The Forge Archives

Okay, so I was grading papers or something, and when I turned around, there had been this hugely interesting debate here about aesthetics, reality, emulation, genre, and a whole lot of other things.  I read it all with great interest, and got to the end, and found that the thread is now closed.  Okay, so here's a new one, taking up similar issues.

As I understood it, the issue was about the relevance of "reality" to RPG play, with Fang championing tossing out realism in favor of GenEx, in order to best emulate other-media source material.  Other posters (John, Mike, Marco, etc.) suggested that the emulation of non-RPG source material is not necessarily the point.  This all strikes me as somewhat talking past each other.

Let's suppose we take for granted the conception of "reality," so that it doesn't become a term of debate.  As I see it, "reality" here means simply our general sense, as people with some experience of the world, of how things generally happen, and what's likely.  So "reality" would include things like this: You generally die if you are heavily machine-gunned in the head, or fall off a very high building.  Note the word "generally," by which I mean that sure, there are exceptions, but our sense of reality is that these exceptions are few enough that we wouldn't take the chance, i.e. we wouldn't gleefully jump off a high building in the expectation that that one-in-a-million chance is going to come up trumps.  Besides, we assume that the very rare guy who comes out alive is going to be seriously hurt in the process.  This isn't always physical, incidentally, as our sense of reality includes: One is usually upset to discover that the love of one's life actually only wants one's money and is sleeping with somebody else on the sly; in such cases, one may act somewhat irrationally.  Okay, so that's reality.

Now let's also set aside "story"; for this purpose, I agree with Fang: it's not relevant here.

Okay, so what's the debate?  

We've got two poles of an axis: reality and genre.  The genre may or may not be "pure reality"; such things are done, but not commonly in RPGs.

The questions, then, are these:

• What do we mean by genre expectations in the first place, as they specifically relate to "realism" questions?
  
• Where do aesthetic considerations come into this?
  
• What do genre expectations have to do with "source material"?[/list:u]Let me start with the last, because it was a bone of some contention.
  
  While it is common for RPGs to base themselves upon source material of one kind or another, it isn't necessary.  Shadows in the Fog makes heavy use of Victorian source material of many kinds, but I cannot think of a single example from any medium that fits what I think the game is about, so the game has to do a lot of work setting up the genre expectations.  If you design a game based on Star Wars, by way of contrast, it is likely that you want the game to be a lot like the films.  Note: likely, not certain.  At all events, the whole point of outside sources, setting, and in many ways mechanics themselves is to set up genre expectations.
  
  Okay, so now back to the first question: what's this got to do with reality?
  
  Well, the thing is that no genre expectations are so specific that they determine everything there is to be said about the setting.  Doesn't matter the medium -- you can't determine everything.  Now in most media, this isn't a major concern, because you simply don't film (or whatever) the things you don't know about; or rather, you only know what you film.  This is like No Myth, really: if the expectations about something aren't set explicitly, they're not set at all.  There is no background knowledge somewhere about the genre that sets such expectations.
  
  So the background knowledge, which in fact you have to have if you're going to interact with the world dynamically (as in RPGs and not in films), comes from reality.
  
  Let me put it like this:
  
  Genre expectations permit the imagination of and interaction with a limited situation in conscious tension to how the world actually is.
  
  Examples:
  • James Bond is better, cooler, faster, and more dangerous than any actual human person.  The world he lives in is in that sense not like ours.  But the tension created in a given situation relies on our expectation that some aspects of reality will be respected.  He can't get out of the prison by flying; this is not part of genre.  But this needn't be specified: the genre is clear by distinction from reality, not because it's all delimited.  Can he do things, from film to film, that we never knew he could do before?  Yes, that's what Q is for.
    
  • Superman is insanely different from ordinary people.  The world he lives in includes others somewhat like him, and is clearly not reality.  But a lot of interest and tension is generated by the fact that his world is mostly like ours, e.g. Lois Lane, if dropped from a plane, will die unless Superman saves her.  Again, it's conscious tension against reality that makes his powers have purpose and meaning.
    
