The Forge Archives

Archive => GNS Model Discussion => Topic started by: Gordon C. Landis on January 17, 2002, 03:00:55 AM

Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on January 17, 2002, 03:00:55 AM
Seemed like I should split this out of the Narrativism thread if I wanted to comment on it - and I do . . .
Quote from: Marco
So I think so long as GNS is preserved as a combination of what people want out of gaming and game design theory (which could be two entirely different models--see GDS) some poor fits (The Window) will have to be made to fit a three-bin system.
I've seen this issue before.  I'm not sure I fully understand it - but if I do, my respose is  . . . why would you want to separate design from what people want?  Wouldn't the goal of design be to provide - or at the very least not get in the way of - what people want?  Thus, isn't a combination theory the "best" way to approach it?

I mean, in a very fundamental way - I'm not trying to have the "System Matters" debate here.  Though maybe that's what this is really about . . .

Huh.

Gordon
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Jared A. Sorensen on January 17, 2002, 09:50:10 AM
People don't know what they want until it's in front of them. Seriously.

If you ask someone what they want in a door, they'll tell you. But they won't tell you everything they want and they'll unintentionally leave out certain details (like, oh, what side the hinges are on and whether to use a pushbar, a plate, a doorknob, etc.).

This is how design goes:

Designer pulls together all the elements and incorporates them into a single thing. Designer shows gives it to people. People use it. How well they are able to use it is a measure of the Designer's ability.

And really, it doesn't matter whether you're designing RPG's, software, furniture or fountain pens. As my friend Joe says, "All design is old design." Just make it work ("work" including aesthetics and cost and such).
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Ron Edwards on January 17, 2002, 10:25:15 AM
Hello,

My thinking on this topic is founded on what is apparently an unusual view.

My "biggest category" is role-players in the broadest sense. A sub-category is "designers," again, very broadly, including any and every effort in that direction. And then a sub-category of that is "commerce," in that some designed-games are offered to others for sale.

I contrast this view to the prevailing notion that we have designers over here, wondering or telepathically "just knowing" what is wanted by the players/customers over there, and players/customers over there eagerly anticipating what those designers, over here, will come up with next.

Now for two other categories of interest: 1) a role-playing game as an object, book, or set of information, and (2) role-playing as an activity. The one is simply not the other, and they cannot be confounded in any way, given a critical examination.

As far as I'm concerned, my priority of any effort at any level of the three categories (going inward: play, design, sell) should be #2, not #1. Therefore, insofar as #1 (making books) occurs, it exists in service to #2 (actual play).

So the issue Gordon raises seems very odd to me.

Best,
Ron
Title: To be more clear . . .
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on January 17, 2002, 02:17:33 PM
Though I'm not confident I/we have clearly articulated the issue Marco is poiting to, I'm pretty sure I'm with Jared and Ron.  This IS (IMO) an odd issue, and my "instinct" is that there is no point/value in seperating out a theory of what people want from a theory of how to design.

But I've seen it raised a number of times by very clever people (like Marco), so I'm assuming there might be something I'm missing.

Gordon
Title: To be more clear . . .
Post by: Laurel on January 17, 2002, 03:45:13 PM
Quote from: Gordon C. Landis
This IS (IMO) an odd issue, and my "instinct" is that there is no point/value in seperating out a theory of what people want from a theory of how to design.

But I've seen it raised a number of times by very clever people (like Marco), so I'm assuming there might be something I'm missing.

Gordon

I agree; unless one is trying to determine "who wants what" which I think is the heart of G/N/S.  What does player type G want, and how does that contrast from what player type N wants, and how can I as a S-loving designer create a G-oriented game that will be enjoyable without extraordinary drift?
Title: To be more clear . . .
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on January 17, 2002, 06:00:48 PM
Quote from: Laurel
I agree; unless one is trying to determine "who wants what" which I think is the heart of G/N/S.  What does player type G want, and how does that contrast from what player type N wants, and how can I as a S-loving designer create a G-oriented game that will be enjoyable without extraordinary drift?

Boy, I'm having trouble figuring who's agreeing/disagreeing about what here.  I agree - "who wants what" is the heart of GNS, and therfore "what players (that is, all participants) want" and "how you design" are linked.  I thought that Marco was saying (as I've seen others say) that it's a MISTAKE to link those two elements, and that puzzles me.

Until/unless someone chimes in here to say why you SHOULD look at design and play goals as seperate things, I guess we're just spining our wheels,

Gordon
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Marco on January 17, 2002, 07:02:25 PM
Quote from: Gordon C. Landis
I've seen this issue before.  I'm not sure I fully understand it - but if I do, my respose is  . . . why would you want to separate design from what people want?  Wouldn't the goal of design be to provide - or at the very least not get in the way of - what people want?  Thus, isn't a combination theory the "best" way to approach it?

Hi Gordon,

You've got me wrong: I'm not saying design shouldn't take into account what people want. I'm saying that the *scope* of both systems is different in that GDS doesn't prescribe system-design.

GDS is a system of describing priorities in play.
GNS describes priorities in play AND suggests game-designs.

