This item is for posting and commenting on essays on gaming,
short or long. 
        Especially relevant are zines (aka fanzines), whether intended
for APAs or stand-alone.  
        And, of course, feel free to comment on anything you read
here.

3 responses total.

This is issue 12 of _Random Access_, my zine for Alarums and Excursions
(a general gaming APA that is over 21 years old). 
<http://www.rahul.net/starport/xeno/aande.html)

The zine is mostly composed of comments to other A&E contributors, but
they very rarely stay on topic; instead, I write a series of long and
short essays inspired by other contributor's zines.  Feel free to
comment on anything that intrests you.
(if there's intrest, I've got 8-11 online in a form I can post)

===============================================================
                        Random Access #12 
Copyright Jan 1999 Joshua Kronengold, who resides at 130 W86 ST 11C,
NYC, NY 10024. eaddr: mneme@dorsai.org Home: 212-874-4035 Work: 212-616-9808




IgTheme (for Febuary):

A good set of rules helps you shape the concept of a character almost
as much as it gets out of your way when you don't need it.  Of my
memorable characters, Firemaker was created basically systemless (and
grew as he was played), while Michael (from the Altclair game) and
Dave (from Lisa's long over OTE game) were both OTE characters, and
probably could not have been made (by me) without the freedom that OTE 
gives you, even if I could fairly easily translate any of them to
non-OTE systems.  It's very rare, however, that I find that I create a 
better character with a set of rules than I would have without any.
        The one possible exception is Everway.  Because of the quirks
of the system+cards, I find it harder to create characters in Everway
than, say, OTE, and that more of my characters are dismal failures
there than in some other systems.  However, starting with the cards,
and going into the Virtue/Fault/Fate, the system tempts you, coerces
you, and helps you to make -different- characters, ones in realms
you don't often play, or just with a different slant on things than
your norm.  And when they do (as with my Heart of Peacemaker, or Many
Questions, not to mention Eugene's Goat Guy...or whatever that other
name he ended up with, the really fancy one about the stars) the
results can be spectacular.   
        
