diff -r 624c702e7fec -r 90028d83d4ea references/gns.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/gns.txt Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,1931 @@ + +*GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory* +by Ron Edwards + +Copyright Adept Press 2001 + +*Introduction* +My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that +many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I +encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated. My goal in this writing is +to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate +what they want and like out of the activity, and to understand what to +look for both in other people and in game design to achieve their goals. +The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing +experiences is not my target audience. + +Everything in this document is nothing more nor less than "What Ron +Thinks." It is not an official Dogma for the Forge. It is not a +consensus view of members of the Forge, nor is it a committee effort of +any kind. It is most especially not an expectation for what you're +supposed to think or believe. + +However, it does stand as the single coherent body of theory about +role-playing at the Forge, and its lexicon is definitive for purposes of +discussion there. I am satisfied with it, but I'm not unreasonable +either, so it is not immutable. Please deal with it in one of the +following ways: identify an inconsistency, ask for clarification and +examples, or otherwise address its content critically. I am perfectly +willing to amend any content, if I'm given a substantive reason to do +so, and to give credit for the insight. + +I request that all discussion of this material be based on careful +consideration. Snap judgments, unsupported value judgments, neophobia, +taking offense, and other juvenile reactions are not welcome. +Furthermore, I am well aware that my GNS notions vary greatly from the +original Threefold Model (or GDS), and that my categories of Stance +differs from those originally proposed. Identifying these differences +does not constitute a criticism. + +I have been extensively influenced by the work of others and have +incorporated it in ways which make sense to me. Concepts that were +originated and developed by others are credited in the acknowledgments +at the end. + +*Contents* +Introduction + + 1. Exploration + 2. GNS + 3. Stance + 4. The Basics of Role-playing Design + 5. Role-playing Design and Coherence + 6. Actually Playing + +Acknowledgments + + +*_Chapter One: Exploration_* + +When a person engages in role-playing, or prepares to do so, he or she +relies on imagining and utilizing the following: *Character*, *System*, +*Setting*, *Situation*, and *Color*. + + * Character: a fictional person or entity. + * System: a means by which in-game events are determined to occur. + * Setting: where the character is, in the broadest sense (including + history as well as location). + * Situation: a problem or circumstance faced by the character. + * Color: any details or illustrations or nuances that provide + atmosphere. + +At the most basic level, these are what the role-playing experience is +"about," but to be more precise, these are the things which must be +imagined by the real people. In this sense, saying "system" means +"imagining events to be occurring." + +*Exploration and its child, Premise* +The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the +attention given the imagined elements, is *Exploration*. Initially, it +is an individual concern, although it will move into the social, +communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements +becomes an issue of its own. + +When a person perceives the listed elements together and considers +Exploring them, he or she usually has a basic reaction of interest or +disinterest, approval or disapproval, or desire to play or lack of such +a desire. Let's assume a positive reaction; when it occurs, whatever +prompted it is *Premise*, in its most basic form. To re-state, Premise +is whatever a participant finds among the elements to sustain a +continued interest in what might happen in a role-playing session. +Premise, once established, instils the desire to keep that imaginative +commitment going. + +Person 1: "You play vampires in the modern day, trying to stay secret +from the cattle and coping with other vampires." [See atmospheric, grim, +punky-goth pictures] + +Person 2: "Ooh! Cool!" + +Person 2 might have liked the grittiness of the art, the romance of the +word "vampire," or the idea of being involved in a secret mystical +intrigue. Or maybe none of these and an entirely different thing. Or +maybe all of them at once. It doesn't matter - whatever it was, that's +the initial Premise for this person. + +Premise is a metagame concern, wholly different from the listed +elements. They are the imagined (Explored) content of the role-playing +experience, and Premise is the real-person, real-world interest that +instils and maintains a person's desire to have that experience. At this +early point, though, Premise is vague and highly personal, as it is only +the embryo of the real Premise. The real Premise exists as a clear, +focused question or concern shared among all members of the group. The +initial Premise only takes shape and shared-focus when we move to the +next chapter. + +*Why "genre" is not part of the lexicon* +I do not recommend using "genre" to identify role-playing content. A +"genre" is some combination of specific setting elements, plot elements, +situation elements, character elements, and sometimes premise elements, +such that by hearing the term, we are informed what to expect, or in +role-playing terms, what to do. On the face of it, the concept would +seem to be useful. + +The problem is that genres are continually being deconstructed and +re-formed, with elements of one being re-combined with others. This is +occurring as a non-planned or non-managed historical phenomenon +throughout all media. Therefore "genre" may be a fine descriptive label +for what is or has been done, but it's not much help in terms of what to +do or what can be done. + +In many cases, a given genre label will convey to a close group of +people a fairly tight combination of values for these variables. +However, the same genre label loses its power to inform as you add more +people to the mix, especially since most labels have switched meanings +radically more than once. And even more importantly, new combinations of +values for the key variables may be perfectly functional, even when they +do not correspond to any recognized genre label. + +Therefore when someone tells me that a game (or story, or whatever) is +based on a certain genre, I have to ask a few more questions - and +sooner or later, I get real answers in terms of Character, Setting, +Situation, or Color. Only then can an initial Premise be identified, and +then the next step toward functional, enjoyable role-playing may occur. + + +*_Chapter Two: GNS_* + +Talk to someone who participates in role-playing, and focus on the +precise and actual acts of role-playing themselves. Ask them, "Why do +you role-play?" The most common answer is, "To have fun." + +Again, stick to the role-playing itself. (The wholly social issues are +real, such as "Wanting to hang out with my friends," but they are not +the topic at hand.) Now ask, "What makes fun?" This may not be a verbal +question, and it is best answered mainly through role-playing with +people rather than listening to them. Time and inference are usually +required. + +In my experience, the answer turns out to be a version of one of the +following terms. These terms, or modes, describe three distinct types of +people's decisions and goals during play. + + * *Gamism* is expressed by competition among participants (the real + people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, + both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual + play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the + competition. + * *Simulationism* is expressed by enhancing one or more of the + listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism + heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The + players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and + experiential consistency of that Exploration. + * *Narrativism* is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a + story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal + protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are + often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the + material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense + of literary analysis). + +Collectively, the three modes are called *GNS*. Stating "GNS," "GNS +perspectives," or anything similar, is to refer to the diversity of +approaches to play. One might refer to "GNS goals," in which case the +meaning is, "whichever one might apply for this act of role-playing." + +GNS is the central concept of my theorizing about role-playing. It is +necessary for understanding how Premise is developed, and it provides +the context for the later points in this essay. However, it is not +sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all +points about role-playing. + +I disavow either GM-centric or player-centric applications of GNS. The +terms apply to real people engaged in the act of role-playing, and the +distinction between GM and player is irrelevant for this purpose. +However, the reverse is meaningful: given a GNS focus of play, GM and +player roles take on specific shapes, or specific ranges of shapes. +(This issue is discussed later.) + +*Labels* +Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling +device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole +persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person +is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person +tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." +Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand +for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and +decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of +shorthand are common. + +For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in +application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all +three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals +appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more +fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the +course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of +competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the +course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary +that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of +Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that +contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not +to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play. The +actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous. + +Over a greater period of time, across many instances of play, some +people tend to cluster their decisions and interests around one of the +three goals. Other people vary across the goals, but even they admit +that they stay focused, or prioritize, for a given instance. + +*Developing Premise into practical form* +Again, all three modes are social applications of the foundational act +of role-playing, which is Exploration. Taking that into a social, +role-playing circumstance, the people get more concrete about a shared +Premise, and thus their decisions acquire a GNS focus of some kind. To +play successfully, the members of the role-playing group must be, at the +very least, willing to acknowledge and support the focused Premise as +perceived by one another. + +The developed or focused Premise is no longer a noun ("vampire") or +image, but has become a question, challenge, or provocative issue. + +Gamism and Narrativism each encompass a wide range of variation for +Premise, including variations that differ drastically from one another. +This is why "a Gamist," for instance, does not necessarily enjoy any and +all Gamist play or have the same priorities as any and all other +Gamist-oriented role-players. The same applies for Narrativism. +Simulationism is a bit different in its details, but in its way also +includes a wide range of variation and approaches to play; therefore the +insight that not all Simulationist-oriented play is alike applies here +as well. + +*Gamist Premises* focus on competition about overt metagame goals. They +vary regarding who is competing with whom (players vs. one another; +players vs. GM; etc), what is at stake, victory and loss conditions, and +what particular sort of strategizing is being employed. Gamist play also +varies widely in terms of what is and is not predictable (i.e. +randomized), both in terms of starting positions and in terms of ongoing +events. + + * Can