Thus you get The Window described as a Simulationist system instead of a Narrativist system which is, I think everyone will agree, a weak categorization (i.e. it's completely counter-intuitive).

In GDS, The Window is purely and clearly D. In GNS it winds up being S with an attendant thread(s) about its supposed identity crisis.

-Marco
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on January 17, 2002, 08:07:06 PM
Marco,

Doesn't GDS have the same issue with Sorceror that GNS has with The Window?  So . . . I guess I still don't understand how you see the differeing Scope of the two theories really matters.

Obviously though, this isn't as big a deal for you as I'd thought it might be.  Feel free to drop the issue.  If there is anyone out there for whom it is a big deal, speak up - otherwise, it seems like I may have raised an issue that's not really an issue.

Gordon
Title: GDS
Post by: Marco on January 17, 2002, 11:07:43 PM
In GDS, *players* of sorceor are looking for a dramatic story so they'd fall into D firmly (I don't know if it distingushes between a dramatic story and drama at the gaming table--but anyway). Not an issue for GDS.

In GNS, The Window appeals to D players but doesn't have N mechanics (i.e N-design) so it gets stuffed into the Simulationist box--which clearly doesn't fit it. The reason? Because GNS prescribes *system* and GDS discusses what *players* want. Is that any clearer?

-Marco
Title: GDS
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on January 18, 2002, 03:46:18 AM
Quote from: Marco
In GDS, *players* of sorceor are looking for a dramatic story so they'd fall into D firmly (I don't know if it distingushes between a dramatic story and drama at the gaming table--but anyway). Not an issue for GDS.
I disagree here - GDS doesn't cover the the important "in-play creation by all" aspect of Narrativism, so to my mind Sorceror *needs* those extra-threads of clarification/explanation if you want to put in D.
Quote from: Marco
In GNS, The Window appeals to D players but doesn't have N mechanics (i.e N-design)
Ah, this is where I lose you - in my mind, N-mechanics/design is also a *player* desire.  GNS, GDS, any one of the elements is a player desire.  GNS adds some (important and interesting to some - problematic for others) notions about how system effects the ability to acheive the desire, but that's all, as far as I can tell.
Quote from: Marco
so it gets stuffed into the Simulationist box--which clearly doesn't fit it. The reason? Because GNS prescribes *system* and GDS discusses what *players* want.
hmm . . . and carrying on with my last thought, I wouldn't say GNS prescribes system - it associates (in a far looser way than some people seem to think, IMO) system with the ability to effectively implement what players want.

And while I'm not entirely comfortable with the WAY The Window fits in the S-box, I wouldn't say it *doesn't* fit.
Quote from: Marco
Is that any clearer?
I think so - we may be at the "agree to disagree" point, unless you've got an idea about how to resolve our disagreement about what contitutes a thing that players want.   Or you (or someone) has another angle to attack this from.

Thanks for the discussion,

Gordon
Title: to-disagree
Post by: Marco on January 18, 2002, 08:10:23 AM
We can agree to disagree--but I think you're still missing my point.

N-Mechanics can be a player desire--sure. So can "always rolling low" or using funky dice. The fact that Sorceror is a definite subset of Dramatist play is clear because the D-player is focused *somehow* on story.

GDS does NOT purport to tell you HOW to focus on story. Finally, GDS isn't *at all* about systems. An AD&D player can be "focused on story" as can a Sorceror player and both are comfortably in the D-category.

It's in GNS that the player desire for story gets tied into game mechanics and puts The Window (and any non-narrativist story-telling game that doesn't include a set of specific mechanics) in the "horribly dysfunctional," (and possibly "deceptive" if it contains a setting or situation with "Narrativist Color." In other words, story-oritented non-narrativist play is treated as broke (and that's often done in the text of some posts on this board as well).

-Marco
Title: GDS
Post by: Laurel on January 18, 2002, 02:00:19 PM
Quote from: Marco
Because GNS prescribes *system* and GDS discusses what *players* want. Is that any clearer?

-Marco

Actually, Ron has said in a different thread yesterday or today that GNS is intended for modes of play: what players want.   Since Ron created GNS he does get the benefit of determining the intent; nobody else can take that away from him.  

The original Threefold GDS model discusses GM modes of play.  It was later applied to what players want, but not necessarily with the approval of the oldschool cabal that created it.  

A whole lot of confusion results because of models being applied to issues and situations beyond their intended application- in science, in psychology, and most definately in RPG game design and theory.   :)

See the new thread I started about Intent.
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Ron Edwards on January 18, 2002, 02:18:28 PM
Hello,

Marco, over and over I see a fair statement of a GNS point followed by what seems to be a wild leap of "therefore." Here this has happened in two steps.

"It's in GNS that the player desire for story gets tied into game mechanics ..."

That's fair. "Story" of course is pretty vague, and I'd qualify it as "story in some specific fashion," such that one may want to create it, or experience it, or see it as a side-effect, or whatever.

Then,
"... and puts The Window (and any non-narrativist story-telling game that doesn't include a set of specific mechanics) in the "horribly dysfunctional," (and possibly "deceptive" if it contains a setting or situation with "Narrativist Color."