Comments on A&E #280


Lee Gold: ryct Lisa Padol: Also important in playtesting is that
the company allow sufficient time for playtesting to go through
several (2 is pretty good) cycles -after- they expect to have reached
a final product.  Or be willing to delay the release by this amount of
time.  The problem with Shadowfist (aside from the fact that Jose is a
lousy businessman; I was talking about the game!) was that they didn't
playtest the version that was actually released; only the version
before that.  In between versions, they changed a huge number of rules,
made the game playable (which it wasn't before, really), and weakened
several cards to the point where they weren't really playable (ie. too
weak, which was one problem I, as a playtester, hadn't learned to look 
out for yet).  This left them with a very strong game, which few of the
playtesters were interested in trying, but which had a significant
number of cards that just weren't worth playing, except for laughs,
because other cards were manifestly better.  There were certainly
enough different cards (and an interesting enough multi-player play
balance) to make for a good game, though.
        Feng Shui, on the other hand, was playtested in all versions
(it helped that Robin could just email the new rules out), and
accepted substantial changes from the playtesters (with screaming and
biting, but still...).  There were parts of it we still didn't like (I
didn't like the combat rules; they were and are too complicated even
for a combat-based game, and most people I play with dislike
complicated countdown timing), but the parts that were subject to review
were changed without getting broken in the process.
        Speaking of processes, that of building an RPG seems very
similar to that of building a computer program, especially in terms of
debugging (and that debugging is often the most difficult part, and
hardest to do successfully).  Given that, bazaar theory Open Source
might be usable to create an RPG (See Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral
and the Bazaar").  Of course, one might say that the plethora of
modern RPGs have evolved from precisely this method, each creator
layering and stealing concepts from previous creators (and when they
were good, throwing out more than they took in).
        Actually, while one could argue that large portions of
roleplaying history have been fairly close to Open Source (what with
D&D growing and changing as people made their own hacks, and later
games taking what worked from D&D and discarding the rest, there is at
least one company that has attempted to reverse that trend.  White
Wolf has operated by always keeping key portions of their game world
a secret, with only bits and pieces doled out to the public in their
array of commercial products.  And it's worked -- combining a few good
ideas with hiding the "Source Background" has allowed them to
capitalize on the curiosity of their fans (combined with the fact that
if the fans created the missing parts of WW's world rather than
waiting for the next installment, they will be doomed to <gasp>
incompatibility).  Sounds like a commercial software product to me.
        I think Lisa was talking about what one needed from an enemy
in order to ally with them, not from anyone.  In that context, someone
being too powerful to defeat may help motivate one to team up with
them against a worse threat, where one might just decide to mop up the
lesser threat if they weren't that powerful.  In Cthulhupunk, for
instance, the PCs often team up with Morningstar against the Outer
Gods, despite the fact that Morningstar is also an enemy of several of 
the PCs in practice, and many of the rest in theory -- they can't
destroy it without more difficulty than it's worth, and it's powerful
and competent enough to prove a useful ally (as Lisa mentioned
lastish, though, the enemy that is impractical to defeat must also
have an overriding reason not to defeat the PCs. 
        Ryct me: yes, willingness of the GM to adapt and change her
plans (or even parts of the underlying world) when confronted with
good ideas by the players is key.
        I can see giving doubled penalties for attempting to hit two
targets moving  in different directions, but what if they are
moving in parallel, or standing still?
        Regardless, there should be at least some concept that using
two hands Can be better than one, even if it's "throw knife at object
#1, aim at object 2 with other hand and throw."
        I didn't mean that I couldn't think of a single reluctant hero
in any genre (though I could have been taken that way), but that I
couldn't think of one in the super hero genre.  Mostly, what I object
to is not the phrase "Reluctant Hero" or even a hero who is defined by
his or her disadvantages (Silverlock is, and from Jonathan's list, The
Hulk is.  I wouldn't classify Frodo, The Thing, Rouge, Dazzler, or
Cloak as heroes defined by their disadvantages [and I don't know his
other examples]), even if Dazzler gets pushed into trouble rather than 
attempting to avoid it.  I'd say that a reluctant hero should get points
whenever they get into trouble unwittingly, or when they complain,
having been embroiled in trouble not of their own seeking (but can't
manage to extract themselves).
        Actually, I'm classifying by both priority of esthetics,
action, and fantasy and the type of art, activities, and fantasies
preferred; it's a fairly complicated (and open) system.  I'd classify
your "Sense of Wonder" as an esthetic issue more than a fantasy one,
since it doesn't deal with what the players are pretending to be or do
so much as it does with the total effect created.  I'm not sure,
though; how would you classify it?  For some examples:
        I play mages because I like the idea of being a mage.
        I do dark psychological stuff, insanity, and tragedy because
of the constraints of the art I'm attempting to create.  There are
parts of this I don't enjoy (and certainly don't fantasize about), but
my integrity as a roleplayer requires that I do them. And I do
enjoy, even as it's being created, the art thus formed.
        I make quips during sessions because I enjoy making quips, and
play with mechanics because I enjoy playing with mechanics (but the
quips occasionally have a rightness within the session which is
astheticly pleasing).
        Those are some things that (mostly) solidly fall within one
type of experience; most other things I do when roleplaying fall
within two or all three.  For instance, I enjoy in-character political
maneuvering, fantasize about being able to do that kind of stuff in
real life without risk, and not only is it required for many games to
be interesting (which is itself an esthetic issue, making things good
for the other players), when it gets nice and complicated it often
leaves a nice pretty and esthetic web.
        ryct Michael Cule (on Censorship): Letting people publish
things and then punishing them for doing so is Censorship.  Your
analogy is false -- the correct analogy would be "threatening people
for doing things but not making up your mind whether to find them
guilty of rape or murder are anti-rape or anti-murder laws".
Certainly, even using your limited definition of censorship, punishing
people for publishing things will make them far less likely to publish
things the people might want to see.  In any case, my definition of
censorship includes things like arresting people for distributing
leaflets (but only after they've distributed their first batch of
leaflets, which your model of censorship would allow).
        Not that the cry of "censorship!"  isn't way over-used -- it
tends to get used for everything from criticism to refusal to publish
to flaming someone in an open forum.  But that doesn't mean that
narrowing the definition is required. 

Doc Cross: Nice to see you in A&E again.  Hope the Atlas product
works out; OTE can always use more well- written material. 

