Dreifaltige Rollenspiel-Lektüre

Drei Falten mit einem Rollenspielerkopf dahinter, ergibt einen nachdenklichen, amüsanten und relativ bodenständigen Blick auf das was war, ist und möglicherweise in der Szene los sein wird.

Donnerstag, April 03, 2008

Meanwhile, over at theCarSite…

Interviewer: I’m really pleased to meet up with the moderator of thecarsite, our esteemed CarPundit, who we will be talking with about his views on the future of cars.
CarPundit: I’m really happy to have you here, because it is important to put an end to the lies spread about me by the Swine. This is the only place we can talk freely about cars on the ‘net.
I: Good start. Who are these “Swine” you are talking about?
CP: They are the people over at The Garage (www.indie-cars.com), who are, in fact, the very same people who invented gothic-style cars in the early 90s and are trying to tell normal drivers that they are doing things the wrong way.
I: If they are one and the same, why is it that the people at the Garage comment so much about how bad gothic-style in cars is and what kind of mistakes the designers made with them?
CP: This is to delude you into thinking they are actually critical of their work. Besides they are already cooking up the next scheme to sell you on.
I: How do I know if the person I’m talking to is a Swine?
CP: Easy. The one thing that identifies them is their feigned superiority …and the contempt for those who are not seeing things their way. Two things.
I: you mean, like the people at thecarsite?

CP: Stop interrupting me, dammit! What I wanted to say: among their identifying traits are such diverse things as feigned superiority, contempt for those who are not seeing things their way and the use of outrageous, newfangled vocabulary to describe parts of cars already named.
I: You mean like, when Ernest Zagyg is calling the “gear modulator” (gm) “drivers modulator” (dm) instead?
CP: [pause] … [longer pause] We don’t really talk about that around here. But if you insist: it helps the immersion into your car, making you feel like you are the one running at 200 mph over the roads… many of the earlier cars (like Zagygs’ Dashers & Downdrafts) also worked with the assumption that passengers were in fact fighting against evil orcs. This is another point where immersion is very important, because when you run down an orc at 200 mph, you really have the feeling like you are the one strangling him or skewering him with your sword, watching his warm entrails spill… ahem, sorry where was I? Anyway, this is the essence of one of my landmarks of car theory (number 10, to be most exact), which helps you recognize valid car theories.
I: I see. So according to the accepted theories: how do I recognize a good car?
CP: A good car is a car that resembles a Mercedes as closely as possible (landmark #3).
I: Why a Mercedes?
CP: Because I like a Mercedes and Pete likes a Mercedes and the vast majority of drivers in the world would like to drive a Mercedes, so it must be the best car for anyone and any situation. The Mercedes is the most popular car in the world because it is good. People drive it because they want to, and have fun driving it. Any and all theory must be based on the assumption that the Mercedes is, on the whole, an example of how to do an car the RIGHT way and not the "wrong" way, and that the Mercedes-structure (and, in a more general sense, the structure of most popular mainstream cars) is the structure of what the vast majority of drivers actually want to drive (landmark #4).
I: Really? I wanted to drive my Mercedes through the Sahara last year and after a few hours the machine started sounding weird and I had this black smoke coming from under the hood. A while later the car broke down and I had to walk the rest of the way. Can you explain this please?
CP: Simple. It happened because YOU are a weak driver. Become a better driver and you can drive a Mercedes, anywhere. The solution to ANY problem with the Mercedes is to simply broaden YOUR driving style. Don’t listen to the Swine over at the Garage trying to tell you, that you need a special narrow of car for different situations. They are only trying to sell you their retarded, narrow contraptions, like those stupid cars, which run on water.
I: They are calling them “boats” actually.
CP: Well, that’s great! I’m completely in favour of the idiots calling their stuff by any other name than “car”. Because that means we are winning the war and proving that the car is The Ultimate form of transportation and all others can’t compare to it. They are limited to a certain, narrow area and you can’t drive them on the roads like normal cars. Any vehicle incapable of running on roads is missing the point of what most drivers want and is therefore removed from reality. Any theory that states that drivers might want to drive on something other than roads is completely missing the point, because they obviously want to.
I: But isn’t there the possibility, considering the Garage is quite young yet, of using the knowledge gained from observing vehicles running in a narrow environment to create a vehicle with a broader focus, that is, effectively, best of both worlds? Like the 4-wheel-drive for non-off-road cars.
CP: What’s a “4-wheel-drive”? Have you been drinking the kool-aid lately? Ignoring your stupid remark, look at these landmarks I thought up. Number one and two state “The vast majority of drivers are having fun driving.” and “The vast majority of drivers are satisfied with the majority of the roads they drive on.” There you have it: Most people drive on roads and enjoy it. Any vehicle which is designed with the intention of driving on anything other than a road is denying the driver the flexibility and satisfaction that driving on roads gives him. This proves that developing cars that make no use of the roads already in place are actually missing the point of what most drivers want to drive on.
I: But what if I want to drive to a place where there are no roads?
CP: Why would you want to do that? There are already so many roads, that you have all the freedom and flexibility you could hope for. You can really drive anyplace on roads. Anyplace where there are roads, that is. It is the ultimate freedom of choice…within a controlled environment.
I: But suppose I have to pick up a friend, where…
CP: Whoa, whoa, whoa…what do you mean by “have to pick up a friend”? A true passenger should be totally subservient and a good driver should not allow anyone to tell him what to do. As I pointed out in landmark #6, any theory which suggests that the driver should get limitations concerning on where he should drive is clearly something cooked up by the Garagist Swine! Most passengers enjoy being driven by a competent driver and don’t really care where they end up. And if the passengers complain about their destination or the fact that one there are no safety-belts in the car or that the driver is driving 100 mph over the speed limit, than they really are upset about the fact that they forgot an anniversary or their auntie died. These social interactions are the real of the dissatisfaction of my passengers (landmark #5) and not the way I’m driving or the fact that I just ran over the aunt of one of them. You should broaden your car instead of stopping being the alpha-driver. If they don’t like it, they should take the bus.
I: To sum it up; what do I have to do to become a great driver?
CP: You have to hone your craft of driving, ideally by driving as much and as fast as possible. Now you might cause a few accidents and there might be a few dead bodies along the way, but that’s a small price to pay when becoming a better driver is at stake. A true driver isn’t born. He is made this way by countless miles on country roads and forged in the fires of dozens of exploded fuel-tanks!