I balk at the "any" part. Unknown Armies is a fine example of a non-Narrativist story-telling game, and it's as peachy an example of Simulationist-play-facilitating design with an emphasis on Character Exploration as could be found. There are many, many others covering a range of emphases, such as RuneQuest or Cyberpunk (with a qualification there) or all sorts of things.

You seem to be stuck on that "horribly dysfunctional" phrase, as if it applied to any and all games that aren't Narrativist yet include "story." It does not so apply, in my text. It simply doesn't, and repeating that it does isn't getting us anywhere.

And then the bonkers part,
"In other words, story-oritented non-narrativist play is treated as broke (and that's often done in the text of some posts on this board as well)."

Oh for golly goodness' sake. What's broken is the insistent claim that "story-oriented" can be a single, unified concept. You even agreed with me that it cannot, a bit ago. As for non-Narrativist play w/story of some sort, or rather, for design that facilitates such play, nothing's broken about it until some aspect of the design fails to facilitate it in some consistent way, or until said aspect promises something that it cannot deliver. Vampire qualifies, drastically. The Window qualifies, mildly - this is not a horrible screaming indictment but an observation; see my review for precisely the degree to which I think it's an issue during play.

You may want to consider that "I perceive it as treated as ..." or "People might perceive such text to be implying ..." and similar phrases are completely irrelevant to me, and to any thinking person engaged in discourse. I deal with specific text and rhetorical necessity, not with flighty inferences about what I or others "might mean," or "could be thought to mean if you squint and cock your head to one side."

Best,
Ron
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on January 18, 2002, 04:22:57 PM
Marco,

Sure, I'm up for looking at this further.  [Turns out I'm going over your post with a fine-toothed comb, in that "quote and respond" method some folks dislike.  Please, I use this simply as an attempted method to reach clarity - I do not mean to offend.]
Quote from: Marco
The fact that Sorceror is a definite subset of Dramatist play is clear because the D-player is focused *somehow* on story.
But how is that useful?  In particular, how is it any more useful than GNS saying the D-player is focused *somehow* on prioritizing Exploration
Quote from: Marco
GDS does NOT purport to tell you HOW to focus on story.
OK, I can see that - I'm certainly not saying there aren't differences in the "scope rules" of GDS and GNS, just questioning what the advantage is.  GNS does tell you HOW Narrativism focuses on story, because the manner in which you focus IS what distinguishes it from other kinds of story-orientation (e.g., Dramatism).  But it does not say *only* N may be be story (little-s) focused.  So I'm not sure what the absence of HOW in GDS adds to its' applicability - if the how is not in GDS, then in needs to be in some explanatory commentary/thread.  Just like GNS needs that explanation/thread for The Window.
Quote from: Marco
Finally, GDS isn't *at all* about systems. An AD&D player can be "focused on story" as can a Sorceror player and both are comfortably in the D-category.
Oh, this sparked a KEY realization for me - comfortably in the D-category, fine.  But they would NOT neccessarily be comfortable in each other's games.  
Quote from: Marco
It's in GNS that the player desire for story gets tied into game mechanics
No, I wouldn't put it that way - in GNS, the player desire for story is tied into game style, which may be best served by particular mechanics, but not of neccessity.  N is characterised by a player desire to participate, during play, in the creation of a likely-meaningful story.  There's nothing prescriptive about mechanics in that.  It may turn out (and it does, best as I can tell) that certain mechanics best fascilitate the goal . . . but the initial, theoretical focus is still on the goal.
Quote from: Marco
and puts The Window (and any non-narrativist story-telling game that doesn't include a set of specific mechanics) in the "horribly dysfunctional," (and possibly "deceptive" if it contains a setting or situation with "Narrativist Color."
Ron has addressed this from his angle . . . uh, I guess I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: Marco
In other words, story-oritented non-narrativist play is treated as broke (and that's often done in the text of some posts on this board as well).
Or maybe I do have something to say - story-oriented non-narrativist play *IS* broken - for someone with Narrativist desires.  It most certainly AIN'T broken for, e.g., a Dramatist.

There is a lot of focus on Narrativism here at the Forge, and I certainly can understand how that can come across as disparaging to other play styles.  But really - IT IS NOT MEANT THAT WAY.  I've got nothing against people speaking up from time to time and saying "hey, it seems like you're slighting Gamism" or whatever, but when the response is "No, that's a valid play style, just not what I'm talking about at the moment" . . . at some point, you just have ask to people to accept that you mean it.  *I* most certainly mean it - while I'm very interested in the Narrativist stuff, I'm not yet clear (and haven't been able to experiment in play enough to determine) exactly where my preferences lie.  A decent amount of Immersion is pretty important to me, and "dramatism" may do a better job of preserving that than N does.  That's what my "Player Illusionism" thread was meant to be about.  And I can see a fascinating discussion of story-focus in a G context . . .

But back to the topic at hand - does that make MY position clearer?  Or at least, do you now believe I understand your position, and just disagree with it?

