Summary of Uberthread Ressurection

[william]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Correct me if you think my summary is wrong:

StephenLS: The ticket is the coincidence in a coincidental Corr 3 effect
(with no other reality or application), unless you actually create it
with Matter/Forces/Prime.

Charlie: Agrees with StephenLS.

Shane: The ticket is a real thing with existance beyond its ability to
get you from here to there, and must be made or acquired.

Picks at Flies: Agrees with Shane.

Elizabeth: Agrees with StephenLS (?)

J.H. Frank: Emphatically agrees with Shane.

James: Agrees with Shane

Eric: Agrees with Shane.

Mdf: Agrees with Shane.


So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can create/acquire a
real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists" believe that the
ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The "effectentialists"
believe that the ticket can be simply a manifestation of the effect,
with no other existance or possible use.

William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

"William" <wilit0613@postoffice.uri.edu> wrote in message
news:2in9m6FojvdaU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Correct me if you think my summary is wrong:
>
> StephenLS: The ticket is the coincidence in a coincidental Corr 3 effect
> (with no other reality or application), unless you actually create it
> with Matter/Forces/Prime.
>

> Shane: The ticket is a real thing with existance beyond its ability to
> get you from here to there, and must be made or acquired.

> James: Agrees with Shane's Opinion as a matter of preference and taste;
knows Stephenls' is correct as the rules stand.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

William wrote:
>
> So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can create/acquire a
> real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists" believe that the
> ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The "effectentialists"
> believe that the ticket can be simply a manifestation of the effect,
> with no other existance or possible use.

Both are true. The problem is when someone thinks that only one answer
is the absolutely correct answer and the other must somehow be false.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

"William"

> So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can create/acquire a
> real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists" believe that the
> ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The "effectentialists"
> believe that the ticket can be simply a manifestation of the effect,
> with no other existance or possible use.

Damn. Why did M:tAsc get canned? We just came up with nifty little
nicknames for how we view the metaphsyics of the game!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Shane Graves wrote:

> But these aren't acronyms. They names.

> The one thing about the acronyms was that I never ever ever remembered them.

> "Existentialsts" and "effectentialists" sound more like teams than that
> government acronym anti-thinking gobble-ti-beloved patriot.

Using simple terms like that makes the brain short-cut past actually
thinking about what the terms mean. It inhibits discussion and promotes
team rivalry.

If you really want to, go ahead, but I'm not playing that game.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[william]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Shane Graves wrote:
> "William"
>
>
>>So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can create/acquire a
>>real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists" believe that the
>>ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The "effectentialists"
>>believe that the ticket can be simply a manifestation of the effect,
>>with no other existance or possible use.
>
>
> Damn. Why did M:tAsc get canned? We just came up with nifty little
> nicknames for how we view the metaphsyics of the game!
>
>

Excuse me? We? What /we/?

William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:30:17 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
<kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:

>William wrote:
>>
>> So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can create/acquire a
>> real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists" believe that the
>> ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The "effectentialists"
>> believe that the ticket can be simply a manifestation of the effect,
>> with no other existance or possible use.
>
>Both are true. The problem is when someone thinks that only one answer
>is the absolutely correct answer and the other must somehow be false.

The word "must" does not allow for other options.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:34:30 GMT, "Shane Graves"
<lobsterhut@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"William"
>
>> So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can create/acquire a
>> real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists" believe that the
>> ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The "effectentialists"
>> believe that the ticket can be simply a manifestation of the effect,
>> with no other existance or possible use.
>
>Damn. Why did M:tAsc get canned? We just came up with nifty little
>nicknames for how we view the metaphsyics of the game!

We can try to shoehorn them into the new version instead. It'll be
fun.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:30:17 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
> <kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >William wrote:
> >>
> >> So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can create/acquire a
> >> real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists" believe that the
> >> ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The "effectentialists"
> >> believe that the ticket can be simply a manifestation of the effect,
> >> with no other existance or possible use.
> >
> >Both are true. The problem is when someone thinks that only one answer
> >is the absolutely correct answer and the other must somehow be false.
>
> The word "must" does not allow for other options.

Of course, I never said one must use correspondence. I said one could do
both.

I don't think there needs to be an either/or with no middle ground.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

 

[william]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Julie d'Aubigny wrote:

> David Johnston wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:30:17 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
>><kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>William wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can create/acquire a
>>>>real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists" believe that the
>>>>ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The "effectentialists"
>>>>believe that the ticket can be simply a manifestation of the effect,
>>>>with no other existance or possible use.
>>>
>>>Both are true. The problem is when someone thinks that only one answer
>>>is the absolutely correct answer and the other must somehow be false.
>>
>>The word "must" does not allow for other options.
>
>
> Of course, I never said one must use correspondence. I said one could do
> both.
>
> I don't think there needs to be an either/or with no middle ground.
>

If you read what I wrote, that's exactly what I said.

