jeffk at tenetwork.com
Tue Jun 3 22:45:57 New Zealand Standard Time 1997
At 09:56 PM 6/3/97 PST8PDT, John lambert wrote:
>> From: Jeff Kesselman <jeffk at tenetwork.com>
>> To: mud-dev at null.net
>> At 09:04 PM 6/2/97 PST8PDT, JK wrote:
>> >On Mon 02 Jun, Adam Wiggins wrote:
>> >> Ah...another good analogy. Unfortunately, there's a small problem
>> >> that I think is point of my argument. *When*, pray tell, is the novel
>> >> complete? Never? When you decide it's complete?
>> To answer this in short, from my perspective... usually yes, wehn the
>> roleplayer decides its complete. Usually a character hits a reasonable
>> "retirement" point where most of the potential in its immediate story has
>> been exploited. Like any author's character howevre it may come "out of
>> retirement" from time to time as a supporting character or for a "short
>This is a distinctive subset of role-playing. It more particularly
>defines the story-telling group.
For the record. I've never played any of the "Storyteller" ilk pen and
paper. Not that I dont want to, just haven't had the chance.
My above statement though was purposely simplistic and I see how it coudl
lead you to that conclusion. A better, more detaoiled explaination
follwoed, explaining the cooerative roles of judge and player as comapred
to the competitive roles in PvP.
IMo this dichotomy is true of all pen and paper, with the possible
exception of minatures battles which are not really roleplaying, either.
The TSr quote also IMO did a good job of summing up the Goals issue as well
as the cooperative nature of the game.
>> A judge who throws 10th level NPC against his 2nd level players doesn't
>> have a game group very long.
>True. But its just as likely a 10th level player can die an ignoble
>death at the hands of a 1st level character.
heh. What AD&D varient have you been playing? I know of none where a 1st
level ANYTHING could take out a 10th level anything...
oes this lay out the differences clearly enough?
>You clearly lay out a distinctive group of role-players. I have never
>seen the PvP advice and consent concept outside of the story-telling
>style of play.
I think you need to define "story telling style of play" for me. What i am
describing matches the sectiosn on roleplay in the front of virtually
ebvery pen and paper RPG, though Im going deeeper into the area of
intyer-player combat andn the issues therein then they do. I could some
more quotes in if that would help.
The key here is tha the fun is NOT in beating each other, and a character
death is painful to the owner of the character, therefor any reasonably
polite group of players refrain from killing each other.
>I would contend that the totally immersive roleplayer does not seek
>advice and consent for actions affecting another player and is not
>forced by the game system to play cooperatively.
>These strike me as peculiarly OOC actions.
Sure its OOC. It has to do with not wanting to hurt each other. There are
plenty of rules in other games aimed at not hurting each other while you
play, that have little else to do with the game.
A small amount of "suspension of disbelief" generally kicks in when the
"cricuit breakersw" fire. Good players come u pwtih at least half-way
plausibvle excuses nto to kil leach other. There are always plenty of good
reasons NOT to kill someone if you give it half a moment of thought.
Sayign that this is "less immersive" though IMO is like saying when you
throw someone in Judo, since your goal is to throw him, you shouldn't care
how he falls. In point of fact it is ALWAYS the throwers fault in Judo if
the throwee gets hurt. it is your OBLIGATION to insure you do NOT hurt your
Judo is a sport, not a fight for your life, thus the rules are polite.
Roleplay is a game, not reality, theerefor the rules should be similar.
Don't hurt your friend while you are playing.
More information about the MUD-Dev