6 Kommentare:

Anonymous Skyrock meinte...

Waddoya actually mean by "4-wheel-drive", and how is it a similarity between Forge games and FTA?

April 03, 2008 4:12 nachm.  
Blogger alexandro meinte...

it was just a random reference

the connection I meant was between Exalted and FtA (the stunts- aha old-school idontthinkso), not between the Forge and FtA (Levi and jhkim).

April 03, 2008 6:58 nachm.  
Anonymous Skyrock meinte...

Ah, then it's Exalted what you talk about.

I'm not really knowledgeable about it, but IIRC Exalted-Stunts are just the Narrative Reward Pattern à Wushu/Sorcerer for adding color, while FTA-Stunts are a way to use mundane skills in combat to achieve special effects like Stun.
It's actually what many traditional GMs did and do (check out some of Branson Hagertys combat-related Shadowrun articles if you don't believe me), but with hard rules and codified, rather then completely freewheeling ad-hoc-decisions.

April 03, 2008 7:19 nachm.  
Blogger alexandro meinte...

Exalted: if you stunt you get an ad-hoc bonus to the task at hand, which produces a tangible, codified effect.

FtA: if you stunt you roll an ad-hoc skill against an ad-hoc difficulty to get a tangible, codified effect (usually to modify the outcome of another roll).

Other than the number of steps involved, there isn't really that much of a difference.

April 03, 2008 11:59 nachm.  
Anonymous Skyrock meinte...

The only ad-hoc instance in FTA-stunting is the skill and the way that it is used - the skill tests however are just opposed rolls.
Therefore, it isn't any more arbitrary than choosing the ability in TSoY and explaining why it works in the task at hand (or toying with the UTP in Trav).

With FTA-stunts, only some few are pure bonuses. Others serve as penalties, as assist, activate special conditions (stun, grappling etc.)... It isn't just a straight +X, it are different effects, and it's already a tactical choice to decide which effect would be most useful at the moment.

Plus, you _forsake_ your normal melee/missile/spell-slinging, or at least take a steep penalty to both actions to do both at the same time. You can't just do a stunt to beef up your attack risk-freely, you have to make a sacrifice to stunt.

Therefore, I absolutely can't get how stunts in both systems should be the same thing.
There are some good points in your forged interview, but such inaccuracies and false accusations are a detriment to your good points.

April 04, 2008 12:33 vorm.  
Blogger alexandro meinte...

Aaah, we are talking about two very distinct things.

You are talking about the stunt *effects*, the two dozen or so "naked" bare-bones mechanics on pages 36/37.

Exalted has things like those too (they just call them maneuvers/Charms/etc.), but thats not what I was talking about.

I was talking about the actual process of stunting, where you *describe* what you are doing to the GM.

In Exalted the reward for doing so is extra dice, in FtA the (less obvious) reward is the GM letting you pick the skill you want.

There are still many differences (mainly stemming from the fact that Exalted is still ye olde 1-on-1 combat and FtA is group combat), but my point wasn't about the mechanical side anyway.

It was about the *idea* of stunting, the concept that a non-combat action may just have a tangible benefit (extra dice, codified special effects), rather than a handwaved result.

But I see I have to make myself a bit clearer- I'm preparing a (shorter) article tomorrow (today Solomon Kane is taking up my time)- in German this time, 'kay.

April 04, 2008 1:40 nachm.  

Kommentar veröffentlichen

Abonnieren Kommentare zum Post [Atom]

Links zu diesem Post:

Link erstellen

<< Startseite