Ruminations on the Impossible Dream Before Breakfast
contracycle:
I'm not necessarily averse to an argument for a fourth agenda; there is no inherent reason that there should be only 3. But to make this case there would have to be a strong argument from observation and AP examples that illustrate the claim. But to clarify this I'm not sure that disucssing my examples is going to be of much use to you.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on the Vamp example again. I didn't achieve any success; none of the people on my missing list could be traced through neighbouring cities. I got a null answer, which was perhaps uself in that it ruled out certain possibilities, but the point at hand was that it was NOT the immediate in-game results that counted, it was the deeper understanding of the political structure at work in the Camarillla; and which, as I already mentioned, applied not just to me but to everyone who was present, and which would potentially inform all subsequent handling of the same topic in other games. And in fact, part of the point was also this: that WoD themselves had written the role of the prince from the perspective of the lesser orders, and had missed a salient element of the problems that actually face a prince.
So I can't really agree that this example is indicative of another agenda. What, I think, muddies all this is that of all the GNS agendas, Sim is the least understood, or at the very least, that which has the least unambiguous language and terminology with which to discuss it. Just as in this thread we've been through story, and freedom and control, and exploration, without coming to any sort of clear insight. We can pretty confidently say how you go about setting up a game for Narr, and for Gam, but what precisely is good setup for sim? You can determine when a game ends for Narr - when the story climaxes, and for Gam - when the challenge is overcome or failed. What is the end condition for Sim?
Thus the problem of trying to split a new agenda out of Sim is that its hard enough as it is to get a clear grip on the Sim agenda in practice, let alone trying tease out a second agenda from which Sim is distinct. If we can't frame sim-in-play tightly, how do we know where this potential new thing is different from it? Even if, for example, it were taken as read that Illusionism is valid and viable, how do we resolve the inherent contradictions between the illusion of freedom and the practical application of concealed force? The techniques by which this has been done, and we all agree that it has, still languish in the experiences and habits of individual GM's, without any broader principles or methodologies which can either be discussed or around which actual games can be built. We're still in bolt-of-inspiration territory.
So from my perspective, if there is this Fun Thing which you identify as occurring in games would have been classified as Illusionist sim, it may well be the case that this observation is more usefully employed for firming up sim itself than to be proposed as something distinct from it. Whichever way that pans out, it seems to me more important and productive to concentrate on identifying exactly what you mean than it is to propose ways in which it differs.
Motipha:
Just putting in my own two cents regarding the Vampire City example. Daniel, it seems like you're saying "Because there was a challenge which was faced and the player garnered satisfactoin from facing that challenge this is an example of Step on Up creative agenda." To me that seems incorrect, because it seems to suggest what Contra did trumps why he did it.
I'm going to infer/assume a lot in the following. My apologies for anything that is way off.
Think of it this way. The GM was playing in a very Right to Dream way with Contra, answering questions in a way that reinforced the game. They were on the same page of what fun play should be. But what if the GM was playing Step on up, and treated this like a Step on Up conflict? In that case, the way to play the interaction is to challenge the player. "You want to find out that information? Cool, you need to do these things, roll these social rolls, and if you can overcome the difficulty then you get the information you want." To which I would assume Contra's response would have been "What? That's ridiculous. All I want is the answer to a simple question from people who have no reason to balk at answering. Why is this happening?"
That to me is at the heart of Creative agenda. The same action might be taken, the very same roll might be made, but the "why are you rolling" can be completely different and THAT defines creative agenda not only of the player, but as the group as a whole. Just facing a conflict and overcoming adversity isn't necessarily Step on UP. Perhaps I'm reading too much in to this.
Roger:
Hi Daniel,
I believe what you're describing is, in fact, a particular flavour of Simulationism (or Right to Dream) although it's one we might not see all that often.
It's only fair that I make it clear what I'm talking about when I say "what you're describing"; specifically what I mean is:
- Your experiences with Banjo Kazooie, specifically, "Pretty much the central core of the game is that you learn about and practice a specific set of skills available to your bear & bird. By beating each level, you prove to yourself that you have mastered that particular skill set." And also "It combines the elements in a relatively unique combination to allow the player to learn the moves and grow with the characters, feeling the same sense of achievement that the characters themselves might feel if they weren't fictional. The emotions you feel when Grunty finally gets knocked off the tower .. it's like a tonic!"
- Your general sense of agreement with Adam Dray's experience: "At the end of an evening of play, I want a personal story that is about me, not just about my character. After a night of playing D&D 4E, I want to talk about how my sorcerer pwned the dragon -- but that story is really about how I built a kick-ass character and played him effectively"
- Your self-described primary purpose for play: "Like most people, I play just to play. The settings and boss-fights and colour are all interesting, but if it lacked good gameplay, it would fail at its intended purpose. Looking for "good gameplay" is too vague, and not at all helpful. "
Since this has become such a definition-based discussion, I'm going to just paste from the canon article:
"Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color]; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration."
(Tangentially, the term Illusionism has also come up; I think the clearest definition comes from Chapter 5 of GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory:
"[...] the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the players contribute only to characterization. This is called illusionism, in which the players are unaware of or complicit with the extent to which they are manipulated. Illusionism is not necessarily dysfunctional, and if Character or Situation Exploration is the priority, then it can be a lot of fun."
Tangent over.)
