From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:55:51 GMT
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <BxKtJC.F46@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.164056.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>>See here how he answers different questions from those that were posed.
>>He claims to answer the questions in order, but does not. He answers
>>them in reverse order.
>
> Technically, the only question he asked in there was "Are you out of your mind."
> I also responded to his statement "but you say that no campaigns are
> discussed in rec.games.frp.*" which was more of a lie than a question.

It wasn't a lie, it was a quote from your previous note. Just because
you edited it out of this note doesn't mean you didn't write it. Damn
it, Bruce, you must think we're really stupid!

>>Here's an interesting form of argument. Use statistics (4 types of post)
>>to conceal the substance of the disagreement. Never mind that cbnorman's
>>RFD includes 5 types of post rather than 4. I'm after the interesting
>>rhetorical tools, not just bald-faced lies. It is quite possible, by
>>specifying one type of post, to encompass all roleplaying discussion.
>>
> Read'm and weep, 4 types
>   -FAQ
>   -Campaign Moves
>   -GM Statistical Posts
>   -Discussion of Campaigns
>
> These are from the November 6th posting of the charter.  Check your facts
> before you flame.

Oh, I guess it's hard to keep up with the latest version of the charter
when every single charter you post has the same subject line, and the
only official RFD you have posted was the one with five topics and
included ongoing campaign posts from players as one of the acceptable
topics (Now you claim that player moves were *never* part of the
proposal). Anyway, the important point, which you refuse to answer, is
that campaign discussion, one of your four or five topics, encompasses
*all* roleplaying.

>>Another good exmple of answering by misdirection. Here cbnorman claims
>>that his opponent believes that charters should not change during
>>discussion periods, when the opponent's actual complaint was that
>>cbnorman's charter was paradoxical (i.e. self-contradictory) and so
>>loosely defined as to include everything within its grasp.
>>
> He was complaining about me changing my charter, I was sarcastic in reply.

No I wasn't. And sarcasm doesn't carry on the net. With the net
experience you claim you should know that by now.

> Please provide evidence, from the actual latest proposal and not some
> month old antique, examples of "paradox" in my proposal.

What *is* the latest proposal? How am I supposed to tell it from your
"sarcastic" replies to honest questions? IMHO, every single promise you
make on this group to include this or exclude that revises the charter,
and you have contradicted yourself so many times that the charter is
meaningless by now.

> The point is that the rules for falling damage do not affect the campaign.
> If you determine falling damage by rolling dice, picking thumbtacks out of
> a sack, or asking your grandmother for advice, the point is if you fall
> you get hurt.  That's the affect on a campaign.  You fall--you get hurt.
> Not "you take 1d6 hp of damage for every 10' fall" or any other rules
> jargon.

Rules for falling damage *do* affect the campaign. Could a tough fighter
expect to jump off a 100 foot cliff, land on rocks, and walk away in any
game system besides xD&D? Could jumping from the roof of a tower be the
standard escape route for such a character in any other game system? The
plot for an entire adventure or campaign could hinge upon the rules for
falling damage.

Colored dice (mentioned in another of your posts) could also affect the
campaign. Use of a different colored die as a ghost die, or to speed up
play by rolling all dice at once, or use of big, heavy stone dice that
make a noise like thunder when rolled and only come out when an
important roll has to be made, all those things can affect the GM, the
scenario, the players, and the campaign.

--
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
Newsgroups: news.groups