1 </article/1/>

     2 *GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory*

     3 by Ron Edwards <mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>

     4 

     5 Copyright Adept Press 2001

     6 

     7 *Introduction*

     8 My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that

     9 many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I

    10 encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated. My goal in this writing is

    11 to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate

    12 what they want and like out of the activity, and to understand what to

    13 look for both in other people and in game design to achieve their goals.

    14 The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing

    15 experiences is not my target audience.

    16 

    17 Everything in this document is nothing more nor less than "What Ron

    18 Thinks." It is not an official Dogma for the Forge. It is not a

    19 consensus view of members of the Forge, nor is it a committee effort of

    20 any kind. It is most especially not an expectation for what you're

    21 supposed to think or believe.

    22 

    23 However, it does stand as the single coherent body of theory about

    24 role-playing at the Forge, and its lexicon is definitive for purposes of

    25 discussion there. I am satisfied with it, but I'm not unreasonable

    26 either, so it is not immutable. Please deal with it in one of the

    27 following ways: identify an inconsistency, ask for clarification and

    28 examples, or otherwise address its content critically. I am perfectly

    29 willing to amend any content, if I'm given a substantive reason to do

    30 so, and to give credit for the insight.

    31 

    32 I request that all discussion of this material be based on careful

    33 consideration. Snap judgments, unsupported value judgments, neophobia,

    34 taking offense, and other juvenile reactions are not welcome.

    35 Furthermore, I am well aware that my GNS notions vary greatly from the

    36 original Threefold Model (or GDS), and that my categories of Stance

    37 differs from those originally proposed. Identifying these differences

    38 does not constitute a criticism.

    39 

    40 I have been extensively influenced by the work of others and have

    41 incorporated it in ways which make sense to me. Concepts that were

    42 originated and developed by others are credited in the acknowledgments

    43 at the end.

    44 

    45 *Contents*

    46 Introduction

    47 

    48    1. Exploration

    49    2. GNS

    50    3. Stance

    51    4. The Basics of Role-playing Design

    52    5. Role-playing Design and Coherence

    53    6. Actually Playing 

    54 

    55 Acknowledgments

    56 

    57 </article/2/>

    58 *_Chapter One: Exploration_*

    59 

    60 When a person engages in role-playing, or prepares to do so, he or she

    61 relies on imagining and utilizing the following: *Character*, *System*,

    62 *Setting*, *Situation*, and *Color*.

    63 

    64     * Character: a fictional person or entity.

    65     * System: a means by which in-game events are determined to occur.

    66     * Setting: where the character is, in the broadest sense (including

    67       history as well as location).

    68     * Situation: a problem or circumstance faced by the character.

    69     * Color: any details or illustrations or nuances that provide

    70       atmosphere. 

    71 

    72 At the most basic level, these are what the role-playing experience is

    73 "about," but to be more precise, these are the things which must be

    74 imagined by the real people. In this sense, saying "system" means

    75 "imagining events to be occurring."

    76 

    77 *Exploration and its child, Premise*

    78 The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the

    79 attention given the imagined elements, is *Exploration*. Initially, it

    80 is an individual concern, although it will move into the social,

    81 communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements

    82 becomes an issue of its own.

    83 

    84 When a person perceives the listed elements together and considers

    85 Exploring them, he or she usually has a basic reaction of interest or

    86 disinterest, approval or disapproval, or desire to play or lack of such

    87 a desire. Let's assume a positive reaction; when it occurs, whatever

    88 prompted it is *Premise*, in its most basic form. To re-state, Premise

    89 is whatever a participant finds among the elements to sustain a

    90 continued interest in what might happen in a role-playing session.

    91 Premise, once established, instils the desire to keep that imaginative

    92 commitment going.

    93 

    94 Person 1: "You play vampires in the modern day, trying to stay secret

    95 from the cattle and coping with other vampires." [See atmospheric, grim,

    96 punky-goth pictures]

    97 

    98 Person 2: "Ooh! Cool!"

    99 

   100 Person 2 might have liked the grittiness of the art, the romance of the

   101 word "vampire," or the idea of being involved in a secret mystical

   102 intrigue. Or maybe none of these and an entirely different thing. Or

   103 maybe all of them at once. It doesn't matter - whatever it was, that's

   104 the initial Premise for this person.

   105 

   106 Premise is a metagame concern, wholly different from the listed

   107 elements. They are the imagined (Explored) content of the role-playing

   108 experience, and Premise is the real-person, real-world interest that

   109 instils and maintains a person's desire to have that experience. At this

   110 early point, though, Premise is vague and highly personal, as it is only

   111 the embryo of the real Premise. The real Premise exists as a clear,

   112 focused question or concern shared among all members of the group. The

   113 initial Premise only takes shape and shared-focus when we move to the

   114 next chapter.

   115 

   116 *Why "genre" is not part of the lexicon*

   117 I do not recommend using "genre" to identify role-playing content. A

   118 "genre" is some combination of specific setting elements, plot elements,

   119 situation elements, character elements, and sometimes premise elements,

   120 such that by hearing the term, we are informed what to expect, or in

   121 role-playing terms, what to do. On the face of it, the concept would

   122 seem to be useful.

   123 

   124 The problem is that genres are continually being deconstructed and

   125 re-formed, with elements of one being re-combined with others. This is

   126 occurring as a non-planned or non-managed historical phenomenon

   127 throughout all media. Therefore "genre" may be a fine descriptive label

   128 for what is or has been done, but it's not much help in terms of what to

   129 do or what can be done.

   130 

   131 In many cases, a given genre label will convey to a close group of

   132 people a fairly tight combination of values for these variables.

   133 However, the same genre label loses its power to inform as you add more

   134 people to the mix, especially since most labels have switched meanings

   135 radically more than once. And even more importantly, new combinations of

   136 values for the key variables may be perfectly functional, even when they

   137 do not correspond to any recognized genre label.

   138 

   139 Therefore when someone tells me that a game (or story, or whatever) is

   140 based on a certain genre, I have to ask a few more questions - and

   141 sooner or later, I get real answers in terms of Character, Setting,

   142 Situation, or Color. Only then can an initial Premise be identified, and

   143 then the next step toward functional, enjoyable role-playing may occur.

   144 

   145 </articles/3/>

   146 *_Chapter Two: GNS_*

   147 

   148 Talk to someone who participates in role-playing, and focus on the

   149 precise and actual acts of role-playing themselves. Ask them, "Why do

   150 you role-play?" The most common answer is, "To have fun."

   151 

   152 Again, stick to the role-playing itself. (The wholly social issues are

   153 real, such as "Wanting to hang out with my friends," but they are not

   154 the topic at hand.) Now ask, "What makes fun?" This may not be a verbal

   155 question, and it is best answered mainly through role-playing with

   156 people rather than listening to them. Time and inference are usually

   157 required.