Isaac S. Dealy: "The hero...they": How about "The hero...he or
she?"  Or you can use "he" (the standard), "she" (the
counter-standard), or alternate between the two in paragraphs (but
don't switch in the same paragraph).  Or avoid the singular entirely,
and use "heroes...they" where you can.  But "they" is not a singular
pronoun.
        re Me: Agreed on mines; mining a solar route is viable but
hard; mining an interstellar route is possible, but only barely (and
it helps if there are constraints on stellar travel, so you are really
mining the route between one planet in a system and another system,
and if the mines hunt and seek targets rather than waiting for targets
to come into range), while anything larger is simply impossible.
        Re Ethics: I was referring to the use of roleplaying in a
sexual context (ie in bondage games), not the use of sex in a
roleplaying context.  Since Bob had brought up playing a Nazi and a
world where women were slaves, both common features in BDSM play, I
found it meet to use such games as examples in my argument.
        You are right in pointing out a certain amount of incoherence
when I started to talk about "fantasy of belief."  What I meant was
that while we enjoy acting out beliefs we do not share, and may do so
to produce an effect, I have a hard time imagining someone getting
vicarious pleasure from the idea of believing something they know to
be false (though of course, they can fantasize about something they
know to be false being true).  So, ruling out the general concept of
"fantasizing about belief," we have this: The fantastic part can never
be wrong (though it may be nasty, or point out a nasty pre-existing
flaw in your character).  The esthetic part is wrong if you create bad
art.  The active part is wrong if you convince someone that the false
is true; I find this unlikely, but it's possible, or if you inflict
harm (physical or emotional) on someone else.
        ryct Spike: near as I can tell, OAF are the height of
champions munchkinizing, unless the GM uses and abuses them properly --
characters with significant powers bound up in OAF should probably get
locked in a dungeon/have their own powers used against them, etc, at
least once every other episode.  After all, that's the way the genre
goes.
        Regarding unknown enemies; there's a decent reason not to give
too many points to the player for taking these -- an enemy is rated
for how many problems he/she causes for the PC/Player; there are a
limited set of interesting roles that an unknown enemy can take and
still be effective (and unknown).  Do any games take into account
enemies who don't want to kill the PC, just embarrass them, or convince
the PCs to marry them?  I could see a very nasty, "appears every
session" enemy for some characters: the team leader.
        Speaking of which, how would people classify Ranma, with, in
addition to several specific enemies, has "Enemies, Jealous suitors"
and "Enemies, jilted/forgotten/secret fiancees".
        "Sections of the book which use the word 'hero' intend all
characters:" Moreover, for the purpose of clarity, in the rest of my
zine, "Black" shall refer solely to "White" and vice versa. 

Paul Mason: re Munchausen: as a game where players take on
roles, "Baron Munchausen" is indeed a role playing game.  However, as
the primary thing the characters do is sit around and tell stories,
the name "story-telling game" is far more descriptive.  Even so, the
upcoming Intercon XIV, a Live-Action Roleplaying convention, is going
to begin with a game of "Baron Munchausen", it having only slightly
less a concept of plot than some murder mystery games.
        re your paraphrase of Keiko: no, Lisa, at least, relies on
neither tapes nor videos.  Instead, she makes good use of a far more
sophisticated, developed technology -- the written note!
        ryct Patrick Riley: There's an essay floating around somewhere 
on the net (specifically off the Cheap-Ass Games web site) on the
topic of how to go from a concept to a game by James Ernest.  IIRC,
the key is to not only add clay on (as one will often do), but not be shy
about cutting into the original idea, when necessary; that way the
game doesn't get too bulky.
        ryct me: "Shouldn't speed simply be figured into chance to
hit": quite simply, yes.
        re Multiple weapons: what I am mostly comparing two weapon
styles against is single-handed weapon styles and weapon+shield, not
two-handed weapons.  Against two-handed weapons, two-weapon styles
have an interesting combination of advantages (capable of parrying
and striking at the same time, more effective at defense, better in
close ranges) and disadvantages (primarily reach and power), but the
contest is certainly not one-sided.  However, I hate the twin notions
that using multiple weapons is so powerful that it requires artificial
limitations in order to balance it against weapon+shield or two handed
weapons (and that it's primary advantage is that of giving you twice
as many attacks), or that it's so difficult that it may initially
decrease your chance of of success until you spend an extortionate
amount of time training.  I'll put more on this in my comments to
Patrick Riley.  What reasons do your experience with the Chinese
straight sword suggest?
        Your questions about L5R were both more on the mark and easier
to answer, this time; mostly because you were worried about specifics
(and I, too, would find little interest in a game consisting of modern
PC characters parading around with Japanese armor and weapons.  L5R
isn't nearly so bad, though it does steal wholesale large parts of
Japan, it does seem to have (to my eyes) some points of appeal that
aren't just "Japan warmed over." 

