From: a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:53:48 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> CX6 writes:
>
>      You accuse me of arrogance, and then cite your own opinions as fact
> and mine as fiction: an act I would call "arrogant".

Show me where I have:
                a) Cited my own *opinions* as fact
                b) Stated your *opinions* are fiction

> Then you claim all of your opinions are fact due to some job you had once
> which has nothing to do with the *gaming* issue at hand.

I disagree. Applying real life experiences to gaming allows the game at
hand to approach reality. Reality can be a terrific reference for any game
system or universe.

> In fact, you generally misrepresent me, and then have the gall to accuse
> me of putting words in *your* mouth! If anyone is guilty of that here, it
> is you, mon ami.

How do I misrepresent you? Examples would be useful.

You did put words in my mouth:
> If you'd like a system where sniping, gun combat and execution by a
> firing squad are all different rules producing different results with the
> same weapons and firers, try Top Secret. GURPS tries to *rationalize*, not
> complicate, the true situation.

Not once did I state I preferred a system that offered different rules for
sniping, gun combat or executions. Do not intimate that I did.

> As well, you accuse me of being ignorant of the wide varieties of playing
> styles out there. I know of many, and respect most. How you inferred this
> mystifies me.

I do not accuse you of being ignorant of the wide varieties of playing
styles. I inferred that you consider only *your* way as being valid. Note:

> Sorry. I've played dozens of systems and hundreds of games with dozens of
> players. Most games allow a character to work around injury and keep going.
> Almost all players like this, and want their characters to ignore anything
> less than a killing or incapacitating shot. So maybe your group likes to
> play characters who go down when shot in the foot. Most folks do not.
> Playing a game where the slightest injury takes you out is not fun at all.

The last sentence is stated as if playing a game where bodily damage is
debilitating would not be fun at all.

> While my opinions are perhaps not humble or moderate, I am clear on the
> fact they are opinions. I neither factualize them nor make great claims for
> them. Your opinions are equally arrogant and strong, if mine are as you
> claim, and you *do* claim they are fact.

You are *not* clear in stating that they are only opinions. Note:

> Yes, but in RPGs, the PCs are supposed to be the rare and heroic members
> of society who *can* do such "impossible" things. Their exceptional skills
> and toughness are meant to reflect this. In most games, there is a desire
> to simulate the situations shown in movies et al., where James Bond can use
> a .25 pistol to kill a foe with a single chest shot. Real-life isn't like
> this, unless the chest shot hits the heart, aorta, etc. So in the game, we
> allow the PCs to aim at the vitals, brain etc., to simulate this.

I see no reference to the above being stated "in your opinion". You state
the above as if it is fact.

> Please: if you are going to level accusations, do it with tact and reason.
> Scattergun logic only weakens your case. I resent being misinterpreted so
> grossly and then getting flamed based on the misinterpretation. This is a
> schoolyard bully tactic not suited to an intellectual discussion.

I have used reason throughout my postings, and have backed up my claims
with information drawn from experience, education and discussions with
others. Show me where I have used "scattergun logic". You're being
completely hypocritical by leveling accusations at me without offering a
shred of proof.

If you can't be bothered to support your accusations, you shouldn't be
debating.

> This is a gaming board: go discuss your views on combat psychology
> elsewhere, or offer constructive applications of it in a gaming framework.

Combat psychology is a pertinent topic for discussion in rec.games.frp.*,
especially with regard to reality in gaming. Check out the subject header.

> This is also an advocacy board. I advocated GURPS, and a heroic playing
> style. This is not "right" or "wrong": it is opinion. Do not call it
> "wrong" just because you do not advocate the same views.

Nowhere, *nowhere* in my posts have I suggested that the heroic playing
style is "wrong". I haven't even implied it. In fact, you have implied that
your way is the only "fun" way to play. In my first response to you I
simply stated that other playing styles are just as valid as yours.

> If you do not like the way I, or Koike, or anyone here likes to favour
> our systems, or the way we insist on talking gaming instead of real-life
> violence, OK.

Favour your systems all you like. I'll never disparage anyone for playing
GURPS, AD&D or what-have-you. Nor did I flame Koike for talking about
gaming. I pointed out that his claims of "shooting at the head" being more
common in reality as incorrect.

> That neither makes us arrogant or you "right". It just shows me that
> you'd rather outscream us and have us cowtow. I am not intimidated by you,
> Frazer. I just wish to god you weren't so soft- skinned that you have to
> try to intimidate instead of debate.

Outscream? I think you're off on so much of a tangent you're going out of
control. And I think I know who the soft-skinned one is here.

I *am* debating. This posting of yours is bordering on ranting.

--
J.D. Frazer, a481@mindlink.bc.ca, (Vancouver, B.C., Canada)
-----------------------------------------------------------
*BRRRRAPPAPPAPPAPPAPPAPPAPPAPP!*
"MEIN LEBEN!" <thud>
"You shoulda thought about that when you signed up, buddy." - Valaria