GNS and Hierarchy
Caldis:
I think what you are missing is that the three Agendas are not monolithic things. All Step on Up is not the same, neither is all Right to Dream or Story Now. So when we group Creative Agendas they do entail wide differences in how you play. Here is a discussion of skewers which may help you out with your ideas. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12597.0
Beyond that I think the discussion is getting highly theoretical with little basis in reality. I'm not sure what you are meaning by a hierarchy of GNS. If we could bring it back to your actual play examples or any actual play examples then that might be helpful.
I'm going back to your examples from the Gamism and Narrtivism mutually exclusive thread. From what I see you seem to be under the impression that there was gamism involved in the example you went into with Ron. To be blunt there wasnt. There was strategy, tactics and what Fred called competition but as Ron explained those things are not gamism. What you are missing is the reward cycle, what pushed the game forward and moved it from one situation on to another. The reward wasnt how well you did tactically or how smart you played leading to more tactically challenging situations it was the moral consequence of your actions leading to more moral quandries.
I hate to say it but I think you may have glossed over what was said there because Ron made some pretty strong points that counter any idead of a Hierarchy of Agendas or multiple Agendas in play. You might want to re-read that thread, especially once you and Ron get talking about the example of the game you enjoyed.
Ayyavazi:
Thanks Caldis,
I will be reading that thread post-haste. Until I do, I probably can't speak to your question. But, I did at least reference that each agenda had separate "sub-agendas" in one of my most recent posts (the one before the last one). But you are right. It is getting too theoretical. I do thank you for pointing me back to my original thread, but the problem there is that I still do not understand the other reward cycles. I understand Story Now reward cycles because I had a game experience and there was a definitive "This is how it all worked together and why." discussion, which was very accurate. Like I have said plenty of times, my memory is hazy. I am not sure that my representation of that particular instance is complete and accurate. I believe that there was a lot going on there that I simply don't recall properly or at all, which makes it hard to address other possible reward cycles from that example.
So, what I need is for someone to show me, "These are Gamist reward cycles, and here is how they work in actual play. These are Simulationist reward cycles and how they work in actual play, and these are Narrativist Reward cycles and how they work." I need this breakdown for each of the different sub-agendas, such as actual play and reward cycles for Gamism at the various Dial combinations. I also need something pointing me toward common Ephemera, and groups of Ephemera that are common techniques, and then common technique groups that point to Creative Agenda. If any of that is in the Skewers discussion above, then I won't need that once I have read it.
Also, being that I am discussing several instances of Actual play as necessary to continue this discussion, it may become necessary to make each one (play instance and technique/ephemera/reward cycle analysis) a daughter thread of its own until I fully understand the terms and can address this issue in this thread (or a continuation thread).
Overall, I want to learn more before I confuse myself more. Also, I recognize that tactical combat does not equal gamist play. Nobody needs to repeat that to me any more, I get that techniques do not an agenda make. I even understand why, thanks to the countless analogies people have been so kind as to give me. Until I understand Reward cycles, ephemera and techniques more, I won't be able to have meaningful discussion about hybrids (or new agendas) or hierarchies.
Cheers,
--Norm
Adam Dray:
Working on a post describing Gamist reward cycles... =)
Adam Dray:
Have you played D&D 4E? It's a great game, right? It provides amazing support for Gamism.
Start at the beginning. You make characters. The rules encourage (tease?) each player to make the strongest character, the most optimal build. Further, through the use of roles, the rules encourage the group of players to make sure their characters fit together. Having a good mix of roles is the most basic group strategy, but having powers that enhance one another in symbiotic ways is the more detailed strategy.
Play is focused on exploration and challenge. These challenges are usually combat against monsters but sometimes they involve traps, hazards, and other encounters that use skills rather than combat powers. The text provides rules for generating appropriate challenges based on the level and size of the party. Combat encounters test player skill. Specifically, combat tests a player's "character build" and the player's knowledge and proper use of the character's abilities and the player's knowledge of the game rules. There are tactical (short-term) and strategic (long-term) choices for a player to make. If a player performs poorly, he might cause his character or another player's character to be injured or killed. 4E particularly shines where it offers character abilities that help out party members, thus promoting teamwork.
The game's main reward is experience points (XP), which are gained mainly by killing monsters, encountering traps and hazards, and by completing skill challenges. XP allow characters to gain levels. Gaining a level is the main reward cycle because you've proven yourself as a player long enough to change the character in a meaningful way. When you gain a level, you return to the "character build" part of the game and gain new abilities (and a new chance to test your skill at character building). Moreover, you have opened new doors in play. At the very least, there are new (higher-level) monsters for you to face. At certain level increments, like 11th and 21st, you also change the entire tier of play (heroic to paragon to epic). A change in tier changes game play in a significant way, widening the scope of your character's influence in the game setting.
To look at Gamism support in 4E, you need to start at the Social Contract level and work your way down. The game assumes that the players get together to play 4E and they understand that they're gonna kick some ass and take some names. Exploration is strongly pointed at challenge. There's a particular focus on Character and System (building, planning, tuning PCs) between "play sessions," but it's also "play," in my mind (strong character building requires interaction for party tuning). Setting is hostile, full of challenges for PCs. Situation is usually focused on getting players to combat encounters that test their abilities. The Color (e.g., read the "color text" for the powers and the racial descriptions) is challenge-focused. The game's Techniques are dedicated mostly to combat, traps, hazards, and skill challenges. There's not much else to the game. Combat rules comprise the vast majority of the game text.
To categorize an actual instance of 4E play as "Gamist," you need to look at the behavior of the players over a period of time that touches all of the above-mentioned aspects. You can play 4E in a Simulationist way or in a Narrativist way. You'll be fighting against the current of character optimization, fighting monsters, and leveling up, though.
Caldis:
Adam,
Sounds pretty good but do you have a play example that would really showcase it in action? If not we can look to the [Rifts] GNS my session thread and I can try and point out what look like reward cycles there.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page