tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post6259563626632857669..comments2024-03-25T21:52:03.310-05:00Comments on Hill Cantons: Tony Bath's Hyboria, Part IIChris Kutalikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01414743509426875792noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-52001117801746778322010-12-12T18:57:47.935-06:002010-12-12T18:57:47.935-06:00Irbyz:
The semiotic root of the confusion you expr...Irbyz:<br />The semiotic root of the confusion you express regarding my reply seems to stem from the the black and white perspective you take via the clarity of the concept of character and role playing. I cannot agree that "there is a huge difference between raw stats and a role.." <br /><br />How do you know that exactly? How do you measure such a difference or know the strength of anthropomorphism and identification that goes on in the head of wargamers "playing" named generals, officers, and personalities? I submit that history is not as clear cut as you suggest.<br /><br />In 19th century Kriegspiel, typically long campaigns are waged between either single opponents and a referee or multiple opponents. The opponents may take the role of various levels of commanders. These may be generic nobodies or actual historical figures in imitation of historic conditions and a given chain of command. The referee conveys only such information to the players as they would be able to know from the perspective of the "person" they are playing on the ground. Orders are issued and the game unfolds as adjudicated by the umpire. Barriers may be placed between opponents so they cannot "cheat" and gain information regarding enemy movements that thier "character" could not know, and opponents may even play out the game in seperate rooms with the umpire moving back and forth between the two. The game can be played at various tactical and strategic levels and typically is one of maneuver and resource management rather than battle.DHBoggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-44244350045453543902010-12-09T12:00:03.847-06:002010-12-09T12:00:03.847-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.DHBoggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-67114779543000913642010-12-04T08:56:58.443-06:002010-12-04T08:56:58.443-06:00I felt from reading Bath that player character, li...I felt from reading Bath that player character, like as in D&D and other first-person rpgs, becomes deeper when you have non-player characters to help define the negative contours. <br /><br />Take for instance most any computer strategy game you are typically the one and only actor on your side. There may be random events and other in-game mechanics to model frictions inside your side (revolts and the like), but you are the only real character on the stage. So you might be the King of Freedonia in the game, but for all practical purposes you are Freedonia full stop as it's just a hazy collective identity.<br /><br />The presence of NPCs, and lots of them, means that your side (and all other player sides) has a multitude of potential, if less powerful, actors. Your role as a player persona becomes exponentially more subjective. You are the more the king now and less collective Freedonia. <br /><br />At least that's my half-baked theory.Chris Kutalikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01414743509426875792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-67614925666772949292010-12-03T23:19:10.828-06:002010-12-03T23:19:10.828-06:00> irbyz, not sure exactly what you're after...> irbyz, not sure exactly what you're after as your text seems a bit muddled<br /><br />Anything more than "....but even in the 1800's games and campaigns were sometimes played with the players taking the role of a specific general or emporer or whatever and playing out the game with only the knowledge and perspective that "character" possesed", if possible, since there are too many potential semantic misunderstandings in there.<br /><br />"Perspective that that "character" possesed" meaning"?<br /><br />> but dig into the history of Kriegspiel (1812) and its importation to the US post civil war and you will find examples. <br /><br />I'm asking you, please, if possible since you made the assertion that "I'd quibble a bit with the idea that Bath's character driven wargames were really a groundbreaking difference".<br /><br />You're saying "minor objection", but it comes across as "no", for lack of further specific clarification which isn't provided...<br /><br />> Now, to what extent a character in a game is more than a figure on a board or stats on a piece of paper is not for me to say. <br /><br />There's a huge difference between raw stats and a "role" for a "character" to play within the "world". Sure, there is a /latent/ "role" and a gamesmaster might force direction within that domain as a "non-player character", if they wish, but only when they become a "player character" in contract with the gamesmaster can that latent "role" be fully explored. (Another reason why solo games playing both sides are so "difficult" :p)<br /><br />Try doing that with "mov:12/atk:6/def:7"irbyzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10193584357850337816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-29659942990848071692010-12-03T22:30:16.365-06:002010-12-03T22:30:16.365-06:00irbyz, not sure exactly what you're after as y...irbyz, not sure exactly what you're after as your text seems a bit muddled, but dig into the history of Kriegspiel (1812) and its importation to the US post civil war and you will find examples. After all, its a short leap to go from saying I'm controlling the fate of a nation to "I'm Napoleon".