   158 

   159 In my experience, the answer turns out to be a version of one of the

   160 following terms. These terms, or modes, describe three distinct types of

   161 people's decisions and goals during play.

   162 

   163     * *Gamism* is expressed by competition among participants (the real

   164       people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters,

   165       both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual

   166       play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the

   167       competition.

   168     * *Simulationism* is expressed by enhancing one or more of the

   169       listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism

   170       heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The

   171       players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and

   172       experiential consistency of that Exploration.

   173     * *Narrativism* is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a

   174       story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal

   175       protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are

   176       often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the

   177       material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense

   178       of literary analysis). 

   179 

   180 Collectively, the three modes are called *GNS*. Stating "GNS," "GNS

   181 perspectives," or anything similar, is to refer to the diversity of

   182 approaches to play. One might refer to "GNS goals," in which case the

   183 meaning is, "whichever one might apply for this act of role-playing."

   184 

   185 GNS is the central concept of my theorizing about role-playing. It is

   186 necessary for understanding how Premise is developed, and it provides

   187 the context for the later points in this essay. However, it is not

   188 sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all

   189 points about role-playing.

   190 

   191 I disavow either GM-centric or player-centric applications of GNS. The

   192 terms apply to real people engaged in the act of role-playing, and the

   193 distinction between GM and player is irrelevant for this purpose.

   194 However, the reverse is meaningful: given a GNS focus of play, GM and

   195 player roles take on specific shapes, or specific ranges of shapes.

   196 (This issue is discussed later.)

   197 

   198 *Labels*

   199 Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling

   200 device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole

   201 persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person

   202 is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person

   203 tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals."

   204 Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand

   205 for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and

   206 decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of

   207 shorthand are common.

   208 

   209 For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in

   210 application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all

   211 three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals

   212 appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more

   213 fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the

   214 course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of

   215 competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the

   216 course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary

   217 that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of

   218 Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that

   219 contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not

   220 to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play. The

   221 actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous.

   222 

   223 Over a greater period of time, across many instances of play, some

   224 people tend to cluster their decisions and interests around one of the

   225 three goals. Other people vary across the goals, but even they admit

   226 that they stay focused, or prioritize, for a given instance.

   227 

   228 *Developing Premise into practical form*

   229 Again, all three modes are social applications of the foundational act

   230 of role-playing, which is Exploration. Taking that into a social,

   231 role-playing circumstance, the people get more concrete about a shared

   232 Premise, and thus their decisions acquire a GNS focus of some kind. To

   233 play successfully, the members of the role-playing group must be, at the

   234 very least, willing to acknowledge and support the focused Premise as

   235 perceived by one another.

   236 

   237 The developed or focused Premise is no longer a noun ("vampire") or

   238 image, but has become a question, challenge, or provocative issue.

   239 

   240 Gamism and Narrativism each encompass a wide range of variation for

   241 Premise, including variations that differ drastically from one another.

   242 This is why "a Gamist," for instance, does not necessarily enjoy any and

   243 all Gamist play or have the same priorities as any and all other

   244 Gamist-oriented role-players. The same applies for Narrativism.

   245 Simulationism is a bit different in its details, but in its way also

   246 includes a wide range of variation and approaches to play; therefore the

   247 insight that not all Simulationist-oriented play is alike applies here

   248 as well.

   249 

   250 *Gamist Premises* focus on competition about overt metagame goals. They

   251 vary regarding who is competing with whom (players vs. one another;

   252 players vs. GM; etc), what is at stake, victory and loss conditions, and

   253 what particular sort of strategizing is being employed. Gamist play also

   254 varies widely in terms of what is and is not predictable (i.e.

   255 randomized), both in terms of starting positions and in terms of ongoing

   256 events.

   257 

   258     * Can I play well enough such that my character survives the perils?

   259     * Can I score more points than the other players?

   260     * And much more, depending on the arrangement and organization of

   261       the participants. 

   262 

   263 The key to Gamist Premises is that the conflict of interest among real

   264 people is an overt source of fun. It is not a matter of upset or abuse,

   265 and it is certainly not a "distraction from" or "failure of" role-playing.

   266 

   267     * A possible Gamist development of the "vampire" initial Premise

   268       might be, Can my character gain more status and influence than the

   269       other player-characters in the ongoing intrigue among vampires?

   270     * Another might be, Can our vampire characters survive the efforts

   271       of ruthless and determined human vampire hunters? 

   272 

   273 *Narrativist Premises* focus on producing Theme via events during play.

   274 Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from

   275 the in-game events. My thoughts on Narrativist Premise are derived from

   276 the book The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, specifically his

   277 emphasis on the questions that arise from human conundrums and passions

   278 of all sorts.

   279 

   280     * Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?

   281     * Do love and marriage outweigh one's loyalty to a political cause?

   282     * And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and

   283       stories of all sorts. 

   284 

   285 Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven

   286 Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great

   287 deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key

   288 to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that

   289 engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is

   290 produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by

   291 pre-planning.

   292 

   293     * A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial

   294       Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right

   295       to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the

   296       justification break down?

   297     * Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are

   298       divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing

   299       living people, and which side are you on? 

   300 

   301 *Simulationist Premises* are generally kept to their minimal role of

   302 personal aesthetic interest; the effort during play is spent on the

   303 Exploration. Therefore the variety of Simulationist play arises from the

   304 variety of what's being Explored.

   305 

   306     * Character: highly-internalized, character-experiential play, for

   307       instance the Turku approach. A possible development of the

   308       "vampire" premise in terms of Character Exploration might be, What

   309       does it feel like to be a vampire?

   310     * Situation: well-defined character roles and tasks, up to and

   311       including metaplot-driven play. A possible development of the

   312       "vampire" premise in terms of Situation Exploration might be, What

   313       does the vampire lord require me to do?

   314     * Setting: a strong focus on the details, depth, and breadth of a

   315       given set of source material. A possible development of the

   316       "vampire" premise in terms of Setting Exploration might be, How

   317       has vampire intrigue shaped human history and today's politics?

   318     * System: a strong focus on the resolution engine and all of its

   319       nuances in strictly within-game-world, internally-causal terms. A

   320       possible development of the "vampire" premise in terms of System

   321       Exploration might be, How do various weapons harm or fail to harm

   322       a vampire, in specific causal detail?

   323     * Any mutually-reinforcing combination of the above elements is of

   324       course well-suited to this form of play. 

   325 

   326 The key to Simulationist play is that imagining the designated features

   327 is prioritized over any other aspect of role-playing, most especially

   328 over any metagame concerns. The name Simulationism refers to the

   329 priority placed on resolving the Explored feature(s) in in-game,

   330 internally causal terms.

