--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/gamism_step_on_up.txt	Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,1962 @@
+           The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games
+    [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles |
+    Forge  [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums
+
+
+    Gamism: Step On Up
+    by [8]Ron Edwards
+
+    I owe thanks to Clinton R. Nixon, Rob MacDougall, Gareth Martin, Mike
+    Holmes, Gordon R. Landis, Ralph Mazza, Jonathan Walton, Paul Czege,
+    Jared A. Sorensen, Grant Gigee, Christopher Kubasik, Jake Norwood, and
+    Peter Adkison for their comments on the draft version of the manuscript.
+    All errors, misattributions, inconsistencies, whatever, are mine.
+
+    This is the second of three essays on the three modes of role-playing
+    collectively referred to as GNS, as presented in my essay [9]GNS and
+    related matters of role-playing theory. The first of the three "support"
+    essays was [10]Simulationism: the right to dream. These essays' purposes
+    are to clarify many aspects of their parent essay, to present the ideas
+    that have always awaited a more general understanding of my basic
+    points, and also to refine and develop the concepts based on the years
+    of discussion and input from others at the Gaming Outpost, RPG.net, and
+    the Forge.
+
+    This one's about Gamist play.
+
+    Gamism was originally identified in the RFGA Threefold Model of
+    role-playing styles, and I think from its first mention, nearly everyone
+    has said, "Oh, yeah, Gamism," with little debate about its qualities.
+    Moving through my own reconstructions of the Threefold into GNS, whether
+    early or late, and through the GENder model proposed by the Scarlet
+    Jester, both Gamist play as an activity and people's instant, easy
+    acceptance of its category have received little attention. Apparently,
+    one just knows it upon sight.
+
+    But do we really? References to Gamism tend to be dismissive,
+    superficial, and often backhanded ("except for the Gamists," "my inner
+    Gamist," etc). With respect to the members of the RFGA discussion group,
+    I think they categorized Gamist play mainly in order to sweep it out of
+    the realm of further dialogue, in order to concentrate on issues that I
+    would now primarily identify within Simulationist play. I also think
+    that most, although not all, subsequent discussion has been similar. Yet
+    that exceptional bit, here and there over several forums, indicates far
+    less consensus out there than might have been expected or assumed.
+
+    I'm going for a real look at the category for its own sake. In some ways
+    I'm kind of a case study of the problem, but I hope also part of the
+    solution as well; my own views have changed immensely since I referred
+    to Gamist players as "space aliens" years ago on the Gaming Outpost.
+
+    Here's what I wrote for my big and admittedly dry essay, "GNS and
+    related matters of role-playing theory":
+
+      Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real
+      people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both
+      short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play
+      strategies. The listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation,
+      System, Color] provide an arena for the competition.
+
+    And this needs revising for several reasons. First, "among the
+    participants" is too vague, at least from the standpoint of most
+    readers. I was thinking of anyone involved in the play of the game,
+    permitting just who competes with whom to be customized, but most people
+    seem to think I mean "players" in the widely-used, non-GM sense, and
+    object to that. Second, the term "competition" gets right up people's
+    noses. Lots of terms have cropped up: Struggle, Striving, Challenge, and
+    more. Some of that debate seems to be procedural, some of it
+    ideological, and some of it social. Although I can't hope for unilateral
+    agreement about the fundamentals of Gamist play, I think I've managed to
+    figure out where all of the consternation - and the hot emotions
+    underlying it - comes from. It's not merely semantic. I hope this essay
+    manages to clear up any confusions about my position on the matter and
+    perhaps manages to set a better basis for continued debate.
+
+    Some threads to check out include: [11]Gamism and Premise, [12]Gamism is
+    not competition{/url], [13]All out for Gamism, and [14]Getting in touch
+    with our inner Gamist. They include plenty of good points, but, my own
+    posts included, I think they mainly illustrate the problems involved
+    rather than offer anything concrete.
+
+    So the first step is to renounce a judgmental and dismissive approach
+    about "those awful Gamists." The second is to renounce the
+    less-judgmental but equally-dismissive "those Gamists" attitude, which
+    might be called the NIMBY view. And then, finally, to renounce the sort
+    of guilty-liberal, halting, apologetic defensive line as well. Just
+    bouncing among these, without ever coming to grips with the actual
+    phenomenon itself, is enough to fill a few dozen thread-pages within
+    days, so it's time to put all that aside and focus.
+
+    Every reader of the first draft wanted me to define Gamist play right
+    here, in this spot. I refused, to the wrath of Lit-101 teachers
+    everywhere. You gotta go through the next sections to get there.
+
+    Back to Exploration
+    Just as in the Simulationism essay, I'll start by considering the big
+    picture in which GNS issues are embedded. It might be written out like
+    this in a Venn diagram:
+
+    [Social Contract [Exploration [GNS [rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]]
+
+    Every inner "box" is an expression or realization of the box(es) it's
+    nested in. For example, Exploration is a kind of Social Contract, and a
+    given GNS mode is a kind (specifically, an application) of Exploration.
+
+     1. Everything occurs embedded in the Social Contract, which includes
+        many things about play and not-play, especially the Balance of
+        Power.
+     2. Exploration is the primary act of role-playing, composed of five
+        parts with some causal relationships among them.
+     3. The "modes" of play (because they have to be expressed via
+        communication and play itself, not just "felt") are currently best
+        described as Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist play. Play (as
+        opposed merely to hanging out with friends) cannot occur without
+        such an agenda. I'm now using the term "creative agenda" to refer to
+        the three modes as a concept, replacing the small-p "premise" term
+        in the older essay.
+     4. Techniques of play include many different relationships among rules,
+        people's decisions, announcements, and similar. "System" (or rather
+        textual system) interacts with Techniques all the time, in terms of
+        things like Currency, Resolution (including DFK, IIEE; see
+        Glossary), and Reward systems. Which of these is inner or outer is
+        debatable and probably variable, although I've diagrammed it in
+        keeping with the idea that techniques are applied within a framework
+        of rules. In keeping with the Venn concept, techniques are local
+        expressions of Social Contract, Exploration, and GNS modes, just as
+        rules are.
+     5. Actual play shifts quickly among Stances. Stances, unsurprisingly,
+        are very local applications of rules and techniques, all in the
+        service of Exploration and the larger-scale GNS mode in action.
+
+    So to talk about any GNS category, the place to start is that box.
+    Exploration is composed of five elements, no sweat: Character, Setting,
+    Situation, System, and Color ... but it's not a hydra with five equal
+    heads. These things have creative and specific dependencies among one
+    another, and now's the time to reveal a filthy secret about them.
+
+    It's this: Situation is the center. Situation is the imaginative-thing
+    we experience during play. Character and Setting are components that
+    produce it, System is what Situation does, and Color can hardly be done
+    without all this in place to, well, to color. Situation is the 400-lb
+    gorilla of the five elements, or, if you will, the central node. It's
+    central regardless of how much attention it's receiving relative to the
+    other components.
+
+    Gamist play, more than any other mode, demands that Situation be not
+    only central, but also the primary focus of attention. You want to play
+    Gamist? Then don't piss about with Character and/or Setting without
+    Situation happening, or about to.
+
+    The definition at last
+    A few paragraphs back, I promised a definition for Gamism and here it
+    is. It operates at two levels: the real, social people and the
+    imaginative, in-game situation.
+
+     1. The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their
+        strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires
+        strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real
+        world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play
+        (analogous to the Dream in Simulationist play).
+
+        Gamist play, socially speaking, demands performance with risk,
+        conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually
+        at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social,
+        real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem.
+        The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key -
+        it's analogous to committing to the sincerity of The Dream for
+        Simulationist play. This is the whole core of the essay, that such a
+        commitment is fun and perfectly viable for role-playing, just as
+        it's viable for nearly any other sphere of human activity.
+     2. The in-game characters, armed with their skills, priorities, and so
+        on, have to face a Challenge, which is to say, a specific Situation
+        in the imaginary game-world. Challenge is about the strategizing,
+        guts, and performance of the characters in this imaginary
+        game-world.
+
+        For the characters, it's a risky situation in the game-world; in
+        addition to that all-important risk, it can be as fabulous,
+        elaborate, and thematic as any other sort of role-playing. Challenge
+        is merely plain old Situation - it only gets a new name because of
+        the necessary attention it must receive in Gamist play. Strategizing
+        in and among the Challenge is the material, or arena, for whatever
+        brand of Step On Up is operating.
+
+    Gamist play and design is very diverse, partly due to the relative
+    emphases of these two layers, as well as how they are best met in that
+    particular game. At the crudest lens-setting, one can contrast those who
+    emphasize Challenge and drop the Step On Up to a faint roar, as opposed
+    to those who diminish the Challenge - it's always there, though - and
+    focus on the Step On Up.
+
+    Terms 'til you squeak
+    The game to the Gamist
+    What does "game" mean, anyway? Wouldn't that be good to know before
+    talking about Game-ist? As it turns out, not really, no more than
+    "simulation" helps with discussing Simulationist play. The term "game"
+    is good enough for our purposes (as a root for the "ist"), but not
+    especially rigorous or interesting. So many different things get called
+    games that it's hardly worth considering a blanket definition. To call
+    all of role-playing a "game," the term must be so broadly defined that
+    it excludes any agenda beyond socializing.
+
+    There's one specific aspect of the term that needs some scrutiny, though
+    - its judgmental content. Phrases like "It's a game," or better, "It's
+    just a game," or, "It's the game" illustrate that the term tells us
+    nothing; the meaning lies in the inflection. The phrase might be saying
+    that "it" is utterly trivial: "it's just a game." Or it might be saying
+    that "it" demands our constant and committed attention: "that's the
+    game."
+
+    So, I think more sensibly, it's good to look inside Gamism to see the
+    game there - what is it? It's a recreational, social activity, in which
+    one faces circumstances of risk - but neither life-threatening nor of
+    any other great material consequence. All that's on the line is some
+    esteem, probably fleeting, enough to enjoy risking and no more. Think of
+    a poker game among friends with very minor stakes, or a neighborhood
+    pickup basketball game. Taking away the small change or the
+    score-counting would take away a lot of the fun, because they help to
+    track or prompt the minor esteem ups-and-downs. This is Step On Up. It
+    is "just a game," yes, but "it's the game," too.
+
+    With any luck, now that I'm claiming two things are being labeled rather
+    than one, perhaps some of the debate about the label in question can
+    settle down. At the Step On Up level, what's at stake? A bit of esteem,
+    as stated above. But what about? Here's point #1: what's really at stake
+    can be totally overt (the basketball score), or it can nonverbal or
+    otherwise subtle (who sinks the best single hoop, regardless of which
+    team wins). All that matters is that it must exist embedded in the
+    real-life social interaction.
+
+    Think of the following:
+
+      * how performance is assessed, including a range of severity for
+        joshing, praise, and criticism
+      * the parameters of engagement - rules you do not break, in order to
+        enjoy playing changes in the field of play, whether in space or
+        time, making it impossible to stay with a single approach
+
+    The competition boogeyman
+    Competition is best understood as a productive add-on to Gamist play.
+    Such play is fundamentally cooperative, but may include competition.
+    That's not a contradiction: I'm using exactly the same logic as might be
+    found at the poker and basketball games. You can't compete, socially,
+    without an agreed-upon venue. If the cooperation's details are
+    acceptable to everyone, then the competition within it can be quite
+    fierce.
+
+    Role-playing texts never get this straight. For them, it's always either
+    competition or cooperation, one-other, push-pull, and often nonsensical.
+    The following is from Fantasy Earth, Basic Rules (1994, Zody Games,
+    author is Michael S. Zody):
+
+      ... while board games and wargames have winners and losers,
+      role-playing games do not. Rather than being competitive, role-playing
+      games are cooperative. The players all work together and win and lose
+      as a team.
+
+    I consider the above text to be inherently contradictory. Versions of it
+    can be found in quite a few role-playing games, especially those with
+    fantasy settings and a fairly high risk of character death.
+
+    So what is all this competition business about? It concerns conflict of
+    interest. If person A's performance is only maximized by driving down
+    another's performance, then competition is present. In Gamist play, this
+    is not required - but it is very often part of the picture. Competition
+    gives both Step On Up and Challenge a whole new feel - a bite.
+
+    How does conflict of interest relate to Step On Up and to Challenge? The
+    crucial answer is that it may be present twice, independently, within
+    the two-level structure.
+
+      * Competition at the Step On Up level = conflict of interest regarding
+        players' performance and impact on the game-world.
+      * Competition at the Challenge level = conflict of interest among
+        characters' priorities (survival, resource accumulation, whatever)
+        in the game-world.
+
+    Think of each level having a little red dial, from 1 to 11 - and those
+    dials can be twisted independently. Therefore, four extremes of
+    dial-twisting may be compared.
+
+     1. High competition in Step On Up plus low competition in Challenge =
+        entirely team-based play, party style against a shared Challenge,
+        but with value placed on some other metric of winning among the real
+        people, such as levelling-up faster, having the best stuff, having
+        one's player-characters be killed less often, getting more Victory
+        Points, or some such thing. Most Tunnels & Trolls play is like this.
+     2. Low competition in Step On Up plus high competition in Challenge =
+        characters are constantly scheming on one another or perhaps openly
+        trying to kill or outdo another but the players aren't especially
+        competing, because consequences to the player are low per unit
+        win/loss. Kobolds Ate My Baby and the related game, Ninja Burger,
+        play this way.
+     3. High competition in both levels = moving toward the Hard Core (see
+        below), including strong rules-manipulation, often observed in
+        variants of Dungeons & Dragons as well in much LARP play. A risky
+        way to play, but plenty of fun if you have a well-designed system
+        like Rune.
+     4. Low competition in both levels = strong focus on Step On Up and
+        Challenge but with little need for conflict-of-interest. Quite a bit
+        of D&D based on story-heavy published scenarios plays this way. It
+        shares some features with "characters face problem" Simulationist
+        play, with the addition of a performance metric of some kind. Some
+        T&T play Drifted this way as well, judging by many Sorcerer's
+        Apprentice articles.
+
+    Things get more complex than this, because different roles for GM and
+    players lead to combinations of the above categories within a single
+    game. For instance, players can cooperate as a party and compete with
+    the GM, for instance, given a rules-set that limits GM options (a
+    combination of #1 and #2). This shouldn't be confused with cooperating
+    with one another, cooperating with the GM, and competing against the
+    GM's characters (#4).
+
+    Reality check
+    I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games
+    are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in
+    the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately,
+    include:
+    "Eat me,"
+    (upon winning) "I win," and
+    "C'mon, let's play without these morons."
+
+    I'm defining "winning" as positive assessment at the Step On Up level.
+    It even applies when little or no competition is going on. It applies
+    even when the win-condition is fleeting. Even if it's unstated. Even if
+    it's no big deal. Without it, and if it's not the priority of play, then
+    no Gamism.
+
+    Textually, so many games say "it's not about winning" and then
+    immediately provide extremely clear win/loss parameters for play.
+    Sometimes I think it's because people believe that players are
+    inherently Gamist and have to be appeased in some way. This uneasy
+    waffling or endless qualifying shows up most often in fantasy games
+    whose authors would like play to be about something else, but just can't
+    quite believe that players would agree.
+
+    From the introduction to RuneQuest, second edition (The Chaosium, 1978,
+    1979, 1980; specific author for this text unknown; game authors are
+    Steve Perrin, Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, and Warren James):
+
+      The title of the game, RuneQuest, describes its goal. The player
+      creates one or more characters, known as adventurers, and playes them
+      in various scenarios, designed by a Referee. The Adventurer has the
+      use of combat, magic, and other skills, and treasure. The Referee has
+      the use of assorted monsters, traps, and his own wicked imagination to
+      keep the Adventurer from his goal within the rules of the game. A
+      surviving Adventurer gains experience in fighting, magic, and other
+      skills, as well as money to purchase further training.
+
+    Now all that's pretty Gamist stuff of a late 1970s vintage, right? Get
+    this, which follows immediately:
+
+      The adventurer progresses in this way until he is so proficient that
+      he comes to the attention of the High Priests, sages, and gods. At
+      this point he has the option to join a Rune Cult. Joining such a cult
+      gives him many advantages, not the least of which is aid from the god
+      of the cult.
+
+      Acquiring a Rune by joining such a cult is the goal of the game, for
+      only in gathering a Rune may a character take the next step, up into
+      the ranks of Hero, and perhaps Superhero.
+
+    All right, that bit about joining cults still seems kind of Gamist,
+    right? About getting more effective and so on? Great ... except that the
+    GM controls the High Priests and sages. Why would he, whose job was just
+    stated to be to "keep the Adventurer from his goal," have them recognize
+    the Adventurer in the first place? Either they do, and the GM must
+    abandon the stated goal, or they don't, and that whole paragraph becomes
+    gibberish.
+
+    Bear in mind as well that "Hero" and "Superhero" are never defined, and
+    indeed never again mentioned anywhere in the rulebook. See what I mean
+    about waffly and uncertain text? Such text is the default explanation
+    for role-playing, with very few exceptions, until the publication of
+    Vampire in 1991. Even since, though, it's still the standard for fantasy
+    games. The following is from Legendary Lives, second edition (1993,
+    Marquee Press, authors are Joe Williams and Kathleen Williams):
+
+      The players are impromptu actors within the scenes created by the
+      referee ... The fun comes from interacting with the other characters
+      and with the imaginary world created by the refereee. For the duration
+      of the game, try to immerse yourself in the role. [Sim so far - RE]
+      ...
+      The first goal of a player is survival. Yes your character can die
+      during an adventure, and a dead character is completely gone. If your
+      character is smart enough, bright enough, or lucky enough, he or she
+      will survive to reap the benefits of becoming older, wiser, and more
+      powerful.
+      [Wowsies, eh? Then text follows which backpeddles rapidly and tries to
+      explain why character death isn't losing. -RE]
+
+    As a contrast, some texts make no bones about this issue and indeed leap
+    in with both feet, as in Kobolds Ate My Baby! third edition (2001, Ninth
+    Level Games; authors are Christopher O'Neill and Daniel Landis):
+
+      How to win!
+      ... unlike your average role-playing game, KOBOLDS ATE MY BABY! Third
+      Edition has winners (and losers). Truth be told, it mainly has losers!
+      Anyway, the winner is the player who, at the end of the game, has the
+      most Victory Points. Most games continue until a certain condition is
+      met, generally when all the babies are gone ...
+
+    Yee-ha! But that's a recent example. To get back to the dark and
+    steaming roots of the first wave of role-playing innovation, check this
+    out from The Basic Game chapter in Tunnels & Trolls, 5th edition (1979,
+    Flying Buffalo Inc; author is Ken St. Andre, with possible edits or
+    additions by Liz Danforth):
+
+      Every time your character escapes from a tunnel alive, you may
+      consider yourself a winner. The higher the level and the more wealth
+      your character attains, the better you are doing in comparison to all
+      the other players.
+
+    From the Adventure Points chapter in the same text:
+
+      As long as a character remains alive - regardless of how many
+      adventures he or she participates in - you are "winning." If ill fate
+      befalls the character, or if you overextend yourself in playing your
+      character's capabilities, the character dies and it is your loss. Of
+      course, these games allow you to play any number of characters
+      (sometimes referred to as a "stable of characters") and some will
+      survive and advance, and everyone wins in the end.
+
+    This seems a bit softer, until one notices that although winning is
+    qualified by quotes and extra text, loss significantly is not.
+
+    Further text in the Adventure Points chapter of the same game repeatedly
+    provides big payoff for rash, risky, but tactically-imaginative action,
+    if the character survives. One small part rewards role-playing, but:
+
+      Any points awarded in this category should be given to those players
+      who are doing an exceptionally good job only, thus making the game
+      more of a challenge to all.
+
+    In other words, "challenge" is the first priority and immersion (for
+    lack of a better word), cooperation with the GM or his story-plans, or
+    in-character consistent play, are to be conducted and evaluated in that
+    context. They are, as well as anything else like character survival or
+    achievement, to be competed about.
+
+    I love the T&T and Kobolds texts. They are refreshing, spunky, and even
+    inspiring: "Step on up, buddy!" Open Gamism is completely accessible,
+    completely functional, and extremely fun. You see, it all goes back to
+    how the Step On Up social stuff is perfectly capable of enjoying the
+    in-game Challenge, Situation stuff, and how they're not the same thing.
+    In these games, the idea is to keep the Challenge whimsical enough that
+    its occasionally-extreme consequences don't reflect proportionally on
+    the player's emotional stakes of the moment.
+
+    T&T is not the be-all and end-all of Gamism, although it was probably
+    the first utterly explicit Gamist role-playing text. Not all Gamist play
+    is alike! It ranges across a great deal of structural, social, and
+    imaginative diversity, which is why this essay still has a long way to
+    go.
+
+    Structural basics
+    Grant Gigee provided some comments that I think speak more closely to
+    the issue than anything I could come up with:
+
+      Conflict and choice: Clearly, both terms can also be applied to
+      Narrativism, but I think they are very evocative and, combined with
+      challenge, concisely convey the important values of Gamism. Conflict
+      is crucial to narrative, but while one can explore the back-story or
+      the setting, or whatever, and while one can explore the moral
+      ramifications of those choices, folk like myself would rather get
+      right to the high points - the points of greatest tension which lead
+      to the greatest accomplishment. [emphasis mine; that's where the Step
+      On Up lives, right there - RE]
+
+    Choice is important because only through choice can there be
+    consequences. The reason most Gamists play wizards over fighters lies
+    not in avoiding conflict but in having choices. The fighter's choices
+    are all front-loaded - which sword (the best one), which armor (the best
+    one), etc - while the wizard's are more immediate: which spell at what
+    time.
+
+    Valid Gamist conflict and valid Gamist choice lead directly to strategy
+    and tactics, which I like to think of in two ways. The first way is the
+    interplay of resources, combined arms, either-or decisions,
+    effectiveness, point-husbanding, and similar game-mechanics acumen. Two
+    articles to review regarding these sorts of strategy and tactics in
+    Gamist play are [15]Elements of tactics and [16]Elements of strategy by
+    Brian Gleichman. The second way is all about bending parameters, lateral
+    thinking, and occasional banzai, which is to say, one's ability to shape
+    the actual play, or the importance of its parts, through sheer
+    interaction with it and with other people.
+
+    In trying to back up a little and look at things more generally than
+    individual moments of successful tactics, I came up with two new terms.
+    I'm not sure whether they're profound or just obvious, so consider'em
+    informal at this point.
+
+    The Gamble and the Crunch
+    Challenge is the Situation faced by the player-characters with a strong
+    implication of risk. It can be further focused into applications, which
+    individually tend toward one of these two things:
+
+    The Gamble occurs when the player's ability to manipulate the odds or
+    clarify unknowns is seriously limited. "Hold your nose and jump!" is its
+    battle-cry. Running a first-level character in all forms of D&D is a
+    Gamble; all of Ninja Burger play is a Gamble. More locally, imagine a
+    crucial charge made by a fighter character toward a dragon - his goal is
+    to distract it from the other character's coordinated attack, and he's
+    the only one whose hit points are sufficient to survive half its
+    flame-blast. Will he make the saving roll? If he doesn't, he dies. Go!
+
+    The Crunch occurs when system-based strategy makes a big difference,
+    either because the Fortune methods involved are predictable (e.g.
+    probabilities on a single-die roll), or because effects are reliably
+    additive or cancelling (e.g. Feats, spells). Gamist-heavy Champions play
+    with powerful characters is very much about the Crunch. The villain's
+    move occurs early in Phase 3; if the speed-guy saves his action from
+    Phase 2 into Phase 3 to pre-empt that action, and if the brick-guy's
+    punch late on Phase 3 can be enhanced first by the psionic-guy's
+    augmenting power if he Pushes the power, then we can double-team the
+    villain before he can kill the hostage.
+
+    The distinction between Gamble and Crunch isn't quite the same as
+    "randomness;" it has more to do with options and consequences. Fortune
+    can be involved in both of them, and it doesn't have to be involved in
+    either (see Diplomacy for a non-RPG example). Also, look out for jargon:
+    "Crunchy" is a gamer term for detailed and layered rules; "crunching" is
+    a long-standing term for maximizing Effectiveness by manipulating a
+    system's Currency. Neither of these are Crunch as I'm defining here.
+
+    Who vs. whom: the source of adversity
+    Adversity is necessary to role-playing; without it, nothing happens. The
+    term requires two analyses.
+
+     1. Who's the source of adversity in Gamist play? This is a layered
+        question based on the Step On Up and Challenge levels. Step On Up
+        adversity simply means demanding high attention to System operation
+        and the responding emotional "on-button" from the person. It's the
+        "social heat," if you will, as well as whatever cognitive demands
+        are imposed by the System. Optionally, as described above,
+        person-on-person conflict of interest might be involved as well,
+        bringing in competition at this level. Without the competition, the
+        adversity needs to come from some extra-player source, whether a GM
+        or a publication or some confluence of both. With it, of course, the
+        source of adversity arises among the players; this is usually an
+        add-on to the GM/publication adversity rather than a substitute.
+     2. What are its imposed dangers? This seems more straightforward at
+        first, as Challenge adversity means risk to the characters in some
+        way. But about what? Options range from character survival to
+        abstract Victory Points, with a huge range of possibilities in
+        between. Also, optionally, character-on-character conflict of
+        interest may be involved as well, again setting up the possible
+        inclusion of competition as a "heater-up" for adversity.
+
+    Clearly, these are not really independent! The Challenge adversity sets
+    up all sorts of System demands and risks to the characters, which in
+    turn can provide the motor for the Step On Up adversity to kick into
+    action. That's a powerful phenomenon; arguably, it was the core of D&D
+    play becoming a popular hobby at all in the mid-1970s, based on
+    organized tournaments.
+
+    But all the possible combinations are overwhelming - whose strategizing
+    is opposed to whose? If a GM is the source of adversity, to what extent
+    is he or she a potential competitor as well? What are the differences
+    between GM as referee, as judge, and as player of opponents? Is
+    player-effort a team thing or an "every man my enemy" thing? The general
+    answer to these and similar questions can only be "Yes," then parsed
+    very specifically both by game design and by group preferences. Social
+    Contract issues such as whether maps, notes, and dice-rolls are hidden
+    or open all rely on the answers. But those are only some of the possible
+    questions. Here are others.
+
+     1. How long is a "go"? Which is to say, what are the units of reward
+        and loss, and how are they distributed through the time of play?
+        Compare losing a round in a video game with loss in a football game,
+        and consider whether a fight scene in a role-playing session is a
+        piece of a very long conflict called a Delve, or whether it's the
+        moment of truth, right there. Is player-character death, for
+        example, like losing the ball for a first down for the other side,
+        or missing a touchdown, or losing the whole game?
+     2. How is Fortune involved, and when? Oh, there are so many ways:
+        player-character creation, the typical resolution mechanics, any
+        sudden-death resolution mechanics, reduction of abilities or
+        resources, preparation for a crisis, the crisis itself ... To flip
+        to the other side, what's the role, if any, of
+        allocation-strategizing points or resources?
+        Neither of the above can be considered without thinking about the
+        relative importance of Effectiveness and Resource, and how they
+        relate to one another, or, on a more imaginative/scenario level, the
+        relative distribution and positioning of the Gamble and the Crunch.
+
+     3. To what degree is conflict-of-interest involved, for both the Step
+        On Up and Challenge levels? Similarly, and this of course is mainly
+        a social question, what degree of ruthlessness is involved?
+     4. What is the Challenge about? Further, how imaginatively committed to
+        it, moment by moment, are people expected to be? I suggest with
+        great fervor that combat is only one form of conflict, and character
+        survival is only one in-game metric for success.
+
+    A look at reward systems
+    I generally refer to Stakes in Gamist play to discuss what's at risk and
+    what stands to be gained at both the Step On Up and Challenge level. I
+    think successful Gamist play needs to include both the loss and gain
+    conditions for the Stakes, not just gain. This gets really tricky,
+    because the "metric" of what's being assessed at the Step On Up level is
+    only sometimes overt. Add to that the concept of Stakes relative to the
+    competition within each level, if present, and things suddenly get
+    complicated.
+
+    So what constitutes "success" at the Step On Up and/or Challenge level
+    during play? Is it the right to keep playing? Improving one's
+    character's effectiveness, begging the question of what for? Getting
+    some kind of "victory points"? The metagame/game relationship between
+    these is phenomenally important. I think that, in Gamist play, the
+    metagame-part is the key one - a completely informal Social Reward
+    (e.g., "Killed more goblins than you!", even in a game-system which
+    confers no consequence for doing so) can easily outweigh an in-game one.
+
+    In taking this idea to design, my mind kind of balks at the tricky mix
+    of Exploration and Competition, and how to keep them from being at
+    cross-purposes. It is really hard to conceive of Gamist reward
+    mechanisms that are both consistently satisfying across long-term play
+    and meaningful at the Step On Up level. Abstract victory points are
+    arguably quite weak; "you win" means nothing if it, well, doesn't do
+    anything. The more-commonly seen metric of character survival is badly
+    broken, in a variety of applications. If character death is temporary,
+    it's not much of a loss condition, but if it's not, the game is often
+    forced to abandon the loss condition such that people can continue to
+    play.
+
+    Character improvement ("advancement") is even more problematic. The
+    basic issues it raises are:
+
+      * How tough and effective should a starting character be? If it's too
+        high, then there's no reason to improve; if it's too low, the early
+        stages of play depend far too much on GM mercy.
+      * What kind of rate is involved, relative to the challenges as time
+        goes by? The effectiveness-increase can form an exponential
+        interaction with the character's ability to increase further, which
+        in most cases breaks the game or reduces all confrontations to
+        statistical grinds rather than Step On Up crises.
+
+    Reward systems remain the current most challenging sector of game
+    design, for many reasons, not the least of which is no clear idea of for
+    how long or at what scale "successful play" should be rated. I look
+    forward to experimentation and debate that can help resolve some of the
+    issues for Gamist play.
+
+    The joys of Gamism
+    It is way cool, in a game which utilizes point-construction of
+    characters, to allocate them such that the character "hums" - that is,
+    he (or she or it, henceforth "he") can do what you'd like him to do
+    without running out of energy too fast, can go where he needs to go, and
+    take a hit without crumpling - or, in games which are less about moving
+    places and hitting one another, the character can actually get X done in
+    a way which makes anyone else say, "Whoa, good one!" Nocturne, my
+    Champions super-hero, steps through the wall and freezes the villain The
+    Crippler in his tracks with a burning blue look. He glides straight to
+    the uber-villain, the Blood Queen, where she stands before the
+    technological cross (on whom is crucified Nocturne's buddy, Warp),
+    ignoring the zots and shots of the henchmen, and says, in deadly tones,
+    "Where ... is ... our ... son?" Presence attack roll!
+
+    It is totally cool, in a game with a well-constructed IIEE component, to
+    strategize one or more characters' actions such that their effect and
+    timing delivers a phenomenal wallop, or more generally, has a
+    distinctive and exciting effect on play. Demon-boy's acrobatic attack
+    provides the diversion, as Hurricane-girl's wind-storm scatters the
+    henchmen, opening up a channel for Metal-guy to hurl Claw-man straight
+    into the Menace. As expected, Claw-man takes it on the chin, but that
+    removes the Menace's saved action (which we all knew he had; he had that
+    smirk), and that's when Eyebeam-man's blast hits, shattering the tank
+    behind the Menace to release the wave of radioactive fluid and to wake
+    the sleeping alien within ...
+
+    The very meaning of cool beans is to husband resources intelligently,
+    such that when you really need that Endurance, or the story points, or
+    those hit points, or that final charge in the magic staff, they're
+    there. Yzorn, the young mage, dodges once, twice, and again, eluding the
+    jaws of the summoned wolf, costing Engarad more and more energy until
+    the animal fades into smoke. Then, "Catch this!" he cries, at last
+    loosing the lightning bolt and crisping his foe into an ashy column,
+    which slowly fragments under its own weight.
+
+    Nothing is more cool than putting the character or whatever at risk,
+    whether in Gamble or Crunch circumstances, and seeing the system deliver
+    its punch relative to your tactics. Roichi, my Blue Islands ninja,
+    reaches into the folds of his black gi to produce, rattle-rattle the
+    dice, a packet of Hot Sauce! Shimatta!
+
+    It is the essence of coolness to see the legitimately avoidable twist be
+    avoided, or fail to be avoided. "Boy, that troll was a lot easier to
+    kill than I expected," says the player. I, the GM, smirk. "You're
+    growing ... turning hairy ... your armor and clothing crack and stretch
+    off of your body ... horns sprout on your -" "Hey! I'm turning into a
+    troll, aren't I?" "Yup ... cursed to clean up the first level, just like
+    your predecessor, who's turning into a dead human, by the way." "Shit!
+    That makes sense! We should have figured that out!" Heh, heh, heh ...
+
+    All of the above are fun during any role-playing, but from a Gamist
+    perspective, the point is for one's acumen to be acknowledged - it's a
+    matter of pure pride. You grokked the system just right for that
+    particular situation; you took into account all the possible variables
+    of the moment. If such a perspective, and all these events, are combined
+    together and experienced as part and parcel of the Exploration - which
+    is to say, the social, imaginative "scene" - then Gamist play is under
+    way. I maintain this experience cannot be achieved through any physical
+    sport, through any virtual interface, or through any medium whatever
+    aside from table-top role-playing. The rush is, I think, unique to the
+    medium.
+
+    The Hard Core
+    So far I haven't mentioned any negative connotations to Gamist play,
+    despite my hints in the beginning of the essay. The time has come to
+    explain why many people hate and fear any sign of Step On Up, let alone
+    competition, in and among the adversity-situations of their
+    role-playing. It's due to a possible application of Gamist principles to
+    their "perviest" extreme, which is to say, the highest degree of
+    person-to-System contact during play. When you sacrifice Exploration to
+    get to this degree of contact in Gamist play, you have entered the Hard
+    Core.
+
+    The Hard Core occurs when Gamist play transmogrifies into pure metagame:
+    Exploration becomes minimal or absent, such that System and Social
+    Contract contact one another directly, and, essentially, all the
+    mechanics become metagame mechanics. It's usually, although not always,
+    the result of high competitive actions at the Step On Up level, which
+    then "eats" the Challenge level such that it is literally and nakedly an
+    extension of Step On Up and nothing else. Role-playing in the Hard Core
+    is very much like playing competitive video games or, for that matter,
+    like playing that old junior high school favorite, Smear the Queer, with
+    egos rather than bones and blood on the line.
+
+    I perceive four distinct Hard Core applications. They all very easily
+    become dysfunctional, but, contrary to popular belief, quite a bit of
+    Hard Core play may be functional if the Social Contract is being
+    reinforced rather than broken. None of them combine well with secondary
+    Simulationist or Narrativist priorities, which is one reason that people
+    often confound the Hard Core with playing Gamist at all. That's an
+    error, though, because the Hard Core is just as incompatible with
+    high-Exploration Gamist priorities as well.
+
+    It's time to introduce the "M" word too. The term "munchkin" gets thrown
+    around a lot in reference to Gamist play, and one of the big points of
+    this essay is to show that it applies to too many different things to be
+    useful. I'll discuss this further in the Troubles with Gamism section
+    below, but for now, just bear in mind that Hard Core role-players are
+    often called munchkins by others, including non-Hard Core Gamists.
+
+    Turnin' on each other
+    Gamist play already presupposes some pressure among members of the
+    group. Now add to that not only conflict-of-interest at the Challenge
+    level, but open acknowledgment of one another's player-characters as the
+    only engaging source of Challenge - and given the absence of
+    Exploration, directly applying to a Step On Up struggle for dominance.
+    So now you have both little red dials up to 11, and the arena of
+    resolution is simply whose characters survive mutual attacks.
+
+    Turnin' often arises from when the "official" Challenge parameters are
+    shown to be uninteresting for one reason or another, such as when losing
+    one's character to GM-run foes turns out not to mean much in Step On Up
+    terms - i.e., when the GM kills characters at whim. It's typically
+    dysfunctional when it arises from this or similar sources.
+
+    However, I also think Turnin' is the least threatening Hard Core
+    application, because when it's integrated into other enjoyable aspects
+    of a system, it can actually be a wonderful addition to play, as
+    illustrated by the wizard-economy of spells for rogues in T&T or the
+    magic items rules in Elfs. After all, character conflict-of-interest is
+    not necessarily Hard Core, nor is it even necessarily a Gamist issue at
+    all. However, given that its extreme form is dysfunctional, many game
+    texts have mistakenly urged various ways never ever ever to permit
+    inter-character conflict of interest, in order to stave it off.
+
+    Powergaming
+    This technique is all about ramping a system's Currency, Effectiveness,
+    and reward system into an exponential spiral. As a behavior, it can be
+    applied to any system, but most forms of D&D offer an excellent inroad
+    for it: after a certain number of levels achieved, the ability to
+    deliver damage and remain invulnerable itself provides ever-increasing
+    ability to achieve yet higher degrees of damage-delivery and hit-point
+    resources.