I play well enough such that my character survives the perils? + * Can I score more points than the other players? + * And much more, depending on the arrangement and organization of + the participants. + +The key to Gamist Premises is that the conflict of interest among real +people is an overt source of fun. It is not a matter of upset or abuse, +and it is certainly not a "distraction from" or "failure of" role-playing. + + * A possible Gamist development of the "vampire" initial Premise + might be, Can my character gain more status and influence than the + other player-characters in the ongoing intrigue among vampires? + * Another might be, Can our vampire characters survive the efforts + of ruthless and determined human vampire hunters? + +*Narrativist Premises* focus on producing Theme via events during play. +Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from +the in-game events. My thoughts on Narrativist Premise are derived from +the book The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, specifically his +emphasis on the questions that arise from human conundrums and passions +of all sorts. + + * Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community? + * Do love and marriage outweigh one's loyalty to a political cause? + * And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and + stories of all sorts. + +Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven +Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great +deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key +to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that +engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is +produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by +pre-planning. + + * A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial + Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right + to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the + justification break down? + * Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are + divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing + living people, and which side are you on? + +*Simulationist Premises* are generally kept to their minimal role of +personal aesthetic interest; the effort during play is spent on the +Exploration. Therefore the variety of Simulationist play arises from the +variety of what's being Explored. + + * Character: highly-internalized, character-experiential play, for + instance the Turku approach. A possible development of the + "vampire" premise in terms of Character Exploration might be, What + does it feel like to be a vampire? + * Situation: well-defined character roles and tasks, up to and + including metaplot-driven play. A possible development of the + "vampire" premise in terms of Situation Exploration might be, What + does the vampire lord require me to do? + * Setting: a strong focus on the details, depth, and breadth of a + given set of source material. A possible development of the + "vampire" premise in terms of Setting Exploration might be, How + has vampire intrigue shaped human history and today's politics? + * System: a strong focus on the resolution engine and all of its + nuances in strictly within-game-world, internally-causal terms. A + possible development of the "vampire" premise in terms of System + Exploration might be, How do various weapons harm or fail to harm + a vampire, in specific causal detail? + * Any mutually-reinforcing combination of the above elements is of + course well-suited to this form of play. + +The key to Simulationist play is that imagining the designated features +is prioritized over any other aspect of role-playing, most especially +over any metagame concerns. The name Simulationism refers to the +priority placed on resolving the Explored feature(s) in in-game, +internally causal terms. + +*Controversy: is that third box really there?* +It has rightly been asked whether Simulationism really exists, given +that it consists mainly of Exploration. I suggest that Simulationism +exists insofar as the effort and attention to Exploration may over-ride +either Gamist or Narrativist priorities. + +Some of the following examples refer to RPG rules and text; I am +referring to people enjoying and preferring such rules and text (i.e. +the people, not the game itself). + +Concrete examples #1: Simulationism over-riding Gamism + + * Any text which states that role-playing is not about winning; + correspondingly, chastising a player who advocates a character + action perceived as "just trying to win." [This example assumes + that the text/game does not state story-creation as an alternative + goal.] + * Using probability tables in character creation to determine + appearance, profession/class, or race, based on demographics of + the community of the character's origin. + +Converse: Gamism over-riding Simulationism + + * Characters teaming up for a common goal with no disputes or even + attention regarding differences in race, religion, ethics, or + anything else. + * Improving character traits (e.g. damage that may be taken) based + on the amount of treasure amassed. + +Concrete examples #2: Simulationism over-riding Narrativism + + * A weapon does precisely the same damage range regardless of the + emotional relationship between wielder and target. (True for + RuneQuest, not true for Hero Wars) + * A player is chastised for taking the potential intensity of a + future confrontation into account when deciding what the character + is doing in a current scene, such as revealing an important secret + when the PC is unaware of its importance. + * The time to traverse town with super-running is deemed + insufficient to arrive at the scene, with reference to distance + and actions at the scene, such that the villain's bomb does blow + up the city. (The rules for DC Heroes specifically dictate that + this be the appropriate way to GM such a scene). + +Converse: Narrativism over-riding Simulationism + + * Using metagame mechanics to increase the probability of task + resolution, with NO corresponding in-game justification. "Apply my + bonus die to increase my Charm roll," in which the bonus die is + not "will" or "endurance" or anything but an abstract pool unit. + * A player is chastised for claiming a PC motive that "stalls out" + story elements (conflict, resolution etc). Example: player A is + pissed off at player B, who has announced "I say nothing," in + certain interactive scenes, when player A is aware that the PC's + knowledge would be pivotal in the scene. + * Using inter-player dialogue and knowledge to determine character + action, then retroactively justifying the action in terms of + character knowledge and motive. "You hit him high and I'll hit him + low," between players whose characters do not have the opportunity + to plan the attack. [This example could also apply to Gamism + over-riding Simulationism; the two are quite similar.] + +In conclusion, Simulationism exists as an established, real priority-set +of role-playing, with its own distinctive range of decisions and goals. + +*Controversy: "But I'm story-oriented"* +A great deal of intellectual suffering has occurred due to the linked +claims that role-playing either is or is not "story-oriented," and that +one falls on one side or the other of this dichotomy. I consider this +terminology and its implication to be wholly false. + +"Story" may simply mean "series of caused events," in which case the +issue is trivial. However, most of the time, the term is more specific. +More specific meanings of "story" may be involved in role-playing in a +variety of ways. Narrativism is a no-brainer in this regard, as it is +defined by the metagame attention to creating a story of critical merit +(i.e. "good"). But story-creation and its elements are certainly +possible, although not prioritized, in both of the other modes. Most +generally, there are (1) forms of Simulationist play with a strong +Situation focus, which provide a story for the participants to imagine +being in; and (2) forms of Gamist play in which dramatic outcomes are +the stakes of competition, which produces story as a side-effect of that +competition. + +More specifically, to observers who are not considering goals and +decisions of play, the following three, very distinct sorts of play are +superficially similar and often confounded. + + * Narrativist play with a Setting-driven Premise. + * Simulationist play in which Situation is being preferentially + Explored, perhaps with an elaborate published metaplot in the form + of short stories or novels. + * Gamist play in which Drama mechanics (see the fourth chapter) are + used as a strategy-element, making use of a complex set of + circumstances, Setting and Situation) for material. + +Similarly, the same confoundment may occur regarding the following +(which share regions of potential overlap with the three above in terms +of "story," as well): + + * Narrativist play with a Character-driven Premise. + * Simulationist play in which Character and Situation are being + Explored. + * Gamist play in which Character improvement or other development is + at stake, and character behavior or attitudes are limiting factors. + +Story-stuff and/or character stuff is so important to all these +approaches that the differences in processes and point of role-playing +are easy to miss, or, disastrously, easy to deny. Three people +attempting to role-play with one another in a vampire-character game, +but each representing one of (say) the first three perspectives, are +going to have a hard time, even if they assured one another that they +were fully committed to "the story." How and why the difficulties arise +are discussed throughout the remainder of the essay. + +*Misunderstandings of GNS* +By far and away, the worst misunderstanding of GNS, with the worst +consequences, arises from synecdoche, confounding the part with the +whole and vice versa. (I'll use Simulationism as my stand-in term, but +any of the modes could be named here.) + + * Mistaking the whole for the part, within a mode: claiming that any + Simulationist-oriented person must enjoy all Simulationist play. + * Mistaking the part for the whole, within a mode: claiming that a + particular sort of Simulationism is Simulationism (and nothing + else is). + * Mistaking the whole for the part, for all of role-playing: + claiming that in role-playing at all, one must be engaged in + Simulationism somehow. + * Mistaking the part for the whole, for all of role-playing: + claiming that a particular sort of Simulationism is role-playing + (and nothing else is). + +Synecdoche may be committed by someone who has recently or imperfectly +learned some GNS vocabulary, who in his enthusiasm is disrespectful to +modes of play besides his favorite. However, it is also tremendously +widespread among those role-players who do not know, or even who +disparage, a critical approach to the activity, but commit synecdoche +using terms like "realistic" or "story." In either case, this fallacy is +disastrous. It results in bad feelings, fizzled games, and rejection of +role-playing. + +Other common misunderstandings of GNS include: + + * Ascribing any sort of geometric shape or variable-space to these + terms. Such ideas are often interesting but they are not formally + part of the definitions. (For instance, there is no such thing as + a "GNS Triangle.") + * Confounding Simulationism with the term "realism." Much of + Simulationist play and game design has indeed focused on + generating realistic outcomes, but this is a historical subset of + the mode rather than part of the mode's definition. + * Stating "see what happens" as the definition for any of the modes. + All role-playing is about "seeing what happens." This is a good + example of whole-for-the-part synecdoche. + * Mistaking the shorthand of "He's a Narrativist" (or either of the + others) for a limiting statement that the person is incapable of + any other mode of play. + * Mistaking any of the listed elements for one of the modes, e.g., + such that attention to character must be Narrativist, or attention + to setting must be Simulationist, or attention to system must be + Gamist. + * Projecting judgment and value-judgments into the terminology, such + that the speaker or listener perceives one of the goals to be + placed higher or better than the others. Gamist play, for + instance, is often unfairly marginalized. + * Perceiving the terms' purpose as a means to classify game design. + They are used relative to game design, but again as shorthand: + calling an RPG a "Narrativist design," for instance, really means + "This RPG's content facilitates Narrativist play." + * Failing to understand the terms' actual purpose: to enable people + to enjoy their role-playing more. + +Note: "synecdoche" is pronounced "sin-ECK-doe-key." Think Schenectady +and vasectomy. If you can make a good limerick