   331 

   332 *Controversy: is that third box really there?*

   333 It has rightly been asked whether Simulationism really exists, given

   334 that it consists mainly of Exploration. I suggest that Simulationism

   335 exists insofar as the effort and attention to Exploration may over-ride

   336 either Gamist or Narrativist priorities.

   337 

   338 Some of the following examples refer to RPG rules and text; I am

   339 referring to people enjoying and preferring such rules and text (i.e.

   340 the people, not the game itself).

   341 

   342 Concrete examples #1: Simulationism over-riding Gamism

   343 

   344     * Any text which states that role-playing is not about winning;

   345       correspondingly, chastising a player who advocates a character

   346       action perceived as "just trying to win." [This example assumes

   347       that the text/game does not state story-creation as an alternative

   348       goal.]

   349     * Using probability tables in character creation to determine

   350       appearance, profession/class, or race, based on demographics of

   351       the community of the character's origin. 

   352 

   353 Converse: Gamism over-riding Simulationism

   354 

   355     * Characters teaming up for a common goal with no disputes or even

   356       attention regarding differences in race, religion, ethics, or

   357       anything else.

   358     * Improving character traits (e.g. damage that may be taken) based

   359       on the amount of treasure amassed. 

   360 

   361 Concrete examples #2: Simulationism over-riding Narrativism

   362 

   363     * A weapon does precisely the same damage range regardless of the

   364       emotional relationship between wielder and target. (True for

   365       RuneQuest, not true for Hero Wars)

   366     * A player is chastised for taking the potential intensity of a

   367       future confrontation into account when deciding what the character

   368       is doing in a current scene, such as revealing an important secret

   369       when the PC is unaware of its importance.

   370     * The time to traverse town with super-running is deemed

   371       insufficient to arrive at the scene, with reference to distance

   372       and actions at the scene, such that the villain's bomb does blow

   373       up the city. (The rules for DC Heroes specifically dictate that

   374       this be the appropriate way to GM such a scene). 

   375 

   376 Converse: Narrativism over-riding Simulationism

   377 

   378     * Using metagame mechanics to increase the probability of task

   379       resolution, with NO corresponding in-game justification. "Apply my

   380       bonus die to increase my Charm roll," in which the bonus die is

   381       not "will" or "endurance" or anything but an abstract pool unit.

   382     * A player is chastised for claiming a PC motive that "stalls out"

   383       story elements (conflict, resolution etc). Example: player A is

   384       pissed off at player B, who has announced "I say nothing," in

   385       certain interactive scenes, when player A is aware that the PC's

   386       knowledge would be pivotal in the scene.

   387     * Using inter-player dialogue and knowledge to determine character

   388       action, then retroactively justifying the action in terms of

   389       character knowledge and motive. "You hit him high and I'll hit him

   390       low," between players whose characters do not have the opportunity

   391       to plan the attack. [This example could also apply to Gamism

   392       over-riding Simulationism; the two are quite similar.] 

   393 

   394 In conclusion, Simulationism exists as an established, real priority-set

   395 of role-playing, with its own distinctive range of decisions and goals.

   396 

   397 *Controversy: "But I'm story-oriented"*

   398 A great deal of intellectual suffering has occurred due to the linked

   399 claims that role-playing either is or is not "story-oriented," and that

   400 one falls on one side or the other of this dichotomy. I consider this

   401 terminology and its implication to be wholly false.

   402 

   403 "Story" may simply mean "series of caused events," in which case the

   404 issue is trivial. However, most of the time, the term is more specific.

   405 More specific meanings of "story" may be involved in role-playing in a

   406 variety of ways. Narrativism is a no-brainer in this regard, as it is

   407 defined by the metagame attention to creating a story of critical merit

   408 (i.e. "good"). But story-creation and its elements are certainly

   409 possible, although not prioritized, in both of the other modes. Most

   410 generally, there are (1) forms of Simulationist play with a strong

   411 Situation focus, which provide a story for the participants to imagine

   412 being in; and (2) forms of Gamist play in which dramatic outcomes are

   413 the stakes of competition, which produces story as a side-effect of that

   414 competition.

   415 

   416 More specifically, to observers who are not considering goals and

   417 decisions of play, the following three, very distinct sorts of play are

   418 superficially similar and often confounded.

   419 

   420     * Narrativist play with a Setting-driven Premise.

   421     * Simulationist play in which Situation is being preferentially

   422       Explored, perhaps with an elaborate published metaplot in the form

   423       of short stories or novels.

   424     * Gamist play in which Drama mechanics (see the fourth chapter) are

   425       used as a strategy-element, making use of a complex set of

   426       circumstances, Setting and Situation) for material. 

   427 

   428 Similarly, the same confoundment may occur regarding the following

   429 (which share regions of potential overlap with the three above in terms

   430 of "story," as well):

   431 

   432     * Narrativist play with a Character-driven Premise.

   433     * Simulationist play in which Character and Situation are being

   434       Explored.

   435     * Gamist play in which Character improvement or other development is

   436       at stake, and character behavior or attitudes are limiting factors. 

   437 

   438 Story-stuff and/or character stuff is so important to all these

   439 approaches that the differences in processes and point of role-playing

   440 are easy to miss, or, disastrously, easy to deny. Three people

   441 attempting to role-play with one another in a vampire-character game,

   442 but each representing one of (say) the first three perspectives, are

   443 going to have a hard time, even if they assured one another that they

   444 were fully committed to "the story." How and why the difficulties arise

   445 are discussed throughout the remainder of the essay.

   446 

   447 *Misunderstandings of GNS*

   448 By far and away, the worst misunderstanding of GNS, with the worst

   449 consequences, arises from synecdoche, confounding the part with the

   450 whole and vice versa. (I'll use Simulationism as my stand-in term, but

   451 any of the modes could be named here.)

   452 

   453     * Mistaking the whole for the part, within a mode: claiming that any

   454       Simulationist-oriented person must enjoy all Simulationist play.

   455     * Mistaking the part for the whole, within a mode: claiming that a

   456       particular sort of Simulationism is Simulationism (and nothing

   457       else is).

   458     * Mistaking the whole for the part, for all of role-playing:

   459       claiming that in role-playing at all, one must be engaged in

   460       Simulationism somehow.

   461     * Mistaking the part for the whole, for all of role-playing:

   462       claiming that a particular sort of Simulationism is role-playing

   463       (and nothing else is). 

   464 

   465 Synecdoche may be committed by someone who has recently or imperfectly

   466 learned some GNS vocabulary, who in his enthusiasm is disrespectful to

   467 modes of play besides his favorite. However, it is also tremendously

   468 widespread among those role-players who do not know, or even who

   469 disparage, a critical approach to the activity, but commit synecdoche

   470 using terms like "realistic" or "story." In either case, this fallacy is

   471 disastrous. It results in bad feelings, fizzled games, and rejection of

   472 role-playing.

