GNS - works as description, but I don't buy the prescription
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Bloomfield,
Quote from: Bloomfield on November 02, 2010, 10:34:19 AM
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.
There's a classic mixup that happening here.
When we talk about Creative Agenda, we talk about the overarching experience of play, and, what the group playing prioritizes above the others. That is, if things came into conflict ("Is realism more important, or the story choices? Hmm.") which wins out when you're actually playing. This puts it higher than any individual mechanic and at the point of how the mechanics work together (and, which ones the group actually applies).
A good example is Burning Wheel - very crunchy game, very detailed mechanics that enforce a strong "realism" in it's own way. It has a lot of tactical stuff in combat. But the core reward system and way of setting up and running the game is all Narrativist.
Now, you can enjoy stuff like tactical bits, realistic rules, etc. without it changing the CA - it comes down to which one takes top precedence in shaping play.
Two terms which come to mind are: Versimilitude and Technical Agenda. The first refers to a game giving a consistent quality of it's fictional world/experience, and the second refers to what you enjoy having in your mechanics of your game ("I hate dice pools" for example).
Chris
Bloomfield:
Quote from: Moreno R. on November 02, 2010, 12:34:42 PM
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?
Thanks - I think I do confuse GDS and GNS in my mind (or did, until just now). I'll need to mull over this a bit, but I can grasp priority as you describe - what I can't quite see is how purity in game design (as in a clear choice between G, N, and S) is necessary or desirable. And the two things I am confused about seem connected. Because if design agenda is revealed in mechanics (clearly there is a difference between "you gain an XP" and "you may narrate your success"), then the incentives created by mechanics affect the table's ability to engage in "good play" or "bad play." Seems to follow that if you have a narrative agenda, you would want to minimize mechanics that set G or S incentives - which doesn't sound right as a conclusion to me (as I tried to explain with my clumsy distinction between game mechanics and story mechanics).
I find that I care about this issue quite a bit because at the core of my fascination with role playing is the transformation of an effect or dynamic in the world or the mind into a mechanic. And by mechanic I mean something that both enables, restrains, and incentivises in-play choice through some formal means (a rule, a dice roll, a Jenga tower). How cool is it enable and propel descent into insanity through a Humanity score in Socrerer or the Madness Meter in Nemesis? If GNS really refers to only the level of agenda, can it have anything to say about the way this transformation takes place? There is a difference between "the orc takes 10HP," and "tell us what happens to the orc and what it mean to your character's goals." I like your DtiV example, because it shows a tension, or perhaps an impurity in design (mind that I am not convinced that purity in design is desirable).
Bloomfield:
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on November 02, 2010, 02:40:12 PM
Now, you can enjoy stuff like tactical bits, realistic rules, etc. without it changing the CA - it comes down to which one takes top precedence in shaping play.
Two terms which come to mind are: Versimilitude and Technical Agenda. The first refers to a game giving a consistent quality of it's fictional world/experience, and the second refers to what you enjoy having in your mechanics of your game ("I hate dice pools" for example).
Makes sense. But it does feel like reducing Creative Agenda and GNS to terms of literary criticism rather than useful guides for game design.
Chris_Chinn:
Quote
But it does feel like reducing Creative Agenda and GNS to terms of literary criticism rather than useful guides for game design.
This graphic might be useful:
http://www.shrikedesign.com/bigmodel.gif
When you have functional play, all those circles work together based on "lining up" with the Creative Agenda. Design-wise, you're giving people instructions on how to line those things up and keep them in alignment while playing.
Creative Agenda serves as an overarching guide, that helps you shape all the parts towards fulfilling it in working play.
An interesting consideration is that if you've successfully done your job as a designer? Any group picking up your game should be able to follow the instructions and reliably get a consistent Creative Agenda experience, without having to know or consider the theory behind it.
So if you mean "Literary theory" in the sense that "Writers should know this to make good stories for readers who shouldn't have to know it", you're absolutely correct.
Chris
Bloomfield:
Honestly, I meant literary criticism as in self-referential with little or no practical application for authors. :)
I am not sure I buy (or understand) the point about GNS being creative agenda only but doesn't require the absence or presence of certain elements (mechanics are elements, right?). There are big differences between mechanics in how explicitly the affect construction of the story. Does assigning narrative rights ever make sense if the agenda is G or S?
To put it provocatively, I am beginning to think that N is the only possible creative agenda for rpgs. S is appropriate for war games. G is for board/card games (marked by indifference to high levels of abstraction). S or G can't make good role playing games, because games with either CA can't help but be a war game or a board/card game disguised as rpgs. (Perhaps The Forge is the wrong place to ask that question.)
Thanks for helping me understand this issue, coming late to the discussion.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page