out of these three words, +I'll give you a prize. + + +*_Chapter Three: Stance_* + +Chapter Two was about what a person wants out of role-playing; this +material is about specific acts and moments of role-playing, that is, +what a person does. *Stance* is defined as how a person arrives at +decisions for an imaginary character's imaginary actions. + + * In *Actor* stance, a person determines a character's decisions and + actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character + would have. + * In *Author* stance, a person determines a character's decisions + and actions based on the real person's priorities, then + retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without + that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called *Pawn* stance.) + * In *Director* stance, a person determines aspects of the + environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely + separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence + events. Therefore the player has not only determined the + character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial + circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world + separate from the characters. + +In most of the stance-discussions, we've considered players rather than +GMs because the player:character relationship is usually 1:1 and very +intimate. I think that GMs employ stance too, however, that discussion +awaits development. + +*Stance and GNS* +Stance is very labile during play, with people shifting among the +stances frequently and even without deliberation or reflection. + +Stances do not correspond in any 1:1 way to the GNS modes. Stance is +much more ephemeral, for one thing, such that a person enjoying the +Gamist elements and decisions of a role-playing experience might shift +all about the stances during a session of play. He or she might be +Authoring most of the time and Directing occasionally, and then at a key +moment slam into Actor stance for a scene. The goal hasn't changed; +stance has. + +However, I think it's very reasonable to say that specific stances are +more common in some modes/goals of play. Historically, Author stance +seems the most common or at least decidedly present at certain points +for Gamist and Narrativist play, and Director stance seems to be a rarer +add-on in those modes. Actor stance seems the most common for +Simulationist play, although a case could be made for Author and +Director stance being present during character creation in this mode. +These relative proportions of Stance positions during play do apparently +correspond well with issues of Premise and GNS. I suggest, however, that +it is a given subset of a mode that Stance is facilitating, rather than +the whole mode itself. Some forms of Simulationism, for instance, may be +best served by Director Stance, as opposed to other forms which are best +served by Actor Stance. Similarly, some forms of Narrativism rely on +Actor Stance at key moments. + +Consider the previous example of a group who has arrived at the +agreement to role-play a vampire-character game, with three members who +have radically different GNS and Premise approaches but share a +superficial commitment to "story," undefined. What sort of Stances might +be most common during play, from each of them? (In this example, each +person represents one possible approach within each of the modes, and +does not represent the entirety of a mode.) + + * One player is interested in competing, using his or her + real-person influence and strategizing about dramatic outcomes to + "score higher" than the other players, so he or she spends a lot + of time in Author/Pawn Stance. + * Another is interested in experiencing and Exploring the nuances of + the story as it is presented from an external source (perhaps a + sourcebook and/or a GM), and spends a lot of time in Actor Stance. + * The third is interested in generating climactic and + conflict-resolving moments derived from his or her character's + decisions, and so those decisions are most likely going to be + determined from Author Stance (but not Pawn). + +Conflicts may well arise among these players as their decisions +regarding their characters and expectations of one another disrupt the +various goals. Stances and their impact on both the outcomes and +experiences of play may be understood as part of the mechanisms of +achieving GNS goals. + +Let us take pity, though, and suggest that they do happen to share +enough Stance preferences, of some sort. They don't have to be exactly +alike! Getting the most out of a GNS mode of play does not mean cleaving +unswervingly to a Stance, but arranging Stances relative to specific +types of scenes, decisions, and moments of play. Again, speaking +historically rather than by definitions, + + * A Gamist approach to Stances usually involves preserving the + Author-power of Pawn Stance in competitive situations, such that + the player is not hampered in the range of possible options. + * A Narrativist approach to Stances usually involves keeping Actor + Stance confined to limited instances, such that Author and + Director Stances may generate a lot of metagame impact on the + storyline. + * A Simulationist approach to Stances usually involves designating + when Actor Stance, the default, may be exited. + +So our vampire-interested players may take individualized approaches to +Stance within one of these goal-orientations (or some other +GNS-reinforcing conformation). Insofar as those differences facilitate +similar goals, and hence cannot be too different in the crucial +instances of play, all is well. + +*Misunderstandings and complications* +A great deal of attention and rhetoric is devoted to "in-character" +(*IC*) and "out-of-character" (*OOC*) role-playing, but I think that +this topic is not related to Stance. IC role-playing, at its most +literal, means that the role-player is using first-person diction to +communicate the character's actions, and OOC role-playing means that he +or she using third-person diction. However, that issue and the +decision-making aspects of the Stance issue do not precisely correspond. +Otherwise-excellent discussions and guidelines can be derailed or +muddied by this problem. In the text of Nobilis, for instance, IC/OOC +terminology is consistently used to indicate, as far as I can tell, +Actor vs. Author Stance. + +Another common misunderstanding of Actor Stance is to confound it with +"acting" in the histrionic, communicative sense - using a characteristic +voice, gestures, and so on. The communicative and demonstrative aspects +of "acting" are not involved in Actor Stance at all, which only means +that the player is utilizing the character's knowledge and priorities to +determine what the character does. + +Taking the above two points together, Actor Stance may be seen in the +most technical-realist style play (which may use entirely third-person +diction) as well as in the most channel-the-PC Turku play (which may use +entirely first-person, in-character-voice diction). + +*Immersion* is another difficult issue that often arises in Stance +discussions. Like "realism" and "completeness" and several other terms, +it has many different definitions in role-playing culture. The most +substantive definition that I have seen is that immersion is the sense +of being "possessed" by the character. This phenomenon is not a stance, +but a feeling. What kind of role-playing goes with that feeling? The +feeling is associated with decision-making that is incompatible with +Director or Author stance. Therefore, I suggest that immersion (an +internal sensation) is at least highly associated with Actor Stance. +Whether some people get into Actor stance and then "immerse," or others +"immerse" and thus willy-nilly are in Actor stance, I don't know. +The term Audience Stance has been proposed elsewhere, but at this point +I am not convinced that the phenomenon exists. It remains as a potential +topic for discussion. + + + +*_Chapter Four: The Basics of Role-Playing Design_* + +System, system, system. Or more appropriately, design, design, design. +The listed elements in Chapter One (character, situation, color, +setting, system, initial premise) may be organized to facilitate greater +*coherence* in Chapters Two (GNS, developed Premise) and Chapter Three +(Stance), and thus to facilitate more enjoyable play. This principle is +often summarized in the catch-phrase, "System does matter." + +By "coherence," I mean the degree to which a group of people can hit +upon and sustain a shared Premise (or topic for Exploration, in +Simulationist play) - and by definition, continue to enjoy the social +role-playing activity consistently. The people do not need to agree in +every detail or event of play, and they certainly do not have to conform +to a single, immutable Stance or GNS profile. However, to role-play +together most successfully, their shared agreements do need to go beyond +simply sharing the initial Premise. To whatever extent they do this, +they are cohering. + +At the last check-in, our vampire-friends have turned out to be a +coherent bunch. Now their attention turns to the actual, physical item +called the role-playing game. What is in it? + +This chapter is devoted to a lexicon for discussing the mechanical +components of role-playing, in the service of eventually addressing how +design affects coherence in the following chapter. I see two +interrelated elements of design: *Character* and *System*. + +*Character* +This terminology is intended to dissect out the procedural components of +the imaginary entity called "my character." The idea is to form a basis +for character creation that is integrated with the game's general design +goals, whatever they may be. + +As I see it, there are three very large components to a character. I +also think they always apply; in other words, role-playing necessarily +demands all of the three to exist. Design, on the other hand, sometimes +leaves one or more unstated, in which case the missing elements are +overtly or covertly inserted during play. + +*Effectiveness* includes any numbers which are used to determine success +or extent of an action. In Fortune-based systems, these include the +familiar to-hit, skill success, damage rolls, and anything like these. +In Karma-based systems, it would be the basic values, e.g. Everway's +Element scores or Amber's attribute scores; in Drama-based systems, +Effectiveness is governed by rules of dialogue. (See below for +discussions of Fortune, Karma, and Drama.) +In looking over a character's Effectiveness material, you get an idea of +their "niche" or sphere of influence, what they're good at and what they +aren't. + +Effectiveness is often "layered." In discussing Effectiveness, one needs +to be careful to distinguish between the actual value and the means by +which it is derived, because often a step of the process is named +instead of the Effective value itself. For instance, the points spent on +basic attribute scores in Champions pass through an exchange rate, such +that three points result in one more unit of Dexterity. Furthermore, the +Dexterity score itself passes through a division by three or five, and +in some cases an addition of 11 as well, in order to arrive at a value +that is actually used in play (an Effective value). + +In contrast, a non-layered Effectiveness value is determined, recorded, +and used as such without derivation. The scores for Earth, Air, Fire, +and Water in Everway are divided up from 20 points or less, and they are +used at their respective values during play. The score for Focus is set +from 1 to 10 when making up a character in Zero, and that value is used +as such during play. Three descriptions of a puppet's abilities ("This +puppet can shout really loud") in Puppetland are determined during +character creation and are used without modification during play. + +*Resource* includes any available usable pool upon which Effectiveness +or Metagame mechanics may draw, or which are reduced to reflect harm to +the character. The obvious ones are Endurance, Sanity, or Hit Points (or +even "lives" in frequent-resurrection games), but this category also +includes breadth and depth of spell knowledge, for instance, or even the +character's cash resources. Experience points, in some system, act as a +resource for certain mechanics. +In looking over a character's Resource material, you get an idea of how +tough, (un)stoppable, and "fueled" they are. + +*Metagame* includes all positioning and behavioral statements about the +character, as well as player rights to over-ride the existing +Effectiveness rules. Thus it includes stuff like relationships +("Hunteds" in Champions) and limitations on behavior (Psychological +Disadvantages, alignment), as well as *metagame mechanics*, like Trouble +or Luck Points or what-have-you, which permit re-rolls or other +overrides of the baseline resolution system. Clearly, material within +metagame may directly affect Effectiveness and Resource, as with Trouble +giving bonus dice in Orkworld, or in other games it does not, as with a +Code Vs. Killing in Champions being taken to limit a character's actions +without a formal effect on any other mechanics of play. +Metagame issues are intimately related to *Balance of Power*, which is +defined as the relative degrees to which players and GMs are privileged +to have an impact on the events of play. In looking over a character's +metagame material, you get an idea of the behavioral parameters within +which the player is at least nominally committing to stay, and the +rights to over-ride the system via metagame mechanics. + +Regarding all three components, named features on character sheets may +find themselves in one or another category from game to game. Money, for +example, is a Resource in a game of GURPS, an Effective value in Call of +Cthulhu, and Metagame in Champions 3rd edition. + +*Currency among the three character components* +*Currency* represents the relationship among the three components, both +during character creation and during play. Its name comes from the +observations that (1) "amounts" may be shifted and exchanged within and +across the three components during character creation, and (2) that +features or use of one category may have an impact on the use of the +others during play. +These exchange mechanisms among the three categories may or may not be +overt (e.g. a system of points to spend). We can look at two different +RPGs and compare how the three categories are distributed, and under +whose control. + +Character creation varies tremendously across role-playing games. We see +tons of methods, distributed in tons of ways even within single games: +random vs. point-allocation, layered vs. not-layered, explicit vs. +implicit currency, fixed vs. flexible relationship among the three +elements, and more. I do not claim that there is any one best way. I do +think that most character-creation design has been imitative and +tweak-oriented, rather than conceptually integrated with any general +goal of the RPG's design. I also think that certain designs are +fundamentally flawed, at least for specific modes of play; my +attributes/skills argument is an example. + +Some games are practically defined by the open spendability of an overt +currency, e.g. GURPS. Others are fixed solid as rocks among and within +the categories, e.g. D&D of whatever vintage. "Class," for instance, +usually refers to a specific way to affix currency among the categories; +having different classes means standardizing different "nodes" of +currency combinations. + +Looking across RPG designs, I see that many games permit "trading" both +within and between the categories during character creation, often with +a rate of exchange. + + * If you drop your Strength, you can buy up your Dexterity or if you + drop your Strength, you have more points to buy skills. These + examples remain within the general category of Effectiveness. + * If you drop your Strength, you can buy up your Endurance or Hit + Points or whatever. This would be crossing categories from + Effectiveness to Resource, as would be increasing your Luck Points + at the expense of points for abilities. + +I suggest that such trading (with or without an overt, generalized +Currency) is fraught with peril, for two reasons. The first is the +existence of breakpoints of Effectiveness, and the second is that +soybean trading is almost impossible to avoid. Both of these are greatly +heightened when the mathematics of character creation include ratios. + +Here's an example of breakpoints: effectiveness in Champions is largely +based on division of scores, like 1/3 of your DEX or 11 + STR/5, or +stuff like that. Therefore breakpoints are crucial - everyone ends up +with DEX of 20, 23, or 26, for instance; any other score is only +minimally useful and wastes points that could be spent better elsewhere. + +Soybean trading occurs most often when "derived attributes" are +involved. The famous Champions trick is certainly familiar to many of +us: buy up your STR (1:1) and END (1:0.5), which automatically raises +your REC 1 point. Now buy down your REC, which gives 2 points back. Net +gain: 0.5 points. Do this 10 times, and your gross is 10 points of STR, +20 points of END, and 5 points of pure profit. + +Currency applies during play as well as during character creation. At +the most obvious, the expenditure or loss of Resources may affect +Effectiveness, as when one runs out of spell points or when damage +accumulates such that ability scores are reduced. Metagame may be +similarly affected by Resources, as when one must draw upon a point pool +in order to re-roll dice, and that pool is used up. More subtly, +multiple other relationships occur in multiple RPGs, such as a +Meditation ability that permits recharging a Resource more rapidly. + +Currency is also related very intimately to Reward System and (for lack +of a better term) Punishment System, because these feed back into the +elements of Currency at every moment during play. Improvement processes +are a common sort of Reward System, but not the only kind; damage and +death for the character are a common sort of Punishment System, but not +the only kind. + +Reward systems have been very deeply researched by me, but they await a +rigorous discussion, as the baseline concepts of GNS, Stance, and the +components of Currency must all be integrated. Some of the issues include: + + * What is being rewarded? Attendance? Role-playing per se? Player + actions? Outcomes of conflicts? In-game moments? + * Who is being rewarded, the player or the character? + * Are reward systems necessary? At what scopes or time-frames of + play are they more or less important? + * If we are talking about character improvement, how does it + proceed? Linearly or exponentially? If exponentially, is the + exponent positive or negative? + * Do changes in the values and aspects of the character affect the + exchange rate of Currency itself? + +Given the astounding importance of Currency among the various components +of Character, designers of role-playing games would do well to consider +all of the following. + + * What the three categories are. + * All of them do exist in the act of "playing" a character. + * How, when, or if exchange is involved among the categories, which + is to say, not just among the "named items" on the sheet. + * Subdivisions, nuances, and layering within each one. + +Unfortunately, I think that many RPG designers were and are flying +entirely by the seat of their pants. Their attention was on in-game +named elements like "strength" and "percent to hit" rather than +Effectiveness. Such an approach to character design allows latitude for +all sorts of emergent properties, such as the point-mongering in +Champions or the mini-maxing in most late 80s games, or any number of +other "take-over" elements of play that subvert the stated goals of the +design. + +I think that a more fundamentals-based approach to the design process +would yield less problems of this kind. Without a vocabulary of the +fundamentals, we'll end up with endless permutations of the same +currency-mismatches and confusions with nearly every "new" game. In +fact, that's exactly what we do have. + +*System* +RPG resolution systems are a daunting topic, and the following is +limited only to the broadest issue, Event Resolution. + +For Event Resolution, the relevant terms are Drama, Fortune, and Karma +(often called DFK). These terms describe the mechanical and social +means, among the real people, by which an imaginary action or event is +determined to occur. + + * *Drama* resolution relies on asserted statements without reference + to listed attributes or quantitative elements. + * *Karma* resolution relies on referring to listed attributes or + quantitative elements without a random element. + * *Fortune* resolution relies on utilizing a random device of some + kind, usually delimited by quantitative scores of some kind. + +Each one of Drama, Karma, and Fortune deserves massive dissection. My +on-line discussion of Fortune-in-the-Middle as a facilitator of +Narrativist play is a good example; so is my comparison of flat/linear +curves with separate/incorporate effects. + +These three types of resolution may be combined in a near-infinite +variety across the various elements of RPG design; few or no RPGs fail +to make use of at least two of them. I also claim that they may be +combined in near-infinite variety across the various GNS goals. No +particular one of them corresponds to any (entire) one of the GNS goals. +Most importantly, I do not think that Drama methods necessarily +facilitate Narrativist play. However, I do suggest that a game system +may be organized such that a GNS subset and developed Premise are more +understandable; this topic is developed further in the next chapter. + +Resolution systems often include metagame mechanics, as mentioned above, +which permit a player to over-ride the "usual" resolution system of the +game. These are found in a wide variety of combinations in functional +terms as well as DFK terms. + + * The over-ride may occur before, after, or in place of the regular + system mechanic. + * The over-ride may or may not rely on resources of some kind. + * The over-ride's version of DFK may mirror the usual system's + version of DFK, or it may differ dramatically. + +Example #1: a certificate in Prince Valiant may be redeemed (lost) for a +player to state that the character instantly subdues an opponent. The +mechanic replaces the usual resolution system (comparing tossed coins), +which is simply ignored. This illustrates a Drama metagame mechanic +replacing a Fortune baseline mechanic and relying on an irreplaceable +Resource. + +Example #2: a bonus die in Over the Edge may be added to a player's +roll, increasing the chance of success. The die is not permanently lost, +but may not be used again during the same session. This illustrates a +Fortune metagame mechanic added into a Fortune baseline mechanic, +relying on a replaceable Resource. + +By definition, the character's role in the "decision" side of the +over-ride is retroactive, and therefore the very existence of metagame +mechanics is linked to Author or Director stance. + +*Switches and dials* +The organization of the components of resolution, considering both +Character and System together, may be thought of as *switches* and +*dials*. Switches are discrete elements (values or terms) of the +character that are set in place; they may have different settings but +once set they are fixed. Dials are continuous elements (values) that may +vary from high to low along a range. Switches and dials may be +completely separate, or they may contain one another as well. + +Most character creation methods that include classes or clans, or that +involve picking one item each from two lists, are utilizing large-scale +switches, in which smaller dials are embedded. By contrast, most +character creation systems that include a pool of points which may be +freely distributed about options are utilizing a large-scale dial, in +which smaller switches (e.g. behavioral limitations) are embedded. +Plenty of other possibilities, as well as overlaps between these two, +are in evidence as well. I am happy to provide examples as part of an +ongoing discussion. + +(In either case, the method of "setting" may be either through personal +choice or through randomized methods; for purposes of the current +discussion, it doesn't matter which.) + +In looking at the diversity across RPGs, one may contrast what's held +constant and what's permitted to vary, during character creation. What +elements affect one another during play? What pieces may trade among one +another during character creation? Even more fun is the hidden stuff, +such as how Drama methods ("saved actions") are employed to change the +order of action in the middle of combat resolution in an otherwise +highly Fortune-driven system, or when Metagame (calling attention to +another player's character's "alignment") is used to limit a +competitor's options. + +I think that we are nowhere near arriving at a meaningful taxonomy for +understanding how these combinations are organized across existing and +potential RPGs, and furthermore that the discussion is long overdue. The +following chapter begins a discussion of how the combinations relate to +Premise and GNS. + +*Even more stuff to discuss later* +The following topics have all been researched by me across the vast +majority of role-playing game designs since the invention of the hobby. +Some of them have been broached in public forums, and others have not. I +have avoided discussing them to any depth, given the general lack of +understanding of the