From: ayermish@athena.mit.edu (Aimee Yermish)
Subject: musings upon musings
Organization: Society for Interactive Literature West
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:02:38 GMT

(Wow, I'm finally able to read this newsgroup!)

I do want to make clear right off that I'm not interested in proving
the SIL form of live gaming to be superior to the IFGS style, nor am I
interested in listening to "proofs" of the opposite.  Each game form
is terrific for the people who find it terrific.

I've found that most people tend to prefer a gaming system (or a
combat system, which is a subset of the gaming system as a whole)
which they perceive to give them the maximum personal advantage over
the rest of the people out there.  This is rarely a conscious
preference, but it really does seem to be ubiquitous.  Don't tell me
it doesn't really apply to you -- I've yet to meet a person who knows
himself that well.  People who think they're going to be pretty good
at swinging a sword around, tend to go out and play games where they
can swing swords (regardless of their actual level of skill).  People
who are certain they'll be toasted tend to greatly prefer combat (etc)
systems which protect them from those big guys with swords.  Being one
of the wimpy types, I like index cards myself.

As I think John pointed out, one of the distinct advantages of a
non-real-life system is that it frees you up to play any level of
character, with skills that can differ very widely from your own.
There's a basic contradiction in real-life systems.  If the rules rely
too heavily upon your real-life skills, you're playing yourself rather
than your character, and that first-level fighter will have far too
much undeserved success (or that tenth-level too much undeserved
failure).  Conversely, if the rules rely too lightly upon your
real-life skills, then the actual actions you take with that sword or
packet of cornstarch mean less and less, reducing the whole thing to a
game of D&D that you play standing outside in the cold wearing fun
costumes.

What we try to do in the SIL is twofold.  First, we write the plots so
that actions like sword-swinging aren't the main focus of the game,
but rather that interpersonal skills such as negotiation, trickery,
making allies, etc, are what really get you ahead.  Yes, this means
that players who happen to be good at these things in real life tend
to do better in the game, but these are skills that most people
develop and use in the real world anyhow, and most people have, if not
an equal ability, at least vaguely close abilities to develope further
with small amounts of practice.  Second, when we write mechanics for
things like combat and thieving, we ask the player to do something
fairly simple, easily doable by most people (and we make special
arrangements for the disabled) without any practice or training, in
order to gain the right to use the character's index card abilities.
For example, a thief must come close enough to touch you in order to
use his pick pocket ability, but after that the cards take over.
We've had players as young as 6 and as old as 62, we've had people on
crutches and wheelchairs, with hearing impairments and learning
disabilities -- our rules are designed to work with the imagination
rather than the body, and therefore to allow everyone to play any
character in any game.  Because our games are self-contained over a
single weekend, the issue of advancement doesn't come up, but if one
designed an experience point system based around roleplaying rather
than around the accumulation of treasure and other uses of the rules,
it would work fine.

Another major difference between the SIL and IFGS paradigms is that of
NPCs and GM obstacles, which sort of roll into one thing.  Under the
IFGS paradigm, an adventuring party is a more-or-less cohesive group,
which, although it may have some internal division, is basically
working together against a larger threat posed by the GMs and/or the
NPCs under their control.  Even in the game systems where the players
make up an entire town, the big bad threats that people have to deal
with, the really tough stuff, is all under the direct control of the
GMs.  That means that if the GMs want you to fail, you'll fail, no
matter what, and if they want you to succeed but only by the skin of
your teeth, then that's what will happen.  Believe me, it's *easy* to
control these things, even without fudging rules or rolls.  Really.
Under the SIL paradigm, the evil wizards you're battling, the locals
who know all the gossip, they're all other players.  To trick them,
you have to really trick them.  No one is going to knuckle under to
you because the script asks them to.  That means that it may be a
trifle tougher to succeed, but it also means that any success you do
have is real success, not tainted by the fact that the GMs planned it
and ensured it.  Personally, I always felt cheated when I found out
that my hard-won victory would have been handed to me on a silver
platter even if I had been a trifle less clever.

Again, please, I'm not trying to say that all IFGS style games are
bad, just that I don't find them very much fun, for the reasons
listed.  If you enjoy them, go have fun!

--Aimee


--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Yermish		ayermish@athena.mit.edu
MIT couldn't care less about anything I say. 
(as long as I finish that last paper...)
Newsgroups: alt.games.frp.live-action