From:	keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:48:11 -0700

> And no I will try something foolish: To sum up the
> discussion. Basically, we have here a discussion about
> different gaming styles: On the one side the
> "Physics-Of-Real-World"-faction, as I dare to call them ;),
> and on the other the
> "To-Heck-With-Physics-Let's-Get-Gaming"-faction, as I name them.
>
> The first argues from a more "down to earth" standpoint,
> trying to explain occurences within our given natural laws
> (without discounting the magic of SR!), in part trying to
> incorporate it into the game.
>
> The second argues from a more cineastic stand point, arguing
> from the standpoint of the game world, basically: "Everything
> is possible. It is the Awakened World!".
>
> Both points are valid in and of itself. We have a more
> philosphical debate here, than a debate resulting in
> clear-cut results.

Well, then there's another faction, the one into which
I happily fall... the Rules Lawyer Faction. These guys
feel that the rules of the game actually define the
reality within the game. They feel that if everyone
has (or could have) a thorough understanding of the rules
(their interpreation *and* intent), if that understanding
is similar enough to each other's, then their characters
are/will/do experience the same world. If folks don't
have the same understanding, then everyone who is
different experiences a different world. That's why
Rules Lawyers argue the interpretation of the rules
all the time. They're trying to come to a mutual
understanding between all involved.

Rules Lawyers believe that a common understanding and
interpretation of the rules between/among players and
GMs leads to a harmonious and unified world view within
the game.

That's why, when people bring up "well, in the real
world..." type scenarios, the Rules Lawyer balks.
For the Rules Lawyer, adding the uncertainty of
needing to interpret the real world into game rules
is scary because very little of it is quantified
such that it incorporates seemlessly within the
existing framework of the rules. If the rules do
a good job of defining the game world, don't
complicate things with 'reality,' just adjust your
mind to the world that the rules define...


Let me add another thing that's not necessarily about
Rules Lawyers. One of the things that I have observed
about *good* gamers and GMs is that the both feel and
inspire a trust that the game is fair, that no one
necessarily has an advantage other than the angles
they choose to play. The thing that I've found is that
as long as this trust relationship exists, the game
goes really smoothly. It's when folks start feeling
taken advantage of that discussions/argumets start
occurring.


Lastly, I think that I agree that our positions here
aren't *really* at odds. That became clear to me as
I was reading the last 10 posts on the same subject.
I kept saying, "Hey that's what I'm trying to say,
from exactly the backward angle," and things like
that.


Oh, and with the TV thing... I'd let the guy
destroy the TV, then let the group suffer the
consequences... but I'm an EvilGM (tm).

Peace,

-k