William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 22:52:32 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
<kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:30:17 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
>> <kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >William wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can create/acquire a
>> >> real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists" believe that the
>> >> ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The "effectentialists"
>> >> believe that the ticket can be simply a manifestation of the effect,
>> >> with no other existance or possible use.
>> >
>> >Both are true. The problem is when someone thinks that only one answer
>> >is the absolutely correct answer and the other must somehow be false.
>>
>> The word "must" does not allow for other options.
>
>Of course, I never said one must use correspondence. I said one could do
>both.

Well it's not about what you said. It's about what the
existentialists allegedly believe, that "the ticket is a real thing
and so 'must' be created". (Although it seems to me that it
would be legitimate even in that point of view to say that the ticket
is a real thing and so must be relocated from somewhere else
to you.)

 

[william]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 22:52:32 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
> <kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:30:17 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
>>><kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>William wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can create/acquire a
>>>>>real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists" believe that the
>>>>>ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The "effectentialists"
>>>>>believe that the ticket can be simply a manifestation of the effect,
>>>>>with no other existance or possible use.
>>>>
>>>>Both are true. The problem is when someone thinks that only one answer
>>>>is the absolutely correct answer and the other must somehow be false.
>>>
>>>The word "must" does not allow for other options.
>>
>>Of course, I never said one must use correspondence. I said one could do
>>both.
>
>
> Well it's not about what you said. It's about what the
> existentialists allegedly believe, that "the ticket is a real thing
> and so 'must' be created". (Although it seems to me that it
> would be legitimate even in that point of view to say that the ticket
> is a real thing and so must be relocated from somewhere else
> to you.)

I forgot to put in "/acquired" the second time. I am mortified beyond words.

And there is no "allegedely" about it. I _asked_ if you all agreed with
my summary of your positions.

William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Julie d'Aubigny squarked:
> William wrote:
>>
>> So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can
>> create/acquire a real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists"
>> believe that the ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The
>> "effectentialists" believe that the ticket can be simply a
>> manifestation of the effect, with no other existance or possible use.
>
> Both are true. The problem is when someone thinks that only one answer
> is the absolutely correct answer and the other must somehow be false.
I don't think any of the think that effectentialists here claim that the
existentialists are false. We just don't like your concept of coincidental
magic and would prefer not to use it in our games. William's list and
explanation is a fairly accurate depiction of people's views. The fact that
as far as I can tell the two groups are so neatly divided means it is quite
easy for newbies etc. to examine the viewpoints and choose the one they
prefer. Just as long as no one starts telling them that theirs is the One
True Way.
--
Picks-at-Flies
A flamewarrior, making a valiant stand against the Evil Scooby Gang.
http://www.werepenguin.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Picks-at-Flies wrote:

> I don't think any of the think that effectentialists here claim that the
> existentialists are false. We just don't like your concept of coincidental
> magic and would prefer not to use it in our games.

I dunno, Shane seems to be pretty convinced that his way is the one
supported by the books.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Picks-at-Flies wrote:
>
> I don't think any of the think that effectentialists here claim that the
> existentialists are false. We just don't like your concept of coincidental
> magic and would prefer not to use it in our games. William's list and
> explanation is a fairly accurate depiction of people's views. The fact that
> as far as I can tell the two groups are so neatly divided means it is quite
> easy for newbies etc. to examine the viewpoints and choose the one they
> prefer. Just as long as no one starts telling them that theirs is the One
> True Way.

I don't fit neatly into either faction as described by William. Perhaps
you might say I'm into inclusive interpretations.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

"Stephenls"
> Shane Graves wrote:

> > But these aren't acronyms. They names.

> > The one thing about the acronyms was that I never ever ever remembered
them.

> > "Existentialsts" and "effectentialists" sound more like teams than that
> > government acronym anti-thinking gobble-ti-beloved patriot.

> Using simple terms like that makes the brain short-cut past actually
> thinking about what the terms mean. It inhibits discussion and promotes >
team rivalry.

And that hasn't all ready happened? ^_~

> If you really want to, go ahead, but I'm not playing that game.

Nah. Aside from that one flare up, I'm sure after Mage: the Awakening comes
into the fold, that this discussion won't really be around enough to warrent
names attached.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Shane Graves wrote:

> Nah. Aside from that one flare up, I'm sure after Mage: the Awakening comes
> into the fold, that this discussion won't really be around enough to warrent
> names attached.

RBD/PBD is actually the number one reason I'm looking forward to M:tAw.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike

 

[william]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Stephenls wrote:
> Shane Graves wrote:
>
>> Nah. Aside from that one flare up, I'm sure after Mage: the Awakening
>> comes
>> into the fold, that this discussion won't really be around enough to
>> warrent
>> names attached.
>
>
> RBD/PBD is actually the number one reason I'm looking forward to M:tAw.