  • The Lord of the Rings is a story set in a world seemingly utterly unlike ours.  But when it gets right down to it, Frodo and Sam, for example, are very ordinary people, and basic rules of reality do apply to them.  There is thus strong tension in the situation, because we define the fantasy with respect to our own reality, and we assume that the hobbits are pretty much like us unless we're told otherwise.  This is why, when Gandalf reemerges in Book 3, we're surprised: we didn't realize that he was even remotely capable of defeating the Balrog, much less surviving a mile-long fall.  We suddenly think, "Damn!  He's way more powerful than we realized!"  And this sets him up as the White Rider for the battle of Helm's Deep, and the way he can rout huge armies by riding at them and waving a sword.  We believe this, because we now know: Gandalf is really not at all human, and just looks like it.[/list:u]I hope by now this point is clear: the non-reality aspects of a genre only make sense and have meaning or interest with respect to reality.
    
    So where do aesthetics come into it?
    
    1. How do you know what reality is, anyway, except by aesthetic judgment?  This is the old "truth is stranger than fiction" thing.  If you hear that somebody fell 500 feet onto pavement and got up and walked away, you think, "naah, couldn't be."  Okay, but you might be wrong -- stranger things have happened.  Your sense of reality is simply not correct, because it's simply your aesthetic judgment of what reality is like.  I suspect that some stuntmen and commandos and other people who do really really dangerous things have a somewhat different aesthetic sense of reality than the rest of us, because they have a more informed way of aesthetically judging what's possible or likely and what's not.
    
    2. How do you decide when some event is or is not within the genre?  Aesthetics, by exactly the same methods that you use when you determine whether something seems "realistic."
    
    I'll briefly go back to a post I did a while ago, which you can find here, where I made a comparison to Michelangelo.  Basically what I'd like to say, in the present context, is that genre expectations are constraints, rules, that predetermine certain aspects of the artistic object (RPG play is included here).  If you can perfectly fit the rules, you can emulate a genre, if that's your goal, or otherwise create a plausible situation within the world/setting/genre/etc.  Now when you bend or break those rules, you need to do so very consciously and carefully, because you're again challenging expectations.  This is what happens with, for example, James Bond: they try to make it look very realistic, as though the "rules" were simply reality as it ordinarily is, but Bond pushes the limits of those rules, a bit at a time.  He doesn't suddenly turn into Superman, but rather turns out to be just a little better shot than we can quite believe is "really possible," but we accept this because the art of Bond is to push that sort of boundary.
    
    So you can't throw out reality, I'm afraid.  To do so would require creating an art object that is completely incomprehensible, because it would not relate in any way to the ordinary.
    
    Anyway, let's see if people still want to debate this.

Hi Chris,

QuoteSo you can't throw out reality, I'm afraid. To do so would require creating an art object that is completely incomprehensible, because it would not relate in any way to the ordinary.

I believe this is highly related to the "conveying setting" issues that pop up occassionally on the boards, and shows strongly in games in whether the author can convey their sense of reality or not.  I'd say the great failing of many games, especially ones that push an "alien sense of reality"("Everyone's a god", "Everybody is a ghost", "What would it be like to live in a dream world?"), have a hard time "hooking" folks.  If you don't have enough "reality" for folks to grab onto, then, its very hard to describe and convey that settting.

Chris

Thanks for continuing the discussion, Chrises.

The take away lesson I'm getting from this conversation is that "realism" (with all its myriad definitions) comes down to establishing plausibility. Anything can be plausible if you care to play with or in it, but most times what people look for in a game are the parameters of commonly understood reality, and outside of that they look for something that matches genre expectations of a known text.  There is an element of communication involved.

As Chris (Bankuei) writes, genre expectations give participants a "hook", an easy in to the shared game world.  This might be seen as a shared aesthetic sense of what's believeable or desirable in the game.

Quote from: clerichBasically what I'd like to say, in the present context, is that genre expectations are constraints, rules, that predetermine certain aspects of the artistic object (RPG play is included here). If you can perfectly fit the rules, you can emulate a genre, if that's your goal, or otherwise create a plausible situation within the world/setting/genre/etc.
Now when you bend or break those rules, you need to do so very consciously and carefully,because you're again challenging expectations. This is what happens with, for example, JamesBond: they try to make it look very realistic, as though the "rules" were simply reality as it ordinarily is, but Bond pushes the limits of those rules, a bit at a time.