Gordon
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Marco on January 18, 2002, 09:29:53 PM
Quote from: Gordon C. Landis
Marco,

Sure, I'm up for looking at this further.  [Turns out I'm going over your post with a fine-toothed comb, in that "quote and respond" method some folks dislike.  Please, I use this simply as an attempted method to reach clarity - I do not mean to offend.]
Hi Gordon,
I've got no problem with point-by-point analysis. :)

Quote
But how is that useful?  In particular, how is it any more useful than GNS saying the D-player is focused *somehow* on prioritizing Exploration

a) More correctly GNS doesn't address Dramatist concerns (the Dramatist exists between S and N)
b) Saying that what a person wants out of gaming is a story (under GDS) is useful in that it lets out D and S play. Under GDS the S (also meaning simulation) means that the player is interested in simulating a reality. Under GNS simulationist applies to two modes of play:

a) those interested in simulating a reality--or exploring/experiencing play in one.
b) story-oriented simulationist play (where the GM is the story teller or the simulation is not one of a reality but of some sort of fiction). This also comprises character development (in the lit-sense, not the 17th level sense).

Quote
OK, I can see that - I'm certainly not saying there aren't differences in the "scope rules" of GDS and GNS, just questioning what the advantage is.  GNS does tell you HOW Narrativism focuses on story, because the manner in which you focus IS what distinguishes it from other kinds of story-orientation (e.g., Dramatism).  But it does not say *only* N may be be story (little-s) focused.  So I'm not sure what the absence of HOW in GDS adds to its' applicability - if the how is not in GDS, then in needs to be in some explanatory commentary/thread.  Just like GNS needs that explanation/thread for The Window.

I'm not suggesting that GDS is *better* than GNS. It's not like you should throw out GNS and stick to GDS--they do different things. GDS doesn't tell you how to design a system. It does tell you what sorts of things a player might/might not like. A D-player will NOT like monster-filled dungeon crawls with lots of tricky death traps. If you run a spec-ops game for an S-player, expect to do *a lot* of homework (you might have to for the N-player but then, you might not. The S-player will likely care if your UK Marines have the wrong side-arms).

If you consider vanillia narrativism in the N-bucket (I think VN play should be considered S, personally: how does the VN player "create story?") then the VN player might still play in (and maybe even enjoy) an S-game and a somewhat S-GM.

[Aside] Most good S-GM's in my experience will, over the course of a multi-story-line game take into account what the players want and thus, with their input, create story-lines that suit them. I don't see a VN player having a lot of conflict with a S-GM who is also story-oriented in the sense that the GM wants to use a N-Premise theme, doesn't railroad (maybe frames excessively--but certainly keeps tabs on player frustration), etc.
[/Aside]


Quote
Oh, this sparked a KEY realization for me - comfortably in the D-category, fine.  But they would NOT neccessarily be comfortable in each other's games.  

Right. Hardcore N-players (as opposed to VN who *might* be) have a very specific story-oriented view: specifically they want player-authorial mechanics or (failing that) a social contract where they get a lot of say in the story or at the *very* least have complete license in deciding how the Premise gets resolved (this is what I think is often referred to as 'drift' and has been described as "playing a game the way its creators didn't intend it to be played"--a value judgment, I think--and a telling one).

Note: this is also NOT Ron's definition of Drift. Ron isn't one of the people making that specific statement.

Quote
No, I wouldn't put it that way - in GNS, the player desire for story is tied into game style, which may be best served by particular mechanics, but not of neccessity.  N is characterised by a player desire to participate, during play, in the creation of a likely-meaningful story.  There's nothing prescriptive about mechanics in that.  It may turn out (and it does, best as I can tell) that certain mechanics best fascilitate the goal . . . but the initial, theoretical focus is still on the goal.

A few points:
1. the term creation of a likely meaningful story either requires specific mechanics or gets the game system declared broken (i.e. needing house rules) or at best drifty (which, implies it's weak if not actually broke).
2. again, the goal BY IT'S DEFINITION requires game-mechanics to execute properly.

Quote
Ron has addressed this from his angle . . . uh, I guess I'll leave it at that.

Or maybe I do have something to say - story-oriented non-narrativist play *IS* broken - for someone with Narrativist desires.  It most certainly AIN'T broken for, e.g., a Dramatist.

Three answers:
1. If you're right, that's what happened to The Window.

2. Maybe. The broken bit is tricky: I've seen posts that say something is broken if you need house rules to play it. I've seen a post that says that The Window will need some house rules to play in a Narrativist Fashion or a Sim Fashion. I've seen posts that say The Window isn't broken. I think they were all from people in general agreement.

3. Since Narrativist is covered under Dramatist, it's correct to say that for *some* Dramatists the game might be considered broken--not for others.

Quote
There is a lot of focus on Narrativism here at the Forge, and I certainly can understand how that can come across as disparaging to other play styles.  But really - IT IS NOT MEANT THAT WAY.  

I don't think anyone has any malice--I do think that there's a trend towards seeing story-oriented non-narrativist play as being inferior. It isn't an air-time thing, it's a language thing (and post thing--read Jesse's post about arguing with Simulationist story-oriented gamers about what story-oriented play is all about).

