From: aahz@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (no relation)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
Subject: Re: Shadowrun: Controlling magicians
Date: 17 Apr 92 07:17:20 GMT
Organization: Threat Management, Inc.


In article <> rcashman@cs.ulowell.edu (The Jester) writes:
>In article <> wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins) writes:
>>	Yeah, it's just a game. Because it's a game, you want things to make
>>sense. If you are a being with even a shred of curiousity, and your
>>character has to blunt any intelligence to avoid seeing things that
>>don't make sense in his/her world, then you get annoyed.
>Lookit.  By their NATURE, to play in ANY RPG, you have to suspend that
>little voice in the back of your head that says, "This isn't real."  The

Granted, RPG's take a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief.
BUT, suspension of disbelief is a far cry from ignoring *internal*
inconsistencies.  If one thing works one way, and another thing works
another, but the authors are trying to pass the two off as essentially
the same thing, I think we've got a problem.  When reading Virtual
Realities, I really had to wonder if the authors *ever* sat down to think
whether the various rules they were introducing were internally consisent.
(My answer: far from it.  Don't press me for details, it's been too long.)

>I don't buy this.  If you're going to question the way the Matrix works,
>why not question the way magic works in a fantasy game?  Or why energy
>weapons or warp drives function the way they do in space-age games?

Atually I occasionally do wonder why magic works in a fantasy game.
Figuring out the basic theories behind how magic works can add an
fascinating element to the campaign background, as well as providing
some kind of guage for whether certain things should be possible at all.
Yes, *possible*, theories of magic should be internally consistent as well.
Just because we don't have a good, real-world basis for the theory doesn't
make this any less of a consideration.

As for energy weapons and warp drives, maybe you should check out
rec.arts.startrek.tech  ;)

>The point is this: if something is integral to the genre you choose to
>play in, then just accept it!  Your character LIVES in the world where
>this Matrix exists, and has ALREADY accepted it!  You have to work to
>do the same.  If you can't, you'd be better off playing Papers and Pay-
>checks seven days a week.

Accepted the *existence* of the Matrix, yes.  But, again, the rules
governing the operation of the Matrix shouldn't contradict each other;
we wouldn't stand for this in the real world, i don't see why we should
stand for it in the game world either.  Just because an RPG character
is living in a diffferent tech level, or with different laws of reality,
doesn't mean they can't go "HUH????" every once in a while.

>>	Reality testing allows you to suspend disbelief, and allows you to come
>>up with ideas. The worst thing in a game is not to be able to come up
>>with ideas because the background has contradictions or makes no sense. 

Agreemesg.

>I don't see the background as being contradictory or false.  The story told
>was simply that computers got advanced enough so this beast called the Matrix
>exists and flourishes.

See numerous comments above.

>>"No, you can't do that."
>>"Why?"
>>
>>1) Because it hasn't been done, and someone would have thought of it.
>>2) Because it would destroy the world 
>>3) Because it would destroy the game 

Actually, of these three, only the last is a *good* reason for keeping
someone from doing something.  It's also a copout, too, but usually
the GM can get away with "yeah, but *you* can't do it".

>If any one of these little problems are rearing their heads in the first
>place, you have a very twisted way of gaming.

Nonsense.  If my players weren't stretching the boundaries of the system
and seeing what they could get away with, I'd start to worry about them.
Probably tell them to go play Papers and Paychecks, or something.

>Brett Cashman (The Jester)			    	rcashman@cs.ulowell.edu

Aahz