+
+    Like Turnin', Powergaming doesn't necessarily destroy the enjoyment of
+    play, and unlike Turnin', it may even remain functional in full-blown
+    Hard Core form. Some Exploration may well be maintained, at least
+    minimally, and the effectiveness-spiral might play a strategic role
+    rather than to dominate fellow players. However, it's fair to say that
+    Powergaming is only functional if everyone is committed to it, and it
+    carries dangers of leading to Breaking (see below).
+
+    To prevent Powergaming, many game designers identify the GM as the
+    ultimate and final rules-interpreter. It's no solution at all, though:
+    (1) there's no way to enforce the enforcement, and (2), even if the
+    group does buy into the "GM is always right" decree, the GM is now
+    empowered to Powergame over everyone else.
+
+    Calvinball
+    This is the famous "rules-lawyering" approach, which is misnamed because
+    it claims textual support when in reality it simply invents it.
+    Calvinball is a better term: making up the rules as you go along,
+    usually in terms of on-the-spot interpretations disguised as "obvious"
+    well-established interpretations. It basically combines glibness and
+    bullying to achieve moment-to-moment advantages for one's character. A
+    Calvinballer may also be adept at bugging the GM about some rules-detail
+    often enough that a goodly percentage of the time yields a reward for
+    it, but not often enough to tip everyone else off to what's going on.
+
+    The big trick of Calvinball is pretending to be still committed to the
+    Exploration. That makes it especially well-suited to disrupting
+    Simulationist play from the older traditions, because the other players'
+    commitment to the integrity of the Dream can be co-opted into one's
+    Calvinball strategy, exploiting the others' willingness to enter into
+    the rules-debate in hopes of a compromise, which of course is not
+    forthcoming. Calvinball then quickly transforms into a struggle for
+    control over what is and is not happening in the imaginative situation.
+
+    One mistaken solution to this tactic is to hide the rules from the
+    players in some kind of laughably-secure "GM book" or "GM section," as
+    well as to enforce the ideal of Transparency. The other, more common
+    solution is simply to continue adding rules forever and ever, amen, in
+    order to account unambiguously for any and all imaginable events during
+    play.
+
+    Breaking the game
+    Here's the most extreme form of the Hard Core; it's the only one that I
+    can't imagine is functional in any circumstances. Breaking the game is
+    defined as rendering others' ability to play ineffective in terms of any
+    metric that happens to be important in that group. Theoretically, any
+    and all games are breakable: one can always sweep the pieces off the
+    board. But I'm talking about doing so in the context of identifying
+    internal inconsistencies or vulnerable points in the design, breaking
+    the game by playing it and rendering the Exploration nonsensical.
+
+    Here's the key giveaway in terms of system design: it is Broken (i.e.
+    Breaking consistently works) if repetitive, unchanging behavior garners
+    benefit. The player hits no self-correcting parameters and is never
+    forced to readjust his or her strategy. The principle can be applied in
+    multiple ways, both two common ones include:
+
+      * Exploiting point-based games which rely on layered Currency, such
+        that points may be spent cheaply for disproportionately high gain,
+        often in a self-sustaining fashion. The classic example is the
+        Recovery attribute in Champions, which was increased by spending
+        points on Constitution and Strength, but could be bought down, and
+        the points thus gained could be pumped back into Strength, thus
+        raising REC to levels beyond the original value. Champions also
+        featured a means of decreasing powers' cost by increasing a divisor
+        value, and strategizing the relationship to this divisor with other
+        means of point-reduction became an art form in many groups.
+      * Exploiting announcement/order-of-action systems to acquire perfect
+        can't-hit-me-I-hit-you combinations, multiple-action combinations,
+        and similar. Most games which feature powers or advantages that the
+        order of action are vulnerable to unforeseen stacking with these
+        effects.
+
+    Breaking the Game isn't quite the same thing as Powergaming, because
+    once a game is Broken, the group rarely continues to play. However, the
+    latter often leads to the former, because Powergaming reveals vulnerable
+    points in game design that are then Broken. Trying to prevent this
+    one-two combination of behavior has led many game designers mistakenly
+    to provide endless patch rules, full of exceptions to cover the
+    exceptions, none of which accomplishes anything except to open up even
+    more points of vulnerability.
+
+    Diversity of Gamist design
+    Considering all these different concerns, perhaps finally the variety of
+    Gamist role-playing design can get its long-awaited, long-denied day in
+    the sun. I've taken a few variables from the Structural Basics section,
+    mainly the ones that can be ascribed to specific game texts rather than
+    the less-tangible, more locally-defined ones.
+
+      * The degree of Exploration relative to Step On Up
+      * The role of Fortune in resolving Stakes-relevant conflict in the
+        game
+      * How much Gamble vs. how much Crunch
+      * The length of a "go," or unit of play necessary to see how well
+        someone does
+      * The local units of local loss - how you can tell when someone
+        doesn't do well
+      * The degree of metagame mechanics available
+
+    Mano a mano
+    These are duelling games. They're generally written as self-governing,
+    which is to say, no GM necessary, although sometimes a gentleman's
+    agreement about some things is necessary. For instance, in Wizard duels,
+    a player is expected to be truthful when his character's illusion spell
+    is disbelieved. Also, sometimes a Referee or "monster player" is
+    recommended if people want to play in teams rather than against one
+    another.
+
+    Melee/Wizard - Exploration is low, role of Fortune medium, Gamble even
+    with Crunch, "go" length = one fight, units of local loss = PC death,
+    degree of metagame is nil
+
+    Lost Worlds - Exploration is low to medium, role of Fortune medium,
+    Crunch slightly higher than Gamble, "go" length = one fight, units of
+    local loss = PC death, degree of metagame is nil (or high if choosing
+    the character in the first place is considered)
+
+    Dungeon crawl
+    The classic Exploration paradigm, and arguably the progenitor of the
+    multi-bezillion dollar computer-game industry. The characters must
+    traverse and navigate a dangerous environment and reap the rewards of
+    their discoveries and combat acumen relative to the spiralling risk.
+
+    Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition - Exploration is medium, role of Fortune
+    is high until after 10th level, fair Gamble and later mainly Crunch,
+    "go" length = a delve, units of local loss = death, degree of metagame =
+    nil
+
+    Deathstalkers (System & Setting) - Exploration medium-to-high, Fortune
+    high at low levels especially, Gamble at lower levels with more Crunch
+    at higher ones, "go" length unknown, units of local loss = character
+    death, degree of metagame is nil
+
+    Forge: Out of Chaos (Character & System), - Exploration is a solid
+    medium, role of Fortune is medium, Gamble mixed evenly with Crunch, "go"
+    length = expedition, units of local loss = PC death or lack of
+    levelling, degree of metagame is nil
+
+    Rune - Exploration is low, role of Fortune is medium to high, Gamble
+    mixed evenly with Crunch, "go" length = expedition, units of local loss
+    vary across several variables, degree of metagame is nil (or high if the
+    GM-round-robin is considered)
+
+    Donjon - Exploration high, role of Fortune is high, high Gamble vs. low
+    Crunch (almost all Abilities are really the same thing - a mechanical
+    way to win), "go" length is a delve, and individual "Donjon Levels",
+    units of local loss = destruction of equipment and character
+    inconvenience (death is extremely rare), degree of metagame = quite high
+
+    Elaborate setting
+    This brand of Gamist play evolved almost instantly, beginning with maps
+    and supplements like the World of Greyhawk. It offers a few special
+    problems, the main one being an ongoing Simulationist "creep" in the
+    evolving texts, edition by edition, which can trip up the Gamist
+    priorities of special interest ... in other words, GNS-based
+    Incoherence. One reader even proposed the term "Power Simulationism" for
+    such games, and stated, "These games are the least rewarding to me
+    because they feel like kicking a man when he is down."
+
+    Stormbringer 1st edition - Exploration is high, role of Fortune is
+    extreme, both Gamble and Crunch at different instances of play, "go"
+    length = adventure scenario, units of local loss = death, degree of
+    metagame = nil (perhaps a bit in demon creation)
+
+    Rifts (with some Simulationist design as hybrid support) - Exploration
+    is medium-low, role of Fortune high at low levels, low at higher levels,
+    mixed Gamble and Crunch, "go" length = firefight, units of local loss =
+    death (or perhaps loot), degree of metagame = nil
+
+    Shadowrun (also a Simulationist hybrid) - Exploration is high, medium to
+    high Fortune, mixed Gamble and Crunch (higher Crunch in longer-term
+    games), "go" length = a black-ops mission (a "shadowrun"), units of
+    local loss = character death, loss of profit, degree of metagame varies
+    by edition
+
+    Age of Heroes - Exploration is high, role of Fortune is strong but
+    easily assessed, mainly Crunch, "go length = set pieces, loss =
+    characters' agenda per set piece, degree of metagame = nil [note: This
+    game is not based on a canonical setting, but rather on procedures and
+    rules-categories corresponding to a setting type, relating to "adventure
+    fantasy" much as early Champions relates to comics; as such, it is
+    probably the single representative in the category without Coherence
+    problems]
+
+    Deadlands - Exploration is high, Situation, role of Fortune is medium,
+    mainly Crunch, "go" length = adventure scenario, units of local loss
+    aren't well defined, degree of metagame is minor but consistently
+    present
+
+    Whimsical whackiness
+    These are usually humorous spinoffs of dungeon crawls.
+
+    Tunnels & Trolls - Exploration medium, role of Fortune high, emphasis on
+    Gamble, "go" length = level, units of local loss = PC death or
+    diminishment of abilities, degree of metagame is low except for some
+    whimsy
+
+    Kobolds Ate My Baby / Ninja Burger (Situation & System) - Exploration
+    low-to-medium, role of Fortune is extreme, extreme emphasis on Gamble,
+    "go" length = one dinner/mission, units of local loss = victory points
+    (less so, PC death), degree of metagame is medium (often obstructive to
+    others)
+
+    Elfs - Exploration is medium, role of Fortune is high, mixed Gamble and
+    Crunch, "go" length = adventure scenario, units of local loss =
+    immediate advantage, degree of metagame = medium.
+
+    Gimme some story
+    These games shift the venue of Step On Up from in-game character action
+    resolution to metagame narration rights, which may or may not entail
+    greater character effectiveness.
+
+    The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen - Exploration = medium, role of
+    Fortune is nil, mainly Crunch, "go" length = one tale, units of local
+    loss = control of the narrative, degree of metagame is total. Arguably,
+    this game is more appropriately placed in the "almost role-playing game"
+    category along with Bedlam, De Profundis, and Once Upon a Time.
+
+    Pantheon - Exploration = high, role of Fortune is minor, mainly Crunch,
+    "go" length = one story, units of local loss = points, degree of
+    metagame fairly high
+
+    Is d20 Gamist?
+    D&D3E is certainly strongly oriented toward Gamist play, but as for d20,
+    what is it, structurally?
+
+      * levels to describe character attack-options and hit points - but not
+        necessarily levelling-up as a major feature of play
+      * classes and possibly races, but these are meaningless on reflection
+        - a game can have one or twenty classes; they are strictly a method
+        for establishing resource categories
+      * Six attributes - but with any relationship to effectiveness that you
+        want; one can even tack on another system for primary Effectiveness
+        variables, as in D&D3E
+
+    All one really has is a flat-curve resolution method in 5% increments
+    against target numbers, with (a) possible re-rolls (which is what "extra
+    attacks" are), (b) a resource mechanic relative to character survival,
+    and (c) lists of powers. I've concluded that d20 takes on a
+    game-identity to the extent that a designer customizes Resolution,
+    Currency, and Reward into a particular shape. Therefore to "use d20"
+    means one of the following:
+
+      * to imitate or augment an existing form (supplemental material for
+        D&D3E)
+      * fundamentally to write your own game (Mutants & Masterminds)
+      * and I should mention some attempts at the latter which look more
+        like the former (Star Wars d20, Spycraft)
+
+    No wonder it's impossible to discuss d20 sensibly! There's no game
+    there, not even a System. Therefore it passes out of the range of topics
+    for this essay; d20 presents a fascinating economics and marketing
+    phenomenon, but I think it's only meaningful in those terms.
+
+    Historical perspective
+    How is Gamist design distributed across games throughout the hobby's
+    history? I'm now talking about explicit design features and facilitative
+    text in game-books, not play itself. My essay [17]A hard look at
+    Dungeons & Dragons addresses some of the factors that underlie this
+    section.
+
+    The most striking feature across role-playing history is the astonishing
+    shift in the late 1980s from assuming that Gamist play was the default
+    to practically nothing - limited mainly to "old AD&D," various D&D
+    imitators, Shadowrun, or Rifts.
+
+    I think this rarity is mainly a matter of rejection by texts that
+    facilitated other preferred modes of play. I specifically include AD&D2
+    to be included in this shift, as I consider it to be mainly incoherent
+    with various and sometimes-contradictory doses of Simulationist design
+    scattered throughout, going all the way back to the Wilderness Survival
+    Guide and the Dragonlance modules. I also think that the various
+    setting-derivative AD&D2 boxed sets of the early 1990s (Al-Qadim, Dark
+    Sun, Planescape, et al.) explicitly facilitate Illusionist Simulationist
+    play.
+
+    A similar textual rejection can be found in the publications of Lion
+    Rampant and later (same company) White Wolf, many of which explicitly
+    condemned Gamist play in subcultural terms. In many ways, this can be
+    seen as a reclamation of "hip" for role-playing, or at least for a given
+    company's role-playing products.
+
+    In spite of all the textual rejection, I also think that the dearth of
+    texts reveals nothing about the commonality of Gamist play - I suspect
+    that Drift has kept Gamist play alive and quite active, even in the
+    absence of coherent games to use it for, especially for AD&D2,
+    Champions, Amber, and Vampire (see the GNS section below). Discussing
+    why such an overt, accessible, and functional brand of play did not act
+    as a solid demand on the marketplace of game design must await more
+    discussion of game-industry economics.
+
+    Then again, perhaps my surprise is a matter of my own subcultural
+    limitations, if related hobbies are considered. Gamism remained alive
+    and well among computer games like Rogue, Nethack, Ultima library (later
+    to become Ultima Online), Zork, Advent(ure), MUDs, MUSHes, MOOs,
+    Everquest, Amethyst, and many more. Unfortunately, I'm an ignoramus
+    about this entire hobby, and any insights into its history, play
+    preferences, economics, and what-all would be very welcome at the Forge.
+
+    Oh, and let's not forget that card game that showed up at the game store
+    counters a decade ago. I think that Magic: the Gathering is best
+    described as a portable, customizable wargame - and that part of its
+    popularity may be ascribed to the fact that the customers of the day had
+    never seen a wargame before. Unsurprisingly, a whole sector of people
+    who were involved in role-playing suddenly discovered the hobby they'd
+    been looking for.
+
+    From a role-playing design perspective, Magic and many other
+    customizable card games reminded people of a principle that had been
+    abandoned for almost a decade: (1) that competitive Step On Up is
+    actually fun, rather than automatically Broken; (2) that elegant and
+    highly-prioritized game design permits easier entry and more
+    satisfaction in play; and (3) that Exploration may be customized to
+    taste, rather than considered an all-or-nothing variable.
+
+    Finally, Gamist play has also cropped up across many products which are
+    sometimes called role-playing games, but are just a little off my
+    personal undefined cognitive space for that label, mainly due to the
+    role of "character" and certain aspects of how resolution is addressed.
+    All of them utilize control over narration as one of the variables of
+    play, thus shifting around the privileges of a traditional GM role, and
+    all of them are explicitly about winning the game much as one wins a
+    traditional card game. They include Once Upon a Time, The Adventures of
+    Baron von Munchausen, and Bedlam, and many others seem to be on the way
+    as well. As with the customizable Magic-type games, already they've
+    prompted many changes in role-playing, most notably in terms of
+    formalizing and permitting shifts among who gets to narrate the outcomes
+    of a given resolution mechanic.
+
+    GNS issues
+    Memetic power
+    Nothing beats Gamism - once you have Step On Up in action, it takes
+    over. The main reason is simple: Step On Up is a recognizable, common,
+    coherent, and rewarding aspect of human behavior, which is why we see it
+    all 'round the place. Role-playing is just another venue. So, basically,
+    everyone gets it, and once present, Situation becomes Challenge, and the
+    cognitive fascination with esteem relative to performance becomes the
+    order of the day. It doesn't rely on any particular game mechanic to be
+    present - consider that any metric for social esteem is a candidate for
+    Step On Up, and that any element of in-game content is a candidate for
+    Challenge. You're bound to find someone's own personal profile for these
+    in the game-content somewhere!
+
+    It also takes over easily mechanically in many instances of game design,
+    especially in Simulationist-facilitating games, in two ways. The first
+    way is to perceive system-based opportunities for advantage: breakpoints
+    in point-allocation design, stacking of options into unique effects, and
+    similar. Such things are often offered as neat add-ons in
+    otherwise-Simulationist designs, but they take over fast when character
+    niche-protection switches into literal character-defense. The second
+    way, unsurprisingly, is through reward systems: a traditional
+    character-improvement system can switch to a fully-social Step On Up
+    reward system any time anyone wants, especially since it's
+    self-perpetuating.
+
+    Clinton provided this example:
+
+      ... find a copy of Player's Option: Skills and Powers for AD&D2. It
+      took the broken Simulationism of that game and added a huge layer of
+      Gamism to the construction of characters. I remember making up some
+      serious monstrosities with this book.
+
+    The most common Gamist-Drift events in my experience are found in the
+    following games:
+
+      * Gamist-Drifted Champions falls into two types: point-strategizing or
+        movement/action-strategizing. The reward metric is plain old success
+        in in-game conflicts, or demonstrated "superior knowledge" of the
+        game's mathiness.
+      * Gamist-Drifted Amber is characterized by Drama-bullying toward
+        Situation-control, essentially an unstructured version of Pantheon.
+        It can also include point-mongering depending on certain
+        rules-interpretation. The reward metric may be in-game social
+        advancement (e.g. Throne War) or simply moment-to-moment struggles
+        over who's in charge of the narration.
+      * Gamist-Drifted Vampire consists of extensive breakpoint
+        exploitation. The metric is Champions-like character effectiveness,
+        specifically who can ignore as well as deliver the most damage. More
+        subtly, it's also coolness, whoever gets to be perceived as the most
+        real-Goth of the bunch. Many Vampire LARPs tend in this direction as
+        well, with the added benefits of singles-bar interactions.
+
+    All of the above tend toward Powergaming as well, with attendant shifts
+    to the other branches of the Hard Core over time.
+
+    The common reaction to this easy transition, for non-Gamist-inclined
+    players, is pure terror - it's the Monsters from the Id! In-group
+    conflicts over the issue have been repeated from group to group, game to
+    game, throughout the entire history of the hobby.
+
+    One such thing is a tug-of-war regarding following rules vs.
+    not-following rules. What the rules actually say becomes yet another
+    variable even as people argue about whether they should be followed, and
+    when both of these issues are firing at once, nothing can possibly be
+    resolved. The result is always to consider either following or ignoring
+    rules to be "right" when it goes your way.
+
+    Another tack is for some groups and game designers to treat Gamism's
+    easy "in" as a necessary evil and to take an appeasement approach. The
+    "Id" can be controlled, they say, as long as the Superego (the GM) stays
+    firmly in charge and gives it occasional fights and a reward system
+    based on improving effectiveness. This approach may rank among the
+    most-commonly attempted yet least-successful tactic in all of game
+    design. It will never actually work: the Lumpley Principle correctly
+    places the rules and procedures of play at the mercy of the Social
+    Contract, not the other way around. Therefore, even if such a game
+    continues, it has this limping-along, gotta-put-up-with-Bob feel to it.
+
+    Hybridization
+    Simulationist play is an excellent "subordinate" mode for Gamist play. A
+    game designed toward this sort of play is also open to functional Drift
+    toward Sim-only as people toss out that "weird stuff" or that
+    "powergamer" stuff. See Rifts, Shadowrun, and Age of Heroes.
+
+    However, Gamist play is a terrible "subordinate" mode for Simulationist
+    play, because it takes over in a heartbeat, for all the reasons listed
+    above. I should clarify, however, that I'm talking strictly about play
+    itself, not texts. Looking at texts through several editions, the
+    overwhelming tendency is to Drift toward Simulationism. I think this
+    phenomenon has several causes, including pseudo-solutions for trying to
+    prevent Gamist play, specifically the Hard Core.
+
+    Gamist and Narrativist play have an interesting relationship, but it's
+    hard to see or understand unless you have experience with solid
+    non-Simulationist game play, which very few role-players have. Nearly
+    all of us have dealt mainly with Sim-design and Sim-assumptions, with
+    both Gamism and Narrativism as semi-dysfunctional interfering
+    priorities, and resulting in a lot of compromises rather than solutions.
+    We know that when Simulationist play is involved and either or both
+    Gamist and Narrativist play crops up, then a terrible struggle emerges
+    among the modes. The entire White Wolf line of games represents a
+    fascinating case study of the phenomenon, starting with Vampire and, in
+    my view, culminating with a Narrativist direction with Adventure!.
+    Another case study is the history of the Hero System, which by
+    fourth-edition Champions was resolved in favor of Simulationist design.
+
+    But if Simulationist-facilitating design is not involved, then the whole
+    picture changes. Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and
+    interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share
+    the following things:
+
+      * Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the
+        arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any)
+        Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.
+      * Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the
+        point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than
+        established at every point during play in a linear fashion.
+      * More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual
+        fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may
+        be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.
+      * Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics,
+        whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to
+        a pre-stated plan of play.
+
+    Which is a really long-winded way of saying that one or the other of the
+    two modes has to be "the point," and they don't share well - but unlike
+    either's relationship with Simulationist play (i.e., a potentially
+    hostile one), Gamist and Narrativist play don't tug-of-war over "doing
+    it right" - they simply avoid one another, like the same-end poles of
+    two magnets. Note, I'm saying play, not players. The activity of play
+    doesn't hybridize well between Gamism and Narrativism, but it does
+    shift, sometimes quite easily.
+
+    Obviously, if the group is disinclined to do this, it can't happen. So
+    in Gamist vs. Narrativist play, absent Simulationism, it may be a matter
+    of "what we wanna do," and a very easy adjustment to system to reflect
+    that in many cases, because how we "do" things is very similar already.
+
+    The key to the shift seems to be the reward system, not resolution - not
+    about "how we decide what happens" so much as "how we decide that we're
+    having fun." How a group plays Toon, for instance, depends wholly on
+    whether Plot Points are used for scoring or whether they're employed as
+    a multiple-author cartoon-story creation device. Similarly, the weak
+    endgame of Once Upon a Time is resolved locally per group based on
+    whether the group acceptance of the Ending card or the emptying of one's
+    hand is the metric for ending the game.
+
+    If the reward system is less abstract and embedded deeply into the rest
+    of the game, as with Sorcerer and Rune, shifting priorities becomes less
+    easy. The Dying Earth provides a phenomenal example of Narrativist play
+    using previously-Gamist methods, minimizing Drift with three things:
+    non-spiraling game interactions (rock-paper-scissors), limiting returns
+    (e.g. negative exponential improvement), and overwhelming rewards that
+    promote an alternative metagame priority better suited to Narrativism.
+
+    The history of Tunnels & Trolls offers, I think, one of the most
+    powerful examples of the phenomenon in the theory of game design ever,
+    back around 1980. I cannot recommend reading and playing T&T highly
+    enough to the student of Gamist and Narrativist play. I also recommend
+    reading all of their solo adventure scenarios, with special reference to
+    date and author, and also as many copies of the magazine Sorcerer's
+    Apprentice as possible. Here's a conceptual hint: the T&T reward system
+    doesn't award experience points for finding or spending money, but that
+    design feature has nothing to do with "realism" at all. It's set up to
+    prevent double-dipping, which is to say, gaining both attribute
+    improvement and better weapons, armor, and spells through one metric.
+    Thus "money" in this game is really a parallel Adventure-Point system
+    for improving character features that are not attributes.
+
+    Balance: the sort-of issue
+    "Balance" is one of those words which is applied to a wide variety of
+    activities or practices that may be independent or even contradictory.
+    (See the linked threads in the Glossary.) The word is thrown about like
+    a shuttlecock with little reference to any definition at all. That's the
+    current state of the art. So I'm taking time-out on the Gamism-only
+    discussion to go on a full GNS balance rant, because the assumption that
+    Gamist play is uniquely or definitively concerned with "balance" is
+    very, very mistaken.
+
+    Overall
+
+     1. Compare "balance" with the notion of parity, or equality of
+        performance or resources. If a game includes enforced parity, is it
+        is balanced? Is it that simple? And if not, then what?
+     2. Bear in mind that Fairness and Parity are not synonymous. One or the
+        other might be the real priority regardless of which word is being
+        used. Also, "Fair" generally means, "What I want."
+     3. Are we discussing the totality of a character (Effectiveness,
+        Resource, Metagame), or are we discussing Effectiveness only, or
+        Effectiveness + Resource only?
+     4. Are we discussing "screen time" for characters at all, which has
+        nothing to do with their abilities/oomph?
+     5. Are we discussing anything to do at all with players, or rather,
+        with the people at the table? Can we talk about balance in regard to
+        attention, respect, and input among them? Does it have anything to
+        do with Balance of Power, referring to how "the buck" (where it
+        stops) is distributed among the members of the group?
+
+    They can't all be balance at once.
+
+    Within Gamist play
+
+     1. Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees
+        of improvement after that. Basically, this means that "we all start
+        equal" but after that, anything goes, and if A gets better than B,
+        then that's fine.
+     2. The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy:
+        magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment
+        into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means
+        that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and
+        "unbalanced" means numerically broken.
+     3. Related to #2, a team that is not equipped for the expected range of
+        potential dangers is sometimes called unbalanced.
+     4. In direct contrast to #1, "balance" can also mean that everyone is
+        subject to the same vagaries of fate (Fortune). That is, play is
+        "balanced" if everyone has a chance to save against the Killer Death
+        Trap. Or it's balanced because we all rolled 3d6 for Strength,
+        regardless of what everyone individually ended up with. (Tunnels &
+        Trolls is all about this kind of play.)
+     5. The resistance of a game to deliberate Breaking.
+
+    Within Simulationist play
+    I am forced to speak historically here, in reference to existing and
+    widespread Simulationist approaches, not to any potential or theoretical
+    ones. So think of Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, and Rolemaster as you read the
+    next part.
+
+     1. One fascinating way that the term is applied is to the
+        Currency-based relationship among the components of a character:
+        Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame. That's right - we're not talking
+        about balance among characters at all, but rather balance within the
+        interacting components of a single character. I realize that this
+        sounds weird. Check back in the Sim essay to see how important these
+        within-character interactions can be in this mode of play.
+     2. And, completely differently, "balance" is often invoked as an
+        anti-Gamist play defense, specifically in terms of not permitting
+        characters to change very much relative to one another, as all of
+        them improve. This is, I think, the origin of "everyone gets a
+        couple EPs at the end of each session" approach, as opposed to
+        "everyone gets different EPs on the basis of individual
+        performance."
+     3. Rules-enforcement in terms of Effectiveness, which is why GURPS has
+        point-total limits per setting. Note that heavy layering renders
+        this very vulnerable to Gamist Drift.
+
+    Within Narrativist play
+    This gets a little tricky because I can't think of a single coherent
+    Narrativist game text in which balance as a term is invoked as a design
+    or play feature, nor any particular instance of play I've been involved
+    in which brought the issue up. But I'm pretty sure that it's a
+    protagonism issue.
+
+     1. "Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time,
+        or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This
+        is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone.
+        Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as
+        Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so. In game terms,
+        this is a Character Components issue: Hawkeye would have a high
+        Metagame component whereas Thor would have a higher Effectiveness
+        component.
+     2. Balance of Power is relevant to all forms of play, but it strikes me
+        as especially testy in this mode.
+
+    That's the end of my balance rant, but I beg and plead of anyone who
+    reads this essay: I would very much like never to hear again that (1)
+    Gamist play must be uniquely obsessed with balance, or (2) if play is
+    concerned with any form of balance, it must be Gamist. These are
+    unsupportable habits of thought that pervade our hobby and represent
+    very poor understanding of the issues involved.
+
+    Pitfalls for Gamist design
+    Elegance is the key - which is to say, each piece of the system does
+    what it does, has the implications that it has, and doesn't create wonky
+    spirals or novel relationships that devalue the Step On Up or Challenge
+    parameters. Easy to say, eh? Well, it's damned hard to do, as many an
+    inventor of a new board game or new card game can attest.
+
+    Defend against Breaking through elegance, not through patch rules.
+    Eliminate, from the ground up, all recursiveness, nonfunctional layers,
+    and mathematical ratios.
+
+    Fortune should be present for a Gamist reason, for instance, to
+    introduce uncertainty at specific points, for specific impacts on the
+    goals of play. It can be very rare to absent, or wildly and constantly
+    present, but whatever it is, it needs to "spike" the play-experience
+    rather than dilute it. Using Fortune to model the statistical vagaries
+    of in-game physical effects should be a secondary concern, if present at
+    all.
+
+    A Double-Hose occurs when features of a character are forced downward by
+    a low score in some other feature, and when both features are important.
+    In Tunnels & Trolls, for instance, a low Strength and Dexterity limit
+    one's choice of weapons to lower-damage items, as well as lower the
+    "adds" (bonuses) for attacks. If you must have a Double-hose, make it
+    easy to replace or recoup "losses," and also make it easy to escape the
+    Hose soon through character improvement.
+
+    Beware of end-runs which permit a Challenge to be solved without the
+    requisite Step On Up ability or competence. Playtest the game multiple
+    times with people who are determined to beat it.
+
+    Do not confuse character improvement for "winning," especially if the
+    process is slow and painful. On a related point, do not set the venue
+    and length of a "go," which is to say a unit of success or failure at
+    the Step On Up level, equivalent to the entirety of a long-term,
+    no-set-end, many-session game.
+
+    Don't be a weenie - include loss conditions that can be recognized and
+    that do not undercut play. Decide whether such a loss ends the game as a
+    whole or permits it to continue, but do not commit the common mistake of
+    "loss means sit out" - this is not viable for roleplaying. As soon as
+    you have to let people win so that they'll keep playing, the
+    relationship of Step On Up to Challenge dies nastily, leaving no
+    alternative but to reinvent the game in Hard Core form.
+
+    Beware of Heartbreaker design, particularly the Fantasy ones. Such games
+    are wonderful to write and often very enjoyable among one's group, but
+    ultimately of little interest to anyone else. More subtly, don't fall
+    into the trap of providing Gamist design-features as an appeasement
+    strategy - do it or don't.
+
+    Here's my current shot at a little Gamist design: [18]Black Fire. It's
+    even more alpha-alpha than Mongrel was, for the Simulationism essay, so
+    let's see what happens.
+
+    Troubles for the Gamist
+    GNS incompatibility
+    The basic hassle arises due to Gamism's "easy in" during play. If one or
+    two people get the bug, so to speak, and no one else does, then GNS
+    incompatibility disrupts play. This specific problem - the
+    Drifted-to-Gamist ensconced in an otherwise-oriented group - is so
+    common among Simulationist play especially that it, like the Hard Core,
+    gets labeled with munchkinism. It's usually seen in texts from bitter
+    non-Gamists and their "grow up from munchkinism" rants.
+
+    The following is from the GM section of Arrowflight (2002, Deep 7,
+    author is Todd Downing):
+
+      Dealing with Munchkins The other side to the "cheating" coin is the
+      competitive gamer, a breed also known as "Munchkin." Munchkins are
+      players who dilute the experience through a combination of
+      rules-mongering and overt cheating.
+
+      [alarming rant snipped; includes examples of lying about dice rolls -
+      RE]
+      The best games are those where everyone is playing a role, striving
+      for a goal and working as a unit (that doesn't mean that every
+      character must like every other character, but player must at least
+      properly play the role they've chosen). If you find a Munchkin in your
+      midst, there are numerous ways to deal with him, depending on the
+      offense:
+
+      [methods follow, all relying on the GM having final say in any aspect
+      of the game - RE]
+      ... most players are at least conscientious and intelligent enough not
+      to harm their own playing experience as well as that of the other
+      players, but the exceptions are out there. As they say, "there's one
+      in every group." You don't have to tolerate them in yours.
+
+    Downing's prose is clearly angry. To him, any degree of striving for
+    advantage among players, for anything, constitutes breaking the Social
+    Contract, to the same degree as lying about dice outcomes. Let's break
+    that down, though. He doesn't mind striving for a goal, as long as it's
+    an in-character, in-game goal, and much Gamist play can be consistent
+    with that. And much Gamist play also prioritizes working as a unit with
+    other players. All that's left is the "playing a role" distinction, and
+    Downing's real beef seems to be that "playing a role" is not these
+    players' first priority, i.e., they are not Simulationists in the mode
+    that is reinforced throughout the text of Arrowflight.
+
+    Although I understand where he and many other authors are coming from,
+    which is GNS-synecdoche pure and simple, this and similar anti-Gamist
+    texts go too far - Step On Up play, even with a dose of competition,
+    does not deserve being labeled unconscientious and unintelligent.
+    Basically, the authors confound two things.
+
+      * The player who turns any instance of play into social
+        power-tripping, rivalry, rancor, and disruption. I shall call this
+        person "the Prick." The important thing to realize is that this
+        person is not a Gamist at all, and that Pricks disrupt any form of
+        play; a Simulationist-Gamist mismatch is one thing, but stubborn
+        disruption is another. The fault lies at the Social Contract level,
+        not at the GNS level.
+      * The person who really wants to play Gamist but is in the wrong
+        group, giving rise to secondary dysfunctions of various sorts. This
+        person is usually derided as "the powergamer" or "the munchkin" by
+        the others, but I hasten to add that the fault lies with the GNS
+        mismatch, not with the person as a social human, and that his or her
+        mode of Gamist play may not even include the Hard Core.
+
+    This section is perhaps harsh on the Simulationist approach and
+    assumptions. I also need to acknowledge that a bored Gamist-inclined
+    player, seeing no engaging Challenge, has been known, on occasion, to
+    turn his attention toward the Hard Core, specifically Turnin' and
+    Breaking the game. If it's clear that the other individuals don't
+    appreciate this, and if he or she continues, then what's happened is the
+    Birth of a Prick that some better understanding of contrasting GNS goals
+    might have prevented. I used to see this all the time in Champions
+    groups, and it's horrible. I can at least sympathize with where
+    Downing's coming from.
+
+    Troubles within Gamism
+    Now I'm talking about troubles within Gamism rather than with it. All
+    three modes boast an array of specific dysfunctions, and here are the
+    sorts that Gamists encounter among their own. (Side point: Simulationist
+    dysfunctions include The Impossible Thing, Transparency, and placing
+    "realism" as the core value; Narrativist dysfunctions include
+    railroading, sizzle over steak, and interfering through deprotagonism.)
+
+    The core problem in Gamist dysfunction is not knowing what the Step On
+    Up is actually about. It results in all kinds of things, most usually
+    ramping-up the competitive levels and shifting to the Hard Core, usually
+    in the form of Turnin' and Calvinball beyond what other members of the
+    group want to do. A related problem concerns Author vs. Pawn Stance,
+    which is to say, differing standards for moment-to-moment Exploration of
+    Character. When I see a player completely abandon all Stances but Pawn
+    through several scenes of play, it's like the sinister drumming
+    emanating from the leafy jungle the night before the massacre. Many a GM
+    in a Gamist-oriented group strictly enforces justifications of
+    characters' behavior in an attempt to stave off the problem, although
+    frankly, if he has to resort to decrees, threats, and pleas, it's
+    probably already too late.
+
+    These "core" issues should look similar to the GNS-mismatch issue
+    described above, because it's the Birth of a Prick all over again, only
+    within the Gamist mode.
+
+    The other, more extreme dysfunction arises from the player who is
+    basically a poor sport, or, "the Wimp," which is unfortunately the most
+    common dysfunctional Gamism. It has its parallels in other Step On Up,
+    non-role-playing activities; people are sure to recognize them from
+    their hobbies.
+
+      * Critical commentary that goes beyond simple joshing or observation
+        into abuse: "You suck," delivered to someone who happened to roll a
+        1 rather than a 20; this is often combined with an inability to
+        tolerate joshing oneself. (What degree of verbiage counts as abuse
+        varies from group to group.)
+      * Manipulating the others' parameters for how-to-play, e.g., tattling
+        to the GM that so-and-so is violating his or her character's
+        alignment.
+      * Stating what another player "should have done" as a form of constant
+        criticism. This is a bigger deal than it looks, as in Gamist play,
+        it's all right not to make the best choice all the time, but
+        personal choice in the Crunch or Gamble is sacrosanct. Essentially,
+        it constitutes protagonism in Gamist play. The Wimp de-protagonizes
+        other players' characters all the time by de-valuing the players'
+        decisions from his armchair. Breaking the Contract: if I can't win,
+        I'll take my football and go straight home; or lashing out at allies
+        as if they were foes; or being socially obnoxious until granted an
+        advantage or perceived entitlement.
+      * Plain wussy-cheating: stating it was "in" when it was "out," and
+        similar, and pouting when the tactic doesn't work, usually escalates
+        to breaking the baseline cooperative Social Contract that underlies
+        the Step On Up in question.
+
+    Bluntly, in any context besides role-playing, this kind of behavior will
+    get your ass kicked for you, or at the very least, instantly excluded
+    from the activity. It's simply not socially tolerable. The real question
+    is why it's widely observed in the role-playing hobby, for which I can
+    see two reasons.
+
+     1. Wimpiness is often observed among young people as they work out the
+        "rules of life" through all sorts of play-activity, among other
+        unpleasant behaviors such as bullying. This is why adults usually
+        don't play with kids unless they can enforce certain social
+        standards, i.e., act as social mentors in addition to playing the
+        game.
+     2. I think that the Social Context of role-playing is currently in
+        disarray. It's out of the scope of this essay to go into the issue
+        in detail, but see the [19]Social Context discussion on the Forge
+        for some notions. The short version is that friendships cannot be
+        placed at stake based on in-play events - if they are, then Step On
+        Up places way too much pressure on the agreement to play together at
+        all.
+
+    Confusingly, many Gamist-oriented players call Wimpiness "munchkinism,"
+    making three distinct uses for the term so far.
+
+    The bitterest role-player in the world
+    Meet the low-Step On Up, high-Challenge Gamist, with both "little red
+    competition" dials spun down to their lowest settings.
+
+    This person prefers a role-playing game that combines Gamist potential
+    with Simulationist hybrid support, such that a highly Explorative
+    Situation can evolve, in-game and without effort, into a Challenge
+    Situation. In other words, the social-level Step On Up "emerges" from
+    the events in-play. This view, and its problematic qualities, are
+    extremely similar to that of the person who wants to see full-blown
+    Narrativist values "just appear" from a Simulationist-play foundation.
+    It's possible, but not as easy and intuitive as it would seem.
+
+    His preferred venue for the Gamist moments of play is a small-scale
+    scene or crisis embedded in a larger-scale Exploration that focuses on
+    Setting and Character. In these scenes, he's all about the Crunch:
+    Fortune systems should be easy to estimate, such that each instance of
+    its use may be chosen and embedded in a matrix of strategizing.
+    Point-character construction and menus of independent feats or powers
+    built to resist Powergaming are ideal.
+
+    As for playing the character, it's Author Stance all the way. He likes
+    to imagine what "his guy" thinks, but to direct "his guy" actions from a
+    cool and clear Step On Up perspective. The degree of Author Stance is
+    confined to in-game imaginative events alone and doesn't bleed over into
+    Balance of Power issues regarding resolution at all.
+
+    Related to the Stance issue, he is vehemently opposed to the Hard Core,
+    even to any hints of it or any exploitable concepts that it seizes upon
+    most easily. For instance, reward system that functions at the metagame
+    level is anathema: not only should solid aesthetics should be primary,
+    but he is rightly leery of the Hard Core eye for such reward systems.
+    "Balance" for him consists of the purity of the Resource system and
+    unbroken Currency. It's consistent with the Simulationist Purist for
+    System values and represents further defenses against the Hard Core.
+
+    He probably developed his role-playing preferences in highly-Drifted
+    AD&D2 or in an easily-Drifted version of early Champions, both of which
+    he probably describes as playing "correctly" relative to other groups
+    committed to these games.
+
+    This man (I've met no women who fit this description) is cursed. He's
+    cursed because the only people who can enjoy playing with him, and vice
+    versa, are those who share precisely his goals, and these goals are very
+    easily upset by just about any others.
+
+      * His heavy Sim focus keeps away the "lite" Gamists who like
+        Exploration but not Simulationism.
+      * The lack of metagame reward system keeps away most Gamists in
+        general.
+      * Hard Core Gamists will kick him in the nuts every time, just as they
+        do to Simulationist play.
+      * Most Simulationist-oriented players won't Step Up - they get no
+        gleam in their eye when the Challenge hits, and some are even happy
+        just to piddle about and "be."
+      * Just about anyone who's not Gamist-inclined lumps him with "those
+        Gamists" and writes him off.
+
+    I've known several of these guys. They are bitter, I say. Imagine years
+    of just knowing that your "perfect game" is possible, seeing it in your
+    mind, knowing that if only a few other people could just play their
+    characters exactly according to the values that you yourself would play,
+    that your GM-preparation would pay off beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
+    Now imagine years of encountering all the bulleted points above, over
+    and over.
+
+    At present, I have no suggestions to help them, just as I cannot help
+    those who expect to see "story" consistently emerge from play that does
+    not prioritize it. I hope some dialogue at the Forge might come up with
+    some solutions.
+
+    What I like about Gamism
+    Gamist-inclined players tend to be unashamed regarding their
+    preferences. Their role-playing is easily understood, diverse in
+    application, unpretentious, and often perfectly happy with its role
+    relative to the person's social life at large. The Gamists have a lot to
+    teach the rest of the hobby about self-esteem.
+
+    Some folks seem to think that Gamist play lacks variety, to which I say,
+    "nonsense." Scrabble is "always the same," and it's fun as hell; simple
+    games do not mean simplistic, shallow, or easy. What matters is whether
+    the strategy of the moment is fun. Well-designed, multiple-edged Step On
+    Up activities with fully-developed competition are endlessly diverting
+    and provide an excellent basis for friendship. Anyone who thinks that
+    such things in role-playing necessarily cannot be fun and will
+    necessarily destroy social interactions is badly mistaken - what's
+    needed is better, more diverting, and more multiply-angled design. D&D3E
+    and Rune are just the start, and their overt roots in 1970s-style
+    dungeon crawls indicate, I think, that the hobby's efforts in Gamist
+    design are so far limited to getting its first steps re-created
+    properly.
+
+    What I'm calling for is a better appreciation for functional Gamist
+    role-playing, overtly and even joyfully stated in the games' design and
+    texts. Given the introduction of D&D3E, I think this long-unmet need is
+    being satisfied without my help, but I also think that lots of people
+    might enjoy Gamist play that's not D&D style fantasy. Why not whole new
+    venues, such as romance, or sports!
+
+    Good new designs remind largely unexplored. Where are the sensible
+    reward systems that integrate Challenge and Step On Up in some way, and
+    are not wholly defined by increasing Effectiveness values or promoting
+    tug-of-war over narration? Where are the loss conditions that are not
+    recursive regarding continued play?
+
+    The Hard Question
+    Each of these three essays concludes with a challenge to the role-player
+    who prefers the mode under discussion. For the Gamist, the question is,
+    why is role-playing your chosen venue as a social hobby? There are lots
+    and lots of them that unequivocally fit Step On Up with far less
+    potential for encountering conflicting priorities: volleyball, chess, or
+    pool, if you like the Crunch; horse races or Las Vegas if you like the
+    Gamble; hell, even organized amateur sports like competitive martial
+    arts or sport fishing.
+
+    Do you play Gamist in role-playing because it doesn't hurt your ego as
+    much as other venues might? Is role-playing safer in some way, in terms
+    of the loss factor of Step On Up? Even more severely, are you sticking
+    to role-playing because many fellow players subscribe to the "no one
+    wins in role-playing" idea? Do you lurk like Grendel among a group of
+    tolerant, perhaps discomfited Simulationists, secure that they are
+    disinclined to Step On Up toward you? In which case, you can win against
+    them or the game all the time, but they will never win against you?
+
+    I accuse no one of affirmative answers to these questions; that's the
+    reader's business. But I do think answering them should be a high
+    priority.
+
+    Glossary
+    See the Glossary in the other essays as well as definitions and
+    explanations in the "GNS and related matters" essay.
+
+    Actor Stance
+       the real person determines the character's decisions and actions
+       using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.
+
+    Author Stance
+       the real person determines the character's decisions and actions
+       based on the real person's priorities, Author Stance includes two
+       sub-categories
+       in "Author" Author Stance, the person then retroactively "motivates"
+       the character to perform the acts in question; in "Pawn" Author
+       Stance, he or she does not. Pawn Stance is often identified with
+       Gamist play, but this identification is false for either Stance or
+       Mode.
+
+    Balance
+       this term is undefined. See the discussion in this text.
+
+    Balance of Power
+       how the "buck stops here" authority regarding resolution in play is
+       distributed among members of a role-playing group. This term was
+       first applied to role-playing interactions by Hunter Logan.
+
+    Breaking the game
+       a dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play, characterized by
+       rendering other participants' efforts ineffective without recourse.
+
+    Calvinball
+       a potentially-dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play,
+       characterized by making up the rules of a game as it is played,
+       especially in the immediate context of advantaging oneself and
+       disadvantaging one's opponents. "Tagged you! Tags mean you're out!"
+       "It's Tuesday! Tagging doesn't work on Tuesdays!" This term,
+       obviously, is pulled from the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes.
+
+    Challenge
+       the Situation of play in the Gamist context, specifically, adversity
+       or imposed risk to player-characters of any kind. It's the
+       imaginative arena for the more general Social Contract of Gamist
+       play, called Step On Up.
+
+    Character Components
+       the features of a role-playing character. All are present for all
+       characters, even if one or more is not explicitly part of the textual
+       rules. See Effectiveness, Metagame, and Resource; also see Currency.
+
+    Coherence
+       any functional combination, including singletons, of GNS priorities.
+       Please note that "coherency" is not a word.
+
+    Congruence
+       refers to play in which two or more different GNS modes may be
+       expressed in such a way that they neither interfere with one another
+       nor are easily distinguished through observation; the term was coined
+       by Walt Freitag in [20]GNS and "Congruency". I am revising the term
+       to "congruence" in the interest of grammar.
+
+    Creative agenda
+       the aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest
+       regarding role-playing; replaces all uses of "premise" in the
+       original essay aside from the specific creative agenda of Narrativist
+       play (for which the term "Premise" is retained); Step On Up, The
+       Right to Dream, and Story Now represent the creative agendas,
+       respectively, of Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist play.
+
+    The Crunch
+       an application or type of Challenge, based on high predictability
+       relative to risk.
+
+    Currency
+       the rate-of-exchange relationship within and among Character
+       Components.
+
+    DFK
+       specific resolution mechanics; see Drama, Fortune, and Karma
+
+    Director Stance
+       the real person determines aspects of the environment relative to the
+       character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's
+       knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has
+       not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing,
+       and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the
+       world separate from the characters. Director Stance is often confused
+       with narration of an in-game event, but the two concepts are not
+       necessarily related.
+
+    The Dream
+       commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically in-game cause
+       and pre-established thematic elements. As a top priority for
+       role-playing, the defining feature of Simulationist play. See my
+       essay [21]Simulationism
+       the right to dream.
+
+    Dysfunction
+       simply, role-playing which is not fun. Most Forge discussions presume
+       that un-fun role-playing is worse than no role-playing.
+
+    Effectiveness (a Character Component)
+       any quantities used to determine success or extent of an action.
+
+    Exploration
+       social and personal imagination, creation of fictional events through
+       communicating among one another.
+
+    The Gamble
+       an application or type of Challenge, based on high risk relative to
+       predictability.
+
+    The Hard Core
+       Gamist play with minimal or even absent Exploration; see Breaking the
+       game, Calvinball, Powergaming, and Turnin'.
+
+    Hybrid
+       role-playing with two identifiable GNS priorities in action;
+       empirically, one is apparently always subordinate to the other, and a
+       threesie game is as yet unknown.
+
+    IIEE
+       Intent, Initiation, Execution, and Effect - how actions and events in
+       the imaginary game-world are resolved in terms of real-world
+       announcement and imaginary order of occurrence.
+
+    Incoherence
+       incompatible combination of GNS priorities, applies by definition to
+       play, but often applied secondarily to game design. Abashedness
+       represents a minor, correctable form of Incoherence.
+
+    The Lumpley Principle
+       "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the
+       means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." The
+       author of the principle is Vincent Baker, see [22]Vincent's standard
+       rant
+       power, credibility, and assent and [23]Player power abuse.
+
+    Metagame (general) - all aspects of play that concern non-Explorative
+    matters or priorities; in terms of my layered model, Social Contract and
+    GNS (creative agenda).
+
+    Metagame (a Character Component)
+       all positioning and behavioral statements about the character, as
+       well as player rights to over-ride the existing Effectiveness rules.
+
+    Metagame mechanics
+       where System and Social Contract meet, without Exploration as the
+       medium.
+
+    "Munchkin"
+       a derogatory term used in several different ways, including by
+       non-Gamists vs. Gamists in general, by Hard Core or heavy-Step
+       Gamists vs. Wimps, and by high-Exploration Gamists vs. Hard Core
+       play.
+
+    Powergaming
+       a potentially dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play,
+       characterized by maximizing character impact on the game-world or
+       player impact on the dialogue of play by whatever means available.
+
+    Resource (a Character Component)
+       any available usable pool upon which Effectiveness or Metagame
+       mechanics may draw, or which are reduced to reflect harm to the
+       character.
+
+    Reward System
+       enjoyability payoff that prompts further play, usually expressed in
+       Explorative terms but not restricted to Exploration.
+
+    Screen Time
+       the extent of attention afforded to a given player's Explorative
+       contributions from the other participants.
+
+    Social Context
+       positioning of one's role-playing hobby relative to other humans
+       outside one's gaming group, whether they are role-players or not. See
+       [24]Social context.
+
+    Social Contract
+       all interactions and relationships among the role-playing group. All
+       role-playing is a subset of the Social Contract.
+
+    Stakes
+       what stands to be lost and/or gained during Gamist play; the term may
+       be applied at either or both Step on Up or Challenge levels of play.
+
+    Stance
+       cognitive position of real person to fictional character (see Author,
+       Actor, and Director Stance definitions). Coined by the RFGA on-line
+       discussions.
+
+    Step On Up
+       social assessment in the face of risk. As a top priority of
+       role-playing, the defining feature of Gamist play.
+
+    Story Now
+       producing, heightening, and resolving a Premise. As a top priority of
+       role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play.
+
+    System (character creation, resolution including IIEE, reward system,
+    metagame mechanics)
+       the means by which imaginary events are established during play (see
+       the Lumpley Principle).
+
+    Turnin'
+       a potentially dysfunctional technique of Hard Core Gamist play,
+       characterized by treating one another's characters as the primary
+       source of Challenge.
+
+    Wimpiness
+       a dysfunctional form of Gamism characterized by poor sportsmanship,
+       i.e., the unwillingness to accept a loss.
+
+    The Forge created and administrated by [25]Clinton R. Nixon and [26]Ron
+    Edwards.
+    All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their
+    designated author.
+
+References
+
+   Visible links
+   1. file:///
+   2. file:///about/
+   3. file:///donate.php
+   4. file:///articles/
+   5. file:///reviews/
+   6. file:///resources/
+   7. file:///
+   8. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com
+   9. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
+  10. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
+  11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=792
+  12. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=937
+  13. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=41
+  14. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4139
+  15. http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html
+  16. http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements11feb03.html
+  17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/20/
+  18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/22/
+  19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4258
+  20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1733
+  21. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
+  22. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3701
+  23. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4415
+  24. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4258
+  25. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com
+  26. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com

--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/gns.txt	Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,1931 @@
+</article/1/>
+*GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory*
+by Ron Edwards <mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>
+
+Copyright Adept Press 2001
+
+*Introduction*
+My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that
+many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I
+encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated. My goal in this writing is
+to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate
+what they want and like out of the activity, and to understand what to
+look for both in other people and in game design to achieve their goals.
+The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing
+experiences is not my target audience.
+
+Everything in this document is nothing more nor less than "What Ron
+Thinks." It is not an official Dogma for the Forge. It is not a
+consensus view of members of the Forge, nor is it a committee effort of
+any kind. It is most especially not an expectation for what you're
+supposed to think or believe.
+
+However, it does stand as the single coherent body of theory about
+role-playing at the Forge, and its lexicon is definitive for purposes of
+discussion there. I am satisfied with it, but I'm not unreasonable
+either, so it is not immutable. Please deal with it in one of the
+following ways: identify an inconsistency, ask for clarification and
+examples, or otherwise address its content critically. I am perfectly
+willing to amend any content, if I'm given a substantive reason to do
+so, and to give credit for the insight.
+
+I request that all discussion of this material be based on careful
+consideration. Snap judgments, unsupported value judgments, neophobia,
+taking offense, and other juvenile reactions are not welcome.
+Furthermore, I am well aware that my GNS notions vary greatly from the
+original Threefold Model (or GDS), and that my categories of Stance
+differs from those originally proposed. Identifying these differences
+does not constitute a criticism.
+
+I have been extensively influenced by the work of others and have
+incorporated it in ways which make sense to me. Concepts that were
+originated and developed by others are credited in the acknowledgments
+at the end.
+
+*Contents*
+Introduction
+
+   1. Exploration
+   2. GNS
+   3. Stance
+   4. The Basics of Role-playing Design
+   5. Role-playing Design and Coherence
+   6. Actually Playing 
+
+Acknowledgments
+
+</article/2/>
+*_Chapter One: Exploration_*
+
+When a person engages in role-playing, or prepares to do so, he or she
+relies on imagining and utilizing the following: *Character*, *System*,
+*Setting*, *Situation*, and *Color*.
+
+    * Character: a fictional person or entity.
+    * System: a means by which in-game events are determined to occur.
+    * Setting: where the character is, in the broadest sense (including
+      history as well as location).
+    * Situation: a problem or circumstance faced by the character.
+    * Color: any details or illustrations or nuances that provide
+      atmosphere. 
+
+At the most basic level, these are what the role-playing experience is
+"about," but to be more precise, these are the things which must be
+imagined by the real people. In this sense, saying "system" means
+"imagining events to be occurring."
+
+*Exploration and its child, Premise*
+The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the
+attention given the imagined elements, is *Exploration*. Initially, it
+is an individual concern, although it will move into the social,
+communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements
+becomes an issue of its own.
+
+When a person perceives the listed elements together and considers
+Exploring them, he or she usually has a basic reaction of interest or
+disinterest, approval or disapproval, or desire to play or lack of such
+a desire. Let's assume a positive reaction; when it occurs, whatever
+prompted it is *Premise*, in its most basic form. To re-state, Premise
+is whatever a participant finds among the elements to sustain a
+continued interest in what might happen in a role-playing session.
+Premise, once established, instils the desire to keep that imaginative
+commitment going.
+
+Person 1: "You play vampires in the modern day, trying to stay secret
+from the cattle and coping with other vampires." [See atmospheric, grim,
+punky-goth pictures]
+
+Person 2: "Ooh! Cool!"
+
+Person 2 might have liked the grittiness of the art, the romance of the
+word "vampire," or the idea of being involved in a secret mystical
+intrigue. Or maybe none of these and an entirely different thing. Or
+maybe all of them at once. It doesn't matter - whatever it was, that's
+the initial Premise for this person.
+
+Premise is a metagame concern, wholly different from the listed
+elements. They are the imagined (Explored) content of the role-playing
+experience, and Premise is the real-person, real-world interest that
+instils and maintains a person's desire to have that experience. At this
+early point, though, Premise is vague and highly personal, as it is only
+the embryo of the real Premise. The real Premise exists as a clear,
+focused question or concern shared among all members of the group. The
+initial Premise only takes shape and shared-focus when we move to the
+next chapter.
+
+*Why "genre" is not part of the lexicon*
+I do not recommend using "genre" to identify role-playing content. A
+"genre" is some combination of specific setting elements, plot elements,
+situation elements, character elements, and sometimes premise elements,
+such that by hearing the term, we are informed what to expect, or in
+role-playing terms, what to do. On the face of it, the concept would
+seem to be useful.
+
+The problem is that genres are continually being deconstructed and
+re-formed, with elements of one being re-combined with others. This is
+occurring as a non-planned or non-managed historical phenomenon
+throughout all media. Therefore "genre" may be a fine descriptive label
+for what is or has been done, but it's not much help in terms of what to
+do or what can be done.
+
+In many cases, a given genre label will convey to a close group of
+people a fairly tight combination of values for these variables.
+However, the same genre label loses its power to inform as you add more
+people to the mix, especially since most labels have switched meanings
+radically more than once. And even more importantly, new combinations of
+values for the key variables may be perfectly functional, even when they
+do not correspond to any recognized genre label.
+
+Therefore when someone tells me that a game (or story, or whatever) is
+based on a certain genre, I have to ask a few more questions - and
+sooner or later, I get real answers in terms of Character, Setting,
+Situation, or Color. Only then can an initial Premise be identified, and
+then the next step toward functional, enjoyable role-playing may occur.
+
+</articles/3/>
+*_Chapter Two: GNS_*
+
+Talk to someone who participates in role-playing, and focus on the
+precise and actual acts of role-playing themselves. Ask them, "Why do
+you role-play?" The most common answer is, "To have fun."
+
+Again, stick to the role-playing itself. (The wholly social issues are
+real, such as "Wanting to hang out with my friends," but they are not
+the topic at hand.) Now ask, "What makes fun?" This may not be a verbal
+question, and it is best answered mainly through role-playing with
+people rather than listening to them. Time and inference are usually
+required.
+
+In my experience, the answer turns out to be a version of one of the
+following terms. These terms, or modes, describe three distinct types of
+people's decisions and goals during play.
+
+    * *Gamism* is expressed by competition among participants (the real
+      people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters,
+      both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual
+      play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the
+      competition.
+    * *Simulationism* is expressed by enhancing one or more of the
+      listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism
+      heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The
+      players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and
+      experiential consistency of that Exploration.
+    * *Narrativism* is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a
+      story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal
+      protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are
+      often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the
+      material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense
+      of literary analysis). 
+
+Collectively, the three modes are called *GNS*. Stating "GNS," "GNS
+perspectives," or anything similar, is to refer to the diversity of
+approaches to play. One might refer to "GNS goals," in which case the
+meaning is, "whichever one might apply for this act of role-playing."
+
+GNS is the central concept of my theorizing about role-playing. It is
+necessary for understanding how Premise is developed, and it provides
+the context for the later points in this essay. However, it is not
+sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all
+points about role-playing.
+
+I disavow either GM-centric or player-centric applications of GNS. The
+terms apply to real people engaged in the act of role-playing, and the
+distinction between GM and player is irrelevant for this purpose.
+However, the reverse is meaningful: given a GNS focus of play, GM and
+player roles take on specific shapes, or specific ranges of shapes.
+(This issue is discussed later.)
+
+*Labels*
+Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling
+device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole
+persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person
+is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person
+tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals."
+Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand
+for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and
+decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of
+shorthand are common.
+
+For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in
+application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all
+three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals
+appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more
+fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the
+course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of
+competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the
+course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary
+that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of
+Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that
+contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not
+to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play. The
+actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous.
+
+Over a greater period of time, across many instances of play, some
+people tend to cluster their decisions and interests around one of the
+three goals. Other people vary across the goals, but even they admit
+that they stay focused, or prioritize, for a given instance.
+
+*Developing Premise into practical form*
+Again, all three modes are social applications of the foundational act
+of role-playing, which is Exploration. Taking that into a social,
+role-playing circumstance, the people get more concrete about a shared
+Premise, and thus their decisions acquire a GNS focus of some kind. To
+play successfully, the members of the role-playing group must be, at the
+very least, willing to acknowledge and support the focused Premise as
+perceived by one another.
+
+The developed or focused Premise is no longer a noun ("vampire") or
+image, but has become a question, challenge, or provocative issue.
+
+Gamism and Narrativism each encompass a wide range of variation for
+Premise, including variations that differ drastically from one another.
+This is why "a Gamist," for instance, does not necessarily enjoy any and
+all Gamist play or have the same priorities as any and all other
+Gamist-oriented role-players. The same applies for Narrativism.
+Simulationism is a bit different in its details, but in its way also
+includes a wide range of variation and approaches to play; therefore the
+insight that not all Simulationist-oriented play is alike applies here
+as well.
+
+*Gamist Premises* focus on competition about overt metagame goals. They
+vary regarding who is competing with whom (players vs. one another;
+players vs. GM; etc), what is at stake, victory and loss conditions, and
+what particular sort of strategizing is being employed. Gamist play also
+varies widely in terms of what is and is not predictable (i.e.
+randomized), both in terms of starting positions and in terms of ongoing
+events.
+
+    * Can I play well enough such that my character survives the perils?
+    * Can I score more points than the other players?
+    * And much more, depending on the arrangement and organization of
+      the participants. 
+
+The key to Gamist Premises is that the conflict of interest among real
+people is an overt source of fun. It is not a matter of upset or abuse,
+and it is certainly not a "distraction from" or "failure of" role-playing.
+
+    * A possible Gamist development of the "vampire" initial Premise
+      might be, Can my character gain more status and influence than the
+      other player-characters in the ongoing intrigue among vampires?
+    * Another might be, Can our vampire characters survive the efforts
+      of ruthless and determined human vampire hunters? 
+
+*Narrativist Premises* focus on producing Theme via events during play.
+Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from
+the in-game events. My thoughts on Narrativist Premise are derived from
+the book The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, specifically his
+emphasis on the questions that arise from human conundrums and passions
+of all sorts.
+
+    * Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?
+    * Do love and marriage outweigh one's loyalty to a political cause?
+    * And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and
+      stories of all sorts. 
+
+Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven
+Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great
+deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key
+to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that
+engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is
+produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by
+pre-planning.
+
+    * A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial
+      Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right
+      to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the
+      justification break down?
+    * Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are
+      divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing
+      living people, and which side are you on? 
+
+*Simulationist Premises* are generally kept to their minimal role of
+personal aesthetic interest; the effort during play is spent on the
+Exploration. Therefore the variety of Simulationist play arises from the
+variety of what's being Explored.
+
+    * Character: highly-internalized, character-experiential play, for
+      instance the Turku approach. A possible development of the
+      "vampire" premise in terms of Character Exploration might be, What
+      does it feel like to be a vampire?
+    * Situation: well-defined character roles and tasks, up to and
+      including metaplot-driven play. A possible development of the
+      "vampire" premise in terms of Situation Exploration might be, What
+      does the vampire lord require me to do?
+    * Setting: a strong focus on the details, depth, and breadth of a
+      given set of source material. A possible development of the
+      "vampire" premise in terms of Setting Exploration might be, How
+      has vampire intrigue shaped human history and today's politics?
+    * System: a strong focus on the resolution engine and all of its
+      nuances in strictly within-game-world, internally-causal terms. A
+      possible development of the "vampire" premise in terms of System
+      Exploration might be, How do various weapons harm or fail to harm
+      a vampire, in specific causal detail?
+    * Any mutually-reinforcing combination of the above elements is of
+      course well-suited to this form of play. 
+
+The key to Simulationist play is that imagining the designated features
+is prioritized over any other aspect of role-playing, most especially
+over any metagame concerns. The name Simulationism refers to the
+priority placed on resolving the Explored feature(s) in in-game,
+internally causal terms.
+
+*Controversy: is that third box really there?*
+It has rightly been asked whether Simulationism really exists, given
+that it consists mainly of Exploration. I suggest that Simulationism
+exists insofar as the effort and attention to Exploration may over-ride
+either Gamist or Narrativist priorities.
+
+Some of the following examples refer to RPG rules and text; I am
+referring to people enjoying and preferring such rules and text (i.e.
+the people, not the game itself).
+
+Concrete examples #1: Simulationism over-riding Gamism
+
+    * Any text which states that role-playing is not about winning;
+      correspondingly, chastising a player who advocates a character
+      action perceived as "just trying to win." [This example assumes
+      that the text/game does not state story-creation as an alternative
+      goal.]
+    * Using probability tables in character creation to determine
+      appearance, profession/class, or race, based on demographics of
+      the community of the character's origin. 
+
+Converse: Gamism over-riding Simulationism
+
+    * Characters teaming up for a common goal with no disputes or even
+      attention regarding differences in race, religion, ethics, or
+      anything else.
+    * Improving character traits (e.g. damage that may be taken) based
+      on the amount of treasure amassed. 
+
+Concrete examples #2: Simulationism over-riding Narrativism
+
+    * A weapon does precisely the same damage range regardless of the
+      emotional relationship between wielder and target. (True for
+      RuneQuest, not true for Hero Wars)
+    * A player is chastised for taking the potential intensity of a
+      future confrontation into account when deciding what the character
+      is doing in a current scene, such as revealing an important secret
+      when the PC is unaware of its importance.
+    * The time to traverse town with super-running is deemed
+      insufficient to arrive at the scene, with reference to distance
+      and actions at the scene, such that the villain's bomb does blow
+      up the city. (The rules for DC Heroes specifically dictate that
+      this be the appropriate way to GM such a scene). 
+
+Converse: Narrativism over-riding Simulationism
+
+    * Using metagame mechanics to increase the probability of task
+      resolution, with NO corresponding in-game justification. "Apply my
+      bonus die to increase my Charm roll," in which the bonus die is
+      not "will" or "endurance" or anything but an abstract pool unit.
+    * A player is chastised for claiming a PC motive that "stalls out"
+      story elements (conflict, resolution etc). Example: player A is
+      pissed off at player B, who has announced "I say nothing," in
+      certain interactive scenes, when player A is aware that the PC's
+      knowledge would be pivotal in the scene.
+    * Using inter-player dialogue and knowledge to determine character
+      action, then retroactively justifying the action in terms of
+      character knowledge and motive. "You hit him high and I'll hit him
+      low," between players whose characters do not have the opportunity
+      to plan the attack. [This example could also apply to Gamism
+      over-riding Simulationism; the two are quite similar.] 
+
+In conclusion, Simulationism exists as an established, real priority-set
+of role-playing, with its own distinctive range of decisions and goals.
+
+*Controversy: "But I'm story-oriented"*
+A great deal of intellectual suffering has occurred due to the linked
+claims that role-playing either is or is not "story-oriented," and that
+one falls on one side or the other of this dichotomy. I consider this
+terminology and its implication to be wholly false.
+
+"Story" may simply mean "series of caused events," in which case the
+issue is trivial. However, most of the time, the term is more specific.
+More specific meanings of "story" may be involved in role-playing in a
+variety of ways. Narrativism is a no-brainer in this regard, as it is
+defined by the metagame attention to creating a story of critical merit
+(i.e. "good"). But story-creation and its elements are certainly
+possible, although not prioritized, in both of the other modes. Most
+generally, there are (1) forms of Simulationist play with a strong
+Situation focus, which provide a story for the participants to imagine
+being in; and (2) forms of Gamist play in which dramatic outcomes are
+the stakes of competition, which produces story as a side-effect of that
+competition.
+
+More specifically, to observers who are not considering goals and
+decisions of play, the following three, very distinct sorts of play are
+superficially similar and often confounded.
+
+    * Narrativist play with a Setting-driven Premise.
+    * Simulationist play in which Situation is being preferentially
+      Explored, perhaps with an elaborate published metaplot in the form
+      of short stories or novels.
+    * Gamist play in which Drama mechanics (see the fourth chapter) are
+      used as a strategy-element, making use of a complex set of
+      circumstances, Setting and Situation) for material. 
+
+Similarly, the same confoundment may occur regarding the following
+(which share regions of potential overlap with the three above in terms
+of "story," as well):
+
+    * Narrativist play with a Character-driven Premise.
+    * Simulationist play in which Character and Situation are being
+      Explored.
+    * Gamist play in which Character improvement or other development is
+      at stake, and character behavior or attitudes are limiting factors. 
+
+Story-stuff and/or character stuff is so important to all these
+approaches that the differences in processes and point of role-playing
+are easy to miss, or, disastrously, easy to deny. Three people
+attempting to role-play with one another in a vampire-character game,
+but each representing one of (say) the first three perspectives, are
+going to have a hard time, even if they assured one another that they
+were fully committed to "the story." How and why the difficulties arise
+are discussed throughout the remainder of the essay.
+
+*Misunderstandings of GNS*
+By far and away, the worst misunderstanding of GNS, with the worst
+consequences, arises from synecdoche, confounding the part with the
+whole and vice versa. (I'll use Simulationism as my stand-in term, but
+any of the modes could be named here.)
+
+    * Mistaking the whole for the part, within a mode: claiming that any
+      Simulationist-oriented person must enjoy all Simulationist play.
+    * Mistaking the part for the whole, within a mode: claiming that a
+      particular sort of Simulationism is Simulationism (and nothing
+      else is).
+    * Mistaking the whole for the part, for all of role-playing:
+      claiming that in role-playing at all, one must be engaged in
+      Simulationism somehow.
+    * Mistaking the part for the whole, for all of role-playing:
+      claiming that a particular sort of Simulationism is role-playing
+      (and nothing else is). 
+
+Synecdoche may be committed by someone who has recently or imperfectly
+learned some GNS vocabulary, who in his enthusiasm is disrespectful to
+modes of play besides his favorite. However, it is also tremendously
+widespread among those role-players who do not know, or even who
+disparage, a critical approach to the activity, but commit synecdoche
+using terms like "realistic" or "story." In either case, this fallacy is
+disastrous. It results in bad feelings, fizzled games, and rejection of
+role-playing.
+
+Other common misunderstandings of GNS include:
+
+    * Ascribing any sort of geometric shape or variable-space to these
+      terms. Such ideas are often interesting but they are not formally
+      part of the definitions. (For instance, there is no such thing as
+      a "GNS Triangle.")
+    * Confounding Simulationism with the term "realism." Much of
+      Simulationist play and game design has indeed focused on
+      generating realistic outcomes, but this is a historical subset of
+      the mode rather than part of the mode's definition.
+    * Stating "see what happens" as the definition for any of the modes.
+      All role-playing is about "seeing what happens." This is a good
+      example of whole-for-the-part synecdoche.
+    * Mistaking the shorthand of "He's a Narrativist" (or either of the
+      others) for a limiting statement that the person is incapable of
+      any other mode of play.
+    * Mistaking any of the listed elements for one of the modes, e.g.,
+      such that attention to character must be Narrativist, or attention
+      to setting must be Simulationist, or attention to system must be
+      Gamist.
+    * Projecting judgment and value-judgments into the terminology, such
+      that the speaker or listener perceives one of the goals to be
+      placed higher or better than the others. Gamist play, for
+      instance, is often unfairly marginalized.
+    * Perceiving the terms' purpose as a means to classify game design.
+      They are used relative to game design, but again as shorthand:
+      calling an RPG a "Narrativist design," for instance, really means
+      "This RPG's content facilitates Narrativist play."
+    * Failing to understand the terms' actual purpose: to enable people
+      to enjoy their role-playing more. 
+
+Note: "synecdoche" is pronounced "sin-ECK-doe-key." Think Schenectady
+and vasectomy. If you can make a good limerick out of these three words,
+I'll give you a prize.
+
+</articles/4/>
+*_Chapter Three: Stance_*
+
+Chapter Two was about what a person wants out of role-playing; this
+material is about specific acts and moments of role-playing, that is,
+what a person does. *Stance* is defined as how a person arrives at
+decisions for an imaginary character's imaginary actions.
+
+    * In *Actor* stance, a person determines a character's decisions and
+      actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character
+      would have.
+    * In *Author* stance, a person determines a character's decisions
+      and actions based on the real person's priorities, then
+      retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without
+      that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called *Pawn* stance.)
+    * In *Director* stance, a person determines aspects of the
+      environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely
+      separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence
+      events. Therefore the player has not only determined the
+      character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial
+      circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world
+      separate from the characters. 
+
+In most of the stance-discussions, we've considered players rather than
+GMs because the player:character relationship is usually 1:1 and very
+intimate. I think that GMs employ stance too, however, that discussion
+awaits development.
+
+*Stance and GNS*
+Stance is very labile during play, with people shifting among the
+stances frequently and even without deliberation or reflection.
+
+Stances do not correspond in any 1:1 way to the GNS modes. Stance is
+much more ephemeral, for one thing, such that a person enjoying the
+Gamist elements and decisions of a role-playing experience might shift
+all about the stances during a session of play. He or she might be
+Authoring most of the time and Directing occasionally, and then at a key
+moment slam into Actor stance for a scene. The goal hasn't changed;
+stance has.
+
+However, I think it's very reasonable to say that specific stances are
+more common in some modes/goals of play. Historically, Author stance
+seems the most common or at least decidedly present at certain points
+for Gamist and Narrativist play, and Director stance seems to be a rarer
+add-on in those modes. Actor stance seems the most common for
+Simulationist play, although a case could be made for Author and
+Director stance being present during character creation in this mode.
+These relative proportions of Stance positions during play do apparently
+correspond well with issues of Premise and GNS. I suggest, however, that
+it is a given subset of a mode that Stance is facilitating, rather than
+the whole mode itself. Some forms of Simulationism, for instance, may be
+best served by Director Stance, as opposed to other forms which are best
+served by Actor Stance. Similarly, some forms of Narrativism rely on
+Actor Stance at key moments.
+
+Consider the previous example of a group who has arrived at the
+agreement to role-play a vampire-character game, with three members who
+have radically different GNS and Premise approaches but share a
+superficial commitment to "story," undefined. What sort of Stances might
+be most common during play, from each of them? (In this example, each
+person represents one possible approach within each of the modes, and
+does not represent the entirety of a mode.)
+
+    * One player is interested in competing, using his or her
+      real-person influence and strategizing about dramatic outcomes to
+      "score higher" than the other players, so he or she spends a lot
+      of time in Author/Pawn Stance.
+    * Another is interested in experiencing and Exploring the nuances of
+      the story as it is presented from an external source (perhaps a
+      sourcebook and/or a GM), and spends a lot of time in Actor Stance.
+    * The third is interested in generating climactic and
+      conflict-resolving moments derived from his or her character's
+      decisions, and so those decisions are most likely going to be
+      determined from Author Stance (but not Pawn). 
+
+Conflicts may well arise among these players as their decisions
+regarding their characters and expectations of one another disrupt the
+various goals. Stances and their impact on both the outcomes and
+experiences of play may be understood as part of the mechanisms of
+achieving GNS goals.
+
+Let us take pity, though, and suggest that they do happen to share
+enough Stance preferences, of some sort. They don't have to be exactly
+alike! Getting the most out of a GNS mode of play does not mean cleaving
+unswervingly to a Stance, but arranging Stances relative to specific
+types of scenes, decisions, and moments of play. Again, speaking
+historically rather than by definitions,
+
+    * A Gamist approach to Stances usually involves preserving the
+      Author-power of Pawn Stance in competitive situations, such that
+      the player is not hampered in the range of possible options.
+    * A Narrativist approach to Stances usually involves keeping Actor
+      Stance confined to limited instances, such that Author and
+      Director Stances may generate a lot of metagame impact on the
+      storyline.
+    * A Simulationist approach to Stances usually involves designating
+      when Actor Stance, the default, may be exited. 
+
+So our vampire-interested players may take individualized approaches to
+Stance within one of these goal-orientations (or some other
+GNS-reinforcing conformation). Insofar as those differences facilitate
+similar goals, and hence cannot be too different in the crucial
+instances of play, all is well.
+
+*Misunderstandings and complications*
+A great deal of attention and rhetoric is devoted to "in-character"
+(*IC*) and "out-of-character" (*OOC*) role-playing, but I think that
+this topic is not related to Stance. IC role-playing, at its most
+literal, means that the role-player is using first-person diction to
+communicate the character's actions, and OOC role-playing means that he
+or she using third-person diction. However, that issue and the
+decision-making aspects of the Stance issue do not precisely correspond.
+Otherwise-excellent discussions and guidelines can be derailed or
+muddied by this problem. In the text of Nobilis, for instance, IC/OOC
+terminology is consistently used to indicate, as far as I can tell,
+Actor vs. Author Stance.
+
+Another common misunderstanding of Actor Stance is to confound it with
+"acting" in the histrionic, communicative sense - using a characteristic
+voice, gestures, and so on. The communicative and demonstrative aspects
+of "acting" are not involved in Actor Stance at all, which only means
+that the player is utilizing the character's knowledge and priorities to
+determine what the character does.
+
+Taking the above two points together, Actor Stance may be seen in the
+most technical-realist style play (which may use entirely third-person
+diction) as well as in the most channel-the-PC Turku play (which may use
+entirely first-person, in-character-voice diction).
+
+*Immersion* is another difficult issue that often arises in Stance
+discussions. Like "realism" and "completeness" and several other terms,
+it has many different definitions in role-playing culture. The most
+substantive definition that I have seen is that immersion is the sense
+of being "possessed" by the character. This phenomenon is not a stance,
+but a feeling. What kind of role-playing goes with that feeling? The
+feeling is associated with decision-making that is incompatible with
+Director or Author stance. Therefore, I suggest that immersion (an
+internal sensation) is at least highly associated with Actor Stance.
+Whether some people get into Actor stance and then "immerse," or others
+"immerse" and thus willy-nilly are in Actor stance, I don't know.
+The term Audience Stance has been proposed elsewhere, but at this point
+I am not convinced that the phenomenon exists. It remains as a potential
+topic for discussion.
+
+</articles/5/>
+
+*_Chapter Four: The Basics of Role-Playing Design_*
+
+System, system, system. Or more appropriately, design, design, design.
+The listed elements in Chapter One (character, situation, color,
+setting, system, initial premise) may be organized to facilitate greater
+*coherence* in Chapters Two (GNS, developed Premise) and Chapter Three
+(Stance), and thus to facilitate more enjoyable play. This principle is
+often summarized in the catch-phrase, "System does matter."
+
+By "coherence," I mean the degree to which a group of people can hit
+upon and sustain a shared Premise (or topic for Exploration, in
+Simulationist play) - and by definition, continue to enjoy the social
+role-playing activity consistently. The people do not need to agree in
+every detail or event of play, and they certainly do not have to conform
+to a single, immutable Stance or GNS profile. However, to role-play
+together most successfully, their shared agreements do need to go beyond
+simply sharing the initial Premise. To whatever extent they do this,
+they are cohering.
+
+At the last check-in, our vampire-friends have turned out to be a
+coherent bunch. Now their attention turns to the actual, physical item
+called the role-playing game. What is in it?
+
+This chapter is devoted to a lexicon for discussing the mechanical
+components of role-playing, in the service of eventually addressing how
+design affects coherence in the following chapter. I see two
+interrelated elements of design: *Character* and *System*.
+
+*Character*
+This terminology is intended to dissect out the procedural components of
+the imaginary entity called "my character." The idea is to form a basis
+for character creation that is integrated with the game's general design
+goals, whatever they may be.
+
+As I see it, there are three very large components to a character. I
+also think they always apply; in other words, role-playing necessarily
+demands all of the three to exist. Design, on the other hand, sometimes
+leaves one or more unstated, in which case the missing elements are
+overtly or covertly inserted during play.
+
+*Effectiveness* includes any numbers which are used to determine success
+or extent of an action. In Fortune-based systems, these include the
+familiar to-hit, skill success, damage rolls, and anything like these.
+In Karma-based systems, it would be the basic values, e.g. Everway's
+Element scores or Amber's attribute scores; in Drama-based systems,
+Effectiveness is governed by rules of dialogue. (See below for
+discussions of Fortune, Karma, and Drama.)
+In looking over a character's Effectiveness material, you get an idea of
+their "niche" or sphere of influence, what they're good at and what they
+aren't.
+
+Effectiveness is often "layered." In discussing Effectiveness, one needs
+to be careful to distinguish between the actual value and the means by
+which it is derived, because often a step of the process is named
+instead of the Effective value itself. For instance, the points spent on
+basic attribute scores in Champions pass through an exchange rate, such
+that three points result in one more unit of Dexterity. Furthermore, the
+Dexterity score itself passes through a division by three or five, and
+in some cases an addition of 11 as well, in order to arrive at a value
+that is actually used in play (an Effective value).
+
+In contrast, a non-layered Effectiveness value is determined, recorded,
+and used as such without derivation. The scores for Earth, Air, Fire,
+and Water in Everway are divided up from 20 points or less, and they are
+used at their respective values during play. The score for Focus is set
+from 1 to 10 when making up a character in Zero, and that value is used
+as such during play. Three descriptions of a puppet's abilities ("This
+puppet can shout really loud") in Puppetland are determined during
+character creation and are used without modification during play.
+
+*Resource* includes any available usable pool upon which Effectiveness
+or Metagame mechanics may draw, or which are reduced to reflect harm to
+the character. The obvious ones are Endurance, Sanity, or Hit Points (or
+even "lives" in frequent-resurrection games), but this category also
+includes breadth and depth of spell knowledge, for instance, or even the
+character's cash resources. Experience points, in some system, act as a
+resource for certain mechanics.
+In looking over a character's Resource material, you get an idea of how
+tough, (un)stoppable, and "fueled" they are.
+
+*Metagame* includes all positioning and behavioral statements about the
+character, as well as player rights to over-ride the existing
+Effectiveness rules. Thus it includes stuff like relationships
+("Hunteds" in Champions) and limitations on behavior (Psychological
+Disadvantages, alignment), as well as *metagame mechanics*, like Trouble
+or Luck Points or what-have-you, which permit re-rolls or other
+overrides of the baseline resolution system. Clearly, material within
+metagame may directly affect Effectiveness and Resource, as with Trouble
+giving bonus dice in Orkworld, or in other games it does not, as with a
+Code Vs. Killing in Champions being taken to limit a character's actions
+without a formal effect on any other mechanics of play.
+Metagame issues are intimately related to *Balance of Power*, which is
+defined as the relative degrees to which players and GMs are privileged
+to have an impact on the events of play. In looking over a character's
+metagame material, you get an idea of the behavioral parameters within
+which the player is at least nominally committing to stay, and the
+rights to over-ride the system via metagame mechanics.
+
+Regarding all three components, named features on character sheets may
+find themselves in one or another category from game to game. Money, for
+example, is a Resource in a game of GURPS, an Effective value in Call of
+Cthulhu, and Metagame in Champions 3rd edition.
+
+*Currency among the three character components*
+*Currency* represents the relationship among the three components, both
+during character creation and during play. Its name comes from the
+observations that (1) "amounts" may be shifted and exchanged within and
+across the three components during character creation, and (2) that
+features or use of one category may have an impact on the use of the
+others during play.
+These exchange mechanisms among the three categories may or may not be
+overt (e.g. a system of points to spend). We can look at two different
+RPGs and compare how the three categories are distributed, and under
+whose control.
+
+Character creation varies tremendously across role-playing games. We see
+tons of methods, distributed in tons of ways even within single games:
+random vs. point-allocation, layered vs. not-layered, explicit vs.
+implicit currency, fixed vs. flexible relationship among the three
+elements, and more. I do not claim that there is any one best way. I do
+think that most character-creation design has been imitative and
+tweak-oriented, rather than conceptually integrated with any general
+goal of the RPG's design. I also think that certain designs are
+fundamentally flawed, at least for specific modes of play; my
+attributes/skills argument is an example.
+
+Some games are practically defined by the open spendability of an overt
+currency, e.g. GURPS. Others are fixed solid as rocks among and within
+the categories, e.g. D&D of whatever vintage. "Class," for instance,
+usually refers to a specific way to affix currency among the categories;
+having different classes means standardizing different "nodes" of
+currency combinations.
+
+Looking across RPG designs, I see that many games permit "trading" both
+within and between the categories during character creation, often with
+a rate of exchange.
+
+    * If you drop your Strength, you can buy up your Dexterity or if you
+      drop your Strength, you have more points to buy skills. These
+      examples remain within the general category of Effectiveness.
+    * If you drop your Strength, you can buy up your Endurance or Hit
+      Points or whatever. This would be crossing categories from
+      Effectiveness to Resource, as would be increasing your Luck Points
+      at the expense of points for abilities. 
+
+I suggest that such trading (with or without an overt, generalized
+Currency) is fraught with peril, for two reasons. The first is the
+existence of breakpoints of Effectiveness, and the second is that
+soybean trading is almost impossible to avoid. Both of these are greatly
+heightened when the mathematics of character creation include ratios.
+
+Here's an example of breakpoints: effectiveness in Champions is largely
+based on division of scores, like 1/3 of your DEX or 11 + STR/5, or
+stuff like that. Therefore breakpoints are crucial - everyone ends up
+with DEX of 20, 23, or 26, for instance; any other score is only
+minimally useful and wastes points that could be spent better elsewhere.
+
+Soybean trading occurs most often when "derived attributes" are
+involved. The famous Champions trick is certainly familiar to many of
+us: buy up your STR (1:1) and END (1:0.5), which automatically raises
+your REC 1 point. Now buy down your REC, which gives 2 points back. Net
+gain: 0.5 points. Do this 10 times, and your gross is 10 points of STR,
+20 points of END, and 5 points of pure profit.
+
+Currency applies during play as well as during character creation. At
+the most obvious, the expenditure or loss of Resources may affect
+Effectiveness, as when one runs out of spell points or when damage
+accumulates such that ability scores are reduced. Metagame may be
+similarly affected by Resources, as when one must draw upon a point pool
+in order to re-roll dice, and that pool is used up. More subtly,
+multiple other relationships occur in multiple RPGs, such as a
+Meditation ability that permits recharging a Resource more rapidly.
+
+Currency is also related very intimately to Reward System and (for lack
+of a better term) Punishment System, because these feed back into the
+elements of Currency at every moment during play. Improvement processes
+are a common sort of Reward System, but not the only kind; damage and
+death for the character are a common sort of Punishment System, but not
+the only kind.
+
+Reward systems have been very deeply researched by me, but they await a
+rigorous discussion, as the baseline concepts of GNS, Stance, and the
+components of Currency must all be integrated. Some of the issues include:
+
+    * What is being rewarded? Attendance? Role-playing per se? Player
+      actions? Outcomes of conflicts? In-game moments?
+    * Who is being rewarded, the player or the character?
+    * Are reward systems necessary? At what scopes or time-frames of
+      play are they more or less important?
+    * If we are talking about character improvement, how does it
+      proceed? Linearly or exponentially? If exponentially, is the
+      exponent positive or negative?
+    * Do changes in the values and aspects of the character affect the
+      exchange rate of Currency itself? 
+
+Given the astounding importance of Currency among the various components
+of Character, designers of role-playing games would do well to consider
+all of the following.
+
+    * What the three categories are.
+    * All of them do exist in the act of "playing" a character.
+    * How, when, or if exchange is involved among the categories, which
+      is to say, not just among the "named items" on the sheet.
+    * Subdivisions, nuances, and layering within each one. 
+
+Unfortunately, I think that many RPG designers were and are flying
+entirely by the seat of their pants. Their attention was on in-game
+named elements like "strength" and "percent to hit" rather than
+Effectiveness. Such an approach to character design allows latitude for
+all sorts of emergent properties, such as the point-mongering in
+Champions or the mini-maxing in most late 80s games, or any number of
+other "take-over" elements of play that subvert the stated goals of the
+design.
+
+I think that a more fundamentals-based approach to the design process
+would yield less problems of this kind. Without a vocabulary of the
+fundamentals, we'll end up with endless permutations of the same
+currency-mismatches and confusions with nearly every "new" game. In
+fact, that's exactly what we do have.
+
+*System*
+RPG resolution systems are a daunting topic, and the following is
+limited only to the broadest issue, Event Resolution.
+
+For Event Resolution, the relevant terms are Drama, Fortune, and Karma
+(often called DFK). These terms describe the mechanical and social
+means, among the real people, by which an imaginary action or event is
+determined to occur.
+
+    * *Drama* resolution relies on asserted statements without reference
+      to listed attributes or quantitative elements.
+    * *Karma* resolution relies on referring to listed attributes or
+      quantitative elements without a random element.
+    * *Fortune* resolution relies on utilizing a random device of some
+      kind, usually delimited by quantitative scores of some kind. 
+
+Each one of Drama, Karma, and Fortune deserves massive dissection. My
+on-line discussion of Fortune-in-the-Middle as a facilitator of
+Narrativist play is a good example; so is my comparison of flat/linear
+curves with separate/incorporate effects.
+
+These three types of resolution may be combined in a near-infinite
+variety across the various elements of RPG design; few or no RPGs fail
+to make use of at least two of them. I also claim that they may be
+combined in near-infinite variety across the various GNS goals. No
+particular one of them corresponds to any (entire) one of the GNS goals.
+Most importantly, I do not think that Drama methods necessarily
+facilitate Narrativist play. However, I do suggest that a game system
+may be organized such that a GNS subset and developed Premise are more
+understandable; this topic is developed further in the next chapter.
+
+Resolution systems often include metagame mechanics, as mentioned above,
+which permit a player to over-ride the "usual" resolution system of the
+game. These are found in a wide variety of combinations in functional
+terms as well as DFK terms.
+
+    * The over-ride may occur before, after, or in place of the regular
+      system mechanic.
+    * The over-ride may or may not rely on resources of some kind.
+    * The over-ride's version of DFK may mirror the usual system's
+      version of DFK, or it may differ dramatically. 
+
+Example #1: a certificate in Prince Valiant may be redeemed (lost) for a
+player to state that the character instantly subdues an opponent. The
+mechanic replaces the usual resolution system (comparing tossed coins),
+which is simply ignored. This illustrates a Drama metagame mechanic
+replacing a Fortune baseline mechanic and relying on an irreplaceable
+Resource.
+
+Example #2: a bonus die in Over the Edge may be added to a player's
+roll, increasing the chance of success. The die is not permanently lost,
+but may not be used again during the same session. This illustrates a
+Fortune metagame mechanic added into a Fortune baseline mechanic,
+relying on a replaceable Resource.
+
+By definition, the character's role in the "decision" side of the
+over-ride is retroactive, and therefore the very existence of metagame
+mechanics is linked to Author or Director stance.
+
+*Switches and dials*
+The organization of the components of resolution, considering both
+Character and System together, may be thought of as *switches* and
+*dials*. Switches are discrete elements (values or terms) of the
+character that are set in place; they may have different settings but
+once set they are fixed. Dials are continuous elements (values) that may
+vary from high to low along a range. Switches and dials may be
+completely separate, or they may contain one another as well.
+
+Most character creation methods that include classes or clans, or that
+involve picking one item each from two lists, are utilizing large-scale
+switches, in which smaller dials are embedded. By contrast, most
+character creation systems that include a pool of points which may be
+freely distributed about options are utilizing a large-scale dial, in
+which smaller switches (e.g. behavioral limitations) are embedded.
+Plenty of other possibilities, as well as overlaps between these two,
+are in evidence as well. I am happy to provide examples as part of an
+ongoing discussion.
+
+(In either case, the method of "setting" may be either through personal
+choice or through randomized methods; for purposes of the current
+discussion, it doesn't matter which.)
+
+In looking at the diversity across RPGs, one may contrast what's held
+constant and what's permitted to vary, during character creation. What
+elements affect one another during play? What pieces may trade among one
+another during character creation? Even more fun is the hidden stuff,
+such as how Drama methods ("saved actions") are employed to change the
+order of action in the middle of combat resolution in an otherwise
+highly Fortune-driven system, or when Metagame (calling attention to
+another player's character's "alignment") is used to limit a
+competitor's options.
+
+I think that we are nowhere near arriving at a meaningful taxonomy for
+understanding how these combinations are organized across existing and
+potential RPGs, and furthermore that the discussion is long overdue. The
+following chapter begins a discussion of how the combinations relate to
+Premise and GNS.
+
+*Even more stuff to discuss later*
+The following topics have all been researched by me across the vast
+majority of role-playing game designs since the invention of the hobby.
+Some of them have been broached in public forums, and others have not. I
+have avoided discussing them to any depth, given the general lack of
+understanding of the foundational principles of this essay, but I would
+very much like to develop them in the future.
+
+    * The relationship among announcing an intended action, initiating
+      but not completing an action, determining the completion of the
+      action, and determining the effects of an action.
+    * The order in which the above events are conducted by the real
+      people, rather than by the in-game causality. This general
+      principle is illustrated in a local way by the
+      Fortune-in-the-middle concept.
+    * Search time and handling time, as defined in my essay "System Does
+      Matter."
+    * Probabilities in general, including issues of flat vs. linear
+      curves, separate vs. incorporated effects, replacement vs.
+      non-replacement results, and more. This discussion would include
+      the interesting sub-topic of the critical and fumble concepts.
+    * Target number methods in contrast to opposed-resolution methods.
+    * Task vs. conflict resolution; i.e, what precisely is being
+      determined by a unit of effort (system) by the participants. This
+      issue is central to the design of many Narrativist-facilitating
+      games, but could well be developed, in distinct ways, across all
+      three modes.
+    * Scene resolution vs. action resolution, which is not the same as
+      task vs. conflict resolution. Scene resolution first appeared as a
+      Gamist device in Tunnels & Trolls, disappeared from design
+      philosophy for over a decade, then was resurrected as a
+      Narrativist device in Story Engine.
+    * Distinctions among systems for symbolically-significant actions
+      (e.g. magic), as well as between them and systems for mundane
+      actions. 
+
+*A popular misunderstanding*
+The term "diceless" entered the role-playing lexicon with the appearance
+of the revolutionary RPG Amber, but it almost instantly acquired nuances
+of meaning far beyond its literal content. Dicelessness has been
+associated with story-orientation (so-called), with creativity, with
+"mature" abnegation of "power-gaming," and generally with anything that
+the user of the term happens to like and in which dice are not involved.
+This use of the term is nothing more nor less than a value judgment and
+is properly ignored.
+
+Even more confusingly, the term seems to be applied across extremely
+different things in the text of role-playing games. To call Amber or
+Puppetland diceless is literally correct, and it happens to correspond
+with their reliance on Karma and Drama methods; however, to call Castle
+Falkenstein diceless is literally correct but functionally meaningless,
+as its system is wholly Fortune-based. The text in the game undergoes
+many gyrations to extoll the nuances that cards bring to role-playing,
+but the fact remains that its card system is a Fortune system. The text
+of Everway, on the other hand, openly acknowledges that its optional
+card use is also the game's Fortune component.
+
+And most importantly, I see no particular reason to associate
+"dicelessness" or even the lack of any Fortune methods with Narrativism.
+Again, and as discussed in more detail in the following chapter, the
+range of DFK variants and combinations within each of Gamism,
+Narrativism, and Simulationism is very broad. The otherwise excellent
+game Theatrix mistakenly identifies the lack of dice with a heightened
+focus on story creation, and this patently absurd identification spread
+rapidly through role-playing culture in the early 1990s.
+
+*Where's our vampires?*
+The example used so far has taken a brief rest for this chapter, because
+the players are making the horrendous mistake of buying, without
+consideration of any technical issues presented so far, the most widely
+advertised, best-illustrated RPG available - that is, strictly on the
+basis of Color. Their fate will be presented in the next chapter.
+
+</articles/6/>
+
+*_Chapter Five: Role-playing Design and Coherence_*
+
+This chapter investigates how role-playing design is involved in
+facilitating or inhibiting coherence. I think that all three modes of
+play have been present in role-playing since its invention in the 1970s.
+But design is a different issue. Because most of the history of RPG
+design proceeds from variation among what already exists, with changes
+usually appearing in discrete features rather than in foundational
+principles, the priorities and goals facilitated by the designs show
+extremely recognizable trends.
+
+It may fairly be asked, how can GNS be applied to design features, when
+few if any RPG designers know about it, or even care? I use a physics
+analogy: prior to the insights of Newtonian physics, bridges could be
+built. Some of them were built rather well. However, in retrospect, we
+are well aware that in order to build the bridge, the designer must have
+been at the very least according with Newtonian physics through (1)
+luck, (2) imitation of something else that worked, (3) use of principles
+that did not conflict with Newtonian physics in a way that mattered for
+the job, or (4) a non-articulated understanding of those principles. I
+consider the analogy to be exact for role-playing games.
+
+Therefore, the theory-principles or stated intent of the designer, if
+any, are irrelevant to the analysis of the RPG designs. For instance,
+John Wick had no interest in GNS or any other theory when writing
+Orkworld. However, he has a keen sense of practical role-playing and a
+clear vision of the "ways" he envisioned Orkworld play to proceed. In
+order to produce that game, he utilized and developed principles of
+Narrativism, metagame mechanics, and focused Premise on Character and
+Situation, precisely as outlined in the theory. He just did not
+articulate them overtly.
+
+In terms of design, the issue is incoherence, defined here as failure to
+permit any Premise (or any element of Exploration) to be consistently
+enjoyed. I think that any and all RPG designs have some identifiable
+relationship with the GNS modes, out of the following possibilities.
+
+    * Focused: the design facilitates a specific, identifiable Premise
+      (or area of Exploration).
+    * Semi-adaptable: the design is at least compatible with more than
+      one Premise and/or Exploration across GNS goals. (Whether this
+      category even exists, or whether it merely reflects correctable
+      incoherence, is debatable.)
+    * General: the design facilitates a specific mode, but permits a
+      range of Premises or Explorations within that mode.
+    * Kitchen sink: the design utilizes layers and multiple options such
+      that any specific point of play may be customized to accord with
+      GNS goals. (This design often ends up being a general
+      Simulationist one, however.)
+    * Incoherent 1: the design fails to permit one or any mode of play.
+      In its most extreme form, the system may simply be broken - too
+      easily exploited, or internally nonsensical, or lacking meaningful
+      consequence, to pick three respective possibilities for Gamism,
+      Simulationism, and Narrativism.
+    * Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among
+      the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly)
+      facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others. 
+
+In terms of actual play, yes, one "can" bring "any" GNS focus to "any"
+RPG - but I argue that in most cases the effort and informal redesign to
+do so is substantial, and also that the effort to keep focused on the
+new goals as play progresses is even more substantial. This chapter
+discusses why that effort needs to be there at all.
+
+Throughout this chapter, cut me some slack on the terminology. Saying
+"Gamist design" or "Gamist RPG," is a short way of saying, "RPG design
+whose elements facilitate, to any recognizable degree, Gamist priorities
+and decision-making."
+
+*Design and Premise*
+Facilitating a metagame concern (a developed Premise) differs greatly
+from Exploring a listed element as a priority. To address a Premise, the
+imaginary, internal commitment to the in-game events must be broken at
+least occasionally during play, to set up and resolve the issues of
+interest in strictly person-to-person terms. To Explore the topic in the
+Simulationist sense, breaking the imagined, continuous in-game causality
+is exactly what to avoid. The at-first attractive idea that a system
+could easily encompass, say, Character-based Premise and prioritized
+Character Exploration is actually utterly unworkable.
+
+To illustrate this principle, let's take just one aspect of role-playing
+design: the terms and qualities used to denote a character. How are
+these things involved in Premise or focused Exploration?
+
+Facilitating Simulationism is all about Exploring the designated
+element(s). The most important priority is that the stated features
+express linear, in-game-world causality. That is why the most prevalent
+version of Simulationist character design relies on Nature-Nurture
+distinctions, using layered qualities, for a large number of attributes
+and abilities. Other sorts of Simulationist design may employ different
+methods, but the commitment to in-game, linear causality remains the
+priority.
+
+Facilitating Narrativism relies on bringing specific Premise and the
+ability to have an impact on it into the foreground, over and above any
+"descriptive" or "explanatory" elements. Distinctions between attributes
+and skills, for instance, is irrelevant. A big tough fighter and a small
+lithe fighter may well be described, in game terms, with a single
+identical "fight" value, perhaps modified retroactively during play for
+especially-appropriate situations. A character may have features for
+completely metagame concerns, such as "plot points" or similar things.
+
+Facilitating Gamism is a matter of knowing what is relevant to the
+stakes, competition, and conditions of victory or loss. Features of a
+character are either complicators or focusing points of the character's
+strategic possibilities. (Side note: Gamist character design may be very
+complex, in which the complication is itself part of the competitive
+arena, or it may be very streamlined if the competition concerns other
+issues.)
+
+Rules regarding both Character and System also facilitate a GNS goal by
+facilitating (or even demanding) particular Stances. For instance, an
+explicit metagame mechanic automatically entails using Author or
+Director stance, whereas a Psychological Limitation of the
+GURPS/Champions tradition automatically entails using Actor stance to
+some degree. Secondarily, these Stance-directing mechanics affect GNS
+focus.
+
+As always, synecdoche confounds the issue. Historically, certain
+combinations of DFK and Character building, with their attendant impact
+on Stance and GNS, have become so entrenched that many people actually
+identify them as "how role-playing is done," without realizing the range
+of design that they are missing.
+
+*RPG design and GNS, historically*
+Pending a really good history of role-playing games, this brief and
+GNS-based summary will have to do. Arising as it did from wargaming in
+the middle 1970s, the earliest RPG design reflected its Gamist +
+Simulationist roots. However, within a year, design philosophies split
+very fast across a brief Renaissance of largely-forgotten games that
+spanned nearly all of the GNS spectrum, and then two trends "settled
+out" to remain stable until the early 1990s.
+
+The first of these trends was an ongoing series of imitations of
+post-tourney D&D, with its halting and incoherent mix of Gamism and
+Simulationism. The second was a development of Simulationist principles
+in several trajectories, based on different models, including the
+following.
+
+    * The RuneQuest system from the Chaosium (extremely coherent,
+      emphasizing System and Setting), developing both in the series of
+      games from that company as well as in its imitators.
+    * The interesting mutual relationship between four editions of
+      Champions and effectively two of GURPS (moving from incoherent to
+      coherent, emphasizing System), which provides the model for the
+      vast majority of new games.
+    * The AD&D 2nd edition (mainly incoherent, emphasizing Setting and
+      Situation), developing in the huge setting-based proliferation of
+      TSR products into the early 1990s, as well as in a host of
+      small-press imitators. 
+
+Around 1990, first Narrativist-facilitating methods became widely
+established, and then full-bodied Narrativist games appeared in 1994.
+About five years later, simultaneous with the appearance of innovative
+competitive games (not RPGs, but rather Cheapass Games), overtly Gamist
+RPGs appeared.
+
+(A fascinating story of economics and industry hassles underlies this
+history, but I regretfully have to stay on-topic. Another time.)
+
+Or to put it another way, RPG design through most of the hobby's history
+has been largely devoted to Simulationist priorities. This is not to say
+that the full range of this mode has been represented or all of its
+potential developed.
+
+The sub-set of Simulationism most fully developed during the 1980s was
+"realist" (a form of Situtation) and "genre-faithfulness" (System with
+strong and various other co-emphases). Some conventions of these
+approaches include identifying Fortune methods with the imaginary
+physics of the setting and a commitment to extensive search and handling
+times. The sub-set developed later used the previous one as a
+foundation, but lightened the details and concentrated on Character,
+Setting, and Situation in its most external form of published metaplot,
+as a determinant of large-scale events during play.
+
+Quite a lot more has occurred in Simulationist design, of course. Not
+surprisingly, the variety among coherent Simulationist design is
+extensive, indeed, vast, because the key to design is which elements are
+being Explored.
+
+    * Character: Unknown Armies
+    * Setting: RuneQuest, Pendragon, Usagi Yojimbo, Jorune
+    * Situation: Call of Cthulhu
+    * System: GURPS, Champions 4th edition (or rather, the Hero System),
+      Fudge, Multiverser
+    * Situation and Setting: Feng Shui, Cyberpunk 2020
+    * Character and Setting: Legend of the Five Rings, Nephilim, Albedo,
+      Ars Magica, Nobilis 
+
+This is not to say that any RPG will illustrate one of the above
+categories so clearly; the listed titles are among the shining lights of
+coherent Simulationist design. Most RPGs are cobbled-together pieces of
+these and other games, generating a vague and internally-incoherent
+Simulationism with, at best, isolated design features or Color that are
+interesting. The topic of incoherence is developed more fully below, but
+for now, consider Kult - how can archetypal (fixed) character design be
+compatible with Character Exploration? The answer is that it can't, and
+that nearly all of the character development material in the basic rules
+is scrapped in application, which turns into pure Setting Exploration
+instead.
+
+Much Narrativist and Gamist play during the 1980s occurred as
+"rebellious" play in groups using primarily Simulationist systems. This
+is probably why elements of Narrativist and Gamist play are often
+perceived as cheating by those who are strongly committed to the
+Simulationist designs of that period, or mistakenly identified with
+"ignoring the rules."
+
+Overt Gamist RPG design is very rare. I think it takes a central role
+only in D&D well before it acquired its "A," in Tunnels & Trolls also in
+the late 1970s, and, less coherently, in Shadowrun and Rifts. Arguably,
+quite a lot of live-action role-playing of Vampire, Amber, and other
+games has drifted into Gamism in application, but not in the texts. Only
+very recently has overt, even enthusiastic Gamist design been
+resurrected, in D&D3E, Rune, Pantheon, The Adventures of Baron
+Munchausen, and Ninja Burger.
+
+Gamism clearly includes a wide range of the role of Fortune, such that
+some games have a high random element and in others it is very low or
+absent. Also, the GM's role varies widely, up to and including being
+completely absent. I look forward to the continued appearance and
+widely-ranging development of Gamist RPGs as well as to informed
+discussion of the principles that are involved in playing them.
+
+Overt Narrativist RPG design is a latecomer, with the exception of the
+few glimmers appearing in the late 1970s and early 1980s, of which
+Marvel Super Heroes is the sole survivor. The first thoroughgoing
+Narrativist game since then was Prince Valiant, in 1989. Although both
+games were based on source texts, their designs did not recommend
+Exploring the canonical settings so much as using the texts' authors'
+philosophy of story creation as a model for creating new stories entirely.
+
+A veritable Renaissance of Narrativist design occurred in 1993-1994 and
+continues to this day. Its published pioneers include Over the Edge and
+Everway; then Theatrix, Zero, Castle Falkenstein, Extreme Vengeance, and
+The Whispering Vault, as the next wave; and then Maelstrom/Story Engine,
+followed by Hero Wars, as games which provided utterly novel approaches
+at the metagame level. But the published games are only one side of the
+story, given the proliferation of Narrativist development in the
+underground, beginning with The Window and Wuthering Heights and setting
+the stage for the publications of games like Sorcerer, Orkworld, and
+Little Fears.
+
+In most Narrativist designs, Premise is based on one of the following
+models.
+
+    * A pre-play developed setting, in which case the characters develop
+      into protagonists in the setting's conflicts over time. Examples
+      include Castle Falkenstein and Hero Wars.
+    * Pre-play developed characters (protagonists), in which case the
+      setting develops into a suitable framework for them over time.
+      Examples include Sorcerer, Everway, Zero (in an interesting way),
+      Cyberpunk 1st edition, Orkworld, and The Whispering Vault. 
+
+I have observed that when people bring a Narrativist approach to
+Vampire, Legend of the Five Rings, or other game systems which include
+both detailed pre-play character creation and a detailed, conflict-rich
+settting, they must discard one or the other in order to play enjoyably.
+
+Given the widespread use of Author and Director stance in Narrativist
+role-playing, the functional result is to spread tasks and creative
+roles left for the GM in most other play among all participants. These
+systems may accurately be considered GM-full, rather than GM-less.
+
+Finally, several of the games mentioned above as well as others are
+probably best considered "abashedly Narrativist" rather than thoroughly
+focused on this mode, insofar as the overt philosophy of play in the
+texts is about creating stories, even about the players having co-author
+status, but various elements of design stop short of the goal. The
+aforementioned Marvel Super Heroes, Cyberpunk 1st edition, The Window,
+Everway, Obsidian, UnderWorld, and Little Fears are good examples.
+
+*The new revolution*
+Recent directions in RPG design are breaking new ground across GNS,
+especially in terms of how Stance relates to the modes. Only now are we
+seeing such things as mechanics-driven Director Stance in Simulationism
+and in Gamism. It's also nice to see Narrativist design following up on
+the precedent set by Prince Valiant, with Premise based on Situation
+(The Dying Earth).
+
+Fortune methods may clearly be employed extensively in the service of
+metagame goals. I specifically disavow the popular notion that these
+methods serve only for in-setting probabilistic modeling, and the
+associated notion that they have little place in Narrativism or Gamism.
+I would very much like to participate in a discussion of Fortune systems
+acting as a "springboard" for metagame priorities in Narrativist play,
+as suggested by the designs of InSpectres, The Pool, The Framework,
+Munchkins, and others.
+
+Another new development is an explicit opening statement about the
+social context of play, often with a fairly strong GNS focus. I think
+this is an astoundingly important element of game design and
+presentation, and it's interesting to review older games to see how they
+did or didn't manage to communicate it. The typical trends among them
+are the following.
+
+    * The purpose and perspective of the game is scattered across
+      several places, rarely at the beginning, and is often referred to
+      rather than addressed directly.
+    * The purpose and perspective of the game is justified because it
+      corresponds to what, according to the authors, role-playing
+      obviously is (i.e., the synecdoche fallacy).
+    * The purpose and perspective of the game claims to satisfy anyone,
+      in blatant contradiction to the game's content and design. 
+
+One of the benefits of the GNS perspective is the willingness to accept
+that other outlooks or priorities exist besides one's own. Therefore, in
+many of the new games, the social contract is both more explicit and
+less dismissive, which I think is functional, honest, and fair.
+
+Dozens of topics remain, many of which have been researched by me but
+have not been broached in public.
+
+    * DFK combinations across RPG design history, in both basic
+      resolution and metagame mechanics.
+    * The history and development across RPGs of trading within
+      components of Currency or across them.
+    * Random vs. nonrandom elements of character creation contrasted
+      with those of event resolution.
+    * Distinctions between successful actions and significant consequences.
+    * Personality mechanics, divided into two main schools derived from,
+      respectively, Call of Cthulhu and Dungeons & Dragons.
+    * Fundamental aspects of character-player relationship based on
+      levels of remove.
+    * The consequence of character death or incapacity on the player's
+      participation in the game. 
+
+I would very much like to host a sort of "Discuss this game" exercise at
+the Forge regarding given RPGs, not to label them "G, N, or S" in a
+superficial way but rather to dissect their function in the full
+knowledge of the listed elements, Stance-facilitating features, all
+aspects of design including the issues listed above, comparisons with
+ancestral, contemporary, and derivative games, and much more.
+
+*Metagame considered further*
+Metagame mechanics appeared mainly as Narrativist "coping mechanisms"
+when playing games that were largely 80s-Simulationist designs (which
+does not mean these games were "bad" or represented the whole of
+Simulationist potential). An extreme, early example would be TORG's
+character-card privileges; a more typical example would be Over the
+Edge's bonus dice.
+
+In later RPGs with overtly Narrativist resolution systems, metagame
+mechanics have again become rare. For instance, in Hero Wars, neither
+bumping success levels nor bidding Action Points are metagame mechanics,
+but simply the basic resolution system. They most resemble metagame
+mechanics from earlier games, but now, in an overtly Narrativist design,
+they are front-and-center rather than secondary overrides.
+
+*Balance, so-called*
+"Balance" may rank as the most problematic term in all of role-playing.
+What in the world does it mean? Equality of some kind? Fairness of some
+kind? Whenever the term is brought up, the discussion cannot proceed
+without specifying further regarding the following issues.
+
+    * Balance of what? Components of the characters? Specific sets of
+      components?
+    * Or perhaps it's balance of actions, in which case, is it of
+      opportunity, or of consequence?
+    * Balance among whom? Players or characters? Both in some way?
+    * To what end? (Citing "fairness" is tautological.)
+    * Shifting the issue, perhaps it's a matter of balance within a
+      character, rather than among characters.
+    * And extending the issue, should balance be concerned with initial
+      starting points of characters or with the processes of change for
+      the characters, or both? 
+
+Currently little insight arises from discussions of balance, as it
+inevitably wanders about these issues without focusing. The issues
+themselves, on the other hand, are very interesting. Therefore the term
+is much like "genre," in that discussion might as well focus on the real
+issues in the first place and never use the term at all.
+
+Finally, a common misconception is to identify any concern with equality
+or "even-ness" among characters with (a) balance per se and (b) Gamism.
+I disavow any suggestion that Gamism as a whole is necessarily concerned
+with balance, or that concerns with balance (of some kind) necessarily
+indicate a Gamist approach. For instance, the parity of starting point
+totals across a group of GURPS characters most likely indicates a
+commitment to the consistency of the Explored Characters with their
+Situation and Setting, rather than to any concern with "fairness" or
+"leveling the playing field."
+
+*Hybrids and drift*
+Can multiple GNS goals be satisfied by a single game design? It may be
+possible, but it is not easy. As mentioned before, merely aligning
+topics of Exploration with those of Premise is probably not effective. I
+conceive of two types of *hybrid*: (1) two modes are simultaneously
+satisfied in the same player at the same time, of which I am highly
+skeptical; and (2) two modes can exist side by side in the design, such
+that differently-oriented players may play together, which might be
+possible. Some possible candidates for the latter include these.
+
+    * G + S: Rifts.
+    * N + G: Champions 1st-3rd editions; I'm interested as well in
+      seeing the upcoming Elfworld and a proposed game from Hogshead
+      Publishing regarding fantasy weaponry.
+    * N + S: Little Fears and UnderWorld (these games' degree of
+      "abashedness" exists squarely on the border of the two modes). 
+
+*Drift* is a related issue: the movement from one GNS focus to another
+during the course of play. I do not think that "drift" reflects
+hybridized design (in which both modes are indeed present), but rather
+correctable incoherence (moving toward coherence in one mode).
+Historically, drifting toward Gamism is very common; it isn't hard to
+understand that a frustrating and incoherent context can be turned into
+an arena for competition. Internet play has illustrated some distinctive
+drifting: Amber moves from abashed Narrativism either to Simulation with
+Exploration of Character or to Gamism with the emphasis on interpersonal
+control; Everway moves from abashed Narrativism to Simulationism with
+the emphasis on Exploration of Situation.
+The 1990s transitional game offers a good example of driftable design:
+Simulationist resolution with strong metagame mechanics, highly
+customizable character, setting, and situation, with or without
+exhortations to "story." Fudge and The Window are perfect examples, on
+either side of Simulationism or Narrativism, respectively, as the stated
+emphasis.
+
+*Incoherent design*
+Unfortunately, functional or nearly-functional hybrids are far less
+common than simply incoherent RPG designs.
+
+The "lesser," although still common, dysfunctional trend is found among
+the imitators of the late-1970s release of AD&D, composed of vague and
+scattered Simulationism mixed with vague and scattered Gamism. Warhammer
+is the most successful of these. Small-press publishers pump out these
+games constantly, offering little new besides ever-more baroque
+mechanics and a highly-customized Setting (Hahlmabrea, Pelicar,
+Legendary Lives, Of Gods and Men, Fifth Cycle, Darkurthe: Legends, and
+more). Another, similar trend is the never-ending stream of GURPS
+imitators.
+
+The "dominant" dysfunctional system is immediately recognizable, to the
+extent of being considered by many to be what role-playing is: a vaguely
+Gamist combat and reward system, Simulationist resolution in general
+(usually derived from GURPS, Cyberpunk, or Champions 4th edition), a
+Simulationist context for play (Situation in the form of published
+metaplot), deceptive Narrativist Color, and incoherent
+Simulationist/Narrativist Character creation rules. This combination has
+been represented by some of the major players in role-playing marketing,
+and has its representative for every period of role-playing since the
+early 1980s.
+
+    * AD&D2 pioneered the approach in the middle 1980s, particularly the
+      addition of metaplot with the Dragonlance series.
+    * Champions, through its 3rd edition, exemplified a mix of Gamist
+      and Narrativist "driftable" design, but with its 4th edition in
+      the very late 1980s, the system lost all Metagame content and
+      became the indigestible mix outlined above.
+    * Vampire, in the early 1990s, offered a mix of Simulationism and
+      Gamism in combat resolution, but a mix of Narrativism and
+      Simulationism out of combat, as well as bringing in Character
+      Exploration. 
+
+The design is hugely imitated, ranging from Earthdawn, Kult, and In
+Nomine, to the mid-1990s "shotgun attack" of Deadlands, Legend of the
+Five Rings, and Seventh Sea.
+
+All of these games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe
+Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the
+ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the
+actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is
+impossible. It's even absurd. However, game after game, introduction
+after introduction, and discussion after discussion, it is repeated.
+
+Consider the players who were excited about the vampire concept for
+role-playing. What happens when they try to play Vampire: the
+Masquerade? Well, they try to Believe the Impossible Thing, and in
+application, the results are inevitable.
+
+    * The play drifts toward some application of Narrativism, which
+      requires substantial effort and agreement among all the people
+      involved, as well as editing out substantial portions of the
+      game's texts and system.
+    * The play drifts toward an application of Simulationism in which
+      the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the
+      players contribute only to characterization. This is called
+      *illusionism*, in which the players are unaware of or complicit
+      with the extent to which they are manipulated.
+          o Illusionism is not necessarily dysfunctional, and if
+            Character or Situation Exploration is the priority, then it
+            can be a lot of fun. Unknown Armies, Feng Shui, and Call of
+            Cthulhu all facilitate extremely functional illusionism.
+            However, it is not and can never be "story creation" on the
+            part of all participants, and if the game is incoherent,
+            illusionism requires considerable effort to edit the system
+            and texts into shape. 
+    * Most likely, however, the players and GM carry out an ongoing
+      power-struggle over the actions of the characters, with the
+      integrity of "my guy" held as a club on the behalf of the former
+      and the integrity of "the story" held as a club on behalf of the
+      latter. 
+
+The players of the vampire example are especially screwed if they have
+Narrativist leanings and try to use Vampire: the Masquerade. The
+so-called "Storyteller" design in White Wolf games is emphatically not
+Narrativist, but it is billed as such, up to and including encouraging
+subcultural snobbery against other Simulationist play without being much
+removed from it. The often-repeated distinction between "roll-playing"
+and "role-playing" is nothing more nor less than Exploration of System
+and Exploration of Character - either of which, when prioritized, is
+Simulationism. Thus our players, instead of taking the "drift" option
+(which would work), may well apply themselves more and more diligently
+to the metaplot and other non-Narrativist elements in the mistaken
+belief that they are emphasizing "story." The prognosis for the
+enjoyment of such play is not favorable.
+
+One may ask, if this design is so horribly dysfunctional, why is it so
+popular? The answer requires an economic perspective on RPGs, in
+addition to the conceptual and functional one outlined in this essay,
+and is best left for discussion.
+
+*The one true game*
+What a wonderful ideal: an RPG design that satisfies any participant,
+with no stress, no adjustment of any part, no potential for
+interpersonal disagreement, and no unnecessary preparation. The
+"universal game."
+
+Bluntly, it's a moronic concept, existing only to whet frustrated
+consumers' appetites for an upcoming product. GNS goals differ among
+people, preferred variants of each GNS mode differ among people, and
+system mechanics necessarily facilitate a limited range of these
+preferences, or facilitate nothing at all. All of us would do well to
+look in the mirror every morning and state, "There is no universal
+role-playing game."
+
+However, the term "universal" is also used for a rather sensible and
+functional RPG design option, which is much better described by the term
+*general*. A general game design holds constant one or two of the listed
+elements of role-playing (Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color)
+and provides guidelines for customizing the other elements. GURPS and
+Fudge are perfect examples, as are the plethora of their imitators:
+System is held constant and made very clear; Setting and Color are
+specified prior to play by the GM and similarly made clear and specific;
+and then Character and Situation are customized.
+
+A general game design is really no more than extending the original
+notion from AD&D of System, Setting, Situation, and Color being highly
+fixed, with Character being the main thing to customize. Other
+combinations are possible, as in Sorcerer and Orkworld, in which System
+is highly fixed, then Character and Situation are customized, and
+finally Setting are customized (Color's place differs between these two
+games).
+
+In other words, the so-called "universal" model for RPG design is really
+a general design, and a coherent general game sits as firmly in its GNS
+orientation as any other. The key issue is to avoid confounding it with
+"universal" in the sense of "satisfies any and every possible
+role-playing participant."
+
+*Misunderstandings*
+A number of code-phrases to describe RPG system and goals have arisen as
+role-players struggled to match their interests with the spectrum of
+available games, but most of them lack substance.
+
+    * Rules-heavy vs. Rules-light: this dichotomy is vaguely oriented
+      toward high vs. low search and handling time, but it is confounded
+      a great deal with so-called realism and so-called story. (This
+      confusion is a product of the transition design period of
+      1990-1991, exemplified by Fudge and The Window.) The concept of
+      rules-focus, in terms of goals and modes, has not entered the
+      popular understanding of the hobby.
+    * Completeness: as far as I can tell, this term relies on as
+      thorough a presentation as possible of all the listed elements,
+      apparently such that Simulationist play of any emphasis can pick
+      and choose which aspects to emphasize, by elimination rather than
+      by creation. 
+
+</articles/7/>
+
+*_Chapter Six: Actually Playing_*
+
+It all comes back to the social situation, eventually, because
+role-playing is a human activity and not a set of rules or text.
+Coherence is expressed as a social outcome; it must apply all the way
+into and through actual play. I suggest that preparing for and carrying
+out the role-playing experience in social terms, well above and beyond
+considerations of system mechanics, is most coherent from a GNS and
+Premise perspective.
+
+Role-playing is carried out through relying upon the real, interpersonal
+roles of living humans, yes, even of opponents. If people do not share
+any degree of either Premise focus (either Gamist or Narravist) or an
+Exploration focus (Simulationist), then their different assumptions,
+different expectations, and different goals will come into conflict
+during play. When that happens, the uber-goal of "Fun" is diminished.
+Perhaps the people continue to play together solely to interact
+socially, but the actual role-playing is, effectively, gone.
+
+*But it's just a game!*
+This phrase is an alarm bell. Oh, it looks like an attempt to
+reconciliate disagreements by calling attention to fun and the shared,
+social context, but it disguises something far more unpleasant.
+
+The first tip-off is that the phrase is not literally meaningful. What's
+the "it?" Role-playing, of course, but dismissed, via the singular short
+pronoun, as simple, straightforward, intuitively grasped, and singly
+defined. And what's a "game?" Not defined at all. The use of "game" to
+refer to role-playing is completely historical and carries no
+informational content beyond its indication of a leisure activity.
+
+The ugly truth is that this phrase is not reconciliatory at all. Rather,
+it is code for, "Stop bothering me with your interests and accord with
+my goals, decisions, and priorities of play." I strongly urge that
+individual role-players not tolerate any implication that their
+preferred, enjoyed range of role-playing modes is a less worthy form of
+play.
+
+*What's a GM and what's a player?*
+Like it or not, among any group of people contributing to some
+constructive activity, there exists a the aforementioned Balance of
+Power: some hierarchy and way to organize who gets to influence and
+approve of outcomes. For the activity to succeed, some form of *social
+contract*, or reciprocal obligations, must be in place.
+
+In role-playing games, the issue of the social contract becomes quickly
+confounded with the distribution and difference in the roles of GM and
+players. Entirely aside from any formal rules-oriented or
+procedure-oriented authority, what kind of authority or status does a GM
+have over or with the players anyway? Is he or she the physical host,
+using physical living or work space for the game? If not, does that
+change or limit the GM-ness? How about a faculty member running games
+with students in a campus club? How about romance issues; if single, is
+he or she automatically the focus of personal attention from other
+single people in the group?
+
+Most of these issues cannot be addressed from the perspective of game
+design, but they are real nonetheless. Where the game design and
+GNS-based approach to play can help is in putting all the issues of the
+role-playing itself above-board. Given clear roles, purposes, and
+respective obligations of GM and player - which in most RPG designs are
+left open or badly mis-stated - the group may avoid getting its
+role-playing issues mixed up with its social ones.
+
+How might a GNS perspective help keep that GM/player understanding
+clear? Historically, the terms cover very diffferent ranges within each
+of the modes.
+
+    * The range in Gamism: GM as referee over players who compete with
+      one another, GM as referee over the players competing with a
+      scenario, GM as opponent of the players as a unified group, or
+      even no GM at all among a group of competing players.
+    * The range in Simulationism: GM as channeler of external source
+      material, GM as the fellow Actor responsible for the landscape and
+      NPCs, GM as referee of the physics and internal consistency of the
+      imaginary universe, GM as covert author.
+    * The range in Narrativism: depending on the degree of coauthorship
+      of the players, the traditional tasks of the GM may vary all the
+      way from one centralized GM to a situation in which all the
+      players are mini-GMs. Interestingly, this is the one mode in
+      which, throughout its range, no role for an "impartial referee" GM
+      is possible. 
+
+One last note about Gamism: the shift from tourney play, in which many
+groups of players competed for time and kill-count as they were "run
+through" identical adventures, to single-group play led to many design
+holdovers that often lead to frustrating experiences. These are almost
+all based on the shift from the GM as referee, with the opponents being
+other groups, to the GM as opponent - and the players, rather sensibly,
+turning from competing with an invincible opponent (the holdover from
+the referee status) to competing with one another.
+
+A final issue about GM and player(s) concerns who is expected to be
+entertaining whom, in some kind of dichotomous way. Evidently this is a
+matter of some emotional commitment, prompting the same defensiveness
+and hurt feelings as the mention of "immersion." Therefore I am
+personally willing to let it lie.
+
+*Organizing a role-playing session*
+With a few exceptions, most role-playing texts completely ignore the
+actual human logistics of play, although these are hugely important in
+application. How can one possibly participate in a social, leisure
+activity without considering all of the following?
+
+    * The number of participants and the extant relationships among them.
+    * The time to be spent playing, in terms of hours per session and
+      the number of sessions per unit of real time (week or month,
+      e.g.), the anticipated number of sessions, and so on.
+    * The event-scope of play; that is, when and how often units of
+      satisfaction for the participants occcur (here the GNS perspective
+      is tremendously useful, because it identifies the instances of
+      satisfaction).
+    * The necessary time and effort to be spent in preparation, and by
+      whom. 
+
+When AD&D was released in its late 1970s form, its content encouraged a
+"more is better" approach. The more players, the better. The more time
+spent, the better. The longer the sessions, the better. The longer the
+sessions continued, the better. Nearly all role-playing games used AD&D
+as the starting point for presentation purposes, even those with vastly
+different systems and philosophies of play, and so this dysfunctional
+approach remains with us to this day. The term "campaign" is especially
+misleading, as in wargaming it denotes a specific set of events from
+point A in time to point B in time, whereas in role-playing it denotes
+playing indefinitely.
+
+For those forms of role-playing that emphasize "story" in the general
+sense (see Chapter Two), this approach is completely unsuitable. What is
+a "story" to be, in terms of individual sessions and all-sessions? In
+role-playing culture, one is often assumed either to be playing a
+"campaign," which means it should go on forever, or a "one-shot" session
+which aside from the connotation of being superficial is simply too
+short for many sorts of stories. The functional intermediate of playing
+the number of sessions sufficient for the purpose of resolving a story
+is nowhere to be found in the texts of role-playing.
+
+On the smaller scale, successfully preparing for individual sessions is
+especially integrated with GNS and Premise. Consider the historical
+tendencies among the modes, in terms of how a series of events emerges
+through the course of play. (These do not represent either a complete or
+definitional list, but simply historical examples.)
+
+    * Linear adventures, in which the GM has provided a series of
+      prepared, in-order encounters.
+    * Linear, branched adventures, in which the GM has done the same as
+      above but provides for the players proceeding in more than one
+      direction or sequence.
+    * Roads to Rome, in which the GM has prepared a climactic scene and
+      maneuvers or otherwise determines that character activity leads to
+      this scene. (In practice, "winging it" usually becomes this method.)
+    * Bang-driven, in which the GM has prepared a series of instigating
+      events but has not anticipated a specific outcome or
+      confrontation. (This is precisely the opposite of Roads to Rome.)
+    * Relationship map, in which the GM has prepared a complex
+      back-story whose members, when encountered by the characters,
+      respond according to the characters' actions, but no sequence or
+      outcomes of these encounters have been pre-determined.
+    * Intuitive continuity, in which the GM uses the players' interests
+      and actions during initial play to construct the crises and actual
+      content of later play. (This is a form of "winging it" that may or
+      may not become Roads to Rome.) 
+
+Roads to Rome and Linear/Branched play are extremely common in published
+scenarios with a strong Simulationist approach. Linear play relies on
+extreme commitment to the Situation, and thus works best for
+Situation-intensive Simulationist play, as in many Call of Cthulhu
+scenarios. Bang-driven (formalized in Sorcerer and Sword) and
+Relationship map (formalized in The Sorcerer's Soul) are best suited to
+Narrativist play. Intuitive Continuity may do well for a variety of
+modes that emphasize either Character actions being pivotal
+(Narrativism) or Character Exploration (Simulationism). Again, all of
+this is speaking historically and not at all in terms of potential.
+
+Gamist play was not included above, mainly because it has been so badly
+marginalized during most of role-playing history. To date, most scenario
+construction oriented in this direction has fallen back on the
+late-1970s tournament model or the survivalist model found in many video
+games. The Hogshead family of Gamist RPGs ('Baron Munchausen, Pantheon)
+has broken this mold and I have no doubt that much more variety remains
+to be developed.
+
+*Dysfunction: when role-playing doesn't work out*
+Great Googley-Moogley, let me count the ways.
+
+The clearest case is straightforward. People do exist who will
+habitually disrupt a role-playing group for whatever reasons of their
+own, and the only solution for dealing with such people is to exclude
+them from play.
+
+But let's consider people who do want to role-play together, and have
+even established an interest in the most basic, embryonic form of an
+initial Premise. What dysfunctions may arise?
+
+Emotional tensions between people may override the role-playing. It can
+be romance, or money issues, or who's giving whom a ride home, or any
+number of similar things. My claim is that a lot of times, people get
+all upset at one another about game stuff (tactics, rules, etc) when the
+real problem is this people stuff. Such problems must be dealt with
+socially and above-board, because no in-game mechanisms can help;
+in-game issues are symptoms rather than causes.
+
+I think the most common dysfunction, however, is GNS incompatibility. At
+the highest-order level, if the people simply have entirely different
+goals, then actual play continually runs into conflicts about priorities
+and procedures based on those different goals. I think everyone who's
+familiar with the theory knows that this is a "no fault, no blame"
+criterion. I like potatos, you like pink lemonade, have a nice game with
+your own group.
+
+More difficult incompatibilities also exist within each of G, N, or S.
+People may share the the large-scale GNS goal, but be accustomed to or
+desire different standards for Balance of Power, preferred stances,
+notions of character depth, the distinction between player success and
+character success, and many related things. In this case, dysfunction
+arises from (a) trying to resolve the differences during play itself,
+and (b) anyone being unwilling to compromise about the differences.
+
+Drift is the usual method for dealing with this level of discord. It is
+a fine solution for resolving within-mode differences, if everyone is
+willing to give a little. However, drift has a dark side, or
+degeneration, the disruption or subversion of the social contract such
+that what is happening is not more fun, at least not at the group level.
+Gamism is often pegged as the culprit when players shift from the stated
+or agreed-upon mode of play and turn upon one another as opponents, but
+it's better considered degeneration with Gamism merely being the
+direction. The usual effect of degeneration (any kind, not just this one
+little Gamist sort), if people continue to play, is to play without
+committing to anything at all.
+
+The tragedy is how widespread GNS-based degeneration really is. I have
+met dozens, perhaps over a hundred, very experienced role-players with
+this profile: a limited repertoire of games behind him and extremely
+defensive and turtle-like play tactics. Ask for a character background,
+and he resists, or if he gives you one, he never makes use of it or
+responds to cues about it. Ask for actions - he hunkers down and does
+nothing unless there's a totally unambiguous lead to follow or a foe to
+fight. His universal responses include "My guy doesn't want to," and, "I
+say nothing."
+
+I have not, in over twenty years of role-playing, ever seen such a
+person have a good time role-playing. I have seen a lot of groups
+founder due to the presence of one such participant. Yet they really
+want to play. They prepare characters or settings, organize groups, and
+are bitterly disappointed with each fizzled attempt. They spend a lot of
+money on RPGs with lots of supplements and full-page ads in gaming
+magazines.
+
+These role-players are GNS casualties. They have never perceived the
+range of role-playing goals and designs, and they frequently commit the
+fallacies of synecdoche about "correct role-playing." Discussions with
+them wander the empty byways of realism, genre, completeness,
+roll-playing vs. role-playing, and balance. They are the victims of
+incoherent game designs and groups that have not focused their
+intentions enough. They thought that "show up with a character" was
+sufficient prep, or thought that this new game with its new setting was
+going to solve all their problems forever. They are simultaneously
+devoted to and miserable in their hobby.
+
+My goal in developing RPG theory and writing this document is to help
+people avoid this fate.
+
+</articles/8/>
+
+*_Acknowledgements_*
+
+Thanks are due to everyone who has taken the time to discuss the issues
+with me over the years. Specific intellectual debts are owed to the
+following people. In no particular order:
+
+The members of the rec.gaming.faq.advocacy discussion group, most
+especially John Kim, for the Threefold Model and Stance. I owe an
+immense debt to all members of these discussions for raising all the
+right issues. However, I have altered just about everything very
+drastically, and "Director stance" is my contribution.
+
+Robin Laws for his essay regarding Art vs. Game in the text of Over the
+Edge, as well as for nearly single-handedly revolutionizing RPG design
+throughout the 1990s. (And he's still going, too; it's really frightening.)
+
+The Scarlet Jester (real name withheld) for the concept of Exploration.
+However, I acknowledge that he does not approve of the definition and
+use I've made of it, and any problems or inconsistencies with the listed
+definition and use are solely my responsibility.
+
+Jonathan Tweet for DFK, from his text in the game Everway, as well as
+for many other things. My re-statement of the definition of Drama has
+been approved by him.
+
+Christopher Kubasik for his "Interactive Toolkit" series of essays.
+
+Lajos Egri for his 1946 book, The Art of Dramatic Writing, for the
+foundation of my thoughts on Narrativist Premise.
+
+Logan Hunter for his original compilation of the theories from a variety
+of discussions and for his construction of Balance of Power.
+
+Jim Henley for his term "abashedly Narrativist" regarding Everway, which
+admirably describes a whole family of RPG designs.
+
+Gordon Landis for his input regarding Drift.
+
+The FUZION Lab Group for their presentation of switches and dials in the
+text of Champions New Millenium. I have expanded their
+Simulationist/general material into a much broader scheme regarding all
+of DFK diversity.
+
+Jesse Burneko for his input regarding illusionism.
+
+Gareth-Michael Skarka for his description of Intuitive Continuity in the
+text of UnderWorld.
+
+If I have overlooked anyone's input, please remind me and I'll include
+you in the acknowledgments.
+

--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/narr_essay.txt	Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,2848 @@
+          The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games
+   [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles |
+   Forge  [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums
+
+
+                             Narrativism: Story Now
+
+   by Ron Edwards <[8]sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>
+   Copyright 2003 Adept Press
+
+   Acknowledgments are due to Mike Holmes, Ralph Mazza, Christopher Kubasik,
+   Jesse Burneko, Paul Czege, Clinton R. Nixon, Vincent Baker, Seth Ben-Ezra,
+   M. J. Young, Chris Chinn, Pete Darby, Gordon C. Landis, Walt Freitag, and
+   Matt Snyder for comments on the first draft of this essay. All mistakes or
+   misattributions should be considered my responsibility.
+
+   This is the third of three essays building upon the topics addressed in
+   "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory"
+   ([9]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/). The previous two essays were
+   "Simulationism: The Right to Dream"
+   ([10]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/), and "Gamism: Step On Up"
+   ([11]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/). This series' purposes are to
+   clarify the original essay and to develop and incorporate insights from
+   discussions at the Forge.
+
+   This one is about Narrativist play, which is simultaneously the least and
+   most problematic of the Creative Agendas I've described. It's incredibly
+   easy in application, and the most difficult for discussion. I think that
+   this difficulty lies mainly in some of the peculiarities of
+   role-player/gamer culture, entrenched in the history of the hobby, rather
+   than any particular logical or cognitive hitches in the mode of play
+   itself.
+
+   In the first two essays, I began presenting an overall model of
+   role-playing, but piecemeal and in stumbling verbal form. As of this
+   writing, I've finished that model, and it is included here as well. It's a
+   bit out of place, being more of a capstone or umbrella to the three essays
+   rather than an intrinsic piece of the Narrativist one. More complete
+   discussions about it may also be found in "The whole model - this is it"
+   ([12]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8655).
+
+History of the term
+
+   The Threefold Model for role-playing included the term Dramatism, as
+   presented by John Kim at his Threefold Model
+   ([13]http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/) webpage. When I learned
+   about the Threefold, I'd already been thinking about stuff I'd later call
+   Currency and also about Jonathan Tweet's discussion of resolution
+   presented in Everway. The basic notion of the Threefold impressed me: it
+   was time to talk about goals and priorities independently of everything
+   else, then to see whether everything else flowed to and from them. This
+   was at the time that Sorcerer was making its small way into commerce, so
+   the mailing list was the place for our first discussions; most of them are
+   archived at the Sorcerer website ([14]http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com).
+
+   At this point, since "Drama" as a resolution category in Tweet's schema
+   and "Dramatism" as a goals-category in the Threefold referred to two
+   different things, I decided that the names were confusing. Going by which
+   set of ideas was first presented (Tweet's), I changed Dramatism to
+   Narrativism. This terminological change was limited to discussions on the
+   Sorcerer mailing list and later at the Gaming Outpost.
+
+   However, our use of the terms and ideas on the Sorcerer mailing list took
+   on its own character almost immediately, such that in my first essay
+   "System Does Matter" ([15]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/), "story"
+   was already its own distinct, process-oriented term.
+
+   The biggest change in my thinking about role-playing is represented in the
+   essay "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory"
+   ([16]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), in which the concept of
+   Exploration becomes the underlying foundation for the three modes or goals
+   of play. This new picture was startling: (1) potential story elements were
+   now considered present for all three modes play, and (2)Narrativism now
+   appeared to be a mirror image or twin sibling of Gamism, counter to older
+   impressions shared by me and anyone else who ever wrote about role-playing
+   that Gamism was the odd man out.
+
+   I've tried to emphasize this new outlook throughout these three supportive
+   essays. Whereas I think most people think of Gamism with (or synonymous
+   with) its Hard Core variant over in one ballpark, with Simulationism
+   containing an internal "story" variant in another ballpark, my concepts
+   are radically different. I hope to make this picture, and its
+   implications, entirely clear in this essay.
+
+The foundation: Exploration and more
+
+   Here's the big ol' model for role-playing that the previous two essays
+   sort of fumbled at. Notice that "rules" are absent; I now consider "rules"
+   simply to mean text, which may be about anything you find in the model.
+   The brackets are very important: if B relates to A as [A[B]], then B is
+   considered a part, application, version, or expression of A.
+
+   [Social Contract]. Social Contract encompasses everything else about
+   role-playing. If these people happen to be role-playing together, then
+   Social Contract crucially includes "Let's play this game." This crucial
+   element is what's further subdivided throughout the rest of this model.
+
+   [Social Contract [Exploration]]. Exploration means "shared imaginings."
+   The sharing has to be explicit and agreed upon, usually through the spoken
+   word although any form of communication counts. The imaginings have to be
+   the subject that is shared, which is why me reading aloud to my wife does
+   not constitute Exploration. We are independently imagining based on the
+   spoken word, but neither she nor I is telling the other what we imagine
+   from that point. Exploration means that such communication is occurring.
+
+   The five elements of Exploration are interdependent: Character + Setting
+   make Situation, System permits Situation to "move," and Color affects all
+   the others. This concept applies only to the imaginary causes among the
+   elements; the real people's actual priority or cause among these things,
+   in social and creative terms, varies widely. See my essay "GNS and other
+   matters of role-playing theory"
+   ([17]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/) for more about these elements.
+
+   [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda]]]. Creative Agenda is the
+   blanket term for people's demonstrated goals and desired feedback during
+   play. In the past, I called it "GNS." Since all of this is enclosed in
+   Social Contract, GNS-stuff is not only "what I want" but also "what I want
+   from role-playing with this group of people." Since Exploration
+   necessarily includes System, that means, as soon as we start talking about
+   Creative Agenda, real play has begun.
+
+   On paper, I draw this term as an arrow, because this "step" or "level" in
+   my model shifts out of the abstract and solidly into this group, playing
+   this game, this way, at this time. The model instantly ceases to be a
+   broad overview and becomes a diagnostic or description of a real
+   play-experience among real people. Unless you are thinking of such a case,
+   you will be left flailing at this point in the discussion.
+
+   [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques]]]]. The
+   panoply of Techniques being employed over time either satisfy or fail to
+   satisfy one or more Creative Agendas. Techniques include IIEE,
+   Drama/Karma/Fortune, search time & handling time, narration apportioning,
+   reward system, points of contact, character components, scene framing,
+   currency among the character components, and much more. Each of these
+   terms represents a range of potential play-methods. I consider the two
+   most important Techniques to be reward system and IIEE (see glossary).
+
+   Techniques may be thought of as directly expressing the more abstract
+   concept of System (way up in Exploration), except that System doesn't
+   exist all by itself - it's fully integrated with the other components of
+   Exploration. But if you keep that in mind, then yes, the arrow represented
+   by Creative Agenda can indeed be "shot" from the bow of System.
+
+   Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of
+   Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas.
+
+   [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques
+   [Ephemera]]]]]. Ephemera refers to the smallest-scale interactions and
+   activities of role-playing: anything that gets factored into or is
+   expressed by play in the space of a few seconds. As with every level/box
+   so far, fairly extensive combinations of Ephemera express or apply to one
+   or more Techniques. They are the internal anatomy, if you will, of
+   Techniques and hence (conceptualizing upward) of System.
+
+   Ephemera include individual Stances, in-character vs. out-of-character
+   diction and dialogue, referring to texts, sound effects, taking or
+   referring to notes, kibitzing, laughing, praise or disapproval, showing
+   pictures, and anything similar.
+
+   Understanding any Creative Agenda, in this case Narrativism, means
+   examining its potential roles and expressions in the whole model.
+   Narrativism's little code phrase for that purpose is "Story Now."
+
+  Story
+
+   Long ago, I concluded that "story" as a role-playing term was standing in
+   for several different processes and goals, some of which were
+   incompatible. Here's the terms-breakdown I'll be using from now on.
+
+   All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go
+   ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where
+   they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the
+   "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little
+   something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a
+   certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript
+   has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story.
+
+   Let's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story,
+   arose from one or more sessions of role-playing.
+
+   Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage
+   the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying
+   to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. He also
+   meets this beautiful, mysterious woman named Javenne who aids him at
+   times, and they develop a romance. Then he learns that she and the dragon
+   are one and the same, as she's been cursed to become a dragon periodically
+   in a kind of Ladyhawke situation, and he must decide whether to kill her.
+   Meanwhile, she struggles to control the curse, using her dragon-powers to
+   quell an uprising in the realm led by a traitorous ally. Eventually he
+   goes to the Underworld instead and confronts the god who cursed her, and
+   trades his youth to the god to lift the curse. He returns, and the curse
+   is detached from her, but still rampaging around as a dragon. So they slay
+   the dragon together, and return as a couple, still united although he's
+   now all old, to his home.
+
+   The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a
+   story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during
+   the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We don't know whether
+   people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination
+   of the three. A story can be produced through any Creative Agenda. The
+   mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based
+   issue.
+
+Story Now
+
+   Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature
+   of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address"
+   means:
+
+     * Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world,
+       "fixing" them into imaginary place.
+
+     * Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps
+       changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being
+       taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the
+       antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.
+
+     * Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the
+       protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the
+       circumstances.
+
+   Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers
+   to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create
+   those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying
+   attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the
+   story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays,
+   and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of
+   the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of
+   input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to
+   it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of
+   elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.
+
+   There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have
+   such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole
+   point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a
+   great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social
+   expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is
+   directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than
+   toward strategy and guts.
+
+Say it yourself
+
+   I receive a lot of emails like this one from Landon Darkwood:
+
+   I think I may have had a revelation.
+
+   ... In your Simulationism essay, you have this: "'Story,' in this context,
+   refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of
+   recognizing and enjoying the genre during play."
+
+   Is this the key to distinguishing the [Narrativist vs. Simulationist] play
+   modes? My intepretation of this statement is that in Simulationist gaming,
+   a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only
+   for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre
+   elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream.
+   i.e., a Sim game Colored with elements from Chinese wuxia movies might
+   have a multilayered story involving class conflict, people being trapped
+   by their social position, repressed romance, heavy action, a sorcerer and
+   his eunuch henchmen - but these are all trappings of the genre. So, their
+   inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't
+   Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that isn't already there.
+   In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the
+   Exploration; because the Dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a
+   kind of intricacy involved.
+
+   In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that
+   are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless
+   of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are
+   created by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are
+   already present in the Dream, reinforced by the play, and kind of a
+   by-product.
+
+   Am I on this now?
+
+   "In a word," I replied, "Yes."
+
+   Narrativism has a single definition, but it's difficult to articulate for
+   people grappling with muddled RPG terminology. As far as I was concerned,
+   not only had I presented what Landon said in "GNS and other matters of
+   role-playing theory" ([18]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), I'd
+   repeated it dozens of times in forum discussions. In fact, I'd said it in
+   the message to Landon that immediately preceded this reply. But he had to
+   say it himself, with his own use of words like "just" and "genre." I am
+   now convinced, after many such exchanges, that an "experienced"
+   role-player comes to this conclusion only by working it out in his or her
+   own terms and examples.
+
+  Premise
+
+   How is this done, actually, in play? It relies on the concept of something
+   called Premise and its relationship to an emergent theme.
+
+   I already snuck Premise past you: it's that "problematic issue" I
+   mentioned. I've taken the term from The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos
+   Egri. In reading what follows, bear in mind that he is discussing the
+   process of writing, not an existing playscript or a performance:
+
+   ... every good premise is composed of three parts, each of which is
+   essential to a good play. Let us examine "frugality equals waste." The
+   first part of this premise suggest character - a frugal character. The
+   second part, "leads to," suggests conflict, and the third part, "waste,"
+   suggests the end of the play. ...
+
+   A good premise is a thumbnail synopsis of your play. [examples follow,
+   including "Egotism leads to loss of friends." - RE]
+
+   ... What is wrong, then? What is missing?
+
+   The author's conviction is missing. Until he takes sides, there is no
+   play. Does egotism lead to loss of friends? Which side will you take? We,
+   the readers or spectators of your play, do not necessarily agree with your
+   convictions. Through your play you must therefore prove to us the validity
+   of your contention.
+
+   A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "the guy who thinks THIS, and
+   does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not
+   created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are
+   brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of
+   being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the
+   conflict, and a conviction that is proved to us (as Egri says),constitutes
+   theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have
+   been moved to do so at an emotional level.
+
+   I think that any reliable means of story-writing, in any medium, conforms
+   to Egri's principles. They may seem simplistic: the burning passion of the
+   protagonist directly expresses a burning passion of the author's, who uses
+   the plot as a polemic to demonstrate it. However, "Why Johnny shouldn't
+   smoke dope" is only the starting point. More nuanced, ambiguous, and
+   insightful applications arise insofar as more nuanced, ambiguous, and
+   insightful authors and audiences are involved.
+
+   I said earlier that any role-playing can produce a story, and that's so.
+   But Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing
+   their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its
+   child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable
+   is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a
+   player-character does something. If that emotional connection is
+   identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and
+   developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is
+   under way. Some nuances:
+
+     * "Character does something" can mean foreshadowing, flashback, and
+       anything in between. It can mean the character is just thinkin' about
+       it, or it can mean the character flat-out does it. As long as the
+       fictional character is brought into the perceptions and possible
+       emotional responses of the other people at the table, then it counts.
+
+     * It doesn't matter whether the character fictionally "meant" to do the
+       action, premeditated it, or acted on-the-spot.
+
+     * In stories (unlike real life), the character's immediate environment
+       is kind of a weird sidekick, who sometimes acts in the character's
+       favor and sometimes against him or her. "Character does something"
+       often includes this sidekick's behavior.
+
+     * "Identifiable" means assessing how the players treat one another
+       during the process, socially.
+
+   From my essay "GNS and related matters of role-playing theory"
+   ([19]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/):
+
+   Narrativist Premises focus on producing Theme via events during play.
+   Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from
+   the in-game events. My thoughts on Narrativist Premise are derived from
+   the book The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, specifically his
+   emphasis on the questions that arise from human conundrums and passions of
+   all sorts.
+
+     * Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?
+
+     * Does love and marriage override one's loyalty to a political cause?
+
+     * And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and stories
+       of all sorts.
+
+   Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven
+   Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great
+   deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key to
+   Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that
+   engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is
+   produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by
+   pre-planning.
+
+     * A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial Premise,
+       with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right to sustain
+       one's immortality by killing others? When might the justification
+       break down?
+
+     * Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are
+       divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living
+       people, and which side are you on?
+
+   I'm still saying the same thing. But now, I've returned to my earlier
+   usage; it's the only meaning for the term "Premise" in my model.
+
+   That bit about moral and ethical content is merely one of those
+   personalized clincher-phrasings that some people find helpful. It helps to
+   distinguish a Premise from "my guy fought a dragon, so that's a conflict,
+   so that's a Premise" thinking. However, if these terms bug you, then say,
+   "problematic human issue" instead.
+
+   Egri presents his Premises as flat statements, and I state them as
+   questions. Using the question form isn't changing anything about what Egri
+   is saying. Premise must pose a question to the real people, creator and
+   audience alike. The fictional character's belief in something like
+   "Freedom is worth any price" is already an implicit question: "Is it
+   really? Even when [insert Situation]?" Otherwise it will fail to engage
+   anyone.
+
+   Egri's statement-construction is very useful for the single author faced
+   with a blank sheet of paper, with the goal at hand being a finished
+   script. The audience will see the play, not the process of creation.
+   However, in the role-playing medium, not only are there multiple authors,
+   but the audience is also composed of these same authors, and their
+   appreciation of the material occurs simultaneously with the significant
+   creative decisions. Therefore, the Premise's imaginary resolution is up
+   for grabs among the group in role-playing, just as it is up for grabs
+   within the author's own head before the play reaches final draft. In the
+   latter case, the jump to "the point" is swift and hopefully certain; in
+   the former case, the new medium, it is anything but. I phrase it as a
+   question for role-playing, to indicate that everyone involved has his or
+   her fair crack at it as one of the authors.
+
+   From Robin Laws' essay "The Literary Edge," published in Over the Edge
+   (Atlas Games, 1992):
+
+   OTE is, among other things, an attempt to further the development of
+   role-playing as art. GMs will find it fruitful to approach decisions as an
+   artist creating a collaborative work with players. The idea of
+   collaboration is important: the GM is not a "storyteller" with the players
+   as audience, but merely a "first among equals" given responsibility for
+   the smooth progress of the developing story.
+
+   ... The GM is not a movie director, able to order actors to interpret a
+   script a given way. Instead, he should be seeking ways to challenge PCs,
+   to use plot development to highlight aspects of their character, in hopes
+   of being challenged in return.
+
+   ... For years, role-players have been simulating fictional narratives the
+   way wargamers recreate historical military engagements. They've been
+   making spontaneous, democratized art for their own consumption, even if
+   they haven't seen it in those terms. Making the artistry conscious is a
+   liberating act, making it easier to emulate the classic tales that inspire
+   us. Have fun with it, and enjoy your special role in aesthetic history -
+   it's not everybody who gets to be a pioneer in the development of a new
+   art form.
+
+   Egri's Premise, meet role-playing. Oh, I can quibble ... instead of the
+   word "conscious," I prefer "mindful," and I think that "emulate the
+   classic tales" is a bit simplistic, but never mind. The point is, if you
+   want a Narrativist Manifesto from one of the great minds of role-playing,
+   then there you go.
+
+   Here's a bit more about that theme business. Think of it as the conclusive
+   "uh!" that may accompany the climax and resolution of a story. It's
+   uttered by the playwright as he hits a certain key or scribes a certain
+   sentence, by the audience members at a certain point as they view the
+   play, and by role-players in both capacities during the session, often
+   simultaneously.
+
+   From the discussion of themes in the chapter "The Art of Storytelling" in
+   Demon's Lair: the "God" Guide (Lasalion Games, 2002):
+
+   The theme is the idea that you wish to explore in the story. It brings
+   unity to the story and is explored throughout the story by the actions of
+   the players and the main characters. Even the obstacle or conflict that
+   forms the plot usually resonates with the theme. It is the thread that
+   ties everything together and usually teaches the players something.
+
+   Substitute Premise for theme, and theme for the "something," and that's
+   just about right. I especially like the implied causality: (1) the actions
+   of the players (2) teach the players something, which becomes non-circular
+   when play actually addresses Premise. Unfortunately, few other features of
+   Demon's Lair, including the example which follows the above text, are
+   consistent with this point, and most are wildly at odds with it.
+
+   More insights about theme are available in Chris Chinn's article "The
+   power of myth" in Daedalus #1, in which the word "theme" may be
+   substituted for "myth" throughout.
+
+  The other way: pastiche
+
+   What happens when you want a story but don't want to play with Story Now?
+   Then the story becomes a feature of Exploration with the process of play
+   being devoted to how to make it happen as expected. The participation of
+   more than one person in the process is usually a matter of providing
+   improvisational additions to be filtered through the primary
+   story-person's judgment, or of providing extensive Color to the story.
+   Under these circumstances, the typical result is pastiche: a story which
+   recapitulates an already-existing story's theme, with many explicit
+   references to that story.
+
+   Is pastiche necessarily bad and evil? No. Is non-pastiche necessarily
+   incredibly good? No.
+
+   Here's a little dialogue between me and one of the first-draft readers of
+   this essay:
+
+   Jesse: Now we come to a point of personal confusion. Pastiche. I still
+   don't get it, in any medium. If the Situation involves "...class conflict,
+   people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance..." and
+   the GM lets the players resolve it anyway they like, then how is that not
+   Narrativist?
+
+   Me: It is Narrativist. What you're describing is not pastiche, or more
+   clearly, it typically does not produce pastiche. The key is the "resolve
+   it any way they like" part.
+
+   Jesse: Similarly if I'm writing a story and I make a check-list of items I
+   feel like I "need" to include to tell the "kind of" story I want to tell,
+   and I have a character experience and resolve those things, then how have
+   I not written a new story?
+
+   Me: You have. What you're missing is that pastiche does not do this at all
+   - instead, it references existing works in order to re-invoke what they,
+   originally, provided for the reader/viewer, rather than doing it on its
+   own. Die Hard is an outstanding movie. Passenger 57 stinks on ice. Why?
+   Because Passenger 57 is only enjoyable if it reminds you, successfully, of
+   Die Hard. Same goes for Broken Arrow, Con Air, and a slew of similar
+   films. [Disclosure: I do enjoy many of these films, on the basis of the
+   "reminder" alone. - RE]
+
+   And it's not a matter of "who does it first." Die Hard works because it
+   nails its Premise, with the explosions and one-liners all being supportive
+   of that goal. The other movies fail to provide Premise of their own,
+   merely using the explosions and one-liners to remind you of Die Hard, and
+   by (putative) extension, tapping into Die Hard's Premise through
+   association alone.
+
+   Jesse: I guess I'm having trouble resolving a couple of things. Either I
+   can't imagine the items listed above being included in the absence of
+   Premise or I'm too stuck on the idea that there's nothing new under the
+   sun. I mean how many romantic comedies are written off the premise, "true
+   love can only be found by putting aside petty differences." Are you saying
+   that 90% of romantic comedies are just pastiche? And if you are saying
+   that, then aren't you putting kind of a tall order up if for something to
+   be Narrativist it has to say something totally unique that no one has ever
+   said before?
+
+   Huh, I just noticed that I did shift focus from repetition of elements
+   that express a Premise to repetition of Premise itself, so maybe that has
+   something to do with my confusion.
+
+   Me: Yes, it does. With any luck my text above has helped. It's not the
+   "new-ness" of the Premise or theme, it's its presence and power in the
+   particular story. Pastiche has no such presence or power, just reminders
+   of them in other stories through common motifs. Many romantic comedies are
+   indeed pastiche (some of them quite clever), but a certain number of them
+   are not - and whether they say the same thing as, say, Gentlemen Prefer
+   Blondes or The Devil and Miss Jones is irrelevant. The point is whether
+   they as self-contained stories actually do say it, or anything at all.
+
+   Jesse: I'm just still a little confused between Narrativism and
+   Simulationism where the Situation has a lot of ethical/moral problems
+   embedded in it and the GM uses no Force techniques to produce a specific
+   outcome. I don't understand how Premise-expressing elements can be
+   included and players not be considered addressing a Premise when they
+   can't resolve the Situation without doing so.
+
+   Me: There is no such Simulationism. You're confused between Narrativism
+   and Narrativism, looking for a difference when there isn't any.
+
+   My final point for this issue is that creating pastiche is primarily a
+   form of fandom, pure homage to an existing body of work. Most High Concept
+   Simulationist play gravitates toward it, and some game texts are
+   explicitly about nothing else.
+
+Issues on the table
+
+   I submit that playing in the Narrativist mode is just as intuitive and
+   instantly understood by most people as Gamist play. Not everyone agrees.
+
+  Two sources of resistance and confusion
+
+   The most difficult aspect of writing this essay is the presence of two
+   distinct problematic audiences, neither of which I realized existed when I
+   first wrote System Does Matter ([20]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1).
+   - Role-players who greatly value the story quality of their transcripts,
+   but don't play Narrativist to make them. It's often painful for them to
+   be, as they see it, relegated to Simulationist play (usually Exploration
+   of Situation). "We create stories too, dammit!" - Role-players who play
+   Narrativist already, but who think what I'm describing must be harder or
+   more abstract than it is. Since they can identify Exploration of Character
+   and Situation in their play preferences, they think they must be playing
+   Simulationist. "That's Narrativist? But we do that, using a plain old
+   well-known role-playing game - it can't be Narrativist!"
+
+   The first problem these audiences pose for me is that any point, example,
+   or clarification I make that's specific to one of them is automatically
+   misleading for the other.
+
+   The second problem is that, when I say Not Narrativist to the first, and
+   when the second mistakenly says Not Narrativist to me, then Narrativism as
+   a label gets misconstrued as "how Ron himself plays."
+
+   I can't afford giving special consideration to these outlooks in this
+   essay. Otherwise I'd have to write three separate essays, two of them
+   piece-by-piece dismantling the respective bugaboos, and one "everyone else
+   essay." I've decided to reserve the customized discussions for the on-line
+   forums.
+
+  What it ain't
+
+   The following misunderstandings only arise from exposure to the
+   role-playing subculture, as distinct from the activity. I'll have more to
+   say about that later in the essay.
+
+    1. The so-called Storyteller rules-set is not especially, nor even
+       partly, facilitative toward Narrativist play. Furthermore, I have
+       observed only a decided minority of White Wolf play that can be called
+       Narrativist, usually involving considerable rules-Drift.
+
+   2 (related). Adhering to published metaplot which is intended to surprise
+   and involve players in tandem with their characters, or any similar
+   one-hand-on-rudder for the crucial story decisions, will not facilitate
+   Narrativist play.
+
+    1. The number of textual rules involved, as well as how much the rules
+       must be consulted during play, are irrelevant. "Narrativist? Must be
+       rules-light!" is just one of those little humps to get over.
+
+    2. Focusing on single Techniques to define Narrativism will not yield
+       understanding. For instance, Drama resolution is not in and of itself
+       Narrativist. Nor are the common use of improvisation, trading of
+       narration, and overt Director stance, in and of themselves,
+       Narrativist play.
+
+    3. Issues of "consciousness" in terms of Premise are collectively a
+       complete red herring. People daily address Premise without
+       self-reflecting, both as audience and authors. There's no special need
+       to say to one another, "This is the Premise" in order to be playing
+       Narrativist. Laws' term "conscious" and my "mindful" only refer to the
+       attention to and social reinforcement of the process - not to
+       self-analytical or abstract discussion about the content.
+
+    4. Narrativist play doesn't force a "separation" from the imaginative
+       commitment to the role-playing. As the whole medium of Creative Agenda
+       is Exploration, you don't have to diminish Exploration at all during
+       Narrativist play. It is instead focused and heightened as the
+       mechanism for addressing Premise.
+
+    5. Depth and profundity of the Premise and/or theme are false variables.
+       The key issue is whether participants care enough to produce a point,
+       not whether the point is deep.
+
+Fundamental Techniques
+
+  People's creative roles: what you do
+
+   Narrativist play makes special use of the general role-playing principle
+   that the participants are simultaneously authors and audience. The common
+   metaphor of improvisational jazz applies quite well, better than any other
+   medium-comparison. "Entertainment," in role-playing in general and in
+   Narrativist play especially, does not flow from playwright to script to
+   production team to audience. Instead, the shared-imagining act = the
+   shared-performance act = the entertainment = the audience feedback.
+
+   Role-playing texts are consistently very confusing about how conflicts and
+   resolutions are established in play, especially in games whose mechanics
+   and some features of their instructions suggest Narrativist play. "Prep
+   and plan carefully! But story never goes as planned, so be ready to change
+   and improvise!" What's that supposed to mean, from a Narrativist
+   perspective?
+
+   I grappled with this in my own work - from the chapter "Fantastic
+   Adventure" in Sorcerer & Sword (Adept Press, 2001, author is Ron Edwards):
+
+   The doctrine for Sorcerer & Sword relies ... on the following idea: -
+   Playing this game, for all concerned, means creating stories about one or
+   more heroic protagonists. - The player produces the protagonist's
+   decisions and thus directly creates the story. - The GM makes it possible
+   for such play to occur, and therefore has great power over events in the
+   game world. However, he or she does not determine the protagonists'
+   actions, and must fully respond to those actions when they do occur.
+
+   Therefore, the GM cannot be considered "the narrator" or "the storyteller"
+   in any way, shape, or form. Such an entity exists as the outcome of the
+   GM-player interface and continuing creativity. His or her arbitrative role
+   in game events, as well as most of the Director power over time and space,
+   do remain. But the purpose of that role is inspiring and facilitating, not
+   dictating.
+
+   That text is specific to Sorcerer, so it needs expanding into what the
+   term "GM" means in the first place, and how the answer is subordinate to
+   Creative Agenda - and in fact, is nothing more nor less than a Techniques
+   question for role-playing in general.
+
+   I suggest that considering "the GM" to be either (a) necessarily one
+   person or (b) a specific and universally-consistent role is badly mistaken
+   - we are really talking about a set of potential behaviors (roles, tasks,
+   whatever) which may be independently centralized within or distributed
+   across a group of people. Here are some of those GM behaviors, roles, and
+   tasks: - rules-applier and interpreter, as in "referee" - in-game-world
+   time manager - changer of scenes - color provider - ensurer of protagonist
+   screen time - regulator of pacing (in real time) - authority over what
+   information can be acted upon by which characters - authority over
+   internal plausibility - "where the buck stops" in terms of establishing
+   the Explorative content - social manager of who gets to speak when
+
+   A given role-playing experience must have these things - there is no such
+   thing as "GM-less" play. But which of these require(s) enforcing varies
+   greatly, as does whether they are concentrated into a particular person,
+   and as does whether that person is openly acknowledged as such. What
+   matters for Narrativist play, however, isn't any specific point in the
+   diversity-matrix of these variables - it's about what the person (or
+   persons) currently in the GM-role is responsible for.
+
+   From Maelstrom (Hubris Games, 1997, author is Christian Aldridge):
+
+   Narrative Tools
+
+   ... The whole premise of role-playing is the freedom the players have to
+   take their characters in whatever direction they want. It is important to
+   maintain this free will, and not lead the players with a heavy hand down a
+   course only the narrator controls. Though the narrator may tell a good
+   story, it loses the rich creative spirit of role-playing if the players
+   have little say in what happens.
+
+   Putting aside the synecdoche ("the whole premise," etc), two key features
+   show up in this passage as well as in the whole of the Maelstrom game
+   text. (1) No mention is made whatever of seeming to grant player control -
+   it's real freedom he's talking about. (2) The freedom is specifically over
+   what the character thinks is right and decides to do: the goal he or she
+   brings into the current imaginary situation. The GM ("narrator" in this
+   case) cannot wield any authority over what the characters are supposed to
+   want, which therefore extends to a similar lack of authority over how any
+   conflict during play is supposed to turn out.
+
+   From Christopher Kubasik's Interactive Toolkit series of essays (1995,
+   originally published in White Wolf Inphobia #50-53):
+
+   So, what are the differences between roleplaying games and Story
+   Entertainments? Let's start with roleplaying's GM (referee, Storyteller,
+   or whatever). This is usually the person who works out the plot, the world
+   and everything that isn't the players'. To a greater or lesser degree, she
+   is above the other players in importance, depending on the group's
+   temperament. In a Story Entertainment, she is just another player.
+   Distinctly different, but no more and no less than any other player. The
+   terms GM and referee fail to convey this spirit of equality. The term
+   Storyteller suggests that the players are passive listeners of her tale.
+   So here's another term for this participant - one that invokes the spirit
+   of Story Entertainment - Fifth Business.
+
+   Fifth Business is a term that originates from European opera companies. A
+   character from Robertson Davies' novel, ... Fifth Business, describes the
+   term this way:
+
+   "You cannot make a plot work without another man, and he is usually a
+   baritone, and he is called in the profession Fifth Business. You must have
+   a Fifth Business because he is the one who knows the secret of the hero's
+   birth, or comes to the assistance of the heroine when she thinks all is
+   lost, or keeps the hermitess in her cell, or may even be the cause of
+   someone's death, if that is part of the plot. The prima donna and the
+   tenor, the contralto and the basso, get all the best music and do all the
+   spectacular things, but you cannot manage the plot without the Fifth
+   Business!"
+
+   This certainly sounds like the GM, but it also makes it clear that he's
+   part of the show, not the show itself.
+
+   Let's call the players Leads. They're not players in the GM's game.
+   They're participants in a story. The Fifth Business has a lot more work to
+   do than do the Leads, changing costumes and shaping the story while it's
+   in progress. But the Leads are equal to the Fifth Business. The Leads must
+   react to the characters, incidents, and information that the Fifth
+   Business offers, just as players must react to what the GM offers in a
+   roleplaying game. But the Fifth Business must always be on his toes and
+   react to what the Leads offer.
+
+   ... The Fifth Business can't decide what the plot is going to be and then
+   run the players through it like mice in a maze. The Leads determine the
+   direction of the story when they create their characters ... What do the
+   characters want? What are their goals? The story is about their attempt to
+   gain those goals. The Fifth Business creates obstacles to those goals.
+
+   [From Part 3, "Character, character, character"]
+
+   As the designer of the character you shouldn't simply depend on the Fifth
+   Business ... to provide you with trouble. You should look for trouble for
+   your character. ...
+
+   Moreover, you know best of all what kind of problems you want for your
+   character. ... in a story entertainment you're not the passive passenger
+   in the gamemaster's roller coaster. You are a co-creator with Fifth
+   Business and the other players of a story.
+
+   [From Part 4, "Running Story Entertainments"]
+
+   Listen to the players, keep in mind the idea of obstacles, mix up volatile
+   characters and objects, and remember you don't have to know where you're
+   going. No roleplaying game ever follows the "path" of the story anyway, so
+   a story entertainment just dismisses the whole notion of adventure. Rather
+   than become frustrated when the characters don't do what they're supposed
+   to, let them lead the story with their Characters' Goals.
+
+   It all comes down to this: a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing
+   context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given
+   player-character. Even if this role switches around from person to person
+   (as in Universalis), it's always sacrosanct in the moment of decision.
+   "GMing," then, for this sort of play, is all about facilitating another
+   person's ability to do this.
+
+Protagonism
+
+   In all role-playing, the player-character is the lens of the Creative
+   Agenda at work. That's right, I said all role-playing.
+
+     * Simulationist = the character "fits" - its setting, capabilities,
+       outcomes, behavior patterns, and so on, all reinforce the Dream for
+       everyone.
+
+     * Gamist = the character is a direct opportunity for player-strategy.
+       Its construction doesn't hamstring the player (except with agreed-upon
+       handicaps) and permits him or her to Step On Up.
+
+     * Narrativist = the character's predicament is how Premise is seen/felt
+       in full, and what he does, and what happens is how a theme is
+       realized.
+
+   By definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative
+   Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is
+   required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation.
+   Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and
+   diddling. You can tell when this happens: everyone stops paying attention
+   to one another, and quite likely the one person talking is only paying
+   attention to himself or herself. Adversity, which may come from any
+   participant during play, is the key.
+
+   Now we run into a conceptual tangle. In literary terms, if there's a
+   story, there's one or more protagonists. Since story can arise from any
+   sort of role-playing, then protagonism of the relevant character comes
+   with that, part and parcel. However, "protagonism" at the Forge as
+   discussed most frequently by Paul Czege, tends to focus on very specific
+   processes of play: those which prompt Premise-addressing interest in a
+   given character among all of the real-person participants; in other words,
+   a specifically Narrativist process.
+
+   That's a real terminological conundrum. I shudder at the thought of
+   co-opting the term "protagonist" into anything besides the fictional
+   context of a story, regardless of how it was produced. However, I also
+   want to preserve Paul's point that people may establish emotional,
+   relatively high-stakes connections to other people's player-characters.
+   But neither are restricted to Narrativist play.
+
+   Fortunately, for discussing Narrativist play by itself, the two things are
+   one and the same. Which means I shall happily relegate debate about the
+   term in a larger (all of role-playing) sense to the forums and neatly
+   dodge it for purposes of the essay.
+
+   So let's talk about Narrativist protagonism and how it's established,
+   starting with the adversity. From Sorcerer (Adept Press, 2001, author is
+   Ron Edwards):
+
+   GET TO THE BANGS!
+
+   Bangs are those moments when the characters realize they have a problem
+   right now and have to get moving to deal with it. It can be as simple as a
+   hellacious demon crashing through the skylight and attacking the
+   characters or as subtle as the voice of the long-dead murder victim
+   answering when they call the number they found in the new murder victim's
+   pockets.
+
+   But that needed clarifying, so from Sorcerer & Sword (Adept Press, 2001,
+   author is Ron Edwards):
+
+   Driving with Bangs ... how is the poor GM able to assure any happenings
+   when he or she is no longer the primary author?
+
+   ... It is the GM's job to present and, for lack of a better word, drive
+   Bangs, in the sense of driving a nail or driving something home. In
+   narrative terms, Bangs tend to come as one of the following: [list follows
+   with details; to summarize: crisis to crisis, twist to twist, link to
+   link, locale to locale - RE]
+
+   Ultimately, all of these elements provided by the GM are the same thing: a
+   means for moving from decision to decision on the part of the players.
+   Bangs are always about player-character responses.
+
+   This is why Bangs are not represented by many of the fight scenes or clues
+   in traditional role-playing. Throwing mad hyenas at the player-characters
+   is not a Bang if the only result of the fight is to wander into the next
+   room. Nor is a clue a Bang at all if all it does is show where the next
+   clue may be found. A real Bang gives the player options and requires his
+   or her decision about how to handle it, which in turn reveals and develops
+   the player-character as a hero.
+
+   In Sex & Sorcery (2003), I presented some further terms to represent
+   multiple-person input and some other nuances into the Bang concept: Bobs,
+   Weavings, Crosses, and Openings; all are listed in the glossary following
+   this essay.
+
+   Aside from a lack of adversity, the other issue regarding protagonism is
+   the problem of de-protagonizing, a term coined by Paul Czege.
+   Deprotagonizing literally means to deprive a person of the means to
+   express one of the bulleted points above (depending on the Creative Agenda
+   at hand; Paul is usually discussing Narrativist play). There are dozens of
+   ways to do that, and all of them are grounds for instant breaking of the
+   Social Contract for that play-experience. No one accepts deprotagonization
+   willingly; those bulleted points are heartfelt priorities at the very core
+   of Creative Agenda. As a minor but thought-provoking point, character
+   death is not deprotagonizing if it satisfies the Creative Agenda for that
+   person and group.
+
+   Nearly all of the dysfunctional issues described later in the essay
+   concern deprotagonizing in the context of Narrativist play, which is best
+   defined as Force: the final authority that any person who is not playing a
+   particular player-character has over decisions and actions made by that
+   player-character. This is distinct from information that the GM imparts or
+   chooses not to impart to play; I'm talking about the protagonists'
+   decisions and actions. In Narrativist play, using Force by definition
+   disrupts the Creative Agenda.
+
+   Force techniques include IIEE manipulation, fudged/ignored rolls,
+   perception management, clue moving, scene framing as a form of reducing
+   options, directions as to character's actions using voiced and unvoiced
+   signals, modifying features of various NPCs during play, and authority
+   over using textual rules. The Golden Rule of White Wolf games is, in
+   application, a mandate for Force.
+
+   Force Techniques often include permitting pseudo-decisions, which we can
+   discuss at the Forge if necessary. Also, Force Techniques do vary in how
+   flexible a scene's outcome is permitted to be. Some GMs (to use the
+   classic single-GM context) might do anything up to actually picking up
+   your dice for you in order for you to talk to "that guy," or he might let
+   the characters miss the clue, either 'porting it to another character or
+   letting its absence go ahead and affect the outcome.
+
+System - "it does matter" all over again
+
+   Remember the System "bow" which shoots the Creative Agenda arrow? It must
+   be an active tool. The Explorative Situation must change with verve -
+   anything that introduces ebbs, flows, and unpredictable elements into the
+   real-person decision-making process. That's what System does, whether it's
+   composed entirely of dialogue or relies on pages and pages of probability
+   charts. How does it do it? Through the combinations of Techniques being
+   employed.
+
+   I'll focus on one bit of System: resolution. I'll break it up into
+   Techniques regarding what exactly is being resolved. For Narrativist play,
+   the key is to focus on conflicts rather than tasks. A conflict statement
+   is, "I'm trying to kill him," or, "I'm trying to humiliate him," whereas a
+   task statement is, "I swing my sword at him." (It doesn't matter, by the
+   way, how much in-game time and space are involved; conflict resolution can
+   be "very small" and task resolution can be "very big." We can discuss this
+   more on-line.) I submit that trying to resolve conflicts by hoping that
+   the accumulated successful tasks will turn out to be about what you want,
+   is an unreliable and unsatisfying way to role-play when developing
+   Narrativist protagonism.
+
+   How does this relate to game mechanics? I'll take the most-common example
+   of Fortune systems. The big distinction I want to make is between
+   Fortune-in-the-Middle and the more commonly-understood Fortune-at-the-End.
+   For the record, I think both go back to the very beginning of
+   role-playing; I didn't invent anything by naming them.
+
+   Fortune-at-the-End: all variables, descriptions, and in-game actions are
+   known, accounted for, and fixed before the Fortune system is brought into
+   action. It acts as a "closer" of whatever deal was struck that called for
+   resolution. A "miss" in such a system indicates, literally, a miss. The
+   announced blow was attempted, which is to say, it was also perceived to
+   have had a chance to hit by the character, was aimed, and was put into
+   motion. It just didn't connect at the last micro-second.
+
+   Fortune-in-the-Middle: the Fortune system is brought in partway through
+   figuring out "what happens," to the extent that specific actions may be
+   left completely unknown until after we see how they worked out. Let's say
+   a character with a sword attacks some guy with a spear. The point is to
+   announce the character's basic approach and intent, and then to roll. A
+   missed roll in this situation tells us the goal failed. Now the group is
+   open to discussing just how it happened from the beginning of the action
+   being initiated. Usually, instead of the typical description that you
+   "swing and miss," because the "swing" was assumed to be in action before
+   the dice could be rolled at all, the narration now can be anything from
+   "the guy holds you off from striking range with the spearpoint" to "your
+   swing is dead-on but you slip a bit." Or it could be a plain vanilla miss
+   because the guy's better than you. The point is that the narration of what
+   happens "reaches back" to the initation of the action, not just the
+   action's final micro-second.
+
+   There's a whole spectrum of extreme connect/disconnect between conflict
+   and task. At one end, the task does fail, but the goal fails too, perhaps
+   with a nuance or two. The other end is much wider in interpretative scope:
+   we know the character's goal (killing some guy) doesn't happen, but with
+   those in place, narration takes over to provide all the events involved.
+   Applying different judgments along this spectrum, for different parts of
+   play, is a big deal in games like Dust Devils, Trollbabe, Sorcerer, and
+   HeroQuest. In Sorcerer, failing a dice roll means failing the goal, almost
+   always due to failing at the task; in Dust Devils, certain card outcomes
+   dictate that you fail at the goal, but whether the task failed or
+   succeeded within that context is entirely up for grabs and determined by
+   that scene's designated narrator. HeroQuest and Trollbabe permit the group
+   to customize between these extremes as they see fit for that scene.
+
+   Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates
+   Narrativist play in a number of ways.
+
+     * It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the
+       moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent
+       goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel
+       fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too.
+
+     * It permits tension to be managed from conflict to conflict and from
+       scene to scene. So a "roll to hit" in Scene A is the same as in Scene
+       B in terms of whether the target takes damage, but it's not the same
+       in terms of the acting character's motions, intentions, and experience
+       of the action.
+
+     * It retains the key role of constraint on in-game events. The dice (or
+       whatever) are collaborators, acting as a springboard for what happens
+       in tandem with the real-people statements.
+
+   Not all versions of this principle are alike. Some of them involve
+   scene-scale resolution (Story Engine), some involve narration-trading
+   (Dust Devils), some are heavily integrated with tactics (The Riddle of
+   Steel), and some of them require role-playing "bits" to justify
+   incorporating system features (The Dying Earth).
+
+   Some Fortune-in-the-Middle applications give opportunities for tweaking
+   after the roll: usually, spending points of some kind after the dice have
+   hit the table to alter the effects. Some games have this feature and some
+   don't; Forge jargon calls such things "FitM with teeth" because such a
+   system forces the group to acknowledge that the dice do not "finish" the
+   job of resolution.
+
+   Does Fortune-in-the-Middle define Narrativism? No, nor does it even
+   facilitate it in isolation. It's merely a strong component of many
+   Narrativist-facilitating combinations of Techniques; I've left its
+   potential integration with reward and behavioral mechanics out of this
+   discussion.
+
+   Is there such a thing as Fortune-at-the-beginning? Playtesting so far
+   indicates that it's not very satisfying for Narrativist play; see
+   discussions at the Forge of Human Wreckage and The World the Flesh and the
+   Devil.
+
+   Is Fortune the only resolution method for conflict resolution? The answer
+   is emphatically no. The two main alternatives are apparently Karma +
+   Resource management, which I consider to be underdeveloped at this point,
+   and highly-structured Drama, which may be investigated through Puppetland,
+   Soap, and to a lesser extent Universalis.
+
+  The game world
+
+   Since Exploration is best understood as a medium and tool in Narrativist
+   play, rather than a product itself, the role of "in game reality" needs
+   some review - not so much about who has authority over it (the usual
+   concern in Simulationist play), but what the heck it is. The answer is,
+   it's a medium and tool for addressing Premise, and nothing more at all.
+
+   From Maelstrom (Hubris Games, 1994, author is Christian Aldridge):
+
+   Literal vs. Conceptual
+
+   A good way to run the Hubris Engine is to use "scene ideas" to convey the
+   scene, instead of literalisms. ... focus on the intent behind the scene
+   and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the
+   task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in
+   terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm
+   spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the
+   danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates
+   the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It
+   is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how
+   hard the feat is for the character. ... If the players enjoy the challenge
+   of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed
+   the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the
+   narrative flow and enjoyment of the game.
+
+   The scene should be presented therefore in terms relative to the
+   character's abilities ... Players who want to climb onto your coffee table
+   and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump
+   over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story.
+
+   The "doesn't interfere" matches to my "prioritization." The "narrative
+   flow and enjoyment" matches to addressing Premise. The "whole point of the
+   story" and "intent behind the scene" are Premise itself, expressed in this
+   scene as a Bang. More topically, I can think of no better text to explain
+   the vast difference between playing the games RuneQuest and HeroQuest.
+
+  Stance
+
+   A lot of mental sweat has been shed to try to link Stances with modes and
+   goals of play. I think most of that discussion was misguided by an overly
+   1:1 approach. In my big model as currently constructed, only combinations
+   of Ephemera comprise a Technique, so we're not talking about one Stance in
+   a given moment, but the distribution of Stances through multiple character
+   actions, decisions, and scenes. And that's only one Technique, which is
+   not enough to dictate or identify Creative Agenda.
+
+   Bearing all that in mind, Author Stance may be considered the default for
+   Narrativist play only in the sense that it needs to be in there somewhere.
+   Narrativist play doesn't have to be exclusively in this Stance, nor does
+   it even have to be employed more often than the others. The only
+   requirement is that it be present in a significant way. Narrativist play
+   is very much like Gamist play in this regard, and for the same reason: the
+   player of a given character takes social and aesthetic responsibility for
+   what that character does.
+
+  Narration the non-issue
+
+   Before going on, I'll take a quick break to discuss "narration," which is
+   no more and no less than saying what happens in the imaginary events. I
+   want to distinguish saying what happens (narrating) from establishing what
+   happens (currently a non-named concept), because they are often confused.
+   I'm taking the
+
+   I'll break it down.
+
+     * Narration is not a Drama mechanic unless it is literally the means of
+       resolution.
+
+     * Narration is in practice shared among members of a role-playing group
+       and far less centralized than most people think.
+
+   The only concern about narration per se is that its relationship to
+   establishing-what-happens must be clear. That entails that how things are
+   established is itself clear: is it ad-lib? is the GM where the buck stops?
+   is it traded about, organized in any way? or what? Those are good
+   questions, but once they're established, narration is a no-brainer.
+
+   Game texts are typically astonishingly bad at explaining this issue.
+   Positive exceptions for Narrativist-leaning games include Soap, The Pool,
+   and Universalis, and other recent games like InSpectres, Otherkind, Dust
+   Devils, Trollbabe, and Donjon, which all distribute narration around the
+   group as a means of distributing who establishes what.
+
+Historical diversity of Narrativist play
+
+   Narrativist play-procedures are pretty scattered in terms of actual game
+   books. I suggest that titles and texts are really just rustles in the
+   bushes, such that one has to infer the actual play that either informed
+   them or might have proceeded from them. For most of what follows, I've
+   spoken with game designers and many, many play-groups about these issues.
+
+   I think that Narrativist play goes back to the beginning of role-playing.
+   Yes, a "non-Narrativism" shroud descended over role-playing design and
+   publishing, but I think that dates from the mid-late 1980s. In other
+   words, the "Narrativist revolution" of 2000-2003 is not an innovation, but
+   a return to a lost art.
+
+   Looking at earlier games from a Techniques perspective, a shift to
+   Narrativist play within the larger Gamist context is apparent in some
+   Tunnels & Trolls, as discusssed in "Gamism: Step On Up". I also recommend
+   reading and playing Marvel Super Heroes, reviewing the entire Strike Force
+   text in light of the 1st and 2nd editions of Champions being used by that
+   group, reviewing the extensive documentation of Champions play presented
+   in the APA-zine The Clobberin Times', and giving Toon, Ghostbusters, and
+   James Bond a try. I am not saying "These are Narrativist games," but
+   rather, evidence supports the claim that these rules-sets supported some
+   Narrativist play back then.
+
+   I do not think that the strong minority trend beginning in the very late
+   1980s toward Drama-heavy role-playing represented by Amber, Theatrix, and
+   The Window was especially Narrativist in application, although that mode
+   of play was probably found in some groups playing these games. This trend
+   is better understood in combination with games like Fudge and Risus, and
+   most especially in terms of the Mind's Eye Theatre approach to LARPs.
+
+   During the early 1990s, however, a certain approach to numbers and Fortune
+   became apparent across a number of games: Prince Valiant, Over the Edge
+   (especially in light of Laws' essay), Castle Falkenstein, Everway,
+   Maelstrom/Story Engine, Zero, and The Whispering Vault. Later, similar
+   games include Sorcerer, Orkworld, and The Riddle of Steel. All of these
+   texts demonstrate an internal struggle to articulate means of addressing
+   Premise, littered with trip-ups based on assumptions of GM-power and the
+   utter lack of precedent in explaining the whole idea. Some of them slammed
+   toward Simulationist texts upon second-edition revision and via
+   supplements, probably to make it "more like an RPG."
+
+   The internet revealed something vastly more startling: in-your-nose
+   Narrativist designs like Ghost Light, Soap, InSpectres, and The Pool, as
+   well as their Gamist cousin Elfs. These games' influence was vast at the
+   Forge, including but not limited to Dust Devils, Trollbabe, Otherkind,
+   Paladin, Violence Future, My Life with Master, and Universalis, along with
+   further Gamist cousins like Donjon. The internet also revealed active
+   play-communities that had previously been invisible to store-centered
+   commerce, including Marvel Super Heroes among others.
+
+   Since the historical trends are so textually diffuse, I think that this
+   section will do better to focus on procedural diversity, small point by
+   small point. Each point presents a separate and independent spectrum of
+   variation. As always, game titles are used only to refer to the actual
+   play that they best seem to facilitate.
+
+Basic diversity of Narrativist play
+
+  Making it up in play vs. setting it up beforehand
+
+   A lot of people have mistakenly interpreted the word "Narrativist" for
+   "making it up as we go." Neither this nor anything like it is definitional
+   for Narrativist play, but it is indeed an important issue for role-playing
+   of any kind. So it's not a bad idea simply to ask, for a given group or
+   session, when and how is the Explorative context (setting, situation,
+   whatever) established?
+
+     * High improvisation during play: e.g., Universalis, InSpectres, Extreme
+       Vengeance
+
+     * Rock steady based on preparation - Orkworld, Castle Falkenstein,
+       HeroQuest, Sorcerer
+
+     * In between - Trollbabe, The Pool, Dust Devils, My Life with Master
+
+   Many people get unnecessarily hung up on this issue ... playing
+   Universalis is not "more Narrativist" than playing Orkworld, for instance.
+   Also, this issue is not at all correlated with centralizing vs.
+   distributing the various GM-tasks discussed previously.
+
+  Where little Premises come from
+
+   Given that Explorative content for Narrativist play exists to provide meat
+   for addressing a Premise, it shouldn't be surprising that differing
+   starting points for the process can be found depending on what kind of
+   details and efforts are involved in preparing for play.
+
+   Just as in Gamist play, the big gorilla of the five Explorative elements
+   is Situation. What I'm contrasting here is which elements begin detailed
+   enough to yield Situation relatively quickly during play, as opposed to
+   which ones can be "relaxed" in terms of detail and depth at the start, to
+   be developed later.
+
+     * Character-based Premise: Characters begin play with at least one
+       significant Premise-based decision in their backgrounds.
+
+     * Setting-based Premise: External adversity swarms upon the characters
+       based on unavoidable, often large-scale elements of the overall
+       setting.
+
+     * Situation-based Premise: The immediate conflict at hand is already
+       under way and rich with Premise; fill in Character goals and Setting
+       justification as needed during play.
+
+   I suggest that it's useful to reduce the pre-play effort on the other
+   elements involved. Loading too many of them with Premise prior to play
+   yields a messy and unworkable play-situation in Narrativist terms, in
+   which characters' drives and external adversity are too full to develop
+   off of or to reinforce one another. More discussion and debate about this
+   issue may be taken up at the Forge.
+
+   Character-based Premise is the easiest to implement, and unsurprisingly it
+   reflects Egri's ideas in full. Games whose design relies on this approach
+   include Zero, Sorcerer, Dust Devils, and The Riddle of Steel, among many
+   others. I think this form of Premise-building is probably the most common
+   form of Drifting to Narrativist play. From the "Campaigning" chapter and
+   "The Developing Campaign" section in Strike Force (Hero Games, 1988,
+   author is Aaron Allston):
+
+   THE "CHARACTER STORY"
+
+   One thing that each Champions GM needs to learn to do is to spot,
+   carefully nurture, and eventually play out the "Character Story."
+
+   Each player-character has a Story above and beyond the ordinary adventures
+   encountered during the course of the campaign. This Character Story
+   usually involves the resolution of the most important desires of the
+   character.
+
+   Phosphene - Discovery of and Acceptance by Family. Raised by a single
+   parent and knowing of no other relatives, Phos started his career cynical
+   and alone. Learning that he had a family, the enigmatic Brood, he
+   discovered that he had a tremendous need to become one of them. Eventually
+   he met all his surviving relatives and earned the affection of most of
+   them. Now married and a family man himself, his personal story is
+   resolved.
+
+   Lorelei - Growth into Womanhood. In the course of her years of playing,
+   Lorelei grew from a 15-year-old innocent into a mature woman and team
+   leader; the most important elements of transition (other than the years
+   involved) were her romance with Commodore and her eventual rescue of and
+   reunion with her father.
+
+   Take a look at your own character - or at all the PCs if you're the GM -
+   and try to root out the Character Story of each one. [examples follow -
+   RE] In short, try to figure out what element of the character's
+   background, relations, or psychology make him interesting but will
+   eventually make him (or his player) frustrated and unhappy if not
+   ultimately resolved. That's the Character Story.
+
+   An interesting qualifier shows up in the final paragraph of this section:
+
+   Of course, no campaign lasts long enough for every Character Story to be
+   discovered and exploited ...
+
+   ... which I think is a bizarre statement, possibly related to the idea
+   (which I remember all too well) that Champions players should all
+   cooperate to preserve the group regardless of their differing goals during
+   play.
+
+   The final section in this chapter indicates, I think the key point - which
+   is only presented parenthetically in the earlier text (above - "or his
+   player").
+
+   LISTENING TO YOUR PLAYERS
+
+   Always listen to your players' discussion of the ongoing adventure.
+   They'll constantly be analyzing, theorizing, and commenting on the
+   adventure. Often, their discussion will give you even better ideas than
+   those you've been implementing.
+
+   Also, pay attention to the recurring phrase, "It might be neat if ..." The
+   player who is saying this, whether he realizes it or not, is expressing a
+   desire about a future storyline or character development. Usually it's
+   easy to accomodate him, and gives him a more personal interest in that
+   specific plotline.
+
+   I consider this important because it acknowledges that the developing
+   Premise is best recognized by the people who play the protagonists.
+
+   Setting-based Premise is a bit more developmental, usually involving
+   "someone else's problem" or an overriding external adversity of some kind
+   - zombie attack being perhaps the most basic example. It might actually be
+   a bit better for introducing Simulationist-by-habit players to Narrativist
+   play, as they can start with sketchy characters and grow into addressing a
+   pretty-well-defined Premise over time. From HeroQuest (Issaries Inc, 2003,
+   primary text author is Greg Stafford):
+
+   Make Your Own Part
+
+   All heroes are extraordinary and destined for some fame in the world of
+   Glorantha. This is guaranteed, since they are individually guided by a
+   higher power: you, the player.
+
+   Your heroes will have the chance to be involved in the great events of the
+   Hero Wars, such as [several colorful examples - RE]. Such events are not
+   only for the super-powerful; they require the participation of your hero
+   at whatever level of power he has achieved.
+
+   [just past halfway through the book - RE]
+
+   Drama
+
+   Drama in Glorantha often comes from the conflict between what is and what
+   ought to be. Living up to expectations of cult behavior, for instance, is
+   meant to be difficult and limiting. After all, religious requirements are
+   not human ideals. [Wow! Talk about an Egri Premise! - RE] The intensity of
+   the plot comes from the hero trying to fulfil these expectations while
+   living with the everyday temptations and complications of life: a cow is
+   missing, some of your clan died in a raid, your children are ominously
+   ill, or neighbors are poaching the hunting lands. Add to this the
+   imperative of the Hero Wars, where some things will happen no matter what
+   the heroes do, and the heroes have to make difficult choices about what to
+   do and who [sic] to aid.
+
+   [and near the end - RE]
+
+   Politics, Always Politics
+
+   Glorantha may be a world of magic and myth, but there are some human
+   constants that remain, not the least of which is politics. [examples
+   follow of politics both as rivalries and means to social authority and
+   respect - RE]
+
+   The Hero Wars are breaking upon Glorantha. On the one hand, they are
+   throwing old alliances into question, tearing established communities
+   apart, and raising new dilemmas for leaders and led alike. But they are
+   also creating new and unexpected communities, as rivals are forced into
+   partnership by new threats or novel opportunities.
+
+   I don't think I've ever seen a more challenging Premise in a role-playing
+   text than "religious requirements are not human ideals." That is HeroQuest
+   in a nutshell, and there is no avoiding it during play. A character may
+   begin as just another goat-herder, but he isn't going to stay that way.
+   Other games with similar origins of Premise include Castle Falkenstein and
+   My Life with Master, in which the Master is, for all intents and purposes,
+   the setting.
+
+   Situation-based Premise is perhaps the easiest to manage as GM, as
+   player-characters are well-defined and shallow, and the setting is vague
+   although potentially quite colorful. The Premise has little to do with
+   either in the long-term; it's localized to a given moment of conflict.
+   Play often proceeds from one small-scale conflict to another,
+   episodically. Good examples of games based on this idea include Prince
+   Valiant, The Dying Earth, and InSpectres. From The Dying Earth (2001,
+   Pelgrane Press, authors are Robin Laws, John Snead, and Peter Freeman):
+
+   Many Dying Earth stories revolve around a closed community, which may be
+   either a small settlement or an isolated workplace. In its isolation, it
+   has developed its own highly-structured, sometimes legalistic, always
+   peculiar rules. Without outside influence, and with the stout enforcement
+   of its codes, the group has survived for a long time. When the protagonist
+   arrives, the locals try to enforce the rules on him, assimilating him into
+   their bizarre system. Instead, the hero ... takes action which utterly
+   disrupts the delicately-balanced harmony of the community. ... the
+   community, the basis of its rules destroyed, collapses.
+
+   [now for play]
+
+   When creating an adventure, dream up a bizarre rule or activity on which a
+   community's existence depends. Figure out at least one way in which the
+   PCs could wreak havoc on the community by disrupting the activity or
+   subverting the rule.
+
+   Then create a reason for the PCs to do so ... [actually, the entire
+   character creation process for this game takes care of this detail - RE]
+
+   The point is that the Situation doesn't have any particular role or
+   importance to the Setting, either in terms of where it comes from or what
+   happens later. The setting can be quite vague and might even just be a
+   gray haze that characters are presumed to have travelled through in order
+   to have encountered this new Situation.
+
+   This type of Premise does carry some risks: (1) the possibility of a
+   certain repetition from event to event, but probably nothing that you
+   wouldn't find in other situation-first narrative media, which is to say
+   serial fiction of any kind; (2) the heightened possibility of producing
+   pastiche; and (3) the heightened possibility of shifting to Gamist play.
+
+Deep diversity
+
+  Who gets the GM jobs
+
+   Earlier, I listed some of the various roles and tasks usually associated
+   with the term "GM." As I said, the question is not whether there is a GM
+   (there is always one or more for any scene during play), but rather how
+   the GMing tasks are distributed. The potential range of diversity is
+   staggering. The most important variables include: - Which of these roles
+   are most important to be formalized for this game - Whether the roles are
+   centralized in one person - The concept of "the buck" - in the event that
+   different people suggest different things, who says what goes
+
+   In the interest of space and keeping the complexity of these sections
+   limited, I'll only provide examples for the centralization-issue. -
+   Centralized: The Riddle of Steel, Sorcerer, Orkworld, Castle Falkenstein,
+   HeroQuest, The Dying Earth - Widely distributed: Universalis, Soap - In
+   between: Trollbabe, The Pool, InSpectres, Dust Devils, Violence Future
+
+  Story structure
+
+   Classically, a story has the following structure: (a) introduce character
+   and situation, (b) introduce conflict, (c) rising conflict, (d) climax,
+   and (e) resolution, of which (a, b, d) are the key pieces. Most stories
+   indeed follow this model regardless of their chronological presentation,
+   point-of-view, or any other details. There's usually no particular worry
+   that Narrativist play will fail to produce a story (of whatever quality),
+   without any overt effort to force it. However, it is also at least
+   possible for overall story structure to be part of System.
+
+   Sorcerer presented the Kicker Technique, which is to say, a
+   player-authored Bang included in character creation, giving the GM
+   responsibility to make it central to play. It may be considered the
+   precise opposite of the "character hook" concept presented in many
+   adventure scenarios and role-playing games.
+
+   Some recent games feature the Endgame concept: a status for a character
+   (and sometimes all characters) that signals "Now is really Now," and it's
+   time for Premise to become theme without dilly-dallying. I suppose it can
+   first be seen in Soap and Puppetland based on these games' explicit
+   real-time constraints, but it's also embedded in the Guts/Coincidence
+   mechanics in Extreme Vengeance, the "Schism" version of Humanity in
+   Sorcerer, and the Insight mechanics in The Riddle of Steel. It's most
+   explicitly present in Violence Future and My Life with Master.
+
+   A similar structural issue is to decide how much Premise-addressing
+   (story, if you will) has already occurred before in-play decision-making
+   begins. At one extreme, you have "Blood Opera," which is to say, several
+   characters already engaged in serious committed effort to do
+   something-or-other, usually contradictory. Such play, regardless of how
+   many sessions are involved, tends to end up with several dead protagonists
+   and plenty of tragedy due to conflicting obligations and/or
+   misunderstandings; it's quite cathartic. Typically it's more satisfying
+   when all of the participants are enlisted in scenario preparation. At the
+   other extreme, you have play in which the Premise is introduced very
+   slowly and piecemeal, through a variety of scenes and events.
+
+   Here are some interesting trends which crop up along this spectrum:
+
+     * When the character's judgmental and active presence is established and
+       already in action as play begins, that beginning point is usually the
+       crisis-point for the story in general. Playing Legends of Alyria,
+       Prince Valiant, My Life with Master, and Soap tends toward this end;
+       all of them carry a slight danger of "over before they begin," but
+       they are also the most reliable for immediate Premise-consensus.
+
+     * When the Situation is well-established prior to play and essentially
+       independent of the player-characters, then how they encounter it and
+       become enlisted in its hassles is up for grabs, including when they
+       arrive. The protagonists usually play a catalytic role toward everyone
+       and everything else. Playing Everway, The Dying Earth, InSpectres,
+       Orkworld, The Whispering Vault, and Trollbabe is a lot like this.
+
+     * When the Situation must slowly develop into Premise, play is
+       necessarily extended into multiple sessions. Playing Sorcerer,
+       HeroQuest, Dust Devils, Violence Future, and Over the Edge often
+       proceeds in this fashion, to the extent that the first couple of
+       sessions resemble the first sections of a classical novel rather than
+       a movie or play, and they tend not to show off all of their most
+       satisfying features during single-session demonstration play.
+
+   Not all game designs must fall onto this spectrum explicitly, although
+   play does - I leave the different ways to place playing The Pool,
+   Universalis, and The Riddle of Steel onto the spectrum as an exercise for
+   the reader (hint: there are three answers, one for each game).
+
+   Finally, another subtle enforcer of story structure is the range of
+   possible focus, or specification, for player-characters' abilities. It
+   doesn't surprise me that many Narrativist-facilitating game designs don't
+   distinguish very much among player-characters' abilities (Sorcerer, The
+   Dying Earth, and My Life with Master characters are all pretty much alike
+   within each game, mechanically); when they are so distinguished, however,
+   the differences tend to lock down the range of the potential Premise(s)
+   during play.
+
+   So the most constrained story-structure game design would include Endgame
+   mechanics, an almost-over Situation, and strongly-distinguished abilties
+   (and hence story-roles) among the protagonists; interestingly, I can think
+   of no RPG design which features all three.
+
+  Resolution and reward mechanics
+
+   For Narrativist play, character creation may be considered the first step
+   in or the chassis for the reward and character-change systems. It differs
+   from the similar principle in Gamism in that personal strategy is not an
+   issue, but rather personal emotional agenda about the Premise. What's
+   interesting is that when play includes a focused reward system in
+   Narrativist terms, its numbers and effects are always integrated directly
+   into the event-resolution system.
+
+   One whole category of play, however, does not provide any special
+   connection between the two and usually doesn't include much of a reward
+   system at all. Earlier games of this sort include The Window (partly),
+   Theatrix, Over the Edge, Castle Falkenstein, The World the Flesh and the
+   Devil, and possibly Puppetland. I think Soap, InSpectres, and Universalis
+   represent a development in this category of stronger IIEE-structure, as
+   well as providing a very abstract resolution + reward mechanic, but
+   retaining the Drama emphasis for resolution. These games also feature
+   pronounced GM-sharing as distinct from the earlier ones.
+
+   The other category includes very strong reward mechanics design based on
+   character decisions, with resolution based on Fortune in the Middle in
+   order to preserve Author Stance during those decisions. Example games
+   include Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault, Zero, The Pool, Sorcerer,
+   Dust Devils, Trollbabe, Legends of Alyria, My Life with Master, HeroQuest,
+   and Orkworld, as well as The Riddle of Steel in a cunning fashion.
+
+   A recent development in both categories is to bring relationships into the
+   game mechanics to a very high degree, as in HeroQuest, Trollbabe, and My
+   Life with Master. Earlier versions of this idea may be seen in Albedo,
+   Lace & Steel, and Pendragon, but its primarily-Narrativist application is
+   recent and very significant.
+
+  Character behavior mechanics
+
+   This topic is potentially rather a sore point among role-players, unless
+   they have experienced play which shows the diverse strong points along the
+   entire spectrum. It concerns how limited characters' behavior may be.
+
+   At one end of this spectrum, there's nothing of the kind: just contextual
+   material that prompts the issues and perhaps a character descriptor here
+   or there. The primary engine for Narrativist play is purely personal
+   fascination with the issues at hand and with working them out. Castle
+   Falkenstein, The Whispering Vault, and Over the Edge are good examples.
+
+   Moving just a little over, characters' behavioral descriptors are
+   required, but they don't have any special role in determining what the
+   character does - except for providing secondary bonuses to some resolution
+   events, as in The Pool and HeroQuest.
+
+   Moving well toward the other end of the spectrum, specific behaviors have
+   generalized consequence mechanics. Sorcerer, Trollbabe, Dust Devils, The
+   Riddle of Steel, and Orkworld are all examples - the characters have free
+   will regarding what to do, but immediate mechanics provide significant
+   effects.
+
+   Far at the other end of the spectrum, behavior is heavily structured, for
+   either or both character-creation and scenario-play. This kind of game
+   often entails playing "against yourself" for the character, and the GM is
+   potentially semi-adversarial, even ruthless, playing both external and
+   internal adversity. Examples include Wuthering Heights, Extreme Vengeance,
+   Violence Future, My Life with Master, Le Mon Mouri, InSpectres, Otherkind,
+   and The Dying Earth. "Schism", "Urge", and other sorcerer/demon
+   combination versions of Sorcerer effectively shift the game's play into
+   this category.
+
+  Procedural diversity: thematic content
+
+   Given that theme arises during Narrativist play, what does it look like,
+   and how limited or well-defined is it? This breaks down into three
+   independent issues, all of which are pretty subtle and deserve more
+   discussion.
+
+    1. The potential for personal risk and disclosure among the real people
+       involved.
+
+          * High risk play is best represented by playing Sorcerer, Le Mon
+            Mouri, InSpectres, Zero, or Violence Future. You're putting your
+            ego on the line with this stuff, as genre conventions cannot help
+            you; the other people in play are going to learn a lot about who
+            you are.
+
+          * Low risk play is best represented by playing Castle Falkenstein,
+            Wuthering Heights, The Dying Earth, or Prince Valiant. These
+            games are, for lack of a better word, "lighter" or perhaps more
+            whimsical - they do raise issues and may include extreme content,
+            but play-decisions tend to be less self-revealing.
+
+    2. The depth and profundity of the resulting themes. Counter to my lousy
+       phrasing in GNS and related matters of role-playing theory
+       ([21]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), "literary merit" of a
+       theme is irrelevant. Themes are indeed important, and I suggest that
+       two broad categories are available: cathartic vs. deconstructive, with
+       the former splitting up into happy-ending, sad-ending, and ambiguous.
+       A related point concerns the range of the possible themes for a given
+       play-instance, from narrow to broad. I'll forego providing game
+       examples as the depth and range of theme rely very greatly on the
+       given play-group's use of the game.
+
+    3. The humorous content. This is, in many ways, a red herring. I consider
+       "funny" always to be a secondary phenomenon, perhaps modifying theme,
+       or modifying something else entirely. For GNS or other theory
+       purposes, you have to look at the something else and discuss that
+       first. Still, there are a couple of points worth mentioning for
+       role-playing.
+
+          * Is play itself funny, or is the topic of play funny? This is a
+            very complex issue, fully analogous to the endless discussions of
+            fear and suspense in horror role-playing.
+
+          * Is the humor acting to bring participants' emotions closer to the
+            Premise, or to distance them?
+
+GNS crossover issues
+
+   I suggest that historically, two basic Creative Agendas have been
+   perceived for role-playing: 1. Gamist, with the sub-set of Hard Core
+   Gamism; 2. Simulationist, with a sub-set of
+   Simulationist-becomes-Narrativist.
+
+   Oh, I know, people never used the GNS terms for this purpose. But this is
+   how newcomers to the theory often read the terms, indicating their current
+   understanding, and those readings are fully consistent with the
+   explanations of play found in hundreds of game texts. I consider this
+   dichotomy, sub-sets and all, to be badly mistaken, but before I get to
+   that, let's take a look at its cultural results.
+
+   Over time, as I see it, many practitioners and designers correctly
+   realized they were playing and promoting
+   Simulationist-becomes-"Narrativist," in quotes. Those quotes mean,
+   producing stories mainly through front-loading or post-editing, not
+   through protagonist decision-making as run by the players. They mean
+   focusing on story as product as opposed to Narrativist play. Reactions to
+   this latter insight have varied widely, and they include:
+
+     * Abandon the perceived overall mode (Simulationism) entirely for Gamist
+       pastures;
+
+     * Embrace the Simulationism and drop any pretense at story-creation
+       through play, such that story is at most an epiphenomenon to the
+       Exploration, usually of Setting;
+
+     * Embrace the quotes in the "Narrativist" with verve, putting as much
+       effort and sophistication toward metaplot and GM-driven-story as
+       possible;
+
+     * Give up role-playing in disgust with the inability to produce
+       Narrativist play without the quotes;
+
+     * Mute down any particular Creative Agenda, making sure to provide a
+       little Gamist candy, in the interests of group harmony;
+
+     * Drop the quotes around the "Narrativist," which means abandoning
+       Simulationism as a starting point and turning to explicit Narrativism.
+
+   My construction of the modes of play is extremely different. As I see it,
+   one starts with [Exploration]. Now, either prioritize the intensity of
+   imagining some specific content as the agenda of play, which gives you
+   [E[Simulationism]], or develop the Exploration into a further-derived
+   agenda, which gives the choice of [E[Narrativism]] or [E[Gamism]].
+
+  Gamism and Narrativism
+
+   As I've tried to show at various points so far, Gamist and Narrativist
+   play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents, sharing the same
+   range for most Techniques save those involving reward systems. They differ
+   primarily in terms of the actual aesthetic payoff - what's appreciated
+   socially and aesthetically. That difference is extremely marked. Happily,
+   therefore very little if any chance exists for these modes of play to come
+   into conflict with one another - a group simply goes one way or the other.
+
+   From the Introduction section of The Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game
+   (Marvel Entertainment Group, 2003, "Direct Edition," authors not credited,
+   editor is Mark D. Beazley):
+
+   Style of Play
+
+   You can play Marvel in a variety of styles, based on whatever you're
+   interested in. Most roleplaying games tend to fall somewhere between two
+   styles of play that we call "Clobberin' Time" and "Power and
+   Responsibility." And for one-on-one play, there's always "Brawling," a
+   style unique to this game.
+
+   Power and Responsibility
+
+   ... players spend a great deal of time on things like character
+   development, morality, thoughts and goals ... They care about the other
+   people in their lives, like girlfriends or boyfriends, aunts, sidekicks,
+   and non-Super Hero friends. ... there's more to this style of play than
+   busting things up.
+
+   Clobberin' Time
+
+   ... players don't spend much time on their characters' lifestyles. They
+   concentrate on action and plenty of it.
+
+   Together, the players and the GamesMaster decide what style of game they
+   want to play. There is nothing more frustrating than a GamesMaster who
+   runs a "Power and Responsibility" style game for a bunch of "Clobberin'
+   Times" players. ...
+
+   Brawling
+
+   ... allows players to answer age-old questions: who would win in a fight,
+   the Thing or the Hulk? [further examples] ... two players can sit down
+   with their characters and fight against each other without needing a
+   GamesMaster.
+
+   I can always quibble. I think the above text adheres a little too closely
+   to the mistaken dichotomies presented earlier, with the concomitant red
+   herring of combat vs. no combat. But it's flawless in terms of caring
+   together about what's up, and about socially constructing and reinforcing
+   what's up. And the key point for me is that the same game system is usable
+   alternatively for Narrativist or Gamist (or Hard Core Gamist) play, rather
+   than simultaneously. Also, the text includes very little mention of or
+   attention to Simulationist play per se. Enjoying "being a Marvel hero" in
+   this game is not Simulationist at all, but merely the foundational
+   Explorative expectation for either of the two focused options.
+
+   Whether the Gamist and Narrativist modes may be played "congruently" is
+   controversial (see Congruence in the glossary). I remain skeptical.
+
+  The grim epiphany: Narrativism and Simulationism
+
+   This section supercedes the section "El Dorado and Drift" in my essay
+   "Simulationism: the Right to Dream"
+   ([22]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/).
+
+   I'll begin by identifying a very common misconception: that if enjoyable
+   Exploration is identifiable during play, then play must be Simulationist
+   or at least partly so. This is profoundly mistaken: if you address
+   Premise, it's Narrativist play. Period. If the Exploration involved, no
+   matter how intensive, hones and focuses that addressing-Premise process,
+   then that Exploration is still Narrativist, not Simulationist.
+
+   That's why Feng Shui and Hong Kong Action Theater are hard-core,
+   no-ambiguity Simulationist-facilitating games including their explicit
+   homage to specific cinematic stories, and that's why The Dying Earth
+   facilitates Narrativist play, because its Situations are loaded with the
+   requirement for satirical, judgmental input on the part of the players.
+
+   "El Dorado" was coined by Paul Czege to indicate the impossibility of a
+   1:1 Simulationist:Narrativist blend, although the term was appropriated by
+   others for the blend itself, as a desirable goal. I think some people who
+   claim to desire such a goal in play are simply looking for Narrativism
+   with a very strong Explorative chassis, and that the goal is not elusive
+   at all. Such "Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The
+   key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play.
+   Many role-players, identified by Jesse Burneko as
+   "Simulationist-by-habit," exhaust themselves by seeking El Dorado, racing
+   ever faster and farther, when all they have to do is stop running, turn
+   around, and find Vanilla Narrativism right in their grasp.
+
+   However, what about subordinate hybrids? Simulationist play works as an
+   underpinning to Narrativist play, insofar as bits or sub-scenes of play
+   can shift into extensive set-up or reinforcers for upcoming Bang-oriented
+   moments. It differs from the Explorative chassis for Narrativist play,
+   even an extensive one, in that one really has to stop addressing Premise
+   and focus on in-game causality per se. Such scenes or details can take on
+   an interest of their own, as with the many pages describing military
+   hardware in a Tom Clancy novel. It's a bit risky, as one can attract
+   (e.g.) hardware-nuts who care very little for Premise as well as
+   Premise-nuts who get bored by one too many hardware-pages, and end up
+   pleasing neither enough to attract them further.
+
+   Historically, this approach has been poorly implemented in role-playing
+   texts, which swing into Simulationist phrasing extremely easily, for the
+   reasons I describe in "Simulationism: the Right to Dream". You cannot get
+   emergent Narrativist play specifically through putting more and more
+   effort into perfecting the Simulationism (which requires that the
+   Narrativism cease), no matter how "genre-faithful" or "character-faithful"
+   it may be. I consider most efforts in this direction to become reasonably
+   successful High-Concept Simulationism with a strong slant toward
+   Situation, mainly useful for enjoyable pastiche but not particularly for
+   Narrativist play at all.
+
+   The key issue is System. Narrativist play is best understood as a powerful
+   integration and feedback between character creation and the reward system,
+   however they may work, in that the former is merely the first step of the
+   latter in terms of addressing Premise. Whereas the usual effect in
+   High-Concept Simulationist play is to "fix" player-characters
+   appropriately into the Situation for purposes of affirming the
+   story-as-conceived, especially in terms of varying effectiveness at
+   specific task-categories, and reward systems in these games are usually
+   diminished and delayed to the point of absence. Games which stumbled over
+   this issue include Fading Suns and Legend of the Five Rings, both of which
+   require extensive Drifting to achieve even halting Narrativist play
+   despite considerable thematic content.
+
+   The more successful primarily-Narrativist, secondarily-Simulationist
+   hybrid designs include Obsidian, to some extent, possibly Continuum if I'm
+   reading it right, and The Riddle of Steel as the current shining light; I
+   also call attention to Robots & Rapiers, currently in development.
+
+   How about the reverse? Can Narrativist play underlie and reinforce a
+   primarily Simulationist approach? I consider this to be a very interesting
+   question, because it's not like Gamism in this regard at all. What happens
+   when Premise is addressed sporadically, or develops so slowly that the
+   majority of play is like those hardware-pages? Whether this is "slow
+   Narrativism" or "S-N-S" or just plain dysfunctional play is a matter of
+   specific instances, I think. But I do want to stress that it's not the
+   "N/S blend" as commonly construed, which is to say, both priorities firing
+   as equal pals.
+
+Dysfunctional Narrativist play
+
+  GNS incompatibility
+
+   It is very easy to spot players who are disinclined toward Narrativist
+   play, but nevertheless want a story to be produced, in a group that favors
+   Narrativist-oriented play. They write up rich and intense characters on
+   paper, but in play, they're paralyzed. They can posture towards one
+   another, and they can defend against attack, and they can spot clues, beat
+   up mooks, and band together against a common threat like nobody's
+   business, but only on the basis of GM cues. In an otherwise Narrativist
+   group, they are black hole voids for addressing Premise, and typically
+   they don't continue playing with that group for long.
+
+   More subtle and more likely to be sustained are Narrativist-oriented
+   participants in largely non-Narrativist games. They practice "stealth"
+   play to get what they want, usually through making suggestions to the
+   authority in the group, often practicing a lot of trade-off negotiation. A
+   skilled stealther can sometimes become a significant co-GM as long as he
+   or she doesn't call attention to the influence. Stealthers tend to do a
+   lot of waiting.
+
+   Less happily, such a player in a game with a strong
+   Simulationist/Situation bent is in big trouble and vice versa, especially
+   when the group is committed to Illusionist Techniques. Illusionism is a
+   widespread technique of play and arguably, textually, the most supported
+   approach to the hobby, as testified most recently by the publication
+   Secrets of Game-mastering (2002, Atlas Games). It relies on Force, as
+   defined earlier in the essay. GMing with lots of covert Force is called
+   Illusionism. I call that the Black Curtain; if the Curtain is drawn, then
+   the players aren't immediately clued in about the presence and extent of
+   the Force itself.
+
+   Force (Illusionist or not) isn't necessarily dyfunctional: it works well
+   when the GM's main role is to make sure that the transcript ends up being
+   a story, with little pressure or expectation for the players to do so
+   beyond accepting the GM's Techniques. I think that a shared "agreement to
+   be deceived" is typically involved, i.e., the players agree not to look
+   behind the Black Curtain. I suggest that people who like Illusionist play
+   are very good at establishing and abiding by their tolerable degree of
+   Force, and Secrets of Gamemastering seems to bear that out as the
+   perceived main issue of satisfactory role-playing per se.
+
+   Producing a story via Force Techniques means that play must shift fully to
+   Simulationist play. "Story" becomes Explored Situation, the character
+   "works" insofar as he or she fits in, and the player's enjoyment arises
+   from contributing to that fitting-in. However, for the Narrativist player,
+   the issue is not the Curtain at all, but the Force. Force-based Techniques
+   are pure poison for Narrativist play and vice versa. The GM (or a person
+   currently in that role) can provide substantial input, notably adversity
+   and Weaving, but not specific protagonist decisions and actions; that is
+   the very essence of deprotagonizing Narrativist play.
+
+   Get just one Story Now player into an Illusionist group, and the game
+   becomes a battlefield for control and story creation. I consider this to
+   be one of the worst instances of high-level GNS incompatibility, because
+   it typically doesn't resolve itself through a clean parting of the ways.
+   As long as the people involved buy into the false notion that Narrativist
+   play is a subset of the Simulationist aesthetic, then the war will not
+   end, as they wave their "integrity of the story" flags at one another in
+   the mistaken belief that they share aesthetic goals.
+
+   It all becomes much clearer when the Gamism-Narrativism similarity is
+   acknowledged. No one in their right mind permits a fully-committed Gamist
+   into a Simulationist-Situation role-playing group, and the same goes for
+   fully-committed Narrativist participants, for the same reasons.
+
+  Ouija-board role-playing
+
+   Here's another outcome for the faulty Simulationist-makes-Narrativism
+   approach. Actually, it's the same phenomenon as
+   Simulationism-makes-Gamism, which I discussed in "Gamism: Step On Up"
+   ([23]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/) as "the bitterest role-player
+   in the world." I consider the Narrativist version to be the "most deluded
+   role-player in the world."
+
+   How do Ouija boards work? People sit around a board with letters and
+   numbers on it, all touching a legged planchette that can slide around on
+   the board. They pretend that spectral forces are moving the planchette
+   around to spell messages. What's happening is that, at any given moment,
+   someone is guiding the planchette, and the point is to make sure that the
+   planchette always appears to everyone else to be moving under its own
+   power.
+
+   Taking this idea to role-playing, the deluded notion is that Simulationist
+   play will yield Story Now play without any specific attention on anyone's
+   part to do so. The primary issue is to maintain the facade that "No one
+   guides the planchette!" The participants must be devoted to the notion
+   that stories don't need authors; they emerge from some ineffable
+   confluence of Exploration per se. It's kind of a weird Illusionism
+   perpetrated on one another, with everyone putting enormous value on
+   maintaining the Black Curtain between them and everyone else. Typically,
+   groups who play this way have been together for a very long time.
+
+   My call is, you get what you play for. Can you address Premise this way?
+   Sure, on the monkeys-might-fly-out-my-butt principle. But the key to
+   un-premeditated artistry of this sort (cutup fiction, splatter painting,
+   cinema verite) is to know what to throw out, and role-playing does not
+   include that option, at least not very easily. Participants in Ouija-board
+   play do so through selective remembering. I have observed many such
+   role-players to refer to hours of unequivocally bored and contentious play
+   as "awesome!" given a week or two for mental editing.
+
+   What I see from such groups is the following:
+
+     * They use a highly customized house-version of a given rules-set,
+       usually AD&D, BRP, or an early edition of Champions; many of the
+       customized details are unrecorded.
+
+     * They employ a personalized set of subtle cues and expectations that
+       arise out of their long-term friendships and habits of play.
+
+     * The satisfaction-moments are rare to the extent of being perhaps a
+       yearly event. "Nothing happened tonight" is typical, but the group
+       believes that you don't legitimately get the cherished moments any
+       other way. Such moments are treasured and carefully repeated among
+       them.
+
+     * Rarely, another person participates and (horrors!) actually overtly
+       moves the planchette, or discusses how it's being moved. That person
+       is instantly ejected, with cries of "powergamer!" and "pushy bastard!"
+
+     * They're socially isolated from other role-players, as their play is so
+       arcane and impenetrable that no one else can easily participate. If
+       they go to cons, they go together, stay together, and leave together.
+       One of them buys a new game that "looks good," and they rarely if ever
+       try it, always rejecting it when they do.
+
+     * They're socially isolated not only from gamers, but from everyone,
+       insofar as their hobby is concerned. Forget social context; it's just
+       these guys, aging, playing their tweaked versions of the game they
+       discovered in high school, reminiscing about that one awesome time
+       when character X did that awesome thing.
+
+   Ouija-board groups vary in terms of how much fun they have, and I'll leave
+   further discussion of the phenomenon to the forums.
+
+  Minor issues within Narrativist play
+
+   The first minor issue is not really a big deal - simply, not everyone is
+   necessarily a whiz at addressing Premise even when they try. If they were,
+   we'd see a hell of a lot more great novels, comics, movies, and plays than
+   we do. Signs of "hack Narrativism" include backing off from unexpected
+   opportunities to address Premise or consistently swinging play into parody
+   versions of the issues involved. I don't see any particular reason to
+   bemoan or criticize this bit of dysfunction; all art forms have their
+   Sunday practitioners.
+
+   The second is a recent phenomenon: the "do it right" purists, often
+   recently made aware of GNS or other theories, who then get on their fellow
+   participants' cases during play to accord with some theoretical ideal.
+   It's usually accompanied by the fallacy of focusing on one or more
+   Techniques as the "real" Narrativism.
+
+   The third was mentioned earlier, based on the tendency for pre-game
+   preparation to develop Situation so far along the process of addressing
+   Premise, that the participants' input during play essentially delivers
+   only the final moments. I call such play "96%-ing," which can be
+   functional, but it tends to play safe to a degree that undercuts the
+   process.
+
+   The fourth is maintaining privacy among the participants about what's
+   important to each one, whether about one's own character or the characters
+   of others. Such play might be thought of as keeping Premise personal and
+   close to the vest. That privacy may detract from others' enjoyment,
+   although see Ouija-board role-playing below for some further thoughts.
+
+   The final minor problem is to resolve play-Situations rapidly and without
+   developing them much beyond the initial preparatory circumstances: "over
+   before it begins." This typically occurs when people are so floored by the
+   possibility of actually addressing a Premise through play, that they hare
+   off to do so before some RPG god notices and intervenes to stop them.
+   Usually, this sort of play is a short-lived phase as the group builds
+   trust with one another.
+
+  Bad apple Narrativists
+
+   All of this section concerns Narrativist play which is practically
+   guaranteed to be dysfunctional. It's really one thing, but it comes in two
+   versions depending on whether the person in question is acting as GM.
+
+   The non-GM version is the Prima Donna, a devoted Premise-addresser - but
+   what he can't do is share. If a given scene is not about the issue that he
+   cares about, he disrupts things until it is. If his character is present
+   in a scene, then he'll demand center stage until forcibly stopped. He
+   understands protagonism, but won't permit anyone else to have it.
+   Essentially, he's the equivalent of the Hard Core Gamist, but with a
+   significant difference: only one person can do it successfully; it can't
+   even spread through the group. Prima Donnas are obnoxious, selfish, and
+   pushy. Their typical fate is to be removed from a group or to become its
+   GM (often to the present GM's consternation), in which latter case to
+   become a Typhoid Mary.
+
+   What's a Typhoid Mary? Well may you ask. It's a would-be Narrativist GM
+   who uses tons of Force upon the player-characters. He introduces the
+   Premise and is emotionally invested in how the players are supposed to
+   address it, to the extent that he makes their characters' significant
+   decisions for them. Effectively, this means the other people are present
+   only to praise and reflect the GM's ego. Play amounts to "we tell the
+   story, but I'm writing it" - he continually demands that the players
+   appreciate his Narrativist aesthetic, but suppresses the same aesthetic in
+   their behavior. He prioritizes and insists upon Premise-addressing input
+   yet makes it subject to his approval.
+
+   Such play is appallingly unrewarding and is rightly labeled railroading.
+   To sustain it, the Typhoid Mary must exert primary dominance over all
+   aspects of the Social Contract, which is usually not possible among
+   adults. I can think of no more effective means of ensuring that other
+   people never role-play again, than encountering a Typhoid Mary. Also,
+   unsurprisingly, get one Narrativist player with a spine in that game, and
+   it's root hog or die, the worst Force-vs.-Narrativist duel possible - such
+   conflicts have been known to disrupt romances, friendships, and even jobs
+   and marriages.
+
+Narrativist game design
+
+   One reason I presented the big model of role-playing in this essay is to
+   say, game texts are no more nor less than recommendations, manuals, and
+   inspirational materials for play. For such texts to be effective, they
+   need to be clear and inspiring for all the levels in the model. I think
+   that Social Contract always comes first. Most especially for Narrativist
+   play, which has been textually marginalized throughout the hobby's
+   history, the game-rules' focus must expand to social and procedural
+   behavior at the table, not merely the Techniques subsets of scene and
+   conflict resolution.
+
+  What to do
+
+   I wrote a pretty sketchy little game in the early 1990s called "BSL," or
+   Bullshit-Less. You know what my friends said? "You can't read this like
+   you read a game book. To enjoy it, you'd have to play!" Much to my
+   surprise, that was a stone-wall stopping point for them. I had a terrible
+   time coming up with what they'd need to know in order to make that step
+   easily and quickly. I think that whatever a role-player is best at is the
+   last thing on earth that occurs to him or her to write about, and
+   Narrativist-oriented authors are especially in a jam, as they lack
+   precedents and examples.
+
+   Looking over the diversity I listed earlier, I realize that an effective
+   manual or teaching text was Terra Incognita for Narrativist play until
+   very recently. Sorcerer, for example, was not written as a teaching text
+   for a general role-playing audience, although its supplements were. Now,
+   however, we have InSpectres, Dust Devils, My Life with Master, the three
+   Sorcerer supplements, Universalis, Trollbabe, Legends of Alyria,
+   HeroQuest, and more, all representing individual attempts. (I will leave
+   the very interesting question of why Everway failed in this regard to
+   future discussions.)
+
+   So, the goal is to work through the big model, probably from the top down.
+   For a Narrativist-oriented game, the touchpoint throughout should always
+   be, what's the Premise? I think stating it right out in front of everybody
+   is the best way to go, or a version which is easily customized further. An
+   alternative might be to inspire the Premise through
+   Exploration-discussion, but it's risky - doing that usually works only for
+   Situation-based Premise games, like The Dying Earth.
+
+   Let's look at that diversity again. Where does Premise come from? How much
+   do you have to work with, and how much improvisation is involved during
+   play itself? Is the story underway yet, and how close are the
+   decision/crisis points? Where's the spin in the System? Dice? Others'
+   input? Any negotiation/trading? IIEE must be dead bang center with what
+   you're driving at; does the reward system feed back into protagonism?
+   Prompt Endgame? Shift GMing roles? Or what? What does actual play look
+   like, in terms of Ephemera-combinations clustering to create and/or
+   support Techniques?
+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+              Basic     Source of  GM Jobs:      Story       Resolution    Behavior    Thematic Content*:
+              Content:  Premise    Distribution  Structure:  and Reward:   Mechanics:  Risk factor;
+              Improv               among         Endings,    See spectrum  See         depth; humor
+              vs. rock             participants  e.g.        in essay      spectrum
+              steady                                                       in essay
+    Sorcerer  Steady    Character  Spread in     Encouraged  Connected:    Middle      High risk High
+                                   prep,         by reward   Short term                depth Occasional
+                                   centralized   system      bonuses                   humor
+                                   in play                   Destiny and
+                                                             goals in
+                                                             Sorc & Sword
+        TROS  Steady    Character  Centralized   Varies by   Connected:    Middle      Potential/variable
+                                                 prep        Spiritual                 risk Mild to
+                                                             Attributes                medium depth
+                                                                                       Low/absent humor
+ Universalis  Improv    Varies     Fully spread  Varies by   Fully         Mild to     Varies by group in
+                                   out           prep        identical     none        all three
+                                                             (coins)
+        MLWM  In        Setting    Mostly        Fixed       Connected:    Extreme     High risk Fixed
+              between              centralized   endgame     Net                       medium depth Humor
+                                                             consequences              as defense
+                                                             = Epilogue
+   HeroQuest  Steady    Setting    Centralized   None        Fully         Mild to     Medium risk
+                                                             identical     middle      Extreme depth Mild
+                                                                                       but inescapable
+                                                                                       humor
+         The  Steady    Situation  Centralized   Fixed       Almost no     Mild to     High risk
+  Whispering                                     conflict    connection    none        Medium-low depth
+       Vault                                                                           Low/absent humor
+    The Pool  In        Varies     Mostly        Varies by   Fully         Mild to     Low risk, usually
+              between              centralized   prep        identical     none        Mild if any depth
+                                                             (dice)                    Humor varies by
+                                                                                       group
+  InSpectres  Improv    Situation  Partly        Fixed       Extremely     Middle to   High risk
+                                   centralized,  conflict    connected:    strong      Medium/fixed depth
+                                   with                      Stress and                High humor
+                                   specific                  resources
+                                   non-GM input
+                                   moments
+      Castle  Steady    Setting    Centralized   None        Almost no     Mild to     Low risk
+ Falkenstein                                                 connection    none        Low/variable depth
+                                                                                       Occasional humor
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+     * Yes, this column is highly personal. Please feel free to fill it in
+       with your own assessments based on your play-experiences.
+
+  Some food for thought: constraints
+
+   A whole critique of the role of constraint in creativity is probably
+   beyond my powers, but I can't over-emphasize how important it's been in my
+   experiences of design, preparation, and satisfaction in any creative
+   endeavor. For role-playing, I think a designer should consider constraints
+   to be his or her most important ally: elements which, once established,
+   remain fixed and actively inform a whole suite of possibilities for the
+   future. Whether they concern Currency (e.g. Universalis), outcomes of
+   resolution (e.g. Sorcerer, The Riddle of Steel), character creation
+   options, behavioral choices, Setting, or whatever, strikes me as the
+   primary issue for designing games of any kind, and Narrativist goals need
+   them desperately.
+
+   I foresee a whole slew of threads discussing the difference between
+   "restraint" and "constraint," so here I'll only bring up how effective
+   Paul Czege's decision to constrain Setting is for My Life with Master.
+   Once you know "about 1805, central Europe, isolated village," the doors
+   are thrown open to bring maximum creativity to bear on the key issues of
+   the game. For whatever reason, I think that this aspect of the game text
+   makes the rest, especially the tricky wide-open parts like "More Than
+   Human," much easier. By comparison, the designs of Dust Devils and
+   Sorcerer are currently a bit hampered by their wide-open settings, which I
+   now think require a little too much group-based customizing. Or, at the
+   opposite extreme, Trollbabe does provide the Setting constraint, but it's
+   so subculturally focused (you get it or you don't) as to limit access to
+   the game. My Life with Master provides not only the focus, but also a
+   topic which raises the same issues for practically anyone who encounters
+   it. Furthermore, as Paul says, if someone wants to change the setting,
+   they'll do it - but they're able to do so all the better because the
+   textual setting made sense to them.
+
+  Pitfalls of Narrativist game design
+
+   1. The Timid Virgin. The reasonably successful Narrativist-leaning GM is
+   writing a game, and suddenly experiences a loss of nerve - he visualizes
+   all those other players out there who obviously don't play in this
+   fashion. One result is a kind of "but-but" motorboat effect scattered
+   through the generally Simulationist-reading text: admonishments to keep
+   non-GM participants from screwing up the apparently-Narrativist goals,
+   usually by pleading, scolding, or imposing sudden and apparently
+   out-of-place limits on the players' authority to provide input. Good
+   examples include Little Fears, The Burning Wheel, Fvlminata, and The Dying
+   Earth.
+
+   Another sort of Timid Virgin effect is a full spin toward Force Techniques
+   in isolated spots, which is less schizoid in terms of the reading
+   experience, but perhaps more confusing in the long run. Sorcerer, Everway,
+   Zero, Prince Valiant, and The Whispering Vault all have this bi-polar
+   problem, which I think characterizes many early-to-mid-90s game texts.
+
+   2. Karaoke. This is a serious problem that arises from the need to sell
+   thick books rather than to teach and develop powerful role-playing. Let's
+   say you have a game that consists of some Premise-heavy characters and a
+   few notes about Situation, and through play, the group generates a
+   hellacious cool Setting as well as theme(s) regarding those characters.
+   Then, publishing your great game, you present that very setting and theme
+   in the text, in detail.
+
+   From Over the Edge (Atlas Games, 1994; author is Jonathan Tweet):
+
+   How to Use the Setting
+
+   When I first played OTE, it was on about ten minutes' notice. I had some
+   notes on major background conspiracies, a few images of various scenes,
+   and a primitive version of the current mechanics. No map, no descriptions
+   of businesses, people, places, or any of the other useful tidbits that are
+   crammed into the previous two chapters. [He ain't kidding, and actually
+   it's the previous four chapters, 152 pages total, in the second edition -
+   RE] Naturally I winged it.
+
+   That night were born Total Taxi, Giovanni's Cab's [sic], Cesar's Hotel,
+   and Sad Mary's, all now landmarks in the Edge. Things just happened. I
+   faked it. Since there's nothing that couldn't happen, anything I dreamt up
+   was OK.
+
+   Now, however, you have a background explaining who, what, where, and when.
+   You're in a completely different situation from where I was back on that
+   first manic evening.
+
+   [The rest of the section concerns converting the reader-GM's in-play
+   mistakes about the canonical setting into opportunities, as well as
+   altering it to taste; the suggestion that he may instead put himself
+   directly into Tweet's improvisational shoes at the outset is, to my eyes,
+   vividly absent - RE]
+
+   [several pages later] Could vs. Should
+
+   ... The first time I played OTE, I had a few pages of notes on the
+   background and nothing on the specifics. I made it all up on the spot. Not
+   having anything written as a guide (or crutch), I let my imagination
+   loose. You have the mixed blessing of having many pages of background
+   prepared for you. If you use the information in this book as a springboard
+   for your own wild dreams, then it is a blessing. If you limit yourself to
+   what I've dreamed up, it's a curse.
+
+   All I see, I'm afraid, is the curse. The isolated phrases "mixed blessing"
+   and "(or crutch)" don't hold a lot of water compared to the preceding 152
+   extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting. I'm not saying that
+   improvisation is better or more Narrativist than non-improvisational play.
+   I am saying, however, that if playing this particular game worked so
+   wonderfully to free the participants into wildly successful brainstorming
+   during play ... and since the players were a core source during this
+   event, as evident in the game's Dedication and in various examples of play
+   ... then why present the results of the play-experience as the material
+   for another person's experience?
+
+   3. Metaplot. From Sorcerer & Sword (Adept Press, 2001, author is Ron
+   Edwards):
+
+   Metaplot. The solution most offered by role-playing games is a
+   supplement-driven metaplot: a sequence of events in the game-world which
+   are published chronologically, revealing "the story" to all GMs and
+   expecting everyone to apply these events in their individual sessions.
+   These published events include the outcomes of world-shaking conflicts as
+   well as individual relationships among the company-provided NPCs involved
+   in these conflicts.
+
+   Metaplot of this sort, whether generated by a GM or a game publisher, is
+   antithetical to the entire purpose of Sorcerer & Sword. Almost inevitably,
+   it creates a series of game products that pretend to be supplements for
+   play but are really a series of short stories and novels starring the
+   authors' beloved and central NPCs. The role of the individual play group
+   in those stories is much like that of karaoke singers, rather than
+   creative musicians.
+
+   Metaplot is central to the design of several White Wolf games, especially
+   Mage; all AEG games; post-first-edition Traveller; AD&D'2, beginning with
+   the Forgotten Realms series; as well as others. Nearly all of them are
+   perceived as setting-focused games, and to many role-players, they 'define
+   role-playing with strong Setting.
+
+   However, neither Setting-based Premise nor a complex Setting history
+   necessarily entails metaplot, as I'm using the term anyway. The best
+   example is afforded by Glorantha: an extremely rich setting with history
+   in place not only for the past, but for the future of play. The magical
+   world of Glorantha will be destroyed and reborn into a relatively mundane
+   new existence, because of the Hero Wars. Many key events during the
+   process are fixed, such as the Dragonrise of 1625. Why isn't this
+   metaplot?
+
+   Because none of the above represent decisions made by player-characters;
+   they only provide context for them. The players know all about the
+   upcoming events prior to play. The key issue is this: in playing in (say)
+   a Werewolf game following the published metaplot, the players are intended
+   to be ignorant of the changes in the setting, and to encounter them only
+   through play. The more they participate in these changes (e.g. ferrying a
+   crucial message from one NPC to another), the less they provide
+   theme-based resolution to Premise, not more. Whereas in playing HeroQuest,
+   there's no secret: the Hero Wars are here, and the more everyone enjoys
+   and knows the canonical future events, the more they can provide theme
+   through their characters' decisions during those events.
+
+   In designing a Setting-heavy Narrativist rules-set, I strongly suggest
+   following the full-disclosure lead of HeroQuest and abandoning the
+   metaplot "revelation" approach immediately.
+
+   4. Sole reliance on deepening and detailing any aspects of Exploration is
+   misguided. The vast majority of attempted Narrativist design is a hunt for
+   the perfect Simulationist design that will ostensibly permit the
+   Narrativist play to emerge, leading to abashedness at best. It's often
+   combined with mistaking an effectiveness-improvement mechanic for a reward
+   system - at this point, the game text simply facilitates High-Concept
+   Simulationist play, and the Narrativist goal is left to Social Contract
+   alone. Various publishing practices, especially a long string of scenario
+   and setting supplememnts, provide the coffin nails.
+
+   5. Going "no system," especially for IIEE aspects of play, combines the
+   undermining aspects of both of the above two approaches, especially when
+   the author idealizes story as a product rather than Narrativist play as a
+   process. Don't forget, all role-playing has a system; turning it over to
+   "oh, just decide and have fun" merely makes the system crappy and prone to
+   bullying.
+
+   Frankly, un-structured Drama turns out to be ill-suited to Narrativist
+   play. It's clear why people turn to it so consistently; years of suffering
+   through task-resolution systems that fail to resolve conflict, with the
+   attendant Simulationist creep of rules-revisions during the 1980s, is
+   enough to put any aspirant Narrativist off of "rules" and "systems."
+
+   The Window (latest version 1997, author is Scott Lininger) makes a brave
+   attempt at this approach to play:
+
+   You see, after trying what seems like a million different systems during
+   our own series of roleplaying games (perhaps you've seen this, too), we
+   slowly realized that no matter what rules we were using, the interaction
+   between the characters essentially ran the same. No matter what rules we
+   were using, the combat always moved along with the same ultimate effects:
+   it was just a question of how long it took to get there. Even the
+   character creation worked in the same way, or at least was visualized in
+   the same way.
+
+   As it was, our style had become more important to us than the system. We
+   spent many times the creative energy developing the world and our
+   characters than we did figuring up percentages, regardless of the genre we
+   chose. It wasn't the individual stats and skills that made us love our
+   characters, rather it was their actions and their personalities and how
+   they fit into the overall story.
+
+   The only time we really noticed which rules were being used was when they
+   somehow got in the way, as they inevitably did! That was the seed. We
+   decided that it was time for a system that would stay in the background...
+   be invisible as a pane of glass...
+
+   There are plenty of explicit Narrativist goals stated in The Window,
+   especially its Third Precept:
+
+   This is a big idea, though a simple one. It starts with the realization
+   that the actors and the Storyteller are all cooperating toward the same
+   goal: If everyone takes equal responsibility for the quality of the story
+   then all will benefit when it really starts working.
+
+   There are times when a good actor will let go of their own ego and let the
+   story take precedence over their character. There are times when a good
+   Storyteller will allow the actors to narrate scenes. The days of rival
+   camps delineated by a GM screen are over. Though obviously the
+   Storyteller's vision is what creates the seeds of roleplaying, nothing
+   much will grow without the actors' input. An open, out of character dialog
+   about the direction of the story should be maintained so that the
+   Storyteller knows what's working and what's not.
+
+   Strive for originality in all things. Your characters, their actions, and
+   their contribution to the narrative are totally up to you to decide, and
+   the essence of roleplaying is a creative one. Don't allow yourself to fall
+   back on stereotypes, and remember that what you create when you sit down
+   to roleplay is totally unique to you and your group of friends. The story
+   you mutually envision should be your own.
+
+   The Window includes a dice-rolling mechanic, but most of its resolution is
+   handled through Drama, with or without the rolls. Unfortunately, the
+   unstructured-Drama system of the game is anything but invisible - it must
+   be redefined and "referenced" at every moment of play. Contrary to popular
+   belief, it demonstrates the highest Points of Contact of any sort of
+   role-playing. Furthermore, it's the one mode of attempted Narrativist play
+   which fails to prioritize or organize protagonism. It mistakenly asssumes
+   that narration yields Narrativism, and that constraints on narration are
+   necessarily restraints on Narrativist play.
+
+   What's the problem with this? Why am I being so harshly critical? It all
+   goes back to Force - if establishing the IIEE circumstances is under one
+   person's control, without reference to any System features, then scenes'
+   outcomes become the province of that person. Which in turn means that the
+   decisions and actions of player-characters are now details of this one
+   person's decisions. Narrativist de-protagonism is the near-inevitable
+   result.
+
+   6. Fleeing to Social Contract to solve everything. Some designers,
+   enthralled by the idea that input does not have to be restricted to or
+   filtered through a central person, rely on the hope that everyone feels
+   like contributing extra-protagonist content at any given moment.
+   Unfortunately, this creates a "dead ball" effect in which one must create,
+   on the spot, both adversity and its resolution from whole cloth. People
+   apparently prefer a fair amount of context and constraint in order to
+   provide input instead.
+
+   A related tendency is to rely on restraint, stating or implying that "good
+   players wouldn't do that!" I suggest two alternative approaches: (1) that
+   System provide "rebound" or consequences to make the variety of choices
+   interesting, and (2) stating explict Creative Agenda expectations up
+   front.
+
+   The biggest pitfall of all, though, needs a section of its own.
+
+  The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast
+
+   All right, here we go. This section represents a different angle of attack
+   for me - I'm not discussing System or mechanics design at all, just the
+   "how to role-play" texts. Some of the following games have, in my view,
+   very focused Creative Agenda content in contrast to these sections; other
+   games, not listed or discussed, are comparatively muddled in procedural
+   terms but have crystal-clear "how-to" sections. So this is entirely about
+   the "how-to" text, nothing else.
+
+   From Space: 1889 (1988, GDW Inc, author is Frank Chadwick):
+
+   Each adventure is a story, and the player characters are its heroes, but
+   with an important distinction: Their actions are not determined by an
+   author, but rather by the players themselves.
+
+   [From the chapter "The Referee"]
+
+   ... it is a good idea to conduct as many of the event resolution die rolls
+   as possible yourself and then announce the results. This makes the game
+   seem less mechanical to the players and enables you [to] add a secret die
+   roll modifier here or there to make things come out right without anyone
+   being the wiser. [Elsewhere in the text it is specified that this section
+   applies to critical events for the story - RE]
+
+   From Traveller (1996, Imperium Games Inc., authors are Marc Miller, Lester
+   Smith, Tony Lee)
+
+   The Players
+
+   Like a novel author or an actor in a drama, each player in a role-playing
+   game creates a persona, or character, to portray in the game ... the
+   player responds to the situation of the adventure as it unfolds, deciding
+   what the character would say or do in that situation. They don't just
+   watch the character, they choose the character's options.
+
+   The Referee
+
+   Management of the game is performed by a special player known as the
+   referee. ... Like the director of a movie, the referee judges what can and
+   cannot be accomplished in a particular scene.
+
+   From Tsyk (1996, Propaganda Publishing, author is Serge Stelmack):
+
+   Number Two: The personas are the property of the players.
+
+   Tsyk is not about players versus the GM. It is about the cooperative
+   weaving of a tale that everybody can enjoy. It does not make sense to use
+   the powers of gamemastery to try and dominate the personas, or to be
+   spiteful over their successes in the game.
+
+   Though it is the job of the GM to guide the characters through the
+   adventure, it is always the decisions of the players that dictate the
+   actions of the personas.
+
+   From Agone (2001, Multisim Publishing, authors include Sebatian Celerin,
+   Mathieu Gaborin, Stephane Marsan, Frederic Weil, and others):
+
+   ADVICE TO THE EG
+
+   The role of the Eminence Grise is crucial. He is the balance-keeper of the
+   game. He must prepare - and often create from scratch - thrilling plots
+   and describe the settings and their inhabitants ... In short, he enables
+   the players to live a good heroic-fantasy adventure. He must create a tale
+   in which the players' characters have the lead roles, in which they can,
+   through their actions, bring the story to one end or another.
+
+   In our world, the EG would be called a director or storyteller. Indeed, he
+   is simultaneously writer, director, and actor in a play or movie, which
+   improvises itself as hours of gameplay fly by.
+
+   From Undiscovered (2001, Eilfin Publishing, authors include Adam D.
+   Theriault, Antonio da Rosa, Philip Theriault):
+
+   Guiding Your Adventures
+
+   Let the players control their own fate. Although it is your story, you
+   must follow the whims of the characters. It is, after all, their lives
+   they are playing out. The characters must have the freedom to choose their
+   own fates, not just do what the AG tells them to do. It is your job,
+   however, to guide the characters through the story you have created.
+
+   What could any of this be saying? How is Entity A creating the tale,
+   guiding characters through the adventure, judging what can be accomplished
+   in a scene, making things come out right, and "your story" to be
+   reconciled with Entity B being "like a novel author," determining
+   characters' actions, bringing a story to an end, and having the lead
+   roles? As plain explanation, all such text is unmitigated nonsense. It's
+   such nonsense, that personalized readings that themselves make sense are
+   often projected onto it, as what the authors "must obviously" have meant.
+   Two such projections include:
+
+    1. Players of the protagonists always provide those characters'
+       decisions, especially climactic ones that drive the resolving scenes;
+       the GM-role is there to provide relevant adversity for everyone else,
+       e.g. managing scene framing, Bangs, and pacing.
+
+    2. The GM has the story decisions, i.e., wields substantial Force.
+       "Story" isn't coming from player decisions at all and may be
+       considered, itself, a piece of Explorative-material input from the GM.
+       Everyone else is providing color and material through
+       pseudo-decisions.
+
+   Both of these are perfectly reasonable approaches to play. Don't mistake
+   your solution as justification for Impossible Thing game text. If a person
+   is stuck in the rhetoric of The Impossible Thing, he tends to seize his
+   personal solution and embrace it like a life-raft, rejecting any
+   examination of the Thing itself.
+
+   No one is safe, apparently. From Maelstrom (Hubris Games, 1994, author is
+   Christian Aldridge):
+
+   What happens in a game
+
+   Characters will have goals they want to attain, and obstacles to overcome.
+   The story that the narrator creates will provide the setting and the plot.
+   In that plot the characters might stumble into adventure accidentally, or
+   become embroiled in international espionage, or choose to seek out fame
+   and fortune as tomb-robbers or pirates. The important point is that the
+   players author the tale through the actions of their characters.
+
+   Gaaaahh! Right there in a book studded with some of the finest applied
+   Narrativist techniques known to role-playing, there it squats, pulsing!
+   Based on the rest of the text as well as my discussions with Aldridge, I
+   know the first "provide the story" in this excerpt indicates adversity;
+   the second ("author the tale") indicates Narrativist protagonism. But
+   without that distinction in mind, reading such explanations is agonizing;
+   one can see the author filling in phrases he is accustomed to seeing in
+   role-playing texts, then, clearly realizing he's written something he
+   didn't mean, correcting himself mid-paragraph, resulting in a
+   contradictory hash.
+
+   As discussed earlier, the issue hinges on the super-big red herring called
+   "the plot, the story." It can mean so many things: - the NPCs' plan to do
+   something, which is irrelevant in GNS terms, as that's merely in-game
+   adversity, a staple of any role-playing. - given the definite article and
+   given a pre-player-decision context, it's absolutely anathema to
+   Narrativist play. - stripped of that article and given a purely post-play
+   context, it means nothing more than story, and is irrelevant for prep for
+   Narrativist play.
+
+   It's also easy to get distracted by the word "GM." A person may have a
+   mental tautology going between "GM" and "power," with a corresponding
+   death-grip on his or her perceived responsibility to perform and
+   entertain. Once the term is understood to be a set of independent roles
+   which may be distributed differently across the participants, then the
+   whole thing becomes a lot easier.
+
+   As far as game design and text is concerned, The Impossible Thing is easy
+   to avoid. All you have to do is be up-front about where and how those
+   GM-roles are distributed. If you're doing a solid Simulationist game with
+   a strong story emphasis via Force, say so and don't bleat about "players
+   control their characters' decisions" (see Call of Cthulhu and
+   Arrowflight). If you're doing a solid Narrativist game, keep Force out of
+   it entirely (see Dust Devils, InSpectres, and My Life with Master).
+
+The hard question
+
+   I suggest that both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and
+   automatic, with easy-to-see parallels in other activities and apparently
+   founded upon a lot of hardwiring in the human mind (or "psyche" or
+   "spirit" or whatever you want to call it). Whereas I think Simulationist
+   priorities must be trained - it is highly derived play, based mainly on
+   canonical fandom and focus on pastiche, and requires a great deal of
+   contextualized knowledge and stern social reinforcement. This training is
+   characterized by teaching people not to do what they're inclined to. No
+   one needs to learn how to role-play, but most do need to learn to play
+   Simulationist, by stifling their Gamist and/or Narrativist proclivities.
+   Such training is often quite harsh and may involve rewards and punishments
+   such as whether the person is "worthy" to be friends with the group
+   members.
+
+   If the typical role-playing preferences among humans are Gamist and
+   Narrativist, then play based on these modes should be easy to pick up,
+   easy to spread, and easy to sell, and I think it is all three. However,
+   since the typical role-playing text and typical training is Simulationist,
+   the net effect is to bump the majority of interested people away from the
+   hobby after first contact, and to consolidate the Simulationist primacy in
+   all evident features of the hobby, as opposed to the potential ones. This
+   is one of several reasons why the hobby remains decidedly fringe.
+
+   So the first question is, how about you? Are you Simulationist-by-habit,
+   which is to say, well-trained to this mode by the first group you
+   encountered? If so, is that what you really want? If so, then excellent.
+   But! If not, if you'd rather be addressing Premise, then you have a lot of
+   habits to break - perhaps even those which, in your mind, originally
+   defined the activity.
+
+   The second, larger question is much like the Gamist one: why role-play for
+   this purpose? Why this venue, and not some more widely-recognized medium
+   like writing comics or novels or screenplays? Addressing Premise can be
+   done in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of artistic media. To play Narrativist,
+   you must be seizing role-playing, seeing some essential feature in the
+   medium itself, which demands that Premise be addressed in this way for you
+   and not another. What is that feature? If you can't see one, then maybe,
+   just maybe, you are slumming in this hobby because you're afraid you can't
+   hack it in a commercial artistic environment. Maybe you even hang with a
+   primarily-Simulationist group, with the minimal levels of satisfaction to
+   be gained among them, because it's safe there.
+
+   But let's say you do answer that question, and hold your head up as a
+   Narrativist role-playing practitioner, addresser of Premise. Fine - now
+   you have to ask yourself whether you can handle artistic rejection. That's
+   right, no one might be interested in you. This is exactly what all
+   aspiring directors, screenwriters, novelists, and other practitioners of
+   narrative artistry face. In which case, you'll have to decide whether it's
+   because your worthy vision is unappreciated and should seek new
+   collaborators, or because your vision is simply lacking. It's not an easy
+   thing to deal with.
+
+   But let's say that's all resolved too, and you are holding the brass ring:
+   successful and fulfilling Narrativist play with a great bunch of fellow
+   participants, fine and exciting content from your and the others' work,
+   and the sense of worthy artistry. Now for the final conundrum: what will
+   you sacrifice to sustain it? Maybe your spouse is tired of the time you
+   spend on this; maybe you and a fellow group member get a little too close;
+   maybe you decide your art would be even better if your best friend's sorry
+   ass was no longer gumming up the group's work. Can you make those sorts of
+   choices? Can you live with the results?
+
+   Good luck with it. No one ever claimed that balls-to-the-wall artists were
+   necessarily easy to live with.
+
+Glossary
+
+   The following terms continue the lists at the end of the essays
+   "Simulationism: the Right to Dream"
+   ([24]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/) and "Gamism: Step On Up"
+   ([25]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/), which themselves are
+   additions to the definitions given in "GNS and other matters of
+   role-playing theory" ([26]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/). Which is
+   a polite way of saying go look at all of them, for now. A complete
+   glossary is under way.
+
+   Bangs
+
+           Introducing events into the game which make a
+           thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary
+           for a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer.
+
+   Black Curtain
+
+           My term for the techniques a GM may employ to keep his use of
+           Force hidden from the other participants in the game, such that
+           they are at least somewhat under the impression that their
+           characters' significant decisions are under their control. See
+           Illusionism.
+
+   Blood Opera
+
+           Play in which character generation focuses on potentially
+           irreconcilable differences among at least some of the characters,
+           and in which scenario generation is designed to put as much
+           pressure on these differences (and therefore on unexpected
+           alliances as possible). Notable for high mortality rates among
+           characters, in the manner of Reservoir Dogs. The term was coined
+           by Ralph Mazza, Jake Norwood, and myself after playing an
+           especially masochistic session of The Riddle of Steel during
+           Origins 2003.
+
+   Bob (from Sex & Sorcery)
+
+           Withholding response or otherwise mandating a "rest" in the
+           Premise-addressing action of play.
+
+   Conflict resolution
+
+           A technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on
+           conflicts of interest, rather than on the component tasks within
+           that conflict. When using this technique, inanimate objects are
+           conceived to have "interests" at odds with the character, if
+           necessary. Contrast with Task resolution.
+
+   Congruence
+
+           Term coined by Walt Freitag to describe the theoretical
+           possibility of simultaneous play of different Creative Agendas
+           which, although fulfilling very different needs for their
+           employers, are also mutually supportive between those employers.
+           The existence of sustained congruence remains controversial.
+
+   Cross (from Sex & Sorcery)
+
+           Introducing effects from previous scenes into current scenes,
+           although the scenes do not contain the same protagonists.
+
+   Deprotagonize (Paul Czege)
+
+           To limit or devalue another person's opportunity to establish
+           their character as a protagonist during Narrativist play. Note
+           that this is specific to Paul's use of Protagonism strictly in the
+           limited Narrativist context.
+
+   Egri, Lajos
+
+           the author of The Art of Dramatic Writing (1946); see Premise.
+
+   El Dorado
+
+           Coined by Paul Czege, a term for the unrealizable ideal of
+           consistently addressing Premise through explicitly Simulationist
+           play.
+
+   Force
+
+           Originally called "GM-oomph" (Ron Edwards), then "GM-Force" (Mike
+           Holmes) - Control over the protagonist characters'
+           thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the
+           character's player. The Force is an especially good term for this
+           phenomenon, due to (1) its sense of imposed mandate and
+           strength-in-control (not just input), and (2) its parodic Star
+           Wars connotation - whatever you want the plot to be, "use the
+           Force!"
+
+   Ouija-board role-playing
+
+           Coined by me in this essay, a form of Illusionism practiced among
+           all the participants upon one another to conceal both Step On Up
+           and Story Now priorities from one another.
+
+   Pastiche
+
+           An artistic production which relies on invoking pre-existing
+           productions' features for its primary effect; at worst, a simple
+           imitation, but at best, potentially a strong secondary commentator
+           on the original text. Often associated with "fanfic" or other
+           forms of homage.
+
+   Premise (adapted from Egri)
+
+           A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early
+           in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is
+           best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological
+           challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions.
+           Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story
+           transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about how
+           to act, behave, or believe.
+
+   Prima Donna
+
+           A Narrativist player who engages in Premise-addressing, but will
+           not share screen time or Premise-significant decision-making time
+           with other participants. An extremely dysfunctional subset of
+           Narrativist play.
+
+   Protagonism
+
+           A problematic term with two possible meanings. (A) A
+           characteristic of the main characters of stories, regardless of
+           who produced the stories in whatever way. (2) A characteristic set
+           of behaviors among people during role-playing, associated with
+           Narrativist play, with a necessary equivalent in Gamist play and
+           possible and Simulationist play.
+
+   Railroading
+
+           Control of a player-character's decisions by the GM, or
+           opportunities for decisions, in any way which breaks the Social
+           Contract for that group, in the eyes of the character's player.
+
+   Simulationist-by-habit (Jesse Burneko)
+
+           A form of synecdoche which defines "role-playing" according to
+           certain historically-widespread Simulationist approaches to play."
+           The system's job is to provide the physics of the game-world" is a
+           good example.
+
+   Story
+
+           an imaginary series of events which includes at least one
+           protagonist, at least one conflict, and events which may be
+           construed as a resolution of the conflict.
+
+   Story Now
+
+           a mode, or Creative Agenda, in which Premise is addressed through
+           play. The epiphenomenal outcome for the transcript is almost
+           always a story.
+
+   Task resolution
+
+           a technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on
+           within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the
+           acting character is competent to perform a task. Contrast with
+           Conflict resolution.
+
+   Transcript
+
+           an account of the imaginary events of play without reference to
+           any role-playing procedures. A transcript may or may not be a
+           story.
+
+   Transition (coined by Fang Langford)
+
+           Changing from one Creative Agenda to another through the course of
+           play using rules designed to make that process easy.
+
+   Typhoid Mary
+
+           A GM who employs Force in the interests of "a better story,"
+           usually identifiable as addressing Premise; however, in doing so,
+           the GM automatically de-protagonizes Narrativist players and
+           therefore undercuts his or her own priorities of play, as well as
+           being perceived as a railroader by the players. An extremely
+           dysfunctional subset of Narrativist play.
+
+   Vanilla Narrativism: Narrativist play without notable use of the following
+   techniques
+
+           Director Stance, atypical distribution of GM tasks, verbalizing
+           the Premise in abstract terms, overt rules concerning narration,
+           and improvised additions to the setting or situations. People who
+           typically play in this fashion often fail to recognize themselves
+           as Narrativists.
+
+   Weave (from Sex & Sorcery)
+
+           A GM technique of bringing NPC activities closer to the
+           player-characters and to introduce multiple responses among NPC
+           and player-character actions.
+
+   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+   Last updated 29-Jan-2004 09:56:35 CDT
+
+   The Forge created and administrated by [27]Clinton R. Nixon and [28]Ron
+   Edwards.
+   All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their
+   designated author.
+
+References
+
+   Visible links
+   1. file:///
+   2. file:///about/
+   3. file:///donate.php
+   4. file:///articles/
+   5. file:///reviews/
+   6. file:///resources/
+   7. file:///
+   8. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com
+   9. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
+  10. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
+  11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
+  12. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8655
+  13. http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/
+  14. http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/
+  15. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/
+  16. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
+  17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
+  18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
+  19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
+  20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1
+  21. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
+  22. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
+  23. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
+  24. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
+  25. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
+  26. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
+  27. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com
+  28. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com