foundational principles of this essay, but I would +very much like to develop them in the future. + + * The relationship among announcing an intended action, initiating + but not completing an action, determining the completion of the + action, and determining the effects of an action. + * The order in which the above events are conducted by the real + people, rather than by the in-game causality. This general + principle is illustrated in a local way by the + Fortune-in-the-middle concept. + * Search time and handling time, as defined in my essay "System Does + Matter." + * Probabilities in general, including issues of flat vs. linear + curves, separate vs. incorporated effects, replacement vs. + non-replacement results, and more. This discussion would include + the interesting sub-topic of the critical and fumble concepts. + * Target number methods in contrast to opposed-resolution methods. + * Task vs. conflict resolution; i.e, what precisely is being + determined by a unit of effort (system) by the participants. This + issue is central to the design of many Narrativist-facilitating + games, but could well be developed, in distinct ways, across all + three modes. + * Scene resolution vs. action resolution, which is not the same as + task vs. conflict resolution. Scene resolution first appeared as a + Gamist device in Tunnels & Trolls, disappeared from design + philosophy for over a decade, then was resurrected as a + Narrativist device in Story Engine. + * Distinctions among systems for symbolically-significant actions + (e.g. magic), as well as between them and systems for mundane + actions. + +*A popular misunderstanding* +The term "diceless" entered the role-playing lexicon with the appearance +of the revolutionary RPG Amber, but it almost instantly acquired nuances +of meaning far beyond its literal content. Dicelessness has been +associated with story-orientation (so-called), with creativity, with +"mature" abnegation of "power-gaming," and generally with anything that +the user of the term happens to like and in which dice are not involved. +This use of the term is nothing more nor less than a value judgment and +is properly ignored. + +Even more confusingly, the term seems to be applied across extremely +different things in the text of role-playing games. To call Amber or +Puppetland diceless is literally correct, and it happens to correspond +with their reliance on Karma and Drama methods; however, to call Castle +Falkenstein diceless is literally correct but functionally meaningless, +as its system is wholly Fortune-based. The text in the game undergoes +many gyrations to extoll the nuances that cards bring to role-playing, +but the fact remains that its card system is a Fortune system. The text +of Everway, on the other hand, openly acknowledges that its optional +card use is also the game's Fortune component. + +And most importantly, I see no particular reason to associate +"dicelessness" or even the lack of any Fortune methods with Narrativism. +Again, and as discussed in more detail in the following chapter, the +range of DFK variants and combinations within each of Gamism, +Narrativism, and Simulationism is very broad. The otherwise excellent +game Theatrix mistakenly identifies the lack of dice with a heightened +focus on story creation, and this patently absurd identification spread +rapidly through role-playing culture in the early 1990s. + +*Where's our vampires?* +The example used so far has taken a brief rest for this chapter, because +the players are making the horrendous mistake of buying, without +consideration of any technical issues presented so far, the most widely +advertised, best-illustrated RPG available - that is, strictly on the +basis of Color. Their fate will be presented in the next chapter. + + + +*_Chapter Five: Role-playing Design and Coherence_* + +This chapter investigates how role-playing design is involved in +facilitating or inhibiting coherence. I think that all three modes of +play have been present in role-playing since its invention in the 1970s. +But design is a different issue. Because most of the history of RPG +design proceeds from variation among what already exists, with changes +usually appearing in discrete features rather than in foundational +principles, the priorities and goals facilitated by the designs show +extremely recognizable trends. + +It may fairly be asked, how can GNS be applied to design features, when +few if any RPG designers know about it, or even care? I use a physics +analogy: prior to the insights of Newtonian physics, bridges could be +built. Some of them were built rather well. However, in retrospect, we +are well aware that in order to build the bridge, the designer must have +been at the very least according with Newtonian physics through (1) +luck, (2) imitation of something else that worked, (3) use of principles +that did not conflict with Newtonian physics in a way that mattered for +the job, or (4) a non-articulated understanding of those principles. I +consider the analogy to be exact for role-playing games. + +Therefore, the theory-principles or stated intent of the designer, if +any, are irrelevant to the analysis of the RPG designs. For instance, +John Wick had no interest in GNS or any other theory when writing +Orkworld. However, he has a keen sense of practical role-playing and a +clear vision of the "ways" he envisioned Orkworld play to proceed. In +order to produce that game, he utilized and developed principles of +Narrativism, metagame mechanics, and focused Premise on Character and +Situation, precisely as outlined in the theory. He just did not +articulate them overtly. + +In terms of design, the issue is incoherence, defined here as failure to +permit any Premise (or any element of Exploration) to be consistently +enjoyed. I think that any and all RPG designs have some identifiable +relationship with the GNS modes, out of the following possibilities. + + * Focused: the design facilitates a specific, identifiable Premise + (or area of Exploration). + * Semi-adaptable: the design is at least compatible with more than + one Premise and/or Exploration across GNS goals. (Whether this + category even exists, or whether it merely reflects correctable + incoherence, is debatable.) + * General: the design facilitates a specific mode, but permits a + range of Premises or Explorations within that mode. + * Kitchen sink: the design utilizes layers and multiple options such + that any specific point of play may be customized to accord with + GNS goals. (This design often ends up being a general + Simulationist one, however.) + * Incoherent 1: the design fails to permit one or any mode of play. + In its most extreme form, the system may simply be broken - too + easily exploited, or internally nonsensical, or lacking meaningful + consequence, to pick three respective possibilities for Gamism, + Simulationism, and Narrativism. + * Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among + the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) + facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others. + +In terms of actual play, yes, one "can" bring "any" GNS focus to "any" +RPG - but I argue that in most cases the effort and informal redesign to +do so is substantial, and also that the effort to keep focused on the +new goals as play progresses is even more substantial. This chapter +discusses why that effort needs to be there at all. + +Throughout this chapter, cut me some slack on the terminology. Saying +"Gamist design" or "Gamist RPG," is a short way of saying, "RPG design +whose elements facilitate, to any recognizable degree, Gamist priorities +and decision-making." + +*Design and Premise* +Facilitating a metagame concern (a developed Premise) differs greatly +from Exploring a listed element as a priority. To address a Premise, the +imaginary, internal commitment to the in-game events must be broken at +least occasionally during play, to set up and resolve the issues of +interest in strictly person-to-person terms. To Explore the topic in the +Simulationist sense, breaking the imagined, continuous in-game causality +is exactly what to avoid. The at-first attractive idea that a system +could easily encompass, say, Character-based Premise and prioritized +Character Exploration is actually utterly unworkable. + +To illustrate this principle, let's take just one aspect of role-playing +design: the terms and qualities used to denote a character. How are +these things involved in Premise or focused Exploration? + +Facilitating Simulationism is all about Exploring the designated +element(s). The most important priority is that the stated features +express linear, in-game-world causality. That is why the most prevalent +version of Simulationist character design relies on Nature-Nurture +distinctions, using layered qualities, for a large number of attributes +and abilities. Other sorts of Simulationist design may employ different +methods, but the commitment to in-game, linear causality remains the +priority. + +Facilitating Narrativism relies on bringing specific Premise and the +ability to have an impact on it into the foreground, over and above any +"descriptive" or "explanatory" elements. Distinctions between attributes +and skills, for instance, is irrelevant. A big tough fighter and a small +lithe fighter may well be described, in game terms, with a single +identical "fight" value, perhaps modified retroactively during play for +especially-appropriate situations. A character may have features for +completely metagame concerns, such as "plot points" or similar things. + +Facilitating Gamism is a matter of knowing what is relevant to the +stakes, competition, and conditions of victory or loss. Features of a +character are either complicators or focusing points of the character's +strategic possibilities. (Side note: Gamist character design may be very +complex, in which the complication is itself part of the competitive +arena, or it may be very streamlined if the competition concerns other +issues.) + +Rules regarding both Character and System also facilitate a GNS goal by +facilitating (or even demanding) particular Stances. For instance, an +explicit metagame mechanic automatically entails using Author or +Director stance, whereas a Psychological Limitation of the +GURPS/Champions tradition automatically entails using Actor stance to +some degree. Secondarily, these Stance-directing mechanics affect GNS +focus. + +As always, synecdoche confounds the issue. Historically, certain +combinations of DFK and Character building, with their attendant impact +on Stance and GNS, have become so entrenched that many people actually +identify them as "how role-playing is done," without realizing the range +of design that they are missing. + +*RPG design and GNS, historically* +Pending a really good history of role-playing games, this brief and +GNS-based summary will have to do. Arising as it did from wargaming in +the middle 1970s, the earliest RPG design reflected its Gamist + +Simulationist roots. However, within a year, design philosophies split +very fast across a brief Renaissance of largely-forgotten games that +spanned nearly all of the GNS spectrum, and then two trends "settled +out" to remain stable until the early 1990s. + +The first of these trends was an ongoing series of imitations of +post-tourney D&D, with its halting and incoherent mix of Gamism and +Simulationism. The second was a development of Simulationist principles +in several trajectories, based on different models, including the +following. + + * The RuneQuest system from the Chaosium (extremely coherent, + emphasizing System and Setting), developing both in the series of + games from that company as well as in its imitators. + * The interesting mutual relationship between four editions of + Champions and effectively two of GURPS (moving from incoherent to + coherent, emphasizing System), which provides the model for the + vast majority of new games. + * The AD&D 2nd edition (mainly incoherent, emphasizing Setting and + Situation), developing in the huge setting-based proliferation of + TSR products into the early 1990s, as well as in a host of + small-press imitators. + +Around 1990, first Narrativist-facilitating methods became widely +established, and then full-bodied Narrativist games appeared in 1994. +About five years later, simultaneous with the appearance of innovative +competitive games (not RPGs, but rather Cheapass Games), overtly Gamist +RPGs appeared. + +(A fascinating story of economics and industry hassles underlies this +history, but I regretfully have to stay on-topic. Another time.) + +Or to put it another way, RPG design through most of the hobby's history +has been largely devoted to Simulationist priorities. This is not to say +that the full range of this mode has been represented or all of its +potential developed. + +The sub-set