From: shiell@zircon.its.rpi.edu (Larry Shields)
Subject: Re: Looking for info/recommendations
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:51:36 GMT

In article <ONEIL.93Jan22000456@husc10.harvard.edu> oneil@husc10.harvard.edu (John O'Neil) writes:
>As I said before, I believe that the rule system is a minute part of a
>game.  Having a weighty volume of official rules (as the IFGS does)
>seems to me to be going down the wrong path *if* you're interested in
>roleplaying.  That's not to claim, however, that the IFGS could do
>what it's doing without that tome o' rules, though.

   I disagree.  I don't see how having rules which cover how spells and combat
work and what abilities your character has effects your Roleplaying at all.  
Granted, it is possible to do no roleplaying and just fall back on your book
abilities, but then it is also possible to do the same with a Con game.  You
can just totally disregard what character was given to you, and do what you
want.  The roleplaying will come from the person playing, no matter what system
you use.  Good roleplayers will always do their thing...its what makes the 
games fun.

>   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.  The character classes have 
abilities.  Its what makes the difference between a Fighter and a Magic User.
These abilities are things that a character of that type class can do.  It is
not the end all be all of the character.  Creating your own 'shtick' is what
makes the characters come 'alive'.   Who you are, what your motivations are,
why you do what you do, this is the essence of roleplaying.  Each person 
gets to create his own shtick and make a character that means something to 
him/her.  

>Now, as a concrete instance, take intelligence.  In the IFGS, the
>player intelligence (in every instance where it matters in the game)
>is given by a number. 

   This is incorrect.  There is no such thing as an 'intelligence' number
or anything even close.

>In any case, our players can easily handle playing stupid in a
>realistic fashion.  Occasionally we require players to play characters
>which are *more* intelligent than they are, and in that case, some
>intervantion is required.  At times, I have given away the answers to
>in-game puzzles to players who were playing genius characters or
>characters with specialized training but who couldn't actually hack it
>on their own.  However, this has nothing to do with their roleplaying,
>which was in most cases excellent.  I just had to help them with an
>aspect of their character, which as a GM is my job anyway.

    As someone else said about the IFGS, "If the GM wants you to succeed at 
something, you will."  It seems to be true for SIL as well then, since if
the players can't get it, but the character should have been able to, the 
GM just helps them along.  I agree though, if the character should know 
something that the player simply does not, its the GM's job to step in.

>
>      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 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 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.

>
>   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.

>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.  I would hope that anyone 
writing a game for play would have other people look at it and make sure 
the logic is sound, the plot solid, etc.  It also helps since the IFGS is 
an international orginazation, it very much allows people to take a character
that they built living in one area, and play it in another.  Quite alot of
die-hards travel to other chapters to play in games for a change of pace,
and to meet new people.  The idea of Sanctioning and rules makes sure that 
one areas 'munchkin' games don't hurt other peoples more magic poor worlds, 
as they wander around destroying everything with just a thought.  It 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.  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.)

>In any case, concerning the Sanctioning Committee, perhaps you'd be
>kind enough to tell alt.games.frp.live-action why Walt Freitag got
>harried out of the IFGS.  Or should I do it?

    Please do.  Since I am the Chairman of the group he left, and was at the
meeting that night, I know exactly what his problem was.  I would love to hear
what the grapevine has done to this tale.  (I'm sure by now I've probably got
sharp nasty teeth that were dripping venom as I chased him from our group with
an axe or something).  Walt also left by his own free will, and I don't see
how one person leaving a group means much at all?  I know people who have
come back with negative reports of SIL/ILF games.  But I would never say to
someone that the SIL/ILF is not a good group.  To the contrary I think its 
a damn good group, thats just very different than the IFGS.  I would not 
hesitate to play an ILF/SIL game if I had the chance.
  
>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've played/run/written many 
different types of games in many types of systems, and hope to particpate 
in many more.

Larry Shields
Chairman, New England Provisional Chapter - IFGS
-- 
==========================================================================
    "I cannot kill the one I love!"      # Larry Shields ------- Blackwolf
    "Then kill the one you're with!"     # '70 Torino GT ----- '87 GSXR750 
     -Crow, MST3000, Fugitive Alien      # ------- shiell@rpi.edu --------