GNS and Hierarchy
Adam Dray:
Here's the thing. I don't know the agenda of this game myself. I am trying to get people to lean towards Simmy stuff. It's a bit drifted D&D with a VERY strong Setting and Situation (in 1605, Oxford, England, gets sucked into the D&D world where jungles clog its streets and monsters eat most of its citizens; a few special citizens gain D&D races and classes and all those powers) and strong Character (who were you before the metrocalypse event? how are you reacting to the transformations you are going through?). Right there, that suggests Sim but the 4E rules reallyreallyreally want Gamist play.
Daniel enjoys the tactical combat aspects of 4E and was pushing for that stuff. The rest of the group -- especially Jody -- are really grooving on the setting+character=situation aspects. We've talked about approaching tactical combat stuff from actor stance. That is, best tactics your character can manage, not the best tactics your player can manage. Does actor stance vs. author stance make or break a creative agenda? I don't think so.
Only time will tell. We need to get through some adventures and see where the real rewards come from. Maybe drifting 4E this way will result in a horribly incoherent game. The players are having tons of fun, so I suspect it's coherent. I think they're getting their rewards from exploration of the world, but it could turn out that the real meat of the reward for them is how their character changes and transforms. That'd be more of a Narrativist CA, right?
Ayyavazi:
Thats good to know Adam. I would be happy to work with your play examples, especially since they would be much more recent than my own.
As for how I look at agenda, I am not the one to be asking about that. Just when I think I understand it, I get told that what I think isn't accurate for a host of reasons. I am still learning about GNS, and have a lot of ideas that rub folks the wrong way, mostly because the ideas seem to stem from my inaccurate knowledge. That said, I can answer some of your questions.
I think you have the idea right about which player wants what and what Narrativism would be, in broad strokes. The thing is, 4th edition is only good for a handful of play styles without some kind of revision.
Here's the deal. The primary reward mechanisms in 4th ed are Exp (arguable as a pacing mechanism, but a reward from player standpoint) and treasure. Both work back into character effectiveness. So, characters are good at fighting monsters, and they acquire more abilities and stuff that make them even better at fighting monsters. They get this stuff from...fighting monsters. Looking at the Exp especially, it takes about ten average encounters to level up. A big quest reward, according to the designers, is equivalent to only ONE of those encounters. which means either ten big quests (thats months of investment) or ten monster encounters (two and a half weeks for the average group). Treasure is easy. If you want to encourage a type of play, make the rewards fit the bill. So for simulationism, Award bonus experience to the tune of half an encounters worth or a full ones for playing in character even when it means choosing tactically sub-par options and getting hurt. Offer treasure more for exploration rather than as stuff the monsters were carrying.
Of course, awarding experience this way means that when the character levels up they need to have something that feeds into something they care about. If you are putting a lot of effort into rewarding sim play, they may not care how many levels they gain, since all that does is make them better at fighting, something only one player seems to crave. It would have to make them better at exploring (arguably fighting fits the bill, since it helps them survive monster encounters, but thats not all they are looking for). So, perhaps making the skills significantly more important (more skill challenges than encounters) and giving more skill bonuses at level up (say +1 to two skills every level, beyond the normal bonuses) would help. All of this helps to reinforce playing the character as the character, which can spill over into character development if they want it too, though the only reward they will get will be their own enjoyment.
Keeping the player who wants fights happy means giving them fights. Try giving him one-on-ones occasionally, which 4th ed does fairly well sometimes. This way he can hold off the monster while the party goes exploring (or running).
But all this GM advice still shows my whole hierarchy point of view. You want Sim at the top. From there, Gamism should probably be the next priority, since all the players seem to like tactical combat, within the limits of what makes sense for their character. Then, character development and premise can occur. Others might ask for more details on the play example, which I think would make a great Actual Play thread. There you could get a lot more theory out of it. Perhaps two threads functioning off of the same play example, one that explores my hierarchy idea (which is probably not new) and one to help you understand agenda. Though now I am probably being too selfish and should give an example of my own, huh?
Thanks again, and cheers!
--Norm
Adam Dray:
You'll also find a lot of conflicting information about GNS for a host of reasons. The articles aren't authoritative or up to date about every little detail. People misrepresent stuff about GNS here and other places. It's a tough thing to get your brain around. The best way is to post your own actual play and talk it over with some people, especially Ron or Vincent or one of the other folks who were around for lots of the discussions.
My questions are not for my own sake. They're for yours. I thought any AP example would aid this discussion and I happened to have a useful one at the ready. I have a decent grasp on creative agenda and the Big Model.
Regarding my play, consider that we are double the number of XP awarded, making use of skill challenges for non-combat fun (and XP), and leveling up ever character at the same rate (even if the player did not show up). If this campaign turns out to have a Narrativist focus, I would expect the D&D reward system to supply a means of character change as a reward. Not just getting stronger, but allowing the player new avenues to showcase the transformation. But that could be true of a Gamist campaign and a Sim campaign, too, right? So this technique/reward system isn't a "tell" for creative agenda on its own.
When you start talking about hierarchy, you're talking about primacy. Something ends up on top as the primary reason for play. That's all we're saying Creative Agenda is. Maybe you're saying something really similar to what we are?
Now to show that a secondary reason for play even makes sense, you need to figure out if G and N and S are so different /as creative priorities/ that they cannot coexist in any meaningful way.
Like Ron's analogy, eating the pig is not compatible with petting and loving the pig. You can come up with theoretical situations where pig lovers are petting and loving the pig, then eat it, but they're kind of ridiculous situations, right? That's why we need actual play--to keep this from being a discussion about ridiculous possibilities that never happen.
Ayyavazi:
I do so hate analogies, because people can get caught up in them and argue them just for the sake of breaking them. But the funny thing is, there is an elegant answer to the pig dilemma as it is commonly put.
Tribal culture often venerates the animals they eat. So, we have loving the pig and eating the pig. Domesticating it is pretty common for our culture, so you have petting the pig and eating the pig, sometimes even loving the pig. Whats so unrealistic about it? It only becomes weird when all three aspects are set to 11 and attempted at the same time. Essentially, in their full-fledged form, no agenda is compatible with another, because of the way it is structured. But at lower levels, it all works just fine. Native americans can love, eat, and pet pigs all they want.
What I am saying is that hybrids can exist, but they can't if people insist on being purists only, which makes sense. So hardcore gamists won't enjoy narrative-gamist hybrids, but thats fine, because the point of play for the hybrid is different than the point of play for gamism.
Cheers, and I hope to post more soon. Thoughts welcome!
--Norm
Alan:
Ayyavazi, can I ask that you start using the current terms for the creative agendas? These are "the right to dream," "step on up," and "story now." You'll find they hit the meaning of creative agenda much better than the GNS terms.
Quote from: Ayyavazi on August 11, 2009, 10:18:52 AM
Domesticating it is pretty common for our culture, so you have petting the pig and eating the pig, sometimes even loving the pig. Whats so unrealistic about it? It only becomes weird when all three aspects are set to 11 and attempted at the same time.
Here you have just stated the defining point of creative agenda. CA is not monolithic or exclusive, it includes all activities necessary to roleplaying. It is defined, however, by which choice dominates play. Ie, if we're going to eat the pig, the other elements take a back seat overall or else people get upset. Just as the goal of raising a pig to eat it means that it's not wise to pet it and play with it too often, so a particular CA means that we invest less in some techniques.
But just because you see someone treating the pig like a pet does not mean that's their final purpose. You can't tell the goal from an isolated event. You have to observe a period of time to see the frequency and importance of particular elements.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page