Lisa Padol: ryct Eugene Reynolds about my definitions of heroes
and villains: You understand correctly; though Yates could also have
been a hero, had he both succeeded and been right that his actions
were necessary.  He would still have been a villain to those he
harmed, though; my definitions of hero and villain are not mutually
exclusive, just somewhat contradictory.
        re me: Since I started fencing more seriously, you mean; I've
been fencing for as long as you've known me.
        Note that Lee's original "Key Attacks" example had a set
Number of attacks that any given character might have, but didn't
assign a set game time to them.  This rules out the kind of abuse you
mention, though systems without hit-point equivalents are still
advanced rules, requiring judgment, especially on the GM's part.  My
basic rule for this kind of thing is that every action should have at
least two known (to the GM) possible results (and every situation that
gets played out to the point of making decisions should also have more
than one possible result), otherwise, why bother to play it out at
all?  As long as at least two results are acceptable and viable,
combat will (at worst), revolve around which result happens, not stall
until the only possible result finally comes to pass.
        IIRC, this was our problem with the CoC GM at Worldcon, who
presented a large number of choices to the players, none of which
changed anything.
        re Whether I am cheating when I demonstrate how a
sword-fighting move would work: No, because I don't automatically
consider using out-of-game abilities within or to influence the game
to be cheating -- they are largely what makes roleplaying interesting.
The trick is to define -which- out of game abilities we want to not be
usable, which we want to be optional, and which we want to be required.
The distinction between the last two is particularly important; games
are set up to abstract the parts of a game world we don't want to or
can't play, but must also allow players to accomplish things, which
means letting some things revolve around player abilities, if the
players have said abilities.
        re James: what I said was "Property," you took this to mean
land, while I meant it to mean wealth.
        re Ethics: see my corrections lastish.
        re Altclair: I was mostly quipping with regards to romantic,
gallant, and flirt.  Michael's a flirt because he attempts to
complement every woman he comes across; this also makes him seem
gallant (which he often is).  Not sure how I'm defining romantic, I'd
need to look up the original context.  Both Michael and Justin are
probably romantic, though.
        Noted on plan Hades, I'll get right to it, Ma'am. 

Jonathan T. Woolley: rmct on Reluctant Heres: see my comment to
Lee on this -- while many of these count as reluctant heroes (I
disagree on The Thing, at the very least) very few of them are defined
by their disadvantage, rather than by the way they get into trouble.
For those who do have relevant disadvantages, they are often ones
performed by the GM, rather than the player. 

Eugene Reynolds: As far as I can tell, your ideas sync with mine
pretty well; you stated what I assumed (that the players are
separating themselves from their characters), while I went into a bit
more general analysis, which while somewhat tangential to the ethics
issue, I found useful for putting it into a context.  Yes, I use
esthetics for both factual and artistic consistency; both are
motivated by the same basic desire -- that of making our creations
perfect.  Sorry, but you weren't -nearly- obscure enough for me :)