So looking at it this way, "reality" and "realism" may be seen as one large genre expectation. In practice it falls out to be many, many different things depending on the priorities of the individual.  The thread What is the most realistic RPG? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5625) profiles a few such personal views.  But even given that breadth, there are many things commonly seen as part of "The Real World." There are a lot of things that you can do in rpg that you cannot in this shared conception of the real.  Sorry this is so obvious, but think about it--why is it that folks don't regularly play blind tap-dancing weasels that can fly and breath fire? Maybe a simpler example is better.  I believe John Kim posted recently in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6178) about a game where water runs uphill.  That's perfectly acceptable, that _can_ happen in any game, but I believe that particular game was quite fantastic in setting.  Any element that you can imagine can exist in rpgs, but it won't be there unless it can be accepted as plausible by the game participants.  Now for some reason, most gamers believe in Reality.  What is true in TRW doesn't need to be sold to them, or communicated to them. Maybe it's really just a matter of familiarity.  Most everyone can relate, at the minimum, to a world where water flows downhill, and gravity works, unless you are outside of a gravity well.    That's probably a good example of shifting perspectives about reality itself: how long prior to achieving space flight was it commonly accepted that there could be a place where objects were not affected by gravity? Isaac Newton's discovery was no mean feat.  

So, re-thinking what I first stated: reality is a frame of reference, as are genre expectations.  Just like with music, you can play any string of notes, but unless the person listening to them has a frame of reference that allows them to hear it as music, it will just sound like noise.  

--Emily Care

edited for clarity

I'm also glad that this discussion is continuing.

I'm not going to debate the nature of reality as proscribed by Chris in his initial post.  So take it for granted that reality is a shared sense of what is common sensically plausible.

I agree with you in the sense that reality provides the comparison point that gives definition to a given game's genre expectations by means of compare and contrast.  Genre expectations define, in this sense, what rules of reality it's fair to break or bend, and just how far outside of reality can one go for a given action/thing/decision/whatever.

However, I don't think that RPG game mechanics need to try and simulate or emulate reality at all.  They simply can't do it.  You can't show me a mechanical system that does a reasonable job of emulating reality.  When I, as a real person, decide to shoot someone in the head with my big gun, there are a lot (maybe nearly an infinite number of) variables going into whether I succedd or not that can't be captured by game mechanics at all.

Game mechanics are abstractions that attempt to capture the 'feel' of reality - while some games at the extreme actually claim that their mechanical components are actually 'realistic'.  The more variables the rules take into account for any given action, the more complex the rules become, and thus the more unusable they become from the perspective of having an enjoyable game experience.

Fang was making the case for the fact that he thinks too many RPG designers strive for a "simulate reality" system while eschewing the actual 'rules' for the Genre set out by the source material.  He's saying, in essence, that a lot of game designers would create a game about James Bond, and then make it frightfully difficult for "00" agents to say jump off a cliff and chase down an airplane in a nosedive in order to escape from an army of soldiers trying to kill him.  Fang goes on to postulate that many designers, when they realize that characters in the game won't be able to actually do things that seem appropriate inside context of the Genre, slap on some meta-mechanic that makes this possible.  He's arguing that the 'simulate reality' mechanics should be thrown out the window and only the 'exception mechanic that facilitates/captures the feel of the genre' should be used at all.

I'm slightly in the middle on this one.  I think that mechanics need to be judged in total for a game to see if they accurately capture the feel of the Genre.  I don't think that reality has any place in the mechanical system designs of RPG's.  Sure, reality is the signpost/backdrop that allows all of us real people to get into and understand the game - it is the baseline against which all Genre expectations are compared.  But I maintain that reality can't be accurately modeled in an RPG.

Cheers,



Jason

Quote from: deadpanbobGenre expectations define, in this sense, what rules of reality it's fair to break or bend, and just how far outside of reality can one go for a given action/thing/decision/whatever.  

It seems to me that this has a sci-fi/fantasy bias:  i.e. a genre is something which bends or breaks reality.  However, in more general usage genres include things which are 100% realistic.  For example, there is a genre of "true crime" books -- which are novels about real-life events.  Most genres stay within reality: i.e. mystery, historical drama, etc.  

I talk about this in my "Understanding Genre in RPGs" essay ( at http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/styles/genre/definition.html ).  

There may be elements in a story which are totally within the realm of reality, but which break the genre.  For example, in the true crime genre, if the PCs decide not to commit a crime, then we have clearly broken out of the genre -- even though the genre is perfectly realistic and it is perfectly realistic not to commit a crime.  

Quote from: deadpanbobHowever, I don't think that RPG game mechanics need to try and simulate or emulate reality at all.  They simply can't do it.  You can't show me a mechanical system that does a reasonable job of emulating reality.  When I, as a real person, decide to shoot someone in the head with my big gun, there are a lot (maybe nearly an infinite number of) variables going into whether I succedd or not that can't be captured by game mechanics at all.  