   473 

   474 Other common misunderstandings of GNS include:

   475 

   476     * Ascribing any sort of geometric shape or variable-space to these

   477       terms. Such ideas are often interesting but they are not formally

   478       part of the definitions. (For instance, there is no such thing as

   479       a "GNS Triangle.")

   480     * Confounding Simulationism with the term "realism." Much of

   481       Simulationist play and game design has indeed focused on

   482       generating realistic outcomes, but this is a historical subset of

   483       the mode rather than part of the mode's definition.

   484     * Stating "see what happens" as the definition for any of the modes.

   485       All role-playing is about "seeing what happens." This is a good

   486       example of whole-for-the-part synecdoche.

   487     * Mistaking the shorthand of "He's a Narrativist" (or either of the

   488       others) for a limiting statement that the person is incapable of

   489       any other mode of play.

   490     * Mistaking any of the listed elements for one of the modes, e.g.,

   491       such that attention to character must be Narrativist, or attention

   492       to setting must be Simulationist, or attention to system must be

   493       Gamist.

   494     * Projecting judgment and value-judgments into the terminology, such

   495       that the speaker or listener perceives one of the goals to be

   496       placed higher or better than the others. Gamist play, for

   497       instance, is often unfairly marginalized.

   498     * Perceiving the terms' purpose as a means to classify game design.

   499       They are used relative to game design, but again as shorthand:

   500       calling an RPG a "Narrativist design," for instance, really means

   501       "This RPG's content facilitates Narrativist play."

   502     * Failing to understand the terms' actual purpose: to enable people

   503       to enjoy their role-playing more. 

   504 

   505 Note: "synecdoche" is pronounced "sin-ECK-doe-key." Think Schenectady

   506 and vasectomy. If you can make a good limerick out of these three words,

   507 I'll give you a prize.

   508 

   509 </articles/4/>

   510 *_Chapter Three: Stance_*

   511 

   512 Chapter Two was about what a person wants out of role-playing; this

   513 material is about specific acts and moments of role-playing, that is,

   514 what a person does. *Stance* is defined as how a person arrives at

   515 decisions for an imaginary character's imaginary actions.

   516 

   517     * In *Actor* stance, a person determines a character's decisions and

   518       actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character

   519       would have.

   520     * In *Author* stance, a person determines a character's decisions

   521       and actions based on the real person's priorities, then

   522       retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without

   523       that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called *Pawn* stance.)

   524     * In *Director* stance, a person determines aspects of the

   525       environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely

   526       separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence

   527       events. Therefore the player has not only determined the

   528       character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial

   529       circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world

   530       separate from the characters. 

   531 

   532 In most of the stance-discussions, we've considered players rather than

   533 GMs because the player:character relationship is usually 1:1 and very

   534 intimate. I think that GMs employ stance too, however, that discussion

   535 awaits development.

   536 

   537 *Stance and GNS*

   538 Stance is very labile during play, with people shifting among the

   539 stances frequently and even without deliberation or reflection.

   540 

   541 Stances do not correspond in any 1:1 way to the GNS modes. Stance is

   542 much more ephemeral, for one thing, such that a person enjoying the

   543 Gamist elements and decisions of a role-playing experience might shift

   544 all about the stances during a session of play. He or she might be

   545 Authoring most of the time and Directing occasionally, and then at a key

   546 moment slam into Actor stance for a scene. The goal hasn't changed;

   547 stance has.

   548 

   549 However, I think it's very reasonable to say that specific stances are

   550 more common in some modes/goals of play. Historically, Author stance

   551 seems the most common or at least decidedly present at certain points

   552 for Gamist and Narrativist play, and Director stance seems to be a rarer

   553 add-on in those modes. Actor stance seems the most common for

   554 Simulationist play, although a case could be made for Author and

   555 Director stance being present during character creation in this mode.

   556 These relative proportions of Stance positions during play do apparently

   557 correspond well with issues of Premise and GNS. I suggest, however, that

   558 it is a given subset of a mode that Stance is facilitating, rather than

   559 the whole mode itself. Some forms of Simulationism, for instance, may be

   560 best served by Director Stance, as opposed to other forms which are best

   561 served by Actor Stance. Similarly, some forms of Narrativism rely on

   562 Actor Stance at key moments.

   563 

   564 Consider the previous example of a group who has arrived at the

   565 agreement to role-play a vampire-character game, with three members who

   566 have radically different GNS and Premise approaches but share a

   567 superficial commitment to "story," undefined. What sort of Stances might

   568 be most common during play, from each of them? (In this example, each

   569 person represents one possible approach within each of the modes, and

   570 does not represent the entirety of a mode.)

   571 

   572     * One player is interested in competing, using his or her

   573       real-person influence and strategizing about dramatic outcomes to

   574       "score higher" than the other players, so he or she spends a lot

   575       of time in Author/Pawn Stance.

   576     * Another is interested in experiencing and Exploring the nuances of

   577       the story as it is presented from an external source (perhaps a

   578       sourcebook and/or a GM), and spends a lot of time in Actor Stance.

   579     * The third is interested in generating climactic and

   580       conflict-resolving moments derived from his or her character's

   581       decisions, and so those decisions are most likely going to be

   582       determined from Author Stance (but not Pawn). 

   583 

   584 Conflicts may well arise among these players as their decisions

   585 regarding their characters and expectations of one another disrupt the

   586 various goals. Stances and their impact on both the outcomes and

   587 experiences of play may be understood as part of the mechanisms of

   588 achieving GNS goals.

   589 

   590 Let us take pity, though, and suggest that they do happen to share

   591 enough Stance preferences, of some sort. They don't have to be exactly

   592 alike! Getting the most out of a GNS mode of play does not mean cleaving

   593 unswervingly to a Stance, but arranging Stances relative to specific

   594 types of scenes, decisions, and moments of play. Again, speaking

   595 historically rather than by definitions,

   596 

   597     * A Gamist approach to Stances usually involves preserving the

   598       Author-power of Pawn Stance in competitive situations, such that

   599       the player is not hampered in the range of possible options.

   600     * A Narrativist approach to Stances usually involves keeping Actor

   601       Stance confined to limited instances, such that Author and

   602       Director Stances may generate a lot of metagame impact on the

   603       storyline.

   604     * A Simulationist approach to Stances usually involves designating

   605       when Actor Stance, the default, may be exited. 

   606 

   607 So our vampire-interested players may take individualized approaches to

   608 Stance within one of these goal-orientations (or some other

   609 GNS-reinforcing conformation). Insofar as those differences facilitate

   610 similar goals, and hence cannot be too different in the crucial

   611 instances of play, all is well.

