Gamism and Narrativism: Mutually Exclusive
Vladius:
GNS theory is bunk altogether in my opinion, so I think you should just attempt a player revolt and have yourself made DM, because that seems to be the crux of the problem. Some people are good at it, and some others aren't. It's certainly possible to do good story with D&D 4e, and you shouldn't restrict yourselves just because you think it's "Gamist," which shouldn't be a derogatory term in the first place.
Ayyavazi:
Thanks for your input guys.
Rogerio, I do understand what you are saying. Essentially, we have to examine a full cycle of the game to get its agenda. But here's what I was wondering.
In a game like DnD, the reward cycle for combat is quicker than the reward cycle for premise driven play. You can get experience and treasure every single fight (yes, I know it can be argued that EXP is a pacing mechanism), but you only get that explosive moment of narrativism every session or two (at least thats how it happened in my example). As a result, you have one reward cycle happening within another.
Now, you asked if I would still enjoy the tactical combat if there were no story around it. If I say no, you say, "Well, then its narrativist play." If I say yes, you say, "Its gamist play." So, here's the rub: I can and do enjoy tactical combat on its own, as long as it is understood (consciously or subconsciously) that there is reward for that play, that is the social backslapping, the risk of looking stupid, and the in-game exp and treasure rewards. However, to be honest, that will lose its luster eventually (after several fun sessions). So, my answer is yes and no. Short term, sure, I would enjoy it. Long term, I wouldn't. Now, I probably completely messed up what your hypothetical response would be, but I think that now the problem is made clear: You can have one reward cycle (the combat) within the greater scope reward cycle of narrativism and addressing premise. As such, I believe the game was a not-so-well-functioning hybrid. That is, not everyone was on board for the hybrid play. Dave (the DM) obviously was gunning for narrativism, full stop. Gerald and I were looking for a hybrid, Jenn was going for Narrativism, and Mike was going for Gamism. I know players can't have an agenda, but they can have play types they enjoy more, and my analysis (however flawed) is that those were the goals in our group, and what we actively worked to achieve.
So, for you and caldis, I think the reason the thread isn't done is because it has moved on to the discussion of reward cycles and their ability to fall within one another. Does that merit its own thread?
Thanks again for your input guys,
Cheers,
--Norm
Ralek:
Hi,
I want to address this first and get it out of the way:
Quote from: Ayyavazi
Now, you asked if I would still enjoy the tactical combat if there were no story around it. If I say no, you say, "Well, then its narrativist play." If I say yes, you say, "Its gamist play."
Ugh... Don't put words in my mouth. First, I didn't say tactical combat with no story... I didn't even use story at all. I said tactical combat without addressing premise. Story can be there or not, but if there are no thematic choices with consequences for those choices then there's no premise addressing. I also made no mention whatsoever about using that question to determining agenda. Again, you can't look at a moment of play to determine agenda. The reason I asked that question was exactly to defuse that idea since you previously said that since you enjoy the tactical elements of play, you have a gamist preference, which is non sequitur. The question was meant to illustrate that there may be a varied number of reasons of why you enjoy the tactical elements, some of which are not even agenda related.
As an aside, just as a strong tactical element can be essential to reinforce fun while addressing premise, the other side is also true. A strong premise may be essential to reinforce fun while stepping on up, whether you address the premise or not. As an actual play example, in my current D&D3.5 campaign, which is as tactically centered as it gets (all we do is make tactical choices for our characters), but there is a lingering premise around, which will never get addressed because addressing it falls outside of our point of play, but it's mere presence serves to reinforce my fun while stepping on up to the challenges provided by the gm. The fact that these elements that seemingly fall outside the point of play can be essential to reinforce it maybe what is causing your attempts at understanding agenda to get sidetracked.
Quote from: Ayyavazi
You can have one reward cycle (the combat) within the greater scope reward cycle of narrativism and addressing premise.