<br /><br />Now, to what extent a character in a game is more than a figure on a board or stats on a piece of paper is not for me to say.DHBoggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-74497489941337112332010-12-03T20:09:42.113-06:002010-12-03T20:09:42.113-06:00Ah... to be able to have eternal war elsewhere so ...Ah... to be able to have eternal war elsewhere so we don't need to do anything except vote for the ruling party's definition. Actually, scrub "vote"... :p<br /><br />*gives it a micspin* (actually my /previous/ verification word)<br /><br />umm.. "cuuqu"? OK, my "luck" had to run out some time!<br />re-edit/2nd word; "hadyf". I'm not even going /there/... :p (sorry, Phil!)<br /><br />Personally, I prefer Dr. Pepper. ;)irbyzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10193584357850337816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-2390124403902818262010-12-03T19:14:07.594-06:002010-12-03T19:14:07.594-06:00@irbyz
Welcome to American democracy. Party Coke o...@irbyz<br />Welcome to American democracy. Party Coke or Party Pepsi? <br /><br />Ingsoc, would be most appropriate word verification now.Chris Kutalikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01414743509426875792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-91627703372968228882010-12-03T19:04:26.440-06:002010-12-03T19:04:26.440-06:00> playing out the game with only the knowledge ...> playing out the game with only the knowledge and perspective that "character" possesed<br /><br />Heya! Is your definition of "character" anything more than as a piece on a chessboard?<br /><br />Could you list any specific examples of such campaigns that fit your full criteria list for the 19th century (timeline framework; http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/caffrey.html ) and whether those were well known outwith particular domains (vs. relatively "public" domain, English speaking per http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html , say)?irbyzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10193584357850337816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-89792359777985734472010-12-03T18:43:56.235-06:002010-12-03T18:43:56.235-06:00@Chris: "Can you imagine anything so ridiculo...@Chris: "Can you imagine anything so ridiculous as majority rule"?<br />Doubly so when the boundaries of the party you're expected to vote for have already been defined outwith your control? :p<br /><br />Anyhow; *quack* http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/harami2000/duckbath.jpg<br /><br />verification: ingsfc (*lol* so near, yet so far... ^^)irbyzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10193584357850337816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-26435000347277385972010-12-03T12:09:29.440-06:002010-12-03T12:09:29.440-06:00@DHBoggs
Thanks that's an important point that...@DHBoggs<br />Thanks that's an important point that I was unclear or misleading on in the post. <br /><br />I can think of at least one other example off the top of my head of a single-player-character, referee-adjudicated game in the 1960s: Michael Korns' WW2 skirmish game (which was played double-blind as you mention). <br /><br />Lots of parallel invention and standing on the shoulders of past giants in the history of roleplaying and wargaming that sadly gets lost in many accounts.Chris Kutalikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01414743509426875792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-57243872824175088492010-12-03T10:50:28.280-06:002010-12-03T10:50:28.280-06:00great stuff. I've got Bath's book but I&#...great stuff. I've got Bath's book but I'm still eager to read your next instalment anyway. I'd quibble a bit with the idea that Bath's character driven wargames were really a groundbreaking difference. True, many wargames were played in a generic fashion, but even in the 1800's games and campaigns were sometimes played with the players taking the role of a specific general or emporer or whatever and playing out the game with only the knowledge and perspective that "character" possesed. Some of these included blind games run by referees where you couldn't see the enemy forces until the battle actually started. Still, Bath was clearly emphasizing that aspect of the game in a unique fantasy setting.DHBoggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1389986049507804094.post-7785586116531394402010-12-02T18:21:13.801-06:002010-12-02T18:21:13.801-06:00A very enjoyable pair of articles. The third is ea...A very enjoyable pair of articles. The third is eagerly awaited. I've been wandering the optical fibres lately pondering the interrelatedness of wargaming and roleplaying and this is warmth for the yeast. I've the first in a series just up, but am already finding material for the second here. Thank you for taking the time to post it.Porkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00604351052444947490noreply@blogger.com