To further expand on Simulationism:
"Different types of Simulationist play can address very different things, ranging from a focus on characters' most deep-psychology processes, to a focus on the kinetic impact and physiological effects of weapons, to a focus on economic trends and politics, and more."
And even more:
"Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, *cause* is the key, the imagined cosmos in action."
(What I want to point out here is the three examples that the author chose to use.)
And, finally:
"A lot of people have trouble with the notion of "Exploring System.""
And now, with all groundwork layed, it is my opinion that you are describing the recognized Creative Agenda of Simulationism in the specific recognized (if only barely) flavour of System exploration.
I feel like that's quite a bit to lay on you all at once, so I think I'll stop here for now. I'll do my best to clarify anything I may have mangled in all the cutting and pasting.
Cheers,
Roger
Caldis:
Quote from: Roger on September 27, 2010, 03:20:38 PM
- Your experiences with Banjo Kazooie, specifically, "Pretty much the central core of the game is that you learn about and practice a specific set of skills available to your bear & bird. By beating each level, you prove to yourself that you have mastered that particular skill set." And also "It combines the elements in a relatively unique combination to allow the player to learn the moves and grow with the characters, feeling the same sense of achievement that the characters themselves might feel if they weren't fictional. The emotions you feel when Grunty finally gets knocked off the tower .. it's like a tonic!"
This is the problem with looking to another medium and trying to match it to GNS cause from my perspective that description is sounding very much step on up. Having to prove you have the skill to complete a level, esepcially when it's player skill and not character skill, that's the definition of gamism. Mario on N64 is much the same, it may not be hard but you do need to prove your skill in being able to defeat the levels to move forward in the game. When it comes to a group at a table it will be entirely dependant on how the gm allows the game to progress and the willingness of the players to approach the game on the same level.
I think what you are looking for is a set of techniques that focus on being in character and feeling what the character feels with a slow build that leads to challenges. You could do this with old school d&d however the challenges tended to be more immediate.
Adam Dray:
I still think that dragging GNS into discussions of porting the Banjo Kazooie experience to tabletop gaming is pretty perilous. It's pretty bizarre to talk about creative agenda regarding a solo computer RPG, where there's no one to share an agenda with (can you meaningfully share anything with the game designers? I think that's a pretty interesting question, actually).
And trying to pin down Roger's creative agenda preference is fraught with danger, too. As I said earlier and what Caldis says above, this is most likely about techniques.
Daniel, as a point of order, can you remind us what you're trying to get out of this thread? It's morphed and drifted and stuff, and I want to make sure we're engaging your points and not heading off onto our own theory tangents. I know I have that tendency.
Let me go back to your original post and try to address some things. Leading in to your talk about The Impossible Thing, you talk about how the allure of tabletop gaming is that "you can do absolutely anything!" I don't think that's true in any game. There are always constraints of some kind, imposed by the game design, by the other players (including GM), and by yourself. And the participants look to creative agenda (usually without thinking about it as such) to determine what constraints to apply. Just as the Right to Dream (Sim) can be described as "constructive denial," there's a similar process that happens within the context of Story Now (Nar) and Step On Up (Gam) where the participants constrain their choices to further the group's shared sense of correct play. But my point is, it's not true that you have "complete and utter control over your character" in any of these games.
It is certainly true that one has fewer artificial constraints in a tabletop game. Computer games are software, ruled by rigid computer programs that cannot think creatively like a human being. They have a far smaller knowledge domain from which to build reactions. Often, the inputs are extremely limited (a finite command set). Having human beings to react to your input opens the door very wide.
I think, when you played Banjo Kazooie, you enjoyed a set of experiences. Let's not call it illusionism or simulationism or anything like that. You enjoyed the game's reward system, which is a carefully tailored operant conditioning system (i.e. a Skinner box). Good games are good at making you salivate as you learn to ring the bell and get a treat. Though I have not played it, I assume that Banjo Kazooie couples this positive reinforcement (skill gains, etc.) with negative reinforcement (losing the game and having to start over if you fail badly enough). Additionally, it employs a strong "skill ladder" technique, which years of MUD and MMORPG development have shown to be a powerful psychological tool to get players to keep playing. You start out weak, master a skill as a character and as a player, and then you get a new skill to master. Repeat until your character is very strong, and then you fight the boss. This play experience was designed to be fun and addictive. It's no surprise you enjoyed it so much!
But none of that has the least bit to do with creative agenda or illusionism or The Impossible Thing. Not at all. So all of that talk is just muddying this discussion.
If the meat of your post is to talk about your idea you call "reverse illusionism," which some other people call "flags" and what I'd call "player-driven situation," then realize that this idea has been employed to great effect in games already. Some of those games are very much NOT simulationist games.
Look at Sorcerer, for example. A player authors a Kicker as part of character creation. The Kicker is a compelling situation the character finds himself in at the beginning of play, a situation which has no clearly "correct" resolution. Finding out what the player will do is what makes the Kicker interesting. Thus the player gets to author her story from the get-go, telling the GM "this is what I want play to be about" (and the GM is compelled to make play about that Kicker). When the player resolves her Kicker, she writes another, thus keeping the cycle of player-authored story turning.
Look at Burning Wheel. A player authors Beliefs and Instincts and chooses Traits. These not only tell the GM what the player cares about, but also form the heart of the character advancement system (for these earn special "artha" points that are necessary to earn extra dice on the very difficult skill checks that are required to advance a skill to the next level).
Am I taking your original post in the direction you wanted to go with it?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page