Re: Roleplaying

From: Eric G. Scharf <escharf_at_seattleu.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:24:10 -0800 (PST)


On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Bibishar_at_aol.com wrote:

> 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."

        Had Bibishar limited his comments to the above, I would have no need of reply. But he didn't. 

>> 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."

        My original post was in reply to Sandy's post distinguishing between minimaxing in "real life" and minimaxing in RPGs. I was trying to ferret out whether Sandy (or anyone else) makes the equation:

        All minimaxing in RPGs = Powergaming

Since Sandy gave several examples of players, whom he described as "true roleplayers," making decisions based on complex systems of rewards and costs, I was trying to elicit a more rigorous definition of "roleplaying".

        Bibishar also brings up an important point: powergamers use minimaxing AS A TOOL. Since, as Sandy said, both "real people" and "true roleplayers" also use minimaxing all the time (whether they examine their calculi or not), I am reluctant to condemn all instances of minimaxing in RPGs as powergaming.

> 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.

        I haven't said a thing about "[my] attitude towards those who don't share [my world view]", so I'm a bit puzzled as to where Bibishar gets sufficient information to be offended by it. If I thought, as Bibishar implies, that my "opponents" were a priori foolish, I would not have posted in the first place.

On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Nick Brooke wrote:

> It's a stupid "argument", anyway: mere semantic twaddle. More power to
> Polk's elbow.

        If Bibishar finds fault with *my* discourse style, perhaps he will be fair enough to ask Mr. Brooke why he prefers to insult me than respond to what I said.

Powered by hypermail