# HG changeset patch # User fabien # Date 1142879297 18000 # Node ID 90028d83d4ea96e30b04a00cd479ac86376ba843 # Parent 624c702e7feca0f959a8d7d9b9bf376268c133be [svn] r14743@freebird: fabien | 2006-03-19 10:26:53 -0500 Add GNS references. diff -r 624c702e7fec -r 90028d83d4ea references/gamism_step_on_up.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/gamism_step_on_up.txt Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,1962 @@ + The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games + [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles | + Forge [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums + + + Gamism: Step On Up + by [8]Ron Edwards + + I owe thanks to Clinton R. Nixon, Rob MacDougall, Gareth Martin, Mike + Holmes, Gordon R. Landis, Ralph Mazza, Jonathan Walton, Paul Czege, + Jared A. Sorensen, Grant Gigee, Christopher Kubasik, Jake Norwood, and + Peter Adkison for their comments on the draft version of the manuscript. + All errors, misattributions, inconsistencies, whatever, are mine. + + This is the second of three essays on the three modes of role-playing + collectively referred to as GNS, as presented in my essay [9]GNS and + related matters of role-playing theory. The first of the three "support" + essays was [10]Simulationism: the right to dream. These essays' purposes + are to clarify many aspects of their parent essay, to present the ideas + that have always awaited a more general understanding of my basic + points, and also to refine and develop the concepts based on the years + of discussion and input from others at the Gaming Outpost, RPG.net, and + the Forge. + + This one's about Gamist play. + + Gamism was originally identified in the RFGA Threefold Model of + role-playing styles, and I think from its first mention, nearly everyone + has said, "Oh, yeah, Gamism," with little debate about its qualities. + Moving through my own reconstructions of the Threefold into GNS, whether + early or late, and through the GENder model proposed by the Scarlet + Jester, both Gamist play as an activity and people's instant, easy + acceptance of its category have received little attention. Apparently, + one just knows it upon sight. + + But do we really? References to Gamism tend to be dismissive, + superficial, and often backhanded ("except for the Gamists," "my inner + Gamist," etc). With respect to the members of the RFGA discussion group, + I think they categorized Gamist play mainly in order to sweep it out of + the realm of further dialogue, in order to concentrate on issues that I + would now primarily identify within Simulationist play. I also think + that most, although not all, subsequent discussion has been similar. Yet + that exceptional bit, here and there over several forums, indicates far + less consensus out there than might have been expected or assumed. + + I'm going for a real look at the category for its own sake. In some ways + I'm kind of a case study of the problem, but I hope also part of the + solution as well; my own views have changed immensely since I referred + to Gamist players as "space aliens" years ago on the Gaming Outpost. + + Here's what I wrote for my big and admittedly dry essay, "GNS and + related matters of role-playing theory": + + 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 [Character, Setting, Situation, + System, Color] provide an arena for the competition. + + And this needs revising for several reasons. First, "among the + participants" is too vague, at least from the standpoint of most + readers. I was thinking of anyone involved in the play of the game, + permitting just who competes with whom to be customized, but most people + seem to think I mean "players" in the widely-used, non-GM sense, and + object to that. Second, the term "competition" gets right up people's + noses. Lots of terms have cropped up: Struggle, Striving, Challenge, and + more. Some of that debate seems to be procedural, some of it + ideological, and some of it social. Although I can't hope for unilateral + agreement about the fundamentals of Gamist play, I think I've managed to + figure out where all of the consternation - and the hot emotions + underlying it - comes from. It's not merely semantic. I hope this essay + manages to clear up any confusions about my position on the matter and + perhaps manages to set a better basis for continued debate. + + Some threads to check out include: [11]Gamism and Premise, [12]Gamism is + not competition{/url], [13]All out for Gamism, and [14]Getting in touch + with our inner Gamist. They include plenty of good points, but, my own + posts included, I think they mainly illustrate the problems involved + rather than offer anything concrete. + + So the first step is to renounce a judgmental and dismissive approach + about "those awful Gamists." The second is to renounce the + less-judgmental but equally-dismissive "those Gamists" attitude, which + might be called the NIMBY view. And then, finally, to renounce the sort + of guilty-liberal, halting, apologetic defensive line as well. Just + bouncing among these, without ever coming to grips with the actual + phenomenon itself, is enough to fill a few dozen thread-pages within + days, so it's time to put all that aside and focus. + + Every reader of the first draft wanted me to define Gamist play right + here, in this spot. I refused, to the wrath of Lit-101 teachers + everywhere. You gotta go through the next sections to get there. + + Back to Exploration + Just as in the Simulationism essay, I'll start by considering the big + picture in which GNS issues are embedded. It might be written out like + this in a Venn diagram: + + [Social Contract [Exploration [GNS [rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]] + + Every inner "box" is an expression or realization of the box(es) it's + nested in. For example, Exploration is a kind of Social Contract, and a + given GNS mode is a kind (specifically, an application) of Exploration. + + 1. Everything occurs embedded in the Social Contract, which includes + many things about play and not-play, especially the Balance of + Power. + 2. Exploration is the primary act of role-playing, composed of five + parts with some causal relationships among them. + 3. The "modes" of play (because they have to be expressed via + communication and play itself, not just "felt") are currently best + described as Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist play. Play (as + opposed merely to hanging out with friends) cannot occur without + such an agenda. I'm now using the term "creative agenda" to refer to + the three modes as a concept, replacing the small-p "premise" term + in the older essay. + 4. Techniques of play include many different relationships among rules, + people's decisions, announcements, and similar. "System" (or rather + textual system) interacts with Techniques all the time, in terms of + things like Currency, Resolution (including DFK, IIEE; see + Glossary), and Reward systems. Which of these is inner or outer is + debatable and probably variable, although I've diagrammed it in + keeping with the idea that techniques are applied within a framework + of rules. In keeping with the Venn concept, techniques are local + expressions of Social Contract, Exploration, and GNS modes, just as + rules are. + 5. Actual play shifts quickly among Stances. Stances, unsurprisingly, + are very local applications of rules and techniques, all in the + service of Exploration and the larger-scale GNS mode in action. + + So to talk about any GNS category, the place to start is that box. + Exploration is composed of five elements, no sweat: Character, Setting, + Situation, System, and Color ... but it's not a hydra with five equal + heads. These things have creative and specific dependencies among one + another, and now's the time to reveal a filthy secret about them. + + It's this: Situation is the center. Situation is the imaginative-thing + we experience during play. Character and Setting are components that + produce it, System is what Situation does, and Color can hardly be done + without all this in place to, well, to color. Situation is the 400-lb + gorilla of the five elements, or, if you will, the central node. It's + central regardless of how much attention it's receiving relative to the + other components. + + Gamist play, more than any other mode, demands that Situation be not + only central, but also the primary focus of attention. You want to play + Gamist? Then don't piss about with Character and/or Setting without + Situation happening, or about to. + + The definition at last + A few paragraphs back, I promised a definition for Gamism and here it + is. It operates at two levels: the real, social people and the + imaginative, in-game situation. + + 1. The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their + strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires + strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real + world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play + (analogous to the Dream in Simulationist play). + + Gamist play, socially speaking, demands performance with risk, + conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually + at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, + real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem. + The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key - + it's analogous to committing to the sincerity of The Dream for + Simulationist play. This is the whole core of the essay, that such a + commitment is fun and perfectly viable for role-playing, just as + it's viable for nearly any other sphere of human activity. + 2. The in-game characters, armed with their skills, priorities, and so + on, have to face a Challenge, which is to say, a specific Situation + in the imaginary game-world. Challenge is about the strategizing, + guts, and performance of the characters in this imaginary + game-world. + + For the characters, it's a risky situation in the game-world; in + addition to that all-important risk, it can be as fabulous, + elaborate, and thematic as any other sort of role-playing. Challenge + is merely plain old Situation - it only gets a new name because of + the necessary attention it must receive in Gamist play. Strategizing + in and among the Challenge is the material, or arena, for whatever + brand of Step On Up is operating. + + Gamist play and design is very diverse, partly due to the relative + emphases of these two layers, as well as how they are best met in that + particular game. At the crudest lens-setting, one can contrast those who + emphasize Challenge and drop the Step On Up to a faint roar, as opposed + to those who diminish the Challenge - it's always there, though - and + focus on the Step On Up. + + Terms 'til you squeak + The game to the Gamist + What does "game" mean, anyway? Wouldn't that be good to know before + talking about Game-ist? As it turns out, not really, no more than + "simulation" helps with discussing Simulationist play. The term "game" + is good enough for our purposes (as a root for the "ist"), but not + especially rigorous or interesting. So many different things get called + games that it's hardly worth considering a blanket definition. To call + all of role-playing a "game," the term must be so broadly defined that + it excludes any agenda beyond socializing. + + There's one specific aspect of the term that needs some scrutiny, though + - its judgmental content. Phrases like "It's a game," or better, "It's + just a game," or, "It's the game" illustrate that the term tells us + nothing; the meaning lies in the inflection. The phrase might be saying + that "it" is utterly trivial: "it's just a game." Or it might be saying + that "it" demands our constant and committed attention: "that's the + game." + + So, I think more sensibly, it's good to look inside Gamism to see the + game there - what is it? It's a recreational, social activity, in which + one faces circumstances of risk - but neither life-threatening nor of + any other great material consequence. All that's on the line is some + esteem, probably fleeting, enough to enjoy risking and no more. Think of + a poker game among friends with very minor stakes, or a neighborhood + pickup basketball game. Taking away the small change or the + score-counting would take away a lot of the fun, because they help to + track or prompt the minor esteem ups-and-downs. This is Step On Up. It + is "just a game," yes, but "it's the game," too. + + With any luck, now that I'm claiming two things are being labeled rather + than one, perhaps some of the debate about the label in question can + settle down. At the Step On Up level, what's at stake? A bit of esteem, + as stated above. But what about? Here's point #1: what's really at stake + can be totally overt (the basketball score), or it can nonverbal or + otherwise subtle (who sinks the best single hoop, regardless of which + team wins). All that matters is that it must exist embedded in the + real-life social interaction. + + Think of the following: + + * how performance is assessed, including a range of severity for + joshing, praise, and criticism + * the parameters of engagement - rules you do not break, in order to + enjoy playing changes in the field of play, whether in space or + time, making it impossible to stay with a single approach + + The competition boogeyman + Competition is best understood as a productive add-on to Gamist play. + Such play is fundamentally cooperative, but may include competition. + That's not a contradiction: I'm using exactly the same logic as might be + found at the poker and basketball games. You can't compete, socially, + without an agreed-upon venue. If the cooperation's details are + acceptable to everyone, then the competition within it can be quite + fierce. + + Role-playing texts never get this straight. For them, it's always either + competition or cooperation, one-other, push-pull, and often nonsensical. + The following is from Fantasy Earth, Basic Rules (1994, Zody Games, + author is Michael S. Zody): + + ... while board games and wargames have winners and losers, + role-playing games do not. Rather than being competitive, role-playing + games are cooperative. The players all work together and win and lose + as a team. + + I consider the above text to be inherently contradictory. Versions of it + can be found in quite a few role-playing games, especially those with + fantasy settings and a fairly high risk of character death. + + So what is all this competition business about? It concerns conflict of + interest. If person A's performance is only maximized by driving down + another's performance, then competition is present. In Gamist play, this + is not required - but it is very often part of the picture. Competition + gives both Step On Up and Challenge a whole new feel - a bite. + + How does conflict of interest relate to Step On Up and to Challenge? The + crucial answer is that it may be present twice, independently, within + the two-level structure. + + * Competition at the Step On Up level = conflict of interest regarding + players' performance and impact on the game-world. + * Competition at the Challenge level = conflict of interest among + characters' priorities (survival, resource accumulation, whatever) + in the game-world. + + Think of each level having a little red dial, from 1 to 11 - and those + dials can be twisted independently. Therefore, four extremes of + dial-twisting may be compared. + + 1. High competition in Step On Up plus low competition in Challenge = + entirely team-based play, party style against a shared Challenge, + but with value placed on some other metric of winning among the real + people, such as levelling-up faster, having the best stuff, having + one's player-characters be killed less often, getting more Victory + Points, or some such thing. Most Tunnels & Trolls play is like this. + 2. Low competition in Step On Up plus high competition in Challenge = + characters are constantly scheming on one another or perhaps openly + trying to kill or outdo another but the players aren't especially + competing, because consequences to the player are low per unit + win/loss. Kobolds Ate My Baby and the related game, Ninja Burger, + play this way. + 3. High competition in both levels = moving toward the Hard Core (see + below), including strong rules-manipulation, often observed in + variants of Dungeons & Dragons as well in much LARP play. A risky + way to play, but plenty of fun if you have a well-designed system + like Rune. + 4. Low competition in both levels = strong focus on Step On Up and + Challenge but with little need for conflict-of-interest. Quite a bit + of D&D based on story-heavy published scenarios plays this way. It + shares some features with "characters face problem" Simulationist + play, with the addition of a performance metric of some kind. Some + T&T play Drifted this way as well, judging by many Sorcerer's + Apprentice articles. + + Things get more complex than this, because different roles for GM and + players lead to combinations of the above categories within a single + game. For instance, players can cooperate as a party and compete with + the GM, for instance, given a rules-set that limits GM options (a + combination of #1 and #2). This shouldn't be confused with cooperating + with one another, cooperating with the GM, and competing against the + GM's characters (#4). + + Reality check + I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games + are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in + the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately, + include: + "Eat me," + (upon winning) "I win," and + "C'mon, let's play without these morons." + + I'm defining "winning" as positive assessment at the Step On Up level. + It even applies when little or no competition is going on. It applies + even when the win-condition is fleeting. Even if it's unstated. Even if + it's no big deal. Without it, and if it's not the priority of play, then + no Gamism. + + Textually, so many games say "it's not about winning" and then + immediately provide extremely clear win/loss parameters for play. + Sometimes I think it's because people believe that players are + inherently Gamist and have to be appeased in some way. This uneasy + waffling or endless qualifying shows up most often in fantasy games + whose authors would like play to be about something else, but just can't + quite believe that players would agree. + + From the introduction to RuneQuest, second edition (The Chaosium, 1978, + 1979, 1980; specific author for this text unknown; game authors are + Steve Perrin, Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, and Warren James): + + The title of the game, RuneQuest, describes its goal. The player + creates one or more characters, known as adventurers, and playes them + in various scenarios, designed by a Referee. The Adventurer has the + use of combat, magic, and other skills, and treasure. The Referee has + the use of assorted monsters, traps, and his own wicked imagination to + keep the Adventurer from his goal within the rules of the game. A + surviving Adventurer gains experience in fighting, magic, and other + skills, as well as money to purchase further training. + + Now all that's pretty Gamist stuff of a late 1970s vintage, right? Get + this, which follows immediately: + + The adventurer progresses in this way until he is so proficient that + he comes to the attention of the High Priests, sages, and gods. At + this point he has the option to join a Rune Cult. Joining such a cult + gives him many advantages, not the least of which is aid from the god + of the cult. + + Acquiring a Rune by joining such a cult is the goal of the game, for + only in gathering a Rune may a character take the next step, up into + the ranks of Hero, and perhaps Superhero. + + All right, that bit about joining cults still seems kind of Gamist, + right? About getting more effective and so on? Great ... except that the + GM controls the High Priests and sages. Why would he, whose job was just + stated to be to "keep the Adventurer from his goal," have them recognize + the Adventurer in the first place? Either they do, and the GM must + abandon the stated goal, or they don't, and that whole paragraph becomes + gibberish. + + Bear in mind as well that "Hero" and "Superhero" are never defined, and + indeed never again mentioned anywhere in the rulebook. See what I mean + about waffly and uncertain text? Such text is the default explanation + for role-playing, with very few exceptions, until the publication of + Vampire in 1991. Even since, though, it's still the standard for fantasy + games. The following is from Legendary Lives, second edition (1993, + Marquee Press, authors are Joe Williams and Kathleen Williams): + + The players are impromptu actors within the scenes created by the + referee ... The fun comes from interacting with the other characters + and with the imaginary world created by the refereee. For the duration + of the game, try to immerse yourself in the role. [Sim so far - RE] + ... + The first goal of a player is survival. Yes your character can die + during an adventure, and a dead character is completely gone. If your + character is smart enough, bright enough, or lucky enough, he or she + will survive to reap the benefits of becoming older, wiser, and more + powerful. + [Wowsies, eh? Then text follows which backpeddles rapidly and tries to + explain why character death isn't losing. -RE] + + As a contrast, some texts make no bones about this issue and indeed leap + in with both feet, as in Kobolds Ate My Baby! third edition (2001, Ninth + Level Games; authors are Christopher O'Neill and Daniel Landis): + + How to win! + ... unlike your average role-playing game, KOBOLDS ATE MY BABY! Third + Edition has winners (and losers). Truth be told, it mainly has losers! + Anyway, the winner is the player who, at the end of the game, has the + most Victory Points. Most games continue until a certain condition is + met, generally when all the babies are gone ... + + Yee-ha! But that's a recent example. To get back to the dark and + steaming roots of the first wave of role-playing innovation, check this + out from The Basic Game chapter in Tunnels & Trolls, 5th edition (1979, + Flying Buffalo Inc; author is Ken St. Andre, with possible edits or + additions by Liz Danforth): + + Every time your character escapes from a tunnel alive, you may + consider yourself a winner. The higher the level and the more wealth + your character attains, the better you are doing in comparison to all + the other players. + + From the Adventure Points chapter in the same text: + + As long as a character remains alive - regardless of how many + adventures he or she participates in - you are "winning." If ill fate + befalls the character, or if you overextend yourself in playing your + character's capabilities, the character dies and it is your loss. Of + course, these games allow you to play any number of characters + (sometimes referred to as a "stable of characters") and some will + survive and advance, and everyone wins in the end. + + This seems a bit softer, until one notices that although winning is + qualified by quotes and extra text, loss significantly is not. + + Further text in the Adventure Points chapter of the same game repeatedly + provides big payoff for rash, risky, but tactically-imaginative action, + if the character survives. One small part rewards role-playing, but: + + Any points awarded in this category should be given to those players + who are doing an exceptionally good job only, thus making the game + more of a challenge to all. + + In other words, "challenge" is the first priority and immersion (for + lack of a better word), cooperation with the GM or his story-plans, or + in-character consistent play, are to be conducted and evaluated in that + context. They are, as well as anything else like character survival or + achievement, to be competed about. + + I love the T&T and Kobolds texts. They are refreshing, spunky, and even + inspiring: "Step on up, buddy!" Open Gamism is completely accessible, + completely functional, and extremely fun. You see, it all goes back to + how the Step On Up social stuff is perfectly capable of enjoying the + in-game Challenge, Situation stuff, and how they're not the same thing. + In these games, the idea is to keep the Challenge whimsical enough that + its occasionally-extreme consequences don't reflect proportionally on + the player's emotional stakes of the moment. + + T&T is not the be-all and end-all of Gamism, although it was probably + the first utterly explicit Gamist role-playing text. Not all Gamist play + is alike! It ranges across a great deal of structural, social, and + imaginative diversity, which is why this essay still has a long way to + go. + + Structural basics + Grant Gigee provided some comments that I think speak more closely to + the issue than anything I could come up with: + + Conflict and choice: Clearly, both terms can also be applied to + Narrativism, but I think they are very evocative and, combined with + challenge, concisely convey the important values of Gamism. Conflict + is crucial to narrative, but while one can explore the back-story or + the setting, or whatever, and while one can explore the moral + ramifications of those choices, folk like myself would rather get + right to the high points - the points of greatest tension which lead + to the greatest accomplishment. [emphasis mine; that's where the Step + On Up lives, right there - RE] + + Choice is important because only through choice can there be + consequences. The reason most Gamists play wizards over fighters lies + not in avoiding conflict but in having choices. The fighter's choices + are all front-loaded - which sword (the best one), which armor (the best + one), etc - while the wizard's are more immediate: which spell at what + time. + + Valid Gamist conflict and valid Gamist choice lead directly to strategy + and tactics, which I like to think of in two ways. The first way is the + interplay of resources, combined arms, either-or decisions, + effectiveness, point-husbanding, and similar game-mechanics acumen. Two + articles to review regarding these sorts of strategy and tactics in + Gamist play are [15]Elements of tactics and [16]Elements of strategy by + Brian Gleichman. The second way is all about bending parameters, lateral + thinking, and occasional banzai, which is to say, one's ability to shape + the actual play, or the importance of its parts, through sheer + interaction with it and with other people. + + In trying to back up a little and look at things more generally than + individual moments of successful tactics, I came up with two new terms. + I'm not sure whether they're profound or just obvious, so consider'em + informal at this point. + + The Gamble and the Crunch + Challenge is the Situation faced by the player-characters with a strong + implication of risk. It can be further focused into applications, which + individually tend toward one of these two things: + + The Gamble occurs when the player's ability to manipulate the odds or + clarify unknowns is seriously limited. "Hold your nose and jump!" is its + battle-cry. Running a first-level character in all forms of D&D is a + Gamble; all of Ninja Burger play is a Gamble. More locally, imagine a + crucial charge made by a fighter character toward a dragon - his goal is + to distract it from the other character's coordinated attack, and he's + the only one whose hit points are sufficient to survive half its + flame-blast. Will he make the saving roll? If he doesn't, he dies. Go! + + The Crunch occurs when system-based strategy makes a big difference, + either because the Fortune methods involved are predictable (e.g. + probabilities on a single-die roll), or because effects are reliably + additive or cancelling (e.g. Feats, spells). Gamist-heavy Champions play + with powerful characters is very much about the Crunch. The villain's + move occurs early in Phase 3; if the speed-guy saves his action from + Phase 2 into Phase 3 to pre-empt that action, and if the brick-guy's + punch late on Phase 3 can be enhanced first by the psionic-guy's + augmenting power if he Pushes the power, then we can double-team the + villain before he can kill the hostage. + + The distinction between Gamble and Crunch isn't quite the same as + "randomness;" it has more to do with options and consequences. Fortune + can be involved in both of them, and it doesn't have to be involved in + either (see Diplomacy for a non-RPG example). Also, look out for jargon: + "Crunchy" is a gamer term for detailed and layered rules; "crunching" is + a long-standing term for maximizing Effectiveness by manipulating a + system's Currency. Neither of these are Crunch as I'm defining here. + + Who vs. whom: the source of adversity + Adversity is necessary to role-playing; without it, nothing happens. The + term requires two analyses. + + 1. Who's the source of adversity in Gamist play? This is a layered + question based on the Step On Up and Challenge levels. Step On Up + adversity simply means demanding high attention to System operation + and the responding emotional "on-button" from the person. It's the + "social heat," if you will, as well as whatever cognitive demands + are imposed by the System. Optionally, as described above, + person-on-person conflict of interest might be involved as well, + bringing in competition at this level. Without the competition, the + adversity needs to come from some extra-player source, whether a GM + or a publication or some confluence of both. With it, of course, the + source of adversity arises among the players; this is usually an + add-on to the GM/publication adversity rather than a substitute. + 2. What are its imposed dangers? This seems more straightforward at + first, as Challenge adversity means risk to the characters in some + way. But about what? Options range from character survival to + abstract Victory Points, with a huge range of possibilities in + between. Also, optionally, character-on-character conflict of + interest may be involved as well, again setting up the possible + inclusion of competition as a "heater-up" for adversity. + + Clearly, these are not really independent! The Challenge adversity sets + up all sorts of System demands and risks to the characters, which in + turn can provide the motor for the Step On Up adversity to kick into + action. That's a powerful phenomenon; arguably, it was the core of D&D + play becoming a popular hobby at all in the mid-1970s, based on + organized tournaments. + + But all the possible combinations are overwhelming - whose strategizing + is opposed to whose? If a GM is the source of adversity, to what extent + is he or she a potential competitor as well? What are the differences + between GM as referee, as judge, and as player of opponents? Is + player-effort a team thing or an "every man my enemy" thing? The general + answer to these and similar questions can only be "Yes," then parsed + very specifically both by game design and by group preferences. Social + Contract issues such as whether maps, notes, and dice-rolls are hidden + or open all rely on the answers. But those are only some of the possible + questions. Here are others. + + 1. How long is a "go"? Which is to say, what are the units of reward + and loss, and how are they distributed through the time of play? + Compare losing a round in a video game with loss in a football game, + and consider whether a fight scene in a role-playing session is a + piece of a very long conflict called a Delve, or whether it's the + moment of truth, right there. Is player-character death, for + example, like losing the ball for a first down for the other side, + or missing a touchdown, or losing the whole game? + 2. How is Fortune involved, and when? Oh, there are so many ways: + player-character creation, the typical resolution mechanics, any + sudden-death resolution mechanics, reduction of abilities or + resources, preparation for a crisis, the crisis itself ... To flip + to the other side, what's the role, if any, of + allocation-strategizing points or resources? + Neither of the above can be considered without thinking about the + relative importance of Effectiveness and Resource, and how they + relate to one another, or, on a more imaginative/scenario level, the + relative distribution and positioning of the Gamble and the Crunch. + + 3. To what degree is conflict-of-interest involved, for both the Step + On Up and Challenge levels? Similarly, and this of course is mainly + a social question, what degree of ruthlessness is involved? + 4. What is the Challenge about? Further, how imaginatively committed to + it, moment by moment, are people expected to be? I suggest with + great fervor that combat is only one form of conflict, and character + survival is only one in-game metric for success. + + A look at reward systems + I generally refer to Stakes in Gamist play to discuss what's at risk and + what stands to be gained at both the Step On Up and Challenge level. I + think successful Gamist play needs to include both the loss and gain + conditions for the Stakes, not just gain. This gets really tricky, + because the "metric" of what's being assessed at the Step On Up level is + only sometimes overt. Add to that the concept of Stakes relative to the + competition within each level, if present, and things suddenly get + complicated. + + So what constitutes "success" at the Step On Up and/or Challenge level + during play? Is it the right to keep playing? Improving one's + character's effectiveness, begging the question of what for? Getting + some kind of "victory points"? The metagame/game relationship between + these is phenomenally important. I think that, in Gamist play, the + metagame-part is the key one - a completely informal Social Reward + (e.g., "Killed more goblins than you!", even in a game-system which + confers no consequence for doing so) can easily outweigh an in-game one. + + In taking this idea to design, my mind kind of balks at the tricky mix + of Exploration and Competition, and how to keep them from being at + cross-purposes. It is really hard to conceive of Gamist reward + mechanisms that are both consistently satisfying across long-term play + and meaningful at the Step On Up level. Abstract victory points are + arguably quite weak; "you win" means nothing if it, well, doesn't do + anything. The more-commonly seen metric of character survival is badly + broken, in a variety of applications. If character death is temporary, + it's not much of a loss condition, but if it's not, the game is often + forced to abandon the loss condition such that people can continue to + play. + + Character improvement ("advancement") is even more problematic. The + basic issues it raises are: + + * How tough and effective should a starting character be? If it's too + high, then there's no reason to improve; if it's too low, the early + stages of play depend far too much on GM mercy. + * What kind of rate is involved, relative to the challenges as time + goes by? The effectiveness-increase can form an exponential + interaction with the character's ability to increase further, which + in most cases breaks the game or reduces all confrontations to + statistical grinds rather than Step On Up crises. + + Reward systems remain the current most challenging sector of game + design, for many reasons, not the least of which is no clear idea of for + how long or at what scale "successful play" should be rated. I look + forward to experimentation and debate that can help resolve some of the + issues for Gamist play. + + The joys of Gamism + It is way cool, in a game which utilizes point-construction of + characters, to allocate them such that the character "hums" - that is, + he (or she or it, henceforth "he") can do what you'd like him to do + without running out of energy too fast, can go where he needs to go, and + take a hit without crumpling - or, in games which are less about moving + places and hitting one another, the character can actually get X done in + a way which makes anyone else say, "Whoa, good one!" Nocturne, my + Champions super-hero, steps through the wall and freezes the villain The + Crippler in his tracks with a burning blue look. He glides straight to + the uber-villain, the Blood Queen, where she stands before the + technological cross (on whom is crucified Nocturne's buddy, Warp), + ignoring the zots and shots of the henchmen, and says, in deadly tones, + "Where ... is ... our ... son?" Presence attack roll! + + It is totally cool, in a game with a well-constructed IIEE component, to + strategize one or more characters' actions such that their effect and + timing delivers a phenomenal wallop, or more generally, has a + distinctive and exciting effect on play. Demon-boy's acrobatic attack + provides the diversion, as Hurricane-girl's wind-storm scatters the + henchmen, opening up a channel for Metal-guy to hurl Claw-man straight + into the Menace. As expected, Claw-man takes it on the chin, but that + removes the Menace's saved action (which we all knew he had; he had that + smirk), and that's when Eyebeam-man's blast hits, shattering the tank + behind the Menace to release the wave of radioactive fluid and to wake + the sleeping alien within ... + + The very meaning of cool beans is to husband resources intelligently, + such that when you really need that Endurance, or the story points, or + those hit points, or that final charge in the magic staff, they're + there. Yzorn, the young mage, dodges once, twice, and again, eluding the + jaws of the summoned wolf, costing Engarad more and more energy until + the animal fades into smoke. Then, "Catch this!" he cries, at last + loosing the lightning bolt and crisping his foe into an ashy column, + which slowly fragments under its own weight. + + Nothing is more cool than putting the character or whatever at risk, + whether in Gamble or Crunch circumstances, and seeing the system deliver + its punch relative to your tactics. Roichi, my Blue Islands ninja, + reaches into the folds of his black gi to produce, rattle-rattle the + dice, a packet of Hot Sauce! Shimatta! + + It is the essence of coolness to see the legitimately avoidable twist be + avoided, or fail to be avoided. "Boy, that troll was a lot easier to + kill than I expected," says the player. I, the GM, smirk. "You're + growing ... turning hairy ... your armor and clothing crack and stretch + off of your body ... horns sprout on your -" "Hey! I'm turning into a + troll, aren't I?" "Yup ... cursed to clean up the first level, just like + your predecessor, who's turning into a dead human, by the way." "Shit! + That makes sense! We should have figured that out!" Heh, heh, heh ... + + All of the above are fun during any role-playing, but from a Gamist + perspective, the point is for one's acumen to be acknowledged - it's a + matter of pure pride. You grokked the system just right for that + particular situation; you took into account all the possible variables + of the moment. If such a perspective, and all these events, are combined + together and experienced as part and parcel of the Exploration - which + is to say, the social, imaginative "scene" - then Gamist play is under + way. I maintain this experience cannot be achieved through any physical + sport, through any virtual interface, or through any medium whatever + aside from table-top role-playing. The rush is, I think, unique to the + medium. + + The Hard Core + So far I haven't mentioned any negative connotations to Gamist play, + despite my hints in the beginning of the essay. The time has come to + explain why many people hate and fear any sign of Step On Up, let alone + competition, in and among the adversity-situations of their + role-playing. It's due to a possible application of Gamist principles to + their "perviest" extreme, which is to say, the highest degree of + person-to-System contact during play. When you sacrifice Exploration to + get to this degree of contact in Gamist play, you have entered the Hard + Core. + + The Hard Core occurs when Gamist play transmogrifies into pure metagame: + Exploration becomes minimal or absent, such that System and Social + Contract contact one another directly, and, essentially, all the + mechanics become metagame mechanics. It's usually, although not always, + the result of high competitive actions at the Step On Up level, which + then "eats" the Challenge level such that it is literally and nakedly an + extension of Step On Up and nothing else. Role-playing in the Hard Core + is very much like playing competitive video games or, for that matter, + like playing that old junior high school favorite, Smear the Queer, with + egos rather than bones and blood on the line. + + I perceive four distinct Hard Core applications. They all very easily + become dysfunctional, but, contrary to popular belief, quite a bit of + Hard Core play may be functional if the Social Contract is being + reinforced rather than broken. None of them combine well with secondary + Simulationist or Narrativist priorities, which is one reason that people + often confound the Hard Core with playing Gamist at all. That's an + error, though, because the Hard Core is just as incompatible with + high-Exploration Gamist priorities as well. + + It's time to introduce the "M" word too. The term "munchkin" gets thrown + around a lot in reference to Gamist play, and one of the big points of + this essay is to show that it applies to too many different things to be + useful. I'll discuss this further in the Troubles with Gamism section + below, but for now, just bear in mind that Hard Core role-players are + often called munchkins by others, including non-Hard Core Gamists. + + Turnin' on each other + Gamist play already presupposes some pressure among members of the + group. Now add to that not only conflict-of-interest at the Challenge + level, but open acknowledgment of one another's player-characters as the + only engaging source of Challenge - and given the absence of + Exploration, directly applying to a Step On Up struggle for dominance. + So now you have both little red dials up to 11, and the arena of + resolution is simply whose characters survive mutual attacks. + + Turnin' often arises from when the "official" Challenge parameters are + shown to be uninteresting for one reason or another, such as when losing + one's character to GM-run foes turns out not to mean much in Step On Up + terms - i.e., when the GM kills characters at whim. It's typically + dysfunctional when it arises from this or similar sources. + + However, I also think Turnin' is the least threatening Hard Core + application, because when it's integrated into other enjoyable aspects + of a system, it can actually be a wonderful addition to play, as + illustrated by the wizard-economy of spells for rogues in T&T or the + magic items rules in Elfs. After all, character conflict-of-interest is + not necessarily Hard Core, nor is it even necessarily a Gamist issue at + all. However, given that its extreme form is dysfunctional, many game + texts have mistakenly urged various ways never ever ever to permit + inter-character conflict of interest, in order to stave it off. + + Powergaming + This technique is all about ramping a system's Currency, Effectiveness, + and reward system into an exponential spiral. As a behavior, it can be + applied to any system, but most forms of D&D offer an excellent inroad + for it: after a certain number of levels achieved, the ability to + deliver damage and remain invulnerable itself provides ever-increasing + ability to achieve yet higher degrees of damage-delivery and hit-point + resources. + + Like Turnin', Powergaming doesn't necessarily destroy the enjoyment of + play, and unlike Turnin', it may even remain functional in full-blown + Hard Core form. Some Exploration may well be maintained, at least + minimally, and the effectiveness-spiral might play a strategic role + rather than to dominate fellow players. However, it's fair to say that + Powergaming is only functional if everyone is committed to it, and it + carries dangers of leading to Breaking (see below). + + To prevent Powergaming, many game designers identify the GM as the + ultimate and final rules-interpreter. It's no solution at all, though: + (1) there's no way to enforce the enforcement, and (2), even if the + group does buy into the "GM is always right" decree, the GM is now + empowered to Powergame over everyone else. + + Calvinball + This is the famous "rules-lawyering" approach, which is misnamed because + it claims textual support when in reality it simply invents it. + Calvinball is a better term: making up the rules as you go along, + usually in terms of on-the-spot interpretations disguised as "obvious" + well-established interpretations. It basically combines glibness and + bullying to achieve moment-to-moment advantages for one's character. A + Calvinballer may also be adept at bugging the GM about some rules-detail + often enough that a goodly percentage of the time yields a reward for + it, but not often enough to tip everyone else off to what's going on. + + The big trick of Calvinball is pretending to be still committed to the + Exploration. That makes it especially well-suited to disrupting + Simulationist play from the older traditions, because the other players' + commitment to the integrity of the Dream can be co-opted into one's + Calvinball strategy, exploiting the others' willingness to enter into + the rules-debate in hopes of a compromise, which of course is not + forthcoming. Calvinball then quickly transforms into a struggle for + control over what is and is not happening in the imaginative situation. + + One mistaken solution to this tactic is to hide the rules from the + players in some kind of laughably-secure "GM book" or "GM section," as + well as to enforce the ideal of Transparency. The other, more common + solution is simply to continue adding rules forever and ever, amen, in + order to account unambiguously for any and all imaginable events during + play. + + Breaking the game + Here's the most extreme form of the Hard Core; it's the only one that I + can't imagine is functional in any circumstances. Breaking the game is + defined as rendering others' ability to play ineffective in terms of any + metric that happens to be important in that group. Theoretically, any + and all games are breakable: one can always sweep the pieces off the + board. But I'm talking about doing so in the context of identifying + internal inconsistencies or vulnerable points in the design, breaking + the game by playing it and rendering the Exploration nonsensical. + + Here's the key giveaway in terms of system design: it is Broken (i.e. + Breaking consistently works) if repetitive, unchanging behavior garners + benefit. The player hits no self-correcting parameters and is never + forced to readjust his or her strategy. The principle can be applied in + multiple ways, both two common ones include: + + * Exploiting point-based games which rely on layered Currency, such + that points may be spent cheaply for disproportionately high gain, + often in a self-sustaining fashion. The classic example is the + Recovery attribute in Champions, which was increased by spending + points on Constitution and Strength, but could be bought down, and + the points thus gained could be pumped back into Strength, thus + raising REC to levels beyond the original value. Champions also + featured a means of decreasing powers' cost by increasing a divisor + value, and strategizing the relationship to this divisor with other + means of point-reduction became an art form in many groups. + * Exploiting announcement/order-of-action systems to acquire perfect + can't-hit-me-I-hit-you combinations, multiple-action combinations, + and similar. Most games which feature powers or advantages that the + order of action are vulnerable to unforeseen stacking with these + effects. + + Breaking the Game isn't quite the same thing as Powergaming, because + once a game is Broken, the group rarely continues to play. However, the + latter often leads to the former, because Powergaming reveals vulnerable + points in game design that are then Broken. Trying to prevent this + one-two combination of behavior has led many game designers mistakenly + to provide endless patch rules, full of exceptions to cover the + exceptions, none of which accomplishes anything except to open up even + more points of vulnerability. + + Diversity of Gamist design + Considering all these different concerns, perhaps finally the variety of + Gamist role-playing design can get its long-awaited, long-denied day in + the sun. I've taken a few variables from the Structural Basics section, + mainly the ones that can be ascribed to specific game texts rather than + the less-tangible, more locally-defined ones. + + * The degree of Exploration relative to Step On Up + * The role of Fortune in resolving Stakes-relevant conflict in the + game + * How much Gamble vs. how much Crunch + * The length of a "go," or unit of play necessary to see how well + someone does + * The local units of local loss - how you can tell when someone + doesn't do well + * The degree of metagame mechanics available + + Mano a mano + These are duelling games. They're generally written as self-governing, + which is to say, no GM necessary, although sometimes a gentleman's + agreement about some things is necessary. For instance, in Wizard duels, + a player is expected to be truthful when his character's illusion spell + is disbelieved. Also, sometimes a Referee or "monster player" is + recommended if people want to play in teams rather than against one + another. + + Melee/Wizard - Exploration is low, role of Fortune medium, Gamble even + with Crunch, "go" length = one fight, units of local loss = PC death, + degree of metagame is nil + + Lost Worlds - Exploration is low to medium, role of Fortune medium, + Crunch slightly higher than Gamble, "go" length = one fight, units of + local loss = PC death, degree of metagame is nil (or high if choosing + the character in the first place is considered) + + Dungeon crawl + The classic Exploration paradigm, and arguably the progenitor of the + multi-bezillion dollar computer-game industry. The characters must + traverse and navigate a dangerous environment and reap the rewards of + their discoveries and combat acumen relative to the spiralling risk. + + Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition - Exploration is medium, role of Fortune + is high until after 10th level, fair Gamble and later mainly Crunch, + "go" length = a delve, units of local loss = death, degree of metagame = + nil + + Deathstalkers (System & Setting) - Exploration medium-to-high, Fortune + high at low levels especially, Gamble at lower levels with more Crunch + at higher ones, "go" length unknown, units of local loss = character + death, degree of metagame is nil + + Forge: Out of Chaos (Character & System), - Exploration is a solid + medium, role of Fortune is medium, Gamble mixed evenly with Crunch, "go" + length = expedition, units of local loss = PC death or lack of + levelling, degree of metagame is nil + + Rune - Exploration is low, role of Fortune is medium to high, Gamble + mixed evenly with Crunch, "go" length = expedition, units of local loss + vary across several variables, degree of metagame is nil (or high if the + GM-round-robin is considered) + + Donjon - Exploration high, role of Fortune is high, high Gamble vs. low + Crunch (almost all Abilities are really the same thing - a mechanical + way to win), "go" length is a delve, and individual "Donjon Levels", + units of local loss = destruction of equipment and character + inconvenience (death is extremely rare), degree of metagame = quite high + + Elaborate setting + This brand of Gamist play evolved almost instantly, beginning with maps + and supplements like the World of Greyhawk. It offers a few special + problems, the main one being an ongoing Simulationist "creep" in the + evolving texts, edition by edition, which can trip up the Gamist + priorities of special interest ... in other words, GNS-based + Incoherence. One reader even proposed the term "Power Simulationism" for + such games, and stated, "These games are the least rewarding to me + because they feel like kicking a man when he is down." + + Stormbringer 1st edition - Exploration is high, role of Fortune is + extreme, both Gamble and Crunch at different instances of play, "go" + length = adventure scenario, units of local loss = death, degree of + metagame = nil (perhaps a bit in demon creation) + + Rifts (with some Simulationist design as hybrid support) - Exploration + is medium-low, role of Fortune high at low levels, low at higher levels, + mixed Gamble and Crunch, "go" length = firefight, units of local loss = + death (or perhaps loot), degree of metagame = nil + + Shadowrun (also a Simulationist hybrid) - Exploration is high, medium to + high Fortune, mixed Gamble and Crunch (higher Crunch in longer-term + games), "go" length = a black-ops mission (a "shadowrun"), units of + local loss = character death, loss of profit, degree of metagame varies + by edition + + Age of Heroes - Exploration is high, role of Fortune is strong but + easily assessed, mainly Crunch, "go length = set pieces, loss = + characters' agenda per set piece, degree of metagame = nil [note: This + game is not based on a canonical setting, but rather on procedures and + rules-categories corresponding to a setting type, relating to "adventure + fantasy" much as early Champions relates to comics; as such, it is + probably the single representative in the category without Coherence + problems] + + Deadlands - Exploration is high, Situation, role of Fortune is medium, + mainly Crunch, "go" length = adventure scenario, units of local loss + aren't well defined, degree of metagame is minor but consistently + present + + Whimsical whackiness + These are usually humorous spinoffs of dungeon crawls. + + Tunnels & Trolls - Exploration medium, role of Fortune high, emphasis on + Gamble, "go" length = level, units of local loss = PC death or + diminishment of abilities, degree of metagame is low except for some + whimsy + + Kobolds Ate My Baby / Ninja Burger (Situation & System) - Exploration + low-to-medium, role of Fortune is extreme, extreme emphasis on Gamble, + "go" length = one dinner/mission, units of local loss = victory points + (less so, PC death), degree of metagame is medium (often obstructive to + others) + + Elfs - Exploration is medium, role of Fortune is high, mixed Gamble and + Crunch, "go" length = adventure scenario, units of local loss = + immediate advantage, degree of metagame = medium. + + Gimme some story + These games shift the venue of Step On Up from in-game character action + resolution to metagame narration rights, which may or may not entail + greater character effectiveness. + + The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen - Exploration = medium, role of + Fortune is nil, mainly Crunch, "go" length = one tale, units of local + loss = control of the narrative, degree of metagame is total. Arguably, + this game is more appropriately placed in the "almost role-playing game" + category along with Bedlam, De Profundis, and Once Upon a Time. + + Pantheon - Exploration = high, role of Fortune is minor, mainly Crunch, + "go" length = one story, units of local loss = points, degree of + metagame fairly high + + Is d20 Gamist? + D&D3E is certainly strongly oriented toward Gamist play, but as for d20, + what is it, structurally? + + * levels to describe character attack-options and hit points - but not + necessarily levelling-up as a major feature of play + * classes and possibly races, but these are meaningless on reflection + - a game can have one or twenty classes; they are strictly a method + for establishing resource categories + * Six attributes - but with any relationship to effectiveness that you + want; one can even tack on another system for primary Effectiveness + variables, as in D&D3E + + All one really has is a flat-curve resolution method in 5% increments + against target numbers, with (a) possible re-rolls (which is what "extra + attacks" are), (b) a resource mechanic relative to character survival, + and (c) lists of powers. I've concluded that d20 takes on a + game-identity to the extent that a designer customizes Resolution, + Currency, and Reward into a particular shape. Therefore to "use d20" + means one of the following: + + * to imitate or augment an existing form (supplemental material for + D&D3E) + * fundamentally to write your own game (Mutants & Masterminds) + * and I should mention some attempts at the latter which look more + like the former (Star Wars d20, Spycraft) + + No wonder it's impossible to discuss d20 sensibly! There's no game + there, not even a System. Therefore it passes out of the range of topics + for this essay; d20 presents a fascinating economics and marketing + phenomenon, but I think it's only meaningful in those terms. + + Historical perspective + How is Gamist design distributed across games throughout the hobby's + history? I'm now talking about explicit design features and facilitative + text in game-books, not play itself. My essay [17]A hard look at + Dungeons & Dragons addresses some of the factors that underlie this + section. + + The most striking feature across role-playing history is the astonishing + shift in the late 1980s from assuming that Gamist play was the default + to practically nothing - limited mainly to "old AD&D," various D&D + imitators, Shadowrun, or Rifts. + + I think this rarity is mainly a matter of rejection by texts that + facilitated other preferred modes of play. I specifically include AD&D2 + to be included in this shift, as I consider it to be mainly incoherent + with various and sometimes-contradictory doses of Simulationist design + scattered throughout, going all the way back to the Wilderness Survival + Guide and the Dragonlance modules. I also think that the various + setting-derivative AD&D2 boxed sets of the early 1990s (Al-Qadim, Dark + Sun, Planescape, et al.) explicitly facilitate Illusionist Simulationist + play. + + A similar textual rejection can be found in the publications of Lion + Rampant and later (same company) White Wolf, many of which explicitly + condemned Gamist play in subcultural terms. In many ways, this can be + seen as a reclamation of "hip" for role-playing, or at least for a given + company's role-playing products. + + In spite of all the textual rejection, I also think that the dearth of + texts reveals nothing about the commonality of Gamist play - I suspect + that Drift has kept Gamist play alive and quite active, even in the + absence of coherent games to use it for, especially for AD&D2, + Champions, Amber, and Vampire (see the GNS section below). Discussing + why such an overt, accessible, and functional brand of play did not act + as a solid demand on the marketplace of game design must await more + discussion of game-industry economics. + + Then again, perhaps my surprise is a matter of my own subcultural + limitations, if related hobbies are considered. Gamism remained alive + and well among computer games like Rogue, Nethack, Ultima library (later + to become Ultima Online), Zork, Advent(ure), MUDs, MUSHes, MOOs, + Everquest, Amethyst, and many more. Unfortunately, I'm an ignoramus + about this entire hobby, and any insights into its history, play + preferences, economics, and what-all would be very welcome at the Forge. + + Oh, and let's not forget that card game that showed up at the game store + counters a decade ago. I think that Magic: the Gathering is best + described as a portable, customizable wargame - and that part of its + popularity may be ascribed to the fact that the customers of the day had + never seen a wargame before. Unsurprisingly, a whole sector of people + who were involved in role-playing suddenly discovered the hobby they'd + been looking for. + + From a role-playing design perspective, Magic and many other + customizable card games reminded people of a principle that had been + abandoned for almost a decade: (1) that competitive Step On Up is + actually fun, rather than automatically Broken; (2) that elegant and + highly-prioritized game design permits easier entry and more + satisfaction in play; and (3) that Exploration may be customized to + taste, rather than considered an all-or-nothing variable. + + Finally, Gamist play has also cropped up across many products which are + sometimes called role-playing games, but are just a little off my + personal undefined cognitive space for that label, mainly due to the + role of "character" and certain aspects of how resolution is addressed. + All of them utilize control over narration as one of the variables of + play, thus shifting around the privileges of a traditional GM role, and + all of them are explicitly about winning the game much as one wins a + traditional card game. They include Once Upon a Time, The Adventures of + Baron von Munchausen, and Bedlam, and many others seem to be on the way + as well. As with the customizable Magic-type games, already they've + prompted many changes in role-playing, most notably in terms of + formalizing and permitting shifts among who gets to narrate the outcomes + of a given resolution mechanic. + + GNS issues + Memetic power + Nothing beats Gamism - once you have Step On Up in action, it takes + over. The main reason is simple: Step On Up is a recognizable, common, + coherent, and rewarding aspect of human behavior, which is why we see it + all 'round the place. Role-playing is just another venue. So, basically, + everyone gets it, and once present, Situation becomes Challenge, and the + cognitive fascination with esteem relative to performance becomes the + order of the day. It doesn't rely on any particular game mechanic to be + present - consider that any metric for social esteem is a candidate for + Step On Up, and that any element of in-game content is a candidate for + Challenge. You're bound to find someone's own personal profile for these + in the game-content somewhere! + + It also takes over easily mechanically in many instances of game design, + especially in Simulationist-facilitating games, in two ways. The first + way is to perceive system-based opportunities for advantage: breakpoints + in point-allocation design, stacking of options into unique effects, and + similar. Such things are often offered as neat add-ons in + otherwise-Simulationist designs, but they take over fast when character + niche-protection switches into literal character-defense. The second + way, unsurprisingly, is through reward systems: a traditional + character-improvement system can switch to a fully-social Step On Up + reward system any time anyone wants, especially since it's + self-perpetuating. + + Clinton provided this example: + + ... find a copy of Player's Option: Skills and Powers for AD&D2. It + took the broken Simulationism of that game and added a huge layer of + Gamism to the construction of characters. I remember making up some + serious monstrosities with this book. + + The most common Gamist-Drift events in my experience are found in the + following games: + + * Gamist-Drifted Champions falls into two types: point-strategizing or + movement/action-strategizing. The reward metric is plain old success + in in-game conflicts, or demonstrated "superior knowledge" of the + game's mathiness. + * Gamist-Drifted Amber is characterized by Drama-bullying toward + Situation-control, essentially an unstructured version of Pantheon. + It can also include point-mongering depending on certain + rules-interpretation. The reward metric may be in-game social + advancement (e.g. Throne War) or simply moment-to-moment struggles + over who's in charge of the narration. + * Gamist-Drifted Vampire consists of extensive breakpoint + exploitation. The metric is Champions-like character effectiveness, + specifically who can ignore as well as deliver the most damage. More + subtly, it's also coolness, whoever gets to be perceived as the most + real-Goth of the bunch. Many Vampire LARPs tend in this direction as + well, with the added benefits of singles-bar interactions. + + All of the above tend toward Powergaming as well, with attendant shifts + to the other branches of the Hard Core over time. + + The common reaction to this easy transition, for non-Gamist-inclined + players, is pure terror - it's the Monsters from the Id! In-group + conflicts over the issue have been repeated from group to group, game to + game, throughout the entire history of the hobby. + + One such thing is a tug-of-war regarding following rules vs. + not-following rules. What the rules actually say becomes yet another + variable even as people argue about whether they should be followed, and + when both of these issues are firing at once, nothing can possibly be + resolved. The result is always to consider either following or ignoring + rules to be "right" when it goes your way. + + Another tack is for some groups and game designers to treat Gamism's + easy "in" as a necessary evil and to take an appeasement approach. The + "Id" can be controlled, they say, as long as the Superego (the GM) stays + firmly in charge and gives it occasional fights and a reward system + based on improving effectiveness. This approach may rank among the + most-commonly attempted yet least-successful tactic in all of game + design. It will never actually work: the Lumpley Principle correctly + places the rules and procedures of play at the mercy of the Social + Contract, not the other way around. Therefore, even if such a game + continues, it has this limping-along, gotta-put-up-with-Bob feel to it. + + Hybridization + Simulationist play is an excellent "subordinate" mode for Gamist play. A + game designed toward this sort of play is also open to functional Drift + toward Sim-only as people toss out that "weird stuff" or that + "powergamer" stuff. See Rifts, Shadowrun, and Age of Heroes. + + However, Gamist play is a terrible "subordinate" mode for Simulationist + play, because it takes over in a heartbeat, for all the reasons listed + above. I should clarify, however, that I'm talking strictly about play + itself, not texts. Looking at texts through several editions, the + overwhelming tendency is to Drift toward Simulationism. I think this + phenomenon has several causes, including pseudo-solutions for trying to + prevent Gamist play, specifically the Hard Core. + + Gamist and Narrativist play have an interesting relationship, but it's + hard to see or understand unless you have experience with solid + non-Simulationist game play, which very few role-players have. Nearly + all of us have dealt mainly with Sim-design and Sim-assumptions, with + both Gamism and Narrativism as semi-dysfunctional interfering + priorities, and resulting in a lot of compromises rather than solutions. + We know that when Simulationist play is involved and either or both + Gamist and Narrativist play crops up, then a terrible struggle emerges + among the modes. The entire White Wolf line of games represents a + fascinating case study of the phenomenon, starting with Vampire and, in + my view, culminating with a Narrativist direction with Adventure!. + Another case study is the history of the Hero System, which by + fourth-edition Champions was resolved in favor of Simulationist design. + + But if Simulationist-facilitating design is not involved, then the whole + picture changes. Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and + interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share + the following things: + + * Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the + arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) + Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what. + * Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the + point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than + established at every point during play in a linear fashion. + * More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual + fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may + be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se. + * Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, + whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to + a pre-stated plan of play. + + Which is a really long-winded way of saying that one or the other of the + two modes has to be "the point," and they don't share well - but unlike + either's relationship with Simulationist play (i.e., a potentially + hostile one), Gamist and Narrativist play don't tug-of-war over "doing + it right" - they simply avoid one another, like the same-end poles of + two magnets. Note, I'm saying play, not players. The activity of play + doesn't hybridize well between Gamism and Narrativism, but it does + shift, sometimes quite easily. + + Obviously, if the group is disinclined to do this, it can't happen. So + in Gamist vs. Narrativist play, absent Simulationism, it may be a matter + of "what we wanna do," and a very easy adjustment to system to reflect + that in many cases, because how we "do" things is very similar already. + + The key to the shift seems to be the reward system, not resolution - not + about "how we decide what happens" so much as "how we decide that we're + having fun." How a group plays Toon, for instance, depends wholly on + whether Plot Points are used for scoring or whether they're employed as + a multiple-author cartoon-story creation device. Similarly, the weak + endgame of Once Upon a Time is resolved locally per group based on + whether the group acceptance of the Ending card or the emptying of one's + hand is the metric for ending the game. + + If the reward system is less abstract and embedded deeply into the rest + of the game, as with Sorcerer and Rune, shifting priorities becomes less + easy. The Dying Earth provides a phenomenal example of Narrativist play + using previously-Gamist methods, minimizing Drift with three things: + non-spiraling game interactions (rock-paper-scissors), limiting returns + (e.g. negative exponential improvement), and overwhelming rewards that + promote an alternative metagame priority better suited to Narrativism. + + The history of Tunnels & Trolls offers, I think, one of the most + powerful examples of the phenomenon in the theory of game design ever, + back around 1980. I cannot recommend reading and playing T&T highly + enough to the student of Gamist and Narrativist play. I also recommend + reading all of their solo adventure scenarios, with special reference to + date and author, and also as many copies of the magazine Sorcerer's + Apprentice as possible. Here's a conceptual hint: the T&T reward system + doesn't award experience points for finding or spending money, but that + design feature has nothing to do with "realism" at all. It's set up to + prevent double-dipping, which is to say, gaining both attribute + improvement and better weapons, armor, and spells through one metric. + Thus "money" in this game is really a parallel Adventure-Point system + for improving character features that are not attributes. + + Balance: the sort-of issue + "Balance" is one of those words which is applied to a wide variety of + activities or practices that may be independent or even contradictory. + (See the linked threads in the Glossary.) The word is thrown about like + a shuttlecock with little reference to any definition at all. That's the + current state of the art. So I'm taking time-out on the Gamism-only + discussion to go on a full GNS balance rant, because the assumption that + Gamist play is uniquely or definitively concerned with "balance" is + very, very mistaken. + + Overall + + 1. Compare "balance" with the notion of parity, or equality of + performance or resources. If a game includes enforced parity, is it + is balanced? Is it that simple? And if not, then what? + 2. Bear in mind that Fairness and Parity are not synonymous. One or the + other might be the real priority regardless of which word is being + used. Also, "Fair" generally means, "What I want." + 3. Are we discussing the totality of a character (Effectiveness, + Resource, Metagame), or are we discussing Effectiveness only, or + Effectiveness + Resource only? + 4. Are we discussing "screen time" for characters at all, which has + nothing to do with their abilities/oomph? + 5. Are we discussing anything to do at all with players, or rather, + with the people at the table? Can we talk about balance in regard to + attention, respect, and input among them? Does it have anything to + do with Balance of Power, referring to how "the buck" (where it + stops) is distributed among the members of the group? + + They can't all be balance at once. + + Within Gamist play + + 1. Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees + of improvement after that. Basically, this means that "we all start + equal" but after that, anything goes, and if A gets better than B, + then that's fine. + 2. The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy: + magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment + into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means + that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and + "unbalanced" means numerically broken. + 3. Related to #2, a team that is not equipped for the expected range of + potential dangers is sometimes called unbalanced. + 4. In direct contrast to #1, "balance" can also mean that everyone is + subject to the same vagaries of fate (Fortune). That is, play is + "balanced" if everyone has a chance to save against the Killer Death + Trap. Or it's balanced because we all rolled 3d6 for Strength, + regardless of what everyone individually ended up with. (Tunnels & + Trolls is all about this kind of play.) + 5. The resistance of a game to deliberate Breaking. + + Within Simulationist play + I am forced to speak historically here, in reference to existing and + widespread Simulationist approaches, not to any potential or theoretical + ones. So think of Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, and Rolemaster as you read the + next part. + + 1. One fascinating way that the term is applied is to the + Currency-based relationship among the components of a character: + Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame. That's right - we're not talking + about balance among characters at all, but rather balance within the + interacting components of a single character. I realize that this + sounds weird. Check back in the Sim essay to see how important these + within-character interactions can be in this mode of play. + 2. And, completely differently, "balance" is often invoked as an + anti-Gamist play defense, specifically in terms of not permitting + characters to change very much relative to one another, as all of + them improve. This is, I think, the origin of "everyone gets a + couple EPs at the end of each session" approach, as opposed to + "everyone gets different EPs on the basis of individual + performance." + 3. Rules-enforcement in terms of Effectiveness, which is why GURPS has + point-total limits per setting. Note that heavy layering renders + this very vulnerable to Gamist Drift. + + Within Narrativist play + This gets a little tricky because I can't think of a single coherent + Narrativist game text in which balance as a term is invoked as a design + or play feature, nor any particular instance of play I've been involved + in which brought the issue up. But I'm pretty sure that it's a + protagonism issue. + + 1. "Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time, + or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This + is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone. + Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as + Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so. In game terms, + this is a Character Components issue: Hawkeye would have a high + Metagame component whereas Thor would have a higher Effectiveness + component. + 2. Balance of Power is relevant to all forms of play, but it strikes me + as especially testy in this mode. + + That's the end of my balance rant, but I beg and plead of anyone who + reads this essay: I would very much like never to hear again that (1) + Gamist play must be uniquely obsessed with balance, or (2) if play is + concerned with any form of balance, it must be Gamist. These are + unsupportable habits of thought that pervade our hobby and represent + very poor understanding of the issues involved. + + Pitfalls for Gamist design + Elegance is the key - which is to say, each piece of the system does + what it does, has the implications that it has, and doesn't create wonky + spirals or novel relationships that devalue the Step On Up or Challenge + parameters. Easy to say, eh? Well, it's damned hard to do, as many an + inventor of a new board game or new card game can attest. + + Defend against Breaking through elegance, not through patch rules. + Eliminate, from the ground up, all recursiveness, nonfunctional layers, + and mathematical ratios. + + Fortune should be present for a Gamist reason, for instance, to + introduce uncertainty at specific points, for specific impacts on the + goals of play. It can be very rare to absent, or wildly and constantly + present, but whatever it is, it needs to "spike" the play-experience + rather than dilute it. Using Fortune to model the statistical vagaries + of in-game physical effects should be a secondary concern, if present at + all. + + A Double-Hose occurs when features of a character are forced downward by + a low score in some other feature, and when both features are important. + In Tunnels & Trolls, for instance, a low Strength and Dexterity limit + one's choice of weapons to lower-damage items, as well as lower the + "adds" (bonuses) for attacks. If you must have a Double-hose, make it + easy to replace or recoup "losses," and also make it easy to escape the + Hose soon through character improvement. + + Beware of end-runs which permit a Challenge to be solved without the + requisite Step On Up ability or competence. Playtest the game multiple + times with people who are determined to beat it. + + Do not confuse character improvement for "winning," especially if the + process is slow and painful. On a related point, do not set the venue + and length of a "go," which is to say a unit of success or failure at + the Step On Up level, equivalent to the entirety of a long-term, + no-set-end, many-session game. + + Don't be a weenie - include loss conditions that can be recognized and + that do not undercut play. Decide whether such a loss ends the game as a + whole or permits it to continue, but do not commit the common mistake of + "loss means sit out" - this is not viable for roleplaying. As soon as + you have to let people win so that they'll keep playing, the + relationship of Step On Up to Challenge dies nastily, leaving no + alternative but to reinvent the game in Hard Core form. + + Beware of Heartbreaker design, particularly the Fantasy ones. Such games + are wonderful to write and often very enjoyable among one's group, but + ultimately of little interest to anyone else. More subtly, don't fall + into the trap of providing Gamist design-features as an appeasement + strategy - do it or don't. + + Here's my current shot at a little Gamist design: [18]Black Fire. It's + even more alpha-alpha than Mongrel was, for the Simulationism essay, so + let's see what happens. + + Troubles for the Gamist + GNS incompatibility + The basic hassle arises due to Gamism's "easy in" during play. If one or + two people get the bug, so to speak, and no one else does, then GNS + incompatibility disrupts play. This specific problem - the + Drifted-to-Gamist ensconced in an otherwise-oriented group - is so + common among Simulationist play especially that it, like the Hard Core, + gets labeled with munchkinism. It's usually seen in texts from bitter + non-Gamists and their "grow up from munchkinism" rants. + + The following is from the GM section of Arrowflight (2002, Deep 7, + author is Todd Downing): + + Dealing with Munchkins The other side to the "cheating" coin is the + competitive gamer, a breed also known as "Munchkin." Munchkins are + players who dilute the experience through a combination of + rules-mongering and overt cheating. + + [alarming rant snipped; includes examples of lying about dice rolls - + RE] + The best games are those where everyone is playing a role, striving + for a goal and working as a unit (that doesn't mean that every + character must like every other character, but player must at least + properly play the role they've chosen). If you find a Munchkin in your + midst, there are numerous ways to deal with him, depending on the + offense: + + [methods follow, all relying on the GM having final say in any aspect + of the game - RE] + ... most players are at least conscientious and intelligent enough not + to harm their own playing experience as well as that of the other + players, but the exceptions are out there. As they say, "there's one + in every group." You don't have to tolerate them in yours. + + Downing's prose is clearly angry. To him, any degree of striving for + advantage among players, for anything, constitutes breaking the Social + Contract, to the same degree as lying about dice outcomes. Let's break + that down, though. He doesn't mind striving for a goal, as long as it's + an in-character, in-game goal, and much Gamist play can be consistent + with that. And much Gamist play also prioritizes working as a unit with + other players. All that's left is the "playing a role" distinction, and + Downing's real beef seems to be that "playing a role" is not these + players' first priority, i.e., they are not Simulationists in the mode + that is reinforced throughout the text of Arrowflight. + + Although I understand where he and many other authors are coming from, + which is GNS-synecdoche pure and simple, this and similar anti-Gamist + texts go too far - Step On Up play, even with a dose of competition, + does not deserve being labeled unconscientious and unintelligent. + Basically, the authors confound two things. + + * The player who turns any instance of play into social + power-tripping, rivalry, rancor, and disruption. I shall call this + person "the Prick." The important thing to realize is that this + person is not a Gamist at all, and that Pricks disrupt any form of + play; a Simulationist-Gamist mismatch is one thing, but stubborn + disruption is another. The fault lies at the Social Contract level, + not at the GNS level. + * The person who really wants to play Gamist but is in the wrong + group, giving rise to secondary dysfunctions of various sorts. This + person is usually derided as "the powergamer" or "the munchkin" by + the others, but I hasten to add that the fault lies with the GNS + mismatch, not with the person as a social human, and that his or her + mode of Gamist play may not even include the Hard Core. + + This section is perhaps harsh on the Simulationist approach and + assumptions. I also need to acknowledge that a bored Gamist-inclined + player, seeing no engaging Challenge, has been known, on occasion, to + turn his attention toward the Hard Core, specifically Turnin' and + Breaking the game. If it's clear that the other individuals don't + appreciate this, and if he or she continues, then what's happened is the + Birth of a Prick that some better understanding of contrasting GNS goals + might have prevented. I used to see this all the time in Champions + groups, and it's horrible. I can at least sympathize with where + Downing's coming from. + + Troubles within Gamism + Now I'm talking about troubles within Gamism rather than with it. All + three modes boast an array of specific dysfunctions, and here are the + sorts that Gamists encounter among their own. (Side point: Simulationist + dysfunctions include The Impossible Thing, Transparency, and placing + "realism" as the core value; Narrativist dysfunctions include + railroading, sizzle over steak, and interfering through deprotagonism.) + + The core problem in Gamist dysfunction is not knowing what the Step On + Up is actually about. It results in all kinds of things, most usually + ramping-up the competitive levels and shifting to the Hard Core, usually + in the form of Turnin' and Calvinball beyond what other members of the + group want to do. A related problem concerns Author vs. Pawn Stance, + which is to say, differing standards for moment-to-moment Exploration of + Character. When I see a player completely abandon all Stances but Pawn + through several scenes of play, it's like the sinister drumming + emanating from the leafy jungle the night before the massacre. Many a GM + in a Gamist-oriented group strictly enforces justifications of + characters' behavior in an attempt to stave off the problem, although + frankly, if he has to resort to decrees, threats, and pleas, it's + probably already too late. + + These "core" issues should look similar to the GNS-mismatch issue + described above, because it's the Birth of a Prick all over again, only + within the Gamist mode. + + The other, more extreme dysfunction arises from the player who is + basically a poor sport, or, "the Wimp," which is unfortunately the most + common dysfunctional Gamism. It has its parallels in other Step On Up, + non-role-playing activities; people are sure to recognize them from + their hobbies. + + * Critical commentary that goes beyond simple joshing or observation + into abuse: "You suck," delivered to someone who happened to roll a + 1 rather than a 20; this is often combined with an inability to + tolerate joshing oneself. (What degree of verbiage counts as abuse + varies from group to group.) + * Manipulating the others' parameters for how-to-play, e.g., tattling + to the GM that so-and-so is violating his or her character's + alignment. + * Stating what another player "should have done" as a form of constant + criticism. This is a bigger deal than it looks, as in Gamist play, + it's all right not to make the best choice all the time, but + personal choice in the Crunch or Gamble is sacrosanct. Essentially, + it constitutes protagonism in Gamist play. The Wimp de-protagonizes + other players' characters all the time by de-valuing the players' + decisions from his armchair. Breaking the Contract: if I can't win, + I'll take my football and go straight home; or lashing out at allies + as if they were foes; or being socially obnoxious until granted an + advantage or perceived entitlement. + * Plain wussy-cheating: stating it was "in" when it was "out," and + similar, and pouting when the tactic doesn't work, usually escalates + to breaking the baseline cooperative Social Contract that underlies + the Step On Up in question. + + Bluntly, in any context besides role-playing, this kind of behavior will + get your ass kicked for you, or at the very least, instantly excluded + from the activity. It's simply not socially tolerable. The real question + is why it's widely observed in the role-playing hobby, for which I can + see two reasons. + + 1. Wimpiness is often observed among young people as they work out the + "rules of life" through all sorts of play-activity, among other + unpleasant behaviors such as bullying. This is why adults usually + don't play with kids unless they can enforce certain social + standards, i.e., act as social mentors in addition to playing the + game. + 2. I think that the Social Context of role-playing is currently in + disarray. It's out of the scope of this essay to go into the issue + in detail, but see the [19]Social Context discussion on the Forge + for some notions. The short version is that friendships cannot be + placed at stake based on in-play events - if they are, then Step On + Up places way too much pressure on the agreement to play together at + all. + + Confusingly, many Gamist-oriented players call Wimpiness "munchkinism," + making three distinct uses for the term so far. + + The bitterest role-player in the world + Meet the low-Step On Up, high-Challenge Gamist, with both "little red + competition" dials spun down to their lowest settings. + + This person prefers a role-playing game that combines Gamist potential + with Simulationist hybrid support, such that a highly Explorative + Situation can evolve, in-game and without effort, into a Challenge + Situation. In other words, the social-level Step On Up "emerges" from + the events in-play. This view, and its problematic qualities, are + extremely similar to that of the person who wants to see full-blown + Narrativist values "just appear" from a Simulationist-play foundation. + It's possible, but not as easy and intuitive as it would seem. + + His preferred venue for the Gamist moments of play is a small-scale + scene or crisis embedded in a larger-scale Exploration that focuses on + Setting and Character. In these scenes, he's all about the Crunch: + Fortune systems should be easy to estimate, such that each instance of + its use may be chosen and embedded in a matrix of strategizing. + Point-character construction and menus of independent feats or powers + built to resist Powergaming are ideal. + + As for playing the character, it's Author Stance all the way. He likes + to imagine what "his guy" thinks, but to direct "his guy" actions from a + cool and clear Step On Up perspective. The degree of Author Stance is + confined to in-game imaginative events alone and doesn't bleed over into + Balance of Power issues regarding resolution at all. + + Related to the Stance issue, he is vehemently opposed to the Hard Core, + even to any hints of it or any exploitable concepts that it seizes upon + most easily. For instance, reward system that functions at the metagame + level is anathema: not only should solid aesthetics should be primary, + but he is rightly leery of the Hard Core eye for such reward systems. + "Balance" for him consists of the purity of the Resource system and + unbroken Currency. It's consistent with the Simulationist Purist for + System values and represents further defenses against the Hard Core. + + He probably developed his role-playing preferences in highly-Drifted + AD&D2 or in an easily-Drifted version of early Champions, both of which + he probably describes as playing "correctly" relative to other groups + committed to these games. + + This man (I've met no women who fit this description) is cursed. He's + cursed because the only people who can enjoy playing with him, and vice + versa, are those who share precisely his goals, and these goals are very + easily upset by just about any others. + + * His heavy Sim focus keeps away the "lite" Gamists who like + Exploration but not Simulationism. + * The lack of metagame reward system keeps away most Gamists in + general. + * Hard Core Gamists will kick him in the nuts every time, just as they + do to Simulationist play. + * Most Simulationist-oriented players won't Step Up - they get no + gleam in their eye when the Challenge hits, and some are even happy + just to piddle about and "be." + * Just about anyone who's not Gamist-inclined lumps him with "those + Gamists" and writes him off. + + I've known several of these guys. They are bitter, I say. Imagine years + of just knowing that your "perfect game" is possible, seeing it in your + mind, knowing that if only a few other people could just play their + characters exactly according to the values that you yourself would play, + that your GM-preparation would pay off beyond anyone's wildest dreams. + Now imagine years of encountering all the bulleted points above, over + and over. + + At present, I have no suggestions to help them, just as I cannot help + those who expect to see "story" consistently emerge from play that does + not prioritize it. I hope some dialogue at the Forge might come up with + some solutions. + + What I like about Gamism + Gamist-inclined players tend to be unashamed regarding their + preferences. Their role-playing is easily understood, diverse in + application, unpretentious, and often perfectly happy with its role + relative to the person's social life at large. The Gamists have a lot to + teach the rest of the hobby about self-esteem. + + Some folks seem to think that Gamist play lacks variety, to which I say, + "nonsense." Scrabble is "always the same," and it's fun as hell; simple + games do not mean simplistic, shallow, or easy. What matters is whether + the strategy of the moment is fun. Well-designed, multiple-edged Step On + Up activities with fully-developed competition are endlessly diverting + and provide an excellent basis for friendship. Anyone who thinks that + such things in role-playing necessarily cannot be fun and will + necessarily destroy social interactions is badly mistaken - what's + needed is better, more diverting, and more multiply-angled design. D&D3E + and Rune are just the start, and their overt roots in 1970s-style + dungeon crawls indicate, I think, that the hobby's efforts in Gamist + design are so far limited to getting its first steps re-created + properly. + + What I'm calling for is a better appreciation for functional Gamist + role-playing, overtly and even joyfully stated in the games' design and + texts. Given the introduction of D&D3E, I think this long-unmet need is + being satisfied without my help, but I also think that lots of people + might enjoy Gamist play that's not D&D style fantasy. Why not whole new + venues, such as romance, or sports! + + Good new designs remind largely unexplored. Where are the sensible + reward systems that integrate Challenge and Step On Up in some way, and + are not wholly defined by increasing Effectiveness values or promoting + tug-of-war over narration? Where are the loss conditions that are not + recursive regarding continued play? + + The Hard Question + Each of these three essays concludes with a challenge to the role-player + who prefers the mode under discussion. For the Gamist, the question is, + why is role-playing your chosen venue as a social hobby? There are lots + and lots of them that unequivocally fit Step On Up with far less + potential for encountering conflicting priorities: volleyball, chess, or + pool, if you like the Crunch; horse races or Las Vegas if you like the + Gamble; hell, even organized amateur sports like competitive martial + arts or sport fishing. + + Do you play Gamist in role-playing because it doesn't hurt your ego as + much as other venues might? Is role-playing safer in some way, in terms + of the loss factor of Step On Up? Even more severely, are you sticking + to role-playing because many fellow players subscribe to the "no one + wins in role-playing" idea? Do you lurk like Grendel among a group of + tolerant, perhaps discomfited Simulationists, secure that they are + disinclined to Step On Up toward you? In which case, you can win against + them or the game all the time, but they will never win against you? + + I accuse no one of affirmative answers to these questions; that's the + reader's business. But I do think answering them should be a high + priority. + + Glossary + See the Glossary in the other essays as well as definitions and + explanations in the "GNS and related matters" essay. + + Actor Stance + the real person determines the character's decisions and actions + using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. + + Author Stance + the real person determines the character's decisions and actions + based on the real person's priorities, Author Stance includes two + sub-categories + in "Author" Author Stance, the person then retroactively "motivates" + the character to perform the acts in question; in "Pawn" Author + Stance, he or she does not. Pawn Stance is often identified with + Gamist play, but this identification is false for either Stance or + Mode. + + Balance + this term is undefined. See the discussion in this text. + + Balance of Power + how the "buck stops here" authority regarding resolution in play is + distributed among members of a role-playing group. This term was + first applied to role-playing interactions by Hunter Logan. + + Breaking the game + a dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play, characterized by + rendering other participants' efforts ineffective without recourse. + + Calvinball + a potentially-dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play, + characterized by making up the rules of a game as it is played, + especially in the immediate context of advantaging oneself and + disadvantaging one's opponents. "Tagged you! Tags mean you're out!" + "It's Tuesday! Tagging doesn't work on Tuesdays!" This term, + obviously, is pulled from the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes. + + Challenge + the Situation of play in the Gamist context, specifically, adversity + or imposed risk to player-characters of any kind. It's the + imaginative arena for the more general Social Contract of Gamist + play, called Step On Up. + + Character Components + the features of a role-playing character. All are present for all + characters, even if one or more is not explicitly part of the textual + rules. See Effectiveness, Metagame, and Resource; also see Currency. + + Coherence + any functional combination, including singletons, of GNS priorities. + Please note that "coherency" is not a word. + + Congruence + refers to play in which two or more different GNS modes may be + expressed in such a way that they neither interfere with one another + nor are easily distinguished through observation; the term was coined + by Walt Freitag in [20]GNS and "Congruency". I am revising the term + to "congruence" in the interest of grammar. + + Creative agenda + the aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest + regarding role-playing; replaces all uses of "premise" in the + original essay aside from the specific creative agenda of Narrativist + play (for which the term "Premise" is retained); Step On Up, The + Right to Dream, and Story Now represent the creative agendas, + respectively, of Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist play. + + The Crunch + an application or type of Challenge, based on high predictability + relative to risk. + + Currency + the rate-of-exchange relationship within and among Character + Components. + + DFK + specific resolution mechanics; see Drama, Fortune, and Karma + + Director Stance + the real 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. Director Stance is often confused + with narration of an in-game event, but the two concepts are not + necessarily related. + + The Dream + commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically in-game cause + and pre-established thematic elements. As a top priority for + role-playing, the defining feature of Simulationist play. See my + essay [21]Simulationism + the right to dream. + + Dysfunction + simply, role-playing which is not fun. Most Forge discussions presume + that un-fun role-playing is worse than no role-playing. + + Effectiveness (a Character Component) + any quantities used to determine success or extent of an action. + + Exploration + social and personal imagination, creation of fictional events through + communicating among one another. + + The Gamble + an application or type of Challenge, based on high risk relative to + predictability. + + The Hard Core + Gamist play with minimal or even absent Exploration; see Breaking the + game, Calvinball, Powergaming, and Turnin'. + + Hybrid + role-playing with two identifiable GNS priorities in action; + empirically, one is apparently always subordinate to the other, and a + threesie game is as yet unknown. + + IIEE + Intent, Initiation, Execution, and Effect - how actions and events in + the imaginary game-world are resolved in terms of real-world + announcement and imaginary order of occurrence. + + Incoherence + incompatible combination of GNS priorities, applies by definition to + play, but often applied secondarily to game design. Abashedness + represents a minor, correctable form of Incoherence. + + The Lumpley Principle + "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the + means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." The + author of the principle is Vincent Baker, see [22]Vincent's standard + rant + power, credibility, and assent and [23]Player power abuse. + + Metagame (general) - all aspects of play that concern non-Explorative + matters or priorities; in terms of my layered model, Social Contract and + GNS (creative agenda). + + Metagame (a Character Component) + all positioning and behavioral statements about the character, as + well as player rights to over-ride the existing Effectiveness rules. + + Metagame mechanics + where System and Social Contract meet, without Exploration as the + medium. + + "Munchkin" + a derogatory term used in several different ways, including by + non-Gamists vs. Gamists in general, by Hard Core or heavy-Step + Gamists vs. Wimps, and by high-Exploration Gamists vs. Hard Core + play. + + Powergaming + a potentially dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play, + characterized by maximizing character impact on the game-world or + player impact on the dialogue of play by whatever means available. + + Resource (a Character Component) + any available usable pool upon which Effectiveness or Metagame + mechanics may draw, or which are reduced to reflect harm to the + character. + + Reward System + enjoyability payoff that prompts further play, usually expressed in + Explorative terms but not restricted to Exploration. + + Screen Time + the extent of attention afforded to a given player's Explorative + contributions from the other participants. + + Social Context + positioning of one's role-playing hobby relative to other humans + outside one's gaming group, whether they are role-players or not. See + [24]Social context. + + Social Contract + all interactions and relationships among the role-playing group. All + role-playing is a subset of the Social Contract. + + Stakes + what stands to be lost and/or gained during Gamist play; the term may + be applied at either or both Step on Up or Challenge levels of play. + + Stance + cognitive position of real person to fictional character (see Author, + Actor, and Director Stance definitions). Coined by the RFGA on-line + discussions. + + Step On Up + social assessment in the face of risk. As a top priority of + role-playing, the defining feature of Gamist play. + + Story Now + producing, heightening, and resolving a Premise. As a top priority of + role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play. + + System (character creation, resolution including IIEE, reward system, + metagame mechanics) + the means by which imaginary events are established during play (see + the Lumpley Principle). + + Turnin' + a potentially dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play, + characterized by treating one another's characters as the primary + source of Challenge. + + Wimpiness + a dysfunctional form of Gamism characterized by poor sportsmanship, + i.e., the unwillingness to accept a loss. + + The Forge created and administrated by [25]Clinton R. Nixon and [26]Ron + Edwards. + All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their + designated author. + +References + + Visible links + 1. file:/// + 2. file:///about/ + 3. file:///donate.php + 4. file:///articles/ + 5. file:///reviews/ + 6. file:///resources/ + 7. file:/// + 8. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com + 9. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 10. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/ + 11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=792 + 12. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=937 + 13. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=41 + 14. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4139 + 15. http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html + 16. http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements11feb03.html + 17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/20/ + 18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/22/ + 19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4258 + 20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1733 + 21. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/ + 22. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701 + 23. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4415 + 24. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4258 + 25. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com + 26. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com 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. + diff -r 624c702e7fec -r 90028d83d4ea references/narr_essay.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/narr_essay.txt Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,2848 @@ + The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games + [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles | + Forge [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums + + + Narrativism: Story Now + + by Ron Edwards <[8]sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com> + Copyright 2003 Adept Press + + Acknowledgments are due to Mike Holmes, Ralph Mazza, Christopher Kubasik, + Jesse Burneko, Paul Czege, Clinton R. Nixon, Vincent Baker, Seth Ben-Ezra, + M. J. Young, Chris Chinn, Pete Darby, Gordon C. Landis, Walt Freitag, and + Matt Snyder for comments on the first draft of this essay. All mistakes or + misattributions should be considered my responsibility. + + This is the third of three essays building upon the topics addressed in + "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory" + ([9]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/). The previous two essays were + "Simulationism: The Right to Dream" + ([10]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/), and "Gamism: Step On Up" + ([11]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/). This series' purposes are to + clarify the original essay and to develop and incorporate insights from + discussions at the Forge. + + This one is about Narrativist play, which is simultaneously the least and + most problematic of the Creative Agendas I've described. It's incredibly + easy in application, and the most difficult for discussion. I think that + this difficulty lies mainly in some of the peculiarities of + role-player/gamer culture, entrenched in the history of the hobby, rather + than any particular logical or cognitive hitches in the mode of play + itself. + + In the first two essays, I began presenting an overall model of + role-playing, but piecemeal and in stumbling verbal form. As of this + writing, I've finished that model, and it is included here as well. It's a + bit out of place, being more of a capstone or umbrella to the three essays + rather than an intrinsic piece of the Narrativist one. More complete + discussions about it may also be found in "The whole model - this is it" + ([12]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8655). + +History of the term + + The Threefold Model for role-playing included the term Dramatism, as + presented by John Kim at his Threefold Model + ([13]http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/) webpage. When I learned + about the Threefold, I'd already been thinking about stuff I'd later call + Currency and also about Jonathan Tweet's discussion of resolution + presented in Everway. The basic notion of the Threefold impressed me: it + was time to talk about goals and priorities independently of everything + else, then to see whether everything else flowed to and from them. This + was at the time that Sorcerer was making its small way into commerce, so + the mailing list was the place for our first discussions; most of them are + archived at the Sorcerer website ([14]http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com). + + At this point, since "Drama" as a resolution category in Tweet's schema + and "Dramatism" as a goals-category in the Threefold referred to two + different things, I decided that the names were confusing. Going by which + set of ideas was first presented (Tweet's), I changed Dramatism to + Narrativism. This terminological change was limited to discussions on the + Sorcerer mailing list and later at the Gaming Outpost. + + However, our use of the terms and ideas on the Sorcerer mailing list took + on its own character almost immediately, such that in my first essay + "System Does Matter" ([15]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/), "story" + was already its own distinct, process-oriented term. + + The biggest change in my thinking about role-playing is represented in the + essay "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory" + ([16]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), in which the concept of + Exploration becomes the underlying foundation for the three modes or goals + of play. This new picture was startling: (1) potential story elements were + now considered present for all three modes play, and (2)Narrativism now + appeared to be a mirror image or twin sibling of Gamism, counter to older + impressions shared by me and anyone else who ever wrote about role-playing + that Gamism was the odd man out. + + I've tried to emphasize this new outlook throughout these three supportive + essays. Whereas I think most people think of Gamism with (or synonymous + with) its Hard Core variant over in one ballpark, with Simulationism + containing an internal "story" variant in another ballpark, my concepts + are radically different. I hope to make this picture, and its + implications, entirely clear in this essay. + +The foundation: Exploration and more + + Here's the big ol' model for role-playing that the previous two essays + sort of fumbled at. Notice that "rules" are absent; I now consider "rules" + simply to mean text, which may be about anything you find in the model. + The brackets are very important: if B relates to A as [A[B]], then B is + considered a part, application, version, or expression of A. + + [Social Contract]. Social Contract encompasses everything else about + role-playing. If these people happen to be role-playing together, then + Social Contract crucially includes "Let's play this game." This crucial + element is what's further subdivided throughout the rest of this model. + + [Social Contract [Exploration]]. Exploration means "shared imaginings." + The sharing has to be explicit and agreed upon, usually through the spoken + word although any form of communication counts. The imaginings have to be + the subject that is shared, which is why me reading aloud to my wife does + not constitute Exploration. We are independently imagining based on the + spoken word, but neither she nor I is telling the other what we imagine + from that point. Exploration means that such communication is occurring. + + The five elements of Exploration are interdependent: Character + Setting + make Situation, System permits Situation to "move," and Color affects all + the others. This concept applies only to the imaginary causes among the + elements; the real people's actual priority or cause among these things, + in social and creative terms, varies widely. See my essay "GNS and other + matters of role-playing theory" + ([17]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/) for more about these elements. + + [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda]]]. Creative Agenda is the + blanket term for people's demonstrated goals and desired feedback during + play. In the past, I called it "GNS." Since all of this is enclosed in + Social Contract, GNS-stuff is not only "what I want" but also "what I want + from role-playing with this group of people." Since Exploration + necessarily includes System, that means, as soon as we start talking about + Creative Agenda, real play has begun. + + On paper, I draw this term as an arrow, because this "step" or "level" in + my model shifts out of the abstract and solidly into this group, playing + this game, this way, at this time. The model instantly ceases to be a + broad overview and becomes a diagnostic or description of a real + play-experience among real people. Unless you are thinking of such a case, + you will be left flailing at this point in the discussion. + + [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques]]]]. The + panoply of Techniques being employed over time either satisfy or fail to + satisfy one or more Creative Agendas. Techniques include IIEE, + Drama/Karma/Fortune, search time & handling time, narration apportioning, + reward system, points of contact, character components, scene framing, + currency among the character components, and much more. Each of these + terms represents a range of potential play-methods. I consider the two + most important Techniques to be reward system and IIEE (see glossary). + + Techniques may be thought of as directly expressing the more abstract + concept of System (way up in Exploration), except that System doesn't + exist all by itself - it's fully integrated with the other components of + Exploration. But if you keep that in mind, then yes, the arrow represented + by Creative Agenda can indeed be "shot" from the bow of System. + + Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of + Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas. + + [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques + [Ephemera]]]]]. Ephemera refers to the smallest-scale interactions and + activities of role-playing: anything that gets factored into or is + expressed by play in the space of a few seconds. As with every level/box + so far, fairly extensive combinations of Ephemera express or apply to one + or more Techniques. They are the internal anatomy, if you will, of + Techniques and hence (conceptualizing upward) of System. + + Ephemera include individual Stances, in-character vs. out-of-character + diction and dialogue, referring to texts, sound effects, taking or + referring to notes, kibitzing, laughing, praise or disapproval, showing + pictures, and anything similar. + + Understanding any Creative Agenda, in this case Narrativism, means + examining its potential roles and expressions in the whole model. + Narrativism's little code phrase for that purpose is "Story Now." + + Story + + Long ago, I concluded that "story" as a role-playing term was standing in + for several different processes and goals, some of which were + incompatible. Here's the terms-breakdown I'll be using from now on. + + All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go + ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where + they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the + "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little + something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a + certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript + has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story. + + Let's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story, + arose from one or more sessions of role-playing. + + Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage + the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying + to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. He also + meets this beautiful, mysterious woman named Javenne who aids him at + times, and they develop a romance. Then he learns that she and the dragon + are one and the same, as she's been cursed to become a dragon periodically + in a kind of Ladyhawke situation, and he must decide whether to kill her. + Meanwhile, she struggles to control the curse, using her dragon-powers to + quell an uprising in the realm led by a traitorous ally. Eventually he + goes to the Underworld instead and confronts the god who cursed her, and + trades his youth to the god to lift the curse. He returns, and the curse + is detached from her, but still rampaging around as a dragon. So they slay + the dragon together, and return as a couple, still united although he's + now all old, to his home. + + The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a + story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during + the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We don't know whether + people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination + of the three. A story can be produced through any Creative Agenda. The + mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based + issue. + +Story Now + + Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature + of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" + means: + + * Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, + "fixing" them into imaginary place. + + * Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps + changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being + taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the + antagonistic side of the issue exists at all. + + * Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the + protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the + circumstances. + + Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers + to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create + those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying + attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the + story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, + and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of + the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of + input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to + it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of + elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about. + + There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have + such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole + point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a + great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social + expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is + directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than + toward strategy and guts. + +Say it yourself + + I receive a lot of emails like this one from Landon Darkwood: + + I think I may have had a revelation. + + ... In your Simulationism essay, you have this: "'Story,' in this context, + refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of + recognizing and enjoying the genre during play." + + Is this the key to distinguishing the [Narrativist vs. Simulationist] play + modes? My intepretation of this statement is that in Simulationist gaming, + a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only + for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre + elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream. + i.e., a Sim game Colored with elements from Chinese wuxia movies might + have a multilayered story involving class conflict, people being trapped + by their social position, repressed romance, heavy action, a sorcerer and + his eunuch henchmen - but these are all trappings of the genre. So, their + inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't + Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that isn't already there. + In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the + Exploration; because the Dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a + kind of intricacy involved. + + In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that + are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless + of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are + created by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are + already present in the Dream, reinforced by the play, and kind of a + by-product. + + Am I on this now? + + "In a word," I replied, "Yes." + + Narrativism has a single definition, but it's difficult to articulate for + people grappling with muddled RPG terminology. As far as I was concerned, + not only had I presented what Landon said in "GNS and other matters of + role-playing theory" ([18]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), I'd + repeated it dozens of times in forum discussions. In fact, I'd said it in + the message to Landon that immediately preceded this reply. But he had to + say it himself, with his own use of words like "just" and "genre." I am + now convinced, after many such exchanges, that an "experienced" + role-player comes to this conclusion only by working it out in his or her + own terms and examples. + + Premise + + How is this done, actually, in play? It relies on the concept of something + called Premise and its relationship to an emergent theme. + + I already snuck Premise past you: it's that "problematic issue" I + mentioned. I've taken the term from The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos + Egri. In reading what follows, bear in mind that he is discussing the + process of writing, not an existing playscript or a performance: + + ... every good premise is composed of three parts, each of which is + essential to a good play. Let us examine "frugality equals waste." The + first part of this premise suggest character - a frugal character. The + second part, "leads to," suggests conflict, and the third part, "waste," + suggests the end of the play. ... + + A good premise is a thumbnail synopsis of your play. [examples follow, + including "Egotism leads to loss of friends." - RE] + + ... What is wrong, then? What is missing? + + The author's conviction is missing. Until he takes sides, there is no + play. Does egotism lead to loss of friends? Which side will you take? We, + the readers or spectators of your play, do not necessarily agree with your + convictions. Through your play you must therefore prove to us the validity + of your contention. + + A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "the guy who thinks THIS, and + does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not + created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are + brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of + being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the + conflict, and a conviction that is proved to us (as Egri says),constitutes + theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have + been moved to do so at an emotional level. + + I think that any reliable means of story-writing, in any medium, conforms + to Egri's principles. They may seem simplistic: the burning passion of the + protagonist directly expresses a burning passion of the author's, who uses + the plot as a polemic to demonstrate it. However, "Why Johnny shouldn't + smoke dope" is only the starting point. More nuanced, ambiguous, and + insightful applications arise insofar as more nuanced, ambiguous, and + insightful authors and audiences are involved. + + I said earlier that any role-playing can produce a story, and that's so. + But Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing + their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its + child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable + is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a + player-character does something. If that emotional connection is + identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and + developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is + under way. Some nuances: + + * "Character does something" can mean foreshadowing, flashback, and + anything in between. It can mean the character is just thinkin' about + it, or it can mean the character flat-out does it. As long as the + fictional character is brought into the perceptions and possible + emotional responses of the other people at the table, then it counts. + + * It doesn't matter whether the character fictionally "meant" to do the + action, premeditated it, or acted on-the-spot. + + * In stories (unlike real life), the character's immediate environment + is kind of a weird sidekick, who sometimes acts in the character's + favor and sometimes against him or her. "Character does something" + often includes this sidekick's behavior. + + * "Identifiable" means assessing how the players treat one another + during the process, socially. + + From my essay "GNS and related matters of role-playing theory" + ([19]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/): + + 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? + + * Does love and marriage override 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? + + I'm still saying the same thing. But now, I've returned to my earlier + usage; it's the only meaning for the term "Premise" in my model. + + That bit about moral and ethical content is merely one of those + personalized clincher-phrasings that some people find helpful. It helps to + distinguish a Premise from "my guy fought a dragon, so that's a conflict, + so that's a Premise" thinking. However, if these terms bug you, then say, + "problematic human issue" instead. + + Egri presents his Premises as flat statements, and I state them as + questions. Using the question form isn't changing anything about what Egri + is saying. Premise must pose a question to the real people, creator and + audience alike. The fictional character's belief in something like + "Freedom is worth any price" is already an implicit question: "Is it + really? Even when [insert Situation]?" Otherwise it will fail to engage + anyone. + + Egri's statement-construction is very useful for the single author faced + with a blank sheet of paper, with the goal at hand being a finished + script. The audience will see the play, not the process of creation. + However, in the role-playing medium, not only are there multiple authors, + but the audience is also composed of these same authors, and their + appreciation of the material occurs simultaneously with the significant + creative decisions. Therefore, the Premise's imaginary resolution is up + for grabs among the group in role-playing, just as it is up for grabs + within the author's own head before the play reaches final draft. In the + latter case, the jump to "the point" is swift and hopefully certain; in + the former case, the new medium, it is anything but. I phrase it as a + question for role-playing, to indicate that everyone involved has his or + her fair crack at it as one of the authors. + + From Robin Laws' essay "The Literary Edge," published in Over the Edge + (Atlas Games, 1992): + + OTE is, among other things, an attempt to further the development of + role-playing as art. GMs will find it fruitful to approach decisions as an + artist creating a collaborative work with players. The idea of + collaboration is important: the GM is not a "storyteller" with the players + as audience, but merely a "first among equals" given responsibility for + the smooth progress of the developing story. + + ... The GM is not a movie director, able to order actors to interpret a + script a given way. Instead, he should be seeking ways to challenge PCs, + to use plot development to highlight aspects of their character, in hopes + of being challenged in return. + + ... For years, role-players have been simulating fictional narratives the + way wargamers recreate historical military engagements. They've been + making spontaneous, democratized art for their own consumption, even if + they haven't seen it in those terms. Making the artistry conscious is a + liberating act, making it easier to emulate the classic tales that inspire + us. Have fun with it, and enjoy your special role in aesthetic history - + it's not everybody who gets to be a pioneer in the development of a new + art form. + + Egri's Premise, meet role-playing. Oh, I can quibble ... instead of the + word "conscious," I prefer "mindful," and I think that "emulate the + classic tales" is a bit simplistic, but never mind. The point is, if you + want a Narrativist Manifesto from one of the great minds of role-playing, + then there you go. + + Here's a bit more about that theme business. Think of it as the conclusive + "uh!" that may accompany the climax and resolution of a story. It's + uttered by the playwright as he hits a certain key or scribes a certain + sentence, by the audience members at a certain point as they view the + play, and by role-players in both capacities during the session, often + simultaneously. + + From the discussion of themes in the chapter "The Art of Storytelling" in + Demon's Lair: the "God" Guide (Lasalion Games, 2002): + + The theme is the idea that you wish to explore in the story. It brings + unity to the story and is explored throughout the story by the actions of + the players and the main characters. Even the obstacle or conflict that + forms the plot usually resonates with the theme. It is the thread that + ties everything together and usually teaches the players something. + + Substitute Premise for theme, and theme for the "something," and that's + just about right. I especially like the implied causality: (1) the actions + of the players (2) teach the players something, which becomes non-circular + when play actually addresses Premise. Unfortunately, few other features of + Demon's Lair, including the example which follows the above text, are + consistent with this point, and most are wildly at odds with it. + + More insights about theme are available in Chris Chinn's article "The + power of myth" in Daedalus #1, in which the word "theme" may be + substituted for "myth" throughout. + + The other way: pastiche + + What happens when you want a story but don't want to play with Story Now? + Then the story becomes a feature of Exploration with the process of play + being devoted to how to make it happen as expected. The participation of + more than one person in the process is usually a matter of providing + improvisational additions to be filtered through the primary + story-person's judgment, or of providing extensive Color to the story. + Under these circumstances, the typical result is pastiche: a story which + recapitulates an already-existing story's theme, with many explicit + references to that story. + + Is pastiche necessarily bad and evil? No. Is non-pastiche necessarily + incredibly good? No. + + Here's a little dialogue between me and one of the first-draft readers of + this essay: + + Jesse: Now we come to a point of personal confusion. Pastiche. I still + don't get it, in any medium. If the Situation involves "...class conflict, + people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance..." and + the GM lets the players resolve it anyway they like, then how is that not + Narrativist? + + Me: It is Narrativist. What you're describing is not pastiche, or more + clearly, it typically does not produce pastiche. The key is the "resolve + it any way they like" part. + + Jesse: Similarly if I'm writing a story and I make a check-list of items I + feel like I "need" to include to tell the "kind of" story I want to tell, + and I have a character experience and resolve those things, then how have + I not written a new story? + + Me: You have. What you're missing is that pastiche does not do this at all + - instead, it references existing works in order to re-invoke what they, + originally, provided for the reader/viewer, rather than doing it on its + own. Die Hard is an outstanding movie. Passenger 57 stinks on ice. Why? + Because Passenger 57 is only enjoyable if it reminds you, successfully, of + Die Hard. Same goes for Broken Arrow, Con Air, and a slew of similar + films. [Disclosure: I do enjoy many of these films, on the basis of the + "reminder" alone. - RE] + + And it's not a matter of "who does it first." Die Hard works because it + nails its Premise, with the explosions and one-liners all being supportive + of that goal. The other movies fail to provide Premise of their own, + merely using the explosions and one-liners to remind you of Die Hard, and + by (putative) extension, tapping into Die Hard's Premise through + association alone. + + Jesse: I guess I'm having trouble resolving a couple of things. Either I + can't imagine the items listed above being included in the absence of + Premise or I'm too stuck on the idea that there's nothing new under the + sun. I mean how many romantic comedies are written off the premise, "true + love can only be found by putting aside petty differences." Are you saying + that 90% of romantic comedies are just pastiche? And if you are saying + that, then aren't you putting kind of a tall order up if for something to + be Narrativist it has to say something totally unique that no one has ever + said before? + + Huh, I just noticed that I did shift focus from repetition of elements + that express a Premise to repetition of Premise itself, so maybe that has + something to do with my confusion. + + Me: Yes, it does. With any luck my text above has helped. It's not the + "new-ness" of the Premise or theme, it's its presence and power in the + particular story. Pastiche has no such presence or power, just reminders + of them in other stories through common motifs. Many romantic comedies are + indeed pastiche (some of them quite clever), but a certain number of them + are not - and whether they say the same thing as, say, Gentlemen Prefer + Blondes or The Devil and Miss Jones is irrelevant. The point is whether + they as self-contained stories actually do say it, or anything at all. + + Jesse: I'm just still a little confused between Narrativism and + Simulationism where the Situation has a lot of ethical/moral problems + embedded in it and the GM uses no Force techniques to produce a specific + outcome. I don't understand how Premise-expressing elements can be + included and players not be considered addressing a Premise when they + can't resolve the Situation without doing so. + + Me: There is no such Simulationism. You're confused between Narrativism + and Narrativism, looking for a difference when there isn't any. + + My final point for this issue is that creating pastiche is primarily a + form of fandom, pure homage to an existing body of work. Most High Concept + Simulationist play gravitates toward it, and some game texts are + explicitly about nothing else. + +Issues on the table + + I submit that playing in the Narrativist mode is just as intuitive and + instantly understood by most people as Gamist play. Not everyone agrees. + + Two sources of resistance and confusion + + The most difficult aspect of writing this essay is the presence of two + distinct problematic audiences, neither of which I realized existed when I + first wrote System Does Matter ([20]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1). + - Role-players who greatly value the story quality of their transcripts, + but don't play Narrativist to make them. It's often painful for them to + be, as they see it, relegated to Simulationist play (usually Exploration + of Situation). "We create stories too, dammit!" - Role-players who play + Narrativist already, but who think what I'm describing must be harder or + more abstract than it is. Since they can identify Exploration of Character + and Situation in their play preferences, they think they must be playing + Simulationist. "That's Narrativist? But we do that, using a plain old + well-known role-playing game - it can't be Narrativist!" + + The first problem these audiences pose for me is that any point, example, + or clarification I make that's specific to one of them is automatically + misleading for the other. + + The second problem is that, when I say Not Narrativist to the first, and + when the second mistakenly says Not Narrativist to me, then Narrativism as + a label gets misconstrued as "how Ron himself plays." + + I can't afford giving special consideration to these outlooks in this + essay. Otherwise I'd have to write three separate essays, two of them + piece-by-piece dismantling the respective bugaboos, and one "everyone else + essay." I've decided to reserve the customized discussions for the on-line + forums. + + What it ain't + + The following misunderstandings only arise from exposure to the + role-playing subculture, as distinct from the activity. I'll have more to + say about that later in the essay. + + 1. The so-called Storyteller rules-set is not especially, nor even + partly, facilitative toward Narrativist play. Furthermore, I have + observed only a decided minority of White Wolf play that can be called + Narrativist, usually involving considerable rules-Drift. + + 2 (related). Adhering to published metaplot which is intended to surprise + and involve players in tandem with their characters, or any similar + one-hand-on-rudder for the crucial story decisions, will not facilitate + Narrativist play. + + 1. The number of textual rules involved, as well as how much the rules + must be consulted during play, are irrelevant. "Narrativist? Must be + rules-light!" is just one of those little humps to get over. + + 2. Focusing on single Techniques to define Narrativism will not yield + understanding. For instance, Drama resolution is not in and of itself + Narrativist. Nor are the common use of improvisation, trading of + narration, and overt Director stance, in and of themselves, + Narrativist play. + + 3. Issues of "consciousness" in terms of Premise are collectively a + complete red herring. People daily address Premise without + self-reflecting, both as audience and authors. There's no special need + to say to one another, "This is the Premise" in order to be playing + Narrativist. Laws' term "conscious" and my "mindful" only refer to the + attention to and social reinforcement of the process - not to + self-analytical or abstract discussion about the content. + + 4. Narrativist play doesn't force a "separation" from the imaginative + commitment to the role-playing. As the whole medium of Creative Agenda + is Exploration, you don't have to diminish Exploration at all during + Narrativist play. It is instead focused and heightened as the + mechanism for addressing Premise. + + 5. Depth and profundity of the Premise and/or theme are false variables. + The key issue is whether participants care enough to produce a point, + not whether the point is deep. + +Fundamental Techniques + + People's creative roles: what you do + + Narrativist play makes special use of the general role-playing principle + that the participants are simultaneously authors and audience. The common + metaphor of improvisational jazz applies quite well, better than any other + medium-comparison. "Entertainment," in role-playing in general and in + Narrativist play especially, does not flow from playwright to script to + production team to audience. Instead, the shared-imagining act = the + shared-performance act = the entertainment = the audience feedback. + + Role-playing texts are consistently very confusing about how conflicts and + resolutions are established in play, especially in games whose mechanics + and some features of their instructions suggest Narrativist play. "Prep + and plan carefully! But story never goes as planned, so be ready to change + and improvise!" What's that supposed to mean, from a Narrativist + perspective? + + I grappled with this in my own work - from the chapter "Fantastic + Adventure" in Sorcerer & Sword (Adept Press, 2001, author is Ron Edwards): + + The doctrine for Sorcerer & Sword relies ... on the following idea: - + Playing this game, for all concerned, means creating stories about one or + more heroic protagonists. - The player produces the protagonist's + decisions and thus directly creates the story. - The GM makes it possible + for such play to occur, and therefore has great power over events in the + game world. However, he or she does not determine the protagonists' + actions, and must fully respond to those actions when they do occur. + + Therefore, the GM cannot be considered "the narrator" or "the storyteller" + in any way, shape, or form. Such an entity exists as the outcome of the + GM-player interface and continuing creativity. His or her arbitrative role + in game events, as well as most of the Director power over time and space, + do remain. But the purpose of that role is inspiring and facilitating, not + dictating. + + That text is specific to Sorcerer, so it needs expanding into what the + term "GM" means in the first place, and how the answer is subordinate to + Creative Agenda - and in fact, is nothing more nor less than a Techniques + question for role-playing in general. + + I suggest that considering "the GM" to be either (a) necessarily one + person or (b) a specific and universally-consistent role is badly mistaken + - we are really talking about a set of potential behaviors (roles, tasks, + whatever) which may be independently centralized within or distributed + across a group of people. Here are some of those GM behaviors, roles, and + tasks: - rules-applier and interpreter, as in "referee" - in-game-world + time manager - changer of scenes - color provider - ensurer of protagonist + screen time - regulator of pacing (in real time) - authority over what + information can be acted upon by which characters - authority over + internal plausibility - "where the buck stops" in terms of establishing + the Explorative content - social manager of who gets to speak when + + A given role-playing experience must have these things - there is no such + thing as "GM-less" play. But which of these require(s) enforcing varies + greatly, as does whether they are concentrated into a particular person, + and as does whether that person is openly acknowledged as such. What + matters for Narrativist play, however, isn't any specific point in the + diversity-matrix of these variables - it's about what the person (or + persons) currently in the GM-role is responsible for. + + From Maelstrom (Hubris Games, 1997, author is Christian Aldridge): + + Narrative Tools + + ... The whole premise of role-playing is the freedom the players have to + take their characters in whatever direction they want. It is important to + maintain this free will, and not lead the players with a heavy hand down a + course only the narrator controls. Though the narrator may tell a good + story, it loses the rich creative spirit of role-playing if the players + have little say in what happens. + + Putting aside the synecdoche ("the whole premise," etc), two key features + show up in this passage as well as in the whole of the Maelstrom game + text. (1) No mention is made whatever of seeming to grant player control - + it's real freedom he's talking about. (2) The freedom is specifically over + what the character thinks is right and decides to do: the goal he or she + brings into the current imaginary situation. The GM ("narrator" in this + case) cannot wield any authority over what the characters are supposed to + want, which therefore extends to a similar lack of authority over how any + conflict during play is supposed to turn out. + + From Christopher Kubasik's Interactive Toolkit series of essays (1995, + originally published in White Wolf Inphobia #50-53): + + So, what are the differences between roleplaying games and Story + Entertainments? Let's start with roleplaying's GM (referee, Storyteller, + or whatever). This is usually the person who works out the plot, the world + and everything that isn't the players'. To a greater or lesser degree, she + is above the other players in importance, depending on the group's + temperament. In a Story Entertainment, she is just another player. + Distinctly different, but no more and no less than any other player. The + terms GM and referee fail to convey this spirit of equality. The term + Storyteller suggests that the players are passive listeners of her tale. + So here's another term for this participant - one that invokes the spirit + of Story Entertainment - Fifth Business. + + Fifth Business is a term that originates from European opera companies. A + character from Robertson Davies' novel, ... Fifth Business, describes the + term this way: + + "You cannot make a plot work without another man, and he is usually a + baritone, and he is called in the profession Fifth Business. You must have + a Fifth Business because he is the one who knows the secret of the hero's + birth, or comes to the assistance of the heroine when she thinks all is + lost, or keeps the hermitess in her cell, or may even be the cause of + someone's death, if that is part of the plot. The prima donna and the + tenor, the contralto and the basso, get all the best music and do all the + spectacular things, but you cannot manage the plot without the Fifth + Business!" + + This certainly sounds like the GM, but it also makes it clear that he's + part of the show, not the show itself. + + Let's call the players Leads. They're not players in the GM's game. + They're participants in a story. The Fifth Business has a lot more work to + do than do the Leads, changing costumes and shaping the story while it's + in progress. But the Leads are equal to the Fifth Business. The Leads must + react to the characters, incidents, and information that the Fifth + Business offers, just as players must react to what the GM offers in a + roleplaying game. But the Fifth Business must always be on his toes and + react to what the Leads offer. + + ... The Fifth Business can't decide what the plot is going to be and then + run the players through it like mice in a maze. The Leads determine the + direction of the story when they create their characters ... What do the + characters want? What are their goals? The story is about their attempt to + gain those goals. The Fifth Business creates obstacles to those goals. + + [From Part 3, "Character, character, character"] + + As the designer of the character you shouldn't simply depend on the Fifth + Business ... to provide you with trouble. You should look for trouble for + your character. ... + + Moreover, you know best of all what kind of problems you want for your + character. ... in a story entertainment you're not the passive passenger + in the gamemaster's roller coaster. You are a co-creator with Fifth + Business and the other players of a story. + + [From Part 4, "Running Story Entertainments"] + + Listen to the players, keep in mind the idea of obstacles, mix up volatile + characters and objects, and remember you don't have to know where you're + going. No roleplaying game ever follows the "path" of the story anyway, so + a story entertainment just dismisses the whole notion of adventure. Rather + than become frustrated when the characters don't do what they're supposed + to, let them lead the story with their Characters' Goals. + + It all comes down to this: a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing + context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given + player-character. Even if this role switches around from person to person + (as in Universalis), it's always sacrosanct in the moment of decision. + "GMing," then, for this sort of play, is all about facilitating another + person's ability to do this. + +Protagonism + + In all role-playing, the player-character is the lens of the Creative + Agenda at work. That's right, I said all role-playing. + + * Simulationist = the character "fits" - its setting, capabilities, + outcomes, behavior patterns, and so on, all reinforce the Dream for + everyone. + + * Gamist = the character is a direct opportunity for player-strategy. + Its construction doesn't hamstring the player (except with agreed-upon + handicaps) and permits him or her to Step On Up. + + * Narrativist = the character's predicament is how Premise is seen/felt + in full, and what he does, and what happens is how a theme is + realized. + + By definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative + Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is + required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. + Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and + diddling. You can tell when this happens: everyone stops paying attention + to one another, and quite likely the one person talking is only paying + attention to himself or herself. Adversity, which may come from any + participant during play, is the key. + + Now we run into a conceptual tangle. In literary terms, if there's a + story, there's one or more protagonists. Since story can arise from any + sort of role-playing, then protagonism of the relevant character comes + with that, part and parcel. However, "protagonism" at the Forge as + discussed most frequently by Paul Czege, tends to focus on very specific + processes of play: those which prompt Premise-addressing interest in a + given character among all of the real-person participants; in other words, + a specifically Narrativist process. + + That's a real terminological conundrum. I shudder at the thought of + co-opting the term "protagonist" into anything besides the fictional + context of a story, regardless of how it was produced. However, I also + want to preserve Paul's point that people may establish emotional, + relatively high-stakes connections to other people's player-characters. + But neither are restricted to Narrativist play. + + Fortunately, for discussing Narrativist play by itself, the two things are + one and the same. Which means I shall happily relegate debate about the + term in a larger (all of role-playing) sense to the forums and neatly + dodge it for purposes of the essay. + + So let's talk about Narrativist protagonism and how it's established, + starting with the adversity. From Sorcerer (Adept Press, 2001, author is + Ron Edwards): + + GET TO THE BANGS! + + Bangs are those moments when the characters realize they have a problem + right now and have to get moving to deal with it. It can be as simple as a + hellacious demon crashing through the skylight and attacking the + characters or as subtle as the voice of the long-dead murder victim + answering when they call the number they found in the new murder victim's + pockets. + + But that needed clarifying, so from Sorcerer & Sword (Adept Press, 2001, + author is Ron Edwards): + + Driving with Bangs ... how is the poor GM able to assure any happenings + when he or she is no longer the primary author? + + ... It is the GM's job to present and, for lack of a better word, drive + Bangs, in the sense of driving a nail or driving something home. In + narrative terms, Bangs tend to come as one of the following: [list follows + with details; to summarize: crisis to crisis, twist to twist, link to + link, locale to locale - RE] + + Ultimately, all of these elements provided by the GM are the same thing: a + means for moving from decision to decision on the part of the players. + Bangs are always about player-character responses. + + This is why Bangs are not represented by many of the fight scenes or clues + in traditional role-playing. Throwing mad hyenas at the player-characters + is not a Bang if the only result of the fight is to wander into the next + room. Nor is a clue a Bang at all if all it does is show where the next + clue may be found. A real Bang gives the player options and requires his + or her decision about how to handle it, which in turn reveals and develops + the player-character as a hero. + + In Sex & Sorcery (2003), I presented some further terms to represent + multiple-person input and some other nuances into the Bang concept: Bobs, + Weavings, Crosses, and Openings; all are listed in the glossary following + this essay. + + Aside from a lack of adversity, the other issue regarding protagonism is + the problem of de-protagonizing, a term coined by Paul Czege. + Deprotagonizing literally means to deprive a person of the means to + express one of the bulleted points above (depending on the Creative Agenda + at hand; Paul is usually discussing Narrativist play). There are dozens of + ways to do that, and all of them are grounds for instant breaking of the + Social Contract for that play-experience. No one accepts deprotagonization + willingly; those bulleted points are heartfelt priorities at the very core + of Creative Agenda. As a minor but thought-provoking point, character + death is not deprotagonizing if it satisfies the Creative Agenda for that + person and group. + + Nearly all of the dysfunctional issues described later in the essay + concern deprotagonizing in the context of Narrativist play, which is best + defined as Force: the final authority that any person who is not playing a + particular player-character has over decisions and actions made by that + player-character. This is distinct from information that the GM imparts or + chooses not to impart to play; I'm talking about the protagonists' + decisions and actions. In Narrativist play, using Force by definition + disrupts the Creative Agenda. + + Force techniques include IIEE manipulation, fudged/ignored rolls, + perception management, clue moving, scene framing as a form of reducing + options, directions as to character's actions using voiced and unvoiced + signals, modifying features of various NPCs during play, and authority + over using textual rules. The Golden Rule of White Wolf games is, in + application, a mandate for Force. + + Force Techniques often include permitting pseudo-decisions, which we can + discuss at the Forge if necessary. Also, Force Techniques do vary in how + flexible a scene's outcome is permitted to be. Some GMs (to use the + classic single-GM context) might do anything up to actually picking up + your dice for you in order for you to talk to "that guy," or he might let + the characters miss the clue, either 'porting it to another character or + letting its absence go ahead and affect the outcome. + +System - "it does matter" all over again + + Remember the System "bow" which shoots the Creative Agenda arrow? It must + be an active tool. The Explorative Situation must change with verve - + anything that introduces ebbs, flows, and unpredictable elements into the + real-person decision-making process. That's what System does, whether it's + composed entirely of dialogue or relies on pages and pages of probability + charts. How does it do it? Through the combinations of Techniques being + employed. + + I'll focus on one bit of System: resolution. I'll break it up into + Techniques regarding what exactly is being resolved. For Narrativist play, + the key is to focus on conflicts rather than tasks. A conflict statement + is, "I'm trying to kill him," or, "I'm trying to humiliate him," whereas a + task statement is, "I swing my sword at him." (It doesn't matter, by the + way, how much in-game time and space are involved; conflict resolution can + be "very small" and task resolution can be "very big." We can discuss this + more on-line.) I submit that trying to resolve conflicts by hoping that + the accumulated successful tasks will turn out to be about what you want, + is an unreliable and unsatisfying way to role-play when developing + Narrativist protagonism. + + How does this relate to game mechanics? I'll take the most-common example + of Fortune systems. The big distinction I want to make is between + Fortune-in-the-Middle and the more commonly-understood Fortune-at-the-End. + For the record, I think both go back to the very beginning of + role-playing; I didn't invent anything by naming them. + + Fortune-at-the-End: all variables, descriptions, and in-game actions are + known, accounted for, and fixed before the Fortune system is brought into + action. It acts as a "closer" of whatever deal was struck that called for + resolution. A "miss" in such a system indicates, literally, a miss. The + announced blow was attempted, which is to say, it was also perceived to + have had a chance to hit by the character, was aimed, and was put into + motion. It just didn't connect at the last micro-second. + + Fortune-in-the-Middle: the Fortune system is brought in partway through + figuring out "what happens," to the extent that specific actions may be + left completely unknown until after we see how they worked out. Let's say + a character with a sword attacks some guy with a spear. The point is to + announce the character's basic approach and intent, and then to roll. A + missed roll in this situation tells us the goal failed. Now the group is + open to discussing just how it happened from the beginning of the action + being initiated. Usually, instead of the typical description that you + "swing and miss," because the "swing" was assumed to be in action before + the dice could be rolled at all, the narration now can be anything from + "the guy holds you off from striking range with the spearpoint" to "your + swing is dead-on but you slip a bit." Or it could be a plain vanilla miss + because the guy's better than you. The point is that the narration of what + happens "reaches back" to the initation of the action, not just the + action's final micro-second. + + There's a whole spectrum of extreme connect/disconnect between conflict + and task. At one end, the task does fail, but the goal fails too, perhaps + with a nuance or two. The other end is much wider in interpretative scope: + we know the character's goal (killing some guy) doesn't happen, but with + those in place, narration takes over to provide all the events involved. + Applying different judgments along this spectrum, for different parts of + play, is a big deal in games like Dust Devils, Trollbabe, Sorcerer, and + HeroQuest. In Sorcerer, failing a dice roll means failing the goal, almost + always due to failing at the task; in Dust Devils, certain card outcomes + dictate that you fail at the goal, but whether the task failed or + succeeded within that context is entirely up for grabs and determined by + that scene's designated narrator. HeroQuest and Trollbabe permit the group + to customize between these extremes as they see fit for that scene. + + Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates + Narrativist play in a number of ways. + + * It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the + moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent + goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel + fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too. + + * It permits tension to be managed from conflict to conflict and from + scene to scene. So a "roll to hit" in Scene A is the same as in Scene + B in terms of whether the target takes damage, but it's not the same + in terms of the acting character's motions, intentions, and experience + of the action. + + * It retains the key role of constraint on in-game events. The dice (or + whatever) are collaborators, acting as a springboard for what happens + in tandem with the real-people statements. + + Not all versions of this principle are alike. Some of them involve + scene-scale resolution (Story Engine), some involve narration-trading + (Dust Devils), some are heavily integrated with tactics (The Riddle of + Steel), and some of them require role-playing "bits" to justify + incorporating system features (The Dying Earth). + + Some Fortune-in-the-Middle applications give opportunities for tweaking + after the roll: usually, spending points of some kind after the dice have + hit the table to alter the effects. Some games have this feature and some + don't; Forge jargon calls such things "FitM with teeth" because such a + system forces the group to acknowledge that the dice do not "finish" the + job of resolution. + + Does Fortune-in-the-Middle define Narrativism? No, nor does it even + facilitate it in isolation. It's merely a strong component of many + Narrativist-facilitating combinations of Techniques; I've left its + potential integration with reward and behavioral mechanics out of this + discussion. + + Is there such a thing as Fortune-at-the-beginning? Playtesting so far + indicates that it's not very satisfying for Narrativist play; see + discussions at the Forge of Human Wreckage and The World the Flesh and the + Devil. + + Is Fortune the only resolution method for conflict resolution? The answer + is emphatically no. The two main alternatives are apparently Karma + + Resource management, which I consider to be underdeveloped at this point, + and highly-structured Drama, which may be investigated through Puppetland, + Soap, and to a lesser extent Universalis. + + The game world + + Since Exploration is best understood as a medium and tool in Narrativist + play, rather than a product itself, the role of "in game reality" needs + some review - not so much about who has authority over it (the usual + concern in Simulationist play), but what the heck it is. The answer is, + it's a medium and tool for addressing Premise, and nothing more at all. + + From Maelstrom (Hubris Games, 1994, author is Christian Aldridge): + + Literal vs. Conceptual + + A good way to run the Hubris Engine is to use "scene ideas" to convey the + scene, instead of literalisms. ... focus on the intent behind the scene + and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the + task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in + terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm + spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the + danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates + the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It + is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how + hard the feat is for the character. ... If the players enjoy the challenge + of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed + the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the + narrative flow and enjoyment of the game. + + The scene should be presented therefore in terms relative to the + character's abilities ... Players who want to climb onto your coffee table + and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump + over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story. + + The "doesn't interfere" matches to my "prioritization." The "narrative + flow and enjoyment" matches to addressing Premise. The "whole point of the + story" and "intent behind the scene" are Premise itself, expressed in this + scene as a Bang. More topically, I can think of no better text to explain + the vast difference between playing the games RuneQuest and HeroQuest. + + Stance + + A lot of mental sweat has been shed to try to link Stances with modes and + goals of play. I think most of that discussion was misguided by an overly + 1:1 approach. In my big model as currently constructed, only combinations + of Ephemera comprise a Technique, so we're not talking about one Stance in + a given moment, but the distribution of Stances through multiple character + actions, decisions, and scenes. And that's only one Technique, which is + not enough to dictate or identify Creative Agenda. + + Bearing all that in mind, Author Stance may be considered the default for + Narrativist play only in the sense that it needs to be in there somewhere. + Narrativist play doesn't have to be exclusively in this Stance, nor does + it even have to be employed more often than the others. The only + requirement is that it be present in a significant way. Narrativist play + is very much like Gamist play in this regard, and for the same reason: the + player of a given character takes social and aesthetic responsibility for + what that character does. + + Narration the non-issue + + Before going on, I'll take a quick break to discuss "narration," which is + no more and no less than saying what happens in the imaginary events. I + want to distinguish saying what happens (narrating) from establishing what + happens (currently a non-named concept), because they are often confused. + I'm taking the + + I'll break it down. + + * Narration is not a Drama mechanic unless it is literally the means of + resolution. + + * Narration is in practice shared among members of a role-playing group + and far less centralized than most people think. + + The only concern about narration per se is that its relationship to + establishing-what-happens must be clear. That entails that how things are + established is itself clear: is it ad-lib? is the GM where the buck stops? + is it traded about, organized in any way? or what? Those are good + questions, but once they're established, narration is a no-brainer. + + Game texts are typically astonishingly bad at explaining this issue. + Positive exceptions for Narrativist-leaning games include Soap, The Pool, + and Universalis, and other recent games like InSpectres, Otherkind, Dust + Devils, Trollbabe, and Donjon, which all distribute narration around the + group as a means of distributing who establishes what. + +Historical diversity of Narrativist play + + Narrativist play-procedures are pretty scattered in terms of actual game + books. I suggest that titles and texts are really just rustles in the + bushes, such that one has to infer the actual play that either informed + them or might have proceeded from them. For most of what follows, I've + spoken with game designers and many, many play-groups about these issues. + + I think that Narrativist play goes back to the beginning of role-playing. + Yes, a "non-Narrativism" shroud descended over role-playing design and + publishing, but I think that dates from the mid-late 1980s. In other + words, the "Narrativist revolution" of 2000-2003 is not an innovation, but + a return to a lost art. + + Looking at earlier games from a Techniques perspective, a shift to + Narrativist play within the larger Gamist context is apparent in some + Tunnels & Trolls, as discusssed in "Gamism: Step On Up". I also recommend + reading and playing Marvel Super Heroes, reviewing the entire Strike Force + text in light of the 1st and 2nd editions of Champions being used by that + group, reviewing the extensive documentation of Champions play presented + in the APA-zine The Clobberin Times', and giving Toon, Ghostbusters, and + James Bond a try. I am not saying "These are Narrativist games," but + rather, evidence supports the claim that these rules-sets supported some + Narrativist play back then. + + I do not think that the strong minority trend beginning in the very late + 1980s toward Drama-heavy role-playing represented by Amber, Theatrix, and + The Window was especially Narrativist in application, although that mode + of play was probably found in some groups playing these games. This trend + is better understood in combination with games like Fudge and Risus, and + most especially in terms of the Mind's Eye Theatre approach to LARPs. + + During the early 1990s, however, a certain approach to numbers and Fortune + became apparent across a number of games: Prince Valiant, Over the Edge + (especially in light of Laws' essay), Castle Falkenstein, Everway, + Maelstrom/Story Engine, Zero, and The Whispering Vault. Later, similar + games include Sorcerer, Orkworld, and The Riddle of Steel. All of these + texts demonstrate an internal struggle to articulate means of addressing + Premise, littered with trip-ups based on assumptions of GM-power and the + utter lack of precedent in explaining the whole idea. Some of them slammed + toward Simulationist texts upon second-edition revision and via + supplements, probably to make it "more like an RPG." + + The internet revealed something vastly more startling: in-your-nose + Narrativist designs like Ghost Light, Soap, InSpectres, and The Pool, as + well as their Gamist cousin Elfs. These games' influence was vast at the + Forge, including but not limited to Dust Devils, Trollbabe, Otherkind, + Paladin, Violence Future, My Life with Master, and Universalis, along with + further Gamist cousins like Donjon. The internet also revealed active + play-communities that had previously been invisible to store-centered + commerce, including Marvel Super Heroes among others. + + Since the historical trends are so textually diffuse, I think that this + section will do better to focus on procedural diversity, small point by + small point. Each point presents a separate and independent spectrum of + variation. As always, game titles are used only to refer to the actual + play that they best seem to facilitate. + +Basic diversity of Narrativist play + + Making it up in play vs. setting it up beforehand + + A lot of people have mistakenly interpreted the word "Narrativist" for + "making it up as we go." Neither this nor anything like it is definitional + for Narrativist play, but it is indeed an important issue for role-playing + of any kind. So it's not a bad idea simply to ask, for a given group or + session, when and how is the Explorative context (setting, situation, + whatever) established? + + * High improvisation during play: e.g., Universalis, InSpectres, Extreme + Vengeance + + * Rock steady based on preparation - Orkworld, Castle Falkenstein, + HeroQuest, Sorcerer + + * In between - Trollbabe, The Pool, Dust Devils, My Life with Master + + Many people get unnecessarily hung up on this issue ... playing + Universalis is not "more Narrativist" than playing Orkworld, for instance. + Also, this issue is not at all correlated with centralizing vs. + distributing the various GM-tasks discussed previously. + + Where little Premises come from + + Given that Explorative content for Narrativist play exists to provide meat + for addressing a Premise, it shouldn't be surprising that differing + starting points for the process can be found depending on what kind of + details and efforts are involved in preparing for play. + + Just as in Gamist play, the big gorilla of the five Explorative elements + is Situation. What I'm contrasting here is which elements begin detailed + enough to yield Situation relatively quickly during play, as opposed to + which ones can be "relaxed" in terms of detail and depth at the start, to + be developed later. + + * Character-based Premise: Characters begin play with at least one + significant Premise-based decision in their backgrounds. + + * Setting-based Premise: External adversity swarms upon the characters + based on unavoidable, often large-scale elements of the overall + setting. + + * Situation-based Premise: The immediate conflict at hand is already + under way and rich with Premise; fill in Character goals and Setting + justification as needed during play. + + I suggest that it's useful to reduce the pre-play effort on the other + elements involved. Loading too many of them with Premise prior to play + yields a messy and unworkable play-situation in Narrativist terms, in + which characters' drives and external adversity are too full to develop + off of or to reinforce one another. More discussion and debate about this + issue may be taken up at the Forge. + + Character-based Premise is the easiest to implement, and unsurprisingly it + reflects Egri's ideas in full. Games whose design relies on this approach + include Zero, Sorcerer, Dust Devils, and The Riddle of Steel, among many + others. I think this form of Premise-building is probably the most common + form of Drifting to Narrativist play. From the "Campaigning" chapter and + "The Developing Campaign" section in Strike Force (Hero Games, 1988, + author is Aaron Allston): + + THE "CHARACTER STORY" + + One thing that each Champions GM needs to learn to do is to spot, + carefully nurture, and eventually play out the "Character Story." + + Each player-character has a Story above and beyond the ordinary adventures + encountered during the course of the campaign. This Character Story + usually involves the resolution of the most important desires of the + character. + + Phosphene - Discovery of and Acceptance by Family. Raised by a single + parent and knowing of no other relatives, Phos started his career cynical + and alone. Learning that he had a family, the enigmatic Brood, he + discovered that he had a tremendous need to become one of them. Eventually + he met all his surviving relatives and earned the affection of most of + them. Now married and a family man himself, his personal story is + resolved. + + Lorelei - Growth into Womanhood. In the course of her years of playing, + Lorelei grew from a 15-year-old innocent into a mature woman and team + leader; the most important elements of transition (other than the years + involved) were her romance with Commodore and her eventual rescue of and + reunion with her father. + + Take a look at your own character - or at all the PCs if you're the GM - + and try to root out the Character Story of each one. [examples follow - + RE] In short, try to figure out what element of the character's + background, relations, or psychology make him interesting but will + eventually make him (or his player) frustrated and unhappy if not + ultimately resolved. That's the Character Story. + + An interesting qualifier shows up in the final paragraph of this section: + + Of course, no campaign lasts long enough for every Character Story to be + discovered and exploited ... + + ... which I think is a bizarre statement, possibly related to the idea + (which I remember all too well) that Champions players should all + cooperate to preserve the group regardless of their differing goals during + play. + + The final section in this chapter indicates, I think the key point - which + is only presented parenthetically in the earlier text (above - "or his + player"). + + LISTENING TO YOUR PLAYERS + + Always listen to your players' discussion of the ongoing adventure. + They'll constantly be analyzing, theorizing, and commenting on the + adventure. Often, their discussion will give you even better ideas than + those you've been implementing. + + Also, pay attention to the recurring phrase, "It might be neat if ..." The + player who is saying this, whether he realizes it or not, is expressing a + desire about a future storyline or character development. Usually it's + easy to accomodate him, and gives him a more personal interest in that + specific plotline. + + I consider this important because it acknowledges that the developing + Premise is best recognized by the people who play the protagonists. + + Setting-based Premise is a bit more developmental, usually involving + "someone else's problem" or an overriding external adversity of some kind + - zombie attack being perhaps the most basic example. It might actually be + a bit better for introducing Simulationist-by-habit players to Narrativist + play, as they can start with sketchy characters and grow into addressing a + pretty-well-defined Premise over time. From HeroQuest (Issaries Inc, 2003, + primary text author is Greg Stafford): + + Make Your Own Part + + All heroes are extraordinary and destined for some fame in the world of + Glorantha. This is guaranteed, since they are individually guided by a + higher power: you, the player. + + Your heroes will have the chance to be involved in the great events of the + Hero Wars, such as [several colorful examples - RE]. Such events are not + only for the super-powerful; they require the participation of your hero + at whatever level of power he has achieved. + + [just past halfway through the book - RE] + + Drama + + Drama in Glorantha often comes from the conflict between what is and what + ought to be. Living up to expectations of cult behavior, for instance, is + meant to be difficult and limiting. After all, religious requirements are + not human ideals. [Wow! Talk about an Egri Premise! - RE] The intensity of + the plot comes from the hero trying to fulfil these expectations while + living with the everyday temptations and complications of life: a cow is + missing, some of your clan died in a raid, your children are ominously + ill, or neighbors are poaching the hunting lands. Add to this the + imperative of the Hero Wars, where some things will happen no matter what + the heroes do, and the heroes have to make difficult choices about what to + do and who [sic] to aid. + + [and near the end - RE] + + Politics, Always Politics + + Glorantha may be a world of magic and myth, but there are some human + constants that remain, not the least of which is politics. [examples + follow of politics both as rivalries and means to social authority and + respect - RE] + + The Hero Wars are breaking upon Glorantha. On the one hand, they are + throwing old alliances into question, tearing established communities + apart, and raising new dilemmas for leaders and led alike. But they are + also creating new and unexpected communities, as rivals are forced into + partnership by new threats or novel opportunities. + + I don't think I've ever seen a more challenging Premise in a role-playing + text than "religious requirements are not human ideals." That is HeroQuest + in a nutshell, and there is no avoiding it during play. A character may + begin as just another goat-herder, but he isn't going to stay that way. + Other games with similar origins of Premise include Castle Falkenstein and + My Life with Master, in which the Master is, for all intents and purposes, + the setting. + + Situation-based Premise is perhaps the easiest to manage as GM, as + player-characters are well-defined and shallow, and the setting is vague + although potentially quite colorful. The Premise has little to do with + either in the long-term; it's localized to a given moment of conflict. + Play often proceeds from one small-scale conflict to another, + episodically. Good examples of games based on this idea include Prince + Valiant, The Dying Earth, and InSpectres. From The Dying Earth (2001, + Pelgrane Press, authors are Robin Laws, John Snead, and Peter Freeman): + + Many Dying Earth stories revolve around a closed community, which may be + either a small settlement or an isolated workplace. In its isolation, it + has developed its own highly-structured, sometimes legalistic, always + peculiar rules. Without outside influence, and with the stout enforcement + of its codes, the group has survived for a long time. When the protagonist + arrives, the locals try to enforce the rules on him, assimilating him into + their bizarre system. Instead, the hero ... takes action which utterly + disrupts the delicately-balanced harmony of the community. ... the + community, the basis of its rules destroyed, collapses. + + [now for play] + + When creating an adventure, dream up a bizarre rule or activity on which a + community's existence depends. Figure out at least one way in which the + PCs could wreak havoc on the community by disrupting the activity or + subverting the rule. + + Then create a reason for the PCs to do so ... [actually, the entire + character creation process for this game takes care of this detail - RE] + + The point is that the Situation doesn't have any particular role or + importance to the Setting, either in terms of where it comes from or what + happens later. The setting can be quite vague and might even just be a + gray haze that characters are presumed to have travelled through in order + to have encountered this new Situation. + + This type of Premise does carry some risks: (1) the possibility of a + certain repetition from event to event, but probably nothing that you + wouldn't find in other situation-first narrative media, which is to say + serial fiction of any kind; (2) the heightened possibility of producing + pastiche; and (3) the heightened possibility of shifting to Gamist play. + +Deep diversity + + Who gets the GM jobs + + Earlier, I listed some of the various roles and tasks usually associated + with the term "GM." As I said, the question is not whether there is a GM + (there is always one or more for any scene during play), but rather how + the GMing tasks are distributed. The potential range of diversity is + staggering. The most important variables include: - Which of these roles + are most important to be formalized for this game - Whether the roles are + centralized in one person - The concept of "the buck" - in the event that + different people suggest different things, who says what goes + + In the interest of space and keeping the complexity of these sections + limited, I'll only provide examples for the centralization-issue. - + Centralized: The Riddle of Steel, Sorcerer, Orkworld, Castle Falkenstein, + HeroQuest, The Dying Earth - Widely distributed: Universalis, Soap - In + between: Trollbabe, The Pool, InSpectres, Dust Devils, Violence Future + + Story structure + + Classically, a story has the following structure: (a) introduce character + and situation, (b) introduce conflict, (c) rising conflict, (d) climax, + and (e) resolution, of which (a, b, d) are the key pieces. Most stories + indeed follow this model regardless of their chronological presentation, + point-of-view, or any other details. There's usually no particular worry + that Narrativist play will fail to produce a story (of whatever quality), + without any overt effort to force it. However, it is also at least + possible for overall story structure to be part of System. + + Sorcerer presented the Kicker Technique, which is to say, a + player-authored Bang included in character creation, giving the GM + responsibility to make it central to play. It may be considered the + precise opposite of the "character hook" concept presented in many + adventure scenarios and role-playing games. + + Some recent games feature the Endgame concept: a status for a character + (and sometimes all characters) that signals "Now is really Now," and it's + time for Premise to become theme without dilly-dallying. I suppose it can + first be seen in Soap and Puppetland based on these games' explicit + real-time constraints, but it's also embedded in the Guts/Coincidence + mechanics in Extreme Vengeance, the "Schism" version of Humanity in + Sorcerer, and the Insight mechanics in The Riddle of Steel. It's most + explicitly present in Violence Future and My Life with Master. + + A similar structural issue is to decide how much Premise-addressing + (story, if you will) has already occurred before in-play decision-making + begins. At one extreme, you have "Blood Opera," which is to say, several + characters already engaged in serious committed effort to do + something-or-other, usually contradictory. Such play, regardless of how + many sessions are involved, tends to end up with several dead protagonists + and plenty of tragedy due to conflicting obligations and/or + misunderstandings; it's quite cathartic. Typically it's more satisfying + when all of the participants are enlisted in scenario preparation. At the + other extreme, you have play in which the Premise is introduced very + slowly and piecemeal, through a variety of scenes and events. + + Here are some interesting trends which crop up along this spectrum: + + * When the character's judgmental and active presence is established and + already in action as play begins, that beginning point is usually the + crisis-point for the story in general. Playing Legends of Alyria, + Prince Valiant, My Life with Master, and Soap tends toward this end; + all of them carry a slight danger of "over before they begin," but + they are also the most reliable for immediate Premise-consensus. + + * When the Situation is well-established prior to play and essentially + independent of the player-characters, then how they encounter it and + become enlisted in its hassles is up for grabs, including when they + arrive. The protagonists usually play a catalytic role toward everyone + and everything else. Playing Everway, The Dying Earth, InSpectres, + Orkworld, The Whispering Vault, and Trollbabe is a lot like this. + + * When the Situation must slowly develop into Premise, play is + necessarily extended into multiple sessions. Playing Sorcerer, + HeroQuest, Dust Devils, Violence Future, and Over the Edge often + proceeds in this fashion, to the extent that the first couple of + sessions resemble the first sections of a classical novel rather than + a movie or play, and they tend not to show off all of their most + satisfying features during single-session demonstration play. + + Not all game designs must fall onto this spectrum explicitly, although + play does - I leave the different ways to place playing The Pool, + Universalis, and The Riddle of Steel onto the spectrum as an exercise for + the reader (hint: there are three answers, one for each game). + + Finally, another subtle enforcer of story structure is the range of + possible focus, or specification, for player-characters' abilities. It + doesn't surprise me that many Narrativist-facilitating game designs don't + distinguish very much among player-characters' abilities (Sorcerer, The + Dying Earth, and My Life with Master characters are all pretty much alike + within each game, mechanically); when they are so distinguished, however, + the differences tend to lock down the range of the potential Premise(s) + during play. + + So the most constrained story-structure game design would include Endgame + mechanics, an almost-over Situation, and strongly-distinguished abilties + (and hence story-roles) among the protagonists; interestingly, I can think + of no RPG design which features all three. + + Resolution and reward mechanics + + For Narrativist play, character creation may be considered the first step + in or the chassis for the reward and character-change systems. It differs + from the similar principle in Gamism in that personal strategy is not an + issue, but rather personal emotional agenda about the Premise. What's + interesting is that when play includes a focused reward system in + Narrativist terms, its numbers and effects are always integrated directly + into the event-resolution system. + + One whole category of play, however, does not provide any special + connection between the two and usually doesn't include much of a reward + system at all. Earlier games of this sort include The Window (partly), + Theatrix, Over the Edge, Castle Falkenstein, The World the Flesh and the + Devil, and possibly Puppetland. I think Soap, InSpectres, and Universalis + represent a development in this category of stronger IIEE-structure, as + well as providing a very abstract resolution + reward mechanic, but + retaining the Drama emphasis for resolution. These games also feature + pronounced GM-sharing as distinct from the earlier ones. + + The other category includes very strong reward mechanics design based on + character decisions, with resolution based on Fortune in the Middle in + order to preserve Author Stance during those decisions. Example games + include Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault, Zero, The Pool, Sorcerer, + Dust Devils, Trollbabe, Legends of Alyria, My Life with Master, HeroQuest, + and Orkworld, as well as The Riddle of Steel in a cunning fashion. + + A recent development in both categories is to bring relationships into the + game mechanics to a very high degree, as in HeroQuest, Trollbabe, and My + Life with Master. Earlier versions of this idea may be seen in Albedo, + Lace & Steel, and Pendragon, but its primarily-Narrativist application is + recent and very significant. + + Character behavior mechanics + + This topic is potentially rather a sore point among role-players, unless + they have experienced play which shows the diverse strong points along the + entire spectrum. It concerns how limited characters' behavior may be. + + At one end of this spectrum, there's nothing of the kind: just contextual + material that prompts the issues and perhaps a character descriptor here + or there. The primary engine for Narrativist play is purely personal + fascination with the issues at hand and with working them out. Castle + Falkenstein, The Whispering Vault, and Over the Edge are good examples. + + Moving just a little over, characters' behavioral descriptors are + required, but they don't have any special role in determining what the + character does - except for providing secondary bonuses to some resolution + events, as in The Pool and HeroQuest. + + Moving well toward the other end of the spectrum, specific behaviors have + generalized consequence mechanics. Sorcerer, Trollbabe, Dust Devils, The + Riddle of Steel, and Orkworld are all examples - the characters have free + will regarding what to do, but immediate mechanics provide significant + effects. + + Far at the other end of the spectrum, behavior is heavily structured, for + either or both character-creation and scenario-play. This kind of game + often entails playing "against yourself" for the character, and the GM is + potentially semi-adversarial, even ruthless, playing both external and + internal adversity. Examples include Wuthering Heights, Extreme Vengeance, + Violence Future, My Life with Master, Le Mon Mouri, InSpectres, Otherkind, + and The Dying Earth. "Schism", "Urge", and other sorcerer/demon + combination versions of Sorcerer effectively shift the game's play into + this category. + + Procedural diversity: thematic content + + Given that theme arises during Narrativist play, what does it look like, + and how limited or well-defined is it? This breaks down into three + independent issues, all of which are pretty subtle and deserve more + discussion. + + 1. The potential for personal risk and disclosure among the real people + involved. + + * High risk play is best represented by playing Sorcerer, Le Mon + Mouri, InSpectres, Zero, or Violence Future. You're putting your + ego on the line with this stuff, as genre conventions cannot help + you; the other people in play are going to learn a lot about who + you are. + + * Low risk play is best represented by playing Castle Falkenstein, + Wuthering Heights, The Dying Earth, or Prince Valiant. These + games are, for lack of a better word, "lighter" or perhaps more + whimsical - they do raise issues and may include extreme content, + but play-decisions tend to be less self-revealing. + + 2. The depth and profundity of the resulting themes. Counter to my lousy + phrasing in GNS and related matters of role-playing theory + ([21]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), "literary merit" of a + theme is irrelevant. Themes are indeed important, and I suggest that + two broad categories are available: cathartic vs. deconstructive, with + the former splitting up into happy-ending, sad-ending, and ambiguous. + A related point concerns the range of the possible themes for a given + play-instance, from narrow to broad. I'll forego providing game + examples as the depth and range of theme rely very greatly on the + given play-group's use of the game. + + 3. The humorous content. This is, in many ways, a red herring. I consider + "funny" always to be a secondary phenomenon, perhaps modifying theme, + or modifying something else entirely. For GNS or other theory + purposes, you have to look at the something else and discuss that + first. Still, there are a couple of points worth mentioning for + role-playing. + + * Is play itself funny, or is the topic of play funny? This is a + very complex issue, fully analogous to the endless discussions of + fear and suspense in horror role-playing. + + * Is the humor acting to bring participants' emotions closer to the + Premise, or to distance them? + +GNS crossover issues + + I suggest that historically, two basic Creative Agendas have been + perceived for role-playing: 1. Gamist, with the sub-set of Hard Core + Gamism; 2. Simulationist, with a sub-set of + Simulationist-becomes-Narrativist. + + Oh, I know, people never used the GNS terms for this purpose. But this is + how newcomers to the theory often read the terms, indicating their current + understanding, and those readings are fully consistent with the + explanations of play found in hundreds of game texts. I consider this + dichotomy, sub-sets and all, to be badly mistaken, but before I get to + that, let's take a look at its cultural results. + + Over time, as I see it, many practitioners and designers correctly + realized they were playing and promoting + Simulationist-becomes-"Narrativist," in quotes. Those quotes mean, + producing stories mainly through front-loading or post-editing, not + through protagonist decision-making as run by the players. They mean + focusing on story as product as opposed to Narrativist play. Reactions to + this latter insight have varied widely, and they include: + + * Abandon the perceived overall mode (Simulationism) entirely for Gamist + pastures; + + * Embrace the Simulationism and drop any pretense at story-creation + through play, such that story is at most an epiphenomenon to the + Exploration, usually of Setting; + + * Embrace the quotes in the "Narrativist" with verve, putting as much + effort and sophistication toward metaplot and GM-driven-story as + possible; + + * Give up role-playing in disgust with the inability to produce + Narrativist play without the quotes; + + * Mute down any particular Creative Agenda, making sure to provide a + little Gamist candy, in the interests of group harmony; + + * Drop the quotes around the "Narrativist," which means abandoning + Simulationism as a starting point and turning to explicit Narrativism. + + My construction of the modes of play is extremely different. As I see it, + one starts with [Exploration]. Now, either prioritize the intensity of + imagining some specific content as the agenda of play, which gives you + [E[Simulationism]], or develop the Exploration into a further-derived + agenda, which gives the choice of [E[Narrativism]] or [E[Gamism]]. + + Gamism and Narrativism + + As I've tried to show at various points so far, Gamist and Narrativist + play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents, sharing the same + range for most Techniques save those involving reward systems. They differ + primarily in terms of the actual aesthetic payoff - what's appreciated + socially and aesthetically. That difference is extremely marked. Happily, + therefore very little if any chance exists for these modes of play to come + into conflict with one another - a group simply goes one way or the other. + + From the Introduction section of The Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game + (Marvel Entertainment Group, 2003, "Direct Edition," authors not credited, + editor is Mark D. Beazley): + + Style of Play + + You can play Marvel in a variety of styles, based on whatever you're + interested in. Most roleplaying games tend to fall somewhere between two + styles of play that we call "Clobberin' Time" and "Power and + Responsibility." And for one-on-one play, there's always "Brawling," a + style unique to this game. + + Power and Responsibility + + ... players spend a great deal of time on things like character + development, morality, thoughts and goals ... They care about the other + people in their lives, like girlfriends or boyfriends, aunts, sidekicks, + and non-Super Hero friends. ... there's more to this style of play than + busting things up. + + Clobberin' Time + + ... players don't spend much time on their characters' lifestyles. They + concentrate on action and plenty of it. + + Together, the players and the GamesMaster decide what style of game they + want to play. There is nothing more frustrating than a GamesMaster who + runs a "Power and Responsibility" style game for a bunch of "Clobberin' + Times" players. ... + + Brawling + + ... allows players to answer age-old questions: who would win in a fight, + the Thing or the Hulk? [further examples] ... two players can sit down + with their characters and fight against each other without needing a + GamesMaster. + + I can always quibble. I think the above text adheres a little too closely + to the mistaken dichotomies presented earlier, with the concomitant red + herring of combat vs. no combat. But it's flawless in terms of caring + together about what's up, and about socially constructing and reinforcing + what's up. And the key point for me is that the same game system is usable + alternatively for Narrativist or Gamist (or Hard Core Gamist) play, rather + than simultaneously. Also, the text includes very little mention of or + attention to Simulationist play per se. Enjoying "being a Marvel hero" in + this game is not Simulationist at all, but merely the foundational + Explorative expectation for either of the two focused options. + + Whether the Gamist and Narrativist modes may be played "congruently" is + controversial (see Congruence in the glossary). I remain skeptical. + + The grim epiphany: Narrativism and Simulationism + + This section supercedes the section "El Dorado and Drift" in my essay + "Simulationism: the Right to Dream" + ([22]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/). + + I'll begin by identifying a very common misconception: that if enjoyable + Exploration is identifiable during play, then play must be Simulationist + or at least partly so. This is profoundly mistaken: if you address + Premise, it's Narrativist play. Period. If the Exploration involved, no + matter how intensive, hones and focuses that addressing-Premise process, + then that Exploration is still Narrativist, not Simulationist. + + That's why Feng Shui and Hong Kong Action Theater are hard-core, + no-ambiguity Simulationist-facilitating games including their explicit + homage to specific cinematic stories, and that's why The Dying Earth + facilitates Narrativist play, because its Situations are loaded with the + requirement for satirical, judgmental input on the part of the players. + + "El Dorado" was coined by Paul Czege to indicate the impossibility of a + 1:1 Simulationist:Narrativist blend, although the term was appropriated by + others for the blend itself, as a desirable goal. I think some people who + claim to desire such a goal in play are simply looking for Narrativism + with a very strong Explorative chassis, and that the goal is not elusive + at all. Such "Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The + key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play. + Many role-players, identified by Jesse Burneko as + "Simulationist-by-habit," exhaust themselves by seeking El Dorado, racing + ever faster and farther, when all they have to do is stop running, turn + around, and find Vanilla Narrativism right in their grasp. + + However, what about subordinate hybrids? Simulationist play works as an + underpinning to Narrativist play, insofar as bits or sub-scenes of play + can shift into extensive set-up or reinforcers for upcoming Bang-oriented + moments. It differs from the Explorative chassis for Narrativist play, + even an extensive one, in that one really has to stop addressing Premise + and focus on in-game causality per se. Such scenes or details can take on + an interest of their own, as with the many pages describing military + hardware in a Tom Clancy novel. It's a bit risky, as one can attract + (e.g.) hardware-nuts who care very little for Premise as well as + Premise-nuts who get bored by one too many hardware-pages, and end up + pleasing neither enough to attract them further. + + Historically, this approach has been poorly implemented in role-playing + texts, which swing into Simulationist phrasing extremely easily, for the + reasons I describe in "Simulationism: the Right to Dream". You cannot get + emergent Narrativist play specifically through putting more and more + effort into perfecting the Simulationism (which requires that the + Narrativism cease), no matter how "genre-faithful" or "character-faithful" + it may be. I consider most efforts in this direction to become reasonably + successful High-Concept Simulationism with a strong slant toward + Situation, mainly useful for enjoyable pastiche but not particularly for + Narrativist play at all. + + The key issue is System. Narrativist play is best understood as a powerful + integration and feedback between character creation and the reward system, + however they may work, in that the former is merely the first step of the + latter in terms of addressing Premise. Whereas the usual effect in + High-Concept Simulationist play is to "fix" player-characters + appropriately into the Situation for purposes of affirming the + story-as-conceived, especially in terms of varying effectiveness at + specific task-categories, and reward systems in these games are usually + diminished and delayed to the point of absence. Games which stumbled over + this issue include Fading Suns and Legend of the Five Rings, both of which + require extensive Drifting to achieve even halting Narrativist play + despite considerable thematic content. + + The more successful primarily-Narrativist, secondarily-Simulationist + hybrid designs include Obsidian, to some extent, possibly Continuum if I'm + reading it right, and The Riddle of Steel as the current shining light; I + also call attention to Robots & Rapiers, currently in development. + + How about the reverse? Can Narrativist play underlie and reinforce a + primarily Simulationist approach? I consider this to be a very interesting + question, because it's not like Gamism in this regard at all. What happens + when Premise is addressed sporadically, or develops so slowly that the + majority of play is like those hardware-pages? Whether this is "slow + Narrativism" or "S-N-S" or just plain dysfunctional play is a matter of + specific instances, I think. But I do want to stress that it's not the + "N/S blend" as commonly construed, which is to say, both priorities firing + as equal pals. + +Dysfunctional Narrativist play + + GNS incompatibility + + It is very easy to spot players who are disinclined toward Narrativist + play, but nevertheless want a story to be produced, in a group that favors + Narrativist-oriented play. They write up rich and intense characters on + paper, but in play, they're paralyzed. They can posture towards one + another, and they can defend against attack, and they can spot clues, beat + up mooks, and band together against a common threat like nobody's + business, but only on the basis of GM cues. In an otherwise Narrativist + group, they are black hole voids for addressing Premise, and typically + they don't continue playing with that group for long. + + More subtle and more likely to be sustained are Narrativist-oriented + participants in largely non-Narrativist games. They practice "stealth" + play to get what they want, usually through making suggestions to the + authority in the group, often practicing a lot of trade-off negotiation. A + skilled stealther can sometimes become a significant co-GM as long as he + or she doesn't call attention to the influence. Stealthers tend to do a + lot of waiting. + + Less happily, such a player in a game with a strong + Simulationist/Situation bent is in big trouble and vice versa, especially + when the group is committed to Illusionist Techniques. Illusionism is a + widespread technique of play and arguably, textually, the most supported + approach to the hobby, as testified most recently by the publication + Secrets of Game-mastering (2002, Atlas Games). It relies on Force, as + defined earlier in the essay. GMing with lots of covert Force is called + Illusionism. I call that the Black Curtain; if the Curtain is drawn, then + the players aren't immediately clued in about the presence and extent of + the Force itself. + + Force (Illusionist or not) isn't necessarily dyfunctional: it works well + when the GM's main role is to make sure that the transcript ends up being + a story, with little pressure or expectation for the players to do so + beyond accepting the GM's Techniques. I think that a shared "agreement to + be deceived" is typically involved, i.e., the players agree not to look + behind the Black Curtain. I suggest that people who like Illusionist play + are very good at establishing and abiding by their tolerable degree of + Force, and Secrets of Gamemastering seems to bear that out as the + perceived main issue of satisfactory role-playing per se. + + Producing a story via Force Techniques means that play must shift fully to + Simulationist play. "Story" becomes Explored Situation, the character + "works" insofar as he or she fits in, and the player's enjoyment arises + from contributing to that fitting-in. However, for the Narrativist player, + the issue is not the Curtain at all, but the Force. Force-based Techniques + are pure poison for Narrativist play and vice versa. The GM (or a person + currently in that role) can provide substantial input, notably adversity + and Weaving, but not specific protagonist decisions and actions; that is + the very essence of deprotagonizing Narrativist play. + + Get just one Story Now player into an Illusionist group, and the game + becomes a battlefield for control and story creation. I consider this to + be one of the worst instances of high-level GNS incompatibility, because + it typically doesn't resolve itself through a clean parting of the ways. + As long as the people involved buy into the false notion that Narrativist + play is a subset of the Simulationist aesthetic, then the war will not + end, as they wave their "integrity of the story" flags at one another in + the mistaken belief that they share aesthetic goals. + + It all becomes much clearer when the Gamism-Narrativism similarity is + acknowledged. No one in their right mind permits a fully-committed Gamist + into a Simulationist-Situation role-playing group, and the same goes for + fully-committed Narrativist participants, for the same reasons. + + Ouija-board role-playing + + Here's another outcome for the faulty Simulationist-makes-Narrativism + approach. Actually, it's the same phenomenon as + Simulationism-makes-Gamism, which I discussed in "Gamism: Step On Up" + ([23]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/) as "the bitterest role-player + in the world." I consider the Narrativist version to be the "most deluded + role-player in the world." + + How do Ouija boards work? People sit around a board with letters and + numbers on it, all touching a legged planchette that can slide around on + the board. They pretend that spectral forces are moving the planchette + around to spell messages. What's happening is that, at any given moment, + someone is guiding the planchette, and the point is to make sure that the + planchette always appears to everyone else to be moving under its own + power. + + Taking this idea to role-playing, the deluded notion is that Simulationist + play will yield Story Now play without any specific attention on anyone's + part to do so. The primary issue is to maintain the facade that "No one + guides the planchette!" The participants must be devoted to the notion + that stories don't need authors; they emerge from some ineffable + confluence of Exploration per se. It's kind of a weird Illusionism + perpetrated on one another, with everyone putting enormous value on + maintaining the Black Curtain between them and everyone else. Typically, + groups who play this way have been together for a very long time. + + My call is, you get what you play for. Can you address Premise this way? + Sure, on the monkeys-might-fly-out-my-butt principle. But the key to + un-premeditated artistry of this sort (cutup fiction, splatter painting, + cinema verite) is to know what to throw out, and role-playing does not + include that option, at least not very easily. Participants in Ouija-board + play do so through selective remembering. I have observed many such + role-players to refer to hours of unequivocally bored and contentious play + as "awesome!" given a week or two for mental editing. + + What I see from such groups is the following: + + * They use a highly customized house-version of a given rules-set, + usually AD&D, BRP, or an early edition of Champions; many of the + customized details are unrecorded. + + * They employ a personalized set of subtle cues and expectations that + arise out of their long-term friendships and habits of play. + + * The satisfaction-moments are rare to the extent of being perhaps a + yearly event. "Nothing happened tonight" is typical, but the group + believes that you don't legitimately get the cherished moments any + other way. Such moments are treasured and carefully repeated among + them. + + * Rarely, another person participates and (horrors!) actually overtly + moves the planchette, or discusses how it's being moved. That person + is instantly ejected, with cries of "powergamer!" and "pushy bastard!" + + * They're socially isolated from other role-players, as their play is so + arcane and impenetrable that no one else can easily participate. If + they go to cons, they go together, stay together, and leave together. + One of them buys a new game that "looks good," and they rarely if ever + try it, always rejecting it when they do. + + * They're socially isolated not only from gamers, but from everyone, + insofar as their hobby is concerned. Forget social context; it's just + these guys, aging, playing their tweaked versions of the game they + discovered in high school, reminiscing about that one awesome time + when character X did that awesome thing. + + Ouija-board groups vary in terms of how much fun they have, and I'll leave + further discussion of the phenomenon to the forums. + + Minor issues within Narrativist play + + The first minor issue is not really a big deal - simply, not everyone is + necessarily a whiz at addressing Premise even when they try. If they were, + we'd see a hell of a lot more great novels, comics, movies, and plays than + we do. Signs of "hack Narrativism" include backing off from unexpected + opportunities to address Premise or consistently swinging play into parody + versions of the issues involved. I don't see any particular reason to + bemoan or criticize this bit of dysfunction; all art forms have their + Sunday practitioners. + + The second is a recent phenomenon: the "do it right" purists, often + recently made aware of GNS or other theories, who then get on their fellow + participants' cases during play to accord with some theoretical ideal. + It's usually accompanied by the fallacy of focusing on one or more + Techniques as the "real" Narrativism. + + The third was mentioned earlier, based on the tendency for pre-game + preparation to develop Situation so far along the process of addressing + Premise, that the participants' input during play essentially delivers + only the final moments. I call such play "96%-ing," which can be + functional, but it tends to play safe to a degree that undercuts the + process. + + The fourth is maintaining privacy among the participants about what's + important to each one, whether about one's own character or the characters + of others. Such play might be thought of as keeping Premise personal and + close to the vest. That privacy may detract from others' enjoyment, + although see Ouija-board role-playing below for some further thoughts. + + The final minor problem is to resolve play-Situations rapidly and without + developing them much beyond the initial preparatory circumstances: "over + before it begins." This typically occurs when people are so floored by the + possibility of actually addressing a Premise through play, that they hare + off to do so before some RPG god notices and intervenes to stop them. + Usually, this sort of play is a short-lived phase as the group builds + trust with one another. + + Bad apple Narrativists + + All of this section concerns Narrativist play which is practically + guaranteed to be dysfunctional. It's really one thing, but it comes in two + versions depending on whether the person in question is acting as GM. + + The non-GM version is the Prima Donna, a devoted Premise-addresser - but + what he can't do is share. If a given scene is not about the issue that he + cares about, he disrupts things until it is. If his character is present + in a scene, then he'll demand center stage until forcibly stopped. He + understands protagonism, but won't permit anyone else to have it. + Essentially, he's the equivalent of the Hard Core Gamist, but with a + significant difference: only one person can do it successfully; it can't + even spread through the group. Prima Donnas are obnoxious, selfish, and + pushy. Their typical fate is to be removed from a group or to become its + GM (often to the present GM's consternation), in which latter case to + become a Typhoid Mary. + + What's a Typhoid Mary? Well may you ask. It's a would-be Narrativist GM + who uses tons of Force upon the player-characters. He introduces the + Premise and is emotionally invested in how the players are supposed to + address it, to the extent that he makes their characters' significant + decisions for them. Effectively, this means the other people are present + only to praise and reflect the GM's ego. Play amounts to "we tell the + story, but I'm writing it" - he continually demands that the players + appreciate his Narrativist aesthetic, but suppresses the same aesthetic in + their behavior. He prioritizes and insists upon Premise-addressing input + yet makes it subject to his approval. + + Such play is appallingly unrewarding and is rightly labeled railroading. + To sustain it, the Typhoid Mary must exert primary dominance over all + aspects of the Social Contract, which is usually not possible among + adults. I can think of no more effective means of ensuring that other + people never role-play again, than encountering a Typhoid Mary. Also, + unsurprisingly, get one Narrativist player with a spine in that game, and + it's root hog or die, the worst Force-vs.-Narrativist duel possible - such + conflicts have been known to disrupt romances, friendships, and even jobs + and marriages. + +Narrativist game design + + One reason I presented the big model of role-playing in this essay is to + say, game texts are no more nor less than recommendations, manuals, and + inspirational materials for play. For such texts to be effective, they + need to be clear and inspiring for all the levels in the model. I think + that Social Contract always comes first. Most especially for Narrativist + play, which has been textually marginalized throughout the hobby's + history, the game-rules' focus must expand to social and procedural + behavior at the table, not merely the Techniques subsets of scene and + conflict resolution. + + What to do + + I wrote a pretty sketchy little game in the early 1990s called "BSL," or + Bullshit-Less. You know what my friends said? "You can't read this like + you read a game book. To enjoy it, you'd have to play!" Much to my + surprise, that was a stone-wall stopping point for them. I had a terrible + time coming up with what they'd need to know in order to make that step + easily and quickly. I think that whatever a role-player is best at is the + last thing on earth that occurs to him or her to write about, and + Narrativist-oriented authors are especially in a jam, as they lack + precedents and examples. + + Looking over the diversity I listed earlier, I realize that an effective + manual or teaching text was Terra Incognita for Narrativist play until + very recently. Sorcerer, for example, was not written as a teaching text + for a general role-playing audience, although its supplements were. Now, + however, we have InSpectres, Dust Devils, My Life with Master, the three + Sorcerer supplements, Universalis, Trollbabe, Legends of Alyria, + HeroQuest, and more, all representing individual attempts. (I will leave + the very interesting question of why Everway failed in this regard to + future discussions.) + + So, the goal is to work through the big model, probably from the top down. + For a Narrativist-oriented game, the touchpoint throughout should always + be, what's the Premise? I think stating it right out in front of everybody + is the best way to go, or a version which is easily customized further. An + alternative might be to inspire the Premise through + Exploration-discussion, but it's risky - doing that usually works only for + Situation-based Premise games, like The Dying Earth. + + Let's look at that diversity again. Where does Premise come from? How much + do you have to work with, and how much improvisation is involved during + play itself? Is the story underway yet, and how close are the + decision/crisis points? Where's the spin in the System? Dice? Others' + input? Any negotiation/trading? IIEE must be dead bang center with what + you're driving at; does the reward system feed back into protagonism? + Prompt Endgame? Shift GMing roles? Or what? What does actual play look + like, in terms of Ephemera-combinations clustering to create and/or + support Techniques? + +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + Basic Source of GM Jobs: Story Resolution Behavior Thematic Content*: + Content: Premise Distribution Structure: and Reward: Mechanics: Risk factor; + Improv among Endings, See spectrum See depth; humor + vs. rock participants e.g. in essay spectrum + steady in essay + Sorcerer Steady Character Spread in Encouraged Connected: Middle High risk High + prep, by reward Short term depth Occasional + centralized system bonuses humor + in play Destiny and + goals in + Sorc & Sword + TROS Steady Character Centralized Varies by Connected: Middle Potential/variable + prep Spiritual risk Mild to + Attributes medium depth + Low/absent humor + Universalis Improv Varies Fully spread Varies by Fully Mild to Varies by group in + out prep identical none all three + (coins) + MLWM In Setting Mostly Fixed Connected: Extreme High risk Fixed + between centralized endgame Net medium depth Humor + consequences as defense + = Epilogue + HeroQuest Steady Setting Centralized None Fully Mild to Medium risk + identical middle Extreme depth Mild + but inescapable + humor + The Steady Situation Centralized Fixed Almost no Mild to High risk + Whispering conflict connection none Medium-low depth + Vault Low/absent humor + The Pool In Varies Mostly Varies by Fully Mild to Low risk, usually + between centralized prep identical none Mild if any depth + (dice) Humor varies by + group + InSpectres Improv Situation Partly Fixed Extremely Middle to High risk + centralized, conflict connected: strong Medium/fixed depth + with Stress and High humor + specific resources + non-GM input + moments + Castle Steady Setting Centralized None Almost no Mild to Low risk + Falkenstein connection none Low/variable depth + Occasional humor +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + + * Yes, this column is highly personal. Please feel free to fill it in + with your own assessments based on your play-experiences. + + Some food for thought: constraints + + A whole critique of the role of constraint in creativity is probably + beyond my powers, but I can't over-emphasize how important it's been in my + experiences of design, preparation, and satisfaction in any creative + endeavor. For role-playing, I think a designer should consider constraints + to be his or her most important ally: elements which, once established, + remain fixed and actively inform a whole suite of possibilities for the + future. Whether they concern Currency (e.g. Universalis), outcomes of + resolution (e.g. Sorcerer, The Riddle of Steel), character creation + options, behavioral choices, Setting, or whatever, strikes me as the + primary issue for designing games of any kind, and Narrativist goals need + them desperately. + + I foresee a whole slew of threads discussing the difference between + "restraint" and "constraint," so here I'll only bring up how effective + Paul Czege's decision to constrain Setting is for My Life with Master. + Once you know "about 1805, central Europe, isolated village," the doors + are thrown open to bring maximum creativity to bear on the key issues of + the game. For whatever reason, I think that this aspect of the game text + makes the rest, especially the tricky wide-open parts like "More Than + Human," much easier. By comparison, the designs of Dust Devils and + Sorcerer are currently a bit hampered by their wide-open settings, which I + now think require a little too much group-based customizing. Or, at the + opposite extreme, Trollbabe does provide the Setting constraint, but it's + so subculturally focused (you get it or you don't) as to limit access to + the game. My Life with Master provides not only the focus, but also a + topic which raises the same issues for practically anyone who encounters + it. Furthermore, as Paul says, if someone wants to change the setting, + they'll do it - but they're able to do so all the better because the + textual setting made sense to them. + + Pitfalls of Narrativist game design + + 1. The Timid Virgin. The reasonably successful Narrativist-leaning GM is + writing a game, and suddenly experiences a loss of nerve - he visualizes + all those other players out there who obviously don't play in this + fashion. One result is a kind of "but-but" motorboat effect scattered + through the generally Simulationist-reading text: admonishments to keep + non-GM participants from screwing up the apparently-Narrativist goals, + usually by pleading, scolding, or imposing sudden and apparently + out-of-place limits on the players' authority to provide input. Good + examples include Little Fears, The Burning Wheel, Fvlminata, and The Dying + Earth. + + Another sort of Timid Virgin effect is a full spin toward Force Techniques + in isolated spots, which is less schizoid in terms of the reading + experience, but perhaps more confusing in the long run. Sorcerer, Everway, + Zero, Prince Valiant, and The Whispering Vault all have this bi-polar + problem, which I think characterizes many early-to-mid-90s game texts. + + 2. Karaoke. This is a serious problem that arises from the need to sell + thick books rather than to teach and develop powerful role-playing. Let's + say you have a game that consists of some Premise-heavy characters and a + few notes about Situation, and through play, the group generates a + hellacious cool Setting as well as theme(s) regarding those characters. + Then, publishing your great game, you present that very setting and theme + in the text, in detail. + + From Over the Edge (Atlas Games, 1994; author is Jonathan Tweet): + + How to Use the Setting + + When I first played OTE, it was on about ten minutes' notice. I had some + notes on major background conspiracies, a few images of various scenes, + and a primitive version of the current mechanics. No map, no descriptions + of businesses, people, places, or any of the other useful tidbits that are + crammed into the previous two chapters. [He ain't kidding, and actually + it's the previous four chapters, 152 pages total, in the second edition - + RE] Naturally I winged it. + + That night were born Total Taxi, Giovanni's Cab's [sic], Cesar's Hotel, + and Sad Mary's, all now landmarks in the Edge. Things just happened. I + faked it. Since there's nothing that couldn't happen, anything I dreamt up + was OK. + + Now, however, you have a background explaining who, what, where, and when. + You're in a completely different situation from where I was back on that + first manic evening. + + [The rest of the section concerns converting the reader-GM's in-play + mistakes about the canonical setting into opportunities, as well as + altering it to taste; the suggestion that he may instead put himself + directly into Tweet's improvisational shoes at the outset is, to my eyes, + vividly absent - RE] + + [several pages later] Could vs. Should + + ... The first time I played OTE, I had a few pages of notes on the + background and nothing on the specifics. I made it all up on the spot. Not + having anything written as a guide (or crutch), I let my imagination + loose. You have the mixed blessing of having many pages of background + prepared for you. If you use the information in this book as a springboard + for your own wild dreams, then it is a blessing. If you limit yourself to + what I've dreamed up, it's a curse. + + All I see, I'm afraid, is the curse. The isolated phrases "mixed blessing" + and "(or crutch)" don't hold a lot of water compared to the preceding 152 + extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting. I'm not saying that + improvisation is better or more Narrativist than non-improvisational play. + I am saying, however, that if playing this particular game worked so + wonderfully to free the participants into wildly successful brainstorming + during play ... and since the players were a core source during this + event, as evident in the game's Dedication and in various examples of play + ... then why present the results of the play-experience as the material + for another person's experience? + + 3. Metaplot. From Sorcerer & Sword (Adept Press, 2001, author is Ron + Edwards): + + Metaplot. The solution most offered by role-playing games is a + supplement-driven metaplot: a sequence of events in the game-world which + are published chronologically, revealing "the story" to all GMs and + expecting everyone to apply these events in their individual sessions. + These published events include the outcomes of world-shaking conflicts as + well as individual relationships among the company-provided NPCs involved + in these conflicts. + + Metaplot of this sort, whether generated by a GM or a game publisher, is + antithetical to the entire purpose of Sorcerer & Sword. Almost inevitably, + it creates a series of game products that pretend to be supplements for + play but are really a series of short stories and novels starring the + authors' beloved and central NPCs. The role of the individual play group + in those stories is much like that of karaoke singers, rather than + creative musicians. + + Metaplot is central to the design of several White Wolf games, especially + Mage; all AEG games; post-first-edition Traveller; AD&D'2, beginning with + the Forgotten Realms series; as well as others. Nearly all of them are + perceived as setting-focused games, and to many role-players, they 'define + role-playing with strong Setting. + + However, neither Setting-based Premise nor a complex Setting history + necessarily entails metaplot, as I'm using the term anyway. The best + example is afforded by Glorantha: an extremely rich setting with history + in place not only for the past, but for the future of play. The magical + world of Glorantha will be destroyed and reborn into a relatively mundane + new existence, because of the Hero Wars. Many key events during the + process are fixed, such as the Dragonrise of 1625. Why isn't this + metaplot? + + Because none of the above represent decisions made by player-characters; + they only provide context for them. The players know all about the + upcoming events prior to play. The key issue is this: in playing in (say) + a Werewolf game following the published metaplot, the players are intended + to be ignorant of the changes in the setting, and to encounter them only + through play. The more they participate in these changes (e.g. ferrying a + crucial message from one NPC to another), the less they provide + theme-based resolution to Premise, not more. Whereas in playing HeroQuest, + there's no secret: the Hero Wars are here, and the more everyone enjoys + and knows the canonical future events, the more they can provide theme + through their characters' decisions during those events. + + In designing a Setting-heavy Narrativist rules-set, I strongly suggest + following the full-disclosure lead of HeroQuest and abandoning the + metaplot "revelation" approach immediately. + + 4. Sole reliance on deepening and detailing any aspects of Exploration is + misguided. The vast majority of attempted Narrativist design is a hunt for + the perfect Simulationist design that will ostensibly permit the + Narrativist play to emerge, leading to abashedness at best. It's often + combined with mistaking an effectiveness-improvement mechanic for a reward + system - at this point, the game text simply facilitates High-Concept + Simulationist play, and the Narrativist goal is left to Social Contract + alone. Various publishing practices, especially a long string of scenario + and setting supplememnts, provide the coffin nails. + + 5. Going "no system," especially for IIEE aspects of play, combines the + undermining aspects of both of the above two approaches, especially when + the author idealizes story as a product rather than Narrativist play as a + process. Don't forget, all role-playing has a system; turning it over to + "oh, just decide and have fun" merely makes the system crappy and prone to + bullying. + + Frankly, un-structured Drama turns out to be ill-suited to Narrativist + play. It's clear why people turn to it so consistently; years of suffering + through task-resolution systems that fail to resolve conflict, with the + attendant Simulationist creep of rules-revisions during the 1980s, is + enough to put any aspirant Narrativist off of "rules" and "systems." + + The Window (latest version 1997, author is Scott Lininger) makes a brave + attempt at this approach to play: + + You see, after trying what seems like a million different systems during + our own series of roleplaying games (perhaps you've seen this, too), we + slowly realized that no matter what rules we were using, the interaction + between the characters essentially ran the same. No matter what rules we + were using, the combat always moved along with the same ultimate effects: + it was just a question of how long it took to get there. Even the + character creation worked in the same way, or at least was visualized in + the same way. + + As it was, our style had become more important to us than the system. We + spent many times the creative energy developing the world and our + characters than we did figuring up percentages, regardless of the genre we + chose. It wasn't the individual stats and skills that made us love our + characters, rather it was their actions and their personalities and how + they fit into the overall story. + + The only time we really noticed which rules were being used was when they + somehow got in the way, as they inevitably did! That was the seed. We + decided that it was time for a system that would stay in the background... + be invisible as a pane of glass... + + There are plenty of explicit Narrativist goals stated in The Window, + especially its Third Precept: + + This is a big idea, though a simple one. It starts with the realization + that the actors and the Storyteller are all cooperating toward the same + goal: If everyone takes equal responsibility for the quality of the story + then all will benefit when it really starts working. + + There are times when a good actor will let go of their own ego and let the + story take precedence over their character. There are times when a good + Storyteller will allow the actors to narrate scenes. The days of rival + camps delineated by a GM screen are over. Though obviously the + Storyteller's vision is what creates the seeds of roleplaying, nothing + much will grow without the actors' input. An open, out of character dialog + about the direction of the story should be maintained so that the + Storyteller knows what's working and what's not. + + Strive for originality in all things. Your characters, their actions, and + their contribution to the narrative are totally up to you to decide, and + the essence of roleplaying is a creative one. Don't allow yourself to fall + back on stereotypes, and remember that what you create when you sit down + to roleplay is totally unique to you and your group of friends. The story + you mutually envision should be your own. + + The Window includes a dice-rolling mechanic, but most of its resolution is + handled through Drama, with or without the rolls. Unfortunately, the + unstructured-Drama system of the game is anything but invisible - it must + be redefined and "referenced" at every moment of play. Contrary to popular + belief, it demonstrates the highest Points of Contact of any sort of + role-playing. Furthermore, it's the one mode of attempted Narrativist play + which fails to prioritize or organize protagonism. It mistakenly asssumes + that narration yields Narrativism, and that constraints on narration are + necessarily restraints on Narrativist play. + + What's the problem with this? Why am I being so harshly critical? It all + goes back to Force - if establishing the IIEE circumstances is under one + person's control, without reference to any System features, then scenes' + outcomes become the province of that person. Which in turn means that the + decisions and actions of player-characters are now details of this one + person's decisions. Narrativist de-protagonism is the near-inevitable + result. + + 6. Fleeing to Social Contract to solve everything. Some designers, + enthralled by the idea that input does not have to be restricted to or + filtered through a central person, rely on the hope that everyone feels + like contributing extra-protagonist content at any given moment. + Unfortunately, this creates a "dead ball" effect in which one must create, + on the spot, both adversity and its resolution from whole cloth. People + apparently prefer a fair amount of context and constraint in order to + provide input instead. + + A related tendency is to rely on restraint, stating or implying that "good + players wouldn't do that!" I suggest two alternative approaches: (1) that + System provide "rebound" or consequences to make the variety of choices + interesting, and (2) stating explict Creative Agenda expectations up + front. + + The biggest pitfall of all, though, needs a section of its own. + + The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast + + All right, here we go. This section represents a different angle of attack + for me - I'm not discussing System or mechanics design at all, just the + "how to role-play" texts. Some of the following games have, in my view, + very focused Creative Agenda content in contrast to these sections; other + games, not listed or discussed, are comparatively muddled in procedural + terms but have crystal-clear "how-to" sections. So this is entirely about + the "how-to" text, nothing else. + + From Space: 1889 (1988, GDW Inc, author is Frank Chadwick): + + Each adventure is a story, and the player characters are its heroes, but + with an important distinction: Their actions are not determined by an + author, but rather by the players themselves. + + [From the chapter "The Referee"] + + ... it is a good idea to conduct as many of the event resolution die rolls + as possible yourself and then announce the results. This makes the game + seem less mechanical to the players and enables you [to] add a secret die + roll modifier here or there to make things come out right without anyone + being the wiser. [Elsewhere in the text it is specified that this section + applies to critical events for the story - RE] + + From Traveller (1996, Imperium Games Inc., authors are Marc Miller, Lester + Smith, Tony Lee) + + The Players + + Like a novel author or an actor in a drama, each player in a role-playing + game creates a persona, or character, to portray in the game ... the + player responds to the situation of the adventure as it unfolds, deciding + what the character would say or do in that situation. They don't just + watch the character, they choose the character's options. + + The Referee + + Management of the game is performed by a special player known as the + referee. ... Like the director of a movie, the referee judges what can and + cannot be accomplished in a particular scene. + + From Tsyk (1996, Propaganda Publishing, author is Serge Stelmack): + + Number Two: The personas are the property of the players. + + Tsyk is not about players versus the GM. It is about the cooperative + weaving of a tale that everybody can enjoy. It does not make sense to use + the powers of gamemastery to try and dominate the personas, or to be + spiteful over their successes in the game. + + Though it is the job of the GM to guide the characters through the + adventure, it is always the decisions of the players that dictate the + actions of the personas. + + From Agone (2001, Multisim Publishing, authors include Sebatian Celerin, + Mathieu Gaborin, Stephane Marsan, Frederic Weil, and others): + + ADVICE TO THE EG + + The role of the Eminence Grise is crucial. He is the balance-keeper of the + game. He must prepare - and often create from scratch - thrilling plots + and describe the settings and their inhabitants ... In short, he enables + the players to live a good heroic-fantasy adventure. He must create a tale + in which the players' characters have the lead roles, in which they can, + through their actions, bring the story to one end or another. + + In our world, the EG would be called a director or storyteller. Indeed, he + is simultaneously writer, director, and actor in a play or movie, which + improvises itself as hours of gameplay fly by. + + From Undiscovered (2001, Eilfin Publishing, authors include Adam D. + Theriault, Antonio da Rosa, Philip Theriault): + + Guiding Your Adventures + + Let the players control their own fate. Although it is your story, you + must follow the whims of the characters. It is, after all, their lives + they are playing out. The characters must have the freedom to choose their + own fates, not just do what the AG tells them to do. It is your job, + however, to guide the characters through the story you have created. + + What could any of this be saying? How is Entity A creating the tale, + guiding characters through the adventure, judging what can be accomplished + in a scene, making things come out right, and "your story" to be + reconciled with Entity B being "like a novel author," determining + characters' actions, bringing a story to an end, and having the lead + roles? As plain explanation, all such text is unmitigated nonsense. It's + such nonsense, that personalized readings that themselves make sense are + often projected onto it, as what the authors "must obviously" have meant. + Two such projections include: + + 1. Players of the protagonists always provide those characters' + decisions, especially climactic ones that drive the resolving scenes; + the GM-role is there to provide relevant adversity for everyone else, + e.g. managing scene framing, Bangs, and pacing. + + 2. The GM has the story decisions, i.e., wields substantial Force. + "Story" isn't coming from player decisions at all and may be + considered, itself, a piece of Explorative-material input from the GM. + Everyone else is providing color and material through + pseudo-decisions. + + Both of these are perfectly reasonable approaches to play. Don't mistake + your solution as justification for Impossible Thing game text. If a person + is stuck in the rhetoric of The Impossible Thing, he tends to seize his + personal solution and embrace it like a life-raft, rejecting any + examination of the Thing itself. + + No one is safe, apparently. From Maelstrom (Hubris Games, 1994, author is + Christian Aldridge): + + What happens in a game + + Characters will have goals they want to attain, and obstacles to overcome. + The story that the narrator creates will provide the setting and the plot. + In that plot the characters might stumble into adventure accidentally, or + become embroiled in international espionage, or choose to seek out fame + and fortune as tomb-robbers or pirates. The important point is that the + players author the tale through the actions of their characters. + + Gaaaahh! Right there in a book studded with some of the finest applied + Narrativist techniques known to role-playing, there it squats, pulsing! + Based on the rest of the text as well as my discussions with Aldridge, I + know the first "provide the story" in this excerpt indicates adversity; + the second ("author the tale") indicates Narrativist protagonism. But + without that distinction in mind, reading such explanations is agonizing; + one can see the author filling in phrases he is accustomed to seeing in + role-playing texts, then, clearly realizing he's written something he + didn't mean, correcting himself mid-paragraph, resulting in a + contradictory hash. + + As discussed earlier, the issue hinges on the super-big red herring called + "the plot, the story." It can mean so many things: - the NPCs' plan to do + something, which is irrelevant in GNS terms, as that's merely in-game + adversity, a staple of any role-playing. - given the definite article and + given a pre-player-decision context, it's absolutely anathema to + Narrativist play. - stripped of that article and given a purely post-play + context, it means nothing more than story, and is irrelevant for prep for + Narrativist play. + + It's also easy to get distracted by the word "GM." A person may have a + mental tautology going between "GM" and "power," with a corresponding + death-grip on his or her perceived responsibility to perform and + entertain. Once the term is understood to be a set of independent roles + which may be distributed differently across the participants, then the + whole thing becomes a lot easier. + + As far as game design and text is concerned, The Impossible Thing is easy + to avoid. All you have to do is be up-front about where and how those + GM-roles are distributed. If you're doing a solid Simulationist game with + a strong story emphasis via Force, say so and don't bleat about "players + control their characters' decisions" (see Call of Cthulhu and + Arrowflight). If you're doing a solid Narrativist game, keep Force out of + it entirely (see Dust Devils, InSpectres, and My Life with Master). + +The hard question + + I suggest that both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and + automatic, with easy-to-see parallels in other activities and apparently + founded upon a lot of hardwiring in the human mind (or "psyche" or + "spirit" or whatever you want to call it). Whereas I think Simulationist + priorities must be trained - it is highly derived play, based mainly on + canonical fandom and focus on pastiche, and requires a great deal of + contextualized knowledge and stern social reinforcement. This training is + characterized by teaching people not to do what they're inclined to. No + one needs to learn how to role-play, but most do need to learn to play + Simulationist, by stifling their Gamist and/or Narrativist proclivities. + Such training is often quite harsh and may involve rewards and punishments + such as whether the person is "worthy" to be friends with the group + members. + + If the typical role-playing preferences among humans are Gamist and + Narrativist, then play based on these modes should be easy to pick up, + easy to spread, and easy to sell, and I think it is all three. However, + since the typical role-playing text and typical training is Simulationist, + the net effect is to bump the majority of interested people away from the + hobby after first contact, and to consolidate the Simulationist primacy in + all evident features of the hobby, as opposed to the potential ones. This + is one of several reasons why the hobby remains decidedly fringe. + + So the first question is, how about you? Are you Simulationist-by-habit, + which is to say, well-trained to this mode by the first group you + encountered? If so, is that what you really want? If so, then excellent. + But! If not, if you'd rather be addressing Premise, then you have a lot of + habits to break - perhaps even those which, in your mind, originally + defined the activity. + + The second, larger question is much like the Gamist one: why role-play for + this purpose? Why this venue, and not some more widely-recognized medium + like writing comics or novels or screenplays? Addressing Premise can be + done in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of artistic media. To play Narrativist, + you must be seizing role-playing, seeing some essential feature in the + medium itself, which demands that Premise be addressed in this way for you + and not another. What is that feature? If you can't see one, then maybe, + just maybe, you are slumming in this hobby because you're afraid you can't + hack it in a commercial artistic environment. Maybe you even hang with a + primarily-Simulationist group, with the minimal levels of satisfaction to + be gained among them, because it's safe there. + + But let's say you do answer that question, and hold your head up as a + Narrativist role-playing practitioner, addresser of Premise. Fine - now + you have to ask yourself whether you can handle artistic rejection. That's + right, no one might be interested in you. This is exactly what all + aspiring directors, screenwriters, novelists, and other practitioners of + narrative artistry face. In which case, you'll have to decide whether it's + because your worthy vision is unappreciated and should seek new + collaborators, or because your vision is simply lacking. It's not an easy + thing to deal with. + + But let's say that's all resolved too, and you are holding the brass ring: + successful and fulfilling Narrativist play with a great bunch of fellow + participants, fine and exciting content from your and the others' work, + and the sense of worthy artistry. Now for the final conundrum: what will + you sacrifice to sustain it? Maybe your spouse is tired of the time you + spend on this; maybe you and a fellow group member get a little too close; + maybe you decide your art would be even better if your best friend's sorry + ass was no longer gumming up the group's work. Can you make those sorts of + choices? Can you live with the results? + + Good luck with it. No one ever claimed that balls-to-the-wall artists were + necessarily easy to live with. + +Glossary + + The following terms continue the lists at the end of the essays + "Simulationism: the Right to Dream" + ([24]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/) and "Gamism: Step On Up" + ([25]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/), which themselves are + additions to the definitions given in "GNS and other matters of + role-playing theory" ([26]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/). Which is + a polite way of saying go look at all of them, for now. A complete + glossary is under way. + + Bangs + + Introducing events into the game which make a + thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary + for a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer. + + Black Curtain + + My term for the techniques a GM may employ to keep his use of + Force hidden from the other participants in the game, such that + they are at least somewhat under the impression that their + characters' significant decisions are under their control. See + Illusionism. + + Blood Opera + + Play in which character generation focuses on potentially + irreconcilable differences among at least some of the characters, + and in which scenario generation is designed to put as much + pressure on these differences (and therefore on unexpected + alliances as possible). Notable for high mortality rates among + characters, in the manner of Reservoir Dogs. The term was coined + by Ralph Mazza, Jake Norwood, and myself after playing an + especially masochistic session of The Riddle of Steel during + Origins 2003. + + Bob (from Sex & Sorcery) + + Withholding response or otherwise mandating a "rest" in the + Premise-addressing action of play. + + Conflict resolution + + A technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on + conflicts of interest, rather than on the component tasks within + that conflict. When using this technique, inanimate objects are + conceived to have "interests" at odds with the character, if + necessary. Contrast with Task resolution. + + Congruence + + Term coined by Walt Freitag to describe the theoretical + possibility of simultaneous play of different Creative Agendas + which, although fulfilling very different needs for their + employers, are also mutually supportive between those employers. + The existence of sustained congruence remains controversial. + + Cross (from Sex & Sorcery) + + Introducing effects from previous scenes into current scenes, + although the scenes do not contain the same protagonists. + + Deprotagonize (Paul Czege) + + To limit or devalue another person's opportunity to establish + their character as a protagonist during Narrativist play. Note + that this is specific to Paul's use of Protagonism strictly in the + limited Narrativist context. + + Egri, Lajos + + the author of The Art of Dramatic Writing (1946); see Premise. + + El Dorado + + Coined by Paul Czege, a term for the unrealizable ideal of + consistently addressing Premise through explicitly Simulationist + play. + + Force + + Originally called "GM-oomph" (Ron Edwards), then "GM-Force" (Mike + Holmes) - Control over the protagonist characters' + thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the + character's player. The Force is an especially good term for this + phenomenon, due to (1) its sense of imposed mandate and + strength-in-control (not just input), and (2) its parodic Star + Wars connotation - whatever you want the plot to be, "use the + Force!" + + Ouija-board role-playing + + Coined by me in this essay, a form of Illusionism practiced among + all the participants upon one another to conceal both Step On Up + and Story Now priorities from one another. + + Pastiche + + An artistic production which relies on invoking pre-existing + productions' features for its primary effect; at worst, a simple + imitation, but at best, potentially a strong secondary commentator + on the original text. Often associated with "fanfic" or other + forms of homage. + + Premise (adapted from Egri) + + A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early + in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is + best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological + challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions. + Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story + transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about how + to act, behave, or believe. + + Prima Donna + + A Narrativist player who engages in Premise-addressing, but will + not share screen time or Premise-significant decision-making time + with other participants. An extremely dysfunctional subset of + Narrativist play. + + Protagonism + + A problematic term with two possible meanings. (A) A + characteristic of the main characters of stories, regardless of + who produced the stories in whatever way. (2) A characteristic set + of behaviors among people during role-playing, associated with + Narrativist play, with a necessary equivalent in Gamist play and + possible and Simulationist play. + + Railroading + + Control of a player-character's decisions by the GM, or + opportunities for decisions, in any way which breaks the Social + Contract for that group, in the eyes of the character's player. + + Simulationist-by-habit (Jesse Burneko) + + A form of synecdoche which defines "role-playing" according to + certain historically-widespread Simulationist approaches to play." + The system's job is to provide the physics of the game-world" is a + good example. + + Story + + an imaginary series of events which includes at least one + protagonist, at least one conflict, and events which may be + construed as a resolution of the conflict. + + Story Now + + a mode, or Creative Agenda, in which Premise is addressed through + play. The epiphenomenal outcome for the transcript is almost + always a story. + + Task resolution + + a technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on + within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the + acting character is competent to perform a task. Contrast with + Conflict resolution. + + Transcript + + an account of the imaginary events of play without reference to + any role-playing procedures. A transcript may or may not be a + story. + + Transition (coined by Fang Langford) + + Changing from one Creative Agenda to another through the course of + play using rules designed to make that process easy. + + Typhoid Mary + + A GM who employs Force in the interests of "a better story," + usually identifiable as addressing Premise; however, in doing so, + the GM automatically de-protagonizes Narrativist players and + therefore undercuts his or her own priorities of play, as well as + being perceived as a railroader by the players. An extremely + dysfunctional subset of Narrativist play. + + Vanilla Narrativism: Narrativist play without notable use of the following + techniques + + Director Stance, atypical distribution of GM tasks, verbalizing + the Premise in abstract terms, overt rules concerning narration, + and improvised additions to the setting or situations. People who + typically play in this fashion often fail to recognize themselves + as Narrativists. + + Weave (from Sex & Sorcery) + + A GM technique of bringing NPC activities closer to the + player-characters and to introduce multiple responses among NPC + and player-character actions. + + -------------------------------------------------------------------------- + + Last updated 29-Jan-2004 09:56:35 CDT + + The Forge created and administrated by [27]Clinton R. Nixon and [28]Ron + Edwards. + All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their + designated author. + +References + + Visible links + 1. file:/// + 2. file:///about/ + 3. file:///donate.php + 4. file:///articles/ + 5. file:///reviews/ + 6. file:///resources/ + 7. file:/// + 8. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com + 9. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 10. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/ + 11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/ + 12. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8655 + 13. http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/ + 14. http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/ + 15. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/ + 16. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1 + 21. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 22. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/ + 23. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/ + 24. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/ + 25. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/ + 26. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 27. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com + 28. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com diff -r 624c702e7fec -r 90028d83d4ea references/simulationism_the_right_to_dream.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/simulationism_the_right_to_dream.txt Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,1651 @@ + The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games + [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles | + Forge [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums + + + Simulationism: The Right to Dream + by [8]Ron Edwards + + Many thanks are due to Clinton R. Nixon, Paul Czege, Jared A. Sorensen, + Ralph Mazza, Christopher Kubasik, and Mike Holmes for comments on the + manuscript. Several points, key text quotes, and nuances of argument + wouldn't be in the article without their input. All inconsistencies or + argumentative flaws, on the other hand, may be laid at my door. + + This is the first of three essays about the three GNS modes of + role-playing. Each one is about both play and game design, with the + former as the basic issue, and each one is intended to develop the + points made in my "GNS and related matters of role-playing design" + essay. I'm also drawing upon ideas I didn't express in that essay and + many, many points of debate at the Forge over the last year. The + original essay cleared up a lot of acrimony and misunderstanding that + had arisen in the previous years, and I'm hoping that the current series + plays an even more positive role in the current context - not only to + remove negative connotations and interpretations (which are now much + fewer anyway), but to encourage mutual understanding and appreciation + among all role-players about all the available modes of play. + + Each essay isn't a segregated unit only about that one mode. Each will + include more general issues, especially if they pertain especially if + not uniquely to the mode under discussion, and each one is intended to + clarify and develop "GNS and related matters" as a whole. Also, each one + concludes with a Hard Question for those who prefer that mode of play. + Each Hard Question is supposed to be interesting on its own, but I hope + that the three taken together will be much more than merely + "interesting." + + Simulationist role-playing has a great deal of power and potential. In + the previous essay, I wrote that it "... is expressed by enhancing one + or more of the listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System, + Color]; 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." + + Exploration reviewed + Obviously the thing to do is to get as clear an understanding of + "Exploration" as possible. It's our jargon term for imagining, + "dreaming" if you will, about made-up characters in made-up situations. + It's central to all role-playing, but in Simulationist play, it's the + top priority. + + I need to stop th'flow for a moment to explain some background, though. + My original notions were mainly laid out in "System Does Matter," my + first essay about all this stuff, based on my readings about the + Threefold Model proposed in the r.g.f.a. discussion group. At the Gaming + Outpost, lots of debate ensued about my essay, and eventually a poster + called the Scarlet Jester objected to the term Simulationism in terms of + its connotations, offering "Exploration" as the replacement - defined as + the enjoyment of the "dream" or the imagination as an act in itself. He + called his model "GENder" as an alternative to the then-existing GNS. + + GENder made a lot of sense to me, with one exception: Exploration, to + me, seemed to be involved in all of role-playing. I decided to modify + GNS severely and "float" the three modes on a "sea" of Exploration. In + that context, Simulationist play priorities suddenly made more sense - + as I saw it and still do, unlike Narrativist and Gamist priorities which + are defined by an interpersonal out-of-game agenda, Simulationist play + prioritizes the in-game functions and imagined events. + + From the introduction to RuneQuest, second edition (The Chaosium, 1978, + 1979, 1980; specific author for this text unknown; game authors are + Steve Perrin, Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, and Warren James): + + What is a fantasy role-playing game? + A role-playing game is a game of character development, simulating the + process of personal development commonly called "life." + + [In fairness, later text in the introduction brings in some adversarial + GM/player context that sounds more Gamist, but the above quote is + reinforced more often throughout the book's rules and text.] + + From the introduction of Skyrealms of Jorune, 3rd edition (Chessex + Publications, 1992, author is Andrew Leker): + + Is it possible to win at role-playing? The whole idea of role-playing + is to have a good time. Players work toward a common goal, often + survival, but sometimes helping a friend in need, or accomplishing a + task of unquestioned importance. Although there will be no winner or + losers in an absolute sense, you will have the satisfaction of + watching your character think through challenges, survive + confrontations with other races, grow, and develop new skills. + + [Note the synecdoche: the "whole idea."] + + From the introduction to Marc Miller's Traveller (1996, author is Marc + Miller): + + ... the players' enjoyment comes from identifying with the character + and vicariously experiencing the situation with that character, just + as the reader of a novel and the viewer of a movie identify with the + character ... + + [The above text is followed by some Impossible Thing Before Breakfast + text which will be discussed in the Narrativism essay.] + + What's fun or good about that? Simulationist play looks awfully strange + to those who enjoy lots of metagame and overt social context during + play. "You do it just to do it? What the hell is that?" + + However, contrary to some accusations, it's not autistic or + schizophrenic, being just as social and group-Premise as any other + role-playing. The key issues are shared love of the source material and + sincerity. Simulationism is sort of like Virtual Reality, but with the + emphasis on the "V," because it clearly covers so many subjects. Perhaps + it could be called V-Whatever rather than V-Reality. If the Whatever is + a fine, cool thing, then it's fun to see fellow players imagine what you + are imagining, and vice versa. (By "you" in that sentence, I am + referring to anyone at the table, GM or player.) To the dedicated + practitioner, such play is sincere to a degree that's lacking in + heavy-metagame play, and that sincerity is the quality that I'm focusing + on throughout this essay. + + Sincere shared creativity: all role-playing has to have it. For some, + it's the whole point. + + Is the term fatally flawed? + More than once, people have called for abandoning the term "simulation" + in its entirety. Most of the objections arise from connotations of one + sort or another, since it gets used for all sorts of recreational or + applied things. If it's Simulationism, then what's it Simulating, and + what form does the resulting Simulation take? + + For better or for worse, this issue has never really struck home for me. + My call is that the term is is defined locally and historically, and not + really descriptive as such ("simulating") in nearly any application. + Here's the variety that I see: + + * Simulation in wargaming = historical plausibility ("realism"). + * Simulation in computer games = rendering, reaction time. + * Simulation in behavioral terms = "let's pretend" in terms of our + expressions, gestures, and voices. + * Simulate in emotional terms = related to lying, as in dissimulate or + simulated passion. + + Since the term does not carry a single meaning among all the other + contexts, assigning a specific meaning for role-playing just seems to be + par for the course and not especially or intrinsically confusing. + Hastily added: "to me." Maybe I'm just obdurate. + + Taking it role-playing specifically, a new issue arises: it's awfully + hard to get at goals of any kind right out of the texts. A good place to + start is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, in just about the first text ever + that tried to explain what was going on (Dungeon Master's Guide, first + edition, 1979, TSR; the author is Gary Gygax): + + Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best described as + the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D + is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any + realism ... It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. + ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun + and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. + + How to parse this? It seems unequivocal. However, first, this text is + palpably disingenuous regarding "simulates nothing" - the immense + efforts devoted in this book to the importance of in-game time and + in-game justifications of hit-points, retainer/hireling opinions, costs + for castle parts, and much more, do not support his claim. Second, and + more importantly, Gygax is speaking from a 1970s perspective of + role-playing existing as a subset of wargaming. What he calls simulation + or realism, I call historical accuracy; what he calls "game" + (imaginative, creative), I call Exploration. As an "umbrella point," + although D&D and AD&D of this era were procedurally mainly Gamist, all + accompanying text by Gygax in any publication represents, I think, very + hard-line post-wargame Simulationism as conceived by GNS theory. + + A somewhat lesser issue concerns whether I'm doing great violence to the + term Simulationism as proposed in the original Threefold Model. My + answer to this has two parts. (1) The Threefold definitions, for all + three modes, tend to benefit in this debate from being moving targets + over the years. (2) My set of theorizing, usually called "GNS" although + I'm starting to wish for a better umbrella term, explicitly disavows any + need for consistency with the Threefold. + + However, although I'm not convinced it's necessary, one possible + solution has arisen. Jack Spencer proposed "Emulation" for the goals of + play that I currently call Simulationism. If I felt any need for a + wholly new term, this would probably be it. + + Baseline Simulationist practice + The five elements of role-playing as laid out in my GNS essay are + obviously where we start. Modelling them is the ideal. My first point + about that is that the model need not be static; dynamic characters and + settings, for instance, are perfectly valid Simulationist elements. My + second point is that different types of Simulationist play can address + very different things, ranging from a focus on characters' most + deep-psychology processes, to a focus on the kinetic impact and + physiological effects of weapons, to a focus on economic trends and + politics, and more. I'll go into this lots more later. + + The second point is that the mechanics-emphasis of the modelling system + are also highly variable: it can handled strictly verbally (Drama), + through the agency of charts and arrows, or through the agency of + dice/Fortune mechanics. Any combination of these or anything like them + are fine; what matters is that within the system, causality is clear, + handled without metagame intrusion and without confusion on anyone's + part. That's why it's often referred to as "the engine," and unlike + other modes of play, the engine, upon being activated and further + employed by players and GM, is expected to be the authoritative motive + force for the game to "go." + + The game engine, whatever it might be, is not to be messed with. It is + causality among the five elements of play. Whether everyone has to get + the engine in terms of its functions varies among games and among + groups, but recognizing its authority as the causal agent is a big part + of play. (To repeat, the engine's extent and detail aren't the point; I + could be talking about a notecard of brief "stay in character" + requirements or a 300-page set of probability charts.) By the way, + moving the GM into a position of authority over the rules/system is a + derived state of the rules' authority; I'll discuss that later. + + Many Simulationist systems also emphasize modularity - you've got the + baseline engine for what happens, so for specialty phenomena, whatever + new rules go on top must not violate or devalue that baseline. When a + system is very strong in this regard, it's what most people call + "universal" or "generic," by which they mean customizable through + addition. + + My final point is that this mode requires clear + player-character/real-person boundaries, in terms of in-character + knowledge and metagame knowledge. There's no single set of boundaries + that applies to all ways to play Simulationist, but whatever they are in + a given instance, they must be clear and abided by. + + How-to-play text + A lot of game texts in this tradition reach for a fascinating ideal: + that reading the book is actually the start of play, moving seamlessly + into group play via character creation. Features of some texts like the + NPC-to-PC explanatory style and GM-only sections are consistent with + this ideal, as well as the otherwise-puzzling statement that character + generation is a form of Director stance. It supports the central point + of this essay, that the value of Simulationist play is prioritizing the + group imaginative experience, to an extent that expands the very notion + of "play" into acts that from Narrativist or Gamist perspectives are not + play at all. + + This ideal poses two problems: one for the GM in particular, and one for + the group as a whole. + + The GM problem, only partly solved by GM-only sections, is that it makes + it very hard to write a coherent how-to explanation for scenario + preparation and implementation. Putting this sort of information right + out "in front of God and everybody" is counter-intuitive for some + Simulationist-design authors, because it's getting behind the curtain at + the metagame level. The experience of play, according to the basic goal, + is supposed to minimize metagame, but preparation for play, from the + GM's perspective, is necessarily metagame-heavy, and if reading the book + is assumed to be actually beginning to play ... well, then a certain + conflict of interest sets into the process. + + The usual textual solution is to assume that the GM is already on the + same page and to address him or her as a co-conspirator. In many games, + however, such information is outright punted, such that a GM must bring + a particular set of experiences and values to the text in the first + place in order to play the game. + + The whole-group problem is that individually-conducted character + creation often produces differing conclusions about the point of play + from player to player, which is to say, the characters are fully + plausible and created by the rules, but are also manifestly incapable of + interacting in terms of any one person's desired genre/setting. The + classic example in fantasy-adventure play is the party including a + paladin and an assassin; the one in superhero play is the super-team + that includes both a Spider-Man clone and a Wolverine clone. + + The usual textual solution is to urge that all character creation be + subject to the approval of the GM, which in practice poses some + problems. For instance, it assumes that the Social Contract of the game + group permits such authority and presents no procedure to follow if that + happens not to be the case. Also, I have never seen any text explaining + what a GM is supposed to do or to say to the player regarding how to + re-write the character or to design a new one; every example, and there + are many, seems to assume that the GM "just knows" how to communicate + the je ne sais qua to the player. + + I suggest that genuinely helpful, teaching-oriented text that does not + fall into synecdoche ("real role-players," etc) would be a tremendous + benefit to presenting straightforwardly Simulationist games. Such text + would include methods for GMs to prepare scenarios from a fully-metagame + perspective - which is to say, the ideal of the book "being play" would + have to be lost temporarily - as well as methods for the GM's work + during character creation itself. Furthermore, this text would have to + be practical and compelling to players in a way that "All character + creation is subject to the approval of the GM" is not - for instance, it + would inspire players to avoid the paladin-assassin problem on their + own, during the creation of the first characters rather than the second + ones. + + Historically, such text has been rare. Well, actually, it's rare for any + mode of play, but I submit that Simulationist-oriented games have tended + to have special trouble with it due to the widely-held ideal of treating + the text experience as play. + + Internal Cause is King + Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what + happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the + imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements tie together, as well + as how they're Colored, are intended to produce "genre" in the general + sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to + emerge without extra attention. It's a tall order: the relationship is + supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on + "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda. + Since real people decide when to roll, as well as any number of other + contextual details, they can take this spec a certain distance. However, + the right sort of meaning or point then is expected to emerge from + System outcomes, in application. + + Clearly, System is a major design element here, as the causal anchor + among the other elements. As I outlined in the previous essay, System is + mainly composed of character creation, resolution, and reward mechanics. + + During character generation, layering and overt currency are frequently + employed to engage the player in Simulationist play during the process. + + Layering may be employed to establish and identify the character's + plausibility in terms of the game-world itself. For a look at the + historical differences among games, compare the methods for establishing + player-character skill competence in early RuneQuest (Simulationist) + with those of Hero Wars (Narrativist). In Hero Wars, the system limits + how many of the thirty or so starting abilities are assigned high values + (two really good ones and one great one), but not which ones. Whereas in + RuneQuest, every skill has a starting-character value based on its + commonality and difficulty to learn, and every skill is rated in money + regarding learning higher values of competence, based both on difficulty + to learn and who teaches the skill. Hero Wars character creation, which + is minimally layered, isn't concerned with the implausibility of having + a mastery-level in Greatsword be just as "likely" as having it in + Farming; RuneQuest character creation, which is maximally layered, + emphatically is. + + To repeat, the above point is historical. Whether the distinction I've + drawn holds for any and all Simulationist play potential, I don't know. + + A related issue is prerequisite attributes and abilities for a given + ability, which represent a further step of layering. Prerequisites are + common in historical Simulationist and Gamist design, and in the former, + I think they are present specifically to reinforce the same + plausibility/likelihood issue. + + For currency, consider Champions or many of the games based on its + principles. From a Simulationist perspective on play, if a given feature + costs more than another, or if it can be traded off with some other + feature, or if it plus another feature mathematically yield a third, + then it's all built to focus attention and assign cause from "is" to + "does" in the imagined game-context. That cause must be (a) engaging (as + for any RPG) and (b) causally continuous through the layers, providing + for many equally-functional, equally-plausible, and potentially + equally-enjoyable options. + + I think this combined approach and perceived purpose of layering and + currency is why attribute + skill systems have remained entrenched - a + strong sub-set of the Simulationist perspective demands that the + in-world ontogeny of a character's ability be integrated into the + process of establishing it on the character sheet. + + Resolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about + the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important + during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions + and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two + games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with + childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning + bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game + (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play. + Before talking about dice or other specific resolution mechanics, I'll + discuss two elements of Resolution which are rarely recognized: the + treatment of in-game time and space. These are a big deal in + Simulationist play as universal and consistent constraints, which must + apply equally to any part of the imagined universe, at any point during + play. + + To talk about this, let's break the issue down a little: + + * In-game time occurs regarding the actually-played imaginary moments + and events. It's best expressed by combat mechanics, which in + Simulationist play are often extremely well-defined in terms of + seconds and actions, but also by movement rates at various scales, + starship travel times, and similar things. + * Metagame time is rarely discussed openly, but it's the crucial one. + It refers to time-lapse among really-played scenes: can someone get + to the castle before someone else kills the king; can someone fly + across Detroit before someone else detonates the Mind Bomb. Metagame + time isn't "played," but its management is a central issue for + scene-framing and the outcome of the session as a whole. + * Real time is, of course, the real time of play as experienced by the + people at the table. I think comparing between its flow and that of + the in-game time is a crucial issue as well - when is a huge hunk of + real time necessary to establish a teeny bit of in-game time, and + vice versa? + + The following text is also from the first edition of the Dungeon + Master's Guide (TSR, 1979); the author is Gary Gygax. + + Game time is of the utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track + of time expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies + in the game. ... + + One of the things stated in the original game of D&D was the + importance of recording game time with respect to each and every + player-character in a campaign. In AD&D it is emphasized even more: + YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN UNLESS EXTENSIVE RECORDS ARE + KEPT. + + [provides an example, then:] + + You may ask why time is so important if it causes such difficulties + with record-keeping, dictates who can or can not go adventuring during + a game session, and disperses player characters to the four winds by + its strictures. Well, as initially pointed out, it is a necessary + penalty imposed on characters for certain activities [making magic + items - RE]. Beyond that, it also gives players yet another + interesting set of choices and consequences. The latter tends to bring + more true-to-life quality to the game, as some characters will use + precious time to the utmost advantage, some will treat it lightly, and + some will be constantly wasting it to their complete detriment. Time + is yet another facet which helps to separate the superior players from + the lesser ones. + + That latter point bears close, close examination. Gygax is not talking + about winning, I think, but about a quality. This is his value judgment + about how to play this game. His "true to life quality," I think, is + synonymous with his earlier reference to creativity and imagination, or + Simulationism (prioritizing Exploration) as defined by me. + + Gygax's text perfectly states the Simulationist view of in-game time. It + is a causal constraint on the other sorts. One can even find, in many + early game texts, rules that enforce how in-game time acts on real time, + and vice versa. However, most importantly, it constrains metagame time. + It works in-to-out. In-game time at the fine-grained level (rounds, + seconds, actions, movement rates) sets incontrovertible, foundation + material for making judgments about hours, days, cross-town movment, and + who gets where in what order. I recommend anyone who's interested to the + text of DC Heroes for some of the most explicit text available on this + issue throughout the book. + + So much for time; now let's talk space. Rules for characters' movement + in the imagined space of the situation go all the way back to wargaming, + in the (to us oldies) familiar forms of grids and hex-maps, counters, + and even rules or tape-measures. The original context was pretty + large-scale: the movement of troops, heavy vehicles, squadrons, and so + on. For role-playing in the "new" sense, the scale got bumped down to + the individual level, and so came to emphasize facing, movement rate, + turn rate, number of personal actions, and similar. + + The interesting thing is that most of these specific details have been + lost in most, although not all, Simulationist rules design over the + decades, with nary a whimper. Why? Because second-to-second kinetics + ceased to be (or rarely were) the issue of Exploration at hand, + particularly in genre-heavy play (see later). The Situation of interest + typically isn't "facing" when we want Character, Setting, System, + Situation, and Color to fire on shared cylinders with full + internal-consistency and agreed-upon thematic outcomes. + + It's significant, I think, that movement-specific mechanics do remain in + many Gamist RPG design as an element of tactical challenge. + + Now for the more nitty-gritty resolution mechanics, or DFK (Drama, + Karma, Fortune). Historically speaking, the System has been based on + task resolution, not conflict resolution, regardless of scale. Don't + mistake "conflict" for "large-scale task." This point is independent of + the system's complexity; it applies to rock-paper-scissors and GM-fiat + as well as to dice and tables. + + The causal sequence of task resolution in Simulationist play must be + linear in time. He swings: on target or not? The other guy dodges or + parries: well or badly? The weapon contacts the unit of armor + body: + how hard? The armor stops some of it: how much? The remaining impact + hits tissue: how deeply? With what psychological (stunning, pain) + effects? With what continuing effects? All of this is settled in order, + on this guy's "go," and the next guy's "go" is simply waiting its turn, + in time. + + The few exceptions have always been accompanied by explanatory text, + sometimes apologetic and sometimes blase. A good example is + classic hit location, in which the characters first roll to-hit and + to-parry, then hit location for anywhere on the body (RuneQuest, GURPS). + Cognitively, to the Simulationist player, this requires a replay of the + character's intent and action that is nearly intolerable. It often + breaks down in play, either switching entirely to called shots and + abandoning the location roll, or waiting on the parry roll until the hit + location is known. Another good example is rolling for initiative, which + has generated hours of painful argument about what in the world it + represents in-game, at the moment of the roll relative to in-game time. + + The most common Simulationist resolution is handled through Fortune, + specifically Fortune-at-the-End. This term refers to a dice roll (or + cards, or whatever) which is consulted after all possible pre-resolution + description of the actions in question has been delivered. Its + alternative, Fortune-in-the-Middle, is not historically observed in + Simulationist game design. (See glossary for definitions and links.) + + A useful way to look at Fortune in much Simulationist play is to think + of anything that isn't rolled as being a 100% outcome on an implied + roll. The extreme view (see the Purist for System category below) is to + interpret the whole shootin' universe as tacitly operating according to + the d100 or the 3d6 or whatever that's used to handle character task + resolution. + + An entire discussion awaits concerning the shape of dice curves, + modifiers' effects, separate vs. incorporated effects, and more. I look + forward to this on the forums. Also, more details about resolution in + Simulationist games are presented below, when I break down the sub-types + in detail. + + Finally, reward mechanics remain a topic of vast debate and design + potential in Simulationist games. I think the following historical + categories barely scratch the surface. + + BRP style: character improvement is literally a function of play just as + any other action, via practice and study. This is the famous "if you + succeed with a skill during play, roll over your skill percent between + sessions in order to improve." The pitfall is graininess, such that one + can then start debating about whether one should learn more or less + across ten "hits" against one opponent vs. one hit each for ten + opponents, why one does or doesn't learn from a failed attempt, and how + study is to be rated and applied (much less how it's to be played) + relative to the "experience" methods. + + Hero style: the player gains points simply for being there (despite + attempts at parsing it, that's what it amounts to), and the + point-allocation based cost of character creation continues to be + applied. The character is added to in terms of the points that were + originally used to assemble him, and arguably as an expression of the + same in-game developmental processes involved. In this case, the + point-gains are metagame, but the spending is supposed to use in-game + logic, sometimes reinforced by "corralling" sections of the character + off from one another. The pitfall is reaching degrees of improvement + which themselves violate the genre-level standards of that particular + play, which some games overcome by making the intersession correspond to + substantial in-game time. + + In either case, the key issue is that character change potentially + disrupts the current relationship among the components of the character. + Options to fix the problem are generally unsatisfactory: (1) slow it + down, and (2) permit only tiny changes. One option, rarely seen, is to + include kind of a secondary, add-on game with its own set of components, + as with Rune status in RuneQuest. (I realize that not everyone knows all + of the games I'm referencing, and I certainly don't have all historical + RPGs memorized. This topic definitely calls for more discussion in the + forums, where we have room to describe all the various examples in + detail.) + + The diversity of Simulationist game design + Here's a quick overview of existing diversity in Simulationist play. I'm + focusing on fun, functional, coherent play - none of the following is a + criticism or indictment. Also, I've tried to represent as many + creator-owned titles as possible, but I'll refer to others as needed. + + My overall point is that, although Simulationist play is defined as + prioritizing Exploration of the five elements, its diversity is not a + five-headed, one-element-per-submode hydra. All five elements are always + involved. In defining the subtypes of this mode of play, here are the + issues: (1) whether Exploring System is primary, and (2) which of the + other elements are necessary "support" or "chassis" and which ones are + diminished in emphasis. + + Purists for System + What games are these? EABA, JAGS, SOL, Pocket Universe, and Fudge are + deliberately "generalist" regarding setting. The big commercial models + are GURPS, BRP (in its "unstripped" form), DC Heroes (now Blood of + Heroes), Rolemaster, D6 (derived and considerably Simulationized from + Star Wars), and the Hero System (as such, mainly derived from Danger + International and Fantasy Hero rather than early Champions). Whether D20 + should be included in this category is a matter for some debate. + + These games' five-element structure is consistent: System + Color + thereof, Setting, then Character + Situation. I'm trying to think of one + which switches the role of character before setting, which might include + some some superhero games. It might seem odd that Color is placed so + high in priority, but consider the engineering-text model for the game + text of GURPS - this is, actually, Color for System. + + A lot of people have trouble with the notion of "Exploring System." They + argue that playing a game like Fudge is necessarily Setting-first. I + disagree, but this debate properly belongs in the forums. + + In these games, the System is all about Fortune and all about Currency. + + Regarding Fortune, probabilities are the key to achieving the basic + Simulationist internal-cause priority. Consider both comparative + probabilities among characters at a given moment as well as + probabilities in transition within a character over time - in action + (actually resolving tasks), these are what drive the game. For these + games, a unified probability mechanic to handle any game-modelled + instance is the ideal, usually resulting in a single tables-based + concept such as the Universal Table in DC Heroes. + + Purist-for-System designs tend to model the same things: differences + among scales, situational modifiers, kinetics of all kinds, and so + forth. The usual issues surrounding incorporated vs. unincorporated + effects, opposed vs. target number mechanics, the interaction of + switches and dials, and probability-curvature shape are therefore the + main things to distinguish these systems from one another. Compared to + other designs, high search and handling times, as well as many + points-of-contact, are acceptable features. (Please see the Glossary for + the definition of points-of-contact). + + Here's some text from the introduction to SOL: the Omniversal + Role-playing System (1994, Heraldic Games; the author is Keith W. + Sears): + + I wanted to make an RPG that went beyond those described as + "Universal", "Generic", or "Multi-genre." Many of the games with these + tags fall short of what they're supposed to be...playable in any genre + of fiction. + + It seems that whenever a very unusual situation pops up, many of these + "universal" games must revise the rules they already have in order to + cover it. An example would be the climactic battle between a very tiny + man and a normal-sized spider in the movie, The Incredible Shrinking + Man. You can't simulate that in most RPGs without a major reworking of + the rules just to handle that one situation. SOL was created to + encompass roleplaying on any scale--from gods to viruses. + ... + [in terms of my overall point for this essay, I couldn't help but + include his sign-off phrase - RE] Keep Dreaming! + + Regarding Currency, in these games, the imagined universe is made of + "points." Therefore character creation and often resolution are often + characterized by layering: paying points to get values for named scores, + which themselves are mathematically derived to produce effective values. + Interestingly, in-game money and possessions are often considered merely + another facet of the universe that can be expressed in these points. + This relationship between points and reality seems very well entrenched + in Purist for System design, which is understandable, as it provides + concrete insights to the internal-cause heart of the game that a player + can latch onto prior to play. + + In terms of character/player roles, characters in these games are + solidly defined in terms only of my third and fourth categories: in-game + character occupation, and the specific abilities that are associated + with or in addition to that. (See the glossary for a discussion of these + terms.) + + In this sort of design, there's no possible excuse for any + imperfections, including scale-derived breakdowns of the fundamental + point/probability relationships. The system must be cleanly and at the + service of the element(s) being emphasized, in strictly in-game-world + terms. A good one is elegant, consistent, applicable to anything that + happens in play, and clear about its outcomes. It also has to have + points of contact at any scale for any conceivable thing. It cannot + contain patch-rules to correct for inconsistencies; consistency is the + essence of quality. + + As I see it, Purist for System design is a tall, tall order. It's + arguably the hardest design spec in all of role-playing. + + In play, these games offer a lot of diversity because both the + character-to-player relationship and the GM-to-outcomes relationship are + fully customizable. Players might well utilize Pawn stance as Actor + stance or any other, and the GM may care greatly about a given goal or + situation to be set up during play, or not at all. The only required + priority is to enjoy the System in action. (I'm not claiming here that + the other four elements are irrelevant, though.) + + High Concept + In cinema, "High Concept" refers to any film idea that can be pitched in + a very limited amount of time; the usual method uses references to other + films. Sometimes, although not necessarily, it's presented as a + combination: "Jaws meets Good Will Hunting," or that sort of thing. I'm + adopting it to role-playing without much modification, although + emphasizing that the source references can come from any medium and also + that the two-title combo isn't always employed. + + The key word is "genre," which in this case refers to a certain + combination of the five elements as well as an unstated Theme. How do + they get to this goal? All rely heavily on inspiration or kewlness as + the big motivator, to get the content processed via art, prose style, + and more. "Story," in this context, refers to the sequence of events + that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre + during play. + + This sort of game design will be familiar to almost anyone, represented + by Arrowflight (Setting), Pax Draconis (Setting), Godlike (Setting), Sun + & Storm (Setting + Situation), Dreamwalker (Situation), The Godsend + Agenda (Character-Setting tug-of-war), The Collectors (applied Fudge, + Situation + Character), Heartquest (applied Fudge; Character), Children + of the Sun (Setting), Fvlminata (Setting), and Dread (Situation + + Character), Fading Suns (Setting), Earthdawn (Setting), Space: 1889 + (Setting), Mutant Chronicles (Setting), Mage first edition (Character), + Mage second edition (Setting), Ironclaw (Setting), and Continuum + (Setting with a touch of System). Many Fantasy Heartbreakers fall into + this category, almost all Setting-based. Some of the best-known games of + this type include Tekumel, Jorune, Traveller (specifically in its + mid-80s through mid-90s form), Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, Nephilim, + Feng Shui, the various secondary settings for AD&D2 like Al-Qadim, and + quite a few D20 or WEG games which rely on licensing. I am coming to + think of D20 as a kind of High Concept chassis, a very new and + interesting development in RPG design. + + Also, most incoherent game designs are partly or even primarily High + Concept Simulationist as well, with AD&D2 and Vampire (first edition) as + the best-known examples. + + At first glance, these games might look like additions to or + specifications of the Purist for System design, mainly through plugging + in a fixed Setting. However, I think that impression isn't accurate, and + that the five elements are very differently related. The formula starts + with one of Character, Situation, or Setting, with lots of Color, then + the other two (Character, Situation, or Setting, whichever weren't in + first place), with System being last in priority. + + I also recommend examining Theme carefully. In this game, it's present + and accounted for already, before play. The process of prep-play-enjoy + works by putting "what you want" in, then having "what you want" come + out, with the hope that the System's application doesn't change anything + along the way. + + Character creation is far more delimited as well, relying heavily on + Setting and Situation. In this case, the "points" are pure metagame for + purposes of making characters; they don't reflect or underly the + universe in action as in the Purist for System games. Starting + characters tend to be very colorful and described by many terms and + numbers, but relatively static: waiting for their hook, so to speak. + Hooks are often built-in; unlike the Purist for System methods, the + player-to-character relationship usually includes my second "role level" + in addition to the third and fourth. + + Quantitatively, the more common character creation methods (which are + not unique to Simulationist design) include less layering but more + nesting (i.e. options within options, as well as the one-from-column-A, + one-from-column-B approach established by Vampire), and almost always + the relatively clumsy "GM approval" proviso. The specific method is + usually based on points, but sometimes with Fortune methods to render a + character role/type less likely to occur (making them more expensive + with points also aims at this function). Notably, in-game money isn't + modeled by the point-system during play. + + The System is not all about Fortune, either, and these games can be very + uneasy in this regard. Dice-based resolutions sometimes represent much + noise and effort about not much effect, i.e., random factors tend not to + deviate from expected results very much. Some games display a small + range of possible Effect (i.e. damage rarely harms an opponent very much + at a time), slight metagame adjustments to minimize extreme results, or + a lot of offered strategies for the GM to soften or redirect the effects + that occur. + + Points-of-contact are far more directional; things which aren't relevant + to the Explorative focus are often summarized and not "System'ed" with + great rigor. When done well, such that the remaining, emphasized + elements clearly provide a sort of "what to do" feel, this creates an + extremely playable, accessible game text. Dread offers the perfect + example for the lower points-of-contact end; Arrowflight and Godlike are + similar but more reassuringly nail-even-the-irrelevant-down at the + higher points-of-contact end. The truly outstanding games illustrating + this latter approach are Call of Cthulhu, Unknown Armies, and Pendragon. + + However, when it's done badly, resolutions are rife with breakpoints and + GM-fiat punts, and a great deal of effort during character creation + yields little sense of what the character is is about to do. + + Reward systems in High Concept games are typically quite slow-acting, + requiring several sessions of play for any in-game benefit to kick in. + Strangely, they are also often hard to find in the texts, being + shoehorned in among character creation or GM instructions, or with their + parts (how to award points, how to spend points) dispersed. + + High Concept play can be divided neatly into those which are greatly + concerned with "the big story" and those which are not. Historically, + the latter used to be the most common: Call of Cthulhu, Jorune, or more + recently Dread and Godlike, in which "the story" only refers to a record + of short-term events and set-pieces. However, following the spearhead + for this type of game text, Ars Magica, now the long-term story-type is + more common. A lot of internet blood has been spilled regarding how this + phenomenon is or is not related to Narrativist play, but I think it's an + easy issue. The key for these games is GM authority over the story's + content and integrity at all points, including managing the input by + players. Even system results are judged appropriate or not by the GM; + "fudging" Fortune outcomes is overtly granted as a GM right. + + The Golden Rule of White Wolf games is a covert way to say the same + thing: ignore any rule that interferes with fun. No one, I presume, + thinks that any player may invoke the Golden Rule at any time; what it's + really saying is that the GM may ignore any rule (or any player who + invokes it) that ruins his or her idea of what should happen. + + The functional version of such play is properly called Illusionism, + which has undergone a good deal of debate and clarification at the Forge + (see glossary). Most of these game texts overtly instruct the GM to + practice Illusionism, for example in Arrowflight (2002, Deep 7; the + author is Todd Downing). + + Driving the Plot + Once you've constructed your magnum opus of a campaign plot, the + players will inevitably find ways to exploit, ignore, or downright + break all of your hard work. You can either let that happen, or you + can crack the whip and get them back in line. Don't be afraid of + exploiting a character's past or weakness to ensure complicity. After + all, you are the storyteller. Without you, they'd be playing Monopoly. + Some of the tried and true methods of driving a plot are as follows: + + - Start the characters off in Adversity. Strip them of everything ... + - Alternately, have them called upon to serve the Common Good ... + - Appeal to any number of Baser Instincts ... + - Force them in a certain direction with Rule of Law ... + - Similar to the Rule of Law, you can direct your players with Threat + of Bodily Harm ... + + Whatever you do, make sure it is not a no-win scenario. Nothing will + frustrate and alienate players more than a dead end with no way out. + + "Story" emerges from the GM's efforts in this regard, with players being + either cooperative (passively or actively), or obstreperous, in which + case various "don't let them take over" methods are encouraged. Players + are enjoined to immerse, by which they mean "keep your metagame agenda + out of it," at the aesthetic level. It's best understood as Illusionism + by full consent, which is what keeps it from being railroading, in that + instead of making a story as an author does, the player is enjoying + being in the story. In system and character generation terms, that's + pretty much what's empowered to happen. I'll give this entire topic a + full comparison and analysis in the Narrativism essay. + + A final point: writing a High Concept Simulationist game is actually + much easier than writing a Purist for System one, as complex + Setting-prep or Situation-prep have a lot in common with writing a story + and knowing "how it's supposed to go" but not finishing it. However, + playing this kind of game is actually harder in some ways - everyone + must be pumped about the in-game content, but without reference to a + corresponding metagame. Check out [9]Mongrel to see what you think of my + take on this sort of game design. + + Rules-lite Story or Character priorities + This section is likely to get me into trouble, so I'll tread carefully. + I suggest that many self-described "rules-lite" or "story-oriented" + role-playing games represent a derived version of the High Concept + model, slanted heavily toward Situation - especially Situation which is + under complete GM control, overt or covert. Players get to contribute + tons of Color, even content, but never outcomes or final-resolutions, + and playing the character as conceived is the first priority, sometimes + taken to extremes of Actor Stance (e.g. Turku play, see the Glossary). + Character and Situation are prioritized with Color, with Setting next, + and lastly the formal System, which is slanted strongly toward + Drama-mechanics. This mode of play may be strongly linked with LARP + crossovers. + + Here's my point: in application, a covert System is heavily, heavily + entrenched, regardless of whatever to-hit modifiers or dice rolls have + been peeled away. This system is based on Social Contract (what we all + agree is "good" or "fun") and Social Context (i.e. the subculture that + players belong to), and it is sternly reinforced through these means. I + think it's significant that literal referees - on-the-spot judges of + what can and cannot happen - are a necessary feature as soon as groups + get beyond a certain size. + + It's not just High Concept though. It looks like it - the heavy emphasis + on story/genre, with overt eschewing of System, but it's also (a) + actually pretty heavy on Drama-driven or Karma-driven System and (b) + emphasizes customizable Settings as in Purist for System play. So I + think it's worth its own category. + + From the introduction to Theatrix (1993, Backstage Press, authors are + David Berkman, Travis Eneix, and Brett Hackett): + + Making a story come to life can be a difficult task. Previous + generations of game systems have been rules bound, trapped within + their own structure and rigidity. We wanted to produce a game that + would help you in every way, not hinder you. So we developed a system + of rules that is written to evolve along with your style of + storytelling and roleplaying. These rules can be used to guide every + facet of the game's progress, without becoming intrusive. You can use + all the rules, or easily peel them away in layers, until you're + running free-form games. The rules heavily encourage adopting this + style of play, making themselves unnecessary. + + In other words, the system helps create story by fading away, much like + the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I think that this whole design + effort arises from a desire for "big story" in the face of + Purist-for-System design and mainly Fortune-driven High Concept design. + In the effort to get out of that sort of Simulationist play, the thought + is to get rid of the System that supports it, with any explicit System + being perceived as that sort of system. I consider this a problematic + design goal but it's widespread enough to merit a category. What makes + it difficult to discuss is that its explict story-creation goals are + similar to those of Narrativist play, but the operational process is + stripped-down High Concept Simulationism. (See the GNS stuff below for + further discussion.) + + Fudge includes some text that might qualify it for this category, but + operationally, the "story-oriented" reader who is captured by this text + will swiftly be puzzled by the rules' emphasis on layered task + resolution and repeated (and repeated) focus on scaling. I think Fudge + is best described as low-search&handling-time Purist for System instead. + + I'm probably going to catch heat for this, but it seems to me that The + Window and Theatrix both lend themselves toward this mode of play, if + Drifted a bit from their textual tenets, on the basis of their systems + and the GM's ability to organize the IIEE elements of play with a free + hand. (See the Glossary for the definition of IIEE.) + + Some of the difficulties of this mode of play are outlined in the + comparison with Narrativism and my criticisms of transparency below. + + Setting-creation and universe-play mechanisms + Another derivation of the Purist for System approach brings the Setting + creation process directly into play itself. The System-driven elements + of the Setting are as "active" as any particular character might be, + during play as well as during preparation. Basically, the setting is + played, even created, as a part of regular play. + + Boink! I just realized that the original Traveller, or at least one way + to play it, represents an example of this approach. Star system and + planet creation are written right into the process of play, such that + adventures and missions become not only a means of enjoying and + improving characters, but also a means of enjoying and basically mapping + the game-space. This is very distinct from later versions of Traveller, + which were emphatically High Concept with a Setting emphasis. (Oh, and + just for credit where it's due, I should also mention that Traveller + pioneered the mechanics of overt character-creation-as-play.) + + This mode of play is not merely creating more setting through + preparation as play progresses. It relies on doing so in a system-driven + fashion much like character creation, carried out as an overt or + near-overt part of actual play. + + It's a pretty rare form of play and design, probably because the + economics of splat-book publishing overwhelmed the hobby, and Traveller + itself, from the mid-1980s onwards. The more recent examples include + Aria, Multiverser to some extent, and the currently-in-development The + Million Worlds. The design spec is to achieve the Color/kewl power of + High Concept with the uncompromising power and consistency of the + Purists for System, via inserting the explicit metagame world-creating + ability. I think this approach is interesting for the level of Director + stance potentially involved and I look forward to more role-playing + evolution along these lines. + + Historical note: BRP + Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the + most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in + the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and + arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising + Simulationist design. + + It's kind of hard to discuss just how it was influential, as its very + first appearance as a pamphlet accompanying a boardgame wasn't widely + distributed. The influence operated primarily through the popularity of + both RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu. Looking across the early versions of + these games as well as Superworld, Questworld, and more, I think BRP is + identifiable as a Purist for System design and publishing. It's really + probably the precursor for the later GURPS mode of publishing. + + However, that vision, plan, or phenomenon, whatever, swiftly evolved + into High Concept, both in RuneQuest (Setting) and Call of Cthulhu + (Situation) as they hit their early-mid-80s forms, which is what most + people are familiar with, I think. Call of Cthulhu remains High Concept + to the present day, whereas RuneQuest, upon being licensed to and + redesigned to the specifications of Avalon Hill, essentially evolved + into a new Purist for System game, with the setting, Glorantha, + relegated to the background at most. Moving into the late 80s and early + 90s, the new BRP games (Pendragon, Nephilim) represented fairly radical + Drifting of Cthulhu-style BRP into their respective High Concepts. + + GNS crossover issues + As usual for GNS-heavy text, I'll speak of games themselves in the GNS + terms, but with the proviso that I'm really speaking about the play + itself that is typical of or best supported by the rules of those games. + + First, the FAQ + Q: Can Simulationist design be Abashed? + + A: Sure. "Abashed" refers to design that must be Drifted in order to + play because incompatible priorities are present among different parts + of the rules. It's different from Incoherent design in that such Drift + is easy and minor. Technically, an Abashed game is already at least two + modes (or sub-modes); e.g. I've said that Little Fears represents + Abashed Narrativist design, but it should really be called Abashed + Narrativism/Simulationism. + + Q: So "Abashed" means combined? + + A: No. Combined GNS modes which work well together would be "Hybrid." + There's a whole section on that below. Abashed games must be Drifted + (i.e. their rules must be operationally changed, or some sections + ignored) in order to play. + + Q: Can Simulationist play be Vanilla? + + A: Well, we don't say Vanilla and Pervy any more (too rude for some, + apparently). Now we talk about Points-of-Contact being low or high for + given portions of rules. But to lapse back into the old terminology, + yes, it can. Dread is a veritable poster child for Vanilla Sim, which I + would generalize to mean a High Concept Simulationist design with low + Points-of-Contact and a high emphasis on Situation. Pervy Sim basically + just ups the Points-of-Contact as well as the emphasis on Exploring + anything regardless of topic, which pretty much describes any member of + the Purist-for-System category. + + Character generation + Character generation text and methods are extremely diverse within each + GNS mode, which is one of the reasons I favor group communication during + this phase of pre-play. For instance, some Gamist-ish games utilize + point-allocation systems, which looks similar to the widespread method + in Simulationist-ish games. However, for Gamist purposes, this method is + all about strategizing tradeoffs, rather than establishing a fixed + internal-cause to "justify" the character. Similarly, Gamist character + creation utilizing Fortune methods isn't the same as the few + Simulationist randomized methods - in the former, it's a lot like + gambling, whereas in the latter, it's about a character maturing through + Fortune's vagaries represented by in-game effects like culture, weather, + disease, and so forth (e.g. Harnmaster). + + Narrativist character creation in some games requires a fair amount of + back-story, just as some Simulationist play does, but in the former, + it's about establishing a chassis for conflict, metagame, and reward, + and in the latter, it's about Coloring the character and providing + oppportunities for GM-created hooks. I rank the conflict between these + concepts, during play, among the highest-risk situations for the + survival of a gaming group. Strategies to resolve this conflict, whether + social or design-oriented, are currently not well-developed in the + hobby. + + Metagame mechanics + The term "metagame" is problematic throughout this essay for + Simulationist play and rules design. Metagame mechanics, by definition, + entail the interjection of real-people priorities into the + system-operation. Now, it is foolish to speak of Simulationist play as + lacking metagame; that would only apply if the people at the table were + themselves rules-constructs as well as the rules, and that's silly. But + compared to Gamist and Narrativist play, Simulationist play may be + spoken of as lacking metagame [i]interpersonal agenda[/i], like + "winning" or "doing well" in Gamism, or addressing a Premise in + Narrativism. Its metagame, although fully social, is self-referential, + to stay in-game. I recognize that it's a problematic issue and I look + forward to some discussion about it. + + To clarify for purposes of the essay, compare the following: (1) an + in-game essence or metaphysical effect called "Karma," which represents + the character's moral status in that game-universe according to (e.g.) a + god or principle in that game-world; (2) a score on the sheet which has + literally nothing to do with the character's in-game identity, also + called "Karma," recognized and applied by the real people with no + in-game entity used to justify it. In both systems, Karma is a + point-score which goes up and down, and which can be brought into play + as, say, a bonus to one's dice roll. But I'd say that #1 is not metagame + at all, and #2 is wholly metagame. + + Mechanically, how do they differ? One thing to consider is how the score + goes up and down - by player-use, or by in-game effects? Another is + whether the score is integrated with the reward/improvement system - + does spending a Karma reduce one's bank of improvement points? In fact, + is Karma a spent resource at all? Still another issue is whether in-game + effects must be in place, or inserted into place, to justify its use. No + one of these indicators is hard-and-fast, however; one must consider + them all at once, and how they relate to Simulationism (and + non-Simulationism) is a fascinating issue. At this point I tend to think + that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them - + character or player. + + I suggest that Trouble in Orkworld, Hero Points in Hero Wars, and + Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel are Resource-based metagame + mechanics, whereas Power in RuneQuest, Sanity in Call of Cthulhu, and + these mechanics' many derivatives in other games, are straightforward, + non-metagame Resources. Similarly, I suggest that the role-playing + bonuses based on out-of-game neatness in Sorcerer are metagame, whereas + the Stunt rules based on difficulty or unlikelihood in Feng Shui are + not. + + It's a tough discussion, though. One confounding factor is that metagame + mechanics are often present as "fixes" of otherwise-Simulationist + systems that proved to be mildly broken in play. The trouble with such a + thing is that it can lead to serious Drift of the sort that breaks + Social Contracts or renders systems incoherent. + + Hybridization + As far as I can tell, Simulationist game design runs into a lot of + potential trouble when it includes secondary hybridization with the + other modes of play. Gamist or Narrativist features as supportive + elements introduce the thin end of the metagame-agenda wedge. The usual + result is to defend against the "creeping Gamism" with rules-bloat, or + to encourage negatively-extreme deception or authority in the GM in + order to preserve an intended set of plot events, which is to say, + railroading. In other words, a baseline Simulationist focus is easily + subverted, leading to incoherence. + + Whether this issue can be resolved by future designs and Social + Contracts is unknown. Speaking historically, though, AD&D2, Vampire, and + Legend of the Five Rings are especially good examples of incoherent + design that ends up screwing the Simulationist. You have Gamist + character creation, with Narrativist rhetoric (especially in Vampire). + You have High Concept Simulationist resolution, which is to say, easily + subverted by Gamism because universal consistency is de-emphasized. And + finally, you have sternly-worded "story" play-context, which in practice + becomes game-author-to-GM co-conspiracy. The net result is a fairly + committed Simulationist GM presiding over a bunch of players tending + toward more agenda-based play of different kinds. + + What happens? All the wedges widen, and the unfortunate thing is that + the more everyone likes the basic, fun interest of the topic ("genre") + at hand, the worse the rift becomes. + + * The aggravated Narrativist leaves the play situation after butting + heads with the GM over the "story." Arguably, the early White Wolf + games in general are responsible for what amounted to a mass exodus + of Narrativist-oriented role-players from the hobby in the + mid-1990s. + * The Gamist runs rampant, moving from sportsmanlike + challenge/competition (as would be found in a coherent Gamist + design) to "break the system" vs.-game, vs.-GM + challenge/competition. The group typically either dissolves or + evicts the Gamist player; evictees find one another and enjoy + themselves with gusto, Drifting the rules significantly and focusing + on player-vs.-player challenge/competition. They tend to be quite + public and large-group oriented, via on-line and LARP play. [AEG was + clever enough to recognize this phenomenon and incorporate it into + the L5R market strategy.] + * The Simulationist, whether GM or player, fights a losing battle + against the Gamist, often feeling betrayed and desperate. + Simulationist groups which survive this conflict tend to be very + insular, clique-ish, and GM-centered, with the GM seen as the + conduit or channeller to "the game" as published. Such a GM is + usually given carte blanche authority over the social, system, and + plot-oriented content of the game, and the players become fairly + subordinated to the content of play. The group often Drifts the + rules significantly to reflect and reinforce the immediate Social + Contract; simultaneously, they become defensive and protective + regarding the game title as a subcultural item. + + Champions, especially second and third editions, presented a fascinating + case of this same phenomenon for a game design that could functionally + Drift in any of the three directions (in all cases requiring severe + rules-interpretation and "fixing"). Thus Champions play could be + observed in all three modes, all of which were emphatically incompatible + and socially segregated. Champions fourth edition represents a + "takeover," if you will, by the Simulationist interpretatation, mainly + due to the editor of the line at the time. + + Hybrids are much better off using Simulationism as a secondary design + feature, rather than as the primary. The Riddle of Steel is a successful + hybrid because its primary Narrativist emphasis is so mechanically + influential and integrated with the reward system, that it cannot be + ignored or subverted. Even so, it's interesting to observe the + consistent Simulationist reading of TROS' text, rife with suggestions + for repair of "obviously" inappropriate elements, by people who have not + played the game. + + Rifts as well as well as many fantasy-adventure games use Simulationist + design features (heavy Setting Exploration) to support its primary + Gamist emphasis; I'll discuss this in more detail in the Gamism essay. + + Shit! I'm playing Narrativist + In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, + except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is + already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. + Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even + its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and + players buy into this framework in order to play at all. + + The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing + protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and + Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of + literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback. + + I'll provide two examples, a simple one and a complex one. + + The simple one: Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai + player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look + pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But + what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play? + I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the + character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral + profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the + formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for + failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to + which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS + (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the + parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the + crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play + in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion + would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of + contract. + + The complex one: Consider the behavioral parameters of a knight + player-character in The Riddle of Steel and in Pendragon. This one's a + little trickier for a couple of reasons, first because Pendragon has two + sets of behavioral rules, and second because both games permit a + character's behavioral profile to change. + + 1) The Pendragon knight includes a set of paired, dichotomous Traits + (e.g. Worldly / Chaste) which are scored numerically, and which change + scores inversely. They are used either (a) as behavior-establishers + (roll vs. Cruel to see whether you behead the churl for his rudeness) or + (b) as record-keepers for player-driven behavior (you beheaded him? + Check Cruel, which increases its chance to raise its score later). The + Riddle of Steel knight has no equivalent system to (a); all character + behavior is driven by the player. Its Spiritual Attributes, however, do + rise and fall with character behavior much as Pendragon's (b). + + 2) The Pendragon knight also may develop one or more Passions, which are + expressed in the form of a fixed set of bonus dice for actions that + support that Passion. These are established through play and may + increase, although not decrease; different Passions may conflict within + a single character. The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes (Drive, + Destiny, Passion, Faith, Luck, and Conscience) act as bonus dice much as + in Pendragon Passions but (a) may be individually eliminated and + substituted with another Spiritual Attribute by the player with very + little restriction, and (b) are intimately connected to the most + significant character-improvement mechanic. + + I suggest that both games include the concept that personal passion is a + concrete effectiveness-increase mechanic, but that Pendragon does so in + a "fixed-path-upwards" fashion (when the knight's passions are + involved), whereas The Riddle of Steel does so under the sole helm of + the player's thematic interests of the moment. Furthermore, the latter + game directly rewards the player for doing so. + + I may be a little biased about this issue, but it seems to me that a + character in Narrativist play is by definition a thematic time-bomb, + whereas, for a character in Simulationist play, the bomb is either + absent (the GURPS samurai), present in a state of near-constant + detonation (the Pendragon knight, using Passions), or its detonation is + integrated into the in-game behavioral resolution system in a "tracked" + fashion (the Pendragon knight, using the dichotomous traits). Therefore, + when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, + poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of + a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity + being necessary. + + Before anyone flips out, stop for one more point, which is that my + perceived time-scale of play for all the above points is quite high. I'm + talking about whole sessions and sets of sessions, not moment-to-moment + combat decisons or dialogue. So the "poof" is a pretty prolonged thing + (and I better not develop this metaphor any further either). + + Many people mistake low time-scale techniques like Director stance, + shared narration, etc, for Narrativism, although they are not defining + elements for any GNS mode. Misunderstanding this key issue has led to + many people falsely identifying themselves as playing Simulationist with + a strong Character emphasis, when they were instead playing quite + straightforward Narrativist without funky techniques. + + I would very much like to participate in a detailed discussion of + playing L5R, which to my mind, in the absence of Drifting, poses some + irreconcilable problems in how its behavioral parameters are + constructed, such that it simultaneously asks about Honor and dictates + the answers. + + El Dorado and Drift + El Dorado is a term coined by Paul Czege based on some ideas proposed by + Joachim Buchert (see glossary for links). As originally proposed, it was + essentially Narrativist play with a strong Simulationist supportive + element - a functional hybrid. When I surprised this debate by shrugging + and stating that hybrids, with one mode dominant, are viable, possible, + and functional, and when The Riddle of Steel demonstrated an + exceptionally fine example, the term changed a bit. Over time, it has + come to mean as well an experientially smooth and perhaps even + unnoticeable shift from Simulationist play-assumptions to Narrativist + ones. + + Such a goal, both for play and design, has proven attractive to people; + they recognize that Simulationist assumptions are common among + established role-players, and the term "Simulationist-by-habit" has been + coined to describe people who might enjoy other GNS modes but don't + conceive of their functional existence. + + An El Dorado game-experience would not be a hybrid - it would avoid all + confusion that hybrids tend to generate to some degree, and it would + certainly not be Abashed, as play-goals would not clash within the rules + and procedures of play. It would be operative Drift without rules-Drift, + for which the term Transition was coined in discussions of Fang + Langford's game in development, Scattershot. + + Is it possible, theoretically? Sure! I think it's much harder than most + people think it would be. The System actually has to facilitate the + process of changing priorities during play, Drifting on procedural + "tracks" as it were. A couple of games point the way. The Riddle of + Steel is explicitly based on a rather brutal selection philosophy, + insofar as people who do not recognize the dominance of the Spiritual + Attributes over the more Simulationist-appearing baseline mechanics will + see their characters die horribly. Players who start with Simulationist + priorities will have to change or stop playing (I suspect, rather, that + many of them will "Drift to remain in place," actually). Scattershot, in + development, is the only Transition-oriented game design I know of + that's based on the rules themselves shifting and altering as a function + of play. (See Glossary.) + + I'll discuss this issue in much more detail in the Narrativism essay, + but I'll pose the most serious problem facing the seekers of El Dorado: + idealizing story creation but refusing to do it. Oh, am I going to catch + it for this section ... well, people are just going to have to disagree + about whether stories can "create themselves." + Personally, I don't think they do, and we won't get anywhere by pushing + and pulling. In practical terms, lots of hassles and possibilities arise + when expecting story to "emerge" from metagame-absent play. Here are the + two extremes which arise. + + * The bad one: A frustrated Narrativist-ish player takes over as GM + and relies on railroading. He or she insists that everyone care + about the story, but also insists upon everything going as he or she + desires. I consider this approach to rank among the least functional + role-playing in existence. + * The good one: Everyone agrees that story is a wonderful and + desirable emergent property, but commits to no metagame meddling or + prioritizing by anyone. In theory, this is quite functional, but the + tricky part is that everyone also has to accept that story might not + happen at all, and to be all right with that. + + Less extremely, some game texts present relatively consistent + Simulationist-oriented rules, but with bits and pieces here and there + with Narrativist leanings. This is all very well, except that the text + accompanying these sections is almost always incoherent: the player is + given power (e.g. to dictate a target's response) - but the GM is warned + to override it if necessary - but then some text follows about how the + players are really the story-authors - but then, again, the GM needs to + keep a tight rein on the story's integrity - and so on. Usually the game + design is quite nifty in terms of the actual rules (e.g. Fvlminata), but + these text sections ultimately make no sense, being trapped in the + Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. It's as if the game authors play a + particular way but can't quite believe that anyone else would, and in + most cases, the game text and rules end up being Abashed. + + Pitfalls of design + The first and most serious problem in Simulationist design is to rely on + habit and imitation for some mechanics features of the game and then to + try to tack on one's own ideas. I'm not talking about simple influence, + which is part and parcel of any RPG design, but the porting of whole + assumption-sets out of their integrated contexts with all aspects of the + parent game. This is very common in Fantasy Heartbreakers and usually + results in a lot of broken math. Obviously this problem is not unique to + Simulationism, but when it occurs in that context, it's really painful. + + Another serious problem is the ideal of "transparency," especially as + applied to the High Concept approach. I cannot help but be blunt: System + is experientially inescapable. One cannot make Character, Setting, + Situation, and Color "go" without it. Drama-driven systems are just as + System as any other, for instance. (See the Transparency entry in the + Glossary.) + + Really to remove System requires that anything and everything that + happens during play be mediated solely through the Social Contract, + without any formalized method even to do that. I think that such play + would be awfully difficult, requiring so much negotiation regarding how + to play per unit of play as to be hopeless. (Again, I am not discussing + well-organized systems based mainly on Drama, which are perfectly + wonderful and not subject to these criticisms.) + + Therefore, I advise that design not ask, "How is System made invisible," + but rather, "How is System directed toward particular Explorative + goals." The degree of complexity then becomes an aesthetic and focused + issue, not something to chop away at blindly. Instead of transparency, + let Coherence and an eye toward the desired Points of Contact be your + guide. + + The third problem is the Realism tautology: setting "realism" as a goal + of play, which often gets brought up in debates about in-game events. + Never fall into this one - you cannot win. Plausibility, which is to + say, not violating a specific degree of contrivance-limits, is a fine + thing; it's central to the role-playing element of Situation. All + role-playing requires whatever degree of plausibility is necessary to + support the respective GNS goal. Reinforcing it can be a valid feature + of some Simulationist play and design (just as of some Narrativist and + some Gamist play), when that matters for specific goals for that play. + But to reverse it, to claim that the play itself exists at the service + of the "realism" among the components of the game, is madness, + especially for Simulationist play - such a statement presents a quagmire + of debate much like "balance" or "story." + + Another common problem is rules-bloat, which usually creeps into + Simulationist game text as a form of anti-Gamist defense. I suggest that + adding more layers to character creation is a poor idea, as it only + introduces more potential points of broken Currency. I suggest instead + that the most effective "defense" is to avoid ratios in one's layering, + as in Godlike. More generally, beyond a certain point, anti-Gamist + defensive rules design has a negative effect: given an increased number + rules and punctilios, players simply punt in terms of understanding the + system, and the GM has to "be" the entire game. This is exceptionally + difficult in games like Rolemaster or GURPS (perhaps less so in Dread or + Call of Cthulhu). Therefore the effort - to preserve the integrity of + the Simulationist experience - often backfires as play gets harder and + more full of speed-bumps rather than easier. + + Rules-bloat can also result from the design and writing process itself. + Cogitating about in-game causes can transform itself, at the keyboard, + into a sort of Exploration of its own, which results in very elaborate + rules-sets for situational modifiers, encumbrance, movement, technology, + prices of things, none of which is related to actual play of the game + with actual people. During the writing process, "what if" meets "but + also" and breeds tons of situational rules modifiers. When this effect + hits Currency, you get tons of layering in the form of prerequisites and + nuances of described competency (e.g. Awful vs. Really Bad vs. + Mediocre). The result is often what I like to call Paying to Suck, which + is to say that character creation includes paying many points merely for + the character to be bad or barely-adequate at things. + + My recommendation is to know and value the virtues of Simulationist + play, specifically refined toward the goals of a particular subset (as + listed or make up your own), and to drive toward them with gusto. Don't + spin your wheels defending your design against some other form of play. + + Conclusions + For play really to be Simulationist, it can't lose the daydream quality: + the pleasure in imagination as such, without agenda. For game design to + promote this goal, it must be openly valued and its virtues articulated, + not assumed (as it often is) to be "good role-playing" by anyone's + standards and hence left unstated. Design should be inspiring and + elegant in its own right, promoting the desire to see this Setting or + Character unfold, or to see this System do its stuff. + + I now offer a couple of points that are probably going to draw some + objections. + + It's a hard realization: devoted Simulationist play is a fringe + interest. It is not the baseline or core of role-playing, which is + Exploration. (Here is where my interpretation of the Scarlet Jester's + Exploration differs the most from his original presentation.) + + Quite a bit of role-playing theory and design has taken a + training-wheels approach, especially using Purist for System games like + GURPS, in the assumption that role-playing at the Simulationist "level" + or "type" is the necessary skill to develop or grow to any other type. I + think this is both misguided and patronizing toward Simulationist play, + but even worse, it has the opposite effect on new players: selective + culling-out of people who bring developed Gamist or Narrativist agendas + to the activity. + + Another good question is whether the claim is valid that role-playing + has been "Sim-dominated" through its history, whether in play or in + design. Regarding play, I think all the evidence points to all the GNS + modes, and much diversity within those modes, being present since the + beginning of the hobby. Regarding design and publishing, I think that we + need to distinguish between Simulationist elements vs. coherent design - + the former have certainly been widespread, but mainly in incoherent + games, with AD&D and Vampire as the chief examples. + + The Hard Question + Well, here it is. Before getting bent out of shape, remember that each + mode is gonna get one of these. + + Role-playing is a hobby, leisure activity. The real question is, what + for, in the long term? For Simulationist play, the answer "This was fun, + so let's do it again," is sufficient. + + However, for how long is it sufficient? Which seems to me to vary + greatly from person to person. Is the focus on Exploration to be kept as + is, permanently, as characters and settings change through play? Some + say "sure" and wonder what the hell I'm talking about, or perhaps feel + slightly insulted. Or, is Drift ultimately desirable? Is play all about + getting "it" to work prior to permitting overt metagame agendas into the + picture? Some might answer "of course" and wonder why anyone could see + it otherwise. + + So! Is there an expected, future metagame payoff, or is the journey + really its own reward? Is Simulationist play what you want, or is it + what you think you must do in order, one day, to get what you want? + + I judge nothing with these questions. I think that they're important to + consider and that answers are going to vary widely, that's all. + + Glossary + Most of the jargon in the essay is defined in "GNS and related matters + of role-playing design." Most of the following are some terms that have + arisen during the discussions since then. Some of them (the ones without + links) are defined in the essay and repeated here for clarity. + + Abashed + Game design which displays features of one or more GNS modes that, in + their applications, are operationally contradictory. It is a minor + form of Incoherence. However, an Abashed design is easily correctable + by ignoring or altering isolated portions of the rules (minor Drift); + typically, extremely coherent play can result in either of the modes + involved. However, this also means that two groups will effectively + be playing completely different games. See [10]Abashed Vanillaism and + [11]my review of Little Fears. + + Currency + The exchange rate among different components of characters - their + Effectiveness values, their Resources, and their Metagame properties. + In many games, Currency is explicit in terms of character points, but + it is present in any and all role-playing games. + + DFK + Short for Drama, Karma, and Fortune, as originally presented in the + game Everway and adopted by me. The terms refer to the resolution + mechanics of a given game, which may include any combination or + blending of the three. + + El Dorado + Originally, used to indicate the search for a + Simulationist-Narrativist hybrid mode of play, with the Narrativism + being the main priority; more recently, it has come to mean + Transition from Simulationist to Narrativist play without noticeable + Drift in the rules-use. See [12]Simulationism and Narrativism under + the same roof and [13]El Dorado. + + Fortune-at-the-End + Employing a Fortune mechanic (dice, cards, etc) following the full + descriptions of actions, physical placement, and communication among + characters. See "Fortune in the Middle" and associated links. + + Fortune-in-the-Middle + Employing a Fortune mechanic (dice, cards, etc) prior to fully + describing the specific actions of, physical placement of, and + communication among characters. The Fortune outcome is employed in + establishing these elements retroactively. This technique may be + employed with the dice/etc as the ultimate authority of success or + failure (e.g. Sorcerer) or with the dice/etc outcome being + potentially adjusted by a metagame mechanic (e.g. Hero Wars). See + [14]my review of Hero Wars, see also discussions in the [15]Alyria + forum. + + Hybrid + A game whose rules include facilitating elements for more than one + mode of play. Observed functional hybrids to date include only two + GNS modes rather than all three, and one of the modes may be + considered primary or dominant, with the other playing a supportive + role. See [16]my review of The Riddle of Steel. + + IIEE + Short for Intent, Initiative, Execution, and Effect, referring to the + relationship between announcements of action by real people and the + establishment of those actions into the shared imaginary game-world. + See [17]The four steps of action and [18]What is IIEC?. + + Illusionism + A mode of story creation by the GM in which his or her decisions + carry more weight than those of the players, in which he or she has + authority over rules-outcomes, and in which the players willingly or + unwillingly do not recognize these features. See [19]Illusionism: a + new look and a new approach and [20]Illusionism and GNS for a more + complete definition and associated discussions. + + The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast + "The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions + of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. + Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the + other. + + Layering + The relationship between the initial numbers derived for a character + (e.g. attributes) to the numbers eventually used most commonly in + play (Effectiveness Values; e.g. combat to-hit values). The more + steps of derivation, the more the system is said to be layered. + + Points of Contact + The steps of rules-consultation, either in the text or internally, + per unit of established imaginary content. This is not the same as + the long-standing debate between Rules-light and Rules-heavy systems; + either low or high Points of Contact systems can rely on strict + rules. See [21]Vanilla and Pervy, [22]Pervy in my head, [23]Cannot + stand cutesie-poo terms, [24]Pervy Sim, points of contact, + accessibility. + + Roles, "role levels" + (1) The player's social role in terms of his character - the mom, the + jokester, the organizer, the placator, etc. (2) The character's + thematic or operational role relative to the others - the leader, the + brick, the betrayer, the ingenue, etc. (3) The character's in-game + occupation or social role - the pilot, the mercenary, the alien + wanderer, etc. (4) The character's specific Effectiveness values - + armor rating, weapon attributes, specific skills and their values, + available funds, etc. See [25]The class issue and all internal links. + + Social Context + How role-playing as an activity relates to one's social life in + general. Currently, the idea is that most functionally, one's "People + one likes" box is biggest, one's "People I like hanging with" box is + within that, and one's "People I game with" box is within that, but + that typically people reverse the boxes entirely. See [26]Social + Context, [27]Self-image, [28]Gay culture / Gamer culture, [29]What + does role-playing gaming accomplish?, [30]Christian gamers and + self-esteem, and [31]Sexism in gaming. + + Social Contract + The interactions, emotional connections, logistic arrangements, and + expectations among the members of a role-playing group, relative to + the role-playing activity. It includes both verbalized and + non-verbalized components of these things. + + Transition + Theoretically, shifting from one GNS mode to another (in the large + sense, in terms of the overall goals of play for everyone) without + Drifting the rules. Scattershot, in development, is designed with + Transition in mind. See the [32]Scattershot forum with reference to + threads begun by me. + + Transparency + Rules design that does not call attention to the rules in operation; + highly controversial. See [33]Transparency and [34]Transparency + again. + + Turku role-playing (Elaaytyjivism) + A mode of play first presented as a manifesto, in which in-character + feeling and thinking is given the highest priority, to such an extent + that even communicating the experience to others is secondary. By my + terminology, Simulationism, Character Exploration, mainly Drama or + low Points-of-Contact Fortune mechanics, highly reinforced through an + explicit Social Contract. The main site is not available, but see + [35]LARP manifesting in The LARPer magazine. See also the [36]Dogma + 99. + + Vanilla/Pervy + Now-obsolete terminology to describe game-play in which the GNS mode + is easily-accessible and requires few if any complex rules-techniques + (Vanilla) vs. game-play in which the techniques are highly strictured + for the mode. Now replaced by the concept of Points of Contact, which + concerns the degree to which System is Explored. See [37]Vanilla + Narrativism and the more recent links listed under "Points of + Contact" above. + + The Forge created and administrated by [38]Clinton R. Nixon and [39]Ron + Edwards. + All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their + designated author. + +References + + Visible links + 1. file:/// + 2. file:///about/ + 3. file:///donate.php + 4. file:///articles/ + 5. file:///reviews/ + 6. file:///resources/ + 7. file:/// + 8. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com + 9. file:///files/mongrel.pdf + 10. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1397 + 11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/review.php?id=8_0_5_0 + 12. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=800 + 13. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1072 + 14. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/review.php?id=12_0_5_0 + 15. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9 + 16. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/review.php?id=20_0_5_0 + 17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774 + 18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1273 + 19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4217 + 20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4232 + 21. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4299 + 22. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4301 + 23. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4352 + 24. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4416 + 25. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2802 + 26. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4258 + 27. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4336 + 28. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4300 + 29. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4414 + 30. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4419 + 31. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4433 + 32. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=22 + 33. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1842 + 34. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1909 + 35. http://www.thelarper.org/archivearticles/edition_1/manifesto.html + 36. http://fate.laiv.org/dogme99/en/index.htm + 37. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1597 + 38. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com + 39. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com