GNS and Hierarchy
Adam Dray:
Callan,
I meant that 4E's character creation system "front loads" play with a character that is ready for Step on Up. It's sorta like how all the chargen that goes on in Sorcerer "front loads" play with a character that is ready for Story Now, even though chargen is not exactly play.
Ayyavazi:
Thanks everybody for your insight.
I'll address 4e D&D first, and go from there. I am on board with the idea that all of 4th editions rules (and even GM advice, for the most part) supports Gamist play. I've read another thread about how it actually supports Simulated Gamist play (that is, it makes you feel like you are playing gamist, when really its a sim game) call D&D 4e Balance killed my game, or something like that. Either way, It is obviously a gamist reward system at work, both in game and out of game, depending on how the sessions are structured. Some structures end up supporting simulationist play. This is why I think Ron says that systems themselves cannot have a Creative Agenda, but only support it. So, if you want to show me some gamist play, I would suggest a play example using 4th edition. But remember, the dials (taken from Ron's initial Gamism essay) have a certain setting in 4e that is not necessarily the same as other games. So what I would like to re-iterate is that I not only need play examples from different agendas, but from the different agendas and where their focus was. So each of the dial configurations for gamism, what is being explored for simulationism (on the big model), and the types of Narrativism.
As for which types I have already seen, the play example I used (according to Ron, and I think I agree with him) was some deeply Narrativist play, with some setting based premise and some character based premise. The Rifts example appears to me to be gamist play, but I have no idea where the dials were. In short, I still would like all the other blanks filled in.
As for mistaking techniques for agenda, I understand. I know that this thread and its father thread are a lot of reading, so I understand if you didn't read every word and/or only skimmed them. But I have already said that I understand that individual techniques do not create agendas, precisely because the whole instance of play needs to be examined along with the reward cycles. That's what I am trying to do now.
All in all, I am coming more and more online with the idea that agendas are separate animals, but I still don't see why they can't co-exist. With the Rifts game for example, other than the players that didn't enjoy things as they were (the Lt may have been the only one), I see a lot of Step On Up. Every challenge fed into every other challenge after it, increasing or decreasing effectiveness. There was no premise that I could see. But I don't see why there couldn't have been. What I do see is that if premise had been premise, then at the times when it was being addressed, gamist play would be taking a backseat at best. That is, if overall the challenge involves future effectiveness, it feeds into gamist play, if it feeds into more premise, its narrativist play (I don't understand Sim reward at all, so I'm really craving an example!). In this way, it looks to me like the GNS is only good for telling you what is happening overall, even though things seem be overlapping. For example, lets say that in the Rifts game there was a premise, doesn't matter what. And within a given challenge (doesn't matter which) that premise was being addressed, and even the individual actions of the players (such as the choice to use MD weapons or not because of the fallout) helped address the premise as well as determining future effectiveness. In this case, both more premise and more effectiveness can result, but its still not "hybrid" because GNS says it must be one or the other. Therefore it looks at the whole things overall and says that the premise-addressing happened within the effectiveness-ramping challenges. Therefore its Step On Up. Am I mis-understanding how this is working?
Thanks again and Cheers,
--Norm
Callan S.:
Hi Norm,
Take this
http://mindspace.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/youngwomanoldlady.jpg
Did you see an old lady? Or a young lady? Can you mentally switch to see the other?
Can you see both at the same time? Can both co-exist at the same time?
Basically it's hitting the hardware limits of the human mind to try and see both. Perhaps it is possible to train oneself to see both at once without slipping into one over the other. But a default human sees one or the other, not both in co-existance.
Same basically goes for GNS at the game table. Note that just like you can mentally switch from one image to the other, you could do this as a group in terms of creative agenda, at the gaming table during play. It's possible to keep switching creative 'gears' back and forth. But both in co-existance? About as much as seeing both young and old woman at the exact same time.
Or that's how I'd put it, anyway.
contracycle:
Quote from: Ayyavazi on August 22, 2009, 04:28:31 AM
In this case, both more premise and more effectiveness can result, but its still not "hybrid" because GNS says it must be one or the other.
Need to bust this out. This is not an a priori assertion, it is a conclusion[/].
Quote
Therefore it looks at the whole things overall and says that the premise-addressing happened within the effectiveness-ramping challenges. Therefore its Step On Up. Am I mis-understanding how this is working?
Yes. Because the GNS determination is not made on the bases of which techniques were in play, but on what was rewarded.
So in order to make such an assesment, you would need to find out what the players were grooving on, how the interpreted its meaning to them, what they particularly remembered about this event. And it is likely then that it will be either that enjoyed and appreciated the stepping up with the moral issues as set dressing, or vice versa.
And there you find out what was rewarded, both socially and mechanically.
Caldis:
Quote from: Ayyavazi on August 22, 2009, 04:28:31 AM
All in all, I am coming more and more online with the idea that agendas are separate animals, but I still don't see why they can't co-exist. With the Rifts game for example, other than the players that didn't enjoy things as they were (the Lt may have been the only one), I see a lot of Step On Up. Every challenge fed into every other challenge after it, increasing or decreasing effectiveness. There was no premise that I could see. But I don't see why there couldn't have been. What I do see is that if premise had been premise, then at the times when it was being addressed, gamist play would be taking a backseat at best. That is, if overall the challenge involves future effectiveness, it feeds into gamist play, if it feeds into more premise, its narrativist play (I don't understand Sim reward at all, so I'm really craving an example!). In this way, it looks to me like the GNS is only good for telling you what is happening overall, even though things seem be overlapping. For example, lets say that in the Rifts game there was a premise, doesn't matter what. And within a given challenge (doesn't matter which) that premise was being addressed, and even the individual actions of the players (such as the choice to use MD weapons or not because of the fallout) helped address the premise as well as determining future effectiveness. In this case, both more premise and more effectiveness can result, but its still not "hybrid" because GNS says it must be one or the other. Therefore it looks at the whole things overall and says that the premise-addressing happened within the effectiveness-ramping challenges. Therefore its Step On Up. Am I mis-understanding how this is working?
I think you are pretty much getting it. The problem with them coexisting if you look back at the example, how do you think the author and GM would react to someone deciding not to use MD weapons? I'm guessing the same way he did with the Lt. that didnt try and get more equipment, he'd think it's poor play and a mistake. He'd treat it as such and make it that much more likely the group would fail. If the rest of the group is trying to succeed (stepping up to the situation) the player that is making suboptimal decisions to instead address premise is quickly going to be looked down on. It is possible that a player could come up with an moral decision based action that didnt mess with the bigger gamist goal, didnt make it harder to achieve their objective, but it wouldnt be rewarded and influence play. It would happen and then be pretty much ignored which isnt Story Now it's a moment of character development taking place during Step on Up. It's exactly the same as the combat and tactical play going on in your example of Story Now play.
I have an example of a Sim play showing reward cycles but it's from awhile back so I have to think on it a bit. I'll post it as soon as I have the time.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page