You blame, I think, too much on the words and too little on the people.
You can always find some place to draw a line in the sand.

William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

William <wilit0613@postoffice.uri.edu> wrote in message news:<2in9m6FojvdaU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Correct me if you think my summary is wrong:
>
> StephenLS: The ticket is the coincidence in a coincidental Corr 3 effect
> (with no other reality or application), unless you actually create it
> with Matter/Forces/Prime.
>
> Charlie: Agrees with StephenLS.
>
> Shane: The ticket is a real thing with existance beyond its ability to
> get you from here to there, and must be made or acquired.
(delete)
> Eric: Agrees with Shane.

Actually, not really- was there a physical ticket? The travel
agent thinks so, and the stewardess is certain you gave her one.
After all, the ticket is merely information, and it's more
important to agree that there was a ticket, then to determine if
there was a particular collection of atoms arranged into a
ticket.

However, people tend to insist that there MUST be a physical
ticket- in which case, it should be trivial for Correspondance
to print one out _as_part_of_the_effect_. No Matter or Prime
involved. Nor should a VA be bothered by long lines,delayed
flights, Customs, drunks spilling their drinks, or noisy
children. But I guess that's just too magical.

-Eric Tolle.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Stephenls wrote:
>
> Using simple terms like that makes the brain short-cut past actually
> thinking about what the terms mean. It inhibits discussion and promotes
> team rivalry.
>
> If you really want to, go ahead, but I'm not playing that game.

Prime example - GNS model of RP.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

William wrote:
>
> > Well it's not about what you said. It's about what the
> > existentialists allegedly believe, that "the ticket is a real thing
> > and so 'must' be created". (Although it seems to me that it
> > would be legitimate even in that point of view to say that the ticket
> > is a real thing and so must be relocated from somewhere else
> > to you.)
>
> I forgot to put in "/acquired" the second time. I am mortified beyond words.

Have you considered the possibility of autoflagellation?

> And there is no "allegedely" about it. I _asked_ if you all agreed with
> my summary of your positions.

I hope my answer was clear, and didn't deviate too far from the spirit
of the question.

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:13:26 +0100, "Picks-at-Flies"
<aidan@nospam.werepenguin.co.uk> wrote:

>Julie d'Aubigny squarked:
>> William wrote:
>>>
>>> So, we seem to have two camps. Both agree that you can
>>> create/acquire a real, actual ticket. However, the "existentialists"
>>> believe that the ticket is a real thing and so must be created. The
>>> "effectentialists" believe that the ticket can be simply a
>>> manifestation of the effect, with no other existance or possible use.
>>
>> Both are true. The problem is when someone thinks that only one answer
>> is the absolutely correct answer and the other must somehow be false.
>I don't think any of the think that effectentialists here claim that the
>existentialists are false. We just don't like your concept of coincidental
>magic and would prefer not to use it in our games. William's list and
>explanation is a fairly accurate depiction of people's views. The fact that
>as far as I can tell the two groups are so neatly divided means it is quite
>easy for newbies etc. to examine the viewpoints and choose the one they
>prefer. Just as long as no one starts telling them that theirs is the One
>True Way.

FWIW, I think both stances are perfectly supportable but prefer mine
because I think it is easier to support and throws up less potential
side-effects along the way.

So saying, when I run games, there is One True Way, and it is my way.
When you're playing, everything should be subordinate to the story,
most especially the mechanics of the game. Once you're in the pub
afterwards, that's when you can debate the mechanics.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Charlie B wrote:
>
> So saying, when I run games, there is One True Way, and it is my way.
> When you're playing, everything should be subordinate to the story,
> most especially the mechanics of the game. Once you're in the pub
> afterwards, that's when you can debate the mechanics.

Strangely, the story is subordinate to the PCs, since they're the stars
of it...

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

Charlie B wrote:
>
> So saying, when I run games, there is One True Way, and it is my way.
> When you're playing, everything should be subordinate to the story,
> most especially the mechanics of the game. Once you're in the pub
> afterwards, that's when you can debate the mechanics.

Strangely, the story is subordinate to the PCs, since they're the stars
of it...

--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kali.magdalene@comcast.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:10:33 GMT, Julie d'Aubigny
<kali.magdalene@comcast.net> wrote:

>Charlie B wrote:
>>
>> So saying, when I run games, there is One True Way, and it is my way.
>> When you're playing, everything should be subordinate to the story,
>> most especially the mechanics of the game. Once you're in the pub
>> afterwards, that's when you can debate the mechanics.
>
>Strangely, the story is subordinate to the PCs, since they're the stars
>of it...

Well, yeah, that's what I mean. You do what you can to keep the
players entertained, although I personally draw the line at juggling.

Cheers,

Charlie