GNS and Hierarchy
Ayyavazi:
Hello all,
I know Ron will probably want an actual play example and to have this thread moved, but since I am lacking an example (that I know of or am willing to type out right now), I am putting it here for beginning discussion. Also, I am sure this has been discussed before, so any help finding relevant threads would be great.
I was reading the Simulationism aside thread, and had this little brainstorm: what if Hybrid play between the different agendas is not only possible but common. You can also find a discussion progressing along these lines in the Actual Play forum under Gamism and Narrativism: Mutually Exclusive.
Here's my thinking. What if, instead of having one agenda as the point of play, all of them were present for a group, but set up in a hierarchy.
So, for players that prefer narrativism, Narrativism is at the top. This means that all decisions go through a kind of Nar filter, and if the decision has nothing to do with premise, it goes to the next filter down, which would be either gamism or simultionism, whichever is more important to the group (or perhaps player, in incoherent play). If it still does not apply to the next level, it moves down to the third, where it is made based on that, since no matter what, it is in accord with the other two. In this way, all decisions the players make, at any level, will always provide the maximum enjoyment for what the group wants.
Here's an example. Within the fiction, say a character has a choice. Say that this choice has three possible outcomes. One outcome (A) results in doing what the character would do under these circumstances. Option B results in a risky fight with plenty of chances to Step On Up. Option C results in a dramatic addressing of Premise. Applying the filter in the order above, the character will act in a way that is not consistent with his own, but which increases the drama, which is what the group wants more than they want character accuracy.
This way of looking at things may help to explain some splay in which the group is not happy. Lets say that one intrepid and hopeful group sets all agendas at equal priority. Now we have a problem. Given the situation above, all choices are equally valid. However, a sinister thing lurks in the darkness of the players' souls. Say the character, for lack of a better option, decides to go with option A. Maybe it was a die roll. Now, if the players agreed to the die roll, all would be fine. But, lets assume there is no roll. The player makes the decision. Now, I personally believe that whatever decision the player makes will be the one he deems most important to his individual goals at the moment. Say he takes Option A, because at the moment, he wants to play out the character more than he wants to experience gamism or narrativism (yes I know, few here believe in GNS operating at this small level, almost like physics). What happens when the other players disagree because they lean toward a different agenda. I have most commonly observed this when a player makes a decision that does not fit the character's motives in order to create drama or an oppurtunity to Step On Up. When that happens, the players diagree, and the idea of what is most important needs to be discussed in order to preserve coherent play, and enjoyable play for everyone.
The problem is that in the moment, this hierarchy can shift as well. If it is cemented and everyone agrees to it ahead of time, it is both blessing and curse. It makes decisions easier for players, but makes them frustrated when their own desires conflict with the cemented hierarchy. In essence, it all comes back to Ron's basic idea: if players are united in goal, they will have more fun. That is, if you are lucky enough to find players just like you, you will have the maximum amount of fun. To me, this means we can design games in one of two ways: Either we design games for specific agendas, and assume the group playing it will match up perfectly (or tell them to), or we can design games that alleviate these small-level frustrations by being flexible enough to suit different styles of play and still maintain enjoyment amongst players (though even then, it would seem that the entire problem comes in at the social contract level, which to me seems impervious to adaptation unless the players themselves are willing to adapt.) I suppose that if the social contract the game requires were laid out right next to the rules, perhaps that would alleviate most of the pain, assuming the flexibility-in-contract was preserved throughout play. But then again, maybe I have just re-defined system.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
--Norm
Moreno R.:
Norm, why you are lacking an actual play example? If role-playing really worked like this, every single decision you made in your role-playing history would be an example...
Anyway, the forum for this wouldn't be "first thoughts" in any case: this is for first thoughts about new games, not about new theories...
I am going to assume that you will post an actual play example in the next post and Ron will simply move this thread to "actual play". In this case we could continue this discussion with examples and in more depth. But, for starters, I think (from your post, lacking examples) that you did misread the articles about GNS. It's ALWAYS been about priorities, not about presence. There isn't a rpg game ever played that completely lacked any step on up or any kind of thematic decision, no matter how little. You can't define a Creative Agenda on the basis of "what is present in play", you have to see "what has the precedence in play", and considering not a single decision, but the entire game (to be more precise, you have to consider the biggest reward circle in the entire game). So, in this part of your post you are saying nothing new.
But, in the following past, you mis-represented the three creative agenda. Probably because you still talked about single decisions, but when you said "Quote
Here's an example. Within the fiction, say a character has a choice. Say that this choice has three possible outcomes. One outcome (A) results in doing what the character would do under these circumstances. Option B results in a risky fight with plenty of chances to Step On Up. Option C results in a dramatic addressing of Premise. Applying the filter in the order above, the character will act in a way that is not consistent with his own, but which increases the drama, which is what the group wants more than they want character accuracy."
You did not talk about Creative Agenda at all.
