saying. I see "so if part of our system doesn't work for you, you can change it" as being basically part of an apology for designing a bad system. It's not about changing it if it's not good enough for you. It's about published systems being good enough to work on their own, about games that are designed well enough that they don't have to be changed to suit a group.

Cadriel wrote:
I already clarified this: it's in many ways saying that commercial systems leaving it open to "if you don't like it, fix it" is irresponsible. It doesn't imply "you're not allowed to change the system." It means you shouldn't have to change the system for satisfactory play, and I think that a manifesto like the GoO one is saying that it's okay to design such a system.

efindel wrote: There's never going to be a system that everyone can agree on, because people have different things that they want out of games. For any given system, there's always going to be someone who won't be happy with everything in it. To put it another way, if everyone who plays a system winds up having to change things in it, then it wasn't well designed. But if only some people who play it have to change things to have a satisfactory experience, then it was well-designed for those who don't have to change it.

As far as your reactions to my reactions to your manifesto go -- I'm not trying to tell you what to do with your manifesto. I'm just giving my reactions to it. To me, it seems that GOO's manifesto goes in one direction, and yours goes in another. The main thing that I'd like to get across is that there is a middle ground which recognizes both manifestos as talking about styles of play that work.

--Travis

Wow, the thread exploded...guess I'll talk to a bunch of people at once.

Starting with Justin,

jdagna wrote: Where does everyone get Illusionism and the Impossible Thing here?

What I'm reading is a statement that says the buck stops with the GM, but he works on behalf of the players' interests. Thus, it's only encouraging Illusionism if that's what the players want. There's nothing here that limits player input or control anywhere short of saying they can't overrule the GM. And (in any game that has a GM), it's important that players accept his authority without constant conflict.

Marco wrote: Great post. And very clearly and well said on a number of points. I agree with your extension of the "GM has all the power" line. Yes, it would be good to say that. There are probably very definite reasons why they don't write all their text that way--but I like your version *much* better.

Marco wrote: I don't think it comes from misunderstandings and I don't think it comes from game books. I've seen (and everyone else has seen too, if they think about it) that behavior across a wide spectrum of situations that have no instructions nor anything to do with gaming.

Since I don't believe any single person actually *does* believe the impossible thing, it comes down to a GM running the game in a naive or overbearing manner ... and players deciding that's a perfect place to scratch their power-struggle itch (IMO).

I agree that people can and will read into things what they want to. They'll ignore what they don't want to hear. Yes. At that point though, you have people doing what they want to regardless of instructions. Therefore, the instructions are not the cause. An excuse, perhaps. But not the cause.

An attempt to make the rules a less vaild excuse is fine--but here, in doing so, I think people blame the rules themselves, that loses sight of real cause of the behavior (or, at least, what I precieve it to be): the need to power-struggle.

ross_winn wrote: I do believe that rules matter, but I also believe that no system can accurately map more than a few percent of the human experience; and to think anything different is, in my view, crazy. We have to understand that no system will ever be able to do everything, and we have to acknowledge that judgements will have to be made.

Marco wrote: Okay Raven, let me see if I've got it.

That the existence of the boilerplate doesn't say anything about System Does/Doesn't Matter (because an inferior game can still sell well and continue to sell despite better alternatives being offered).

As such Drift is pretty much a non-issue and manifestos are pretty much a non-issue save to say where the authors stood on their work.

I don't really have a specific quote to pull out for this one. Well, I did, but I seem to have misplaced it.

I guess I'm sorta talking to Cadriel, Raven, and Bruce (sorta),

The system just helps with and encourages play. I'm not saying system doesn't matter, I am saying that it matters not dictates (no contradiction with the theory here). The only group of players a system can be perfect for is the group that designed the game. So, for a game to work for other people the premise has to be a little abstracted. How open to interpretation the premise is is obviously just a design choice; Unknown Armies has a more specific premise than GURPS. This seems to be a mini-point similar to what Bruce is saying; abstracting the premise more means it can apply to a broader consumer base, so it's conventional wisdom in the industry to do so. There is a difference between being flexible, being wishy-washy, and being self-contradictory. Sometime you can intend one thing and get another.

EDIT: I think I might have put words in Raven's mouth, so I cut it out.

greyorm wrote:

ross_winn wrote: I do believe that rules matter, but I also believe that no system can accurately map more than a few percent of the human experience; and to think anything different is, in my view, crazy. We have to understand that no system will ever be able to do everything, and we have to acknowledge that judgements will have to be made.

I think you're talking past each other here: No one is claiming that rules must cover all possibilities. The issue is "Do the rules produce what the text says they will?" not "Do the rules cover every possible base?"

