PageDown, Ignore or Delete as you like.
Gareth :
> > In fact, going further down this road
> > the word Wealth is evocative of money, treasures, Loot, estates,
> > and other forms of assets and liquidities. If we are to
> > * narrate * these elements, the abstractions of the Wealth
> > ability as you interpret it are actually a hindrance to
> > our understanding what's going on, and therefore constitute
> > poor narrativism (if we _must_ bandy these
> > dire analytical terms about).
>
> No. Whats "going on" is a change of the characters wealth rating as
> implemented by GM or player. What happens in the game world is the
> detail you use to rationalise the change.
See, this is what I * can't * agree with.
"going on" AKA "occurring in the story" AKA "happening in the game world"
There's * no * meaningful difference. (at the story-telling level)
Why should the level of detail be just a "rationalisation" ? AFAICS it's a function of whatever focus you have for your story. HW IMHO (as a story-telling system) gives the Narrator tools to _help_ her decide how much detail she wants / where she wants to put the focus of her storytelling / react to what the players want as actors & friends.
Narrators who wish to tell stories where the Heroes are subject to world realities beyond their control (and why not?) are hindered by the fact that the world mechanics as presented in HW1 don't work very well. And this is unnecessary.
NOT TO SUGGEST THAT ALL HEROES SHOULD ALWAYS BE SUBJECT TO SUCH REALITIES. ONLY * SOMETIMES * AND IN * CERTAIN * KINDS OF STORY. NOT IN EVERY KIND. There is * NO * positive benefit from these poor mechanics for any other story-telling method. Or is there some actual * reason * why some kinds of plot structure should be hindered by the game system ? I somehow doubt it.
> Therefore, trying to build
> a method which starts with the game world as the point of departure
> and procedes to define a character attribute is going backwards
> against the system design.
Oh, so I assume that a type of story where high ideals, exquisite philosophies and heroic endeavour were offset by petty day-to-day realities of greed, human weakness, and other forms of triviality * shouldn't * be allowed in HW without the requisite amounts of hand-waving ?
That the game world * isn't * hugely important for game definitions of what characters can or can't do, be, or have ?
That HW * hasn't * been designed from the basis of a game world (Glorantha) to define Gloranthan characters' attributes ? Or is that arse-backwards too ... ?
You argue against the idea (that NO-ONE has proposed) that the game world IS hierarchically above the game characters. Not so. They exist in a state of equilibrium rules-wise, a state of balance, and it's up to the Narrator and players to decide what sort of -rapport between / hierarchy of- the two is most desirable for their particular gaming style.
You accuse my (and others') methods as going against the game design, but in
fact
you are the one actively denying certain choices.
A method which starts with the game world as the point of departure and
procedes to define a character attribute ISN'T going backwards against the
system
design. It's USING the game design for a specific purpose, to allow a certain
kind
of sub-genre within the genre of HW heroic fantasy.
> > No, an improved method for tallying your Wealth in real, game-world,
> > _story_ terms isn't a simulationist approach.
>
> In STORY terms characters get richer or poorer, as dictated by
> changes to their Wealth attribute; thats what the rating tracks.
Nonsense.
The HW experience rules have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with story-telling, but VERY MUCH to do with ordinary player desire to have bigger numbers on their character sheets at the end of the day.
> > Translated into English : You, Alex, might be an Evil Simulationist.
>
> OK, enough with the insults. My playing style is primarily Gamist-
> Simulationist; I am not casting aspersions at simulationism at all
> and I would thank you to stop attributing such straw men to me. But
> I'm also smart enough tyo recognise that just becuase I like apple
> pie does not turn a cornish pastie into an apple pie. Simulationism
> is a laudable and worthy goal, but then you are using the wrong
> system to achieve that goal.
Well there you go. Now you are saying that * my * goal is simulationist. (Whatever that might mean from your POV)
NO . IT . ISN'T . Your straw man is plainly visible.
