From: oneil@husc10.harvard.edu (John O'Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.games.frp.live-action
Subject: Re: Looking for info/recommendations
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:04:56 GMT
 <h!h3--g@rpi.edu><ONEIL.93Jan20134645@husc10.harvard.edu><1993Jan21.190047.3623@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU's message of Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:00:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.190047.3623@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (TAYLOR JASON EDMOND) writes:
   In article <ONEIL.93Jan20134645@husc10.harvard.edu> oneil@husc10.harvard.edu (John O'Neil) writes:
   >In article <h!h3--g@rpi.edu> shiell@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Larry Shields) writes:
   [discussion of fencing and the IFGS]

It's clear that there's no way either of us will convince the other of
his position: you've not accepting my claims and _vice_versa_. So
until we can do a controlled experiment I'm calling a moratorium on
that discussion, at least for me.

   >>  While this is fun, as well, I find I prefer that my personal skills make 
   >>  a difference.  I like going into combat knowing how good I am, and my character
   >>  is, and see if I can survive based on my talents, not a few random numbers.
   >
   >If this were *really* true, then you should also believe that
   >characters shouldn't go up in 'levels' (which is integral to the IFGS
   >system), but rather rely on their so-called real talents.
   >
   >Obviously, you don't, because you're playing a game, and you want to
   >see an increase in your character's abilities without actually
   >increasing your own abilities commensurately.  There's nothing wrong
   >with this, but it exposes another contradiction of the IFGS paradigm:
   >are the talents being used those of the character or of the player,
   >and is the improvement of those talents mirrored by the player or by
   >the character?

      You are generalizing here. Characters don't gain experience for sitting
   around. By being out in the game and gaining experience, you are, at the
   same time, improving you fighting skills.
      You are also taking things to extremes. IFGS is not _just_ a combat
   system; its a complete fantasy rules system. 

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.

   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?

   This is not
   limited to swinging sticks by any means; it includes how well a player
   plans strategy, how well they solve puzzles, how well they interact with
   other players, etc.
     Let me throw this back on you: do characters in SIL have an "intellegence"
   score, and they can only solve puzzles if their score is high enough? Do
   they have a "charisma" score that they must communicate to other characters
   and those other characters must base their reactions off?
      It sounds silly, but then, how is a "combat" score any different?

The situations are quite different.  The SIL only creates game
mechanics where they are absolutely necessary to avoid conflict among
players about what happened in the game ("I shot you!" "No, You
didn't, *I* shot *you*." et cetera).  Otherwise, the properties of a
character aren't given to the players as a set of numbers which must
be obeyed, but rather as the thoughts and propensities of a character
for the player to *play*.

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.  In the SIL, a player is given a character sheet
which might say "You're a brilliant mathematician" or "You're as
strong as an ox, and as smart as an ox, too".  Then, it's up the the
player to play the character.  Yes, that means we have to trust the
player, but that's life in the big city.  And, as I pointed out above,
if there is a game mechanism which *required* "intelligence" (which I
doubt there'd ever be, but who knows?) to avoid player conflict, then
we'd do something about it.

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.

   >
   >>	Well, Yes the IFGS does have continuing worlds, but it is possible to
   >>  run a game that is very different from the places previous games have taken
   >>  place in.  
   >
   >It simply cannot be *that* different, since you use the same set of
   >medieval fantasy rules, which specifies the realities of the game in
   >advance.  In a sense, the IFGS *is* the IFGS rules.  The IFGS is a
   >heavily centralized organization, with a national set of rules and a
   >national system for "approving" games -- which otherwise are not
   >'official' IFGS product. If you don't do it their way, you're thrown
   >out -- it's happened.  All this serves to constrict the imagination of
   >the game designers and the players.

      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.

   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....

      And the reason there is a SANCTIONING COMMITTEE, which is the system
   you alluded to, is because when you have characters that are going to 
   interact with each other more than once, there has to be some kind of
   common factor. Otherwise, you would get some characters that play in
   "high treasure" games from one chapter and get extremely powerful magic
   items and oodles of gold, and other characters that play in "low treasure"
   games and end up comparatively less well-off. Just because you can't do
   EVERYTHING you want to do doesn't mean a system is "limited" or "stifling."

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.

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?

   [deleting a side issue]
  
     I feel very strongly about IFGS. I have dedicated a lot of time and effort
   for the organization, and I believe in its workings and its cause. There are
   other groups out there that do things differently, and that's fine. But they
   have no right to claim that there is something inherintly "wrong" with the
   way the IFGS works. 

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.

   If you don't like it, don't play it. But don't try to
   discourage others from doing so.

There are two possible meaning to this sentence: the first is that I'm
active saying, "Don't play in an IFGS game." Clearly, I'm not doing
that, and I haven't done that.  The second possible meaning is that I
should say anything which might have the effect to criticizing the
IFGS and therefore discouraging players.  What I have written might
indeed reflect badly on the IFGS in some small way, but I don't see
why I should stifle myself in responding to someone else's question
because of the potential damage it might do to the IFGS.

All I'm trying to do is tell the truth, as least as I see it. It's not
very much (and I may give up soon anyway), but let's stop the flame
war before we have to launder our asbestos underwear.
--
John O'Neil
"Occasionally I believed I had thoughts of my own --  who does not now
 and then become the victim of such delusions?"
						-- Paul Feyerabend