   612 

   613 *Misunderstandings and complications*

   614 A great deal of attention and rhetoric is devoted to "in-character"

   615 (*IC*) and "out-of-character" (*OOC*) role-playing, but I think that

   616 this topic is not related to Stance. IC role-playing, at its most

   617 literal, means that the role-player is using first-person diction to

   618 communicate the character's actions, and OOC role-playing means that he

   619 or she using third-person diction. However, that issue and the

   620 decision-making aspects of the Stance issue do not precisely correspond.

   621 Otherwise-excellent discussions and guidelines can be derailed or

   622 muddied by this problem. In the text of Nobilis, for instance, IC/OOC

   623 terminology is consistently used to indicate, as far as I can tell,

   624 Actor vs. Author Stance.

   625 

   626 Another common misunderstanding of Actor Stance is to confound it with

   627 "acting" in the histrionic, communicative sense - using a characteristic

   628 voice, gestures, and so on. The communicative and demonstrative aspects

   629 of "acting" are not involved in Actor Stance at all, which only means

   630 that the player is utilizing the character's knowledge and priorities to

   631 determine what the character does.

   632 

   633 Taking the above two points together, Actor Stance may be seen in the

   634 most technical-realist style play (which may use entirely third-person

   635 diction) as well as in the most channel-the-PC Turku play (which may use

   636 entirely first-person, in-character-voice diction).

   637 

   638 *Immersion* is another difficult issue that often arises in Stance

   639 discussions. Like "realism" and "completeness" and several other terms,

   640 it has many different definitions in role-playing culture. The most

   641 substantive definition that I have seen is that immersion is the sense

   642 of being "possessed" by the character. This phenomenon is not a stance,

   643 but a feeling. What kind of role-playing goes with that feeling? The

   644 feeling is associated with decision-making that is incompatible with

   645 Director or Author stance. Therefore, I suggest that immersion (an

   646 internal sensation) is at least highly associated with Actor Stance.

   647 Whether some people get into Actor stance and then "immerse," or others

   648 "immerse" and thus willy-nilly are in Actor stance, I don't know.

   649 The term Audience Stance has been proposed elsewhere, but at this point

   650 I am not convinced that the phenomenon exists. It remains as a potential

   651 topic for discussion.

   652 

   653 </articles/5/>

   654 

   655 *_Chapter Four: The Basics of Role-Playing Design_*

   656 

   657 System, system, system. Or more appropriately, design, design, design.

   658 The listed elements in Chapter One (character, situation, color,

   659 setting, system, initial premise) may be organized to facilitate greater

   660 *coherence* in Chapters Two (GNS, developed Premise) and Chapter Three

   661 (Stance), and thus to facilitate more enjoyable play. This principle is

   662 often summarized in the catch-phrase, "System does matter."

   663 

   664 By "coherence," I mean the degree to which a group of people can hit

   665 upon and sustain a shared Premise (or topic for Exploration, in

   666 Simulationist play) - and by definition, continue to enjoy the social

   667 role-playing activity consistently. The people do not need to agree in

   668 every detail or event of play, and they certainly do not have to conform

   669 to a single, immutable Stance or GNS profile. However, to role-play

   670 together most successfully, their shared agreements do need to go beyond

   671 simply sharing the initial Premise. To whatever extent they do this,

   672 they are cohering.

   673 

   674 At the last check-in, our vampire-friends have turned out to be a

   675 coherent bunch. Now their attention turns to the actual, physical item

   676 called the role-playing game. What is in it?

   677 

   678 This chapter is devoted to a lexicon for discussing the mechanical

   679 components of role-playing, in the service of eventually addressing how

   680 design affects coherence in the following chapter. I see two

   681 interrelated elements of design: *Character* and *System*.

   682 

   683 *Character*

   684 This terminology is intended to dissect out the procedural components of

   685 the imaginary entity called "my character." The idea is to form a basis

   686 for character creation that is integrated with the game's general design

   687 goals, whatever they may be.

   688 

   689 As I see it, there are three very large components to a character. I

   690 also think they always apply; in other words, role-playing necessarily

   691 demands all of the three to exist. Design, on the other hand, sometimes

   692 leaves one or more unstated, in which case the missing elements are

   693 overtly or covertly inserted during play.

   694 

   695 *Effectiveness* includes any numbers which are used to determine success

   696 or extent of an action. In Fortune-based systems, these include the

   697 familiar to-hit, skill success, damage rolls, and anything like these.

   698 In Karma-based systems, it would be the basic values, e.g. Everway's

   699 Element scores or Amber's attribute scores; in Drama-based systems,

   700 Effectiveness is governed by rules of dialogue. (See below for

   701 discussions of Fortune, Karma, and Drama.)

   702 In looking over a character's Effectiveness material, you get an idea of

   703 their "niche" or sphere of influence, what they're good at and what they

   704 aren't.

   705 

   706 Effectiveness is often "layered." In discussing Effectiveness, one needs

   707 to be careful to distinguish between the actual value and the means by

   708 which it is derived, because often a step of the process is named

   709 instead of the Effective value itself. For instance, the points spent on

   710 basic attribute scores in Champions pass through an exchange rate, such

   711 that three points result in one more unit of Dexterity. Furthermore, the

   712 Dexterity score itself passes through a division by three or five, and

   713 in some cases an addition of 11 as well, in order to arrive at a value

   714 that is actually used in play (an Effective value).

   715 

   716 In contrast, a non-layered Effectiveness value is determined, recorded,

   717 and used as such without derivation. The scores for Earth, Air, Fire,

   718 and Water in Everway are divided up from 20 points or less, and they are

   719 used at their respective values during play. The score for Focus is set

   720 from 1 to 10 when making up a character in Zero, and that value is used

   721 as such during play. Three descriptions of a puppet's abilities ("This

   722 puppet can shout really loud") in Puppetland are determined during

   723 character creation and are used without modification during play.

   724 

   725 *Resource* includes any available usable pool upon which Effectiveness

   726 or Metagame mechanics may draw, or which are reduced to reflect harm to

   727 the character. The obvious ones are Endurance, Sanity, or Hit Points (or

   728 even "lives" in frequent-resurrection games), but this category also

   729 includes breadth and depth of spell knowledge, for instance, or even the

   730 character's cash resources. Experience points, in some system, act as a

   731 resource for certain mechanics.

   732 In looking over a character's Resource material, you get an idea of how

   733 tough, (un)stoppable, and "fueled" they are.

   734 

   735 *Metagame* includes all positioning and behavioral statements about the

   736 character, as well as player rights to over-ride the existing

   737 Effectiveness rules. Thus it includes stuff like relationships

   738 ("Hunteds" in Champions) and limitations on behavior (Psychological

   739 Disadvantages, alignment), as well as *metagame mechanics*, like Trouble

   740 or Luck Points or what-have-you, which permit re-rolls or other

   741 overrides of the baseline resolution system. Clearly, material within

   742 metagame may directly affect Effectiveness and Resource, as with Trouble

   743 giving bonus dice in Orkworld, or in other games it does not, as with a

   744 Code Vs. Killing in Champions being taken to limit a character's actions

   745 without a formal effect on any other mechanics of play.

