Re: Process/Result

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 00:38:03 +0100 (BST)


bjm10_at_cornell.edu suggests:
> "Not my cup of tea" probably comes from a time when hosts would
> routinely offer something like tea to their guests.

A time long ago and far away... like last Friday, round at our house? ;-)

> > The first thing is to get your players to do their bit; they ought
> > to be describing the actions they attempt, not just staking SPs.
> > (Or even, just describing them, and letting the GM assign SPs to suit.)

> The fact that one can make something work does not mean that this is the
> particular way I would prefer something to work.

I can well imagine. However, in the comment you quoted above, I (for it was indeed I) wasn't addressing anyone's _preferences_, but specifically the alleged necessity of adding "house rules" to be able simply to sensibly play HW at all.

> I reserve final judgement until HW is published, but it looks like
> I'll be buying HW stuff to plunder for my RQ campaign.

Happy plundering. Console yourself with the thought of how _few_ rules you'll be paying for in order just to throw away, perhaps.

Perhaps this is residual preconception on my part (for I've been saying much the same thing since before I saw one iota of HW [as opposed to now, when I've maybe seen an iota and a half ;-) ] but I suspect people are making altogether too much out of the whole alleged chasm of this "process/outcome" distinction. (Certainly too much jargon, and then some.) It's not as if, say, a *genuflexion* Hit Point, commonplace as it might be, is anything but yet another arbitrary abstraction, which in itself conveys remarkably little about the actual game world. Yes, a Status Point is more considerably more abstract yet, I will stipulate that quite freely. Which makes sense, bearing in mind the generality of its use, but yes, it leaves a wider-still "descriptive gap", which it's clearly incumbent on someone to fill.

That HW won't appeal much to the Wargamer-aspected chap on the four-fold roleplayer scheme seems quite likely; that it'll be a huge problem for many Immersive Roleplayers (subcategory of "Roleplayer" on said chart, IIUC) seems much more questionable as an assumption. At worst, I think a good GM should be able to adapt it to this style of play without insuperable difficulties.

I presume we're taking it as read that HW is just grand for both Storytellers and Powergamers, yes? *duck and flee into night*

Slainte,
Alex.


Powered by hypermail