Can't you see that discussing the improvability of the * methods * of HW isn't necessarily to question its * goals * ???
> > It might be that there are other reasons for wanting the Wealth
> > rules to reflect the current * Wealth * value of a character, as
> > related to various TNs found elsewhere in the game, so as to
> > enhance one's narra^h^h^h story-telling.
>
> I think you mean "to aid description".
NO . I . DON'T .
I * MEAN * AS A -TOOL- HELPING TO TELL A CERTAIN KIND OF STORY USING
THE HW GAME SYSTEM.
IF I had meant that Wealth were important "to aid description" I would have
said
so, instead of SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.
Narration >< Description, as my Lit-Snob cap keeps on telling me.
> Nonetheless, the point
> remains that the wealth attribute DOES reflect the current wealth of
> the character, in exactly the same way that the characters Close
> Combat reflects their current skill.
Erm : has anyone said the opposite ?
NO ...
You can carry on implying that Alex or I are saying various imaginary things 'til Kingdom Come if you like, but it is EXTREMELY annoying that you join this discussion while failing to grasp even the essentials of what's ACTUALLY being talked about
(2 hints : we're not talking about /getting rid of story-telling and replacing it with simulationism/ ; we're not talking about ridding HW of its Wealth system).
> By analogy, you would also need more detail to understand what the
> characters skill is composed of; how much training they had, how much
> is force and how much finesse. Whether they are atll or short,
> muscular or skiyy, whether they are a bold, aggressive fighter or a
> sneaky defensive one. But in practice, these are unnecessary - this
> detail will be provided by the player, in fact MUST be provided by
> the player - during actual combat, as the player, yes narrates, their
> actrions and behavioour. You DO NOT need to have a list of causes
> which produce game mechcanical effects; we need a list of effects
> which have many different potential game-world causes.
Nice straw man.
> > Unrealistic details damage a narrative.
>
> OK. But so far, we have text published on the mentality of the
> heortlings, their religion and whatnot, and little or nothing about
> the physcial existance of heortlings, in terms of clans on the
> ground, how many cattle they have, what their populations are, etc.
> Don't you think you should wait for these to be published before you
> start complaining that there is insufficient detail?
I have never made any such complaint.
I have complained that the core mathematical functions of the HW rules are
poorly
used by other parts/details of the game. Examples : Wealth, Quest Challenges,
Prices, etc. GM styles are a subject that's only partially related to this
core
issue (even though the issue is more or less important to actual GMs depending
on their personal styles).
Can't you get it into your head that you have a completely warped understanding of what we have said ?
> The mechanic is
> NOT broken - the mechnic is universal and needs to be able to record
> different types of wealth in different societies; it MUST be
> abstracted from the physical composition of wealth in any given
> culture.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons for its brokenness : almost entirely mathematic ones (printed TNs and other roolzy info).
> > Sorry, but these rants against a _non-existent_ "simulationist"
> > approach by some list members are becoming unbearingly tedious.
>
> And yet you persist into trying to go from cause > effect
NO . I . DON'T . Purpose > Method > Purpose
(Purpose and Methods being for * story-telling * BTW, despite your continuous representations otherwise)
> , directly
> opposed to the way the rest of the system works. Why?
Hmmm, you've used exceptionally good quality straw for this one ...
If you * really * want me to address this nonsense, you must be some kind of Glorantha-list masochist. Don't you realise that ALL of your basic assumptions about what I and Alex want to fix are COMPLETELY WRONG ?! That (to reprise an image from your own straw man's recipe book) we are making apple pie, and you are complaining about the quality of cornish pasties made by other people ?!
Please stop throwing these anti-simulationist straw men at our non-simulationist arguments.
Please start listening to what we are ACTUALLY saying instead of what your own imagination keeps on telling you.
No straw men nor bully-boys will be coming round your house to make sure that all throws of your D20 are strictly linked with a mechanically motivated game-world reality.
cheers,
"Fed-Up-With-This-Nonsense",
Paris
Powered by hypermail