   746 Metagame issues are intimately related to *Balance of Power*, which is

   747 defined as the relative degrees to which players and GMs are privileged

   748 to have an impact on the events of play. In looking over a character's

   749 metagame material, you get an idea of the behavioral parameters within

   750 which the player is at least nominally committing to stay, and the

   751 rights to over-ride the system via metagame mechanics.

   752 

   753 Regarding all three components, named features on character sheets may

   754 find themselves in one or another category from game to game. Money, for

   755 example, is a Resource in a game of GURPS, an Effective value in Call of

   756 Cthulhu, and Metagame in Champions 3rd edition.

   757 

   758 *Currency among the three character components*

   759 *Currency* represents the relationship among the three components, both

   760 during character creation and during play. Its name comes from the

   761 observations that (1) "amounts" may be shifted and exchanged within and

   762 across the three components during character creation, and (2) that

   763 features or use of one category may have an impact on the use of the

   764 others during play.

   765 These exchange mechanisms among the three categories may or may not be

   766 overt (e.g. a system of points to spend). We can look at two different

   767 RPGs and compare how the three categories are distributed, and under

   768 whose control.

   769 

   770 Character creation varies tremendously across role-playing games. We see

   771 tons of methods, distributed in tons of ways even within single games:

   772 random vs. point-allocation, layered vs. not-layered, explicit vs.

   773 implicit currency, fixed vs. flexible relationship among the three

   774 elements, and more. I do not claim that there is any one best way. I do

   775 think that most character-creation design has been imitative and

   776 tweak-oriented, rather than conceptually integrated with any general

   777 goal of the RPG's design. I also think that certain designs are

   778 fundamentally flawed, at least for specific modes of play; my

   779 attributes/skills argument is an example.

   780 

   781 Some games are practically defined by the open spendability of an overt

   782 currency, e.g. GURPS. Others are fixed solid as rocks among and within

   783 the categories, e.g. D&D of whatever vintage. "Class," for instance,

   784 usually refers to a specific way to affix currency among the categories;

   785 having different classes means standardizing different "nodes" of

   786 currency combinations.

   787 

   788 Looking across RPG designs, I see that many games permit "trading" both

   789 within and between the categories during character creation, often with

   790 a rate of exchange.

   791 

   792     * If you drop your Strength, you can buy up your Dexterity or if you

   793       drop your Strength, you have more points to buy skills. These

   794       examples remain within the general category of Effectiveness.

   795     * If you drop your Strength, you can buy up your Endurance or Hit

   796       Points or whatever. This would be crossing categories from

   797       Effectiveness to Resource, as would be increasing your Luck Points

   798       at the expense of points for abilities. 

   799 

   800 I suggest that such trading (with or without an overt, generalized

   801 Currency) is fraught with peril, for two reasons. The first is the

   802 existence of breakpoints of Effectiveness, and the second is that

   803 soybean trading is almost impossible to avoid. Both of these are greatly

   804 heightened when the mathematics of character creation include ratios.

   805 

   806 Here's an example of breakpoints: effectiveness in Champions is largely

   807 based on division of scores, like 1/3 of your DEX or 11 + STR/5, or

   808 stuff like that. Therefore breakpoints are crucial - everyone ends up

   809 with DEX of 20, 23, or 26, for instance; any other score is only

   810 minimally useful and wastes points that could be spent better elsewhere.

   811 

   812 Soybean trading occurs most often when "derived attributes" are

   813 involved. The famous Champions trick is certainly familiar to many of

   814 us: buy up your STR (1:1) and END (1:0.5), which automatically raises

   815 your REC 1 point. Now buy down your REC, which gives 2 points back. Net

   816 gain: 0.5 points. Do this 10 times, and your gross is 10 points of STR,

   817 20 points of END, and 5 points of pure profit.

   818 

   819 Currency applies during play as well as during character creation. At

   820 the most obvious, the expenditure or loss of Resources may affect

   821 Effectiveness, as when one runs out of spell points or when damage

   822 accumulates such that ability scores are reduced. Metagame may be

   823 similarly affected by Resources, as when one must draw upon a point pool

   824 in order to re-roll dice, and that pool is used up. More subtly,

   825 multiple other relationships occur in multiple RPGs, such as a

   826 Meditation ability that permits recharging a Resource more rapidly.

   827 

   828 Currency is also related very intimately to Reward System and (for lack

   829 of a better term) Punishment System, because these feed back into the

   830 elements of Currency at every moment during play. Improvement processes

   831 are a common sort of Reward System, but not the only kind; damage and

   832 death for the character are a common sort of Punishment System, but not

   833 the only kind.

   834 

   835 Reward systems have been very deeply researched by me, but they await a

   836 rigorous discussion, as the baseline concepts of GNS, Stance, and the

   837 components of Currency must all be integrated. Some of the issues include:

   838 

   839     * What is being rewarded? Attendance? Role-playing per se? Player

   840       actions? Outcomes of conflicts? In-game moments?

   841     * Who is being rewarded, the player or the character?

   842     * Are reward systems necessary? At what scopes or time-frames of

   843       play are they more or less important?

   844     * If we are talking about character improvement, how does it

   845       proceed? Linearly or exponentially? If exponentially, is the

   846       exponent positive or negative?

   847     * Do changes in the values and aspects of the character affect the

   848       exchange rate of Currency itself? 

   849 

   850 Given the astounding importance of Currency among the various components

   851 of Character, designers of role-playing games would do well to consider

   852 all of the following.

   853 

   854     * What the three categories are.

   855     * All of them do exist in the act of "playing" a character.

   856     * How, when, or if exchange is involved among the categories, which

   857       is to say, not just among the "named items" on the sheet.

   858     * Subdivisions, nuances, and layering within each one. 

   859 

   860 Unfortunately, I think that many RPG designers were and are flying

   861 entirely by the seat of their pants. Their attention was on in-game

   862 named elements like "strength" and "percent to hit" rather than

   863 Effectiveness. Such an approach to character design allows latitude for

   864 all sorts of emergent properties, such as the point-mongering in

   865 Champions or the mini-maxing in most late 80s games, or any number of

   866 other "take-over" elements of play that subvert the stated goals of the

   867 design.

   868 

   869 I think that a more fundamentals-based approach to the design process

   870 would yield less problems of this kind. Without a vocabulary of the

   871 fundamentals, we'll end up with endless permutations of the same

   872 currency-mismatches and confusions with nearly every "new" game. In

   873 fact, that's exactly what we do have.