When I see text that says about the rules, "Just ignore us (the rules) when we get in the way!" I see, "We (the rules) don't know what we're doing!" and I wonder about the solidity of the design -- not whether they can produce accurate results, not whether they can cover any conceivable situation, but whether they'll stand up to use in actual play -- I wonder why they are even included if they can just be ignored -- that is, why include them in the first place if they aren't important to the experience of play?

Marco wrote: I'm curious: what exactly do you think System Doesn't Matter means when someone says it? I can tell you what I think it means (every time I've heard it): "I can have fun playing any system." (I'm gonna assume the speaker is usually talking about traditional games as a pretty safe given).

Can you give me a for-instance where that *isn't* what they're saying? Back when (I'm guessing here) you thought 'system doesn't matter' what did that mean to you (that none of them were any good?).

Bruce Baugh parenthetically wrote: the various Sorcerer mini-games - they're obviously drawing on the same root resources, but changing one piece usually means changing a lot else

Later, Bruce wrote: Spread spectrum seems necessary, at least at this point, for reliable success in the gaming marketplace. That will remain the case until we see laser-focused games attracting competitive attention.

MJ, I think that's the best post I've ever seen by you. I found it very interesting.

I'm not sure System Doesn't Matter means what you say to most people--but it's an interesting take on it. I've never seen anyone do anything even approximately that severe or methodical in terms of throwing stuff out (and admit it)--but appearently I'm sheltered that way.

I also agree with, and understand your explanation of the Impossible Thing. I've never said that sort of question couldn't come up in gaming (what I said was it's miss-named, and I still think it is, clearly miss-named)--and I did assume that because games could be "based on it" that someone, somewhere, presumed that a game designer (at least) believed in the paradox ... which seemed weird to me.

But despite that, what I really liked were the four different functional modes of play that could arrise from TIT text.

It occurred to me, while reading them, that those modes might well be the reason games with that text (and a certain amount of latitude that might be called Incoherencey) do so well: There are several successful power-splits (and possibly several easily drifted-to GNS modes of play) to choose from given the framework of the rules.

Yes, there is, it seems, a failure rate (how high that is is still unclear to me), but the framework encompasses several supported success-modes that cooperative groups or simply like-minded ones can fall into. That may be the "edge" to "Incoherent games" that Raven's discussing.

-Marco

Bruce, what MJ said. I don't think I can add anything to that which wouldn't merely be restating the point. Excellent examination of the issue, MJ.

Also, Marco, what MJ said (again) -- I think he explained my exact position on the TIT more clearly than I probably did for you in the PM I sent your way.

I'm not sure System Doesn't Matter means what you say to most people--but it's an interesting take on it. I've never seen anyone do anything even approximately that severe or methodical in terms of throwing stuff out (and admit it)--but appearently I'm sheltered that way.

Hmm, I'm wondering how to add something to this thread - the best I can come up with is to say:

"System Doesn't Matter" is troubling not because it says "I can have fun with anything," but because it implies that there is absolutely NO connection between "fun" and "system." Of course, "System Does Matter" can be seen as doing the same thing from it's own vantage (since I've seen far more Doesn't than Does, I personally am less likely to think that Does is exclusionary, but personal experience will vary). Which is why I've always tried to say it as: "System may not DETERMINE, but it does MATTER." Which is (I think) the pretty obvious full description in Ron's essay and other places System Does Matter is used, whereas it is NOT obvious (to me) in most place I see Doesn't Matter used. In fact, I see MANY System Doesn't Matter rants that really, sincerely seem to argue that you should ignore system.

"The Impossible Thing" is troubling because it represents a failure to think through and consider the implications inherent in the statements. In the midst of what might be otherwise crystal-clear text, we get something that we have to fuzz up the brain on to even get it to parse, and are expected to build a coherent in-game and social experience from it. As someone already did in this thread, just taking a fuzzy issue and discussing the ways in which it IS fuzzy (GM power as a practical way to prevent getting bogged down in disputes, rather than as a way for one social creature to extert advantage in a power struggle) would be a HUGE improvement - but that rarely happens.

The Tri-Stat Manifesto (which I've read only here in this thread) is troubling beacuse it follows the exact same pattern as the Sd/dM and TiT - ideas that, while valuable, are incompletely explained and often not fully thought through, such that the really important subtleties and contradictions aren't dealt with. They really should be - either by providing a particular solution, or by offering up the complications to the readers to sort through themselves. Any text that says "The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game" followed by "The Game Master always works with, not against, the players", and LEAVES IT THERE, is (IMO) doing a disservice to the reader. Full power, but never against the players? What happens when the players disagree with you - do we apply the "Full Power" clause or "Never Against The Players" clause? At the very least, give us some acknowledgement of the difficulties and contradictions present here, so we can work through them in a way appropriate for our group.

(Which maybe Tri-Stat does, somewhere - but many, MANY game books that I've read with such text in 'em do NOT.)

That's why *I* can agree with Wayne that the Tri-Stat text is irritating.

Gordon