Patrick Riley: re Concentration Camps: It's never safe to
generalize definitions between different dialects.  But then, there is
no universal form of English.  I don't know that I'd go so far as to
call the USAan definitions in this case "slanted".
        Multiple Weapons: Before I start, the only set of forms I have
personal experience with are those of rapier: sword+empty hand (used
for blocking), sword + non-sharp-object, sword+dagger, and case of
rapiers (two rapiers).  I've also played a bit with dagger forms (with
no rapiers in evidence), but don't have as much knowledge there.  In
any case, here are a couple of datapoints:
        Using two weapons does not give you two attacks.  It does give
you a stronger position for attacks, however, but attacks are based on
tempo, not on the number of weapons you are holding.  It is
intrinsicly superior to sword+empty hand (as I can say from
experience, having been bested by an opponent using a dagger when I
had none, and then attempting him on even terms and discovering that
he was a far inferior fencer to myself, as well as having several
similar experiences), as the dagger makes up for being slightly slower 
than an empty hand by parrying more effectively (and having to travel
less distance in order to render an effective parry), and providing
offensive capability as well.
        Sword+buckler, on the other hand, is neither plainly superior
to nor inferior to either case or sword+dagger, but is a much less
dynamic form.  It is of obvious utility to those trained in battle
arts as well as those of self defense (for the shield gains vastly
increased power when used by a group, rather than an individual).
Moreover, it is an excellent form for single combat, especially if you
know your opponent is coming from the front; there are fewer
opportunities to make mistakes, and it's much less tiring than the
two-weapon forms.  I saw this best demonstrated at a tournament last
Pennsic, which rather than allow play until all competitors but one
were eliminated, had the champions for each of three rounds fight
challengers to the first blood until the champions were defeated (at
which point the former challenger became the new champion).  Don
Enrico held the field with aplomb, at one point, defeating almost a
score of opponents in a row using a large, hexagonal buckler.  Because
of his choice of armament, he was difficult to hit even before he did
anything, forcing his opponents to commit themselves before even
having a chance to strike.  In fact, most of the very few times he was
removed from the field of battle, he did not leave alone, because he
had killed his opponent, rather than merely wounding them, and thus
lost his right to hold the field honorably.  In fact, my one success in
the tournament were the several times I caused Enrico's to removal
from the field at the point of his sword (and had we not been playing
with bated blades, I would have been dead twice over).
        Against multiple opponents, one is already at a disadvantage,
and using multiple weapons, rather than a buckler, becomes preferable.
With two weapons, be they a sword and dagger or a case of rapiers, one
can rapidly shift strategies from offensive to defensive, parrying two
weapons at once or using one weapon to control an opponent's blade as
you attempt to strike them with the other.  Defense is very important
in many-on-one combat, but even more important is the ability to
remove an opponent from the fight quickly and better your odds.
        This is all I know from direct experience, but I suspect the
impressions generalize; no matter how you slice it, shields still
block a larger area but can't bind blades, attack from a distance, or
easily and rapidly shift where they are blocking.
        As to how I'd use this in a game, since my preferred system is
WaRP (OTE), it's fairly simple; just assign bonus dice for advantages
in weaponry, and penalty dice for unfamiliarity, either with the
style you are using or the style your opponent is using, or both 
[bonus dice are like L5R skills; they add to the number you roll, but
you only keep the highest N of them, where N is equal to your trait.
Penalty dice are like bonus dice, but you keep the lowest, rather than 
the highest]. 
        For instance, if a Fredrico, 4 die swashbuckler was facing
Romeo and Julio, two 3 die thugs, he would start out with a slight
disadvantage (by comining against him, they'd use all but the highest
trait as bonus dice, leading to 3 plus 3 bonus dice), which he could
cancel out with an advantegous weapon combination (for instance, if
all three are armed with sword+dagger, a more favorable weapon when
attempting to fight multiple opponents than when attempting to attack
in concert).  Damage is another kettle of fish; though with damage
modifyers(x3 for daggers, or x4 for swords), Fred will probably take
out one of the pair before they can do more than mildly wound him, and 
at that point it will all be downhill. 
        This brings to mind the issue of damage, one which, I think,
has been badly represented in almost all RPGs.  By far the largest
distinction between weapons is that of length and speed; once it's in
you, a sword or a knife will both do around the same amount of
damage.  A valid distinction is how hard you have to work to cause a
weapon to do any damage at all (for instance, a dagger will not be
that effective against a man wearing steel plate), but again, once
they move info the "effective" level (either with mass, sharpness, or
force), any weapon which does damage will have the same spread as any
other.  Has anyone made or run across a system that handles this
decently?  

