[Ar-list] Re: Ar-list digest, Vol 1 #3 - 1 msg

[Altrichter Ferenc]

Hi,

> 
> Message: 1
> Reply-To: <jwp@r2systems.com>
> From: "John W. Pierce" <jwp@r2systems.com>
> To: <ar-list@delfax.net>
> Subject: RE: [Ar-list] Getting rid of the Freudian attributes
> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:14:13 -0800
> Organization: R2 Systems
> 
> By far the greatest value of AR lies in the concept of the DRF. It's the
> best mechanism I've ever seen for having skills/attributes that work in

I agree on this one - the DRF is a really nice tool - and a great idea.

What I liked about AR the best was that I felt that the authors attempted to approach designing an RPG in a rational scientific manner.

I(M)HO, using a percentile system is a bit cumbersome at times - especially taking into account the necessary number crunching when calculating optimal result numbers. I was thinking of changing the DRF a bit - so that it allows you to roll d20 instead of d100 and use smaller numbers - which are easier to add and substract. (Of course, I didn't got really far - else I'd have "published" the results.)

When we're at this point - there are some other portions of the game which require IMHO too much calculation - particularly the timing of fast action. (Each action requires a separate initiative roll.) I'm afraid this is one of the reasons why AR didn't spread like a bush-fire.

> a quasi-realistic manner. One thing to note for a computer game (CRPG or
> MUD) is that it's trivial to alter ("tune") the exact shape of the
> curve, have different curves (equations) for different classes, etc.
> This is quite useful. For example, re-learning a skill is much faster
> than learning it the first time.
> 

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean - is it that the attributes that the skill depends on also improve, when the character learns the skill the first time, therefore s/he can roll on a better target number?

> Once you understand the DRF, then the exact details of the various
> attributes are not particularly important to the system in the abstract,
> though they are, of course, of critical importance to a particular
> "reality". The real importance of AR is in the principles involved. The
> attributes given in the basic guide are extremely well thought-out and
> comprehensive, but there's no necessity to follow them religiously. Drop
> them, change them, and add new ones, as you see fit. So if you don't
> like Id, Ego, and Superego, then rename them or drop them, or add things
> that better fit your vision of your world. Again, the usefulness and
> importance of AR itself lies in the principles, not in the details.
> 

Agreed.

> It's useful, at least for a computer implementation, to document
> carefully the exact meaning of the attributes you choose to use and,
> especially, their interrelationships. As an example, see
> 
> 	
> http://www.r2systems.com/Muve/Design/Objects/attrib_av_graph.html
> 
> This is a graph (in PNG format) I made several years ago of the
> attributes of the avatar objects for a proposed MUD. There is a link on
> it to a text explanation of the attributes, and that has a link on it to
> the attributes of the "standard base object" that is inherited by both
> non-avatar and avatar objects.
> 
> -- John W. Pierce, R2 Systems
>    jwp@r2systems.com 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ar-list-admin@delfax.net 
> > [mailto:ar-list-admin@delfax.net] On Behalf Of Joe Mason
> > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 4:47 PM
> > To: ar-list@delfax.net
> > Subject: [Ar-list] Getting rid of the Freudian attributes
> > 
> > 
> > Checking the mailing list archives, I see that this is the 
> > first post for about
> > half a year.  Hi, everybody.
> > 

Hi.

> > I recently found AR when I was looking around for a free RPG 
> > system to use as
> > the basis for a CRPG engine.  (I'd toyed with the idea of 
> > doing it with
> > Rolemaster for quite a while, but ICE's bankruptcy has sort 
> > of shot that one
> > down.)  I must admit that I initially wasn't sure how 
> > seriously to take the
> > whole thing - I'm on the last year of a B.Math, and I bounced 
> > off the sidebar
> > labelled "Coninuous Form Rational", thinking maybe the whole 
> > thing was an
> > elaborate parody.  Then I read Chameleon, which is one hell 
> > of a campaign
> > setting.
> > 

Agreed. And I liked Takieta too.

> > Anyway, to business.  I'm still absorbing the rules, but one 
> > thing I really
> > dislike is the use of Id, Ego and Superego attributes.  I 
> > have a real dislike
> > for Freud, so it ruins the immersion for me.  They'd be 
> > appropriate for a
> > modern setting game or maybe a B-movie scifi game ("Creatures 
> > from the id!")
> > but I prefer to avoid Freudian terms in my fantasy games.
> > 
> > The easiest way to get out of this is just to rename the 
> > Level 1 attributes,
> > which avoids having to worry about changing the inheritance 
> > tree.  (Can you
> > tell I'm a programmer?)  But I'd prefer to exise the whole triumvirate
> > structure, becaue I really hate Freud that much.
> > 
> > I was thinking of renaming Id to Instint, dropping Superego 
> > completely (since
> > the "normative" force should really be defined entirely by 
> > roleplaying), and
> > adding a new stat "Resiliency" for Ego.  I call it a new stat 
> > because it
> > wouldn't be considered a "mediator between the Id and 
> > Superego" anymore.
> > Instead, it would directly measure coolness under fire, 
> > ability to resist
> > stress, etc.  This would give 4 Level 1 Psycho-Social 
> > attributes, in line
> > with the others (except Sensory, where the 5-way split is logical).
> > 
> > Er, except I just realized Willpower is Level 0, so this only leaves 3
> > Level 1 attributes.  And "Presence, Instinct, Resiliency" 
> > just doesn't seem
> > to make a whole package somehow.  Any suggestions for how to 
> > improve this?
> > 
> > Does anyone have any opinions on this?  How many rules depend 
> > on Superego
> > that might be broken by removing it? 
> > 

Not much afaik. There is a general rule for will rolls that uses these attributes both nothing else in the PRG afaik.

I think changing the rules for a specific setting or a class of settings is all right and optional rules can increase the game engine's flexibility too. However sometimes you don't need either - for example IMHO most normal heroic fantasy settings don't need lvl 1 psycho-social attributes - thus in the case of these settings changing the attributes isn't necessary. Just my 2 pence.

> > I suppose the same problem comes with using Verbal, 
> > Quantitative, and Spatial
> > stats in a fantasy game, but they seem easier to rename 
> > because they're less
> > culturally specific.  "Rhetoric", "Arithmetic", "Geometric" - 
> > now we have
> > cool stats for an ancient Greek game.
> > 
> > Joe 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ar-list mailing list
> > Ar-list@delfax.net
> > http://www.delfax.net/mailman/listinfo/ar-list
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ar-list mailing list
> Ar-list@delfax.net
> http://www.delfax.net/mailman/listinfo/ar-list
> 

Ferenc Altrichter