Re: Roleplaying

From: Bibishar_at_aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 23:52:28 -0500


I spotted some questions from Eric Scharf in recent digests. Well, Mr. Scharf, your questions certainly point to one particular view of the universe. (One, BTW, which I think would find more company on the Rules digest.) And though your questions appear( to me) to be rhetorical, I thought I'd reply anyway.

First question (from digest v2#417)
> Again, what is roleplaying but constructing a rewarding calculus
> for behavior?

I have never met anyone who defined roleplaying in terms of mathematics. ( I have met people who apply mathematics to rules sytems used to facilitate roleplaying.) But perhaps you don't mean the use of the word "calculus" to imply only mathematical problem solving? Perhaps you meant it more in the sense of general problem solving?
Well, even if you did, then we will need to discuss the meaning your word "rewarding". Why? Because of roles such as "Battered Housewife". Now, I don't remember ever hearing anyone talk about the rewards of playing the role "Battered Housewife", so I conclude you are using the word in a way with which I am unfamiliar. Well, I guess all the work we'd have to do to establish a common set of references for given terms would take to long to offer me any rewards. (grin) How about I say instead, "I suggest we agree to disagree. If you see roleplaying in terms of the constant application of calculations, I suspect you are severely limited in the number of roles you are able to play convincingly."

second question (from digest v2#417)
> Despite the Subject:, I wasn't talking about power-gaming, I was
> talking about minimaxing. Or doesn't Sandy see this distinction?

Now this is an odd question. I suspect a lot of people (intelligent, British ones at that) would see the first sentence as similar to "I wasn't talking about birds, I was talking about young women." So, Sandy being well able to answer for himself (grin), I'll answer for me and say "Since the context of the discussion was powergaming, and since powergamers use minimaxing as their primary tool, if you meant to separate the two, then you did a poor job of explaining that. Therefore your question appears snide and unreasonable."

third question (from digest v2#420)
> I didn't say anything about combat. What are personalities but
> extremely complex calculi of costs and benefits?

Hmm. My opinion on this third question is that you reveal your limited vision of the universe and your attitude towards those who disagree with you . By framing your opinion as a question, you have attempted to appear openminded. And by framing your own answer within your question, have you not sought to deny the validity of other answers? (See - others can play this game too!)

In short, sir, I am offended, not by your world view, but by your attitude towards those who don't share it. If you wish to participate in a discussion of ideas rather than simply to show how clever you are and how foolish are your opponents, I suggest you use a different discourse style.


End of Glorantha Digest V2 #421


WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html

Powered by hypermail