   874 

   875 *System*

   876 RPG resolution systems are a daunting topic, and the following is

   877 limited only to the broadest issue, Event Resolution.

   878 

   879 For Event Resolution, the relevant terms are Drama, Fortune, and Karma

   880 (often called DFK). These terms describe the mechanical and social

   881 means, among the real people, by which an imaginary action or event is

   882 determined to occur.

   883 

   884     * *Drama* resolution relies on asserted statements without reference

   885       to listed attributes or quantitative elements.

   886     * *Karma* resolution relies on referring to listed attributes or

   887       quantitative elements without a random element.

   888     * *Fortune* resolution relies on utilizing a random device of some

   889       kind, usually delimited by quantitative scores of some kind. 

   890 

   891 Each one of Drama, Karma, and Fortune deserves massive dissection. My

   892 on-line discussion of Fortune-in-the-Middle as a facilitator of

   893 Narrativist play is a good example; so is my comparison of flat/linear

   894 curves with separate/incorporate effects.

   895 

   896 These three types of resolution may be combined in a near-infinite

   897 variety across the various elements of RPG design; few or no RPGs fail

   898 to make use of at least two of them. I also claim that they may be

   899 combined in near-infinite variety across the various GNS goals. No

   900 particular one of them corresponds to any (entire) one of the GNS goals.

   901 Most importantly, I do not think that Drama methods necessarily

   902 facilitate Narrativist play. However, I do suggest that a game system

   903 may be organized such that a GNS subset and developed Premise are more

   904 understandable; this topic is developed further in the next chapter.

   905 

   906 Resolution systems often include metagame mechanics, as mentioned above,

   907 which permit a player to over-ride the "usual" resolution system of the

   908 game. These are found in a wide variety of combinations in functional

   909 terms as well as DFK terms.

   910 

   911     * The over-ride may occur before, after, or in place of the regular

   912       system mechanic.

   913     * The over-ride may or may not rely on resources of some kind.

   914     * The over-ride's version of DFK may mirror the usual system's

   915       version of DFK, or it may differ dramatically. 

   916 

   917 Example #1: a certificate in Prince Valiant may be redeemed (lost) for a

   918 player to state that the character instantly subdues an opponent. The

   919 mechanic replaces the usual resolution system (comparing tossed coins),

   920 which is simply ignored. This illustrates a Drama metagame mechanic

   921 replacing a Fortune baseline mechanic and relying on an irreplaceable

   922 Resource.

   923 

   924 Example #2: a bonus die in Over the Edge may be added to a player's

   925 roll, increasing the chance of success. The die is not permanently lost,

   926 but may not be used again during the same session. This illustrates a

   927 Fortune metagame mechanic added into a Fortune baseline mechanic,

   928 relying on a replaceable Resource.

   929 

   930 By definition, the character's role in the "decision" side of the

   931 over-ride is retroactive, and therefore the very existence of metagame

   932 mechanics is linked to Author or Director stance.

   933 

   934 *Switches and dials*

   935 The organization of the components of resolution, considering both

   936 Character and System together, may be thought of as *switches* and

   937 *dials*. Switches are discrete elements (values or terms) of the

   938 character that are set in place; they may have different settings but

   939 once set they are fixed. Dials are continuous elements (values) that may

   940 vary from high to low along a range. Switches and dials may be

   941 completely separate, or they may contain one another as well.

   942 

   943 Most character creation methods that include classes or clans, or that

   944 involve picking one item each from two lists, are utilizing large-scale

   945 switches, in which smaller dials are embedded. By contrast, most

   946 character creation systems that include a pool of points which may be

   947 freely distributed about options are utilizing a large-scale dial, in

   948 which smaller switches (e.g. behavioral limitations) are embedded.

   949 Plenty of other possibilities, as well as overlaps between these two,

   950 are in evidence as well. I am happy to provide examples as part of an

   951 ongoing discussion.

   952 

   953 (In either case, the method of "setting" may be either through personal

   954 choice or through randomized methods; for purposes of the current

   955 discussion, it doesn't matter which.)

   956 

   957 In looking at the diversity across RPGs, one may contrast what's held

   958 constant and what's permitted to vary, during character creation. What

   959 elements affect one another during play? What pieces may trade among one

   960 another during character creation? Even more fun is the hidden stuff,

   961 such as how Drama methods ("saved actions") are employed to change the

   962 order of action in the middle of combat resolution in an otherwise

   963 highly Fortune-driven system, or when Metagame (calling attention to

   964 another player's character's "alignment") is used to limit a

   965 competitor's options.

   966 

   967 I think that we are nowhere near arriving at a meaningful taxonomy for

   968 understanding how these combinations are organized across existing and

   969 potential RPGs, and furthermore that the discussion is long overdue. The

   970 following chapter begins a discussion of how the combinations relate to

   971 Premise and GNS.

   972 

   973 *Even more stuff to discuss later*

   974 The following topics have all been researched by me across the vast

   975 majority of role-playing game designs since the invention of the hobby.

   976 Some of them have been broached in public forums, and others have not. I

   977 have avoided discussing them to any depth, given the general lack of

   978 understanding of the foundational principles of this essay, but I would

   979 very much like to develop them in the future.

   980 

   981     * The relationship among announcing an intended action, initiating

   982       but not completing an action, determining the completion of the

   983       action, and determining the effects of an action.

   984     * The order in which the above events are conducted by the real

   985       people, rather than by the in-game causality. This general

   986       principle is illustrated in a local way by the

   987       Fortune-in-the-middle concept.

   988     * Search time and handling time, as defined in my essay "System Does

   989       Matter."

   990     * Probabilities in general, including issues of flat vs. linear

   991       curves, separate vs. incorporated effects, replacement vs.

   992       non-replacement results, and more. This discussion would include

   993       the interesting sub-topic of the critical and fumble concepts.

   994     * Target number methods in contrast to opposed-resolution methods.

   995     * Task vs. conflict resolution; i.e, what precisely is being

   996       determined by a unit of effort (system) by the participants. This

   997       issue is central to the design of many Narrativist-facilitating

   998       games, but could well be developed, in distinct ways, across all

   999       three modes.

  1000     * Scene resolution vs. action resolution, which is not the same as

  1001       task vs. conflict resolution. Scene resolution first appeared as a

  1002       Gamist device in Tunnels & Trolls, disappeared from design

  1003       philosophy for over a decade, then was resurrected as a

  1004       Narrativist device in Story Engine.

  1005     * Distinctions among systems for symbolically-significant actions

  1006       (e.g. magic), as well as between them and systems for mundane

  1007       actions. 