I have heard this before, and I don't understand it.  My work as a PhD physicist was programming simulations.  The programs are inevitably filled with ignored factors and rough estimations.  There will always be factors which you cannot take into account, and the results always differ from the real data.  

To take an example closer to RPGs, the Navy used the board game "Harpoon" in order to train cadets in naval tactics.  Now, the mechanical system is far from perfect and doesn't take a ton of factors into account -- but the point of reasonableness is if the cadet knows more about real naval tactics afterwards.  This would be my criteria:  that is, if using the rules, are the results more realistic than if a GM with no particular knowledge made up results off the top of his head.  

I think that Traveller was an excellent example of this:  As a kid, I learned more about astronomy and orbital mechanics playing Traveller than I did in any classes.  

Personally, I love realism in RPGs.  These days, I don't care much about physics or firearms -- but I am often quite taken by good historical RPGs which convey details of history.  For some reason I'm not much excited by hard science RPGs, but I certainly appreciate the efforts of games like, say, Aurora which take effort to use real science.  

Quote from: deadpanbobThe more variables the rules take into account for any given action, the more complex the rules become, and thus the more unusable they become from the perspective of having an enjoyable game experience.  

I'd say that it is a fallacy that more variables are required for more realism.  It often aids realism to abstract away detail. For example, you might have real-world statistics on the chance of fatality for a gunshot wound to the torso -- but no information differentiating this between abdomen vs chest.  In this case, it is more realistic to use less detail.  If a wound is classified only as being in the torso, then you have reasonably accurate results.  

Similarly, I am trying to make the Wealth rules in my Vinland game realistic.  My source is only rough information from books on Iceland.  I have no need or want to detail every transaction.  Since I don't have price information, doing so would almost certainly make my system less realistic.  What I want to get right is mainly how much of a burden weregeld is, a rough impression of social mobility, and such.  

Quote from: deadpanbobI think that mechanics need to be judged in total for a game to see if they accurately capture the feel of the Genre.  I don't think that reality has any place in the mechanical system designs of RPG's.  Sure, reality is the signpost/backdrop that allows all of us real people to get into and understand the game - it is the baseline against which all Genre expectations are compared.  But I maintain that reality can't be accurately modeled in an RPG.  

This is the main point that was heavily argued in the other thread.  Not all RPGs are trying for a specific genre.  For example, I think it is silly to criticize HarnMaster for not living up to epic fantasy.  It was deliberately designed to mix historical realism and fantasy.

Quote from: John Kim
I have heard this before, and I don't understand it.  My work as a PhD physicist was programming simulations.  The programs are inevitably filled with ignored factors and rough estimations.  There will always be factors which you cannot take into account, and the results always differ from the real data.  

To take an example closer to RPGs, the Navy used the board game "Harpoon" in order to train cadets in naval tactics.  Now, the mechanical system is far from perfect and doesn't take a ton of factors into account -- but the point of reasonableness is if the cadet knows more about real naval tactics afterwards.  This would be my criteria:  that is, if using the rules, are the results more realistic than if a GM with no particular knowledge made up results off the top of his head.  

Okay, I don't want to hijack the thread, and I appreciate that this has been your experience.  I spend all day everyday creating statistical models that attempt to predict real world outcomes from a set of data.  All such models are essentially complex abstractions from sets of data that don't in any case take into account all factors involved in a given situation.  In fact, the act of creating a model nec. attempts to generalize from the specific data a formula that can predict an outcome with a reasonable degree of confidence.  The problem is, when one tries to apply the model to individual cases, it often doesn't offer much in the way of actual predictive outcome for the individual case.  Sure, over the course of many many such individual cases, the results of the model may (or may not depending on the quality of the model) prove to be true.

The problem I have is just that - the fact that any such models are very unstable when applied to the individual case.  None of this is to say that RPG's can't have real world, realistic sources and attempt to provide real world, factual information as a part of the game.  What I'm saying is that trying to work up a functional model based on reality isn't what most of the games that claim 'realism' are doing - and even if they are the model will break down when applied to the individual case.  Just because a simulation/model can help to provide a good learning tool for what tactics work best doesn't mean that model is any good at predicting individual outcomes.