Sheesh, what a confusing statement. You are confusing mechanical rewards with reward cycle. Just because the GM awarded xp doesn't mean you reached the end of a reward cycle. An instance of play is an instance of play, there's no larger instance for this and smaller for that. A combat is definitely not an instance of play. Everything leading to it, including decisions on who to fight and why, the combat itself, the aftermath and all consequences of said combat is an instance of play, along with all decisions (and their consequences) made by the players during that time. That is the reward cycle.
Finally, you called your game hybrid and I agree (and I always have) that a game can be an hybrid (as in it tries to support multiple agendas), but an agenda itself is not hybrid and more importantly, player priorities themselves during a single instance of play are not hybrid. What you are calling hybrid play (different players following different agendas during the same instance of play) is incoherent play and it can be fun for all involved, but it is rather hard to be fun in practice, especially in games which deposit high authority in the GM (which has his own priorities). Incoherent play is less fun than coherent play (since time has to be lost on stuff that doesn't matter) and a lot of times finally derails into disfunctional play, when agendas finally clash.
--Rogerio
Ayyavazi:
Thanks Rogerio,
I guess as long as everyone else agrees with you about hybrid play being incoherent but incoherent play being fun, then that would settle it. I don't care if my play is considered coherent or not. I care that it is hybrid and fun. I do think that function hybrid play (and the maximum fun of coherent play) is possible as well, so long as everyone's goals match, and they pursue the hybrid agenda uniformly. But I do not know if that is a separate discussion or not. Anyone care to shed some light on that?
Thanks again and Cheers,
--Norm
Ralek:
Hi Norm,
Sheesh what a leap you made...
Quote
I guess as long as everyone else agrees with you about hybrid play being incoherent but incoherent play being fun, then that would settle it
I said incoherent play can be fun but it is rather difficult to attain in practice. The moment the incoherence is revealed, it will stop being fun for someone. Here's an AP report quote from this thread:
Quote
The in-game situation has our party tracking the NPC Gerard's group through the woods. We didn't really roll to find the tracks so much, because that would lead to uselessness. As we were preparing to frame the scene forward after some tracking, the GM said he would be calling for a roll. He meant for us to make a Woodcraft roll to see if we would catch up with Gerard under circumstances favorable to us or to him.
Godinho, however, interrupted him and stated that he wanted to pay special attention to see if anyone was following us. The GM pondered this for a minute, then announced he'd be calling for two rolls instead. He then proceeded to have us roll against someone who was indeed following us, which we managed to spot, then corner.
Here's the thing: this third party really didn't exist at all until Godinho said what he said. And here's the disconnect: Godinho, as a player, said what he said because he saw it as a "good move". Rogerio, on the other hand, chose to interpret it as an expression of interest on the player's part for the concept of having someone else following us. So, he created the follower on the spot.
A bit of further disconnect: when we did find and corner the guy, Rogerio was satisfied that he was done his job as GM by responding to the player's interest. Godinho was satisfied as a player to have had his good move pay off and be successful.
If this sort of incoherent play continues, eventually Godinho will catch up on the incoherence and his and the GM's (which is me, btw) play will clash and play will stop being fun for him. At that point, you turn incoherent into disfunctional.
Also, you have the big contradiction:
Quote
I do think that function hybrid play (and the maximum fun of coherent play) is possible as well, so long as everyone's goals match, and they pursue the hybrid agenda uniformly.
If everyone's goals match, it's not hybrid... everyone's pursuing the same agenda. There is no hybrid agenda.
As to why it is difficult to have functional hybrid play, the matter is really quite simple. Incoherence only works if one side is either unware of the incoherence, or he is aware but the incoherence doesn't interfere with his point of play. Sooner or later, everyone one becomes aware of the incoherence, so it really becomes a matter of whether being aware of that incoherence interferes with your point of play or not. In the example above it clearly does.
Also, it is possible for some players to have fun while others do not. That is my definition of disfunctional play. Disfunctional play is bad even for the players having fun, as the game would be better if the other players either aligned their goals or stopped playing.
--Rogerio
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page