Saying things like "in a simulationist game the players have no control over when or how they encounter a monster" makes it sound like the writer(s) believe all sim games are railroaded.

Read chapter 5 of Ron's essay and see what happens when VtM players try to play.  Either they drift to N (which requires changing the game rules), drift to illusionism (which can be a lot of fun but remember: the players only contribute "characterization" and are "unaware of the extent to which they are manipulated"--but hey, it's not dysfunctional ... "necessiarily"--oh and the game will require house rules to get it there) but, _most likely_ (emphasis added) outcome is that there's an ongoing purile power struggle with the GM and the players.

The first two imply that VtM is broke (i.e. needs house rules) but could be played. The third suggests that there's no native story-oriented mode for it that is any good. This model is then applied to a lot of games--like Dead Lands ... games that focus on story without N-mechanics.

Quote
I've got nothing against people speaking up from time to time and saying "hey, it seems like you're slighting Gamism" or whatever, but when the response is "No, that's a valid play style, just not what I'm talking about at the moment" . . . at some point, you just have ask to people to accept that you mean it.  *I* most certainly mean it - while I'm very interested in the Narrativist stuff, I'm not yet clear (and haven't been able to experiment in play enough to determine) exactly where my preferences lie.  A decent amount of Immersion is pretty important to me, and "dramatism" may do a better job of preserving that than N does.  That's what my "Player Illusionism" thread was meant to be about.  And I can see a fascinating discussion of story-focus in a G context . . .

But back to the topic at hand - does that make MY position clearer?  Or at least, do you now believe I understand your position, and just disagree with it?

Gordon

Yes, clear. Was I clear about the split between GNS and GDS?

-Marco
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Ron Edwards on January 19, 2002, 10:50:03 AM
Hello,

As the originator of these statements, I think I'll point out when they're being misquoted and misused.

"I've seen posts that say something is broken if you need house rules to play it. I've seen a post that says that The Window will need some house rules to play in a Narrativist Fashion or a Sim Fashion. I've seen posts that say The Window isn't broken. I think they were all from people in general agreement."

The phrase is italics is incorrect. The Window is mildly broken, in terms of facilitating goals of play.

I have seen absolutely no evidence, direct claim, or even straight-up responsibility taken for the claim that The Window, as written and presented, facilitates a coherent mode of play.

All I've seen is a claim that The Window necessarily occupies/facilitates a mode of play that is not accounted for by GNS. Marco has stated that "everyone would agree" on this, which amuses me - that's the same "everyone" that gets referred to by any special-interest group who is trying to get its way.

I shrug. No argument to contend with means no need to engage in one.

That leaves us with these:
"... makes it sound like"
"a language thing"
reading "not necessarily" as sarcastic
adding puerile to "power struggle"

Marco, this stuff doesn't fly. You may read all the vicious bias and marginalization into others' words as you please, and shake your head in pained righteousness in response, but you have not identified any point of necessary outcome or contradiction to criticize.

"What it makes it sound like if you add words here and here ..." has no place in this discussion. You've already sent me suggested rewrites for the tone of the essay, and I've told you that they are under consideration. Hammering on that point, now, is wasting your time.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I have also seen some claims about Vanilla Narrativism that are grossly off the beam, which could legitimately be phrased as questions ("Hey, what does player story-power look like in VN?").
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Marco on January 19, 2002, 02:48:44 PM
Quote from: Ron Edwards
Hello,

As the originator of these statements, I think I'll point out when they're being misquoted and misused.

"I've seen posts that say something is broken if you need house rules to play it. I've seen a post that says that The Window will need some house rules to play in a Narrativist Fashion or a Sim Fashion. I've seen posts that say The Window isn't broken. I think they were all from people in general agreement."

The phrase is italics is incorrect. The Window is mildly broken, in terms of facilitating goals of play.

I have seen absolutely no evidence, direct claim, or even straight-up responsibility taken for the claim that The Window, as written and presented, facilitates a coherent mode of play.

All I've seen is a claim that The Window necessarily occupies/facilitates a mode of play that is not accounted for by GNS. Marco has stated that "everyone would agree" on this, which amuses me - that's the same "everyone" that gets referred to by any special-interest group who is trying to get its way.

All I was suggesting with "everyone" that people would agree with is that describing The Window as a simulation was kind of weak (i.e. that it's not a very descriptive way to describe what it does). As in "Explorationist would be better."
Quote
That leaves us with these:
"... makes it sound like"
"a language thing"
reading "not necessarily" as sarcastic
adding puerile to "power struggle"

Marco, this stuff doesn't fly.
...

Okay. Maybe it's all in the way I'm reading it. I'll drop it. You did agree to look at your phraseology in the re-write, after all.

-Marco
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Ron Edwards on January 19, 2002, 05:15:09 PM
Marco,

Thanks for your open-mindedness and general approach to disagreement/debate. I appreciate it a lot, and I'll try to apply the same to all of your suggestions.