of Simulationism most fully developed during the 1980s was +"realist" (a form of Situtation) and "genre-faithfulness" (System with +strong and various other co-emphases). Some conventions of these +approaches include identifying Fortune methods with the imaginary +physics of the setting and a commitment to extensive search and handling +times. The sub-set developed later used the previous one as a +foundation, but lightened the details and concentrated on Character, +Setting, and Situation in its most external form of published metaplot, +as a determinant of large-scale events during play. + +Quite a lot more has occurred in Simulationist design, of course. Not +surprisingly, the variety among coherent Simulationist design is +extensive, indeed, vast, because the key to design is which elements are +being Explored. + + * Character: Unknown Armies + * Setting: RuneQuest, Pendragon, Usagi Yojimbo, Jorune + * Situation: Call of Cthulhu + * System: GURPS, Champions 4th edition (or rather, the Hero System), + Fudge, Multiverser + * Situation and Setting: Feng Shui, Cyberpunk 2020 + * Character and Setting: Legend of the Five Rings, Nephilim, Albedo, + Ars Magica, Nobilis + +This is not to say that any RPG will illustrate one of the above +categories so clearly; the listed titles are among the shining lights of +coherent Simulationist design. Most RPGs are cobbled-together pieces of +these and other games, generating a vague and internally-incoherent +Simulationism with, at best, isolated design features or Color that are +interesting. The topic of incoherence is developed more fully below, but +for now, consider Kult - how can archetypal (fixed) character design be +compatible with Character Exploration? The answer is that it can't, and +that nearly all of the character development material in the basic rules +is scrapped in application, which turns into pure Setting Exploration +instead. + +Much Narrativist and Gamist play during the 1980s occurred as +"rebellious" play in groups using primarily Simulationist systems. This +is probably why elements of Narrativist and Gamist play are often +perceived as cheating by those who are strongly committed to the +Simulationist designs of that period, or mistakenly identified with +"ignoring the rules." + +Overt Gamist RPG design is very rare. I think it takes a central role +only in D&D well before it acquired its "A," in Tunnels & Trolls also in +the late 1970s, and, less coherently, in Shadowrun and Rifts. Arguably, +quite a lot of live-action role-playing of Vampire, Amber, and other +games has drifted into Gamism in application, but not in the texts. Only +very recently has overt, even enthusiastic Gamist design been +resurrected, in D&D3E, Rune, Pantheon, The Adventures of Baron +Munchausen, and Ninja Burger. + +Gamism clearly includes a wide range of the role of Fortune, such that +some games have a high random element and in others it is very low or +absent. Also, the GM's role varies widely, up to and including being +completely absent. I look forward to the continued appearance and +widely-ranging development of Gamist RPGs as well as to informed +discussion of the principles that are involved in playing them. + +Overt Narrativist RPG design is a latecomer, with the exception of the +few glimmers appearing in the late 1970s and early 1980s, of which +Marvel Super Heroes is the sole survivor. The first thoroughgoing +Narrativist game since then was Prince Valiant, in 1989. Although both +games were based on source texts, their designs did not recommend +Exploring the canonical settings so much as using the texts' authors' +philosophy of story creation as a model for creating new stories entirely. + +A veritable Renaissance of Narrativist design occurred in 1993-1994 and +continues to this day. Its published pioneers include Over the Edge and +Everway; then Theatrix, Zero, Castle Falkenstein, Extreme Vengeance, and +The Whispering Vault, as the next wave; and then Maelstrom/Story Engine, +followed by Hero Wars, as games which provided utterly novel approaches +at the metagame level. But the published games are only one side of the +story, given the proliferation of Narrativist development in the +underground, beginning with The Window and Wuthering Heights and setting +the stage for the publications of games like Sorcerer, Orkworld, and +Little Fears. + +In most Narrativist designs, Premise is based on one of the following +models. + + * A pre-play developed setting, in which case the characters develop + into protagonists in the setting's conflicts over time. Examples + include Castle Falkenstein and Hero Wars. + * Pre-play developed characters (protagonists), in which case the + setting develops into a suitable framework for them over time. + Examples include Sorcerer, Everway, Zero (in an interesting way), + Cyberpunk 1st edition, Orkworld, and The Whispering Vault. + +I have observed that when people bring a Narrativist approach to +Vampire, Legend of the Five Rings, or other game systems which include +both detailed pre-play character creation and a detailed, conflict-rich +settting, they must discard one or the other in order to play enjoyably. + +Given the widespread use of Author and Director stance in Narrativist +role-playing, the functional result is to spread tasks and creative +roles left for the GM in most other play among all participants. These +systems may accurately be considered GM-full, rather than GM-less. + +Finally, several of the games mentioned above as well as others are +probably best considered "abashedly Narrativist" rather than thoroughly +focused on this mode, insofar as the overt philosophy of play in the +texts is about creating stories, even about the players having co-author +status, but various elements of design stop short of the goal. The +aforementioned Marvel Super Heroes, Cyberpunk 1st edition, The Window, +Everway, Obsidian, UnderWorld, and Little Fears are good examples. + +*The new revolution* +Recent directions in RPG design are breaking new ground across GNS, +especially in terms of how Stance relates to the modes. Only now are we +seeing such things as mechanics-driven Director Stance in Simulationism +and in Gamism. It's also nice to see Narrativist design following up on +the precedent set by Prince Valiant, with Premise based on Situation +(The Dying Earth). + +Fortune methods may clearly be employed extensively in the service of +metagame goals. I specifically disavow the popular notion that these +methods serve only for in-setting probabilistic modeling, and the +associated notion that they have little place in Narrativism or Gamism. +I would very much like to participate in a discussion of Fortune systems +acting as a "springboard" for metagame priorities in Narrativist play, +as suggested by the designs of InSpectres, The Pool, The Framework, +Munchkins, and others. + +Another new development is an explicit opening statement about the +social context of play, often with a fairly strong GNS focus. I think +this is an astoundingly important element of game design and +presentation, and it's interesting to review older games to see how they +did or didn't manage to communicate it. The typical trends among them +are the following. + + * The purpose and perspective of the game is scattered across + several places, rarely at the beginning, and is often referred to + rather than addressed directly. + * The purpose and perspective of the game is justified because it + corresponds to what, according to the authors, role-playing + obviously is (i.e., the synecdoche fallacy). + * The purpose and perspective of the game claims to satisfy anyone, + in blatant contradiction to the game's content and design. + +One of the benefits of the GNS perspective is the willingness to accept +that other outlooks or priorities exist besides one's own. Therefore, in +many of the new games, the social contract is both more explicit and +less dismissive, which I think is functional, honest, and fair. + +Dozens of topics remain, many of which have been researched by me but +have not been broached in public. + + * DFK combinations across RPG design history, in both basic + resolution and metagame mechanics. + * The history and development across RPGs of trading within + components of Currency or across them. + * Random vs. nonrandom elements of character creation contrasted + with those of event resolution. + * Distinctions between successful actions and significant consequences. + * Personality mechanics, divided into two main schools derived from, + respectively, Call of Cthulhu and Dungeons & Dragons. + * Fundamental aspects of character-player relationship based on + levels of remove. + * The consequence of character death or incapacity on the player's + participation in the game. + +I would very much like to host a sort of "Discuss this game" exercise at +the Forge regarding given RPGs, not to label them "G, N, or S" in a +superficial way but rather to dissect their function in the full +knowledge of the listed elements, Stance-facilitating features, all +aspects of design including the issues listed above, comparisons with +ancestral, contemporary, and derivative games, and much more. + +*Metagame considered further* +Metagame mechanics appeared mainly as Narrativist "coping mechanisms" +when playing games that were largely 80s-Simulationist designs (which +does not mean these games were "bad" or represented the whole of +Simulationist potential). An extreme, early example would be TORG's +character-card privileges; a more typical example would be Over the +Edge's bonus dice. + +In later RPGs with overtly Narrativist resolution systems, metagame +mechanics have again become rare. For instance, in Hero Wars, neither +bumping success levels nor bidding Action Points are metagame mechanics, +but simply the basic resolution system. They most resemble metagame +mechanics from earlier games, but now, in an overtly Narrativist design, +they are front-and-center rather than secondary overrides. + +*Balance, so-called* +"Balance" may rank as the most problematic term in all of role-playing. +What in the world does it mean? Equality of some kind? Fairness of some +kind? Whenever the term is brought up, the discussion cannot proceed +without specifying further regarding the following issues. + + * Balance of what? Components of the characters? Specific sets of + components? + * Or perhaps it's balance of actions, in which case, is it of + opportunity, or of consequence? + * Balance among whom? Players or characters? Both in some way? + * To what end? (Citing "fairness" is tautological.) + * Shifting the issue, perhaps it's a matter of balance within a + character, rather than among characters. + * And extending the issue, should balance be concerned with initial + starting points of characters or with the processes of change for + the characters, or both? + +Currently little insight arises from discussions of balance, as it +inevitably wanders about these issues without focusing. The issues +themselves, on the other hand, are very interesting. Therefore the term +is much like "genre," in that discussion might as well focus on the real +issues in the first place and never use the term at all. + +Finally, a common misconception is to identify any concern with equality +or "even-ness" among characters with (a) balance per se and (b) Gamism. +I disavow any suggestion that Gamism as a whole is necessarily concerned +with balance, or that concerns with balance (of some kind) necessarily +indicate a Gamist approach. For instance, the parity of starting point +totals across a group of GURPS characters most likely indicates a +commitment to the consistency of the Explored Characters with their +Situation and Setting, rather than to any concern with "fairness" or +"leveling the playing field." + +*Hybrids and drift* +Can multiple GNS goals be satisfied by a single game design? It may be +possible, but it is not easy. As mentioned before, merely aligning +topics of Exploration with those of Premise is probably not effective. I +conceive of two types of *hybrid*: (1) two modes are simultaneously +satisfied in the same player at the same time, of which I am highly +skeptical; and (2) two modes can exist side by side in the design, such +that differently-oriented players may play together, which might be +possible. Some possible candidates for the latter include these. + + * G + S: Rifts. + * N + G: Champions 1st-3rd editions; I'm interested as well in + seeing the upcoming Elfworld and a proposed game from Hogshead + Publishing regarding fantasy weaponry. + * N + S: Little Fears and UnderWorld (these games' degree of + "abashedness" exists squarely on the border of the two modes). + +*Drift* is a related issue: the movement from one GNS focus to another +during the course of play. I do not think that "drift" reflects +hybridized design (in which both modes