For example, what factors would you choose to bring into a 'realistic' resolution mechanic for an armored, mounted knight charging into battle agasint a small unit of peasant foot-soldier pikemen?  And would those factors be the same one's you'd use to model the chances of the same knight hitting an opponent of similar skill, also mounted, in combat?

I still contend that all resolution mechanics need to be a lot more mindful of how the results 'feel' than their basis in real world fact.  If the results during actual play 'feel' as the players expect based on the Genre expectations, then they've done their job.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point, I suppose.

I do agree with what you said about certain Genres are entirely subsumed within 'reality' as we've defined it here.  I stand corrected on that point.  That's my personal bias at work - I only like playing games where the characters are capable of doing things that couldn't possibly happen in 'reality' (Indian Jones, Star Wars, the Matrix, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon etc.).

Cheers,



Jason

John's post touches on a concern of mine, which is that reality is a moving target.

Take the case of guns. Almost nobody who lacks experience with firearms understands how they actually feel to shoot, and since the vast majority of gun owners never go out committing crimes with them (or even stay in and commit crimes at home), they don't know how it feels to behave with a gun under stress. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports show that people mostly miss, for instance; it takes dozens of shots at close range for the average urban firefight to hurt anybody. The one game that actually models this accurately, Friday Night Firefight, looks weird to people who haven't studied the matter.

Then there are the cases where what people know proves to mostly be propaganda. What the average gamer "knows" about the Middle Ages, for instance, is mostly Enlightenment screeds and propaganda, demonstrably wrong point by point and embedding irrelevant and unfounded assumptions.

Then there are the cases where our understanding changes over time withut any lack of good will. The nature of matter's most fundamental components is a case in point, and can actually come up in some contexts, particularly engineering and stuff.

All of this without even touching on divergent notions of human nature.

So I much prefer to say "this is the effect I'm after" and point at some inspirations. It doesn't matter whether the real world is like that it or not; it matters if my would-be players like it and agree on what we're doing.

I guess all I was trying to say is that "reality" is fluid, and not simulable.  That is, it is only possible for an ordinary person to assess realism on aesthetic grounds, for all the reasons that John and Jason describe about "serious" simulations, where millions or more are at stake.

If you have a terrific simulation program, and it takes into account just about everything, and just once (because any simulation is going to have more random factors than you could shake a stick at) somebody gets shot horribly and survives, that contradicts the sense of reality that we have as human people who watch too many movies but don't actually go out and kill people with weapons all the time.  This is the point made about Friday Night Firefight.  So for most purposes, "reality" is a GenEx same as everything else, and doesn't really have a lot to do with how things actually are, in the sense that the FBI or the cops could tell you some things about, say, how often people firing guns in a firefight are likely to hit anybody.

But John raised the point that is most important to me, as a humanities wonk: reality where it applies to social-historical situations.  We've talked again and again about religion, or society, in fantasy settings, but I'm bringing it up again.  I'm like the cop talking about firefights when it comes to religion: I have enough training that my "reality" bumps are very precisely honed.  And when I find that everyone believes in a bunch of gods but that this doesn't affect the way they live, I say "crap" and move on.  This is one of many examples; if you want to debate it, let's start another thread.  My point is just that "reality" is composed of far too many factors to model, except aesthetically, and that aesthetic modeling is extremely variable depending upon the interpreter.

If, then, reality itself in RPGs is an aesthetic judgment, and most RPG genres bend reality to formulate another set of expectations with respect to the notional reality described, I'm confused about why there should be conflict here.

I understand clearly what Fang means, insofar as he's saying that far too many systems try to construct absolute simulations of reality.  Okay, but I think he's saying a lot more than this, and I'm not sure what it is.

I also understand that folks are saying it's not necessary to simulate alternative realities such that the end-product is exactly like a given medium (TV show, movie, etc.).  Okay, but why is this in conflict with what Fang is saying?

I think there's a missing middle term, and that until we isolate that, this debate could (if Fang will let it) continue forever.  But I think Fang has something important to say -- right or wrong -- that is getting glossed over in this discussion.

Am I missing the point entirely?

---------

Sorry -- on re-reading, it sounds like when I say "if Fang will let it" as though I'm referring to his closing the other thread.  I don't mean this; he was perfectly justified in doing so.  I mean "if Fang will let it" in the sense that he may or may not want to try to open up his own thinking to find the missing term, without which I think I'm jousting at windmills.

