GNS - works as description, but I don't buy the prescription
Bloomfield:
First, I really don't know what I am talking about or what I think I'm doing walking into a roleplaying theory discussion. (I won't be hurt if you stop reading now.)
Second, I've been taking in GNS and other aspects of rpg theory, and loving it. But there is one aspect that I am unconvinced of: Ron's GNS prescription for game design. He says (I'm taking this from the appendix of Sorcerer, but it's other places):
Quote
I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks [G, N, S] at once.... One of the biggest problems I observe in RPG systems is that they often try to satisfy all three outlooks at once. the result, sadly, is a guarantee that almost any player will be irritated by some aspect of the system during play.... I suggest that building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks [G, N, or S] is the first priority of RPG design.
It makes sense to me that a system that wants to be everything to everyone is doomed to fail. But that doesn't mean games require purity. In fact, what I am most delighted in right now is the interaction of narrative elements with gamist or simulationist elements.
Third, the actual play part: I remember a moment during a long-running RoleMaster campaign I ran as a teenager. One of the character didn't know her background and was the only one of her species (humanoid with wings, think female Gelfling) and slowly figured out that she was the daughter of a deposed queen. She did find her mother, who lived in exile but just as they met, the mother was assinated - and the character realized that she was walking into a deadly political intrigue. The player wept at the table. After many sessions seeking to find her most tangible link to an unknown past, and losing it again immediately. The moment sticks in my mind because I realized that I had transitioned from "Imagine yourself doing awesome things" to "telling a story together." (RoleMaster didn't enable this, but unlike other systems I've played it didn't get in the way either.) I agree with Ron that system does matter, and I am not trying the point that it all depends just on the players and the GM, anyway. I would have loved a system that supported my narrative agenda (embarrassing as that agenda now seems, looking back). I was building a Hero's Journey story, and in all of our minds game mechanics and the story were unconnected. Interestingly, I came across Ars Magica around that time and tried to switch the character to that system. The campaign fell apart and one of the reasons may have been that the flavor had changed so much. But there is a bit of irony to think that a more narrative system killed my story.
So here is where I am going with this. There are Game Mechanics and Story Mechanics. Game Mechanics are things like how jump a chasm, hit an opponent, convince someone, how much armor you can carry. They are mechanics that are neutral to why you want to do something or how what you're doing relates to a story. Story mechanics on the other hand deal with the story, or narrative arc, explicitly: now this type of scene occurs, and you must narrate it this way. Examples are Character Transcendence in TSOY ("narrate this and retire your character!"), or The Horror Revealed from My Life with Master, all of Penny for My Thoughts, or other rules that tell you what to narrate when (and who narrates).
What makes me happy is a system where Game Mechanics and Story Mechanics are linked. This can be done in a crude way or in an elegant way. A crude way to my mind are explicit narrative modifiers. Sorcerer (since it's sitting on my desk already) has these: A dramatic or appropriate quip while announcing the task: +1 die; Especially stupid move: -2 dice; The announced action moves the plot along significantly: +2 dice; and so on. A more elegant way to link make game mechanics link to the story are Keys in TSOY, or something like FATE points: an element of the story (aspects are rich descriptions of the character, and thus elements of the story the player wants to tell) grants a mechanical bonus or limited narrative control. (The FATE point economy is thus actually a subtle mechanic for narrative control.)
What cuts across here is the distinction between task resolution and conflict resolution. (Vincent Baker's take here, scroll down a bit.) In task resolution, only the task itself is at stake (fail/succeed). In conflict resolution, what's at stake flows from why you are doing a task (win/lose). Conflict resolution is much richer narratively, because every "why" ties into the character's motivations, hopes, fears. Why not think about right mixture of narrative elements and Gamist or Simulationists elements in terms of a 2x2 chart (which really represents a continuum on each axis, of course):
I put in couple of arrows to show the movement that is exciting to me right now. I am not interested in games that just provide game mechanics for resolving tasks. But there are two ways of moving: move resolution from tasks to conflicts (I see frequent advice only to call for rolls "when it matters," or "when failure is clearly defined"). The other movement is from Game Mechanics to Story Mechanics, which happens when you introduce fate points, and role-playing modifiers. Think Donjon, where task resolution results in narrative control. Once you get to the bottom right, you find games like Houses of the Blooded, where conflict resolution replaces task resolution and the wager mechanic determines not success/failure, but narrative control. If I understand them correctly a lot of story games these days try to get as close to the bottom right hand corner as possible, providing Story Mechanics only for conflict resolution only. So you'd have rules about framing the scene, or establishing the conflict, followed by shifts in narrative control, "Player A gets to narrate," etc.
To tie it back to the point about GNS: Maybe I have already been replaced by the Narrative body snatchers and don't realize how far away I am in my thinking from Gamist/Simulationist approaches. Here is where I'm at: The cool thing about good RPG systems is the way narrative elements or dynamics are captures in mechanics and how the resolution of risk or uncertainty is made relevant a narratively meaningful conflict. The coolest thing about good RPG systems happens when those mechanics feel a bit gamist (the reward system aligns with roleplaying incentives) and a bit simulationist (a drop in sanity/humanity feels real; mechanics do more than state who talks in what order under what constraints). In other words, I don't think I want G, N, or S purity.
Caldis:
I'm not sure you have GNS down all that well which makes it hard to discussion your proposition. Your play example sounds interesting but it doesnt really give us enough information about the interactions of the people at the table. I'm going to quote the example mostly for my own reference and then ask a few questions afterward.
Quote from: Bloomfield on November 02, 2010, 10:34:19 AM
Third, the actual play part: I remember a moment during a long-running RoleMaster campaign I ran as a teenager. One of the character didn't know her background and was the only one of her species (humanoid with wings, think female Gelfling) and slowly figured out that she was the daughter of a deposed queen. She did find her mother, who lived in exile but just as they met, the mother was assinated - and the character realized that she was walking into a deadly political intrigue. The player wept at the table. After many sessions seeking to find her most tangible link to an unknown past, and losing it again immediately. The moment sticks in my mind because I realized that I had transitioned from "Imagine yourself doing awesome things" to "telling a story together." (RoleMaster didn't enable this, but unlike other systems I've played it didn't get in the way either.) I agree with Ron that system does matter, and I am not trying the point that it all depends just on the players and the GM, anyway. I would have loved a system that supported my narrative agenda (embarrassing as that agenda now seems, looking back). I was building a Hero's Journey story, and in all of our minds game mechanics and the story were unconnected. Interestingly, I came across Ars Magica around that time and tried to switch the character to that system. The campaign fell apart and one of the reasons may have been that the flavor had changed so much. But there is a bit of irony to think that a more narrative system killed my story.
First question about moving from "doing awesome things" to "telling a story together", what choices did the player make that was part of telling the story? Was there anything she could have done that would actually change the story or was it more her actions revealing the story you had created for her? Is she really part of telling the story or is she just "doing awesome things" inside the story you are telling?
If you have any more to say about what happened when you switched systems I'd be interested. You say the flavor changed but what was happening in the fiction at the time? How was the story progressing and how were the players involved in the progression of the story?
As for your last comment about mechanics it hints that you are looking to small scale when considering GNS. A moment of challenge in a game doesnt equate with a Gamist agenda, likewise events in play feeling real dont equate to a Sim agenda.
Moreno R.:
Hi Bloomfield!
As Caldis already said, Creative Agenda is not about a single decision or moment of play, but is seen in the entire run of a game (an "Instance of play"). This is one of the many differences between GDS (the threefold model of old) and GNS and the Big Model, and it's difference that trip a lot of people up (in many forum discussions people talk about "rpg theory" switching continuously between GDS and GNS and propagate this confusion)
So, nothing forbid a gamist game from having parts that address a premise, or from having something that that the player has to solve or fight using his strategic ability, in a Narrativist game (I am using "game" here as "the activity we do when we play", not the book or the box). GNS is never, ever, about the "presence" or "absence" of elements, because every rpg game has ALL these elements, in the course of play.
GNS is about PRIORITY. Usually,the problems the player has to solve with his (or her) own strategic mind is not something that lessen his ability to address premise. But what you do, when during the game a situation arise where they do? What is "good play" and "bad play" in your group for that game?
If the game is clear about this, this choice should not be problematic (for example, dogs in the vineyard is not about "winning" the conflicts, even if the player usually try to win them: addressing the premise is much more important, to the point that when you play DitV is accepted that you can, and should, lose conflict that you could win if you played "only to win". This is "good play" in DitV, the game book is very explicit about that. If you play DitV to win every single conflict without caring about the fictional situation and the premise it presents, you are playing "wrong" and the game book is not timid in saying you that)
But if the game book is not cleat, there are only two other alternatives: 1) the ENTIRE gaming group is "on the same page" about the way to play, so that they have a really good idea about what is "good play" and what is "bad play", and they can play without problems as in the DitV example above (but they are actually using rules of behavior that aren't in the book, rules they had to come up of their own, and it's not always simple or immediate) , or 2) they aren't. So you have cases like the classic one where a character lose a conflict because of something he wanted to say with his/her character (even just "it's not right to attack people from behind, even if they are the villains") and the other players look at him like he was stupid or something like that, because in their mind "playing well" means "playing to win", and he has played very badly in their eyes. (and usually after a while they throw out from the group enough people to get to the situation (1) above, thinking that every other player in the world apart them is a bad player)
How can you play a game where you don't even know WHAT YOU SHOULD DO in these situations? When the rules don't even tell you if the objective of the game is to kill every other character in play or to create a story that means something to you? (Think about teaching chess to people without telling them that they should try to checkmate the other player's king, and then looking at them while they move their pieces in various directions without knowing what to do, then say to them "a good GM - <Game of Chess Master> - would know what to do, and would force other players to play in that way" and you have a good example of what role-playing has become in the Land of Incoherent RPGs)
"Writing coherent RPGs" is simply that: writing a game where is clear that the objective is checkmate the other player's king, and not a game that don't even tell you how to play.
Bloomfield:
Thanks for the response. I think you're right that I don't have GNS quite down, and like any newbie I am floundering around, trying to tell lack of comprehension from disagreement.
Quote from: Caldis on November 02, 2010, 11:35:02 AM
First question about moving from "doing awesome things" to "telling a story together", what choices did the player make that was part of telling the story? Was there anything she could have done that would actually change the story or was it more her actions revealing the story you had created for her? Is she really part of telling the story or is she just "doing awesome things" inside the story you are telling?
If you have any more to say about what happened when you switched systems I'd be interested. You say the flavor changed but what was happening in the fiction at the time? How was the story progressing and how were the players involved in the progression of the story?
There wasn't anything built into the system or rules that gave players narrative control, other than character creation and making choices during game play. But there was a strong sense that play was about the character's story, and that we were telling the story together; but you have the right hunch: mechanically she was just revealing a story (apart from character creation which was collaborative). So that's part of what fascinates me because we neither had a narrativist agenda (the term hadn't been coined back then), nor did we throw out game mechanics in order to get there. The moment may not be that theoretically significant, but it was personally significant as at that point I became fully aware that we were telling stories together. When I started out role playing I just wanted to be able to imagine myself in awesome and dangerous situations; elements of stories weren't required, like story arcs, character development, conflict revealed and sharpened, catharsis, or any of that.
Quote
As for your last comment about mechanics it hints that you are looking to small scale when considering GNS. A moment of challenge in a game doesnt equate with a Gamist agenda, likewise events in play feeling real dont equate to a Sim agenda.
Helpful. I think what I want to grasp is the point of transformation: from agenda to game mechanics. Mechanics aren't neutral, people seem to agree on that, and hence agenda is revealed in mechanics. How much Sim bias to mechanics will poison a Narrativist agenda.
Ar Kayon:
It seems like no one ever seems to "get" Ron's theory. I blame the articles' poor use of language: too esoteric and too convoluted. If there are a thousand people who have read them, then there are three thousand interpretations.
I propose a new design theory:
Step 1: Post your work on the first thoughts forum.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page