are indeed present), but rather +correctable incoherence (moving toward coherence in one mode). +Historically, drifting toward Gamism is very common; it isn't hard to +understand that a frustrating and incoherent context can be turned into +an arena for competition. Internet play has illustrated some distinctive +drifting: Amber moves from abashed Narrativism either to Simulation with +Exploration of Character or to Gamism with the emphasis on interpersonal +control; Everway moves from abashed Narrativism to Simulationism with +the emphasis on Exploration of Situation. +The 1990s transitional game offers a good example of driftable design: +Simulationist resolution with strong metagame mechanics, highly +customizable character, setting, and situation, with or without +exhortations to "story." Fudge and The Window are perfect examples, on +either side of Simulationism or Narrativism, respectively, as the stated +emphasis. + +*Incoherent design* +Unfortunately, functional or nearly-functional hybrids are far less +common than simply incoherent RPG designs. + +The "lesser," although still common, dysfunctional trend is found among +the imitators of the late-1970s release of AD&D, composed of vague and +scattered Simulationism mixed with vague and scattered Gamism. Warhammer +is the most successful of these. Small-press publishers pump out these +games constantly, offering little new besides ever-more baroque +mechanics and a highly-customized Setting (Hahlmabrea, Pelicar, +Legendary Lives, Of Gods and Men, Fifth Cycle, Darkurthe: Legends, and +more). Another, similar trend is the never-ending stream of GURPS +imitators. + +The "dominant" dysfunctional system is immediately recognizable, to the +extent of being considered by many to be what role-playing is: a vaguely +Gamist combat and reward system, Simulationist resolution in general +(usually derived from GURPS, Cyberpunk, or Champions 4th edition), a +Simulationist context for play (Situation in the form of published +metaplot), deceptive Narrativist Color, and incoherent +Simulationist/Narrativist Character creation rules. This combination has +been represented by some of the major players in role-playing marketing, +and has its representative for every period of role-playing since the +early 1980s. + + * AD&D2 pioneered the approach in the middle 1980s, particularly the + addition of metaplot with the Dragonlance series. + * Champions, through its 3rd edition, exemplified a mix of Gamist + and Narrativist "driftable" design, but with its 4th edition in + the very late 1980s, the system lost all Metagame content and + became the indigestible mix outlined above. + * Vampire, in the early 1990s, offered a mix of Simulationism and + Gamism in combat resolution, but a mix of Narrativism and + Simulationism out of combat, as well as bringing in Character + Exploration. + +The design is hugely imitated, ranging from Earthdawn, Kult, and In +Nomine, to the mid-1990s "shotgun attack" of Deadlands, Legend of the +Five Rings, and Seventh Sea. + +All of these games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe +Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the +ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the +actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is +impossible. It's even absurd. However, game after game, introduction +after introduction, and discussion after discussion, it is repeated. + +Consider the players who were excited about the vampire concept for +role-playing. What happens when they try to play Vampire: the +Masquerade? Well, they try to Believe the Impossible Thing, and in +application, the results are inevitable. + + * The play drifts toward some application of Narrativism, which + requires substantial effort and agreement among all the people + involved, as well as editing out substantial portions of the + game's texts and system. + * The play drifts toward an application of Simulationism in which + the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the + players contribute only to characterization. This is called + *illusionism*, in which the players are unaware of or complicit + with the extent to which they are manipulated. + o Illusionism is not necessarily dysfunctional, and if + Character or Situation Exploration is the priority, then it + can be a lot of fun. Unknown Armies, Feng Shui, and Call of + Cthulhu all facilitate extremely functional illusionism. + However, it is not and can never be "story creation" on the + part of all participants, and if the game is incoherent, + illusionism requires considerable effort to edit the system + and texts into shape. + * Most likely, however, the players and GM carry out an ongoing + power-struggle over the actions of the characters, with the + integrity of "my guy" held as a club on the behalf of the former + and the integrity of "the story" held as a club on behalf of the + latter. + +The players of the vampire example are especially screwed if they have +Narrativist leanings and try to use Vampire: the Masquerade. The +so-called "Storyteller" design in White Wolf games is emphatically not +Narrativist, but it is billed as such, up to and including encouraging +subcultural snobbery against other Simulationist play without being much +removed from it. The often-repeated distinction between "roll-playing" +and "role-playing" is nothing more nor less than Exploration of System +and Exploration of Character - either of which, when prioritized, is +Simulationism. Thus our players, instead of taking the "drift" option +(which would work), may well apply themselves more and more diligently +to the metaplot and other non-Narrativist elements in the mistaken +belief that they are emphasizing "story." The prognosis for the +enjoyment of such play is not favorable. + +One may ask, if this design is so horribly dysfunctional, why is it so +popular? The answer requires an economic perspective on RPGs, in +addition to the conceptual and functional one outlined in this essay, +and is best left for discussion. + +*The one true game* +What a wonderful ideal: an RPG design that satisfies any participant, +with no stress, no adjustment of any part, no potential for +interpersonal disagreement, and no unnecessary preparation. The +"universal game." + +Bluntly, it's a moronic concept, existing only to whet frustrated +consumers' appetites for an upcoming product. GNS goals differ among +people, preferred variants of each GNS mode differ among people, and +system mechanics necessarily facilitate a limited range of these +preferences, or facilitate nothing at all. All of us would do well to +look in the mirror every morning and state, "There is no universal +role-playing game." + +However, the term "universal" is also used for a rather sensible and +functional RPG design option, which is much better described by the term +*general*. A general game design holds constant one or two of the listed +elements of role-playing (Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color) +and provides guidelines for customizing the other elements. GURPS and +Fudge are perfect examples, as are the plethora of their imitators: +System is held constant and made very clear; Setting and Color are +specified prior to play by the GM and similarly made clear and specific; +and then Character and Situation are customized. + +A general game design is really no more than extending the original +notion from AD&D of System, Setting, Situation, and Color being highly +fixed, with Character being the main thing to customize. Other +combinations are possible, as in Sorcerer and Orkworld, in which System +is highly fixed, then Character and Situation are customized, and +finally Setting are customized (Color's place differs between these two +games). + +In other words, the so-called "universal" model for RPG design is really +a general design, and a coherent general game sits as firmly in its GNS +orientation as any other. The key issue is to avoid confounding it with +"universal" in the sense of "satisfies any and every possible +role-playing participant." + +*Misunderstandings* +A number of code-phrases to describe RPG system and goals have arisen as +role-players struggled to match their interests with the spectrum of +available games, but most of them lack substance. + + * Rules-heavy vs. Rules-light: this dichotomy is vaguely oriented + toward high vs. low search and handling time, but it is confounded + a great deal with so-called realism and so-called story. (This + confusion is a product of the transition design period of + 1990-1991, exemplified by Fudge and The Window.) The concept of + rules-focus, in terms of goals and modes, has not entered the + popular understanding of the hobby. + * Completeness: as far as I can tell, this term relies on as + thorough a presentation as possible of all the listed elements, + apparently such that Simulationist play of any emphasis can pick + and choose which aspects to emphasize, by elimination rather than + by creation. + + + +*_Chapter Six: Actually Playing_* + +It all comes back to the social situation, eventually, because +role-playing is a human activity and not a set of rules or text. +Coherence is expressed as a social outcome; it must apply all the way +into and through actual play. I suggest that preparing for and carrying +out the role-playing experience in social terms, well above and beyond +considerations of system mechanics, is most coherent from a GNS and +Premise perspective. + +Role-playing is carried out through relying upon the real, interpersonal +roles of living humans, yes, even of opponents. If people do not share +any degree of either Premise focus (either Gamist or Narravist) or an +Exploration focus (Simulationist), then their different assumptions, +different expectations, and different goals will come into conflict +during play. When that happens, the uber-goal of "Fun" is diminished. +Perhaps the people continue to play together solely to interact +socially, but the actual role-playing is, effectively, gone. + +*But it's just a game!* +This phrase is an alarm bell. Oh, it looks like an attempt to +reconciliate disagreements by calling attention to fun and the shared, +social context, but it disguises something far more unpleasant. + +The first tip-off is that the phrase is not literally meaningful. What's +the "it?" Role-playing, of course, but dismissed, via the singular short +pronoun, as simple, straightforward, intuitively grasped, and singly +defined. And what's a "game?" Not defined at all. The use of "game" to +refer to role-playing is completely historical and carries no +informational content beyond its indication of a leisure activity. + +The ugly truth is that this phrase is not reconciliatory at all. Rather, +it is code for, "Stop bothering me with your interests and accord with +my goals, decisions, and priorities of play." I strongly urge that +individual role-players not tolerate any implication that their +preferred, enjoyed range of role-playing modes is a less worthy form of +play. + +*What's a GM and what's a player?* +Like it or not, among any group of people contributing to some +constructive activity, there exists a the aforementioned Balance of +Power: some hierarchy and way to organize who gets to influence and +approve of outcomes. For the activity to succeed, some form of *social +contract*, or reciprocal obligations, must be in place. + +In role-playing games, the issue of the social contract becomes quickly +confounded with the distribution and difference in the roles of GM and +players. Entirely aside from any formal rules-oriented or +procedure-oriented authority, what kind of authority or status does a GM +have over or with the players anyway? Is he or she the physical host, +using physical living or work space for the game? If not, does that +change or limit the GM-ness? How about a faculty member running games +with students in a campus club? How about romance issues; if single, is +he or she automatically the focus of personal attention from other +single people in the group? + +Most of these issues cannot be addressed from the perspective of game +design, but they are real nonetheless. Where the game design and +GNS-based approach to play can help is in putting all the issues of the +role-playing itself above-board. Given clear roles, purposes, and +respective obligations of GM and player - which in most RPG designs are +left open or badly mis-stated - the group may avoid getting its +role-playing issues mixed up with its social ones. + +How might a GNS perspective help keep that GM/player understanding +clear? Historically, the terms cover very diffferent ranges within each +of the modes. + + * The range in Gamism: GM as referee over players who compete with + one another, GM as referee over the players competing with a + scenario, GM as opponent of the players as a unified group, or + even no GM at all among a group of competing players. + * The range in Simulationism: GM as channeler of external source + material, GM as the fellow Actor responsible for the landscape and + NPCs, GM as referee of the physics and internal consistency of the + imaginary universe, GM as covert author. + * The range in Narrativism: depending on the degree of coauthorship + of the players, the traditional tasks of the GM may vary all the + way from one centralized GM to a situation in which all the + players are mini-GMs. Interestingly, this is the one mode in + which, throughout its range, no role for an "impartial referee" GM + is possible. + +One last note about Gamism: the shift from tourney play, in which many +groups of players competed for time and kill-count as they were "run +through" identical adventures, to single-group play led to many design +holdovers that often lead to frustrating experiences. These are almost +all based on the shift from the GM as referee, with the opponents being +other groups, to the GM as opponent - and the players, rather sensibly, +turning from competing with an invincible opponent (the holdover from +the referee status) to competing with one another. + +A final issue about GM and player(s) concerns who is expected to be +entertaining whom, in some kind of dichotomous way. Evidently this is a +matter of some emotional commitment, prompting the same defensiveness +and hurt feelings as the mention of "immersion." Therefore I am +personally willing to let it lie. + +*Organizing a role-playing session* +With a few exceptions, most role-playing texts completely ignore the +actual human logistics of play, although these are hugely important in +application. How can one possibly participate in a social, leisure +activity without considering all of the following? + + * The number of participants and the extant relationships among them. + * The time to be spent playing, in terms of hours per session and + the number of sessions per unit of real time (week or month, + e.g.), the anticipated number of sessions, and so on. + * The event-scope of play; that is, when and how often units of + satisfaction for the participants occcur (here the GNS perspective + is tremendously useful, because it identifies the instances of + satisfaction). + * The necessary time and effort to be spent in preparation, and by + whom. + +When AD&D was released in its late 1970s form, its content encouraged a +"more is better" approach. The more players, the better. The more time +spent, the better. The longer the sessions, the better. The longer the +sessions continued, the better. Nearly all role-playing games used AD&D +as the starting point for presentation purposes, even those with vastly +different systems and philosophies of play, and so this dysfunctional +approach remains with us to this day. The term "campaign" is especially +misleading, as in wargaming it denotes a specific set of events from +point A in time to point B in time, whereas in role-playing it denotes +playing indefinitely. + +For those forms of role-playing that emphasize "story" in the general +sense (see Chapter Two), this approach is completely unsuitable. What is +a "story" to be, in terms of individual sessions and all-sessions? In +role-playing culture, one is often assumed either to be playing a +"campaign," which means it should go on forever, or a "one-shot" session +which aside from the connotation of being superficial is simply too +short for many sorts of stories. The functional intermediate of playing +the number of sessions sufficient for the purpose of resolving a story +is nowhere to be found in the texts of role-playing. + +On the smaller scale, successfully preparing for individual sessions is +especially integrated with GNS and Premise. Consider the historical +tendencies among the modes, in terms of how a series of events emerges +through the course of play. (These do not represent either a complete or +definitional list, but simply historical examples.) + + * Linear adventures, in which the GM has provided a series of + prepared, in-order encounters. + * Linear, branched adventures, in which the GM has done the same as + above but provides for the players proceeding in more than one + direction or sequence. + * Roads to Rome, in which the GM has prepared a climactic scene and + maneuvers or otherwise determines that character activity leads to + this scene. (In practice, "winging it" usually becomes this method.) + * Bang-driven, in which the GM has prepared a series of instigating + events but has not anticipated a specific outcome or + confrontation. (This is precisely the opposite of Roads to Rome.) + * Relationship map, in which the GM has prepared a complex + back-story whose members, when encountered by the characters, + respond according to the characters' actions, but no sequence or + outcomes of these encounters have been pre-determined. + * Intuitive continuity, in which the GM uses the players' interests + and actions during initial play to construct the crises and actual + content of later play. (This is a form of "winging it" that may or + may not become Roads to Rome.) + +Roads to Rome and Linear/Branched play are extremely common in published +scenarios with a strong Simulationist approach. Linear play relies on +extreme commitment to the Situation, and thus works best for +Situation-intensive Simulationist play, as in many Call of Cthulhu +scenarios. Bang-driven (formalized in Sorcerer and Sword) and +Relationship map (formalized in The Sorcerer's Soul) are best suited to +Narrativist play. Intuitive Continuity may do well for a variety of +modes that emphasize either Character actions being pivotal +(Narrativism) or Character Exploration (Simulationism). Again, all of +this is speaking historically and not at all in terms of potential. + +Gamist play was not included above, mainly because it has been so badly +marginalized during most of role-playing history. To date, most scenario +construction oriented in this direction has fallen back on the +late-1970s tournament model or the survivalist model found in many video +games. The Hogshead family of Gamist RPGs ('Baron Munchausen, Pantheon) +has broken this mold and I have no doubt that much more variety remains +to be developed. + +*Dysfunction: when role-playing doesn't work out* +Great Googley-Moogley, let me count the ways. + +The clearest case is straightforward. People do exist who will +habitually disrupt a role-playing group for whatever reasons of their +own, and the only solution for dealing with such people is to exclude +them from play. + +But let's consider people who do want to role-play together, and have +even established an interest in the most basic, embryonic form of an +initial Premise. What dysfunctions may arise? + +Emotional tensions between people may override the role-playing. It can +be romance, or money issues, or who's giving whom a ride home, or any +number of similar things. My claim is that a lot of times, people get +all upset at one another about game stuff (tactics, rules, etc) when the +real problem is this people stuff. Such problems must be dealt with +socially and above-board, because no in-game mechanisms can help; +in-game issues are symptoms rather than causes. + +I think the most common dysfunction, however, is GNS incompatibility. At +the highest-order level, if the people simply have entirely different +goals, then actual play continually runs into conflicts about priorities +and procedures based on those different goals. I think everyone who's +familiar with the theory knows that this is a "no fault, no blame" +criterion. I like potatos, you like pink lemonade, have a nice game with +your own group. + +More difficult incompatibilities also exist within each of G, N, or S. +People may share the the large-scale GNS goal, but be accustomed to or +desire different standards for Balance of Power, preferred stances, +notions of character depth, the distinction between player success and +character success, and many related things. In this case, dysfunction +arises from (a) trying to resolve the differences during play itself, +and (b) anyone being unwilling to compromise about the differences. + +Drift is the usual method for dealing with this level of discord. It is +a fine solution for resolving within-mode differences, if everyone is +willing to give a little. However, drift has a dark side, or +degeneration, the disruption or subversion of the social contract such +that what is happening is not more fun, at least not at the group level. +Gamism is often pegged as the culprit when players shift from the stated +or agreed-upon mode of play and turn upon one another as opponents, but +it's better considered degeneration with Gamism merely being the +direction. The usual effect of degeneration (any kind, not just this one +little Gamist sort), if people continue to play, is to play without +committing to anything at all. + +The tragedy is how widespread GNS-based degeneration really is. I have +met dozens, perhaps over a hundred, very experienced role-players with +this profile: a limited repertoire of games behind him and extremely +defensive and turtle-like play tactics. Ask for a character background, +and he resists, or if he gives you one, he never makes use of it or +responds to cues about it. Ask for actions - he hunkers down and does +nothing unless there's a totally unambiguous lead to follow or a foe to +fight. His universal responses include "My guy doesn't want to," and, "I +say nothing." + +I have not, in over twenty years of role-playing, ever seen such a +person have a good time role-playing. I have seen a lot of groups +founder due to the presence of one such participant. Yet they really +want to play. They prepare characters or settings, organize groups, and +are bitterly disappointed with each fizzled attempt. They spend a lot of +money on RPGs with lots of supplements and full-page ads in gaming +magazines. + +These role-players are GNS casualties. They have never perceived the +range of role-playing goals and designs, and they frequently commit the +fallacies of synecdoche about "correct role-playing." Discussions with +them wander the empty byways of realism, genre, completeness, +roll-playing vs. role-playing, and balance. They are the victims of +incoherent game designs and groups that have not focused their +intentions enough. They thought that "show up with a character" was +sufficient prep, or thought that this new game with its new setting was +going to solve all their problems forever. They are simultaneously +devoted to and miserable in their hobby. + +My goal in developing RPG theory and writing this document is to help +people avoid this fate. + + + +*_Acknowledgements_* + +Thanks are due to everyone who has taken the time to discuss the issues +with me over the years. Specific intellectual debts are owed to the +following people. In no particular order: + +The members of the rec.gaming.faq.advocacy discussion group, most +especially John Kim, for the Threefold Model and Stance. I owe an +immense debt to all members of these discussions for raising all the +right issues. However, I have altered just about everything very +drastically, and "Director stance" is my contribution. + +Robin Laws for his essay regarding Art vs. Game in the text of Over the +Edge, as well as for nearly single-handedly revolutionizing RPG design +throughout the 1990s. (And he's still going, too; it's really frightening.) + +The Scarlet Jester (real name withheld) for the concept of Exploration. +However, I acknowledge that he does not approve of the definition and +use I've made of it, and any problems or inconsistencies with the listed +definition and use are solely my responsibility. + +Jonathan Tweet for DFK, from his text in the game Everway, as well as +for many other things. My re-statement of the definition of Drama has +been approved by him. + +Christopher Kubasik for his "Interactive Toolkit" series of essays. + +Lajos Egri for his 1946 book, The Art of Dramatic Writing, for the +foundation of my thoughts on Narrativist Premise. + +Logan Hunter for his original compilation of the theories from a variety +of discussions and for his construction of Balance of Power. + +Jim Henley for his term "abashedly Narrativist" regarding Everway, which +admirably describes a whole family of RPG designs. + +Gordon Landis for his input regarding Drift. + +The FUZION Lab Group for their presentation of switches and dials in the +text of Champions New Millenium. I have expanded their +Simulationist/general material into a much broader scheme regarding all +of DFK diversity. + +Jesse Burneko for his input regarding illusionism. + +Gareth-Michael Skarka for his description of Intuitive Continuity in the +text of UnderWorld. + +If I have overlooked anyone's input, please remind me and I'll include +you in the acknowledgments. +