Newsgroups: alt.games.frp.live-action
Subject: Re: Looking for info/recommendations
From: oneil@husc10.harvard.edu (John O'Neil)
Date: 23 Jan 93 15:27:02
 DU><ONEIL.93Jan22000456@husc10.harvard.edu> <p!l3pyq@rpi.edu>
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: shiell@zircon.its.rpi.edu's message of 22 Jan 93 22:51:36 GMT

I'm getting really tired by being accused of saying thing that I never
said.  There's no new content in this posting; I'm just clearing up
some misunderstandings.  Unless you enjoy such things, you needn't
read this post.

In article <p!l3pyq@rpi.edu> shiell@zircon.its.rpi.edu (Larry Shields) writes:
>In article <ONEIL.93Jan22000456@husc10.harvard.edu> oneil@husc10.harvard.edu (John O'Neil) writes:
>>>Characters are not just
>>>characters, nor are they just people with foam sticks. Because characters
>>>are created _by_ the players (and not some guy who wrote a script), how
>>>well they fare depends _totally_ on the player playing them. 
>>
>>That's self-evidently untrue, or else there wouldn't be any
>>character-level talents at all, would there?
>
> You seem to be seeing something wrong.  

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood my point.  I wasn't
criticizing the IFGS, I was simply disagreeing the with sentiment that
your a character fares depends *totally* on the player playing that
character.  Let me be explicit: how a character fares is a complex
dialectic among the player who plays that characters, the other
players playing characters in the game, and the GMs along with the
structures they've set up.  This assertion holds for IFGS, SIL, and
anyone else who doesn't do their roleplaying alone.

>>>What you're saying is that by having continuing worlds we're stifling
>>>creativity. 
>>
>>Actually, I'm saying that centralized approval and a large permanent
>>rules system stifles creativity.  I didn't take a position and don't
>>know whether a continuing, sequalized world would stifle creativity or
>>not.
>
>	Stifle creativity?  I disagree that what the IFGS does is stifle people
>who are being creative.  

I wasn't talking about the IFGS are a whole -- that's clear from my
comments.

>I guess if you say following rules stifles you since
>you can't do whatever you want at any time, I guess laws stifle creativity 
>as well.  

I also didn't say that following rules stifles creativity -- that's
also clear from my comments.  

By the way, laws *do* stifle creativity, they're designed for that
very purpose -- if you don't believe me, check with Michel Foucault.

>I personally enjoy being able to play in a Con game that allows me
>to be in Space one week and in fuedal Japan the next.  I think its great.  
>But I also like being able to develop a character over more than just a day or
>two.  And the rules the IFGS has created helps to provide for the fact that 
>my character is not just a temporary thing, and will be around to play again
>in the future.

I'm also not claiming that continuing characters are a bad thing, but
we're a long way from discussing combat systems.  The two topics don't
seem to be immediately related.

>
>>>This is simply _WRONG_. Do continuing Dungeons and Dragons
>>>campaigns in tabletop RPGs limit the creativity there? They all run under
>>>the same system!
>>
>>Well, if the show fits....
>
> Well, I don't think the show [sic] fits.  I agree that 'D&D' had its MANY
>problems, but I don't think the creativity of its players was ever one of them.
>You can't generalize and say that people who play xxxx game are not 
>creative.

I also didn't say that D&D players weren't creative -- that too is
clear in what I said above.  What I said concerned the D&D system; I
neither said nor implied anything about the players of that system.

>>Without excessively deconstructing your comments, I can infer that the
>>IFGS has a certain...mistrust...of its players and GMs, to institute a
>>system which only exists to curb a character whose wealth or power
>>might get outside a certain predetermined range.
>
> Mistrust?  I don't think so.  Sanctioning helps to keep games safe,
>and reasonable.  It also helps to suggest to novice game writers how to 
>improve or to better think out their games.  

So, the IFGS set up a system of discipline and punishment to *help*
novice GMs by making them listen to a bunch of old farts out in
Denver? :) :) :)

That sounds like the old joke: "We're the government -- we're here to
help you." :) :)

(gee, do you think I put enough smiley faces on those comments?)

>[The Sanctioning Committee] helps
>keep things balanced so that a 4th level character from one chapter is 
>roughly on par with a 4th level character from another.  I think this is a
>good thing for the type of Society we are.  

Bravo! I hope it works.  All I was saying before was that the IFGS
chose one way (out of many possible ways) of doing this.

>If we didn't have to worry about
>things like travelling characters, I think we could get rid of much of 
>sanctioning, (Though _definately_ not all of it.)

Presumably, part of that "definately [sic] not all" is the part which
protects you from legal problems.  See what I mean about the law
stifling creativity?

>>I didn't claim that the IFGS was "inherently wrong", but even if I
>>*did* claim it I would certain in any case have the right to do so.
>>To the contrary, you don't have the right to stop me.
>
> Ah, the wonders of Free Speach, eh?  Say what you like, but trying to
>bad mouth one group, while pushing another is just not a great way to prove
>a point. I welcome any discussion that talks about differences and possible
>pro/cons of each, in a non-flame fashion.  

I didn't "bad mouth [sic]" the IFGS, and my combat system remarks were
not flames.  You claim to want to discuss pros and cons, but when
soneone actually does it you accusing them of wanting to destroy the
IFGS.  No wonder you sneer at "the wonders of Free Speach [sic]".
--
John O'Neil
"Occasionally I believed I had thoughts of my own --  who does not now
 and then become the victim of such delusions?"
						-- Paul Feyerabend
Newsgroups: alt.games.frp.live-action