From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Genres
Date: 22 Jul 92 07:00:24 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:

> Oh man, another graduate of 9th grade debate.

Oh, is 9th grade debating too tough for you?  :)

> And I'm certain that in the post that you followed up I said (a couple times)
> that this is largely a matter of personal preference, and that I continued in
> this little exchange for the sake of discussion. You snipped those parts..

You made blatant statements of realistic gaming being superior (and the others
are "flawed", "suck", etc), in a tone that said "these are universal truths".
The comment you made (twice) regarding personal preference was "I know,
personal preference, but the point is there..:"  You in fact qualified your
qualifier; translating as: "Your personal opinions may be different, but if
they are, you're deluded."

Are you challenging Dave Nalle for the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong"
title?  :)

> The main supporting argument (made in other posts, to which you selectively
> did not reference) I have made is that basing games in reality gives the
> playe real life, doing fantastic things or seeing fantastic things is more
> exciting.

You're confusing reality and the difference between PC's and NPC's.  You can
have a very realistic game where the characters can't do anything exciting (and
survive), and a game based on characters who are creatures in a magical
environment (total fantasy) where they can do very exciting things, using the
artificial "reality matrix" of that environment as the anchor.

If in your gaming environment heroic activity is commonplace among NPC's, then
heroic activity from the PC's is boring.  If in your unrealistic environment
the PC's do something uncommon (for that environment), it can be very exciting.
It's the struggle that makes things exciting, not the level of reality.

Characters don't even have to do exciting things to provide an enjoyable gaming
session.  Exploring a GM's creative product (a fantastic gaming universe) can
be enthralling.  You've even admitted that there is more than one way to enjoy
an rpg.

> As another supporting argument, I said that worlds with no basis in reality
> are often rife with gaping holes -- ``Why does this party exist?'' ``Where
> does this kingdom get its revenue?'' ``How can artificial gravity work?'' and
> so on.

That's true; it is hard to stay consistent when you deviate from reality.  that
doesn't meant that games based on reality are universally superior to ones
based on fantasy.

> Pardon me if I didn't disclaim that my comments were not intended to be taken
> as potential ``universal truths.'' As I said, my posts indicated that
> personal preference is key, but in general reality is better.

No I won't pardon you for that (especially not with a second qualified
qualifier!).  I take care not to post my opinions as universal statements, and
I expect the same from others.  There are some readers here who are looking for
information in areas they are unfamiliar with.  If they see a definite
statement (not qualified opinion) that is unchallenged by others, they may
accept it as truth.

It isn't _that_ hard to write in a tone that expresses that it is your opinion,
and not a general statement.  If you can't do that in writing, perhaps you are
having difficulty separating the two in your head.

> In every game there is going to be a measure of unreality, playability
> sometimes depends on it (the guy who mentioned the T:2000 shotgun and I
> already hashed this one, I thought).

I'll accept "the further your gaming environment deviates from reality, the
more difficult it is to provide self-consistent detail" as a statement of
truth.  I won't challenge it.  That's a lot different from many of the other
statements you made.

> What I am saying is that games like Top Secret are set here on terra firma,
> rather than Greysteel, Treestone or X'Zqqqvk'xZ'k.

Some people don't want to role-play humans on past or present Earth; they want
to role-play in a fictional environment, whether that's Tolkien's Middle Earth
or Lucas' Star Wars.  They accept the deviations from reality and even the
self-inconsistencies, and are willing to compromise "reality" for what they
found exciting in those environments.  There is nothing inferior in that style
of gaming.  You might not enjoy it and I might not enjoy it, but that doesn't
mean that someone else might not enjoy it more than playing something in a
"present day Earth" environment, and I'll defend their right to enjoy it.

I agree with many of your points (and opinions), but you come across as the
kind of whining, "I want everything my way" gamer that all too many of us are
familiar with.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca