# HG changeset patch # User fabien # Date 1156987964 14400 # Node ID bdef1afd1170dba735597d4e00ffbdce9191a672 # Parent 3164c82ac16ecdf27c9c82aa86d4c261ea536866 [svn] r2271@freebird: fabien | 2006-08-30 21:33:34 -0400 Mise à jour préventive. diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/7rules.html --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/7rules.html Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,223 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + +BUILDING BETTER CHARACTERS #1: THE SEVEN RULES OF CHARACTER CREATION + +/A couple sessions have gone by. You got the rulebook, you built a +character, you played. But it hasn't been what you were after. Your +character seems flat, you haven't gotten into it. Except to argue with +the elf. You ask yourself ? did I do something wrong?/ + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +/Your party built their characters, you played, but they are always +going their separate ways or arguing. The thief doesn't even associate +with the party except to drool over their equipment. Something has to +change if everyone is going to have fun./ + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +The art of building characters is not as simple as one might think. +Every rulebook has the steps. Many of those rulebooks even talk about +meta-gaming issues, background, personality, or whatever other pet +theories the authors happen to have about what makes good characters. + +But let me simplify it just a little bit. Good characters are those +characters that are fun to play. Not just for the player, but for the +whole group (including the GM). This may sound like just a trademark of +a good player, but really, what great player does not always come up +with good characters? Even things that seem simple or sketchy just seem +to come to life in these players. They know how to make good characters. + +And I am here to try and help /you/ make better characters. + +We are going to start with the basics: the seven rules of character +creation. At least, the seven rules for creating characters in a +campaign setting. (That is, where there is a group of more then one +person, and there are going to be multiple adventures with the characters.) + +Rule 1: The character must work in a group +Rule 2: The character must be fun for the player and the rest of the party +Rule 3: The character must be good at heart +Rule 4: The character must have a reason to go adventuring +Rule 5: The character must fit the campaign style +Rule 6: The character must have long term goals +Rule 7: The player must be able to actually play the character + +The seven rules represent the most common (and most disastrous) mistakes +that players make when designing characters. Sometimes these are just +overlooked, or missed in the heat of character creation, but if the GM +and the player can apply these rules to a character (and agree that they +are in fact applicable to the character) then any subsequent problems +lie on the shoulders of the player and the GM, not on the character. +"But that's what my character would do..." is no longer an excuse for +destroying party chemistry or backstabbing a fellow party member. The +rules have been set. + +The seven rules are broken out into three sections: Getting along with +people (rules 1,2,3), character composition (rules (4,5,6) and "the +final gut check" (rule 7). + + + Section 1: Getting along with other people + +The first three rules apply to just making sure the /character/ (not the +player) isn't disruptive to the group as a whole. Essentially, these +rules exist to avoid the Neutral Evil Ninja Assasin Drow (NENAD), and +all sub-species. (Not that I am singling out Neutral evil ninja assasin +drow as poor characters, but well, I am.) So let's go through them. + + + Rule 1: The character must work in a group + +This is a logical aspect of the meta-game. You are planning a campaign. +That campaign has multiple players. More then likely you plan on them +being a group. So why let characters that dislike people or only work +alone into such a group? In the most logical sense, they wouldn't go +adventuring in a group and would hate it if they did. Watch out for +characters that hate people, or are overly secretive and mysterious. Or +classic thief types that never trust any party members and, in fact, +remove trust from other party members. + +Not to say these sorts of characters can't be played. But make sure that +when the NENAD attempts to join your campaign, that there is a good +reason that they would stay with a group, work with a group, and might +even be trusted by that group. Obviously, this is a GM judgement call in +the end, just remember the concept. If they can't work in a group, the +character isn't going to work in a (traditional) campaign. + + + Rule 2: The character must be fun for the player and the rest of + the party + +One assumes that people play characters that they find fun. NENAD are +usually considered very fun /by the people playing them./ But usually it +is best to think of the other players as well. Are they going to enjoy +this character? This is really the flip side of rule 1; rule 1 makes it +sound like characters should be dull and boring and fit it. But we don't +want characters ending up with desk jobs in cubicle world. We want the +mohawk wearing, leather jacketed rebel. Sure, while they have to "be +able to be part of group" they also need to add a different dimension, a +different personality, and a different /character/ to the group as a +whole, so that the players have variety and spice in their role-playing. + +Some players find this very easy. The rest of us struggle to make sure +that our character is adding to the combined story, has good lines, or +is just a fun personality that people enjoy and remember. And don't take +this as meaning that it is a character's duty to always entertain the +other players. No, occasionally entertaining them is good enough. In +fact, it is much better, as people have the most fun by /playing their +own characters./ If you want to ruin someone's fun, play their character +for them (or prevent their character from playing ? a closely related +offense). This can be the fault of the GM or the player, but it is the +quickest way to dissatisfied players and a point to pay specific +attention to when designing your character. Now it is not always +possible to avoid these conflicts, especially when you are unaware of +other player's character choices, but keep it in mind even after play +has begun. + + + Rule 3: The character must be good at heart + +Now I don't want to be preachy or anything, but just what were you +expecting when you created that evil character that truly didn't care +about other people? Were you expecting him to be smoothly integrated +into the party? Did you expect him to be trusted? Were you surprised +when he caused party turmoil? When your NENAD decided not to open the +secret door and try and save the party from the rampaging barbarian <#> +horde, did they accept the excuse that it was too risky? + +D&D takes care of this by making sure characters are good or neutral. +But I don't think that is truly enough. This is not a question of +overlying beliefs. This is a question of /will the character risk their +life and livelihood to help another?/ This is about not being +self-centered. This is about being someone that the party can trust when +the ork dung hits the wind mill. This isn't something that you say +during character description, it is something that you do and +(hopefully) you do early on. If your character makes some sort of self +sacrifice, even a small one, in the first session, the party is already +on your side. + +A lot of players don't like this rule, but it is the very last rule that +I bend. We are roleplaying to be heroes, so design a hero or don't play. +Every single hero in books and movies was intrinsically good at heart, +no matter how otherwise messed up, or they weren't a hero. It is the +definition. + + + Conclusion + +In the next column I will continue the analysis of the seven rules with +the remaining four. If you were intrigued by this column, you can check +out my blog and role-playing resources at www.blackshieldgaming.com +. + +Until next time. + + + +ARTICLE INFO + +*Building Better Characters #1* +/The Seven Rules of Character Creation/ +2006-02-21 + +by Greg Schneider + +/The first rules of campaign characters: getting along with others./ + + +RECENT ARTICLES + +#1: The Seven Rules of Character Creation + + + +Gencon: +GenCon + +Downloadable RPGs: +DTRPG + +*/Visit our Sponsors!/* + +RECENT DISCUSSIONS + +*Thread Title* *Last Poster* *Last Post* *Replies* +Does ANYONE agree? + +Strange Visitor + 03-07-2006 +09:27 AM 20 +There're only two rules... + +Bartmoss +03-02-2006 10:32 AM 10 +Disagree with Rule 3 + +Maarzan +02-27-2006 08:42 AM 26 +#1: The Seven Rules of Character Creation + +RPGnet Columns + +02-21-2006 12:00 AM 0 + +( goto forum | post new +thread ) + + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/IICE.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/IICE.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,584 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + +*198791* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *General Forge Forums * +| |-+ *GNS Model Discussion +* +| | |-+ *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* « previous + +next » + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +Author Topic: The 4 steps of action (for Ron) (Read 2589 times) + +*Manu * +Member + +Posts: 55 + + +View Profile + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +« * on:* October 18, 2001, 11:55:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hey again, + +you mention these four steps in any action: Intention, Initiation, +Completion and Effect; could you again provide some examples of what you +were thinking about? Thank you - great essay by the way :smile: + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +------------- +Manu + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +« *Reply #1 on:* October 19, 2001, 08:52:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hey Manu, + +Whoo doggies ... can I ask a favor and sort of belay this one for a +while? What with Scenes and Tasks and Gamism and Audience and all that, +it's pretty thick at the moment. + +This topic is a BIIIG deal and I think we can probably move it to the +Design forum. How about in a couple days? + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +« *Reply #2 on:* October 23, 2001, 08:44:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hi Manu, + +I'm finally ready to address the issues in this post, but believe me, +it's a biggie. I hope we get somewhere ? + +Let's consider an event that is established through role-playing as +"happened" in the game-world. I look back over last night's game, and I +can say, "Sebastian killed the ogre." + +Now you and I know that Sam (the player) and the rest of the people he +played with had to do SOMETHING to establish that. Dice and whatnot may +have been involved, but ultimately, it was social and verbal. Sam had to +propose something and through whatever mechanism, everyone else came to +agree with it and how it came to pass. + +The topic at hand is not the DFK mechanisms involved (not initially +anyway), but rather the communication among the role-players (GM, +players alike) to establish the event. I am talking about whatever Sam +and anyone else SAID during that process. + +OK, during play, here we are, and Sam is playing Sebastian, and there's +the big evil ogre. Sam says, "I attack him!" + +What the hell did Sam just establish in the imaginative game-world? +Depending on the game system and/or the group, it could have been any of +the following. + +Intention: Sam has announced Sebastian's intention, but in the +game-world, Sebastian has not yet moved or done anything. That must wait +upon some other step of the process. + +Initiation: Sebastian has officially moved into action; his sword is +raised, he is moving and grimacing and so on. + +Completion: Sebastian has completed his sword stroke; the action, for +all purposes, is finished. + +Effect: Sebastian's sword-stroke has produced its consequences and we +have established just what has happened to the ogre and to Sebastian. + +In actual role-playing, I have seen EVERY one of these categories as an +interpretation of Sam's statement. + +For a role-playing situation to be functional at the most basic level, +the group as a whole must know and agree upon which one it is. I think +that most of us are aware how jarring, disruptive, and plain Not Fun it +is, when people at the role-playing table are disagreeing about which of +the four categories is being established by an announced action. + +"But I said it!" is the issue. What, in fact, did you say? Intent, +Initiation, Completion, or Effect? + +Game designs vary in the extent to which they either ESTABLISH or ASSUME +the status of Sam's announcement in regard to the four categories. + +By far and away, the most common solution is to break down the +game-world causality into linear form. +1) Establish order of actions among all participants. Each character may +now be considered "frozen" in the beginning of the sequence. +2) Resolve the action of the first participant in terms of (a) +unfreezing, such that the action may now be announced in full by the +player; (b) motions of the character from initiation through completion +through result. +3) Continue through all characters. + +Please note that this paradigm exists with or without Fortune playing a +role. In Champions, step 1 is fixed by Speed and Dexterity, whereas in +other games each round requires a new Initiative determination (e.g. +roll). In still others, the order is purely metagame in terms of "go +around to the left" or something like that. For purposes of the present +topic, this distinction does not matter. + +Several tweaks of this paradigm exist. They include: +- "Saved" actions - explicitly permitting characters to reserve their +actions past the point of order, to use as an "interrupt" prior to +another, subsequent character's action. +- Formalizing and fixing the announcements of actions prior to step two. +E.g. in Sun & Storm, the characters' actions are announced in order of +slowest-to-fastest between steps 1 and 2, and then resolved in order of +fastest-to-slowest in step 2 as normal. +- Assigning point-costs to actions such that one may manage a resource +to distribute one's moments of action through the round (example: Shot +Costs in Feng Shui). + +I suggest that this approach to the problem is functional, but it does +have its limitations. For instance, the "saved" modification tends to +result in everyone announcing "I save" and then playing +multiple-interrupts on each other during each person's action. Or, some +people dislike the "freeze" effect generated in the imagination. + +However, this paradigm is not the only one. Another is essentially +"laissez-faire" for actions, in which everyone is expected to agree +about the order informally, which in practice usually means the GM may +rearrange who is going first and what happens when, for each series of +actions in a group situation. The Window operates in this fashion, +assuming that everyone's good faith is more reliable than a step-by-step +method. In practice, this usually gives so much power to the GM that he +or she may as well be writing the entire scene (especially insofar as +many climactic scenes rely very heavily on the timing and sequence of +actions). + +I have observed the laissez-faire method to founder on many occasions, +due to confusions between the four categories. When Sam says, "I attack +him," Sam and the GM and everyone else can be quite at odds about +whether Sebastian is actually in motion or not. A subsequent +announcement may influence Sam to say, "Um, actually I don't," or +conversely, "But I'm already attacking him!" or anything in between. On +the other hand, I am assured by many people that they prefer this +method, and I can only assume that the group in question has informally +worked out a standard for which category is being applied for a given +announced action. I suspect that in these groups that Balance of Power +heavily favors the GM. + +Finally, Zero introduced an novel solution - announced actions are ONLY +Intent, and finalized as Initiation only at the end of a "free +discussion" about them. The order of the actions are established +simultaneously with the resolution of the actions (it's the same roll). +Results of the actions are all then established in order. Sorcerer's +group-resolution mechanic imitates that of Zero with minor differences. + +Another solution is found in Extreme Vengeance, in which order is fixed +but adjustable due to metagame resources, and Hero Wars follows this lead. + +There are lots of other solutions or models as well, but none so +consistently established across many games as the first two. If I'm +leaving out your favorite, please don't have a cow about it; this post +is long enough already. + +If anyone would like to add insight to this breakdown, or to disagree +with it entirely, or otherwise to give me some feedback about it, I'm +very interested. It's a really big deal and - in my opinion - even more +fundamental than DFK. The four categories obviously are integrated in +many ways with conflict vs. task resolution, and I'd like to work out +some of those relationships as well. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Laurel * +Member + +Posts: 243 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +« *Reply #3 on:* October 23, 2001, 11:19:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I think IICE is brilliant, and its a game mechanic I'm working on this +week for my own game. I want players to be able to state their +character's Intent, and if the action seems possible but not absolutely +assured, for them to pause long enough for a very quick fortune-based +check. + +Regardless of the outcome of the check (success, failure, or +catastrophe), I want players to proceed to the Initation without stating +a new Intent, even if they know the action is going to fail and to +role-play through to the Completion using a Director's stance to provide +the elements that explain specifically why the action was successful or +a failure. The Effect will be announced by the next player to pick up +the narrative, as an introduction to their own Intent. + +What I'm stumbling over right now is the best mechanism for determining +order of actions. My design goal is to minimalize disruptions to +Narrative play, so that the story flows with as few meta-game +interruptions as possible. The standard linear form of resolution (what +Ron posted as step 1-3) required enormous quantities of meta-game +interruption. I'm not saying this is bad, or bad for every game, but +its something I'm trying to avoid without running smack into the +organizational and coherency issues of freeform. + Logged + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +« *Reply #4 on:* October 23, 2001, 11:42:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Actually, Laurel, I suggest that you're struggling with an impossible +design goal here: + +"My design goal is to minimalize disruptions to Narrative play, so that +the story flows with as few meta-game interruptions as possible." + +Narrativism relies on a very strong metagame presence, and I've found +that, counter-intuitively, it HELPS the story flow by acknowledging it. + +I think the key issue, though, is "disruption" rather than metagame vs. +in-game. The traditional/common method, for instance, LOOKS as if it's +very logical, but if people change their actions at the last second, you +have a whole renegotiatory process going on with every character at +every action. It's that kind of disruption that I think CAN be avoided. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +« *Reply #5 on:* October 23, 2001, 04:19:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Warning: system plug ahead. + +This simplifies very well, kudos to you Mr. Edwards. + +Quote +Ron Edwards wrote: + +The topic at hand is...the communication among the role-players to +establish the event...could have been any of the following. + +Intention: ...the game-world...has not yet moved or done anything. That +must wait upon some other step of the process. + +Initiation: ...moved into action... + +Completion: ...the action...is finished. + +Effect: ...has...established just what has happened... + +Very well conceived! (Just one small quibble, since I would include +what happens between the initiation and completion of an action - the +act itself ? in with the second group, I might call it Action, as it +?caught in the act.?) + +Quote +In actual role-playing, I have seen EVERY one of these categories as an +interpretation of Sam's statement. + +For a role-playing situation to be functional at the most basic level, +the group as a whole must know and agree upon which one it is. I think +that most of us are aware how jarring, disruptive, and plain Not Fun it +is, when people at the role-playing table are disagreeing about which of +the four categories is being established by an announced action. + +You have that right. We felt so too when creating Scattershot; in fact +we felt that our mechanics had to first act as a communal language, thus +such concepts had to be explicitly delineated in the text. + +Quote +By far and away, the most common solution is to break down the +game-world causality into linear form. +1) Establish order of actions among all participants. Each character may +now be considered "frozen" in the beginning of the sequence. +2) Resolve the action of the first participant in terms of (a) +unfreezing, such that the action may now be announced in full by the +player; (b) motions of the character from initiation through completion +through result. +3) Continue through all characters. + +This is too true amongst traditional games. And as you point out leads +to many confusing situations. I originally found that ?initiative +rolls? seemed to be a mechanism to collapse many ?intangibles? about +what can or cannot affect who makes the first (nigh?) successful attack +in a combat. To that I said, "Why skip the role-playing?" + +What eventually resulted (mostly because I was lazy in my analysis of +the many varied systems out there) was stripping out such mechanics +entirely. As a game of Scattershot proceeds, when anyone does anything +that raises the tension level to a degree that, in all fairness, more +detail is needed to parse out, ?rounds? begin. And they begin with that +participant?s character. It need not be anything traditionally thought +of as melee (owing largely to my feeling that violent aggression need +not always come to blows), just anything that creates the narrative +atmosphere the [i]can[/] result in a fight. + +I take a page from so many gunslinger movies where, to me, the battle +begins with an insult, tossed drink, or silent response (with the +villain seemingly tempting the hero to ?make the first move?). Not only +did all ?statements? in Scattershot?s combat need to be ?initiations,? +all statements had to be, certainly because any of them could shift play +into combat-turn-sequencing. (Heck, ?regular? play is described as +loosely following this sequencing anyway; combat?s need for impartiality +simply makes it more structured.) + +Quote +- Formalizing and fixing the announcements of actions prior to step two. +E.g. in Sun & Storm, the characters' actions are announced in order of +slowest-to-fastest between steps 1 and 2, and then resolved in order of +fastest-to-slowest in step 2 as normal. + +As an aside, for all my bad experiences with role-playing gaming, this +is the style whose author I most wish to go back in time and strangle in +their crib. + +Quote +On the subject of 'saved actions:? + +I suggest that this approach to the problem is functional, but it does +have its limitations. For instance, the "saved" modification tends to +result in everyone announcing "I save" and then playing +multiple-interrupts on each other during each person's action. Or, some +people dislike the "freeze" effect generated in the imagination. + +I saw that too. In Scattershot, saved actions must have explicit +?activation? conditions and are lost when play comes back to the player. + Likewise, combined with actions that do not weigh upon a character?s +combat, Scattershot combat can take on an air of that tense circling I +am fond of in cinema. + +For Scattershot we decided to scrap all the complexity of turn ordering +mechanics in favor of a clear and simple ?counter-clockwise around the +table? system. To make up for things reflected by those rules, we took +note from the game theory premise it seemed to be founded on: ?they who +attack first, have the advantage.? This might be important where +decisive blows can be easily had, but since this was not the case, we +let the above, ?whoever initiated goes first? rule determine combat (in +playtest, we found that this gives the desired level of cinema to our +system). + +The effect this had was to place more focus on the role-playing aspect +of the game. In tense scenes it could really be important who +?initiated? as we see it in cinema. As testing wore on, it became +evident that not only did parsing everything out this way strengthen the +?communal language? effect of the system, but also it streamlined the +play itself unobtrusively. + +The other thing we added to de-emphasize the ?who attacks first...? +effect was to institute a running ?who has the advantage? mechanic. You +know, the ?Robin Hood is higher on the stairs, but the Sheriff, who is +better with the blade, can still press his attack upward? kind of stuff. + Together this allowed us to abandon a lot of the complexity of more +mechanical systems without sacrificing combat?s value in the narrative. + (As a student of game theory, I appreciate the interplay between chosen +actions and their effect on ?advantage,? making tactics a two-leveled +process.) + +Quote +It's a really big deal and - in my opinion - even more fundamental than +DFK. The four categories obviously are integrated in many ways with +conflict vs. task resolution + +I think this is another one of those, ?without focus, a game dies on +this ground? issues and heartily agree. I, for one, am curious whether +anyone else made this sort of thing more explicit in their games. + +I believe this kind of communal unspoken agreement stuff underpins a +great deal of role-playing gaming yet receives almost no discussion. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +« *Reply #6 on:* October 23, 2001, 08:28:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang, + +Quotin' you for emphasis: +"I believe this kind of communal unspoken agreement stuff underpins a +great deal of role-playing gaming yet receives almost no discussion." + +Exactly. I've been chafing for over two years to get to this level of +discussion, yet until now have been tripped up by the continual need to +clarify GNS. With any luck, that stage is over. + +Best, +Ron + +P.S. Editing this personal note in: I didn't find the Sun & Storm +(backwards-announce, forwards-resolve) anything as aggravating as the +perpetually saved action. Or worse, the play-tactic that shifted +announcements up and down the Intent/ Initiation/ Completion/ Result +spectrum as the player or GM saw fit, from action to action. + +[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-24 10:01 ] + Logged + +*Laurel * +Member + +Posts: 243 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +« *Reply #7 on:* October 24, 2001, 12:52:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang- + +Quote + + The other thing we added to de-emphasize the ?who attacks first...? +effect was to institute a running ?who has the advantage? mechanic. + Together this allowed us to abandon a lot of the complexity of more +mechanical systems without sacrificing combat?s value in the narrative. + + +Thanks for going through Scattershot's mechanics in such detail- that +helped me a whole lot at least. I think I will experiment with +something similar. The idea of acknowledging and utilizing combat +advantages as something beyond a high dex or fortunate initiative roll +makes so much sense to me. + +Ron- +Thank you, that makes sense. Its a drawn out renegotiatory process of +players attempting to discern the best possible tactical advantage for +character action that I think is very disruptive to Narrative play and +not a general metagame presence. I appreciate you helping me define +what I was talking about. :smile: + Logged + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +« previous + +next » + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/IIEOC.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/IIEOC.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,298 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +March 15, 2006, 02:29:06 PM + +Login with username, password and session length + + +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*198791* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *General Forge Forums * +| |-+ *RPG Theory * +| | |-+ *What is IIEC? +* « previous + +next » + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +Author Topic: What is IIEC? (Read 1712 times) + +*Logan * +Member + +Posts: 153 + + +View Profile + + +*What is IIEC? +* +« * on:* January 22, 2002, 09:26:10 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +.. + Logged + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*What is IIEC? +* +« *Reply #1 on:* January 22, 2002, 09:30:43 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Logan, + +IIEC refers to intent, initiation, execution, and completion; it's a +followup on one of the "talk about it later" topics in my essay. The +thread, begun by Manu, is +http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774 <"">here. + +A related thread, a similar followup and also begun by Manu, concerns +task/conflict resolution and similar stuff, +http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=773 <"">here. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*What is IIEC? +* +« *Reply #2 on:* January 22, 2002, 09:34:16 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Yoicks! + +Looking over the history of the discussion, I discover a terminological +shift! + +It was, intent, initiation, completion, and effect; now, for some reason +I and others have been calling it intent, initiation, execution, and +completion! + +Damn! I call a terminology conference. I like the "execution" part for +step 3 (I think Fang commented about how "completion" was too, well +"over with" to be just right). I also think "effect" or "result" or +"outcome" would be right for the last step. + +So, IIEE? IIER? IIEO? Damn! All comments welcome. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Gordon C. Landis +* +Member + +Posts: 1011 + + +View Profile + + + +*What is IIEC? +* +« *Reply #3 on:* January 22, 2002, 10:19:03 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I was going to guess IIEC was acronym-speak for "If I Even Care" . . . + +I like Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect - double-I, double-E. IIEO +("Outcome" at the end) works too, but makes me want to turn it into +EIEIO. :-) + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Gordon C. Landis + +*Paul Czege * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 1845 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*What is IIEC? +* +« *Reply #4 on:* January 22, 2002, 10:36:06 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hey, + +I think Outcome is probably more precise than Effect, in that it +eliminates any hidden Narrativist bias toward resolution systems that +always move the narrative along, always produce an effect. In some +games, the Outcome is "no effect". + +Paul + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Game weary? Play My Life with Master and get +your hunch back. + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*What is IIEC? +* +« *Reply #5 on:* January 22, 2002, 04:04:18 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Ron Edwards +It was, intent, initiation, completion, and effect; now, for some reason +I and others have been calling it intent, initiation, execution, and +completion! + +Damn! I call a terminology conference. I like the "execution" part for +step 3 (I think Fang commented about how "completion" was too, well +"over with" to be just right). I also think "effect" or "result" or +"outcome" would be right for the last step. + +So, IIEE? IIER? IIEO? Damn! All comments welcome. + +I always prefered IIAC: Intent, Initiation, Action, Completion. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Manu * +Member + +Posts: 55 + + +View Profile + + + +*What is IIEC? +* +« *Reply #6 on:* January 23, 2002, 12:24:50 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I root for IIEOC (Intent, Initiation, Execution, Outcome, Consequence). + +I choose to separate Outcome (the localized impact of the action) from +Consequences (the big picture); Let's say it's all about swinging a +swort at a troll: O would be the possible wound to it, and C would be +the impact on its morale, and maybe on the morale of surroundings goblins. + +Another example: a character tries to seduce a noble lady: O would be +the efect of the smooth talker on the lady, and her reaction to it, and +C would be the triggered consequences on the Relationship Map +surrounding her. + +Note that in both cases, the action might have been initiated with the +initial intent of reaching the goal of C, and O is just a "side effect". +Narrativist gamegroups might have a field day with this kind of way to +look at things, and I even see it in Ron's Elfs, personally. (palyer's +action as O, and character's action as C) + +Just my 2 cents. + +Manu + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +------------- +Manu + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/a_hard_look_at_dongeons_and_dragons.html --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/a_hard_look_at_dongeons_and_dragons.html Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,267 @@ + + + + + + + + + +The Forge :: A Hard Look at Dungeons and Dragons + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
The ForgeThe Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games
About the Forge | Support The Forge | Articles | Reviews | Resource Library | Forums
  +
+
+ A Hard Look at Dungeons and Dragons
+ by Ron Edwards
+
+ +It's time to set aside long-established habits of thought regarding the various versions or even conceivably separate games that go by this name. In the culture of gaming, it's quite the thing to diss D&D, or to toss it backhanded praise like, "Well, it was first, but ...", in order to establish some sort of personal cachet as a real grown-up gamer. Enough, already. What the hell was it, anyway?

The following ideas were mainly worked out, for me anyway, on two threads on the Forge: Dungeons & Dragons history - help wanted and Precursors to AD&D2. I am especially indebted to Christopher Pramas, M. J. Young, Julie Stauffer, Paul Czege, and Maurice Forrester, as well as to readers Clinton R. Nixon, Rob MacDougall, Grant Gigee, and Peter Adkison.

This essay is limited to the period from the early 1970s to the early 1980s. Two later periods deserve analysis and essays of their own: the first, from the mid-1980s to the late-1990s, might best be described as "The corporate bear-trap," and the second, about 1999 to the present, as "Frankenstein's lightning-bolt." Most of these discussions concern economics of the role-playing hobby and are best left until my essay about role-playing business and marketing is available.

Textual history
The following is much less detailed or explanatory than many accounts of these developments available on the internet. My goal is not to provide the Real & Complete Official History, but rather to make a specific point about the origins of role-playing as a hobby. The point is that modern references to earlier "editions" or "Basic/Advanced" versions of Dungeons & Dragons are extremely misleading. There was no "first edition." There is no single "old D&D."

Texts do not equal play, and the origins of role-playing and the origins of D&D are two separate things. No one seems to be able to discuss the history in modulated tones, but I know what I think - that Dave Arneson and a variety of other wargame hobbyists around the country had found that people liked playing characters in the wargaming-worlds, and they even enjoyed the development of those characters through adventures. Chainmail (1971, by Gary Gygax & Jeff Perren) was not a role-playing game. In my view, Arneson (and as I say, he was not unique in the activity) found a system to conduct this new imaginative activity, and Chainmail just happened to be it. His experiences are summarized to some extent in The First Fantasy Campaign (see also the Castle Blackmoor website and associated links).

Chainmail's second and third editions contained supplemental fantasy-setting rules, as well as alternate rules that show similarities to later D&D rules. However, the most memorable published result of the Arneson-Gygax hobby crossover appeared at GenCon, 1974, in a thousand-copy print run, as Dungeons & Dragons, 1974, by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. It consisted of three roughly digest-sized brown pamphlets in a deepish brown box with white labels. (People are often confused because a very-nearly identical product, marked with "Original Collector's Edition," was released in 1978 in a white cardboard box, hence the mistaken name "white box D&D" to refer to the 1974 product.)

Word about this "new game" spread mainly through hobby store culture and the usual mysterious pop-culture grapevine that seems to require no medium but aether. A larger culture began to develop as well, within certain societal strictures. Wargaming was already a favored hobby among American enlisted men, and many Army bases developed long-running D&D games. Also, APAs (a kind of fanzine that operated like a modern internet forum) began to appear, such as Alarums & Excursions and The Wild Hunt. People were meeting, talking, comparing, and theorizing about play.

One unifying or at least visible factor was tournament play; this new (or new-ish) activity was called "fantasy wargaming," after all, and had first been released and understood as a modification of wargaming. So tournaments were held, and people ran characters in squads against referee-directed dangers. Imagine, if you will, fifty tables of eight players apiece, each one presided over by a single referee. At the end of the set time period, who had survived? Which group had collected the most treasure? Which had killed the most opponents, and how tough were those opponents? If this all sounds odd to the modern role-player, you'll have to put up with knowing, patronizing looks from us old guys. Where do you think Experience Points came from, anyway?

As the culture spread and developed, secondary texts began to appear. Many, many rules and play ideas proliferated in TSR's magazine The Dragon, renamed from its precursor The Strategic Review. A company called the Judges Guild, associated mainly with the tournament scene, published a slew of adventure modules and other support material largely taken from tournaments. The RPGA became active, including their magazine Polyhedron. Dave Hargrave published the first of a nine-volume series of supplements beginning with the Arduin Grimoire, introducing such things as barbarians and critical hits. I cannot over-stress the impact of these publications on the text-hungry culture. These became the texts of play, far more so than any "rules-set" that anyone could actually pick up and read. Soon, they operated as constraints (and some say, as raw material) for the eventual rules that would follow.

Dungeons & Dragons, 1977 (listed copyright in the text included 1974 and, in later printings, 1979), by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, edited by Eric Holmes - a full-sized saddle-stitched blue-cover booklet, contained in a box with a color cover, including chits to be used in place of dice. Significantly, "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" was already in development by Gygax, and this product was written by Holmes mainly as an intentional introduction and commercial intermediary to the forthcoming text.

Speaking of an actual rulebook, as all of this was occurring like wildfire, Gary Gygax's own version of the Dungeons & Dragons book was under way, now referred to as "Advanced." About the sources for this writing, I can (but will not) speculate, but its eventual content clearly deviates from Arneson's play as observed from his later-published The First Fantasy Campaign. Not to put too fine a point on it, Gygax's Simulationist priorities did not blend well with Arneson's goals, which to my possibly biased eyes smack of Narrativism, or with the parallel development of a lively, even fierce competitive Gamist culture. Regarding this new text, Gygax had to deal with the latter as a commercial constraint; the former, frankly, was drowned nearly at birth. Dave Arneson, in the first of very many complex and not-especially pleasant ownership conflicts with the property, was significantly absent from the new version's authorship.

The eventual release of the hardback Advanced Dungeons & Dragons in three volumes (Monster Manual, Player's Handbook, and Dungeon Master's Guide) was a very big deal in the hobby culture, not the least because they were sold in places like Waldenbooks instead of Sid's Train Model and Army Miniatures Hobby Shop. It provided a centralized textual authority for play for the first time. However, nothing changed - the local and widely varying standards and procedures for play were established, more coherent competitor games (e.g. Tunnels & Trolls, RuneQuest, DragonQuest, Traveller, The Fantasy Trip) had already appeared, and these books, frankly, simply added to the raw material for the existing role-players. To newcomers, indeed, things were different: here are the books, hence here is the game, and now let's use the book to play. But that came later.

Oh, just to be clear about some textual issues: in 1983, a series of boxed sets was released from TSR called "Basic Dungeons & Dragons," which some people mistakenly believe to precede "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons." It was re-released at least once more in later years. This series was written mainly by Tom Moldvay and is best understood to be a completely separate role-playing game. All references to "red-box" and "blue-box" D&D, and similar, should be limited to this game alone.

To repeat my point, the concept that Dungeons & Dragons "invented role-playing" is patently false. Rather, D&D was the first publishing epiphenomenon of role-playing as a hobby, intertwined with its development but providing, itself, only raw material, not procedure. It provided the first official role-playing texts, but those texts themselves invented very little; rather they provided patchy stuff that had to be shaped into role-playing at the local level.

Following the appearance of further hard-back supplements, and concordant yet further ownership disputes and editorial leadership, further TSR products were mainly Simulationist in nature, most especially Oriental Adventures, The Wilderness Survival Guide, and the Dragonlance adventure modules, culminating in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Second Edition (AD&D2). The game, and its radically-changed relationship of text to play, had changed so much that it passes out of this essay.

Early D&D as hobby culture
I think that the available discussions, interesting as they are, about Arneson's and Gygax's relative contributions (a) to the hobby activity and (b) to the actual publication of Dungeons & Dragons is overlooking a crucial issue regarding late 1970s role-playing. Prior to AD&D2, the available texts were reflective, not prescriptive, of actual play. Their content was filtered through authors' priorities which were very diverse. Furthermore, any particular area or group had only piecemeal combinations of the texts. In 1978, one might find a group with Chainmail, ten issues of Dragon, and a copy of the Monster Manual; as well as a group with the 1977 boxed set and three or four volumes of Arduin's Grimoire. No one, or very few people, had all of it, and as I recall anyway, hardly anyone knew much about what books "went" when, or made much distinction between TSR products and anything else.

Rob MacDougall stated it best: we are talking about Cargo Cults. Everyone knew about "this new great game." Everyone had on hand a hodgepodge of several texts, which in retrospect seem to me to be almost archeological in their fragmentary, semi-compatible but not-quite, layered-in-time-of-publication nature. Also, although newly-available texts obviously modified local oral traditions, they also arose from them, generating a seething hotbed of how-to-play instructions in print in other locations. Everyone had to shape, socially and procedurally, just what the hell you did such that "role-playing" happened. How did you know it worked? What did you do it for? All of it, from Social Contract right down to Stance, had to be created in the faith that it worked "out there" somewhere, and somehow, some way, it was supposed to work here.

So everyone just did it locally. I consider role-playing to have been constructed independently in a vast number of instances across the landscape, sometimes in parallel, sometimes very differently. Over time, further unifications or contact-compromises occurred, whether through tournament standards, military bases, conventions, or APAs, or simply by people meeting when they converged on college campuses. Full unification never occurred. There never existed a single, original D&D.

During this time, what was established about role-playing per se? Even if there was no actual, single D&D, the perception that some such thing existed was widespread, and ultimately it became a (partly) self-fulfilling perception. So what was it?
  • Players fell into categories of the team member, the rules-lawyer, and the advancer/powergamer.
  • Character creation was conceptually locked into the Column A, Column B method of Class + Race, to the extent that different combinations were playing by almost-completely different rules sets.
  • Character behavior fell into two categories - (1) Strict alignment-based parameters, taken essentially as Social Contract for any and all play of characters; and (2) complete laissez-faire based on metagame priorities of the moment, using alignment, if at all, merely for Color.
  • The process of long-term play focused on the Gamble to start, evolving into Crunch-heavy play as character effectiveness and survival-probabilities increased, and eventually into a Powergamer phase.
  • A certain degree of rules-customizing was forced to be standard, particularly regarding magic systems and anything else pertaining to fantastical elements.

What happened to the subject matter, which is to say, the Explorative content?
"D&D fantasy" became an actual genre of pop culture, later to be reflected in actual bookstore-book fantasy. It's often characterized as high fantasy, epic fantasy, or Tolkienesque fantasy, but it is, was, and is only composed of D&D. My articles Fantasy Heartbreakers and More Fantasy Heartbreakers address some of the resulting effects on role-playing game design.

One cannot properly say "D&D does this," or that a game "plays like D&D," without specifying exactly which D&D one means. It's likely that what's being referenced is far more based on local practices and interpretations than on any actual game text.
An astounding diversity existed regarding role-playing goals and practices all the way from the very beginning of the hobby. It's badly mistaken to characterize early role-playing as Gamist, based on the texts alone.

What characterized specifically-Gamist role-player culture, arising from this subcultural cauldron?
  • Arguing about "what happened" or "what would happen" became entrenched into play, such that rules-agreements, rules-debriefing or fairness-negotiating was part and parcel of characters moving around in the imaginary space.
  • Calvinball tactics were therefore entrenched as well, leading much play straight into the Hard Core.
  • Role-playing as a hobby became socially isolated, a venue for people who were unsuccessful at socializing in other activities rather than one of many activities.

No wonder people either idealize or vilify their youthful experiences playing D&D. On the one hand, it was you and your best-est friends, working something out together and arriving at (quite possibly) your first-ever Social Contract with other people, completely isolated from adults-approved activities. In other words, you remember it fondly not because the game itself was good, but because it wasn't - you remember your repair of it at the Step On Up and Challenge levels, and the good moments, however common or few they were, were all triumphs.

On the other hand, it may have been a horrific degeneration into the worst moments of social breakdown, on a par with any other form of social abuse, and consequently it's reserved in the cellars of your mind with being beaten up in locker rooms, confronted by older kids on the way home from school, or humiliated by siblings.

Hip to geek
The following is strictly a personal reflection from my own experiences of late 1970s and early-1980s role-playing, as a hobby culture. I was 13-14 years old in 1977-79 when I discovered the hobby, and through the age of, roughly, sixteen, I battered my head against (A)D&D in a variety of groups. They fell into the following categories:
  • Mainly older people with a sprinkling of teens who tried to do adult things as much as possible. The adults were usually Army guys, with some hip types who ran kids' groups or community-course programs. The latter ran some damn good games, as I recall.
  • Fellow teens - these get-togethers were often the least satisfying, on the one hand due to individuals who owned "special" rules that no one else did (brrrr ... what one guy armed with an Arduin Grimoire can do to a Social Contract ...), and on the other because of the perfectly reasonable assessment by many that the textual game itself wasn't particularly fun.
  • I also knew of several college groups during this time, up through the early 1980s, mainly playing RuneQuest. I burned with jealousy and desperately wanted to be in college and to play with folks like that.

Significantly, many groups, even the teen ones, included women in their late twenties who were interested in role-playing and not at all concerned about the propriety of hanging out with boys ten years younger. This was the late 1970s, after all. I remember quite a few such individuals.

By 1983, things had changed drastically; in some ways, it mirrored a general subcultural shift across the entire country (see the film Boogie Nights if you didn't live through it). I'd realized that D&D had become a "pube" activity, meaning 10-13-year-olds exclusively, most of whom played once and then walked.

The content resembled video games of the time: lives, levels, and skyrocketing success scores, with no real loss at all. It was utterly divorced from fantasy or mythic literature, and the comics and fantasy authors of the day disavowed the hobby en masse. Successful play became more and more a matter of who could break the game fastest, and the social gamer became more and more consistently the social-outcast gamer. Gaming communities weren't an edifying bunch, actually; they'd been transformed socially and procedurally by the Cargo Cult context into a rabidly-abusive, nitpicky bunch, in which the Social Contract actually included making others upset.

It had lost its cool factor entirely, just in time for me to go to college in the fall of that year. The aforementioned Willing Female Factor had vanished like smoke, and, my priorities firmly in place, I swore off the hobby. The oath didn't last long, of course. I did find a lot of people to role-play with, including women my own age, but always on the basis that we "weren't like those gamers." Conversations about role-playing ceased instantly if anyone nearby evinced interest in D&D. We played Champions and Stormbringer, and looked forward to the buzz of GURPS.

Conclusion
The honeymoon was over long ago. Even in terms of this first phase of D&D history alone, I suggest that we all would do well to recognize that role-playing as an activity did not stem from a single game text, or most importantly, from a single most-common mode or priority of play. Judgments aren't the issue; whether all this was a good or bad thing is completely beside the point. What matters are the consequences of this recognition, including:
  • No one role-playing technique may be cited as "the original" way.
  • No single combination of rules and presentation formats may be considered archetypal.
  • "D&D" as a term cannot be taken to indicate any particular form of play, especially in reference to the origins of the hobby.

I don't know whether I'll ever get to further discussion of the history of D&D; in many ways, it's out of my sphere of interest except in strictly marketing and industry terms, and I don't have much personal history either as player or professional to draw upon.
+ + +
+
+
+The Forge created and administrated by Clinton R. Nixon and Ron Edwards.
+All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their designated author. +
+
+ +
+ + + \ No newline at end of file diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/a_hard_look_at_dongeons_and_dragons.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/a_hard_look_at_dongeons_and_dragons.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ + 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 + + + A Hard Look at Dungeons and Dragons + by [8]Ron Edwards + + It's time to set aside long-established habits of thought regarding the + various versions or even conceivably separate games that go by this + name. In the culture of gaming, it's quite the thing to diss D&D, or to + toss it backhanded praise like, "Well, it was first, but ...", in order + to establish some sort of personal cachet as a real grown-up gamer. + Enough, already. What the hell was it, anyway? + + The following ideas were mainly worked out, for me anyway, on two + threads on the Forge: [9]Dungeons & Dragons history - help wanted and + [10]Precursors to AD&D2. I am especially indebted to Christopher Pramas, + M. J. Young, Julie Stauffer, Paul Czege, and Maurice Forrester, as well + as to readers Clinton R. Nixon, Rob MacDougall, Grant Gigee, and Peter + Adkison. + + This essay is limited to the period from the early 1970s to the early + 1980s. Two later periods deserve analysis and essays of their own: the + first, from the mid-1980s to the late-1990s, might best be described as + "The corporate bear-trap," and the second, about 1999 to the present, as + "Frankenstein's lightning-bolt." Most of these discussions concern + economics of the role-playing hobby and are best left until my essay + about role-playing business and marketing is available. + + Textual history + The following is much less detailed or explanatory than many accounts of + these developments available on the internet. My goal is not to provide + the Real & Complete Official History, but rather to make a specific + point about the origins of role-playing as a hobby. The point is that + modern references to earlier "editions" or "Basic/Advanced" versions of + Dungeons & Dragons are extremely misleading. There was no "first + edition." There is no single "old D&D." + + Texts do not equal play, and the origins of role-playing and the origins + of D&D are two separate things. No one seems to be able to discuss the + history in modulated tones, but I know what I think - that Dave Arneson + and a variety of other wargame hobbyists around the country had found + that people liked playing characters in the wargaming-worlds, and they + even enjoyed the development of those characters through adventures. + Chainmail (1971, by Gary Gygax & Jeff Perren) was not a role-playing + game. In my view, Arneson (and as I say, he was not unique in the + activity) found a system to conduct this new imaginative activity, and + Chainmail just happened to be it. His experiences are summarized to some + extent in The First Fantasy Campaign (see also the [11]Castle Blackmoor + website and associated links). + + Chainmail's second and third editions contained supplemental + fantasy-setting rules, as well as alternate rules that show similarities + to later D&D rules. However, the most memorable published result of the + Arneson-Gygax hobby crossover appeared at GenCon, 1974, in a + thousand-copy print run, as Dungeons & Dragons, 1974, by Gary Gygax and + Dave Arneson. It consisted of three roughly digest-sized brown pamphlets + in a deepish brown box with white labels. (People are often confused + because a very-nearly identical product, marked with "Original + Collector's Edition," was released in 1978 in a white cardboard box, + hence the mistaken name "white box D&D" to refer to the 1974 product.) + + Word about this "new game" spread mainly through hobby store culture and + the usual mysterious pop-culture grapevine that seems to require no + medium but aether. A larger culture began to develop as well, within + certain societal strictures. Wargaming was already a favored hobby among + American enlisted men, and many Army bases developed long-running D&D + games. Also, APAs (a kind of fanzine that operated like a modern + internet forum) began to appear, such as Alarums & Excursions and The + Wild Hunt. People were meeting, talking, comparing, and theorizing about + play. + + One unifying or at least visible factor was tournament play; this new + (or new-ish) activity was called "fantasy wargaming," after all, and had + first been released and understood as a modification of wargaming. So + tournaments were held, and people ran characters in squads against + referee-directed dangers. Imagine, if you will, fifty tables of eight + players apiece, each one presided over by a single referee. At the end + of the set time period, who had survived? Which group had collected the + most treasure? Which had killed the most opponents, and how tough were + those opponents? If this all sounds odd to the modern role-player, + you'll have to put up with knowing, patronizing looks from us old guys. + Where do you think Experience Points came from, anyway? + + As the culture spread and developed, secondary texts began to appear. + Many, many rules and play ideas proliferated in TSR's magazine The + Dragon, renamed from its precursor The Strategic Review. A company + called the Judges Guild, associated mainly with the tournament scene, + published a slew of adventure modules and other support material largely + taken from tournaments. The RPGA became active, including their magazine + Polyhedron. Dave Hargrave published the first of a nine-volume series of + supplements beginning with the Arduin Grimoire, introducing such things + as barbarians and critical hits. I cannot over-stress the impact of + these publications on the text-hungry culture. These became the texts of + play, far more so than any "rules-set" that anyone could actually pick + up and read. Soon, they operated as constraints (and some say, as raw + material) for the eventual rules that would follow. + + Dungeons & Dragons, 1977 (listed copyright in the text included 1974 + and, in later printings, 1979), by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, edited + by Eric Holmes - a full-sized saddle-stitched blue-cover booklet, + contained in a box with a color cover, including chits to be used in + place of dice. Significantly, "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" was already + in development by Gygax, and this product was written by Holmes mainly + as an intentional introduction and commercial intermediary to the + forthcoming text. + + Speaking of an actual rulebook, as all of this was occurring like + wildfire, Gary Gygax's own version of the Dungeons & Dragons book was + under way, now referred to as "Advanced." About the sources for this + writing, I can (but will not) speculate, but its eventual content + clearly deviates from Arneson's play as observed from his + later-published The First Fantasy Campaign. Not to put too fine a point + on it, Gygax's Simulationist priorities did not blend well with + Arneson's goals, which to my possibly biased eyes smack of Narrativism, + or with the parallel development of a lively, even fierce competitive + Gamist culture. Regarding this new text, Gygax had to deal with the + latter as a commercial constraint; the former, frankly, was drowned + nearly at birth. Dave Arneson, in the first of very many complex and + not-especially pleasant ownership conflicts with the property, was + significantly absent from the new version's authorship. + + The eventual release of the hardback Advanced Dungeons & Dragons in + three volumes (Monster Manual, Player's Handbook, and Dungeon Master's + Guide) was a very big deal in the hobby culture, not the least because + they were sold in places like Waldenbooks instead of Sid's Train Model + and Army Miniatures Hobby Shop. It provided a centralized textual + authority for play for the first time. However, nothing changed - the + local and widely varying standards and procedures for play were + established, more coherent competitor games (e.g. Tunnels & Trolls, + RuneQuest, DragonQuest, Traveller, The Fantasy Trip) had already + appeared, and these books, frankly, simply added to the raw material for + the existing role-players. To newcomers, indeed, things were different: + here are the books, hence here is the game, and now let's use the book + to play. But that came later. + + Oh, just to be clear about some textual issues: in 1983, a series of + boxed sets was released from TSR called "Basic Dungeons & Dragons," + which some people mistakenly believe to precede "Advanced Dungeons & + Dragons." It was re-released at least once more in later years. This + series was written mainly by Tom Moldvay and is best understood to be a + completely separate role-playing game. All references to "red-box" and + "blue-box" D&D, and similar, should be limited to this game alone. + + To repeat my point, the concept that Dungeons & Dragons "invented + role-playing" is patently false. Rather, D&D was the first publishing + epiphenomenon of role-playing as a hobby, intertwined with its + development but providing, itself, only raw material, not procedure. It + provided the first official role-playing texts, but those texts + themselves invented very little; rather they provided patchy stuff that + had to be shaped into role-playing at the local level. + + Following the appearance of further hard-back supplements, and + concordant yet further ownership disputes and editorial leadership, + further TSR products were mainly Simulationist in nature, most + especially Oriental Adventures, The Wilderness Survival Guide, and the + Dragonlance adventure modules, culminating in Advanced Dungeons & + Dragons Second Edition (AD&D2). The game, and its radically-changed + relationship of text to play, had changed so much that it passes out of + this essay. + + Early D&D as hobby culture + I think that the available discussions, interesting as they are, about + Arneson's and Gygax's relative contributions (a) to the hobby activity + and (b) to the actual publication of Dungeons & Dragons is overlooking a + crucial issue regarding late 1970s role-playing. Prior to AD&D2, the + available texts were reflective, not prescriptive, of actual play. Their + content was filtered through authors' priorities which were very + diverse. Furthermore, any particular area or group had only piecemeal + combinations of the texts. In 1978, one might find a group with + Chainmail, ten issues of Dragon, and a copy of the Monster Manual; as + well as a group with the 1977 boxed set and three or four volumes of + Arduin's Grimoire. No one, or very few people, had all of it, and as I + recall anyway, hardly anyone knew much about what books "went" when, or + made much distinction between TSR products and anything else. + + Rob MacDougall stated it best: we are talking about Cargo Cults. + Everyone knew about "this new great game." Everyone had on hand a + hodgepodge of several texts, which in retrospect seem to me to be almost + archeological in their fragmentary, semi-compatible but not-quite, + layered-in-time-of-publication nature. Also, although newly-available + texts obviously modified local oral traditions, they also arose from + them, generating a seething hotbed of how-to-play instructions in print + in other locations. Everyone had to shape, socially and procedurally, + just what the hell you did such that "role-playing" happened. How did + you know it worked? What did you do it for? All of it, from Social + Contract right down to Stance, had to be created in the faith that it + worked "out there" somewhere, and somehow, some way, it was supposed to + work here. + + So everyone just did it locally. I consider role-playing to have been + constructed independently in a vast number of instances across the + landscape, sometimes in parallel, sometimes very differently. Over time, + further unifications or contact-compromises occurred, whether through + tournament standards, military bases, conventions, or APAs, or simply by + people meeting when they converged on college campuses. Full unification + never occurred. There never existed a single, original D&D. + + During this time, what was established about role-playing per se? Even + if there was no actual, single D&D, the perception that some such thing + existed was widespread, and ultimately it became a (partly) + self-fulfilling perception. So what was it? + + * Players fell into categories of the team member, the rules-lawyer, + and the advancer/powergamer. + * Character creation was conceptually locked into the Column A, Column + B method of Class + Race, to the extent that different combinations + were playing by almost-completely different rules sets. + * Character behavior fell into two categories - (1) Strict + alignment-based parameters, taken essentially as Social Contract for + any and all play of characters; and (2) complete laissez-faire based + on metagame priorities of the moment, using alignment, if at all, + merely for Color. + * The process of long-term play focused on the Gamble to start, + evolving into Crunch-heavy play as character effectiveness and + survival-probabilities increased, and eventually into a Powergamer + phase. + * A certain degree of rules-customizing was forced to be standard, + particularly regarding magic systems and anything else pertaining to + fantastical elements. + + What happened to the subject matter, which is to say, the Explorative + content? + "D&D fantasy" became an actual genre of pop culture, later to be + reflected in actual bookstore-book fantasy. It's often characterized as + high fantasy, epic fantasy, or Tolkienesque fantasy, but it is, was, and + is only composed of D&D. My articles [12]Fantasy Heartbreakers and + [13]More Fantasy Heartbreakers address some of the resulting effects on + role-playing game design. + + One cannot properly say "D&D does this," or that a game "plays like + D&D," without specifying exactly which D&D one means. It's likely that + what's being referenced is far more based on local practices and + interpretations than on any actual game text. + An astounding diversity existed regarding role-playing goals and + practices all the way from the very beginning of the hobby. It's badly + mistaken to characterize early role-playing as Gamist, based on the + texts alone. + + What characterized specifically-Gamist role-player culture, arising from + this subcultural cauldron? + + * Arguing about "what happened" or "what would happen" became + entrenched into play, such that rules-agreements, rules-debriefing + or fairness-negotiating was part and parcel of characters moving + around in the imaginary space. + * Calvinball tactics were therefore entrenched as well, leading much + play straight into the Hard Core. + * Role-playing as a hobby became socially isolated, a venue for people + who were unsuccessful at socializing in other activities rather than + one of many activities. + + No wonder people either idealize or vilify their youthful experiences + playing D&D. On the one hand, it was you and your best-est friends, + working something out together and arriving at (quite possibly) your + first-ever Social Contract with other people, completely isolated from + adults-approved activities. In other words, you remember it fondly not + because the game itself was good, but because it wasn't - you remember + your repair of it at the Step On Up and Challenge levels, and the good + moments, however common or few they were, were all triumphs. + + On the other hand, it may have been a horrific degeneration into the + worst moments of social breakdown, on a par with any other form of + social abuse, and consequently it's reserved in the cellars of your mind + with being beaten up in locker rooms, confronted by older kids on the + way home from school, or humiliated by siblings. + + Hip to geek + The following is strictly a personal reflection from my own experiences + of late 1970s and early-1980s role-playing, as a hobby culture. I was + 13-14 years old in 1977-79 when I discovered the hobby, and through the + age of, roughly, sixteen, I battered my head against (A)D&D in a variety + of groups. They fell into the following categories: + + * Mainly older people with a sprinkling of teens who tried to do adult + things as much as possible. The adults were usually Army guys, with + some hip types who ran kids' groups or community-course programs. + The latter ran some damn good games, as I recall. + * Fellow teens - these get-togethers were often the least satisfying, + on the one hand due to individuals who owned "special" rules that no + one else did (brrrr ... what one guy armed with an Arduin Grimoire + can do to a Social Contract ...), and on the other because of the + perfectly reasonable assessment by many that the textual game itself + wasn't particularly fun. + * I also knew of several college groups during this time, up through + the early 1980s, mainly playing RuneQuest. I burned with jealousy + and desperately wanted to be in college and to play with folks like + that. + + Significantly, many groups, even the teen ones, included women in their + late twenties who were interested in role-playing and not at all + concerned about the propriety of hanging out with boys ten years + younger. This was the late 1970s, after all. I remember quite a few such + individuals. + + By 1983, things had changed drastically; in some ways, it mirrored a + general subcultural shift across the entire country (see the film Boogie + Nights if you didn't live through it). I'd realized that D&D had become + a "pube" activity, meaning 10-13-year-olds exclusively, most of whom + played once and then walked. + + The content resembled video games of the time: lives, levels, and + skyrocketing success scores, with no real loss at all. It was utterly + divorced from fantasy or mythic literature, and the comics and fantasy + authors of the day disavowed the hobby en masse. Successful play became + more and more a matter of who could break the game fastest, and the + social gamer became more and more consistently the social-outcast gamer. + Gaming communities weren't an edifying bunch, actually; they'd been + transformed socially and procedurally by the Cargo Cult context into a + rabidly-abusive, nitpicky bunch, in which the Social Contract actually + included making others upset. + + It had lost its cool factor entirely, just in time for me to go to + college in the fall of that year. The aforementioned Willing Female + Factor had vanished like smoke, and, my priorities firmly in place, I + swore off the hobby. The oath didn't last long, of course. I did find a + lot of people to role-play with, including women my own age, but always + on the basis that we "weren't like those gamers." Conversations about + role-playing ceased instantly if anyone nearby evinced interest in D&D. + We played Champions and Stormbringer, and looked forward to the buzz of + GURPS. + + Conclusion + The honeymoon was over long ago. Even in terms of this first phase of + D&D history alone, I suggest that we all would do well to recognize that + role-playing as an activity did not stem from a single game text, or + most importantly, from a single most-common mode or priority of play. + Judgments aren't the issue; whether all this was a good or bad thing is + completely beside the point. What matters are the consequences of this + recognition, including: + + * No one role-playing technique may be cited as "the original" way. + * No single combination of rules and presentation formats may be + considered archetypal. + * "D&D" as a term cannot be taken to indicate any particular form of + play, especially in reference to the origins of the hobby. + + I don't know whether I'll ever get to further discussion of the history + of D&D; in many ways, it's out of my sphere of interest except in + strictly marketing and industry terms, and I don't have much personal + history either as player or professional to draw upon. + The Forge created and administrated by [14]Clinton R. Nixon and [15]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/viewtopic.php?t=4983 + 10. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4991 + 11. http://www.blackmoor.com/ + 12. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/ + 13. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/10/ + 14. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com + 15. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/applied_theory.html --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/applied_theory.html Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,267 @@ + + + + + + + + + +The Forge :: Applied Theory + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
The ForgeThe Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games
About the Forge | Support The Forge | Articles | Reviews | Resource Library | Forums
  +
+
+ Applied Theory
+ by M.J. Young
+
+ +

Introduction

There are among gamers those who like to theorize, to attempt to understand and explain our hobby, why we do what we do, and why it works when it does. For some gamers, this makes no sense. We play to have fun; we design games in whatever way seems to be the most fun. Some despise theory, and see no use in it. If you have no use for theory, then this material's only offering is that perhaps someone else might. I am among those for whom theories are fundamental, so I would be interested in theories if they had no practical value to anyone. However, since I think that theory is the foundation for action, I can't imagine any theory that would have no practical application. I am thus exploring the practical application of role playing game theory.

Specifically, I'm looking at the theory commonly known as GNS. This theory suggests that role play styles divide into Gamists who enjoy facing the challenges of play, Narrativists who enjoy great stories that involve themes or issues, and Simulationists who seek to know what another reality might be like. The theory, which owes much to many people over many years including the discussions on the rec.games.frp.advocacy newsgroup, first took this form with these names when formulated by Ron Edwards in his article System Does Matter, originally published on Gaming Outpost, but since lost and republished at The Forge. Mr. Edwards has expanded on this theory with several other articles, and debates and discussions of the details have been held on the forums of several gamer web sites. Periodically in those discussions, someone suggests that the theory isn't much use, because it doesn't tell you how to design a better game.

In response to this, it can be and often is answered that this is not really a theory about how to design games. It's a theory about what gamers are seeking when they play, and as such has its most effective application as a diagnostic tool for play groups that seem to be internally at odds. In this context, if we have players who are trying to get different things out of the game, having some terminology and definitions by which to discuss what each is seeking can be invaluable in resolving conflict. If all GNS theory did was resolve such conflicts, it would be valuable. However, one cannot read so much as the title of that first article, System Does Matter, without absorbing the idea that game design itself is part of the problem, and therefore could be part of the solution. Those who are asking how to do narrativist, or gamist, or simulationist design are asking valid questions; the answers generally given to these budding designers have been inadequate, as they in essence amount to telling people to design whatever they like and then test it through play to see how it works.

Answers need not be quite so nebulous in this area. Once the theory is understood, there are aspects to it which suggest practical approaches to designing consistent games that support particular sorts of play. This isn't about rules heavy versus rules light design, or about setting detail, or even about things like whether you play your character in the first person or the third person or have control over things beyond the character. It's about how to create games which support and facilitate one approach to play under the theory. Once you have the basic concept of a game idea, application of the theory can greatly aid many of the design details.

Game design has many areas; no one area will completely control how the game is played, nor is it necessary for design priorities to be considered in relation to all of these areas to be effective. The social context of the gaming group playing the game can have a significant impact on whether the game works at all, and whether it is played as designed. Once it is agreed that a particular group of players is interested in playing a particular kind of game, designing to that desire need not be so mysterious as some imply. Character generation, resolution mechanics, credibility distribution, advancement, and rewards are some of the aspects of design through which particular GNS preferences can be facilitated, and designers can devise approaches to each of these through such considerations long before test play begins.

Underpinning this article, which will be somewhere on the edge between theory and practice, is this basic principle: conduct will be preferred if it is rewarded, and avoided if it is penalized.

There's a lot to cover, so coverage will of necessity be sketchy; however, it is hoped that this will provide some foundation for practical applications of the theory to game design.

Character Generation

Nearly all role playing games include a section on how to create a character. Very few give more than a line or two to considering what you are creating when you do so. Failure to consider this aspect leads to design problems; in GNS terms, an understanding of what you are creating is far more important than how you are creating it. Put another way, if you know what you're creating, how to do that will more often than not fall into place. Too many games create characters without thought to what they are. Characters are not really people; they are functional components of a game world which are manipulated by players to achieve goals. They are, in a word, tools. It is at this point in play that you are attempting to guide the players into designing the right tools.

Put that way, it becomes obvious that GNS considerations are very important to the question of what you are designing. If you guide the players into designing hammers, they're going to wind up with tools that are very good for hitting things; if you want them instead to write stories, you need to have them design pens. You need the right tool for the job; if you don't have it, there will be a tendency to try to make the job fit the tool.

So what kinds of tools are needed for the major types of jobs?

Gamist tools are easy to recognize and easy to design. A gamist character has to be up to the challenges which lie ahead. What that means in detail depends on the nature of the game in play and the preferences of the designer. Some gamist characters can be extremely focused on the central challenges of the game. Combat is the most common example of this, and a character's effectiveness in a certain type of gamist design would be measured by his abilities to deal damage and survive damage, to stand up to the fight. In a very different sort of game, racing could be the challenge, and character design would be narrowly about how fast the character is without reference to much else. However, skill-driven games can also have a strong gamist design foundation, if the skills are geared to meet potential in-game challenges. Driving or piloting skill, medical skill, hacking, picking locks, and hiding are all candidates for gamist design, because they are there to provide the player with options, ways to beat challenges presented in play.

That's not to say that narrativist characters can't have either power or skills; they can. However, narrativist characters need to be connected to the world. They need to be built such that things matter to them, and they matter to things.

Just as there are multiple ways to design a character effective against the challenges ahead, so too there are multiple ways to integrate a character into the world. Creating relationships with other characters is a valuable factor; giving the character beliefs or principles which will be challenged by events is also useful. Character history and character goals might matter, provided these are of a sort from which issues arise. A long-standing feud might be merely fodder for another fight; done right, it might become an issue for exploration. To build a narrativist tool, you should have something that is already tied in to the ideas you hope to explore.

Simulationist tools are perhaps the most difficult to see or to design. There is a sense in which no words which describe a simulationist character don't apply equally well to another sort. He must be effective, able to change his world; but then, gamist characters must be effective in that sense. He must be human, seeming like a real person; this is true of narrativist characters, certainly. Perhaps the most important characteristic of a simulationist character is that he must be accurate, that is, he must clearly express something real and credible within the setting such that he has exactly the amount of impact on events and persons around him that he should have, no more and no less.

This does not mean and should not be confused to mean that a simulationist character is more detailed than any other. A simulationist character could have history, principles, character, goals, relationships, skills, and all the things that support other forms of play; he could as easily be three numbers on a statistics sheet defining his effectiveness. What matters is that he is given form as an integrated part of the world, where he fits as if he were born and raised within it. To understand him is to understand the essentials of the world in which he lives, and vice versa. He is what he is, and in some sense not what anyone outside his world wants him to be. He is in the world and of the world, and as a tool he reveals the world to us through himself.

Now that we've got some idea of what kind of tool, what sort of character, we're trying to create, how do we create him? Do we use point systems for gamist characters, lifepaths for narrativists, and dice for simulationists? Wrong on all counts. Those methodological considerations in themselves have nothing to do with what we are creating. You can create any sort of character with any of them.

Take lifepaths for an example. We could start a character in his teens and move him, by a combination of die rolls and choices, through military training, education, private sector work, and other areas through which he builds up skills that prepare him for the challenges which will come. We might instead start a character younger, take him through his early years, develop school friends, relationships, family connections, life partners, coupled with the sort of moments that form opinions and beliefs, and so derive someone ready to explore the themes of the game. We could have a much broader selection of options, creating characters who have far less focus and more breadth of background and experience, who thus feel more real, as the tools we will use to explore the world. The idea of using lifepaths didn't matter; it was the way we used them that made the difference. It isn't how you build the character, but what kind of character you build. You'll certainly have to adjust the character generation system to build the right sort of character, and you might find that you have more luck making one mechanic type work than another for what you wish to do, but the answer isn't so much in the type of mechanic as in the targeted result.

I make some suggestions on character generation systems in Game Ideas Unlimited: CharGen (which gives some general thoughts and focuses on freeform design) and Game Ideas Unlimited: Negative Points (ways to smooth out some of the problems in dice and points systems).

Resolution Mechanics

Mr. Edwards has said that system within a game is the equivalent of time. To understand this, you have to understand something about time: it is the medium for change. Without time, nothing changes. In the game, the system determines what happens, what changes; without it, nothing changes. Thus the system determines and controls change, and therefore is effectively time for the imagined world.

Yet this, too, can be very important in supporting or impeding GNS preferences. How outcomes are resolved matters very much.

Although it has been said many times, it is worth saying again that diceless systems don't in themselves support narrativist play. They may be used for narrativist play, but they may equally be used for gamist or simulationist play. So, too, such general matters as dice pools, bell curves, granularity, and the other aspects of system which garner so much discussion (particularly from system monkeys) are not in themselves relevant to GNS concerns. As with character generation, it is what you do that matters, and not these questions of how you do it.

What are you attempting to do? The function of system is to provide the medium for change; more specifically, resolution mechanics are there to empower players to make the kinds of changes they wish to make within the game world and to interact with the consequences. To the gamist, resolution mechanics are in a sense both the obstacles to overcome and the means by which to overcome them. To the narrativist, they are the means by which the theme impacts the character and the character addresses the theme. In simulationist play, these are both the limitations on change and the power to explore it.

For gamist mechanics, you want something resolute; there usually needs to be clear victory conditions, clear failure conditions. It also helps if the system is responsive to player choice, that is, if there are ways that the player, through his character, can impact the probability of success. This could arise from strategy, or from skill or equipment choice, or from any decision which should and does give the character an advantage. Few things are more frustrating to gamist play than for the character to do things that seem to the player to make sense as ways to improve the odds, only to have these amount to no effect.

Even unrealistic strategies are helpful as gamist tools. A game that gives combat bonuses for sound, conservative defensive strategy can be very gamist, but so can one which gives combat bonuses for brash and brazen boldness, charging, screaming, doing over-the-top stunts. What matters is not how the bonuses are earned, but that in fact it is possible to manipulate the chance of success through character choices.

Although combat is the example here, it should not be thought that it's only in combat that such things matter. If a character can improve his chance to pick a lock or hack a computer or repair a wound by taking particular actions, this gives support to gamist play. There is a challenge to meet. The resolution system will tell whether or not the player succeeded, with certainty, but the player has the ability to tweak his chance of success through his approach to the problem.

Although it may sound strange to say that a resolution mechanic need not be resolute, for narrativist play it is often better that it not be. A gamist wants to know whether he succeeded or failed; a narrativist wants to know whether his efforts had an impact. In a combat mechanic for the use of guns, it is quite sufficient for a gamist system to determine whether the shot hit the opponent and how severe the injury is; for a narrativist system, things are probably a lot fuzzier (from a certain perspective). The shot should have the power to frighten the opponent and cause him to flee, for example. From the gamist perspective, that would be a miss; from a narrativist perspective, that's a success. Thus it helps narrativism if the resolution mechanic provides more of a degree of success rather than a strict success/failure determination.

Simulationism wants to know what would actually happen, given the assumptions of the setting. That doesn't mean realistic, in the ordinary sense; it means believable within the bounds of the imagined world. A fighter putting his spear in the ground and then using it as a bracing point as he runs across the chests of his adversaries kicking them is not terribly realistic, but it does fit the imagined reality of a certain sort of world, and thus could be incorporated into simulationist play in that world. In fact, if it has been established that a particular fighter can do that, simulationist play would dictate that he do so in any situation in which that would be the obvious response, unless there is reason to think he would do something else at that moment.

Thus resolution mechanics which support simulationist play are those which make outcomes correct within the setting. Much as with narrativism, this is often served by some form of relative success and relative failure, a determination of how well the character did; but like gamism, this generally needs to be resolute. A simulationist doesn't just want to know that he missed; he wants to know how close he came to hitting.

It might help put the entire question of resolution mechanics in perspective by imagining that a character runs, perhaps fleeing from an attacker. The gamist wants to know whether he ran fast enough. The narrativist wants to know how running mattered. The simulationist wants to know how fast he ran. Although in a sense, all three are concerned about escaping the adversary, they view this in different ways.

Credibility Distribution

Before anything can be said about credibility distribution, some explanation of what this means is important.

In roleplaying theory, it is recognized that there is within the game a shared imagined reality in which actions occur. Players, including the referee, contribute to the content of this reality through statements made to each other. These statements amount to, "This is what I want to have happen in our shared imagined world."

Of course, player statements may be contradictory; after all, players have different aims. Bob's character and Bill's character might get into a fight, and Bob might say that his character hits Bill's in the nose, to which Bill answers that his character ducks that punch and knocks Bob's to the floor. Now we need to know what actually happens in our shared imaginative space, or we're no longer imagining the same reality. Game systems must apportion credibility to address these issues. Credibility is the degree to which any person at the table has the power to define what is happening in the shared space.

You might think that in traditional games, only the referee has credibility. That is incorrect. All players have a measured amount of credibility. The referee rarely is able to say what actions any player's character would take--only whether he succeeded in that action. Thus non-referee players have credibility, too, even in such games, as they get to state what their characters attempt. Credibility means someone gets to decide what rules apply to the situation, when resolution mechanics are used, what the dice mean, and ultimately what happens in the shared space; it also means stating what actions characters are attempting, what they are saying to each other, and how they are reacting. Credibility is always shared. The issue is how it is shared.

This is sometimes confused with something called narration rights, that is, who gets to describe the scene. There is some connection between the two, but it is not absolute. For example, a game could state that each player at the table is allowed to contribute one fact which must be included in the outcome of the event, and then the player who has the narration rights must state what happened in such a manner that all of these facts are included. He himself might not have determined anything that happened despite narrating all of it. In most instances, narration rights include credibility; yet even in games which pass narration rights around, it may be the case that the referee can veto something stated in the narration if it goes counter to something known to him but not revealed to the players.

Gamist play is best supported in most cases by narrowly and clearly delineated credibility. Because the point of play is to overcome the challenge, it is not usually effective for the player facing the challenge to decide that he was successful. Since it is also possible that the players may find themselves in competition, it would be equally problematic for that decision to be made by a potentially opposing player. It is important to gamist play that credibility be clearly distributed, and that the player who determines the outcome does not himself have a stake in the outcome. This is why traditional games placed this power with the referee. He was viewed as the neutral arbiter, and as long as the players trusted his neutrality he could determine what occurred in the game world without problem. It is not impossible to eliminate the role of the referee from gamist play, but to do so the design must clearly establish who has credibility under each circumstance, so that disputes do not occur over success and failure. Too much player credibility can actually thwart gamist play preferences, since a player who can merely decide his character has been successful has lost all sense that there was any challenge to the victory.

This does not mean that players cannot be given credibility beyond the control of their character actions. The credibility to add color and detail to a scene are not contrary to gamist concerns. What matters is that such credibility cannot provide ways to eliminate the challenge itself. As one of my sons observed, you can't give the gamist player the power to invent a plus four sword lying on the table within reach and expect the game to be functional at a gamist level. The challenge must be maintained.

Narrativism usually requires more credibility in the hands of the players. Players are not competing with each other nor trying to beat the game, so giving them credibility is not detrimental to play in the same way it tends to be for gamist play. Rather, players need to be empowered to address the theme. Director stance, that is, the ability for the character players to add elements to the setting and events on the fly, is not uncommon in narrativist play. It is not essential to it, but works better with it than it does with the other preferences. Severely restricting credibility tends to stifle narrativist play, as it takes from the players their ability to make the statements they wish to make.

It is much more difficult to address credibility distribution in simulationism. What matters here is the verisimilitude and consistency of the shared imagined reality; that is, all players must see the same thing and believe it. This does not preclude broadly shared credibility; it does require a solid agreement on the nature of the reality. If we're playing in a medieval fantasy world, exploring an abandoned castle, a player given credibility could announce that he saw objects on a table, and describe the objects he saw. As long as those objects do not upset the agreed nature of the reality, such credibility is not problematic. Thus it is evident that the objects could include bottles and lamps, perhaps swords and daggers, possibly jewelry, all things which would typically be found on such tables. Were the player to describe seeing laser guns or kinetic blasters there, this would clearly violate the agreed reality, and his credibility would cease at that moment. However, there are difficult cases here. The player might describe finding the famed lost jewel of Prince Balthazzar, or opening a bottle to release a djinni, or discovering a scroll with a map to a hidden treasure. These, too, are all plausible within the setting, but may be stretching the credibility of the player. For this reason, it is more common for simulationist games to prefer narrower credibility for the players and broader credibility for the referee. It is not a necessary arrangement, but it does tend to support simulationism better.

Again, credibility distribution does not determine the sort of play that will occur in itself; it tends to support different preferences when configured different ways, and thought should be given to the amount of credibility players should have to facilitate reaching their goals.

Advancement

It must be asked whether it is necessary for characters to improve during play; the answer is that this is never necessary. It is not necessary for simulationist play, certainly not for narrativist play, and surprisingly not for gamist play. However, it is often desirable in each mode that characters have the power to improve and advance in some sense. The more significant question is, in what sense can the character advance?

Most of us are conditioned to think of character advancement or improvement in strictly gamist terms: a character advances by getting better at what he does. That is, his ability to face the challenges increases. That there could be character advancement that has nothing whatever to do with this is surprising to many players. Yet consideration of this mode of improvement should give us some clues regarding how to improve characters for simulationist and narrativist play.

In discussing character generation, it was recognized that the character was a tool which the player used to achieve goals. Improving a character means making it into a better tool. Thus if a starting character in a gamist game is a rubber mallet, improvement might take it through stages of being a tack hammer, claw hammer, ball peen hammer, sledge hammer, jack hammer, and ultimately pile driver. That is, the character gets more effective at meeting the challenge, because it is a tool designed to meet challenges.

If we consider the function of the narrativist character, we find that it exists to enable the player to address the theme, and as such it has to be tied in to the issues of play. Improving the character means connecting it more deeply or in new ways with the theme. It can mean deeper commitments, stronger relationships, more determined moral positions; it could also mean greater conflicts, increased doubts, more personal connections. In a game exploring issues of sexual identity, a character who has always decried homosexuality as a moral perversion could be advanced by the discovery that his best friend is homosexual, creating a tension between his friendship and his beliefs. It's not impossible for narrativist characters to get better at things they do, but it is far more supportive of narrativist play for them to advance by becoming more integrated into the issues. The tool that started as a pen has advanced to becoming a word processor: it is now able to address the issues at new levels and in more facets.

Since simulationist play is about exploring the imagined reality, character advancement is best if it enhances that ability to explore. Our magnifying glass gradually advances to an electron microscope; our field glasses to become the Hubble telescope. The particulars of how this works are greatly dependent on what the game is exploring. If the exploration is of a physical world, greater mobility within that world is the logical route to improvement. Given exploration of a complex society, increased contacts and exposure within the society provide the answer. Exploration of historic or fictional events requires greater access to the events. Combat effectiveness or skill improvement can be simulationist if these empower the player to explore more difficult or dangerous areas of the game world. The variety of possibilities makes it difficult to be specific, but the answer in any situation is found the same way: identify what the tool facilitates, and how to make it facilitate this more effectively. One thing that is consistent across simulationist play in this area is that character advancement, like everything else, must mesh with the in-game reality. A character exploring the setting by working as a local reporter can advance through being assigned to a larger beat, but only if it makes sense in the context of the world that this character would receive that assignment.

Again, it is not necessary in any style of play for characters to improve or advance. Gamist play can be about beating increasingly difficult opponents with the same resources with which you started. Narrativist play can interact with the world through a static character. Simulationist play can be limited to that which the character can access. All play styles can be enhanced by the ability to improve and advance characters within their own terms. More importantly, if a game design provides character advancement options, these will influence the way in which players approach the game.

Rewards

I have written elsewhere of rewards systems, and the necessity that they be two-pronged. I first considered the issue on the forums at The Forge, and later contributed a brief statement on it to RoleplayingTips.com. The clearest and most complete statement on the subject is in the aptly-named Game Ideas Unlimited: Rewards; but as that is for Gaming Outpost subscribers only I'll recap some of it here.

There are two aspects to rewards systems, both equally important. Many designers fail to realize this, and so design rewards systems that are internally conflicted--they encourage opposing play priorities.

There is a clear example of this found in examining the popular experience points systems of games in which you kill monsters and get treasure, which gives you points, which raises your character level or skills, which makes you better able to kill monsters and get treasure. This is a coherent gamist rewards system: everything in it is geared to encourage the process of killing monsters and getting treasure, that is, overcoming the challenges of the game. It is a system that does not need repair, because it works extremely well at doing what it is supposed to do.

However, there are many referees who don't like what it does. They think it encourages players to focus on killing monsters and getting treasure (which is correct, because that's exactly what it's supposed to do). They don't want that to be the focus of the game; they want to encourage role playing, or character development, or dialogue, or helping people, or any of uncounted other roleplay preferences. So they strip away at least some of the points gained for killing monsters and getting treasure, and instead give them for performing the desired conduct, whatever it is. Now a player character gains experience points by helping the poor, or pursuing his private hobbies; these points increase his level--which makes him better at killing monsters and getting treasure. The rewards are now given for one sort of play, but they still facilitate the other.

It's not necessary to have a rewards system in a game. Stripped of such artificial rewards, many players will discover that play is its own reward. After all, players play because they enjoy the game. They enjoy different aspects of the game, but whatever it is that they enjoy is inherent in the play itself. Rewards systems, in the main, are icing on the cake. Done right, they encourage the desired form of play. Done wrong, they can clash horribly with the entire game.

Thus when you design a rewards system, you need to look at both sides of it. What does this reward, that is, what does a player have to do to receive the reward? Winning, exploring the theme, and discovering the world are all goals and in a sense rewarding conduct; if you wish to encourage one of those, that is what you reward. You must then also ask what the reward facilitates. Does it make the character more powerful, give the player greater ability to address the theme, open up new areas of exploration?

Rewards systems, when they exist, are usually tied into character improvement. Thus if you've solved the one you've often solved at least part of the other. It need not be that way; you can provide rewards that advance player goals in one fashion and advancement that does so in another. For example, you could have a gamist game in which character advancement was built on improving skills by use, such that each time the player brought a particular skill into play in a significant way he received credit toward improving that skill. Independent of that, you could reward gamist play with success points, a small pool of points or dice on which the player could draw when he wished to improve his odds against a more daunting challenge or in a moment when success was more important. Rewards do not have to be tied to character improvement, even if character improvement is well designed for the goals of the game. Games with no character improvement at all may still have effective and functional rewards systems which facilitate the desired mode of play.

Conclusion

With sufficient consideration to what a game is trying to achieve, GNS theory can be very instructive in how best to achieve it. It does not dictate solutions to all of the questions that a designer must ask, but it does inform him of questions he needs to address which he might otherwise miss.

In examining character generation, resolution mechanics, credibility distribution, advancement, and rewards, it was shown that there were some ways in which GNS theory could point us to the best solutions for the type of game we sought to build. It is clear that at times designers are asking the wrong questions in these areas, because some of the things which we expect would matter are not relevant, but others that we often overlook are significant.

Although these five areas of game design are a significant portion of most games, they are not a complete consideration of all the areas which matter in all games. It is hoped that the consideration of these areas will not merely help the designer see that GNS can provide guidance on these game design issues, but also enable him to find the right questions and answers in areas not covered here.

I look forward to seeing the application of the theory to more games in the future.

M. Joseph Young is co-creator of the Multiverser role playing game and author or co-author of its various supplements. His Internet writings are indexed for convenience. He is available to discuss these ideas through the Forge forums and by e-mail.

The author wishes to thank Ron Edwards, Mike Holmes, Clinton Nixon, Ryan Young, Fang Langford, and Ralph Mazza for their editorial suggestions on the draft of this article. To recognize all those whose contributions were made through discussions on the forums of this site and others would require a separate article; please accept my thanks.

Similarly, there have been uncounted forum posts here and elsewhere that have contributed to the author's understanding of these issues. It has been wisely suggested that at least some of these be linked; alas, there are again more than can be acknowledged. Two stand out, however, as expanding on specific areas covered in the article, and in both of them the author here has made comments there which he hopes are of value. The concept of credibility appears to have been introduced by Vincent in Vincent's Standard Rant: Power, Credibility, and Assent; this author's comments on the top of the second page and near the bottom of the third page may be helpful in elucidating the use of Credibility in this context, and there is much on the thread that is useful. It appears that the earliest suggestion of the two pronged nature of reward systems was in this author's post, the second, in GNS and Player Rewards. The post illustrates by examples that games do not need reward mechanics for players to be rewarded, as play can and is often its own reward.
+ + +
+
+
+The Forge created and administrated by Clinton R. Nixon and Ron Edwards.
+All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their designated author. +
+
+ +
+ + + \ No newline at end of file diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/applied_theory.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/applied_theory.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,637 @@ + 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 + + + Applied Theory + by [8]M.J. Young + + Introduction + + There are among gamers those who like to theorize, to attempt to + understand and explain our hobby, why we do what we do, and why it works + when it does. For some gamers, this makes no sense. We play to have fun; + we design games in whatever way seems to be the most fun. Some despise + theory, and see no use in it. If you have no use for theory, then this + material's only offering is that perhaps someone else might. I am among + those for whom theories are fundamental, so I would be interested in + theories if they had no practical value to anyone. However, since I + think that theory is the foundation for action, I can't imagine any + theory that would have no practical application. I am thus exploring the + practical application of role playing game theory. + + Specifically, I'm looking at the theory commonly known as GNS. This + theory suggests that role play styles divide into Gamists who enjoy + facing the challenges of play, Narrativists who enjoy great stories that + involve themes or issues, and Simulationists who seek to know what + another reality might be like. The theory, which owes much to many + people over many years including the discussions on the + rec.games.frp.advocacy newsgroup, first took this form with these names + when formulated by Ron Edwards in his article [9]System Does Matter, + originally published on [10]Gaming Outpost, but since lost and + republished at The Forge. Mr. Edwards has expanded on this theory with + [11]several other articles, and debates and discussions of the details + have been held on the forums of several gamer web sites. Periodically in + those discussions, someone suggests that the theory isn't much use, + because it doesn't tell you how to design a better game. + + In response to this, it can be and often is answered that this is not + really a theory about how to design games. It's a theory about what + gamers are seeking when they play, and as such has its most effective + application as a diagnostic tool for play groups that seem to be + internally at odds. In this context, if we have players who are trying + to get different things out of the game, having some terminology and + definitions by which to discuss what each is seeking can be invaluable + in resolving conflict. If all GNS theory did was resolve such conflicts, + it would be valuable. However, one cannot read so much as the title of + that first article, System Does Matter, without absorbing the idea that + game design itself is part of the problem, and therefore could be part + of the solution. Those who are asking how to do narrativist, or gamist, + or simulationist design are asking valid questions; the answers + generally given to these budding designers have been inadequate, as they + in essence amount to telling people to design whatever they like and + then test it through play to see how it works. + + Answers need not be quite so nebulous in this area. Once the theory is + understood, there are aspects to it which suggest practical approaches + to designing consistent games that support particular sorts of play. + This isn't about rules heavy versus rules light design, or about setting + detail, or even about things like whether you play your character in the + first person or the third person or have control over things beyond the + character. It's about how to create games which support and facilitate + one approach to play under the theory. Once you have the basic concept + of a game idea, application of the theory can greatly aid many of the + design details. + + Game design has many areas; no one area will completely control how the + game is played, nor is it necessary for design priorities to be + considered in relation to all of these areas to be effective. The social + context of the gaming group playing the game can have a significant + impact on whether the game works at all, and whether it is played as + designed. Once it is agreed that a particular group of players is + interested in playing a particular kind of game, designing to that + desire need not be so mysterious as some imply. Character generation, + resolution mechanics, credibility distribution, advancement, and rewards + are some of the aspects of design through which particular GNS + preferences can be facilitated, and designers can devise approaches to + each of these through such considerations long before test play begins. + + Underpinning this article, which will be somewhere on the edge between + theory and practice, is this basic principle: conduct will be preferred + if it is rewarded, and avoided if it is penalized. + + There's a lot to cover, so coverage will of necessity be sketchy; + however, it is hoped that this will provide some foundation for + practical applications of the theory to game design. + + Character Generation + + Nearly all role playing games include a section on how to create a + character. Very few give more than a line or two to considering what you + are creating when you do so. Failure to consider this aspect leads to + design problems; in GNS terms, an understanding of what you are creating + is far more important than how you are creating it. Put another way, if + you know what you're creating, how to do that will more often than not + fall into place. Too many games create characters without thought to + what they are. Characters are not really people; they are functional + components of a game world which are manipulated by players to achieve + goals. They are, in a word, tools. It is at this point in play that you + are attempting to guide the players into designing the right tools. + + Put that way, it becomes obvious that GNS considerations are very + important to the question of what you are designing. If you guide the + players into designing hammers, they're going to wind up with tools that + are very good for hitting things; if you want them instead to write + stories, you need to have them design pens. You need the right tool for + the job; if you don't have it, there will be a tendency to try to make + the job fit the tool. + + So what kinds of tools are needed for the major types of jobs? + + Gamist tools are easy to recognize and easy to design. A gamist + character has to be up to the challenges which lie ahead. What that + means in detail depends on the nature of the game in play and the + preferences of the designer. Some gamist characters can be extremely + focused on the central challenges of the game. Combat is the most common + example of this, and a character's effectiveness in a certain type of + gamist design would be measured by his abilities to deal damage and + survive damage, to stand up to the fight. In a very different sort of + game, racing could be the challenge, and character design would be + narrowly about how fast the character is without reference to much else. + However, skill-driven games can also have a strong gamist design + foundation, if the skills are geared to meet potential in-game + challenges. Driving or piloting skill, medical skill, hacking, picking + locks, and hiding are all candidates for gamist design, because they are + there to provide the player with options, ways to beat challenges + presented in play. + + That's not to say that narrativist characters can't have either power or + skills; they can. However, narrativist characters need to be connected + to the world. They need to be built such that things matter to them, and + they matter to things. + + Just as there are multiple ways to design a character effective against + the challenges ahead, so too there are multiple ways to integrate a + character into the world. Creating relationships with other characters + is a valuable factor; giving the character beliefs or principles which + will be challenged by events is also useful. Character history and + character goals might matter, provided these are of a sort from which + issues arise. A long-standing feud might be merely fodder for another + fight; done right, it might become an issue for exploration. To build a + narrativist tool, you should have something that is already tied in to + the ideas you hope to explore. + + Simulationist tools are perhaps the most difficult to see or to design. + There is a sense in which no words which describe a simulationist + character don't apply equally well to another sort. He must be + effective, able to change his world; but then, gamist characters must be + effective in that sense. He must be human, seeming like a real person; + this is true of narrativist characters, certainly. Perhaps the most + important characteristic of a simulationist character is that he must be + accurate, that is, he must clearly express something real and credible + within the setting such that he has exactly the amount of impact on + events and persons around him that he should have, no more and no less. + + This does not mean and should not be confused to mean that a + simulationist character is more detailed than any other. A simulationist + character could have history, principles, character, goals, + relationships, skills, and all the things that support other forms of + play; he could as easily be three numbers on a statistics sheet defining + his effectiveness. What matters is that he is given form as an + integrated part of the world, where he fits as if he were born and + raised within it. To understand him is to understand the essentials of + the world in which he lives, and vice versa. He is what he is, and in + some sense not what anyone outside his world wants him to be. He is in + the world and of the world, and as a tool he reveals the world to us + through himself. + + Now that we've got some idea of what kind of tool, what sort of + character, we're trying to create, how do we create him? Do we use point + systems for gamist characters, lifepaths for narrativists, and dice for + simulationists? Wrong on all counts. Those methodological considerations + in themselves have nothing to do with what we are creating. You can + create any sort of character with any of them. + + Take lifepaths for an example. We could start a character in his teens + and move him, by a combination of die rolls and choices, through + military training, education, private sector work, and other areas + through which he builds up skills that prepare him for the challenges + which will come. We might instead start a character younger, take him + through his early years, develop school friends, relationships, family + connections, life partners, coupled with the sort of moments that form + opinions and beliefs, and so derive someone ready to explore the themes + of the game. We could have a much broader selection of options, creating + characters who have far less focus and more breadth of background and + experience, who thus feel more real, as the tools we will use to explore + the world. The idea of using lifepaths didn't matter; it was the way we + used them that made the difference. It isn't how you build the + character, but what kind of character you build. You'll certainly have + to adjust the character generation system to build the right sort of + character, and you might find that you have more luck making one + mechanic type work than another for what you wish to do, but the answer + isn't so much in the type of mechanic as in the targeted result. + + I make some suggestions on character generation systems in [12]Game + Ideas Unlimited: CharGen (which gives some general thoughts and focuses + on freeform design) and [13]Game Ideas Unlimited: Negative Points (ways + to smooth out some of the problems in dice and points systems). + + Resolution Mechanics + + Mr. Edwards has said that system within a game is the equivalent of + time. To understand this, you have to understand something about time: + it is the medium for change. Without time, nothing changes. In the game, + the system determines what happens, what changes; without it, nothing + changes. Thus the system determines and controls change, and therefore + is effectively time for the imagined world. + + Yet this, too, can be very important in supporting or impeding GNS + preferences. How outcomes are resolved matters very much. + + Although it has been said many times, it is worth saying again that + diceless systems don't in themselves support narrativist play. They may + be used for narrativist play, but they may equally be used for gamist or + simulationist play. So, too, such general matters as dice pools, bell + curves, granularity, and the other aspects of system which garner so + much discussion (particularly from system monkeys) are not in themselves + relevant to GNS concerns. As with character generation, it is what you + do that matters, and not these questions of how you do it. + + What are you attempting to do? The function of system is to provide the + medium for change; more specifically, resolution mechanics are there to + empower players to make the kinds of changes they wish to make within + the game world and to interact with the consequences. To the gamist, + resolution mechanics are in a sense both the obstacles to overcome and + the means by which to overcome them. To the narrativist, they are the + means by which the theme impacts the character and the character + addresses the theme. In simulationist play, these are both the + limitations on change and the power to explore it. + + For gamist mechanics, you want something resolute; there usually needs + to be clear victory conditions, clear failure conditions. It also helps + if the system is responsive to player choice, that is, if there are ways + that the player, through his character, can impact the probability of + success. This could arise from strategy, or from skill or equipment + choice, or from any decision which should and does give the character an + advantage. Few things are more frustrating to gamist play than for the + character to do things that seem to the player to make sense as ways to + improve the odds, only to have these amount to no effect. + + Even unrealistic strategies are helpful as gamist tools. A game that + gives combat bonuses for sound, conservative defensive strategy can be + very gamist, but so can one which gives combat bonuses for brash and + brazen boldness, charging, screaming, doing over-the-top stunts. What + matters is not how the bonuses are earned, but that in fact it is + possible to manipulate the chance of success through character choices. + + Although combat is the example here, it should not be thought that it's + only in combat that such things matter. If a character can improve his + chance to pick a lock or hack a computer or repair a wound by taking + particular actions, this gives support to gamist play. There is a + challenge to meet. The resolution system will tell whether or not the + player succeeded, with certainty, but the player has the ability to + tweak his chance of success through his approach to the problem. + + Although it may sound strange to say that a resolution mechanic need not + be resolute, for narrativist play it is often better that it not be. A + gamist wants to know whether he succeeded or failed; a narrativist wants + to know whether his efforts had an impact. In a combat mechanic for the + use of guns, it is quite sufficient for a gamist system to determine + whether the shot hit the opponent and how severe the injury is; for a + narrativist system, things are probably a lot fuzzier (from a certain + perspective). The shot should have the power to frighten the opponent + and cause him to flee, for example. From the gamist perspective, that + would be a miss; from a narrativist perspective, that's a success. Thus + it helps narrativism if the resolution mechanic provides more of a + degree of success rather than a strict success/failure determination. + + Simulationism wants to know what would actually happen, given the + assumptions of the setting. That doesn't mean realistic, in the ordinary + sense; it means believable within the bounds of the imagined world. A + fighter putting his spear in the ground and then using it as a bracing + point as he runs across the chests of his adversaries kicking them is + not terribly realistic, but it does fit the imagined reality of a + certain sort of world, and thus could be incorporated into simulationist + play in that world. In fact, if it has been established that a + particular fighter can do that, simulationist play would dictate that he + do so in any situation in which that would be the obvious response, + unless there is reason to think he would do something else at that + moment. + + Thus resolution mechanics which support simulationist play are those + which make outcomes correct within the setting. Much as with + narrativism, this is often served by some form of relative success and + relative failure, a determination of how well the character did; but + like gamism, this generally needs to be resolute. A simulationist + doesn't just want to know that he missed; he wants to know how close he + came to hitting. + + It might help put the entire question of resolution mechanics in + perspective by imagining that a character runs, perhaps fleeing from an + attacker. The gamist wants to know whether he ran fast enough. The + narrativist wants to know how running mattered. The simulationist wants + to know how fast he ran. Although in a sense, all three are concerned + about escaping the adversary, they view this in different ways. + + Credibility Distribution + + Before anything can be said about credibility distribution, some + explanation of what this means is important. + + In roleplaying theory, it is recognized that there is within the game a + shared imagined reality in which actions occur. Players, including the + referee, contribute to the content of this reality through statements + made to each other. These statements amount to, "This is what I want to + have happen in our shared imagined world." + + Of course, player statements may be contradictory; after all, players + have different aims. Bob's character and Bill's character might get into + a fight, and Bob might say that his character hits Bill's in the nose, + to which Bill answers that his character ducks that punch and knocks + Bob's to the floor. Now we need to know what actually happens in our + shared imaginative space, or we're no longer imagining the same reality. + Game systems must apportion credibility to address these issues. + Credibility is the degree to which any person at the table has the power + to define what is happening in the shared space. + + You might think that in traditional games, only the referee has + credibility. That is incorrect. All players have a measured amount of + credibility. The referee rarely is able to say what actions any player's + character would take--only whether he succeeded in that action. Thus + non-referee players have credibility, too, even in such games, as they + get to state what their characters attempt. Credibility means someone + gets to decide what rules apply to the situation, when resolution + mechanics are used, what the dice mean, and ultimately what happens in + the shared space; it also means stating what actions characters are + attempting, what they are saying to each other, and how they are + reacting. Credibility is always shared. The issue is how it is shared. + + This is sometimes confused with something called narration rights, that + is, who gets to describe the scene. There is some connection between the + two, but it is not absolute. For example, a game could state that each + player at the table is allowed to contribute one fact which must be + included in the outcome of the event, and then the player who has the + narration rights must state what happened in such a manner that all of + these facts are included. He himself might not have determined anything + that happened despite narrating all of it. In most instances, narration + rights include credibility; yet even in games which pass narration + rights around, it may be the case that the referee can veto something + stated in the narration if it goes counter to something known to him but + not revealed to the players. + + Gamist play is best supported in most cases by narrowly and clearly + delineated credibility. Because the point of play is to overcome the + challenge, it is not usually effective for the player facing the + challenge to decide that he was successful. Since it is also possible + that the players may find themselves in competition, it would be equally + problematic for that decision to be made by a potentially opposing + player. It is important to gamist play that credibility be clearly + distributed, and that the player who determines the outcome does not + himself have a stake in the outcome. This is why traditional games + placed this power with the referee. He was viewed as the neutral + arbiter, and as long as the players trusted his neutrality he could + determine what occurred in the game world without problem. It is not + impossible to eliminate the role of the referee from gamist play, but to + do so the design must clearly establish who has credibility under each + circumstance, so that disputes do not occur over success and failure. + Too much player credibility can actually thwart gamist play preferences, + since a player who can merely decide his character has been successful + has lost all sense that there was any challenge to the victory. + + This does not mean that players cannot be given credibility beyond the + control of their character actions. The credibility to add color and + detail to a scene are not contrary to gamist concerns. What matters is + that such credibility cannot provide ways to eliminate the challenge + itself. As one of my sons observed, you can't give the gamist player the + power to invent a plus four sword lying on the table within reach and + expect the game to be functional at a gamist level. The challenge must + be maintained. + + Narrativism usually requires more credibility in the hands of the + players. Players are not competing with each other nor trying to beat + the game, so giving them credibility is not detrimental to play in the + same way it tends to be for gamist play. Rather, players need to be + empowered to address the theme. Director stance, that is, the ability + for the character players to add elements to the setting and events on + the fly, is not uncommon in narrativist play. It is not essential to it, + but works better with it than it does with the other preferences. + Severely restricting credibility tends to stifle narrativist play, as it + takes from the players their ability to make the statements they wish to + make. + + It is much more difficult to address credibility distribution in + simulationism. What matters here is the verisimilitude and consistency + of the shared imagined reality; that is, all players must see the same + thing and believe it. This does not preclude broadly shared credibility; + it does require a solid agreement on the nature of the reality. If we're + playing in a medieval fantasy world, exploring an abandoned castle, a + player given credibility could announce that he saw objects on a table, + and describe the objects he saw. As long as those objects do not upset + the agreed nature of the reality, such credibility is not problematic. + Thus it is evident that the objects could include bottles and lamps, + perhaps swords and daggers, possibly jewelry, all things which would + typically be found on such tables. Were the player to describe seeing + laser guns or kinetic blasters there, this would clearly violate the + agreed reality, and his credibility would cease at that moment. However, + there are difficult cases here. The player might describe finding the + famed lost jewel of Prince Balthazzar, or opening a bottle to release a + djinni, or discovering a scroll with a map to a hidden treasure. These, + too, are all plausible within the setting, but may be stretching the + credibility of the player. For this reason, it is more common for + simulationist games to prefer narrower credibility for the players and + broader credibility for the referee. It is not a necessary arrangement, + but it does tend to support simulationism better. + + Again, credibility distribution does not determine the sort of play that + will occur in itself; it tends to support different preferences when + configured different ways, and thought should be given to the amount of + credibility players should have to facilitate reaching their goals. + + Advancement + + It must be asked whether it is necessary for characters to improve + during play; the answer is that this is never necessary. It is not + necessary for simulationist play, certainly not for narrativist play, + and surprisingly not for gamist play. However, it is often desirable in + each mode that characters have the power to improve and advance in some + sense. The more significant question is, in what sense can the character + advance? + + Most of us are conditioned to think of character advancement or + improvement in strictly gamist terms: a character advances by getting + better at what he does. That is, his ability to face the challenges + increases. That there could be character advancement that has nothing + whatever to do with this is surprising to many players. Yet + consideration of this mode of improvement should give us some clues + regarding how to improve characters for simulationist and narrativist + play. + + In discussing character generation, it was recognized that the character + was a tool which the player used to achieve goals. Improving a character + means making it into a better tool. Thus if a starting character in a + gamist game is a rubber mallet, improvement might take it through stages + of being a tack hammer, claw hammer, ball peen hammer, sledge hammer, + jack hammer, and ultimately pile driver. That is, the character gets + more effective at meeting the challenge, because it is a tool designed + to meet challenges. + + If we consider the function of the narrativist character, we find that + it exists to enable the player to address the theme, and as such it has + to be tied in to the issues of play. Improving the character means + connecting it more deeply or in new ways with the theme. It can mean + deeper commitments, stronger relationships, more determined moral + positions; it could also mean greater conflicts, increased doubts, more + personal connections. In a game exploring issues of sexual identity, a + character who has always decried homosexuality as a moral perversion + could be advanced by the discovery that his best friend is homosexual, + creating a tension between his friendship and his beliefs. It's not + impossible for narrativist characters to get better at things they do, + but it is far more supportive of narrativist play for them to advance by + becoming more integrated into the issues. The tool that started as a pen + has advanced to becoming a word processor: it is now able to address the + issues at new levels and in more facets. + + Since simulationist play is about exploring the imagined reality, + character advancement is best if it enhances that ability to explore. + Our magnifying glass gradually advances to an electron microscope; our + field glasses to become the Hubble telescope. The particulars of how + this works are greatly dependent on what the game is exploring. If the + exploration is of a physical world, greater mobility within that world + is the logical route to improvement. Given exploration of a complex + society, increased contacts and exposure within the society provide the + answer. Exploration of historic or fictional events requires greater + access to the events. Combat effectiveness or skill improvement can be + simulationist if these empower the player to explore more difficult or + dangerous areas of the game world. The variety of possibilities makes it + difficult to be specific, but the answer in any situation is found the + same way: identify what the tool facilitates, and how to make it + facilitate this more effectively. One thing that is consistent across + simulationist play in this area is that character advancement, like + everything else, must mesh with the in-game reality. A character + exploring the setting by working as a local reporter can advance through + being assigned to a larger beat, but only if it makes sense in the + context of the world that this character would receive that assignment. + + Again, it is not necessary in any style of play for characters to + improve or advance. Gamist play can be about beating increasingly + difficult opponents with the same resources with which you started. + Narrativist play can interact with the world through a static character. + Simulationist play can be limited to that which the character can + access. All play styles can be enhanced by the ability to improve and + advance characters within their own terms. More importantly, if a game + design provides character advancement options, these will influence the + way in which players approach the game. + + Rewards + + I have written elsewhere of rewards systems, and the necessity that they + be two-pronged. I first considered the issue on the forums at The Forge, + and later contributed a brief statement on it to RoleplayingTips.com. + The clearest and most complete statement on the subject is in the + aptly-named [14]Game Ideas Unlimited: Rewards; but as that is for Gaming + Outpost subscribers only I'll recap some of it here. + + There are two aspects to rewards systems, both equally important. Many + designers fail to realize this, and so design rewards systems that are + internally conflicted--they encourage opposing play priorities. + + There is a clear example of this found in examining the popular + experience points systems of games in which you kill monsters and get + treasure, which gives you points, which raises your character level or + skills, which makes you better able to kill monsters and get treasure. + This is a coherent gamist rewards system: everything in it is geared to + encourage the process of killing monsters and getting treasure, that is, + overcoming the challenges of the game. It is a system that does not need + repair, because it works extremely well at doing what it is supposed to + do. + + However, there are many referees who don't like what it does. They think + it encourages players to focus on killing monsters and getting treasure + (which is correct, because that's exactly what it's supposed to do). + They don't want that to be the focus of the game; they want to encourage + role playing, or character development, or dialogue, or helping people, + or any of uncounted other roleplay preferences. So they strip away at + least some of the points gained for killing monsters and getting + treasure, and instead give them for performing the desired conduct, + whatever it is. Now a player character gains experience points by + helping the poor, or pursuing his private hobbies; these points increase + his level--which makes him better at killing monsters and getting + treasure. The rewards are now given for one sort of play, but they still + facilitate the other. + + It's not necessary to have a rewards system in a game. Stripped of such + artificial rewards, many players will discover that play is its own + reward. After all, players play because they enjoy the game. They enjoy + different aspects of the game, but whatever it is that they enjoy is + inherent in the play itself. Rewards systems, in the main, are icing on + the cake. Done right, they encourage the desired form of play. Done + wrong, they can clash horribly with the entire game. + + Thus when you design a rewards system, you need to look at both sides of + it. What does this reward, that is, what does a player have to do to + receive the reward? Winning, exploring the theme, and discovering the + world are all goals and in a sense rewarding conduct; if you wish to + encourage one of those, that is what you reward. You must then also ask + what the reward facilitates. Does it make the character more powerful, + give the player greater ability to address the theme, open up new areas + of exploration? + + Rewards systems, when they exist, are usually tied into character + improvement. Thus if you've solved the one you've often solved at least + part of the other. It need not be that way; you can provide rewards that + advance player goals in one fashion and advancement that does so in + another. For example, you could have a gamist game in which character + advancement was built on improving skills by use, such that each time + the player brought a particular skill into play in a significant way he + received credit toward improving that skill. Independent of that, you + could reward gamist play with success points, a small pool of points or + dice on which the player could draw when he wished to improve his odds + against a more daunting challenge or in a moment when success was more + important. Rewards do not have to be tied to character improvement, even + if character improvement is well designed for the goals of the game. + Games with no character improvement at all may still have effective and + functional rewards systems which facilitate the desired mode of play. + + Conclusion + + With sufficient consideration to what a game is trying to achieve, GNS + theory can be very instructive in how best to achieve it. It does not + dictate solutions to all of the questions that a designer must ask, but + it does inform him of questions he needs to address which he might + otherwise miss. + + In examining character generation, resolution mechanics, credibility + distribution, advancement, and rewards, it was shown that there were + some ways in which GNS theory could point us to the best solutions for + the type of game we sought to build. It is clear that at times designers + are asking the wrong questions in these areas, because some of the + things which we expect would matter are not relevant, but others that we + often overlook are significant. + + Although these five areas of game design are a significant portion of + most games, they are not a complete consideration of all the areas which + matter in all games. It is hoped that the consideration of these areas + will not merely help the designer see that GNS can provide guidance on + these game design issues, but also enable him to find the right + questions and answers in areas not covered here. + + I look forward to seeing the application of the theory to more games in + the future. + + M. Joseph Young is co-creator of the [15]Multiverser role playing game + and author or co-author of its various supplements. His Internet + writings are [16]indexed for convenience. He is available to discuss + these ideas through the Forge forums and by e-mail. + + The author wishes to thank Ron Edwards, Mike Holmes, Clinton Nixon, Ryan + Young, Fang Langford, and Ralph Mazza for their editorial suggestions on + the draft of this article. To recognize all those whose contributions + were made through discussions on the forums of this site and others + would require a separate article; please accept my thanks. + + Similarly, there have been uncounted forum posts here and elsewhere that + have contributed to the author's understanding of these issues. It has + been wisely suggested that at least some of these be linked; alas, there + are again more than can be acknowledged. Two stand out, however, as + expanding on specific areas covered in the article, and in both of them + the author here has made comments there which he hopes are of value. The + concept of credibility appears to have been introduced by Vincent in + [17]Vincent's Standard Rant: Power, Credibility, and Assent; this + author's comments on the top of the [18]second page and near the bottom + of the [19]third page may be helpful in elucidating the use of + Credibility in this context, and there is much on the thread that is + useful. It appears that the earliest suggestion of the two pronged + nature of reward systems was in this author's post, the second, in + [20]GNS and Player Rewards. The post illustrates by examples that games + do not need reward mechanics for players to be rewarded, as play can and + is often its own reward. + The Forge created and administrated by [21]Clinton R. Nixon and [22]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:BestRPGis@multiverser.com + 9. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/ + 10. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/ + 11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/ + 12. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=71050&publisherid=54849 + 13. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=71772&publisherid=54849 + 14. http://www.gamingoutpost.com/GL/index.cfm?action=ShowProduct&CategoryID=54411&ProductID=71532&publisherid=54849 + 15. http://www.multiverser.com/ + 16. http://www.mjyoung.net/writings.htm + 17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701 + 18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15 + 19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30 + 20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4075 + 21. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com + 22. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/congruency.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/congruency.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,1190 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +March 15, 2006, 02:29:07 PM + +Login with username, password and session length + + +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*198791* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *General Forge Forums * +| |-+ *GNS Model Discussion +* +| | |-+ *GNS and "Congruency" +* « previous + +next » + + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + Print + + +Author Topic: GNS and "Congruency" (Read 2443 times) + +*Walt Freitag +* +Member + +Posts: 1024 + + +View Profile + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« * on:* March 30, 2002, 08:42:29 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +GNS and "Congruency" + +This idea was inspired by all the recent GNS discussion using examples +of individual game decisions that are ambiguous in terms of revealing +the GNS decision-making preferences of the participants who made them. +Instead of regarding this common situation as merely an inconvenience +for GNS analysis, I believe it could be a phenomenon useful to focus +some attention on in its own right. + +Quote from: Mike Holmes +Just as a point of clarification (which may, ironically, confuse the +issue some), quite often the same decision can be made for different +reasons. I know I point this out all the time, but it is important here. +It is one of the reasons that it is hard to determine the nature of a +decision by observation. Quite often through coincidence the same +decision could have been motivated by more than one of the three +motives. Not always, sometimes it's very obvious. But quite often. + + +Such observations in recent threads have been particularly helpful in +developing this concept, which I?ve chosen to term *congruency.* + +Definition and Usage: + +A *congruent* decision is a decision made by a participant (GM or +player) during play that cannot, on the basis of the visible behavior +resulting from the decision, be categorized as belonging to a specific +mode of decision-making enumerated by the underlying model. In the +context of the GNS model there are exactly four possible congruencies, +representing the four combinations of two or more modes for which a +decision may be ambiguous. + +This definition refers only to visible behavior, not underlying motive +or any other unknowable quality. Thus, such questions as whether or not +every individual decision "really is" purely G, N, or S in nature, or +whether it can be "43% this, 57% that," are irrelevant for purposes of +discussing congruency. + +To specify a particular congruency, we could say that a decision is +"congruent with respect to" or simply "congruent with" any two (or all +three) modes. For shorthand we might use (and I will use) e.g. "S-N +congruent" for "congruent with respect to Simulationism and +Narrativism." Congruency is reflexive; there is no distinction between +e.g. "G-S congruency" and "S-G congruency." However, for a further +shorthand, when speaking in the context of discussion of one of the +three modes, it should be OK to say that a decision is e.g. "S +congruent" meaning congruent between the mode specified (in this case, +S) and the mode under discussion. + +Keep in mind, however, that even when speaking of congruency between two +specific modes, the third mode cannot be completely disregarded. For +example, a decision that is unambiguously Gamist is *not* S-N congruent. +To be S-N congruent, the decision has to be either unambiguously /not/ +Gamist, or ambiguous with respect to Gamism (in which case it could be +G-S-N congruent, which also counts as S-N congruent). + +A congruent decision, by definition, does not influence the long-term +judgment of whether the participant?s overall pattern of decision-making +falls into one or the other of the modes with which the decision is +congruent. + +By analogy with the GNS modes themselves, we could also describe a +system or practice as congruent (or more specifically, as e.g. G-S +congruent) as a verbal shorthand meaning that that system or practice +promotes or rewards decision-making by participants that is congruent in +the way specified. This purely definitional and is not meant to assume +that such systems or practices exist. + +Incongruency + +The opposite of congruency can only be termed incongruency, which sounds +like a bad thing but, in and of itself, isn?t. An incongruent decision +is nothing more or less than a decision whose visible expression +provides evidence that the decision-maker?s pattern of decisions +conforms to a specific one of the three GNS modes. (It doesn?t have to +be conclusive evidence. If a player were to make a series of incongruent +decisions, some clearly simulationist and others clearly narrativist, we +might be unable to characterize his overall pattern of decision-making, +but each individual decision would provide some evidence in favor of one +or the other possibility.) + +In practice, incongruent decisions appear usually to be ones where an +observer can tell that there were other options open to the player +which, if chosen, would have advanced different GNS goals than the +choice the player actually made. Thus, what makes a decision incongruent +(or congruent) is not just the decision itself, but also the +circumstances (especially, other choices that were available) under +which the decision is made. For that reason, it?s acceptable and +understandable to describe a decision situation in which the decision +has not yet been made as congruent or incongruent, as long as it?s +understood that this is a loose usage that really means "likely to +result in a congruent/incongruent decision." + +Congruency versus Coherency + +Congruency and coherency are not the same thing, though they are +related. Definitionally they exist on different levels: coherency is an +emergent quality that applies to an entire system, group, or large unit +of actual game play, while congruency applies to individual decisions. +Nonetheless, in the application of theory, the concept of +coherency/incoherency "reaches down" into the realm of individual game +mechanisms or practices, while the concept of congruency/incongruency +"reaches up" into patterns of decision-making and the in-game situations +in which they occur. It?s likely they?re going to meet and coexist +somewhere in the middle. + +Examples of poor play resulting from an incoherent system, and examples +of excellent play in a coherent system, all seem to begin with a player +making an incongruent decision. In the former case, the decision +conflicts with the goals of other participants, representing +dysfunction. In the latter case, all the participants have compatible +goals so there is no dysfunction. In fact, the others generally take +pleasure in the fact that the decision-maker made a choice that advances +everyone?s goals even though other choices were available. + +A useful concept? + +If congruency is outside the control of system designers or game +participants, then it is a useless concept. + +If congruency cannot be altered independently of coherency, then it is +functionally equivalent to coherency and therefore useless as a separate +concept. + +I believe that neither of these is the case. I believe that certain +techniques and design considerations bear directly upon congruency, and +that they are useful in two ways: + +1. To attenuate the dysfunction caused by an incoherent system or a +group of participants with incoherent goals, by reducing the occurrence +of incongruency during play. + +2. To adjust the level of metagame or other forms of self-conscious +decision-making in coherent play, in either direction, by controlling +the occurrence of incongruency during play. + +I further hypothesize that various forms (and especially, the most +successfully functional forms) of vanilla play, abashed play, and drift +will prove to be characterized by rules and practices promoting congruency. + +The interesting questions, I believe, are whether there are other +techniques to be discovered, or if the known techniques can be applied +in new ways such as embodying them in system designs. + +Example 1: OOC knowledge and G-S congruency + +A GM running a fantasy game plays out an encounter with vampires. A +player-character recognizes the obvious vampiric demeanor of the +vampires, and immediately acts upon the strategy of fleeing until +sunrise, then finding the vampires? coffins and staking them. The GM is +displeased because he believes that the player-characters, being from +outside the European-style portion of the world in which the vampires +exist, should not be able to recognize the vampires for what they are, +let alone already know the best way to destroy them. + +Clearly there are GNS coherency problems at work here. Why does the GM +not want the player-character to act on OOC knowledge? Because he +believes that the goal of play is to create verisimilitude, and besides, +the vampires were supposed to be difficult opponents that would hook the +players into exploration of a really cool storyline. Why does the player +want to act on OOC knowledge? Because the game system rewards him for +dispatching enemies in the most effective possible way with the least risk. + +But even though the specific problem stems from lack of coherency, it +could be solved on the level of congruency. If the vampires in the +encounter have to be straight out of Hollywood, then the GM can easily +make sure the player-characters are aware of the same vampire legends +the players know. (He would also allow for that knowledge when designing +the difficulty of the encounter.) Then, the player?s decision to try to +stake the vampires would be a completely G-S congruent one. Or, if the +GM doesn?t want the characters to know anything about the enemy, then he +should invent a new creature with different habits and weaknesses than a +standard vampire. The players will try their best to figure out how to +survive and destroy the enemy, just as their characters would do in that +situation, so again, their decisions will be G-S congruent. + +Note that neither of these solutions, for better or worse, affects the +underlying GNS issue. The GM still has Simulationist expectations, and +the player is still chasing those Gamist rewards. But the specific +instance of dysfunction that was making the participants unhappy has +been averted. + +This is only one example of dozens if not hundreds of known practices +and system rules that appear to bear directly on G-S congruency. Many of +these, as in the example, take the form of "don?t-do" constraints, +suggesting that congruency does come at a cost in design freedom. A GM +who wants G-S congruency, and wants Hollywood vampires, and wants the +player-characters to not already know how to kill said vampires, is just +SOL. + +S-N congruency + +As Mike Holmes pointed out in the same post the quote above was taken +from, a player acting entirely on narrativist motivations would still +make decisions compatible with "what the character would do" much of the +time, because a good story has to be plausible. In other words many +non-Gamist decisions are S-N congruent. + +What we should be interested in are the exceptions. When does S-N +incongruency arise? + +- When a participant makes a decision that is consistent with +verisimilitude but detracts from the story (deprotagonization). +- When a participant makes a decision that is consistent with the +creation of Story or exploration of Premise, but detracts from +verisimilitude in some way. It might do so by being inconsistent with +the character, or by invoking an explicitly metagame mechanism. + +Note that opting not to make use of an available Narrativist-oriented +metagame mechanism is not proof that a simulationist decision was made, +as long as the option chosen instead was also consistent with the goal +of creating story, so such a decision is not usually S-N incongruent. +However, use of a metagame mechanism is almost always S-N incongruent. + +This immediately suggests that a dichotomy of taste could arise, between +those who prefer the self-conscious decision making of Narrativist +metagame mechanisms and those who prefer to create story within the +constraints of S-N congruency. I believe this dichotomy is already known +in practice as the distinction between vanilla and explicit Narrativism. +While there is a continuum between them, the distribution of preferences +along that continuum appears to be bimodal, and taking the concept of +congruency into account explains why. This also explains why so many +examples of vanilla Narrativism are difficult to distinguish from +Simulationism. Quite simply, the practitioners want it that way. + +Besides metagame mechanics, other elements that could increase or +decrease the prevalence of S-N congruity in a game include character +design (traditional heroes will face fewer potentially S-N incongruent +decisions than anti-heroes or more complex characters), choice of +Premise, and the degree of realism in a setting. Attempts to portray +settings that "simulate the world of movies instead of the real world" +can be characterized as attempts to foster S-N congruency (though how +successfully they accomplish it is unclear). + +Example 2: S-N congruency and Illusionism + +A now-wiser but still self-confident neonate Vampire leads her +companions into the betrayer?s lair for the inevitable confrontation +that both sides hope will be final. Oops, the enemy just make a +spectacular success roll with the Possession discipline. Looks like our +vengeful vampess is going to be working for the opposition for the rest +of the scene. How deprotagonizing, especially since the major Premise +happens to be about the nature of loyalty. + +The GM faces a decision that clearly has potential to be S-N +incongruent: apply the effects of the roll, or fudge the roll to reduce +the enemy?s success to an intermediate result that will play into the +Premise rather than override it. If he chooses to let the roll stand, +it?s clearly an S-N incongruent Simulationist decision. If he lies about +the results of the roll, it?s clearly an S-N incongruent Narrativist +decision. Or is it? Let?s look again at the definition of congruency: +"?the /visible/ behavior resulting from..." An omniscient observer can +clearly see the decision?s incongruency, as can the GM himself. But the +GM isn?t telling, and there are no omniscient observers on the scene. As +far as the players are concerned, no incongruency has occurred. Since +congruency is based on visible behavior, there is no difference between +the effective illusion of congruency and congruency itself. + +Thus, I believe, the concept of congruency gives us a framework for +understanding illusionism in a straightforward way that is free of +speculation about motivation. Other forms of illusionism appear to be +similarly associated with other applications of congruency. + +G-N congruency? + +I think this occurs, but perhaps only in limited circumstances, such as, +for example, when the Premise is about risk or fortune or fate. It?s +certainly possible to create excellent Story with deep Premise about a +group of people who go out and hunt a big powerful monster to take its +treasure (ask the hundreds of Herman Melville buffs who live in my +town), and under such circumstances, at least, the possibility of +promoting G-N congruency appears promising. The actual techniques would +probably be similar to those of S-G congruency (including illusionism) +in many cases, with more severe constraints. + +It also appears that competitive storytelling games can be G-N +congruent, through an entirely different approach. + +As for G-N-S congruency, it would have to incorporate G-N congruency as +a start. It is certainly possible for an individual decision to be G-N-S +congruent. But as for attempting to maintain such congruency +consistently in a real game, my suspicion is that it?s theoretically +possible, but the necessary constraints would be so severe that it would +rarely be worth it. + +---------- + +That?s as far as I?ve got. I believe congruency could be a useful +concept, not because it says very much that?s new, but because it gives +us new language to use in applying the GNS model to real-world issues of +coherency, drift, and taste. This could also help in the understanding +and acceptance of the GNS model, because it addresses in a +GNS-consistent way many of those in-between cases and tricky examples +that people keep offering up as challenges to the validity of GNS. + +One more note: even as I?ve been writing this, others have been adding +posts that are getting at the same idea. Just a few minutes ago +Mytholder posted: + +Quote +I'm well aware decisions are key here. I know a dramatist can make Sim +decisions. I just don't think the majority of a players' decisions are +"significant" in terms of GNS. It really doesn't matter if I chose to +eat in that inn to ensure I don't suffer from fatigue-related +penalities, or because it's a logical thing to do in terms of the +simulation, or because I'm deliberately providing a plot opening for the +GM. All three play styles are fully compatible with the action. It's +only when the play styles are IN CONFLICT that GNS comes into it. + + +Congruency gives us a more rigorous definition of "significant in terms +of GNS," and also finds a way to apply GNS to the remaining "ground" (in +the figure-vs.-ground sense) of decision, by specifying which modes +those decisions are congruent with. + +- Walt + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Wandering in the diasporosphere + +*Laurel * +Member + +Posts: 243 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #1 on:* April 01, 2002, 09:11:25 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +While the idea of adding more jargon to an already jargon-heavy body of +communication personally fills me with dismay, I can't argue with your +logic Walt and I agree that this would be useful to do in this instance. + What you are posting makes sense to me. + +Laurel + Logged + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #2 on:* April 10, 2002, 08:19:14 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hi Walt, + +I finally, finally managed to get to this thread. I think you've posted +something well worth attention. I'll begin by saying that in all +practical, observational points, I agree in full. + +The real question, as you know, is as you stated: /If congruency cannot +be altered independently of coherency, then it is functionally +equivalent to coherency and therefore useless as a separate concept./ + +My own take on the matter is that I have been, all along, thinking of +Coherence in such a way that it includes your concept of Congruency. +It's still pretty hard for me to separate them, for a couple of reasons. + +1) I have tried to stress that compatibility of goals, in practice, is +the defining feature of Coherence. The fact that goals are most +compatible when they are similar-to-identical, as well as the fact that +I tend to prefer such play situations personally, are not relevant; any +compatible mix of different goals ("convergence?") is Coherent too. + +2) I tend to include the entire spectrum from "atomic" GNS decision, to +"molecular" GNS activity (observable), to "substance" GNS profile (very +observable), all the way to "group" or "object" GNS profile when I +discuss these things. Or more accurately, I tend to encourage discussion +at the upper end and let the lower/finer end take care of itself. (I'm +working on some material to clarify this issue, to myself as well as to +anyone who's interested. I'll be posting that when it's done.) + +Now the real question is whether my own ease of combining techniques +with outcomes in #1, as well as my inclination to discuss mainly the +upper-end (observable, functional) of the spectrum in #2, have been +causing problems in discussion. If so, then Congruency as a concept +would be the perfect solution. + +What I need to nail down is, if we use Congruency as you've defined it, +what need is there for Coherence, as a term? I'm kind of chewing it +over, personally, not goin' one way or another. Can you clarify that for +me, or provide more examples of how the two terms might interrelate in +practice? + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Valamir * +Member + +Posts: 4859 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #3 on:* April 10, 2002, 08:40:55 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Ron Edwards + +2) I tend to include the entire spectrum from "atomic" GNS decision, to +"molecular" GNS activity (observable), to "substance" GNS profile (very +observable), all the way to "group" or "object" GNS profile when I +discuss these things. Or more accurately, I tend to encourage discussion +at the upper end and let the lower/finer end take care of itself. (I'm +working on some material to clarify this issue, to myself as well as to +anyone who's interested. I'll be posting that when it's done.) + +Now the real question is whether my own ease of combining techniques +with outcomes in #1, as well as my inclination to discuss mainly the +upper-end (observable, functional) of the spectrum in #2, have been +causing problems in discussion. If so, then Congruency as a concept +would be the perfect solution. + + +Speaking for myself I think, you've hit on the source of the problem I +had for a long time. You understood that GNS was formulated on the +atomic level, and could freely translate the concepts up to the +"molecular" and "subtance level". But for me (and I suspect based on my +own observations, many of us) I didn't see the translation going on and +thought that GNS was formulated at the "substance" level...which in turn +led me skim over and pay less attention to those times when you brought +up "decisions". + +Mytholder and I had a very extended thread which basically boiled down +what Walt skillfully summarized as Congruency. If we'd had the +vocabulary of Congruency at the time of the thread as it relates to GNS, +we probably could have spent less time circling each other, and more +time moveing the thread forward. + +Quote + +What I need to nail down is, if we use Congruency as you've defined it, +what need is there for Coherence, as a term? I'm kind of chewing it +over, personally, not goin' one way or another. Can you clarify that for +me, or provide more examples of how the two terms might interrelate in +practice? + + + +The way I see it from Walt's description is that they operate at +different scales. + +Congruence, as he's defined it, is strictly an atomic level phenomenon. + It allows us to identify Incongruent decisions that can be identified +as occupying a GNS decision from the congruent decisions that could be +more than one position and which can't be determined. This is what +Mytholder was calling "significant" and we were representing as blanks +in the decision maps we were drawing (the blanks being congruent and the +non blanks being incongruent...of course, in Walts model we'd need to +use something other than blanks to represent the 4 different types of +congruency). + +Coherency on the other hand looks at the pattern of incongruent +decisions over the period of the game. If the pattern of Incongruent +decisions is dominantly one position, N----N----N--N, for instance, then +the game is N Coherent. If the pattern of Incongruent decisions is a +mix of GNS positions, N---G----N----S---S---S---G, for instance, then +the game is Incoherent. + +Whether an Incoherent game is dysfunctional or a functional hybrid would +need to be determined using other tools. + +Needless to say, I'm a BIG fan of this method of analysing GNS. Walt +managed to summarize alot of concepts I was batting around with +Mytholder very succinctly. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ralph Mazza +Universalis: The Game of Unlimited Stories + + +*lumpley * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 2091 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #4 on:* April 10, 2002, 10:10:50 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hey, wait. + +Isn't coherency at the game-text level, I mean at the V:tM or Sorcerer +or Smurfs: the Smurfing level, and doesn't it mean that all the game's +rules plus its hype work together well to drive the game? + +Like an N-coherent game is one where you can make consistently N +decisions without having to compromise with the rules, right? The game +supports you in your consistently N decision-making. + +If so, congruency and coherency aren't that closely related at all. I +think congruency is more related to (but opposite to) 'perviness,' as in +"I'm a pervy Narrativist." + +A highly congruent N-S game is one that supports decisions that might be +N, might be S. Sorcerer, I'd say as an example, and having never played +it, is more congruent than The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, because +it's damn hard to make a (game-rule significant) decision in the WF&D +that /isn't/ Narrativist. Sorcerer on the other hand has all kinds of +support for Sim decisions, like stats with numbers and things. Yes you +can/must/will use them to drive a story, but any given Lore roll (again +just talking out my butt) might be Sim instead, hard to say. I fail my +Lore roll -- is what happens because it makes for a good story, or +because it's consistent with the world-sim? Who knows? Hence: congruent. + +('Pervy' is kind of the opposite of 'vanilla,' right? Which would make +'highly congruent' and 'vanilla' into cousins, which sounds right to me.) + +-Vincent + Logged + +*lumpley * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 2091 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #5 on:* April 10, 2002, 10:40:43 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Sorry about this, but here's what I mean. + +A coherent, incongruent ('pervy') game like the WF&D looks like this: + +N--N-NNNN-N--N-NN-N- + +A coherent, congruent ('vanilla'?) game like Sorcerer (I speculate) +looks like this: + +N----N--N---N---N----N + +An incoherent, congruent game looks like this: + +------N--S-GG---N---- + +And an incoherent, incongruent game looks like this: + +G-NNS--GGS-SN--G-NNS + +Where - is a decision that an observer can't tell by looking at it alone +whether it's S, G, or N. + +Oh and which, rereading it, is almost exactly what you said, Valamir. + +-Vincent + Logged + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #6 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:01:15 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hi Vincent, + +Coherence, like nearly all the terms in the essay except for +system-tools, refers to play. Just like "Gamist RPG" refers to "game +whose rules facilitate Gamist play," "coherent RPG design" refers to +"game whose rules facilitate coherent play." + +From the essay: /By "coherence," I mean the degree to which a group of +people can hit upon and sustain a shared Premise ... - and by +definition, continue to enjoy the social role-playing activity +consistently./ + +It so happens that I claim, in practice, that GNS-focused game designs +are more reliably coherent, but that's not a definition. + +So if I'm not mistaken, coherence exists as an end-product - the point +is whether Congruency exists as a means to it that can be identified in +some useful way or level, or whether it's a grab-bag, +possibly-unnecessary synonym for "play which facilitates Coherence." + +I agree that techniques for that kind of play, which successfully +resolve potential incompatibilities among (a) within-mode differences (N +vs. N'), or (b) among-mode differences (G vs. N vs. S), deserve a lot of +attention. But do they deserve any name but Coherence-preserving or +Coherence-creating techniques? Considering that that's what they +actually do? + +Just to be clear, I'm not trying to scrub out Walt's suggestion +regarding the term Congruence. I want to dissect out the topic with +great care, because it's important. + +The most important thing, of course, is what it seems we all agree on: +that the level of GNS application between one person's decision and +successful group play does need to be brought more into the light, both +in the essay and during discussions. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Mike Holmes +* +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 9963 + + +View Profile + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #7 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:21:54 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Um, I'm having problems with the terms selected. Congruent means +something like "Similar to" or parallel. Having some qualities in +common. While Incongruent means the opposite. Having dissimilarities. + +So did I misread the definitions above, or are these terms being used in +a really odd fashion? This seems totally counterintuitive to me. + +Wouldn't it be congruent = behavior that adheres to one GNS style, and +Incongruent = behavior that does not adhere to a single style? + +If this is the case then I can see using congruency to say something +like "the players' deisions being congruent with Gamism led to a +coherently Gamist experience." In this case indicating the atomic level +discussion of behavior as it relates to an entire game experience (a +"molecular" level event). As Ralph and others have intimated it might be +used. + +Or am I just confused? + +Mike + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Member of Indie Netgaming +-Get your indie game fix online. + +*Valamir * +Member + +Posts: 4859 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #8 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:22:15 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +At this point I'm seeing them as 2 completely seperate ideas trying to +define 2 seperate (but related) concepts. + +Whether an individual decision is Congruent or Incongruent does not tell +you whether the resulting game with be Coherent or Incoherent, therefor +I don't think we can see Congruency as being "Coherent Preserving" or not. + +That said, I think the very definition of Coherency needs to be +tightened up. For instance in the part of your essay you quote above +you say "By 'coherence,' I mean the degree to which a group of people +can hit upon and sustain a shared Premise ... - and by definition, +continue to enjoy the social role-playing activity consistently" + +There are two weakness with this definition I see. + +First, the last part very strongly implies that a game needs to be +coherent in order for players to enjoy the activity consistently. This +is at odds with the comments you made in another thread of mine +regarding Coherency, where you acknowledge the potential for Functional +Hybrids. + +Second, I have difficulty with tieing the concept of Coherency back to +Premise. One reason is that there are several different types of +Premise discussed in the essay (a seperate pet peeve of mine), but there +is no indication of which form of premise leads to Coherency. Another +is that in practice, Coherency has been used to refer to a game which +targets a specific GNS position consistently. Thus, I fail to see the +purpose of tieing Coherency back to Premise at all, when what it appears +to be is an aspect of GNS positions. + +Note: I'm not saying the definition of Coherency needs to be scrapped +or changed. Just that it could use a good bit of clarifying. It is +difficult to evaluate whether "Congruence" is really the same thing as +"Coherent" when I can't fully understand what is meant by "Coherent". + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ralph Mazza +Universalis: The Game of Unlimited Stories + + +*lumpley * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 2091 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #9 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:27:17 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ron, + +Huh. + +So I've been thinking too narrowly about coherence, then. You're saying +that this: + +NSS--NNN-S--NSSN---S + +Might well be a coherent NS game, not necessarily an incoherent game +with N and S in conflict. + +Yes? + +-Vincent + Logged + +*Valamir * +Member + +Posts: 4859 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #10 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:38:08 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Mike, + +Walt is using the term in the technically correct manner which seems odd +on first blush. + +If a decision can be used to support both a G position and an S position +than the decision is Congruent between G and S. Thus a decision which +only supports a single position in not congruent with any other decision +and is therefor considered incongruent. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ralph Mazza +Universalis: The Game of Unlimited Stories + + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*It's an O-blood Kinda Thing. +* +« *Reply #11 on:* April 10, 2002, 12:49:13 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +What I am hearing so far makes it sound like 'congruent' decisions (I +agree with Mike, the term is counter-intuitive) are decisions /at the +atomic level/ that cannot be determined to be Particles G, N, or S and +function as any of them. (Perhaps a GNS uncertainty principle at work?) + +The reason Ron seems to be having trouble settling them in terms of +coherence is because he's looking for a relationship (much like the many +people who try to connect Director Stance to Narrativism). There isn't any. + +What we seem to be talking about here is what O-type blood is once it's +in the blood stream. You infuse O-type into a person with AB blood and +what do you get? A living person with AB blood. The same goes for all +the GNS modes and hybrids. An O-type decision (one that /is/ congruent) +disappears when you consider the overall flow of the game. It's the AB +blood cells that tell you what blood-type a person has, no matter how +much O-type blood has been infused. (Note; the patient is dying if they +have too many /different/ blood-types mixing in their veins - that is +incoherency - the amount of O-type blood makes no difference.) + +So basically O-particles work as any of the types as needed and they are +not considered in the search for coherency. If a molecule has +O-particles and G-particles, then it is a G-molecule; the same goes for +S-particles and N-particles. This continues to carry forward all the +way up to the 'substance level.' If a substance is made primarily of +G-molecules, no matter how many O-particles it has, it's the G-element +fully coherently. + +The only reason I see this as an asset is that it allows us to say, "Oh +that's an O-type decision, we cannot determine GNS-state from that" - a +mechanism to agree to disagree more readily and move on. A patch if you +will to the 'crunchiness' of the GNS. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Walt Freitag +* +Member + +Posts: 1024 + + +View Profile + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #12 on:* April 10, 2002, 02:05:22 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +A few quick points: + +1. I will hereinafter try to stick to "congruence" and "coherence" +instead of the alternatives ending with y. + +2. The thread with Mytholder that Valamir refers to was what gave me the +idea to pursue congruence as a concept. I found that discussion very +interesting despite (and in part, because of) the communications +difficulty it revealed. + +3. /This is what... we were representing as blanks in the decision maps +we were drawing (the blanks being congruent and the non blanks being +incongruent...of course, in Walts model we'd need to use something other +than blanks to represent the 4 different types of congruency)./ + +Probably not necessary in most real-world cases. Any type of congruence +means you cannot characterize the decision specifically as G, N, or S; +the only difference between the types is whether one of the three +possibilities (and if so which one) is ruled out. + +Now, to the main issue, which Ron has not surprisingly homed in on. It's +irrelevant that coherence is defined differently from congruence if in +practice they amount to the same thing. So, do they? + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +I have tried to stress that compatibility of goals, in practice, is the +defining feature of Coherence. The fact that goals are most compatible +when they are similar-to-identical, as well as the fact that I tend to +prefer such play situations personally, are not relevant; any compatible +mix of different goals ("convergence?") is Coherent too. + + +"compatibility of goals, in practice"... but where's the emphasis? Does +this mean compatibility of goals with each other in the context of a +particular practice, or does it mean compatibility of the goals with the +practice itself? I always read it as the latter. (It's almost but not +quite the same thing... one single goal must always be compatible with +itself, but could be incompatible with the practice.) + +If it's the latter, the congruence has no direct definitional +relationship to coherence, but a logical connection can be made that +congruence implies coherence. If it's the former, then congruence is by +definition one form of coherence. In either case, though, congruence is +far from synonymous with coherence itself. + +From what I've seen, advice stemming from GNS theory usually emphasizes +achieving coherence in ways other than promoting congruence (e.g., pick +a single goal and focus on it). + +Also, there is an "idealized" concept of coherence that may not be +implied in the original definition but is, I believe, often read into +it. Idealized coherence raises the bar from compatibility of goals with +each other and/or with the practice, to active promotion of the desired +goals by the practice. (Especially when one primary goal is identified, +compatibility /of/ goals no longer appears the issue; compatibility of +practices /with/ the goal becomes paramount, and that bar can easily be +raised to "promotion of" that goal.) For that idealized form of +coherence, coherence and congruence become completely disjoint at the +atomic level (an individual decision either promotes the main goal +specifically, or it is congruent, or it promotes a different goal and is +incoherent; it cannot be any two simultaneously). At higher levels this +translates into a linear trade-off between the prevalence of congruent +decisions versus coherent decisions, represented by the continuum +between vanilla and pervy. + +Phew, very abstract, all that. In actual practice I see the following +differences: + +- A group of players can be loosely described as coherent or incoherent +based on how similar their goals are, without taking into account their +practices. This may not be strictly proper, but it's done. Congruence +has no meaning in that context. + +- A game system can be characterized as coherent or incoherent, without +taking into account the players, based on whether it promotes a +compatible set of goals or not. My hypothesis is that a game system can +also be characterized as congruent or incongruent based on whether it +promotes congruence between different goals or not. A game might be +coherent by virtue of it clearly promoting a single GNS goal type, or it +might be coherent by virtue of promoting multiple cross-GNS goals but +also promoting congruency between those goals. Also, it might (in +theory) be coherent, despite promoting multiple cross-GNS goals, through +some other means, but I don't believe any such means are known. + +- A relatively small unit of game practice can be characterized as +promoting congruence or incongruence, before the fact, at a level where +the concept of coherence appears difficult to apply. Usually this comes +in the form of realizing that a certain practice unnecessarily promotes +incongruence. For example, a system might offer metagame rewards for a +character to behave in certain protagonistic ways without regard for +whether that behavior makes any sense for the character (unnecessary S-N +incongruence), or a setting might introduce a puzzle that is easy for +the players to solve but unreasonable for the characters to be able to +do so (unnecessary G-S incongruence). A game system rule promoting G-S +incongruence could be a definition of what a "loophole" is. + +- The concept of coherence appears to be most "at home" at the level of +evaluating a game system. The concept of congruence appears to be most +"at home" at the level of evaluating a specific rule, encounter, scene, +or other relatively small unit of play. + +- Specific gamemastering practices can often easily be described as +promoting congruence or incongruence. I haven't seen much discussion +here of effects of gamemastering practices on coherence or incoherence. +(That doesn't mean it's not a viable concept; it's the nature of this +forum to look at things from a system designer's point of view.) + +- Again, the main point: consistent congruence throughout a system might +imply coherence at least of a sort. Incongruence, even when pervasive, +does not imply incoherence. A gamist game might be filled with rules +loopholes and might despite (or because of) that be a good coherent +gamist game. A narrativist game might reward players for changing the +character's nature during play for purely noncausal reasons, and still +be a good coherent narrativist game. + +- However, I would suggest that a system that promotes goals from +different GNS modes, and does not promote congruence, must be incoherent. + +- Walt + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Wandering in the diasporosphere + +*Walt Freitag +* +Member + +Posts: 1024 + + +View Profile + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #13 on:* April 10, 2002, 02:26:24 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang's blood-type analogy reminds me of a point I forgot to make: since +congruence applies to a particle, only a pervasive pattern of congruence +has any meaning at higher levels. So when I say something like +"congruence is by definition one form of coherence," I mean that +pervasive congruence throughout play, not some small number of +individual instances, would result in coherence. + +An open question is, how pervasive can congruence be? To borrow Fang's +analogy, do any "Type O" people exist, or does everyone inevitably have +enough "A", "B" etc. particles that they must fall into some other type? +If pervasive congruence is not a real phenomenon, then as Fang says the +applicability of the concept is very limited. + +I believe pervasive congruence is real and in fact fairly common, which +is why specific occurrences that introduce additional unnecessary +incongruence (such as a particular scene where OOC knowledge suddenly +becomes an issue) cause noticeable problems in play. + +- Walt + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Wandering in the diasporosphere + +*Gordon C. Landis +* +Member + +Posts: 1011 + + +View Profile + + + +*GNS and "Congruency" +* +« *Reply #14 on:* April 11, 2002, 11:35:27 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +- Specific gamemastering practices can often easily be described as +promoting congruence or incongruence. I haven't seen much discussion +here of effects of gamemastering practices on coherence or incoherence. +(That doesn't mean it's not a viable concept; it's the nature of this +forum to look at things from a system designer's point of view.) + +Based on an initial, quick reading - "Robin's Laws" is all about +congruent GM techniques. I'll reread carefully for anything that could +be brought to bear on coherence . . . just like I'll have to re-read +this thread carefully to make sure I understand the concepts. + +FWIW, I agree with Valamir that something about this issue is one big +thing folks "trip" over regarding GNS. Without an understanding of the +subtleties around atom/molecule/substance (or decision/style/prefernce, +etc.), it's easy to become convinced that "GNS doesn't apply to how I +play games, so it's bunk." + +Gordon + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Gordon C. Landis + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/dream01jan03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/dream01jan03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + The Impossible Dream + + + Play Flow First + +*by Hunter Logan* +Jan 01,2003 + + +Play Flow First + +Before I begin, I want to thank Aeon and the other good folks at RPG.net +for giving me the forum for this column. I think rpg.net is an +outstanding site and I'm happy to be here. Thank you. + +I've returned with a new message. The key to successfully designing +games is sitting right in front of everyone who wants to do it. Most of +us don't see it. We don't even know it's there. I think those who do +know are busy designing games that actually work the way they're +supposed to work. Play flow is the answer. + +Play Flow + +Play flow is the way the game is actually played. See, when we talk +about game design, we often talk about what the players want or what the +game is about. We craft clever mechanics and interesting mechanical +devices. What's more, the best of these really are both clever and +interesting. We sweat over character design and other design elements. +Anyone who designs a game should do all of this, but all of this should +really come later. + +I have this idea that you can design the core of a game in about 30 +minutes if the first thing you think about is play flow. Think about +this. If you're anything like me, you want to design games that play +differently than other games already on the market. That's why I want to +do it, and I've observed that play flow is the /unspoken/ reason many +other people also want to design games. So many people want to design +games, yet only a few people come up with anything worthwhile. I've made +many stillborn attempts myself. I've also designed a game or two that +sort of worked, but I wouldn't call them especially successful. +Recently, I broke through the barrier, but it's only because I kept +asking the same questions: Why? What's wrong here? + +I think conventional thought about game design sets the wrong +priorities. I think most people consider mechanics or character design +first, not play flow. People come up with a really neat mechanic and +then try to make play flow support it. People come up with excellent +character design concepts and try to wrap mechanics then play flow +around that. For most of us, it doesn't work. If it does work, it's +probably a fluke. More likely, you'll find the game is broken in some +significant way. It doesn't do what you want it to do because it can't +do what you want it to do. The play flow is probably wrong because it +was considered last. I have made the mistake and I have seen ample +evidence all over the web that others make the same mistake. I think +this is also true of some commercial game designs. This is no crime, but +it's unfortunate. There must be a better way, and I think this is it: +Instead of considering play flow last, consider *Play Flow First*. That +is, let everything in the game support the play flow, not the other way +around. + +Let's talk about formal definitions. + +A */Play Flow/* is a set of actions that produce events that lead to +either a /decision point/ or a /resolution point/. (As much as I would +like to take credit for this bit of thinking, others got here first. Ron +Edwards and John Kim are equally responsible for planting the idea in my +head for Play Flow First design. Ron planted his part in conversation +and in many web discussions. John Kim planted his part in his +descriptions of various roleplaying sessions on his Roleplaying Styles +website . Brian +Gleichman first defined the resolution point in his Alternate View of +Gamism article.) + +A */player/* is anyone who is actively involved in playing the game. +Unless otherwise noted, I make no distinction between the designated GM +and other participants. + +An */event/* is any encounter or situation that occurs during the course +of play. These usually involve the PCs and often result in a decision +point, a resolution point, or both. + +An */action/* is anything a player does that has an effect on a +character or causes a change in the game world. + +A */decision point/* is any point where a player chooses a course of +action (makes a decision). The choice affects what happens in the game +world. + +For example, a group of characters take a prisoner. They may select from +several choices. Whatever the players decide will have repercussions for +both the characters and the prisoner. Here are some possibilities. + + * Kill the prisoner. + * Torture the prisoner. + * Talk to the prisoner. + * Take the prisoner with them. + * Release the prisoner. + * Treat the prisoner as a long-lost friend. + * Do something completely different. + + +A */resolution point/*, according to Brian Gleichman, is "that part of +the game where conflicts are decided. A very common Resolution Point is +a single battle. However any test of skill or the solving of a puzzle +can also viewed in this way." I agree with Brian's definition, but I +personalized his meaning. To me, a /resolution point/ is any point that +requires the use of one or more mechanics to determine the outcome of an +event. A battle is a notable /resolution point/. + +*/Mechanics/* are the processes written into the rules to determine what +happens at a resolution point. + +A */mechanic/* is a self-contained play flow composed of at least two +steps. The first step is usually a /mechanical device/. That's a +function written into the rules to help resolve an /event/. Rolling +dice, betting coins, and drawing stones are all examples of mechanical +devices. Once the device is used, the second step is usually an +/evaluation/ to determine what happens as a result of using the device. +A /mechanic/ may also include functions such as a /countdown/. + +Play Flow Overview + +This is an overview of one possible play flow. It's historically common +and very manageable. + + * Description. The GM describes the locale and situation for the + players. + * Clarification. The players ask questions about specific details of + the description. The GM answers as appropriate. + * Decision Point. The players discuss what they want to do and + decide on a course of action for their characters. This decision + may spawn an event. If the players have difficulty making a + decision, the GM may add an event to the game. + * Event. Finally, something happens. The GM describes the event and + the players ask questions to clarify the situation. + * Decision Point. The players decide what their characters will do + about the event. In this case, indecision is a decision as the GM + may push things along as he sees fit. + * Resolution Point. The players' decision leads to a resolution + point. Using the appropriate mechanics, the GM and players resolve + the event. + * Repeat. This flow of play is repeated. When the players resolve an + event, their characters make progress in the game world. + + +Mechanic Overview + +This is an overview of a simple mechanic. + + * Call Mechanic. A player, often the GM, calls for the use of a + mechanic as stated in the rules. + * Use Mechanic. Players roll dice, bet coins, make declarations, or + do whatever else is needed to make the mechanic work. + * Evaluate Results. The players use this to determine what actually + happened in the game. + * Continue Play. Once the outcome is determined, the play flow + continues. + + +A Play Flow with Mechanics + +Event resolution is part of a play flow. In many ways, it's a play flow +nested within another play flow. This can also be done with a flowchart. +This example demonstrates the idea of play flow and outlines what might +happen when some PCs gets in a fight. I left the exact resolution +methods undefined because they're not important to this part of the +discussion. + + * Description. Two characters are walking through a run-down + neighborhood. It has empty storefronts all over. Broken-down and + burned out cars litter the street. The alleys show signs of people + living in cardboard boxes. + * Clarification: The players want to know who else is around. The GM + notes that a group of motley-looking young men is milling around + at the next intersection. They're harassing people passing by. + They're probably a gang of thugs. + * Decision Point: The characters could go around this obvious + trouble spot, but the players want to see what will happen. They + decide to have their characters walk right up to the thugs. + * Event: The characters encounter the thugs. As the characters + approach, the GM informs the players that the thugs are making + insulting comments and saying something about paying an + "intersection tax." + * Decision point: The players could decide to have the characters + pay the tax or parley to prevent combat, but the players prefer to + fight the thugs. + * Resolution Point: The players play their characters and the GM + plays the thugs. + o Roll Initiative. The players roll dice for their characters. + The GM does the same for the thugs. The combatant with the + highest roll wins initiative and may resolve his actions + first. In the result of a tie, the rules may specify some + sort of tiebreaker. Some combatants may have more than one + attack. These are resolved at appropriate intervals during + the countdown. + + Initiative Countdown. The GM counts down initiative + starting at the highest result. At each count, all + attacks are resolved as appropriate. + # Resolve an attack. The player controlling the + current combatant declares a target. He then + rolls dice for the attack. The GM uses the die + roll to determine the result of the attack. + # Resolve next attack. If other combatants are + allowed to attack, their attacks are resolved as + described. When no more attacks remain, the + countdown continues. + + Continue Countdown. While Initiative is still above 0, + return to step a) Initiative Countdown. When + initiative reaches 0, go to step 2) Continue Play. + o Continue Play. If combatants remain willing and able to + fight, return to step 1) Roll Initiative and repeat the + process for the remaining combatants. + * Play Continues: When the battle is over, play continues. The GM + updates the situation for the players and the players decide what + they want to do next. + +Prioritizing Play Flow + +It's time to step back and put this in perspective. Some people are more +methodical than others in their approach to game design. Your effort +will not fail because your first thought about your new game design was +something like, "I want a game about being the living dead on an +alternate earth. And I want to use a mechanic where people draw stones +from a bag." As far as I'm concerned, that's as good a start as any, but +I'd bet money you want to write it in such a way that it will work right +off. I think you can do that if the next question you ask yourself is, +"What's it like to play this game?" The answer is to figure out the play +flow. This doesn't guarantee design free of struggle, but I think it +increases the chance that you'll be able to bash together a game design +that really works in very little time. Inspiration is unpredictable. The +creative spark has a mind of its own, but formal thinking is very reliable. + +Next installment, I will look at something I call Balance of Power and +discuss how that relates to play flow. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + cooldog cotangent + (1) new +cranial_index 01-31-2006 20:46 01-31-2006 20:46 new + CORONA (1) new +corn_chamomile 01-31-2006 20:25 01-31-2006 20:25 new + Fendi Spy Bags WHOLESALE@WizardReplica.com + (1) new 514 +12-02-2005 10:55 12-02-2005 10:55 new + Designer Handbags Wholesale@WWW.WIZARDREPLICA.COM + (1) new 868 +11-14-2005 19:41 11-14-2005 19:41 new + REPLICA HANDBAGS LOUIS VUITTON REPLICA WHOLESALE@ + (1) new 794 +10-20-2005 21:37 10-20-2005 21:37 new + Death/playing style + (1) new Searcher +09-22-2003 11:35 09-22-2003 11:35 new + Death and actual immortality + (3) new Cpl Ferro +07-19-2003 08:53 01-13-2006 15:22 new + Non-death death + (5) new Sérgio +Mascarenhas 07-18-2003 03:07 07-23-2003 02:38 new + Thanks, Hunter + (4) new Allan +Sugarbaker 07-16-2003 00:18 07-17-2003 19:34 new + Realism (3) new +Robin 06-20-2003 01:23 06-25-2003 02:34 new + Something you might have mentioned. + (3) new Yamo +06-19-2003 16:13 06-19-2003 18:11 new + BTW, excellent column, Hunter! + (2) new flyingmice +06-19-2003 13:11 06-19-2003 18:13 new + Armor and Damage Thereto + (2) new The Student +06-19-2003 08:45 06-19-2003 11:44 new + Armor (9) new +flyingmice 06-19-2003 08:29 06-20-2003 06:12 new + Death spiral and unconsciousness + (7) new Torben +Mogensen 06-19-2003 07:31 06-20-2003 06:52 new + lucky or skilled + (2) new rhyme +05-12-2003 18:49 05-13-2003 09:25 new + Absolute, unopposed and opposed + (2) new Torben +Mogensen 04-16-2003 02:19 04-16-2003 09:26 new + 0-9 open ended = brilliant! + (8) new Vibropod +03-12-2003 10:41 07-18-2003 01:28 new + Smooth rerolls + (10) new Torben +Mogensen 03-12-2003 00:47 03-16-2003 23:57 new + Resolution Mechanics + (8) new Kyle +Schuant 03-11-2003 22:14 03-29-2003 21:28 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * #8: True Death by Hunter + Logan, 17jul03 + * #7: Assessing Damage by + Hunter Logan, 19jun03 + * #6: Putting Theory to the Test + by Hunter Logan, 12may03 + * #5: Resolution Mechanics II + by Hunter Logan, 14apr03 + * Resolution Mechanics I + by Hunter Logan, 11mar03 + * Player Goals by Hunter + Logan, 10feb03 + * Balance of Power by + Hunter Logan, 20jan03 + * Play Flow First by + Hunter Logan, 01jan03 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/dream10feb03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/dream10feb03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,413 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + The Impossible Dream + + + Player Goals + +*by Hunter Logan* +Feb 10,2003 + + +*Player Goals* +The Impossible Dream Installment #3 +by Hunter Logan + +Intro + +The topic of the day is player goals and my thoughts about how to +support those goals in the game design. I suppose this also really +addresses how to support a player's desired style of play. I know a lot +of other people have tackled this. It has resulted in some rather large +and impressive bodies of work filled to overflowing with good ideas. The +most noteworthy efforts I know of resulted in grandiose three-fold +theories called GDS, GNS, and GEN. These are among /The Things That +Shall Not Be Named on rpg.net/, and for good reason. Mentioning them +often brings about a massive flame war. But before you unleash the +flames, rest assured I'm not going to discuss any of those. + +After a very long campaign of research and discussion, I have concluded +that those esteemed (and oft reviled) theories don't work very well. +There are a lot of reasons for this, but I'll save the debate for +another day. Suffice to say, from my exploration of those works, I +developed this list of player goals and suggestions for supporting those +goals. Because we are roleplayers and this is about designing RPGs, I +formatted the goals on the list as roles that a player can take during +play. As always, this is the way I conceptualize these things. The list +is hardly all-inclusive, but I think it covers a lot of the important +bases and it's a good start. + +The Big List + +I don't think many designers consciously choose goals to support or not +support from a list like this, but the list may be a useful tool. Some +of the names are colorful, but this is out of appreciation, not +derision. Thus, I present */The Big List:/* + + * */Conqueror:/* Wants to kill monsters, smite the unworthy, and + otherwise demonstrate the character's superiority over the enemy. + The Conqueror really needs only three things to find happiness: A + weapon that inflicts heinous damage, plenty of character skill for + using the weapon, and ample opportunity to put both to good use. + This is more about what the character can do than what the player + can do. Also, the field need not be restricted to killing + monsters. It might include sneaking around and stealing stuff, + bartering with extreme efficiency, lying glibly, etc, etc. The + bottom line here is simple: When the Conqueror rolls the dice + within his character's area of expertise and gets good results, he + expects to see big fireworks. And I want to see them, too. + o Players who hold this goal in esteem may try to find what + they're looking for in just about any game they play. If + they can't find it, frustration may cause them to bend the + rules to get what they want. The methods don't have to be + pretty; they just have to produce the desired results. + o Designers can support this by writing the game so that great + expertise and good equipment consistently produce satisfying + results. + * */Creator:/* Wants direct control over various aspects of the game + world and what happens in the game. Creators want to set the scene + and determine the course of the action beyond the character. + o Most creators end up sitting in the GM seat and may feel + dissatisfied when denied the power to make things happen. + o It's pretty easy to give Creators what they want, but if you + want to put this in your game, this absolutely has to have + designer support. Without support, it's really not going to + happen. At least it hasn't ever happened for me. + * */Detective:/* Wants to gather clues and solve mysteries. + Designers can include means for players to find the clues needed + to solve the mysteries, but mysteries themselves are more a part + of the game world and the adventure than the game's system design. + So, designers can support this by writing adventures that include + mysteries for the player to solve. + * */Explorer:/* Wants to explore the game world. Explorers want to + see interesting sights, meet unusual beings, and encounter strange + things. The dedicated explorer is probably more interested in the + setting than in the game system. So, the designer can support this + by providing a great setting for the game. + * */Facilitator:/* Plays the game with the goal of helping other + players realize their goals for the game. This is most often a + goal for the GM, but players can choose to help the GM by playing + along when needed. The designer might want to consider providing a + bit of /Facilitator Training/ for GMs programmed to rule their + games with iron dice. + * */Gambler:/* Wants to take risks and experience the thrill of + rolling the dice. This is easily supported with mechanics that + provide a high degree of randomness in the outcome + * */Gatherer:/* Plays the game to gather as much reward as possible. + This may include experience points, levels, money, power, special + equipment, and other measures of increasing character ability or + character prestige. + o It's easy for designers to support the Gatherer by including + rules for character advancement and supplying items like + experience or levels that the player can gather. + o Further support can be included in the setting. A + never-ending supply of improved weapons, treasure, and other + specialty items will help keep the Gatherer hooked on the game. + o A word of caution: It's my experience that players often + build up a whole lot of goodies in a fairly short amount of + time. It seems that after a while, players reach a + /breakaway point/, a point where they have gathered so much + experience and so much good stuff that their characters are + unstoppable juggernauts unleashed on the game world. If you + plan to support the Gatherer's desires, you may also need to + plan for what happens as the characters become better, + stronger, and faster. + * */Negotiator:/* Plays the game to parley with NPCs and other + characters in the game. The assumption here is, the player + actually wants to do some of the talking for his character. The + designer can support this in rules and in the setting. In the + rules, the designer can pay attention to parley as an important + process in the game. In the setting, designer can provide lot of + interesting NPCs who want to negotiate. + * */Passenger:/* Wants to see the story unfold and find out what + happens next and hopes for a wild ride. I don't have much to say + about this, except to note that any player may choose to take this + position. + * */Personator:/* Wants to portray the character as fully as + possible from the comfort of the gaming table. From my own + experience and from talking to others, I think some players really + want to mentally /be/ the character. This touches on the ideas + about immersion. It's an exercise of the imagination, an attempt + to experience life in the game world from the character's point of + view. + o The player tries to put himself in his character's mindset + and contemplate events in the game as the character would + contemplate events in the game. Of course, this means that + the player's decisions and declared actions should be + exactly what the character would do in the same situation. + It's not perfect, but it's as close as a player can get to + "being there" from the comfort of the gaming table. + o I have read much discussion about the validity of immersion, + and I am not fighting that battle. I accept the intent + within its context. I have tried it. I never forgot I was + still me sitting at the gaming table, and I had fun. It is a + demanding way to play, so it is not for everyone. But it + certainly deserves some consideration for designer support. + Whether or not you choose to provide that support in your + game is up to you. + o There is one other danger with supporting this goal. Some + GMs may expect the players to be personators. A lot of + times, it's true and works very well; but other times, it + doesn't work. A guy who wants to play a smooth or suave + character may play the character because he's not smooth or + suave. Designers might want to include mechanical solutions + to this sort of problem. You can also handle this with notes + and examples. + * */Puzzle Solver:/* Plays to solve the puzzles that come up during + game play. + o Support for this is primarily written into scenarios for the + game. The designer can add puzzles to scenarios thus giving + the Puzzle Solver something to do. + o When puzzles are provided, it might be a good idea to also + include mechanical means of solving the problem. It's fine + to include the puzzle, but if the players can't or don't + want to solve the puzzle, it might be a good idea to supply + alternative means of resolution so that the game doesn't + grind to a halt. + * */Scientist:/* Plays the game as an experiment to see what will + happen. Scientists do things to evoke responses. They expect that + sometimes experiments will go awry. They know bad things may + happen to their characters or the game world, and this is okay. + The designer doesn't really need to support this sort of thing. + Players and GMs will do it or not do it as they see fit. Still, if + the designer does actively try to support it, the results might be + like Greg Costikyan's */Paranoia/*. + * */Storyteller:/* Plays to tell stories about the character in the + game world. Some storytellers want to end up with good stories + that they can reflect on or share with others about their + adventures in the game world. Others really want to tell the story + of their characters through play. They may want to show how their + characters overcome adversity or transform themselves over time or + something similar. I think there is room in roleplaying for better + support of the storyteller goal. The actual form of that support + may be similar to support provided for creators. + * */Tactician:/* Plays the game to solve tactical problems, outsmart + enemies, and overcome obstacles. Any resources available to the + player in the game can be used to solve tactical problems in the + game. Unlike the Conqueror, the Tactician is interested in using + his own personal skill to meet the challenge at hand. + o Tactical play does not necessarily mean wargaming. It's more + about decision-making and carefully exercising options on + limited resources in order to meet the player's goals for + the character in the game. + o The designer can support tactical play by providing + resources for the player to manage and tactical situations + for the player to resolve. + o I now refer you to Brian Gleichman's article, Elements of + Tactics + , + for more information. + * */Wargamer:/* Wants to break out the miniatures and play a wargame + as part of the RPG experience. A designer can support this by + including rules for using miniatures and providing a combat system + system that is really a war game within the RPG. The wargamer can + roleplay, but he still wants to fight that battle in the most + traditional way. + +Other Factors + + * */Design Goals:/* What do you want your game to do? Why are you + designing a game? If you are reading this article, you probably + already have answers for those questions. Yet, your goals are + factors that will impact on your design. If you haven't thought + about them, you might want to do that. + o Only you know why you want to design a game. No one else can + tell you. + o It's probably a good idea to articulate your goals in + writing. This will save you time later. Also, you can + include these notes and all the other stuff that affects + your thought process as designer notes at the end of your + game. Doing that will make Brian Gleichman very happy + if/when he reviews your game. It will also give everyone + else who looks at your game further insight into the ideas + behind your game. + * */Coherence:/* This is all about building a game that supports + your design goals. For me, /coherence/ is a blanket term. You can + strive for /coherence/ on several levels. + o A coherent game plays efficiently. That is, the play flow is + smooth and the mechanics work. One step segues into the next + and the players can play through anything that comes up + during the game. I think my whole column is predicated on + the idea of achieving this sort of coherence for any game + you decide to design. + o A coherent game has clear, comprehensible rules and + mechanics. The best game design in existence is useless + unless you write the rules in such a way that a player can + use your book to learn to play your game. + o A coherent game has rules, mechanics, and play examples that + support the designer's goals. Here is the pay off for + writing your goals: You can critique your own work. You can + compare what you've written to what you intended. If your + game fulfills your intended goals, then you have probably + written a coherent game. If you have doubts or you're too + close to the project, get someone else to read it. + * */Complexity:/* Brian Gleichman has written a very good article + on + this very topic. If you haven't read it, I think you should. I + agree with his statements, and I will be referring to them here. + Also, I will use his terms without changing them. As Brian says, + people have a threshold for complexity. I think simpler is often + better, but other people like more /complexity/. It's up to you to + decide how much complexity to add to your game. + o Complexity of Implementation: This is the complexity of the + actual mechanical steps required to play the game. If a game + becomes too complex, some players may choose to simplify the + mechanics. + o Complexity of Mass: This is the number of options, + exceptions, and special cases written into a game. Really, + there is a point of balance for mass. Insufficient mass may + make for sparse gameplay. Too many options means it may take + longer for a group of players to master all the nuances of + the game, or that some of those options will be discarded. I + prefer a relatively simple implementation with a lot more mass. + o Complexity of Concept: I agree with Brian that RPGs are + complex in concept by their very nature. Excessive + complexity (in implementation or mass) is not the /Kiss of + Death/ for a game. I have found that when people like a + game, they will adjust it to suit their own tastes. A simple + game can be made more complex, and a complex game can be + simplified. + +# */Verisimilitude:/* This is really all about realism and maintaining +/Suspension of Disbelief/ in your game. I am not going to fight over +whether or not SoD exists. I accept it within its context. That is, you +can watch a movie, read a book, or play an rpg and evaluate for yourself +whether or not the presentation, handling, and outcome of events is +believable within the context of the source material. This does not mean +you have lost contact with reality or anything like that, but it is +important to the perceived verisimilitude of your game. + + * I think it's a goal of design to produce a game system that + produces results consistent with what should happen in the game world. + * There are many ways to approach the same goal. + * No game system, no matter how complex or detailed, can perfectly + model the resolution of events in the game world. The best we can + hope to do is provide a set of rules and mechanics that allows our + audience, our players, to produce satisfying results when playing + our game. + * Verisimilitude in a game system does not necessarily equal + realism. I think our purpose as designers of games and game worlds + is to find ways to present games so that players may play in our + game worlds and attain satisfying results that sustain their SoD. + +Now, I have deluged you with food for thought. Next time, I'll talk +about resolution mechanics. Thanks for reading. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + cooldog cotangent + (1) new +cranial_index 01-31-2006 20:46 01-31-2006 20:46 new + CORONA (1) new +corn_chamomile 01-31-2006 20:25 01-31-2006 20:25 new + Fendi Spy Bags WHOLESALE@WizardReplica.com + (1) new 514 +12-02-2005 10:55 12-02-2005 10:55 new + Designer Handbags Wholesale@WWW.WIZARDREPLICA.COM + (1) new 868 +11-14-2005 19:41 11-14-2005 19:41 new + REPLICA HANDBAGS LOUIS VUITTON REPLICA WHOLESALE@ + (1) new 794 +10-20-2005 21:37 10-20-2005 21:37 new + Death/playing style + (1) new Searcher +09-22-2003 11:35 09-22-2003 11:35 new + Death and actual immortality + (3) new Cpl Ferro +07-19-2003 08:53 01-13-2006 15:22 new + Non-death death + (5) new Sérgio +Mascarenhas 07-18-2003 03:07 07-23-2003 02:38 new + Thanks, Hunter + (4) new Allan +Sugarbaker 07-16-2003 00:18 07-17-2003 19:34 new + Realism (3) new +Robin 06-20-2003 01:23 06-25-2003 02:34 new + Something you might have mentioned. + (3) new Yamo +06-19-2003 16:13 06-19-2003 18:11 new + BTW, excellent column, Hunter! + (2) new flyingmice +06-19-2003 13:11 06-19-2003 18:13 new + Armor and Damage Thereto + (2) new The Student +06-19-2003 08:45 06-19-2003 11:44 new + Armor (9) new +flyingmice 06-19-2003 08:29 06-20-2003 06:12 new + Death spiral and unconsciousness + (7) new Torben +Mogensen 06-19-2003 07:31 06-20-2003 06:52 new + lucky or skilled + (2) new rhyme +05-12-2003 18:49 05-13-2003 09:25 new + Absolute, unopposed and opposed + (2) new Torben +Mogensen 04-16-2003 02:19 04-16-2003 09:26 new + 0-9 open ended = brilliant! + (8) new Vibropod +03-12-2003 10:41 07-18-2003 01:28 new + Smooth rerolls + (10) new Torben +Mogensen 03-12-2003 00:47 03-16-2003 23:57 new + Resolution Mechanics + (8) new Kyle +Schuant 03-11-2003 22:14 03-29-2003 21:28 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * #8: True Death by Hunter + Logan, 17jul03 + * #7: Assessing Damage by + Hunter Logan, 19jun03 + * #6: Putting Theory to the Test + by Hunter Logan, 12may03 + * #5: Resolution Mechanics II + by Hunter Logan, 14apr03 + * Resolution Mechanics I + by Hunter Logan, 11mar03 + * Player Goals by Hunter + Logan, 10feb03 + * Balance of Power by + Hunter Logan, 20jan03 + * Play Flow First by + Hunter Logan, 01jan03 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/dream11mar03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/dream11mar03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,349 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + The Impossible Dream + + + Resolution Mechanics I + +*by Hunter Logan* +Mar 11,2003 + + +*Resolution Mechanics I* +The Impossible Dream Installment #4 +by Hunter Logan + +Intro + +Thus far, I have talked about play flow, balance of power, and player +goals. This time, I want to move on and talk about something near and +dear to most every designer's heart: Resolution mechanics. + +*/Resolution mechanics/* are the means for getting things done in the +game. When a character searches a room, attempts to run the gauntlet, or +negotiate a contract, resolution mechanics determine what happens. This +is a monster topic, so I will present it in two parts. The first part +will cover the Three Means of Resolution. + +The Three Means of Resolution + +The Three Means of Resolution are loosely based on Jonathan Tweet's +three means of resolution as presented in the */Everway RPG/* and as +modified by Ron Edwards in his many RPG theory discussions. Tweet's +terms are Drama, Fortune and Karma. Edwards also uses them, though he +applies slightly different meanings. I mention Tweet's terms as +reference, but I've got my own take on them. To avoid the great onus and +inertia of history, I'm not using them. I'm using the terms Chance, +Ability and Intent. This is the way I conceptualize the Three Means. + +/*Chance*/ is random determination of what happens. Roll dice, draw +cards, flip coins, and look at the results. They are random and subject +to the laws of statistics. Dice are a common and popular method of +generating random results in RPGs. I like dice because all dice have +similar characteristics in the way they generate numbers. Here are some +examples. + + * A single die generates a linear curve. Roll a d20 and you have a + flat 5% chance of rolling any particular number. You have the same + chance of rolling a 1 as you do a 10 or a 20. When you change the + number of sides on the die, you change the flat percentage chance + and the range. Roll a d12 and you get a range from 1 to 12 with an + 8% chance of getting a particular result. Roll a d10 and the range + is 1 to 10 (or 0 to 9) with a 10% chance of getting a given + result. Roll a d8 and the range is 1 to 8 with a 12-1/2% chance of + getting a given result and so on. + * If you roll several dice and evaluate the result on each die + independently, the curve for each die is still linear. + * Rolling a pair of dice and adding the results generates a bell + curve. For example, you may roll two 6-sided dice and add the + results. This produces a range of results from 2 to 12. At the + extremes, the player has about a 6% chance of getting a 2 or a 12. + In the middle, he has about 17% chance of rolling a 7. The actual + result is random, but the player has a 28% chance of rolling 2 to + 5, a 44% chance of rolling a result from 6 to 8, and a 28% chance + of rolling 9 to 12. Clearly, the middle is favored. + * Rolling a pair of unequal dice also generates a bell curve. + Rolling a d6 and a d4 and adding the results produces a range from + 2 to 10. At the extremes, the player has about an 8% chance of + rolling a 2 or a 10. In the middle, he has about 20% chance of + rolling a 6. He has about a 23% chance of rolling 3 to 4, a 54% + chance of rolling a result from 5 to 7, and a 23% chance of + rolling an 8 to 10. Again, the middle is favored. + * As you roll more dice and add the results, the bell curve becomes + flatter at the top with a greater chance of generating an average + value and a far smaller chance of generating an extreme value. + Rolling 3d4, for instance, produces a range from 3 to 12. A player + has about a 3% chance of rolling either a 3 or a 12, a 15 % chance + of rolling 3 to 5, a 69 % chance of rolling from 6 to 10, and a 15 + % chance of rolling 10 to 12. Again the middle is strongly favored + with a 1-in-3 likelihood that the player will roll either a 7 or an 8. + + * Dice can be manipulated to tailor their function. + + + o */Curved Results:/* The player rolls dice, but the actual + result is curved. For example, the designer may have the + players roll a single d10, but the die roll may actually + produce results from ö3 to +3. Here's one way it could work. + + *Curved Results* Die Roll Result + 1 -3 + 2 -2 + 3-4 -1 + 5-6 0 + 7-8 +1 + 9 +2 + 0 (10) +3 + + + o */Exploding Die Roll:/* The player rolls the dice and rolls + again on a designated result. The result of the next die + roll is added to the first. For example, the player rolls a + d6. On a 6, the die "explodes." The player rolls the d6 + again and adds the result to his total. So, the player could + roll a 6 then roll a 4 to get 10. + + If the die roll is open-ended, this goes on as long as the + player's die rolls meet the condition for explosion. A + player might roll 6, 6, 6, 6, 2 and get 26 off the die roll. + + If the die roll is closed, the player gets a fixed number of + additional rolls (usually just one). This way, a player + might roll a 6 and another 6. He gets 12. + + There is a fault with this method of rolling dice: Some + numbers may drop out. In the preceding example, it's + actually impossible to get 6, 12, 18, 24, and so on with an + unmodified die roll. The counting goes ·4, 5, 7, 8· It's + possible to mechanically work around that, but I think the + d10 provides a more elegant solution. The d10 is numbered 0 + to 9. If you count the 0 as 0 and 9 as the maximum value, + your numerical progression will always be very smooth. If a + player made an open-ended d10 roll, he could possibly roll + 9, 9, 9, and 0 to get 27. + + + o */Counting Victories:/* The player rolls one or more dice. + Each die is evaluated separately to generate a number of + victories. The more victories the player gets, the better + the outcome of the character's action. For example, a player + might roll 4d6 and evaluate the results against a target + number. Say the target is 2. If the player rolled 1,3,5,and + 2, the player would get 3 successes. If the target number + had been 4, the player would have only 1 success. + + + o */Mass on Target:/* The player again rolls one or more dice. + This time, the results are tallied to produce a really big + number. Well, the player hopes it's a big number. The device + is usually die roll vs. target. For example, the player + might roll 3d10. If the player rolled 3, 5, and 8, his + result would be 16. Of course, rolling dice this way greatly + increases the chance of getting a mid-range value. + + + o */Many More Possibilities:/* I am the first to admit that + the examples and ideas I've presented here barely scratch + the surface of what you can do with dice, but I think these + are the basic building blocks. You can mix and match these + methods to your heart's content. + + + * */A Good Article:/* As it turns out, Shannon Appelcline recently + wrote a very good article + + about the nature of random chance. + + + +*/Ability/* is deliberate determination of what happens based on the +capabilities of the character. If the character has the skill, if the +character has a resource such as hero points, or if the character has a +built-in capability that allows him to do certain things, the player can +use this /Ability/ to resolve an event. + + * /Using skill to resolve an event/: Skill is usually based on + character attributes or skills. Frequently, a character with a low + attribute or skill will only be able to do simple, little things + with that attribute or skill. A character with a high attribute or + skill will be able to do amazing things. If the character's + attribute or skill is too weak, the character will fail. If the + character's attribute or skill is sufficient, the character will + succeed. It's that simple. + + For example, a character has a skill, Fencing 5, where '0' is + untrained and '10' is the best on the planet. The character gets + in a duel with an opponent who has Fencing 7. Using ability alone, + the character with Fencing 5 will lose every single time. + * /Using a resource to resolve an event/: Resources are expendable + units of success that the player can spend during play. They are + finite. Once used, they're gone, though the player may have the + opportunity to earn more. A resource like Hero Points may + temporarily improve character skill to ensure success. The player + spends the points to get the desired result. A resource like + Victory Cards may provide the character with instant victory. The + player plays a single card and gets the desired results. For more + thoughts on this, I refer you to Eric Brennan's wonderful article + about Hero Points + . + * /Using a built-in capability/: Capabilities often work with no + muss or fuss because the rules say so. A character may have the + ability to cast certain spells or to do certain things without any + chance of failure. The player says the character is doing it and + the character does it thanks to Ability. + +*/Intent/* is resolution based on what a player wants to happen in the +game. The player makes a declaration. The declaration becomes a +mechanical device for resolving events. + +For example, a group of characters surrounded by enemies, running low on +ammunition may make their last stand. Before the end, a player declares, +"·And the cavalry arrives in the nick of time, distracting the enemy and +giving us the chance we need to escape." The GM allows this to happen +because it's in the spirit of the game. But nothing is free, so the GM +replies, "The cavalry assault breaks the enemy line, but they take very +heavy casualties. It will be a long time before they can help you again." + +Using Chance, Ability, and Intent + +The three methods of resolution are seldom used in isolation. A +resolution mechanic is rarely Chance, Ability, or Intent alone. The +process for resolving events almost always includes a combination of +Chance, Ability, and Intent, especially Chance and Ability. + +Consider this common resolution mechanic: + + * Player declares character action. + * Chance and Ability: Player generates a die result using /Attribute + + Skill + Die Roll vs. Target Number/. The player must roll over + the TN for the character to succeed. + + +Here, Intent is a qualifier. If the GM determines the player wants the +character to do something easy, the TN will be low. If the GM determines +the player wants the character to do something really difficult, the TN +will be much higher. Then, the die result is a combination of Chance and +Ability. The character's attribute and skill are both Ability. Small +numbers mean the character has little ability. Large numbers mean the +character has lots of Ability. Naturally, the die roll is Chance. I have +a lot more to say about all this, but that will fill the next +installment. As always, thanks for reading. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + cooldog cotangent + (1) new +cranial_index 01-31-2006 20:46 01-31-2006 20:46 new + CORONA (1) new +corn_chamomile 01-31-2006 20:25 01-31-2006 20:25 new + Fendi Spy Bags WHOLESALE@WizardReplica.com + (1) new 514 +12-02-2005 10:55 12-02-2005 10:55 new + Designer Handbags Wholesale@WWW.WIZARDREPLICA.COM + (1) new 868 +11-14-2005 19:41 11-14-2005 19:41 new + REPLICA HANDBAGS LOUIS VUITTON REPLICA WHOLESALE@ + (1) new 794 +10-20-2005 21:37 10-20-2005 21:37 new + Death/playing style + (1) new Searcher +09-22-2003 11:35 09-22-2003 11:35 new + Death and actual immortality + (3) new Cpl Ferro +07-19-2003 08:53 01-13-2006 15:22 new + Non-death death + (5) new Sérgio +Mascarenhas 07-18-2003 03:07 07-23-2003 02:38 new + Thanks, Hunter + (4) new Allan +Sugarbaker 07-16-2003 00:18 07-17-2003 19:34 new + Realism (3) new +Robin 06-20-2003 01:23 06-25-2003 02:34 new + Something you might have mentioned. + (3) new Yamo +06-19-2003 16:13 06-19-2003 18:11 new + BTW, excellent column, Hunter! + (2) new flyingmice +06-19-2003 13:11 06-19-2003 18:13 new + Armor and Damage Thereto + (2) new The Student +06-19-2003 08:45 06-19-2003 11:44 new + Armor (9) new +flyingmice 06-19-2003 08:29 06-20-2003 06:12 new + Death spiral and unconsciousness + (7) new Torben +Mogensen 06-19-2003 07:31 06-20-2003 06:52 new + lucky or skilled + (2) new rhyme +05-12-2003 18:49 05-13-2003 09:25 new + Absolute, unopposed and opposed + (2) new Torben +Mogensen 04-16-2003 02:19 04-16-2003 09:26 new + 0-9 open ended = brilliant! + (8) new Vibropod +03-12-2003 10:41 07-18-2003 01:28 new + Smooth rerolls + (10) new Torben +Mogensen 03-12-2003 00:47 03-16-2003 23:57 new + Resolution Mechanics + (8) new Kyle +Schuant 03-11-2003 22:14 03-29-2003 21:28 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * #8: True Death by Hunter + Logan, 17jul03 + * #7: Assessing Damage by + Hunter Logan, 19jun03 + * #6: Putting Theory to the Test + by Hunter Logan, 12may03 + * #5: Resolution Mechanics II + by Hunter Logan, 14apr03 + * Resolution Mechanics I + by Hunter Logan, 11mar03 + * Player Goals by Hunter + Logan, 10feb03 + * Balance of Power by + Hunter Logan, 20jan03 + * Play Flow First by + Hunter Logan, 01jan03 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/dream12may03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/dream12may03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,633 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + The Impossible Dream + + + #6: Putting Theory to the Test + +*by Hunter Logan* +May 12,2003 + + +It's time to put everything discussed thus far to the test. I've been +describing a hierarchical design process, a process where a designer can +begin with the very general and work to the very specific. This creates +a hierarchy with levels, and the finished play flow looks like an +outline. The top level of the hierarchy provides a broad overview of +game play. Detail is added on lower levels. As detail is added, the +design becomes more specific. In this installment, I will refine my +thoughts about play flow and show how everything I've discussed thus far +can help you produce the functional core of a game system. + +Refining the Universal Play flow +I've been flogging the idea of play flow for a while now. My thinking +about it is becoming more refined from the effort. This is the pattern +I've been following: + + * Build to Event. + o Description. The players discover the current situation. + + Situation is described. This may set an event in motion. + + Situation is clarified. + o Decision. The players decide what to do about the situation. + + If the situation leads to an event, go to /II. Event./ + + If the situation does not lead to an event, return to + /I. Build to Event./ + * Event. Something happens in the game. + o Decision. Players decide how to handle the event. + o Resolution. Players resolve the event. + * Continue Play. Return to /I. Build to Event./ + + +The pattern is useful, but it's not as elegant as it could be. I based +it on the idea that the event is the pivot point. Players build to the +event and then resolve the event with decisions at each step. That isn't +always the case, though. The description given during /I. Build to +Event/ may very well place the characters in the middle of an event. +Then, the event is no longer the pivot point because it already exists. +So, the pivot point becomes event resolution. In response, I devised +this alternative. I think it's more elegant and more accurate. + + * Description. The players discover the current situation. + o Situation is described. + o Situation is clarified. + * Decision Point. The players decide what to do. + o If the situation requires resolution, go to /III. Resolution + Point./ + o If the situation does not require resolution, go to /IV. + Continue Play./ + * Resolution Point. The players resolve the event. + * Continue Play. + o Situation is different as a result of player decisions and + character actions. + o Return to /I. Description./ + +An Actual Design +I want to stop playing with theoretical play flows and show how all this +/stuff/ can help a designer create the core of a game. This design is an +experiment I am developing in my spare time. I want to emphasize that +it's not my intent to turn this column into my game designer's journal. +I just needed an example to help validate my theorizing, and this is +what I've got. + +The Early Decisions +In Installment #1 +, I suggested +a /Play Flow First/ approach to design. I think play flow is the most +important design consideration, but it's not necessarily the first step +in the design process. I am usually methodical in my work, so for me, it +makes sense to start a design by choosing which player goals I want to +support. From my Big List +, I decide to +actively support Conqueror, Creator, Storyteller, and Tactician. I may +support other goals along the way, but these are my primary interests at +the start. + +These goals lead to my desired BoP. I want my game to have a GM, but the +players may have a lot of control over what happens in the game. I think +my play flow will most resemble example VII in my Balance of Power + article. + +I look briefly at Cohesiveness, Complexity and Verisimilitude. If I +follow my own process, Cohesiveness should fall into line - At least, I +think so. For complexity. I want to keep the actual mechanics as simple +as I can, but I want to provide options. That leaves verisimilitude. I +like action, political intrigue, and a swift pace for play; but I also +want believable results. If pressed, I think player satisfaction is more +important than perfect accuracy. I keep these ideas in the back of my +mind while I write. + +The Basic Play Flow +As a result of my early decisions, I rework the play flow as follows: + + * Description. + o Situation is described. The GM describes the situation for + the players. + o Situation is clarified. The players ask questions about + specific details. The GM answers as appropriate with the + intent of causing an event. + * Decision. + o Players reject the situation. + + Players attempt to alter the GM's description or set + some other event in motion. + + The GM evaluates the effect of the players' efforts. + + Continue play. Go to /B. Players accept the situation./ + o Players accept the situation. + + If the situation requires resolution, go to /III. + Resolution./ + + If the situation does not require resolution, proceed + to /IV. Continue Play./ + * Resolution. Players resolve the event. + o Players declare actions. + o GM and players determine an outcome. + o Players may use resources to change the outcome + o GM evaluates the effect of the players' efforts. + + If the event is not resolved, return to /A. Players + declare actions./ + + If the event is resolved, go to /IV. Continue Play./ + * Continue Play. + o Players evaluate current status. + o Return to /I. Description./ + + +Resolution Mechanics +Now, I want to add resolution mechanics. I like to think play flow and +resolution mechanics work together in support of my design goals, but in +many ways, the two are quite independent. A designer can easily devise +and insert any of a thousand different mechanical arrangements into a +given play flow, and each arrangement would change the game play. So, I +think about the problem in terms of my preferences. I like simple +mechanics and the feel of a die roll, but I have a bias toward Ability. +I don't want the encumbrance of heavy math, and I like unified +processes. Exceptions are a hassle, so I want to make sure the method of +rolling dice and evaluating the outcome is fairly constant. After +considerable fiddling, I work out a solution for event resolution: + +I begin with */Die Result vs. Challenge/* +where */Die Result = Die Roll + Attribute + Position Modifier/* + +*The Die Roll* +I choose 2d6 for the /Die Roll/ because it generates a bell curve. A +player has a 44% chance of getting a result from 6 to 8. I prefer a +narrower, more reliable range of results; but other people prefer to +gamble. They want a wilder ride, so I decide to manipulate the result +curve two different ways: /Lucky/ and /Skilled/. The /Lucky/ roll will +have a much wider range of results and provide risk with reward for the +gambler. The /Skilled/ roll will provide a limited range of results, +allowing player skill and character expertise to carry the day. I plan +to let the player decide at character generation whether he wants a +character that is /Skilled/ or /Lucky/. Here are the die roll +manipulations: + +*Skilled Die Roll* Die Roll Result Percentage (%) +2 -3 3 +3 -2 6 +4-5 -1 19 +6-8 0 44 +9-10 +1 19 +11 +2 6 +12 +3 3 + + + +*Lucky Die Roll* Die Roll Result Percentage (%) +2 F* 3 +3 -3 6 +4 -2 8 +5 -1 11 +6-8 0 44 +9 +1 11 +10 +2 8 +11 +3 6 +12 S** 3 + + +*Automatic Failure. Die Result is 0. Make Penalty Roll curved as shown +and subtract the result. +**Automatic Success. Die Result is 8. Make Bonus Roll curved as shown +and add the result. + +*Bonus/Penalty Roll* Die Roll Result +1-3 0 +4 1 +5 2 +6 3 + + + +*The Attribute Range* +Now that the die roll is sorted out, I look at the Attribute. What I +really want to do is establish an attribute range. I think 0 to 8 is a +good range for my purposes. The rating for a competent, trained +character is 4. + +*The Position Modifier* +If the character has a significant advantage or disadvantage in the +situation, the GM may supply a Position modifier. + +*Position Modifier* Position Modifier +Terrible -3 to -5 +Bad -1 to -2 +Neutral 0 +Good +1 to +2 +Excellent +3 to +5 + + + +*Unopposed Outcome* +The Variable Scale is my primary tool for evaluating the outcome of +unopposed character actions. The GM assigns a Challenge rating to any +action the player declares for his character. If the Die Result equals +or exceeds the Challenge, the character is successful. I added an +Absolute Evaluation, the Quality column, to point out the strength, +efficiency, or outward impression of the character's effort. + +*The Variable Scale* Die Result Quality Challenge +<0 Disaster No Roll +0 Pathetic No Problem +2 Weak Easy +4 Average Average +6 Strong Hard +8 Heroic Unlikely +>8 Special Impossible + + +*Quality Notes* + + * Disaster. The character did something very wrong. The worse the + result, the worse the disaster. + * Pathetic. Below lowest acceptable standards. The character failed. + * Weak. The character does very little, and may look clumsy doing it. + * Average. The character made a competent effort. For many jobs, + this is the minimum threshold for success. + * Strong. The character did well. + * Heroic. The character did exceptionally well and looked good doing it. + * Special. The character did something in a way that is truly + unbelievable. Even people who saw it happen may have a hard time + believing that it happened. The player describes the outcome. + + +*Difficulty Notes* + + * No Roll: The GM decides that the player need not roll the dice. + * No Problem: There is no real reason a competent character should fail. + * Easy: The job is easy for a competent character. + * Average: This is common job for a competent character. + * Hard: This is a tough job, even for a competent character. + * Unlikely: This is a tough job even for an expert. + * Impossible: There is no obvious way a character could do this, but + the player may still want to try. The GM sets the Challenge >8; + usually 11 with 9 to 15 as a possible range. If the character + fails, he either has no idea what to do, no idea how to do it, or + no way to do it. + +*Relative Outcome* +Now, I extend my mechanics to include relative outcomes. These are most +useful for opposed resolution, but they're also good for situations +where the GM wants to determine degrees of success or failure. For +opposed actions, the opponents both generate die results and the GM +compares the results using the Relative Scale as an additional tool for +evaluating the outcome of actions. For unopposed actions, the player +rolls against the Challenge and the GM determines the outcome based on +the Relative Scale. + +*Relative Scale* Difference Result +-5/worse Disaster +-4 Defeat +-1 to -3 Losing +0 Push ++1 to +3 Winning ++4 Victory ++5/better Special + + + * The Difference becomes the Position Modifier if the player wants + to take additional action or try a different method for resolving + the event. + * Disaster. The character has lost and something especially bad has + happened. + * Defeat. The character has lost. + * Losing. The character is getting the worst of it. + * Push. Opponents are fairly equal in their efforts. The Unopposed + Scale determines the outcome. Weak die results mean both + characters failed. Average or better die results mean both + characters achieve some measure of success. + * Winning. The character has gained the upper hand. + * Victory. The character has won. + * Special. The character has won and something especially good has + happened. The player describes the outcome. + + +The Play Flow with Resolution Mechanics +This play flow is rather complicated. I devised five different methods +of resolving events. These are the methods I actually use when running a +game. These methods are /Unopposed/, /Opposed/, /Played/, /Combat/, and +/Chaos/. + + * */Unopposed resolution/* uses the Unopposed Scale for resolution. + This is my most common method of resolution. + * */Opposed resolution/* uses a comparison of die results between a + character and his opponents. This is used for negotiations or + combat between the PCs and their opponents. + * */Played resolution/* is based on player intent and character + ability with only minimal use of die rolls or resources. This is + both the most demanding and perhaps the most rewarding method of + resolution. + * */Combat resolution/* is based on opposed resolution, but it + includes a countdown for multiple characters where the order of + events is important. This is strictly for combat. I don't use it + unless the order of events is crucial, such as in a duel or a + climactic battle. + * */Chaos resolution/* is freeform. It includes a countdown, but it + allows the GM to handle many different, simultaneous actions using + /Unopposed/, /Opposed/, or /Played/ resolution as needed. This is + how I prefer to handle situations where players are headed off in + several directions at once. + + + * Description. + o Situation is described. The GM describes the situation for + the players. + o Situation is clarified. The players ask questions about + specific details. The GM answers as appropriate with the + intent of causing an event. + * Decision. + o Players reject the situation. + + Players attempt to alter the GM's description or set + some other event in motion. + # Players declare desired changes. + # GM declares the modifiers. + # Players roll the dice. + # The GM determines the initial outcome. + # Players may spend resources to change the outcome. + # Once resources are spent, the GM and players + determine the final outcome. + # Continue play. Go to /B. Players accept the + situation./ + + Players accept the situation. + # If situation requires resolution, go to /III. + Resolution./ + # If situation does not require resolution, + proceed to /IV. Continue Play./ + * Resolution. Players resolve the event. + o The GM decides how he wants to resolve the event based on + the situation. He may choose /Unopposed/, /Opposed/, + /Played/, /Combat/, or /Chaos/. + + */Unopposed Resolution/* + # Declare and Evaluate Intent + * The player declares a course of action for + his character. + * The GM qualifies the action and provides + modifiers. + # Determine Initial Outcome + * The player rolls the dice. + * The GM and player evaluate the die result + using the Unopposed Scale and determine + what happened. + # Determine Final Outcome + * The player may spend resources to change + the outcome. + * The GM and the player evaluate the new + result and determine the final outcome. + # Determine Status + * If the event is not resolved, the player + declares a new course of action. Return to + /B. Resolution./ + * If the event is resolved, Proceed to /III. + Continue Play./ + + */Opposed Resolution/* + # Declare and Evaluate Intent + * The player declares a course of action for + his character. + * The GM qualifies the action and provides + modifiers. + # Determine Initial Outcome + * The player rolls the dice. + * The GM and the player evaluate the die + result use the unopposed and Relative + Scale to determine who has the upper hand. + o All participants have weak die + results: Nothing happens. + o All participants have average die + results: Essentially a draw. + o All participants have strong die + results: All combatants do well. + o A large difference in die results + indicates a clear advantage for some + participants. + # Determine Final Outcome + * The player may spend resources to change + the outcome. + * The GM and the player evaluate the new + result and determine the final outcome. + o All participants have weak die + results: All efforts fail. + o All participants have average die + results: Still a draw. No one has a + clear advantage. + o All participants have strong die + results: All participants do well. + In a duel to the death, the + participants may injure or kill each + other. + o A large difference in die results + indicates victory for some + participants. + # Determine Status + * The event is not resolved. The player + declares a new course of action. Return to + /B. Resolution./ + * The event is resolved. Proceed to /IV. + Continue Play./ + + */Played Resolution/* + # Declare and Evaluate Intent + * The player declares a course of action for + his character. The detail depends on the + situation and the player. + * The GM determines qualifies the action and + provides modifiers. + # Determine Initial Outcome + * The player rolls the dice. + * The GM evaluates the die result using the + Unopposed Scale to determine the strength + of the character's effort. + # Determine Final Outcome + * The GM roleplays the NPCs involved in the + event, describing their actions and + declaring their intentions. The player + roleplays his character. + * The GM and the player evaluate the result + based primarily on declarations and + roleplaying to determine the final + outcome. For the player, effective + roleplaying may seal the deal while poor + roleplaying may kill it. + # Determine Status + * The event is not resolved. The player + declares a new course of action. Return to + /B. Resolution./ + * The event is resolved. Proceed to /IV. + Continue Play./ + + */Combat Resolution/* + # Initialize Countdown + * The players choose combat as their + characters' course of action. + * The GM qualifies the participants, + determines modifiers, and calls for a + combat die roll. + * The players (including GM) roll dice for + combatants. + * The GM qualifies die rolls from highest to + lowest. The countdown is set at the + highest current die result. + # Resolution. The players resolve actions for the + current count. + * If there is a tie, the GM takes steps to + resolve the tie. + * The players resolve the action for the + combatant with the highest die result as + an /Opposed/ action. + * Players then resolve the action for + combatants with the same die result as + /Opposed/ actions. + # Determine Status + * The count decreases by 1. + * While the count is above 0. + o If the combat is not resolved. + Return to /b. Resolution/. + o If the combat is resolved. Proceed + to /IV. Continue Play./ + * When the count reaches 0, the combat + sequence ends. + o If the combat is not resolved, + return to /a. Initialize Countdown/. + o If the combat is resolved, proceed + to /IV. Continue Play/. + + */Chaos Resolution/* + # Initialize Countdown + * The GM determines the order of player + declaration, either around the table (left + to right or right to left) or in groups + based on the situation. + * Resolution. The GM resolves actions in the + determined order. + o The GM qualifies the current + character's action, determines + modifier and method of resolution + (/unopposed/, /opposed/, or /played/). + o The GM and player resolve the + current action by the prescribed method. + * Determine Status. The GM determines + whether or not all actions have been + resolved. + o If actions remain for resolution, + the GM advances to the next + character. Return to /ii. Resolution/. + o If all actions are resolved, proceed + to /IV. Continue Play./ + * Continue Play. + o Players evaluate current status. + o Return to /I. Description./ + + +That's it. There is still a lot of work to do to finish this game, but +the core is firmly in place. Next installment, I will discuss the +ubiquitous and useful Play Sample. Thanks for reading. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + cooldog cotangent + (1) new +cranial_index 01-31-2006 20:46 01-31-2006 20:46 new + CORONA (1) new +corn_chamomile 01-31-2006 20:25 01-31-2006 20:25 new + Fendi Spy Bags WHOLESALE@WizardReplica.com + (1) new 514 +12-02-2005 10:55 12-02-2005 10:55 new + Designer Handbags Wholesale@WWW.WIZARDREPLICA.COM + (1) new 868 +11-14-2005 19:41 11-14-2005 19:41 new + REPLICA HANDBAGS LOUIS VUITTON REPLICA WHOLESALE@ + (1) new 794 +10-20-2005 21:37 10-20-2005 21:37 new + Death/playing style + (1) new Searcher +09-22-2003 11:35 09-22-2003 11:35 new + Death and actual immortality + (3) new Cpl Ferro +07-19-2003 08:53 01-13-2006 15:22 new + Non-death death + (5) new Sérgio +Mascarenhas 07-18-2003 03:07 07-23-2003 02:38 new + Thanks, Hunter + (4) new Allan +Sugarbaker 07-16-2003 00:18 07-17-2003 19:34 new + Realism (3) new +Robin 06-20-2003 01:23 06-25-2003 02:34 new + Something you might have mentioned. + (3) new Yamo +06-19-2003 16:13 06-19-2003 18:11 new + BTW, excellent column, Hunter! + (2) new flyingmice +06-19-2003 13:11 06-19-2003 18:13 new + Armor and Damage Thereto + (2) new The Student +06-19-2003 08:45 06-19-2003 11:44 new + Armor (9) new +flyingmice 06-19-2003 08:29 06-20-2003 06:12 new + Death spiral and unconsciousness + (7) new Torben +Mogensen 06-19-2003 07:31 06-20-2003 06:52 new + lucky or skilled + (2) new rhyme +05-12-2003 18:49 05-13-2003 09:25 new + Absolute, unopposed and opposed + (2) new Torben +Mogensen 04-16-2003 02:19 04-16-2003 09:26 new + 0-9 open ended = brilliant! + (8) new Vibropod +03-12-2003 10:41 07-18-2003 01:28 new + Smooth rerolls + (10) new Torben +Mogensen 03-12-2003 00:47 03-16-2003 23:57 new + Resolution Mechanics + (8) new Kyle +Schuant 03-11-2003 22:14 03-29-2003 21:28 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * #8: True Death by Hunter + Logan, 17jul03 + * #7: Assessing Damage by + Hunter Logan, 19jun03 + * #6: Putting Theory to the Test + by Hunter Logan, 12may03 + * #5: Resolution Mechanics II + by Hunter Logan, 14apr03 + * Resolution Mechanics I + by Hunter Logan, 11mar03 + * Player Goals by Hunter + Logan, 10feb03 + * Balance of Power by + Hunter Logan, 20jan03 + * Play Flow First by + Hunter Logan, 01jan03 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/dream14apr03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/dream14apr03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,465 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + The Impossible Dream + + + #5: Resolution Mechanics II + +*by Hunter Logan* +Apr 14,2003 + + +Last time, I wrote about the use of Chance, Ability, and Intent in +constructing resolution mechanics. I brought the article to a rather +abrupt close. I feel bad to have done that, but it works out better +because I want to peer more deeply into the resolution play flow. I +think a resolution mechanic is more than just a resolution mechanic. +It's really a mechanical process that includes at least one mechanical +device and one evaluation. That mechanical process is presented as a +resolution play flow. The undefined item here is the /evaluation/, so +that's a good place to begin. + +The Five Means of Evaluation + +A mechanic really isn't a mechanic without a means of evaluating what +happened. It occurs to me that any mechanic has five means of +evaluation. This is how I conceptualize the way that players evaluate +what happens after a mechanical device is used. The terms are +/Absolute/, /Unopposed/, /Opposed/, /Played/, and /Qualified/. Here are +the explanations. + +*/Absolute evaluation/* is usually based on Die Result vs. Fixed Scale. +The player generates a Die Result using a method such as Skill + +Attribute + Die Roll. The GM may apply a modifier for difficulty or +situation. For an easy job or situation where a character has the upper +hand, the GM might apply a large positive modifier. For a really tough +job or situations where the character is at a disadvantage, the GM might +apply a large negative modifier. The GM (or player) compares the die +result to the fixed scale and determines the outcome. This is a personal +preference, but I think modifiers are a bad idea for this sort of +mechanic. The purpose of an absolute evaluation is mostly to gauge the +quality of character effort. The evaluation may also provide an outcome; +but as a GM, when I asked for this sort of roll, I usually just wanted +the player to impress me with a great die result. Either way, a low +result here means the character was inept and failed, while a high +result indicates heroic performance and great success. Here is an example + + * Device (Chance and Ability): Player rolls Skill + Attribute + Die + Roll vs. Fixed Scale. + * Evaluation (Unopposed): In this example, the GM assessed the + Difficulty as a modifier. The GM compares the modified Die Result + to the Fixed Scale. If the Die Result is 3 or greater, the + character achieves some degree of success. Otherwise, the + character fails. More important, the character's effort is clumsy + or lackluster unless the player rolls 5 or better. + + +*Modifiers* Challenge Modifier +Easy +1 or more +Average 0 +Difficult -1 or more + + +*Results* Die Result Effort Outcome +0-2 Poor Fail +3-4 Fair Progress +5-7 Good Success +8+ Heroic Bonus + + + +*/Unopposed evaluation/* is usually based on a variable scale with a +device such as Die Result vs. Target Number where the die result is +Skill + Die Roll or something similar. The GM adjusts the Target Number +(TN) based on difficulty or challenge. An easy task often has a low TN. +A difficult task has a high TN. Here is a common example: + + * Device (Chance and Ability): Player rolls Skill + Die Roll vs. TN. + * Evaluation (Unopposed): In this example, the GM assessed the + Difficulty as a modifier The GM compares the Die Result to the + Target Number. If the Die Result is equal to or greater than the + TN, the character succeeds. Otherwise, the character fails. + + +*Target Number* Die Roll Result +2 Easy +4 Average +6 Difficult +9 Impossible + + + +*Results* Die Roll Result +< target Fail += or > target Success + + +*/Opposed evaluation/* is mostly based on a comparison of effort such as +PC's die result vs. opponent's die result. Here is an example: + + * Device (Chance and Ability): Player rolls Skill + Modifiers + Die + Roll vs. Opponent's die result. + * Evaluation (Opposed): The GM compares the player's die result to + the opponent's die result. Here is a set of possible outcomes: + +*Results* PC Die Result Result +< Opponent PC Loses += Opponent Draw +> Opponent PC Wins + + + +*/Played evaluation/* is mostly based on player intent. In this +situation, one player (usually the GM) gets to say what happens to +another player's declaration. This is often tied into ideas of diceless +play. Here is an example: + + * Device (Intent): The player declares that his character is using + the radio to call for artillery support. + * Evaluation (Played): The GM considers that the request is logical. + The character has a radio, expert military training, and artillery + support. He decides to play along and replies that the character + has successfully called for support. + + +*/Qualified evaluation/* is mostly a check to determine whether or not a +character is qualified to do a thing. Here is an example: + + * Device (Intent): The player declares that his character will + attempt to scale a sheer cliff face. + * Evaluation (Qualified): The GM asks the player about the + character's equipment and skills. The character has some climbing + skill, but no equipment. The GM determines that the character can + attempt the climb, but it will be both difficult and dangerous. + + +The Four Mechanical Structures + +To discuss mechanical structures more accurately, I have identified four +mechanical structures that you can employ to build a set of resolution +mechanics. Each is a process represented as a resolution play flow. You +may declare others as you need, but I'm starting with these four. They +are /Single/, /Series/, /Nested/, and /Countdown/ mechanics. + +*/Single mechanics/* include one device and one evaluation. Here is an +example of a single mechanic: + + * Device (Chance and Ability): The player rolls Character Skill + + Die Roll vs. Target Number. + * Evaluation (unopposed): If character's effort (Character Skill + + Die Roll) is equal to or greater than the challenge (Target + Number), the character is successful. If the character's effort is + less than the target number, the character fails. + + +*/Series mechanics/* consist of two or more single structures chained +together to produce a set of mechanics. This is a more complex play +flow, but the series mechanic is the most common structure for event +resolution for a single character. Here is an example of a series mechanic: + + * Device (Intent): The player declares the character's action. + * Evaluation (Qualified): The GM determines the required skill. If + the character lacks the skill, the character fails. If the + character has the skill, the GM sets the target number and the + player rolls the dice. + * Device (Chance and Ability): The player rolls Character Skill + + Die Roll vs. Target Number. + * Evaluation (unopposed): If the character's effort (Character + Attribute + Die Roll) is equal to or greater than the challenge + (Target Number), the character is successful. If the character's + effort is less than the target number, the character fails. + + +*/Nested mechanics/* usually consist of a single or series structure +nested inside another mechanical device or evaluation. Here is an example. + + * Device (Intent): The player declares the character's action. In + this case, the character threatens a prisoner with a + wicked-looking knife in hopes that the prisoner will talk. + * Evaluation (Qualified): The GM considers that the character can + easily make good on the threat. Anyone with common sense would + start talking, but the GM isn't sure this prisoner qualifies. + Also, the GM doesn't really want to play his own willpower against + that of the player. The GM decides to roll dice for the result. + o Device (Chance): The GM rolls a d6 for the prisoner. + o Evaluation (Unopposed): The GM decides that a result of 6 + makes the prisoner resist. The die result was 2. The + prisoner failed, meaning he will sing like a canary for the + PC in hopes of avoiding the pointy end of the knife. The GM + declares this. + +*/Countdown mechanics/* include a device, an evaluation, and a +countdown. The structure is basically a loop that serves as a shell for +nested mechanics. It's extremely helpful when resolving actions for +several characters. Its primary purpose is to aid in running combat. +Here is an example of a countdown: + + * Device (Chance and Ability): The GM asks the players to roll + initiative. The GM rolls initiative for NPCs or monsters. + * Evaluation (Qualified): The GM determines which participant has + the highest die roll. That participant is at the beginning of the + countdown and goes first. In the event of a tie, the GM may use + another method to break the tie. + o Device (Intent): The player declares the character's action. + o Evaluation (Qualified): The GM determines the required skill. + + If the character lacks the skill, the character fails. + + If the character has the skill, the GM sets the target + number and the player rolls the dice. + o Device (Chance and Ability): The player rolls Character + Skill + Die Roll vs. Target Number. + o Evaluation (unopposed): The GM determines the outcome. + + If the character's effort (Character Skill + Die Roll) + is equal to or greater than the challenge (Target + Number), the character is successful. + + If the character's effort is less than the target + number, the character fails. + o Continue Countdown. When the current character's action is + resolved, the GM continues the countdown. + + If the countdown has not reached 0 and the + participants still have actions to resolve, the GM + determines who goes next and returns to step A. + + If the countdown reaches 0 or all actions are + resolved, the countdown ends. Continue to step 4. + * Continue Play. The countdown is complete. + +An Approach to Chance and Ability + +Here is an example showing a common resolution flow that uses Chance, +Ability and Intent (but mostly features Chance and Ability): + + * Device (Intent). The player declares what he wants the character + to do. + * Evaluation (qualified). The character may be able to do it. The + player must roll dice. + * Device (Ability and Chance). The player rolls Skill + Die Roll for + his character. + * Evaluation (unopposed): If the die result is good enough, the + character will succeed. + +In the example, Intent helps the GM define the skill required for the +die roll and set the target number. I think Intent is most often used in +combination with qualified evaluation. At least, that's the sense I get +from many games. In this example, the actual resolution mechanism is a +second device, Skill + Die Roll. It's a combination of Chance and Ability. + +This is the part I find interesting: Any combination of Chance and +Ability can be skewed toward one or the other. + + * If Skill is small compared to the range of the die roll, then + Chance is dominant. + + */Example:/* Say the range for a skill is 0 to 8 where 0 is + untrained, 4 is fully trained, and 8 is the best on the planet. + Now say the die roll is 1d20. This gives an unmodified range of + results from 0 to 28, but a fully trained character only has skill + 4. For a fully trained character, the skill is really just a + modifier. The situation is a little better for characters with + more skill, but an untrained character has modifier 0. In that + case, the result is pure Chance. I can slant this even further by + saying, "A rolled 1 is an automatic failure and a rolled 20 is an + automatic success." The only other variable is the target number. + If the target numbers are small (and they probably would be for + really easy jobs), then Ability may still have some meaning. + Otherwise, Chance is still the dominant factor. + * If Skill is large compared to the die roll, then Ability is dominant. + + */Example:/* Say the range of attributes is 0 to 20 where 0 is + untrained, 8 is trained, and 20 is the best on the planet. This + time the die roll is 1d4. This gives a range of possible results + from 1 to 24, but now the die roll is just a modifier and the + range for a trained character is simply 9 to 12 without modifiers. + For a trained character, Ability now represents 67% of the total + range. The result is slanted far more heavily toward Ability. + Without modifiers, the character can't complete any job with a + target of 13 or more; and the player may not need to roll for + targets ranging from 0 to 9. + +Another Approach to Chance and Ability + +I want to look at one last way of balancing Chance and Ability. I didn't +think of it; Scott Lininger did. In his rpg, /The Window/ + he employs a single die, roll-under +mechanic that accounts for increasing ability by reducing the number of +sides on the die. His method uses every type of die from d4 to d30. I'm +not usually a fan of using so many different dice, but what Scott has +done is noteworthy. Basically, he set the default target number at 6. +Depending on the situation, the GM can increase or decrease it. When the +player needs to roll dice, he rolls the die that corresponds to the +character's competence. If the character is really horrible at +something, the player rolls a d30. If the character is truly outstanding +at something, the player rolls a d4. In this way, the effect of Chance +increases as Ability decreases. I think it's incredibly elegant. + +An Approach to Chance and Intent + +Historically, Intent has been the junior partner in resolving events. Of +course, the player has always been empowered to declare what he wants +his character to do or to say what he wants to happen; but wanting a +thing has rarely been enough to make it so. More recently, game +designers have provided more means to let the players have what they +want, even if that means letting the players do some of the things +traditionally left for the GM. Since players are accustomed to rolling +dice in order to get their way, it seems perfectly logical to continue +that trend. In the following example, Ability is still a factor in the +mechanic, but Chance is the deciding factor because the player is never +truly assured of victory. + + * Device (Intent): The player wants some weakling bad guys to show + up so that his character can safely test out a shiny, new weapon. + * Evaluation (Qualified): The GM sets the target at 3 or better. The + player needs at least one success. The GM asks the player to roll + the dice. + * Device (Chance and Ability): The player is Counting Victories + based on his character's Director attribute. That is, in this game + the character has an attribute called Director that the player can + use to directly affect the game world. The player rolls a d6 for + each point of Director. For each result 3 or greater, the player + gets a success. + * Evaluation (Unopposed): The player rolled 3 dice with results 2, 3 + and 5. This nets two successes. The player gets what he wants. If + the player had failed, the GM may still have had some bad guys + show up, but the GM might make them much stronger and more + dangerous than the player anticipated. + +An Approach to Ability and Intent + +The combination of Ability and Intent is really the foundation for +diceless roleplaying and usually the mechanism for giving players access +to the powers of the GM. In this case, it's very easy to completely +remove Chance from the equation. + + * Device (Ability and Intent): The player wants his character, a + military officer, to call for fire support against an enemy position. + * Evaluation (Qualified, Unopposed): The GM determines that the + character has everything needed to accomplish the goal. + Mechanically, there is nothing else to do, so the GM says, ãAfter + placing two spotting rounds, you have the range. + * Device (Ability and Intent): The player says, "I call, 'Fire for + effect!'" + * Evaluation (Qualified, Unopposed): The GM says, "A few seconds + later, the target area erupts in a cloud of smoke and flame as 36 + rounds of 120mm high explosive detonate on impact.ä + + +That wraps up my discussion of resolution mechanics. Next installment, I +will attempt to show how everything discussed thus far can help produce +the core of a game. Thanks for reading. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + cooldog cotangent + (1) new +cranial_index 01-31-2006 20:46 01-31-2006 20:46 new + CORONA (1) new +corn_chamomile 01-31-2006 20:25 01-31-2006 20:25 new + Fendi Spy Bags WHOLESALE@WizardReplica.com + (1) new 514 +12-02-2005 10:55 12-02-2005 10:55 new + Designer Handbags Wholesale@WWW.WIZARDREPLICA.COM + (1) new 868 +11-14-2005 19:41 11-14-2005 19:41 new + REPLICA HANDBAGS LOUIS VUITTON REPLICA WHOLESALE@ + (1) new 794 +10-20-2005 21:37 10-20-2005 21:37 new + Death/playing style + (1) new Searcher +09-22-2003 11:35 09-22-2003 11:35 new + Death and actual immortality + (3) new Cpl Ferro +07-19-2003 08:53 01-13-2006 15:22 new + Non-death death + (5) new Sérgio +Mascarenhas 07-18-2003 03:07 07-23-2003 02:38 new + Thanks, Hunter + (4) new Allan +Sugarbaker 07-16-2003 00:18 07-17-2003 19:34 new + Realism (3) new +Robin 06-20-2003 01:23 06-25-2003 02:34 new + Something you might have mentioned. + (3) new Yamo +06-19-2003 16:13 06-19-2003 18:11 new + BTW, excellent column, Hunter! + (2) new flyingmice +06-19-2003 13:11 06-19-2003 18:13 new + Armor and Damage Thereto + (2) new The Student +06-19-2003 08:45 06-19-2003 11:44 new + Armor (9) new +flyingmice 06-19-2003 08:29 06-20-2003 06:12 new + Death spiral and unconsciousness + (7) new Torben +Mogensen 06-19-2003 07:31 06-20-2003 06:52 new + lucky or skilled + (2) new rhyme +05-12-2003 18:49 05-13-2003 09:25 new + Absolute, unopposed and opposed + (2) new Torben +Mogensen 04-16-2003 02:19 04-16-2003 09:26 new + 0-9 open ended = brilliant! + (8) new Vibropod +03-12-2003 10:41 07-18-2003 01:28 new + Smooth rerolls + (10) new Torben +Mogensen 03-12-2003 00:47 03-16-2003 23:57 new + Resolution Mechanics + (8) new Kyle +Schuant 03-11-2003 22:14 03-29-2003 21:28 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * #8: True Death by Hunter + Logan, 17jul03 + * #7: Assessing Damage by + Hunter Logan, 19jun03 + * #6: Putting Theory to the Test + by Hunter Logan, 12may03 + * #5: Resolution Mechanics II + by Hunter Logan, 14apr03 + * Resolution Mechanics I + by Hunter Logan, 11mar03 + * Player Goals by Hunter + Logan, 10feb03 + * Balance of Power by + Hunter Logan, 20jan03 + * Play Flow First by + Hunter Logan, 01jan03 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/dream17jul03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/dream17jul03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,380 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + The Impossible Dream + + + #8: True Death + +*by Hunter Logan* +Jul 17,2003 + + +In most rpgs, characters can die. Whether they ever actually do or not +is largely a matter of design philosophy, player skill and GM/player +desire. In any case, this installment is all about character death. + +Defining Death +It's a good idea to begin with a definition of character death. On one +hand, a character is dead when he meets the conditions for death +according to the game's rules. That's when the character runs out of hit +points or fails the critical saving throw, or something similar. On the +other hand, death is not always the end. So, I thought about my own +definition for character death. + +I think a character is only truly dead when he is permanently removed +from the player's control. Death is not really about the character's +mind or body; it's about playability. A character can be bent, twisted +or mutilated as much as anyone wants. As long as the player can still +play the character, that character is still alive. When the player can't +play that character any more, then the character is truly dead. + +This definition may cause problems. If a character dies but only stays +dead long enough to get resurrected, then I say the character isn't +really dead. Yet, the player is inconvenienced and may need to play +another character to stay active in the game. Meanwhile, a character may +lose all of his humanity and become an NPC for the rest of the game. +Even though that character is still alive, I say that character is truly +dead because the player can't play that character any more. This +definition affects my approach to character death. + +Approaching Death +Most designers (and GMs) have a philosophy on death for their games. +Sometimes, the PC's life is fragile and characters are easy to kill. +Other times, the PC's life is rugged and characters are extremely hard +to kill. Sometimes, death is serious business. Other times, it's a +source of humor. Sometimes death is permanent. Other times, it's a +doorway to character evolution. Here are some factors that a designer +may consider when forming an approach to character death. + +*The Value of Life:* How important is the character? If the character is +important, then characters won't die very often - At least they +shouldn't die very often. If characters aren't that important, then they +might drop like flies. This works as a scale that runs from cheap to costly. + + * *Cheap:* It's not that the character is patently unimportant... + Well, maybe it is. But really, the character's life is just not + that important. It would be nice if the character could live + through the adventure; but if he doesn't, that's okay because the + character is easily replaced. This approximates the value of all + the cannon fodder in any game world. A game like Paranoia is a + good example. In that game, it seems the characters aren't that + important. Each player has several clones of his character and + half the fun is seeing how many different and creative ways a + character can die. + + * *Average:* The character is of some importance, if for no other + reason than the player spent an hour or more creating the + character. Thus, the character is expected to survive for a while. + From the designer's perspective, this is the default value. The + character is important, but a character can be killed at any time. + A game like /D&D/ exemplifies this attitude pretty well. It seems + that characters are important. The whole point of the game is for + players to keep the characters alive long enough to achieve + impressive high level and do amazing things. And yet, a character + is never important enough to truly cheat death. Under the right + circumstances, wandering monsters in random encounters can always + kill a character. + + * *Costly:* The character is extremely important - So important that + his death simply can't be left to random chance. At this point, + killing a character takes something extra. Maybe only an important + NPC or powerful monster can do it; or maybe it requires the + consent of the player. And on the flip side, maybe it's expensive + for characters to kill. Maybe when a character kills, he loses + something - humanity, sanity, whatever. Or maybe for a character + to kill, the player has to do spend a resource or roleplay the + kill in exquisite detail. Or maybe killing is illegal and the + criminal justice system in the game world is frighteningly + efficient at finding and punishing killers. + +*The Causes of Death:* How can a character die or otherwise fall out of +play? + + * *Death of the Body:* Of course, characters can almost always die + from physical trauma. Weapon hits and other injuries can usually + take out even the most powerful characters. + + * *Death of the Mind:* If physical death isn't bad enough, the + character can lose his mind. The classic example is /Call of + Cthulhu/. All characters will lose Sanity and eventually end up + insane, drooling and gibbering in the protective confines of + Arkham Asylum or some such place. + + * *Death of the Spirit:* This is one step beyond death of the mind + or body. Here, the character actually loses his inner spirit, his + very soul. This can happen to /Shadowrun/ characters when they + send their spirits into astral space. There, the character's + spirit can get into fights and die. If that happens, the meat body + is well suited for organ donation or medical experiments. On the + other hand, a character in a game like /Sorcerer/ can lose too + much humanity. When that happens, the character usually becomes an + NPC in the hands of the GM. He's not necessarily dead, but he + might as well be. + +*The Nature of Death:* As in TV shows, movies, and comic books, death is +not necessarily the end of an rpg character. In some games, characters +can be resurrected or brought back. In other games, the character may +live beyond death as a disembodied spirit, an undead, or as some sort of +supernatural creature. In a few games, characters even have serial +lives. Here are some ideas about the nature of death. + + * *Death is the End:* This is the most brutal way of handling + character death, and it's likely the most realistic. When the + character dies, the character is irrevocably lost. The player has + no way to raise, resurrect, recover, or return the character to play. + + * *Death is Temporary:* When the character dies, he is out of play + until someone cares enough to recover the character's life. In + this way, death becomes more like unconsciousness than death. This + is especially true when the means to bring the dead back to life + are cheap and plentiful. + + * *Death is only the beginning:* I think this was a tagline on the + cover of the /Kult/ rpg, but it refers to the notion that + characters do not really die when they are killed. Instead, the + dead characters live on in another form and possibly in another + place. So, when the character dies, he becomes something else. + +*The Decision to Die:* Who decides when and how a character dies? On the +surface, this seems easy. The vast bulk and majority of games put the +conditions for death in the rules. A character takes too much damage, +and he dies. A character loses too much Sanity and goes insane. In these +events, the character dies; but who or what actually decided the +character would die at that particular point in time? Was it a die roll, +the GM, or the player? + + * *The Dice:* Designers usually let the rules decide the conditions + for character death, and the decision-makers are often nothing + more than dice. Sometimes, one crappy die roll at the wrong time + is all it takes. Then the player must make a new character. This + is considered somewhat realistic. After all, in life we never + really know when or how we are going to die. It's even satisfying. + Players play to the best of their ability and make the best + decisions they can. Frequently, they don't mind the risk as long + as they have the chance to make decisions leading up to the event. + If the characters live, then it's a shiny victory. If the + characters die, it's a learning experience and maybe it adds + weight to the campaign. + + * *The GM:* Designers rarely give the GM sanction to blatantly kill + characters. /Cyberpunk 2020/ does have a note about killing + overpowered characters because the future is disposable, but that + sort of advice is unusual. In practice, the GM almost always has + the power to kill characters; and designers don't often address + the point. When is it okay for the GM to simply kill characters? + The answer for any situation will depend on the designer and the game. + + * *The Player:* Designers sometimes give players the right to choose + when, where, and how their characters will die. Of course, this is + grim business. Usually, players spend all their efforts keeping + their characters alive. Yet, the opportunity to give a character a + spectacular and worthy death appeals to some players. It's worth a + designer's time to at least consider the possibility when crafting + the rules for a new game. + +Avoiding Death +Just as designers consider all other factors of character death, +designers also consider methods players can use for avoiding character +death. Here are some possibilities: + + * *Expendable resources:* Give the players finite resources they can + use to cheat death. These might include plot points or victory + cards. When all else fails, the player can use one of these to + make the current problems go away. + + * *Manageable resources:* Give the players resources such as hit + points, humanity, or sanity. The players then have a measure of + responsibility or control over a character's life. + + * *Character abilities:* Give the characters abilities that players + can use to avoid death. These include magic spells, special + skills, and the like. + + * *Items:* Give the players items that can protect characters from + certain causes of death. This might be the cheap way to get the + job done, but it beats being dead. + + * *Saves:* Give the players an opportunity to save their characters. + The ubiquitous /saving throw/ is one way to do this. When faced + with something unpleasant, the player may roll dice to reduce or + eliminate the effect on the character. + +Integrating Death +Like any other part of a game, death can be integrated into the game +design. I don't think there's a play flow for death. When a character +dies, it's an outcome, not a process. Damage is part of the process; +death is a result of the process. Yet, processes surrounding death might +be part of a death flow. For example, a character is poisoned. The +player attempts to save against the poison. The save fails, so the +character is dying. Another character uses an item to stop the poison. +If the item works, the character is saved. If not, the character may die +after all. + +Planning for Death +As a final thought, designers might consider their plans for character +death. often, the plan is pretty simple: When the character dies, the +player writes up a new character. While this is a perfectly valid plan, +it's not always well suited to a particular game. Here are a few other +possibilities: + + * *Character Tree:* The player generates a group of characters. The + player then rotates these characters in and out of play. When a + characters dies, the player usually has the option to create a + replacement and add him to the tree. + + * *Improved Replacement:* The player creates a new character, but + the new character gets advantages based on how well the player + handled the old character. Of course, the player is encouraged to + play well because frequent character death will lead to weaker + replacement characters. + + * *NPC Replacement:* The player gets to continue play using an NPC + as his new character. This may work out pretty well, especially if + the NPC had a connection to the old character. In some games, + players may create or improve NPCs with money and equipment, so + the player has a vested interest in the NPC. Also, some GMs assign + NPCs to players, so the players inherit a sort of character tree. + The designer can always choose to formalize this sort of + relationship in the game's rules. + + * *Serial Replacement:* The player gets a new character that is + basically the same as the old character. + +The End? +This wraps up character death. If you have questions or comments, about +the article, please post them. I'm interested in what you have to say. +Thanks for reading, and especially thanks for all your comments and +discussion. + +Now, I have bad news. I don't like it, but this article wraps up my +column (at least for now). I haven't run out of words or topics, but I +have run out of time. I hope that after a few months, I'll be able to +pick up again; but I can't make any promises. Therefore, thanks to Aeon +and Allan Sugarbaker. Thank you for giving me the space to run my +articles. More important, thanks to everyone who has read my column. +Thank you for reading, and I really do hope you've enjoyed my articles. +Most important, thanks to everyone who has taken the time to write any +comments or discuss my column here in my little forum. Thank you for +caring. It's easy to ignore the columns, or to read without commenting. +It's something else to read a column and care enough to comment. I +appreciate the effort and your input! You have made this column all the +more worthwhile. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + cooldog cotangent + (1) new +cranial_index 01-31-2006 20:46 01-31-2006 20:46 new + CORONA (1) new +corn_chamomile 01-31-2006 20:25 01-31-2006 20:25 new + Fendi Spy Bags WHOLESALE@WizardReplica.com + (1) new 514 +12-02-2005 10:55 12-02-2005 10:55 new + Designer Handbags Wholesale@WWW.WIZARDREPLICA.COM + (1) new 868 +11-14-2005 19:41 11-14-2005 19:41 new + REPLICA HANDBAGS LOUIS VUITTON REPLICA WHOLESALE@ + (1) new 794 +10-20-2005 21:37 10-20-2005 21:37 new + Death/playing style + (1) new Searcher +09-22-2003 11:35 09-22-2003 11:35 new + Death and actual immortality + (3) new Cpl Ferro +07-19-2003 08:53 01-13-2006 15:22 new + Non-death death + (5) new Sérgio +Mascarenhas 07-18-2003 03:07 07-23-2003 02:38 new + Thanks, Hunter + (4) new Allan +Sugarbaker 07-16-2003 00:18 07-17-2003 19:34 new + Realism (3) new +Robin 06-20-2003 01:23 06-25-2003 02:34 new + Something you might have mentioned. + (3) new Yamo +06-19-2003 16:13 06-19-2003 18:11 new + BTW, excellent column, Hunter! + (2) new flyingmice +06-19-2003 13:11 06-19-2003 18:13 new + Armor and Damage Thereto + (2) new The Student +06-19-2003 08:45 06-19-2003 11:44 new + Armor (9) new +flyingmice 06-19-2003 08:29 06-20-2003 06:12 new + Death spiral and unconsciousness + (7) new Torben +Mogensen 06-19-2003 07:31 06-20-2003 06:52 new + lucky or skilled + (2) new rhyme +05-12-2003 18:49 05-13-2003 09:25 new + Absolute, unopposed and opposed + (2) new Torben +Mogensen 04-16-2003 02:19 04-16-2003 09:26 new + 0-9 open ended = brilliant! + (8) new Vibropod +03-12-2003 10:41 07-18-2003 01:28 new + Smooth rerolls + (10) new Torben +Mogensen 03-12-2003 00:47 03-16-2003 23:57 new + Resolution Mechanics + (8) new Kyle +Schuant 03-11-2003 22:14 03-29-2003 21:28 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * #8: True Death by Hunter + Logan, 17jul03 + * #7: Assessing Damage by + Hunter Logan, 19jun03 + * #6: Putting Theory to the Test + by Hunter Logan, 12may03 + * #5: Resolution Mechanics II + by Hunter Logan, 14apr03 + * Resolution Mechanics I + by Hunter Logan, 11mar03 + * Player Goals by Hunter + Logan, 10feb03 + * Balance of Power by + Hunter Logan, 20jan03 + * Play Flow First by + Hunter Logan, 01jan03 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/dream19jun03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/dream19jun03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,448 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + The Impossible Dream + + + #7: Assessing Damage + +*by Hunter Logan* +Jun 19,2003 + + +Last installment, I claimed this installment would be about play +samples. I changed my mind. I think people who read this column know +that play samples are scripts of a play session and that play samples +are good for demonstrating how a game works. Going on about that for a +whole installment seems like overkill, so let me sum up: Use play +samples because they're good and helpful. Now, on to something +infinitely more interesting: Assessing damage in game terms. + +Practical Considerations +A designer has at least four practical considerations that should +underlie decisions about damage in a game system. + + * *Complexity:* The number of steps and the difficulty of completing + those steps, elements that Brian Gleichman calls /Complexity of + Implementation/. As a designer, you can make the means for + handling damage as simple or complex as you like. + + * *Lethality:* The amount of punishment a character can take before + falling out of action. In a very lethal implementation, players + might actually avoid combat because of the real threat to a + character's life. In a less lethal implementation, players might + want to fight a lot, especially if fighting is rewarded. + + * *Realism:* The true-to-life aspects of damage in the game. A + realistic implementation will bring results that approximate what + would happen in the real world. In that respect, greater realism + brings increased lethality. Yet, I maintain that producing truly + realistic results is extremely difficult. The best a designer can + do is to produce consistent, believable results. + + * *Satisfaction:* The player's satisfaction with the methods and + results for handling damage. Satisfaction is an intangible result + and not strictly limited to issues of damage assessment. + +Damage and Play Flow +Like any other aspect of an rpg, the rules and mechanical processes for +handling damage can be expressed through play flow. A lot of this +overlaps with rules for combat, but I've decided not to approach combat +as a subset of game rules for two reasons. First, I think most people +have their own ideas about how combat should run. I don't really know +what I could add to that. Second, combat is not the only time characters +give or receive damage. So, I want to concentrate on the ways and means +for assessing damage. Here is an example: + + * *Event:* A character is faced with an otherworldly horror, a + creature so bizarre and disgusting that no words could express the + reality of seeing it. + + * *Decision:* The player doesn't want his character looking at any + horrific monstrosities. He declares, "I try to get the hell out of + there as fast as I can, and without looking at that /thing/!" + + * *Resolution:* + o *Device (unopposed):* The GM has the player roll dice to see + whether or not the character looked directly at the monster + while the GM rolls dice to see if the monster looked + directly at the character. + o *Evaluation:* The player rolls poorly while the GM rolls + pretty well. The monster and the character look at each other. + o *Device (opposed):* Looking into the face of such a monster + can cause a person to go insane. Thus, the player must roll + against the monster's effect to avoid psychological damage. + This is an opposed die roll. + o *Evaluation:* The player rolls against the GM and the + monster wins. The GM determines that the character takes 9 + points of /Horror/ against his /Stability/ attribute. The + character runs off in a panic, screaming the whole way. + +Two Specific Issues +I want to address two specific issues related to damage: Armor and the +death spiral. + +*Armor:* Designers decide how armor will protect a character. I have +seen three common methods for treating armor. The methods can be +combined as desired. + + * *Makes the target harder to hit:* This idea causes consternation + for some people, because good armor is heavy and wearing heavy + armor should make a person easier to hit. Yet, good armor should + make it harder for opponents to injure the person wearing it. So, + making the character harder to hit as a result of wearing armor is + one way to abstract the entire relationship. The trouble is, a + miss might not really mean an opponent missed. It might just mean + an opponent's blow bounced off the character's armor. + + * *Reduces the damage inflicted:* This idea seems to make people + happy. This way, good armor can be heavy. It can even make the + person wearing the armor an easy target, but the armor will absorb + some (if not all) incoming damage. + + * *Absorbs damage until destroyed:* This idea always struck me as + being very strange. Armor should be destructible. It's just that + most designers who treat armor this way fix it so that the armor + takes /all/ the damage until it's /completely destroyed/. Then, + its value as protection is completely gone. I think it's better to + treat the armor as a means for reducing damage; but after so many + hits, the armor becomes less effective. Eventually, the armor will + need repair or it will wear away to nothing. + +*The Death Spiral:* Each time a character takes damage, the character +becomes weaker and easier to kill. Death spirals are often enforced with +loss of character ability and penalties to the die roll. As a designer, +you have to decide for yourself whether or not a death spiral is +appropriate for your game. + +The Deal with Damage +Damage is a universal phenomenon in rpgs. Most every game has rules for +hurting PCs, smashing monsters, and destroying stuff. The means for +doing that are part of the game's rules. The best way to figure things +out is to answer questions. + + * What sort of damage will the players have to track? + * How is damage inflicted? + * How is damage quantified? + * What effect does damage have on the recipient? + * How is damage avoided or reduced? + * How is damage repaired? + +Damage Types +Not all damage is the same. The sword slash that hurts the body is +different from the bad news that damages the psyche or the blast of +ghostly energy that pierces the character's very soul. In the end, I +think designers choose from four types of damage: + + * *Physical harm* is simply damage to the character's body. This + happens when a character is shot, stabbed, smashed with heavy + objects. This may result in bruises, contusions, broken bones, + assorted internal injuries and a whole lot of pain. Physical harm + is by far the most common sort of damage in rpgs. It may affect + the character's ability to do things. + + * *Psychological harm* is damage to the character's psyche. This is + practically guaranteed to any character in a /Call of Cthulhu/ + game. This may cause the character to lose his grip on reality or + just go insane. Psychological harm is less common than physical + harm, but it shows up in a surprising number of rpgs. + + * *Spiritual harm* is damage to the character's very essence, + spirit, soul, or whatever. This most often happens to characters + that leave their bodies behind and project themselves into other + dimensions; but certain monsters in various games are capable of + bypassing the body to inflict direct spiritual harm. + + * *Material loss* is damage to or loss of a character's stuff. This + happens whenever a weapon breaks, a crash trashes a vehicle, or a + character loses the use of any piece of equipment. Players like to + give their characters toys, and sometimes those toys get broken. + +Means of Inflicting Damage +There are plenty of ways to inflict damage, but most of them fit in four +categories. + + * *Weapons* include fists, feet, and any sort of tool or device + intended to kill people and blow stuff up. These are a primary + means of inflicting damage in many games. + + * *Character Ability* includes cast spells, psionics, or any other + means a character can use to project or trigger an effect without + a weapon. + + * *Unknown forces* include all the creatures of dream and nightmare + that may or may not exist in the game world. Even seeing one of + these things might be enough to harm a character, though it might + be enough for the unknown forces to see the character. + + * *Player decision* includes all the things a player decides to have + the character do in the game. Certain decisions may damage the + character, but the player will have the character do these things + anyway. This is a causal relationship that usually has more to do + with psychological or spiritual damage than physical damage; but + anything is possible. A character that uses performance-enhancing + drugs may develop a dependency; a character with too much + cyberware may edge toward psychosis; and a character who delves + too deeply into the Necronomicon will surely go insane. + +Quantifying Damage +Once the means for inflicting damage are decided, a designer needs means +for quantifying damage. Here are some possibilities. + + * *Hit points* express damage as an abstract unit. No one really + knows how much damage a hit point represents. For a small creature + with a few hit points, a single hit point of damage is a serious + wound. For a powerful monster with dozens of hit points, a single + hit point of damage is a scratch. It doesn't even really matter + how much damage a hit point represents. All that matters is one + simple relationship: The more hit points a character has, the more + punishment he can endure. + + * *Attribute reductions* express damage as a direct reduction in the + recipient's attributes. A light wound might reduce a single + attribute by a point or two. Serious wounds may cause several + attributes to drop simultaneously. Of course, this is really just + a variation on hit points. Instead of subtracting the damage from + a pool of points, the player subtracts the damage from his + character's attributes. The big difference here is that an effect + is immediate. Lowering an attribute reduces the character's + capabilities. + + * *Damage monitors* express damage in levels with descriptors. They + are represented as a table on the character sheet. A light wound + might count as a bruise or scratch. Mortal wounds put the + character near death. + + * *Descriptions* express damage verbally. This might well be the + most explicit way to express damage. It is often used to support + other methods of damage measurement. + + * *Combinations* allow the designer to use more than one method to + produce a more complex, more complete method of quantifying + damage. A designer might combine hit points with verbal + descriptions or damage monitors with attribute reductions, and so on. + +Damage Effects +Once the damage is measured, it usually has some mechanical effect. Here +are some possibilities. + + * *Reduced Resource:* Many games include some sort of + damage-absorbing resource, such as hit points. Damage causes a + reduction in the resource. When the resource is completely spent, + the character falls out of play. + + * *Special effect:* The damage produces a specific effect with + undesirable consequences. Special effects may make a character + extremely vulnerable using results such as stunning, holding, + petrification, or loss of limbs. They might also radically affect + a character's behavior, inspiring fear, confusion, or changes in + allegiance. + + * *Reduced abilities:* As the character takes damage, the character + suffers a reduction or loss of abilities. This is a real problem. + As the character's abilities are reduced, his likelihood of + suffering further damage increases. This results in a death spiral. + + * *Increased abilities:* As the character takes damage, the + character's abilities actually increase. I haven't seen this in + too many games, but it seems the idea is to make characters more + determined to succeed, more motivated, and more dangerous as they + approach the end. + + * *Altered player decision:* As the character takes damage, the + player may have to alter his plans or make decisions about the + plight of the character. A player has many motivations and the + situation certainly plays a part, but adding damage to the + equation may make the player more cautious, more daring, or more + willing to sacrifice the character. + +Avoiding and Reducing Damage +In game terms, damage is usually best avoided. If a character can't +avoid taking damage, the player can at least take steps to reduce the +amount of damage. Of course, a lot of this is up to you as the designer. +You can provide the means for reducing or avoiding damage as part of +your game design. Here are some possibilities. + + * *Character Ability:* The designer provides abilities that allow + characters to reduce or avoid damage. A very stealthy or invisible + character may be able to vanish from enemy view. A very fast + character may be able to dodge attacks. A heavy, thick-skinned + character may be able to ignore or absorb attacks. A very skilled + character may be able to outmaneuver enemies, never giving them + the opportunity to do any harm. + + * *Expendable resources:* The designer provides hero points or other + expendable resources that allow characters to avoid or reduce the + damage taken in a situation. + + * *Equipment:* The character employs a startling array of equipment + for reducing damage including personal armor, energy shields, + magical rings, potions, spells, or advanced technology that allows + a character to avoid taking damage. All this stuff has the net + effect of increasing character ability. + + * *Player Decisions:* The best way to avoid damage is to stay out of + situations that result in damage. That includes combat and the + dark, terrible places in many game worlds. Of course, the GM might + have something to say about that. If the situation is unavoidable, + some characters may still choose not to participate. Players can + always have characters hide, run away, or surrender in order to + avoid the situation. The designer can't really control player + decisions, but the decisions a designer makes about damage will + influence player decisions. If characters can take a lot of damage + without much trouble, the player might make different decisions + than he would if character performance really starts to suffer + after just one or two hits. + +Repairing Damage +Once characters take damage, players will want some way to make repairs. +This might also extend to pets, vehicles and other important equipment, +because a player may consider a character's pet, vehicle, or equipment +as an important aspect of the character. Thus, when any of these take +damage, the player will want to repair them, as well. + + * *Time:* Given time, most wounds heal. Depending on the wound or + circumstances in the game world, the character may suffer some + sort of permanent effect as a result of the injury. + + * *Expendable Resources:* The player may be able to spend points or + use disposable items such as healing potions or stim packs to heal + the character's wounds. + + * *Character Ability:* Just as a character may have the ability to + inflict damage, a character might also have the ability to repair + damage. Doing this may or may not require parts and equipment. + + * *Extraordinary Means:* When the inflicted damage is beyond normal + means for repair, the player may still have options. The GM may + thoughtfully provide more extensive healing and/or repair + facilities for rebuilding characters or vehicles, such as + hospitals and dry docks. + +End Note +Designers can really tweak game play by choosing appropriate methods of +assessing damage. This is an important part of an rpg design; and good +design is a matter of conscious thought, logical choices, and deliberate +decisions. I can't tell you how you should design your games; that's up +to you. All I can do is offer a way of thinking about design. I'm +interested in your opinions about this article; so don't be shy about +posting. Next time, I'll go one step further and talk about designing +death into a game. Thanks for reading. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + cooldog cotangent + (1) new +cranial_index 01-31-2006 20:46 01-31-2006 20:46 new + CORONA (1) new +corn_chamomile 01-31-2006 20:25 01-31-2006 20:25 new + Fendi Spy Bags WHOLESALE@WizardReplica.com + (1) new 514 +12-02-2005 10:55 12-02-2005 10:55 new + Designer Handbags Wholesale@WWW.WIZARDREPLICA.COM + (1) new 868 +11-14-2005 19:41 11-14-2005 19:41 new + REPLICA HANDBAGS LOUIS VUITTON REPLICA WHOLESALE@ + (1) new 794 +10-20-2005 21:37 10-20-2005 21:37 new + Death/playing style + (1) new Searcher +09-22-2003 11:35 09-22-2003 11:35 new + Death and actual immortality + (3) new Cpl Ferro +07-19-2003 08:53 01-13-2006 15:22 new + Non-death death + (5) new Sérgio +Mascarenhas 07-18-2003 03:07 07-23-2003 02:38 new + Thanks, Hunter + (4) new Allan +Sugarbaker 07-16-2003 00:18 07-17-2003 19:34 new + Realism (3) new +Robin 06-20-2003 01:23 06-25-2003 02:34 new + Something you might have mentioned. + (3) new Yamo +06-19-2003 16:13 06-19-2003 18:11 new + BTW, excellent column, Hunter! + (2) new flyingmice +06-19-2003 13:11 06-19-2003 18:13 new + Armor and Damage Thereto + (2) new The Student +06-19-2003 08:45 06-19-2003 11:44 new + Armor (9) new +flyingmice 06-19-2003 08:29 06-20-2003 06:12 new + Death spiral and unconsciousness + (7) new Torben +Mogensen 06-19-2003 07:31 06-20-2003 06:52 new + lucky or skilled + (2) new rhyme +05-12-2003 18:49 05-13-2003 09:25 new + Absolute, unopposed and opposed + (2) new Torben +Mogensen 04-16-2003 02:19 04-16-2003 09:26 new + 0-9 open ended = brilliant! + (8) new Vibropod +03-12-2003 10:41 07-18-2003 01:28 new + Smooth rerolls + (10) new Torben +Mogensen 03-12-2003 00:47 03-16-2003 23:57 new + Resolution Mechanics + (8) new Kyle +Schuant 03-11-2003 22:14 03-29-2003 21:28 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * #8: True Death by Hunter + Logan, 17jul03 + * #7: Assessing Damage by + Hunter Logan, 19jun03 + * #6: Putting Theory to the Test + by Hunter Logan, 12may03 + * #5: Resolution Mechanics II + by Hunter Logan, 14apr03 + * Resolution Mechanics I + by Hunter Logan, 11mar03 + * Player Goals by Hunter + Logan, 10feb03 + * Balance of Power by + Hunter Logan, 20jan03 + * Play Flow First by + Hunter Logan, 01jan03 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/dream20jan03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/dream20jan03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,447 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + The Impossible Dream + + + Balance of Power + +*by Hunter Logan* +Jan 20,2003 + + +Balance of Power and Player Goals +The Impossible Dream Installment #2 +by Hunter Logan + +Intro + +Let me begin by saying thank you to all the people who read and +responded to Installment #1. I appreciate your input and I hope you are +all satisfied with the work I'm doing here. I want to take a minute here +to say a few words about what I'm doing and where I'm going with the column. + + * I'm not saying, "This is what you must do and this is the way you + must do it to design your game." Instead, I'm supplying + suggestions in the pattern, "This is what I've thought, this is + what I've tried, and this is what has worked for me." I want to + share that in the hope that I can help readers who have faced some + of the same game design dilemmas that I've faced. It's all about + making better games. + * I regard game design as an art. It's not exactly like painting, + drawing, or singing; but it's an art all the same. To me, that + means there are many ways to reach the desired result. Take + painting, for example. Some painters paint from dark to light. + Others paint from light to dark. Still others paint midtone first + and then build darks and lights. The process is different, but the + challenges and tools are the same. No matter how the painter + paints, he must deal with color, value, composition, form, and + materials. So it is with the game designer. Whether you choose to + think of play flow, mechanics, characters, setting, and so on + first or last is up to you. The problems are the same, the method + of solving them differs from person to person. + * I'm not presenting */The Definitive Tool for Game Design/*. I + doubt such a thing actually exists. Instead, I'm presenting + thoughts and processes that work for me. How you choose to use + this information is up to you. I hope you find something useful. + * I'm not telling you, "This is what I like. You should like it, + too." I'm saying, these are the many and varied possiblilities I + have found. They barely scratch the surface of what's possible. + You should pick the ones you like or find your own and use them to + suit yourself. I may eventually talk about what I like, but I will + only present my preference as one more possibility for your + consideration. + * Some topics may generate some heat. You don't have to agree with + me. I'm not trying to convert you and I'm not going to attack you + for holding a different viewpoint. Please extend me the same + courtesy. + +Next, a correction. In my discussion of /mechanics/ in installment#1, I +really should have specified /resolution mechanics/. I wanted to make +the term more general, but that was a mistake because the structure of +resolution mechanics is different from, say, death mechanics or +alignments or any of the other rules and guidelines that naturally fit +under the mechanical umbrella. So much for my aura of flawlessness and +my apologies for any confusion. + +Balance of Power + +Last time, I pushed play flow as a primary consideration for game +designers. This time, I'm going to explore that a bit further by looking +at some differences in play flow that can happen depending on your +intended Balance of Power. + +/Balance of Power/ is a term I use to express the relationship between +rules, GM, and players. As I originally envisioned it, BoP was a linear +scale. At one end, the GM had all the power. In the middle, the GM +shared power with the players. At the far end, the players had all the +power. That was fine as far as it went, but John Morrow pointed out that +games and players give power to the rules. The more I thought about it, +the more it made sense. I'd even seen examples of it in actual play, so +BoP is now a triad. Whether you think about it or not, any game you +design will have a BoP. Here is a more formal definition. + +*/Balance of Power/* is an expression of the relationship between the +GM, the players, and the game's rules. As a game designer, you can write +play flows and rules that define BoP. When you give the GM or players +express powers, those usually have an impact on how people play your +game. Otherwise, three factors determine BoP: The degree of trust +between GM and player, the GM's approach to running a game, and the +players' approach to playing a game. + +Visualization + +I visualize BoP as a triangle, a polygon with three edges and three +vertices. Your BoP can lie on a vertex, along an edge, or anywhere on +the surface of the triangle. In the BoP diagram, the rules occupy the +top apex of the triangle. This is deliberate, because in most games, the +rules have at least a little bit of power over how events are set up and +resolved in the game. The GM and players form the bottom edge of the +triangle. + + + Rules + + / \ + + / \ + + /_____\ + + GM Players + + + +BoP and Play Flow + +I think BoP affects play flow. If BoP favors the GM, the play flow will +be a lot different than if BoP favors the players or the rules. +Sometimes the differences are subtle. Other times they're blatant. I +think the best way to look at this is to examine some permutations of +BoP and show examples of associated play flows. These play flows are but +one possibility for a given BoP. I present them as points of reference, +not definitive or limiting statements. These are mostly based on play +flows that I've used, heard about, or seen used in other games. All this +is intended to help you think about the Balance of Power you might want +in your own game. Let's look at some examples. + + * BoP favors the rules (weak GM, weak players). The rules determine + what players can do and what happens in the game. The game + designer provides rules for many contingencies. The players may + know the rules as well as the GM. Everyone is expected to use and + follow the rules without any sort of fudging or cheating. + o Description. As play begins, the GM describes the locale for + the players. The rules may require the GM to randomly + generate some aspects of the scene. + o Clarification. The players ask questions about specific + details. The GM answers as appropriate. The GM may randomly + generate some of this information. + o Decision Point. The players discuss what they want to do and + decide on a course of action for their characters. Rules + concerning character behavior may require a specific course + of action for some characters. The players have their + characters do this as appropriate. This decision may spawn + an event. If the players have difficulty making a decision, + the GM may add an event to the game. This might involve + rolling dice to find out what happens next. + o Event. Something happens. The GM describes the event and the + players ask questions to clarify the situation. + + Decision Point. The players evaluate the event and + decide what, if anything they want their characters to + do about it. Rules concerning character behavior may + require a specific course of action for some + characters. The players have their characters do this + as appropriate. + + Resolution Point. The players' decision produces a + resolution point. Using the mechanical tools designed + for this purpose, the GM and players resolve the + event. No matter what happens, all results are + accepted at face value. + o Repeat. This flow of play is repeated until the characters + work their way through the adventure. + + * BoP is shared between rules and GM (weak players). The GM knows + the rules and uses them to help determine what happens. The player + has very little power or resources for affecting the game except + through the action of his character. The GM is expected to follow + the rules in order to keep the game fair and balanced. + o Description. The GM describes the locale and situation for + the players. + o Clarification. The players ask questions about specific + details of the description. The GM answers as appropriate. + o Decision Point. The players discuss what they want to do and + decide on a course of action for their characters. This + decision may spawn an event. If the players have difficulty + making a decision, the GM may add an event to the game. + o Event. Finally, something happens. The GM describes the + event and the players ask questions to clarify the situation. + + Decision Point. The players decide what their + characters will do about the event. In this case, + indecision is a decision as the GM may push things + along as he sees fit. + + Resolution Point. The players' decision leads to a + resolution point. Using the appropriate mechanics, the + GM and players resolve the event. + o Repeat. This flow of play is repeated until the players work + their way through the adventure. + + * BoP favors the GM (weak rules, weak players). The GM has + considerable power and resources for affecting the game including + the setting, the course of the story, the setup of events, and + what happens, The GM may use the rules to determine the outcome of + events, but the GM may also take liberties with the rules in order + to make the game go the way he wants it to go. The players accept + that the GM basically controls the game. The GM will have power to + fudge results. The GM may allow some player initiative, but it's + still the GM's show. Here is a possible flow of play: + o Description. The GM describes the situation to the players. + The GM supplies the players with two or three possible + courses of action. + o Decision Point. The players ask questions about specific + details and select from the presented options. If the + players want to do something else, the GM may require a die + roll or use some other device to make this possible. + o Event. The players' decision results in a new event. The GM + provides the players with options for handling the event. + + Decision Point. The GM offers options for resolving + the event. The players decide what they want their + characters to do. The players select an option for + handling the event. If the players don't like the GM's + choices, they may suggest an alternative course of + action, but it's really the GM's call. + + Resolution Point. The players' decisions produce a + resolution point. Using the appropriate mechanics, the + GM resolves the event with input from the players. + o Repeat. This flow of play is repeated until the characters + work their way through the adventure. + + * BoP is shared between GM and players (weak rules). The rules are + minimal, but they determine the flow of play. In this flow, the GM + is still the GM, but the players can change the flow of events or + rearrange the whole situation to their own liking within the + limits of a few simple rules. + o Description. The GM describes the situation for the players. + o Clarification. The players ask questions about specific + details. The GM answers as appropriate. + o Decision Point. The players declare what they want their + characters to do. Their declarations may change the situation. + o Event. Player declarations lead to an event. If the players + don't really say anything that leads to an event, the GM may + add an event to the game. + + Decision Point. The players decide how to handle the + event. They declare courses of action for their + characters. + + Resolution Point. The GM uses his best judgment and + declares the effect of the characters' actions. The + players may make other declarations to modify the outcome. + o Repeat. This flow of play is repeated until the players work + their way through the adventure. + + * BoP favors the players (weak rules, no GM). This is interactive + storytelling or roleplaying without a system. The game has no real + GM and no hard, fast rules for determining what happens in the game. + o Determine Speaker. The players roll dice to determine the + speaker, a sort of temporary GM. The player with the highest + die roll is speaker. + o Description. The speaker declares the current situation. + o Clarification. The other players ask questions about + specific details. The current speaker answers as appropriate. + o Declaration. The players make declarations for their + characters. These declarations may change the situation. The + speaker may rebut each player's declaration. This rebuttal + may again alter the situation. This process continues until + an event occurs. + o Event. Sooner or later, the players will cause an event to + occur in the game. + + Decision Point. The players declare what their + characters will do about the event. + + Determine Speaker. The players roll dice to determine + a new speaker. + + Resolve Event. The new speaker declares the result of + the characters' actions in the event. + o Repeat. This flow of play is repeated until the players + reach a logical end point, a time limit, or the end of the + game session. + + * BoP is shared between players and rules (Distributed GM). The + players know and apply the rules for themselves. They determine + the course of play as a group. They use a distributed GM + arrangement. That is, the power normally given to the GM is + distributed among the players. The players either take turns being + the GM, or each player is a sort of mini-GM with some control over + what happens at any point in the game. + o Description. Each player sets his character in a scene. If + one player wants other characters in the same scene, each + player decides whether or not to do this. Two or more + characters in the same scene may interact. + o Event. After each player has set his character in a scene, + each player declares some sort of action that affects his + character, his scene, or someone else's character or scene. + This sets one or more events in motion. + + Decision Point. The players decide whether or not to + accept the events now in motion. + + Resolution Point. The rules provide each player with + limited means to challenge the outcome of events. + Unchallenged actions automatically succeed. Challenged + actions are resolved. If the challenge is successful, + the action fails. Otherwise, the action succeeds. If + something special happens, like a character is injured + or killed, players apply whatever rules exist to + handle those events. + o Repeat. Once actions are resolved, each player assesses his + character's situation and the flow of play starts over. In + this way, play progresses until the session ends or until + something happens to bring play to an end. + + * BoP is shared between GM, players, and rules (weak GM). This is + center mass of the triangle. The GM and the players both have a + say in what happens and how it happens, but rules moderate the + sharing of power. The GM might make a statement, but the players + have resources at their disposal to override the GM. Then a player + may make a statement, but the rules help determine whether or not + the statement proves true and the GM has some input on the outcome. + o Description. The GM describes the situation for the players. + The GM may set an event in motion. + o Clarification. The players ask questions about specific + details. The GM answers as appropriate. + o Decision Point: The players have the option to accept or + reject the information provided by the GM. If the players + don't like what they hear, they may alter the GM's + description or set some other event in motion. This often + requires an expenditure of resources or some sort of die + roll. As long as the players go about their business as + prescribed by the rules, the GM is obliged to support the + players in their intended endeavor and facilitate the changes. + o Event. The interactions up to this point should set events + in motion. If an event is not in motion, a player or the GM + may add an event to the game. + + Decision Point. The players now decide how they will + deal with the event. They may either decide what their + characters will do or they may use means at their + disposal to change the event. + + Resolution Point. Once the decisions are made, the GM + and players work to resolve the event. The GM + determines what happens, but the players may decide to + modify the results within the rules of the game. + o Repeat. Once the event is resolved, the process starts over. + In this way, the GM helps the players find their own adventures. + +That wraps up Balance of Power. Next time, I will discuss player goals. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + cooldog cotangent + (1) new +cranial_index 01-31-2006 20:46 01-31-2006 20:46 new + CORONA (1) new +corn_chamomile 01-31-2006 20:25 01-31-2006 20:25 new + Fendi Spy Bags WHOLESALE@WizardReplica.com + (1) new 514 +12-02-2005 10:55 12-02-2005 10:55 new + Designer Handbags Wholesale@WWW.WIZARDREPLICA.COM + (1) new 868 +11-14-2005 19:41 11-14-2005 19:41 new + REPLICA HANDBAGS LOUIS VUITTON REPLICA WHOLESALE@ + (1) new 794 +10-20-2005 21:37 10-20-2005 21:37 new + Death/playing style + (1) new Searcher +09-22-2003 11:35 09-22-2003 11:35 new + Death and actual immortality + (3) new Cpl Ferro +07-19-2003 08:53 01-13-2006 15:22 new + Non-death death + (5) new Sérgio +Mascarenhas 07-18-2003 03:07 07-23-2003 02:38 new + Thanks, Hunter + (4) new Allan +Sugarbaker 07-16-2003 00:18 07-17-2003 19:34 new + Realism (3) new +Robin 06-20-2003 01:23 06-25-2003 02:34 new + Something you might have mentioned. + (3) new Yamo +06-19-2003 16:13 06-19-2003 18:11 new + BTW, excellent column, Hunter! + (2) new flyingmice +06-19-2003 13:11 06-19-2003 18:13 new + Armor and Damage Thereto + (2) new The Student +06-19-2003 08:45 06-19-2003 11:44 new + Armor (9) new +flyingmice 06-19-2003 08:29 06-20-2003 06:12 new + Death spiral and unconsciousness + (7) new Torben +Mogensen 06-19-2003 07:31 06-20-2003 06:52 new + lucky or skilled + (2) new rhyme +05-12-2003 18:49 05-13-2003 09:25 new + Absolute, unopposed and opposed + (2) new Torben +Mogensen 04-16-2003 02:19 04-16-2003 09:26 new + 0-9 open ended = brilliant! + (8) new Vibropod +03-12-2003 10:41 07-18-2003 01:28 new + Smooth rerolls + (10) new Torben +Mogensen 03-12-2003 00:47 03-16-2003 23:57 new + Resolution Mechanics + (8) new Kyle +Schuant 03-11-2003 22:14 03-29-2003 21:28 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * #8: True Death by Hunter + Logan, 17jul03 + * #7: Assessing Damage by + Hunter Logan, 19jun03 + * #6: Putting Theory to the Test + by Hunter Logan, 12may03 + * #5: Resolution Mechanics II + by Hunter Logan, 14apr03 + * Resolution Mechanics I + by Hunter Logan, 11mar03 + * Player Goals by Hunter + Logan, 10feb03 + * Balance of Power by + Hunter Logan, 20jan03 + * Play Flow First by + Hunter Logan, 01jan03 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/elements01nov02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/elements01nov02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,348 @@ +RPGnet + +_/Advertise with RPGnet/_ + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Elements + + + Elements of Tactics + +*by Brian Gleichman* +Nov 01,2002 + + + + + Elements of Tactics + +As many know, RPGs had their beginnings in the miniature wargaming +hobby. The first systems were extensions of many of the same concepts +and were highly tactical games in their own right. + +The old wargame empires (SPI, Avalon Hill, etc) all but died and those +that survived to a noticeable extent (GW) did so by moving to extremely +simple rules in order to appeal to the widest possible user base. RPGs +(with the exception of D&D) followed the same course with "Story" and +simple mechanics becoming more and more commonplace and rules taking an +ever decreasing importance. Entire game lines became based on such +mechanically shoddy grounds as a core dice mechanic that increased your +fumble chances the more skilled your character became. It seemed that +few noticed and even fewer cared. It almost looks like the need for +solid, let alone tactical, game systems were a thing of the past. + +However much of that appearance is illusion. D&D always remained at the +top of the market and new games designs are once again returning to more +traditional styles at least in part. The interest in tactical games +actually is as strong as ever. + +A couple of the newest entries into "tactical rpgs" are Riddle of Steel +and Rune. Both games that market themselves in part on their combat +systems. A welcome change of pace for old timers like myself, but are +they actually tactical games? What does one look for? How can a system +design be optimize for it? How do we judge a system's suitability for +tactical play in an era where nearly everything the old wargame +designers learned has been forgotten? We need some standards, or at +least some concepts to used in our judgment. + +I'd like to take a stab at it by defining three major elements of +tactical game design, one characteristic, and one thing it is not- in +that order. + +// + + + /Element 1: Resource Management/ + +One of the bedrock concepts of tactical play is to make the most gain +with the least expenditure. After all, if you have unlimited resources +and no reason to avoid using them- you can do anything. Being able to do +anything without thought hardly makes for good tactical play. + +The exact nature of resources can vary greatly in rpg design. The number +of spells you can cast in a day. The amount of ammo you can carry. The +number of Hit Points you have and the number of healing potions you have +to restore them. At the most basic, there's the number of characters in +play and the number of actions each can take in a turn. + +D&D has always been a masterful example of a game design heavily built +on resource management- limited charges on items, limited number of +potions, only so many pre-selected spells per day, etc. D&D forces its +players to decide how to best spend resources at almost every turn. + +As a general rule, increasing the number and types of resources you need +to manage increases the tactical play of the game. + +// + + + /Element 2: Dissimilar Assets/ + +To study tactical battle one must study combine arms. And combine arms +is nothing but the use of Dissimilar Assets to achieve a goal. + +To use a modern warfare as a model: Artillery is powerful and long +ranged- but vulnerability to almost any attack. Armor combines +protection, firepower and mobility into one powerful package- but even +so encounters major problems in certain infantry defended terrain. +Infantry is slow and light on weapons- but can make maximum use of +terrain. Name an asset and you name both strength and weakness in a +single word. + +Combining Dissimilar Assets into a functional and dangerous whole takes +skill and knowledge. Failure to do so (like France's failure in WWII) +can be disastrous in the extreme. + +Early game designs had Dissimilar Assets as a core feature. D&D with its +classes- Wizards are very different than Fighters who in turn are used +differently than Clerics. Even later games still maintain this to some +extent. Vampire has its clans. Deadlands its gunslingers, hucksters, and +blessed. These games are designed such that each character becomes its +own niche, its own type of Dissimilar Asset that enhances tactical play +when viewed within its own group of player characters. + +Other games however consider such stark limits as unrealistic and seek +to reduce all the characters to common terms. Even D&D weakened its +class structure in its latest version although it still remains strong +enough to function as a tactical enhancement. + +As a system weakens character niche, it reduces tactical play. Universal +Resolution systems, lack of character differences, sole dominating +weapon selections, all these things can combine to create a tactically +bland experience where the answer to any problem is obvious and +unchanging. Even though such reduction is often done from the standpoint +of realism, a simple look at real world combat would show that it is in +fact a failure from even that perspective- there are no single dominate +weapon, no one solution to every threat, no single plan that ever +survives contact with a foe. + +// + + + /Element 3: Maneuver/ + +Managing resources is the bedrock of tactical play. Controlling +Dissimilar Assets each with their own resources is the first step to +being a tactician instead of an accountant. It is however with Maneuver +that one masters the subject. Sadly, it is in Maneuver that most rpg +design perform worse. + +At its most basic, Maneuver is getting the right resources into the +right position at the right time in order to maximize your chance of +success while protecting against the same from your opponent. + +Of course for Maneuver to matter, you have to be able to maneuver. Many +designs forgo the use of a map completely and either ignore movement or +abstract it out of the realm of character decision. In so doing, the +remove this element of tactics completely from their design. + +A design that focuses on tactical movement will likely include rules for +facing (and flank and rear attacks), multiple opponent rules, the +effects of range, the impact of terrain and other factors that can (when +properly used) allow a force to defeat unskillfully played opponents +with greater resources. + +// + + + /Characteristic: Pace of Decision/ + +The three elements above, added to the rule system in use determine +something I call "Pace of Decision". Pace of Decision is at its most +simple how fast can the player lose. It's a measure of the importance of +each individual decision and movement. + +While a number of factors determine a game's Pace of Decision, how +lethal a system is may be the most important. For example: D&D provides +Resource Management by having Hit Points. However these same Hit Points +reduce the game's Pace of Decision since they act as a buffer to bad +tactical choices. You can lose a few hit points by moving to an inferior +position, but it's easy enough to move again afterwards and use a +healing spell or potion and thus carry on the battle. In other games, +that single bad decision could result in a disabled or dead character. +Hence the Pace of Decision can be said to be Low (D&D like systems where +many hits are needed to kill) or High (one hit means a dead character). + +If Pace of Decision is too low, any tactical error of Maneuver or even +Dissimilar Asset can be forgiven since its impact is minor at best. The +winner is almost solely determined by who had the greater resources. On +the other hand if it is too high, the battle is over before it started +with initial deployment likely determining the winner. + +The ideal position between these two extremes is one of personal taste. +Indeed, what combination of the three elements above and how that works +with the system's resulting Pace of Decision is a question that can only +be answered by each individual. Everyone has his or her own tastes and +the possible range of answers here is immense. And this explains more +than anything else, why there is room for more tactical games. + +// + + + /A non-element/ + +Something this isn't a true Element of Tactics needs special note +because (all too sadly) it is what some people think of when you say the +words Tactical Play. + +Rock-Scissors-Paper (RSP) is not tactical game design. RSP design is the +use of options that have provided little or no in-game reason for the +selection of one over the other. + +Riddle of Steel for example requires players to drop either a red or +white die to determine if they are attacking or defending. + +Top Secret used a combat maneuver matrix (low kick vs. high block for +example) where the result mattered- but the player could only base his +decision upon what maneuver he (the player, not his character) thought +the opposing player (and again not his character), would select. + +There is a certain skill in using such mechanics, same as bluffing and +mind games are part of poker or chess. However this is playing at the +meta-game level and isn't really part of the game design itself. Chess +for example includes no rules for psyching out the other player, nor +does poker include mechanic rules determining when to bluff. + +In addition to that fact that this type of mechanic is playing at the +meta-game (using information not available to the character, such as +"Joe tends to drop red")- it often completely overshadows the real +game's tactical elements detailed above, thus reducing skill at the game +itself to a sideshow. + +The actual effect is to remove a key determing factor of play outside +the game. A worthwhile goal sometimes- but not something that should be +seen as tactical game design. + +// + + + /Tactical Elements in Combinaton/ + +Each of the three elements and one characteristic I noted above combine +to produce the final tactical favor of a game system. D&D has high +Resource Management and Dissimilar Assets together with rather low +Maneuver and Pace of Decision. A combination that produces a style and +result that is famous or infamous depending upon one's viewpoint. + +Age of Heroes on the other hand has very high Pace of Decision and +Maneuver, medium Dissimilar Assets, and comparatively low Resource +Management. As a result it plays very differently from D&D, so +differently that I've seen D&D players encountering it almost reduced to +a state of shock. + +Some games may do completely away with one or more elements. Others will +select completely different mixes. There are a huge number of possible +combinations, a fact that puts the lie to a common statement I've +encountered saying D&D has covered all that needs to be covered in +tactical rpgs. Indeed, it seems clear that the subject has barely been +scratched. + +// + + + /Finally, an Observation/ + +If one reads between the lines above, you'd find an interesting common +thought. The core of tactics is providing options (resources, different +assets, movement options)- but its framework is one of limits. + +A resource once spent is lost for an important period of time. A +dissimilar asset can't do everything. Requiring maneuver means that you +can't be everywhere. Etc. + +The heart of tactics is operating with limits to bring the best assets +and resources to bear at the correct point at the correct time. The +theme of tactics is overcoming limits. Consider that the next time you +look at a game that promises to let you do anything... + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! +RPGnet + +_/Advertise with RPGnet/_ + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + Available Forums +* About the Industry * + Forum Folder + + Topics relating to the industry, ranging from game creation through + business. + +* Columns * + Forum Folder + + Individual discussions for the RPG columns + +* Outside RPGnet * + Forum Folder + + Forums for discussion of specific things outside RPGnet + +* RPGnet * + Posts: *118469* Last Post: *02-01-2006 06:30* + + General discussion about the game industry and where it's going, + and other topics RPGnet readers would enjoy discussing. + +* Tangency * + Posts: *40163* Last Post: *01-04-2002 19:24* + + Soapboxes, Personal stories, Rants and Dialogs. Keep it friendly, + folks! + +* The RPGnet Awards * + Posts: *235* Last Post: *05-20-2004 18:07* + + Nomination forum for the RPGnet Awards + +* Trouble Tickets * + Posts: *741* Last Post: *01-03-2002 19:00* + + Please let us know any problems with the site. Missing pages, bad + code, tacky color schemes-- whatever you think is broken. We'll read + this and fix things. Thanks! + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * Elements of Strategy + by Brian Gleichman, 11feb03 + * Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes) + by Brian Gleichman, + 14jan03 + * Layers of Design by + Brian Gleichman, 11dec02 + * Elements of Tactics + by Brian Gleichman, 01nov02 + * Elements of Complexity + by Brian Gleichman, + 20sep02 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/elements11dec02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/elements11dec02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,334 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Elements + + + Layers of Design + +*by Brian Gleichman* +Dec 11,2002 + + + + + Layers of Design + + + (or RPG design from the ten thousand foot view) + +What do people think of when they think of game design? Generally things +like character generation, resolution mechanics, combat rules, etc. +Sadly this common view often causes people to miss most of the game as +it is actually played. This in turn results in either poor design that +fails to achieve its goals, or in poor evaluation of existing games +(which causes endless flamewars). + +In the simplest terms, an rpg campaign consists of two very different +influences- the Game itself and the Meta-Game. These terms are generally +understood by most gamers and are a useful short hand. That split +however covers too much ground for my taste and I've identified five +layers (one in Game, and four in the Meta-Game) that differ +significantly enough from each other that a solid treatment of the +subject must give each their due. + +Any game operates within (and is in effect designed for) these five +layers. Let's consider each of them in turn: + + + Game + +This layer is made up completely of the actual rules, i.e. the game's +mechanics. These rules must be objective and visible. + +By objective, we mean that the mechanics would be resolved the same way +and produce the same outcomes (assuming equal rolls, card picks, etc) no +matter who the players are (assuming they are of course following the +rules). For example, in HERO it takes a roll of 11 or less on 3d6 to +succeed with an unadjusted 11- skill. Thus a die roll of 10 will be a +success for any player in any group no matter the opinions and thoughts +thereof. + +By visible we mean that all data, resolutions and decisions in respect +to the mechanics are visible to all players at all times. + +It is very important to realize that this level's primary purpose is to +define LIMITS on the available actions and results. In chess rooks can +move vertically and horizontality but never diagonally. A broadsword +does a specified amount of damage- no more, no less in D20. Etc. It is +by forcing limits that the mechanics assure objectivity, visibility and +provide a framework for play. + +Game play at this level is based upon known certainties. Examples: "The +orcs have massed their greatest fighters in the center, we should..." or +"I have a 68% chance of taking down the goblin, but only a 33% chance on +the bigger hobgoblin. We're outnumbered right now and that's gives heavy +modifiers against us so I'll..." + +In general tactical game design if done (the subject of a previous +article of mine) exists at this layer. + + + Near Game + +This layer consists of any hidden mechanics. + +This includes but is not limited to such things as pre-plotted movement +(seldom used in RPGs, one example slightly modified is /The Burning +Wheel/), various rock-scissors-paper resolutions systems (hand-to-hand +combat in /Top Secret/, RSP itself in many LARPs, etc), hidden movement +(defined by Line of Site rules for the most part, D&D 3rd edition for +example defines the range limits of sight under various conditions), +hidden damage, and simultaneous assignment (such as the drop of the +initiative die in /The Riddle of Steel/) + +The effect of this layer is to move decisions away from the visible +certainties above to one of predicting the decisions of other players or +guessing what information that they are hiding. Examples: "Tom tends to +mass his power in the center but he likes the cover forests give as +well. Let's deploy here so as to be within range of both and send scouts +in those two directions" or "I'll buff with this hand, Bill can never +tell when I'm buffing". + +It should be noted that this layer remains objective and as such +contains many of the characteristics of the Game layer. But it has moved +into the Meta-Game to a large extent as the focus switches from visible +characters and their abilities (stats, locations, resources) to players +and their abilities (to guess and deceive). + +In general, strategic game design if done (a subject of a future +article) exists at this level. + + + Near Meta-Game + +This layer consists of any subjective or invisible mechanics. + +Subjective Mechanics are those that rely upon the interpretation of the +GM (or a player) to determine the final effect. D&D alignment is the +classic example of such a subjective mechanic, the GM is required to +determine when and if a character violates his Alignment and the player +is required to role-playing with its goals and limits in mind. Another +example is fumble mechanics where the actual effect is left up to the GM. + +Another way of looking at these mechanics is to view them as "guiding +mechanics" or "advisory mechanics'. They may point in a direction, but +how far you go and sometimes even if you make the trip at all is +squarely a heavily subjective decision of the GM/Player. + +A number of systems even toss combat modifiers that they normally +reserve for the Game Layer here. In HERO System for example the GM is +advised to give a bonus (+1 to +3) for creative and/or unexpected types +of attacks. In /Age of Heroes/, I leave specific terrain modifiers up to +the GM after providing a few examples. + + + Meta-Game + +This layer consists of pure subjective resolution/methods, "group +contracts', and role-playing itself. + +Subjective resolution is free form or mechanic-less play. The classic +example is a GM or player just calling the outcome of an action: "I +think your character is more than able to track down the guy by using +legwork, you find him that evening at 8 PM". + +However subjective methods covers more ground first comes to mind +including the "world" and adventure design essential to RPGs. If the GM +has decided (without resort to mechanics) that the mob boss has three +bodyguards, each highly skilled- he has engaged in the pure subjective +resolution of a question. + +Huge sections of most games are turned over to Subjective +Resolution/Methods. One of the interesting aspects of that is that by +nature you can't design rules for it, each person does that himself +according to his own needs and desires. At best one can provide advice. +Thus in game design terms, this method is defined not by rules enforcing +limits, but by the absence of rules preventing subjective +decision-making. It is worth remembering that not including rules is as +a result game design as well. + +Group Contracts are those agreements made by members of a group to +either engage ("we want to do a lot of hack and slash," "Let's try to +keep the game focused on court intrigue," "players should create +characters that work with others") or refuse ("we don't want evil +characters," "no rape will occur in this campaign) events, ideas or +storylines. Such group contracts are often informal although there are +exceptions, and they tend to be added on top of the game outside the +control or influence of the designer. + +Role-playing itself is typically done at this layer with the players +determining the personality, actions and reactions completely on their +own without input from mechanical rules. + +The main characteristic of this layer is that it's subjective. It is +also limited only the constraints accepted by the players themselves. +Since it's contained mostly within the minds of the players, it is also +in large part hidden with uncertain influences or outcomes. + + + Far Meta-Game + +These are influences unrelated to the game itself, but even so they +still carry great impact. There is almost no way to define all the +possible examples for the extent of their reach. Common ones are "GM's +girlfriend syndrome" or "Sherri worked late and is off her game, let's +be easy on her." + +There is however one point in this layer where game design does matter: +the decision to play the game at all. Here we get game design that +attempts to make entry easy and attractive either by way of light and +simple rules, by seductive settings, or "new" concepts. These days we +see lots of effort to design at this layer in an attempt to expand or +open up new markets, often at the cost of other Layers. + + + Designing by Layers + +One of the first things a designer should do is decide which parts of +the game are to be handled by which Layer and for what reasons. + +This will in large measure determine the character of the game and the +campaigns that result from it. Those things contained at the Game layer +will be highly defined and limited. Those at the Near Game will defined +and limited, but unknown to some in the short term. Those at the Near +Meta-Game will be guided, but not specifically controlled. The Meta-Game +level itself is its own lord and master. The Far Meta-Game may cause the +design to forgone certain mechanics as "too complex for his market" or +otherwise unacceptable. + +For example, I designed /Age of Heroes/ to handle character creation, +advancement, combat, etc at the Game Layer. A few elements (like the +Personal Appearance Stat) are covered in the Near Game. I assigned a +large number of areas (all the world design, storyline, and +role-playing) to the Near Meta-Game. I gave no attention to the Far +Meta-Game not really caring why people chose to play. + +An important concept to keep in mind is the fact that it's quite +possible to move elements I lumped into specific layers above to another. + +A number of games for example move some parts of role-playing from its +normal Meta-Game subjective method to a subjective mechanic in the Near +Meta-Game. (D&D's alignment) or even to the Game Layer (CoC's Sanity at +certain points). Another example of crossing Layers is those systems +that determine at the Game Layer which player has control (and sometimes +for what ends) in the Meta-Game. + +Since such "crossing" of layers is typically defined in one and resolved +in another, I've coined the time "Calling to the X Layer" (such as +Calling to the Meta-Game) for this type of design. It's an increasing +common method that many are finding exciting. + + + Judging by Layers + +Anyone attempting to judge the usefulness of a game system can benefit +by considering five layers if they are interesting in not greatly +misrepresenting other people's campaigns and tastes. + +For example, it's easy to say that D20 or /Age of Heroes/ are purely +hack and slash designs given that most of the rules cover combat and +near combat events. They have forgotten the importance of the Meta-Game +level and the fact that both games are specifically designed to use it +for certain parts of the campaign. It's entirely possible for a group to +spend five gaming nights in pure role-playing without a single die being +toss, and then engage in a single evening's combat. To characterized +such a campaign as hack and slash would be a grave error- and a defining +statement of the limits of looking at a single Layer. + +Knowing the Layers and your own tastes in them can be helpful anytime +you're thinking of trying out a new game system. It will quickly point +you towards things not to your taste and allow you to house rule it away +from the start or to turn your attention elsewhere. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + Available Forums +* About the Industry * + Forum Folder + + Topics relating to the industry, ranging from game creation through + business. + +* Columns * + Forum Folder + + Individual discussions for the RPG columns + +* Outside RPGnet * + Forum Folder + + Forums for discussion of specific things outside RPGnet + +* RPGnet * + Posts: *118469* Last Post: *02-01-2006 06:30* + + General discussion about the game industry and where it's going, + and other topics RPGnet readers would enjoy discussing. + +* Tangency * + Posts: *40163* Last Post: *01-04-2002 19:24* + + Soapboxes, Personal stories, Rants and Dialogs. Keep it friendly, + folks! + +* The RPGnet Awards * + Posts: *235* Last Post: *05-20-2004 18:07* + + Nomination forum for the RPGnet Awards + +* Trouble Tickets * + Posts: *741* Last Post: *01-03-2002 19:00* + + Please let us know any problems with the site. Missing pages, bad + code, tacky color schemes-- whatever you think is broken. We'll read + this and fix things. Thanks! + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * Elements of Strategy + by Brian Gleichman, 11feb03 + * Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes) + by Brian Gleichman, + 14jan03 + * Layers of Design by + Brian Gleichman, 11dec02 + * Elements of Tactics + by Brian Gleichman, 01nov02 + * Elements of Complexity + by Brian Gleichman, + 20sep02 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/elements11feb03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/elements11feb03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,309 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Elements + + + Elements of Strategy + +*by Brian Gleichman* +Feb 11,2003 + + + + + Elements of Strategy + +I discussed in a previous article + various +core concepts of game design that resulted in tactical play. Now I'd +like to cover the big sister of tactics, strategy. + +Since there are a number of possible definitions for both tactics and +strategy it would be best to nail down the specifics of the discussion +before things become more confused than they should be. I'm not using +the common one found in military circles (tactical, operational, +strategic) since in game terms those concepts are basically contained in +the idea of scale. Instead I'll be using a definition that is much the +same as the one used in chess and other similar games. + +Thus Tactical play is the immediate decisions made for material or +immediate positional advantage, or in terms of another previous article +- +decisions and play that exists purely at the Game level. At its most +basic, tactics is playing the board for immediate effect. + +Strategic play however takes place at the Near Game or even the +Meta-Game level (if not using the finer definitions from the Layers of +Design article, I'd simply say it takes place in the Meta-Game). Here +the focus isn't directly on immediate concrete concerns, but rather on +long-range goals and estimates of how one's opponent is going to move +and react. Strategy is not playing the board, but rather playing the +man. As an example, in chess one may decide as a matter of strategy to +launch your main attack on your opponent's kingside- either because +you're more skilled in that line of attack than you are with other +options, or because you know your opponent is weaker in that line of +defense. + +Let's consider the primary elements of Strategy under this definition. +Although they are greatly interrelated, almost like dance partners, they +can be broken down as follows: + + + Prediction: + + /"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the + result of a hundred battles."/ Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*. + +This element covers predicting the decisions of your opponent and your +own performance. Some examples: Knowing that Joe tends to put his most +powerful units in the center or realizing that Sara loses effectiveness +in chess if her queen is exchanged. Knowing that your heavy fighters can +hold the line long enough to complete the flanking maneuver you have +planned. Etc. + + + Deception: + + /"Hence, when able to attack, you must seem unable, when using your + tools, you must seem inactive. When we are near, we must make the + enemy believe we are far away, when far away, we must make him + believe we are near."/ Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*. + +This element represents the flipside of Prediction, the ability to +conceal your intentions and decisions from your opponent or even +convince him that you are following a different course from your actual +one. If he has positioned himself to protect from a strong center attack +at the moment your Cavalry hits him on the right flank- your chances for +victory is enhanced. + + + Causality: + + /"In war everything is simple, but it's the simple things that are + difficult."/ General Carl Von Clausewitz. + +This is the causal chain required to implement strategic decisions. If +one decides to use your Calvary to flank your opponent on the left while +tying down his main body with your infantry- the causal chain is all the +steps (and time) needed to properly position your troops in order to +reach that objective. + +A very important characteristic of the causal chain is its length- how +many actions are needed over how much time. If the chain is too short, +strategic decision itself will become trivial as the other elements +become irrelevant. On the other hand, as the chain lengthens the +difficulty and importance of the strategic decision increases. +Prediction must look further ahead into increasingly fuzzy ground while +deception must be prolonged. Failure on either point can result in +catastrophe. + +As a result, the length of the causal chain is perhaps the most +important of the Elements of Strategy as it determines the impact of the +others. Many game designs seek to employ both Prediction and Deception, +but by resolving the end result immediately in a single roll or two they +reduce the Strategic nature of their design to something no more +interesting than rock-scissors-paper; an immediate guess followed by +immediate and final outcome. It is still a strategic game design, if a +very simple one suited only for those seeking the simplest of challenges. + +Given these definitions and moving from theory to more practical (if +still abstract) concerns- what design concepts are important to consider +in creating or evaluating a game's strategic environment? + + + Tactical Elements: + +A strong tactical game will by nature normally produce a strong +strategic one. + +Chess is again an excellent example of this case, as it needs nothing +but its tactical design to present strategic challenges worthy of +centuries of play. Between players of near equal tactical skill the +causal chain is long and complex enough that essentially limitless +Strategies become available and defeating your foe's perception of the +game is nearly as (if not more) important than mastering its reality (as +Deep Blue's defeat of World Champion Gary Kasparov showed). + +So for strategic groundwork first look to the tactical elements: +Resource Management, Dissimilar Assets, Maneuver and Pace of Decision. +It will be these elements that define the causal chain and it will be +these elements that frame the strategic environment. + +A game design however can increase its strategic depth beyond that +provide by its tactical environment in a number of ways. This can be +used to make a moderately tactical game into something considerably more +challenging- or turn an already demanding environment into any +commander's nightmare. + + + Hidden Decisions: + +By hiding decisions made by a player from his opponent(s), the need to +judge the intent of your foe and predict his actions is greatly +increased. Resources that are to be used against you are not in sight. +Where could they be? Where would your opponent likely place them? + +Hidden Movement is perhaps the most common example of this method in +wargames and even in rpgs although the latter seldom emphasizes the +subject in the rules directly. D20 for example includes rules for sight +range under specific lightning conditions without much comment. My own +/Age of Heroes/ takes line of sight limits for granted- a matter for GM +judgment based upon the map. Adding this to any system is easily done to +great effect. + +Beyond the simple fact of hidden movement are active measures taken to +hide (invisibility spells, smoke, etc.) or deceive (decoy troops +carrying the banners of important units, riders trailing branches to +raise dust, etc). All can be given to a player as a toolset to expand +his strategic options. + + + Reconnaissance: + +If some attempt to hide things, others will always develop methods of +investigation to reveal them. + +Adding resources and methods to allow for such in a game adds yet +another layer to the strategic environment, especially if by their use +other resources are limited or spent. A classic example here are the +divination spells from D&D. Information about one's opponent can be had- +at the price of losing a spell slot that could have been used for combat +magic. Outside of magic, even the use of scouts in almost any system +means that resources (which could have been of use in a main force) are +diverted to a recon and/or harassment role. + +Like the three elements of strategy above, Hidden Decisions and +Reconnaissance are each part of a dance- play benefiting from both +having their impact. When balanced to a fine degree, one may well +discover part of a foe's casual chain and thus act to interrupt it- but +interpreting scattered clues to determine the correct causal chain can +be left in large part to the Prediction skills of the player instead of +being given as simply stated fact. + +I'd like to emphasize two factors touched on above due to their +potentially vast impact on strategy. + + /"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at + what is weak. Water shapes its course according to the nature of the + ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in + relation to the foe whom he is facing."/ Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*. + +I've already covered Dissimilar Assets in the Elements of Tactics +article and noted it's impact on Strategy above. One should take effort +however to extend this concept. Not only can the assets within ones own +force be dissimilar- the type and nature of assets each force can draw +from may differ. Wargames such as /Warhammer/ use this to great effect +to increase the range of its tactical and strategic environment while +D&D gains the same effect from its vast range of creatures and races. + +Terrain like ground-to-water shapes the very fundamental nature of a +conflict. Woods and hills to conceal one's movement. High ground to +provide a combat bonus or a good spotting location. Swamp to reduce and +channel movement. All impact the tactical and strategic environment as +the hammer impacts a nail. Leaving it out is like leaving chocolate out +your devil's food cake- sure you'll have a cake; just don't complain +when someone describes it as bland. + +One of the easiest tests for good Strategic game design is to see if the +classic wisdoms of war apply to the end results. The quotes from Sun Tzu +and Clausewitz above for example. If characters in your game can make +use of such concepts, you've at least got a good start. If they can't +gain victory without using such concepts constantly, you've managed it. + +Lastly a challenge to the readers. I've left out at least one important +concept in increasing a game's strategic complexity (due to the fact +that I wanted this article to be a reasonable length). Can you name it? +I'll give you a hint; the quote I would use for it is from Napoleon. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + Available Forums +* About the Industry * + Forum Folder + + Topics relating to the industry, ranging from game creation through + business. + +* Columns * + Forum Folder + + Individual discussions for the RPG columns + +* Outside RPGnet * + Forum Folder + + Forums for discussion of specific things outside RPGnet + +* RPGnet * + Posts: *118469* Last Post: *02-01-2006 06:30* + + General discussion about the game industry and where it's going, + and other topics RPGnet readers would enjoy discussing. + +* Tangency * + Posts: *40163* Last Post: *01-04-2002 19:24* + + Soapboxes, Personal stories, Rants and Dialogs. Keep it friendly, + folks! + +* The RPGnet Awards * + Posts: *235* Last Post: *05-20-2004 18:07* + + Nomination forum for the RPGnet Awards + +* Trouble Tickets * + Posts: *741* Last Post: *01-03-2002 19:00* + + Please let us know any problems with the site. Missing pages, bad + code, tacky color schemes-- whatever you think is broken. We'll read + this and fix things. Thanks! + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * Elements of Strategy + by Brian Gleichman, 11feb03 + * Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes) + by Brian Gleichman, + 14jan03 + * Layers of Design by + Brian Gleichman, 11dec02 + * Elements of Tactics + by Brian Gleichman, 01nov02 + * Elements of Complexity + by Brian Gleichman, + 20sep02 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/elements14jan03.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/elements14jan03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,276 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Elements + + + Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes) + +*by Brian Gleichman* +Jan 14,2003 + + + + + Rationales for Mechanics /(or the Case for Designer Notes)/ + +Why do rpgs use mechanics? Such a simple question, but one with such +complex answers. It seems obvious that those answers would be key in the +design process or in the judging of an existing game. After all, it's +only by way of knowing your needs that you can chart the nature and +placement of mechanical systems properly in such a way that the game +meets the desired goals. + +Sadly it seems very common for rpg designers of the current day +(especially in the free or small print world) to skip right by that +question. It is painfully common for me to receive what is in effect a +blank stare upon quizzing a game designer as to the reasons and +rationales behind their design. Typically the only response is "I was +looking for something different" and "It does what I wanted it to do", +without being able to express what was different, or what it is doing. +The end result is I receive in answer a jumble of words typically tossed +on the back cover of a book as basic marketing ("Powerful yet simple +mechanics!", "Yes it's a floor wax and a desert topping!"). + +With this as the common response, there is little reason to wonder that +mechanics in many games seem almost pointless- seemly existing often +just because other games have included them. The result is typically a +distraction from (or misinterpretation of) the purpose of the game, +reducing what could have been a powerful design to yet another rpg that +will sit on the shelf. + +Let's take a moment to consider some important and common rationales, +just so we're on the same page. I don't think these are by any means the +only reasons, but they are at the very least reasons every designer +should consider his mechanics in the light of. + + + I. Limiting Player Options + +If any single rationale could claim to hold prominence in game design, +it would be this one. Why can't my 1st level /Age of Heroes/ fighter +kill an ancient red dragon with his penknife? Because the combat rules +make that all but impossible as a core requirement of design. + +The natural result of any mechanic is to limit options. What those +options are limited to however determines the actual rationale for the +mechanic. In this specific case, the reason is to prevent specific +player actions and choices because they are unsuited to the intended +purpose of the game. + +Advancement rules are typically guided by this rationale. The player +gets *X* amount of power within the game for *Y* amount of effort, not +no effort at all. Requiring a certain Strength level to break down a +specific door is yet another example while falling damage is yet another +(for those games limiting a character's ability to jump off 40 foot +walls to reach a battle). + + + II. Providing Meaningful Player Choices + +The classic example here is combat mechanics (a subject I've already +spent some time on in my previous /Elements of Tactics/ article). The +idea is to present a complex and diverse enough set of choices in order +to make the decisions of the player important in determining the outcome +of the game events. + + + III. Inspiring Player Action + +Examples of these are the Sanity rules from /Call of Cthulhu/ which +provide a nudge of when and what type of insanity the player is struck +with, but leave the exact details of expressing it up to the player and GM. + +Psychological and Drama mechanics are normally created with this +rationale in mind, to respectively inspire role-play and story creation. + + + IV. Replacing Player Choice + +These mechanics are intended to flat out replace decisions by a player +or GM. + +Single roll combat resolutions are typically this type of mechanic, the +idea is to remove any tactical choices beyond that of the decision to +engage in battle (and sometimes even that isn't offered). Another +example is the use of straight up 'social' skills like 'bribe' and the +like. The concept is to remove choices and actions from extensive play +that are felt to be either beyond the ability of the players or outside +the focus of the game. + +Another way of looking at these mechanics is as a simple and quick +method to resolve something so that the game can go forward. Removing +significant player input is perhaps the fasted way to achieve that goal. + + + V. Provide an Illusion + +Some mechanics exist to aid in suspension of disbelief. Thus a game may +include detailed currency rules because the players have a hard time +believing that everyone in the world uses the same coins. + +Some mechanics provide an illusion of Rationale II above. A typical +example is providing a wide range of combat maneuvers that suggest a +good selection- but upon using some math it's revealed that a single one +of the provided maneuvers is always the best choice. Sometimes this is a +result of failed design, at other times it's done on purpose (often +using dice pools mechanics in order to make the illusion more difficult +to pierce). + +There are other possible reasons of course. I'm sure you can add a few +with a little bit of thought. + +Once one knows the rationale for a mechanic, it becomes much easier to +determine the Layer of Design it applies to as well as its form. +Rationale IV mechanics for example tend to be simpler than Rationale II +systems by nature. + +There's just one gotcha to keep in mind. A little thing called the 'the +eye of the beholder'. + +Remember Rationale III above, a little thing about inspiring player +action? Most of the time I see such mechanics I'm not inspired. Instead +I see a Rationale IV mechanic- something that takes my choices away in +order to meet a goal of the game design (in the case of /Call of +Cthulhu/, it's enforcing the genre concept that everyone goes insane- a +type of railroading with respect to the role-playing of a PC). + +Here's another example- Rationale II mechanics become little more than +Rationale V mechanics if the players can't grasp the actual effects of +choices in the system (dice pools tend to cause this effect by making +probability determination exceedingly difficult). + +Take a few mechanics from a favorite game of your own and try fitting +them into each of the above rationales. With a little bit of work and a +talent for seeing things though the eyes of others- you may be surprised +how many rationales a single mechanic can fit in. + +So in the end you may design a wonderful game, one that has developed +mechanics that fit their reasons for use at every point. But in the end +the final result may be viewed by others in a completely different light +than what you intended. + +But all is not lost. The solution to this sad state of affairs is right +in the subtitle to this article. + +Designer Notes. + +Write them. Spend as much time and effort on them as you did in the +design of your game- for they determined the design of your game. Put +them directly in the book or on your website. Explain why you selected +the mechanics you did, what they do in your game, why you rejected other +possibilities. + +You'll achieve four important outcomes. + +First, you'll produce a better game. One tailored to your needs and +perfect for the type of play you desired. + +Second, you'll provide the best guide there is to how the game was meant +to be played. And you'll do it in a way far better than the typical +stilted 'example of play' fiction. + +Third, you'll define for the reader the terms on which your work is to +be judged, so that in that judging they are not looking for a game you +never designed. It is much better to hear "Even if I don't care for the +style, Game X does what it intends almost perfectly" instead of "This +games sucks". + +And fourth, I won't get a blank stare when I ask you what makes your +game different or what you were trying to achieve. For not only will you +be able to answer that question, you've already written it for me +meaning the only thing I'll bother you about is the details of your +vision. And isn't the details of the designer's vision the reason for +making a game in the first place? + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + Available Forums +* About the Industry * + Forum Folder + + Topics relating to the industry, ranging from game creation through + business. + +* Columns * + Forum Folder + + Individual discussions for the RPG columns + +* Outside RPGnet * + Forum Folder + + Forums for discussion of specific things outside RPGnet + +* RPGnet * + Posts: *118469* Last Post: *02-01-2006 06:30* + + General discussion about the game industry and where it's going, + and other topics RPGnet readers would enjoy discussing. + +* Tangency * + Posts: *40163* Last Post: *01-04-2002 19:24* + + Soapboxes, Personal stories, Rants and Dialogs. Keep it friendly, + folks! + +* The RPGnet Awards * + Posts: *235* Last Post: *05-20-2004 18:07* + + Nomination forum for the RPGnet Awards + +* Trouble Tickets * + Posts: *741* Last Post: *01-03-2002 19:00* + + Please let us know any problems with the site. Missing pages, bad + code, tacky color schemes-- whatever you think is broken. We'll read + this and fix things. Thanks! + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * Elements of Strategy + by Brian Gleichman, 11feb03 + * Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes) + by Brian Gleichman, + 14jan03 + * Layers of Design by + Brian Gleichman, 11dec02 + * Elements of Tactics + by Brian Gleichman, 01nov02 + * Elements of Complexity + by Brian Gleichman, + 20sep02 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/elements20sep02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/elements20sep02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,323 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Elements + + + Elements of Complexity + +*by Brian Gleichman* +Sep 20,2002 + + + + + Elements + +Hi, everyone. Welcome to an experiment. + +Seems it was column search time at RPGNet again, and of all things I was +asked to contribute. Let's take a few moments for the cries of rage to +calm down a little... + +Now then, first thing up is "what should the column be about?" In my +case there is a rather obvious choice- the examination of game design +with a focus on complex and detailed rulesets. After all, that's what I +do. What are their characteristics? How does one highlight specific +concepts? How have others' games attempted various things, and where +have they succeeded and failed? + +At this point, one wonders if RPGNet has any need for such a column at +all. That's the experiment part. Let the guys in charge know if this is +a good idea or a waste of space; it's up to you. Isn't it wonderful to +be in charge? + +First up is a reprint of an article I did for Unclebear's. I've expanded +it a little (I was working under some space limits originally) and +present it here to kick things off by defining a few important terms. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Elements of Complexity + +Go onto any gaming forum and you'll quickly run into someone making the +comment that a certain RPG is "complex." It's not unusual for such a +statement to draw replies of disagreement, and it quickly becomes +obvious that we have yet another case of people using the same word for +very different purposes. + +Given how common it is to see the question "How complex is this?", I +think it would be useful to explore the term some. Not only might it +reduce some misunderstandings, it could even have a direct influence on +game design. + +It seems obvious to me that complexity in game design is the result of +various elements- for that is the heart of exchanges like "Rolemaster is +too complex!" "No it isn't, it's just a d100 roll with some charts!" +Both people are telling the truth from their POV, and what we're seeing +is a simple case of different people looking at different specific +sub-meanings of a single word. + +For my use, the complexity of a game's design can be broken down into +three elements: *Implementation*, *Mass*, and *Concept*. Each of which +has its own characteristics and appeal, the highlights of which I'll +detail below. + + + Complexity of Implementation + +This is how difficult the actual mechanical steps are. Let's look at a +couple of examples pulled out of the middle of damage resolution: + +/ / + + * /Example 1: Roll 1d8 and add 1 for every point over 12 in the + character's strength. Subtract these points from the target's hit + points./ + * /Example 2: Determine which body location on the target was + struck, take the weapon's penetration factor and subtract the + armor rating for that location, multiple the result by the + weapon's impact factor which results in the final Damage + Potential, divide the Damage Potential by the target's location + Structure Points to get the damage ratio, cross reference the + damage ratio on the Ballistic impact chart to determine the wound + level and final effects./ + +In implementation terms, Example 2 is far more complex than Example 1. +It has more steps, and those steps include more types of operations +(multiplication and division as well as subtraction plus a table +lookup). And of course we're talking about more than single digit whole +numbers in the second example as well. + +Games like /Phoenix Command/ are representative of designs with high +Implementation complexity, as are elements of other systems- such as +/GURPS Vehicles/ or /Hero System/ Character design, systems that call +for many to reach for a spreadsheet instead of pen and paper. + +Some people love games with high Implementation Complexity. There are +entire websites devoted to characters worked up in HERO while others +spend days designing vehicles for their GURPS campaigns- much of this +seems to be simply inspired by the joy of creating something and in the +mastery of the method. + +Yet another common draw for this type of complexity is found in the +desire of some people to model in detail specific elements of a game. +Not content with the typical high level of abstraction used in many +games, they wish to see more detailed influences and a more detailed +breakdown of events. Combat in Phoenix Command is a prime example of +this type of thought. Here the desire for detailed objective simulation +drives the need for complex mechanics. + + + Complexity of Mass + +Rules may be simple to Implement in every case; however, there may be a +large number of very specific cases, each with their own simple rules. + +/ / + + * /Example 1: The system defines all one-handed weapons as doing 1d8 + points damage with a +1 strike and +1 initiative bonus./ + * /Example 2: This system defines 50 different one-handed weapons + each with their own specific damage (a 1d3 to 1d20 range) with + strike and initiative bonuses independently ranging from +0 to +3./ + +Any game that defines large numbers of simple modifiers (say combat +modifiers for position and environment and/or attack options) has +increased its Complexity of Mass. Having large numbers of specific +powers or spells has the same result- individually each are easy, but in +total one is looking at a large number of rules, and for many that is +overwhelming in itself. + +Complexity of Mass is the easiest and quickest to judge; one can almost +weigh the rulebook (however, be sure to leave out the setting +information and other fluff). D&D is a good example of this type of +complexity, as is /Rolemaster/ with its dozens of charts, each of which +uses a simple d100 + bonus mechanic. + +Why would anyone want to deal with pages upon pages of rules? Two +reasons come immediately to mind. + +First, some people love options and different ways to approach things. +How often does one hear something like "My last character was a Paladin, +I think I'll run a Wizard this time..."? The best way to highlight +options is to include them in the rules and this produces a simple +relationship- more options mean more pages of rules. The very rules +themselves become a reason to expand play. For example, include an +extensive set of castle building mechanics and someone is going to play +with them just to do something different. + +A second reason is pride of mastery. It's difficult to master a lot of +rules and even more difficult to keep them all at your fingertips. To +some, knowing the rules and using them to achieve a desire outcome is a +major source of satisfaction in gaming. The more rules to master and +use, the greater the satisfaction. + +These two reasons drive the design concepts of entire game lines like +D20 and WoD, a fact easily determined by a passing examination of their +splat books and other expansions. Indeed, this one element is so +connected to D&D that the first reaction I typically see in reviews of +high Mass games is to call them a D&D copy, even if mechanically they +have little in common. + + + Complexity of Concept + +There are games with few rules, those rules very simple, that are still +viewed as complex in the extreme, with uncounted possibilities that take +even the greatest of players years to master. + +Think Chess. + +Mechanically, it's simple to move a pawn. The entire rules for the game +can be contained on a few sheets of paper. But which pawn to move? What +will the effect be? Those are questions that are far from easy to +answer, and the choice can be far from obvious. I refer to these games +as Complex in Concept to represent the fact that the difficulty isn't in +the "how does one do it," but rather in "what does one do and how much +will it affect." + +In one sense, all RPGs rate high in this area due to their open-ended +nature. Even so, I tend to limit this to those games where the player is +presented with a wide number of options under conditions that require a +great deal of thought in order to find an optimal choice. Games with +complex tactical environments like /Heavy Gear/ top the list here. + +Complexity of this type tends to draw players who value the importance +of individual decisions in a challenging environment. + + + Just Plain Complex + +Games can be complex in more than one way, and there is a tendency to +rate high in others if you rate high in one. + +Perhaps the ultimate example was SPI's game /Air War/, which pegged very +high levels in all three measures. Over two hundred pages of rules +concerned solely with jet era air combat, intricate mechanics to +represent the fine details of aerial maneuver, dozens and dozens of +aircraft with very specific stats and individual rules, and a very +complex tactical environment where each choice could alter the entire +course of the game. + +While any RPG pales in comparison to that Wargame, some examples include +/Hero System/ and /Age of Heroes/. A common combination is Mass and +Concept, with the prime example being D&D with its volumes of rules and +spell lists (Mass) combined with its detailed resource management +(Concept). + + + Eye of the Beholder + +Like everything, how complex a game is depends upon who is judging it. +Every person has different levels of tolerance for each of the above +elements. Below that tolerance, the game is easy - go above it and it +becomes complex. + +Additionally different people desire different mixes of complexity. One +person may like a fairly high level of Mass and Concept and as low a +level of Implementation as possible. Another may want a game that is the +complete reverse. Games suitable for each are going to look vastly +different from each other. + +And of course, there are people who desire low levels of Complexity in +all three elements. At their most extreme, games for such people become +completely free form. + +Knowing the complexity desires of your target players (and attempting to +fulfill them) will greatly impact the choice of what games to play, or +how to design your own. And hopefully knowing the core elements of what +makes games complex will also make it easier to talk about them to others. + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + Available Forums +* About the Industry * + Forum Folder + + Topics relating to the industry, ranging from game creation through + business. + +* Columns * + Forum Folder + + Individual discussions for the RPG columns + +* Outside RPGnet * + Forum Folder + + Forums for discussion of specific things outside RPGnet + +* RPGnet * + Posts: *118469* Last Post: *02-01-2006 06:30* + + General discussion about the game industry and where it's going, + and other topics RPGnet readers would enjoy discussing. + +* Tangency * + Posts: *40163* Last Post: *01-04-2002 19:24* + + Soapboxes, Personal stories, Rants and Dialogs. Keep it friendly, + folks! + +* The RPGnet Awards * + Posts: *235* Last Post: *05-20-2004 18:07* + + Nomination forum for the RPGnet Awards + +* Trouble Tickets * + Posts: *741* Last Post: *01-03-2002 19:00* + + Please let us know any problems with the site. Missing pages, bad + code, tacky color schemes-- whatever you think is broken. We'll read + this and fix things. Thanks! + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Previous columns + + * Elements of Strategy + by Brian Gleichman, 11feb03 + * Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes) + by Brian Gleichman, + 14jan03 + * Layers of Design by + Brian Gleichman, 11dec02 + * Elements of Tactics + by Brian Gleichman, 01nov02 + * Elements of Complexity + by Brian Gleichman, + 20sep02 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/gns_and_players_rewards.html --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/gns_and_players_rewards.html Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,481 @@ + + + + + + + + GNS and player rewards + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ +
+ About the Forge | Articles | Forum | Reviews | Resource Library +
+
*
+
+
*
+ +
Home
+
Help
+
Search
+
Edit Profile
+
Logout
+ + + +
+ Hey, fabien, you have 0 messages, 0 are new. +
Total time logged in: 30 minutes.
+ Show unread posts since last visit.
+ Show new replies to your posts.
+ February 21, 2006, 06:02:54 AM + + 		+
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
+
+
+ Search:   +   + Advanced search + + +
+
+ 196611 Posts in 18462 Topics by 5889 Members + Latest Member: - argology + Most online today: 102 + - most online ever: 143 (January 24, 2006, 05:56:13 AM) +
+
+
+ + + + + + + +
+  The Forge
|-+  General Forge Forums
| |-+  GNS Model Discussion
| | |-+  GNS and player rewards		 + « previous next » +
+ + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ Pages: [1] + Mark unread Send this topic Print
+
+ + + + + +
+ Author + + Topic: GNS and player rewards  (Read 1480 times) +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ + + + + + + + +
+ JMendes +
+ Member
+
+ Posts: 187
+
+ + + +
+ View Profile + Personal Message (Offline) +
+ 		+ + + + +
+ GNS and player rewards +
« on: October 31, 2002, 01:21:08 PM »
 +
+
+
Hi, all, :)

Appols if this has been asked and answered (in which case check out this thread replies are appreciated).

Anyway, how does one reward players in the various GNS modes?

(Ex. would be: a gamist mode rewards a player by awarding character advancement; or, a gamist mode rewards a player by tallying problems successfully solved, thus allowing said player to bask under the glory of said tally; or something else entirely...)

Cheers,

J.
+
+ + + + + +
+
+ + + Logged +
+
+
João Mendes
Lisbon, Portugal
+
+
+
+ + + +
+ + + + + + + + +
+ M. J. Young +
+ Member
+
+ Posts: 2123
+
+ 1735114 + + MarkJYoung + tiras1
+ View Profile + WWW + Email + Personal Message (Offline) +
+ 		+ + + + +
+ GNS and player rewards +
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2002, 06:15:17 PM »
 +
+
+
It's not so cut-and-dried as that, I think. There's a sense in which the rewards can be almost anything and fit any type of play; it's more a matter of how they're earned than what they are--although yes, there are some rewards that fit some kinds of play better. But maybe I can provide an outrageous example.

Multiverser has no "reward system" at all; there is a sense in which nothing is rewarded and nothing is given as a reward. Yet people play it, and find rewards, because the rewards are inherent to the experience.
    [*]To the Gamist, the ultimate reward is that feeling that you just won, that you beat the odds or overcame the enemy or solved the problem in a significant way. I'm currently playing in a Multiverser game in which I was engaged in a battle of magic (and my character was completely new to magic, making it up as he went along). The attacker fled; the attacker's conjured assassin was driven away. I had beaten the enemy, I had won the conflict. The gamist reward here is phenomenal.
    [*]To the Simulationist, reward is a lot more subtle. It involves feeling like you've entered another reality, in some sense, that you've explored a possibility and discovered something about it. In that same game world, my background in law convinced the local prince to assign me the rather complex task of organizing his judicial system and creating a legislature as a way to bring his medieval princedom toward a modern democratic citystate. I've spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to organize a dozen judges into a tiered judicial system with an emphasis on precedent, and more on devising a bicameral legislature in which one house represents the fading nobility and the other the mostly illiterate peasantry (how do you arrange elections for representatives when the electorate can't read and write?). I'm watching the world evolve, and I'm involved in the center of it. There is a great reward in being part of something like this.
    [*]To the Narrativist--well, there are a lot of ways to say it that will lead someone to object to the terminology, but let me suggest that the reward for narrativists is the creation of something of a morality play; that is, we've created a story which is about an issue. In that same world, the man who appointed me his head justice required that I "swear fealty" to him, and I in essence did so: I told him that I didn't promise not to argue with him, but in the end I would recognize he had the right to decide what the law was. But this man has closed all the churches in the princedom. It was his opinion that the religious people were fighting with each other to the detriment of the community, so he made public religious ceremony illegal. My character is very religious; and since he has taken his position he has discovered that one of the major religious groups which have been "shut down" is essentially agreed with his own faith. He is now in a position in which he has sworn obligations to uphold a law that could easily be used to persecute people who share his religious beliefs, which indeed could be used to accuse his self of treason. The tension here is a wonderful narrativist premise, as the character must wrestle with whether he can serve as the chief jurist in a legal system that oppresses his own faith, or whether he can from his position of limited authority make it possible for that faith (and others?) to continue to be practiced and encouraged in the city despite the strictures placed upon it. The reward here comes from resolving those tensions in one direction or another. Narrativist rewards can in some ways be the most interesting. My character could be the deliverer who puts the crack in the wall that ultimately admits the flood, such that the prince is forced to permit faith again to be expressed and practiced openly. He could instead be the martyr whose death galvinizes the people to stand up for their freedom. There are great story possibilities here, and the realization of those story possibilities is itself the reward.[/list:u]

    Now, there's a lot of talk about how mechanical reward systems can be gamist, narrativist, or simulationist; but what that means ultimately is that the rewards encourage one kind of play--they are given for actions of a particular type, and/or they are in a currency which can be used for actions of a particular type.

      [*]A character earns experience points for beating the odds, whether that's for killing monsters, solving riddles, capturing enemy spies, disarming explosives, or any other in-game challenge. That experience is then spent to make him better at killing monsters, solving riddles, capturing enemy spies, disarming explosives, or some other in-game challenge. This is a palpably gamist reward system, because rewards are given to reinforce the inherent reward of winning, and are a type which help the character win over greater odds in the future.
      [*]A player recognizes that his character has values which could easily be brought into conflict. He moves that character into a place where the conflict will be forced upon the character, where he will have to choose between one value and another, and in doing so is given a credit. He may then use the credit to purchase something to add to play that will help resolve this conflict one way or the other, such as bringing another character into the scene, or placing a previously unmentioned object within reach. This is an arguably narrativist reward system, because it gives rewards for the creation of premise-enhancing situations which are of a type which helps the player advance the core of the story. (This is more difficult, as a very similar reward system could be used in a simulationist exploration of character/situation game; it's just the best I could produce at the moment.)
      [*]A character in a new city takes a job as a stablehand. The player puts effort into describing the life and activities of a stablehand, and his character's feelings about this; he controls the character to be a good stablehand. A tally is kept of the time he spends at this activity, with extra credits for doing it well. When a predetermined score is reached, the owner of the stable approaches the character and offers to promote him to work as a groom. This is arguably a simulationist reward system, as the rewards are given for playing appropriately in the context of the setting and lead to new opportunities to explore other aspects of the setting.
      [/list:u]
      There are countless ways to do reward systems for each sort of play. I suspect that the way to get at it, though, is to begin with an idea of how the game works without any reward system at all, to determine what sort of play you want to encourage, and then create a reward system which gives the players currency in response to the sort of actions desired which can be spent to make possible more of that sort of actions.

      Does that make sense?

      (And anyone who wants to suggest a better example of a narrativist reward system--or any other--please do so.)

      --M. J. Young
+
+ + + + + +
+
+ + + Logged +
+
+
Check out Multiverser
M. J. Young Net
+
+
+
+ + + +
+ + + + + + + + +
+ Cassidy +
+ Member
+
+ Posts: 165
+
+ + + +
+ View Profile + Personal Message (Offline) +
+ 		+ + + + +
+ GNS and player rewards +
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2002, 11:04:29 AM »
 +
+
+
Quote from: M. J. Young

Does that make sense?


Absolutely.

For me, the key to rewarding players is essentially knowing what their premise is and making sure that it's fulfilled.

I can only relate my own experiences but for players with a narrative slant I very often let them assume the role of significant NPCs in the game.

Mercenary Leader, Religious Zealot, Cowardly Nobleman, you name it, I've had them play it.

It obviously takes a lot of setting up and discussion one-on-one with the player concerned prior to play which in itself is rewarding for the players concerned.

For players coming from a simulationist angle, if the setting, characters, conflicts and situations within the game are engaging enough and really grab their interest then playing becomes it's own reward.

The players like that in my group really don't give a hoot about experience points, story points or whatever in fact I never use experience points as such.

The odd ad-hoc change in an ability from time to time as a consequence of a characters experiences in the game works well enough. It makes sense to me and more importantly it makes sense to the players. It's never a player initiated thing, it's just something that I mention to the player in passing when I feel the change is warranted. The player  modifies their character sheet and thats all there is to it.

The problem I have most is satisfying players with a gamist premise.

Winning and losing in RPGs is something that I've never been able to get my head around. Maybe it's just my own experience but the players in my group who play the the game from a gamist standpoint only seem to come alive when there is something to hit.

They really appear to have little interest in exploring the setting or involving themselves in situations that don't have an element of combat associated to them.

The only reward they are interested in is "improvement" of their characters abilities and a desire for more combat in the game.

Combat for combat's sake bores me. Unless the characters are in a truly threatening situation and they stand a real chance of dying then it appears to be a real waste of time. I can't do that every session.

Conversely, a session without combat is often seen as boring or unrewarding certain players in my group.

I do run my games primarily from a simulation/narrative angle and I do introduce combat intensive scenes as a means of presenting the group with a dramatic life or death situation.

I just feel that I can't satisfy the players in my group who play from an apparently gamist standpoint because I think the type of game they want to play isn't really the type of game I want to run.
+
+ + + + + +
+
+ + + Logged +
+
+
+
+ + + +
+ + + + + + + + +
+ MK Snyder +
+ Member
+
+ Posts: 116
+
+ + + +
+ View Profile + Personal Message (Offline) +
+ 		+ + + + +
+ GNS and player rewards +
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2002, 07:32:32 PM »
 +
+
+
I think that given an awareness of what style of play is most satisfying to the player, and having the play tailored to that style by the GM or group or at least respectfully ackowledged as a desire and given a share of the session form and focus (turns), that players are rewarded by play itself.

Conflict and frustration are lessened as players are not attempting to force/encourage one another into playing to misunderstood and possibly conflicting standards.

It enhances the process of play. Mechanical/ design changes may not be necessary.

In other words... if the players are having more fun because what they like to happen is happening, they don't need no steenkin XP's to sweeten it.
+
+ + + + + +
+
+ + + Logged +
+
+
+
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ Pages: [1] + Mark unread Send this topic Print  +
+
+ + + + + +
« previous next »
+
+
+
+ Jump to: +   + +
+
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + +
+ Powered by MySQL + Powered by PHP + + + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5.
+© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved. +
Oxygen design by Bloc + 		+ Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! +
+
+ + \ No newline at end of file diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/gns_and_players_rewards.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/gns_and_players_rewards.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,461 @@ + Link: [1]help + Link: [2]search + Link: [3]contents + Link: [4]previous + Link: [5]next + Link: [6]index + + [7]About the Forge | [8]Articles | [9]Forum | [10]Reviews | [12]* + [11]Resource Library + [13]* + [14]Home + [15]Help + [16]Search + [17]Edit Profile + [18]Logout + Hey, fabien, you have [19]0 Forum changes: Editing of posts + messages, 0 are new. has been turned off until + Total time logged in: 30 minutes. further notice. + [20]Show unread posts since last + visit. + [21]Show new replies to your + posts. + February 21, 2006, 06:02:54 AM + + Search: [22]_____________________ [23][ Search ] [24]Advanced + search + + 196611 Posts in 18462 Topics by Most online today: 102 - most online + 5889 Members Latest Member: - ever: 143 (January 24, 2006, + [25]argology 05:56:13 AM) + + [26]+ [27]The Forge + [28]|-[29]+ [30]General Forge Forums + [31]| [32]|-[33]+ [34]GNS Model Discussion + [35]| | [36]|-[37]+ [38]GNS and player [39]<< previous [40]next + rewards >> + + Pages: [1] [41]Mark unread [42]Send this topic [43]Print + + Author Topic: GNS and player rewards (Read 1480 times) + + [44]JMendes [47][IMG] [48]GNS and player rewards + Member << on: October 31, 2002, 01:21:08 PM >> + + Posts: 187 ---------------------------------------------------- + + [45]View Hi, all, :) + Profile + [46]Personal Appols if this has been asked and answered (in which + Message case check out this thread replies are appreciated). + (Offline) + Anyway, how does one reward players in the various + GNS modes? + + (Ex. would be: a gamist mode rewards a player by + awarding character advancement; or, a gamist mode + rewards a player by tallying problems successfully + solved, thus allowing said player to bask under the + glory of said tally; or something else entirely...) + + Cheers, + + J. + [49]Logged + + ---------------------------------------------------- + + João Mendes + Lisbon, Portugal + [50]M. J. [59]GNS and player rewards + Young [58][IMG] << Reply #1 on: October 31, 2002, + Member 06:15:17 PM >> + + Posts: 2123 -------------------------------------------------- + + [51]1735114 It's not so cut-and-dried as that, I think. + [52]MarkJYoung There's a sense in which the rewards can be almost + [53]tiras1 anything and fit any type of play; it's more a + [54]View matter of how they're earned than what they + Profile are--although yes, there are some rewards that fit + [55]WWW some kinds of play better. But maybe I can provide + [56]Email an outrageous example. + [57]Personal + Message Multiverser has no "reward system" at all; there + (Offline) is a sense in which nothing is rewarded and + nothing is given as a reward. Yet people play it, + and find rewards, because the rewards are inherent + to the experience. + + [*]To the Gamist, the ultimate reward is that + feeling that you just won, that you beat the + odds or overcame the enemy or solved the problem + in a significant way. I'm currently playing in a + Multiverser game in which I was engaged in a + battle of magic (and my character was completely + new to magic, making it up as he went along). + The attacker fled; the attacker's conjured + assassin was driven away. I had beaten the + enemy, I had won the conflict. The gamist reward + here is phenomenal. + [*]To the Simulationist, reward is a lot more + subtle. It involves feeling like you've entered + another reality, in some sense, that you've + explored a possibility and discovered something + about it. In that same game world, my background + in law convinced the local prince to assign me + the rather complex task of organizing his + judicial system and creating a legislature as a + way to bring his medieval princedom toward a + modern democratic citystate. I've spent quite a + bit of time figuring out how to organize a dozen + judges into a tiered judicial system with an + emphasis on precedent, and more on devising a + bicameral legislature in which one house + represents the fading nobility and the other the + mostly illiterate peasantry (how do you arrange + elections for representatives when the + electorate can't read and write?). I'm watching + the world evolve, and I'm involved in the center + of it. There is a great reward in being part of + something like this. + [*]To the Narrativist--well, there are a lot of + ways to say it that will lead someone to object + to the terminology, but let me suggest that the + reward for narrativists is the creation of + something of a morality play; that is, we've + created a story which is about an issue. In that + same world, the man who appointed me his head + justice required that I "swear fealty" to him, + and I in essence did so: I told him that I + didn't promise not to argue with him, but in the + end I would recognize he had the right to decide + what the law was. But this man has closed all + the churches in the princedom. It was his + opinion that the religious people were fighting + with each other to the detriment of the + community, so he made public religious ceremony + illegal. My character is very religious; and + since he has taken his position he has + discovered that one of the major religious + groups which have been "shut down" is + essentially agreed with his own faith. He is now + in a position in which he has sworn obligations + to uphold a law that could easily be used to + persecute people who share his religious + beliefs, which indeed could be used to accuse + his self of treason. The tension here is a + wonderful narrativist premise, as the character + must wrestle with whether he can serve as the + chief jurist in a legal system that oppresses + his own faith, or whether he can from his + position of limited authority make it possible + for that faith (and others?) to continue to be + practiced and encouraged in the city despite the + strictures placed upon it. The reward here comes + from resolving those tensions in one direction + or another. Narrativist rewards can in some ways + be the most interesting. My character could be + the deliverer who puts the crack in the wall + that ultimately admits the flood, such that the + prince is forced to permit faith again to be + expressed and practiced openly. He could instead + be the martyr whose death galvinizes the people + to stand up for their freedom. There are great + story possibilities here, and the realization of + those story possibilities is itself the + reward.[/list:u] + + Now, there's a lot of talk about how mechanical + reward systems can be gamist, narrativist, or + simulationist; but what that means ultimately is + that the rewards encourage one kind of + play--they are given for actions of a particular + type, and/or they are in a currency which can be + used for actions of a particular type. + + [*]A character earns experience points for + beating the odds, whether that's for killing + monsters, solving riddles, capturing enemy + spies, disarming explosives, or any other + in-game challenge. That experience is then + spent to make him better at killing monsters, + solving riddles, capturing enemy spies, + disarming explosives, or some other in-game + challenge. This is a palpably gamist reward + system, because rewards are given to + reinforce the inherent reward of winning, and + are a type which help the character win over + greater odds in the future. + [*]A player recognizes that his character has + values which could easily be brought into + conflict. He moves that character into a + place where the conflict will be forced upon + the character, where he will have to choose + between one value and another, and in doing + so is given a credit. He may then use the + credit to purchase something to add to play + that will help resolve this conflict one way + or the other, such as bringing another + character into the scene, or placing a + previously unmentioned object within reach. + This is an arguably narrativist reward + system, because it gives rewards for the + creation of premise-enhancing situations + which are of a type which helps the player + advance the core of the story. (This is more + difficult, as a very similar reward system + could be used in a simulationist exploration + of character/situation game; it's just the + best I could produce at the moment.) + [*]A character in a new city takes a job as a + stablehand. The player puts effort into + describing the life and activities of a + stablehand, and his character's feelings + about this; he controls the character to be a + good stablehand. A tally is kept of the time + he spends at this activity, with extra + credits for doing it well. When a + predetermined score is reached, the owner of + the stable approaches the character and + offers to promote him to work as a groom. + This is arguably a simulationist reward + system, as the rewards are given for playing + appropriately in the context of the setting + and lead to new opportunities to explore + other aspects of the setting. + [/list:u] + There are countless ways to do reward systems + for each sort of play. I suspect that the way + to get at it, though, is to begin with an + idea of how the game works without any reward + system at all, to determine what sort of play + you want to encourage, and then create a + reward system which gives the players + currency in response to the sort of actions + desired which can be spent to make possible + more of that sort of actions. + + Does that make sense? + + (And anyone who wants to suggest a better + example of a narrativist reward system--or + any other--please do so.) + + --M. J. Young + [60]Logged + + -------------------------------------------------- + + Check out [61]Multiverser + [62]M. J. Young Net + [63]Cassidy [67]GNS and player rewards + Member [66][IMG] << Reply #2 on: November 02, 2002, + 11:04:29 AM >> + Posts: 165 + ---------------------------------------------------- + [64]View + Profile Quote from: M. J. Young + [65]Personal Does that make sense? + Message + (Offline) Absolutely. + + For me, the key to rewarding players is essentially + knowing what their premise is and making sure that + it's fulfilled. + + I can only relate my own experiences but for players + with a narrative slant I very often let them assume + the role of significant NPCs in the game. + + Mercenary Leader, Religious Zealot, Cowardly + Nobleman, you name it, I've had them play it. + + It obviously takes a lot of setting up and + discussion one-on-one with the player concerned + prior to play which in itself is rewarding for the + players concerned. + + For players coming from a simulationist angle, if + the setting, characters, conflicts and situations + within the game are engaging enough and really grab + their interest then playing becomes it's own reward. + + The players like that in my group really don't give + a hoot about experience points, story points or + whatever in fact I never use experience points as + such. + + The odd ad-hoc change in an ability from time to + time as a consequence of a characters experiences in + the game works well enough. It makes sense to me and + more importantly it makes sense to the players. It's + never a player initiated thing, it's just something + that I mention to the player in passing when I feel + the change is warranted. The player modifies their + character sheet and thats all there is to it. + + The problem I have most is satisfying players with a + gamist premise. + + Winning and losing in RPGs is something that I've + never been able to get my head around. Maybe it's + just my own experience but the players in my group + who play the the game from a gamist standpoint only + seem to come alive when there is something to hit. + + They really appear to have little interest in + exploring the setting or involving themselves in + situations that don't have an element of combat + associated to them. + + The only reward they are interested in is + "improvement" of their characters abilities and a + desire for more combat in the game. + + Combat for combat's sake bores me. Unless the + characters are in a truly threatening situation and + they stand a real chance of dying then it appears to + be a real waste of time. I can't do that every + session. + + Conversely, a session without combat is often seen + as boring or unrewarding certain players in my + group. + + I do run my games primarily from a + simulation/narrative angle and I do introduce combat + intensive scenes as a means of presenting the group + with a dramatic life or death situation. + + I just feel that I can't satisfy the players in my + group who play from an apparently gamist standpoint + because I think the type of game they want to play + isn't really the type of game I want to run. + [68]Logged + [69]MK [73]GNS and player rewards + Snyder [72][IMG] << Reply #3 on: November 02, 2002, + Member 07:32:32 PM >> + + Posts: 116 ---------------------------------------------------- + + [70]View I think that given an awareness of what style of + Profile play is most satisfying to the player, and having + [71]Personal the play tailored to that style by the GM or group + Message or at least respectfully ackowledged as a desire and + (Offline) given a share of the session form and focus (turns), + that players are rewarded by play itself. + + Conflict and frustration are lessened as players are + not attempting to force/encourage one another into + playing to misunderstood and possibly conflicting + standards. + + It enhances the process of play. Mechanical/ design + changes may not be necessary. + + In other words... if the players are having more fun + because what they like to happen is happening, they + don't need no steenkin XP's to sweeten it. + [74]Logged + + Pages: [1] [75]Mark unread [76]Send this topic [77]Print + + [78]<< previous [79]next >> + + Jump to: [[80]_______________________________] [81][ go ] + + The Forge | Powered by [84]SMF + [82]Powered by 1.0.5. [87]Valid XHTML + MySQL [83]Powered (c) 2001-2005, [85]Lewis 1.0! [88]Valid CSS! + by PHP Media. All Rights Reserved. + Oxygen design by [86]Bloc + +References + + Visible links + 1. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=help + 2. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search + 3. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php + 4. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=;topic=4075.0;prev_next=prev + 5. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=;topic=4075.0;prev_next=next + 6. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=;board=3.0 + 7. file:///about/ + 8. file:///articles/ + 9. file:///forum/ + 10. file:///reviews/ + 11. file:///resources/ + 13. Shrink or expand the header. + file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/gns_and_players_rewards.html# + 14. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php + 15. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=help + 16. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search + 17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile + 18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=logout;sesc=ba7ce42c5272df7403fe662c9966e33f + 19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm + 20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=unread + 21. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=unreadreplies + 24. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search;advanced + 25. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6016 + 27. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php + 30. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php#1 + 34. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0 + 38. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.0 + 39. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.0;prev_next=prev + 40. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075;prev_next=next + 41. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=markasread;sa=topic;topic=4075.0 + 42. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=sendtopic;topic=4075.0 + 43. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=4075.0 + 44. View the profile of JMendes + http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=842 + 45. View Profile + http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=842 + 46. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=842 + 47. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.msg39610#msg39610 + 48. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.msg39610#msg39610 + 49. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip + 50. View the profile of M. J. Young + http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=712 + 51. http://web.icq.com/whitepages/about_me/1,,,00.html?Uin=1735114 + 52. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/aim:goim?screenname=MarkJYoung&message=Hi.+Are+you+there? + 53. http://edit.yahoo.com/config/send_webmesg?.target=tiras1 + 54. View Profile + http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=712 + 55. http://www.mjyoung.net/ + 56. Email + mailto:mjyoung@mjyoung.net + 57. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=712 + 58. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.msg39639#msg39639 + 59. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.msg39639#msg39639 + 60. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip + 61. http://www.mjyoung.net/publish/ + 62. http://www.mjyoung.net/ + 63. View the profile of Cassidy + http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=948 + 64. View Profile + http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=948 + 65. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=948 + 66. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.msg39947#msg39947 + 67. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.msg39947#msg39947 + 68. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip + 69. View the profile of MK Snyder + http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=941 + 70. View Profile + http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=941 + 71. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=941 + 72. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.msg39997#msg39997 + 73. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.msg39997#msg39997 + 74. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=helpadmin;help=see_member_ip + 75. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=markasread;sa=topic;topic=4075.0 + 76. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=sendtopic;topic=4075.0 + 77. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=4075.0 + 78. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075.0;prev_next=prev + 79. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4075;prev_next=next + 82. http://www.mysql.com/ + 83. http://www.php.net/ + 84. Simple Machines Forum + http://www.simplemachines.org/ + 85. http://www.lewismedia.com/ + 86. http://www.bloczone.net/ + 87. http://validator.w3.org/check/referer + 88. http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/ol2dot.rb --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/ol2dot.rb Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +#!/usr/bin/ruby + +Header_RE = /^(\*+)\s+(.*)/ +parents = ["#{ARGV[0]}"] + +print "digraph \"#{parents[0]}\" {\n" + +while gets + if $_ =~ Header_RE + title = $2 + level = $1.length() + next if title =~ /^Emacs Variables/ + if level > parents.length() + [level..parents.length()].each do |i| parents.push("") end + end + if level < parents.length() + parents = parents[0..level-1] + end + parents.push(title) + print "// #{parents.join(",")}\n" + if parents.length() > 1 + print "\"#{parents[-2]}\" -> \"#{parents[-1]}\";\n" + end + end +end + +print "}\n" diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/questionnaire.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/questionnaire.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +- Que pensez-vous d'une partie où tous les PJ sont morts à la fin. + +- Un génie offre trois souhaits à votre personnage. En tant que + joueur, qu'en pensez-vous? + +- Qu'est-ce qu'une partie réussie? + +- Qu'est-ce que ça prend pour réussir une partie? + +- Que pensez-vous d'une partie où aucun des personnages n'a de + capacité spéciale ou supérieure à la moyenne? + +- Combien faut-il de combats ou d'épreuves par partie? + +- Quel serait un ratio acceptable de PJ morts par partie? par + scénario? par campagne? + +- Un PJ doit-il avoir un objectif? Si oui, à qui revient-il de le + déterminer, au joueur ou au MJ? + +- De quoi est responsable un joueur durant une partie? + +- Qui peut décider des intentions d'un PJ? De ses actes? De son + passé? De ses connaissances? Sur quelles bases cette authorité lui + revient? + +- Qui peut décider de l'environnement des personnages? De ce qui + survient? + +- Quel est votre relation avec les autres joueurs? Où se trouve la + limite entre vous et les autres joueurs? À quel point pouvez-vous + influencer un autre joueur? À quel point votre personnage peut + influencer le sien? + +- \ No newline at end of file diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,1607 @@ + + + + + + + The Forge :: Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games + + + + + + + + + + +
The ForgeThe Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing +Games
+About the Forge | Support The Forge | Articles | Reviews | Resource Library | Forums +
+ +
+ +

Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

+ +

by Christopher I. +Lehrich <clehrich@bu.edu>

+ +

Introduction

+ +

Theoretical analysis of RPG's remains largely cut off from other +theoretical discourses, a situation that tends of itself toward +sterility. Two reasons for this isolation predominate. First, RPG +theorists come from a wide range of educational backgrounds, and as +such have no shared body of theoretical models or discourse on +which to draw. Second, RPG theory hopes to serve a constructive +function, rather than a purely analytical one: where the +anthropologist for example traditionally understands herself as +necessarily exterior to the people and situations she analyzes, the +RPG theorist wishes to employ the results of his analysis to +improve his own gaming.

+ +

The former difficulty need not concern us unduly. So long as +theoretical models from outside current RPG discourse receive +adequate formulation and explication in RPG terms, only an a +priori hostility to other theoretical constructs would dismiss +them out of hand. It is worth considering that such hostility does +appear mutual -- that is, much RPG discourse formulates itself in +opposition to academic theoretical discourse, while many academics +continue to express disdain and scorn if not outright hostility for +role-playing games as an activity -- but resolution of this can +only come about in a historical situation as yet hard to imagine. +Thus I shall set the issue aside, stating only that I intend to +explain fully whatever theoretical constructs I deploy.

+ +

The second problem, however, inheres in the nature of RPG's +themselves. A purely theoretical analytical model of RPG's, i.e. +one without any practical application whatever, will generally be +received poorly, if at all, within RPG communities. Indeed, even +RPG theorists who go to considerable lengths to formulate the +practical implications of their models are sometimes derided as +airy pseudo-intellectuals. Fortunately, some recent RPG +publications by members of the theoretical community have received +accolades,[1] and this will presumably have +the long-term salutary effect of legitimizing theoretical work +within the hobby at large.

+ +

At the same time, analyses of RPG's have come to formulate +practical, essential divisions and categories, and argued that +these may be unbridgeable. For example, Ron Edwards's tripartite +GNS model rests upon the notion that the three categories must +remain discrete in order to avoid paradigmatic clash and attendant +misunderstandings among players, leading in turn to poor play. That +is, a group of players with strongly Narrativist tendencies should +be wary of playing a strongly Gamist-structured game, or +introducing into the group a player with such an approach. While +"hybrids" -- games that effectively serve more than one of the +three major play-types -- are conceived as possible, a central +point for Edwards is that Narrativist-oriented play is not +well-suited to Gamist-oriented games, and that groups who attempt +such may need to revise the game extensively to fit their needs. +Similarly, a single player who cannot conform to the paradigmatic +norms of the group in which she plays will probably find herself +continually at odds with other players, leading to social conflict; +this player would be best advised to find another game.[2]

+ +

In his recent article "Story and Narrative Paradigms in +Role-Playing Games,"[3] John Kim argues that +underlying such categories we find two approaches: "Collaborative +Storytelling" and "Virtual Experience." These tend, like Edwards's +categories, to remain divided. In what Kim calls "Paradigm Clash," +we find a naturally-occurring conflict between perspectives:

+
To the storytelling point of view, the +experiential view seems to result in an unnecessarily limited set +of techniques. . . . Experiential play may also seem passive, +letting events happen rather than actively controlling them. . . . +[Conversely,] To the experiential point of view, storytelling play +seems to be creating a product for a nonexistent reader. . . . +Experiential players faced with storytelling play may complain +about breaking suspension of disbelief, or lack of depth.
+

Conflict arising from disjuncture, narrative or otherwise, is +not only theoretical. Most gamers have experienced it, and one +great strength of Edwards's model (derived from the earlier +Threefold Model developed in the Advocacy newsgroup[4]) is to emphasize recognition and classification as +means to avoiding the problem. In both his and Kim's models, +players and groups who recognize their preferences in a categorical +sense can select games to fit their desires, or revise them so, +leading to enjoyable play with a minimum of fuss and trouble.

+ +

While I support this general constructive point, and do not +presently wish to challenge the classification itself (a +much-contested issue), I suggest that a hard-line division within +analysis leads toward weaknesses in a general understanding and +formulation of how RPG's really function. By drawing on some +theoretical models outside of RPG's, I would like to propose a more +unified model of RPG narrativity.

+ +

A word about practicality: I do not, in the present article, +formulate the practical implications of this model for game design +or play. I do not see this as a weakness in itself: if the model +serves analytically, it can have synthetic value. But the two +operations have at least a notional distinction, and can operate +well in isolation. If theory must face a practical proof-critique, +then all analysis is already crypto-synthesis; logically speaking, +there is thus insufficient distance postulated to ensure the +validity of the analysis. In short, without the ability to +distinguish at least heuristically between theory and practice, +theoretical work can never have real logical force, lending weight +to the criticisms mentioned at the outset.

+ +

A further point: I intend to propose a ritual model for RPG +play, based upon recent understandings of ritual within the +academic discourses of anthropology, sociology, and history of +religions. This model would appear to fall squarely into the common +discourse of analogy as theory, of proposing that RPG's are "like" +something else in order to help emphasize a point otherwise +unclear. Such analogical reasoning is founded upon an essential +methodological principle: the analogy is not identity. Thus +response to the proposal is constrained to two related moves. On +the one hand, one may move to expand the analogy, picking up +additional aspects of the metaphorized object or activity and +further relating them to RPG's; on the other, one may move to limit +the analogy, demanding that the metaphor not be taken to the point +of absurdity.[5]

+ +

Some find this mode of analysis useful, primarily in a creative +sense. If one "gets" the analogy, in its logical extension and +intension, one thinks about the hobby in a somewhat new way, +perhaps leading to new creative engagement with design or play. But +if one does not "get" the analogy, the tendency, naturally, is to +dismiss it as unhelpful, or to reformulate it endlessly until one +does "get it." Either way, the reason to analyze such a metaphor is +generally synthetic, to create new ways of engaging with the hobby. +In other words, the proposal of yet another analogy serves no +analytic function.

+ +

In proposing a ritual model of RPG's, I do not wish to add +another analogy to the lists. I do not mean that RPG play is +like ritual at all; I mean that it is ritual. +Therefore classical and recent tools of ritual analysis apply fully +to RPG's, for analytical purposes, for making sense of RPG's +as something other than an entirely isolated hobby, indeed for +seeing RPG's as a human cultural product not particularly +distinctive to modern society. If to some this seems a claim that +RPG's are not special and extraordinary, I suggest on the contrary +that this grants to RPG's a legitimacy and "specialness" attendant +upon their roots in wider humanity and culture.[6]

+ +

Ritual

+ +

An obvious first step in proposing this model is the formulation +of a definition of ritual. Unfortunately, perhaps, such definitions +have been the focus of extensive debate for more than a century +now, with no clear end in sight. More models have been proposed of +what ritual "is" than many readers might believe. I have no +intention of summarizing this whole history; I will instead simply +propose a starting-point.

+ +

The above-mentioned disjuncture between "Collaborative +Storytelling" and "Virtual Experience" parallels, in a number of +respects, two recent emphases in ritual theory.

+ +

Virtual Experience correlates well with Ronald Grimes's and +Victor Turner's focus on "performance," which ultimately amounts to +a notion of total involvement in ritual activity.[7] In ritual, according to this perspective, humans +engage the totality of hearts, minds, and bodies, setting them to +work creatively and dynamically to produce effects within the +social and mental worlds of the participants. Thus in zazen +(Sitting Zen), one does nothing but sit, generally in an approved +posture; one's mind and heart should be similarly focused on +nothing but sitting, not in the sense that one should think +continuously, "I'm sitting," but rather that one's mind should be +in a state parallel to the body's state, thinking nothing, resting, +yet remaining alert and awake, receptive to outside contact. In the +Catholic Eucharist (Mass), to take a quite different sort of +example, liturgical tradition emphasizes that the communicant +should be fully involved in the process, such that when the +miraculous transformation of the substance of wafer and wine +(Transubstantiation) occurs, and when in fact the communicant +receives these into the mouth, it is not only one's body that +receives the body and blood of Christ, but the totality of body, +mind, and soul. Thus this understanding of ritual emphasizes what +in RPG terms is called "immersion," a total involvement in the +activity. Failure on this score would be seen as ineffective +(zazen), impious (Eucharist), or shallow (RPG).

+ +

The Collaborative Storytelling model is less obviously +commensurate with a ritual model. Two directions, however, support +this formulation. First, there is Claude Lévi-Strauss's +structuralist interpretation of mythic and ritual thought as bricolage, and second, there is the movement largely +associated with Pierre Bourdieu, Sherry Ortner, and Catherine Bell +toward understanding ritual as "practice" (or "praxis" in the more +overtly Marxist formulations).[8]

+ +

Lévi-Strauss's idea, in simple terms, is that cultures think like oddly artistic hobbyists. [9] Imagine +you have a basement full of stuff from which to build whatever you +like. You have bits of old machines, things your neighbors threw +out, scraps of wood, and tail-ends of old projects, as well as the +taken-apart bits of all your old projects. Now you decide to build +something, and you have some ideas -- aesthetic and practical -- +about how that should be done; you are very skilled and talented, +and can see possibilities in all sorts of things. But you do not +have a Home Depot available, or you consider it "cheating" to go +buy things. At any rate, you have to build the thing you're going +to build from what you already have in your basement.

+ +

A nice example is a Rube Goldberg cartoon, though those are +deliberately silly. You fly a kite, and the kite string pulls a +lever, and this pushes an old boot, and that turns on your iron, +and the iron burns some old pants, and smoke goes into a tree, +and.... A brilliant example is the recent Honda advertisement +called "the cog," which can readily be found on the +Internet.[10] The point is that one +constructs an elaborate machine out of bits and pieces already +owned.

+ +

Lévi-Strauss's point is that each object used contains its own +history; that is, the iron has already been used for +something and the bricoleur then gives it a new +use. The iron, to focus on the single example, is a local +source of heat; it can burn pants, or make a grilled-cheese +sandwich, and of course can press a shirt. But it cannot be a +refrigerator. And if, clever person that you are, you pull the +heating coil out of the iron for some project that requires a +heating coil, your iron now contains the history of its usage: it +is now a heating coil and a heavy weight.

+ +

Every sign in myth and ritual, says Lévi-Strauss, is like this iron, and every living mythic culture is like this +bricoleur. When faced with a (social) situation, an +intellectual problem of whatever kind, the bricoleur begins +by running through his memory (the basement) to see what he already +has that can be used to solve the problem. He then builds the +machine that solves the problem, in the process incorporating the +entire history of every object in question, and furthermore +altering (however slightly) each object so used; when he goes to +build something else, later on, the current project will be part of +the history of each object.

+ +

Technically speaking, every sign is thus constrained and +yet free. On the one hand, it is not constrained to the +degree of a percept, a particular contingent mental +encounter with an actual object; this percept is what is called a +"perception" in the formalist model to which Kim refers. A percept +is entirely constrained, because when a person looks at a given +object on two successive occasions, his or her mental equipment has +altered -- to use a cliché, one cannot enter the same river twice. +At the same time, a sign is not fully liberated, as is a +concept, an idea arising in reaction to a particular +person's connections to a percept: when I look at the lamp on the +table, I may think of my grandmother (who perhaps owned a similar +lamp), and thus "grandmother" is a legitimate conceptual link, but +no such connection may arise for you, and even if it did, it would +be a different grandmother. So a sign (Lévi-Strauss means +the Saussurean version of the sign) is both constrained (the iron +cannot be a refrigerator) and free (it can do a whole range of +things involving local intense heat). In Lévi-Strauss's linguistic +analogy, this iron is a sign in the same way as a word is: the word +"iron" can mean a range of things (the metal, the instrument) but +it cannot mean anything at all. Furthermore, this word only +acquires meaning by its relations to other words: if I say "iron," +you do not know until I go on with "a pair of pants" what sort of +meaning I intend, even whether it is a verb or a noun.

+ +

The other approach I want to bring up, "practice" theory, arises +from a number of rather technical difficulties with structuralism, +and amounts to an attempt to understand manipulation of signs and +symbols in strategic yet controlled ways. With respect to ritual, +practice theory argues for a continuity among behaviors, as against +the disjuncture of ritual from other modes of action. The signs +used in ritual, that is, acquire meaning from their extra-ritual +contexts, and furthermore the special meanings accorded to them in +ritual carry over into other modes of life.

+ +

From a practice perspective, every ritual contains within itself +a number of structures, just as in structuralism; these structures +are in essence the Rube Goldberg machines constructed by the +bricoleur. As we know from Lévi-Strauss, the iron can be replaced by any other source of local heat, since its only function in the machine in question was to create smoke by burning a pair of pants. Thus the machine has a structure, requiring a number of elements, but the specifics of which objects or signs are used to +fill those element-slots are open. What interests practice theorists is strategic choice: how do people decide whether to use an iron or a space heater?

+ +

Broadly, the question in practice theory is how people choose, +from a limited range of culturally-available options, which +techniques to apply at a given moment. This depends on strategy: we +want to maximize rewards in a specific situation. But in order for +strategy to work, we have to play the game; that is, one cannot go +outside the structure of the system to manipulate signs as one +likes, because to do so annuls the power of the strategy in the +first place. Thus every strategic use of signs is at once a free, +liberated exercise of power by a situated person, and at the same +time a contribution to keeping the system stable and intact without +significant change. The possibility of real change is thus +undermined by the very strategies which seek to change the system, +because they depend for their efficacy upon the structures in +question.

+ +

If the dichotomy between virtual experience and collaborative +storytelling parallels that between performativity and what we +might call the practice of bricolage, as yet this parallel +serves no analytical or synthetic function; it is once more an +over-theorized and over-determined metaphor. In addition, it is as +yet under-explained, in that the theories may be formulated but +their application to the specific situation of RPG's is not yet +clear. In short, while we can see a parallel division within both +the two discourses and the two modes of behavior, this does not +answer the question: why are RPG's ritual?

+ +

Semiotic Modeling of Ritual and RPG

+ +

I have noted that Kim's use of the formalist +perception-discourse-conception model parallels the semiotic or +structural percept-sign-concept model. The difficulty with the +formalist model for this purpose, however, is that it is focused +primarily on an interpretive perspective, in which the +analyst stands in a perceptive relationship to a givendiscourse; like the circular model in hermeneutics,[11] the central issue is how an interpreter can make sense of a discourse already present, how we approach meaning through interpretation of texts and signs already distant from their producers (authors). Thus a central preoccupation of both formalist analysis and of hermeneutics has been the analysis of ways in which the reading situation is not conversational, in which reading a text is not having a conversation with the author. But in RPG's, the situation is normally conversational in an obvious sense, and thus this mode of analysis focuses on problems seemingly distant from those in RPG's.

+ +

The structural model of signification, from which the practice +theory also arose, is by contrast primarily concerned with the use +of signs by a current producer, a situation more obviously +commensurable with RPG play. The question, in short, is not how +players read a text produced for them by a game-master, but rather +how the whole group in combination produces signs and texts that +they themselves read. The structural model of signification fits +well here, as the primary issue is to understand ritual or mythic +activity as a mode of discourse production.

+ +

In ritual, participants manipulate a range of signs within a +constrained structure. That structure can change through such +manipulations, but only within narrow limits. Every Catholic +Eucharist differs significantly, in that the place, people, and +physical environment of the ritual vary, but this variation is +officially read by participants as within a fixed structure. The +post-Vatican II use of the vernacular in the Mass, for example, was +at once a major transformation of the structure of the ritual, and +at the same time theorized as not radically transformative: even in +the vernacular, according to the Vatican II council, the Eucharist +retains its sacramental efficacy. From a semiotic perspective, the +linguistic alteration represents a new negotiation of liturgical +language as a discrete sign, where Vatican II agreed that the +differences between Latin and the vernacular should not be +understood as an essential structure of the ritual, but rather a +relatively arbitrary sign amenable to conversion without +undermining ritual structure itself.

+ +

At this same level of semiotic manipulation, we can see in RPG +reconstruction and revision a parallel analytical discourse. Taking +to its extreme the Edwards et al. formulation that "system +matters,"[12] the claim is a clearly +structuralist one: transformation of system elements in RPG's +effects concomitant transformation of gameplay and orientation. For +example, a combat system dominated by so-called "realism", usually +meaning a high prioritization of real-world simulation in modes of +action and effects of violence, is not a discrete sign that may be +removed from a given game and replaced with an entirely stylized, +anti-"realist" combat system. Because such a system element is +structural, it links to all other parts of the total game +structure and its transformation thus strongly affects the whole. +Mike Holmes has made this point well, arguing that a "realist" +combat system colors the whole game, such that all activity occurs +with reference to such a preoccupation with violence;[13] as Kim puts it,

+ +
[E]ven if a gun is never fired during the +game session, the mechanics for that [weapon] may influence the +story -- because they shape how the player conceives of guns within +the fictional world. If the mechanics make all guns exceptionally +deadly, it increases the tension in a scene where a gun appears +even if the gun is never fired.
+ +

Thus the "system does matter" principle argues that system +elements are motivated signs, and thus contain structure; their +transformation affects the totality of the structure.

+ +

Between the Vatican II approach to language and the Forge +approach to system, however, we must recognize that the difference +is not absolute; furthermore, the distinction drawn is ideological, +not "factual." There can be no question, for example, that the use +of the vernacular in Catholic Mass has significantly changed the +ways in which Catholics experience the ritual; indeed, were this +not so, there would have been no reason to make the change in the +first place. Vatican II asserted a matter of aesthetic and +theological priority: however far-reaching the effects of this +transformation, they argued, the essential core of the ritual +(transubstantiation in a broad sense) would not be affected, and +whatever aesthetic loss of force might be entailed by the loss of +the affective qualities of Latin (as traditional, foreign, ancient, +powerful) would be more than made up for by gains in broader +spiritual involvement (through understanding the liturgy +intellectually, thus affectively through content rather than +through an aura of ritualism). Indeed, Martin Luther's move to the +vernacular was intended partly to combat the affective +dimension of Latin as itself powerful, arguing that this amounted +to a kind of fetishism or idolatry: the focus should be, he +thought, on the content of the words spoken, rather than on +their linguistic medium.

+ +

In Forge RPG theory, conversely, there is an implicit +distinction between system elements and other elements. It +is certainly plausible that the radical transformation of the +combat system of Dungeons and Dragons from the AD&D +system to the recent d20 system considerably changes all elements +of gameplay, even those not overtly connected with combat; to +replace the combat system with a more freeform model akin to The +Pool would presumably effect further changes. But first of all, +it seems clear that transforming other elements of the game +(setting, background, character generation) would also entail +drastic concomitant changes in gameplay; for example, d20 games not +based on Dungeons and Dragons genre and story conventions +exist in considerable numbers, and certainly do not play exactly +the same way as does Dungeons and Dragons. In short, it is +unclear how one is to classify elements into arbitrary and +motivated, into those which can be shifted without large-scale +structural effects and those which cannot.[14]

+ +

More interestingly, RPG theorists (taken in the broadest sense) +generally make a series of divisions among elements in their games, +and implicitly argue for relative arbitrariness. That is, the +notion that a "combat system" is in any sense a discrete element, a +discrete structure, should not be accepted uncritically. If the +Forge "system matters" principle argues that even apparently +discrete structures like this are motivated and not arbitrary, we +must recognize that this presumes a tendency to see such systems as +arbitrary, that they are apparently discrete. By emphasizing +that "system" is motivated and structural, the Forge theorists +further suggest a prioritization of elements, where motivation is +taken as superior to arbitrariness, so that theoretical analysis +and synthesis should focus on structure rather than sign. To put +this differently, it is implicit that RPG's consist of a vast group +of interrelated elements, falling into a natural hierarchical +order; those nearest the trunk of the tree, as it were, are +relatively motivated and theoretically important, while those +nearest the branch-tips are more arbitrary and of lesser +theoretical weight.

+ +

At the same time, few would argue that the arbitrary, +non-structural signs are trivial or unimportant. Such arbitrary +elements as Color (essentially affective set-dressing in imagined +space) or snack choices by players are not irrelevant, and may in +particular instances be elevated to structural elements: the +game-concept Long Pig The Role-Playing Game made snack +choice and usage into a system element, while Ars Magica +troupes interested in medieval history may make set-dressing a +primary focus for play.[15] But the claim is +that it is by shifting such elements from arbitrary to +motivated, from incidental to system, that they become +analytically important; in general, the analyst does not focus +classification on such elements, but rather begins with system.

+ +

The important point here is that whether the issue is the +relative weight of meaningful dimensions of liturgical language or +the classification of structural elements in RPG's, the +understanding is in both cases ideological, intended not +only to classify and analyze the ritual in question but also to +emphasize and push for improvement in the activity, thus making +normative claims about what the ritual should be about. +Precisely at this point, predictably, the ideological weapon of +"practicality" often comes into play in RPG discourse: because a +more purely analytic classificatory model (e.g. the polythetic +comparative model proposed for the humanities by Jonathan Z. +Smith[16]) eschews normative claims in the +form of practical suggestions for game design or ritual construction, the RPG theorist codes such classification as impractical, thus valueless. This is equivalent to a Catholic liturgist saying of an academic theorist's analysis that it is irrelevant because it does not help formulate new dimensions in Mass. For the academic, however, this is precisely the point: she may be interested to see the results of her analyses serving a constructive use to the liturgist, she does not wish to impose her perspective upon those she studies. Ronald Grimes, for example, believes deeply that ritual theory can be of constructive value for people seeking to formulate or reformulate their rituals, but as a rule he does not tell them how to go about it.[17] A ritualist who denounces Grimes for not proposing a "how-to" makes an entirely ideological -- and ultimately incoherent -- claim: if Grimes does not propose a "how-to," his work is useless; if on the other hand he does tell ritualists how to "fix" their rituals, he will (and should!) be denounced for telling others what they ought to believe.

+ +

I have come a long way around, but the notion of RPG's as ritual +can now be asserted directly. Between RPG theory and RPG practice +there exists a dynamic relationship structurally identical to that +between the theory and practice of ritual within lived ritual +communities. RPG theory, by this logic, is only commensurable to +academic theory and analytical method through a deeper and more +complex formulation; a relatively direct correlation links RPG's to +rituals in their actuality.[18] In order +to recognize this link, we must accept the duality of theory and +practice as integral to ritual performance itself; in other words, +rituals are not actions or activities performed in isolation from +their cultural worlds, but rather performances related to +theoretical concerns in the same way as game-play relates to the +theory and system-construction that surrounds it.

+ +

To put this differently, and more specifically, RPG play enacts +theory, in the sense that standing behind and prior to play is a +series of theoretical constructs: system design, GM notes, pre-play +agreements and social contract, genre expectations, and other +theoretical tools. From this perspective, RPG play acts out this +prior structure; this is equivalent to the old reading of ritual as +acting out a liturgical text. At the same time, the prior structure +is to a degree open to challenge within game play, and furthermore +does not fully constrain particular game actions, determining a +range and a set of priorities rather than laying out a script. As +has been recognized for some decades now, the same can be said of +the most formal ritual: within apparent constraint there is scope +for contestation, not only of the various issues and questions +related to a particular ritual's situation within the social +context, but also of the ritual itself with all its symbols.

+ +

Nevertheless, these two views are always in dynamic, creative +tension: the available range of manipulations of ritual signs +stands within a structural context only slightly accessible to +interior challenge. For example, radical transformation of Catholic +liturgy cannot proceed from within ritual performance +itself, while small-scale local transformation and contestation are +fully expected. Radical transformation of liturgy, as we have seen +with Vatican II, must come from a theoretical discourse exterior +to performance. Conversely, such discourse acquires its ability +to challenge ritual structurally by sacrificing its analytical and +normative force at the local level; that is, while Vatican II could +change liturgical language, a structural change not available to a +given congregation at the moment of performance, the congregation +can manipulate particular performances to effect social meanings +inaccessible to the Vatican. For example, a particular wedding +ritual may be used, at a given moment and in a particular +contingent historical situation, to enable deep consideration +within the congregation about the traditions of marriage, divorce, +and childbirth; these same issues can be discussed by the College +of Cardinals, as indeed they are, but not at the level of +particular people in particular time, since they can only formulate +principles and cannot apply them individually.

+ +

Precisely the same dynamic obtains in RPG discourse. While a +given structural situation of notes, game system, theoretical +models, and so forth formulates a contextual model within which +play occurs, such structures do not extend to the level of +individual particularity that is central to play experience; that +is, no game structure can be so logically intensive as to dictate +every action and speech by every participant at all times, because +to do so (even were it possible) would annul the entire nature of +the game as game. In fact, this limitation of theoretical +efficacy is granted the status of a virtue in Forge theory, through +the double formulation of "practicality" as a rational anchor and +the hierarchization of the relative motivation of system structures +as relative theoretical importance. Not surprisingly, we find that +the usual model of RPG discourse has it that performance (play) is +the "real" anchor of RPG's, and that theory is understood by its +proponents as a potentially liberating source of creativity and +energy for "real" play.

+ +

Liminality in Ritual and RPG: Preliminary Classification

+ +

If we recognize in RPG's a dynamic interaction of theoretical +and practical reason, between structure and event, it is not clear +how within the practical sphere the active, strategic manipulation +of signs actually works. That is, we have seen that in religious +ritual, situated people deploy signs and structures within the +context of larger, only partly flexible structures, and that RPG +play stands within a similar context; we need now to understand how +RPG players manipulate signs and structures for strategic reasons, +and how such strategies are both free and subject to +constraint.

+ +

For this purpose, I would like to propose a specific analogy, +that of RPG play to a particular mode of ritual behavior. At the +outset, however, I should note that this is analogy and not +identity; that is, while RPG is (and is not merely like) +ritual, it is nevertheless a distinct and specific kind of +ritual, one with no exact equivalent in other ritual spheres. Thus +this analysis must be effected within a deliberately constrained +comparative model, in order to evade the methodological problems +attendant upon the loose metaphoricities described in the +introduction.

+ +

Every modern scholar of ritual is familiar with the liminal +model of rites de passage (passage-rites), originally +proposed by Arnold van Gennep in the eponymous book, and elevated +to a critical analytical model in especially the earlier work of +Victor Turner.[19] In its classic +formulation by van Gennep, such passage-rites as initiations +consist of three stages. First, the neophyte is separated from the symbolic and social structures which normally surround him; second, the neophyte passes through a liminal phase, in which a series of new and powerful symbols known as sacra are presented to the neophyte for consideration and reflection; and finally, the neophyte is aggregated back into the social structure, now in a new status.

+ +

For example, in boys' puberty initiations, the boy is removed +from boyhood and society in general, perhaps secluded in a special +initiation hut or otherwise physically removed; in addition, he is +visibly marked as unclassified, e.g. having his head shaved, being +painted black or white, stripped of clothing, and so forth. Once +separation from boyhood has been effected, the neophyte is in a +condition of liminality, "betwixt and between," neither this nor +that; neither boy nor man, he is unclassifiable, a condition +generally expressed through symbols marking status as not participating in even a larger range of classes: he may be dressed +as an androgyne, marking him as neither male nor female (and both); +he may be forced to lie on the ground in a posture normal for +corpses, marking him as neither dead nor alive (and both); and so +forth.

+ +

In this liminal phase, various sacred symbols (sacra) are +presented to the boy and his co-initiates (such initiations usually +involve several boys at once), in the form of monstrous and bizarre +masks, objects, or behaviors, presented to the neophytes by +already-initiated men. All these signs serve as objects of thought, +and are commonly distorted to emphasize reflection on particular +issues; for example, a figurine or dancing costume might be +shrunken and blurred in all its parts, but bear a wildly +exaggerated phallus, encouraging reflection on sexuality and male +sexual identity.

+ +

In an example discussed by Turner,[20] +Bemba girls are presented with an earthenware figurine of an +exaggeratedly pregnant woman who carries four infants, two at her +equally exaggerated breasts and two on her back; other features of +this figure (arms and legs, for example) are shrunken to stubs. The +figurine in this case is accompanied by a riddling song about a +mythical midwife, and initiated women say the riddle's point is +straightforward: Bemba tradition demands that after giving birth +women abstain from sexual intercourse for a year. But a woman's +husband may object to this, and one's mother or mother-in-law may +also demand that the young woman get pregnant again, as the older +woman wants grandchildren and the husband wants sexual satisfaction. The point of the sacrum, then, is that a wife who does not respect the tradition of abstention will become like the figurine, dominated to destruction by babies and their care. However much a woman may wish to give in to her husband or mother -- or her own desires -- she must abstain. Thus the use of exaggerated symbols in the liminal phase focuses attention on traditional culture, its reasons and purposes, and ultimately promotes conformity.

+ +

Once this instructional phase has concluded, aggregation usually +begins with more or less permanent markers of the new status, +followed by social presentation of the neophyte to the relevant +communities (initiates, then society at large). For example, a boy +may be circumcised, marking him permanently as an initiate (thus +fully male), then dressed in men's clothing (not unlike the old +British practice of a boy's changing permanently from short to long +pants); the initiates are then presented to the men, who welcome +them into the men's longhouse or equivalent male structure from +which they were previously forbidden, and they depart this house to +be greeted by the women of the community as men rather than +boys.

+ +

The emphasis in the current analysis is, as for Turner, the +liminal. There is no difficulty spotting separation and aggregation +in RPG's. Depending on a particular group's habitual practices and +preferences, separation may begin at the front door of the host's +house or apartment; this is particularly apparent in more +LARP-oriented play, where entry into the broadly-defined play space +is marked by a transformation of manner and affect, even of +clothing. But the most limited table-top play generally marks a +separation between game-play and out-of-game behavior. This is +perhaps most obvious negatively, in objections to players who do +not focus on the game and continually introduce "irrelevant" topics +(television shows, video games, current events, etc.) into +play.

+ +

I have marked the term "irrelevant" with quotes for a reason: +these topics are only irrelevant if and to the degree that a given +group marks them so, a point generally negotiated through piecemeal +social contract means. The LARP example, as an extreme of the +Virtual Experience model, may tend to object to any introduction of +topics or behaviors not previously formulated as "in-game." A +smaller-scale variant of this general dynamic is the issue of +"in-character" as distinct from "out-of-character": in some groups, +speech should be performed in-character, in that anything said by a +given player should be taken as the speech of that player's current +character; sometimes this takes the form of linguistic constraint, +notably the demand that players speak of their characters in the +first person rather than the third.

+ +

At a more strategic level, groups may make a sharp distinction +between in-character and out-of-character knowledge, raising as a +problem whether a player may act in-character upon knowledge +presumably not available to his character. That is, if Alan +(playing Thror the Barbarian) knows that Marler the Wizard (played +by Barbara) has been captured by an evil sorcerer and is held in a +deep dungeon below the castle in which Thror now stands, and Alan +knows this because as a player he was present when Marler/Barbara +was captured, but Thror was not on the scene and thus has no +particular way to know what has occurred, a group must consider +whether Alan may have Thror head for the deep dungeon to rescue +Marler.

+ +

The question is complex, and may be handled strategically at any +number of levels. For example, some groups feel that, so long as +Thror's rescue of Marler would make an exciting story, the fact +that Thror "knows" nothing about the capture is irrelevant. Even +within this perspective, however, we might note a distinction +between Alan having Thror "happen accidentally" to head downwards, +postulating an in-game coincidence to cover the out-of-game +implausibility, as against Alan having Thror declaim in ringing +tones that somehow he knows what has occurred, postulating a +backwards revision of plot and thus annulling disjuncture. Another +strategic choice, of course, would have Alan simply ignore what has +happened to Marler, since Thror is "actually" ignorant of it; Alan +and Barbara may hope that events will transpire such that Thror can +rescue Marler, but the interior logic of the game-world in this +case does not permit Alan's use of out-of-character knowledge to +alter events in this fashion.

+ +

At a theoretical level, the same issues obtain, particularly in +the aesthetics of game design. Some groups prefer to keep rules and +systems as far in the background as possible, because they see such +structures as irrelevant to the game-world; that is, since Thror +himself cannot be imagined thinking that he has a +7 to hit but a +-2 to damage if he swings his fist, while he has a +3 to hit and a ++6 to damage if he swings his sword, the strategic choices made by +Alan in selecting the appropriate attack for the situation can be +read as interfering with the interior game-logic. Other groups see +such activity on Alan's part as an essential aspect of gaming as an +activity. For example, one can treat a Dungeons and Dragons +"dungeon-crawl" as a competition by the players, as strategic +manipulators of an intricate mechanical system, against the Dungeon +Master who has similarly manipulated the system to construct a +difficult challenge; in this case, Barbara's choice to cast Magic +Missile rather than Fireball because she makes a trade-off between +damage inflicted upon a chosen target and the collateral damage +which comes from the fireball spell, not to mention the specifics +of range, casting-time, and material components, is anything but +irrelevant: indeed, at one extreme, this may constitute much of the +fun of play.

+ +

In any event, the problem of negotiating the bridge between +in-character and out-of-character is founded upon the structural +separation effected at the outset of ritual. The social aggregation +at the close of play thus amounts to an undoing of this separation: +players step back from the in-character world (to whatever extent +they postulated themselves as in it) in order to receive rewards or +accolades, rehash enjoyable events, and generally begin shifting +from a relatively discontinuous and separated game-time to an +ordinary social event, itself marked eventually by the dispersal of +the participants to their everyday lives.

+

We have already seen that within the liminal phase, the "game +itself," classification, and identity are sites of considerable +contestation and difficulty. But it is when we take into account +the question of sacra and response that the parallel to +initiation becomes particularly valuable. In particular, when we +consider the interrelation of freedom and conformity, i.e. the +political nature of liminality, we can begin to dig under +the surface of gaming to discern the social relations and contracts +which make play possible.

+ +

Liminality in RPG's: The Social Rituals of Play

+ +

One of Turner's great achievements in the study of ritual was +his explication of the socio-political implications of ritual +activity; while he was hardly alone in formulating this general +perspective, Turner has the advantage for present purposes of +having a relatively clear model that does not depend on extensive +prior reading in the literature of anthropology or sociology.

+ +

As liminality theory shaded into the origins of "practice" +theory, it gave rise to a stock type of analysis. The symbols of a +given ritual, particularly its liminal phase, would be explicated +for purposes of situation, giving sufficient data for the reader to +make sense of the further argument. The analyst would then attempt +to demonstrate the following dynamic at work: within the liminal +phase, neophytes -- and by extension, the society as a whole -- +employ symbols and structures to challenge, test, and even +undermine the structures and norms of authority; through the ritual +process, however, particularly as the liminal phase moves towards +conclusion in aggregation, all this "testing" ends up serving the +purposes of established authority. Thus the ritual gives the +illusion of freedom and choice, but actually enforces +conformity; ritual is thus read as a technique of mystification by +which cultural authority can be produced and reproduced by +deceiving participants in all walks of society into accepting these +authority structures as natural, given, and ideal.

+ +

There is certainly truth in this reading. For example, numerous +carnivalesque rituals (Mardi Gras in New Orleans, Carnàval, +Saturnalia, etc.) do indeed construct a special space and time in +which to express discontent, disorder, radicalism, and challenge, +all of which is then often deployed in a larger cultural context to +emphasize the "rightness" of hegemonic discourses of authority. But +more recently scholars have begun to grant that this reading is +simplistic: Mardi Gras has on numerous occasions been used +precisely to foment revolt, for example. Thus recent practice +theory, when it has focused on ritual and liminality, has tended to +admit that ritual does produce conformity through the illusion of +free choice, but at the same time to grant that particular agents +in particular historical situations have the ability to manipulate +symbols to their own advantage, despite the apparent constraints +(and apparent freedoms) of ritual structures.

+ +

At present, I will not push the socio-political reading of RPG's +beyond the narrow, local community. It would be interesting to +consider how RPG's as ritual necessarily participate in and +reconstitute the structures of society at large, but the data-set +required to do such analysis meaningfully is prohibitively large. +In addition, ethnography of game-sessions has barely begun, if +indeed it can be said to have begun at all, and thus we have only +the most dubious sort of anecdotal data. My concern, then, is with +the socio-political workings within a gaming group, which +amounts to an analytic perspective on the social contract of such a +group as it intersects with other structures of gaming.

+ +

It is worth noting here that the dominant Forge theory generally +takes social contract to be a maximally distanced structure, +standing at the upper extreme of the hierarchy of RPG structure. +While there has been discussion of social contract and means by +which it can be negotiated in order to avoid paradigmatic or +personal conflict, the emphasis fits squarely within Edwards's +overall approach. That is, because social contract is seen as at a +considerable remove from in-game play issues, the most efficient +way to deal with contractual problems is to discuss them outside of +play, e.g. by confronting a problem player outside of game time, by +formulating explicit social expectations before play, and so forth. +But the fact remains that these problems generally arise +within game play, and prior constraint cannot fully predict +or forestall such difficulties. I suggest, in fact, that precisely +because RPG's are ritual behaviors, social conflict is inherent in the form. At the same time, from a practical perspective, it is worth recognizing that because structural and sign-manipulation achieve their maximal expressions within liminality, with extra-ritual commentary discourse primarily functioning to protect ritual tradition against challenge, acting disjunctively to separate possible challenges from the fragile yet powerful matrix of ritual performance, play itself will necessary be the central locus of social contestation, and importantly it is only within its structures that conjunctive solutions are possible. In other words, while extra-gameplay discourse may try to protect a game against social contract problems arising within gameplay, such strategies cannot of themselves achieve consensus; the means by which a group can resolve such questions must be sought within play.

+ +

Extending from this point, we may note a common tensive +relationship between extra-ritual assertions of hegemony over +performance on the one hand, and on the other a concomitant +counter-balancing of the manipulation of ritual as a site for +resistance. Simply put, it is often the case that as authoritative +discourse tries to increase control over what happens within ritual +performance externally, resistant elements become increasing +empowered within performance and have greater efficacy without. In +an RPG context specifically, it seems not unlikely that +increasingly emphatic assertions of hegemonic control of +appropriate play and in-game discourse will tend to evoke +increasing resistance within play, which is to say that players +within the game will tend to challenge strong norms asserted by the +game-master (or the game text, the received tradition of +appropriate play, etc.) the more forcefully they are expressed. One +classic example returns us to Advanced Dungeons and Dragons: +the more Gary Gygax asserted his authority and authenticity in +laying down constraints about "the right way to play," the more +particular groups and players were drawn either to revise the game, +to play other games, or to challenge Gygax's principles from within +play. With respect to more ordinary assertions of authority, e.g. +"railroading,"[21] the more overt the +railroading the greater the tendency to resist; that is, if GM +railroading involves providing genuine incentives to follow the +predetermined plot structure, resistance may be minimal, while if a +GM simply blocks all choices but the "correct" one through ad +hoc and increasingly ridiculous means (deus ex machina maneuvers, etc.), players may find themselves led to beat their heads against the imposed limitations rather than find creative and enjoyable means by which to "play along."[22]

+ +

My point is not simply that strong formulations of norms in play +style and social interaction may produce the reverse of the desired +effect, though this is worth consideration. Rather, I wish to +emphasize that semiotic manipulation within play reacts to +functions in the given structural context, such that assertions of +social or technical norms naturally constitute important objects of +gameplay contestation. As in initiation ritual, the imposition of +social structures through such means as sacra or rules +systems demands challenge and consideration within ritual; +attempts to eliminate such semiotic manipulation within ritual +liminality, including gameplay, can only provoke two kinds of +response: resistance to the norms or elimination of ritual +effectiveness. Thus the nature of gameplay as ritual activity +necessarily determines its focus on manipulation and challenge of +given structures.

+ +

If RPG play can be read as reactive, it is neither mechanical +nor passive, and a great strength of both structural and practice +theories is the emphasis on dynamism in the relationship. If on the +one hand ritual imposes upon its participants a series of +interlinked structures and motivated signs, to which participants +are then forced to react by the normative view of ritual activity +and thought, at the same time those participants actually have +considerable flexibility in doing so. This is where some of the +earlier Marxist approaches overestimated the hegemony of +authority-structures: they assumed that the imposition not only of +signs but of structures through which to think them fully +constrained initiates (for example) to conform to a rigid status +quo; ritual could thus be read as a means of combating in advance +nonconformity, resistance, and the potential for revolution, +because it mystified the arbitrary, cultural nature of authority +structures by transposing them into tradition, and then +constructing a notion of tradition as natural and "given" in nature +or meta-nature (the gods, the spirits, etc.). But as numerous +critics of such ritual theories noted, this implies a special +division in society: there are those who create +authority-structures, who to some degree know that these structures +are merely inventions, and then there are those who are simply +slates inscribed upon by such authority structures through ritual; +the only flexible part of this formulation would be the first part, +in that it is possible that authorities too are entirely subject to +what they take to be given structures and traditions, such that +everyone is enslaved by ignorance of the functions and methods of +their own society. Good Marxism this may be, but it does presume +that people are entirely controlled and dominated by what they are +told, and never think flexibly.[23] In fact, +the approach deconstructs itself: if this is all true, how can the +academic analyst spot the problem at all? Presumably, academia +would constitute a constrained discourse that recognizes itself as +an object of critical analysis, in which case how did it become so? +The logical conclusion essentially would assert that the members of +critical academic discursive circles are a different sort of people +than those constrained by discourse, such that radical elitism +becomes a naturalized and normative structure -- precisely that +which the analysis desired to challenge in the first place.

+

In RPG's, flexibility is relatively obvious: few if any players +or observers would assert that gameplay is so constrained as to +prevent flexibility in semiotic manipulation of any kind. At the +same time, this creativity is still generally taken as a marker of +the distinctive or even unique character of RPG's. Quite apart from +the fact that this entails RPG theorists' participation in the +reproduction of authoritarian notions of ritual behavior, a complex +logical circle inserts itself in this understanding, common it +seems from the inception of RPG's as a discrete ritual form. With +the explication of this circularity, it will become clear why I +emphasize an analogical parallel to liminality in religious +ritual.

+ +

Creativity as Circularity

+ +

Overt acceptance of creativity and flexibility within RPG play +is indeed unusual in ritual. Importantly, however, it is not the +existence of such dynamism that marks a distinctive ritual +mode, but the fact that participants of all levels recognize and +accept this. By contrast, the modern Catholic Eucharist permits +considerable scope for flexibility and creativity in each and every +performance, by every participant at every level, but this is not +commonly accepted as either present or desirable; we might note +that the common disdain for Neopagan ritual invention among +relatively knowledgeable mainstream religious Americans includes +(but is not limited to) a distinction between "real" or +"traditional" ritual as opposed to those which Neopagans "make +up."[24] In this context, we can read the +ideological split as a claim against creativity within the special +context of ritual, importantly different from how RPG discourse +consciously constructs itself as creative and dynamic.[25]

+ +

To put this in terms of initiation, we find that the liminal +phase involves flexibility and invention on the parts of not only +the neophytes but also the entire society; at the same time, such +flexibility is commonly denied by the hegemonic discourse, as +already indicated by the tendency to conceive of neophyte +interaction with sacra as "instruction" rather than creative +engagement. Similarly, we find numerous discourses about +carnivalesque ritual formulated in terms of what has been called a +"hydraulic" theory: carnivals act as valves, allowing participants +to "blow off steam" rather than harness it to antisocial ends. By +permitting marginal elements of society to "act out" their +frustrations, authorities retain control of real power and maintain +the stability of those they dominate. Real challenge or engagement +with social rules is annulled, because it "doesn't count" in ritual +space.

+ +

Thus the demarcation of ritual space and time -- that formal +construction of division between ritual and everything else central +to what Catherine Bell calls "ritualization" -- lends itself to +protection of social norms. In RPG's, with their discourse of +invention and creativity, such protection seems non-present or at +least marginal. But this accords with expectations: by asserting +that RPG gameplay constitutes a protected space in which to deal +with the limited range of issues at stake in a given game, RPG's +naturally tend to assert not only that gameplay permits flexible +engagement with social norms but also that the effects of exterior +norms on players do not play a significant role in the game. For +example, the protection of RPG's allows a male player to play a +female character, a heterosexual player to play a homosexual +character, without its being read as relevant to the player's +out-of-game identity; we do not, that is, assume that a male player +who chooses a female character is actually conflicted about his +sexual identity. At the same time, this entails that the female +character in question, if she appears as a chauvinist stereotype, +cannot "officially" be read to imply chauvinism on the part of the +player.

+ +

While for majority players -- white, male, middle-class -- this +freedom may not appear problematic, it entails real difficulties +when (especially) female players enter the game situation, most +especially if such players have a romantic and/or sexual +affiliation with another player. Indeed, female players often find +themselves read as "not serious," "just the GM's girlfriend," and +so forth. When such players experience events in game-time, whether +plot events effected by other players or overtly structural +elements constructed within the game rules, their responses may be +read as problematic for in-game discourse. To take an extreme +example, if a female player reacts (in-character or out, in-game or +out) negatively to a rape scene perpetrated upon her (or any) +character, some groups will interpret this as a failure by the +player to recognize the lines separating gameplay from ordinary +discourse; more insidiously, perhaps, the player may feel that she +should not overtly respond negatively, precisely because she +accepts that other players grant this absolute division of +discursive spaces, de-legitimizing her own emotional response as +confirmation that she is not a "serious" player.

+ +

The common RPG theoretical response to such a situation, at +least in recent times, is to grant the legitimacy of the player's +response. But this is formulated as a special case: certain types +of in-game discourse "cross the lines" or "go overboard." By +implication, normative in-game activity does not require +such responses, and thus this theoretically symptomatic treatment +of the situation continues to emphasize that gameplay constitutes a +protected space by constructing new social-contract rules to +prevent specific problems. That is, theoretical criticism of the +rape situation proposed above amounts to this: RPG groups and games +ought to have rules that say that players' characters cannot be +raped. But this misses the point. On the one hand, it constrains +RPG discourse to a limited range of social issues, making +commentary and criticism of rape (for example) simply a prohibited +discourse, undermining the very dynamic freedom which is supposed +to permit a player to deal with situations that he or she would or +could not encounter in real life; on the other, it retains and +protects the hegemony of RPG discourse as something within which +players may not respond personally or emotionally by making those +situations in which such responses are legitimate into abnormal +cases.

+ +

Continuing the comparison to initiatory ritual in particular, we +have here an extra-ritual response to contingent historical +circumstance through limitation. In the case of the Bemba girls' +initiation mentioned above, let us suppose that a girl responds to +the figurine by saying, "If I become like the figurine, the white +organizations that provide support and health services will give +extra assistance even outside of infant care; therefore for my +family in the current situation the appropriate answer to the +riddle is that I should throw over tradition and use pregnancy to +create a cargo-cult reciprocity with whites."[26] Here we see a creative, dynamic response to the symbolic structures proposed, but with an ultimate response at odds with the hegemonic intent. An obvious counter-response would add additional symbols and instructions to prevent this response by future neophytes, and perhaps provide extra-ritual instruction of this particular neophyte so as to annul the validity of her solution.

+ +

In RPG ritual discourse, the same structure of constraint +through piecemeal placation consistently obtains. To the extent +that RPG players understand themselves as creative and dynamic, not +controlled by encultured norms, they are enabled to reproduce +challenged norms within gameplay as protected space. That is, the +liberation and protection afforded players with respect to uneasy +social issues tends only to enable players who (often +unconsciously) represent majority discourses to reenact the +violence of those social categories in a hegemonically protected +fashion, defended by the structure of the RPG as separated and +distinct. If the white, male player's black, female character +enacts stereotypes, the notional freedom explored merely reproduces +dubious social norms, an effect seen overtly in fantasy and science +fiction book cover images (e.g. the work of Boris Vallejo), with +their manly men with weapons and voluptuous women in revealing +clothing.

+ +

To shift the modalities of play from reproductive to +transformational may be desirable, but it is unclear how this might +be effected. While RPG ritual liminality permits exploration, its +structured and constrained nature acts to defend stereotype +reproduction as "freedom" while blocking challenges thereto as +failures of player technique or understanding. Logically, practical +game-construction cannot merely strive to forestall deployment of +stereotypes, but must work actively to undermine their function +within gameplay; it is here that critical formation of +counter-hegemonic moves (e.g. feminist game design) must focus +effort, at the same time recognizing that simply formulating a game +that pre-determines the boundaries of appropriate and inappropriate +structure challenges cannot achieve anything.

+ +

Disjuncture and Continuity

+ +

As we have seen, the liminal phase of passage ritual, or more +broadly the "sacred space" effected by social disjunctures +outlining any ritual practice, affords a privileged site for +examination and contestation of extra-ritual concerns; this sacred +space in RPG's is found in gameplay, often understood as a "safe" +place for exploration, and distinguished from other active spaces +by a number of explicit and more subtle formations. So far, I have +focused on how such privilege and safety becomes a double-edged +sword, permitting some forms of experimentation while denying +others legitimacy, and also undercutting the radicalism of +experiment to render it harmless. But as with any ritual, the +protective structures that reproduce hegemonic discourse formations +are themselves genuinely threatened by in-ritual challenges. It is +worth considering how such challenge may be formulated through +semiotic manipulation in gameplay.

+ +

In The Savage Mind, Claude Lévi-Strauss suggested that ritual tends to be conjunctive, as opposed to the disjunctive, +classifying emphasis of myth. His meaning is best expressed, +perhaps, in a discussion of the difference between game and +rite:

+ +
All games are defined by a set of rules +which in practice allow the playing of any number of matches. +Ritual, which is also 'played', is on the other hand, like a +favoured instance of a game, remembered from among the possible +ones because it is the only one which results in a particular type +of equilibrium between the two sides. The transposition is readily +seen in the case of the Gahuku-Gama of New Guinea who have learnt +football but who will play, several days running, as many matches +as are necessary for both sides to reach the same score. This is +treating a game as a ritual.... Games thus appear to have a +disjunctive effect: they end in the establishment of a +difference between individual players or teams where originally +there was no indication of inequality. And at the end of the game +they are distinguished into winners and losers. Ritual, on the +other hand, is the exact inverse: it conjoins, for it brings +about a union ... or in any case an organic relation between two +initially separate groups....[27]
+ +

The point is that a game like soccer or Monopoly takes a group +of people not initially distinct in game terms and divides them +into at least two classes (winners and losers). By contrast, the +ritual performance of soccer described here does not conclude until +all players have been made equivalent; latent in Lévi-Strauss's formulation is that the natives project their preexisting social divisions upon the game by picking teams upon non-arbitrary given grounds. For example, they might decide that each team will be made up exclusively of initiated men of a given moiety, so that the teams represent moieties; through the ritual process, they then construct a situation in which this difference is asserted as non-absolute. This is arguably the point of the modern Olympic +Games: national participation through representative athletes is +supposed to assert that all men are brothers, that superiority is +individual and not national, and so forth.

+ +

Setting aside the numerous quite serious problems with L +vi-Strauss's theory with respect to ritual as a broad range of +behaviors -- indeed, I doubt he intended that it be taken as a +general principle in the first place -- we can see this dynamic at +work in a major RPG discourse, particularly that which emphasizes +the collaborative nature of play. As we have already seen, in Kim's +Collaborative Storytelling model "play is understood as multiple +authors producing a single discourse and a single story." The same +model discourages secrets among participants, and judges success +partly by whether "all of the participants significantly +contributed to that discourse." Following up Lévi-Strauss's notion, we can see here a striving toward conjunction and unity, as against disjuncture in the form of "winning" or limited player dominance of the discourse. In other words, one of the distinctive +characteristics of RPG's as opposed to more traditional games is +precisely that they fit a ritual rather than a game model.

+ +

At the same time, a more serious deployment of structural and +practice perspectives on the semiotic elements of both religious +and RPG ritual must recognize the oversimplification inherent in +this conjunction/division split. First, that there are no winners +or losers cannot be accepted uncritically. Precisely because a +dominant RPG discourse denies such divisions, we must consider the +possibility that play imposes upon players a notional unity +by denying the option to seek or even accept division. After all, +if we extend this rhetoric of unity, it can be taken as a claim +that in-game, all players are equal and in fact equivalent, which +may be deployed strategically by situationally- or +socially-dominant players to assert that complaints are anti-group +and thus mark bad players. In this context, the discourse of +collaboration and unity can support the problematic use of +hegemonic authoritarian or oppressive discourse, as discussed +previously in the context of chauvinism.

+ +

But not all such challenge necessarily supports authority or +serves as an instrument of oppression. To take a simple example, +the rhetoric of unity and conjunction may be deployed to block +favoritism or to identify problem players as those who either try +to dominate play or refuse to participate at all. Especially in the +latter case, the unifying effect of ritual process may enable a +group to draw out a timid player, emphasizing further the liminal +"safety" of game space.

+ +

More interestingly, however, the conjunctive nature of ritual +process may act together with the aggregation of ritual closure to +effect genuine social alteration. A play group is often formed on +an ad hoc basis, where some players do not know each other +well outside of the game context, and indeed may not have met. +Through successful ritual collaboration in a shared space +understood as distinct from other social spaces, a new social group +forms, enabling friendship and other forms of collaboration that +refer to the constructed game-space rather than to other social +structures. That is, precisely because gameplay is at once divided +from other social spaces and nominally focused upon a limited set +of predetermined issues, and because such rituals do act +conjunctively by taking given divisions and annulling "winner and +loser" categorizations, gameplay tends naturally to formulate an +alternative social framework. Particularly for those who find +mainstream, dominant social frameworks problematic or dangerous, +gameplay can constitute a controlled social space in which to +succeed and seek liberation.

+ +

However psychologically supportive and validating such an +alternative framework may be -- and it is worth noting that some +psychologists have pointed to RPG's as valuable for +self-exploration and validation among (especially) teenagers -- +from a broader social perspective we should recognize that this +essentially entails a continuation of the initiation discourse. +Turner notes that it is common that the neophytes, whatever their +extra-ritual socio-economic status, are as part of the liminal +leveling considered equivalent. While friendships among those +simultaneously initiated often extend beyond the ritual situation, +social status, factored out within liminality, is not particularly +affected by such friendships. That is, it could be argued that the +shared space of ritual, although it permits and even demands +reflection upon social inequalities, ultimately acts not only to +affirm these inequalities as natural and given, but also deludes +those in inferior positions into thinking that they achieve a +measure of equality that is in fact nonexistent. From this +perspective, we can see that RPG's may act simultaneously to affirm +and assist players psychologically, and at the same time discourage +them from acting upon or challenging the inequities of modern +social dynamics. Anecdotally, at least, we seem to see this in +stereotypes of RPG players as "geeks" or "nerds" who, by +participating in gaming, in conventions, and generally in a +subculture, are thereby diverted or distracted from real social +action or mobilization. To formulate a rather overstated Marxist +reading, the recognition of RPG's as ritual is confirmed by its +ability to serve as an opiate for the oppressed.

+ +

Conclusions: Toward an RPG of Practical Reason

+ +

At present, RPG theory primarily acts as an exterior, supporting +discourse referred toward the "real thing" -- gameplay. Ironically, +criticism of some RPG theory as irrelevant or trivial, on the +ground that it is not practical for play goals, actually serves to +grant power and hegemony to theoretical discourse: the very fact +that gameplay so strongly formulates the barriers between in-game +and out-of-game, play and system, in-character and +out-of-character, reproduces the mystification of theory's active +role in discourse construction. As a way of concluding this +somewhat dispersed series of analyses, then, I should like to +propose some new directions in theory, directions which I think +contain the possibility for real practical change.

+ +

First, theory must recognize a distinction between analysis and +synthesis. While it is important that such a distinction not become +the object of fetishism, as it in a sense already has, the +mystification of the aspect of RPG's traditionally associated with +hierarchy and power can only lead to abuse on the one hand, +analytic sterility on the other. As Kim points out for +Collaborative Storytelling, "It considers the rules system to be +outside of the meaningful product. Rules are judged on their +results for shared play, not on how the participants view the +process." This perspective sets aside the impact of system and +theory upon gameplay, asserting player freedom and collaboration +instead. While such a view may seem liberating, and indeed may be +so as against old-fashioned GM authoritarianism, it implicitly +claims that RPG performance occurs outside of structure, not in +reaction to it. But since social structures and presumptive +traditions of play at the least are necessarily at work in RPG +performance, there can be no doubt that gameplay has a structured +context; were this somehow not the case, and gameplay fully +liberated from exterior structures, there could be no possibility +of conflict or its resolution, as no player would have a context +within which to react conflictually. Thus while a particular group +or style may wish to formulate a liberated play modality as ideal, +this has an ideological function and serves to replace one +authoritarian structure (GM authority, game-system authority, etc.) +with yet another. In order for theory to advance the improvement of +gameplay, then, it must work to distinguish between analytical +activities and constructive or synthetic ones, and furthermore +strive to bring this to consciousness within actual play.

+

Second, RPG theory needs to take seriously the contributions and +insights of other disciplines. Eventually this should be a +reciprocal engagement, but this will require acceptance by academic +and other mainstream intellectual theorists; insofar as RPG theory +can support such a move, it must do so by engaging actively and +constructively with such theorists, in language acceptable to their +traditions. In the meantime, RPG theory must set aside its tendency +to see its analytical object as unique and thus special. William +James reminds us forcefully,

+ +
The first thing the intellect does with +an object is to class it along with something else. But any object +that is infinitely important to us and awakens our devotion feels +to us also as if it must be sui generis and unique. Probably +a crab would be filled with a sense of personal outrage if it could +hear us class it without ado or apology as a crustacean, and thus +dispose of it. "I am no such thing," it would say; "I am MYSELF, +MYSELF alone." [28]
+ +

James's point is clear: while we are willing to make all sorts +of classifications within RPG's, we tend to think of RPG's +as unique and thus special. But "unique" is simply a logical +category that can be applied to any object of analysis supporting +formulation as a categorical object. If RPG's are unique, +that does not mean they are not ritual, or social behavior; it only +means that they can, from a particular perspective, be formulated +as having some distinctive characteristics. So long as RPG theory +continues to formulate itself otherwise, as unique in an illogical, +strong sense with respect to other behaviors, such theory will +continue to be marked by two unfortunate properties: first, it will +be perpetually in the position of many religious discourses of +having continually to defend its boundaries against the incursions +of other discourses and analytical methods; and second, it will be +incapable of real analytical force because it has built into its +very self-definition essentialist biases that again require +constant and vigilant defense. Arguably, the tendency of much RPG +theory toward rigid hierarchization and toward discourse-circle +hegemony would thus constitute a parallel to more obviously +religious dogmatisms.

+ +

Third, RPG theory requires models founded upon a productive and +reproductive, as opposed to interpretive and receptive, situation +of narrativity. Two obvious examples, Kim's already-cited article +and Liz Henry's "Power, Information, and Play in Role Playing +Games,"[29] are admirable moves toward +intelligent application of exterior models, but find themselves at +odds with the purposes of those models. Kim's awareness of this +problem is clear:

+ +
There are many differences between RPGs +and books [upon which the formalist model is built], but some are +more subtle than others. It is clear that RPGs have no division +between author and reader. Each participant both expresses and +interprets. Further, this calls into question what the story is. +The answer depends in part on what we define as the discourse or +"text" of RPG play.
+ +

These questions are essential, and require answers; indeed, even +cursory examination of recent RPG theory reveals a constant concern +to formulate authorship, textuality, and so forth with respect to +RPG's. But these debates mostly run around in circles, die out, and +get revived with new energy but no really new formulations, with +endless repetitions of the cycle. The problem, in short, is that +formalist and hermeutical models are founded on confronting the +genuinely difficult problem that interpreting a text is not +comparable to a conversational situation; intricate and elegant +strategies are deployed to make sense of how we make sense of text, +if you will, given that it is not conversation. But RPG's +are conversational; the problem does not arise directly. By +attempting to read RPG's through such lenses, we are caught in +circularity: conversations are like books (except that they are not +face-to-face), and books are like RPG's (except that the latter are +face-to-face). Why not drop out the sidetrack and recognize RPG's +as active, dynamic, conversational forms of symbolic +manipulation? I have attempted a beginning here, but a great deal +more needs to be done. [30]

+ +

Fourth, stemming from the last point, RPG theory must take into +account the social issues at stake and at work within the smallest, +most apparently arbitrary activities of play. That so much +discussion of "problem games" focuses on social difficulties -- +problem players or GM's, paradigmatic clashes, etc. -- reveals that +the central issues in play are social. To the extent that RPG +theory tends to work hierarchically, from top-down (broad +categorical strokes before specific game issues), it mistakes the +actual dynamics by incorporating its analytic framework into +problems needing resolution; this is another means by which +theoretical discourse mystifies itself and its contributions, and +it can most effectively be challenged from within theory +itself.

+ +

Fifth, RPG theory must, through engagement with broader social +theory -- particularly the mode of anthropological theory labeled +"practice" -- become aware of symbolic and structural manipulation +as a strategic part of everyday life, a set of techniques also +employed (and refined) within the specifically RPG context. This +occurs at every level of play; there can be no absolute divisions +between in-game and out-of-game, for the same reasons that the only +absolute division between a Catholic Eucharist and a Catholic's +everyday life is an ideological one.

+ +

Finally, RPG theory must move beyond hierarchical classification +as a technique. There is no question that classification is a +valid, even necessary goal for serious analytical work. But as in +so many disciplines, most notably the study of religion, the +tendency is to use the scientific character of classification to +construct an aura of objectivity; we see this in discourses that +stress "correctness". The natural upshot of such an endeavor is to +reify the categories as ontologically legitimate, mystify their +constructed character, and thus naturalize the authority-claims +latent within such structures. Classification must recognize that +the object does not exist outside of the construction of taxa; +"religion" or "ritual" do not exist, but are means by which +historically situated and motivated people classify certain +behaviors. Similarly, "RPG" is not a thing, a singular object, +unique and discrete from others, and Narrativist orientations do +not differ from Simulationist or Gamist ones except insofar as we +construct them so. Classification is the basis of +comparison, not of truth or certainty. Until RPG theory +takes on board serious recognition of its comparative nature, it +will remain an ideology and not a science.[31]

+ +
+ + +

Notes

+ +
    + +
  1. E.g. Ron Edwards' game Sorcerer (Chicago: Adept Press, 2001; see www.sorcerer-rpg.com).
    2. + +
  2. Edward's views have been +formulated in several articles, all of which may be found at The +Forge ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com). Apart from the library articles, a useful recent discussion started by Edwards is "The whole model - this is it" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8655).
    3. + +
  3. Stable URL: +http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html
    4. + +
  4. Stable URL: rec.games.frp.advocacy.
    5. + +
  5. The Forge has hosted lengthy +discussions of how RPG play is like playing in a band (with the +gamemaster playing bass), how RPG play is like playing a pinball +machine, and so on. Examination of the range of such discussions +will show the two discursive thrusts: the drive for clarification +and precision in the metaphor, and the extension of the analogical +range. As a rule, such discussions end when those who find the +analogy helpful have formulated a version that is clear to them +personally, when those who do not find it so grow tired of trying, +and when most become frustrated with those who try to extend the +analogy to ludicrous, literalist extremes. These discussions are +not worthless -->analytical models, such metaphors must be +formulated rigorously, with their boundaries precisely set. For +more casual discussion, on the other hand, one of the best +qualities of a forum like the Forge is that it permits this sort of +open speculation and play; indeed, a close analysis of the ludic +dimension in such RPG discourse would be valuable for understanding +the interrelations of RPG play and theory.
    6. + +
  6. On the issue of the "unique" as +special, and its problematic applications to serious analysis +within classificatory discourse, see Jonathan Z. Smith, "Fences and +Neighbors." Imagining Religion (Chicago: University of +Chicago Press, 1982), 1-18.
    7. + +
  7. See Ronald L. Grimes, +Beginnings in Ritual Studies (Washington, D.C.: University +Press of America, 1982); Victor W. Turner, Dramas, Fields and +Metaphors (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UP, 1974); Turner, From +Ritual to Theater: The Human Seriousness of Play (New York: +Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1982). Essentially all of +Grimes' work work since the late 1970's fits the model am +describing here, as part of what he has dubbed "ritual studies". +Turner's work, however, took a strictly performative and dramatic +turn; his earliest works, while excellent, do not directly fit this +model, and can only be made to accord with the performative +perspective with considerable hindsight and, I think, +distortion.
    8. + +
  8. See Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966); Lévi-Strauss, The Naked Man, trans. John and Doreen Weightman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990); Sherry Ortner, "Theory in Antropology Since the Sixties", Comparative Studies in Soiety and History 26.1 (Jan. 1984), 126-66; Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual +Practice (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992).
    9. + +
  9. The French idea of bricolage is not directly translatable into English; we simply have no category quite like it. The bricoleur is a hobbyist of a sort, but elevated to a high artistic level. For the Lévi-Strauss formulation, see The Savage Mind, chapter 1, "The Science of the Concrete"; the translation is execrable, and those with a good command of French would be well advised to read La pensée sauvage, chapter 1, "La science du concret."
    10. + +
  10. Stable URL: http://194.29.64.17/thecog/movie.html
    11. + +
  11. I shall not go into detail on +hermeneutics, as it is founded primarily on philosophical +negotiation of the problems of interpretive reception, problems +relevant but not central to the analysis of RPG's. On this model, +see Paul Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981). See also Umberto Eco, Interpretation and Overinterpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge +UP, 1992); and Hans Georg Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1977). Also useful, though less approachable, are Eco's The Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1994) and A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1979).
    12. + +
  12. A central tenet of hegemonic +Forge theory.
    13. + +
  13. See Mike Holmes, "Mike's +Standard Rant #3: Combat System" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2024). Holmes' essential point is this: "If you don't want combat to be the focus of a game, do not include special rules for it. Especially if you don't include special rules about anything else." This "standard rant" has been discussed periodically on the Forge.
    14. + +
  14. It should be pointed out that +the Forge "system matters" principle does not claim that other +elements do not matter; the question is one of emphasis, and is +here an analytical distinction rather than a polemical one.
    15. + +
  15. See iago [Fred Hicks], "Long +Pig the RPG: Would You Play It?" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6091).
    16. + +
  16. Jonathan Z. Smith, "Fences +and Neighbors," Imagining Religion: From Babylon to +Jonestown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 1-18. +The polythetic system is hardly perfectly objective, but as Smith +argues persuasively, it is less inherently inclined toward +normative claims and slippages than the monothetic, taxonomic sorts +of systems founded on hierarchy.
    17. + +
  17. Although see his Deeply +Into the Bone: Reinventing Rites of Passage (Berkeley and Los +Angeles: University of California Press, 2002), the purpose of +which is explicitly to formulate ritual theory as a constructive +discourse for people wishing to invent or reinvent their own rites +of passage.
    18. + +
  18. The commensuration of ritual +discourses and discourses about ritual, between ritual in fact as +analytical discourse and academic analysis as in fact ritual, is +outside the scope of the present paper. The argument, founded upon +a grammatological engagement with practice, performance, and +structural analysis, juxtaposed to early modern magical practice +and the theoretical dramaturgy of Zeami's Nö, will be part of the +core of my book Magic in Theory and Practice, where I do not +connect it with RPG's per se.
    19. + +
  19. Arnold van Gennep, The +Rites of Passage, trans. Monika B. Vizedon and Gabrielle L. +Caffee (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961); Victor Turner, +"Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Phase in Rites de +Passage," Proceedings of the American Ethnological +Society, Symposium on New Approaches to the Study of Religion, +1964:4-20; Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and +Anti-Structure (Aldine de Gruyter, 1969); Turner, The Forest +of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, +1970).
    20. + + +
  20. "Betwixt and Between," 13, +citing Audrey I. Richards, Chisungu (London: Faber and +Faber, 1956), 209-10; the new edition is Richards, Chisungu: A +Girl's Initiation Ceremony Among the Bemba of Zambia (London: +Routledge, 1982).
    21. + +
  21. "Railroading," for which +there are numerous more or less equivalent terms, is the practice +of a GM essentially scripting the majority of plot events and +structures within a given play session or series of such. For +example, the GM may decide, prior to play, that he wants the PC +characters, all cowboys, to engage in an OK Corral-style gunfight +as the climax of play; when the PC's choose (via their players, of +course) to ride out of town to investigate a lost silver mine, the +GM uses various strategies to prevent them from doing this, because +he needs them in town in order for the gunfight to take place. Such +strategies range from subtle hints to overt assertions of +authority; a possible example would be to inform the players that +several of their horses are lame and cannot be ridden, then to have +no horses available at the town stable, then to ensure that nobody +in town will sell his or her own horse. By the time the players +have negotiated this many options, it is generally clear to +everyone (though very often not stated) that no matter what they +do, the PC's will be prevented from riding out of town.
    22. + +
  22. This point has been +emphasized in various RPG discussions. One common suggestion is +that if, for some reason, the GM actually needs her players +to follow a set of railroad tracks, the GM should react to repeated +attempts to jump the rails out-of-game, by saying something like, +"Okay, guys. I'm really not that prepared, actually, and I kind of +need you to go and do X. Is that okay?" While this may act +practically to achieve the desired effect, it depends upon the +rigidity of in-game/out-of-game divisions to acquire efficacy, and +cannot in itself be deemed a resolution of a more fundamental +difficulty.
    23. + +
  23. I would agree with these +thinkers that people never think truly independently, that is +unconstrained in any manner by encultured structures; the point +here is that even constrained thought and action has tremendous +flexibility and ranges of possibility, and is not simply scripted +or railroaded in the RPG sense.
    24. + +
  24. This division is reproduced +in strictly academic contexts not only with reference to ritual but +also to myth: myths are not "really" myths if they are invented for +that purpose (whatever such a purpose might be), just as rituals as +not "really" rituals if they are consciously invented so. The +intrusion of dubious ideas of consciousness, ontology, and category +only deflect from the central point: academics by formulating +critique in this fashion reproduce the ideology of authenticity +that authorizes and legitimates certain religious behaviors as +stable and non-inventive, as against the "wannabe" inventions of +recent "flakes" and "crazies". In a sense, we might see the +division here as between those who are creative within an +authorized framework and those who create their own framework. The +critique thus becomes reflexive, as indeed we should have suspected +it always was: the academic is really saying that she herself, by +being creative (doing new analytical work) within an authorized or +traditional framework (academic and disciplinary traditional +discourse) is legitimate and critical, while "crazies" (those +proposing unexpected critiques) fall outside the authorized +framework (do not have Ph.D.s, for example) and thus need not be +taken seriously.
    25. + +
  25. It would be interesting to +consider whether the apparent (though entirely anecdotal) overlap +between RPG communities and Neopagan ones might be at least partly +rooted here. In the absence of serious sociological data, I suspect +that an effective technique here would be close analysis of White +Wolf's various Neopagan-oriented games (especially Werewolf: The +Apocalypse and several of the Ars Magica supplements) +with respect to ritual/magical creativity, criticism of religion, +and criticism of what the authors refer to as "traditional" games +in their explanations of how their games are special and +different.
    26. + +
  26. This is a purely hypothetical +construct; I know of no such actual response among Bemba, and the +example is deliberately over-simplified for heuristic reasons.
    27. + +
  27. Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, 30-32; the reference on the Gahuku-Gama is to K. E. Read, "Leadership and Consensus in a New Guinea Society." American +Anthropologist 61.3 (1959): 429.
    28. + +
  28. William James, The +Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: Longmans, Green, +and Co., 1902), 9. See also Jonathan Z. Smith, "Fences and +Neighbors" for a penetrating discussion of the "unique" in +theoretical discourses.
    29. + +
  29. http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/liz-paper-2003/
    30. + +
  30. The same point might be made +about Edwards's dependence upon Lajos Egri's constructive models +for creative writing, models poorly suited to analytical +purposes. In essence, Edwards asserts that Egri's models fit RPG's, +except that the product is entirely different, authorship is +shared, and really the Threefold Model is analytic rather than +constructive. More recently, Edwards has noted that Egri's model +(especially with regard to "premise") only applies properly to +Narrativist play.
    31. + +
  31. Here I take science to be a +reflexive and self-critical attempt to differentiate and understand +its analytical objects. There can be no question that modern +science, in the usual sense, does not always fulfill these +criteria, in particular because it tends to claim objectivity +instead of constructed reflexivity. But given the need for such +reflexive awareness, the goals and ideals of science remain worthy +of theoretical discourse; see the introduction and first chapters +of Bourdieu's The Logic of Practice for a brilliant (if dense) +formulation of scientific analysis that recognizes and takes +seriously its own constructed nature. For comparison as a discourse +and a method, Jonathan Z. Smith's Imagining Religion should be the starting-point of any attempt at theoretical construction.
    32. + +
+ +
+ + +
+ + + + + \ No newline at end of file diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,1549 @@ + [1]The The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games + Forge [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles | + [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums + + Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games + + by Christopher I. Lehrich <[8]clehrich@bu.edu> + +Introduction + + Theoretical analysis of RPG's remains largely cut off from other + theoretical discourses, a situation that tends of itself toward sterility. + Two reasons for this isolation predominate. First, RPG theorists come from + a wide range of educational backgrounds, and as such have no shared body + of theoretical models or discourse on which to draw. Second, RPG theory + hopes to serve a constructive function, rather than a purely analytical + one: where the anthropologist for example traditionally understands + herself as necessarily exterior to the people and situations she analyzes, + the RPG theorist wishes to employ the results of his analysis to improve + his own gaming. + + The former difficulty need not concern us unduly. So long as theoretical + models from outside current RPG discourse receive adequate formulation and + explication in RPG terms, only an a priori hostility to other theoretical + constructs would dismiss them out of hand. It is worth considering that + such hostility does appear mutual -- that is, much RPG discourse + formulates itself in opposition to academic theoretical discourse, while + many academics continue to express disdain and scorn if not outright + hostility for role-playing games as an activity -- but resolution of this + can only come about in a historical situation as yet hard to imagine. Thus + I shall set the issue aside, stating only that I intend to explain fully + whatever theoretical constructs I deploy. + + The second problem, however, inheres in the nature of RPG's themselves. A + purely theoretical analytical model of RPG's, i.e. one without any + practical application whatever, will generally be received poorly, if at + all, within RPG communities. Indeed, even RPG theorists who go to + considerable lengths to formulate the practical implications of their + models are sometimes derided as airy pseudo-intellectuals. Fortunately, + some recent RPG publications by members of the theoretical community have + received accolades,[9][1] and this will presumably have the long-term + salutary effect of legitimizing theoretical work within the hobby at + large. + + At the same time, analyses of RPG's have come to formulate practical, + essential divisions and categories, and argued that these may be + unbridgeable. For example, Ron Edwards's tripartite GNS model rests upon + the notion that the three categories must remain discrete in order to + avoid paradigmatic clash and attendant misunderstandings among players, + leading in turn to poor play. That is, a group of players with strongly + Narrativist tendencies should be wary of playing a strongly + Gamist-structured game, or introducing into the group a player with such + an approach. While "hybrids" -- games that effectively serve more than one + of the three major play-types -- are conceived as possible, a central + point for Edwards is that Narrativist-oriented play is not well-suited to + Gamist-oriented games, and that groups who attempt such may need to revise + the game extensively to fit their needs. Similarly, a single player who + cannot conform to the paradigmatic norms of the group in which she plays + will probably find herself continually at odds with other players, leading + to social conflict; this player would be best advised to find another + game.[10][2] + + In his recent article "Story and Narrative Paradigms in Role-Playing + Games,"[11][3] John Kim argues that underlying such categories we find two + approaches: "Collaborative Storytelling" and "Virtual Experience." These + tend, like Edwards's categories, to remain divided. In what Kim calls + "Paradigm Clash," we find a naturally-occurring conflict between + perspectives: + + To the storytelling point of view, the experiential view seems to result + in an unnecessarily limited set of techniques. . . . Experiential play may + also seem passive, letting events happen rather than actively controlling + them. . . . [Conversely,] To the experiential point of view, storytelling + play seems to be creating a product for a nonexistent reader. . . . + Experiential players faced with storytelling play may complain about + breaking suspension of disbelief, or lack of depth. + + Conflict arising from disjuncture, narrative or otherwise, is not only + theoretical. Most gamers have experienced it, and one great strength of + Edwards's model (derived from the earlier Threefold Model developed in the + Advocacy newsgroup[12][4]) is to emphasize recognition and classification + as means to avoiding the problem. In both his and Kim's models, players + and groups who recognize their preferences in a categorical sense can + select games to fit their desires, or revise them so, leading to enjoyable + play with a minimum of fuss and trouble. + + While I support this general constructive point, and do not presently wish + to challenge the classification itself (a much-contested issue), I suggest + that a hard-line division within analysis leads toward weaknesses in a + general understanding and formulation of how RPG's really function. By + drawing on some theoretical models outside of RPG's, I would like to + propose a more unified model of RPG narrativity. + + A word about practicality: I do not, in the present article, formulate the + practical implications of this model for game design or play. I do not see + this as a weakness in itself: if the model serves analytically, it can + have synthetic value. But the two operations have at least a notional + distinction, and can operate well in isolation. If theory must face a + practical proof-critique, then all analysis is already crypto-synthesis; + logically speaking, there is thus insufficient distance postulated to + ensure the validity of the analysis. In short, without the ability to + distinguish at least heuristically between theory and practice, + theoretical work can never have real logical force, lending weight to the + criticisms mentioned at the outset. + + A further point: I intend to propose a ritual model for RPG play, based + upon recent understandings of ritual within the academic discourses of + anthropology, sociology, and history of religions. This model would appear + to fall squarely into the common discourse of analogy as theory, of + proposing that RPG's are "like" something else in order to help emphasize + a point otherwise unclear. Such analogical reasoning is founded upon an + essential methodological principle: the analogy is not identity. Thus + response to the proposal is constrained to two related moves. On the one + hand, one may move to expand the analogy, picking up additional aspects of + the metaphorized object or activity and further relating them to RPG's; on + the other, one may move to limit the analogy, demanding that the metaphor + not be taken to the point of absurdity.[13][5] + + Some find this mode of analysis useful, primarily in a creative sense. If + one "gets" the analogy, in its logical extension and intension, one thinks + about the hobby in a somewhat new way, perhaps leading to new creative + engagement with design or play. But if one does not "get" the analogy, the + tendency, naturally, is to dismiss it as unhelpful, or to reformulate it + endlessly until one does "get it." Either way, the reason to analyze such + a metaphor is generally synthetic, to create new ways of engaging with the + hobby. In other words, the proposal of yet another analogy serves no + analytic function. + + In proposing a ritual model of RPG's, I do not wish to add another analogy + to the lists. I do not mean that RPG play is like ritual at all; I mean + that it is ritual. Therefore classical and recent tools of ritual analysis + apply fully to RPG's, for analytical purposes, for making sense of RPG's + as something other than an entirely isolated hobby, indeed for seeing + RPG's as a human cultural product not particularly distinctive to modern + society. If to some this seems a claim that RPG's are not special and + extraordinary, I suggest on the contrary that this grants to RPG's a + legitimacy and "specialness" attendant upon their roots in wider humanity + and culture.[14][6] + +Ritual + + An obvious first step in proposing this model is the formulation of a + definition of ritual. Unfortunately, perhaps, such definitions have been + the focus of extensive debate for more than a century now, with no clear + end in sight. More models have been proposed of what ritual "is" than many + readers might believe. I have no intention of summarizing this whole + history; I will instead simply propose a starting-point. + + The above-mentioned disjuncture between "Collaborative Storytelling" and + "Virtual Experience" parallels, in a number of respects, two recent + emphases in ritual theory. + + Virtual Experience correlates well with Ronald Grimes's and Victor + Turner's focus on "performance," which ultimately amounts to a notion of + total involvement in ritual activity.[15][7] In ritual, according to this + perspective, humans engage the totality of hearts, minds, and bodies, + setting them to work creatively and dynamically to produce effects within + the social and mental worlds of the participants. Thus in zazen (Sitting + Zen), one does nothing but sit, generally in an approved posture; one's + mind and heart should be similarly focused on nothing but sitting, not in + the sense that one should think continuously, "I'm sitting," but rather + that one's mind should be in a state parallel to the body's state, + thinking nothing, resting, yet remaining alert and awake, receptive to + outside contact. In the Catholic Eucharist (Mass), to take a quite + different sort of example, liturgical tradition emphasizes that the + communicant should be fully involved in the process, such that when the + miraculous transformation of the substance of wafer and wine + (Transubstantiation) occurs, and when in fact the communicant receives + these into the mouth, it is not only one's body that receives the body and + blood of Christ, but the totality of body, mind, and soul. Thus this + understanding of ritual emphasizes what in RPG terms is called + "immersion," a total involvement in the activity. Failure on this score + would be seen as ineffective (zazen), impious (Eucharist), or shallow + (RPG). + + The Collaborative Storytelling model is less obviously commensurate with a + ritual model. Two directions, however, support this formulation. First, + there is Claude Levi-Strauss's structuralist interpretation of mythic and + ritual thought as bricolage, and second, there is the movement largely + associated with Pierre Bourdieu, Sherry Ortner, and Catherine Bell toward + understanding ritual as "practice" (or "praxis" in the more overtly + Marxist formulations).[16][8] + + Levi-Strauss's idea, in simple terms, is that cultures think like oddly + artistic hobbyists. [17][9] Imagine you have a basement full of stuff from + which to build whatever you like. You have bits of old machines, things + your neighbors threw out, scraps of wood, and tail-ends of old projects, + as well as the taken-apart bits of all your old projects. Now you decide + to build something, and you have some ideas -- aesthetic and practical -- + about how that should be done; you are very skilled and talented, and can + see possibilities in all sorts of things. But you do not have a Home Depot + available, or you consider it "cheating" to go buy things. At any rate, + you have to build the thing you're going to build from what you already + have in your basement. + + A nice example is a Rube Goldberg cartoon, though those are deliberately + silly. You fly a kite, and the kite string pulls a lever, and this pushes + an old boot, and that turns on your iron, and the iron burns some old + pants, and smoke goes into a tree, and.... A brilliant example is the + recent Honda advertisement called "the cog," which can readily be found on + the Internet.[18][10] The point is that one constructs an elaborate + machine out of bits and pieces already owned. + + Levi-Strauss's point is that each object used contains its own history; + that is, the iron has already been used for something and the bricoleur + then gives it a new use. The iron, to focus on the single example, is a + local source of heat; it can burn pants, or make a grilled-cheese + sandwich, and of course can press a shirt. But it cannot be a + refrigerator. And if, clever person that you are, you pull the heating + coil out of the iron for some project that requires a heating coil, your + iron now contains the history of its usage: it is now a heating coil and a + heavy weight. + + Every sign in myth and ritual, says Levi-Strauss, is like this iron, and + every living mythic culture is like this bricoleur. When faced with a + (social) situation, an intellectual problem of whatever kind, the + bricoleur begins by running through his memory (the basement) to see what + he already has that can be used to solve the problem. He then builds the + machine that solves the problem, in the process incorporating the entire + history of every object in question, and furthermore altering (however + slightly) each object so used; when he goes to build something else, later + on, the current project will be part of the history of each object. + + Technically speaking, every sign is thus constrained and yet free. On the + one hand, it is not constrained to the degree of a percept, a particular + contingent mental encounter with an actual object; this percept is what is + called a "perception" in the formalist model to which Kim refers. A + percept is entirely constrained, because when a person looks at a given + object on two successive occasions, his or her mental equipment has + altered -- to use a cliche, one cannot enter the same river twice. At the + same time, a sign is not fully liberated, as is a concept, an idea arising + in reaction to a particular person's connections to a percept: when I look + at the lamp on the table, I may think of my grandmother (who perhaps owned + a similar lamp), and thus "grandmother" is a legitimate conceptual link, + but no such connection may arise for you, and even if it did, it would be + a different grandmother. So a sign (Levi-Strauss means the Saussurean + version of the sign) is both constrained (the iron cannot be a + refrigerator) and free (it can do a whole range of things involving local + intense heat). In Levi-Strauss's linguistic analogy, this iron is a sign + in the same way as a word is: the word "iron" can mean a range of things + (the metal, the instrument) but it cannot mean anything at all. + Furthermore, this word only acquires meaning by its relations to other + words: if I say "iron," you do not know until I go on with "a pair of + pants" what sort of meaning I intend, even whether it is a verb or a noun. + + The other approach I want to bring up, "practice" theory, arises from a + number of rather technical difficulties with structuralism, and amounts to + an attempt to understand manipulation of signs and symbols in strategic + yet controlled ways. With respect to ritual, practice theory argues for a + continuity among behaviors, as against the disjuncture of ritual from + other modes of action. The signs used in ritual, that is, acquire meaning + from their extra-ritual contexts, and furthermore the special meanings + accorded to them in ritual carry over into other modes of life. + + From a practice perspective, every ritual contains within itself a number + of structures, just as in structuralism; these structures are in essence + the Rube Goldberg machines constructed by the bricoleur. As we know from + Levi-Strauss, the iron can be replaced by any other source of local heat, + since its only function in the machine in question was to create smoke by + burning a pair of pants. Thus the machine has a structure, requiring a + number of elements, but the specifics of which objects or signs are used + to fill those element-slots are open. What interests practice theorists is + strategic choice: how do people decide whether to use an iron or a space + heater? + + Broadly, the question in practice theory is how people choose, from a + limited range of culturally-available options, which techniques to apply + at a given moment. This depends on strategy: we want to maximize rewards + in a specific situation. But in order for strategy to work, we have to + play the game; that is, one cannot go outside the structure of the system + to manipulate signs as one likes, because to do so annuls the power of the + strategy in the first place. Thus every strategic use of signs is at once + a free, liberated exercise of power by a situated person, and at the same + time a contribution to keeping the system stable and intact without + significant change. The possibility of real change is thus undermined by + the very strategies which seek to change the system, because they depend + for their efficacy upon the structures in question. + + If the dichotomy between virtual experience and collaborative storytelling + parallels that between performativity and what we might call the practice + of bricolage, as yet this parallel serves no analytical or synthetic + function; it is once more an over-theorized and over-determined metaphor. + In addition, it is as yet under-explained, in that the theories may be + formulated but their application to the specific situation of RPG's is not + yet clear. In short, while we can see a parallel division within both the + two discourses and the two modes of behavior, this does not answer the + question: why are RPG's ritual? + +Semiotic Modeling of Ritual and RPG + + I have noted that Kim's use of the formalist + perception-discourse-conception model parallels the semiotic or structural + percept-sign-concept model. The difficulty with the formalist model for + this purpose, however, is that it is focused primarily on an interpretive + perspective, in which the analyst stands in a perceptive relationship to a + givendiscourse; like the circular model in hermeneutics,[19][11] the + central issue is how an interpreter can make sense of a discourse already + present, how we approach meaning through interpretation of texts and signs + already distant from their producers (authors). Thus a central + preoccupation of both formalist analysis and of hermeneutics has been the + analysis of ways in which the reading situation is not conversational, in + which reading a text is not having a conversation with the author. But in + RPG's, the situation is normally conversational in an obvious sense, and + thus this mode of analysis focuses on problems seemingly distant from + those in RPG's. + + The structural model of signification, from which the practice theory also + arose, is by contrast primarily concerned with the use of signs by a + current producer, a situation more obviously commensurable with RPG play. + The question, in short, is not how players read a text produced for them + by a game-master, but rather how the whole group in combination produces + signs and texts that they themselves read. The structural model of + signification fits well here, as the primary issue is to understand ritual + or mythic activity as a mode of discourse production. + + In ritual, participants manipulate a range of signs within a constrained + structure. That structure can change through such manipulations, but only + within narrow limits. Every Catholic Eucharist differs significantly, in + that the place, people, and physical environment of the ritual vary, but + this variation is officially read by participants as within a fixed + structure. The post-Vatican II use of the vernacular in the Mass, for + example, was at once a major transformation of the structure of the + ritual, and at the same time theorized as not radically transformative: + even in the vernacular, according to the Vatican II council, the Eucharist + retains its sacramental efficacy. From a semiotic perspective, the + linguistic alteration represents a new negotiation of liturgical language + as a discrete sign, where Vatican II agreed that the differences between + Latin and the vernacular should not be understood as an essential + structure of the ritual, but rather a relatively arbitrary sign amenable + to conversion without undermining ritual structure itself. + + At this same level of semiotic manipulation, we can see in RPG + reconstruction and revision a parallel analytical discourse. Taking to its + extreme the Edwards et al. formulation that "system matters,"[20][12] the + claim is a clearly structuralist one: transformation of system elements in + RPG's effects concomitant transformation of gameplay and orientation. For + example, a combat system dominated by so-called "realism", usually meaning + a high prioritization of real-world simulation in modes of action and + effects of violence, is not a discrete sign that may be removed from a + given game and replaced with an entirely stylized, anti-"realist" combat + system. Because such a system element is structural, it links to all other + parts of the total game structure and its transformation thus strongly + affects the whole. Mike Holmes has made this point well, arguing that a + "realist" combat system colors the whole game, such that all activity + occurs with reference to such a preoccupation with violence;[21][13] as + Kim puts it, + + [E]ven if a gun is never fired during the game session, the mechanics for + that [weapon] may influence the story -- because they shape how the player + conceives of guns within the fictional world. If the mechanics make all + guns exceptionally deadly, it increases the tension in a scene where a gun + appears even if the gun is never fired. + + Thus the "system does matter" principle argues that system elements are + motivated signs, and thus contain structure; their transformation affects + the totality of the structure. + + Between the Vatican II approach to language and the Forge approach to + system, however, we must recognize that the difference is not absolute; + furthermore, the distinction drawn is ideological, not "factual." There + can be no question, for example, that the use of the vernacular in + Catholic Mass has significantly changed the ways in which Catholics + experience the ritual; indeed, were this not so, there would have been no + reason to make the change in the first place. Vatican II asserted a matter + of aesthetic and theological priority: however far-reaching the effects of + this transformation, they argued, the essential core of the ritual + (transubstantiation in a broad sense) would not be affected, and whatever + aesthetic loss of force might be entailed by the loss of the affective + qualities of Latin (as traditional, foreign, ancient, powerful) would be + more than made up for by gains in broader spiritual involvement (through + understanding the liturgy intellectually, thus affectively through content + rather than through an aura of ritualism). Indeed, Martin Luther's move to + the vernacular was intended partly to combat the affective dimension of + Latin as itself powerful, arguing that this amounted to a kind of + fetishism or idolatry: the focus should be, he thought, on the content of + the words spoken, rather than on their linguistic medium. + + In Forge RPG theory, conversely, there is an implicit distinction between + system elements and other elements. It is certainly plausible that the + radical transformation of the combat system of Dungeons and Dragons from + the AD&D system to the recent d20 system considerably changes all elements + of gameplay, even those not overtly connected with combat; to replace the + combat system with a more freeform model akin to The Pool would presumably + effect further changes. But first of all, it seems clear that transforming + other elements of the game (setting, background, character generation) + would also entail drastic concomitant changes in gameplay; for example, + d20 games not based on Dungeons and Dragons genre and story conventions + exist in considerable numbers, and certainly do not play exactly the same + way as does Dungeons and Dragons. In short, it is unclear how one is to + classify elements into arbitrary and motivated, into those which can be + shifted without large-scale structural effects and those which + cannot.[22][14] + + More interestingly, RPG theorists (taken in the broadest sense) generally + make a series of divisions among elements in their games, and implicitly + argue for relative arbitrariness. That is, the notion that a "combat + system" is in any sense a discrete element, a discrete structure, should + not be accepted uncritically. If the Forge "system matters" principle + argues that even apparently discrete structures like this are motivated + and not arbitrary, we must recognize that this presumes a tendency to see + such systems as arbitrary, that they are apparently discrete. By + emphasizing that "system" is motivated and structural, the Forge theorists + further suggest a prioritization of elements, where motivation is taken as + superior to arbitrariness, so that theoretical analysis and synthesis + should focus on structure rather than sign. To put this differently, it is + implicit that RPG's consist of a vast group of interrelated elements, + falling into a natural hierarchical order; those nearest the trunk of the + tree, as it were, are relatively motivated and theoretically important, + while those nearest the branch-tips are more arbitrary and of lesser + theoretical weight. + + At the same time, few would argue that the arbitrary, non-structural signs + are trivial or unimportant. Such arbitrary elements as Color (essentially + affective set-dressing in imagined space) or snack choices by players are + not irrelevant, and may in particular instances be elevated to structural + elements: the game-concept Long Pig The Role-Playing Game made snack + choice and usage into a system element, while Ars Magica troupes + interested in medieval history may make set-dressing a primary focus for + play.[23][15] But the claim is that it is by shifting such elements from + arbitrary to motivated, from incidental to system, that they become + analytically important; in general, the analyst does not focus + classification on such elements, but rather begins with system. + + The important point here is that whether the issue is the relative weight + of meaningful dimensions of liturgical language or the classification of + structural elements in RPG's, the understanding is in both cases + ideological, intended not only to classify and analyze the ritual in + question but also to emphasize and push for improvement in the activity, + thus making normative claims about what the ritual should be about. + Precisely at this point, predictably, the ideological weapon of + "practicality" often comes into play in RPG discourse: because a more + purely analytic classificatory model (e.g. the polythetic comparative + model proposed for the humanities by Jonathan Z. Smith[24][16]) eschews + normative claims in the form of practical suggestions for game design or + ritual construction, the RPG theorist codes such classification as + impractical, thus valueless. This is equivalent to a Catholic liturgist + saying of an academic theorist's analysis that it is irrelevant because it + does not help formulate new dimensions in Mass. For the academic, however, + this is precisely the point: she may be interested to see the results of + her analyses serving a constructive use to the liturgist, she does not + wish to impose her perspective upon those she studies. Ronald Grimes, for + example, believes deeply that ritual theory can be of constructive value + for people seeking to formulate or reformulate their rituals, but as a + rule he does not tell them how to go about it.[25][17] A ritualist who + denounces Grimes for not proposing a "how-to" makes an entirely + ideological -- and ultimately incoherent -- claim: if Grimes does not + propose a "how-to," his work is useless; if on the other hand he does tell + ritualists how to "fix" their rituals, he will (and should!) be denounced + for telling others what they ought to believe. + + I have come a long way around, but the notion of RPG's as ritual can now + be asserted directly. Between RPG theory and RPG practice there exists a + dynamic relationship structurally identical to that between the theory and + practice of ritual within lived ritual communities. RPG theory, by this + logic, is only commensurable to academic theory and analytical method + through a deeper and more complex formulation; a relatively direct + correlation links RPG's to rituals in their actuality.[26][18] In order to + recognize this link, we must accept the duality of theory and practice as + integral to ritual performance itself; in other words, rituals are not + actions or activities performed in isolation from their cultural worlds, + but rather performances related to theoretical concerns in the same way as + game-play relates to the theory and system-construction that surrounds it. + + To put this differently, and more specifically, RPG play enacts theory, in + the sense that standing behind and prior to play is a series of + theoretical constructs: system design, GM notes, pre-play agreements and + social contract, genre expectations, and other theoretical tools. From + this perspective, RPG play acts out this prior structure; this is + equivalent to the old reading of ritual as acting out a liturgical text. + At the same time, the prior structure is to a degree open to challenge + within game play, and furthermore does not fully constrain particular game + actions, determining a range and a set of priorities rather than laying + out a script. As has been recognized for some decades now, the same can be + said of the most formal ritual: within apparent constraint there is scope + for contestation, not only of the various issues and questions related to + a particular ritual's situation within the social context, but also of the + ritual itself with all its symbols. + + Nevertheless, these two views are always in dynamic, creative tension: the + available range of manipulations of ritual signs stands within a + structural context only slightly accessible to interior challenge. For + example, radical transformation of Catholic liturgy cannot proceed from + within ritual performance itself, while small-scale local transformation + and contestation are fully expected. Radical transformation of liturgy, as + we have seen with Vatican II, must come from a theoretical discourse + exterior to performance. Conversely, such discourse acquires its ability + to challenge ritual structurally by sacrificing its analytical and + normative force at the local level; that is, while Vatican II could change + liturgical language, a structural change not available to a given + congregation at the moment of performance, the congregation can manipulate + particular performances to effect social meanings inaccessible to the + Vatican. For example, a particular wedding ritual may be used, at a given + moment and in a particular contingent historical situation, to enable deep + consideration within the congregation about the traditions of marriage, + divorce, and childbirth; these same issues can be discussed by the College + of Cardinals, as indeed they are, but not at the level of particular + people in particular time, since they can only formulate principles and + cannot apply them individually. + + Precisely the same dynamic obtains in RPG discourse. While a given + structural situation of notes, game system, theoretical models, and so + forth formulates a contextual model within which play occurs, such + structures do not extend to the level of individual particularity that is + central to play experience; that is, no game structure can be so logically + intensive as to dictate every action and speech by every participant at + all times, because to do so (even were it possible) would annul the entire + nature of the game as game. In fact, this limitation of theoretical + efficacy is granted the status of a virtue in Forge theory, through the + double formulation of "practicality" as a rational anchor and the + hierarchization of the relative motivation of system structures as + relative theoretical importance. Not surprisingly, we find that the usual + model of RPG discourse has it that performance (play) is the "real" anchor + of RPG's, and that theory is understood by its proponents as a potentially + liberating source of creativity and energy for "real" play. + +Liminality in Ritual and RPG: Preliminary Classification + + If we recognize in RPG's a dynamic interaction of theoretical and + practical reason, between structure and event, it is not clear how within + the practical sphere the active, strategic manipulation of signs actually + works. That is, we have seen that in religious ritual, situated people + deploy signs and structures within the context of larger, only partly + flexible structures, and that RPG play stands within a similar context; we + need now to understand how RPG players manipulate signs and structures for + strategic reasons, and how such strategies are both free and subject to + constraint. + + For this purpose, I would like to propose a specific analogy, that of RPG + play to a particular mode of ritual behavior. At the outset, however, I + should note that this is analogy and not identity; that is, while RPG is + (and is not merely like) ritual, it is nevertheless a distinct and + specific kind of ritual, one with no exact equivalent in other ritual + spheres. Thus this analysis must be effected within a deliberately + constrained comparative model, in order to evade the methodological + problems attendant upon the loose metaphoricities described in the + introduction. + + Every modern scholar of ritual is familiar with the liminal model of rites + de passage (passage-rites), originally proposed by Arnold van Gennep in + the eponymous book, and elevated to a critical analytical model in + especially the earlier work of Victor Turner.[27][19] In its classic + formulation by van Gennep, such passage-rites as initiations consist of + three stages. First, the neophyte is separated from the symbolic and + social structures which normally surround him; second, the neophyte passes + through a liminal phase, in which a series of new and powerful symbols + known as sacra are presented to the neophyte for consideration and + reflection; and finally, the neophyte is aggregated back into the social + structure, now in a new status. + + For example, in boys' puberty initiations, the boy is removed from boyhood + and society in general, perhaps secluded in a special initiation hut or + otherwise physically removed; in addition, he is visibly marked as + unclassified, e.g. having his head shaved, being painted black or white, + stripped of clothing, and so forth. Once separation from boyhood has been + effected, the neophyte is in a condition of liminality, "betwixt and + between," neither this nor that; neither boy nor man, he is + unclassifiable, a condition generally expressed through symbols marking + status as not participating in even a larger range of classes: he may be + dressed as an androgyne, marking him as neither male nor female (and + both); he may be forced to lie on the ground in a posture normal for + corpses, marking him as neither dead nor alive (and both); and so forth. + + In this liminal phase, various sacred symbols (sacra) are presented to the + boy and his co-initiates (such initiations usually involve several boys at + once), in the form of monstrous and bizarre masks, objects, or behaviors, + presented to the neophytes by already-initiated men. All these signs serve + as objects of thought, and are commonly distorted to emphasize reflection + on particular issues; for example, a figurine or dancing costume might be + shrunken and blurred in all its parts, but bear a wildly exaggerated + phallus, encouraging reflection on sexuality and male sexual identity. + + In an example discussed by Turner,[28][20] Bemba girls are presented with + an earthenware figurine of an exaggeratedly pregnant woman who carries + four infants, two at her equally exaggerated breasts and two on her back; + other features of this figure (arms and legs, for example) are shrunken to + stubs. The figurine in this case is accompanied by a riddling song about a + mythical midwife, and initiated women say the riddle's point is + straightforward: Bemba tradition demands that after giving birth women + abstain from sexual intercourse for a year. But a woman's husband may + object to this, and one's mother or mother-in-law may also demand that the + young woman get pregnant again, as the older woman wants grandchildren and + the husband wants sexual satisfaction. The point of the sacrum, then, is + that a wife who does not respect the tradition of abstention will become + like the figurine, dominated to destruction by babies and their care. + However much a woman may wish to give in to her husband or mother -- or + her own desires -- she must abstain. Thus the use of exaggerated symbols + in the liminal phase focuses attention on traditional culture, its reasons + and purposes, and ultimately promotes conformity. + + Once this instructional phase has concluded, aggregation usually begins + with more or less permanent markers of the new status, followed by social + presentation of the neophyte to the relevant communities (initiates, then + society at large). For example, a boy may be circumcised, marking him + permanently as an initiate (thus fully male), then dressed in men's + clothing (not unlike the old British practice of a boy's changing + permanently from short to long pants); the initiates are then presented to + the men, who welcome them into the men's longhouse or equivalent male + structure from which they were previously forbidden, and they depart this + house to be greeted by the women of the community as men rather than boys. + + The emphasis in the current analysis is, as for Turner, the liminal. There + is no difficulty spotting separation and aggregation in RPG's. Depending + on a particular group's habitual practices and preferences, separation may + begin at the front door of the host's house or apartment; this is + particularly apparent in more LARP-oriented play, where entry into the + broadly-defined play space is marked by a transformation of manner and + affect, even of clothing. But the most limited table-top play generally + marks a separation between game-play and out-of-game behavior. This is + perhaps most obvious negatively, in objections to players who do not focus + on the game and continually introduce "irrelevant" topics (television + shows, video games, current events, etc.) into play. + + I have marked the term "irrelevant" with quotes for a reason: these topics + are only irrelevant if and to the degree that a given group marks them so, + a point generally negotiated through piecemeal social contract means. The + LARP example, as an extreme of the Virtual Experience model, may tend to + object to any introduction of topics or behaviors not previously + formulated as "in-game." A smaller-scale variant of this general dynamic + is the issue of "in-character" as distinct from "out-of-character": in + some groups, speech should be performed in-character, in that anything + said by a given player should be taken as the speech of that player's + current character; sometimes this takes the form of linguistic constraint, + notably the demand that players speak of their characters in the first + person rather than the third. + + At a more strategic level, groups may make a sharp distinction between + in-character and out-of-character knowledge, raising as a problem whether + a player may act in-character upon knowledge presumably not available to + his character. That is, if Alan (playing Thror the Barbarian) knows that + Marler the Wizard (played by Barbara) has been captured by an evil + sorcerer and is held in a deep dungeon below the castle in which Thror now + stands, and Alan knows this because as a player he was present when + Marler/Barbara was captured, but Thror was not on the scene and thus has + no particular way to know what has occurred, a group must consider whether + Alan may have Thror head for the deep dungeon to rescue Marler. + + The question is complex, and may be handled strategically at any number of + levels. For example, some groups feel that, so long as Thror's rescue of + Marler would make an exciting story, the fact that Thror "knows" nothing + about the capture is irrelevant. Even within this perspective, however, we + might note a distinction between Alan having Thror "happen accidentally" + to head downwards, postulating an in-game coincidence to cover the + out-of-game implausibility, as against Alan having Thror declaim in + ringing tones that somehow he knows what has occurred, postulating a + backwards revision of plot and thus annulling disjuncture. Another + strategic choice, of course, would have Alan simply ignore what has + happened to Marler, since Thror is "actually" ignorant of it; Alan and + Barbara may hope that events will transpire such that Thror can rescue + Marler, but the interior logic of the game-world in this case does not + permit Alan's use of out-of-character knowledge to alter events in this + fashion. + + At a theoretical level, the same issues obtain, particularly in the + aesthetics of game design. Some groups prefer to keep rules and systems as + far in the background as possible, because they see such structures as + irrelevant to the game-world; that is, since Thror himself cannot be + imagined thinking that he has a +7 to hit but a -2 to damage if he swings + his fist, while he has a +3 to hit and a +6 to damage if he swings his + sword, the strategic choices made by Alan in selecting the appropriate + attack for the situation can be read as interfering with the interior + game-logic. Other groups see such activity on Alan's part as an essential + aspect of gaming as an activity. For example, one can treat a Dungeons and + Dragons "dungeon-crawl" as a competition by the players, as strategic + manipulators of an intricate mechanical system, against the Dungeon Master + who has similarly manipulated the system to construct a difficult + challenge; in this case, Barbara's choice to cast Magic Missile rather + than Fireball because she makes a trade-off between damage inflicted upon + a chosen target and the collateral damage which comes from the fireball + spell, not to mention the specifics of range, casting-time, and material + components, is anything but irrelevant: indeed, at one extreme, this may + constitute much of the fun of play. + + In any event, the problem of negotiating the bridge between in-character + and out-of-character is founded upon the structural separation effected at + the outset of ritual. The social aggregation at the close of play thus + amounts to an undoing of this separation: players step back from the + in-character world (to whatever extent they postulated themselves as in + it) in order to receive rewards or accolades, rehash enjoyable events, and + generally begin shifting from a relatively discontinuous and separated + game-time to an ordinary social event, itself marked eventually by the + dispersal of the participants to their everyday lives. + + We have already seen that within the liminal phase, the "game itself," + classification, and identity are sites of considerable contestation and + difficulty. But it is when we take into account the question of sacra and + response that the parallel to initiation becomes particularly valuable. In + particular, when we consider the interrelation of freedom and conformity, + i.e. the political nature of liminality, we can begin to dig under the + surface of gaming to discern the social relations and contracts which make + play possible. + +Liminality in RPG's: The Social Rituals of Play + + One of Turner's great achievements in the study of ritual was his + explication of the socio-political implications of ritual activity; while + he was hardly alone in formulating this general perspective, Turner has + the advantage for present purposes of having a relatively clear model that + does not depend on extensive prior reading in the literature of + anthropology or sociology. + + As liminality theory shaded into the origins of "practice" theory, it gave + rise to a stock type of analysis. The symbols of a given ritual, + particularly its liminal phase, would be explicated for purposes of + situation, giving sufficient data for the reader to make sense of the + further argument. The analyst would then attempt to demonstrate the + following dynamic at work: within the liminal phase, neophytes -- and by + extension, the society as a whole -- employ symbols and structures to + challenge, test, and even undermine the structures and norms of authority; + through the ritual process, however, particularly as the liminal phase + moves towards conclusion in aggregation, all this "testing" ends up + serving the purposes of established authority. Thus the ritual gives the + illusion of freedom and choice, but actually enforces conformity; ritual + is thus read as a technique of mystification by which cultural authority + can be produced and reproduced by deceiving participants in all walks of + society into accepting these authority structures as natural, given, and + ideal. + + There is certainly truth in this reading. For example, numerous + carnivalesque rituals (Mardi Gras in New Orleans, Carn`aval, Saturnalia, + etc.) do indeed construct a special space and time in which to express + discontent, disorder, radicalism, and challenge, all of which is then + often deployed in a larger cultural context to emphasize the "rightness" + of hegemonic discourses of authority. But more recently scholars have + begun to grant that this reading is simplistic: Mardi Gras has on numerous + occasions been used precisely to foment revolt, for example. Thus recent + practice theory, when it has focused on ritual and liminality, has tended + to admit that ritual does produce conformity through the illusion of free + choice, but at the same time to grant that particular agents in particular + historical situations have the ability to manipulate symbols to their own + advantage, despite the apparent constraints (and apparent freedoms) of + ritual structures. + + At present, I will not push the socio-political reading of RPG's beyond + the narrow, local community. It would be interesting to consider how RPG's + as ritual necessarily participate in and reconstitute the structures of + society at large, but the data-set required to do such analysis + meaningfully is prohibitively large. In addition, ethnography of + game-sessions has barely begun, if indeed it can be said to have begun at + all, and thus we have only the most dubious sort of anecdotal data. My + concern, then, is with the socio-political workings within a gaming group, + which amounts to an analytic perspective on the social contract of such a + group as it intersects with other structures of gaming. + + It is worth noting here that the dominant Forge theory generally takes + social contract to be a maximally distanced structure, standing at the + upper extreme of the hierarchy of RPG structure. While there has been + discussion of social contract and means by which it can be negotiated in + order to avoid paradigmatic or personal conflict, the emphasis fits + squarely within Edwards's overall approach. That is, because social + contract is seen as at a considerable remove from in-game play issues, the + most efficient way to deal with contractual problems is to discuss them + outside of play, e.g. by confronting a problem player outside of game + time, by formulating explicit social expectations before play, and so + forth. But the fact remains that these problems generally arise within + game play, and prior constraint cannot fully predict or forestall such + difficulties. I suggest, in fact, that precisely because RPG's are ritual + behaviors, social conflict is inherent in the form. At the same time, from + a practical perspective, it is worth recognizing that because structural + and sign-manipulation achieve their maximal expressions within liminality, + with extra-ritual commentary discourse primarily functioning to protect + ritual tradition against challenge, acting disjunctively to separate + possible challenges from the fragile yet powerful matrix of ritual + performance, play itself will necessary be the central locus of social + contestation, and importantly it is only within its structures that + conjunctive solutions are possible. In other words, while extra-gameplay + discourse may try to protect a game against social contract problems + arising within gameplay, such strategies cannot of themselves achieve + consensus; the means by which a group can resolve such questions must be + sought within play. + + Extending from this point, we may note a common tensive relationship + between extra-ritual assertions of hegemony over performance on the one + hand, and on the other a concomitant counter-balancing of the manipulation + of ritual as a site for resistance. Simply put, it is often the case that + as authoritative discourse tries to increase control over what happens + within ritual performance externally, resistant elements become increasing + empowered within performance and have greater efficacy without. In an RPG + context specifically, it seems not unlikely that increasingly emphatic + assertions of hegemonic control of appropriate play and in-game discourse + will tend to evoke increasing resistance within play, which is to say that + players within the game will tend to challenge strong norms asserted by + the game-master (or the game text, the received tradition of appropriate + play, etc.) the more forcefully they are expressed. One classic example + returns us to Advanced Dungeons and Dragons: the more Gary Gygax asserted + his authority and authenticity in laying down constraints about "the right + way to play," the more particular groups and players were drawn either to + revise the game, to play other games, or to challenge Gygax's principles + from within play. With respect to more ordinary assertions of authority, + e.g. "railroading,"[29][21] the more overt the railroading the greater the + tendency to resist; that is, if GM railroading involves providing genuine + incentives to follow the predetermined plot structure, resistance may be + minimal, while if a GM simply blocks all choices but the "correct" one + through ad hoc and increasingly ridiculous means (deus ex machina + maneuvers, etc.), players may find themselves led to beat their heads + against the imposed limitations rather than find creative and enjoyable + means by which to "play along."[30][22] + + My point is not simply that strong formulations of norms in play style and + social interaction may produce the reverse of the desired effect, though + this is worth consideration. Rather, I wish to emphasize that semiotic + manipulation within play reacts to functions in the given structural + context, such that assertions of social or technical norms naturally + constitute important objects of gameplay contestation. As in initiation + ritual, the imposition of social structures through such means as sacra or + rules systems demands challenge and consideration within ritual; attempts + to eliminate such semiotic manipulation within ritual liminality, + including gameplay, can only provoke two kinds of response: resistance to + the norms or elimination of ritual effectiveness. Thus the nature of + gameplay as ritual activity necessarily determines its focus on + manipulation and challenge of given structures. + + If RPG play can be read as reactive, it is neither mechanical nor passive, + and a great strength of both structural and practice theories is the + emphasis on dynamism in the relationship. If on the one hand ritual + imposes upon its participants a series of interlinked structures and + motivated signs, to which participants are then forced to react by the + normative view of ritual activity and thought, at the same time those + participants actually have considerable flexibility in doing so. This is + where some of the earlier Marxist approaches overestimated the hegemony of + authority-structures: they assumed that the imposition not only of signs + but of structures through which to think them fully constrained initiates + (for example) to conform to a rigid status quo; ritual could thus be read + as a means of combating in advance nonconformity, resistance, and the + potential for revolution, because it mystified the arbitrary, cultural + nature of authority structures by transposing them into tradition, and + then constructing a notion of tradition as natural and "given" in nature + or meta-nature (the gods, the spirits, etc.). But as numerous critics of + such ritual theories noted, this implies a special division in society: + there are those who create authority-structures, who to some degree know + that these structures are merely inventions, and then there are those who + are simply slates inscribed upon by such authority structures through + ritual; the only flexible part of this formulation would be the first + part, in that it is possible that authorities too are entirely subject to + what they take to be given structures and traditions, such that everyone + is enslaved by ignorance of the functions and methods of their own + society. Good Marxism this may be, but it does presume that people are + entirely controlled and dominated by what they are told, and never think + flexibly.[31][23] In fact, the approach deconstructs itself: if this is + all true, how can the academic analyst spot the problem at all? + Presumably, academia would constitute a constrained discourse that + recognizes itself as an object of critical analysis, in which case how did + it become so? The logical conclusion essentially would assert that the + members of critical academic discursive circles are a different sort of + people than those constrained by discourse, such that radical elitism + becomes a naturalized and normative structure -- precisely that which the + analysis desired to challenge in the first place. + + In RPG's, flexibility is relatively obvious: few if any players or + observers would assert that gameplay is so constrained as to prevent + flexibility in semiotic manipulation of any kind. At the same time, this + creativity is still generally taken as a marker of the distinctive or even + unique character of RPG's. Quite apart from the fact that this entails RPG + theorists' participation in the reproduction of authoritarian notions of + ritual behavior, a complex logical circle inserts itself in this + understanding, common it seems from the inception of RPG's as a discrete + ritual form. With the explication of this circularity, it will become + clear why I emphasize an analogical parallel to liminality in religious + ritual. + +Creativity as Circularity + + Overt acceptance of creativity and flexibility within RPG play is indeed + unusual in ritual. Importantly, however, it is not the existence of such + dynamism that marks a distinctive ritual mode, but the fact that + participants of all levels recognize and accept this. By contrast, the + modern Catholic Eucharist permits considerable scope for flexibility and + creativity in each and every performance, by every participant at every + level, but this is not commonly accepted as either present or desirable; + we might note that the common disdain for Neopagan ritual invention among + relatively knowledgeable mainstream religious Americans includes (but is + not limited to) a distinction between "real" or "traditional" ritual as + opposed to those which Neopagans "make up."[32][24] In this context, we + can read the ideological split as a claim against creativity within the + special context of ritual, importantly different from how RPG discourse + consciously constructs itself as creative and dynamic.[33][25] + + To put this in terms of initiation, we find that the liminal phase + involves flexibility and invention on the parts of not only the neophytes + but also the entire society; at the same time, such flexibility is + commonly denied by the hegemonic discourse, as already indicated by the + tendency to conceive of neophyte interaction with sacra as "instruction" + rather than creative engagement. Similarly, we find numerous discourses + about carnivalesque ritual formulated in terms of what has been called a + "hydraulic" theory: carnivals act as valves, allowing participants to + "blow off steam" rather than harness it to antisocial ends. By permitting + marginal elements of society to "act out" their frustrations, authorities + retain control of real power and maintain the stability of those they + dominate. Real challenge or engagement with social rules is annulled, + because it "doesn't count" in ritual space. + + Thus the demarcation of ritual space and time -- that formal construction + of division between ritual and everything else central to what Catherine + Bell calls "ritualization" -- lends itself to protection of social norms. + In RPG's, with their discourse of invention and creativity, such + protection seems non-present or at least marginal. But this accords with + expectations: by asserting that RPG gameplay constitutes a protected space + in which to deal with the limited range of issues at stake in a given + game, RPG's naturally tend to assert not only that gameplay permits + flexible engagement with social norms but also that the effects of + exterior norms on players do not play a significant role in the game. For + example, the protection of RPG's allows a male player to play a female + character, a heterosexual player to play a homosexual character, without + its being read as relevant to the player's out-of-game identity; we do + not, that is, assume that a male player who chooses a female character is + actually conflicted about his sexual identity. At the same time, this + entails that the female character in question, if she appears as a + chauvinist stereotype, cannot "officially" be read to imply chauvinism on + the part of the player. + + While for majority players -- white, male, middle-class -- this freedom + may not appear problematic, it entails real difficulties when (especially) + female players enter the game situation, most especially if such players + have a romantic and/or sexual affiliation with another player. Indeed, + female players often find themselves read as "not serious," "just the GM's + girlfriend," and so forth. When such players experience events in + game-time, whether plot events effected by other players or overtly + structural elements constructed within the game rules, their responses may + be read as problematic for in-game discourse. To take an extreme example, + if a female player reacts (in-character or out, in-game or out) negatively + to a rape scene perpetrated upon her (or any) character, some groups will + interpret this as a failure by the player to recognize the lines + separating gameplay from ordinary discourse; more insidiously, perhaps, + the player may feel that she should not overtly respond negatively, + precisely because she accepts that other players grant this absolute + division of discursive spaces, de-legitimizing her own emotional response + as confirmation that she is not a "serious" player. + + The common RPG theoretical response to such a situation, at least in + recent times, is to grant the legitimacy of the player's response. But + this is formulated as a special case: certain types of in-game discourse + "cross the lines" or "go overboard." By implication, normative in-game + activity does not require such responses, and thus this theoretically + symptomatic treatment of the situation continues to emphasize that + gameplay constitutes a protected space by constructing new social-contract + rules to prevent specific problems. That is, theoretical criticism of the + rape situation proposed above amounts to this: RPG groups and games ought + to have rules that say that players' characters cannot be raped. But this + misses the point. On the one hand, it constrains RPG discourse to a + limited range of social issues, making commentary and criticism of rape + (for example) simply a prohibited discourse, undermining the very dynamic + freedom which is supposed to permit a player to deal with situations that + he or she would or could not encounter in real life; on the other, it + retains and protects the hegemony of RPG discourse as something within + which players may not respond personally or emotionally by making those + situations in which such responses are legitimate into abnormal cases. + + Continuing the comparison to initiatory ritual in particular, we have here + an extra-ritual response to contingent historical circumstance through + limitation. In the case of the Bemba girls' initiation mentioned above, + let us suppose that a girl responds to the figurine by saying, "If I + become like the figurine, the white organizations that provide support and + health services will give extra assistance even outside of infant care; + therefore for my family in the current situation the appropriate answer to + the riddle is that I should throw over tradition and use pregnancy to + create a cargo-cult reciprocity with whites."[34][26] Here we see a + creative, dynamic response to the symbolic structures proposed, but with + an ultimate response at odds with the hegemonic intent. An obvious + counter-response would add additional symbols and instructions to prevent + this response by future neophytes, and perhaps provide extra-ritual + instruction of this particular neophyte so as to annul the validity of her + solution. + + In RPG ritual discourse, the same structure of constraint through + piecemeal placation consistently obtains. To the extent that RPG players + understand themselves as creative and dynamic, not controlled by + encultured norms, they are enabled to reproduce challenged norms within + gameplay as protected space. That is, the liberation and protection + afforded players with respect to uneasy social issues tends only to enable + players who (often unconsciously) represent majority discourses to reenact + the violence of those social categories in a hegemonically protected + fashion, defended by the structure of the RPG as separated and distinct. + If the white, male player's black, female character enacts stereotypes, + the notional freedom explored merely reproduces dubious social norms, an + effect seen overtly in fantasy and science fiction book cover images (e.g. + the work of Boris Vallejo), with their manly men with weapons and + voluptuous women in revealing clothing. + + To shift the modalities of play from reproductive to transformational may + be desirable, but it is unclear how this might be effected. While RPG + ritual liminality permits exploration, its structured and constrained + nature acts to defend stereotype reproduction as "freedom" while blocking + challenges thereto as failures of player technique or understanding. + Logically, practical game-construction cannot merely strive to forestall + deployment of stereotypes, but must work actively to undermine their + function within gameplay; it is here that critical formation of + counter-hegemonic moves (e.g. feminist game design) must focus effort, at + the same time recognizing that simply formulating a game that + pre-determines the boundaries of appropriate and inappropriate structure + challenges cannot achieve anything. + +Disjuncture and Continuity + + As we have seen, the liminal phase of passage ritual, or more broadly the + "sacred space" effected by social disjunctures outlining any ritual + practice, affords a privileged site for examination and contestation of + extra-ritual concerns; this sacred space in RPG's is found in gameplay, + often understood as a "safe" place for exploration, and distinguished from + other active spaces by a number of explicit and more subtle formations. So + far, I have focused on how such privilege and safety becomes a + double-edged sword, permitting some forms of experimentation while denying + others legitimacy, and also undercutting the radicalism of experiment to + render it harmless. But as with any ritual, the protective structures that + reproduce hegemonic discourse formations are themselves genuinely + threatened by in-ritual challenges. It is worth considering how such + challenge may be formulated through semiotic manipulation in gameplay. + + In The Savage Mind, Claude Levi-Strauss suggested that ritual tends to be + conjunctive, as opposed to the disjunctive, classifying emphasis of myth. + His meaning is best expressed, perhaps, in a discussion of the difference + between game and rite: + + All games are defined by a set of rules which in practice allow the + playing of any number of matches. Ritual, which is also 'played', is on + the other hand, like a favoured instance of a game, remembered from among + the possible ones because it is the only one which results in a particular + type of equilibrium between the two sides. The transposition is readily + seen in the case of the Gahuku-Gama of New Guinea who have learnt football + but who will play, several days running, as many matches as are necessary + for both sides to reach the same score. This is treating a game as a + ritual.... Games thus appear to have a disjunctive effect: they end in the + establishment of a difference between individual players or teams where + originally there was no indication of inequality. And at the end of the + game they are distinguished into winners and losers. Ritual, on the other + hand, is the exact inverse: it conjoins, for it brings about a union ... + or in any case an organic relation between two initially separate + groups....[35][27] + + The point is that a game like soccer or Monopoly takes a group of people + not initially distinct in game terms and divides them into at least two + classes (winners and losers). By contrast, the ritual performance of + soccer described here does not conclude until all players have been made + equivalent; latent in Levi-Strauss's formulation is that the natives + project their preexisting social divisions upon the game by picking teams + upon non-arbitrary given grounds. For example, they might decide that each + team will be made up exclusively of initiated men of a given moiety, so + that the teams represent moieties; through the ritual process, they then + construct a situation in which this difference is asserted as + non-absolute. This is arguably the point of the modern Olympic Games: + national participation through representative athletes is supposed to + assert that all men are brothers, that superiority is individual and not + national, and so forth. + + Setting aside the numerous quite serious problems with L vi-Strauss's + theory with respect to ritual as a broad range of behaviors -- indeed, I + doubt he intended that it be taken as a general principle in the first + place -- we can see this dynamic at work in a major RPG discourse, + particularly that which emphasizes the collaborative nature of play. As we + have already seen, in Kim's Collaborative Storytelling model "play is + understood as multiple authors producing a single discourse and a single + story." The same model discourages secrets among participants, and judges + success partly by whether "all of the participants significantly + contributed to that discourse." Following up Levi-Strauss's notion, we can + see here a striving toward conjunction and unity, as against disjuncture + in the form of "winning" or limited player dominance of the discourse. In + other words, one of the distinctive characteristics of RPG's as opposed to + more traditional games is precisely that they fit a ritual rather than a + game model. + + At the same time, a more serious deployment of structural and practice + perspectives on the semiotic elements of both religious and RPG ritual + must recognize the oversimplification inherent in this + conjunction/division split. First, that there are no winners or losers + cannot be accepted uncritically. Precisely because a dominant RPG + discourse denies such divisions, we must consider the possibility that + play imposes upon players a notional unity by denying the option to seek + or even accept division. After all, if we extend this rhetoric of unity, + it can be taken as a claim that in-game, all players are equal and in fact + equivalent, which may be deployed strategically by situationally- or + socially-dominant players to assert that complaints are anti-group and + thus mark bad players. In this context, the discourse of collaboration and + unity can support the problematic use of hegemonic authoritarian or + oppressive discourse, as discussed previously in the context of + chauvinism. + + But not all such challenge necessarily supports authority or serves as an + instrument of oppression. To take a simple example, the rhetoric of unity + and conjunction may be deployed to block favoritism or to identify problem + players as those who either try to dominate play or refuse to participate + at all. Especially in the latter case, the unifying effect of ritual + process may enable a group to draw out a timid player, emphasizing further + the liminal "safety" of game space. + + More interestingly, however, the conjunctive nature of ritual process may + act together with the aggregation of ritual closure to effect genuine + social alteration. A play group is often formed on an ad hoc basis, where + some players do not know each other well outside of the game context, and + indeed may not have met. Through successful ritual collaboration in a + shared space understood as distinct from other social spaces, a new social + group forms, enabling friendship and other forms of collaboration that + refer to the constructed game-space rather than to other social + structures. That is, precisely because gameplay is at once divided from + other social spaces and nominally focused upon a limited set of + predetermined issues, and because such rituals do act conjunctively by + taking given divisions and annulling "winner and loser" categorizations, + gameplay tends naturally to formulate an alternative social framework. + Particularly for those who find mainstream, dominant social frameworks + problematic or dangerous, gameplay can constitute a controlled social + space in which to succeed and seek liberation. + + However psychologically supportive and validating such an alternative + framework may be -- and it is worth noting that some psychologists have + pointed to RPG's as valuable for self-exploration and validation among + (especially) teenagers -- from a broader social perspective we should + recognize that this essentially entails a continuation of the initiation + discourse. Turner notes that it is common that the neophytes, whatever + their extra-ritual socio-economic status, are as part of the liminal + leveling considered equivalent. While friendships among those + simultaneously initiated often extend beyond the ritual situation, social + status, factored out within liminality, is not particularly affected by + such friendships. That is, it could be argued that the shared space of + ritual, although it permits and even demands reflection upon social + inequalities, ultimately acts not only to affirm these inequalities as + natural and given, but also deludes those in inferior positions into + thinking that they achieve a measure of equality that is in fact + nonexistent. From this perspective, we can see that RPG's may act + simultaneously to affirm and assist players psychologically, and at the + same time discourage them from acting upon or challenging the inequities + of modern social dynamics. Anecdotally, at least, we seem to see this in + stereotypes of RPG players as "geeks" or "nerds" who, by participating in + gaming, in conventions, and generally in a subculture, are thereby + diverted or distracted from real social action or mobilization. To + formulate a rather overstated Marxist reading, the recognition of RPG's as + ritual is confirmed by its ability to serve as an opiate for the + oppressed. + +Conclusions: Toward an RPG of Practical Reason + + At present, RPG theory primarily acts as an exterior, supporting discourse + referred toward the "real thing" -- gameplay. Ironically, criticism of + some RPG theory as irrelevant or trivial, on the ground that it is not + practical for play goals, actually serves to grant power and hegemony to + theoretical discourse: the very fact that gameplay so strongly formulates + the barriers between in-game and out-of-game, play and system, + in-character and out-of-character, reproduces the mystification of + theory's active role in discourse construction. As a way of concluding + this somewhat dispersed series of analyses, then, I should like to propose + some new directions in theory, directions which I think contain the + possibility for real practical change. + + First, theory must recognize a distinction between analysis and synthesis. + While it is important that such a distinction not become the object of + fetishism, as it in a sense already has, the mystification of the aspect + of RPG's traditionally associated with hierarchy and power can only lead + to abuse on the one hand, analytic sterility on the other. As Kim points + out for Collaborative Storytelling, "It considers the rules system to be + outside of the meaningful product. Rules are judged on their results for + shared play, not on how the participants view the process." This + perspective sets aside the impact of system and theory upon gameplay, + asserting player freedom and collaboration instead. While such a view may + seem liberating, and indeed may be so as against old-fashioned GM + authoritarianism, it implicitly claims that RPG performance occurs outside + of structure, not in reaction to it. But since social structures and + presumptive traditions of play at the least are necessarily at work in RPG + performance, there can be no doubt that gameplay has a structured context; + were this somehow not the case, and gameplay fully liberated from exterior + structures, there could be no possibility of conflict or its resolution, + as no player would have a context within which to react conflictually. + Thus while a particular group or style may wish to formulate a liberated + play modality as ideal, this has an ideological function and serves to + replace one authoritarian structure (GM authority, game-system authority, + etc.) with yet another. In order for theory to advance the improvement of + gameplay, then, it must work to distinguish between analytical activities + and constructive or synthetic ones, and furthermore strive to bring this + to consciousness within actual play. + + Second, RPG theory needs to take seriously the contributions and insights + of other disciplines. Eventually this should be a reciprocal engagement, + but this will require acceptance by academic and other mainstream + intellectual theorists; insofar as RPG theory can support such a move, it + must do so by engaging actively and constructively with such theorists, in + language acceptable to their traditions. In the meantime, RPG theory must + set aside its tendency to see its analytical object as unique and thus + special. William James reminds us forcefully, + + The first thing the intellect does with an object is to class it along + with something else. But any object that is infinitely important to us and + awakens our devotion feels to us also as if it must be sui generis and + unique. Probably a crab would be filled with a sense of personal outrage + if it could hear us class it without ado or apology as a crustacean, and + thus dispose of it. "I am no such thing," it would say; "I am MYSELF, + MYSELF alone." [36][28] + + James's point is clear: while we are willing to make all sorts of + classifications within RPG's, we tend to think of RPG's as unique and thus + special. But "unique" is simply a logical category that can be applied to + any object of analysis supporting formulation as a categorical object. If + RPG's are unique, that does not mean they are not ritual, or social + behavior; it only means that they can, from a particular perspective, be + formulated as having some distinctive characteristics. So long as RPG + theory continues to formulate itself otherwise, as unique in an illogical, + strong sense with respect to other behaviors, such theory will continue to + be marked by two unfortunate properties: first, it will be perpetually in + the position of many religious discourses of having continually to defend + its boundaries against the incursions of other discourses and analytical + methods; and second, it will be incapable of real analytical force because + it has built into its very self-definition essentialist biases that again + require constant and vigilant defense. Arguably, the tendency of much RPG + theory toward rigid hierarchization and toward discourse-circle hegemony + would thus constitute a parallel to more obviously religious dogmatisms. + + Third, RPG theory requires models founded upon a productive and + reproductive, as opposed to interpretive and receptive, situation of + narrativity. Two obvious examples, Kim's already-cited article and Liz + Henry's "Power, Information, and Play in Role Playing Games,"[37][29] are + admirable moves toward intelligent application of exterior models, but + find themselves at odds with the purposes of those models. Kim's awareness + of this problem is clear: + + There are many differences between RPGs and books [upon which the + formalist model is built], but some are more subtle than others. It is + clear that RPGs have no division between author and reader. Each + participant both expresses and interprets. Further, this calls into + question what the story is. The answer depends in part on what we define + as the discourse or "text" of RPG play. + + These questions are essential, and require answers; indeed, even cursory + examination of recent RPG theory reveals a constant concern to formulate + authorship, textuality, and so forth with respect to RPG's. But these + debates mostly run around in circles, die out, and get revived with new + energy but no really new formulations, with endless repetitions of the + cycle. The problem, in short, is that formalist and hermeutical models are + founded on confronting the genuinely difficult problem that interpreting a + text is not comparable to a conversational situation; intricate and + elegant strategies are deployed to make sense of how we make sense of + text, if you will, given that it is not conversation. But RPG's are + conversational; the problem does not arise directly. By attempting to read + RPG's through such lenses, we are caught in circularity: conversations are + like books (except that they are not face-to-face), and books are like + RPG's (except that the latter are face-to-face). Why not drop out the + sidetrack and recognize RPG's as active, dynamic, conversational forms of + symbolic manipulation? I have attempted a beginning here, but a great deal + more needs to be done. [38][30] + + Fourth, stemming from the last point, RPG theory must take into account + the social issues at stake and at work within the smallest, most + apparently arbitrary activities of play. That so much discussion of + "problem games" focuses on social difficulties -- problem players or GM's, + paradigmatic clashes, etc. -- reveals that the central issues in play are + social. To the extent that RPG theory tends to work hierarchically, from + top-down (broad categorical strokes before specific game issues), it + mistakes the actual dynamics by incorporating its analytic framework into + problems needing resolution; this is another means by which theoretical + discourse mystifies itself and its contributions, and it can most + effectively be challenged from within theory itself. + + Fifth, RPG theory must, through engagement with broader social theory -- + particularly the mode of anthropological theory labeled "practice" -- + become aware of symbolic and structural manipulation as a strategic part + of everyday life, a set of techniques also employed (and refined) within + the specifically RPG context. This occurs at every level of play; there + can be no absolute divisions between in-game and out-of-game, for the same + reasons that the only absolute division between a Catholic Eucharist and a + Catholic's everyday life is an ideological one. + + Finally, RPG theory must move beyond hierarchical classification as a + technique. There is no question that classification is a valid, even + necessary goal for serious analytical work. But as in so many disciplines, + most notably the study of religion, the tendency is to use the scientific + character of classification to construct an aura of objectivity; we see + this in discourses that stress "correctness". The natural upshot of such + an endeavor is to reify the categories as ontologically legitimate, + mystify their constructed character, and thus naturalize the + authority-claims latent within such structures. Classification must + recognize that the object does not exist outside of the construction of + taxa; "religion" or "ritual" do not exist, but are means by which + historically situated and motivated people classify certain behaviors. + Similarly, "RPG" is not a thing, a singular object, unique and discrete + from others, and Narrativist orientations do not differ from Simulationist + or Gamist ones except insofar as we construct them so. Classification is + the basis of comparison, not of truth or certainty. Until RPG theory takes + on board serious recognition of its comparative nature, it will remain an + ideology and not a science.[39][31] + + -------------------------------------------------------------------------- + +Notes + + 1. E.g. Ron Edwards' game Sorcerer (Chicago: Adept Press, 2001; see + [40]www.sorcerer-rpg.com). + 2. Edward's views have been formulated in several articles, all of which + may be found at The Forge ( [41]http://www.indie-rpgs.com). Apart from + the library articles, a useful recent discussion started by Edwards is + "The whole model - this is it" + ([42]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8655). + 3. Stable URL: + [43]http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html + 4. Stable URL: [44]rec.games.frp.advocacy. + 5. The Forge has hosted lengthy discussions of how RPG play is like + playing in a band (with the gamemaster playing bass), how RPG play is + like playing a pinball machine, and so on. Examination of the range of + such discussions will show the two discursive thrusts: the drive for + clarification and precision in the metaphor, and the extension of the + analogical range. As a rule, such discussions end when those who find + the analogy helpful have formulated a version that is clear to them + personally, when those who do not find it so grow tired of trying, and + when most become frustrated with those who try to extend the analogy + to ludicrous, literalist extremes. These discussions are not worthless + -->analytical models, such metaphors must be formulated rigorously, + with their boundaries precisely set. For more casual discussion, on + the other hand, one of the best qualities of a forum like the Forge is + that it permits this sort of open speculation and play; indeed, a + close analysis of the ludic dimension in such RPG discourse would be + valuable for understanding the interrelations of RPG play and theory. + 6. On the issue of the "unique" as special, and its problematic + applications to serious analysis within classificatory discourse, see + Jonathan Z. Smith, "Fences and Neighbors." Imagining Religion + (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 1-18. + 7. See Ronald L. Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies (Washington, D.C.: + University Press of America, 1982); Victor W. Turner, Dramas, Fields + and Metaphors (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UP, 1974); Turner, From Ritual to + Theater: The Human Seriousness of Play (New York: Performing Arts + Journal Publications, 1982). Essentially all of Grimes' work work + since the late 1970's fits the model am describing here, as part of + what he has dubbed "ritual studies". Turner's work, however, took a + strictly performative and dramatic turn; his earliest works, while + excellent, do not directly fit this model, and can only be made to + accord with the performative perspective with considerable hindsight + and, I think, distortion. + 8. See Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (Chicago: University of + Chicago Press, 1966); Levi-Strauss, The Naked Man, trans. John and + Doreen Weightman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Pierre + Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice (Stanford: + Stanford UP, 1990); Sherry Ortner, "Theory in Antropology Since the + Sixties", Comparative Studies in Soiety and History 26.1 (Jan. 1984), + 126-66; Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford + UP, 1992). + 9. The French idea of bricolage is not directly translatable into + English; we simply have no category quite like it. The bricoleur is a + hobbyist of a sort, but elevated to a high artistic level. For the + Levi-Strauss formulation, see The Savage Mind, chapter 1, "The Science + of the Concrete"; the translation is execrable, and those with a good + command of French would be well advised to read La pensee sauvage, + chapter 1, "La science du concret." + 10. Stable URL: [45]http://194.29.64.17/thecog/movie.html + 11. I shall not go into detail on hermeneutics, as it is founded primarily + on philosophical negotiation of the problems of interpretive + reception, problems relevant but not central to the analysis of RPG's. + On this model, see Paul Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences + (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981). See also Umberto Eco, Interpretation + and Overinterpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992); and Hans Georg + Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics (Berkeley and Los Angeles: + University of California Press, 1977). Also useful, though less + approachable, are Eco's The Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington, IN: + Indiana UP, 1994) and A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington, IN: Indiana + UP, 1979). + 12. A central tenet of hegemonic Forge theory. + 13. See Mike Holmes, "Mike's Standard Rant #3: Combat System" + ([46]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2024). Holmes' + essential point is this: "If you don't want combat to be the focus of + a game, do not include special rules for it. Especially if you don't + include special rules about anything else." This "standard rant" has + been discussed periodically on the Forge. + 14. It should be pointed out that the Forge "system matters" principle + does not claim that other elements do not matter; the question is one + of emphasis, and is here an analytical distinction rather than a + polemical one. + 15. See iago [Fred Hicks], "Long Pig the RPG: Would You Play It?" + ([47]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6091). + 16. Jonathan Z. Smith, "Fences and Neighbors," Imagining Religion: From + Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), + 1-18. The polythetic system is hardly perfectly objective, but as + Smith argues persuasively, it is less inherently inclined toward + normative claims and slippages than the monothetic, taxonomic sorts of + systems founded on hierarchy. + 17. Although see his Deeply Into the Bone: Reinventing Rites of Passage + (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002), the + purpose of which is explicitly to formulate ritual theory as a + constructive discourse for people wishing to invent or reinvent their + own rites of passage. + 18. The commensuration of ritual discourses and discourses about ritual, + between ritual in fact as analytical discourse and academic analysis + as in fact ritual, is outside the scope of the present paper. The + argument, founded upon a grammatological engagement with practice, + performance, and structural analysis, juxtaposed to early modern + magical practice and the theoretical dramaturgy of Zeami's Noe, will + be part of the core of my book Magic in Theory and Practice, where I + do not connect it with RPG's per se. + 19. Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. Monika B. Vizedon and + Gabrielle L. Caffee (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961); + Victor Turner, "Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Phase in Rites de + Passage," Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, Symposium + on New Approaches to the Study of Religion, 1964:4-20; Turner, The + Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Aldine de Gruyter, + 1969); Turner, The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual + (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1970). + 20. "Betwixt and Between," 13, citing Audrey I. Richards, Chisungu + (London: Faber and Faber, 1956), 209-10; the new edition is Richards, + Chisungu: A Girl's Initiation Ceremony Among the Bemba of Zambia + (London: Routledge, 1982). + 21. "Railroading," for which there are numerous more or less equivalent + terms, is the practice of a GM essentially scripting the majority of + plot events and structures within a given play session or series of + such. For example, the GM may decide, prior to play, that he wants the + PC characters, all cowboys, to engage in an OK Corral-style gunfight + as the climax of play; when the PC's choose (via their players, of + course) to ride out of town to investigate a lost silver mine, the GM + uses various strategies to prevent them from doing this, because he + needs them in town in order for the gunfight to take place. Such + strategies range from subtle hints to overt assertions of authority; a + possible example would be to inform the players that several of their + horses are lame and cannot be ridden, then to have no horses available + at the town stable, then to ensure that nobody in town will sell his + or her own horse. By the time the players have negotiated this many + options, it is generally clear to everyone (though very often not + stated) that no matter what they do, the PC's will be prevented from + riding out of town. + 22. This point has been emphasized in various RPG discussions. One common + suggestion is that if, for some reason, the GM actually needs her + players to follow a set of railroad tracks, the GM should react to + repeated attempts to jump the rails out-of-game, by saying something + like, "Okay, guys. I'm really not that prepared, actually, and I kind + of need you to go and do X. Is that okay?" While this may act + practically to achieve the desired effect, it depends upon the + rigidity of in-game/out-of-game divisions to acquire efficacy, and + cannot in itself be deemed a resolution of a more fundamental + difficulty. + 23. I would agree with these thinkers that people never think truly + independently, that is unconstrained in any manner by encultured + structures; the point here is that even constrained thought and action + has tremendous flexibility and ranges of possibility, and is not + simply scripted or railroaded in the RPG sense. + 24. This division is reproduced in strictly academic contexts not only + with reference to ritual but also to myth: myths are not "really" + myths if they are invented for that purpose (whatever such a purpose + might be), just as rituals as not "really" rituals if they are + consciously invented so. The intrusion of dubious ideas of + consciousness, ontology, and category only deflect from the central + point: academics by formulating critique in this fashion reproduce the + ideology of authenticity that authorizes and legitimates certain + religious behaviors as stable and non-inventive, as against the + "wannabe" inventions of recent "flakes" and "crazies". In a sense, we + might see the division here as between those who are creative within + an authorized framework and those who create their own framework. The + critique thus becomes reflexive, as indeed we should have suspected it + always was: the academic is really saying that she herself, by being + creative (doing new analytical work) within an authorized or + traditional framework (academic and disciplinary traditional + discourse) is legitimate and critical, while "crazies" (those + proposing unexpected critiques) fall outside the authorized framework + (do not have Ph.D.s, for example) and thus need not be taken + seriously. + 25. It would be interesting to consider whether the apparent (though + entirely anecdotal) overlap between RPG communities and Neopagan ones + might be at least partly rooted here. In the absence of serious + sociological data, I suspect that an effective technique here would be + close analysis of White Wolf's various Neopagan-oriented games + (especially Werewolf: The Apocalypse and several of the Ars Magica + supplements) with respect to ritual/magical creativity, criticism of + religion, and criticism of what the authors refer to as "traditional" + games in their explanations of how their games are special and + different. + 26. This is a purely hypothetical construct; I know of no such actual + response among Bemba, and the example is deliberately over-simplified + for heuristic reasons. + 27. Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, 30-32; the reference on the Gahuku-Gama + is to K. E. Read, "Leadership and Consensus in a New Guinea Society." + American Anthropologist 61.3 (1959): 429. + 28. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: + Longmans, Green, and Co., 1902), 9. See also Jonathan Z. Smith, + "Fences and Neighbors" for a penetrating discussion of the "unique" in + theoretical discourses. + 29. [48]http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/liz-paper-2003/ + 30. The same point might be made about Edwards's dependence upon Lajos + Egri's constructive models for creative writing, models poorly suited + to analytical purposes. In essence, Edwards asserts that Egri's models + fit RPG's, except that the product is entirely different, authorship + is shared, and really the Threefold Model is analytic rather than + constructive. More recently, Edwards has noted that Egri's model + (especially with regard to "premise") only applies properly to + Narrativist play. + 31. Here I take science to be a reflexive and self-critical attempt to + differentiate and understand its analytical objects. There can be no + question that modern science, in the usual sense, does not always + fulfill these criteria, in particular because it tends to claim + objectivity instead of constructed reflexivity. But given the need for + such reflexive awareness, the goals and ideals of science remain + worthy of theoretical discourse; see the introduction and first + chapters of Bourdieu's The Logic of Practice for a brilliant (if + dense) formulation of scientific analysis that recognizes and takes + seriously its own constructed nature. For comparison as a discourse + and a method, Jonathan Z. Smith's Imagining Religion should be the + starting-point of any attempt at theoretical construction. + + -------------------------------------------------------------------------- + + Christopher I. Lehrich + + Converted to HTML by John H. Kim + + Last modified: 19:13 AM 10/01/2005 + + The Forge created and administrated by [49]Clinton R. Nixon and [50]Ron + Edwards. + All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their + designated author. + +References + + Visible links + 1. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/ + 2. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/about/ + 3. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/donate.php + 4. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/ + 5. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/ + 6. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/resources/ + 7. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/ + 8. mailto:clehrich@bu.edu + 9. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note1 + 10. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note2 + 11. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note3 + 12. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note4 + 13. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note5 + 14. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note6 + 15. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note7 + 16. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note8 + 17. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note9 + 18. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note10 + 19. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note11 + 20. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note12 + 21. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note13 + 22. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note14 + 23. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note15 + 24. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note16 + 25. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note17 + 26. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note18 + 27. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note19 + 28. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note20 + 29. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note21 + 30. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note22 + 31. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note23 + 32. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note24 + 33. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note25 + 34. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note26 + 35. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note27 + 36. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note28 + 37. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note29 + 38. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note30 + 39. file:///home/fabien/data/projets/jdr/harmonies/work/ecjdr/draft/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html#note31 + 40. http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/ + 41. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/ + 42. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8655 + 43. http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html + 44. news:rec.games.frp.advocacy + 45. http://194.29.64.17/thecog/movie.html + 46. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2024 + 47. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6091 + 48. http://www.darkshire.net/%7Ejhkim/rpg/theory/liz-paper-2003/ + 49. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com + 50. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/scatter-0.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/scatter-0.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,356 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +March 15, 2006, 02:37:44 PM + +Login with username, password and session length + + +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*198792* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *Inactive Forums * +| |-+ *Scattershot * +| | |-+ *Get Emotional! +* « previous + +next » + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +Author Topic: Get Emotional! (Read 942 times) + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Get Emotional! +* +« * on:* August 10, 2001, 02:09:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +This is what I understand. + +Context + +I think role-playing gaming is /thinking within the context of the +narrative/; nothing more is necessary. Anything that fails to have that +does not appear to be gaming. While some things outside of gaming +elicit contextual thinking, nothing that /is/ gaming _fails_ to do so. + +Let me illustrate with what I call the ?behind the bar? effect; let?s +say you?re playing a game set in a bar described with patrons, tables +and their contents, and let?s also say a fight has broken out. This +could easily be a card game, a war game, /or even a role-playing game/, +there?s no way to tell at this point. + +What makes it a role-playing game? The instant you decide that a +character goes /behind the bar/ and gets something. It doesn?t matter +what, as long as the player is thinking about what /ought/ to be back +there, they are working within the context of the bar and the fight /and +the role-playing game/. + +Emotional Investment + +If contextual thinking is the ?what? of gaming, then here is the ?why:? +I believe that one plays role-playing games only for the emotional value +they have for that player. Not limited to simply enjoyment, gaming can +evoke intrigue, curiosity, or virtually any other emotion, but I?ll just +refer to the whole package as emotional investment. This is a bit of a +simplification, but I think not an unclear one. + +What is gained through this emotional involvement? I think impact and +payoff are some of the things that result from ?feeling? involved in the +narrative. This is not about good or bad narratives, only the dividends +of the emotional investment. I say that the problems with any game are +those that impede the emotional payoff the way inconsistency or loss of +engagement do (to list a couple of examples). + +For an example, all game settings I have seen have dynamic backgrounds +or grand conflicts. When involved, I believe they heighten the return +on a player?s emotional investment. + +The Scattershot Model: + +Here are our two main frames of reference, personal (things that exist +only at the character level) and the game (everything that includes the +character in it). + +Personal Level + +The most basic ?contact point? of play involves what you are playing +(even when not the traditional player character). At this level the +overall game is of reduced importance because it only serves as the +vehicle for the personal identification substance within it. + +This is the reason character generation can be so important in many +systems. The player character is the entity in the game that you will +have the most affinity with. The sophistication and detail of the +character creation mechanics of a game system reflect the degree and +specificity of emotional investment in things created with them. When +you ?make them work for it,? the player is likely to care more about +their character. + +The most basic component of the personal level of emotional investment +is in its _intrinsic value_. In this frame of reference, what matters +is what goes on /for/ the character. + +This is ?where it all happens? at the most personal level and this can +lead to varying levels of immersion, such as thinking or feeling /as/ +the character. It can also be about watching what a game does to one?s +character from a personal, yet external point of view. The value stems +from what goes on ?inside? the character or at their level. + +The game becomes a vehicle for the expression of value of the character +to the player. The focus is on how the game affects the character and +by extension, the player. + +While still being personal, one can place more emotional investment in +the extrinsic value of their character. Finding value in the things the +character can do or what the player can do with the character. + Measuring characters against one and another. This can include a +certain amount of self-consciousness in the activity too. + +The character can become a tool for the player, what they /do/ to the +game is the source of value. This is about first-person value based on +what you can do as opposed to who you are. + +This is also about how the player affects the game, the rush of power +over the game in the most immediate and visceral fashion. Consistency +can become an issue of high value because without it, the extrinsic +personal value can appear illusory. + +Game Level + +What exactly is ?game level?? Not a just the setting, genre, or +narrative ? it is a living entity consisting of this and more, it is the +whole, shared experience ranging from (but not limited to) the game +system all the way out to the retelling of the narrative and all points +in between. + +Much like the personal frame, the most immediate form of gratification +stems from a game?s intrinsic value, of what makes play so fun. Whether +it is the setting, play within the resolution system, or something else, +the value is within the game itself. + +What the character does, as a part of the game, is where the emotional +pay-off is. Unusual situations, new experiences, discovery, these are +reflected in the intrinsic value of a game. The character becomes a +window to what the game has to offer. + +This may seem to place central value in the experiential world of the +game, but then that would mean that the world is all there is to the +game. It isn?t. There?s the tone, flavor, and atmosphere; there?s the +feeling of a game hard-played, the feeling of let down after the fact, +and more; this all stems from finding the intrinsic value of the game. + +Above this is whatever the extrinsic value a game may have. Usually +this also includes a fair amount of self-awareness. Not only does play +?know that its just a game,? but it is also willing to ?work with it? on +that level. + +This often includes an external perspective of the game. Many literary +and theatrical devices are used but only for the effect of enhancing +emotional impact of the narrative. Many lofty things are often ascribed +to this type of play and it can be a heady experience after spending a +lot of time restricted to the personal extrinsic level by a strict +division of powers. + +Many newer games invite the players to take a larger part in, if not +partial ownership, of the game. One hidden problem this poses is the +loss of connection with primary point of contact, their character. It +scores well in terms of getting players to care for more than their +character alone, but many times the value of the character can get lost +in the new vistas. And when the players cease to think in the context +of their characters, in context of the game, it stops being role-playing +and becomes ?writing.? + +Another thing this perspective includes is comparisons of systems and +genres /between/ games. When one game tries to ?out do? another in any +fashion, this is the frame that is being applied. Convention tournament +games have a lot of this too, as do a lot of demos. + +Explaining All This in Terms of the GNS Model + +Allow me to draw some parallels to the GNS model. Superficially, if you +generalize this scheme it comes out very like the GNS model (provided +immersion is split from Simulationism). + +The combination of immersion and Simulationism only works if the players +find value in both the intrinsic value of their character and the +intrinsic value of the game /simultaneously/. Since I do not believe +one can make a priority out of self and the world at the same time, I +fail to see how they can be clearly lumped together, one must take a +back seat. This is not to confuse a Simulationist world with +Simulationistic consistency, though. Most losses in consistency result +in failed emotional payoffs. + +From what I have read, I believe immersive players do not require as +much Simulationist detail in the game, so long as it still creates a +venue for their character in the absence. I /do/ see how one could +think of immersion as ?simulating? a character, but I do not think this +is what most people idealize when they use the word Simulationism, +especially when it does not seem like one can focus on simulating both +character and world simultaneously. + +These frames of reference also suggest a problem with one of the other +GNS comparisons. It seems to me when comparing Gamism to Narrativism, +it is like comparing oranges and IBMs. + +The comparison between Simulationism and Narrativism would be the +difference between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of what the game +evoked. (I think this would be like comparing apples and oranges.) + +The comparison of Gamism and Simulationism shows relation by subject. + The extrinsic value of a personal frame of reference has value based on +the game and the intrinsic value of a game obviously stems from itself, +making these values relative to the same thing, the game, only from +different perspectives, personal versus game. (This might be like +comparing Apples and IBMs.) + +Therefore comparing Gamism and Narrativism relates the extrinsic value +of the personal frame and the extrinsic value of the game. These, I +think, are unrelated. (This would therefore be like comparing oranges +and IBMs.) + +(I include these references to the GNS model only as a convenience to +those whose work is primarily with it. Consider it a starting point to +my explanation of the frames I use.) + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Get Emotional! +* +« *Reply #1 on:* August 10, 2001, 02:32:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang, + +I think the emotional investment you describe is related, or even +identical, to what I called "imaginative commitment" earlier, when +discussing Exploration. + +To review: Exploration is the starting point or act for role-playing. +GNS represents applications/foci/goals for the act. + +This is not to undercut or refute any of your post, but rather to agree +with and reinforce it. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Get Emotional! +* +« *Reply #2 on:* August 10, 2001, 02:42:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +Ron Edwards wrote: +I think the emotional investment you describe is related, or even +identical, to what I called "imaginative commitment" earlier, when +discussing Exploration. +Quote +This is not to undercut or refute any of your post, but rather to agree +with and reinforce it. + + +Excellent, "imaginative commitment" was what go me started, thanks to +you. I just felt that a sense of ?committedness? was the emotion at the +root of character identification and emotional investment. And the +"imaginative" part was too vague on the contextual scheme of things. + +Fang Langford + +[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-08-11 08:56 ] + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +« previous + +next » + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/scatter-1.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/scatter-1.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,241 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +March 15, 2006, 02:55:12 PM + +Login with username, password and session length + + +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*198794* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *Inactive Forums * +| |-+ *Scattershot * +| | |-+ *Part I: Core Concept +* « previous + +next » + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +Author Topic: Part I: Core Concept (Read 962 times) + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part I: Core Concept +* +« * on:* December 26, 2001, 10:23:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +December 26th, 2001 - + +At the behest of my friends here on the Forge, I will present +Scattershot at the point I have it. Even though this is a +work-in-progress, I am not trying to present a diary of the progress. + Expect the lead component of this thread to undergo changes as +Scattershot does. This edition was originally put together on +Wednesday, December 26th, 2001 (think of it as a late Xmas present). + This series of articles will detail strictly the mechanics of +Scattershot, articles relating to the techniques of 'how to play' will +have to wait until I have more of them centralized and organized. The +third major component of the game, the setting and genre material is +will be addressed once I get a new batch of playtesters. + +Since I have to start somewhere, I will begin with the theories that +have become the central design premise of the mechanics. This is one of +a number of articles that inter-relate and I hope to make frequent use +of links between them (which is part of the reason I have separated them). + +The central point of Scattershot is that all gaming is fundamentally +about context with emotional investment (I described this much earlier +in this article +.) + Concepts like 'suspension of disbelief' and 'flow of play' exist +primarily to support 'staying in context.' Another central concept is +that gaming /depends/ on in-game actions having rational consequences. + + The formalization of consequences to aid 'flow of play' is exactly + what Scattershot's mechanics are meant to be. "Aiding the 'flow + of play'" is one of the reasons that Scattershot's mechanics are + also deliberately designed to function as a form of communal + language during play. Instead of having to describe the process + of using an ability in detail and accounting for potential points + of contention, a participant can simply refer to using a specific + mechanic by its name.[/list:u]I know this sounds trite and + obvious, but it needs to be said; play is shared. + + This concept becomes important in fixing the reasons that + Scattershot has mechanics. Both consistency and + impartiality are necessary for a kind of sharing that + participants can feel is 'fair'¹. Because of the emotional + investment in play, there will be times when emotions can + run quite high; it is important to have something impartial + to fall back upon when those times involve conflict between + the participants.[/list:u]Most of the time play passes + between participants in no particular order as necessary. + + This is an example of how informal most gaming is. + Under some circumstances, impartiality can become + highly important to one or more players. At those + (frequently emotional) times, mechanics can formalize + even this normative form of play.[/list:u]Obviously, + under portions of game theory, an awareness of the + mechanics becomes a part of the play itself. + + This is exceptionally important when discussing + whether or not mechanics should be applied to + specific situation in a game. This decision has + a lot to do with how mechanics will be applied + during play.[/list:u]That's all for this + installment. Next up, the differences between + players and gamemasters in Scattershot. + + Fang Langford + + ¹ That is fairness in the minds of the + participants. Each will desire their own amount + of play (and even that will change from session + to session). Mechanics go a long way towards + formalizing the tools that can be used to 'get + your share' of play. + + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part I: Core Concept +* +« *Reply #1 on:* December 27, 2001, 08:45:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hi Fang, + +I'm not sure about what to say, except "Solid," in a kind of 70s accent. +Concrete mission statements beyond the usual "um, it's role-playing" are +rare and valuable. + +The concept of game mechanics and events being applications +(expressions?) of emotional investment is excellent. I'm looking forward +to more. You've set the starting bar very high. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part I: Core Concept +* +« *Reply #2 on:* December 27, 2001, 02:18:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +Ron Edwards wrote: + +I'm not sure about what to say, except "Solid," in a kind of 70s accent. + +Actually, this is somewhat on purpose. From my experiences, many of the +gamers out in the 'hinterlands' still play in a '70s' way. Since one of +the design specifications of Scattershot (and posting these will be a +while - I need to find them) is that it be 'familiar' to experienced +gamers far and wide, it will have an intentional '70s flavor.' + +(And I know how you meant that, it just seemed like a good opportunity +to talk design specifications.) + +Quote +You've set the starting bar very high. + +Thank you. I think it is obvious that I do this in all things. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/scatter-2.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/scatter-2.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,893 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +March 15, 2006, 02:55:14 PM + +Login with username, password and session length + + +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*198794* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *Inactive Forums * +| |-+ *Scattershot * +| | |-+ *Part II: Whence go the Mechanics +* « previous + +next » + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +Author Topic: Part II: Whence go the Mechanics (Read 868 times) + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part II: Whence go the Mechanics +* +« * on:* December 27, 2001, 10:45:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +January 2nd, 2002; Happy New Year! - + +At the behest of my friends here on the Forge, I will present +Scattershot at the point I have it. Even though this is a +work-in-progress and much of the terminology is in a state of flux, I am +not trying to present a diary of the progress. Expect the lead +component of this thread to undergo changes as Scattershot does. This +edition was originally put together on Thursday, December 27th, 2001. + This series of articles will detail strictly the mechanics of +Scattershot, articles relating to the techniques of 'how to play' will +have to wait until I have more of them centralized and organized. The +third major component of the game, the setting and genre material is +will be addressed once I get a new batch of playtesters. + +One deliberate feature of Scattershot has to do with how we handle the +complexity of the mechanics. Instead of a long catalog of 'optional' +rules, we divided the mechanics into three stages of complexity. + +Basic + + These are for beginners, or for 'on the road' (live-action or + driving). This portion will be included with all our 'satellite' + products. It's meant to be simple, basic, and + easy.[/list:u]Intermediate (Tournament) + + These mechanics (which incorporate the basics too) are meant + for experienced gamers. Most often played 'at the table,' + these mechanics are the expected level of play.[/list:u]Advanced + + This is the set of mechanics for completists and are + meant to be played 'in the books.' They allow for the + most specific derivation of the subtle differences + between abilities. This is the esotery not for the + minimalists.[/list:u]Certainly people could play 'at + only one stage,' but the playtesters not only liked + to, but tended to, shift back and forth between these + stages as needed by the game they were in. Because we + realized this early on, it was important to make the + comparisons between the mechanics' stages as + transparently compatible as possible. This means the + advanced mechanics are what we wrote first, keeping in + mind that there would be two succeedingly simpler + derivations necessary. + + We have also broken the facile use of mechanics into + three different 'densities.' These are relative and + normal play shifts between these rather easily. One + of the most common problems we have seen in playtest + with beginners (and from our experiences) is the + awkward switching between these 'densities.' + Confusion often arises when there is no communication + of a 'switch' or when a 'switch' occurs at some point + other than an intuitive Breakpoint. + + General Play + + Most things are either resolved as dialogue and + description or simply taken as having happened + exactly as the speaker says. All things + mechanical are used more as guidelines and + almost always only when 'out of the + ordinary.'[/list:u]Specific Play + + Mechanics are invoked on a sporadic basis, + most often to generate detail; how long + did it take, how well did it go, what was + the specific result. Occasionally the + mechanics are invoked to preempt any + question regarding impartiality, but this + tends to be rare within groups who already + know each other quite + well.[/list:u]Mechanical Play + + This occurs most often when emotions + run high or when there is 'a lot on + the line.' Impartiality is the most + important feature so this is when + 'everybody plays by the rules,' or + so it is understood. The most + common time when this occurs + historically is during combat. This + does not need to be exclusive, but + when you consider dying in those + games eliminates you from play, + there is clearly 'a lot on the + line.' Also combat is when the + entities that players have the most + emotional investment in, are at + risk; they would hardly stand for + subjective or casual destruction of + their investment.[/list:u]Since the + idea behind Scattershot's mechanics + is that they are a formalization of + intuitive play + , + I should explain how we look at the + actual 'flow of play' formally. One + thing to remember, while this is a + formal breakdown, nobody is perfect + (neither yours truly, nor people + playing the games) and so this is + not a lot more than an + approximation. Still, from here all + Scattershot springs. + + Respect the Speaker + + As I said in the earlier + installment + , + play bounces from person to + person in no particular order. + I think this way of looking + at play means play is only + occurring with the person + speaking. Normally there is + only one Speaker at any time, + but there are a couple of + exceptions I can think of; + dialogue and question & answer + (an interview style of setting + description is an example of + this). When this aspect of + gaming breaks down, it's + cacophony; the unconscious + formalization in natural + response to this is one of the + central formations of + gaming.[/list:u]The Scenic View + + For simplicity's sake, + we break all play down + into either Scenes, + 'Behind the Scenes' + (which would be Scenes + run 'during' the main + Scene), and between + sessions (which actually + tend to be the + bookkeeping done at the + beginning and ending of + sessions, and the + preparatory + 'stretching'). I + realize this carries a + great deal of literary + and theatrical baggage + with it, but I am open + to a better term. + + At the beginning of + every Scene, someone + must 'Set the Stage,' + that is making some kind + of introductory speech + (we often suggest a + soliloquy) that + describes basically + where, when, and who + will be involved in a + scene. While many game + systems suggest this is + the practice of the + gamemaster, we prefer to + call the person who does + this the /Proprietor/ so + that at times, a player + can do it as well. This + is because there are + many occasions that the + person most familiar + with the setting and + circumstance may be + someone /other/ than the + gamemaster (for example, + inside the + super/heroes'/ + base).[/list:u]When Can + I Catch a Break? + + The most + fundamentally + mistaken component + of gaming in our + experience + (outside of + /pacing/) are the + Breakpoints. + Changing tone, + Switching + 'Densities' (or in + Scattershot, + changing the Stage + of the rules), or + any other shifts + that occur when + there aren?t any + kinds of natural + (and unfortunately + mostly + unconscious) + Breakpoints, + always seems to + throw a wrench + into the 'flow of + play.' + Scattershot goes + to some degree + talking about the + types and uses of + Breakpoints + (though I am not + going to go into + too much detail + here, because this + article is to set + up for the mechanics). + + The beginnings and + endings of scenes + are principal + Breakpoints (but + that doesn't mean + to disclude the + huge number of + other intuitive + Breakpoints). One + way that a group + can easily + mishandle a scene + is by choosing its + parameters badly. + Start too soon + before the 'meat' + of the scene and + you risk losing + the participants' + interest before + the 'entree.' End + too long after the + 'action' and you + watch a scene's + impact slowly + bleed to death. + Scattershot's + techniques speak + plainly about + starting a scene + so close to the + 'meat' that the + start sheds blood. + These techniques + also talk about + tying off the + endings with + tourniquet + intensity when + they have served + their purpose. + (It goes hand in + hand with most of + our advice about + pacing and + choosing the + appropriate stage + of mechanics to + carry the game + forward at the + most satisfying + rate.)[/list:u]What + was the Point, Again? + + This may not + need + suggesting, + but I think + it needs to + be said; + every scene + has a goal. + It might be + to show a + nifty thing + about your + character; + it might be + the + discovery of + some bit of + information. + Raising or + resolving + tension is + another + goal; so is + providing + color, + atmosphere, + warming up + and cooling + down¹ (two + of the most + overlooked + and + important + parts of a + session), or + even + 'filler.' + The most + important + thing about + goals, as + stated + above, is + once you + have + fulfilled + the goal + (most often + supplied by + the + proprietor + of a scene), + get out! If + it becomes + clear that + the goal has + become + unattainable, + do the same. + Letting a + scene + meander + about in + search of a + goal (while + in some rare + cases, it + can bear + fruit) is a + recipe for + wrecked + context and + loss of + 'flow.'[/list:u]What's + My Cut? + + I need + to + take a + moment + and + return + to the + issue + of + sharing + play + . + There + are a + couple + of + prime + issues + that + need + to be + addressed, + if I + am + formalizing + things. + The + first + (and + possibly + foremost) + is + commitment; + commitment + to + atmosphere, + commitment + to + plot-arch + (as in + how a + noir + story + just + 'goes,' + not as + in + preplanned + conclusions), + commitment + to + ambience, + and so + on, + it's + all + about + 'being + on the + same + page.' + If + these + things + are + not a + shared + commitment, + it is + only a + matter + of + time + before + things + break + down. + People + almost + always + think + about + 'what + they + get' + out of + sharing + without + realizing + the + importance + of + 'what + they + give.' + + Another + point + of + sharing + we + suggest + in + Scattershot + is + keeping + everyone + involved; + whether + by + creating + riveting + play + for + those + whose + characters + aren't + present, + or + having + those + 'uninvolved' + get + drafted + into + short-term, + supporting, + non-player + character + roles, + sharing + the + game + means + sharing + in as + much + as + possible. + A + little + conspiracy + now + and + then + is + good, + so is + a + little + mystery, + but + when + the + commitment + is + shared + as + above, + you + should + expect + participants + to + only + use + 'player + knowledge' + as a + role-playing + game + /aid/. + If + you + suspect + cheating, + you + are + not + sharing; + you + are + 'hording.' + (Mystery + good; + secrecy + bad.)[/list:u]One + of the + reasons + I put + all + these + clusters + together + is + because + they + will + be + referred + to + frequently + at + many + subsequent + levels. + Unlike + many + games + I have + read + or + played, + I + think + it is + important + to + cover + the + implications + of + using + basic + mechanics + during + mechanical + play + of a + event + not + including + combat. + (This + means + discussing + each + new + layer + of + Scattershot's + mechanics + in + terms + of how + each + of + these + clusters + apply.) + I + think + it is + important + to + consider + where + and + when + you + expect + to use + a + game's + mechanics + in + order + to + write + the + mechanics + that + are + necessary + to + support + those + situations + and I + think + so is + the + shared + commitment + to + using + them + that way. + + Next + up the + nuts + and bolts. + + Fang + Langford + + ¹ What + we + frequently, + incorrectly + call + denouement. + + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part II: Whence go the Mechanics +* +« *Reply #1 on:* December 31, 2001, 10:33:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Sorry about this, but I just found one of the missing pages of my notes. + The whole section on formalization of 'flow of play' comes from there +and is new. + +Hope you like it. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*joshua neff +* +Member + +Posts: 844 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part II: Whence go the Mechanics +* +« *Reply #2 on:* January 02, 2002, 07:33:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang-- + +That's some good stuff there, especially the stuff about taking breaks & +respecting the speaker. That's stuff that /should/ be mentioned in RPGs +& isn't. As Ron said, "solid". + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--josh + +"You can't ignore a rain of toads!"--Mike Holmes + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part II: Whence go the Mechanics +* +« *Reply #3 on:* January 02, 2002, 09:46:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +joshua neff wrote: + +That's some good stuff there, especially the stuff about taking breaks & +respecting the speaker. That's stuff that /should/ be mentioned in RPGs +& isn't. As Ron said, "solid". + +Thank you, that?s kinda what I have been thinking for some time. I feel +it?s especially important for people who are new to the hobby. + +I am curious what you mean about "taking breaks." I can see that the +section title choice might be a little too confusing and I will change +it soon. Can you tell me if you thought I was advising actually +stopping play at any of these points? Perhaps using the term, +?breakpoint? is itself confusing. Can you suggest any alternatives if +you agree? + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*joshua neff +* +Member + +Posts: 844 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part II: Whence go the Mechanics +* +« *Reply #4 on:* January 02, 2002, 09:53:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +You know, I did think that. But I don't know why, because that's not +really what I meant. I mean, what I liked was the whole idea of +"breakpoints" as you described them. But somehow between reading it, +thinking about it, & then writing my post, it got mutated in my brain as +"taking breaks". Maybe a different name /is/ needed. (Or more ginko for +my brain.) + +That being said, I /do/ think that one of the most neglected things in +RPG rulebooks is how to run a single session--particularly the structure +of the session, including when & why to take breaks from the game. +/Sorcerer & Sword/ has some good stuff about structuring both the +narrative as a whole series of sessions & the individual sessions +themselves, which has really helped me focus on what I'm trying to do +with my next game (which is, oddly enough, /Sorcerer/, sans swords). But +I'm also thinking about the thread in Actual Play in which we all talked +about when to take breaks from the game, & how to work that into the +structure of the session. I think that's good stuff for people just +getting into RPGs to think about. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--josh + +"You can't ignore a rain of toads!"--Mike Holmes + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/scatter-3.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/scatter-3.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,952 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +March 15, 2006, 02:55:17 PM + +Login with username, password and session length + + +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*198794* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *Inactive Forums * +| |-+ *Scattershot * +| | |-+ *Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* « previous + +next » + + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + 3 + Print + + +Author Topic: Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & +Gamemasters (Read 1163 times) + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« * on:* December 27, 2001, 02:10:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +December 30th, 2001 - + +At the behest of my friends here on the Forge, I will present +Scattershot at the point I have it. Even though this is a +work-in-progress, I am not trying to present a diary of the progress. + Expect the lead component of this thread to undergo changes as +Scattershot does. This edition was originally put together on Thursday, +December 27th, 2001. This series of articles will detail strictly the +mechanics of Scattershot, articles relating to the techniques of 'how to +play' will have to wait until I have more of them centralized and +organized. The third major component of the game, the setting and genre +material is will be addressed once I get a new batch of playtesters. + +In this installment, I am going to discuss how Scattershot initially +treats the difference between gamemasters and players. This is not +because the differences are important to stress, but in the light of how +much overlap there /can/ be, the difference exposes some of the latitude +that the game mechanic must address. One of the primary concerns of +Scattershot is to treat gamemaster and player alike, because their roles +will blur more and more as people get beyond this traditional model. + +Once again this latitude allows people who play Scattershot to 'find +their own level,' either by trial and error or by informed choice +(hopefully the technique section of Scattershot can help there). + Ultimately this is about finding a balance between the extremes. Here +are some of the more important extremes as demostrated by the +differences between how Scattershot affords players and gamemasters in +the 'thumbnail of gaming' chapter. + +Character Creation: + + In keeping with the 'emotional attachment' that is a result of a + more detailed character creation system (as described in both the + first regular installment of the [SCATTERSHOT:] articles + + and this article + ), + players create characters /for themselves/.[/list:u] + Gamemasters, on the other hand, mostly create characters + /for everyone's/ collective enjoyment.[/list:u]Play: + + Because it makes little sense to have a game that is + not /for/ the players (being the bulk of the + participants) and in keeping with the sharing + principal + + I explained earlier, players must obviously drive play + forward. While events in the game should not wait for + player character action, the game /should/ obligate + the player characters to some kind of action. (Who + wants to play inertia?)[/list:u] + In the antipode, gamemasters must therefore do + what they can to facilitate play. This is one + of the main reasons they traditionally create + characters, for the facilitation of + play.[/list:u]'Flow of Play' issues, like + pacing, scale, and scope: + + Players /can/ affect these.[/list:u] + Gamemasters /must/ according to + tradition.[/list:u]Using the + mechanics during play: + + Players can invoke them + whenever they feel a need for + them.[/list:u] + Gamemasters are then + expected to arbitrate. + Because of the + impartiality issues I + described earlier + , + it is important for + gamemasters to only + arbitrate in a fashion + that is 'fair' but also + open under these + mechanics. For this + reason Scattershot is + designed (counter to the + traditional model) to + allow anyone to + arbitrate, not just the + gamemaster.[/list:u]I + guess on some level this + describes mechanics as + the tool of the player + which is then the + responsibility of the + gamemaster. In most + traditional instances I + know, in the application + of the mechanics, the + gamemaster mostly only + responds to these (and + is the only respondant); + this is an unfortunate + balance (that we feel + needs to be changed). + Scattershot's mechanics + are meant to be a tool + for everyone and should + allow anyone to + arbitrate, because of + the overlap in all + roles. However, + ultimately, when an + irreconcilable + inter-participant + conflict exists within + the playing group, only + then does Scattershot + have the gamemaster be + the final arbiter. + + Next up, where and when + are mechanics used or + needed. + + Fang Langford + + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #1 on:* December 27, 2001, 02:26:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hey, + +It's a tough issue, Fang, not the least because it seems as if +/everyone/ carries a load of unspoken assumptions about GM/player +responsibilities and privileges, and very few are willing to air those +assumptions, except in dysfunctional ways. + +My writing of Sorcerer ('89 in the barest beginning stages; '94-96 in +the nuts & bolts stages, '96-98 for the playtesting stages) shows +horrible scar tissue and baseball-type stitches about this issue. There +are still patches of prose that I didn't catch prior to book-printing, +in which the term "GM" should really be replaced with "the group," or +"GM decides" should really be replaced with "the player decides." I +assumed up until the mid-late 90s that a GM was also the guiding +ideologue of the group, and now I think differently. + +Since Scattershot has Transition as a design goal (I like that term so +much that I'm gonna keep it!), do you see GM and player +roles/responsibilities as a labile feature of the game? Or do you think +there's a way to set those things up in a stable way that still permits +a variety of Transitional outcomes? + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*joshua neff +* +Member + +Posts: 844 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #2 on:* December 27, 2001, 03:26:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +Because it makes little sense to have a game that is not for the players +(being the bulk of the participants) and in keeping with the sharing +principal I explained earlier, players must obviously drive play +forward. While events in the game should not wait for player character +action, the game should obligate the player characters to some kind of +action. (Who wants to play inertia?) + + +Amen, brother! + +Quote +In the antipode, gamemasters must therefore do what they can to +facilitate play. + + +Thank you thank you thank you for using the word "facilitate". As Ron +has heard me rant many a time, I also think the GM's primary role is +that of facilitator. (For example, in narrativist play, the GM is not +the "storyteller". S/he is the facilitator of the players being +"storytellers".) (Side note: I think this extends to other areas as +well. I think a teacher's role is to facilitate students educating +themselves, a librarian's role is to facilitate patrons finding +information, an artist's role is to facilitate everybody creating art, +ad nauseum.) + +I think the whole "what the hell is a GM" question is a topic worthy of +a lot of thought. Do all RPGs /have/ to have a GM? What about everybody +being a GM? What does a GM do, anyway? These are all good questions. + +You've got some good stuff here so far, Fang. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--josh + +"You can't ignore a rain of toads!"--Mike Holmes + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #3 on:* December 27, 2001, 09:45:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +Ron Edwards wrote: + +It's a tough issue, Fang, not the least because it seems as if +/everyone/ carries a load of unspoken assumptions about GM/player +responsibilities and privileges, and very few are willing to air those +assumptions, except in dysfunctional ways. + +That's why I thought it needed to be spelled out concretely. Another of +Scattershot's design objectives was that, while being organized for +beginners to grasp, it had to also have a thing or two to tell +experienced gamers. I thought one of the best things I could do was to +at least provide explicit roles for gamemasters and players up front, +with some discussion on how these both overlap and can have their +responsibilities shifted to the other party. This provides grist for +the experienced gamer mill to grind out some new understandings for +themselves. (The trick will be to not 'talk under' or 'talk over' +anyone's heads, simultaneously.) + +Quote +...or "GM decides" should really be replaced with "the player decides." +I assumed up until the mid-late 90s that a GM was also the guiding +ideologue of the group, and now I think differently. + +Agreed. I also think that ultimate decisions should be held to a group +decision because of the aforementioned 'sharing principal.' I put the +gamemaster up as final authority because, 1 is an odd number (which +avoids deadlocks), and a single person often acts faster than a +committee when it comes to tough decisions (preserving 'flow of play' as +I mentioned over in the earlier article +). + +Quote +Since Scattershot has Transition as a design goal (I like that term so +much that I'm gonna keep it!), do you see GM and player +roles/responsibilities as a labile feature of the game? Or do you think +there's a way to set those things up in a stable way that still permits +a variety of Transitional outcomes? + +I believe I have already mentioned that one of Scattershot's design +specifications is that it is meant to be 'familiar' to experienced +gamers (though I cannot find the reference). This means we /must/ use +terms like hit points, gamemaster, and so on. In our case that also +means we give the terms 'gamemaster' and 'player' and the descriptions +above /as a starting point/. I would have gone into the details of the +techniques that allow Transition away from traditional models for these +'roles at the table,' but I only posted this as underpinning for +upcoming installments (as I said, these show the /extremes/ that can be +had). + +And yes, I do think there is a "stable way" to set these up. If you +remember back to when I posted Scattershot's chapter layout +, you +can see that the basic premise of what players and gamemasters are is +layed out quite early. When the text comes back to these issues, a +reader will be expected to have a handle on how these work in the +traditional sense. Based on that, in terms of describing the +techniques, we can work from /there/ (but only if we are /very careful/ +how we depict these roles in the first place). + +Fang Langford + +[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-28 00:47 ] + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #4 on:* December 27, 2001, 10:41:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +joshua neff wrote: + +Quote +Fang wrote: + +Gamemasters must therefore do what they can to facilitate play. + +Thank you for using the word "facilitate". I also think the GM's primary +role is that of facilitator. [Snip.] + +I think the whole "what the hell is a GM" question is a topic worthy of +a lot of thought. Do all RPGs /have/ to have a GM? What about everybody +being a GM? What does a GM do, anyway? These are all good questions. + +Role-playing games, in my opinion, certainly do not need gamemasters. + In fact, I tend to think of gamemasterless play as an unreachable +ideal. On a practical level, there are a number of things a gamemaster +is most ideally suited to handling (at least when no one else is +interested). Aside from the relative ease their role makes for them to +portray the hundreds of extras that populate a game, I think I rather +clearly designated the remainder of their traditional duties back in +this article + about +Scattershot's live-action techniques. + +Simply listed, they were: referee of /player/ disputes, the game's +originator (or at least the codifier), facilitator of play (keeping up +the 'flow of play,' steering relevance, and et cetera), facilities +arrangement (though this is most often delegated, if the gamemaster, in +all these other roles, does not make it, the game doesn't happen), and +finally handling 'membership' (surprise characters can be very +disruptive, running against facilitation). + +There is one role 'hidden' within being the 'facilitator of play;' that +is being the 'head' of the game. In large corporations (and in the US +government for that matter), at some point there is a sole individual +who is charged with orchestrating the actions of the unit whole (most +often outwardly). This serves how the group survives as its own entity. + +Now I am not talking about a dictatorship here; rare is the company +where the CEO makes changes that take the whole by surprise, but even +though advised and 'checked and balanced' there is nothing that beats +the efficacy and quick reactions (when needed) of a single individual. + +The number one, main reason I gave this topic its own article is because +I have to agree that it does require a good deal of discussion, and I +for one, did not want the totality of Scattershot's mechanics to hide +this potential for discussion. + +Quote +You've got some good stuff here so far, Fang. + +Thank you, I appreciate the input. The number two reason I segregated +this topic was that I am not convinced that I have the whole of it yet. + I look forward to what becomes of each of the component articles in the +[SCATTERSHOT:] series. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*joshua neff +* +Member + +Posts: 844 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #5 on:* December 28, 2001, 07:04:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang-- + +While my gaming preferences remain solidly in the "one GM for a group of +players" realm, I'm entirely unconvinced that there needs to be one GM +to guide them all (*ahem*). I think GM-less play (which is really +"everyone-is-a-GM" play) is a completely feasible option, & one which +shouldn't be discounted. I sometimes think the idea that "there needs to +be a GM" is a basic mistrust in decision-making-by-consensus, a holdover +from playing in dysfunctional gaming groups. Lord knows,I've been in +enough gaming groups in which /somebody/ had to exert some sort of +authority. But I've also been in groups in which consensus was the rule, +not the exception. + +I would love to see more RPGs which promoted & facilitated something +other than the "one GM" concept. (& despite my own preferences, I'd love +to play more "everyone's a GM" games.) + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--josh + +"You can't ignore a rain of toads!"--Mike Holmes + +*mahoux * +Member + +Posts: 119 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #6 on:* December 28, 2001, 09:43:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Josh- +I am currently writing a turn-based RPG where there is no GM, but the +"non-active" players play all the NPCs and help drive the action, +basically a reverse RPG. + +Stuff that's all in the works and should get finished in '02. + +But that's neither here nor there to the thread. My own idea is that +everyone needs to work together to drive the story, or else just have +the GM read to you all from the Chronicles of Narnia or something. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Taking the & out of AD&D + +http://home.earthlink.net/~knahoux/KOTR_2.html <"">Knights of the +Road, Knights of the Rail has hit the rails! + +*lumpley * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 2091 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #7 on:* December 28, 2001, 10:53:00 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +At the risk of contributing to thread-hijack, the Ars Magica game I play +is fully co-GMed. Such a thing is entirely possible and, let me tell +you, big big fun. + +At the risk of using hot language, it's mechanic-less too. (By which I +mean for mechanics we use the 'mechanics' that drive any shared creative +process: discussion, debate, as much clarity as possible, willingness to +compromise, and just generally all caring about the game.) + +If you ask me, both mechanics and having a GM are for when the normal, +day-to-day consensus that makes roleplaying happen breaks down -- and if +you're willing to commit to consensus, you don't need them. But boyo +that's me being pedantic. I'm really enjoying your posts, Fang. Looks +like a great game so far. + +-lumpley Vincent + Logged + +*Laurel * +Member + +Posts: 243 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #8 on:* December 28, 2001, 01:31:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +First of all, thank you for posting the first Scattershot installment. + It tackled a really tricky issue. + +One of the problems, I think, in defining what GM-Player roles should be +is because GMs and Players can all have such different game styles and +personalities that whatever system of governance you establish, its not +going to be what works for ~everyone~. What you have done in defining +the differences between player "can" and GM "must" to fufill flow of +play, for example, certainly helps pinpoint what you, as the developer, +consider "ideal" Scattershot GM and player styles and might encourage +participants to steer towards meeting your personal ideal. + +Laurel + Logged + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #9 on:* December 28, 2001, 04:25:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +joshua neff wrote: + +While my gaming preferences remain solidly in the "one GM for a group of +players" realm, I'm entirely unconvinced that there needs to be one GM +to guide them all (*ahem*). + +Same here. The reasons I created these breakdowns was to have a +starting point towards explaining how to do things differently. + +Quote +I think GM-less play (which is really "everyone-is-a-GM" play) is a +completely feasible option, & one which shouldn't be discounted. + +I don't mean to discount it, but considering how important I think the +emotional attachment to a game /through/ their characters is for the +players, I find it an extremely sophisticated form of play to switch +between 'player' and 'gamemaster' as frequently as a "gamemaster-filled" +game requires. Scattershot is meant to be formally for beginners so I +have very little room to address this kind of play in the core products. + +On the other hand, if you read through the link I gave above, you can +see that I have gone to great lengths to create techniques that allows a +live-action Scattershot game to be essentially 'gamemaster-free' game. + +Quote +I sometimes think the idea that "there needs to be a GM" is a basic +mistrust in decision-making-by-consensus, a holdover from playing in +dysfunctional gaming groups. Lord knows, I've been in enough gaming +groups in which /somebody/ had to exert some sort of authority. But I've +also been in groups in which consensus was the rule, not the exception. + +Actually, the 'sharing' of any game (or game-world) underscores the +actually high level of consensus that already exists in gaming. I never +meant to depreciate the value of decision-by-consensus, but I felt that +in some cases it can be more important to have a speedy decision (like +can be had by a single gamemaster) than one subject to debate as can be +sometimes necessary with consensus. + +Scattershot's playing techniques describe a general use of consensus +throughout, but has the group place its consensual 'power' in the +gamemaster for those times when time is more important than discussion +(just like a representative democracy). + +Fang Langford + +[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-28 20:08 ] + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #10 on:* December 28, 2001, 04:28:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +Mahoux wrote: + +I am currently writing a turn-based RPG... +[Snip.] +Stuff that's all in the works and should get finished in '02. + +Wow!?! Next week! I wish I was that fast. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*joshua neff +* +Member + +Posts: 844 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #11 on:* December 28, 2001, 04:38:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +Scattershot is meant to be formally for beginners so I have very little +room to address this kind of play in the core products. + + +Oh, I understand. I just felt the need, as I often do, to start looking +at alternatives. I think you're right to put forth the (for lack of a +better word) traditional way of playing. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--josh + +"You can't ignore a rain of toads!"--Mike Holmes + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #12 on:* December 28, 2001, 04:44:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +lumpley wrote: + +At the risk of using hot language, it's mechanic-less too. + +This matches what I described in [SCATTERSHOT:] Whence go the Mechanics + as +General play. (If you want to go back and look at it.) + +Quote +If you ask me, both mechanics and having a GM are for when the normal, +day-to-day consensus that makes role-playing happen, breaks down -- and +if you're willing to commit to consensus, you don't need them. + +Exactly the point I am making. But beginners cannot be expected to be +sophisticated enough to play this way on the first go. Since +Scattershot is for beginners as well as experienced players, I need to +set down a 'starting point' to describe these sorts of things. + +Quote +I'm really enjoying your posts, Fang. Looks like a great game so far. + +Thank you very much, I cannot say how well I appreciate the compliments +(words fail). I hope to hear more of what you think as the remainder is +posted. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*joshua neff +* +Member + +Posts: 844 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #13 on:* December 28, 2001, 04:57:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +You know, something's been niggling at me, & I think I just nailed what +it is. + +Fang, you've referred to "GM-less"/"everyone's-a-GM" play as +"sophisticated", & that Scattershot, as primarily for beginners, +shouldn't expect people to be able to easily achieve this level of play. + +Here's the thing. I don't think it's sophisticated. Not any more than +"traditional" RPG play. + +When I was in grade school, my friends & I played Superheroes everyday +on the playground. We spun long, elaborate narratives over the course of +the school year. Villains died & returned, heroes were faced with +conflict, & dumb fart jokes were made. There was no GM, all decisions +were made essentially by consensus. I don't think what we were doing was +any more sophisticated than playing /D&D/ with one GM making decisions +(in the style of, as you said, a representative democracy). + +I guess I feel like you're not giving beginners enough credit. +Especially considering they haven't had the dysfunctional RPG +experiences a lot of us old timers have had. I think beginners could +quite possibly handle a myriad of RPG styles easily. Which is not to say +that the way you're going about Scattershot is wrong by any stretch of +the imagination. You've obviously put a LOT of thought into this, & so +far it looks really good. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--josh + +"You can't ignore a rain of toads!"--Mike Holmes + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part III: Being the Difference Between Players & Gamemasters +* +« *Reply #14 on:* December 28, 2001, 05:05:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +Laurel wrote: + +First of all, thank you for posting the first Scattershot installment. + It tackled a really tricky issue. + +One that I have felt for some time has needed to be 'outed.' I am not +comfortable saying that I 'have it,' but I think I have at least +conceived of a good 'starting point.' + +Quote +One of the problems, I think, in defining what GM-Player roles should be +is because GMs and Players can all have such different game styles and +personalities that whatever system of governance you establish, its not +going to be what works for ~everyone~. What you have done in defining +the differences between player "can" and GM "must" to fufill flow of +play, for example, certainly helps pinpoint what you, as the developer, +consider "ideal" Scattershot GM and player styles and might encourage +participants to steer towards meeting your personal ideal. + +Actually no. What I described was not that close to my ideal. As I +have stated elsewhere, we chose to have Scattershot be accessible to as +much of the audience of experienced gamers as possible. In keeping with +that, I created the above descriptions of what I consider the functional +traditional set-up. + +My actual perspective is that 'flow of play' is more important than what +are the specific duties or rights of either players or gamemasters. I +established the above relationships only as a starting point. + (Actually, I listed the above traditional relationships so as to show +some of the extremes that the features I delved into could reach.) + +In the techniques given in Scattershot, we deal with these roles (and +variations on them) in much more detail. Since, in this series of +articles, I am only dealing with the mechanical portion of Scattershot, +I only brought these up only to suggest some of the different types of +emotional investments that can be had (at least traditionally) and how +they relate the actual issues I was discussing. + +Thank you for your insightful commentary. It goes a long way towards +suggesting the totality of the realms of player-gamemaster +relationships. (Which I hope to comment on some day when I delve into +the techniques of Scattershot, right now I have my hands full detailing +the mechanics though.) + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + 3 + Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/scatter-4.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/scatter-4.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,862 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +March 15, 2006, 02:55:22 PM + +Login with username, password and session length + + +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*198794* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *Inactive Forums * +| |-+ *Scattershot * +| | |-+ *Part IV: Sorting the Nuts and Bolts +* « previous + +next » + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +Author Topic: Part IV: Sorting the Nuts and Bolts (Read 596 times) + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part IV: Sorting the Nuts and Bolts +* +« * on:* December 28, 2001, 04:03:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +December 28th, 2001 - + +At the behest of my friends here on the Forge, I will present +Scattershot at the point I have it. Even though this is a +work-in-progress and much of the terminology is in a state of flux, I am +not trying to present a diary of the progress. Expect the lead +component of this thread to undergo changes as Scattershot does. This +edition was originally put together very early on Friday, December 28th, +2001. This series of articles will detail strictly the mechanics of +Scattershot, articles relating to the techniques of 'how to play' will +have to wait until I have more of them centralized and organized. The +third major component of the game, the setting and genre material is +will be addressed once I get a new batch of playtesters. + +As promised /now/ we begin to describe the actual nuts and bolts of +Scattershot's mechanics. Everything in Scattershot's mechanics revolves +around resolution of actions that participants have their characters +perform. In fact all other mechanics have been positioned so as to be +simply another presentation of the resolution mechanic. In order to +adequately explain all that goes into Scattershot's resolution process, +first I need to lay out a number of descriptors. + +All things performed within Scattershot's resolution mechanic are +described by Ratings. Mostly numeric, these Ratings are the most +important part of this mechanic. There are many qualities and +classifications involved in these Ratings and without describing what +they are, a user might become confused what they are being asked to do. + +First of all, all Ratings in Scattershot break down into three different +/Types/. + +Invoked + + When the character performs an act or has one performed on them + (at either Specific + + or Mechanical + + play 'densities') a Rating is used to determine the + result.[/list:u]Magnitude + + The Rating is used to determine how much of something can be + or is affected. In a fashion likened to Mayfair's DC + Heroes, Scattershot has a chart of 'amounts' that can be + affected (we have named this either the Universal + Equivalency or Universal Effect Chart - also known as the UE + or 'Huey' Chart). Lifting capability qualifies as one of + these.[/list:u]Resource + + These Ratings are something that 'gets used up' during + play, either spent or reduced by circumstance. + Old-fashioned hit points are one example, but so are + Hero Games' Endurance Batteries.[/list:u]Next we + separate Ratings based on their /Application/. + + Instantaneous + + Any conscious action by a player results in this + kind of Application /for/ the character. + Examples would be things like sight-based + Observations, Fencing, Pottery, or any type of + Detection ability.[/list:u]Reactive + + When some other party attempts an act + /upon/ a character or that might involve + them (whether they know it or not), this + is the type of Application used. Examples + include forms of sensation or magical + resistence.[/list:u]Residual + + There are two kinds of Residual + Applications, on-the-spot and + preemptive. A preemptive Residual + Application happens when something + that is resolved has 'lingering' + effects. This might be how hard a + code is to break (which is created + when the code is invented); it could + also be how good a work of art is. + When an on-the-spot Residual + Application is required, it is + created right then, but treated as + though it had been continuously in + effect prior to when it was needed. + This could be a 'how well did I do + at the ball' savoir-faire result or + how well something was jury-rigged. + (Residual Applications form a + cornerstone to how the Scattershot + mechanic is used, but I'll get to + that later.)[/list:u]The next topic + is the /Kinds/ of Ratings there are + in Scattershot. I'll take them out + of order to make their structure and + relationships clearer. + + Preternatural or Supernatural Abilities + + This includes all manner of + superpowers and magical + effects. If you are doing it + with something other than your + hands or physical tools, it's + probably one of these. Every + use of a Rating in Scattershot + actually involves two Ratings + (but in some they can be + somewhat hidden). The first + is some measure or limit on + how much can be affected. + This 'quantity' (this is in + quotes because sometimes the + 'quantity' can be a distance + or a philosophical property or + otherwise) is indexed on the + UE Chart often using a + Statistic (more on these + later) for both superpowers + and magic (and most of the + rest of these abilities too). + + The second Rating is the + number that the dice are + actually used with. This is a + Rating of efficacy that the + character can perform the + appropriate action with. When + the dice are compared to this + Rating, the /quality/ of the + success (or failure) is + determined. That's the basic + structure of all Scattershot's + resolutions. Know the amount + affected, randomly check + against the character's + efficacy, and determine the + result. + + In the case of a superhero, + except in special + circumstances, all their + powers will be based on a + single Statistic, likewise + with a mage or psychic. When + these kinds of abilities are + Reactive they include things + like 'active' defenses. In + Residual Application these are + things like force fields, + memory wipes, illusions and + the like.[/list:u]Skills + + These include primarily + things a character has + learned or is talented + with. Things that can + be done in the 'mundane' + fashion are considered + skills. The major thing + that separates skills + from the above abilities + is that skills use + static limits of what + can be affected. For + example, a psychic might + be able to lift a car + with telekinesis only + when something boosts + their power level, but + an auto mechanic is able + to repair a single car + in about 3 hours. + Modifiers alter this, + but not the same way as + a magician is slave to + the amount of + 'available' magic. Each + skill lists its base + parameters (and all of + them happen to be based + on 5 templates that are + offered later to create + additional material). + (An example of a Skill + used Reactively would be + a counterfieter + recognizing a forgery + that, itself, is a + Residual Application of + the skill used of the + original + forger.)[/list:u]Statistics + + There are 6 Stats + in Scattershot + Strength, Agility, + Hit Points, + Reaction, + Observation, and + Power + (surprisingly it + /can/ be + pronounced; + SAHROP). Stats + are Ratings that + are + 'self-referent,' + this means that + when a roll is + needed, the amount + effected is also + indexed with the + same Stat. + Strength and + Power are + primarily + Magnitudes. + Agility, + Reaction, and + Observation are + usually Invoked. + This leaves Hit + Points (and in + some genres, + Power) as mostly + Resources. (Power + is used as a + Reactive, Invoked + ability when + preternatural + characters act + upon 'natural' + characters. A + high Agility can + afford a small + Residual bonus on + skills listing its + effect.) I can go + into the unusual + interpretations of + these seemingly + classic Stats if + requested, but I + will leave that + until + later.[/list:u]Advantages + (and Disadvantages) + + These are + the only + Ratings that + do not occur + as numerical + (especially + in the Basic + mechanics + ). + Their + primary use + is in + General Play + , + but they + function as + Residual + Applications + when used in + either + Specific or + Mechanical + play + . + Since they + rarely + benefit any + other roll + more than 1 + point, the + horrors of + 'currency + issues'¹ + never + arise.[/list:u]Like + Advantages + and + Disadvantages, + bonuses and + penalties + are treated + as Residual + Ratings. + This + becomes very + important in + certain + situations + in + Scattershot + and as far + as I know + may be an + original way + of looking + how these work. + + There are a + few other + variations + worthy of + note in + Scattershot. + The + Durations of + ability + usage are + also very + important in + deciding how + an ability + affects + play. There + are three + Durations + noted in + Scattershot. + + Immediate + + These + are + acts + that + only + take a + single + action + by a + character, + like + firing + an + arrow + at a + target.[/list:u]Involved + + These + activities + take + more + than + one + time + unit + in + Scattershot, + in + Mechanical + play + , + the + exact + amount + of + time + can + be + very + important. + Sometimes + Involved + actions + are + considered + a + series + of + sequencial + actions, + such + as + taking + part + in + an + archery + tournament + (which + is + a + different + skill + than + normal + archery) + or + tracking + wild + game. + This + awareness + of + Duration + is + directly + linked + to + one + of + Scattershot + combat's + more + interesting + features + (but + I'll + save + that + for + later).[/list:u]Scenic + (I + really + need + a + different + word + here) + + These + activities + basically + take + an + entire + scene + unto + themselves + to + play + out. + Only + on + rare + occasion + will + a + Scenic + Duration + skill + usage + be + 'played + out.' + They + are + usually + handled + during + naturally + occuring + breaks + in + play, + like + 'between' + scenes. + A + couple + of + examples + include + hunting + and + foraging. + Usage + of + a + Scenic + Duration + ability + usually + only + occurs + during + General + play + .[/list:u]One + of + the + special + mechanics + in + Scattershot + involves + using + a + skill + (or + other + ability) + at + a + Duration + they + are + not + associated + with. + Using + 'strategy' + (managing + a + whole + battle) + in + place + of + 'tactics' + (taking + advantage + of + the + situations + of + a + fight) + is + one + example, + another + would + be + using + to + 'charm' + in + a + scene + in + place + of + 'savoir-faire.' + (This + 'defaulting' + is + actually + based + on + how + Scattershot + handles + the + bonuses + and + penalties + for + taking + more + or + less + time + to + do + something.) + + Another + variation + noted + in + Scattershot + is + the + value + of + the + Scope + of + what + is + being + resolved. + This + not + only + includes + things + involved + with + concepts + like + the + Scope + of + a + subject + being + affected, + but + also + the + scope + of + those + performing + the + act. + + Individual + + Most + activities + are + resolved + on + this + level. + One + individual + acts + upon + another + or + a + small + group + (what + they + act + upon + is + alternatively + limited + by + the + UE + Chart). + This + works + on + every + 'density' + of + play + + quite + easily.[/list:u]Squad + (another + term + that + needs + a + changing) + + This + scope + is + especially + relevant + when + addressing + the + components + of + a + scene + individually + would + take + altogether + too + long, + destroying + 'flow + of + play.' + One + of + the + techniques + of + Scattershot + combat + involves + shifting + up + to + this + level + under + certain + circumstances.[/list:u]Mob + (and + so + on) + + Other + Scopes + obviously + exist, + but + are + almost + always + handled + in + General + play + + (though + sometimes + it + can + creep + down + to + Specific + play + ) + and + Scenic + Duration + (wars + can + be + handled + this + way).[/list:u]When + you + take + the + Types + and + Applications + of + a + Rating + into + account, + the + Kind, + Duration, + and + Scope + of + how + it + works, + you + begin + to + see + how + Scattershot + makes + use + of + the + Ratings + involved + + Next + time, + peeling + away + the + layers + of + the + mechanics. + + Fang + Langford + + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/scatter-5.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/scatter-5.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,2368 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +March 15, 2006, 02:55:25 PM + +Login with username, password and session length + + +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*198794* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *Inactive Forums * +| |-+ *Scattershot * +| | |-+ *Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal +* « previous + +next » + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +Author Topic: Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal (Read +914 times) + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal +* +« * on:* January 01, 2002, 08:43:00 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +January 24th, 2002 - + +At the behest of my friends here on the Forge, I will present +Scattershot at the point I have it. Even though this is a +work-in-progress and much of the terminology is in a state of flux, I am +not trying to present a diary of the progress. Expect the lead +component of this thread to undergo changes as Scattershot does. This +edition was originally put together very early on Tuesday, January 1st, +2002. This series of articles will detail strictly the mechanics of +Scattershot, articles relating to the techniques of 'how to play' will +have to wait until I have more of them centralized and organized. The +third major component of the game, the setting and genre material is +will be addressed once I get a new batch of playtesters. + +So at last we come to the mechanics. This is where we formalize the +'flow of play' in support of emotionally engaging contextual thinking +. + We are going to examine primarily the Advanced Scattershot mechanics + +across the whole range of 'Densities' from General to Mechanical + +play. We're going to fully formalize the process of passing who the +Speaker + is +during scenes + +within a game into the communal language + and +mechanics of Scattershot. + +At its simplest level, the Scattershot mechanic is little more than a +resolution system + +with trimmings. Every ability (or quality of any entity within a +Scattershot game) is described by a Rating. Before I talk about using +these Ratings, I think I should describe 'how to get them.' + +Fat Points + + Scattershot's point-based system requires that you 'buy' abilities + using character points, during character generation or evolution, + in order to take full advantage of them. Since simplicity is one + of the design specifications and it is a point-based system, we + quickly decided that to raise any rating 1 point would cost 1 + point. This makes Scattershot's points 'worth more' than most + games (by a factor of 3, 5, or in some cases 10 or higher). + + Some have suggested that this lacks a limit on the 'return on + investments.' This is only an illusion. Scattershot's die + mechanic (more in just a bit) creates a sigmoid graph (which means + more and more points give less and less improvement in probability + terms). Also, when a player has more points to 'spend' there are + obviously more choices to make (Scattershot will have rather long + 'laundry' lists of abilities to choose from - for players who + aren't interested in lists, it's not hard to make up abilities + instead of searching for them, the lists are mostly to help + players get inspired); this means that most of the time, these + points will tend to get 'spread out' more. + + The second part of having a point-based system we do differently + is that there are no point cut-offs. Instead of saying, "you only + have 30 points to spend," we point out that more points means a + character has a higher or broader efficacy in general. + Concentrations of points in a single ability means that a + character is expected to excel at (or be somewhat defined by) that + ability (like a gunfighter - who /should/ have a high 'quickdraw' + skill). Based on this quality, the rest of the group can form a + quick understanding of 'how able' a character is and can play + accordingly. + + All abilities (which does not /appear/ to include Stats) require + that at least one point (not including Free Skills1 - more on that + later) be spent on them in order that the character can make full + use of them (Stats /are/ the same except a 'hidden' point is spent + on each prior to character generation). Abilities not 'spent + upon' can only be used at a 'default' rating (which means they + have certain functional restrictions). Abilities are ranked from + Free1, to Easy, Intermediate, or Difficult (on up to Exceptional, + Renowned, Incredible, Nigh Impossible, and Legendary - this is + actually based on an explicit formulation of efficacy, see 'making + up your own abilities' below). + + Free skills1 (which make up almost all of the Free abilities) are + included to cover things that are generally taken to 'flesh out' a + character (and have much higher 'starting' Ratings than other + abilities, as listed with each). Rather than making things like + academic-based characters very expensive, they allow a broad range + of 'background' skills. There is only a minor cost that accrues + for taking /many/ Free skills1. All other abilities receive their + rank not by some arbitrary standard, but how they relate to one + and another in terms of efficacy in general and specifically how + they relate to the template abilities (that are used to create + additional material by the participants - see 'making up your own + abilities' below). (Technically 'Free skills' do this too, but + the point cost is also 'hidden'.) + + The Rating of an Easy ability is the 'points spent on it' plus 11, + Intermediate abilities are 'points plus 10,' Difficult is 'plus 9' + (and so on)². (As an example, Superpowers are of Incredible rank, + but in the example powers - a fairly wide list - may be treated as + Difficult with a 'buy in' cost of 3 for Ratings purposes; + numerically the result is the same.) Natural human range for all + abilities (Stats included) is 8-14 with a median of 10 (any rating + is possible, but a 15 means the character is at least superhuman + in that respect - and that may require additional explanation in + the character's description).[/list:u]What Do You Do with These + Ratings? + + When an Instantaneous, Invoked + + Rating is 'checked³' for an Immediate action + + by an Individual + , + after determining the necessary rating, two ten-sided dice + are rolled and their sum* is subtracted from this rating (so + rolling lower is better). The difference is called a MIB + (short for Made-It-By) number. Rolling higher than the + Rating is a failure or MIB (Missed-It-By) number; a roll + equal to the rating has 'just made it.' There are many + different types of Modifiers that can be applied to this + roll. Beyond the familiar range, size, and opportunity + modifiers you would expect, there can also be Residual, + Scope, and Duration + + modifiers when the available ability is not a perfect match + for the needed action. + + A MIB becomes a contested 'check3' by having any party who + is 'engaged' by the action actively resist it. After the + modifiers are applied, both parties roll separate MIB + numbers, and then subtract the resistor's MIB number from + the MIB of the character performing the original action. + Sometimes the resistor's MIB number can be derived as + either a Reactive or Residual + + MIB number, depending on the circumstances. The Resulting + MIB (or RMIB) number is used to determine the /quality/ of + the success of the action (just like the MIB number in an + uncontested roll).[/list:u]Taking Turns + + As I mentioned in the first installment + , + Scattershot formalizes the 'flow of play,' especially + at times of high emotion + . + Just like the normal tendency to formalize play + during cacophony + , + Scattershot switches to a rigid play-order during + Mechanical play + . + A lot of game systems use complicated mechanics to + create some kind of turn order related to the efficacy + of combat-skilled characters. For as much trouble as + I have seen this cause, it never seems to be a + reasonable return for such wargame inspired mechanics. + + During Mechanical play + , + Scattershot does a very simple thing; play goes + counter-clockwise around the group (play passes to + your right once you have taken the turns for each of + the characters you play). Each time around the group + is called a Round (simple huh?). What about all those + things complicated games capture with their turn-order + mechanics? Well, it seemed to us they were trying to + emulate the kinds of advantages characters could have + over each other in melee, so we created the Combat + Advantage system (I'll come back to that later) + instead.[/list:u]Who Goes First? + + Another feature that seemed to us a needless + complication was all of those 'initiative' + mechanics. Ultimately, they only seem to + mitigate who makes the actual 'first swing;' + while that can have important consequences in + fairly lethal systems, it seems to completely + eliminate those tense and exciting 'leading up + to combat' scenes. The tense circling, the + traded insults, having guns at the ready yet not + wanting to 'make the first move.' Looking at + all these examples with an eye towards writing + mechanics, I could only see one thing. /The + battle had already started./ + + In the source material, sometimes it seemed like + a mental battle, sometimes not, but it always + 'felt' like they were already using Mechanical + play + . + So how were they fighting without trading + blows? It looked like they were 'looking for an + opening,' seeking the 'advantage,' or the like. + (I'll get to Combat Advantage in a moment.) If + that is the case, /then/ who starts it? That + seemed simple, whoever first chooses to act as + though battle is inevitable. Whether it is the + cowhand walking into the bar spoiling for a + fight, savages springing from an ambush, the + dandy striking with his white glove, or a pirate + slowly drawing his cutlass from its scabbard, + the character who makes the decision that battle + is a foregone conclusion is the one who takes + the first Mechanical play + + turn; it's that simple.[/list:u]What about + Bigger, Faster Combat? + + During Mechanical play + , + scope is an important feature to keep + track of. Things like naval engagements, + a battle like Waterloo, and those mass + combat scenes from The Hobbit and + Braveheart will only rarely have an + Individual Scope aspect (and even then the + battle itself is usually handled 'behind + the scenes' + ) + and are usually only in Specific play + . + Our mechanic for melee is, if the + characters played by one participant + outnumber the rest of the group /of + players/, you will usually need to switch + to a 'higher' level of Scope + + than Individual + + play. This keeps things from 'bogging + down' the pacing, like a battle against + bad odds. This also allows the system to + simplify handling what I believe are + called 'mooks' more easily. + + While we're talking about melee, I would + like to describe a seemingly unique + feature of Scattershot. Now you probably + don't imagine using Involved actions + + in Individual + + melee, but we have a way where it seems + almost necessary. To me, when a + gunslinger sizes up his opponent, waits + for them to 'twitch,' draws his gun, and + fires as though he'd aimed; these four + actions actually count as a single + Involved action + . + The same is true for those 'Hong Kong + Martial Arts Theatre' movie moves, a whole + flurry of actions that Scattershot treats + as a single Involved action. (Because of + the nature of this contested action and + how the actual landed blow is determined, + Scattershot resolves this as a /series/ of + die rolls between subject and actor.) + + When a character knows a martial art that + includes any of these Involved + + sequences of actions and they have an + opportunity to act, they may use one /as + though it were a single action/. In many + cases, the literal sequence will be + described by a loose 'script' that can be + customized 'on the fly' during play. + These sequences can be followed to their + end, provided every component is fended + off or the whole sequence is not + interrupted (specific mechanics of + interruption apply).[/list:u]How Do I + Defend Myself? + + In Scattershot, whenever someone + makes a melee action against your + character, the have 'engaged' them. + When your character is thus + engaged, you may Forfeit one of + their upcoming actions (if they have + any left this Round) and perform a + Reactive or defensive action with + its MIB roll. (And performing such + a Forfeited action can be a lead in + to a flurry of actions, /by the + defender/, so be careful who you + engage, you might regret it.) After + you have Forfeited both of your + character's actions, they may + perform nothing but 'free actions' + until the end of their next + turn.[/list:u]What was that about + Advantage? + + During a melee, many things + happen, too many to easily + catalog as mechanics. In + order to reflect the many, + varied ways that combatants + can shift the tide of battle, + we created the Combat + Advantage mechanic. Basically + speaking, it is any action + that would result in a + Residual penalty + + against the opponent that your + character holds the Advantage + over. Scattershot's + techniques discuss what can be + or should not be worthy of + creating this Residual penalty + ; + what kinds of actions will + create Advantage, what sorts + will support an Advantage, and + what one can do to erode + another's Advantage over you. + (I'm not going into the + specifics here unless requested.) + + This mechanic of Combat + Advantage is what replaces + most other games' rules for + initiative and complex + turn-order rules (which, as + far as I can tell, only result + in some kind of advantage + anyway).[/list:u]What if I Miss? + + In many cases during + Specific play + + a roll might Miss-It-By + just a point or two. + After the MIB number is + calculated, the + character's player may + opt to 'Buy a Success' + by changing one of the + parameters of the + attempt /after the + fact/. Let's say an + auto mechanic + Missed-It-By 1 (often + just MIB -1), his player + can turn this failure + into a success by + changing the amount of + time it took, or by + requiring more parts and + thus cost (or both if + they Missed-It-By 2). A + 'bought' success is + never higher than 'just + making it.' In + Mechanical play + , + like melee, if a player + needs to 'Buy a Success' + they can do things like + give ground, yield + Combat Advantage, dive + for cover, or something + more descriptive like + going down on one knee + as long as the group + seems receptive to the + complication it creates. + + If you can 'Buy a + Success,' why not be + able to 'Sell a + Success?' The mechanic + for when you 'Sell a + Success' is called the + /±5 mechanic/. To take + longer, you find the + duration on the UE Chart + + and then count up or + down 5 points. This way + you can /add or + subtract/ to the amount + affected; 'extra' points + of success can also be + 'spent' on Residual + modifiers. You can + likewise 'buy' a point + of Combat Advantage + (which is of course just + another form of Residual + modifier + anyway).[/list:u]Critical + Junctures + + In setting up a + game, the + participants need + to fix how 'epic' + or 'over the top' + they want to play. + The primary way + this is done is by + adjusting the + Critical Juncture + Threshold. The + core suggested + threshold is 7. + This means + whenever any + modified MIB + number is 7 or + higher, the player + of the character + this 'goes + against' is + compelled to + create a + description of not + only what has + happened but must + also indicate how + this forms a + turning point for + their character. + (I especially + like the title + character's first + encounter with the + Sheriff of + Nottingham, in + Robin Hood: Prince + of Thieves. Robin + clearly scores a + /Telling Blow/ - + matching or + exceeding the + Critical Juncture + Threshold of the + game. The + Sheriff's player, + rather than taking + a horrible wound, + describes a fatal + attack on his + vanity, taking on + a new Disadvantage.) + + Likewise, if a + player rolls a + Missed-It-By + number 7 or more + points above the + modified Rating + used, they are + also compelled to + describe what kind + of fantastic + mistake occurs. + This + /Catastrophic + Failure/ must also + be something of a + 'turning point.' + In contested + rolls, a Telling + Blow is only + described when the + RMIB /continues/ + to exceeds the + Critical Juncture + Threshold after + being calculated. + The Critical + Juncture Threshold + also controls a + number of other + features in the + game. For + example, the total + of the Critical + Juncture number + and Epic Value³ + (which limits the + maximum length of + Flurries of + Action) must be + ten or less (id + est, in a game + where the Critical + Juncture is 6, + then flurries may + not exceed 4 in a + row). This keeps + all the 'epic' + qualities in line + for a single + game.[/list:u]/In + Case I Forgot to + Mention:/ + + Uses of + Types in + Mechanical + play + : + most + abilities + used will be + Invoked + + Ratings, + what these + affect is + often + limited by + Magnitude + + Ratings. + 'What gets + affected' + will + frequently + be a + Resource + + Rating. + + For example, + if your + character + /punches/ + mine (and + they don't + have a + related + melee + skill), they + will + generate a + MIB number + based on an + Invoked use + of their + Agility + Stat. If + they have an + unusually + high + Strength, in + its + Magnitude + role, the + Multiplier + facet of the + UE Chart + will be + indexed and + that will + multiply the + RMIB. This + will be the + /basic/ + damage which + unless + modified is + taken from + my Hit + Points in + their + Resource + role. + Likewise, + if your + character + wanted to + throw a + water tower + on a burning + building, + their + Strength + indexed on + the UE Chart + would be + compared to + the + estimated + weight of + the tower + and the + maximum + throwing + distance + could be + calculated. + Because of + the scope of + the tower + and the + target, + small + amounts of + error in the + throw would + be forgiven + (using both + scatter and + 'area of + effect' + mechanics).[/list:u]How + is a + Gamemaster + + different in + Mechanical + play + ? + + You + may + have + noticed + that + once + Mechanical + play + + gets + going + it + quickly + becomes + impossible + to + tell + 'who + started + it.' + The + only + problem + this + has + caused + had to + do + with + the + application + of + superhuman + speed + in our + superhero + mechanics. + The + solution + was to + have a + fair + number + of the + additional + actions + performed + immediately + before + the + gamemaster + (mostly + because, + by and + large, + they + are + taking + the + turns + of + more + individual, + and + non-player, + characters). + Other + than + that, + there + are no + real, + practical + differences.[/list:u]What + if I + Want + to + Make + Up My + Own + Abilities? + + Scattershot + bases + every + ability + on + 5 + templates. + There + are + schedules + of + modifications + that + can + be + made + to + these + abilities, + but + those + modifications + are + rather + esoteric + and + are + kept + to + the + Advanced + Scattershot + mechanics + . + In + keeping + with + the + design + specifications + of + Scattershot, + these + templates + are + paired + with + the + five + elements + (almost + everything + happens + to + be, + but + that + has + more + to + do + with + Scattershot's + universal + metaphysic + that + I + can + cover + if + anyone + is + interested). + Earth + matches + the + template + of + affecting + the + physical + nature + of + an + object, + Water + has + the + template + of + movement, + location, + and + time + manipulation, + Air's + template + manipulates + the + energy + of + a + subject + (including + spiritual), + Fire + manipulates + structure + and + relativity + (this + includes + information), + and + finally + Ether + is + relative + to + the + unusual + abilities + that + affect + the + 'character' + of + a + subject + - + including + things + which + make + it + unique + or + unremarkable. + I + can + go + into + detail + if + necessary, + but + this + about + sums + it + up.[/list:u]I + hope + this + satisfies + everyone's + curiosity + over + Scattershot's + mechanics. + Feel + free + to + ask + for + clarifications, + I + am + planning + on + going + over + the + whole + series + in + better + detail + and + re-editing + almost + all + of + it. + + Maybe + I + can + spell + out + the + techniques + of + play + that + make + use + of + these + mechanics. + + ©2002 + Impswitch + and + Fang + Langford + (who + will + get + around + to + tightening + this + up + eventually, + especially + with + feedback) + + ¹ + Free + skills + are + actually + free + until + quantity + is + built + up + with + them. + A + bargain + at + 4 + (taken + at + listed + levels) + for + every + point, + and + the + first + 4 + are + Free! + After + you + 'pay' + for + them, + raising + them + is + normal + (1 + for + 1). + (Their + 'actual + value' + falls + below + the + easy + threshold + because + of + their + limited + applicability.) + + ² + A + character + may + have + a + specialization + in + a + Skill + by + simply + further + narrowing + what + it + affects. + This + compares + the + differences + in + Scopes + of + some + related + Skills. + For + example, + the + squad + level + engagement + skill³ + compares + to + military + hand-to-hand³ + in + the + same + fashion + as + an + M16 + skill + (an + unlisted + specialization) + would + compare + to + the + rifle + skill. + Such + specialization + makes + a + skill + one + rank + 'easier' + and + therefore + cheaper. + + There + has + been + a + great + deal + of + controversy + on + the + modeling + of + talent + in + relation + to + training. + In + Scattershot + Talent + in + a + skill + costs + the + same + as + Training, + it's + only + differentiated + by + the + character's + description + and + history. + This + is + because, + without + a + point + cut-off, + there + is + not + much + need + for + complicated + pricing + mechanics. + (These + costs + can + be + mixed + as + well.) + + ³ + I + need + a + new + word + for + this + one. + + * + Anyone + can + also + add + experience + dice + to + this + roll. + Experince + dice + are + six-sided + and + given + out + as + rewards + for + play + that + increases + the + enjoyment + of + the + game. + They + are + awarded + at + the + end + of + a + session + + (by + gamemaster + + choice, + group + vote, + or + other + technique + as + desired) + or + they + are + given + 'on + the + spot' + where + and + when + any + participant + feels + that + someone + has + made + a + significant + contribution + to + their + (or + everyone's) + play + (when + other + than + the + gamemaster, + we + are + considering + if + a + 'bowl + of + dice' + is + appropriate + or + if + players + should + use + only + their + own + on + the + chance + that + the + gamemaster + will + not + agree + and + refund + them + immediately). + + Experience + dice + are + also + the + character + development + mechanic. + When + a + player + wishes + to + add + points + to + their + character + they + select + a + number + of + experience + dice + to + 'roll + for + points.' + The + target + number + for + 1 + point + is + 6, + for + two + it + is + 10, + 3 + is + 14, + and + 4 + is + 18 + (and + so + on + by + increments + of + 4 + per + point). + All + the + 'wagered' + experience + dice + are + rolled + at + once + and + added + together + and + then + compared + to + the + target + numbers. + + As + I + explained + in + this + thread + , + the + critical + juncture + number + and + the + 'looseness' + of + the + supply + of + experience + dice + work + together + to + Transition + Scattershot + towards + more + Narrativist + play + (when + Critical + Juncture + is + low + and + Experience + Dice + are + plentiful) + or + towards + Gamist + play + (when + Critical + Juncture + is + high + and + Experience + Dice + are + scarce). + You'll + note + that + in + character + development, + often + regarded + as + a + Gamist + mechanic, + Experience + Dice + become + more + valuable + because + of + scarcity. + + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Finally Editted - Whoops +* +« *Reply #1 on:* January 24, 2002, 03:05:15 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Well, I finally got around to editting the beast. + +And I found a whole section missing. The 'rules of engagement' are now +in place and make the following-action stuff look a little more worthwhile. + +Thanks for the patience. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*contracycle +* +Member + +Posts: 2392 + + +View Profile + + + +*Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal +* +« *Reply #2 on:* January 25, 2002, 03:26:46 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Say Fang, you've never worked for Last Unicorn games, have you ;) + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Impeach the bomber boys: +www.impeachblair.org +www.impeachbush.org + +"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship +without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast." +- Leonardo da Vinci + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Last Unicorn Games? +* +« *Reply #3 on:* January 25, 2002, 06:29:24 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: contracycle +Say Fang, you've never worked for Last Unicorn games, have you ;) + +No. Why? (He said with much confusion.) + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*contracycle +* +Member + +Posts: 2392 + + +View Profile + + + +*Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal +* +« *Reply #4 on:* January 25, 2002, 06:40:20 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +They're (in)famous for reinventing terminology to the point of +obscurantism. I was just struck by how many terms you have to get to +follow the description. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Impeach the bomber boys: +www.impeachblair.org +www.impeachbush.org + +"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship +without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast." +- Leonardo da Vinci + +*RobMuadib * +Member + +Posts: 230 + + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*[SCATTERSHOT:V] Peeling Back the Layers, The Actual Mechanix +* +« *Reply #5 on:* January 25, 2002, 09:32:14 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Le Joueur + +So at last we come to the mechanics. This is where we formalize the +'flow of play' in support of emotionally engaging contextual thinking +. + We are going to examine primarily the Advanced Scattershot mechanics + +across the whole range of 'Densities' from General to Mechanical + +play. We're going to fully formalize the process of passing who the +Speaker + is +during scenes + +within a game into the communal language + and +mechanics of Scattershot. + + +Well, I thought I would chime in here a bit, partially as a response to +contracyles post below. Specifically, on the idea of the steeper +learning curve associated with a game that fully quantifies it's game +language, and largely makes it a requirement to learn. + +First, all RPGs are in effect Formal Languages, in the way that computer +programming languages are. These formal languages exist to enable us to +engage in the three elements of Story, Game, and Role. + +Now, most games that have been written so far, leave large amounts of +this formal language implicit, or reserve it's use to certain empowered +players. + +Now, in the first case, you lose the easy means to express and utilize +the elements of the formal language that are assumed/implicit, those +creating a system with which the players largely give short shrift to +those elements Story/Game/Role which are left implicit. In the second, +you create a class of highly empowered players, who because they have +access to these Guide mechanics, have greater control over the +experience of the players that don't. + +Thus, I believe that making the mechanics explicit and "democratizing" +them leads to the ability for all players to be empowered and thus have +greater ability to engage the elements of Story/Game/Role they find most +compelling. + +(This is newish thinking on my part that has developed from my X-styles +and XXX RPG theory thread in the GNS discussion forum) + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +At its simplest level, the Scattershot mechanic is little more than a +resolution system + +with trimmings. Every ability (or quality of any entity within a +Scattershot game) is described by a Rating. Before I talk about using +these Ratings, I think I should describe 'how to get them.' + + +again I like this thinking, as it mirrors the methodology I am using in +design of my own game. That getting the players to learn to use game +language, and make that language "abstractionist" and high-level, so it +is powerful and easy to use, is GOOD. Powerful Formalized Game Language +GOOD! + + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +Fat Points + + Scattershot's point-based system requires that you 'buy' abilities + using character points, during character generation or evolution, + in order to take full advantage of them. Since simplicity is one + of the design specifications and it is a point-based system, we + quickly decided that to raise any rating 1 point would cost 1 + point. This makes Scattershot's points 'worth more' than most + games (by a factor of 3, 5, or in some cases 10 or higher). + + Some have suggested that this lacks a limit on the 'return on + investments.' This is only an illusion. Scattershot's die + mechanic (more in just a bit) creates a sigmoid graph (which means + more and more points give less and less improvement in probability + terms). Also, when a player has more points to 'spend' there are + obviously more choices to make (Scattershot will have rather long + 'laundry' lists of abilities to choose from - for players who + aren't interested in lists, it's not hard to make up abilities + instead of searching for them, the lists are mostly to help + players get inspired); this means that most of the time, these + points will tend to get 'spread out' more. + + The second part of having a point-based system we do differently + is that there are no point cut-offs. Instead of saying, "you only + have 30 points to spend," we point out that more points means a + character has a higher or broader efficacy in general. + Concentrations of points in a single ability means that a + character is expected to excel at (or be somewhat defined by) that + ability (like a gunfighter - who /should/ have a high 'quickdraw' + skill). Based on this quality, the rest of the group can form a + quick understanding of 'how able' a character is and can play + accordingly. + + + +One problem I have on this thinking, while true for normal abilities that +define an ability to succeed at something, there is a diminished return +for each greater investment. But what about abilities such as super +powers and such, ones which are applications of a UE derived Value. + +Since they are based on a Geometric progression. Having unlimited points +to spend on the "effect" portion means a player could create a character +that can destroy planets and all while someone else might have just made +batman. How do you adress this, Self-established limits? + +This is interesting to me, since I plan to use a scaled triangular +progression for establishing Trait Score costs. Where a triangular +progression means it costs you a number of points equal to the sum of +the values up and including the Score being purchased - i.e. a Score of +1 costs 1, a Score of 2 (1+2), 3, a Score of 3 costs (1+2+3), 6, Score +of 4 costs (1+2+3+4), 10, a score of 5 costs (1+2+3+4+5), 15, etc. + +This doesn't result in a shortchange in either Basis Traits or Proficiency, +despite the diminishing returns in your chance of Binary Success, as +higher Trait Scores offer a geometric increase in related Values, and a +Linear increase in scaled ability. For Proficiency, although your Binary +Success is subject to diminishing returns, the magnitudes of your +Success scale linearly. (and thus require a geometrically increasing +cost to achieve.) + +This occurs because of the way I determine Success/Effect ratings. Which +I will show when I post an examination of my mechanics, which I plan to +do later today. + + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +What Do You Do with These Ratings? + + When an Instantaneous, Invoked + + Rating is 'checked³' for an Immediate action + + by an Individual + , + after determining the necessary rating, two ten-sided dice are + rolled and their sum* is subtracted from this rating (so rolling + lower is better). The difference is called a MIB (short for + Made-It-By) number. Rolling higher than the Rating is a failure + or MIB (Missed-It-By) number; a roll equal to the rating has 'just + made it.' There are many different types of Modifiers that can be + applied to this roll. Beyond the familiar range, size, and + opportunity modifiers you would expect, there can also be + Residual, Scope, and Duration + + modifiers when the available ability is not a perfect match for + the needed action. + + + +I like this idea of allowing of success out of failure. Seems like a +good mechanic, especially when trying to emphasize story elements. This +is somewhat novel approach. I have seen modifiers applied for +hurrying/Taking extra time on an Act, but this is first I've really seen +anyone use a reverse application of it. Pretty slick. + +My only caveat would to be label "optional" in that, it that it could +cause short shrift to Roleist elements for people who want to emphasize +it. Hardcore "Sim" play being the classic example, and possibly Gameist +play as well. Imagine the following exchange. + +"Hah, you failed, prepare to die dewd." +"Wait!, , + Scattershot formalizes the 'flow of play,' especially at times of + high emotion + . + Just like the normal tendency to formalize play during cacophony + , + Scattershot switches to a rigid play-order during Mechanical play + . + A lot of game systems use complicated mechanics to create some + kind of turn order related to the efficacy of combat-skilled + characters. For as much trouble as I have seen this cause, it + never seems to be a reasonable return for such wargame inspired + mechanics. + + In many cases during Specific play + + a roll might Miss-It-By just a point or two. After the MIB + number is calculated, the character's player may opt to 'Buy + a Success' by changing one of the parameters of the attempt + /after the fact/. Let's say an auto mechanic Missed-It-By 1 + (often just MIB -1), his player can turn this failure into a + success by changing the amount of time it took, or by + requiring more parts and thus cost (or both if they + Missed-It-By 2). A 'bought' success is never higher than + 'just making it.' In Mechanical play + , + like melee, if a player needs to 'Buy a Success' they can do + things like give ground, yield Combat Advantage, dive for + cover, or something more descriptive like going down on one + knee as long as the group seems receptive to the + complication it creates. + + + +I am going to agree to disagree with you, well done initiative systems, +provide a nice modeling of factors resulting in very tense involved +Gameist gameplay. + +The best example of such being the Semi-simultaneous action count system +of the Phoenix Command Small Arms system. (an idea I am ripping off for +my game, but only for the Tactical Combat rules, :)) +Where moving into the open at the wrong time, or being caught +flat-footed out of cover has obvious and crushing results. And catching +some poor bastard looking around being uncatious with a short burst, as +you wait in a Kneeling firing stance around solid cover, is SO satisfying! + +(what can I say, I like to play FPS on the computer too. Oh yeah, that +reminds me of one of my classic mantras, someone needs to convert +Phoenix command to a computer moderated version that would be sweet!) + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +If you can 'Buy a Success,' why not be able to 'Sell a Success?' The +mechanic for when you 'Sell a Success' is called the /±5 mechanic/. To +take longer, you find the duration on the UE Chart + and +then count up or down 5 points. This way you can /add or subtract/ to +the amount affected; 'extra' points of success can also be 'spent' on +Residual modifiers. You can likewise 'buy' a point of Combat Advantage +(which is of course just another form of Residual modifier anyway). + [/list:u] + + +Again, I like this, it's a clever reverse application of the handiness +of a UE Scale type deal. Also one I haven't seen before, as I mentioned +above. +Also, such Success Shifting can be a good tool to support Storyist goals. +Which should gain you brownie points around here:) + +My only point would be to express it's Storyist leanings, or not, as Ron +mentioned in a different thread, your game nicely features lots of +Storyist supporting mechanics. + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +Critical Junctures + + In setting up a game, the participants need to fix how 'epic' or + 'over the top' they want to play. The primary way this is done is + by adjusting the Critical Juncture Threshold. The core suggested + threshold is 7. This means whenever any modified MIB number is 7 + or higher, the player of the character this 'goes against' is + compelled to create a description of not only what has happened + but must also indicate how this forms a turning point for their + character. (I especially like the title character's first + encounter with the Sheriff of Nottingham, in Robin Hood: Prince of + Thieves. Robin clearly scores a /Telling Blow/ - matching or + exceeding the Critical Juncture Threshold of the game. The + Sheriff's player, rather than taking a horrible wound, describes a + fatal attack on his vanity, taking on a new Disadvantage.) + + Likewise, if a player rolls a Missed-It-By number 7 or more points + above the modified Rating used, they are also compelled to + describe what kind of fantastic mistake occurs. This + /Catastrophic Failure/ must also be something of a 'turning + point.' In contested rolls, a Telling Blow is only described when + the RMIB /continues/ to exceeds the Critical Juncture Threshold + after being calculated. The Critical Juncture Threshold also + controls a number of other features in the game. For example, the + total of the Critical Juncture number and Epic Value³ (which + limits the maximum length of Flurries of Action) must be ten or + less (id est, in a game where the Critical Juncture is 6, then + flurries may not exceed 4 in a row). This keeps all the 'epic' + qualities in line for a single game.[/list:u] + + + +Again, I really like these ideas, reminds me of some of the Reality +Rules I have in my game, whereby the outrageouness of results is tied to +the "Reality" being simulated. Though in my take it is in support of +Roleist, rather than Storyist goals. + +Like I mentioned in earlier threads, I am finding it interesting how we +have hit upon similar design metholodigies, but where your design is +heavier on Storyist supporting mechanics, mine is heavier on Roleist +supporting mechanics. + +Either way, both are helping me to develop my thinking on my new XXX rpg +theory stuff. + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +/In Case I Forgot to Mention:/ + + Uses of Types in Mechanical play + : + most abilities used will be Invoked + + Ratings, what these affect is often limited by Magnitude + + Ratings. 'What gets affected' will frequently be a Resource + + Rating. + + + +Oh, I am reminded of something in Contracycles post regarding your +terminology. Invoked is probably overly-obfuscated. In terms of previous +design, Acting/Opposing or Action/Reaction might be a clearer term. +Invoked is not as intuitive and heavier on the formal side in your +Formal Language. Magnitude is pretty good, as it is fairly intuitive. + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +For example, if your character /punches/ mine (and they don't have a +related melee skill), they will generate a MIB number based on an +Invoked use of their Agility Stat. If they have an unusually high +Strength, in its Magnitude role, the Multiplier facet of the UE Chart +will be indexed and that will multiply the RMIB. This will be the +/basic/ damage which unless modified is taken from my Hit Points in +their Resource role. Likewise, if your character wanted to throw a +water tower on a burning building, their Strength indexed on the UE +Chart would be compared to the estimated weight of the tower and the +maximum throwing distance could be calculated. Because of the scope of +the tower and the target, small amounts of error in the throw would be +forgiven (using both scatter and 'area of effect' mechanics).[/list:u] + + +I am a big proponent of the niftiness of the use of a Value Scale, it +provides lots of concrete values and detail, while still being fairly +high-level and abstracted enough to use easily. As opposed to lots of +gurps like calcuation of specific values with lots of multiplication and +no easy way to convert between results and such. + +Quote from: Le Joueur + + You may have noticed that once Mechanical play + + gets going it quickly becomes impossible to tell 'who started it.' + The only problem this has caused had to do with the application + of superhuman speed in our superhero mechanics. The solution was + to have a fair number of the additional actions performed + immediately before the gamemaster (mostly because, by and large, + they are taking the turns of more individual, and non-player, + characters). Other than that, there are no real, practical + differences.[/list:u] + + + +One case where effective initiative mechanics do make a useful +apperance, though a very limited case. Again, given the Storyist +leanings of your system that I see, sounds pretty good. + + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +What if I Want to Make Up My Own Abilities? + + Scattershot bases every ability on 5 templates. There are + schedules of modifications that can be made to these abilities, + but those modifications are rather esoteric and are kept to the + Advanced Scattershot mechanics + . + In keeping with the design specifications of Scattershot, these + templates are paired with the five elements (almost everything + happens to be, but that has more to do with Scattershot's + universal metaphysic that I can cover if anyone is interested). + Earth matches the template of affecting the physical nature of an + object, Water has the template of movement, location, and time + manipulation, Air's template manipulates the energy of a subject + (including spiritual), Fire manipulates structure and relativity + (this includes information), and finally Ether is relative to the + unusual abilities that affect the 'character' of a subject - + including things which make it unique or unremarkable. I can go + into detail if necessary, but this about sums it up.[/list:u]I + hope this satisfies everyone's curiosity over Scattershot's + mechanics. Feel free to ask for clarifications, I am planning on + going over the whole series in better detail and re-editing almost + all of it. + + + +This sounds pretty interesting, and again follows some of the stuff I +have been doing in my design, which is focused on getting the players to use +the Design Architectures to build worlds in its universe, The Million +Worlds (TM) + + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +² A character may have a specialization in a Skill by simply further +narrowing what it affects. This compares the differences in Scopes of +some related Skills. For example, the squad level engagement skill³ +compares to military hand-to-hand³ in the same fashion as an M16 skill +(an unlisted specialization) would compare to the rifle skill. Such +specialization makes a skill one rank 'easier' and therefore cheaper. + + +A good way to make skill use simple while still allowing for detail. I +go significantly further by using a Cumulative Skill Tree where +Proficiency is +determined from the sum of one of each of the character's relevant +Skills,Specialties, and Familiarities. + +as for names, the military Hand-to-Hand is covered in army field manual +FM21-150 Combatives. Perhaps simply Close Combat (squad) and Close +Combat (individual). + + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +There has been a great deal of controversy on the modeling of talent in +relation to training. In Scattershot Talent in a skill costs the same +as Training, it's only differentiated by the character's description and +history. This is because, without a point cut-off, there is not much +need for complicated pricing mechanics. (These costs can be mixed as well.) + + I will discuss this more when I post a summary of my Outcome Test +mechanic for review. + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +³ I need a new word for this one. (Check) + +Hmm, instead of contested Check, how about simply calling it a +Challenge, (Since it is effectively the default way your resolve +actions), and call the limited case of static uses a Simple Challenge. + +For instance, when a instaneous [Action] Rating is Challenged, you make +a Challenge roll by rolling 2d10 and comparing the your MIB # to the +Challenge roll of your Opponent ... etc, Or, in the case of a Simple +Challenge of a Rating, you make a Challenge Roll, modifying the Rating +for difficulty. Your MIB from the Challenge of your Effective Rating is used +directly to determine your RMIB, ... etc. + + +Quote from: Le Joueur + +* Anyone can also add experience dice to this roll. Experince dice are +six-sided and given out as rewards for play that increases the enjoyment +of the game. They are awarded at the end of a session + (by +gamemaster + +choice, group vote, or other technique as desired) or they are given 'on +the spot' where and when any participant feels that someone has made a +significant contribution to their (or everyone's) play (when other than +the gamemaster, we are considering if a 'bowl of dice' is appropriate or +if players should use only their own on the chance that the gamemaster +will not agree and refund them immediately). + +Experience dice are also the character development mechanic. When a +player wishes to add points to their character they select a number of +experience dice to 'roll for points.' The target number for 1 point is +6, for two it is 10, 3 is 14, and 4 is 18 (and so on by increments of 4 +per point). All the 'wagered' experience dice are rolled at once and +added together and then compared to the target numbers. + +As I explained in this thread +, the +critical juncture number and the 'looseness' of the supply of experience +dice work together to Transition Scattershot towards more Narrativist +play (when Critical Juncture is low and Experience Dice are plentiful) +or towards Gamist play (when Critical Juncture is high and Experience +Dice are scarce). You'll note that in character development, often +regarded as a Gamist mechanic, Experience Dice become more valuable +because of scarcity. + + +I like this tailoring methodolgy you have set-up, and I see why Ron +found your game interesting in terms of the Transitional effects of +being able to tune towards Storyist or Gamist roles. + +Anyway, that should be enough to keep you reading for a while, for my +next trick I will post a summary of my mechanics and discuss how they +represent more Roleist game language. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Rob Muadib -- Kwisatz Haderach Of Wild Muse Games +kwisatzhaderach@wildmusegames.com + -- +"But How Can This Be? For He Is the Kwisatz Haderach!" --Alyia - Dune +(The Movie - 1980) + +*Rob* +Guest + + +Email + + +*[SCATTERSHOT:V] Peeling Back the Layers, The Actual Mechanix +* +« *Reply #6 on:* January 28, 2002, 05:48:15 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: RobMuadib + +Where moving into the open at the wrong time, or being caught +flat-footed out of cover has obvious and crushing results. And catching +some poor bastard looking around being uncatious with a short burst, as +you wait in a Kneeling firing stance around solid cover, is SO satisfying! + + +I know, I got two in a row like that in CountrStrike over the weekend. +;) Well actually I was the short arm on an L-shaped ambush. + +Quote + +(what can I say, I like to play FPS on the computer too. Oh yeah, that +reminds me of one of my classic mantras, someone needs to convert +Phoenix command to a computer moderated version that would be sweet!) + + +Well, if you've not tried CS, you should. + +We now return you to your regularly scheduled Scattershot thread. + Logged + +*contracycle +* +Member + +Posts: 2392 + + +View Profile + + + +*Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal +* +« *Reply #7 on:* January 28, 2002, 05:51:24 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Weird, thats my post above. Hmm. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Impeach the bomber boys: +www.impeachblair.org +www.impeachbush.org + +"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship +without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast." +- Leonardo da Vinci + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*[SCATTERSHOT:V] Peeling Back the Layers, The Actual Mechanix +* +« *Reply #8 on:* February 01, 2002, 08:16:02 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: RobMuadib +One problem I have on this thinking, while true for normal abilities +that define an ability to succeed at something, there is a diminished +return for each greater investment. But what about abilities such as +super powers and such, ones which are applications of a UE derived Value. + +Since they are based on a Geometric progression. Having unlimited points +to spend on the "effect" portion means a player could create a character +that can destroy planets and all while someone else might have just made +batman. How do you address this, Self-established limits? + +I know the I-V stuff is terribly laden with designer notes, so I can +understand what's happening here. You're confusing the ability Rating +with the effect's Magnitude. + +This was one of the earliest compromises we made to mathematics, you +need two numbers to model enough situations for our satisfaction. It +didn't follow that you'd be better and better at doing something as you +became more powerful. Where would you model people who had fantastic +power but lousy control or vice versa? That's why almost all Ratings +have a Magnitude (for skills the Magnitude is 'hidden' by having each +skill define its own parameters). Superpower, magic, and et cetera are +linked to the Power Stat. The only Ratings that do not have Magnitudes +are the Stats themselves (and actually, in most cases, they function /as +their own/ Magnitudes - and this is the only case of that). + +What does that mean? Well because of the sigmoid graph of probabilities +associated with a 'this number or less' roll of dice, the more points +you spend, the less return there is. For example; if you have an +Invoked Rating of 15, the chances of succeeding on an unmodified *MIB* +roll is 85% (god, I love calculating with 2 ten-siders). Spend a point +(going up to 16) and that becomes 90%. If it were linear, another point +would get you 5% more, but it doesn''t. (17 is 94%, 18 is 97%, and 19 +is 99%.) This is diminishing return. + +With Magnitude Ratings, it works geometrically. Weight on the UE Chart +can be calculated (if you don't like charts) at 3 times the Rating +squared in pounds. For a Magnitude Rating of 40 (40 x 40 x 3), that +would be 4,800 pounds, just under 2½ tons. Adding 10 points makes it +7,500 pounds, a 56% increase. Adding 10 more is 10,800 pounds, another +69% (compared to the original). + +As you can see, turning the Magnitude up to the point where planets get +destroyed becomes both cost prohibitive, and bloody obvious. As I +described in another thread, what follows this part of character +creation is more-or-less negotiations on the part of the players to +reach an idea of what kind of game they all want to take part in. I +will be formalizing that exact process, when I /find those damn notes!/ + It isn't precisely about establishing limits, it has to do with shared +expectations. + +Quote from: RobMuadib +This doesn't result in a shortchange in either Basis Traits or +Proficiency, despite the diminishing returns in your chance of Binary +Success, as higher Trait Scores offer a geometric increase in related +Values, and a Linear increase in scaled ability. For Proficiency, +although your Binary Success is subject to diminishing returns, the +magnitudes of your Success scale linearly. (and thus require a +geometrically increasing cost to achieve.) + +We took the opposite approach (if I am reading this correctly). Our +'proficiency' scales with diminishing returns (see above), and our +magnitudes scale geometrically. The UE Chart is rarely about the +magnitude of success and more about the magnitude of success attempted. + Strength doesn't even require a roll unless you're doing something +'chancy,' you simply are able to lift Strength squared times 3 pounds. + +The only time success is scaled by the UE Chart is for things like +attacks; an attack superpower 'powered' by a Power of 40 has a +'multiplier' of 16; after the *RMIB* is determined you multiply it by 16 +(so an *RMIB* of 4 nets 64 points of basic damage). The multiplier is +static (and in a game with a Critical Juncture number of 5, you would +only need to note these values to avoid in-play calculation: 16, 32, 48, +and 64, because anything higher would be a Telling Blow). + +Quote from: RobMuadib +I like this idea of allowing of success out of failure. Seems like a +good mechanic, especially when trying to emphasize story elements. This +is somewhat novel approach. I have seen modifiers applied for +hurrying/Taking extra time on an Act, but this is first I've really seen +anyone use a reverse application of it. Pretty slick. + +My only caveat would to be label "optional" in that, it that it could +cause short shrift to Roleist elements for people who want to emphasize +it. Hardcore "Sim" play being the classic example, and possibly Gameist +play as well. Imagine the following exchange. + +"Hah, you failed, prepare to die dewd." +"Wait!, + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/scatter-GNS.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/scatter-GNS.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,1411 @@ +About the Forge | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + + * +* <#> +Home +Help +Search +Login +Register +Welcome, *Guest*. Please login + or register +. +Did you miss your activation email? + +March 15, 2006, 02:37:40 PM + +Login with username, password and session length + + +*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice. + +*Search: * Advanced search + + +*198792* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *Inactive Forums * +| |-+ *Scattershot * +| | |-+ *About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* « previous + +next » + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +Author Topic: About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) + (Read 1308 times) + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« * on:* January 21, 2002, 09:58:55 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hey there, + +I'm starting a few separate threads about Fang's game Scattershot. All +of them are based on the content of these threads (at the date of this +post) and some private messaging: +http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1073 <"">I: Core concept +http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1087 <"">II: Whence +go the mechanics +http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1080 <"">III: +Difference between players and GM +http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1096 <"">IV: Sorting +out the nuts and bolts +And http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1122 <"">V: +Actual mechanics + +This thread is about the initial Premise of the game, and you know what? +It has one. A really interesting one. You see, Scattershot is about +Exploring Situation and System in depth, and that means it "begins" or +"looks" like a Simulationist type o'thing. But the actual plan - which I +like to think of Uncle Fang's Lurking Desire - is to provide tools for +"transition" to Narrativist play /insofar as anyone wants to/. The +Narrativist-type Premise arises, therefore, from various passions or +concerns incited by various instances during play. Once that happens, +the mechanics enhance these elements' ability to become major engines of +events during play, as determined by the players. + +I use Fang's term Transition here because it makes a lot of sense - a +form of Drift which is facilitated, consistent, and accessible merely +through application of the rules in particular ways, as opposed merely +to tweaking, revising, ignoring, or overriding existing rules (which +Drift generally does). + +Now that means that at first glance, Scattershot has plenty of +traditional-gaming trappings that - for some of us - have an alarm-bell +quality. You buy a bunch of skills with points, said skills being rated +according to how easy they are to learn and hence costing more. There +are six attributes starting with "Strength." There is a big chart called +UE that cross-references abilities' values with extent, magnitude, +duration, and all that sort of thing (very like DC Heroes at first glance). + +My point is that these alarm bells are false. Fang has written the +material to be accessible specifically to the old-school gamer, in a +deliberate 70s-gaming kind of structure. But that structure is much like +a swaybacked horse with a sleepy expression, which grunts a little when +you pat it on the nose. Little do you suspect what it will do when you +mount up ? + +The context for play is intended to be customizable to various degrees +(1) of depth of rules-use and (2) of rules-use per unit time. Cool. +Let's settle at whatever one we want and take a look at "medium" +Scattershot, what most of us want to know about based on my readings and +interactions at the Forge. + +Basically, you're looking at a character with six attributes: Strength, +Agility, Hit Points, Reaction, Observation, and Power. (Yes, /I know/ it +looks like 1980! Chill out! Uncle Fang is merely disguising his Lurking +Desire very well.) You buy a bunch of abilities at various ratings with +a starting bank of points. "Abilities" cover all sorts of things, like +skills strictly speaking, magic stuff, etc. + +Ya do things with your abilities. You roll 2d10; get under the rating, +you did it; equal it, you barely did it; over it, you fail. The +difference is called the MIB and is taken to the UE. The UE allows you +to modify the difference (called MIB) between your roll and the rating +with the "magnitude" column of the UE for a related characteristic - ie, +you hit a guy with your Punch ability, but the effect (on the table) is +modified because your Strength rating gives a nice multiple. Again, all +very early 80s-Sim, Mayfair-feeling. + +[Fang, I know I'm skimming various details, especially the fact that +opposed rolls actually use the difference between attacker's and +defender's MIBs on the UE, and the Residual Modifiers thing. Bear with +me, I'm not trying to present Scattershot with every nuance but to show +the Transition in action, and only presenting stuff that lets this point +be made.] + +Ha ha! You're in for it now! Check out the following: + +1) The group has set a "Hard limit" for certain MIB's, either successful +or unsuccessful. It might be 1 or 7 or 10 or whatever. If a rolled MIB +(remember, diff between your roll and your rating) exceeds the hard +limit, /the player of the recipient of the effect/ now states why this +single event is a life-changing, significant, later-to-be-acted-upon +element of the character's life. This is a big deal, eh? Think "Kicker." +(Oh, and it's optional if the MIB is under the hard limit; the hard +limit means you /have/ to do it. Uncle Fang cannot help himself and +releases a sinister belly-laugh.) + +2) If you're only a couple MIB shy of succeeding, feel free to adust any +UE feature to /make/ your roll successful, ie, "it takes longer" or +anything similar. You can also do the reverse, using excessive +successful MIB to adjust the degree or magnitude of the effect for the +better. This is player-driven and highly customizable. (Did I mention +metagame?) + +3) Experience dice are being handed out left and right all the time +during play. You spend these dice by adding them to any roll you feel +like, either before or after the basic 2d10 roll. (Metagame and player +power are not only present in Scattershot; after an initial "closeted" +phase, they are buck naked and dancing ecstatically down the street.) +[These dice may also be spent to improve one's character, with a mildly +randomized mechanic.] + +To sum up, I dub Scattershot the first Transitional Game Design that I +have seen. It presents a solid/realistic (in the specific-to-setting +sense) Simulationist framework for establishing what's up, what you're +looking at, and who's who - but also provides a tremendous number of +techniques to permit metagame, Author stance, and player-power-sharing +techniques during play, many of which may facilitate a Narrativist +application. The primary technique is Fortune-in-the-Middle, which all +three of the numbered items above not only make possible, but loom up +like ? well, I'm out of metaphors. They loom up big. + +My question is how Gamism is or would be a direction of Transition, or +whether that's even a design goal. If not, no big deal. If so, though, +I'm not sure how it (ie mechanics to facilitate it) gets into there. +Insight about that would be appreciated. The thread that looked like it +might discuss that, based on its title, ended up being about something +else, unless I misunderstood it. + +I still have plenty of questions, especially about certain mechanics and +especially about how IIEC is handled during/post rolling in a conflict +situation. But those are for other threads, soon to come. This one's the +goals/GNS thing, and I am willing to be corrected by Fang regarding my +impressions, or to see what others have made of them and the game itself. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*[Scattershot] About what it's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #1 on:* January 21, 2002, 10:35:39 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Ron Edwards +This thread is about the initial Premise of the game, and you know what? +It has one. A really interesting one. You see, Scattershot is about +Exploring Situation and System in depth, and that means it "begins" or +"looks" like a Simulationist type o'thing. But the actual plan - which I +like to think of Uncle Fang's Lurking Desire - is to provide tools for +"transition" to Narrativist play /insofar as anyone wants to/. The +Narrativist-type Premise arises, therefore, from various passions or +concerns incited by various instances during play. Once that happens, +the mechanics enhance these elements' ability to become major engines of +events during play, as determined by the players. + +I use Fang's term Transition here because it makes a lot of sense - a +form of Drift which is facilitated, consistent, and accessible merely +through application of the rules in particular ways, as opposed merely +to tweaking, revising, ignoring, or overriding existing rules (which +Drift generally does). + +Now that means that at first glance, Scattershot has plenty of +traditional-gaming trappings that - for some of us - have an alarm-bell +quality. + +You know, that was one of the things that scared me the most about +posting it here (if you needed to understand my reticence). + +And it's no surprise that you see the premise is of exploring System and +Situation, this is after all just the mechanics. If I understand your +use of the terms, I have a whole 'nother book of additional rules (the +larger one at that), I call 'em techniques, that deal with attention to +Color, Character, and Setting. Color and Setting are dependant upon the +genre-reliant materials this Generalist mechanic gets published with (we +are preparing 12 sets so far). Attention to Character is one of the +major pieces of the techniques section (and I must apologize for the +fact that I am still pulling this information together and don't even +have a rough draft /outline/ yet). + +I separate them into techniques and mechanics because of some of the +priorities of Transitionism. (Many of those 'old school gamers' recoil +in horror from /mechanics/ for Narrativism, but strangely when they are +called 'techniques,' think that they're just quirky advice.) + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +My point is that these alarm bells are false. Fang has written the +material to be accessible specifically to the old-school gamer, in a +deliberate 70s-gaming kind of structure. But that structure is much like +a swaybacked horse with a sleepy expression, which grunts a little when +you pat it on the nose. Little do you suspect what it will do when you +mount up.... + +[Editted for brevity.] + +To sum up, I dub Scattershot the first Transitional Game Design that I +have seen. It presents a solid/realistic (in the specific-to-setting +sense) Simulationist framework for establishing what's up, what you're +looking at, and who's who - but also provides a tremendous number of +techniques to permit metagame, Author stance, and player-power-sharing +techniques during play, many of which may facilitate a Narrativist +application. The primary technique is Fortune-in-the-Middle, which all +three of the numbered items above not only make possible, but loom up +like ? well, I'm out of metaphors. They loom up big. + +My question is how Gamism is or would be a direction of Transition, or +whether that's even a design goal. If not, no big deal. If so, though, +I'm not sure how it (ie mechanics to facilitate it) gets into there. +Insight about that would be appreciated. The thread that looked like it +might discuss that, based on its title, ended up being about something +else, unless I misunderstood it. + +Gamism /is/ one of the Transitional design goals (whether I serve it +well or not, is a good question). Some ways we do this, I have +described elsewhere. Raising the 'hard limit' on the MIB turns it into +not much more than a clever way to skip having elaborate 'critical +hit/fumble' tables (in keeping with the 80's disguise of the work). + Making Experience Dice rare turns them into another resource for the +savvy Gamist to sheperd facing the larger challenge presented. + +I do have a favor to ask. I am not sure how you define Gamism in the +time since you came to understand and like the mode. Can you give me +some idea what you would look for in a Gamist game; that I can better +respond to with how the mechanics of Scattershot (might) meet those needs. + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +I still have plenty of questions, especially about certain mechanics and +especially about how IIEC is handled during/post rolling in a conflict +situation. + +I /would/ like a chance to toss in a response prior to getting these +other threads started. + +In the sequence of resolution, Scattershot somewhat collapses the Intent +and Initiation into a single point. When a player indicates their +action for resolution, the action is considered begun. The reason I say +they are combined is because of how some actions indicated by a player +are result of a somewhat predetermined script of actions (the following +actions material). The easiest example would be the riposte, it follows +a parry thus the parry contains the Intent for the riposte. As I (in +possibly the best attempt ever) described a few minutes ago in another +thread, the 'Effects phase' (I know it doesn't precisely work like that, +but you get my drift) occurs when the dice roll and the chosen actions +of the interacting parties are combined. The reason I bring this up +here is because it talks some about one way that Scattershot approaches +Gamism. Our more Gamist playtesters occasionally turn this +'calculation' phase into a bidding war using the FitM mechanics +Scattershot has. + +As for directly connecting to IIEC, I think a lot of that varies +depending on whether you are using Scattershot in General, Specific, or +Mechanical play. In General play almost everything functions as +Conclusion (That is the term, isn't it?). In Specific play, it can +range all the way from Intent when the Speaker is depending heavily on +the resolution mechanic to generate /most/ of the detail, to Effect when +the mechanics are invoked by someone other than the Speaker, calling the +narrative direction into question (such as introducing complications). + As above, Mechanical play functions on some curious fusion of Intent +and Initiation. Does that clear anything up? + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #2 on:* January 22, 2002, 07:40:14 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hi Fang! + +Lots of topics to deal with here ? + +I definitely hear you about the Color, Situation, Character, and Setting +material coming later. The key to me is that at first glance, the setup +seems highly focused on Exploration of /something/, and given the other +material you mentioned, Exploration of /everything/. No criticism! As I +said, I appreciate the "reassurance" quality this has on the old-school. + +GAMISM AND SCATTERSHOT +My take on Gamism seems to raise some hackles, and I'd request that we +deal with it here as it stands: Fang is asking me what I think; this is +not a good venue to tell me I'm wrong (that would be the GNS forum). + + +At this time, I look at Gamism as simply the enjoyment of competition in +an extremely broad sense. People can have different roles in that +competition, up to and including a referee-role (he does not compete +with the players, but his presence means the competition can happen in a +certain way). + +A lot of suffering seems to occur when people consider a published +scenario - how can you "compete" with it? That always puzzles me. Of +course you can, it seems, insofar as the game designers do exist as +humans, and it's fun to pit oneself (or one's team) against someone +who's posed a problem for you. Or even if one imagined some weird +scenario that was not written by humans, it's fun to see whether you can +do better than anyone else who's trying it. + +If anyone wants to call all this competitive stuff "struggle" or +"testing yourself" or whatnot, they may go right ahead. I think it's a +matter of sugar-coating, rather than useful rhetoric, but I'm willing to +give a little. Gareth's points about that in the GNS forum are extremely +well-taken; we don't /exactly/ agree, but I think his points must be +taken into account. + +I also have perceived a certain weird assumption that a Gamist would +automatically "hate to lose," or would necessarily be obsessed with +"balance," which doesn't match my observations of the /foundations/ of +that mode of play, much as it might apply for some individuals. + + +OK. So how does this apply to Scattershot? You have mentioned the +strategic use of experience-point spending or the role of the hard +limit, but to me, these seem more to me like techniques of play +(resource management e.g.) that apply nicely to the goal of Narrativism +as much as to Gamism, perhaps more so. Let's take a look at a +Scattershot player who has glommed onto these techniques and likes them +a lot. Basically, if he gets a "do better than Bob hair up his butt +(even if Bob is abstract)," rather than a "story hair up his butt," then +he's transitioned to Gamism. + +At my current understanding of the rules, though, which hair gets up his +butt is pretty much a matter of individual taste, and perhaps elements +of the Color, Situation, Setting, and so forth of the instance of play. +It seems to me that the hair is most likely the "story" one because of +the hard limit, especially - being required to make that event important +to the character's future decisions seems more of a moral-Premise +judgment-call than it does a strategic decision regarding advantage or +individual performance (in the sense of acing a test or winning a race). + +IIEC AND SCATTERSHOT +(Intent, Initiation, Execution, Completion) +I think you've laid out the issue pretty clearly for me now, across the +range of General, Specific, and Mechanical play. I do think it might be +interesting to see how the differences of IIEC application might +/change/ over time, if the group were minded to do so. Thus, if they +begin with a strong commitment to Mechanical play, is there any +provision for shifting later, without (much of) a hitch-and-clutch? If +so, then Scattershot is really achieving something. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #3 on:* January 22, 2002, 10:06:31 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Ron Edwards +GAMISM AND SCATTERSHOT +Quote from: Selected text on Gamism that Ron +My take on Gamism seems to raise some hackles, and I'd request that we +deal with it here as it stands: Fang is asking me what I think; + +I look at Gamism as simply the enjoyment of competition in an extremely +broad sense. + +If anyone wants to call all this competitive stuff "struggle" or +"testing yourself" or whatnot, they may go right ahead. + +OK. So how does this apply to Scattershot? You have mentioned the +strategic use of experience-point spending or the role of the hard +limit, but to me, these seem more to me like techniques of play +(resource management e.g.) + +In my studies of the medium, I have identified one major component +necessary for Gamism from a designer's perspective: structure. I hear +the ghost of its relevance whenever the 'yardstick' discussion comes up. + I also hear it when the discussion turns 'win/lose.' No matter what I +think of those topics, the both speak of structure and consistency. + +The converse would be playing Gamist in a situation where nothing can be +counted on, everything is in some state of flux. I haven't experienced +a happy Gamist who does not have some consistency or structure in what +they are playing /with/. As a designer, one kind of structure I can +provide is mechanical. I really appreciate what I learned by adapting +Scattershot to contain a collectible card game; all those long +discussions of game theory helped me make Scattershot's core mechanic as +strong a structure as I could have hoped to make it. + +The other kind of structure I see commonly used has to do with a +Gamist's exploration of Setting. As surely as there is mechanical +"competition" in the gladitorial arena, so too is there in the courtly +life of king's favor. One of the techniques I have already discussed +here on the Forge has to do with simplifying the moderation of a +background that has enough structure and consistency (as well as +verisimilitude, but that's for another type of players altogether); I +call it *Dynamic Status Quo +*. + +I see things like "resource management" being of value to Gamists +especially when in concert with some kind of structure. Under that +premise, the meticulous nature of Scattershot's mechanics should fall +clearly in that camp at least /mechanically/. + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +but to me, these seem more to me like techniques of play (resource +management e.g.) that apply nicely to the goal of Narrativism as much as +to Gamism, perhaps more so. Let's take a look at a Scattershot player +who has glommed onto these techniques and likes them a lot. Basically, +if he gets a "do better than Bob hair up his butt (even if Bob is +abstract)," rather than a "story hair up his butt," then he's +transitioned to Gamism. + +At my current understanding of the rules, though, which hair gets up his +butt is pretty much a matter of individual taste, and perhaps elements +of the Color, Situation, Setting, and so forth of the instance of play. +It seems to me that the hair is most likely the "story" one because of +the hard limit, especially - being required to make that event important +to the character's future decisions seems more of a moral-Premise +judgment-call than it does a strategic decision regarding advantage or +individual performance (in the sense of acing a test or winning a race). + +I might argue that you /do/ still have some bias towards Narrativism. + In playtest, /how/ the Critical Juncture mechanic gets specifically +used is almost a direct indicator of whether a player is Gamist, +Narrativist, or Simulationist. As you see it (and as I tend to express +it, did I mention my continuing problems communicating?), a Narrativist +will use the opportunity presented by exceeding the Critical Juncture to +advance their thematic statement of a games premise (am I using those +terms correctly?). + +A Gamist on the hand will take those opportunities to adopt additional +liabilities (when it goes against them) or strategic advantages (when it +goes for them). One thing I neglected to include was that the *MIB* +created when the Critical Juncture is exceeded, can be used (in a rare +post-randomizing indexing on the UE Chart) as the foundation of adding a +new disadvantage or problem. (In my favorite example, when Robin in The +Prince of Thieves first attacks the Sheriff, I call it a Telling Blow. + The Sheriff's player, gamemaster or no, chooses to take an +appearance-based disadvantage and play that off the character's vanity. + I'm not entirely sure it had any bearing on the Theme explored by the +film, but you can see how it created more 'challenge' for the Sheriff's +player.) + +A Simulationist becomes evident for their interest in how such a change +to their character bears on, and fits into, their explorations. They +seem to have an uncanny intuition for the Critical Juncture result +that's /right/. + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +IIEC AND SCATTERSHOT +(Intent, Initiation, Execution, Completion) +I think you've laid out the issue pretty clearly for me now, across the +range of General, Specific, and Mechanical play. I do think it might be +interesting to see how the differences of IIEC application might +/change/ over time, if the group were minded to do so. Thus, if they +begin with a strong commitment to Mechanical play, is there any +provision for shifting later, without (much of) a hitch-and-clutch? If +so, then Scattershot is really achieving something. + +Actually going 'up' from Mechanical play is about as hard as falling in +love. Once you stop going, "Okay, your two actions are done, now it's +his turn," and skip using dice in every resolution bound to a Rating, +you're at the 'bottom' of Specific play. As you let the Ratings be more +guidelines (as in "I've got a 14 that means I'm so good, I won't fail") +and eventually leave the dice behind (except when you use them to create +detail, often good to 'get the creative juices flowing'), you transcend +Specific and grow into General play. + +What's missing so far is that these are just /the mechanics/. There is +a whole morass of information I call 'techniques.' (You'd just call +them 'lots more rules.') Part of the difference, is the presentation. + I intend to present the techniques in a fashion that /seems/ geared +towards using them to determine what is good or bad /about any game/. + It was quite odd to me to have this in mind only to later discover that +the GNS was described as existing exactly for the same purpose. + +The sticky part is that my 'techniques' are secretly based on a couple +of the alternative Transitional goals. They will hopefully be presented +as 'if you liked how /this/ works, why not try /that/,' and 'if you +liked /that/ then /this also/ might be fun.' I want to create a series +of step-wise growth /tools/ expressly for facilitating Transition. This +has been my goal since before I met the Forge. + +Ultimately one thing became clear in playtest. It seems hard for +players to have "a strong commitment to Mechanical play." So far every +test group seems intuitively at ease moving up and down this scale +without hardly noticing it. (Well, excluding the collectible card game +'testers, they seem pretty rooted in Mechanical play.) + +Now, can you tell me if that answers your question on Gamism is +Scattershot? Am I still missing something? (Or is it just my usual +inability to express these ideas clearly on the first go?) + +Fang Langford + +(Who is actually quite curious what others think of a Transitional game +design.) + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #4 on:* January 23, 2002, 06:05:36 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hi Fang, + +You've expressed yourself very clearly, and I think we're saying pretty +much the same things. Basically, Transition in Scattershot is driven by +preference, and that's a fine thing. + +It seemed to me that the "story-ish" payoff for bringing in the hard +limit was especially nice for a Narrativist player, but I also agree +with you that a Gamist player can find meat in it too. That meat seems a +little less focused in terms of in-game events, but then again, Gamist +play in general is probably the most unapologetically metagame-ish in +its needs, and hence the payoff for those players/GMs will be in +unabashed people-terms, with less need for in-game terms (That dovetails +with my previous comments about how good this mode of play is at finding +"the stakes"). + +I agree with you about Gamism requiring structure, although in many ways +I think that requirement may be found all 'round the variety among and +within GNS modes (not in every possibility, but scattered all 'round). + +(Side note: I, for one, see no flaw/inconsistency or anything "wrong" +with your use of GNS jargon - your reference to any of it is clear, +fair, and makes sense.) + +Here's my concern now: different participants having different goals. To +pick the most obvious example, we might have Bob who seizes upon the +available techniques to "go Gamist" in a big way, up to and including +open verbal enjoyment of success in those terms (over whom doesn't +matter: GM, fellow player, published scenario, etc). Then we also have +Sam, at the same table, who is equally invested in (at last) playing a +fantasy game which through human efforts of actual play attains the +personal weight and epic consequences of, say, The Lord of the Rings. + +The problem arises because people don't role-play in isolation but with +one another. The goals/modes of GNS operate successfully when shared and +abetted by more than one person. Hence, Bob might be irritated with Sam +for not putting in tactical effort at one point or another; Sam might be +irritated with Bob for not considering the moral/thematic outcomes of +Bob's character's actions. + +To a very large extent, this is probably not solvable. I'm not +suggesting that Scattershot is under any obligation to amend it in any +special way. However, it's clear that you've laid out the philosophical +goals and design of Scattershot along with its mechanics (or rather, +that the final MS is going to be a combination of all these). Your post +illustrates a good example, regarding the Transitional techniques. Will +that sort of material, the (for lack of a better word) philosophical +part, address the issue of Nar/Gam interpretation of the same mechanics +at the same table? + +Best, +Ron + +P.S. "Techniques" is a term I use a lot too, for the same reason you do +- it seems to carry less emotional baggage for people than "rules" or +even "guidelines." + Logged + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #5 on:* January 23, 2002, 09:21:05 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Ron Edwards +I agree with you about Gamism requiring structure, although in many ways +I think that requirement may be found all 'round the variety among and +within GNS modes (not in every possibility, but scattered all 'round). + +/That's why we named it Scattershot!/ + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +Here's my concern now: different participants having different goals. To +pick the most obvious example, we might have Bob who seizes upon the +available techniques to "go Gamist" in a big way, up to and including +open verbal enjoyment of success in those terms (over whom doesn't +matter: GM, fellow player, published scenario, etc). Then we also have +Sam, at the same table, who is equally invested in (at last) playing a +fantasy game which through human efforts of actual play attains the +personal weight and epic consequences of, say, The Lord of the Rings. + +The problem arises because people don't role-play in isolation but with +one another. The goals/modes of GNS operate successfully when shared and +abetted by more than one person. Hence, Bob might be irritated with Sam +for not putting in tactical effort at one point or another; Sam might be +irritated with Bob for not considering the moral/thematic outcomes of +Bob's character's actions. + +To a very large extent, this is probably not solvable. + +Aye, therein lies the rub. We don't know if we can reach that plateau +either. So far, what we have is more based on explaining it so that Sam +knows what Bob is up to and that Bob likes it, and vice versa, and then +suggesting that everyone just 'try to get along' or find a new group. + +I'm pretty sure that if either player are the sort to make an issue out +of this kind of thing, /there is nothing a designer can do about it./ + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +I'm not suggesting that Scattershot is under any obligation to amend it +in any special way. However, it's clear that you've laid out the +philosophical goals and design of Scattershot along with its mechanics +(or rather, that the final MS is going to be a combination of all +these). Your post illustrates a good example, regarding the Transitional +techniques. Will that sort of material, the (for lack of a better word) +philosophical part, address the issue of Nar/Gam interpretation of the +same mechanics at the same table? + +Definitely. That's where I'm going with the whole *Get Emotional! +* +nomenclature. I am trying to make differing goals in gaming more +explicit in lay terms. I am also trying to make high emotions in player +to player conflict in pursuing those goals into the 'dark side.' By +this I mean to suggest that a 'live and let live' approach to Sam and +Bob facing off. If they both understand that their approaches are +different and are willing to forgive the friction caused, instead of +reacting emotionally, then they might be able to still play together. + +At least that's the theory. /This/ is one thing I have yet to put into +playtest. Any advice? Anyone? + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Paul Czege * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 1845 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #6 on:* January 24, 2002, 03:32:18 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hey Fang, Ron, + +To sum up, I dub Scattershot the first Transitional Game Design that I +have seen. + +The discussion of Scattershot as a transitional game design has yet to +draw the interest of Forgers besides the two of you. And I can't help +but wonder if it's because people don't really know why they need one. + +If I'm an activist liberal, I don't really want a centrist candidate. +I'll vote for one because my ideal candidate doesn't stand a chance of +getting elected, and because the centrist is better by far than the +conservative. But I'm not forced into the same situation with RPG's. I +can buy a game that suits my GNS bias and play it with like-minded players. + +What am I missing? Who's the target customer of a transitional game design? + +Paul + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Game weary? Play My Life with Master and get +your hunch back. + +*joshua neff +* +Member + +Posts: 844 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #7 on:* January 24, 2002, 03:41:22 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Paul-- + +Maybe more centrist gamers? I mean, you & I are pervy narrativists, but +there are those out there who groove on simulationism AND narrativism, & +I could see /Scattershot/ appealing to them. (Hell, I could see it +appealing to "reg'lar ol' gamers" who see the outer "traditional" +trappings & dig that kind of thing.) + +I'd be interested to hear from Mike "lemme do the math for you" Holmes +about what he thinks of Scattershot. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--josh + +"You can't ignore a rain of toads!"--Mike Holmes + +*Mike Holmes +* +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 9963 + + +View Profile + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #8 on:* January 25, 2002, 06:04:46 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +What Josh said. Aren't those people looking for El Dorado (defined as a +simultaneously Sim and Narr game) going to be interested in such? As +I've stated before, I'm not one of those "pervy" Narrativists. Actually, +I like all three of the GNS decision making processes, and can enjoy any +game that is not incoherent. I'm a gaming Centrist (political one, too, +FWIW). The only impediment to my enjoying the potential +Transitionability (to coin a term) of Scattershot would be any +incoherence that it introduced. + +While we're at it, I suppose that I should breach that topic. Why should +we believe that Scatttershot is any less incoherent (sorry for the +double negative) than any other game that previously failed to focus on +a single GNS mode? Actually, I have much less problem with the whole N/S +shift (which does include mechanics to accomplish) than the inclusion of G. + +The argument seems to be, well, the player can use the results either +way, and we'll tell all the players to accept other players conflicting +styles. Isn't this just suggesting drift? Also, this seems like a law +that suggests that you not kill people but includes no punishment for +doing so. My understanding of System Matters is that mere admonishions +to play a particular way that are not supported by the mechanics are +nice, but having actual mechanics that reinforce those admonishions are +better. This is the main complaint about V:tM, right? That it says to +play in one way but provides no support mechanically for that mode of +play. Right? + +So, why does Scattershot get a pass here? Note that I'm really just +playing Devil's advocate here. + +Mike + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Member of Indie Netgaming +-Get your indie game fix online. + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #9 on:* January 25, 2002, 11:01:10 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang, + +I've been thinking about this Transition stuff. A few related points all +contributed to my conclusion, so I'll do points-first and Point last. + +1) Both Gamism and Narrativism are distinguished by the overt priorities +of the real person in play, in that the priority /is/ overt (if not +verbalized). Hence most mechanics involving "player intrusion," to use a +somewhat outmoded or Sim-oriented term, may serve either Gamist or +Narrativist purposes, of particular sorts for each depending on the +mechanic in question. + +2) Much experience has taught me that players committed to either mode +do not hesitate for an instant to insert or interpret their "agenda" +into role-playing through whatever window of opportunity presents +itself, either in mechanics or via social pressure or whatever. + +3) Narrativist agenda is simple: address Premise, via +character-confronts-ethical-conflict. Gamist agenda is similarly simple: +strategize, perform, prevail, via character-conflicts-logistic-conflict. +They are, however, very different from one another and tend not to get +along too easily in the same game, except in fairly specialized +combinations. + +4) If merely provided with player-empowering mechanics that are +either-or-whatever (as referred to in #1 above), the choice of agenda, +per player or group, is essentially catch-as-catch-can. Clearly +Transition may occur in playing Scattershot as currently written, e.g. +Narrativism from the hard limit perhaps, or Gamism from the +currency-management perhaps (these are just examples out of many +possible). The rather ? scattered potential for the Transition, though, +may be troublesome. Note: /may/ be. + +Now for my big point. These two agendas (perhaps at the level of their +multifarious and not-necessarily-compatible subsets) may be further +specified by various mechanics (rules, guidelines, techniques, +whatever). These "specification" variables fall into very, very distinct +forms, because of the clarity of the agendas in question. + +STAKES AND ACHIEVEMENT are the keys to Gamism in general. The thing to +avoid, I think, is "effectiveness is the means to achievement and +achievement is the route to more effectiveness," which creates a +recursive, spin-the-wheels effect that only appeals to a minority of +people who might enjoy Gamism in role-playing. (I, for example, enjoy +Gamist play when the stakes/achievement are rewarded by +bloody-well-winning, /not/ merely by being able to play again, only better.) + +ETHICAL/BEHAVIOR CRUNCH is the key to Narrativism in general. The thing +to avoid here, I think, is de-protagonizing events and habits of play, +as discussed in various places 'round the Forge. + +I suggest that some "evolutionary context" for each of these might be +made available for Scattershot, as a "as we go along" +game-group-developing mechanic. In other words, as you continue to play, +/the rules change or focus/ as folks see fit, in a reasonably comfy, not +patch-it way. So all the rules they've been using get honed or tweaked +or shaped, in such a way that either ethical/behavior crunch or stakes & +achievement are emphasized as the point of play. + +How to do that? Damn good question. Scattershot offers us an arena to +address it. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Who's it for? +* +« *Reply #10 on:* January 25, 2002, 11:28:59 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Paul asks an excellent question. + +Quote from: Paul Czege +To sum up, I dub Scattershot the first Transitional Game Design that I +have seen. -- Ron Edwards + +The discussion of Scattershot as a transitional game design has yet to +draw the interest of Forgers besides the two of you. And I can't help +but wonder if it's because people don't really know why they need one. + +What am I missing? Who's the target customer of a Transitional game design? + + +I can't really say about Transitional designs in general, there are so +few to know what they are yet, but I can talk about Scattershot; so does +Joshua: + +Quote from: joshua neff +Paul-- + +Maybe more centrist gamers? I mean, you & I are pervy narrativists, but +there are those out there who groove on simulationism AND narrativism, & +I could see /Scattershot/ appealing to them. (Hell, I could see it +appealing to "reg'lar ol' gamers" who see the outer "traditional" +trappings & dig that kind of thing.) + +Actually the theory goes something like this. There are a lot of +Simulationists-by-habit out there. Heck, there's a lot of +Anything-ists-by habit out there. Why? I think because of a lack of +exposure. + +So this segment of the intended audience can pick up Scattershot (not +realizing it is a Transitional game, if I am doing it right), play it +for a while and notice all this other kooky stuff 'hidden' throughout. + If they give any of these unfamiliar techniques a try, and like them, +they have Transitioned from habit to potentially what they would most +like (again, if I am doing it the way I intend). + +Heck, I can't think of anything more 'habit' bound than "reg'lar ol' +gamers." That was the primary reason for creating all the "outer +'traditional' trappings;" to attract /them/. From my experiences 'over +the counter' they make up a significant section of 'the market.' And +technically, as a retail thought-experiment, Scattershot is supposed to +reach as much of 'the market' as I can make it. + +Secondly, Transition is meant to be /optional/; that means that +Scattershot could theoretically (provided it succeeds at its design +specifications) be picked up by /any/ of 'near' "pervy -ists." If they +can play it and opt to not Transition (without the rest of the material +becoming encumbering, excess baggage), then Scattershot reaches a second +intended audience. The reason I give this a priority is because if a +group of habitual gamers discovers they have different tastes, it will +help them continue gaming if they have a system in common with any of +the more 'focused' groups they might move to. + +Finally, Scattershot is also meant for 'people who have never played +role-playing games, but would like them if they did.' This is another +reason I created it in the traditional guise. It is more likely that +'traditional gamers' are the people one would 'hook up with' after +initial exposure (the remainder of the market doesn't seem as 'flagrant' +about their gaming status). Having something like Scattershot in common +might help 'ease' them into the hobby community. (There's also the fact +that the traditional model, for as much as people complain about it, +/works/, especially for new players.) + +Ultimately, Scattershot was not created to meet any clear and present +need. Paul says, "people don't really know why they need one," about +Scattershot. Who can say? Nobody 'needed' the internet; nobody +'needed' fax machines. Nobody knew they 'needed' pointer devices for +their computers. You don't always create something because there's a +need for it. Like I always say when someone points out that I am going +to a *hell* of a lot of effort for something I am intentionally not +going to market myself, "even if it never sells, I'm gonna have a heck +of a toy to play with." + +(And appealing to centrists is just gravy as far as I'm concerned.) + +I think that the fact that people don't 'need' it, will help them help +me. That kind of 'need' breeds certain passions for it to come out a +certain way (to serve the needs of the person who 'needs' it). Since no +one 'needs' it, any advice they offer will be geared towards making +Scattershot transparent to their gaming style (one of the design goals). + +Scattershot also wasn't written to appeal to 'far' "pervy" whatever +types either; my experience is that they generally have something they +really like a lot and are not likely to go for something new that +easily. Likewise targeting any of these groups is questionable at best; +a fickle market I think. + +Anyway, all this is a bunch of theoretical hooey. I made it +Transitional, because that's how I play. Originally it was a game I +could play with any of the "pervy" groups out there so I can /Zelig/ in +with each of them. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #11 on:* January 25, 2002, 12:43:01 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Mike Holmes +While we're at it, I suppose that I should breach that topic. Why should +we believe that Scatttershot is any less incoherent (sorry for the +double negative) than any other game that previously failed to focus on +a single GNS mode? Actually, I have much less problem with the whole N/S +shift (which does include mechanics to accomplish) than the inclusion of G. + +The argument seems to be, well, the player can use the results either +way, and we'll tell all the players to accept other players conflicting +styles. Isn't this just suggesting drift? Also, this seems like a law +that suggests that you not kill people but includes no punishment for +doing so. My understanding of System Matters is that mere admonishions +to play a particular way that are not supported by the mechanics are +nice, but having actual mechanics that reinforce those admonishions are +better. This is the main complaint about V:tM, right? That it says to +play in one way but provides no support mechanically for that mode of +play. Right? + +So, why does Scattershot get a pass here? Note that I'm really just +playing Devil's advocate here. + +(And doing a good job, you may be up for promotion next quarter.) + +Scattershot shouldn't. Right now a lot of what we've heard about +Scattershot is still theoretical. We have a glimpse of the mechanics, +and with that glimpse, Ron believes we can see 'the gears and wheels' of +what can be turned into Transition. + +What we don't see is the techniques (the rest of the rules, if you will) +that make use of those 'gears and wheels' in a fashion that makes it +truly Transitional. Rightly said, we can't say anything like 'this is +truly a Transitional game' until we have enough (of the rules) /to +actually play it/. You can't judge the coherency of something until you +see all of it, right? + +I, for one, think that these claims of coherent Transitionalism are +fraught with hubris. I think we should wait until we see more before +any determination is actually made. I am looking forward to whether or +not this game can support Transition. I think this should be held +separate from El Dorado, because El Dorado /combines/ Simulationism with +Narrativism; Scattershot is purported to only let you Transition freely +back and forth, not necessarily both /at the same time/. + +Like Mike, I would like to know if these mysterious 'techniques' will +actually 'put teeth' in the mechanics that must necessarily hold the +game consistent with its on-going point of Transition. I mean, if the +game is Transitioning somewhere between Simulationism and Narrativism, +it will need to 'keep itself together' or coherency is nothing more than +a pipe dream. Furthermore, without 'teeth' how can the system say that +it actually supports /any/ kind of focus, GNS or otherwise, during +Transition? + +I can see a lot of potential in this concept, but so far the delivery of +which has been bearly a trickle. It's okay to /not/ expect it to fail, +but this 'pass,' as Mike describes it, better expire when we see more +and can /only then/ actually judge the coherency. + +I would like to go on record saying, "Well, where is it? Why haven't we +seen it? When is it coming?" I think more Scattershot should be posted +and soon, if it's going to make good on any of these amazing claims. + +Fang Langford + +[Oh. Wait. That's me.... I take it all back. No really, ignore this +post. Damn, where's that delete button!] + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*About what Scattershot's about (GNS yipyap included) +* +« *Reply #12 on:* January 25, 2002, 01:08:43 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Agreed on all counts. I'm not yet claiming we've "seen the light" of +Transition-based design, but /as a design goal/ it is a fine and +as-yet-unknown plan. Oh, and of course, I agree entirely that El Dorado +is something entirely different. + +Any hope of a comment on my last post before this one ...? + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Le Joueur * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*Any Hope? +* +« *Reply #13 on:* January 26, 2002, 04:20:17 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Elsewhere Ron Edwards +Any hope of a comment on my last post before this one...? + +Hope? Yes. Time? That depends. + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +I've been thinking about this Transition stuff. A few related points all +contributed to my conclusion, so I'll do points-first and Point last. + +And I'll address them one at a time. + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +1) Both Gamism and Narrativism are distinguished by the overt priorities +of the real person in play, in that the priority /is/ overt (if not +verbalized). Hence most mechanics involving "player intrusion," to use a +somewhat outmoded or Sim-oriented term, may serve either Gamist or +Narrativist purposes, of particular sorts for each depending on the +mechanic in question. + +These 'overt priorities' are, in simple terms, conflicting. While a +highly sophisticated approach to play /might/ be able to contain both of +them, I think I clearly lack the skills to write a description for that. + This is the main reason my interest lie in Transition. Transition +occurs when the overt priorities of one form lose their emphasis and +those of another become more important. The challenge with the +techniques is making them clear 'alternatives' to each other. + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +2) Much experience has taught me that players committed to either mode +do not hesitate for an instant to insert or interpret their "agenda" +into role-playing through whatever window of opportunity presents +itself, either in mechanics or via social pressure or whatever. + +Another intended feature has to do with how I plan to make a lot of the +advice look like 'reviewers' guidelines. These will allow the different +players to become more aware of 'what they like' in /other/ games. It +should highlight the differences in terms of 'other people are different.' + +If I make the game as robust as I hope, having the players insert their +'agendas' into the game will fix the Transition point where they will +like it, and the game will support that in its form (remember Transition +is optional). One thing I hope is that my texts will give people of +conflicting styles the ability to make informed decisions about no +longer playing together. + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +3) Narrativist agenda is simple: address Premise, via +character-confronts-ethical-conflict. Gamist agenda is similarly simple: +strategize, perform, prevail, via character-conflicts-logistic-conflict. +They are, however, very different from one another and tend not to get +along too easily in the same game, except in fairly specialized +combinations. + +As I said above, this is the reason Scattershot Transitions /between +them/, not into some fusion of them. This must be at /the taste of the +whole group/. Consensus is key in Transition, I think. + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +4) If merely provided with player-empowering mechanics that are +either-or-whatever (as referred to in #1 above), the choice of agenda, +per player or group, is essentially catch-as-catch-can. Clearly +Transition may occur in playing Scattershot as currently written, e.g. +Narrativism from the hard limit perhaps, or Gamism from the +currency-management perhaps (these are just examples out of many +possible). The rather ? scattered potential for the Transition, though, +may be troublesome. Note: /may/ be. + +More important than how the mechanics support Tranisition, is the +techniques that 'drive' the actual act of Transition. As mentioned +elsewhere, 'keeping it together' during slow Transition is the key to +focus of style and coherency. + +However, simply on the level of mechanics alone (as opposed to the +upcoming techniques), I think the potential for each form /should be/ +'scattered' throughout. Even better when I can bind two or more forms +onto the 'ends' of a single 'sliding' mechanic, like I /think/ the +Critical Juncture has worked. That way, when the techniques drive +Transition into the different forms, there won't be whole sections of +mechanics left fallow (simplicity suggests that such should be abandoned +for the final version). + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +Now for my big point. These two agendas (perhaps at the level of their +multifarious and not-necessarily-compatible subsets) may be further +specified by various mechanics (rules, guidelines, techniques, +whatever). These "specification" variables fall into very, very distinct +forms, because of the clarity of the agendas in question. + +That is actually the ulterior motive I had for starting the 'more than +three boxes' discussion. To attempt to collect some idea of popular +agendas 'out there.' + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +STAKES AND ACHIEVEMENT are the keys to Gamism in general. The thing to +avoid, I think, is "effectiveness is the means to achievement and +achievement is the route to more effectiveness," which creates a +recursive, spin-the-wheels effect that only appeals to a minority of +people who might enjoy Gamism in role-playing. (I, for example, enjoy +Gamist play when the stakes/achievement are rewarded by +bloody-well-winning, /not/ merely by being able to play again, only better.) + +I'm not sure, but I think achievement might actually apply to the other +forms as well. I think Narrativism without achievement makes it hard to +create statements of theme; I believe /how/ achievement addresses the +premise is what gives Narrativist play its 'kick.' + +(Scattershot talks not only about the difference between player rewards +[that tend to be outside of the game, like Experience Dice] and +character rewards [that tend to be in-game] but the importance of making +both relative to the game [as opposed to say giving a vampire character +a missle as a reward].) + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +ETHICAL/BEHAVIOR CRUNCH is the key to Narrativism in general. The thing +to avoid here, I think, is de-protagonizing events and habits of play, +as discussed in various places 'round the Forge. + +I think we'll need another thread to bring up the potential pitfalls to +be avoided and Scattershot's possible solutions. + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +I suggest that some "evolutionary context" for each of these might be +made available for Scattershot, as a "as we go along" +game-group-developing mechanic. In other words, as you continue to play, +/the rules change or focus/ as folks see fit, in a reasonably comfy, not +patch-it way. So all the rules they've been using get honed or tweaked +or shaped, in such a way that either ethical/behavior crunch or stakes & +achievement are emphasized as the point of play. + +This is exactly what I was getting at talking about in 'focusing play on +the current Transition point' coherence issue. I believe I will be +including both something that gives perspective of where a group is and +techniques for short shifts and how to use the mechanics to suit the new +'positions,' as well as things of value that may motivate these +Transitions in a groups future. + +Quote from: Ron Edwards +How to do that? Damn good question. Scattershot offers us an arena to +address it. + +I'm counting /at least/ four questions. Care to start a thread about +today's favorite question? (We'll deal with the others later, please.) + In the mean time I'll keep working on my 'just the mechanix' list. + Perhaps I'll start talking about the first few techniques that have +emerged from playtest. + +Fang Langford + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing +Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have +any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he +can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com + + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/themes.svg --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/themes.svg Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,704 @@ + + + + + +themes.txt +themes.txt + +themes.txt + +Optimisation et conception + +Optimisation et conception + +themes.txt->Optimisation et conception + + + +Critique du GNS + +Critique du GNS + +themes.txt->Critique du GNS + + + +Qu'est-ce que le jeu de rôle? [in jdrdef; en cours] + +Qu'est-ce que le jeu de rôle? [in jdrdef; en cours] + +themes.txt->Qu'est-ce que le jeu de rôle? [in jdrdef; en cours] + + + +Modèle des jouets [cf. jjch] + +Modèle des jouets [cf. jjch] + +themes.txt->Modèle des jouets [cf. jjch] + + + +Système de résolution [cf. Résolution] + +Système de résolution [cf. Résolution] + +themes.txt->Système de résolution [cf. Résolution] + + + +Contrat social + +Contrat social + +themes.txt->Contrat social + + + +Thèmes et jeux de rôle. + +Thèmes et jeux de rôle. + +themes.txt->Thèmes et jeux de rôle. + + + +Types d'optimisation + +Types d'optimisation + +Optimisation et conception->Types d'optimisation + + + +Spirale de progression + +Spirale de progression + +Types d'optimisation->Spirale de progression + + + +Le bouc émissaire + +Le bouc émissaire + +Types d'optimisation->Le bouc émissaire + + + +La stat à tout faire + +La stat à tout faire + +Types d'optimisation->La stat à tout faire + + + +Double-dipping + +Double-dipping + +Types d'optimisation->Double-dipping + + + +Le combo imparable + +Le combo imparable + +Types d'optimisation->Le combo imparable + + + +Les faux choix + +Les faux choix + +Types d'optimisation->Les faux choix + + + +Optimisation simple + +Optimisation simple + +Types d'optimisation->Optimisation simple + + + +Définition du jeu de rôle + +Définition du jeu de rôle + +Qu'est-ce que le jeu de rôle? [in jdrdef; en cours]->Définition du jeu de rôle + + + +Correspondance avec le modèle des jouets + +Correspondance avec le modèle des jouets + +Qu'est-ce que le jeu de rôle? [in jdrdef; en cours]->Correspondance avec le modèle des jouets + + + +Liste possible des éléments: + +Liste possible des éléments: + +Qu'est-ce que le jeu de rôle? [in jdrdef; en cours]->Liste possible des éléments: + + + +Objectifs + +Objectifs + +Définition du jeu de rôle->Objectifs + + + +Manière + +Manière + +Définition du jeu de rôle->Manière + + + +Inclusion nécessaire + +Inclusion nécessaire + +Correspondance avec le modèle des jouets->Inclusion nécessaire + + + +Inclusion optionnel + +Inclusion optionnel + +Correspondance avec le modèle des jouets->Inclusion optionnel + + + +Exclusion + +Exclusion + +Correspondance avec le modèle des jouets->Exclusion + + + +Les trois modes + +Les trois modes + +Modèle des jouets [cf. jjch]->Les trois modes + + + +Comment chaque aspect participe l'un à l'autre. + +Comment chaque aspect participe l'un à l'autre. + +Modèle des jouets [cf. jjch]->Comment chaque aspect participe l'un à l'autre. + + + +Les types psychologiques + +Les types psychologiques + +Modèle des jouets [cf. jjch]->Les types psychologiques + + + +Réduction + +Réduction + +Modèle des jouets [cf. jjch]->Réduction + + + +Le Jeu + +Le Jeu + +Les trois modes->Le Jeu + + + +Le Jouet + +Le Jouet + +Les trois modes->Le Jouet + + + +L'Histoire + +L'Histoire + +Les trois modes->L'Histoire + + + +GM-tasks (from lumpley.txt): + +GM-tasks (from lumpley.txt): + +Le Jeu->GM-tasks (from lumpley.txt): + + + +From HowRPGRulesWork.txt + +From HowRPGRulesWork.txt + +Le Jeu->From HowRPGRulesWork.txt + + + +Why a character died? (from lumpley.txt): + +Why a character died? (from lumpley.txt): + +L'Histoire->Why a character died? (from lumpley.txt): + + + +Jouet servant l'Histoire + +Jouet servant l'Histoire + +Comment chaque aspect participe l'un à l'autre.->Jouet servant l'Histoire + + + +Histoire servant le Jouet + +Histoire servant le Jouet + +Comment chaque aspect participe l'un à l'autre.->Histoire servant le Jouet + + + +Jouet servant le Jeu + +Jouet servant le Jeu + +Comment chaque aspect participe l'un à l'autre.->Jouet servant le Jeu + + + +Jeu servant le Jouet + +Jeu servant le Jouet + +Comment chaque aspect participe l'un à l'autre.->Jeu servant le Jouet + + + +Histoire servant le Jeu + +Histoire servant le Jeu + +Comment chaque aspect participe l'un à l'autre.->Histoire servant le Jeu + + + +Jeu servant l'Histoire + +Jeu servant l'Histoire + +Comment chaque aspect participe l'un à l'autre.->Jeu servant l'Histoire + + + +Type 0: le décrocheur + +Type 0: le décrocheur + +Les types psychologiques->Type 0: le décrocheur + + + +Types simples (3) + +Types simples (3) + +Les types psychologiques->Types simples (3) + + + +Types complexes (4) + +Types complexes (4) + +Les types psychologiques->Types complexes (4) + + + +L'auteur (Histoire/Expressif) + +L'auteur (Histoire/Expressif) + +Types simples (3)->L'auteur (Histoire/Expressif) + + + +Le Rêveur (Jouet/Imagination) + +Le Rêveur (Jouet/Imagination) + +Types simples (3)->Le Rêveur (Jouet/Imagination) + + + +Le Participant (Jeu/Social) + +Le Participant (Jeu/Social) + +Types simples (3)->Le Participant (Jeu/Social) + + + +Le conteur (Expressif+Imaginatif) + +Le conteur (Expressif+Imaginatif) + +Types complexes (4)->Le conteur (Expressif+Imaginatif) + + + +Le rédacteur (Expressif+Social) + +Le rédacteur (Expressif+Social) + +Types complexes (4)->Le rédacteur (Expressif+Social) + + + +Le stratège (Social+Imaginatif) + +Le stratège (Social+Imaginatif) + +Types complexes (4)->Le stratège (Social+Imaginatif) + + + +Le collaborateur (Social+Imaginatif+Expressif) + +Le collaborateur (Social+Imaginatif+Expressif) + +Types complexes (4)->Le collaborateur (Social+Imaginatif+Expressif) + + + +Est-ce que du jdr sans Histoire se peut? + +Est-ce que du jdr sans Histoire se peut? + +Réduction->Est-ce que du jdr sans Histoire se peut? + + + +Est-ce que du jdr sans Jouet se peut? + +Est-ce que du jdr sans Jouet se peut? + +Réduction->Est-ce que du jdr sans Jouet se peut? + + + +Est-ce que du jdr sans Jeu se peut? + +Est-ce que du jdr sans Jeu se peut? + +Réduction->Est-ce que du jdr sans Jeu se peut? + + + +Meta-gaming elements in Resolution + +Meta-gaming elements in Resolution + +Système de résolution [cf. Résolution]->Meta-gaming elements in Resolution + + + +Conflicts vs Tasks Resolution + +Conflicts vs Tasks Resolution + +Système de résolution [cf. Résolution]->Conflicts vs Tasks Resolution + + + +Niveau de compétence et difficulté [competences.txt] + +Niveau de compétence et difficulté [competences.txt] + +Système de résolution [cf. Résolution]->Niveau de compétence et difficulté [competences.txt] + + + +Out-of-scene characters + +Out-of-scene characters + +Meta-gaming elements in Resolution->Out-of-scene characters + + + +Metagame knowledge + +Metagame knowledge + +Meta-gaming elements in Resolution->Metagame knowledge + + + +Immersive Surprise + +Immersive Surprise + +Meta-gaming elements in Resolution->Immersive Surprise + + + +Out-of-scene Participation + +Out-of-scene Participation + +Meta-gaming elements in Resolution->Out-of-scene Participation + + + +From lumpley.txt: + +From lumpley.txt: + +Conflicts vs Tasks Resolution->From lumpley.txt: + + + +Balance of Power + +Balance of Power + +Niveau de compétence et difficulté [competences.txt]->Balance of Power + + + +Interpretation + +Interpretation + +Niveau de compétence et difficulté [competences.txt]->Interpretation + + + +Contexte, Objectif, Performance et Résultat + +Contexte, Objectif, Performance et Résultat + +Interpretation->Contexte, Objectif, Performance et Résultat + + + +Éléments du contrat social + +Éléments du contrat social + +Contrat social->Éléments du contrat social + + + +Suspension volontaire de l'incrédulité + +Suspension volontaire de l'incrédulité + +Contrat social->Suspension volontaire de l'incrédulité + + + +Contrôle des personnages + +Contrôle des personnages + +Éléments du contrat social->Contrôle des personnages + + + +Contrôle sur les évènements + +Contrôle sur les évènements + +Éléments du contrat social->Contrôle sur les évènements + + + +Processus d'arbitrage + +Processus d'arbitrage + +Éléments du contrat social->Processus d'arbitrage + + + +Intervention hors-jeux + +Intervention hors-jeux + +Éléments du contrat social->Intervention hors-jeux + + + +Respect du thème + +Respect du thème + +Éléments du contrat social->Respect du thème + + + +Lignes dures et douces (voiles) + +Lignes dures et douces (voiles) + +Éléments du contrat social->Lignes dures et douces (voiles) + + + +Rôle de la magie dans la SVI + +Rôle de la magie dans la SVI + +Suspension volontaire de l'incrédulité->Rôle de la magie dans la SVI + + + +Fonction explicative + +Fonction explicative + +Rôle de la magie dans la SVI->Fonction explicative + + + +TGCM + +TGCM + +Rôle de la magie dans la SVI->TGCM + + + +Attributs des genres + +Attributs des genres + +Thèmes et jeux de rôle.->Attributs des genres + + + +genre horreur + +genre horreur + +Thèmes et jeux de rôle.->genre horreur + + + +jeu de rôle épique + +jeu de rôle épique + +Thèmes et jeux de rôle.->jeu de rôle épique + + + +le degré de risque + +le degré de risque + +Attributs des genres->le degré de risque + + + +l'héroïsme + +l'héroïsme + +Attributs des genres->l'héroïsme + + + +la quantité d'informations utiles exposée + +la quantité d'informations utiles exposée + +Attributs des genres->la quantité d'informations utiles exposée + + + +la cohérence rationnelle + +la cohérence rationnelle + +Attributs des genres->la cohérence rationnelle + + + +le rythme narratif + +le rythme narratif + +Attributs des genres->le rythme narratif + + + +la quantité descriptive + +la quantité descriptive + +Attributs des genres->la quantité descriptive + + + +les enjeux + +les enjeux + +Attributs des genres->les enjeux + + + +Exemple: Genre horreur-enquête + +Exemple: Genre horreur-enquête + +Attributs des genres->Exemple: Genre horreur-enquête + + + +About suspense, from lumpley.txt: + +About suspense, from lumpley.txt: + +le rythme narratif->About suspense, from lumpley.txt: + + + + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/whole_model.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/whole_model.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,1321 @@ ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *General Forge Forums * +| |-+ *GNS Model Discussion * +| | |-+ *The whole model - this is it * + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 3 * ... *5 + +Author Topic: The whole model - this is it (Read 13307 times) + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« * on:* November 11, 2003, 03:49:15 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hello, + +All the following material is supplemental to the existing essays, but +it also overrules them as well as any of my previous comments in forum +discussions at any point of contradiction. + +In other words, all of the following is the straight dope as of this +writing. If a particular term or concept isn't mentioned here, then the +pre-existing material stands; ask about it if that material isn't clear +to you. If I haven't defined a term (and I define very few here), that +means that the current definition is intended to stand. + +My plan is to hammer out any necessary hassles about this material in +this thread, and then rewrite the whole damn thing in "nice and +friendly" prose, which as far as I know is pretty much the first time +that will have been done. For a sample of the tone/logic I'll be using, +see *GNS - what is it? *. + +THE MODEL ITSELF + +*[Social Contract]* + +Social Contract encompasses everything about role-playing, because it is +the sum of all interactions among the people involved. 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]]* + +The above two terms do not constitute a dichotomy. Exploration +("imagined stuff," "shared imagined space"), as previously defined in my +essays, is an expression or application of that particular group's +Social Contract. One cannot say "That's just social" when discussing +some aspect of play, nor can one write off Social Contract as "just +being polite" with actual play being something else. + +Exploration is usually described as merely a list of Character, Setting, +Situation, System, and Color. But it does have more internal/imaginary +structure: 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, by the way; the actual +effort, priority, or cause among these things, in social/creative terms, +varies widely. + +*[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda]]]* + +Creative Agenda is the blanket term for any and all GNS modes or +priorities of play. The Venn diagram is supposed to indicate that any +Creative Agenda is an expression or application of Exploration among the +real-people group. Since Exploration necessarily includes System, that +means, as soon as we start talking about Creative Agenda, "play has begun." + +On paper, I draw this terms as an arrow, labelled GNS or Creative +Agenda. This arrow is very important - 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 or comparative panoply, and starts to be 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. + +For purposes of explaining the overall model, I'm profoundly +uninterested in discusing the nuances, internal relationships, +definitions, or anything else about the internal content of Creative +Agenda. All I care about, at this point, is that people recognize that +role-playing requires such a thing to exist. + +*[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques]]]]* + +To understand this part, again, recognize that Creative Agenda and the +arrow symbol are supposed to be the same thing, not two things. That +means that we are talking about some actual play. The panoply of +Techniques being employed in that instance, over time, either satisfy or +fail to satisfy one or more Creative Agendas. + +It's not too off-the-wall to think of Techniques as being a direct +expression of the more abstract concept of System (way up in +Exploration), except that System doesn't exist all by itself - it's +fully integrated with all 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 include IIEE, Drama/Karma/Fortune, search time & handling +time, narration apportioning, reward system, points of contact, +character components (Effectiveness, Metagame, Resource), 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. + +*[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques +[Ephemera]]]]]* + +Ephemera is a new term, indicating 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. + +Although fleeting, Ephemera are emphatically not trivial. As with every +level/box so far, fairly extensive combinations of Ephemera express or +apply 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, specific +dice or other system-based outcome interpretations, showing pictures, +and anything similar. + +*Clarification* +Some related topics are out of the scope of this discussion. I'm happy +to discuss them in other threads /if/ the person is completely able to +demonstrate understanding of the material presented so far. However, +none of them are going to occupy a whole lot of my emotional attention, +at least not until the Narrativism essay is done. + +- The relationship of S to N and/or G, or any other nuances of GNS +definitions or combinations within the [Creative Agenda] level. With any +luck, all three essays will do a good job of at least making /myself/ +clear about this stuff. Whether that will mean a damn thing in terms of +resolving anything for anyone else, I can't say. + +- Incoherence and/or dysfunctional play based on GNS incompatibilities. +This one will be a big deal for some, but I suspect it's a matter of +defensiveness in many cases: "You say it's incoherent but we have fun!" +To which I can only reply, "Sounds coherent to me," or, "I suspect your +'fun' isn't as 'fun' as you think, for everyone." I've been saddened by +how often the latter response has proved accurate in the long run. + +- Commerce of any kind, especially in terms of "success." This +discussion, unfortunately, will have to await a much broader +understanding of game marketing and commerce than I think is the case, +currently. Recent threads at the Forge reinforce my impression about this. + +Instead of going into stuff like the above, this thread is devoted to +clarifying any aspect of the Big Picture as presented here, especially +inter-relations among the levels, and how they are to be assessed and +discussed. I'd especially like to talk about combinations of Ephemera +relative to one or more Techniques, and combinations of Techniques +relative to one or more categories within Creative Agenda. + +DESIGN, RULES, AND TEXTS + +Design, when all is said and done, means authorship of a rules text. +"Rules" aren't part of the model any more. As I now see it, rules texts +are not and can never be "role-playing," but rather are recommendations +regarding the model, if you will, in hopes (shared by the readers) that +people who read it can get that version of the model into action. + +Therefore the goal of design, it seems to me, is to make sense to the +reader in terms of the whole model. It's like a musical instrument, or +several of them, as well as instructions for how to play them, and +finally some music or chords to work with. Seems easy? Well, here are +the usual problems I see with role-playing texts, now that I have this +"model" thing setting next to me as I type. + +Problem 1 = Simply leaving whole levels out, assuming that readers +already know and agree exactly where you're coming from for those +levels. It's conceivable that, for instance, a panoply of Techniques are +simply so powerful in reinforcing some subset of Creative Agenda that +stating the latter would be redundant, but as far as I can tell, most +rules-sets aren't that lucky. + +Problem 2 = Problematic combinations of Techniques which lead to +confusion about Creative Agenda, which in turn means a whole lot of +local construction about "why we play." If you want to call this +"incoherence," you can - it's what I originally meant by the term, which +I'm considering retiring from use. And although I stand by my point that +this issue usually is a genuine problem for role-players, don't get me +started on early Champions or Amber, both of which turned out to benefit +greatly from the very same phenomenon. Whole 'nother essays, waiting to +happen. + +Problem 3 = Plain bad system design, which is to say, unsatisfying at +the group level for any particular Creative Agenda. If a given +rules-loop allows an "automatic win" in Gamist play, if it jars the +Dream inconsistently with other features of the game, if it locks down +Premise too tightly ... any of these "break" a game relative to a given +goal of play. Such games tend to be instantly discarded or instantly +repaired, often covertly (people insist that the "right" way to play +just happens not to be textual). + +Problem 4 = Nonsensical prose, which might accompany perfectly good +rules. This is far more common than is good for any hobby, I think. It's +often associated with Creative Agenda issues, but also with many aspects +of character creation. + +Here's also what I see when looking at each level of the model and +thinking about rules texts. + +Social Contract and rules: This is where all those "What is +Role-playing" sections fall flat on their face. Just to pick the most +glaring example, I'm here to say that role-playing is not, and never +was, "cops and robbers with dice to resolve disputes." Going by the +model, people roll dice (or whatever) because they /agree/ about the +imagined events, not because they /disagree/. It might be interesting to +see whether anyone could write an introduction to a role-playing game +that really did specify Social Contract issues in a way which set up all +the following material in the game. Everway, perhaps? Universalis? + +Creative Agenda and rules: Most role-playing texts are emphatically +silent about Creative Agendas, especially in the model's context that +it's an expression of imaginative Social Contract. Often, especially +when Gamist priorities seem to be invoked, one can parse out the GNS +recommendation by looking at key words and phrasing ("When your +character dies, you have lost the game."). The more emphatic +Simulationist texts (Arrowflight) are often clearer, but whenever the +term "story" gets thrown around in a vague, "You know, the /story/" way, +I think the text becomes dramatically less helpful. I'm very impressed +with the introduction in the Marvel Universe RPG, which provides an +amazing textbook piece on the differences between Gamist ("The Brawl") +and Narrativist ("With great power comes great responsibility") play, +emphasizing that a group does well to decide which they would prefer to +do when playing the game. + +Techniques and rules: Here's the most solid correspondence; I don't +think it's difficult to see how most rules are in fact instructions for +Techniques. The problem is that, according to the model, Techniques +alone do not a role-playing game make. + +Ephemera and rules: Here's another tricky one - as with Creative Agenda, +you have to find key phrases or little snippets scattered around the +text in order to see whether any Ephemera are being explained or (more +likely) assumed to be already standard for the role-players. The most +explicit example I can think of are the frequent exhortations toward +Actor Stance in so many games, as well as the implicit content of a "GM +only" section. + +DISCUSSING THE MODEL + +I am listing some of the issues that people bring to discussing the +model here at the forums and elsewhere, and including some points of +interaction with the inherent stumbling blocks. The stumbling blocks +usually arrive from people employing one or more of these approaches: + +a) reaching understanding through paraphrasing and correction, + +b) denying understanding as a means of defending oneself from a +perceived threat, + +c) desperately trying to present one's own developed notions of some +kind, and + +d) arguing in order to fit in, a common behavior among members of a +somewhat socially stunted subculture. + +Role-players often arrive at the Forge in an advanced state of +frustration regarding either play, talking about play, or both. Since +there's no way to control (or on my part anyway, no /desire/ to control) +what people want when they arrive, I think it's important for everyone +to consider all of the following points about discussing the model. + +*Point #1:* Nearly everyone who first encounters the theory is +predisposed to discuss Ephemera. They are also emotionally tied to +various Ephemera, especially those combinations which reinforce certain +Techniques, and it's hard to get people to let go of that commitment +long enough to look at the variety available. They are often convinced +that even looking at alternatives will destroy the entirety of whatever +play-profile (real or idealized) that they currently hold in highest esteem. + +/Required point of discussion:/ Get them up to Techniques, which is what +they really want to discuss. The key is to validate the Techniques +they're trying to reinforce, and to acknowledge to the person that they +are, indeed, making sense in these terms. After that point, the +diversity of Ephemera can be discussed without the person going into +protective-mode regarding what Techniques they prefer or are used to. + +*Point #2 (related to #1):* People may also take a Reductionist approach +to trying to understand the model, which is to say, they would like the +"particles" of (say) Stance to be themselves little chunks of GNS, and +GNS as described simply to be collections of these chunks. This is not +the case. Instead, for every box in the model, a category or type of +"outer box" is always expressed/applied as a /combination/ of +terms/categories within the inner box. + +/Required point of discussion:/ It's best to speak of combinations +within an "inner" box in terms of how it affects or is affected by its +"outer" box or boxes. Resist the extreme temptation to identify any one +Technique, for instance, with a particular GNS category, or any one +Ephemera-type event with a particular Technique. + +*Point #3:* Creative Agenda is the "verb" of the model. As a generalized +topic, without an actual group or any role-playing to discuss, GNS +priorities are incredibly vague and abstract, to the point of being +uninteresting. + +In application, however, they are extremely concrete and easy to +recognize. As I wrote in a recent thread, + +Quote +The only variables that really make sense, in discussing GNS, are the +social interactions and communications that go on among the real people +at the table, during play. + +What is reinforced among them? Who praises whom, for doing what, and how +often? When is a stated or proposed action disallowed, often in very +subtle form? What gets everyone listening with undivided attention to a +single person's announcements? When do people laugh? When do they not +laugh, or socially squelch someone else's amusement? + +All of those things, and more, are the only valid variables for +assessing a GNS profile for a given instance of play. (And by +"instance," I mean a lot of play, at least a session, probably more.) + +I wish I'd made this point earlier. It's a big deal. The definitions of +GNS are not the same variables one uses to assess GNS in action. Since +GNS is a subset of Social Contract - indeed, it's the application of +Social Contract to the imagined material ("Exploration") - its identity +for that group can only be assessed in social terms. + + +Furthermore, in application, a given Creative Agenda category is also +extremely diverse in terms of possible Techniques, which is what my +current three essays (two down, one to go) are mainly about. M.J. Young +made a very good point recently when he said that within-Agenda +categories (e.g. specific types of Gamism, etc) lead to more rancor and +"not-us" distinctions among people discussing role-playing than +among-Agenda categories, in most cases. Or to put it differently, people +are highly committed not to "Gamism" but rather to "Gamism our way." Or +to put it in terms of my essays, within-category synecdoche seems to be +an extremely heartfelt, hotly-defended problem. + +/Required point of discussion:/ Don't get sidetracked into definitional +descriptions when discussing actual play. If a person really is +interested in examining the Creative Agenda(s) of his or her +role-playing, or more accurately that of his or her group, then focus on +social interactions, the real-people approval and disapproval during +play itself, as quoted above. + +*Point #4 (related to #3:* Creative Agenda is the most troublesome level +of the model for people to discuss, because many folks would very, very +much like Techniques to construct a satisfying GNS-profile for them, +without explicit reference to Social Contract. To link [Social Contract +[Exploration]] /causally downward/ into [Techniques], emphasizing +personal responsibility ("You get what you play for"), is frightening +and unwanted. They want what they want without wanting (a) to say so or +(b) actually to do that thing. Or if they are getting what they want, +it's often through Social Contract manipulation and they don't want to +endanger their carefully-constructed power-play. + +Here's the biggie: people have often come to idealize "rules" or "lack +of rules," whichever, in order to cement into play the Techniques that +they are used to or that they think will get them what they want. This +is the source of Rules and/or Setting Fetishim, as well as the source of +System Doesn't Matter. It's also the source of the /failure/ of both +tactics, neither of which stand up well in the long term. Cries of "it's +just a game" or "I just play to have fun" are signs of these tactics in +a state of final breakdown. Excessive arguing about details of GNS-stuff +is sometimes a defense mechanism. + +/Required point of discussion/: Stress Creative Agenda as the absolutely +necessary bridge from "we all like Star Trek" (Exploration) to "this is +how we role-play Star Trek" (Techniques). And just as importantly, be +prepared for the possibility that the person may /not/ be coming from +the position described in this point, and may well be perfectly comfy +with the concept of Creative Agenda once they get it properly explained +in terms of the levels of the model. So over-defensiveness on your part +should be acknowledged as a potential problem too. + +*Point #5:* Techniques express and satisfy Creative Agenda, whether +unsuccessfully or successfully. However, the relation between these +levels is not a tautology. You cannot discuss some abstract "real +Simulationism," for instance, in terms of Techniques which define it, +and especially not in terms of whatever the imaginary characters did to +or with whomever they fictionally encountered. Instead, you must +investigate whether X Techniques as applied and socially reinforced in Y +role-playing group are coalescing around (e.g.) a Simulationist +aesthetic. This is related to Point #3 in that applying Creative Agenda +is highly specific to a group of people: their personalities and +interactions, and their habits of play. But my current point is that +Techniques don't "compose" a Creative Agenda in a definitional way. + +/Required point of discussion/: Details of Creative Agenda may not be +the necessary point of discussion anyway; it might just be a matter of +letting the person know you get where they're coming from. For point #4, +getting GNS into the light is crucial. For this point, however, you just +might need to acknowledge that the Techniques being described, by this +person, do nail the GNS priority he or she prefers. It's very similar to +the "wants-Techniques, talks-Ephemera" issue mentioned for Point #1. In +this case, it's "wants-GNS, talks-Techniques." Again, the point of +discussion relies on acknowledging the person's valid combination so +they know they are being heard. + +Also, a person who's confounded over this issue probably needs to hear +that Creative Agenda categories (GNS) are not principles to live up to, +but rather just a vocabulary that helps describe the whole-model profile +for that particular group (or rather, an instance of that group's play +in action). + +*Point #6:* Rules, Techniques, and System are now carefully +distinguished from one another in the model. System is a fairly abstract +term that indicates that the imagined Situation and other elements +actually change through the activity of role-playing. As a term, I +suggest thinking of it as "/a/ or /any/ system" rather than "/the/ +system." Techniques are extremely concrete and observable methods of +actual play. Rules are textual guides or instructions about any aspect +of role-playing at any level of the model. + +/Required point of discussion:/ It's going to take some work to help +people understand that "rules" are not part of the model at all. People +usually say "rules" when they mean Techniques or System. Instead, they +are texts, used to greater or lesser extent as a way to establish any +aspects of the model that the group wants to be established. This is the +Lumpley Principle in action. Discussion of the Principle got a little +wonky when I was working out "rules" vs. "system," but now I think it's +nailed. + +*Point #7:* In discussing Techniques, one person's mind-blowing, +door-opening example is another person's ho-hum or still another +person's deal-breaker. One of the most difficult problems with a +multi-user forum discussion is when Person X explains something about +the GNS-level to Person Y using a specific Techniques example, and then +person Z gets the idea that this Technique /is/ the GNS term. And if +they hate the Technique, then they fall right off the cognitive +mountain, sometimes irretrievably. + +/Required point of discussion/: Fear is a serious problem when dealing +with a third-party's reaction to these discussions. It's very common for +someone literally to flip out when reading a Techniques example, as the +example may represent (rightly or wrongly) everything that is Horribly +Wrong with Other Role-Players in this person's mind. Whereas for the +person to whom the example is addressed, the Horribly Wrong Thing might +be just what they're looking for; or more likely, the Techniques example +only works in the very localized context of that person's game being +discussed (which is why it was used as an example in the first place). +So managing these third-party reactions can be a major issue and take a +lot of time. + +Some final bits about discussion ... we are not talking about minor +issues at the Forge. We're dealing with how people socialize, how they +express their creative drives, and how they self-identify in a highly +technical subculture. The very fact that people register and post +denotes that they feel a /need/ to communicate about it. So the main +watchwords are /care/, and yet also, /detach/. The times to detach are +easy to recognize - whenever any of the following phrases start getting +thrown around. + +- "But my character would do this ..." Characters are fictional and +cannot make decisions in the absence of a real person's creative input. + +- "System doesn't matter, all you need is a good GM / group" ... All +role-playing utilizes System, and "good" in this context usually means +"what I want." + +- "That upsets balance ..." Balance is a red herring unless it's defined +in highly specific terms. See my Gamism essay for details. + +- "That's not realistic!" Realism cannot be mandated by "rules," and +like balance, must be locally defined with care. No one "just knows" +what realism is, in actual play. + +- "The Storyteller Golden Rule ..." This rule is a big puff job, because +it leaves "fun" undefined, nor does it specify who can mandate when a +rule is to be ignored. + +However, rather than using these responses as comebacks, use them as a +foundation from which to defuse the potential fight. And make no +mistake, when a person says stuff like this, they're almost certainly +fighting, in response to being upset with you or with someone from the +past. The only solutions involve removing the confrontation, rather than +meeting it - all that'll get you is a headache. + +WRAP-UP + +Any ideas for this section, anyone? I have some, but I thought I'd +save'em until you all stomp and shatter all of the above material into +more useable form. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Ben Lehman +* +Member + +Posts: 1464 + + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #1 on:* November 11, 2003, 04:11:21 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Thanks. That clears a lot up for me. Still needs more digestion, but +at this point I can say that this matches my beliefs pretty closely... + Still many quibbles about other (not included in this post) details, +but that's what makes life interesting, isn't it? + +A few points and questions: + +1) Is Stance a technique, exploration, or social contract level issue? + I was under the impression it technique-level, but it seems to me that +it might be higher than that, particular with regard to Lumpley and +Emily style play, where it seems imbedded in the social contract at the +highest level... + +2) I think that discussion of Ephemera is VERY important, because it is +where the rubber hits the road in terms of actual play. Saying that it +should all "be a discussion of techniques" seems a little strange to me. + +3) The particular layout of this explanation (as a manual for an +apologist {in the Catholic sense}) is slightly disturbing to me. I +would change it if you want this to be a reference document for people +who do not understand your theory, which it is excellent at doing. + +Thanks again. + +yrs-- +--Ben + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +These are our Games +This is my Blog + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #2 on:* November 11, 2003, 05:11:39 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hi Ben, + +Quote +1) Is Stance a technique, exploration, or social contract level issue? I +was under the impression it technique-level, but it seems to me that it +might be higher than that, particular with regard to Lumpley and Emily +style play, where it seems imbedded in the social contract at the +highest level... + + +Don't forget that every single level exists /within/ the levels above it +- those brackets are a big deal. If you touch "Stance," you're reaching +through Social Contract, Exploration, Creative Agenda, and Technique to +do it. + +Apparently for you, tracing the patch of that "reach" or "touch" is very +easy and even essential. For others, Stance variations may be nearly a +complete non-issue. + +Quote +2) I think that discussion of Ephemera is VERY important, because it is +where the rubber hits the road in terms of actual play. Saying that it +should all "be a discussion of techniques" seems a little strange to me. + + +I'm not sure you're representing my view correctly. Don't I say, at one +point, that I'm interested in discussing combinations of Ephemera and +how they represent or affect Technique? Seems like that would satisfy +your outlook. I can't see anywhere that I say "Techniques are the only +thing to discuss." + +As for what level is most important, I guess I'll have to say it now: no +one of these levels is /The /Level for discussing role-playing. It's +/all /role-playing. I bet this is going to be one of these things I have +to say over and over and over. + +Quote +3) The particular layout of this explanation (as a manual for an +apologist {in the Catholic sense}) is slightly disturbing to me. I would +change it if you want this to be a reference document for people who do +not understand your theory, which it is excellent at doing. + + +I have no idea what you're talking about. Not a bit. Rather than +immediately explaining, are you sure this is something worth discussing +in the first place? I mean, before everyone gets their oars into the +water regarding the basic points? + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Marco * +Member + +Posts: 1732 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #3 on:* November 11, 2003, 06:33:22 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I'm still digesting it. I think it's an excellent effort. I'll have to +consider it more before having a real, cooked, response. + +I would separate the "problems in design" and "discussion or entry +points" for another document, possibly with the section on incoherence +being left in as a historical note. + +I would religiously avoid using words like "desparately" and "fear" in +the description people who approach the theory. + +I would remove the "literally" from the "flip-out" section unless ... +well ... yeah. + +-Marco + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--------------------------------------------- +JAGS (Just Another Gaming System) +a free, high-quality, universal system at: +http://www.jagsrpg.org +*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland* + +*M. J. Young +* +Member + +Posts: 2126 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #4 on:* November 11, 2003, 07:18:05 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Wonderful document, Ron; I look forward to the completed piece. + +I think Ben's point was that this starts out as an explanation of GNS +theory and then becomes a document about how to deal with people who +don't understand it. A solid concise explanation of the theory in +present form--a sort of revision of previous documents to incorporate +developments from forum discussions in a concise reference document--is +definitely needed at this point (there are just too many places at which +we're saying, /read this article, but understand that the use of this +word has changed since it was written/), but referring newcomers to a +document which also discusses how to deal with newcomers isn't the best +approach. + +The latter half is also important; but it might work best if it were +changed from telling us how to do it to attempting to do it through example. + +I'll follow this thread with interest; unfortunately, I'm staring down +the barrel of a long away game at Rochester's UNY-con, so I'm going to +miss several days of posts and have to catch up again--but I've managed +to catch up before, so it shouldn't be too problematic. + +--M. J. Young + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Check out /Multiverser / +M. J. Young Net + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #5 on:* November 11, 2003, 09:00:16 PM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hello, + +Thanks folks! (Although "... excellent effort ..." isn't a phrase I +associate with much merit, being a prof and all. Digression; ignore.) + +I should clarify: the eventual document I'm thinking about will +encompass only the first section, the model itself, and maybe a very +friendly section on rules/design, with examples of text. The current +post is not an outline for that document - it's intended to set up /our +/understanding, /now/, of what the hell I am trying to say. + +So don't worry about the eventual newcomer to the Forge and what that +person may or may not think of some version of the post. Just read the +post and tell me what does or doesn't make sense to /you/. + +Or rather, that's what I'm hoping for. If you want to contribute to the +thread in some mind-opening fashion that I haven't anticipated, please +feel free. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Eero Tuovinen +* +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 974 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #6 on:* November 12, 2003, 12:36:10 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Ron Edwards + +So don't worry about the eventual newcomer to the Forge and what that +person may or may not think of some version of the post. Just read the +post and tell me what does or doesn't make sense to /you/. + + +Makes perfect sense to me, I've been hoping for a concise overview of +the main points in one place. I'd like to pick one specific place in the +text that delighted me especially: + +Quote from: Ron Edwards + +Design, when all is said and done, means authorship of a rules text. +"Rules" aren't part of the model any more. As I now see it, rules texts +are not and can never be "role-playing," but rather are recommendations +regarding the model, if you will, in hopes (shared by the readers) that +people who read it can get that version of the model into action. + + +This is something that has for a long time been a crucial part of my +personal interpretation of roleplaying texts. I absolutely love seeing +it in writing by one of my favourite rpg theorists. I'm firmly convinced +that my first published game will carry the words "Guide to roleplaying +in [something]" on the cover. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +The latest publication of Arkenstone Publishing +, my Finnish indie company: +Piruja miehiksi , Finnish +translation of /Dust Devils/ + +*Marco * +Member + +Posts: 1732 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #7 on:* November 12, 2003, 08:07:47 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +By excellent effort, I meant "looks good, I'll have to put some real +analsis in to see how successful at hitting all of its goals I think it +was--It'll take me some time." Not: 'nice try, try again.' + +I think the post is (at least in proto-form) exactly what GNS needs. +Splitting the content into a few documents is a good idea too. That +wasn't clear to me until you said it. + +On splitting them up: +I would formally separate theory, ramifications for game design, and +utility and implementation from the basic theory meaning: + +1. Have a section on the theory very similar to the first part of what +is there, if not identical. + +2. Have a secion on GNS analysis of play (I'd be interesting in seeing +what the purpose, value, and method of GNS analysis of play is) + +3. Have a section on "this is what I/we think the ramifications of GNS +are for game-design" (using what's up there) + +4. Have a secion on "Here's how I/we think this perspective could be +used to help solve what I/we think are some common problems during +play." (with the perspective and vocabulary notes and a discussion of +dysfunction seen from a GNS POV). + +This write up does most (or at least some) of this very well +already--separating them formally would help to see what pieces are seen +as theory and what pieces are seen as ramification or utility (I see the +mxing of these as a major stumbling block to the understanding of GNS as +a whole). + +Also: + +I need to carefully examine the arrows in the Venn Diagram. I get thay +they mean sort of "follow from" but I'm not sure how that's different +than "composed from." + +And: +For each section maybe a formal: +*Description * [what's there] +*Example*: ["Fortune resolution, for example, rolling the dice to see if +an action is judged successful by the group is an example of a technique." ] +[/b]Definition of important terms[/b] [Karma, Drama, and Fortune, +discussed in depth here are three major techniques for outcome resolution.] +*Caveats*: [Note: there has been discussion of GNS modes lining up with +resolution techniques so that one would say "Narrativist mode is best +facilitated by Drama Technique." While that may sound reasonable for a +variety of reasons, examination of the that theory has shown it to be +false. A given Drama technique might or might not be good for +Narrativist play-mode--but so might any other technique. Thus Techniques +are said to be node-agnostic."] + +The Creative Agenda section isn't clear to me (which, I think is my +fault--I'm not saying it's not clear or poorly written). I'm not sure +who you're talking to when you say you're profoundly uninterested in +discussing nuances: me as someone reviewing the document or me as +someone coming to it at the first time. If the latter, I'd change it. To +me that section looks like a placeholder for a real description of G/N/S +modes. + +Also: There's an issue of GNS as a description of play (we watched play +and this is what it looked like to us--we saw three basic categories). +For me (and maybe only me) there's a lot of question about that (as I've +said, from an internal standpoint the theory makes a lot of sense to +me--from an observational standpoint, it's not as clear to me). + +A discussion of that in the Creative Agenda session would be good (I see +the three essays speaking to internal intent--I don't know what +step-on-up looks like distinct from exploration of situation and +character but I can tell when I'm doing it--and maybe no one has a clear +textual discription (although I'd be surprised if that's the case)--but +addressing that would help with the GNS-is-about-intent/no-it-isn't issue). + +-Marco + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +--------------------------------------------- +JAGS (Just Another Gaming System) +a free, high-quality, universal system at: +http://www.jagsrpg.org +*Just Released: JAGS Wonderland* + +*The GM * +Member + +Posts: 58 + + +View Profile + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #8 on:* November 12, 2003, 08:20:09 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ron says: + +>>(snip) I'd especially like to talk about combinations of Ephemera +relative to one or more Techniques, and combinations of Techniques +relative to one or more categories within Creative Agenda.<< + +Neato. This (I think) is what I?ve been trying to get some input about, +although I didn?t say it quite like this in my recent thread. +Specifically, I?m looking for hard and fast guidelines to facilitate +this ?stuff? in such a manner that it fits our troupe?s style of agreed +play. Now, is that goal realistic considering the vast potential for +various in game outcomes when you start mixing and matching all of these +elements together? I firmly think so, although I may not know how to do +that just yet. This is why I?ve been taking a hard look at communication +techniques that would yield specific results (those results being ?the +game? that we?ve all agreed we want to play.) +I know that in RL, certain words used in a certain order will result in +a very specific outcome. Politicians are masters of what we typically +call spin. For instance, if you hear a politician say, ?If we do not win +the war on terror abroad at all costs, then we will become victims of +fear in our own homes, our country will falter.? What he?s really just +done is employed a conversation technique called a Closing Triplicate of +Choice. Really, when you hear that, what automatically happens is that +you run through the options and pick the lesser of the evils. ?Hmmm?I +don?t want to be a victim; I don?t want the country to falter, so I +guess we have to win the war at all costs.? That way of conversing is +designed to put your mind in a specific frame of thinking. This kind of +communication is far from new, but it works to provoke a specific +response, (in this example, support for an agenda.) Could the same be +done for creating an atmosphere where a game stays on track? Again, I +think so. +Now, I?m not saying that I want to have to use a script to run or play +in a game. Blah, boring. It would, however, be helpful to have something +firm to refer back to in order to keep a game from identity crisis. +I think about this topic a lot lately. +;) + +I'll be interested to follow this discussion and see where it leads. + +Warm Regards, +Lisa + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Warm Regards, +Lisa + +*Ben Lehman +* +Member + +Posts: 1464 + + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #9 on:* November 12, 2003, 09:30:26 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote from: Ron Edwards + +Quote +2) I think that discussion of Ephemera is VERY important, because it is +where the rubber hits the road in terms of actual play. Saying that it +should all "be a discussion of techniques" seems a little strange to me. + + +I'm not sure you're representing my view correctly. Don't I say, at one +point, that I'm interested in discussing combinations of Ephemera and +how they represent or affect Technique? Seems like that would satisfy +your outlook. I can't see anywhere that I say "Techniques are the only +thing to discuss." + +As for what level is most important, I guess I'll have to say it now: no +one of these levels is /The /Level for discussing role-playing. It's +/all /role-playing. I bet this is going to be one of these things I have +to say over and over and over. + + +BL> Yup. Imagine so. On reread, I think I misread some stuff. Apologies. + +Quote +3) The particular layout of this explanation (as a manual for an +apologist {in the Catholic sense}) is slightly disturbing to me. I would +change it if you want this to be a reference document for people who do +not understand your theory, which it is excellent at doing. + + +I have no idea what you're talking about. Not a bit. Rather than +immediately explaining, are you sure this is something worth discussing +in the first place? I mean, before everyone gets their oars into the +water regarding the basic points? + + +BL> Your own later posts regarding the "mission objectives" of this +layout cleared things up a bit. MJ expressed my viewpoint much better +than I ever could. + +yrs-- +--Ben + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +These are our Games +This is my Blog + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #10 on:* November 12, 2003, 09:47:34 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hello, + +Further reflection has clarified my own goals for this thread. + +You know, I think that I'm not interested in suggestions for editing and +presenting. That was a bad thing even to mention. + +I'm interested in whether /you/, the Forge folks, understand what I'm +saying. If there's anything you need clarified about the model as +presented, or anything you think doesn't hold up, then now's the time to +say it. + +I'm very committed to reviewing and refining the material in the +Discussing the Model section. Those are phrased as recommendations for a +reason, and presented in the post for a reason. I would very much like +to get confirmation and/or attempts at refutation about all seven of the +points. + +I don't mind mentioning that quibbles about internal issues of Creative +Agenda are right out the window. I'm profoundly sick of GNS talk, +frankly. I'm convinced that once the model as a whole is better +understood, then dozens upon dozens of "GNS issues" will simply evaporate. + +I'm specifically interested in whether Creative Agenda, as the bridge +from [Social Contract [Exploration]] to [Techniques], is acceptable as +an absolute necessity in understanding role-playing. Realize that this +claim was and is absolutely anathema among most vocal participants and +publishers in the hobby. + +I'm also interested in what I mentioned in the essay about +Techniques-to-Creative Agenda, and Ephemera-to-Techniques. Lisa's post +is, in my view, the most valuable one so far to develop in this thread. +I have plenty of thoughts on this issue and would appreciate some input +about yours. + +So from now on, please, no more editing or presentation suggestions. +Talk about the material. This thread is not about what some hypothetical +other people will think and feel about the model, but about /you/. Say, +"YES, I AGREE, ESPECIALLY ABOUT X," or, "NO, YOU MAKE NO SENSE AND +HERE'S WHY," or "GEE, WHAT ABOUT THIS PART HERE." That sort of thing. + +Without that kind of dialogue for a while, I'm considering closing up +the whole forum. That's not a threat, but rather a statement that I +don't see any point to public/forum GNS-wrangling without a strong and +easily-reinforced shared understanding of the big picture. + +Best, +Ron + Logged + +*Valamir * +Member + +Posts: 4859 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #11 on:* November 12, 2003, 10:08:33 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +I'm specifically interested in whether Creative Agenda, as the bridge +from [Social Contract [Exploration]] to [Techniques], is acceptable as +an absolute necessity in understanding role-playing. Realize that this +claim was and is absolutely anathema among most vocal participants and +publishers in the hobby. + + +I think you rightly point out that this is the crux of the entire model. + I don't think you'll find anyone who games (even without spending much +time thinking about it) who will disagree with the idea that social +issues impact game experience. I don't think you'll find anyone who +hasn't found mechanics and techniques that work profoundly well (and +others that work poorly) to deliver the kind of game they want. + +The issue then is this idea of a Creative Agenda beyond simply "having +fun sharing a hobby with my friends" and much deeper than "I don't like +dice pool mechanics or hard scene framing". + +I think the fact of the existance of "something" going on in that +Creative Agenda space is pretty irrefutable. Enjoying RPGs must require +something more than the sum of Social conciderations plus Techniques or +there wouldn't continue to be dysfunctional play. If all that is +required is selecting some powerful favorite techniques and then making +sure everyone at the table is on good civil terms and committed to each +others enjoyment...then nearly every game would be a rageing success. + +Clearly there's something else going on there, and for purposes of this +model we call that something else "Creative Agenda". + +I'm particularly impressed with the fact that this format of +presentation (speaking of the article overall here) is quite powerful at +identifying and seperating out the component part. At being able to set +aside the specifics of the component parts altogether and just talk +about the processes of the model. + +This enables us to look at and "approve" (if you will) of the overall +framework of the model, without getting caught up (again, and again, and +again) in debating trivial nuance ad naseum (guilty). It focuses +attention on the "forest" so we can all agree that we are, indeed, +looking at a forest, before delving deep into the individual trees. + +I'm envisioning the final version of this document as a sort of master +article that we can be reasonably confident is about as final and +finished as likely to get. Each box on the Venn can then be hyperlinked +to an article talking deeper about each item, and ideally serve as a +place to list links to appropriate threads on the topic. In this way +the sub articles can be more easily updated to reflect "current thinking +on the nature of Techniques. See also for additional +thoughts and the development of the concepts. + +To make Mike happy these sub articles could be ideal to set up as a Wiki +where it becomes trivial for various parties to submit links and add to +content (supposedly...I can't figure the think out), with links from +them to other articles (such as the 3 GNS ones, etc.) + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ralph Mazza +Universalis: The Game of Unlimited Stories + + +*C. Edwards +* +Member + +Posts: 540 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #12 on:* November 12, 2003, 10:19:40 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Hey Ron, + +Looks great to me. It's nice to see so much of the current thought all +together on the same page. I particularly like that you repeatedly point +out that System reaches down and through the lower level boxes. (I've +been thinking of it like the funnel of a tornado.) + +Oh, have you considered changing the name of the model? The current +moniker seems to cause quite a bit of focus on particulars of Creative +Agenda, often resulting in tunnel-vision in regards to the model as a whole. + +-Chris + Logged + +*Lxndr * +Acts of Evil Playtesters +Member +* +Posts: 1026 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #13 on:* November 12, 2003, 10:54:07 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I am very glad to see "Creative Agenda" replace "G/N/S". Granted, I'm +aware G/N/S is still a popular construction, but your new Venn Diagram +allows for alternative theories on Creative Agenda in particular (like +the ever-popular "Beeg Horseshoe") without implicit contradiction. + +That said, I agree with Chris that it'd be nice to see the entire theory +no longer be called "the GNS model" since, well, the name itself brings +an unhealthy amount of focus on that one part of the model... + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Alexander Cherry, Master of the Inkstained Robes +Twisted Confessions Game Design +Moderator of Indie Netgaming + + +*Matt Snyder +* +Member + +Posts: 1142 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The whole model - this is it +* +« *Reply #14 on:* November 12, 2003, 11:19:39 AM » + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Quote +I'm specifically interested in whether Creative Agenda, as the bridge +from [Social Contract [Exploration]] to [Techniques], is acceptable as +an absolute necessity in understanding role-playing. Realize that this +claim was and is absolutely anathema among most vocal participants and +publishers in the hobby. + + +Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. In light of my own group's recent +discussions, this was the key issue. While I don't expect my fellow +group members to be able right now to write an essay on Creative Agenda, +I do think they have recognized their right and need to understand just +what /exactly/ it is we as a group are going to sit down and do for our +enjoyment. + +I'll say that again. Each /person/ who choses to play a role-playing +game with other people has a /right/ to understand just what it is that +he will be doing when the group actually plays the game. Similarly, with +right comes responsibility. It is a person's responsibility to recognize +what his group's Creative Agenda is. Failure to do so absurdly risks +one's enjoyment, and one's right to enjoyment. + +While many publishers aren't, to my mind, openly fighting against that +right, what they are doing is either clumsily ignoring that right OR +disingenuinely undermining that right with inconsistent positions on +what the /act/ of role-playing is versus the /act/ of maintaining the +industry and/or culture is. + Logged + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Matt Snyder +www.chimera.info + +"The future ain't what it used to be." +--Yogi Berra + +*Pages:* [*1*] 2 + 3 + * ... *5 + Print + + +« previous + +next » + + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +© 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/wind06feb02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/wind06feb02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,247 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Wind in the Flowers: Re-inventing a Game + + + Treachery + +*R. Sean Borgstrom* +February 6, 2002 + +We wanted to make the new *Nobilis* easy to run. As part of this effort, +I wrote a sample campaign for inclusion in the new edition. This +campaign, */Treachery/*, shows by example how to build individual +stories, a grand storyline, and key non-player characters for a +*Nobilis* game. It's also suitable for immediate use in play. + +The standard format for prewritten roleplaying campaigns didn't work, +for two reasons. First, most players don't like to buy a campaign +they'll be playing in. It might spoil their fun. However, I expect +players to buy the main book, and I want them to get full value from the +campaign. I want them to read */Treachery/* and benefit thereby. I want +them to use the non-player characters as sample characters, helping them +design their PCs. I want them to use the stories as benchmarks for their +understanding of the world. I want them to build their characters to fit +the grand storyline in interesting or amusing ways. That's one reason +that the standard format didn't fit. + +The other reason standard ideas didn't work is that a sample campaign +should sit squarely in the middle of the space of possible campaigns. I +wanted */Treachery/* to be completely playable /but/ also a solid source +of ideas and material for locally designed campaigns. It had to reflect +a normal *Nobilis* game, because I can't tell from here which way a +local campaign deviates from the norm. The problem is, a typical +*Nobilis* game focuses heavily on PC interaction with their peers. It's +not easy or even appropriate to script that interaction in advance. + +I knew the basic solution to the first problem from the beginning. Most +of the material needed to be story /components/ -- building blocks for +stories, rather than prewritten "adventures". I needed some actual story +writeups, too. /These/ had to be information-rich challenges. That is, +in each story, the player characters know the core of their problem up +front -- just like players who peeked would. + +Whether they had to resolve a moral dilemma, or unravel a mystery under +difficult circumstances, or crack a seemingly unsolvable problem, the +PCs would understand what they had to do. Actually /doing/ it would +require a complex, carefully-executed plan. The unfolding of the player +characters' plan, and any complications that arose, would form the core +of the story. + +After I worked these ideas out, building a player-readable campaign was +more of a craft than an art. It wasn't uniformly successful -- I can see +someone asking their group not to read the *Stories* section until after +the first adventure, for example. At the same time, I'm pretty sure that +if a player sneakily or accidentally reads those sections, it would only +trim a small bit off of their fun. + +The other problem was designing a campaign based on social interaction. +Here's the key problem, in my mind, with writing up a social campaign +ahead of time. Most non-player characters have a limited number of +opportunities to interact with the player characters. /If/ an NPC +"clicks" with the player characters during one of those opportunities, +developing a meaningful friendship, rivalry, love, hate, enmity, or even +a strong relationship based on the exchange of favors, then that NPC +becomes a "regular" -- a meaningful part of the game. If that doesn't +happen, then the character fades into the background. A character can +/easily/ miss all of their opportunities to click, even if they're a +good match with the game. + +In one story, the player characters don't have time to deal with them. +In another, the person running the game simplifies them right out of the +storyline. Most of the work in designing a social campaign goes to +creating good, useful, flexible non-player characters. If even one such +character shuffles permanently off to the sidelines due to bad luck, +it's a substantial part of the campaign writeup that that player group +receives no value from. + +To solve this problem, I needed non-player characters with an unlimited +number of opportunities to interact with the PCs. Such NPCs are hard to +create -- but fortunately the *Nobilis* setting gave me the perfect +solution. The PCs and other major characters in *Nobilis* each embody, +represent, and protect one aspect of the nature of the world. + +In stories where a given aspect of reality becomes important, there's a +minor genre expectation that the relevant character will appear. For +example, if endless night falls over the world, or a vital ritual must +take place between dusk and dawn, it's in genre for the story to feature +the Power of Night. The Power of War often attends mortal battles. + +To create an endless series of opportunities to involve the campaign's +NPCs in the game, I built a set of NPCs tied to the most common +situations and challenges in roleplaying game stories. A typical story +then would feature a dozen opportunities to involve these characters. +The person running the game can pick and choose among them. + +Four common social elements of roleplaying scenarios suggested +themselves. "Conspiracy", including sects, factions, secrets, and +intrigue. "Debate", covering conversation, debate, and oratory. +"Festivals", representing celebrations of all sorts. Finally, "Trade" +and mercantile activity. The associated NPCs became one /Familia +Caelestis,/ a social/familial unit in the world of the game. + +Similarly, I made a Familia from the Nobilis governing three key +physical challenges: disasters, barriers/obstacles, and strife. A third +Familia included characters linked to mental challenges. The four Powers +in this Familia governed Bureaucracy; Mazes and confusing situations; +Records and research; and Trails -- that is, chains of logic and trails +of evidence. + +This collection of characters suggested a new approach to story design. +In addition to the story elements that these characters embodied, I +built each character to evoke a particular mood. Thus, Pandareos +Panagiotis, Power of Conspiracy, behaves in a manner designed to evoke +the conventions of romance. You can use Nephele Nikolaidhis, Power of +Festivals, to create an atmosphere of horror. When a conspiracy becomes +important to the story, Pandareos might appear. His presence adjusts the +feel of the story, which could lead to a new story element taking center +stage. + +Completing this design -- although much /writing/ still remained to be +done -- I gave the PCs and the three NPC Familiae a common purpose. +Specifically, they would investigate Imperators -- extremely potent +individuals, a large step above an individual PC in power and authority +-- accused of treason. This shared purpose made many interesting stories +possible. More importantly, it made the PCs and NPCs a coherent peer +group, setting the stage for PC/NPC relationships to develop naturally. + +R. Sean + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + James and the Small Caps + (2) new Kibo +08-20-2002 16:29 02-10-2003 01:23 new + Art (1) new Lxndr +04-26-2002 07:36 04-26-2002 07:36 new + The Original Nobilis Club + (3) new Bret Gillan +04-17-2002 11:28 03-17-2003 17:48 new + Questions & Thoughts + (3) new Pyske +03-20-2002 18:31 05-01-2003 13:03 new + Noble Buddhism? + (9) new Tlaloc +03-20-2002 12:17 12-10-2004 01:20 new + Noble Suicide (9) new +Eric Christian Berg 03-20-2002 07:43 01-18-2005 16:27 new + Art Notes (4) new R. +Sean Borgstrom 03-14-2002 16:31 03-21-2002 03:44 new + Ack...you just lost my sale + (10) new SteveD +03-14-2002 04:06 03-15-2002 06:29 new + Onomastikon working URL + (4) new Jorge +Hernández 03-06-2002 12:51 08-20-2002 16:10 new + Why do angels change names ? + (10) new philippe +tromeur 03-06-2002 10:13 12-10-2004 01:34 new + R. Sean, some examples? + (3) new Arref +03-05-2002 08:17 03-13-2002 20:28 new + Sounds great, BUT... + (2) new Kane +02-27-2002 16:43 02-27-2002 17:30 new + Sort of backwards? + (8) new Eric Finley +02-20-2002 14:25 02-28-2002 09:35 new + Programmer nature slips out! + (2) new Sean +McCarthy 02-20-2002 13:18 02-21-2002 10:30 new + Object Lesson Damage + (1) new Darren +Miguez 02-13-2002 12:45 02-13-2002 12:45 new + How about this? + (2) new Kristian +Lund 02-13-2002 11:30 02-14-2002 01:17 new + Now, this was strange! + (7) new access.denied +02-13-2002 07:44 02-16-2002 21:44 new + Briefs on the other two? + (5) new Eric Finley +01-31-2002 18:39 02-13-2002 10:36 new + Forum now works (1) new +Sandy Antunes 01-31-2002 17:36 01-31-2002 17:36 new + limited series (2) new +Sandy Antunes 01-21-2002 17:41 01-31-2002 17:36 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + * Editing, Development, and Production + + March 27, 2002 + * Affiliations + March 20, 2002 + * How to be a Hollyhock God + March 13, 2002 + * Naming Conventions + March 6, 2002 + * Art Notes + February 27, 2002 + * Dynamic Nobilis + February 20, 2002 + * Systems Change + February 13, 2002 + * Treachery + February 6, 2002 + * The Emperor to Come + January 31, 2002 + * The Changing of the Guard + January 21, 2002 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/wind06mar02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/wind06mar02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,260 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Wind in the Flowers: Re-inventing a Game + + + Naming Conventions + +*R. Sean Borgstrom* +March 6, 2002 + +The principal characters of *Nobilis* come from all over the world. A +fair number of the secondary characters come from outside the world +entirely. The first edition had an unfortunate bias towards American and +made-up names, which didn't properly reflect the setting's +cosmopolitanism. Fortunately, the new edition has roughly twice the +wordcount, which gave me plenty of space to redress this error. + +My primary resource for most of this was the Onomastikon +; +secondary resources included Gustav Davidson's excellent *A Dictionary +of Angels* and the even more amazing Saul M. Olyan's *A Thousand +Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient +Judaism*. I didn't get to actually use that last book much, but that +/will/ change. It was very pleasant to sort through thousands of angel +descriptions with traditional names when adding new angels or fallen +angels to the game. + +In addition, I associate a sense of awe with the names and descriptions +of classical angelology; I also drew on M. Davidson's book when I wished +to discuss celestial phenomena, such as the things the Creator bound to +make Creation. (For reference, these were Azbogah, the Radiance that +Destroys the Unrighteous, in whose heart the Creator planted the tree of +worlds; N'mosnikttiel, the Fire that Swallows Worlds, raw material for +the creation of the angels; and Narsinha, the Lightning that Dances on +the Surface of the Abyss, reshaped to create the wall around Creation.) + +Some specific setting features required careful thought as to their +names. Ananda, discussed in a previous column , +appeared as a concept long before he had a name. We needed something +that would properly express the idea of "hope for the world". Bruce and +I wrestled with this for some time before finding something properly +suited to a conceptually key bright spot in the setting. + +Ultimately, we raided Madeline L'Engle, who probably raided Hindu names, +for "that joy in existence without which the universe would fall apart +and collapse". Alternatives---naming him in ways that reflected simpler +joy, or beauty, or the darker side of his nature---didn't suffice to +capture what that name can: that beauty is vital in this world. + +Similarly, the name of the divine entity embodying the Third Age (the +current Age of the World) needed to say something fundamental about the +setting. Here, I had more room for subtlety, as the Imperatrix of the +Third Age is not a major character in the setting; I named her Attaris +Ebrôt Appêka, in part for Attaris, the angel of winter. These are the +closing days of the *Nobilis* world; either it will end entirely, or a +new Spring will rise. + +*Nobilis* has vast numbers of sample characters, which gave me a fairly +free hand doing some basic diversification. Augusta Valentina, Bran +Gainor, Cornelia Jansdr, Dyemma Insakovs, Fayola Osiagobare, Halland +Geirr and Ienari Namika-in are some of the new sample characters; +Nephele Nikolaidhis and Helissent de Reymes appear in the sample +campaign; Jori Hullis, Kip Narekatski, and Rannen Yedidyah are quoted as +"authors" of various related fictional texts. A large number of Indian +names (including a few Hindu gods and demons) appear in a frame story +running through the book. + +Looking this over in retrospect, Chinese and Islamic names and probably +a few others are underrepresented in the text; I should work on +balancing that in the supplements. In any event, the basic design +principle was very straightforward: try to scatter the new characters +over a variety of nationalities, so that the game doesn't feel +landlocked in America (or even England!) + +The most thoroughly foreign characters in *Nobilis* are the Excrucians, +who rode into our reality from the Lands Beyond Creation. To name them +properly, I needed a strong, regular naming convention with a distinctly +alien flavor. Simply foreign names would not suffice. Establishing +foreign names as alien, regardless of which nationality I chose, would +undermine the basic concept that the Nobilis come from all over the +world; that, in their context, European, African, Asian, and all other +modern names are pretty much "local". + +If I were Tolkien, of course, the solution would be simple: invent a +logically coherent language without direct derivation from any human +tongue, and name the Excrucians in that. Failing to mysteriously turn +into Tolkien when I twisted my power ring, I instead turned to history. + +The ancient world has some extremely cool names, some of which I have +swiped for other uses---Idri-mi, Texcoyo, and Nabushezibanni among +them---but the best-fitting names came primarily from medieval times. +I'm not 100% certain why, but my theory is that the really ancient names +have their own baggage. Even though I wouldn't recognize Nabushezibanni +as a Hittite name offhand, it has associations of that whole +Babylonian-region ancient world thing going on. Similarly, even if you +don't guess that Texcoyo's an Aztec name, it probably evokes some +ancient American tribal associations. + +Maybe that's just me. + +In any event, medieval Europe actually has some very interesting names +that don't fall into the typical fantasy mold. The very first name to +come out of this search was Genseric---a Vandal name, technically. I'm +not that fond of characters without surnames; it feels incomplete to me, +and somewhat like the characters are trying to be media stars. So I +stole a last name from another barbarian tribe, the Dacii; thus, +Genseric Dace. + +I rather liked the result, but soon enough I had to make more Excrucian +names. Here, I ran into a problem: I had nine more Vandal names, all +male, most of which sounded more or less like Genseric, and only a +handful of other barbarian tribes from the right era. (Sueves, Avars, +Alans, and Rugians.) I was not immediately thrilled with the names +Gailamir Sueve, Gunderic Avar, Gaiseric Alan, and Hilderic Rugian. + +This forced a branching out into other names from medieval Europe: +Orderic, a Frankish name; Raginhart, Germanic; Euphrasia and Marozia, +Byzantine; Teja, Gothic; Scelto, Italian; and so forth. A few were +atypical, if they sounded right; Phasael mery-Harumaph, for example, is +assembled from a Palestinian first name, an Egyptian name-element, and +the game term Harumaph, originally found in a web angelological reference. + +Finding last names was generally difficult at this stage of history. I +had originally hoped to branch out from the basic concept used for +Genseric Dace---whose surname was historically tribal rather than +personal---and build most last names out of appropriate regions or +social groups. Thus, Orderic Neustry, name drawn from Neustria. +Ultimately, for lack of appropriately cool region names, I was forced to +scrounge, using other first names from the period as surnames in order +to build functional antagonist names such as Teja Heimerich, Euphrasia +Savinot, and Raginhart Tribunas. + +All this, of course, reflects ultimately back on the setting. It subtly +influenced me, writing new material on the Excrucians, to know that they +take their bynames from Creation. It also affected my writing to know +that they disdain modern appellations and sift history for names +instead. I'm not wholly certain of the implications, but it changes the +way I feel about them in my head; and such effects spread throughout the +game. + +R. Sean + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + James and the Small Caps + (2) new Kibo +08-20-2002 16:29 02-10-2003 01:23 new + Art (1) new Lxndr +04-26-2002 07:36 04-26-2002 07:36 new + The Original Nobilis Club + (3) new Bret Gillan +04-17-2002 11:28 03-17-2003 17:48 new + Questions & Thoughts + (3) new Pyske +03-20-2002 18:31 05-01-2003 13:03 new + Noble Buddhism? + (9) new Tlaloc +03-20-2002 12:17 12-10-2004 01:20 new + Noble Suicide (9) new +Eric Christian Berg 03-20-2002 07:43 01-18-2005 16:27 new + Art Notes (4) new R. +Sean Borgstrom 03-14-2002 16:31 03-21-2002 03:44 new + Ack...you just lost my sale + (10) new SteveD +03-14-2002 04:06 03-15-2002 06:29 new + Onomastikon working URL + (4) new Jorge +Hernández 03-06-2002 12:51 08-20-2002 16:10 new + Why do angels change names ? + (10) new philippe +tromeur 03-06-2002 10:13 12-10-2004 01:34 new + R. Sean, some examples? + (3) new Arref +03-05-2002 08:17 03-13-2002 20:28 new + Sounds great, BUT... + (2) new Kane +02-27-2002 16:43 02-27-2002 17:30 new + Sort of backwards? + (8) new Eric Finley +02-20-2002 14:25 02-28-2002 09:35 new + Programmer nature slips out! + (2) new Sean +McCarthy 02-20-2002 13:18 02-21-2002 10:30 new + Object Lesson Damage + (1) new Darren +Miguez 02-13-2002 12:45 02-13-2002 12:45 new + How about this? + (2) new Kristian +Lund 02-13-2002 11:30 02-14-2002 01:17 new + Now, this was strange! + (7) new access.denied +02-13-2002 07:44 02-16-2002 21:44 new + Briefs on the other two? + (5) new Eric Finley +01-31-2002 18:39 02-13-2002 10:36 new + Forum now works (1) new +Sandy Antunes 01-31-2002 17:36 01-31-2002 17:36 new + limited series (2) new +Sandy Antunes 01-21-2002 17:41 01-31-2002 17:36 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + * Editing, Development, and Production + + March 27, 2002 + * Affiliations + March 20, 2002 + * How to be a Hollyhock God + March 13, 2002 + * Naming Conventions + March 6, 2002 + * Art Notes + February 27, 2002 + * Dynamic Nobilis + February 20, 2002 + * Systems Change + February 13, 2002 + * Treachery + February 6, 2002 + * The Emperor to Come + January 31, 2002 + * The Changing of the Guard + January 21, 2002 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/wind13feb02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/wind13feb02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,245 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Wind in the Flowers: Re-inventing a Game + + + Systems Change + +*R. Sean Borgstrom* +February 13, 2002 + +The new edition of *Nobilis* needed a stronger combat system. The game +itself does not depend on action or physical conflict, but stories of +combat play a big part in roleplaying games and speculative fiction in +general. I consider the old combat resolution system a bit weak, and +that's unfortunate. Many people enjoy roleplaying combat a great deal. +So we revised the system for greater usability and excitement. + +In building a new combat system, I set out to avoid a phenomenon I think +of as "the death of a thousand cuts." In many roleplaying combat +systems, if you bruise or nick a character seven, or twenty, or even a +hundred and fifty times, the character eventually falls over dead. With +proper design, such systems are realistic. Properly managed, they can +produce dramatic results. But I don't like this phenomenon in *Nobilis*. + +Characters in *Nobilis* transcend biology. Even ordinary humans have a +mythic, spiritual element to their nature. The Nobilis, the main +protagonists and standard PCs, have a bit of the /divine/ in them as +well. If the immortal spirit plays as large a role in sustaining life as +proper liver and kidney function, slow accumulation of minor mechanical +damage shouldn't kill a character off. + +The first principle of the new combat system is simple. It should always +take at least one significant blow to bring a character down. An +assortment of scratches does not suffice to kill someone. There must be +an actual mortal wound. + +Other systems have implemented this idea. Traditionally, a character can +take an arbitrary amount of damage in these systems, with normal +deleterious effects, but cannot /die/ without taking a level of the +deadliest form of damage. + +In a way, such games reprise the "death spiral" seen in various early +and modern systems. The more damaged a character becomes, the easier it +becomes to suffer further damage. Eventually, the character falls to the +center of the spiral - incapacitation or death. Healthy characters are +extremely hard to kill, however fell the blow. After taking a few hard +knocks, however, the character becomes vulnerable. + +Realistically, this makes sense. Certainly, very few character types +actually get /better/ at avoiding damage when they become wounded. The +talent is rare and specific and, in *Nobilis*, players should purchase +the talent as a player-designed Gift. It does not belong in the main +combat system. The death spiral also makes dramatic sense. Systems built +around a death spiral tend to make sure that characters /do/ survive one +or two blows before death. Finally, it makes the character's injury more +real for the players if it has a mechanical impact on the game. + +The standard death spiral bothers me, however, for the same reason that +nicking and scraping characters to death does. As characters descend the +spiral, it becomes ever easier to inflict that fatal blow. This +undermines the purpose of requiring at least one significant attack. To +me, if someone beats a character into helplessness with a series of +minor blows, and then finishes them off at leisure with a gun held +against their eye, it's not the gunfire that killed them. It's the minor +beating that left them unable to stop their enemy from shooting their +head point blank. + +The first unusual element of *Nobilis*' new combat system works as +follows. It's not the /last/ blow that must be particularly lethal to +take one of the Nobilis down. Taking a deadly wound isn't the final +indignity for a player character. Instead, a character /begins/ to +suffer the game mechanical effects of damage when they take their first +terrible injury. + +From a traditional perspective, *Nobilis*' new death spiral curls +backwards. A character has one to three Deadly wound levels. When they +suffer a truly horrible wound -- damage to the heart, a terrible fall, a +bullet to the head, serious burns, a lightning strike -- they lose one +such wound level. Until they run out of Deadly wound levels, lesser +damage has no game effect. A character also has a few Serious wound +levels. /After/ they run out of Deadly wound levels, significant damage +costs them a Serious wound level. + +Finally, characters have a few Surface wound levels. When they run out +of Deadly and then Serious wound levels, even a modest knocking around +costs them a Surface wound level. When they run out of /those/, they +die. Characters have between four and nine levels all told. + +Before I discuss this any further, I must admit to one obvious flaw. It +/is/ unintuitive for mortal characters to completely ignore any number +of Serious wounds received while they still have a Deadly wound level +remaining. You can lay open all their limbs with a knife, cut their +stomach, shoot their feet, spray them with mildly toxic gas, hurl them +into a cloud of angry wasps and then roll them through a fireplace and +they'll still be good to go. Not just fit and unimpaired -- they won't +lose even a single Serious wound level, since they still have a Deadly +wound level left. + +I don't have a solution for this. It's an intrinsic part of the system. +I do have some reasons to think it's acceptable, however. From the +dramatic perspective, when a character suffers a Deadly wound level, it +serves as the "cue" to the audience -- the players -- that the character +is now genuinely at risk. + +For those more oriented on realistic results, you might wish to think of +the miraculous energy that pervades the Nobilis as "ablative vitality." +Their sheer natural health simply /transcends/ damage insufficient to +inflict a wound level. Like physical armor, a Nobilis' vitality must be +pierced before the Noble themselves can suffer impairment. + +From my perspective, and hopefully the players', this wound system has +one significant virtue. The damage that characters suffer is "honest." +In a traditional death spiral, when a character takes a trivial wound +early on, it could mean the difference between life and death later. In +this system, a character cannot /suffer/ a trivial wound until they are +on their last legs -- when they know exactly how much closer to death it +brings them. + +Consequentially, when the characters take that deadly wound dramatically +necessary to bring them close to death, they have time to react to that +information. This honesty /does/ reduce risk, but the person running the +game can compensate with increased danger. It also reduces /chaos/, +allowing both players and those running games greater control over the +game world. + +R. Sean + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + James and the Small Caps + (2) new Kibo +08-20-2002 16:29 02-10-2003 01:23 new + Art (1) new Lxndr +04-26-2002 07:36 04-26-2002 07:36 new + The Original Nobilis Club + (3) new Bret Gillan +04-17-2002 11:28 03-17-2003 17:48 new + Questions & Thoughts + (3) new Pyske +03-20-2002 18:31 05-01-2003 13:03 new + Noble Buddhism? + (9) new Tlaloc +03-20-2002 12:17 12-10-2004 01:20 new + Noble Suicide (9) new +Eric Christian Berg 03-20-2002 07:43 01-18-2005 16:27 new + Art Notes (4) new R. +Sean Borgstrom 03-14-2002 16:31 03-21-2002 03:44 new + Ack...you just lost my sale + (10) new SteveD +03-14-2002 04:06 03-15-2002 06:29 new + Onomastikon working URL + (4) new Jorge +Hernández 03-06-2002 12:51 08-20-2002 16:10 new + Why do angels change names ? + (10) new philippe +tromeur 03-06-2002 10:13 12-10-2004 01:34 new + R. Sean, some examples? + (3) new Arref +03-05-2002 08:17 03-13-2002 20:28 new + Sounds great, BUT... + (2) new Kane +02-27-2002 16:43 02-27-2002 17:30 new + Sort of backwards? + (8) new Eric Finley +02-20-2002 14:25 02-28-2002 09:35 new + Programmer nature slips out! + (2) new Sean +McCarthy 02-20-2002 13:18 02-21-2002 10:30 new + Object Lesson Damage + (1) new Darren +Miguez 02-13-2002 12:45 02-13-2002 12:45 new + How about this? + (2) new Kristian +Lund 02-13-2002 11:30 02-14-2002 01:17 new + Now, this was strange! + (7) new access.denied +02-13-2002 07:44 02-16-2002 21:44 new + Briefs on the other two? + (5) new Eric Finley +01-31-2002 18:39 02-13-2002 10:36 new + Forum now works (1) new +Sandy Antunes 01-31-2002 17:36 01-31-2002 17:36 new + limited series (2) new +Sandy Antunes 01-21-2002 17:41 01-31-2002 17:36 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + * Editing, Development, and Production + + March 27, 2002 + * Affiliations + March 20, 2002 + * How to be a Hollyhock God + March 13, 2002 + * Naming Conventions + March 6, 2002 + * Art Notes + February 27, 2002 + * Dynamic Nobilis + February 20, 2002 + * Systems Change + February 13, 2002 + * Treachery + February 6, 2002 + * The Emperor to Come + January 31, 2002 + * The Changing of the Guard + January 21, 2002 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/wind13mar02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/wind13mar02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,262 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Wind in the Flowers: Re-inventing a Game + + + How to be a Hollyhock God + +*R. Sean Borgstrom* +March 13, 2002 + + +As mentioned in passing a few columns ago, *Nobilis* has its own unique +term for the person running the game, to wit, the Hollyhock God. +Historically, there have been endless variations on the language of +flowers; in the game's dictionary of floral symbolism, the Hollyhock +stands for ambition, glory, imagination, and perhaps a little touch of +vanity. A Hollyhock God, then, has decided that to build a new Creation +from their own imagination and share it with their players. I approve. + +Since James wanted a significant amount of advice on how to run the +game, I set out to provide it. As in the Pharos Press edition, it's +narrated in character. Some of this is just me: I don't feel comfortable +telling people, as me, how to run their games. However, there's a more +important reason. + +This is the section of the book most directly aimed at the reader. It is +not just presenting information; it's talking to the prospective +Hollyhock God, presenting directed advice on how they---the +reader---should proceed. In my head, this leads to a large section of +the book that breaks suspension of disbelief. Not that I expect people +to /believe/ *Nobilis*, but I do expect them to see the world as they read. + +The character creation rules are written carefully to promote this, to +show the players how the subject matter plays out in the setting. The +setting material, of course, presents something to visualize directly. +Spending too much time talking about how to run the game, however, +breaks the vision and makes the reader think about /gaming/, not +*Nobilis'* Creation. Narrating it in character helps avoid this. It's a +character from the game world talking, and that reminder of how the game +world works is always there. + +The advice in this book is much more detailed than in the previous +edition. Accordingly, I chose a narrator, Ianthe, with a relatively +unintrusive voice. Readers can concentrate on absorbing the material, +with Ianthe's presence as a grace note---but an important grace note. + +Ianthe's advice comes in nine parts. Six cover a basic introduction, +genre, play contracts, rules interpretation, characters, and stories. +All of these are heavily optimized for games of *Nobilis*. Some of these +are interesting from the design perspective. + +I've never actually been in a game that had a formal play contract, +covering how the game handles sensitive topics, describing the level of +control players have over their characters, and laying out rules for +player conduct. However, like any sane person would, I want *Nobilis* to +reach a large market that includes huge numbers of gamers and a +substantial number of previous non-gamers. I also know that its subject +matter can be fairly extreme. There is no sexual violence in the book, +because of /my/ personal hot buttons, and perhaps two uses of foul +language. + +But there's some torture, some murder and maiming, a lot of moral +corruption, some horrible curses and massively ugly images, plus a huge +amount of blasphemy. This is a game of wonder and horror, and the horror +includes just about every kind that /isn't/ one of my personal hot +buttons. Resolving the conflict between "a game for everyone" and "a +game of intense wonder and horror" isn't easy; the best solution I can +find is to recommend that the players and HG (Hollyhock God) sit down +before the game and figure out what's in bounds and what's out of bounds. + +Besides, think how many RPG horror stories this kind of thing avoids. + +Playtesters rightly pointed out that most of the rules interpretations +in the section on rules interpretation could have gone into the rules +themselves. I'm still not sure whether I was right to leave things as +they were. My concern was fairly straightforward: first, I integrate +these into the rules, and then I write a new section of rules +interpretations; and then I integrate /those/ into the rules, and so +forth, until I find myself with a set of rules optimized for /my/ +running the game instead of the average HG. Opinions on this are +welcome, although I'm not able to change it now. + +The section on characters represents a detailed guide to the entities of +the *Nobilis* world, a discussion of typical social relationships +therewith, and advice to the HG on building and exploiting those +relationships. This was not so much design choice as organic evolution; +as I wrote about each of those three things, I found myself wanting to +define the other two more. + +To finish up this column, I'll discuss the three remaining sections of +Ianthe's advice, all wholly *Nobilis*-specific. They cover, in order, +what Nobilis do all day, how they solve their problems, and what makes +their lives difficult. In my head, these are probably the most important +sections of the book, since they spell out so precisely how Noble lives +work. + +The Pharos edition represents early work of mine, when my tendencies +towards vagary, imprecision, and hinting rather than defining were +operating at full force. I've learned better since then, and a great +deal of the new material represents me nailing down things that might +otherwise have rattled in the wind. + +The first of these sections, on typical Noble activities, had one +primary purpose: free the players to act, rather than restricting them. +Working from this principle, I included a large subsection on the +personal projects of the Nobilis---their extracurricular activities, as +it were---and made an effort to make these as extreme and varied as +possible. Examples of this sort of project include freeing the souls in +Hell or sleeping with every man, woman, or adult human in general before +they die. + +I stretched this idea a little bit with subsections on more dutiful +projects that nevertheless had a unique and personal character. One of +these subsections, for example, included a depiction of the Power of +Chaos' typical activities in service to the Chaos in his soul, which +include sowing disaster and trouble throughout the world, gambling, and +studying mathematics and quantum theory. There were discussions of +relatively standard activities as well. + +The second of these sections discussed how Nobles solve their problems. +This represents, in essence, a guide to playing either a PC or an NPC in +the *Nobilis* world. This sought to preserve two game conventions: +first, the notion that characters don't arbitrarily fail, and second, +the idea that violence is fairly rare. + +To protect the first, I highlighted the ease with which the characters +can use casually excessive force---not just violence, but also extreme +mental, social, and miraculous solutions---against problems in the +mortal world. + +To preserve the second idea, I then spent time building mechanisms by +which the Nobilis could manipulate or oppose one another without +engaging in all-out miraculous combat. (It honestly is supposed to be +rare, despite the Example of Play---it's just something that I had to +cover there.) + +Finally, the third of these sections discusses the opposition---the ways +the Hollyhock God can deal with the high power level and flexible +abilities of the player characters. This section was fairly +straightforward; my only purpose was to create obstacles that would +remain fun for the players rather than frustrate them. + +R. Sean + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + James and the Small Caps + (2) new Kibo +08-20-2002 16:29 02-10-2003 01:23 new + Art (1) new Lxndr +04-26-2002 07:36 04-26-2002 07:36 new + The Original Nobilis Club + (3) new Bret Gillan +04-17-2002 11:28 03-17-2003 17:48 new + Questions & Thoughts + (3) new Pyske +03-20-2002 18:31 05-01-2003 13:03 new + Noble Buddhism? + (9) new Tlaloc +03-20-2002 12:17 12-10-2004 01:20 new + Noble Suicide (9) new +Eric Christian Berg 03-20-2002 07:43 01-18-2005 16:27 new + Art Notes (4) new R. +Sean Borgstrom 03-14-2002 16:31 03-21-2002 03:44 new + Ack...you just lost my sale + (10) new SteveD +03-14-2002 04:06 03-15-2002 06:29 new + Onomastikon working URL + (4) new Jorge +Hernández 03-06-2002 12:51 08-20-2002 16:10 new + Why do angels change names ? + (10) new philippe +tromeur 03-06-2002 10:13 12-10-2004 01:34 new + R. Sean, some examples? + (3) new Arref +03-05-2002 08:17 03-13-2002 20:28 new + Sounds great, BUT... + (2) new Kane +02-27-2002 16:43 02-27-2002 17:30 new + Sort of backwards? + (8) new Eric Finley +02-20-2002 14:25 02-28-2002 09:35 new + Programmer nature slips out! + (2) new Sean +McCarthy 02-20-2002 13:18 02-21-2002 10:30 new + Object Lesson Damage + (1) new Darren +Miguez 02-13-2002 12:45 02-13-2002 12:45 new + How about this? + (2) new Kristian +Lund 02-13-2002 11:30 02-14-2002 01:17 new + Now, this was strange! + (7) new access.denied +02-13-2002 07:44 02-16-2002 21:44 new + Briefs on the other two? + (5) new Eric Finley +01-31-2002 18:39 02-13-2002 10:36 new + Forum now works (1) new +Sandy Antunes 01-31-2002 17:36 01-31-2002 17:36 new + limited series (2) new +Sandy Antunes 01-21-2002 17:41 01-31-2002 17:36 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + * Editing, Development, and Production + + March 27, 2002 + * Affiliations + March 20, 2002 + * How to be a Hollyhock God + March 13, 2002 + * Naming Conventions + March 6, 2002 + * Art Notes + February 27, 2002 + * Dynamic Nobilis + February 20, 2002 + * Systems Change + February 13, 2002 + * Treachery + February 6, 2002 + * The Emperor to Come + January 31, 2002 + * The Changing of the Guard + January 21, 2002 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/wind20feb02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/wind20feb02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,250 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Wind in the Flowers: Re-inventing a Game + + + Dynamic Nobilis + +*R. Sean Borgstrom* +February 20, 2002 + +James Wallis requested that I help kick off the new *Nobilis* line by +creating live-action rules. These should appear in the first 2002 +supplement. Right now, we call these rules *Dynamic Nobilis*. They may +see print as *Nobilis LARP* or *Live-Action Nobilis*. This decision +boils down to "pretentious and different" or "boring, awkward, and +clear". I am a pretentious person. I adore clarity. I admit to indecision. + +To translate *Nobilis* into a live-action context, I had to remove the +system's dependence on the Hollyhock God -- the person running the game. +Running *Nobilis* involves a fair number of judgment calls. To allow +players to resolve disputes and use their abilities without an HG on +hand required removing most of these judgment calls from the game. + +One of the major judgment calls comes when one player uses a low-level +effect to indirectly block a high-level effect. One character strikes +another with lightning. Rather than dodge, that character transforms +themselves to rubber -- a substance lightning spirits find too +distasteful to maul. The first player argues that divinely cast +lightning should damage other characters regardless of their material +composition. The second player argues that rubber is not conductive, and +would at most suffer a minor wound. The HG can't arbitrate this if +they're not there. + +Replacing the notion of arbitration, therefore, Dynamic Nobilis uses the +concept of degrees of success and failure. Turning to rubber does not +negate the attack, nor is it useless; rather, because of the +transformation, the attack succeeds to a smaller degree. Instead of the +damage associated with a major success, the lightning induces the damage +associated with a minor success. Conflict resolution then passes this +result normally to the damage system. + +The effect of a miracle ranges from /misery/ -- the character cannot +even begin to accomplish their desire -- to /triumph/, a total and +absolute success. Environmental factors, Gifts, and miscellaneous +miracles affect this result in a straightforward and standardized +manner. Since this is a deterministic system, players that think about +the rules hardly ever suffer /misery/. They can calculate before +attempting an action whether they would fail. This works out in the end. +The characters are half divine and generally certain of their abilities +in the tabletop system as well. + +Having defined the basic system, I moved on to converting individual +abilities into this system. This is harder than it sounds, because +*Nobilis* miracles are not single-purpose abilities. Each type of +miracle has thousands of distinct applications. The main rules define, +for example, two forms of "creation miracle"; these suffice to create +cars, mountains, fire, storms, heat, cities, people, new species, and +radio signals. A rigorous system for creation miracles that does not +require arbitration was in itself a challenge -- and this was only one +miracle type. + +Providing a solid conversion of miraculous abilities quickly became the +core of the Dynamic Nobilis project. I felt that this component of the +system deserved great effort, as it offered an alluring possibility. A +high-quality system for exactly defining miraculous effects would help +/tabletop/ Hollyhock Gods arbitrate the use of miracles. (Incidentally, +this is the first time the phrase "tabletop Hollyhock Gods" has appeared +in the English language.) I wanted Dynamic Nobilis to provide value to +readers, whether or not they ever stood up to play a live-action +*Nobilis* game. + +I'm not sure I have anything to say about the individual miracle +conversions. Rather, they represent a methodical exploration of the +principles underlying the examples in the original rules. For example, +splashing someone with created water and burning them with created fire +both use the same miracle -- a lesser creation miracle. One miracle is +harmful; the other makes one wet. To distinguish these, one must +recognize that /creating/ fire and /burning someone/ with that fire are +conceptually separate actions, even if they occur in the same instant. + +Thus, players resolve this use of fire or water as two miracles in a +row. First, they verify that the creation of fire or water succeeds. If +it succeeds, they then determine the effect of the attack. Here, in this +second phase, using a deadly weapon like fire increases the attacker's +level of success -- making it more likely they will do meaningful +damage. If not intended as a weapon, the water does no damage at all. If +the watermaker tries to spray their victim hard and leave bruises, it's +still less effective than fire. + +In addition to this general project, designed to make life easier for +both tabletop and live-action groups, certain live-action issues +required specific attention. In particular, *Nobilis* effects have a +high communication overhead. If someone fills a region with white mice +and leaves, other characters should not walk in a few minutes later and +have a picnic. If someone shoots down the sun, other characters should +not lie around elsewhere sunbathing. Making a live-action game with +*Nobilis'* power level work meant finding ways to spread information +about the uses of characters' powers. + +Dynamic Nobilis makes heavy use of /region clipboards/. I expect other +people have come up with this idea before. Region clipboards sit on a +table in the various areas of the LARP. People write important things on +these clipboards, such as "A miracle filled this region with weasels" or +"the mortals in this museum have turned into statues." This allows +literate players to quickly identify the prevailing conditions. + +/Lazy notification/ is a more unusual device. The concept is simple. +Since time in the setting runs on mythic rather than causal lines, we +make no great sacrifices to ensure that events happen in the proper +order. Suppose that someone does something that affects the whole game +-- turns day into night or floods the setting with seawater. This +happens "instantly" in the setting, but this sense of instantaneity is +not scientific. + +Basically, the event reaches each region of the game just before the +first player character or NPC that knows about the event enters the +region. The player comes into the room, notifies other players, writes +the information on the region clipboard, and then permits their +character to arrive. + +This temporal structure can yield some odd events -- miraculous night +might last for hours for one character and minutes for another -- but +that's what you'd expect in a mythic universe. True paradoxes hardly +ever happen, and one never has to suspend game play to go tell people +about an event. Lazy notification makes a lot of sense in the setting, +but I'll save the details of the in-character justification for another +forum. + +It is my hope that, through these devices and rules, Dynamic Nobilis +allows fun live-action play at the power level and power flexibility +found in *Nobilis*. R. Sean + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + James and the Small Caps + (2) new Kibo +08-20-2002 16:29 02-10-2003 01:23 new + Art (1) new Lxndr +04-26-2002 07:36 04-26-2002 07:36 new + The Original Nobilis Club + (3) new Bret Gillan +04-17-2002 11:28 03-17-2003 17:48 new + Questions & Thoughts + (3) new Pyske +03-20-2002 18:31 05-01-2003 13:03 new + Noble Buddhism? + (9) new Tlaloc +03-20-2002 12:17 12-10-2004 01:20 new + Noble Suicide (9) new +Eric Christian Berg 03-20-2002 07:43 01-18-2005 16:27 new + Art Notes (4) new R. +Sean Borgstrom 03-14-2002 16:31 03-21-2002 03:44 new + Ack...you just lost my sale + (10) new SteveD +03-14-2002 04:06 03-15-2002 06:29 new + Onomastikon working URL + (4) new Jorge +Hernández 03-06-2002 12:51 08-20-2002 16:10 new + Why do angels change names ? + (10) new philippe +tromeur 03-06-2002 10:13 12-10-2004 01:34 new + R. Sean, some examples? + (3) new Arref +03-05-2002 08:17 03-13-2002 20:28 new + Sounds great, BUT... + (2) new Kane +02-27-2002 16:43 02-27-2002 17:30 new + Sort of backwards? + (8) new Eric Finley +02-20-2002 14:25 02-28-2002 09:35 new + Programmer nature slips out! + (2) new Sean +McCarthy 02-20-2002 13:18 02-21-2002 10:30 new + Object Lesson Damage + (1) new Darren +Miguez 02-13-2002 12:45 02-13-2002 12:45 new + How about this? + (2) new Kristian +Lund 02-13-2002 11:30 02-14-2002 01:17 new + Now, this was strange! + (7) new access.denied +02-13-2002 07:44 02-16-2002 21:44 new + Briefs on the other two? + (5) new Eric Finley +01-31-2002 18:39 02-13-2002 10:36 new + Forum now works (1) new +Sandy Antunes 01-31-2002 17:36 01-31-2002 17:36 new + limited series (2) new +Sandy Antunes 01-21-2002 17:41 01-31-2002 17:36 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + * Editing, Development, and Production + + March 27, 2002 + * Affiliations + March 20, 2002 + * How to be a Hollyhock God + March 13, 2002 + * Naming Conventions + March 6, 2002 + * Art Notes + February 27, 2002 + * Dynamic Nobilis + February 20, 2002 + * Systems Change + February 13, 2002 + * Treachery + February 6, 2002 + * The Emperor to Come + January 31, 2002 + * The Changing of the Guard + January 21, 2002 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/wind20mar02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/wind20mar02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,252 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Wind in the Flowers: Re-inventing a Game + + + Affiliations + +*R. Sean Borgstrom* +March 20, 2002 +*Rated an A+ by 20 RPGnet readers!* + +Rate this column! + + + +For the sake of those who choose to adopt them, *Nobilis* presents five +key philosophies woven into the nature of the world. Heaven's Code +defines the angels' commitment to Creation. Hell's Code provides the +justification and the interpretation of Lucifer's philosophy. Other +Codes derive from the Light, which embodies the principle of human +survival; the Dark, an incarnation of the human tendency towards +suicide; and the Wild, a thread of free will and madness running through +Creation. + +To avoid regimenting player character behavior, these Codes boil down to +three simple principles and some expository text later in the book. +Characters can freely have their own independent philosophy, but most +align to one of these five axes. + +One goal of the new edition was to make these philosophies more +accessible. In particular, I wanted to make it clear how characters +following the Code of Hell or the Dark could fit into a group with more +human or humane morality. In *Nobilis*, Hell endorses both corruption +and suffering as virtues; the Dark, of course, seeks to arrange both +personal and communal human suicide. There was some concern among +readers of the first edition that such characters would prove unpleasant +companions. + +One of the simplest steps taken here was assertion. In the newer +discussions of Noble lives and in the occasional excerpts from those +lives that appeared as quotes, characters of the darker affiliations +interacted freely with those of more beneficent morality. Assertion is a +marvelous tool, since, after all, the setting material defines how +people envision the game world. + +To ensure that this led to a consistent world, however, I burned some +words laying out how this actually happens in practice. For the Code of +Hell, this begins with acknowledgment of its philosophical origins. In +*Nobilis'* Creation, the "physical" Hell embodies both corruption and +suffering; it is viable to assume that these things exist in every other +world only because Hell exists. + +Hell also occupies a peculiar place in the cosmology, existing beneath +the roots of the World Ash. It is the only place in Creation not +directly affected by the glories raining down from Heaven. The theory +underlying the Code of Hell is simply that Hell---not the beauty of +Heaven, and not the ambiguous essence of the worlds in +between---represents the fundamental truth of Creation. In short, Hell +is the foundation stone on which everything else is built. + +To proceed from here and create a sympathetic character in service to +Hell, one has two choices. First, one can make an obvious demonstration +that the character's motivations are philosophical. The key +recommendation here was self-abnegation. A character who inflicts +suffering to advance their personal agenda is classically "evil". A +character who embraces corruption and suffering but gains nothing from +it has a clear, if twisted, morality. + +In addition, I recommended an exemplary career of service to Creation; +like its brighter allies in the setting, Hell wants Creation to survive. +Finally, I noted that one can minimize the "shock value" of the +character's service by inflicting suffering primarily on the deserving. +This hopefully laid out one path that allows characters in service to +Hell to coexist with a more humane group. + +A second option for sympathetic characters serving Hell is a focus on +the less important aspects of Code. Treating its precepts as decadence +rather than corruption and harshness rather than cruelty makes the +character seem ruthless but not /monstrous/. This option was not fully +developed in *Nobilis* but is influencing several infernal NPCs in the +supplements. + +The Code of the Dark---basically, the Code of helping humans destroy +themselves---has its own problems. Like the Code of Hell, it has a basic +philosophical orientation. *Nobilis* has always presented several +justifications for the basic idea of the Dark. My personal favorite is +the idea that the capacity for self-destruction must exist in humanity +to permit the capacity for growth. I'm not sure that it's true, but it's +a feasible and defensible philosophy, and that's all a character in an +RPG needs. Still, it's understandable if people feel a little concerned +about integrating a character serving the Dark into their game. + +One of the steps taken here was establishing why the Light---the +principle of human survival---and the Dark can ally at all, even for the +purpose of protecting the world both live in. If you looked hard enough, +this has always been in the book to find, but the new edition makes it +explicit. The foremost principle of the Light is protecting /humanity/. +The foremost principle of the Dark is encouraging /individual/ suicide. + +Even though the Light wants individual humans to live, and the Dark +wants humanity to destroy itself, the two are not diametrically opposed. +This also explains, more generally, why humane Nobilis can tolerate the +Dark. The actions of the Dark can lead to human death, but generally on +a fairly small scale; not one that a compassionate Noble /likes/ to +ignore, but one that many compassionate Nobles, principally concerned +with global affairs, /can/. + +Naturally, serving the Dark from a clear position of philosophical +integrity has the same benefits as thusly serving the Code of Hell. A +Noble serving the Dark who clearly isn't getting any personal benefit +from it has a better chance of integrating into a group. + +In addition, the new edition contains a modest number of excerpts from +"Principles of the Dark", a book written in-setting to explain said +principles. Some of the key notions presented here---few of which I +agree with, but all of which I consider feasibly arguable by a Power of +the Dark---include: + + * Human success rests on subverting the natural order; human + existence derives from the natural order. Self-destruction is + therefore intrinsic to the human way of life. + * One can hurt or kill others, such as humans, without ceasing to + love them. "Love inspires greatness; it does not prevent venality." + * Suicide and self-preservation arise from the same aspect of human + nature. + * In suicide, a human achieves absolute control over their life. Any + other form of death robs them of this. + +With these principles, and others, I hoped to make the Dark---if not +well-loved by its peers---a philosophy that one can argue with rather +than hate. + +R. Sean + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + James and the Small Caps + (2) new Kibo +08-20-2002 16:29 02-10-2003 01:23 new + Art (1) new Lxndr +04-26-2002 07:36 04-26-2002 07:36 new + The Original Nobilis Club + (3) new Bret Gillan +04-17-2002 11:28 03-17-2003 17:48 new + Questions & Thoughts + (3) new Pyske +03-20-2002 18:31 05-01-2003 13:03 new + Noble Buddhism? + (9) new Tlaloc +03-20-2002 12:17 12-10-2004 01:20 new + Noble Suicide (9) new +Eric Christian Berg 03-20-2002 07:43 01-18-2005 16:27 new + Art Notes (4) new R. +Sean Borgstrom 03-14-2002 16:31 03-21-2002 03:44 new + Ack...you just lost my sale + (10) new SteveD +03-14-2002 04:06 03-15-2002 06:29 new + Onomastikon working URL + (4) new Jorge +Hernández 03-06-2002 12:51 08-20-2002 16:10 new + Why do angels change names ? + (10) new philippe +tromeur 03-06-2002 10:13 12-10-2004 01:34 new + R. Sean, some examples? + (3) new Arref +03-05-2002 08:17 03-13-2002 20:28 new + Sounds great, BUT... + (2) new Kane +02-27-2002 16:43 02-27-2002 17:30 new + Sort of backwards? + (8) new Eric Finley +02-20-2002 14:25 02-28-2002 09:35 new + Programmer nature slips out! + (2) new Sean +McCarthy 02-20-2002 13:18 02-21-2002 10:30 new + Object Lesson Damage + (1) new Darren +Miguez 02-13-2002 12:45 02-13-2002 12:45 new + How about this? + (2) new Kristian +Lund 02-13-2002 11:30 02-14-2002 01:17 new + Now, this was strange! + (7) new access.denied +02-13-2002 07:44 02-16-2002 21:44 new + Briefs on the other two? + (5) new Eric Finley +01-31-2002 18:39 02-13-2002 10:36 new + Forum now works (1) new +Sandy Antunes 01-31-2002 17:36 01-31-2002 17:36 new + limited series (2) new +Sandy Antunes 01-21-2002 17:41 01-31-2002 17:36 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + * Editing, Development, and Production + + March 27, 2002 + * Affiliations + March 20, 2002 + * How to be a Hollyhock God + March 13, 2002 + * Naming Conventions + March 6, 2002 + * Art Notes + February 27, 2002 + * Dynamic Nobilis + February 20, 2002 + * Systems Change + February 13, 2002 + * Treachery + February 6, 2002 + * The Emperor to Come + January 31, 2002 + * The Changing of the Guard + January 21, 2002 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/wind21jan02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/wind21jan02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,247 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Wind in the Flowers: Re-inventing a Game + + + The Changing of the Guard + +*R. Sean Borgstrom* +January 21, 2002 + +I'd like to show you the backstage view of the reinvention of a game +system and setting. + +*Nobilis* became available to the public in late 1999, but a number of +distribution and printing problems made it very hard to obtain. Hogshead +Publishing obtained the rights to *Nobilis* and intends to release a +new, better-distributed version in early 2002. As part of this +transition, it seemed only appropriate to incorporate the feedback and +reactions of those who /did/ manage to get their hands on the game. +Thus, the development of a new edition of the game began. + +The Hogshead edition of the game is not a "version 2.0." The game spent +eight months on the shelves between initial release and my diving back +into the text. Although the new manuscript is extensively playtested, +*Nobilis* hasn't had enough time out in the world to grow. + +Rather than guessing at the future opinions of the gaming world, we +changed the rules and setting very little, and only when necessary. We +did not seek incremental changes but rather a transformation: from a +difficult game to approach to an easy one. Most of the changes take the +form of new supplementary material, intended to help people run the game +smoothly. + +This column provides an overview of the changes and what's going into +Hogshead's *Nobilis*. I intend to write about five more going into +detail about specific additions and modifications. + +Looking over the online reviews of *Nobilis*, from the review on Pyramid +to the reviews on rpg.net, I see one fairly consistent complaint. I've +been very pleased at the tone and contents of the reviews, and consider +them quite favorable overall, but many reviewers noted that they would +find the game hard to run -- that they aren't sure what to /do/ with it. + +We took a three-pronged approach to this problem. (In other words, we +jabbed it with a pitchfork.) First, I've replaced the sparse advice on +running *Nobilis* with a meaty section on the matter. It lays out what +the player characters do with their time, what obstacles they face, and +how to solve them. It discusses non-player characters, story plotting, +and campaign development in depth. There's a lot more. Very little of +this is standard boilerplate that applies in any roleplaying game -- I +mean, yes, one has to go over keeping the players happy and standard +descriptive techniques, but most of this section focuses specifically on +running *Nobilis*. + +Second, on the advice of James Wallis -- actually, a lot of this is on +the advice of James Wallis, or Bruce Baugh; they're driving the new +edition as much as I am -- I've added a sample campaign. Normally, +sample campaigns are things that players shouldn't read, which made me +nervous about including one in the core book for the line. The high +concept for this campaign, accordingly, was a setting and storyline that +the players could read without spoiling the game experience. I'll talk +about how we tried to achieve that in another column. + +Third, the old example of play was about 1250 words long, less than 1% +of the length of the manuscript. I own up to an error, here. There are a +lot of unusual concepts in *Nobilis*, and a fair number of unusual +rules, and the example didn't suffice to show them off. The new example +of play should greatly clarify how a typical game might go. + +James Wallis, who runs Hogshead, requested that I write about using the +*Nobilis* setting and general rules structure in a live-action game. As +those who have involved themselves with LARPs know, this kind of thing +isn't easy -- it'll take me a column just to scratch the surface of the +issues involved in translating tabletop *Nobilis* into something +suitable for live play. For right now, I'll just say that you'll be +seeing the results in an early supplement, and that /I'm/ happy with the +translation. + +Discussion on the Nobilis list suggested a few more areas meriting +adjustment. Most of the things the player characters do using the +Nobilis rules are called "miracles" -- and it's usually a pretty +accurate term. However, the old manuscript shoehorned normal actions -- +the things you or I do daily -- into the system as level 0 mental and +physical miracles. Some people constructed fun metaphysics based on +this, but most people felt it just complicated the world. + +In the new system, mundane actions are just that -- mundane actions, +normal things that people do. We've given characters a free mundane +action to use instead of or together with their normal miraculous +action; added a new defense against mundane attacks, since the standard +defenses against miracles no longer work against them; and created a new +very small sort of miracle for the level 0 mental/physical miracle slot. +(If you haven't read *Nobilis* and the discussion above confuses you, +don't worry. I'll hardly ever dip into technical issues of game +mechanics without a more detailed explanation.) + +Other people mentioned that the wound system confused them. We've +replaced it with something cleaner. I'm not terribly big on combat, but +I think that the new system is nicely dramatic and playable. + +I won't go further into the rules changes here. Instead, I'll move on to +some of the most important things: what happened /after/ it left my +hands. (Although my hands kept sneaking back in.) + +Bruce Baugh, author, coauthor, or developer for a number of World of +Darkness products -- including *Wraith: the Great War*, *Ends of +Empire*, and *Adventure* -- agreed to edit the Hogshead edition of +*Nobilis*. I will be frank: it needs, and has always needed, an editor. +It didn't have one for the Pharos edition because of Pharos' limited +resources, but /every/ author needs a good editor looking over their +shoulder. I'm fortunate to have someone so eminently qualified to +perform this service. He's also going to handle line editing duties in +general for future products in the *Nobilis* line. + +Readers of the Pharos edition may have noticed that it had, essentially, +no art. (To see this, flip to a random page. If there is no art there, +take one gulp from your drink. When you are drunk, stop.) The Hogshead +edition of *Nobilis* has art. Moreover, this art is good. I'm quite +happy with most of the pieces actually /used/ in the Pharos edition, but +I'm looking forward to a richer presentation. James Wallis intends to +produce a lush, beautiful book, and from what I have seen, he is +succeeding. + +In future columns, I intend to talk about the sample campaign; the rules +changes; the editing and production; the major new setting element; and +the live-action rules. Not necessarily in that order. + +R. Sean + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + James and the Small Caps + (2) new Kibo +08-20-2002 16:29 02-10-2003 01:23 new + Art (1) new Lxndr +04-26-2002 07:36 04-26-2002 07:36 new + The Original Nobilis Club + (3) new Bret Gillan +04-17-2002 11:28 03-17-2003 17:48 new + Questions & Thoughts + (3) new Pyske +03-20-2002 18:31 05-01-2003 13:03 new + Noble Buddhism? + (9) new Tlaloc +03-20-2002 12:17 12-10-2004 01:20 new + Noble Suicide (9) new +Eric Christian Berg 03-20-2002 07:43 01-18-2005 16:27 new + Art Notes (4) new R. +Sean Borgstrom 03-14-2002 16:31 03-21-2002 03:44 new + Ack...you just lost my sale + (10) new SteveD +03-14-2002 04:06 03-15-2002 06:29 new + Onomastikon working URL + (4) new Jorge +Hernández 03-06-2002 12:51 08-20-2002 16:10 new + Why do angels change names ? + (10) new philippe +tromeur 03-06-2002 10:13 12-10-2004 01:34 new + R. Sean, some examples? + (3) new Arref +03-05-2002 08:17 03-13-2002 20:28 new + Sounds great, BUT... + (2) new Kane +02-27-2002 16:43 02-27-2002 17:30 new + Sort of backwards? + (8) new Eric Finley +02-20-2002 14:25 02-28-2002 09:35 new + Programmer nature slips out! + (2) new Sean +McCarthy 02-20-2002 13:18 02-21-2002 10:30 new + Object Lesson Damage + (1) new Darren +Miguez 02-13-2002 12:45 02-13-2002 12:45 new + How about this? + (2) new Kristian +Lund 02-13-2002 11:30 02-14-2002 01:17 new + Now, this was strange! + (7) new access.denied +02-13-2002 07:44 02-16-2002 21:44 new + Briefs on the other two? + (5) new Eric Finley +01-31-2002 18:39 02-13-2002 10:36 new + Forum now works (1) new +Sandy Antunes 01-31-2002 17:36 01-31-2002 17:36 new + limited series (2) new +Sandy Antunes 01-21-2002 17:41 01-31-2002 17:36 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + * Editing, Development, and Production + + March 27, 2002 + * Affiliations + March 20, 2002 + * How to be a Hollyhock God + March 13, 2002 + * Naming Conventions + March 6, 2002 + * Art Notes + February 27, 2002 + * Dynamic Nobilis + February 20, 2002 + * Systems Change + February 13, 2002 + * Treachery + February 6, 2002 + * The Emperor to Come + January 31, 2002 + * The Changing of the Guard + January 21, 2002 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/wind27feb02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/wind27feb02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,274 @@ +RPGnet + +_/Advertise with RPGnet/_ + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Wind in the Flowers: Re-inventing a Game + + + Art Notes + +*R. Sean Borgstrom* +February 27, 2002 + +James Wallis had promised a significant amount of cool art for the new +edition, with well-respected artists from both inside and outside the +gaming world. This meant working out what I actually wanted everything +in the world to look like. I'm not a very visual person, and my +imagination is mostly full of abstractions and words, so this was an +interesting challenge. + +I'm not going to discuss the art itself, because, hm. Because it is +wonderful and amazing and it makes me huddle over the pictures and say, +"/This/ was drawn for /my/ book." But it's not /my/ work, and I don't +think I can get 10-20 artists together to write a column for me. I just +contributed the stuff below, so that's what I'll write about. + +Not all of my art notes actually reached the artists. James ultimately +decided that 9,000 words of art suggestions might daze, restrict, or +even offend some of the artists we had on board. So he trimmed them down +somewhat. I'm going to discuss the original document, however, since it +wound up establishing some subtle things about the setting that either +worked back into the text of the book or influenced the canon for future +supplements. I think that's a very interesting process, even when it +didn't affect the art. + +One of the key design principles for *Nobilis* is empowerment. I do not +mean that it's a high-powered setting. It is, but that's not the point. +I mean that it's very much a game about allowing the player's picture of +their character to drive that character's destiny. + +When applying this to the art notes, one of my primary concerns was a +tendency in gaming art to depict females in submissive and exaggeratedly +sexualized poses. Such images of women, when common in a book or game +line, implicitly categorize female characters as weak or sexual, which +is bloody rare in the *Nobilis* setting. This led to an immediate +secondary concern: I didn't want men depicted in submissive or +exaggeratedly sexualized poses, either. Any such image, basically, +detracts from the overall thematic point of empowering both players and +characters. This led to frequent comments of the sort "no breasts bigger +than the woman's head", "no underdressed nymphlets if you can help it", +"all nudity should be artistic and justifiable", and, most importantly, +"The Nobilis, the main characters of the game, almost invariably give an +impression of power and competence." I don't know just how many of these +James relayed, but the art turned out well in this respect. Go us. + +Another fundamental idea in *Nobilis*---probably the most +fundamental---is that of an animistic world. My personal motto for the +game, not currently appearing in any ad copy, is "every concept has a +human face." Cars have spirits. Storms have spirits. Even massive ideals +like Time have spirits. You can interact with almost everything as a +person. + +The principal characters of *Nobilis*, though born mortal, have a piece +of the divine embedded in their soul. This is an elemental piece of +reality---Fire, Maps, Automobiles, Trees, Waves, or somesuch thing. This +is what makes them "Noble" or "of the Nobilis". As the centerpiece of +the game, they needed both their animistic nature and their empowerment +front and center in the art as well. + +Defining their basic appearance from here was pretty straightforward. As +humans touched by the divine, they should never look ordinary. They +could be rugged, handsome, or pretty. Some would be interestingly ugly. +The rest, though plain, should be fascinating in some way unrelated to +attractiveness, perhaps possessing a profoundly honest face, an +inscrutably bland demeanor, or phenomenal grace in motion. Simply +ordinary Nobles would undermine the idea that they represent natural +forces, and it also suggests a more mundane environment than I wanted +for the game. + +Most Nobles have an appearance reflecting their Estate---that elemental +piece of reality I mentioned earlier. The Noble governing Shadows (the +Power of Shadows) might have obscured features and elongated fingers. +Static might crackle in the Power of Television's eyes. The Power of +Mazes might lounge on an Escherian throne. A few pictures used +distinctly supernatural elements for this. Most of the artists instead +captured the elemental nature of the Nobilis through clothing, setting, +and pose. Both worked awfully well. + +The art notes are the first place I established what the Nobilis +actually wear. I'll be covering the topic in more depth in *A Society of +Flowers*, an early supplement, but it boils down to three styles. Two +reflect opposite ends of empowerment. + +First, the most important part of a Noble's duties is defending reality +from a pretty vicious enemy. This leads to workmanlike, casual, +loose-fitting, tough, and respectable clothes. They don't have to look +hot, and they don't have to look professional, because they /don't have +to care/ what people who look at them think. + +Second, there are occasions for regalia, a classic sign of power: +gorgeous, amazing, ornate clothing, possibly including face-painting and +equally impressive headwear. In addition, as animistic representatives +of their Estate, some should be drawn with clothing that reflects it: +the Power of Water might have flowing garments, and the Power of Time +almost certainly has a conspicuous pocketwatch. Examples of all three +styles appear in the book. + +Other creatures of note in the game include Imperators, creatures wholly +divine. Where a Noble has a piece of reality in their soul, Imperators +/are/ pieces of reality. One Imperator defines and embodies Words, +Doorways, and Bronze; another Parasites, Passivity, Mistrust, and +Growth. They are creatures of what the game calls /spiritus Dei/, the +divine breath, the first and uncaused cause that makes other things to be. + +One of my mistakes here was defining the appearance of the Imperial +"True Gods", the deities more of Earth's primordial soup than of +humanity. The true gods exist in the setting to capture a certain +element of inhumanity in the divine. Of the seven forms of Imperator +discussed in *Nobilis*, four resemble humanity in general appearance. +These are the Angels, the Fallen, the Magisters of the Light, and the +Magisters of the Dark. The Aaron's Serpents, children of the Ash that +holds worlds in its branches, are unsurprisingly, ophidian. + +I didn't want the divine to be /too/ anthropomorphic, however, so there +are the Magisters of the Wild, capturing a certain essence of mental +inhumanity, and the true gods, inhuman in all ways. I described them for +the artists as glorious monsters, amorphous and nightmarish but not +bestial. They are not icky, but rather majestically awful. They are +horrid /things/, but they induce more awe than revulsion. + +No one drew one. Possibly James just left this bit out, but on +reflection, /I/ wouldn't want to try and draw something from that +description, even if I were a living god with the pencil and the pen. + +To close the column on a high note, I'll talk a little bit about +locations. Although I didn't expect anyone to draw them for the main +book, I wanted the art suggestions to stick around as a supplement +bible, so I had to work out what Heaven, Hell, and the World Ash looked +like. It's not that the characters regularly visit Heaven or Hell, but +it's an established feature of the setting that the angels' work in +Heaven constantly rains new glories down on every world. Conversely, +corruption seeps ever upwards out of Hell. As for the World Ash, you +pretty much need to climb it to get anywhere but Earth, so I do expect +fairly regular visits. These are all important places. + +Thinking about how to describe them led me to a peculiar realization: +Heaven and Hell are easily as fundamental as the angels. The World Ash +is as real as the Serpents that are its children. One of the most +important things to understand when drawing them is that they are more +than places---they are things of /spiritus Dei/, and therefore concepts +as well as places. Heaven is not beautiful; it is Beauty. Hell is not a +place of suffering; it /is/ corruption and suffering. I am not entirely +certain what the World Ash that spans between them is; I think it may be +Life. That's perhaps the strongest case of art suggestions influencing +my perspective on the written setting, and so I stop there. + +R. Sean + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + James and the Small Caps + (2) new Kibo +08-20-2002 16:29 02-10-2003 01:23 new + Art (1) new Lxndr +04-26-2002 07:36 04-26-2002 07:36 new + The Original Nobilis Club + (3) new Bret Gillan +04-17-2002 11:28 03-17-2003 17:48 new + Questions & Thoughts + (3) new Pyske +03-20-2002 18:31 05-01-2003 13:03 new + Noble Buddhism? + (9) new Tlaloc +03-20-2002 12:17 12-10-2004 01:20 new + Noble Suicide (9) new +Eric Christian Berg 03-20-2002 07:43 01-18-2005 16:27 new + Art Notes (4) new R. +Sean Borgstrom 03-14-2002 16:31 03-21-2002 03:44 new + Ack...you just lost my sale + (10) new SteveD +03-14-2002 04:06 03-15-2002 06:29 new + Onomastikon working URL + (4) new Jorge +Hernández 03-06-2002 12:51 08-20-2002 16:10 new + Why do angels change names ? + (10) new philippe +tromeur 03-06-2002 10:13 12-10-2004 01:34 new + R. Sean, some examples? + (3) new Arref +03-05-2002 08:17 03-13-2002 20:28 new + Sounds great, BUT... + (2) new Kane +02-27-2002 16:43 02-27-2002 17:30 new + Sort of backwards? + (8) new Eric Finley +02-20-2002 14:25 02-28-2002 09:35 new + Programmer nature slips out! + (2) new Sean +McCarthy 02-20-2002 13:18 02-21-2002 10:30 new + Object Lesson Damage + (1) new Darren +Miguez 02-13-2002 12:45 02-13-2002 12:45 new + How about this? + (2) new Kristian +Lund 02-13-2002 11:30 02-14-2002 01:17 new + Now, this was strange! + (7) new access.denied +02-13-2002 07:44 02-16-2002 21:44 new + Briefs on the other two? + (5) new Eric Finley +01-31-2002 18:39 02-13-2002 10:36 new + Forum now works (1) new +Sandy Antunes 01-31-2002 17:36 01-31-2002 17:36 new + limited series (2) new +Sandy Antunes 01-21-2002 17:41 01-31-2002 17:36 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + * Editing, Development, and Production + + March 27, 2002 + * Affiliations + March 20, 2002 + * How to be a Hollyhock God + March 13, 2002 + * Naming Conventions + March 6, 2002 + * Art Notes + February 27, 2002 + * Dynamic Nobilis + February 20, 2002 + * Systems Change + February 13, 2002 + * Treachery + February 6, 2002 + * The Emperor to Come + January 31, 2002 + * The Changing of the Guard + January 21, 2002 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/wind27mar02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/wind27mar02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,237 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Wind in the Flowers: Re-inventing a Game + + + Editing, Development, and Production + +*R. Sean Borgstrom* +March 27, 2002 +*Rated an A+ by 24 RPGnet readers!* + +Rate this column! + + + +The manuscript left my hands after two months of intensive writing and +entered the similarly five-fingered hands of one Bruce Baugh, editor. +The first major change to come out of this was a structural reorganization. + +The Pharos edition was, roughly speaking, written in the published +order. I worked on the character creation section first, because I had +to know what the characters could do before I knew what kind of world +they lived in. At the end of that section, I had established a +significant amount of information on the world, which I tidied up to +create a description of the setting. Afterwards, I felt a need to round +this out by describing the major NPC types in the setting. Then followed +a chapter on resolving conflicts, an example of play, and advice on +running the game. Finally, I stuck an introduction in front. + +If this sounds somewhat primitive, it was. *Nobilis* was essentially my +first work in gaming, and I had a long way to go before I would polish +any of my craft. And perhaps it is obvious that this needed some +rearrangement. But I hesitated to fiddle with that kind of thing too +much in my own editing, because my job was theoretically cleaning up the +book and adding a few small sections. + +(If you're wondering how I got from 'cleaning up the book and adding a +few small sections' to 'writing 130,000 new words for it in two months', +so am I. Please tell me if you ever find out. But when I had written +them, James Wallis told me he wanted them all, so it's cool.) + +Bruce, accordingly, shuffled the setting and introductory material to +the front and pushed various rules stuff more cleanly into the rules +chapter. This broke some structural dependencies; that is, it created a +few extra references to concepts not yet explained. He worked on fixing +that too. Then, of course, came long stretches of regularizing +capitalization, cleaving grammar knots, and suchlike. I'm sure he +probably killed great numbers of my semicolons, as I overuse them, and +left the commas and periods bewailing the slain. Editors are +underappreciated; it's finicky, important work. + +From there, I think, I shall step to overall product design. Section +header quotes are both frequent and long in *Nobilis*. Many of them are +literal excerpts from game world events, recorded from the thoughts or +copied from the diaries of characters within the setting. A number of +others represent fictional works from the game world that, in some +fashion or other, set the tone for the appropriate section. I'm not +going to go into why they're there; mostly, to keep the reader "in the +world". + +In any event, in the Pharos edition, the quotes served as the primary +source of art. The italicized sections, each a word-picture, broke up +the flow of plain black text. The attribution visually set them off. +This was good, because we didn't have much other art to put in. + +The original book was also a peculiar, small size, due to limitations of +the print on demand process used. It had no margins, pretty much. James +or Bruce had come up with the idea of the new edition (a) having +margins, and (b) shifting the section-header quotes there. This in +theory would provide some content to the margin, so it wasn't wasted +space and wasted money, and also give some visual variety. Actual art +and the section headers themselves would be used to break up the flow of +black text. + +James wanted a visually distinctive book, and, after playing around with +the concept, he developed the idea for an 11x11 book with a photo art +nouveau cover. This would allow two solid columns, room for quotes in +the margin, and a book that would look beautiful sitting on a table or a +shelf. The resemblance to a coffee-table book isn't entirely accidental; +we wanted to make something the reader would be glad to own. + +James had originally planned to purchase and reprint *Nobilis*, more or +less, not develop a brand new edition. But by this point---long before, +really---it was clear that this was a new product. This led, naturally, +to a new, longer production schedule, which in turn gave us time to +start a round of serious playtesting. This was a nice thing, all in all, +and led to many changes in the text. The design principle was fairly +straightforward: things that they found that were broken, I fixed. This +is why playtesters get an acknowledgment at the front of the book; and +I'll throw in another one here. Thank you! + +Not that much in the way of complexity came up during the layout itself. +James chose a slightly different format for Ianthe's sections (see a +previous column ) and made various game abbreviations +small-capped. The single-column format used for the Ianthe section +appears to me to better mimic the style of a person speaking or writing +a letter. The small caps . . . hm. James told me that it looks better. +If I were pondering this decision myself, I would say that abbreviations +are one of those things that puts the reader very much into "gaming +mode", and by making them crouch in on themselves, he minimized this +impact. We wobbled back and forth on how to do the Example of Play, +which had very few headings and therefore large sections of blank +margin. There are pieces of fiction interwoven with the Example of Play, +showing the perspective of some minor NPCs; at first, these were moved +to the margins. That filled the margins completely and told the story +out of order. Ultimately, we solved this the obvious way: James made me +write more quotes for the margin. + +Then came lots and lots of proofreading. And more proofreading. James +proofread many times. I proofread once. (I've been busy.) I think Bruce +proofread. I think there were also some volunteer or professional +proofreaders he sent things to; if volunteers, thank you! + +That brings us up to the time of this writing. The printers have +returned proofs and James is looking at them. By the time you actually +see this column, *Nobilis* should be at most a week or two away! + +R. Sean + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + James and the Small Caps + (2) new Kibo +08-20-2002 16:29 02-10-2003 01:23 new + Art (1) new Lxndr +04-26-2002 07:36 04-26-2002 07:36 new + The Original Nobilis Club + (3) new Bret Gillan +04-17-2002 11:28 03-17-2003 17:48 new + Questions & Thoughts + (3) new Pyske +03-20-2002 18:31 05-01-2003 13:03 new + Noble Buddhism? + (9) new Tlaloc +03-20-2002 12:17 12-10-2004 01:20 new + Noble Suicide (9) new +Eric Christian Berg 03-20-2002 07:43 01-18-2005 16:27 new + Art Notes (4) new R. +Sean Borgstrom 03-14-2002 16:31 03-21-2002 03:44 new + Ack...you just lost my sale + (10) new SteveD +03-14-2002 04:06 03-15-2002 06:29 new + Onomastikon working URL + (4) new Jorge +Hernández 03-06-2002 12:51 08-20-2002 16:10 new + Why do angels change names ? + (10) new philippe +tromeur 03-06-2002 10:13 12-10-2004 01:34 new + R. Sean, some examples? + (3) new Arref +03-05-2002 08:17 03-13-2002 20:28 new + Sounds great, BUT... + (2) new Kane +02-27-2002 16:43 02-27-2002 17:30 new + Sort of backwards? + (8) new Eric Finley +02-20-2002 14:25 02-28-2002 09:35 new + Programmer nature slips out! + (2) new Sean +McCarthy 02-20-2002 13:18 02-21-2002 10:30 new + Object Lesson Damage + (1) new Darren +Miguez 02-13-2002 12:45 02-13-2002 12:45 new + How about this? + (2) new Kristian +Lund 02-13-2002 11:30 02-14-2002 01:17 new + Now, this was strange! + (7) new access.denied +02-13-2002 07:44 02-16-2002 21:44 new + Briefs on the other two? + (5) new Eric Finley +01-31-2002 18:39 02-13-2002 10:36 new + Forum now works (1) new +Sandy Antunes 01-31-2002 17:36 01-31-2002 17:36 new + limited series (2) new +Sandy Antunes 01-21-2002 17:41 01-31-2002 17:36 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + * Editing, Development, and Production + + March 27, 2002 + * Affiliations + March 20, 2002 + * How to be a Hollyhock God + March 13, 2002 + * Naming Conventions + March 6, 2002 + * Art Notes + February 27, 2002 + * Dynamic Nobilis + February 20, 2002 + * Systems Change + February 13, 2002 + * Treachery + February 6, 2002 + * The Emperor to Come + January 31, 2002 + * The Changing of the Guard + January 21, 2002 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. + diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/wind31jan02.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/draft/wind31jan02.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,269 @@ +RPGnet + + + + Reviews Forums +News & Press Columns & +Info RPG Wiki + RPG Shop + + + + Wind in the Flowers: Re-inventing a Game + + + The Emperor to Come + +*R. Sean Borgstrom* +January 31, 2002 + + +Much of the *Nobilis* setting draws its passion and temper from the +character of Lord Entropy, the anointed ruler of the material Earth. +Callous, oppressive, and indisputably malevolent, he has created a +government and code of law that reflects his own nature. He sanctions +sevenfold vengeance, extends the protections of his law to the enemies +of all Creation, and forbids the Nobilis love. He embodies the concepts +of Destruction, Desecration, and Scorn. Because of his existence, these +things afflict the Earth. + +*Nobilis* pursues a value-neutral approach towards such entities as Lord +Entropy. Destruction, Desecration, and Scorn are ugly things, but also a +part of the natural order of Creation. For player characters, loyal in +some sense to the universe, Lord Entropy is not the enemy -- he is a +cruel lord, but not an inadequate one. He makes a fine villain for +characters who simply /must/ foment rebellion -- but in most games, he +is not a villain at all. Rather, he represents an unpleasant part of the +order of things. He is a natural force that one cooperates with or works +around. + +*Nobilis* is not a horror game. I've always intended that it be a game +of wonder and horror, balancing the ugly elements of the setting with +beauty. Getting strong reactions out of players -- terror in a horror +game, fascination in a game of mystery or conspiracy, romantic fantasy +in a romance, the spiritual experience in a religious game -- depends +entirely on the person running the game. /I/ can't directly put wonder +and horror into *Nobilis*. Instead, I must produce a toolkit that the +player group can use to evoke those reactions. That's one of the central +purposes of both mechanics and setting. + +In this respect, placing Lord Entropy alone at the pinnacle of Earthly +power was a mistake. You can use him easily to invoke a sense of horror, +but he just won't take the players' breath away with the beauty, wonder, +and scope of his nature. He is a single point of darkness in a key area +of the setting, with no brightness to mitigate it. At the same time, I +found his place in the world a very useful tool during game design. + +For example, Lord Entropy's code of law forbids love. (Specifically, to +the Nobilis -- half-divine beings and the default character type.) This +isn't a physical law, nor is Lord Entropy omnipotent. Characters can +break the law, and can even get away with it. At the same time, Lord +Entropy is powerful and cunning, providing powerful incentive to follow +his code. This combination of traits gives much more significance to the +decision to love. Every time one of the Nobilis gives their heart, even +in relative secrecy and safety, it forms the core of a powerful and +dynamic story. Weakening Lord Entropy's power base weakens that story. + +Similarly, because Lord Entropy extends the protection of his law to the +enemies of Creation -- the Excrucians -- launching a preemptive strike +against that enemy takes on new significance. Instead of a tactical +decision, the choice whether to gather evidence against the enemy or +attack prematurely becomes a real, meaningful choice. + +In the Hogshead edition, therefore, I set out to create a thematic +balance for Lord Entropy in the topmost levels of Earth's power +structure -- without balancing his temporal power. The first edition +offered a useful tool: the "Council of Four," an august governing body +to which Lord Entropy belonged. The combined decision of the three other +members could thwart him -- although this didn't happen very often. + +The new edition introduces the character of *Ananda*, who sits on the +Council of Four. He shines with a terrible glory. Humans and the weaker +Nobilis cannot enter his presence lest his countenance drive them mad +with joy. The world sings in his presence. Grass and trees become +crystal instruments. Concrete buildings clamor out hard-edged refrains. +Birds pour out symphony after symphony, until their hearts burst from +the strain. + +Some of you may wonder why we would choose such a stark and hostile form +of beauty for a character intended to balance out a monster. In fact, in +his original conception, Ananda had a kind beauty, a tame beauty, a +loveliness to put one in mind of rainbows and waterfalls. From the +perspective of /my/ injecting beauty into the game, that would have +worked. As soon as the first words went onto the page, though, it became +clear that, as part of a toolkit for creating wonder, that idea didn't +work at all. + +The members of the Council of Four, I discovered, need stark detail and +absolute magnificence. Anything less would less would compromise the +feel of the game. *Nobilis* postulates that many of the /player +characters/ have personal presence exceeding that of Napoleon or +Elizabeth I. Ananda stands several steps higher on the ladder of +authority. Further, members of the Council of Four must play a small +role in the game. (Why overshadow the player characters?) Since Ananda +should rarely appear "on screen," the person running the game has very +little time to make an impact with him. Thus, his beauty strikes like a +thunderbolt; it does not drift to the senses in gentle waves. + +Ananda is a creature of conscience. In this, he is unique on the Council +of Four. (When creating Ananda, I did not know this for sure -- but, in +response to a playtester request, we've added a short box describing the +other two members. Now, I know.) He represents a court of last resort -- +a final hope for Nobilis desperate for justice or succor. He is a +benevolent administrator who might take action in a worthy character's +name. + +So that Ananda does not become a panacea, an escape from all the terrors +of the setting, we limited his authority. Ananda knows of an +"unacceptable" horror that will come to pass if he casts his vote +directly against Lord Entropy's in Council. His greatest protest against +Entropy's actions is an abstention. Ananda must abstain, and the other +two members of the Council vote against Lord Entropy, for the Council to +overrule Lord Entropy's decisions. Ananda remains one of the four +Imperators directly charged with governance over the Nobilis and the +mortal world, but his inability to vote his conscience limits his power +base. + +Ananda, like the other members of the Council of Four, is an Imperator +-- a great spirit, the essence of several fundamental concepts of the +world, served by several of the Nobilis. He embodies the concepts of +Murder, the Infinite, and the Fourth Age. The Fourth Age immediately +follows the current era; when the very nature of the world next changes, +Ananda's essence will pervade reality. For this reason, many call him +the Emperor to Come. + +*Nobilis* does not insist on an explanation for the groups of concepts +that the Imperators embody. However, one might reasonably believe that +Ananda is the essence of murder because the Excrucians seek to murder +Creation -- the Third Age, the current Age, /could/ end with the death +of all worlds. Similarly, the Third Age could end with the Excrucians' +utter defeat. The universe could then, in theory, endure indefinitely; +this would explain why he embodies the essence of the Infinite. + +Since *Nobilis* detailed Lord Entropy's home -- his "Chancel," a pocket +reality he created -- the new edition also describes Ananda's Chancel. +This is the Cityback, a vast world hidden behind modern cities. The +Cityback is home to wild flora, fauna, and urbana (living elements of +urban life, such as scavenger shopping carts), as well as Ananda's +"ombudsmen." These ombudsmen help the modern world function. For +example, Ananda's ombudsmen protect and facilitate the mysterious +process by which cows become packages of plastic-covered meat at +supermarkets across the world. + +The Council of Four remains a dark and oppressive institution. Ananda's +addition to the world does not change this. Still, by taking his place +on the Council, by building the Cityback, and by being Ananda, he brings +hope to the world. + + +R. Sean + + + What do you think? + +Go to forum! + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Topics Author Date Latest Reply + James and the Small Caps + (2) new Kibo +08-20-2002 16:29 02-10-2003 01:23 new + Art (1) new Lxndr +04-26-2002 07:36 04-26-2002 07:36 new + The Original Nobilis Club + (3) new Bret Gillan +04-17-2002 11:28 03-17-2003 17:48 new + Questions & Thoughts + (3) new Pyske +03-20-2002 18:31 05-01-2003 13:03 new + Noble Buddhism? + (9) new Tlaloc +03-20-2002 12:17 12-10-2004 01:20 new + Noble Suicide (9) new +Eric Christian Berg 03-20-2002 07:43 01-18-2005 16:27 new + Art Notes (4) new R. +Sean Borgstrom 03-14-2002 16:31 03-21-2002 03:44 new + Ack...you just lost my sale + (10) new SteveD +03-14-2002 04:06 03-15-2002 06:29 new + Onomastikon working URL + (4) new Jorge +Hernández 03-06-2002 12:51 08-20-2002 16:10 new + Why do angels change names ? + (10) new philippe +tromeur 03-06-2002 10:13 12-10-2004 01:34 new + R. Sean, some examples? + (3) new Arref +03-05-2002 08:17 03-13-2002 20:28 new + Sounds great, BUT... + (2) new Kane +02-27-2002 16:43 02-27-2002 17:30 new + Sort of backwards? + (8) new Eric Finley +02-20-2002 14:25 02-28-2002 09:35 new + Programmer nature slips out! + (2) new Sean +McCarthy 02-20-2002 13:18 02-21-2002 10:30 new + Object Lesson Damage + (1) new Darren +Miguez 02-13-2002 12:45 02-13-2002 12:45 new + How about this? + (2) new Kristian +Lund 02-13-2002 11:30 02-14-2002 01:17 new + Now, this was strange! + (7) new access.denied +02-13-2002 07:44 02-16-2002 21:44 new + Briefs on the other two? + (5) new Eric Finley +01-31-2002 18:39 02-13-2002 10:36 new + Forum now works (1) new +Sandy Antunes 01-31-2002 17:36 01-31-2002 17:36 new + limited series (2) new +Sandy Antunes 01-21-2002 17:41 01-31-2002 17:36 new + + Go to Top | New Topic + | View Threads + | Search + + + Newer Messages + | Older Messages + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + * Editing, Development, and Production + + March 27, 2002 + * Affiliations + March 20, 2002 + * How to be a Hollyhock God + March 13, 2002 + * Naming Conventions + March 6, 2002 + * Art Notes + February 27, 2002 + * Dynamic Nobilis + February 20, 2002 + * Systems Change + February 13, 2002 + * Treachery + February 6, 2002 + * The Emperor to Come + January 31, 2002 + * The Changing of the Guard + January 21, 2002 + + + Other columns at RPGnet + +[ Read FAQ | Subscribe to RSS + | Contact Us | +Advertise with Us ] + +Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved +RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved. +