Best,
Ron
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Paganini on January 19, 2002, 11:54:37 PM
Quote from: Ron Edwards
Quote
"I've seen posts that say something is broken if you need house rules to play it. I've seen a post that says that The Window will need some house rules to play in a Narrativist Fashion or a Sim Fashion. I've seen posts that say The Window isn't broken. I think they were all from people in general agreement."

The phrase is italics is incorrect. The Window is mildly broken, in terms of facilitating goals of play.

I have seen absolutely no evidence, direct claim, or even straight-up responsibility taken for the claim that The Window, as written and presented, facilitates a coherent mode of play.

Well, Ron, your statement that the Window is mildly broken etc. is presented as a flat fact. IMO, Logan and Marco have both demonstrated a contrary opinion... namely that the Window as writen is not broken at all.

Let me pose a hypothetical question for you that may help clear things up.

If a GM runs a game with the Window, using it exactly as printed with no alteration in text, no change in rules, follows all the directions, including the precepts, and so on, what game style are they playing in? Another way of putting this: if no drifting occurs in a game of the Window, what style is the group playing in? You're claiming that a group must neccesarily drift in order to play the Window. That means that there is no way to play the Window without drifting. I can see that such a statement would be a bit upsetting to people who play the Window without drifting at all. Unless you can show that those people are, in fact, drifting, and that it's impossible to play the Window without drifting, I don't think the feeling of "exclusion from GNS" is going to be resolved.
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Le Joueur on January 20, 2002, 12:50:09 AM
Quote from: PaganiniLet me pose a hypothetical question for you that may help clear things up.

Snip.  Unless you can show that those people are, in fact, drifting, and that it's impossible to play the Window without drifting, I don't think the feeling of "exclusion from GNS" is going to be resolved.
This is a useless challenge.

You can't "show" anything about 'people' without seeing them actually play.  Whether or not they exist, this is like saying 'unless you can show that bigfoot does not walk through people's yards, he just has to exist.'  You can't show it wasn't bigfoot unless you're there.

Likewise, it's pointless to attack Ron on the "exclusion from GNS" issue because he hasn't excluded anything.

Let me put it this way.  Ron played the Window.  No matter how hard he tried to 'stay exactly as the printed material says,' he doesn't seem to have been able to make it work.  You played the Window.  You say you 'stayed exactly as the printed material says' and say it worked fine.  Two different opinions, no possible resolution.  The simplest explanation is that your definitions of 'worked' may be different.  So too could there be a difference in how you view 'stayed exactly as printed.'

Weren't you the one who said they'd played it over the internet or with no die rolling?  If that's the case, I can categorically state that you did not 'stay exactly as the printed material says.'  As described, the game is neither created with any concept of playing online, nor is avoiding dice 'staying exactly as the printed material says,' the printed material call for dice, you have failed in that regard.

This can be nothing more than an emotional reaction.  All you are doing is making useless (unrealistic) hypothetical charges based on highly-charged emotions.  You ask the impossible, and I expect when it isn't delivered will crow about being vindicated.

Get it: you can't show what other people do without directly observing them.  You can't prove something until you come to an accord on what terms like 'exactly as printed' and 'making it work' mean, which I don't think you have (if you think that online IRC play or diceless PBEM play both adheres to the rules and works flawlessly 'exactly as printed').  Besides, what are you trying to prove?  Ron hasn't excluded anything from anything.  Being 'mildly broken' (not such a high crime when you consider the number of man-years devoted to playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition) does not make it 'excluded.'  That makes it incoherent.  For that matter, why should all your gaming experiences have to fit in somebody else's taxonomy?  If you don't like it, make your own.

Anyway, give us all a break from this posturing and shouting.  Don't you have your own game, your own theories, and your own ideas to express?  Why bother reacting emotionally to someone else's opinion?  (Or worse, just their feelings?)  I suggest you take a short breather and consider what you want out of this discussion (instead of the all-hallowed proof, which is never possible on the internet anyway), and whether you'd be satisfied to agree to disagree.

Fang Langford

If you want a challenge, how about finding someone who actually played the window, "exactly as printed" first?
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Ron Edwards on January 20, 2002, 10:20:00 AM
Hi there,

Paganini, Fang and I are in 100% agreement regarding the "proof" issue, and I will be happy to explain to you why using that term at all is contradictory to the task at hand, by private email. I do not have to "prove" anything to anyone - only to be consistent, to be fair, and (in sum) to make sense. None of the current discussion is about any attempt to change anyone's mind about anything, a concept which seems to elude the grasp of those who spend a lot of time in other forms of internet discourse.

I also agree with his assessment of your play of the game, relative to its text.

Let's get at the underlying concept of the discussion.

Your position, as I understand it, seems to assume that any game design "must be categorized" according to GNS, into some pocket or slot that it provides. This is not correct. GNS is about actual play decisions (by player/GM, ie, humans), and game design is a related, not definitive issue. If you have some image of me with a GNS-o-meter, passing it over stacks of game books and listening to it go "queep," then you're simply not following any aspect of the essay.