Robert Dushay: "I get the impression that [youngsters and
beginners] don't work well with an experienced group": [this hasn't
entirely been my experience]
        I've read the Zero Stone books, but not in sequence, and so
I'm not sure which of her other books fit into that universe, though
I'd assume that at least some of her Scout/Galactic Patrol books
do.
        You're right on Farmer's Son fitting into my model of
Hero-as-fool, with only his hidden strength to recommend him.
        Success and failure: I think there's an interesting dichotomy
between the skills which we are taught (whether from a book, or a
teacher, or even a computer), and those which we carve ourselves out
of the reality to which they apply.  For learning a previously
established body of knowledge, only success counts -- it's already
there, and our task is only to learn it, however complicated it is
(the caveat of this is that we are limited by our lineage -- if you
learned Aristotelean biology from a master, your skill may be
exceptional, your knowledge breathtaking, and your understanding of the
consequences of his belief better than those of Aristotle himself had,
but you still won't be able to correctly determine how a frog is
made).  When blazoning our own track, however, failure is a necessary
part, for it shows us the limits of our knowledge and model, allowing us
to gain a chance (and only a chance, note Aristotle) to expand the
scope and accuracy of our skill.  Someone studying under a teacher
will learn only when they are successful (but are fairly likely to be
successful), and is limited by the bounds of her teacher's knowledge,
including any falsehoods embodied in said knowledge (does any system
permit modeling how wrong/right a skill is?).  Someone learning by
experiment/experience can only learn after a combination of failure
(in order to prove some flaw in their skill) and success (in order to
correctly diagnose said flaw, and devise a solution; a failure may
lead to coming up with a solution which, while it solves the immediate
problem, is itself deeply flawed) and further success, as if learning
from a teacher, in order to integrate this new truth (or falsehood)
into his or her practice.  ...
        It might be interesting, if difficult, to represent without
getting too complicated, to record the completeness of a discipline as
a set of bit-fields, where the number of positive bits, rather than the
resulting number, represented the completeness of the discipline.  How
divergent two disciplines within the same field were could be
represented by the intersection between the fields.  A simpler version
of this would represent completeness of fields its traits/skills, with
comparison requiring rolling, and the variation of applicability
within a field of two different disciplines handled by the random
factor. 

Spike Jones: ryct Lee Gold on how one creates a new attack or
parry: I'd differentiate between "wacky" combat, as you describe, and
combat research, which could follow the model in my comment above (a
master fights a foe who uses techniques he's never seen before,
realizes that his fighting system doesn't take such techniques into
account, and by modifying it to be able to deal with such techniques,
makes the system better as a whole.
        Re meeting me: my first Boskone was two years ago, well-after
I remember meeting you.  Noreascon 3, on the other hand, predates my
entry to fandom by several years.  Lisa remembered where we met,
however: one of the North-Eastern floating filk conventions. 

Simon Reeve: Your complaints #'s 2, 3, and 4 to Lee seem to boil
down to "please stop altering my dialect into Standard English."
Semicolons, colons, and commas have specific definitions and uses, and
these are bound by more ironclad rules than "the flow of the
sentence."  Moreover, typed English does, indeed, call space in front
of trailing punctuation, or behind leading punctuation "extraneous."
The practices you defend in #3 appear to include semicolons used as
commas (when semis should be used, and only once per sentence, to join
two otherwise separate sentences into one) and colons used as commas
or semis (when colons are used to separate an explanatory phrase from
a preceding complete sentence).  And I could be incorrect, but you
seem to be advocating multiple use of semicolons in the same sentence,
which is almost always wrong.  In #4, you seem to be complaining about
Lee turning your comma-spliced [run-on] sentences into valid, compound
sentences.  I mean, yes, this can change the meaning of your
sentences, but if thëy were unambiguous, she could correct them
without warping them.  Of course, I could be misreading you.
        Liked your piece on Aphrodite: very cool, lots of research.


Paul Cardwell: ryct me on Scrabble: I beg to differ on your
variant reducing luck; instead, it increases it.  To start with,
though the rules allow following plays to score all tiles they use,
whether you played them or not, they only allow a double or triple to
be used in one play per game: you can only score one if you covered it
this turn.  If you make "ox," with your x on the triple-letter, and I
use your x to make "axe," I only get 10 points to your 25.  These
bonuses are far from random, however, but positional and strategic,
and placement is the only strategy in the game knowing when to kill a
triple, or just not open it up, is key.

I'm supposed to _respond_ to that?

If you like; it's got a fair number of respondable essays, and 
just a few opinions.  Or just post something interesting.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss