| NOTE: The following is discussion which took place on the forums of Gaming Outpost. It was saved and compiled by Hunter Logan, and is re-posted here with permission from Aaron Powell. |
Supplanter (Jim Henley) 06/11/01 3:58 PM
1.
Where do "dramatist" games fit in the GEN model. I use the term in
the sense of the rgfa GDS theory - Dramatism lacks the emphasis on shared
authorial power that Ron Edwards' term "narrativism" has come to
embody, but nevertheless sets out to "create stories" through the
medium of roleplaying, where "story" tends to mean "action
structured according to the plot skeletons one finds in books for the aspiring
screenwriter." That is: opening hook, complications through rising action,
crisis, climax and denouement. The GM comes up with a "plot" and the
players put their characters through it - play makes a kind of spindle shape:
start here, alternatives open outward, then the GM gathers the flow of events
toward a preconceived climactic scene, e.g. no matter what, the heroes will
resolve the situation by cofronting Doctor Runoff on his Yard of Doom. The GM's
concern is "keeping the players on track" or, sometimes,
"keeping the players on track without railroading." The players'
concern is to "fulfill the GM's plot." (Or find another game.) 2.
Apply the "sniper test" to the GEN model and show how each apex
resolves it distinctly. Thank you.
Best, Jim
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Valamir (Ralph Mazza) 06/11/01 6:26 PM
Why don't you start it off, I'm kinda lost as to where you're headed.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Supplanter (Jim Henley) 06/11/01 6:47 PM
Dude! How can I start it off? It's not my theory! ;) The "sniper test" is the paradigmatic GDS sorter. The separate first question gets to the issue of how comprehensive the GEN model is and how much "Humpty-Dumpty Factor there is. Best, Jim
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
M. J. Young (M. J. Young) 06/11/01 7:13 PM
I think that the shared power inherent in Ron's preferred models of narrativism is incidental, not definitive, of the concept. That is, Ron would accept that any player style which is aimed at creating great stories is narrativist play, but believes that narrativist goals are better served by shared directorial power (and by expanded player knowledge informing character action, which is a related but not identical issue). In any event, Ron's stated position is (was?) that that which was called dramatism would be called narrativism in his model to avoid confusion with that which was called drama in the (Jonathan Tweet?) discussion of mechanics, and so is supposed to be the same thing fleshed out further. But referee control is a separate issue from player goals, at least in the GEN model; what is debated here is whether referee control facilitates particular goals or inhibits them. Please give your understanding of the "sniper test" a bit more clearly; I'm not exactly certain how to start it myself. --M. J. Young Check out Multiverser Index of my pages
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
GreatWolf (Seth Ben-Ezra) 06/11/01 8:12 PM
My take on question 1 Dramatism is a form of Narrativism under GEN. The issues of Stance are irrelevant to determining a game's GENder. You could make use of Directorial power in *any* of the GENders, not just Narrativism. In GEN, Narrativism is defined purely by its focus on story. Ergo, Dramatism fits into Narrativism, probably with a heavy secondary emphasis on Exploration of Character (if immersion is an important goal). I am also unfamiliar with the sniper example, even after digging around on John Kim's site a bit. Enlighten us, please, Jim. Seth Ben-Ezra Great Wolf Dark Omen Games
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Supplanter (Jim Henley) 06/11/01 8:25 PM
Hi M.J.: leaving aside Ron's model, since he's not here to discuss it, and awaiting Jester's explanation of where Dramatism fits in his model, I'll clarify the sniper test. I appreciate your pointing out that it's not universally known. It comes down to this: The player characters offend a ruthless adversary who has the wherewithal to secure an assassin who can strike without warning; say, blowing a PC away with a high-powered rifle. Is it okay or even necessary that this happen in the campaign.
The classic simulationist answer is: Of course. If the villain should logically be able to do this and doesn't, suspension of disbelief is shattered and then what you have is worse than no game at all, because the integrity of the game world is the very precondition of play.
The classic dramatist answer is: What a waste of a perfectly good protagonist! There might be a rare circumstance in which player and GM agree that this is indeed the dramatically appropriate culmination of the PC's own story. But more likely an unsuccessful attempt is what is wanted - it ratchets up tension and amplifies the PC's motivation. It "keeps the PC on track" or gets him back on track.
The classic gamist answer is: I have to give the PC a chance. It wouldn't be fair if he didn't have at least give the equivalent of a "saving throw." Better yet, there should be clues that a sniper is on his tail. If the PC doesn't pick up on them or misses his roll, well, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. One of the nice things about the sniper test is that it validates the integrity of the GDS model as well as expressing the distinctions among the styles with clarity. It shows how the model reflects an accurate understanding of a core set of player/GM concerns. (It should go without saying that the sniper test was thought up by smarter people than me.)
What interests me about applying the sniper test to SJ's model is that
it is tending to convince me that "exploration of character"
really isn't simulationism as such, which is in line with
Jester and Val's contention that they aren't simply renaming what used
to be called simulationism as exploration. My concern is where
simulation as such fits then - which point or subpoint in Jester's
scheme gives the "Of course" answer. Is that somewhat
clearer?
Thanks, Jim
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/11/01 9:34 PM
Hiya Jim! Glad you've decided to subscribe to GO :).
DRAMATISM IN GEN
I agree with Seth & Melchie. Focusing on the definition you give above, Dramatism is obviously Narrative, and my group uses this style a lot for narrative horror games, where it's better off just the GM knowing the "truth" of the plot. We used this form of Narrative play a lot for our "Twilight Zone" series, and also for playing the "Blood Brothers" CoC adventures. Narrative gaming does not require Directorial control, but it usually requires some form of Metagame stance. You usually shift to a player's perspective of the game to form Statements of Intent that will better drive the game to the good parts of the plot. You can achieve this using system instead, but introducing a Metagame stance is more common.
The style of play where the GM has sole control of the plot and the players actively work towards following that plot is a form of narrative play. I wouldn't call it Dramatism though. As Melchie mentioned, the term "Drama" is taken up in the D/F/K model, so Dramatism->Narrative in GEN is purely a renaming issue to confuse confusion. RPGs of all GENders can use any stance and can include Directorial control.
SIMULATION IN GEN
The Sniper Test is a great question, and it forces me to talk about something that I was going to leave until later. The concept of a sniper being sent to assassinate the party is a Situation. Situation is one of the 3 parts of game content (along with Character & Setting). The 3 branches of the GEN model use game content differently. A gamist ref would want to know what good challenges arise from this situation. An explorative ref would want to know what roleplaying potential this situation introduces. A narrative ref would want to know what storytelling potential this situation introduces. The desired player outcome for a Gamist RPG is for an unsuccessful attempt by the sniper. You set up the challenge of a sniper trying to kill them and they react by trying to stop him. If they get the sniper before he gets them they've beaten the challenge. Should make a very good tense game.
Players in an Explorative or Narrative most probably also desire an unsuccessful attempt by the sniper. However, the death of a loved member of the group may produce brilliant roleplaying or storytelling potential, so this might instead be the desired solution of the situation. As you can probably see from that, Exploration is not Simulation. Simulation is the act of making the game seem realistic, as opposed to cinematic. This is an act that can occur in all styles of games, of any GENder.
Example: I've run a narrative game based on Alien that was simulatory, whereas my narrative Aliens game was cinematic. In short then, where exactly is Simulation in GEN? The overall GEN model uses a 2 tier system. The top tier is called the game's Superstructure, and details the game's goals, intent, and limitations. It includes such concepts as mood, themes, plot, premise, etc. GEN belongs on the top tier, being the main indicator of a game's goals and intent. The bottom tier is called the game's Infrastructure, and contains everything that enforces, supports, or communicates the game's Superstructure. Tools present on the Infrastructure therefore include the game's system, stances, and the actual presentation of the Game's Content in Textual & Graphical form. This is the implementation level. This is how GEN is applied to system. The game's Superstructure (intent) acts as a guideline to the Infrastructure (what you implement). The top level view simply focuses on the setup of the situation, and what it will bring to the game (how GEN is used with Game Content). Whether the setup of the situation or the outcome of the situation is realistic or not is a subissue, depending on your game's realistic/cinematic nature, not part of the GEN concern. This is the "2fold model" which PBlock recently asked about.
Suspending disbelief and maintaining the integrity of the game world are not the core preconditions of play for any GENder. Suspension of disbelief is desirable in all games. Maintaining the integrity of the game world is required in realistic games. Realistic games can have any GENder. Look at Rolemaster (gamist), Blue Planet (explorative) or Sorcerer (Narrative). Where I disagree with your example is where it is stated that it is obvious that a character will be killed. I believe that it is obvious (in a realistic game) that a character will have an attempt made on his life. There are a large number of realistic reasons why he would survive, or why they catch the sniper in time. I'll use these realistic reasons in a Gamist, Explorative, or Narrative RPG, if that particular game strives for realism.
I therefore find that the sniper test actually invalidates GDS (and also GNS), but only because of the Simulationist part. I also found that trying to follow GDS or GNS to design games also invalidated these models, as many times I found that the tools presented by the goal of simulation were not mutually exclusive with any other goal (apart from the goal of being cinematic), and in fact were desirable to use with other goals to create a sense of realism for that game. While designing adventures I found that I could introduce scenes that both supported the game's integrity and realism, but still provided storytelling potential, and enforcing one goal in no way detracted from the other. While coming up with Statements of Intent, I found that I could come up with realistic solutions to challenges presented, that both enforced the simulation and overcome the challenges at the same time. The list goes on and on.
In summary, a simulation that is created by the rules and realistic Statements of Intention/Resolution, can be used to either supply challenges, create roleplaying potential, or to create storytelling potential. What I hope is apparent is that Simulationism->Explorative is not a renaming issue, but a complete redefinition, pulling out the concepts and tools of Simulation and making them available to all styles of play.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
GreatWolf (Seth Ben-Ezra) 06/11/01 10:52 PM
I'm going to piggy-back on this point (re: simulationism) even though I probably should be going to bed. :-) I going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think that simulation of itself is ever a goal of a gaming group. Rather, it is a means to an end. To support this statement, I'm going to refer to wargaming. Wargamers are notorious for being sticklers for detail, requiring rulebooks resembling tomes with intricately crafted rules systems upon rules systems in order to produce the most "realistic" results. Why is this? Is the simulation an end in itself? Not really.
The biggest reason that I've seen for this desire is this: a wargamer wants to be able to think and act as if he were on the battlefield, and he wants his strategies to have a similar outcome to the result in real life. This is why games like Warhammer 40K fail; real-world tactics don't apply (beyond the very basics). Conversely, games like Warzone shine. Make use of real-life squad level tactics (including covering fire, overlapping fields of fire, leapfrogging, etc.) and you have a much better chance of winning. I submit that this is also the normal motivator for simulation in RPGs.
Why does Shadowrun has monstrous combat rules, including penalties for range, autofire, recoil, and so on? It is so the player can make his choices (here, combat choices) as if he were in the situation. He can say to himself, "If I were in my character's shoes, what would I do?" He does not have to formulate this primarily in terms of the system. Rather, he can think, "I'd lob a grenade in between us and them and then duck out from behind this car into that doorway when it goes off." He can base his ideas of the success probabilities of this action on his experience of real life. That is why gamers often bring their real-world experience to the table with them. "No, a 9mm Glock doesn't kick that much!" "A broadsword ought to shear through that wooden shield." "The SR-71 Blackbird can go Mach 5! What do you mean, 'They're gaining!'"
The gamer depending on simulation expects his real world experience to
translate into the gaming experience to support his gaming goals
(whatever they might be). Simulation is not an end in itself. (To
anticipate an objection, I think that the "experience of a causal
chain" definition would apply to a simulationist approach to
Exporation of Setting or Situation.)
Seth Ben-Ezra Great Wolf Dark Omen Games
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/12/01 1:00 AM
Yeah you should be in bed, or at least spending time with your wife or writing Alyria :). Concerning your main statement, I'm in full agreement. GEN is based on the concept that the 3 main dominant goals of RPGs are: i)Gaming; ii) Roleplaying; iii) Storytelling. This is stated in the introduction on each GEN thread, giving a link to an article describing these goals in more detail. The current system I'm writing supports this concept. It's called CQB, and is meant to handle squad level close-quarter shootouts, for any setting from Rogue Spear to X-Com to Syndicate. During system design all of my focus is on trying to create a fast, slick, light, simulationary system that makes sense. However, agreeing with Brother Lupus Maximus here, the simulation is not the goal, it's just a means to support the RPG's Gamist concerns of completing the missions (rescuing hostages, Boarding downed Alien spacecraft to take prisoners and capture technology, or for assassinating rival corporate bosses).
As Seth said, some people like to input real life knowledge straight into their Statements of Intent/Resolution and expect the system to support that realism. Thats simulation. Other people are a bit looser, and are happy with a greater level of abstraction which systems like D&D incorporate. I see abstract vrs. simulatory systems as an aesthetic choice. Example of this in practice: I once knew a group who loved the realism of Rolemaster. They'd buy games and pull out the systems and use Rolemaster instead (eg, they run Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance using Rolemaster). However, notice that although they've totally swapped the game's infrastructure for another one, the game's goals and intentions determined by the superstructure are left unchanged. This not only highlights that this is an aesthetic choice, but also shows that a game concept (the superstructure) can be implemented in many different ways. One of those choices is whether the system will be abstract or simulationary.
I've briefly discussed this with Valamir in the thread called "Simulative/Abstract Mechanics & Game-Specific Mechanics" in this forum. He brings up a brilliant point about "Designing for cause" & "Designing for effect". I've actually implemented this idea while designing CQB. I asked my brother "Brother...where art thou? And what would you want this system to take into account when you double-tap someone with your SOCOM?" One of the things he brought up was that he wanted the system to reflect that sometimes you get shot and you don't notice it and keep going, yet sometimes you take one right in the face and die, no matter whether you're hit by a 9mm pistol or a .50 cal out of a Barrett sniper rifle. As my family has always said "A bullet in the swede is a bullet in the swede".
I immediately thought "Right...I need hit locations then." This is designing for cause. Then I realised it didn't actually matter where I hit them, just whether it was a critical location or not. I could just roll to see whether I outright killed somebody, whether I incapacitated them, wounded them, or did neglible damage. If I rolled and got a kill, I can then describe the result as hitting them in the head, hitting them in the heart, just a solid 3-round burst to the sternum that puts them down permanently etc. That is design for effect, making the system slightly more abstract to speed it up. I'd really like to thank Valamir the Stout for introducing me to the terms, as well as everyone else who has worked on GEN, because I'm directly using this model to create games where old models have failed my group.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Valamir (Ralph Mazza) 06/12/01 7:53 AM
You definitely have the Design for Cause, Design for Effect dichotomy down, the hit location example is right on. I would point out, just to add to the discussion, that SJ and I have a minor disagreement over the precise location of Simulation vs Abstraction in the GEN model. Basically, I agree with everything he's said *except* where he limits it to solely part of the Infrastructure. In my opinion, while the *implementation* of simulation is an infrastructure concern, the decision as to what degree of simulation you need is a superstructure concern. In my view, superstructure is about intent, and infrastructure is about execution.
Whether the game should be simulative or abstract, to me is clearly part of the intent. HOW that simulation or abstraction is implemented is part of the execution. The reason I feel this way, is that contrary to Seth's (and likely SJ's also) experience, I actually know people for whom simulation IS the goal, and not just the means to an end. I see this less in RPGs, but more frequently in wargaming. There are wargamers who truely do not care if they win the game. The only reason they're even trying to win, is because the general was trying to win. They are more interested in various "what if" permutations and the insight into the actual history that such involve than they are in playing a game. For instance, today General Montgomery is largely criticized over here for failing to follow up on the Normandy invasions quickly enough and costing a lot of American lives when the fighting got bogged down in the hedgerows.
A truely simulationist wargamer would be interested in a game that thoroughly and rigorously accounts for as many factors as conceivably possible. He would then use the game to see "what if" the Allies had pushed on to Caen full bore. Would it have freed up the fighting and saved time and lives as is commonly believed, or would it have been a meat grinding disastor as Montgomery feared. Now me... I play just to open a can 'o whoop ass on my opponent, so I don't care much for rigorous design for cause rules that delay the time till I'm able to dance around the table chanting "I'm better than you are..."
Applying this to RPGs, I would have to say, that I do see an obvious need for "to simulate or not to simulate" and "to design for cause, or to design for effect" to be top level choices. I see the need right in your own example. As I was reading your example I read your brother's comments, and then I read your comment about "needing hit locations". Instantly flashing through my brain was "not really, you could just have a roll to see if he's put down or not put down", a conclusion you also reached in your very next sentence. Clearly a Design for Effect solution.
However, I do know players who enjoy modern tactical combat who would NOT be satisfied with that solution. They'd want to know where the bullet hit, its calibre and velocity, and so forth to determine step by step whether the target is put down or not. They would find your solution to be a "sloppy and unnecessary short cut, preferred only by lazy people with no real respect for ballistic science". I on the other hand (and I suspect you as well) would find their solution to be "a tedious and painful excercize in minutia and trivium".
This difference then is what I mean when I say the Intent should be part of the superstructure. Do you intend for the game to appeal to players like me, or do you intend for the game to appeal to players like them (a game that appeals to both is the "holy grail" of gaming that has been unsuccessfully sought since the dawn of the realism vs playability debate). What specific mechanics you decide to use and what specific aspects you decide to simulate are part of the bottom tier of execution... but which group you're seeking to appeal to, I think is very much a top tier decision. IMO, OC. BTW: How did I wind up earning the sobriquet of Stout anyway?
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
GreatWolf (Seth Ben-Ezra) 06/12/01 10:21 AM
Valamir saith:
| The reason I feel this way, is that contrary to Seth's (and likely SJ's also) experience, I actually know people for whom simulation IS the goal, and not just the means to an end. I see this less in RPGs, but more frequently in wargaming. There are wargamers who truely do not care if they win the game. The only reason they're even trying to win, is because the general was trying to win. They are more interested in various "what if" permutations and the insight into the actual history that such involve than they are in playing a game. |
Oh I know exactly what you mean. (Just so you know, before there was Junk or I led Space Wolves howling into combat in WH40K or Net Epic, I played the likes of Afrika Korps and Anzio from Avalon Hill. I've got the background. :-] ) However, I think that you actually prove my point. I would say that the above is Exploration of Situation. "Here's the situation. Your troops are here, here, and here. The enemy is here, here, and here. In Real Life, the general did X. What would have happened if he did Y?" This is most definitely not playing to win. However, it is an attempt to Explore the possibilities inherent in the situation.*
In this situation, though, the level of simulation will still vary, based on the important factors. Let's go back to wargames for a moment. In most AH games, supply lines were important. With the exception of special units (Special Forces, Rangers, etc.) if a unit did not have a line of supply to a supply center, it would soon be dead. However, this was handled differently in different games. In the AH game Anzio (the Italian campaign in WWII), units only needed to trace back to a friendly port.**
However, in Afrika Korps, they needed to trace back to special supply units. In addition, fighting in a combat used up a supply unit (which had to be within 10 hexes). This focus on supply changed the dynamics of the game completely. Why was this in one game and not the other? Quite simply, the issues of supply were more critical in the North African campaign and therefore needed to be more closely simulated. Supply issues were not quite so critical in Italy. I think therefore that the issues of simulation are tied more to implementation of the goal then being part of the goal itself. The design goal of Afrika Korps was "Create a game that allows the North African campaign to be fought in a historically accurate way." Part of implementing this would be to determine important factors in the North African campaign that would need to be included more specifically (e.g. supplies). Simulation serves the design goal. It is not the goal itself. I certainly hope that this all made sense. Oh yes, one more thing.
----------------------------
Valamir saith:
| Now me...I play just to open a can 'o whoop ass on my opponent, so I don't care much for rigorous design for cause rules that delay the time till I'm able to dance around the table chanting "I'm better than you are..." |
----------------------------
[insert obligatory Junk plug right here] :-)
Footnotes *Aside: this is also what I think drives the interest in alternate history. **Quick war story: once during a game, my brother, playing the Germans, established a blockade across the entire peninsula of Italy, cutting off nearly half of my troops. I managed to break through one small section of the line in just enough time to get the supplies through. Whew! Seth Ben-Ezra Great Wolf Dark Omen Games
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/12/01 10:26 AM
Go on then, I agree with ya. Question on the top level, totally implemented and communicated on the bottom. Job done :). I agree with Seth on the placement of the "What if?" style of gaming. Also, over here we sing "You're not singing anymore! You're not singing a-ny-more!!". Then we spit on the other supporters, throw projectiles at the black members of the opposing team, then charge the gaming table forcing the riot squads to be employed.
BTW: How did I wind up earning the sobriquet of Stout anyway? Who knows how my brain works Val :\.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Valamir (Ralph Mazza) 06/12/01 1:49 PM
| I think therefore that the issues of simulation are tied more to implementation of the goal then being part of the goal itself. The design goal of Afrika Korps was "Create a game that allows the North African campaign to be fought in a historically accurate way." Part of implementing this would be to determine important factors in the North African campaign that would need to be included more specifically (e.g. supplies). Simulation serves the design goal. It is not the goal itself. |
------------
Precisely. Let me point out where you've agreed with me ;-) "Allows the North African campaign to be fought" is the design goal. "in a historically accurate way" is the choice during the goal defining process (top tier intent) where a simulationist desire is established. The specifics, like the differences between Anzio and Afrika Corp's supply rules come in during implementation. BUT, you wouldn't have known to put those rules in the game during implementation, if you hadn't already made the decision that this was to be a simulation during Intent. Contrast Anzio and Afrika Corp with Axis and Allies and Risk. Niether of the latter included rules for supply during implementation. Why? Because during the top tier goal setting process the designers chose a different position on the Simulation/Abstraction scale. I think SJ has agreed with me on this now...hard to tell, his last post seemed rather drug induced ;-)
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/12/01 5:26 PM
Yes I agree with this. Deciding upon the level of abstraction/simulation in your game acts as a set of guidelines and limitations for the system, like any other top tier concern. However, Seth was not talking about the placement of this concept on the two tier model, he was talking about the placement of the "goal of simulation" in the GEN model. He was stating (and I agree) that in the examples you gave, the goal is not to create a simulation, but to use an extremely realistic simulation to explore a certain situation.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Valamir (Ralph Mazza) 06/12/01 5:55 PM
Maybe I'm being dense at this point, but I'm not sure I understand your differentiation here. What I am saying is that the GEN goal is not "to use an extremely realistic simulation to explore a certain situation." but rather simply "to explore a certain situation". The decision to use "an extremely realistic simulation" to do this (as opposed to an extremely abstract system" is a decision that is seperate from GEN but also occupies the top tier along with it. Am I missing something or are we agreeing and down to splitting hairs? You have me slightly confused.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
GreatWolf (Seth Ben-Ezra) 06/12/01 6:34 PM
I think that you're agreeing, although if you think you're dense, you'd know better than us. [Seth ducks and runs for cover.] Seth Ben-Ezra Great Wolf Dark Omen Games
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/12/01 9:44 PM
Val, we're in full agreement on all of that. What i meant was, in the post that Seth replied to, you had said: "I actually know people for whom simulation IS the goal, and not just the means to an end." What I believe Seth said in response to this (which I agree with) is that the simulation isn't the goal. These people instead want to "explore a certain situation" (the GEN bit) and they want to do it with a very realistic simulation (the Sim/Abstract bit). Which is exactly what you just said in your last post. Which is exactly what I agree with. Job done :). Jim, does all of this answer your original questions?
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Valamir (Ralph Mazza) 06/13/01 7:31 AM
Whew, ok now that thats cleared up...:-) Had another thought, just throwing this out for commentary. Going back to the idea of Dramatism being a really great story told through the tools of traditional roleplaying rather than the author/director tools common to Narrativism. Perhaps Dramatism is not so much a form of Narrativism as it is a Exploration. In this case not Exploration of Character, Setting, or Situation, but an Exploration of Story. Could it be said that a Dramatist player is not so much collaborating with the creation of the story (which is what I understand Narrativism to be) but rather enjoying moving through the existing story and uncovering its various twists and turns. Essentially exploring the Story...
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/13/01 4:24 PM
A dramatist player does collaborate to make a good story. In a narrative game there are many ways to do this. Dig out your copy of the Window and read the Third Precept. Everytime you write up a character because it fits the story you're collaborating. (Instead of choosing a character for it's roleplaying potential or effectiveness.) Everytime you decide what your character will do because it makes the story better you're collaborating. (Instead of choosing an action because it sets up better roleplaying scenes or beats the challenges more effectively.)
Everytime you let the requirements of the plot take precedence over your character's personal goals you're collaborating. You don't need to go to the far extremes of narrative play where the plot is jointly structured by the players. It's perfectly feasible for the GM to be the sole person who structures the plot (as Jim mentions in his opening question). Just by being a player in that game and actively working towards moving through that story (sacricing your desires to beat the challenges or roleplay your character to it's fullest potential) you're collaborating and helping write the content of the narrative.
If "Explorative" had the same meaning in GEN as it does in the dictionary, I would agree with you. In GEN though, Explorative means that the activity of roleplaying dominates the game's goals (as opposed to gaming and storytelling). Coming to the tools you use in Dramatist play, my group has always used a level of metagame stance (such as author). As a player, you need to be aware of where abouts in the game structure you've got to. You try to pick up and react to the pacing hints by the GM, such as at the climax where the story begins to rapidly come to a conclusion. You also need to be aware of factors of the plot and conventions of the genre to make your character work towards supporting those concepts in the game, making the story more enjoyable. Also remember that metagame stances are a traditional roleplaying tool. In fact, metagame stance was most probably the first stance used in RPGs, before the move to intragame stances (from actor to immersive) became popular. It's a useful stance in all RPGs.
However, you did say author/directorial tools, not author/directorial stance. Authorial tools are usually the introduction of scenes and directorial tools are usually the power to create the resolutions for that scene. These aren't traditional roleplaying tools, they aren't common to any type of gaming, but they are usable in any type of gaming. Taking Theatrix as an example, it uses the core resource of plot points to power both it's authorial and directorial tools. The authorial tool is the ability to spend plot points to introduce a new subplot. The directorial tool is the ability to make Statements of Resolution true.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Epoch (Mike Sullivan) 06/13/01 11:34 PM
Hey, keen to see you off the Amber list, Jim. Anyhow, kind of a conglomerate reply, here, but to SJ: "Simulationism" as it's defined in John Kim's Threefold does not mean removing cinematic elements from the game and adhering to "reality." It means removing meta-game elements. To Supplanter: I don't think that John Kim's Threefold definition of Dramatism is quite as narrow as you're making it out to be -- Dramatism says solely that the players (including the GM) are interested in having the result be an interesting story. The method you describe is one method of getting there. I like the "sniper test."
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Supplanter (Jim Henley) 06/14/01 5:20 AM
| Hey, keen to see you off the Amber list, Jim. |
| "Simulationism" as it's defined in John Kim's Threefold does not mean removing cinematic elements from the game and adhering to "reality." It means removing meta-game elements |
| I don't think that John Kim's Threefold definition of Dramatism is quite as narrow as you're making it out to be -- Dramatism says solely that the players (including the GM) are interested in having the result be an interesting story. The method you describe is one method of getting there. |
| I like the "sniper test." |
Now FWIW, it's the sniper test that convinces me that "exploration of character" games such as SJ and Paul Czege have discussed are not really "just another form of simulationism." Up to a point, the EoC player does very well with a simylationist GM - in many cases will prefer one. But the EoC player likely would prefer that all his work not be "wasted" on a "frivolous" death. But the true simulationist GM might see that death as "necessary" rather than frivolous. Best, Jim
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Valamir (Ralph Mazza) 06/14/01 8:04 AM
| The simulationist answer is, How could I do otherwise? As one rgfa participant once put it, The key question is, do player characters glow? |
--------------
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that idea. I think you may be applying the concept too rigidly. Most simulations use fortune mechanics but most simulationists are concerned with probable results. It is possible for a fortune mechanic system to spit out an amazingly flukish result that may lead to player death. I don't think that a Simulationist GM would necessarily feel as bound by that result as you're implying.
I have at various times seem simulationist wargamers reset a game back to a previous turn because a series of die rolls were so lopsided that they felt it invalidated the scenario. They explained it to me by saying that yes, it is important to understand when dealing with standard deviations just how far out the outlying results are so that a true measure of what is being risked can be assertained ("hmmm, it *is* possible for my entire corp to be wiped out even though I outnumbered you and had the better position, thats good to know).
However, "commanding by outliers" will lead to a general who is too aggressive and is relying on extremely good results or one who is too cautious because he's afraid of extremely bad ones. To truely simulate the "most likely outcome" of a scenario you have to concentrate on the more probable results. From there we got into a discussion of Monte Carlo testing. The consensus was that if you could run the scenario 10,000 times, you would go ahead and keep the outliers because they'd occur so rarely that they wouldn't have much effect on the "expected outcome" and they'd give a good idea of where the extremes lie. But when you can only play a scenario 2 or 3 times, allowing outlieing results to stand really scews the expected outcome and should therefor usually be over ruled (an activity that really sets simulators apart from gamists).
Transitioning back to RPGs then, generally an RPG scenario/campaign isn't going to be run more than once or twice. If the GM's goal is to truely simulate "X" he may very well be motivated to ignore certain outlieing results foisted on him by game mechanics. This is also why a truely simulationist GM prefers very rigorous mechanics with lots of modifiers within the players control (or at least advanced knowledge) and a bell curve distribution; because such systems will result in fewer extreme results that would need to be fudged. White Wolf's system, especially first edition, was roundly hated by many because its mechanics routinely spat out extreme results. To return to the sniper example, I see where you are going with it, and it is a good differentiator. But I think it is probably too black and white to say that a simulationist would ALWAYS let the character die in that situation. It would really depend on the chain of events that led up to that point and how probable or improbable they were, and how big of a ripple the GM is willing to allow a highly improbable result to make.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/14/01 9:05 AM
Are you telling me that there are GMs out there that introduce elements into a game which will kill the characters and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it?
GM: (in thought) Hmm...I don't like Jame's yellow shirt...
GM: Jame's....a peice of Mir just fell out of the sky and landed on your car killing you instantly...
You're telling me that because this event is an actual probability, it is a perfectly viable thing for a simulationist GM to do? Getting to the point on whether we cheated or not, I fully disagree and point out that you asked to apply the stress test to GEN. You've rated our answer based on your preconceived notion that Simulation must be one of the core aspects of what is tested, as you believe that the act of Simulation forms one of the three points on the RPG model. What we've been saying is that all of the goals that you attribute to Simulation are actually spread across the rest of GEN.
Simulatory goals are secondary to the GEN goals. If you specifically want the Simulatory answer, I need to give you back 6 responses from the GEN test: Simulationary Gamist, Cinematic Gamist, Simulationary Explorative, Cinematic Explorative, Simulationary Explorative, Cinematic Explorative. In GEN, there is no such thing as a pure simulatory answer; it's biased by the GENder of the game in question. However, this Simulationary answer is based on GEN's use of the term Simulation. In GEN, Simulation is opposed by Cinematic (not conforming to the basic laws of our reality, such as falling 50' or being shot and easily surviving). If you're saying the primary concern of Simulationist RPGs as defined by GDS is maintaining the integrity of the game world, I say that this is done in all RPGs. It's enforced by the rules and the Statements of Intent/Resolution that are made. Any Statements which break that integrity are not allowed.
EG, if I'm playing D&D (a rather cinematic game) and I say "I fire my crossbow and knock a star from the sky to fall on the fellow's head", it's pretty obvious that this action breaks the game's integrity. However, if I'm playing Baron Munchausen (an entirely cinematic game), this kind of stuff is perfectly valid and acceptable. So I have to ask you why you can't fulfill either Gamist/Narrative goals and Simulationist goals at the same time. If you're saying that it is entirely possible to do this, but that Simulationist goals become the only goals of the game, then I disagree. Taking the concept of removing metagame elements, this is part of the Explorative approach, though I'm pretty sure you can remove metagame elements from a Gamist RPG too.
But before I give you the full results for the GEN sniper test, let me question you on GDS. You're saying that a Simulationist game in GDS can also be cinematic, and that the primary goal is the integrity of the game world. If that is the case, the integrity of a cinematic game world (communicated by the rules) would allow the players the ability to escape scenes such as this. I therefore disagree with your sniper test answer. A cinematic Simulationist game's world integrity would be broken by killing somebody with no chance of avoiding it.
GAMIST
As I stated, a gamist would introduce the "sniper element" to bring a new challenge to the group. If they fail to overcome that challenge one of them dies. But I would only ever kill somebody for failing a challenge. I would not introduce a new challenge which was unbeatable, unless they undertook that challenge by themselves, fully knowing the dangers. In summary, the only reason I would deem acceptable in a gamist RPG for unavoidably killing off a character is:
a) If that death was the direct punishment for failure of a previous challenge. IE, if you set the challenge of stealing a treasure (they need the magic dingus to do so and so) from Smaug's lair without being detected and they failed that, I would deem it acceptable to have Smaug come out the next night and eat one/all of them.
b) If they decided all by themselves..."You know that Smaug? I think that fat bastard has far too much treasure. Let's go steal some". If they then went off to do that, without taking any suitable prepatory measures (getting themselves the great sword Wormsbane, chatting to the Old Thrush etc), I'd kill the majority of them for attempting a challenge far beyond their abilities.
That is the core gamist concerns on the matter, but I'll now bring in the secondary goals attributed to GDS Simulatory play, such as maintaining the world's integrity. In a very simulatory game, those who get spotted by Smaug die. He realistically has that power to get them. In a more cinematic game, I'll be more leniant if they can fast talk their characters out of the situation. But I'll make sure to get at least one of them as punishment (or at least their treasured pack-mule Bill :) ).
EXPLORATIVE
As I stated, an explorative would introduce the "sniper element" for a) it's roleplaying potential or b) in answer to a previous roleplayed scene.
a) If you want to introduce the roleplaying potential that killing a character off provides then do it, whether the game is cinematic or simulatory.
b) If the character's insulted Smaug in a previous roleplaying scene and the logical conclusion is he'll try to kill them, then that's what he will do. However, as with Gamist above, I only kill them off if I have the subgoal of being realistic. If the setting is more cinematic I'll be more leniant. Another example of this would include the player's flying into an asteroid field to escape a Star Destroyer. In a realistic game, C-3PO has told them the odds so if they get smacked they knew it was entirely possible. In a cinematic game, watch The Empire Strikes Back for the results.
NARRATIVE
As I stated, a narrative would introduce the "sniper element" only a) it's storytelling potential or b) in resolution to a previously introduced peice of narrative.
a) If you want to introduce the storytelling potential that killing a character off provides then do it, whether the game is cinematic or simulatory. The character's death brings that subplot into existence. Obviously, if the player's have the power to introduce plots, then they are fully aware and consenting to killing their character if that is a suitably narrative outcome from that plot.
b) If a storytelling potential of a character's death wasn't the initial reason for the introduction of a new subplot, but becomes apparent during a subplot that a death would be dramatically appropriate, then I'd do it. How does simulatory or cinematic goals affect this? Mainly in the way that the death occurs. I've run Alien as a simulative Narrative RPG and Aliens as a cinematic Narrative RPG. In Alien the character deaths were realistic (see the film). In Aliens they got to do fun cinematic things while doing (see Hudson, Vasquez or Gorman getting killed).
SUMMARY
If you want the Simulationist answer for the sniper test, you need to decide upon a useful definition for Simulation.
a) If it's enforcing the integrity of the game world, then I say that all game's do this, and you'll need to recognise whether the reality of that game world is realistic or cinematic. If it's realistic, then yes, you can kill people as stated.
b) If it's the enforcement of a realistic mindset (as opposed to a cinematic one), then yes, you can kill people as stated. However, I would not introduce a killing element such as this as something completely new just for the sole reason of enforcing the reality. I would find a killing element that primarily supported one of the GEN goals first, as stated in the long answer given above in this post. In short, as I said in my first answer, the introduction of a killing element is the introduction of a new situation, which is part of Game Content. Games of different GENder use Game Content differently. I choose new situations to primarily support the game's GENder. The secondary concern of Simulation/Cinematic then affects how that situation would play out, and the resolution of that situation.
In GEN there is no singular reason to introduce a scene in a simulatory game, as you have 3 reasons given by GEN. However, I think my examples have shown above that there is a somewhat singular answer to the resolution of a scene in a simulatory game, I.E. somebody gets killed. However, this simulatory answer doesn't stand alone because the reasons for this death occurring and the resulting gameplay of it are affected by the game's GENder. Final question to you is why you single out the Exploration of Character style, and don't talk about the Explorative style as a whole. We've debated the exact use of the 'Simulation' term quite recently, at the bottom of the GEN - Explorative thread and directly following on in the Simulative/Abstract Mechanics & Game-Specific Mechanics thread.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Epoch (Mike Sullivan) 06/14/01 10:21 AM
| But in those discussions of Kim's model, "metagame elements" pretty much always included plot structure. You don't seem to be arguing against this, but rather stressing that simulationism != "realism" != "mechanical detail" in GDS. Were you to argue that in Kim's model a "story-oriented" game could be simulationist, we would have to come to blows... ;-) |
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Epoch (Mike Sullivan) 06/14/01 10:40 AM
| Are you telling me that there are GMs out there that introduce elements into a game which will kill the characters and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it? GM: (in thought) Hmm...I don't like Jame's yellow shirt... GM: Jame's....a peice of Mir just fell out of the sky and landed on your car killing you instantly... You're telling me that because this event is an actual probability, it is a perfectly viable thing for a simulationist GM to do? |
------------------------------
No, he's saying that if an event is a likelihood, it's a perfectly viable thing for a simulationist to do. If the PC's piss off Dr. Evil, and Dr. Evil has the intelligence, the resources, and the amorality to set an inescapable or nigh-inescapable trap for the PC's, then Dr. Evil should do so, because anything else would destroy the suspension of disbelief which is the raison d'etre for pure-style simulationist play.
| But before I give you the full results for the GEN sniper test, let me question you on GDS. You're saying that a Simulationist game in GDS can also be cinematic, and that the primary goal is the integrity of the game world. If that is the case, the integrity of a cinematic game world (communicated by the rules) would allow the players the ability to escape scenes such as this. I therefore disagree with your sniper test answer. A cinematic Simulationist game's world integrity would be broken by killing somebody with no chance of avoiding it. |
--------------------------------
Where,exactly, world emulation leaves off and dramatism begins is a bit of a fuzzy area in the Threefold. Some people would claim that a Simulationist world can include "simulating" genre elements like protagonist invulnerability. However, I don't agree. I think that Simulationism goes only to world-elements. Now, a world-element might include "some people (heroes) are more difficult to kill than other people (mooks)." Or it might say, globally, that people can accomplish impossible or improbable feats like jumping onto moving cars or the like -- it might be "cinematic" in that sense. Indeed, probably the major extent of my own Simulationist leanings is trying to carefully construct my gaming world so that I can get an atmosphere that fits my sensibilities while relying on as little meta-gaming as possible. Epoch
My Devoted Fan Club will note that I don't generally think that pure-style play is terrible possible or desireable. However, it is somewhat useful to talk about in the abstract. 2 And, of course, lines are supposed to be fuzzy between the "boundaries." They're three extremes on a triangle, not three discrete points.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Epoch (Mike Sullivan) 06/14/01 10:49 AM
To return to the sniper example, I see where you are going with it, and it is a good differentiator. But I think it is probably too black and white to say that a simulationist would ALWAYS let the character die in that situation. It would really depend on the chain of events that led up to that point and how probable or improbable they were, and how big of a ripple the GM is willing to allow a highly improbable result to make. Well, Jim's thought experiment isn't about a "highly improbable result," but a clean, natural, even obvious one. I think that your point about ignoring outliers, while interesting, addresses a different question.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Supplanter (Jim Henley) 06/14/01 10:38 PM
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that idea. I think you may be applying the concept too rigidly. Most simulations use fortune mechanics but most simulationists are concerned with probable results. It is possible for a fortune mechanic system to spit out an amazingly flukish result that may lead to player death. I don't think that a Simulationist GM would necessarily feel as bound by that result as you're implying. |
Dude, you da man, we're practically neighbors and I like you as much as anyone I haven't actually met. Honest. But the only way you could mean that is that you have not spoken with, corresponded with or read much from simulationist role-players, OR that you have but do not give credence to their testimony. The insights you've offered from your acquaintance with simulationist wargamers have genuine applicability, and comparing the sensibilities is instructive. For instance, your noting the deeply noncompetitive nature of simulationist as opposed to gamist wargaming. But when I say "The simulationist answer is..." I mean literally that in fora where strict simulationists with the courage of their convictions have participated in style discussions, they have said, "This is the way I play. This is what I would do. This is what I have done. If I give player-characters any break that I would not give similarly situated NPCs, simulation is broken, because the world does not know, can not know, that they are PCs rather than NPCs. Therefore to cut the PCs a break against Doctor Evil's sharpshooter would be to invoke a metagame consideration, which is by definition not simulationist." It is that simple.
I have never claimed to be a true simulationist. What I claim is to have discussed, in writing or in person, these questions with self-described simulationists, to have witnessed their discussion of these questions with others, and to have given credence to what they actually said. This is also why a truely simulationist GM prefers very rigorous mechanics with lots of modifiers within the players control (or at least advanced knowledge) and a bell curve distribution; because such systems will result in fewer extreme results that would need to be fudged. Now you are getting to genuine sectarian differences within simulationism. There have been, on rgfa, GMs of diceless games who have claimed that they are simulationists and GMs of high-mech games who have snorted derisively at that claim.
For my part, I have no problem calling my old Amber GM simulationist
(http://brandspace.tripod.com) because it was clear that he was making
"world-oriented" decisions. Whether "truly
simulationist GMs" all prefer rigorous mechanics really is
a matter for interpretation, if not religion. This is not to say that
GEN is a "bad model." I think it's a pretty good one.
It better locates my own playing and GMing styles than the other
models out there. But because the simulationist perspective, as
reflected in the sniper test is both real and basic, the model has to
comprehend it to be a complete one. The distinction is not covered by
"abstract versus realistic mechanics" because the pure form
of the distinction, "Should PCs get a break for being PCs?"
occurs at any level of mechanical detail. Where, in the GEN model,
does that abnegation of PC privilege in the name of the
integrity of the game world fit? I still don't know, and I'd like to.
Best, Jim
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/14/01 11:57 PM
| This is not to say that GEN is a "bad model." I think it's a pretty good one. It better locates my own playing and GMing styles than the other models out there. But because the simulationist perspective, as reflected in the sniper test is both real and basic, the model has to comprehend it to be a complete one. The distinction is not covered by "abstract versus realistic mechanics" because the pure form of the distinction, "Should PCs get a break for being PCs?" occurs at any level of mechanical detail. Where, in the GEN model, does that abnegation of PC privilege in the name of the integrity of the game world fit? I still don't know, and I'd like to. |
Sorry Jim, I thought I covered that in my last post. GEN does comprehend the simulationist (realistic) perspective of the sniper test, and I thought I explained it in depth. For a start, abstract (Cinematic) vs realistic (Simulationary) mechanics infers nothing about weight. D&D is a heavy abstract system, opposed by Rolemaster's heavy realism. Alyria is a light abstract system, opposed by CQB's light realism. All us people who have played Theatrix or Amber know that the player's are perfectly capable of making a setting realistic without a ruleset to do it for us. Therefore I agree that PC invulnerability is not affected by weight, but that doesn't invalidate what is being said by GEN. The distinction is covered by the realistic vs. cinematic scale.
What I thought I explained in my long answer was that PC privilege is lost in any game which aims to be realistic, independent of it's GENder. I even gave examples of how realistic games with different GENder's would handle this situation differently. I even went on to explain that I would usually only ever remove that privilege as a direct result of a pre-played scene, and would most probably never introduce a new element unrelated to anything else in the game that kills them. IE, I would send the sniper after them to shoot as a direct result of a pre-played scene with Dr Evil, but I wouldn't simply introduce a sniper for no reason to kill them.
The example I gave was of Smaug seeking revenge for a past slight (the motivations that led the party to a confrontation which this beast in the first place could have been gamist, explorative, or narrative). And, just to reiterate, I pointed out that I would do this and have done this in games of any GENder. I killed their characters when it was dramatically appropriate in Alien (Narrative), I killed them in Middle-earth when they decided to steal Smaug's loot (Explorative), and I made Abhoth eat them all when they failed to work out the enigmatic puzzle in front of them in Call of Cthulhu (Gamist). All of these games fully supported the subgoal of realism, or simulation. And finally coming to my questions which I would really like answered:
Question 1: This leads me to bluntly ask the advocates of the RGFA and GNS models (both of which define Simulationism as a primary goal) to explain what I'm missing. What makes the act of simulation, of maintaining the realistic integrity of a game world, mutually exclusive with other top level goals?
Question 2: Seeing as the RGFA version of Simulation covers both realistic and cinematic styles of play, I ask how the the Simulationist answer is always to kill them, even though this directly breaks the integrity of a cinematic setting.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Epoch (Mike Sullivan) 06/15/01 10:49 AM
| What makes the act of simulation, of maintaining the realistic integrity of a game world, mutually exclusive with other top level goals? |
You're conflating "plausibility" with simulationism. Plausibility within the game world is not a top-level goal, and it is compatible with other top-level goals. To jump to Ron's model, he points out an example of "author stance" within the game of two players, chatting amongst themselves, decide that it would be dramatically appropriate if Bob the character handed Fred the character a magic ring, by accident, and they work out a fully plausible in-game excuse for this to happen. That's anathema to a Simulationist, who isn't concerned with plausibility, but with the concept that, as much as conceivably possible, events occur in the game world without any meta-game trigger. It's not about killing characters it's about, as Jim's been striving so manfully to point out, acknowledging meta-game concerns like the fact that these characters are player characters.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/15/01 12:43 PM
Ah, I fully understand GDS Simulation now. In GEN, this is also not a top-level goal. In Explorative play, it's entirely possible to play like that, but it's just as easy to use a metagame stance to set up scenes with great roleplaying potential. My group did this all the time during my Legend of the Five Rings Campaign: "Bob, if your Lion samurai married my sister, that would really be fun to roleplay when I start acting like a complete dolt in court" etc. Also, I enforce this "no meta-game trigger" in quite a few of my Gamist adventures. The Rogue Spear games I've run have definately followed this concept.
The definition of Simulationist that you give therefore sounds like it is simply any game which strictly enforces an intragame stance. This makes the tools available to nearly all of GEN. I think you can just about play a narrative game from an intragame stance, but you'd need something like coercive personality mechanics that drive the character to fulfil aspects of the plot, that plot being in the sole control of the GM. Whether you can achieve this in Narrative play or not, you can definately use the tools in both Gamist and Explorative play. Of course, you could decide not to do this and allow the use of metagame stances for the players to drive the game towards achieving their GEN goal.
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
M. J. Young (M. J. Young) 06/15/01 8:14 PM
I would say yes, you can have a completely intragame system supporting narrativist goals. You have to accept that players, at least (and to a lesser degree referees), are giving up a great deal of control over what story will be created. C. S. Lewis somewhere discusses determinism and providence, and uses as an example the prayers of a mother that her son would not be hit by bullets on a battlefield; he assumes that the requested outcome occurs.
The mother believes that God protected her son, but the determinist insists that there was no such interference -- that the timing and aiming of gunfire was determined by physical and psychological factors, weather conditions interfered in specific ways, and the combination of all natural forces together resulted in the happenstance that the boy did not get shot. But Lewis insisted not that the determinist was wrong but rather that even if the determinist was right that didn't mean God didn't answer the prayers of the mother. Being able to know all in advance, it was entirely possible that God could have taken into account that request at the creation of the world, and started the first wind and the first movements such that on that battlefield conditions would have been such that the boy was never in the same place as the bullets.
We aren't so powerful or so clever; however, it is entirely possible to set up a game such that character motivations and relationships and setting situations all interact in a way that gives at least a very high probability that a good story will result. In theory, at least, once a game is started from that basis, no outside interference should be necessary to get a good story out of it. Make sense?
--M. J. Young Check out Multiverser Index of my pages
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Supplanter (Jim Henley) 06/15/01 11:33 PM
| Jim, I thought I covered that in my last post. GEN does comprehend the simulationist (realistic) perspective of the sniper test, and I thought I explained it in depth. |
Yeah. The sad thing is that, after the response to Valamir, I did a two-hour response to your own post, in which I answered all your questions, stressed those areas where we were in agreement and offered up a Theory of BBQ besides. I "posted" it just after 2AM Friday morning, then almost immediately noticed that it wasn't there. The back arrow was no help by the time I noticed. Dispiriting. Anyway, the Theory of BBQ is most appropriate elsewhere, so I'll stick to the other issues.
a) Depending on what you mean by "cinematic" I would not agree that Simulationist games can be that thing. Specifically, to the extent that "cinematic" means conferring protagonist immunities on PCs, it is incompatible with simulation as rgfa has developed the term. If it simply means "both player and non-player characters can do crazy stunts" that's fine, but it's not a valid escape hatch from the thought experiment. Because even in cinematic cinema supporting cast members will blow themselves up with car bombs, get ambushed in such a way that they have no chance of survival etc. Many supporting cast members in action movies exist precisely to "take the charge" and get snuffed as in Epoch's Dr. Evil example. Since simulationism pure rejects the protagonist/supporting cast distinction between PCs and NPCs, PCs in simulationist "folks can do crazy stunts" games are still subject to remorseless termination. Similarly, if "cinematic" is used in a way that implies certain story structures, simulation rejects that too.
b) I happen to completely agree that "realism" is independent of "weight." I consider most weight in heavy games to be spurious. Anyone who tells you that they really can quantify, say, a 5% difference in effectiveness between banded mail and scale mail is talking out of their methane escape hatch. Piling on details whose numbers are divorced from any meaningful empirical tests is just a way of giving the illusion of realism to people impressed enough by complexity not to ask where it comes from.
c)
| Question 1: This leads me to bluntly ask the advocates of the RGFA and GNS models (both of which define Simulationism as a primary goal) to explain what I'm missing. What makes the act of simulation, of maintaining the realistic integrity of a game world, mutually exclusive with other top level goals? |
d) I do not actually agree that all three models put the same importance on the consistency of the game world unless you define consistency in a trivial, tautological way. Your Baron Munchausen example strikes me as especially inappropriate: the point of BM is not that the stories told are accounts of plausible actions in an intelligibly consistent world. The point is to describe actions as amusingly inconsistent, as utterly implausible, as possible. The only level on which one can conceive of BM as taking place in an "internally consistent game world" is if one interprets the game as nothing but real fops in a real enlightenment-era tavern telling extemporaneous lies to each other while they get drunk and fondle each others' bottoms. Baron Munchausen is a narrativism and gamism with nothing of simulation to it. I don't think there's Exploration going on either.
e) Hey, you didn't fall into the trap of trying to claim that dramatist games are really simulationist! That puts you one up on GNS...
f) I think the GEN model is good, and that once you stop trying to wiggle out of the sniper test through cinematic and mechanical escape hatches, you can say that the simulationist answer is located somewhere in Exploration - just as I think that Ron's narrativism is properly a subclass of Kim and Berkman's dramatism, rgfa's simulationism looks like a subclass of exploration in your model. Exploration is not simulation by another word - simulation is a particular mode of exploratory play.
g) I would urge you to drop the word simulation from GEN theory entirely rather than use it in a sense distinct from GDS theory. I think Ron should drop the term from his own model. Instead of a "cinematic/simulationist scale," have a "cinematic/realist scale." (Just pray devotees of Ingmar Bergman never decide to take up role-playing en masse. Then you'll have another fight on your hands.) The rgfa sense of the term is clear, can be concisely stated, and is understood in the hobby beyond the denizens of rgfa - one of my Amberway II players could say, with no preliminaries, "I'm not as much of a simulationist as you are" and we both knew what she meant. Since you and Val don't see "simulation" as a primary goal, it's not like you have a lot riding on the word itself.
Best, Jim
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/16/01 1:11 AM
From Melchie:
| >We aren't so powerful or so clever; however, it is entirely possible to set up a game such that character motivations and relationships and setting situations all interact in a way that gives at least a very high probability that a good story will result. In theory, at least, once a game is started from that basis, no outside interference should be necessary to get a good story out of it. |
From Jim (lots and lots from Jim :)): I've done the exact thing myself. I now write everything in notepad just incase my cat or I hit F5 (refresh) by mistake. As for all your points, I agree with the majority of the main points. Following your lettering structure:
A: Cinematic
I agree that GDS simulationism can support "crazy stunts" stuff (this is being allowed to do unrealistic Statements of Intent & Resolution, such as gun-foolery etc.), and I also agree that it doesn't support protagonist immunity, which I feel breaks intragame stance. The protagonists would need an intragame reason for being less likely to die than normal people (such as Divine Blessing/Favour of the Gods, a lucky charm etc.). The reason shouldn't be "because these characters are the ones controlled by the players", which is obviously a metagame reason.
B: Realism/Weight
Full agreement. I'm half-way through writing a game called CQB. As reference material, I got my hands R. Talsorian Games Compendium of Modern Firearms. To give you an example, 203 out of 223 pages are taken up by the different guns, with every gun having it's own 'probability to hit chart', based on range and body location aimed for. You look up on the chart and you get a percentage number which you multiply by your gun skill to get the overall chance of d100 required to hit. This is to represent the different inherent accuracy of the different guns. You've then got a very detailed (but slightly more abstracted) damage system, showing how people can be instantly killed/incapacitated by gunfire. All of this comes together to make the roleplaying group I borrowed this off to all say that the huge level of simulation in it makes it extremely realistic. However, where are the affects of recoil, environmental modifiers, different combat stances, affects of wounds etc upon your chances to hit? And more importantly, who actually gives a shit between (and I quote) the 2.7% probability difference of a Steyr 9mm hitting a bullseye at 15 metres compared to an HK MP5A4?
C: Simulationism & Plausibility
As I said to the Monkey General, I fully get this point now. Thanks for your clear example Jim, and thanks Pocky for whipping us GEN people into line with your big whip of system monkeyness :). (Ooh! New Jester Story Idea! Does anyone have an electronic copy of the Planet of the Apes script?) In the example you give, what would a Simulationist (or any other type of player who enforces intragame reasoning) do to reason with Mike's absence? Or is this impossible because they'd just be looking for an intragame reason to explain a metagame reason?
D: Game World Consistency
What is it? How do you achieve it? Is it simply the enforcement of plausibility (irrespective of whether the reasoning behind that was a meta-/intra-game one)? I'll need an exact definition with examples to be able to agree or disagree with you over whether it's applicable across games of all GENder. Of course, it could be applicable across all, but more common in only one. When I mentioned Baron Munchynuts I wasn't talking about the Hogshead game. I agree that the rules and mechanics of that game support gamist and narrative play. We inject exploation (with character focus) ourselves between stories when we are simply roleplaying our characters insulting each other and the like. When I chose BM to give an example, I was looking for a setting which was opposed to realism. As you've pointed out, BM is a terrible (and complex) example setting to use, because it's meant to be the real world but with but with (as you state) actions [which are...] as amusingly inconsistent, as utterly implausible, as possible. Therefore, swap BM for any cinematic setting, such as any D&D one.
E: Dramatist & Simulationism
Well that would be a bit stupid. I understand why they did that though, because of the GNS golden rule: "If it doesn't precisely fit the strict narrative/gamist criteria it falls into the Simulationist 'we take all rejections' bucket." ;). The actual relationship that I draw between Dramatist and Simulationist play is described below in F.
F: GEN & Sniper Test
I'm not wiggling anywhere! :) This is what I was explaining: For the sniper test GEN assumed that a simulationist answer is a realistic answer (as opposed to cinematic). Therefore, any cinematic reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with the realistic results from the sniper test, as the 2 are opposed. I only gave cinematic responses to highlight the extreme differences between that and the simulationary/realistic ones. I then went on to explain that the realistic result from the sniper test (which is one where only intragame reasoning is used) can be used in games of any GENder.
However, I'll now reassess GEN under the sniper test taking into account that you want the answer which enforces intragame reasoning (the RGFA definition of Simulationism, and maybe the GEN definition too in the future - see G). You're absolutely right: Explorative play is not simulative play, but simulative play is a particular mode of Explorative play (one which enforces intragame stances and reasoning). I've said this above and therefore agree that the simulationist answer can be found as a certain mode of Explorative play. However, I also expanded that to say that Gamist/Narrative play is not simulative play, but simulative play is a particular mode of Gamist/Narrative play (one which enforces intragame stances and reasoning).
And that therefore you can find the simulationist answer in *all* styles of play, as all games can enforce intragame reasoning for these situations. It's just easier to enforce metagame reasoning though, the dominant reason being highlighted by the game's GENder; i.e. Gamist do things to introduce challenges, Explorative do things to introduce roleplaying potential, Narrative do things to introduce storytelling potential. As Melchie said though, you don't have to use metagame reasoning to introduce these elements, you just set the game up well at the start. I know that Mytholder is great for doing this. When he writes his convention adventures (which I'd advise anyone to read) he prewrites the Characters so that they will come together to produce a greast amount of roleplaying potential, or be propelled to drive the story forward.
I did the same thing with my L5R campaign, as I wrote up the characters for the players. Knowing that I wanted to run the City of Lies adventures in the campaign (in which the party become Emerald Magistrates in the city after the murder of the previous Magistrate), I wrote up a Crane samurai who was the son of the current Magistrate. When his father got murdered half-way through the campaign the player didn't need any metagame reasoning at all to take the position himself and try to uncover the killer. Also, this agrees with your statement about GNS Narrative play. This is RGFA/GEN Narrative play but with other considerations set in stone, such as available stances, balance of Directorial stance etc. To say that *all* narrative games must be like that is ludicrous. It only covers a rather specific mode of narrative play.
As for Gamist play, I can remember back in the 'stance thread' (the one before the flaming) in the Sorcerer forum when I first mentioned that Metagame stances were quite common to use in this style. GNS went into a frenzy over this and started to take the idea that *all* gamist RPGs require metagame stance. This obviously isn't true either. Gamist RPGs can be as simulative (intragame reasoning) as any other. Wrapping this up then, is RGFA Dramatist play and GEN Narrative play the same? That is, they both state that the goal of play is to enjoy the story, and may give guidelines for using different mechanics and stances to get different modes of Narrative play, but they don't explicitly state "You must have this type of stance/mechanics to achieve this style". If they are the same then I'll leave it there. If Dramatist play does make some assumptions on the usage of stance or mechanics then Dramatist play is a mode of GEN Narrative play (as with GNS Narrative play).
G: Dropping the Simulationism term
I had written that exact same concept myself! I was going to include onto my list of questions (and actually wrote it):
Question 3: To the GEN people, should we dump the use of the term 'Simulation' and simply use Realistic opposed by Cinematic? This will stop a huge amount of confusion, and frees up the term for us to use elsewhere. I deleted this question because I wanted to wrap up the Sniper test stuff before doing this. However, I'm completely ready now to stop using the term "simulationism" in GEN to oppose cinematic play (use realistic instead). So where are we going to use the term? We could inherit the RGFA notion of intragame reasoning. This differs from simply saying a game uses an intragame stance, because intragame only covers 2 aspects of the usage of stances, that of making Statements of Intent and Resolution.
You could still move to a metagame stance for the act of communicating (see the GEN stance thread for details of that stuff). However, I don't want to do that. I don't think that the classical use of the term or the common RPG use of the term means that. In fact the term "Intragame reasoning" is probably the best term to use to describe "Intragame reasoning" ;). Therefore, question to all the GEN designers: Are you happy to stop using the term 'Simulation' to mean 'Realistic' (which opposes cinematic)? This needs to be answered pretty soon. If so, what concept should the term 'simulation' be used to describe? This question doesn't need to be answered now. We can keep the label in reserve for a concept that we might come across later that it fits perfectly. Seeing as Valamir is to blame for the first GEN redefinition of the term, I'll leave this in his hands. That'll teach ya to be argumentative! ;)
H: 3fold & Mechanics
Question of my own now. GEN takes the notion that mechanics can be used to support different GENders, but the mechanics themselves are GENderless. Does RGFA agree with this? As an example, my home roleplaying group always refer to Pantheon and Baron Munchausen as Narrative RPGs. However, I see them referred to by others as Gamist RPGs because you get points and you have a winner. I believe the difference in opinion is caused by how the 2 different groups are using those mechanics. When my group plays Pantheon, we play the game as written like anybody else, but the primary motivator for the statements we introduce are to create a more interesting story, not to score the most points. We'll still tally up the points at the end and declare somebody the winner, who then has to go make the tea. This is opposed by those who believe these RPGs are Gamist because their primary motivator while playing is to come up with statements that score points. Another example is the Directorial power to introduce new scenes. Some people believe that this power is entirely narrative. I fully disagree. My group use this power to introduce scenes that either:
i) introduce new challenges they're interested in;
ii) introduce scenes with new roleplaying potential they're interested in;
iii) introduce scenes with new storytelling potential they're interested in.
SUMMARY
This whole thread has made me realise that if you don't have an up-to-date glossary you have to describe the definitions of your terms in detail all the time. You set GEN the test of finding a simulationist answer, and we were using different definitions of simulation. Also, I'm pretty sure we're currently using different definitions of "game-world consistency". (Actually, I don't think I even have a current definition myself for what this means). Apart from all that I'm in agreement with the majority of your points, apart from intragame reasoning being confined to a mode of Explorative play. I'm sure we would have saved ourselves 20-odd posts if you'd defined your terms to begin with though ;).
Re: Stress-Testing Pantheon
Supplanter (Jim Henley) 06/16/01 11:02 AM
Hey SJ, great post, and I think we've made enormous progress. I appreciate your flexibility. For the moment, just my take on H, specifically your musings on Munchausen and Pantheon. It's been just long enough since I read Munchausen that I'll leave it aside, though my impression is that what I have to say about Pantheon substantially covers BM as well.
As it happens, my thoughts on H in general are presented in nauseating detail on the forge in the Gamism & Mechanics thread, where Valamir and I pushed each other to think about the topic in some depth. All hail the spirit of inquiry! Anyway: narrativism and gamism are both strongly present in Pantheon, obviously. It's a blend. We need not, however, throw up our hands there and stop. Taking the end of narrative RPGing as the production of the best possible story and the end of gamist RPGing as the fairest and most engrossing possible contest, the question becomes, in Pantheon, which end is trumps?
Clearly, it is game values. The restrictions on sentence construction and the supply of tokens are absolutes. I might know for sure that a better story results if my sentence not refer to my own "PC." Doesn't matter. I must construct my sentence according to the rules. I may think that someone else's sentence makes a worse story, but my scope of action is entirely confined to the mechanical plane - I can spend appropriate fiat tokens if I have them, or I can initiate a bidding contest and I can roll the dice. The possibility of recruiting others to back my esthetic objections and reinforce my bid posture modifies this somewhat, but even the new coalition's scope of action is restricted by the fairness constraints of the contest mechanics. Contest trumps story.
Compare Once Upon a Time. Pure story values bulk much larger in OUAT - the player's sentence construction is less constricted and more open-ended, which aids narrative flow. I also have the contest option of declaring my opponent's continuation lame in story terms. Note that the OUAT resolution of this is purely, Get the other players to agree that my opponent's continuation is lame, and that the rules caution against using the lameness objection purely to keep an opponent from going out (of cards).
IOW, the contest is conducted on the esthetic level, where story should be judged, rather than the mechanical level. Once Upon a Time is far less gamist than Pantheon and, to my taste, far more successful. I will now indulge myself and say that I despise Pantheon. Because as it is written, when you "succeed" you've done nothing more than reproduce cliches. Six folks sitting around the table can see to it that "the black guy" dies first, that the marketing guy is an evil weenie, that whoever has sex dies, and so on. Pantheon aims to convince people that a slavish devotion to esthetically-bankrupt tropes is somehow innovative. What it is is a novel way of replicating someone else's same old shit. Boy do I feel better now!
Best, Jim
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
M. J. Young (M. J. Young) 06/16/01 11:44 AM
Jester, I haven't yet finished reading your 6/16 1:11 AM post, but have already found cause to question you. I also agree that it doesn't support protagonist immunity, which I feel breaks intragame stance. The protagonists would need an intragame reason for being less likely to die than normal people (such as Divine Blessing/Favour of the Gods, a lucky charm etc.). The reason shouldn't be "because these characters are the ones controlled by the players", which is obviously a metagame reason. It seems to me that you started by saying that player character immunity is not valid in a simulationist game, and ended by saying that player character immunity is valid in a simulationist game if the metagame concerns are translated into game logic at the start of play (e.g., if it is stated up front that these characters who happen to be player characters are divinely chosen to fulfill some mission in the world). I think that you mean the latter (which I think is correct), but wanted to clarify that point.
On the question, "what would a Simulationist (or any other type of player who enforces intragame reasoning) do to reason with Mike's absence?", Mike is just out of luck. His character is caught in the action, and the rest of us will have to figure out what it is that she says and does and hope that we can do it justice; and Mike just hopes she doesn't get killed in his absence--but that's the risk he took by missing the game, isn't it? That'll larn 'im, as they say. I'm a bit hesitant about using "realism" instead of "simulationism" for much the same reasons as discussed when GNS was debating it: "realistic" implies that we are simulating a world identical to our own.
You could simulate a Star Trek world in which our known laws of physics would all apply, but the phasers and teleporters would not be "realistic" (they seem to contradict some of our current science--mentioned in my recent GIU on Transmats). I like "simulative" because it suggests creating a system that provides consistent outcomes in similar situations. "Cinematic" seems to infer a metagame aspect inherently, that of creating dramatically appealing outcomes which may be contradictory or counterintuitive. But I don't have a better term at the moment. I'll let you all muse on that for a while.
--M. J. Young Check out Multiverser Index of my pages
Re: Stress-Testing Pantheon
Scarlet Jester (Scarlet Jester) 06/17/01 3:48 AM
Melchie: What I was saying Melchie is that Player Immunity is not valid for any metagame reason. You can have an intragame reason for that immunity though. Jim: Yes.
"Gritty"
Epoch (Mike Sullivan) 06/18/01 1:19 AM
I'd use "gritty" as a counter to "cinematic." While they aren't true antonyms, "gritty" is pretty much the closest to an antonym to the Steve Jackson-popularized gamer definition of "cinematic."
Re: Stress-Testing GEN
Valamir (Ralph Mazza) 06/18/01 7:45 AM
| Seeing as Valamir is to blame for the first GEN redefinition of the term, I'll leave this in his hands. That'll teach ya to be argumentative! ;) |
Heh. Well I had had a whole response to Jim written up then decided not to post it and see what came up. So here are my thoughts.
1) I don't care for RGFA's use of the term Simulation. I understand what they mean by it but to me what they are describing is not Simulation. I'm not sure what exactly I'd call it, some form of deep setting immersion, but I wouldn't call it Simulation. In my original response to Jim, I didn't realize he was using the RGFA term when I responded to him, hence the disconnect. Just yesterday I was playing a game of Close Action with some dyed in the wool simulationists, playing a French vs British ARW scenario. On three seperate occassions diced for criticals were ignored or the turn reset in order to override fluke results that would have invalidated the "what if" question we were pursueing. That doesn't happen all of the time, but it does happen.
Now "what if" wargame scenarios don't have a direct parallel to RPGs, but it does illustrate that not all simulationists are slaves to the "A led to B and B led to C, and therefor I must accept C and not change it to D" paradigm. What it says to me is that any interpretation of the term Simulation that absolutely 100% eliminates the possibility of meta game influences is too rigid and too narrowly defined.
2) I'm not saying there aren't players who play with that rigid of a definition. Just that that style of play is an extreme version of what I would call Simulation. In otherwords, to me, what RGFA calls Simulation is is NOT Simulation. Its Simulation with a total Intragame only restriction. I've no doubt that there are a number of players who prefer that total Intragame restriction, but while that restriction may be required by those players I don't believe it is required by the term Simulation. Simulation as I see it may very well have a strong propensity for Intragame only, but to restrict it ONLY to Intragame only IMO is taking the prefered style of play of a select group of people, and extrapolating it across an entire category in a manner that is not supported by the evidence.
3) I personally feel no particular reason to adhere to RGFA's definitions within the GEN framework any more than I do to adhere to GNS definitions. Thats not to say that we should invent definitions willy-nilly, but that when presented with an opportunity to define a word closer to the way the general gaming public would use the word we should take it, rather than perpetuating a more obscure jargonized version of the word. In other words, IMO our definition of Simulation should start not from the lexicon of RGFA or GNS, but rather from Merriam Webster: "the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another. The examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device"
Any other extraneous requirements such as "total intragame stance only" should be stripped out, leaving a pure definition of Simulation as it would be understood by the general public. THEN we can achieve the RGFA meaning by adding back in the next layer of descriptiveness or restrictions. i.e. This game is a Simulation. That game is a Simulation which requires total Intragame stance. If this causes some initial confusion with a practitioner of GNS or RGFA, I don't see that as a problem. Anyone who is familiar with those models enough to care, is enough of a critical thinker to understand "what you are calling Simulation we are calling X" My own personal desire for this model is to have it expand out to the gaming community in general, being put in front of far more people than have ever even heard of RGFA or GNS. To accomplish that, we should strive for definitions that are intuitive to someone whose never heard of the "three fold model", as they will be more easily adopted than a jargonized lexicon.
4) None of this is to say I'll abandoned the project if you decide to go another direction. But do feel very strongly SJ, that when you decide what to call things as you firm up the model's FAQ, that you do so with an eye to what would be easiest to explain to someone whose never thought about it before and not depend on what other groups have called it. After all, when GEN takes the gaming world by storm, everyone will be using OUR definitions, and theres will be the ones that don't fit ;-)
Re: Gritty
GreatWolf (Seth Ben-Ezra) 06/18/01 3:02 PM
I concur. Many moons ago I began using the terminology of gritty vs. cinematic. It's not perfect, but I think that it captures the essence of the question. Do PCs glow? Cinematic says yes (as do important NPCs). Gritty says no.
Seth Ben-Ezra Great Wolf Dark Omen Games