Best,
Ron
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Paganini on January 20, 2002, 08:03:10 PM
Quote from: Ron Edwards
Your position, as I understand it, seems to assume that any game design "must be categorized" according to GNS, into some pocket or slot that it provides. This is not correct. GNS is about actual play decisions (by player/GM, ie, humans), and game design is a related, not definitive issue. If you have some image of me with a GNS-o-meter, passing it over stacks of game books and listening to it go "queep," then you're simply not following any aspect of the essay.

It's not my position exactly... I view myself more as an observer in this thread. But I do think I understand what Logan and Marco are saying, and I don't feel that you do. It's been my impression that you're claiming that the Window can't be played without drifting into one of the GNS boxes. I'm basing this post on that impression, so if I'm totally wrong, just ignore it. :)

I think that Logan and Marco feel that the Window will work perfectly well without alteration for a specific play style - a style that they're calling Dramatism, for lack of a better term. By insisting that a group using the Window must drift into one of the boxes, you're excluding the group who plays without drift. You're invalidating a style of play that is preferred by some, and I can see how that would bring a negative emotional response.

I think Fang is right: "You can't show what other people do without directly observing them." The claim that the Window can't be played without drifting is just such an unsupportable one, as far as I can tell.
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Ron Edwards on January 20, 2002, 10:55:40 PM
Paganini wrote,
QuoteI think that Logan and Marco feel that the Window will work perfectly well without alteration for a specific play style - a style that they're calling Dramatism, for lack of a better term. By insisting that a group using the Window must drift into one of the boxes, you're excluding the group who plays without drift. You're invalidating a style of play that is preferred by some

A person is free to "feel" whatever they like, which has absolutely no impact on the argument without some kind of thinking basis.

That "specific play style" has no basis in existence except by a tautological relationship with The Window - "the game exists as written, hence people must play it as written, hence it must work fine as written for them." That is all I'm seeing. I, on the other hand, am using the evidence both of my play and others' testimony not only of The Window but of similar games as well - note, evidence to arrive at my conclusion, not as "evidence" in the sense of convincing you or anyone else.

Logan, to his credit, is apparently investigating this issue, which would seem to be the logical next step.

Best,
Ron
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on January 21, 2002, 01:51:58 AM
To start,
Quote from: Marco
Yes, clear. Was I clear about the split between GNS and GDS?
Clear about the nature of the split.  I know (now) you don't mean to use that split as evidence for GDS being better than GNS (or vice versa), and it seems to me I've demonstrated (certainly to my mind) a rough equivalence to the "clarity" tradeoffs on both sides of the split, so . . .  understanding the split helps us understand:
1)Why the important differences between Ron-style-Narrative and GM-controlled-Metaplot "story" don't matter in GDS;  and
2)Why the intuitively (to some) inaccurate label of Simulation in GNS actually does fit some "story" focused games.

That sums it up for me . . . with the caveat that the little poking about in GDS I've done has NOT revealed a way to deal with the N-specific issues, whereas GNS does have an ability to deal with the non-N story stuff, if a bit awkwardly.

Now I'm going to do a some quote and respond on a few issues that seem important to me.
Quote from: Marco
a) More correctly GNS doesn't address Dramatist concerns (the Dramatist exists between S and N)
As my caveat would indicate, I don't agree with this statement - GNS can and does deal with D, BY the fact that it's between S and N.  My first candidate for "Top Ten Misunderstandings of GNS" is the notion that only entirely pure play of G, N or S is "good" - Ron's claim is that it best to have ultimate priority on one, but there's room for all elements in any play, and some folks seem to think that it could even work to prioritize different "big 3" at different times within one game.
Quote from: Marco
Under GNS simulationist applies to two modes of play:

a) those interested in simulating a reality--or exploring/experiencing play in one.
b) story-oriented simulationist play (where the GM is the story teller or the simulation is not one of a reality but of some sort of fiction). This also comprises character development (in the lit-sense, not the 17th level sense).
Your b) is (in GNS terms) just exploring/experiencing play in Situation or Character - which fits in your a).  I agree there's some awkwardness there . . . I'm not yet sure how big a deal that is for me.
Quote from: Marco
GDS doesn't tell you how to design a system. It does tell you what sorts of things a player might/might not like.
Unless you're an N, at which point it is insufficiently precise about Story to tell you what you might/might not like.
Quote from: Marco
[Aside] Most good S-GM's in my experience will, over the course of a multi-story-line game take into account what the players want and thus, with their input, create story-lines that suit them. I don't see a VN player having a lot of conflict with a S-GM who is also story-oriented in the sense that the GM wants to use a N-Premise theme, doesn't railroad (maybe frames excessively--but certainly keeps tabs on player frustration), etc. [/Aside]
And this, no doubt, is why you DON'T find D imprecise for N's.  I'd just assert that while you might be right for some N's (I may be one of 'em), you're not right for all of 'em.
Quote from: Marco
Right. Hardcore N-players (as opposed to VN who *might* be) have a very specific story-oriented view: specifically they want player-authorial mechanics or (failing that) a social contract where they get a lot of say in the story
And here you acknowledge that those folks exist.
Quote from: Marco
A few points:
1. the term creation of a likely meaningful story either requires specific mechanics or gets the game system declared broken (i.e. needing house rules) or at best drifty (which, implies it's weak if not actually broke).
2. again, the goal BY IT'S DEFINITION requires game-mechanics to execute properly.
hmm . . . isn't it true that ANY goal can only be excuted by game mechanics?  And that those mechanics can be as simple as "how to play" statements like the Three Precepts in The Window (warning - it's a long time since I read  The Window, and I've never played - there's a reason I've avoided discusing it on its' merits)?  So . . . if the Precepts in The Window simply said something about "a player's input to the story progress during play must be allowed" . . . don't your "conditions" for the "house rules" stuff and "driftyness" goes away?  Now, it is still possible to say the rules don't WELL serve the Narrativist goal - but that can (and has) been said about rules serving a Sim or Game goal.