Quote from: clehrichMy point is just that "reality" is composed of far too many factors to model, except aesthetically, and that aesthetic modeling is extremely variable depending upon the interpreter.

If, then, reality itself in RPGs is an aesthetic judgment, and most RPG genres bend reality to formulate another set of expectations with respect to the notional reality described, I'm confused about why there should be conflict here.  

OK, I'm not sure I understand the point of calling it an "aesthetic judgement".  It sounds to me like you're saying "Well, we're never going to model things perfectly or to a professional degree, so it's a waste of time to do research or math for your game design."  I absolutely disagree.  Realism obviously isn't necessary, but I don't think it is an invalid goal.  Research is one of my reasons for gaming.  Noting my previous example, I think my childhood would have been lessened if the designers of Traveller had said, "Heck, we can't do truly realistic alien worlds, so let's not bother with math and science, and just make up stuff which feels good."  

As a contributor to Aurora, I don't think you're saying that -- but that is how your comments read to me, and I thought I should say so.

As I see it the whole issue comes down to a failure to communicate the purpose of a game's design in relation to its 'source material' and how that relates to consumer expectations based upon that same 'source material'.

A genre operates under a certain set of rules. They vary between genres and even to a degree within an individual genre. Here's the problem. In that other thread there was much talk about an RPG being based on a genre, that is in most cases just false. The games that Fang is perturbed by are not based on a genre but the color elements attached to a genre. These RPGs stretch the color elements of a genre over a rules-set meant to be a simulation of 'reality' (to some degree) and generally ignore the conventions of the genre they supposedly emulate. That's it.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that of course. When somebody buys a game that has the trappings of a particular genre splattered all over the cover and in snippets of colorful prose throughout the book and the game doesn't return a play experience in much of anyway resembling its 'source material', that's when bitterness ensues. If game designers market their games responsibly this isn't really an issue. That's hard to do though if you've convinced yourself that you have just created the greatest thing since grilled cheese. (Or if you value the dollar over any kind of integrity, but I'm in a 'benefit of the doubt' kind of mood.)

That's my take, hopefully it helps some.

-Chris

Quote from: C. EdwardsWhen somebody buys a game that has the trappings of a particular genre splattered all over the cover and in snippets of colorful prose throughout the book and the game doesn't return a play experience in much of anyway resembling its 'source material', that's when bitterness ensues. If game designers market their games responsibly this isn't really an issue. That's hard to do though if you've convinced yourself that you have just created the greatest thing since grilled cheese.  

Heh.  Well, I can certainly agree with that.  I was sorely disappointed by the new Lord of the Rings RPG -- which definitely falls prey to talking pompously about genre and epic story, but then has a lot of pointless reality-like (but not actually realistic) rules.  My favorite pointlessness: -1 to Physical Tests for light rain vs -3 for heavy rain.

Quote from: C. EdwardsAs I see it the whole issue comes down to a failure to communicate the purpose of a game's design in relation to its 'source material' and how that relates to consumer expectations based upon that same 'source material'.

A genre operates under a certain set of rules. They vary between genres and even to a degree within an individual genre. Here's the problem. In that other thread there was much talk about an RPG being based on a genre, that is in most cases just false. The games that Fang is perturbed by are not based on a genre but the color elements attached to a genre. These RPGs stretch the color elements of a genre over a rules-set meant to be a simulation of 'reality' (to some degree) and generally ignore the conventions of the genre they supposedly emulate. That's it.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that of course. When somebody buys a game that has the trappings of a particular genre splattered all over the cover and in snippets of colorful prose throughout the book and the game doesn't return a play experience in much of anyway resembling its 'source material', that's when bitterness ensues.

Yep that's it, pretty much.  Well said.

Plus, let me add my opinion that those things "there's nothing inherently wrong with" (games that "stretch the color elements") won't be as popular if honestly portrayed as not "emulating their genre" (unplayed sales not withstanding).

And one other observation, getting beyond just "[stretching] the color elements" as you call it, does not need to be overt.  If nothing more than a 'hidden agenda,' it still prevents "bitterness."  That's like only the most abstract gun rules in a soap opera game or the near absence of car repair rules in an action movie game.

I am not saying that absolutely no one cares about "simulation of 'reality,'" I'm saying this 'simulation' 'sells better' (inspires less "bitterness") if tempered by a 'hidden agenda.'