"Within the fiction, say a character has a choice. Say that this choice has three possible outcomes. One outcome (A) results in doing what the character would do under these circumstances. ": this is simply "playing the character". Apart from always playing in Pawn stance, like in a boardgame (something I don't even consider role-playing at all) you ALWAYS choose this, in every Creative Agenda. The creative agenda is about what THE PLAYERS do, not the character. It's the players that, choosing between the many, many things that any character "would do under these circumstances" (and doing other things in the games where you are not limited to "play your character") express the group's Creative Agenda.
"Option C results in a dramatic addressing of Premise": you don't address premise in a single scene. This is one example of why there discussions NEED actual play examples. If you would have had to make an actual play example of adressing the premise every single scene in a real game you played, you would had noticed this.
I have other things to say, but it's better to concentrate to these points at the beginning. And in the "actual play" forum.
Ayyavazi:
Well, you have (possibly inadvertently) cleared up some murky waters for me. As for your request, I will give a bare-bones example (as I lack the time for anything else).
When I have played D&D (3.5 and 4th) I have run into many situations where the character would likely do something that would be uninteresting, and so went against character to do the interesting thing. I was just reading about this example, so I'll adapt it. Assume a character is generally cowardly (ignore that playing such a character in anything but a drifted DnD game is pretty much a bad idea). This character should run away from a big scary monster. However, doing so removes the character from the encounter, and results in the player sitting there with his thumbs up his butt. Sure, he may be enjoying that he acted according to character, but will the enjoyment last for the hour or so it takes the party to deal with the threat and then go find his character. Hopefully, the answer is yes, but I have rarely seen that happen. So, in order to avoid boredom, have the character stay and fight. Sure, maybe you could justify it in some way so that you convince others (and yourself) that this is what the character would have done, but sometimes, I just feel like I betrayed the character in order to make sure I was still able to enjoy the situation at hand. Is this incoherence? Is it possible I was seeking one type of play, but playing in another?
The point remains that I believe that not all decisions are made based on what the character would do. In fact, the various stances seem to address this rather well, and I have seen the issue discussed in many of the foundational essays Ron has given me to read about GNS. But this only addresses things on the character level.
And what do you mean when you say you cannot address premise in a single scene. If that is the case, I have a gross misunderstanding of what Premise is and how and when it gets addressed. Possibly this clears up all of the confusion in some of my other threads, and so it is probably worth exploring, along with the rest of the calls of, "GNS is not in the small stuff!" Its kind of like physics. The theories break down when you get to the really small stuff. Buit if that were the case, either the theory is incomplete or wrong. Either way, I'm interested in your response and the other things you have to say. Also, I am wondering why I haven't seen your username as a common name in the other threads. Generally, people with a lot to say have said it before, and I would have noticed. I am only curious as to what about this post made you respond that my other posts did not. Its interesting to me.
Thanks again, and cheers!
--Norm
Adam Dray:
If the theory is like physics, then you're trying to guess the shape of the galaxy by looking at subatomic particle interactions. It just can't be done.
You've been posting for a while now, so you're really gonna have to cough up examples of actual play that supports your ideas. Right now, it's all just discussion about what could be and what should be with no connection to anything that actually happened.
I personally welcome the discussion! I'm very interested in creative agenda and how it relates to groups of interacting techniques.
Here's a bit of actual play from one of my D&D 4e games. Tell me the game's creative agenda...
In the first game, Jody's character (a woman changeling disguising herself as a male Anglican priest in metrocalyptic Oxford 1605) encountered a raging goblin. The PC's first reaction was to scream and do nothing when Jody's turn came up because his priest wasn't used to facing monsters. The rest of the group played their characters in an "optimal" tactical manner. Discussing things after the game, Daniel asked people how he could "make other people awesome." He wanted to know what powers people had and stuff for synergy and party building for combat. Most of the rest of the players said they wanted to play out tactics from the viewpoints of their characters (actor stance, not author or director stance, essentially).
Ayyavazi:
Thats a great point Adam. I couldn't tell you the agenda. I could take some guesses, which I'll do for posterity's sake.
The player of the priest seemed to be pursuing a Simulationist agenda that the group did not share. The rest of the group seemed to be gamist with subservient simulationism, or Simulationism with subservient Gamism (which if I am correct is either downright improbably, or an anomaly, according to the forge). That is with the exception of the person who apparently wanted pure gamism, through only caring about tactical options.
Again, this is only a guess. But my thought here is that just because you can't guess the shape of a galaxy from only its subatomic particles, just like ascertaining creative agenda from the individual techniques, doesn't mean there is no role they play, and it also means that perhaps you can tell, if you have other parts of the equation. Perhaps parts we don't even know exist yet, and so can't look for or use to tell. Plus, for me, it seems that play agenda can morph over time within a group, switching from one to another. But I still have a lot to learn, so I don't know for sure.
Thanks again, and when I have time, I'll post some actual play, though I sure wish we could just talk theory for a little first.
Cheers,
--Norm
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page