From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:15:25 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA writes:

> I was just disagreeing with the way the earlier writer was using a tone and
> style that suggested he was writing in the language of his personal
> profession, which, while "real-life", is no more generic to, say, a
> physicist like me, than GURPS is to all of gamer-dom. *I* don't speak in
> equations: I just didn't like the way Mr Frazer was speaking in terms of
> experiences I (or, I suspect, many others) have never had.

I happen to know J.D., and I felt his messages were from the perspective of
someone who was interested in the subject, not as a professional firearms
expert (which he isn't).  If I read books on the subject and had personal
experience with firearms, I'd use that to support my arguments too.

If you feel that book knowledge and personal experience are not valid support
for arguments in a discussion about realism in games, what, in your opinion,
can be used as valid support?  Arguments based on games are invalid, since
the validity of the reality in those games is what is in question.  Scenes
from TV or movies are invalid, because most ignore reality whenever
convenient.  What else is there?

> I felt that since my style was not very much like most I had observed, I'd
> speak in terms of those people!
>
> ....
>
> I think my problem here is simply that most of the gamers I know like to
> throw away society's expectations and norms in the context of gaming. I
> never really thought there was much sentiment out there for "ordinary
> folks" gaming. I was wrong. 100 000 apologies. (PS - thanks for being
> polite about this.)

Let them speak for themselves.  You can only present heresy evidence on what
they like or think.  I'd like to hear what _you_ like and think.

There are those of us who like "ordinary folks" gaming.  Unfortunately, there
are far too few discussions about that style of gaming, though the formation
of rec.gam.frp.d&d helped.  :)

"Ordinary folk" gamers of usenet unite!  Let your opinions be heard!  :-)


> I think, to a good extent, the number of "stupid" or "insane" things that
> happen in a game is not due to so much to the system as to the players.
> Some players just like to act crazy.

Players will do what suits the game system.  If the rules make it stupid or
insane to do what is realistic, players won't do what is realistic.  The game
system goes a long way to setting the tone of the campaign.  AD&D _can_ be
played non-hack&slash powergaming, but its natural mode is hack&slash
powergaming; the rules  and other material encourage it.  Likewise,
Harnmaster's natural mode is much more realistic, with combat playing a minor
role (otherwise the characters would die rapidly).

>+ Hmmm, sounds like GURPs fits into the last category of the systems I
>+ mentioned above: it both oversimplifies the world it is supposed to
>+ represent/simulate and allows/encourages character actions that would be
>+ irrational in the real world..  :)
>
> I don't know. I find that some games that people have advocated on this
> board as "more realistic than GURPS" are not, IMHO. They, in turn, think
> GURPS is less realistic.

What other people think of other games is immaterial.  My statement is that
GURPS in unrealistic.  Contest that statement--with supported arguments--if
you like.  Diverting the discussion to other games does not contest the
statement.

> Perhaps it's just loyalty to a game which is at work here. That often
> causes gamers to do irrational things....

Now _that_ is something I can agree on.  :)


> But (big "but") I feel that if one writer is going to criticize or flame
> another on this board, he is under obligation to at the very least direct
> his comments to the other writer in the language that other writer was
> employing.

How can someone reply in GURPS language if he doesn't have a copy of GURPS?
GURPS is not universal.  In this case, the point is moot, since the
discussion was about whether GURPS simulated reality very well.  The writer
in question presented evidence of how things worked in real-life combat, and
was therefore correct in using real-life language.  If it was a discussion
solely about GURPS mechanics (with an appropriate subject line), it would be
proper to limit the discussion to GURPS terminology.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca