Okay, Ron's article on FLN got me thinking about narrativist games in particular. I find some of them great, and others I just find myself wondering how they can be called games at all. I also find myself looking at concepts, stuff that can be applied to any game, and I see them as concepts, when other people may be describing them as rules.
As an example, Over the Edge and The Whispering Vault, I have them both and I really like them. I've not played them, but I like them. I understand them as games, and while they leave out a lot of simulationist elements (they don't try to simulate a real or fantastical world and therefore limit player creativity) they do have rules.
I also like Sorcerer, again not played it (or paid for it for that matter – shit!), and I see the rules and it's all cool. A lot of the stuff in Sorcerer is not what I would consider rules though? Kickers, Bangs, Relationship maps – surely they are tools you could bang onto any game? No matter what the type? I'd not call them rules, but then may be no one is.
Then we have Inspectres. Great idea, I'll be tempted by the next version (is it a proper book a pdf file?), but it has virtually zero rules – you might as well sit around a table and just make it all up. Now, I have no problem with this, but what I don't understand is the trickle of rules that do exist. Then you have Inspectre's greatest strength, the Cops like confessionals, great idea, but again, it's an idea not really a rule. You could use that for character development in any game.
So what am I saying, not sure, it's all a bit muddled in my head, but I suppose I am saying I understand narrativism, indeed, been doing it for years (well, 80% there and moving onward every campaign) but I don't get the narrativist systems – they seem do innovative just because they dump simulationist elements. This is good, but I fail to understand (and may be my examples are bad) how the systems are innovative, some of the written ideas, yes, but that ain't system. Is it?
Ian--
I read your query about InSpectres over on FLN, & Ron's response. I agree with him--InSpectres very definitely has rules. I mean, they're right there in the game. Roll the dice. Figure out what happens. Are there specific rules for combat? Nope. But there are definitely rules for how the game works. The whole "monologue" system is a rule (& a really cool one at that). I've played InSpectres & I can attest to the presence of rules.
Beyond that, I'd say all games have rules--that's what makes them games. The rules may be mechanics for determining event resolution, like rolling for a fight or a debate or a seduction. The rules may be to generate conflict, like the Kicker in Sorcerer. The rules may be a more general "social contract"--"sitting around & making stuff up" still has to abide by certain restriction & systems, to ensure that everyone is enjoying themselves. It seems to me you're limiting "rules" to "ways to determine outcomes". But if you look at any RPG, there are all sorts of rules that don't have anything to do with that. Alignment in D&D. The way experience works in Amber. Character generation in Castle Falkenstein (which includes all sorts of non-outcome-deciding things, like creating a Nemesis & decided what your character's Goals & Passions are). Those are all parts of the game, they're all rules.
[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-12-17 22:39 ]
Mmmmm. True, I may be limiting my definition of what a rule is.
Your point about alignment is a case in point, but even that reads more like a rule - as in it is meant to provide a structure for balance - in essence it is a restriction, part of the game.
Surely though a lot of these games a blurring the line between what normally constitutes a rule and what would normally constitute a guideline for play (it's not a rule, just a suggestion that using flashbacks might be a good storytelling tool - for instance).
Or I'm talking shite.
What rules came into play on your Inspectres game? How did they influence the game?
_________________
Ian O'Rourke
www.fandomlife.netThe e-zine of SciFi media and Fandom Culture.
[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-12-17 11:42 ]
Hi Ian,
You seem to be confounding the notion of "rules" with something that I think of as a small sub-set of rules.
Let's take RuneQuest: Ugly Pig Bob and Bethany are facing off with their weapons, and they announce their actions; Strike Ranks are determined and one gets the shot in first. Roll to hit. Roll to parry. Roll hit location. Roll damage. Subtract armor from damage. Compare damage to body part hit points; apply damage to total hit points. Check for impale.
These are rules, yes? My claim is that they are SOME of the rules for RuneQuest. Most of the rules in this game resemble them, especially in terms of resolving actions.
Now let's take a look at The Pool, which is the game in question in my essay.
Ugly Pig Bob and Bethany are facing off, and the first order of business is the player's goal, which is, say, "Bethany punctures his stinking heart." Bethany's player has 3 dice to roll automatically (1 for free, 1 for her Daddy's Sword, and 1 for her Brave). The player decides to allot 2 more dice from Bethany's Pool, for a total of 5. Roll five dice, get a 1 to succeed.
With success, Bethany's player may choose to create circumstances of victory that affect the developing plot - say, the effect of the victory on onlookers, or the character's position relative to someone to rescue, or any number of other things.
Simulationist elements of play are absent, granted. But I think you do The Pool a mighty injustice by saying that that is ALL that is different. Indeed not. The Pool provides strict instructions about how the player may utilize a resource to alter the chances regarding the outcome, as well as about what the outcome means in the bigger picture. These are rules too.
Take The Window, which represents the ultimate in "strip it down" design. It is distinguished by that Simulationist-lack, but by nothing else except verbal admonitions to prioritize "the story." It provides no structure besides that of GM-fiat for the ritualized sequence of interactions that makes story. The Pool, Ghost Light, InSpectres, Wyrd, Soap, and others all do provide that structure, and it ain't some hand-waving, "Um, work it out 'cause we all like story here," but hard and fast rules that are followed to the letter.
Best,
Ron
Yep, sounds like a POV thing to me.
Your argument seems to be that only a system that delivers a Simulative result is a system. This is yet another in a long series of people lately challenging a term or it's use. Call it methodology or scrumnabulate if you prefer. They are still ways to have fun playing RPGS that are inumerated in writing and presented as directions, whatever you call them. I'll stick to the term system for ease.
I think that it's interesting that you write, "they don't try to simulate a real or fantastical world and therefore limit player creativity." How's that so? Because the game doesn't tell me where I hit my opponent, and I have to decide myself, that limits creativity? I'd say that rather it enforces creativity. Often by the sorts of rules I cite above. The InSpectres confessional mechanic adds a descriptor to a character which then makes them potentially more effective in a situation by giving them another die to roll. That's a pretty hard mechanic, IMO.
I prefer Simulationism over Narrativism by a slight margin. But not because there are no "rules" to Narrativist games, or because of any lack of ability to be creative in them. Rather those are two things I like about most Narrativist games. I wouldn't have put a whole messa hours into investigating The Pool's pool mechanic if I didn't think that it was an interesting set of rules.
In fact I'd go as far as to define Narrativists as those folks who want to do Collaborative Fiction, but want a system of rules that go beyond the standard social contract that says, "thou shalt make a good narative" to make it work better as they see it.
Just my POV.
Mike
Hello,
I thought I'd throw my two cents in here. I really didn't get the Narrativist System thing either until I read Story Engine. Story Engine explained it all in a way that totally blew my mind. Story Engine has a whole lot of rules that when applied properly have an INCREDIBLE impact on play.
Here's the key innovation. Story Engine resolves EVERYTHING at the scene level. That is, if there's a fight scene, the players roll ONE gigantic die pool vs the enemy's ONE gigantic die pool. Level of success is determined. Seductions, Court Scenes, Car Chases, they're all handeled in one, very well defined, uniform way.
Now, more importantly the effect on actual play is startling. They very nature of the system shifts the focus as to what's important in the scene. Suddenly, you're no longer thinking about the HOW in the scene because the how is so uniform and simple. To make the game work and get any enjoyment out of it at all you find that you must think about the *WHY*. Why is there a conflict here? Why is resolving it one way or the other important?
Trust me, when you run a game with Story Engine you suddenly realize how 'padded' your other games have been. If you're not rolling the dice then you begin to seriously feel the lack of conflict. If all you're doing is rolling the dice then you suddenly feel the hollowness of your game. If, however, every die roll, even though it's just one, is a thrill ride of excitement then you've hit upon the magic of Story Engine. And if you compare what you're doing in that game to what you were doing before I GUARANTEE you'll notice your game has totally shifted in style.
Just my thoughts.
Jesse
Mike--
I think Ian was saying that simulationist rules limit player creativity. Which I would argue, even though I prefer narrativist to simulationist. Good simulationist rules help player creativity, but in different ways than good narrativist rules.
I'm glad you beat me to it & brought up the Confessionals. But I'll talk about them, too. Ian, read through the InSpectres rules again, especially the Confessionals. They allow you to add a descriptor to another PC, which that character's player can later use to get a bonus die. Which seems like a pretty simple rule, but during play becomes very complex & interesting. For example, Mike does a confessional & describes my character as "clumsy". Later, during the big climactic fight with the ghosty, I declare I'm using my descriptor to get a bonus die. I roll & my highest die is a 6, a brilliant success! The GM asks me to describe what happens, so I say "My character runs towards the ghost and clumsily trips over his own feet. But when he hits the ground, he accidently hits the activation button on his ectoplasmic disruptor, which disperses the ghost."
Ah, yes, thanks Josh, it can be read that way. My mistake. In any case I always see the rules as a framework from which to hang your creativity, whether G,N, or S. When functioning really well, they are inspirational.
(BTW, at GenCon I used my confessional in Jared's game to give Clinton's character a "Careless" descriptor, or something like that. He then narrated how he accidentally used the wrong end of a Quantum Lactator thus destroying the greenhouse he was standing in with a burst of Atomic Foam. :smile: )
Mike
[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-12-17 13:34 ]
I will be replying - I'm just having trouble finding time to do it.
The current, online version of InSpectres isn't quite as developed as the new one (probably as a PDF, then as a book, following the Sorcerer model). But the basic "rules" are more or less the same (although 2nd ed. has a lotta changes that address issues that came up in playtesting and in Clinton's review).
As for what "rules" are, game rules are whatever details are used to run the game. So yes, to hit modifiers, attributes, yaddah yaddah but also Kickers and Bangs, Confessionals, Monologues of Victory and scene-based conflict resolution -- all are rules.
I prefer the term "mechanics" -- rules have connotation of being sacred, unbreakable laws.
And going back to InSpectres, I *think* that it's one of the only games out there that focuses on combat and action but doesn't have a combat system or health levels.
- Jared
Postcrypt: InSpectres 2 is about three or four times the size of the first version. No game fiction, no adventure scenarios...
_________________
jared a. sorensen / http://www.memento-mori.com
indie game design from beyond the grave
[ This Message was edited by: Jared A. Sorensen on 2001-12-18 09:52 ]
I feel so . . . inadequate.
When Paul was out in the fabulous Bay Area and arranged (what turned out to be) an InSpectres game with Jared, I used my soliloqy to establish that the ex-wife of Paul's character (a onetime congressman who lost his position in a sex scandal) was, in fact, a patient in the hospital where we had been sent to investigate the "odd occurences". She was "recovering from a breakdown".
Nothing came of it. Sigh.
To make this a LITTLE on-topic . . . I guess it doesn't matter what you call it - a good idea, a rule, a mechanic, whatever. It's just something made available for the play group to use. Sometimes they will, and sometimes they won't.
Gordon
Okay, I agree, my definition of rules may have been a bit narrow.
Now my next point - does a narrativist game, by definition, have to contain elements that allow one player to influence another guys character?
As an example, I would not want someone defining my character as clumsy and it subsequently having to become fact. The same would be true of my characters ex-wife suddenly becoming mentally ill.
Why don't I personally like this? Why do I think it does not necessarily have anything to do with narrativism (and indeed it may not, hence the question above)? Simply because I think narrativism is about the characters period, and how the develop in response to problems, decisions and the consequences of those decisions. Why should another player be able to effect this? Directorial control great! But directorial control to effect the other character's story?
This is putting story as an entity in itself above and beyond any characters personal tale?
Take the InSpectres Cops-like scenes. They are great, but to me they have nothing to do with defining character altering issues about other player characters. They are chance for the character to offer analysis or depth (essentially character development) on issues that have arisen.
A character kills the murderer of his ex-wife - he should get a cops-like scene about that, giving him the player the opportunity to develop the characters feelings and reasoning behind that action. That's what it is about to me, not defining someone as clumsy just to get a humerous scene later.
In a way this is why I define such things as concepts rather than a rule - it's only a rule if it can effect other players, hence you need to list criteria for it to occurr. But to me its just an idea, a narrative construct, for character development.
Disclaimer: No offence to anyone is meant in this post.
_________________
Ian O'Rourke
www.fandomlife.netThe e-zine of SciFi media and Fandom Culture.
[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-12-19 07:46 ]
Hi Ian,
No offense taken.
Your post illustrates some twistin' and turnin' that leads me to say, "Time to back off."
For instance, the notion that Director stance affecting someone else's character puts "story over character," doesn't make much sense to me, as stories are defined by what characters do. I would call that technique a degree of sharing authorship that not everyone is going to enjoy.
Similarly, it looks to me as if you're wrestling with [Narrativism as a goal] vs. [Narrativism as a design philosophy] vs. [Narrativist techniques]. The problem with this is that techniques are rarely if ever "pure" GNS devices, and it's incorrect to say that a game "is" Narrativist because it includes Director stance, for instance.
To get back to the issue of my essay, the games I listed in the #5 category (with The Pool as poster child) offer rules that enforce a very different approach to "story-making," by putting it squarely on the whole group as a metagame responsibility. The Pool's rules are nothing BUT this approach.
I'm not sure what to tell you beyond that, except to say that these games do not define Narrativism but are instead extreme facilitators/reinforcers of a certain brand of Narrativist play.
Best,
Ron
Quote
On 2001-12-19 10:56, Ron Edwards wrote:
I'm not sure what to tell you beyond that, except to say that these games do not define Narrativism but are instead extreme facilitators/reinforcers of a certain brand of Narrativist play.
Okay, fair enough. I can see/understand that fine. On a scale I would put them on the outer limit as well. I suppose I just have issue with the authorship/directorial stance intruding on someone elses character, which is a personal thing.
All interesting as they say.
Um, interestingly, Ian, Sorcerer is a somewhat Narrativist game that is much less "out there" in terms of extremes of directorial control, etc. In fact few games actually include the ability to affect other characters "directorily".
Mike
Quote
On 2001-12-19 12:29, Mike Holmes wrote:
Um, interestingly, Ian, Sorcerer is a somewhat Narrativist game that is much less "out there" in terms of extremes of directorial control, etc. In fact few games actually include the ability to affect other characters "directorily".
Mike
I would agree, but then I have little problem with Sorcerer, The Whispering Vault - along with a few others.
Your question was...
Quote
does a narrativist game, by definition, have to contain elements that allow one player to influence another guys character?
I was just providing an obvious counter-example. I thought you'd get what I meant, but since I was unclear...
Quote
This is putting story as an entity in itself above and beyond any characters personal tale?
Well, as defined, Narrativism has story as a goal. These particular games put it above character, yes. Why not? For the record Universalis does this in spades. May be one of the reasons that people keep saying it's not an RPG. You might have an argument there (But people have fun doing it, so I'm not worried about it's definition too much).
As far as Narrativism, directorial power is certainly a Narrativist mechanic. Can't be the other two, and as you say promotes story. You don't like it? Well, I prefer Simulationism over Narrativism, but that doesn't mean that I think that the definition of Narrativism is invalid. At best, I'd say that what you've defined is a subset of Narrativism. Perhaps Character Propelled (or sacred), and Plot Propelled Narrativism respectively? Could be somma those subdivisions that Ron throws around all the time.
Quote
Take the InSpectres Cops-like scenes. They are great, but to me they have nothing to do with defining character altering issues about other player characters. They are chance for the character to offer analysis or depth (essentially character development) on issues that have arisen.
Well, that's how you see it. How is this not a case of you changing the definition to meet your personal preferences?
Quote
A character kills the murderer of his ex-wife - he should get a cops-like scene about that, giving him the player the opportunity to develop the characters feelings and reasoning behind that action. That's what it is about to me, not defining someone as clumsy just to get a humerous scene later.
Well, to be sure InSpectres is a humorous game designed to create humorous stories (or as Jared would put it Action). Says that's the goal in the first paragraph, IIRC. As such, it's designed to produce funny results, which it does really well. A similar mechanic for a more serious game might allow players to drop into confessional mode to discuss the character's inner feelings like you describe (maybe with a reward for doing it well and limits on number of uses or something if you need it to be more of a hard mechanic).
Quote
In a way this is why I define such things as concepts rather than a rule - it's only a rule if it can effect other players, hence you need to list criteria for it to occurr. But to me its just an idea, a narrative construct, for character development.
Well, uh, OK. I still don't see how labeling these written guidelines on how to play as something other than rules makes any difference. Until you can show me why it's important, and since it's just easier to chuck them all together under one heading I think that I'll just keep calling them rules.
If you really want an argument, the most applicable Websters definitions for "rule" state: "An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest." and "A usual, customary, or generalized course of action or behavior".
In what way aren't the mechanics that Jared describes in InSpectres not rules by those definitions? Or is there some other definition that I'm not aware of for "rules" as applies to RPGs? Or are you coming up with a new bit of Jargon here? If so, why?
Mike
Let me use the example of the ex-wife "recovering from a breakdown" to illustrate something I've noticed to be important in Narrativist "systems" - leaving room for further tweaks to the resolution. InSpectres, at least as we played it that night, was kinda over-the-top and soap opera-y, but I think the point carries over to more "serious" Narrativist endeavors.
The "breakdown" line was meant to be very general - it could have been she was in for recovery from some addiction. Or the breakdown story was a cover for a liposuction operation. Or . . . well, you get the idea.
This seems to me an important aspect of Narrativist systems (not required, but valuable): the "resolution" is often intended as an inspiration for further refinement of the situation, not as a final black/white "here's what happened". I think this is what I was trying to get at in an old post about FitM at other "scales" - FitM takes the "Here's EXACTLY what you're trying to do-EXECUTE fortune to determine success/failure" resolution step and turns it into a "Here's the general goal-EXECUTE fortune to determine some details about what happens-now state in some kinda-EXACT manner what occured".
It seems to me that Narrative rules/ideas/systems like the InSpectres confessional are the same kind of thing - the "rule" isn't the final determiner of "what happens", it's a tool to support the ongoing creation of "what happens". And that may be why they don't "look" like rules, but in many ways they still are.
At least, that's one train of thought.
Gordon
Hey Ian, Mike, Gordon,
Regarding the InSpectres confessional, I think the assigning of traits to other player characters is intended to be played off as a very subjective, "in character" act on the part of the character who delivers the confessional. Interestingly, there's been an assertion by Ron that stances, Actor/Author/Director, don't have direct correspondences to IC/OOC, and that a player can do OOC Actor, and IC Director, and any of the combinations really. And it seems that he's right. The confessional is a great example of in character, first-person Author Stance.
Remember that the trait itself doesn't have to stick, that is, the player whose character receives the trait never has to use it.
The confessional is an opportunity for a player to create audience interest in his character, by revealing the way the character thinks, or something about how powerful, cool, or misguided the character is, or by hinting at a growing conflict with another character. If I've been roleplaying a character who considers himself quite insightful about women, and I assign another PC the trait of "she's so hot for me" during my confessional, what I've done is not changed her character but delivered a "watch for this" message to the audience. The other player may or may not use the "she's so hot for me" trait, but everyone playing will be paying attention to whether she does or not.
So the way the confessional plays out is almost a game within the game, or a game on top of the game. Traits get assigned, and the subsequent confirmation or rejection of the trait is an operation being conducted at the audience level of play, among the players, rather than among the characters.
Paul
[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-12-19 18:48 ]
Mike,
We seem to have gone off on the wrong track here, I don't really perceive this as me wanting to challenge the definition of narrativism - no problem with it.
I'm just querying a gap in my knowledge of what constitutes rules I think.
As for the story thing, I want above all else a good story in my games, hence I view myself as narrativist. It is the only goal in the game - but at the same time this comes out of the characters. We just differ slightly on how important other people interfearing with a players character is to narrativism. This is a personal thing and has nothing to do with me challenging GNS.
Quote
On 2001-12-19 18:42, Paul Czege wrote:
Hey Ian, Mike, Gordon,
Regarding the InSpectres confessional, I think the assigning of traits to other player characters is intended to be played off as a very subjective, "in character" act on the part of the character who delivers the confessional. Remember that the trait itself doesn't have to stick, that is, the player whose character receives the trait never has to use it.
The confessional is an opportunity for a player to create audience interest in his character, by revealing the way the character thinks, or something about how powerful, cool, or misguided the character is, or by hinting at a growing conflict with another character. If I've been roleplaying a character who considers himself quite insightful about women, and I assign another PC the trait of "she's so hot for me" during my confessional, what I've done is not changed her character but delivered a "watch for this" message to the audience. The other player may or may not use the "she's so hot for me" trait, but everyone playing will be paying attention to whether she does or not.
That is how I would see it, so may be we are discussing semantics! The confessional is a way for the character in question to reveal his heart/thoughts in a particularly revealing way independent of the way the game is going. That is great, as I said above I love that.
If the confessional is always just a personal view than any attributes placed on other characters are just an oppinion and are only options for the other character to take on board I can live with that also.
It's the idea of being able to 'force', should such a game allow it', attribues on others that I don't like - but this is a personal thing.
Interesting. As always.
Sorry I'm late to the party. Everyone has pretty much laid it out better than I could have done.
Ian O'Rourke wrote:
"I suppose I just have issue with the authorship/directorial stance intruding on someone elses character, which is a personal thing."
I believe this goes back to rpg roots. I know it does for me. It was always about "I am Thorthar the Barbarian". And you WERE Thorthar, in the game. You did things from his point of view and no other way.
Now I'm starting to see how that point of view can be broadened.
In The Questing Beast, there are rules that say you can't screw with someone else's Motifs. Cool. Ok, but if they put something in their story and don't make it a Motif...its fair game. If your Hero's story says he has a niece, but you don't make that character a Motif, I can use a Monologue of Victory to bring her into play in whatever form I want.
I think it puts an interesting twist into the game.
Damnit! I want to play InSpecres. I lost my new rpg group to conflicts of schedule, so now I have to start building it anew. Small town life...
James V. West