Your criticism of the essay language - that's for Ron to deal with, mostly (and to which he has stated he will consider your input).  I'm glad you put the work into showing where it can be read  . . . "negatively".  I don't envy Ron the task of trying to phrase everything "just so" (and I defend his right to say "look, I covered this in the opening paragraph - DON'T be offended"), but I agree that an effort to avoid pointlessly confrontational language is good - and (IMO) some of the places you point to in the essay could use improvement in that regard, if only because people are notoriously sensitive.

I think that in this response, I've covered everything I can on this thread - certainly, I've gotten the perspective I was after with my inital post.  I'll re-skim the other responses (and any new ones that show up), but I must say - I'm pretty satisfied with where this stands.  Now watch, someone will post something that makes me eat those words . . .  like by an emphatic NO to one of the questions I ask above ;-).

Gordon
Title: feeling ...
Post by: Marco on February 01, 2002, 12:35:29 AM
Quote from: Ron Edwards
A person is free to "feel" whatever they like, which has absolutely no impact on the argument without some kind of thinking basis.

Hey Ron,
I just saw this and felt the need to point out that you're misunderstanding what's going on with "feel."

When he said "Marco feels ..." what he means is "Marco believes X and has made X, Y, and Z argument." When I read (past tense) you as biased (maybe I was having a bad day, maybe putting Deadlands in the 'horribly dysfunctional' block of games raised my ire) I "felt" you' were being deliverately confrontational.

That is, not being able to read your mind--and only your words, I concluded that you were somehow motivated to be confrontational to people who liked Deadlands, 7th Sea, VtM, etc. It isn't a "fluffy" emotional thing--it's reading the words and thinking "gee--there are at least a hundred other ways to say that--but 'moronic,' 'horribly dysfunctional,' 'deceptive,' etc. are all loaded word choices. They're all *emotional* word choices.  Specifically, they're angry. It occurred to me that I wouldn't tell a valued co-worker that his proposal was "incoherent," I'd say it was "inconsistent."

(This isn't just to be a nice guy. Inconsistent is no less correct than Incoherent here and being aware of incindary language makes it easier to clear things up if you ever do wrongfully jump down someone's throat.)

In the above quote you are writing off any statement with the word feel in it as meaningless fluff (note, a more correct and diplomatic way to say that--one that shows that I *can't* read your mind--is to say "you _seem_ to be wrting off" or "I _feel_ that you're writing off"--which is, in fact, the writer taking responsibility for his reading of what you wrote).

-Marco
[Edited for clarity. ]
Title: Design theory vs. play desires
Post by: Ron Edwards on February 05, 2002, 12:23:44 PM
Marco,

I have little to add to Gordon's treatment of the "language" issue above, and what I've said previously.

Here is that little bit, then.

Either you accept that the language of the essay is undergoing review, or you don't. At this point, with every confirmation that the phrase "horribly dysfunctional" upsets you, I shrug. Be patient, have faith that you are being listened to, and also be aware that I am not you, and am not writing your essay.

As for "feel," I misunderstand nothing and I stand by my point. I do not accept, under any circumstance, that "I feel" can be a stand-in for "I think," or "I have considered," or "I propose that ..." Using "I feel" specifically and only means the absence of such reasoned responses. The same goes for "believe," which is perhaps the least relevant mental act imaginable for purposes of discourse.

This may upset you as well: When it comes to discourse among peers, I have neither respect for nor interest in what anyone feels or believes.

Obviously, such an outlook is not functional if we are talking about "friendly chat," or teaching, or any number of other activities. But here, we are talking about discourse - making sense. Feeling & belief are utterly unwelcome and useless in reference to supporting or validating points. (I acknowledge that passion is very important as a motivator of debate, but it has no place in proposing or resolving specific issues.)

Necessary clarification: nothing about my point justifies lack of courtesy. Saying, "I don't care how you feel about this point" is not the same as saying, "I can be a rude bastard to you." I do not advocate or permit the latter on the Forge.

Back to the point, if someone wants to propose or to resolve or to debate a concrete issue, they must put feeling and belief aside as mechanisms. Otherwise, it's not discourse and has no place at the Forge.

Best,
Ron