So I guess I'm saying that in my experience a game does better across it's whole audience (both those who prefer a "simulation of 'realty'" and those who desire an 'emulation of genre') if it has a well crafted 'hidden agenda' to 'emulate its genre,' than if it simply "[stretches] the color elements" (appealing therefore to a smaller market and causing "bitterness" in some).  Furthermore, I just don't see those who prefer a "simulation of 'reality'" suffering any of their own "bitterness" if the 'hidden agenda' is hidden well enough.

It should go without saying, therefore, that I think "simulation of 'reality'" is a good thing, so long as it is not an end unto itself.  (Can anyone name a role-playing game that is played as 'just reality?')  And I believe that only "[stretching] the color elements" is very close to "simulation of 'reality'" as an end unto itself.

Fang Langford

p. s. I don't know what the 'missing term' is.  I was just trying to say that games that have HA with SoR appeal to more people than games the just have SoR and StCE, even if both have SoR.

Quote from: clehrichI guess all I was trying to say is that "reality" is fluid, and not simulable.  That is, it is only possible for an ordinary person to assess realism on aesthetic grounds....

I would have to agree with this. So much so that I've stopped lurking to agree with this point.

Lets take an example. I want to write a game that deals with the Arab world as a setting in the time around World War I. One of my favorite books from my teenage years is the Seven Pillars of Wisdom by DH Lawrence so I decide to make that my central source.

Already I'm making assumptions. Historians cannot agree how actual/truthful Seven Pillars is. I just heard an NPR story where two imminent historians had radical disagreements on the accuracy and vermisitude of this book. One considered it a novel, the other something a more truthful. Both talked about the shifting book Lawrence wanted to read. So by choosing Seven Pillars I've choosen a very specific world I plan on simulating. A world that doesn't necessarily agree with reality, but thats fine. I could as easily be simulating a specific pulp style or Joseph Conrad.

By choosing Seven Pillars I've decided that its style is my overriding concern, and that will override anyother source I may choose to build my simulation. I could have easily have chosen an Arab source (Mustafa Lutfi el-Manfalouti, for example) and that would radically change the game setting I'm trying to simulate. Either way by choosing this guidepost I now find myself dismissing quite a few historians/sociologists. They just aren't relevant (choose five historians on the era from 5 different countries and you'll get five radically different opinions on Larence and his truth-telling)and you find that your simulation isn't reality as some people who lived then might understand it.

And that goes to just about anything I choose to simulate. No picture can be complete, it can just be close-to-accurate for the things I'm choosing to model. Simulationism is great fun, it just isn't a complete picture. And I'm not sure it should be in any game. If sociologists and other humanity types admit that even their most powerful simulations can only show a few factors of life why do you expect a game to be different?

Jeremiah Genest

Quote from: Le JoueurSo I guess I'm saying that in my experience a game does better across it's whole audience (both those who prefer a "simulation of 'realty'" and those who desire an 'emulation of genre') if it has a well crafted 'hidden agenda' to 'emulate its genre,' than if it simply "[stretches] the color elements" (appealing therefore to a smaller market and causing "bitterness" in some).  Furthermore, I just don't see those who prefer a "simulation of 'reality'" suffering any of their own "bitterness" if the 'hidden agenda' is hidden well enough.

Could you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific source material)? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one.

Jere

Quote from: Jere

Quote from: Le JoueurSo I guess I'm saying that in my experience a game does better across it's whole audience (both those who prefer a "simulation of 'realty'" and those who desire an 'emulation of genre') if it has a well crafted 'hidden agenda' to 'emulate its genre,' than if it simply "[stretches] the color elements" (appealing therefore to a smaller market and causing "bitterness" in some).  Furthermore, I just don't see those who prefer a "simulation of 'reality'" suffering any of their own "bitterness" if the 'hidden agenda' is hidden well enough.

Could you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific source material)? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one.

You and me both.  That's what I've been asking for....

Fang Langford

QuoteCould you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific source material)?

I would qualify this with "emulating a genre or specific source or multiple sources" just to allow for such fresh idea and Dracula meets Roger Rabbit, the Vampire/Toon crossover. (Sounds like gold, doesn't it?)

I want to take a small step back. Emulating a source or two seems natural to me. I remember after seeing Condorman when I was a kid, I wanted to BE Condorman. (I was a kid. Sue me) I remember after seeing the Goonies, I wanted to be a Goonie. And so on. This sort of desire to be part of or in the admired story I think was well summed up by a quote attributed to Stephen Spielburg when talking about the Universal Studios theme park.