  1008 

  1009 *A popular misunderstanding*

  1010 The term "diceless" entered the role-playing lexicon with the appearance

  1011 of the revolutionary RPG Amber, but it almost instantly acquired nuances

  1012 of meaning far beyond its literal content. Dicelessness has been

  1013 associated with story-orientation (so-called), with creativity, with

  1014 "mature" abnegation of "power-gaming," and generally with anything that

  1015 the user of the term happens to like and in which dice are not involved.

  1016 This use of the term is nothing more nor less than a value judgment and

  1017 is properly ignored.

  1018 

  1019 Even more confusingly, the term seems to be applied across extremely

  1020 different things in the text of role-playing games. To call Amber or

  1021 Puppetland diceless is literally correct, and it happens to correspond

  1022 with their reliance on Karma and Drama methods; however, to call Castle

  1023 Falkenstein diceless is literally correct but functionally meaningless,

  1024 as its system is wholly Fortune-based. The text in the game undergoes

  1025 many gyrations to extoll the nuances that cards bring to role-playing,

  1026 but the fact remains that its card system is a Fortune system. The text

  1027 of Everway, on the other hand, openly acknowledges that its optional

  1028 card use is also the game's Fortune component.

  1029 

  1030 And most importantly, I see no particular reason to associate

  1031 "dicelessness" or even the lack of any Fortune methods with Narrativism.

  1032 Again, and as discussed in more detail in the following chapter, the

  1033 range of DFK variants and combinations within each of Gamism,

  1034 Narrativism, and Simulationism is very broad. The otherwise excellent

  1035 game Theatrix mistakenly identifies the lack of dice with a heightened

  1036 focus on story creation, and this patently absurd identification spread

  1037 rapidly through role-playing culture in the early 1990s.

  1038 

  1039 *Where's our vampires?*

  1040 The example used so far has taken a brief rest for this chapter, because

  1041 the players are making the horrendous mistake of buying, without

  1042 consideration of any technical issues presented so far, the most widely

  1043 advertised, best-illustrated RPG available - that is, strictly on the

  1044 basis of Color. Their fate will be presented in the next chapter.

  1045 

  1046 </articles/6/>

  1047 

  1048 *_Chapter Five: Role-playing Design and Coherence_*

  1049 

  1050 This chapter investigates how role-playing design is involved in

  1051 facilitating or inhibiting coherence. I think that all three modes of

  1052 play have been present in role-playing since its invention in the 1970s.

  1053 But design is a different issue. Because most of the history of RPG

  1054 design proceeds from variation among what already exists, with changes

  1055 usually appearing in discrete features rather than in foundational

  1056 principles, the priorities and goals facilitated by the designs show

  1057 extremely recognizable trends.

  1058 

  1059 It may fairly be asked, how can GNS be applied to design features, when

  1060 few if any RPG designers know about it, or even care? I use a physics

  1061 analogy: prior to the insights of Newtonian physics, bridges could be

  1062 built. Some of them were built rather well. However, in retrospect, we

  1063 are well aware that in order to build the bridge, the designer must have

  1064 been at the very least according with Newtonian physics through (1)

  1065 luck, (2) imitation of something else that worked, (3) use of principles

  1066 that did not conflict with Newtonian physics in a way that mattered for

  1067 the job, or (4) a non-articulated understanding of those principles. I

  1068 consider the analogy to be exact for role-playing games.

  1069 

  1070 Therefore, the theory-principles or stated intent of the designer, if

  1071 any, are irrelevant to the analysis of the RPG designs. For instance,

  1072 John Wick had no interest in GNS or any other theory when writing

  1073 Orkworld. However, he has a keen sense of practical role-playing and a

  1074 clear vision of the "ways" he envisioned Orkworld play to proceed. In

  1075 order to produce that game, he utilized and developed principles of

  1076 Narrativism, metagame mechanics, and focused Premise on Character and

  1077 Situation, precisely as outlined in the theory. He just did not

  1078 articulate them overtly.

  1079 

  1080 In terms of design, the issue is incoherence, defined here as failure to

  1081 permit any Premise (or any element of Exploration) to be consistently

  1082 enjoyed. I think that any and all RPG designs have some identifiable

  1083 relationship with the GNS modes, out of the following possibilities.

  1084 

  1085     * Focused: the design facilitates a specific, identifiable Premise

  1086       (or area of Exploration).

  1087     * Semi-adaptable: the design is at least compatible with more than

  1088       one Premise and/or Exploration across GNS goals. (Whether this

  1089       category even exists, or whether it merely reflects correctable

  1090       incoherence, is debatable.)

  1091     * General: the design facilitates a specific mode, but permits a

  1092       range of Premises or Explorations within that mode.

  1093     * Kitchen sink: the design utilizes layers and multiple options such

  1094       that any specific point of play may be customized to accord with

  1095       GNS goals. (This design often ends up being a general

  1096       Simulationist one, however.)

  1097     * Incoherent 1: the design fails to permit one or any mode of play.

  1098       In its most extreme form, the system may simply be broken - too

  1099       easily exploited, or internally nonsensical, or lacking meaningful

  1100       consequence, to pick three respective possibilities for Gamism,

  1101       Simulationism, and Narrativism.

  1102     * Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among

  1103       the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly)

  1104       facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others. 

  1105 

  1106 In terms of actual play, yes, one "can" bring "any" GNS focus to "any"

  1107 RPG - but I argue that in most cases the effort and informal redesign to

  1108 do so is substantial, and also that the effort to keep focused on the

  1109 new goals as play progresses is even more substantial. This chapter

  1110 discusses why that effort needs to be there at all.

  1111 

  1112 Throughout this chapter, cut me some slack on the terminology. Saying

  1113 "Gamist design" or "Gamist RPG," is a short way of saying, "RPG design

  1114 whose elements facilitate, to any recognizable degree, Gamist priorities

  1115 and decision-making."

  1116 

  1117 *Design and Premise*

  1118 Facilitating a metagame concern (a developed Premise) differs greatly

  1119 from Exploring a listed element as a priority. To address a Premise, the

  1120 imaginary, internal commitment to the in-game events must be broken at

  1121 least occasionally during play, to set up and resolve the issues of

  1122 interest in strictly person-to-person terms. To Explore the topic in the

  1123 Simulationist sense, breaking the imagined, continuous in-game causality

  1124 is exactly what to avoid. The at-first attractive idea that a system

  1125 could easily encompass, say, Character-based Premise and prioritized

  1126 Character Exploration is actually utterly unworkable.

  1127 

  1128 To illustrate this principle, let's take just one aspect of role-playing

  1129 design: the terms and qualities used to denote a character. How are

  1130 these things involved in Premise or focused Exploration?

  1131 

  1132 Facilitating Simulationism is all about Exploring the designated

  1133 element(s). The most important priority is that the stated features

  1134 express linear, in-game-world causality. That is why the most prevalent

  1135 version of Simulationist character design relies on Nature-Nurture