QuoteRide the movies

So it makes sense that most people who make roleplaying games are trying to provide a method to ride the movies, so to speak. Or perhaps ride the genre? Something along those lines.

Quote from: JereCould you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific  source material)? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one.

Quite a puzzle. Quick think of a subject for a text that is outside of a genre!  Umm.... Good texts that are unclassifiable often beget their own genre.  It seems like we are using a fairly loose definition of the word genre, such that as soon as you get two texts on the same subject, you'd have a genre.  Maybe I'm looking at this askew. I can't think of a game that fits the description either, though.


John Kim has a very interesting point about the role Traveller played in his life.  It's realism-oriented rules taught him about astrophysics.  That's an extremely worthy goal in a game.  Just as a thought experiment, imagine that Traveller had rules of similar complexity and rigour about physics that operate under different rules than those we have observed to work in our universe.  The game might have been just as enjoyable, but would not have lead to the same level of real world knowledge in his experience had he played this alternate Traveller as a child.  The process of playing it might have taught him other things: math, careful observation, etc., but it wouldn't have taught him about the content of real world physics.  The two versions of Traveller could have been equally well-written games and been equally enjoyed but held different value for players.

Looking at reasons why it may be valuable to use the aesthetic of realism, we may come up with a laundry list of "why work towards realism":

• Ease of communication: fidelity to real world gives game participants a shared frame of reference
  
• Aesthetic satisfaction: system elements that emulate real world (in whatever fashion) are satisfying to use or participate in
  
• Artistic Challenge: coming close to reality is a challenge or goal that give satisfaction to accomplish, just as in painting or sculpture, it is a high achievement of skill
  
• Education: incorporating and emulating real world elements teaches participants about what's being emulated, even if the level of simulation is rough
  [/list:u]
  
  And maybe a "why not" list:
  
  
  
  • Because it contradicts genre expectations: eg Death rules for superheros in a game where the super heros will never die.
    
  • In order to give a strict simulation of reality: simulations will always be rough approximations (a la John Kim and Jason's posts)
    
  • What else?
    [/list:u]
    
    If we expand this out to have "realism" included as a GenEx, this list could apply to any old aesthetic.  And as Jack posted, "wanting to be Condorman" could fall under the aesthetic satisfaction category.  Good example, man. :) Or maybe that gets into psychological identification and vicarious experience, which is a matter of what roleplaying is used for in general.  Different topic.
    
    --Emily Care

Quote from: JereCould you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific  source material)? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly - lack of sleep and all - but isn't basic GURPS exactly this game?  I'm not sure, because a cursory glance of my GURPS basic edition doesn't show a smoking gun where the designers say "we're trying to simulate reality" - but that seems to be the effect in play (at least among the people I've played GURPS with).

Maybe I'm just not understanding the question?

Cheers,



Jason

Quote from: Emily CareJohn Kim has a very interesting point about the role Traveller played in his life.  It's realism-oriented rules taught him about astrophysics.  That's an extremely worthy goal in a game.

Traveller is an excellent example of a game that strives for realism in certain ways but doesn't in others. I've heard admirable things over the years about Traveller's treatment of Astrophysics from people who certainly understand Astrophysics a whole lot more than I do. Its treatment of technological and societal advancement is atrocious. And its modeling of the social and legal spheres laughable. I would say that Traveller did not even try to acuratelly model these (and if it did, it failed). Does that make Traveller a bad game? Nope, I love it for what it does succeed at, painting a beautiful Space Opera of a setting and giving lots of space to play around with.

Jere

Quote from: deadpanbobMaybe I'm not thinking clearly - lack of sleep and all - but isn't basic GURPS exactly this game?  I'm not sure, because a cursory glance of my GURPS basic edition doesn't show a smoking gun where the designers say "we're trying to simulate reality" - but that seems to be the effect in play (at least among the people I've played GURPS with).

The problem with discussing specific games is that it's a little hard to distinguish the reality from the advertizing hype.

GURPS was based on many concepts found in Steve Jackson's previous The Fantasy Trip game, a fantasy genre game. The combat system was release before GURPS as Man-To-Man. My point is, GURPS is very much like d20. It was originally designed as a fantasy combat game that has been retooled in a couple places to be "generic" or "universal" but it never quite overcome the fantasy roots. I know at least one guy who things that GURPS is great for fantasy but sucks for modern day because the way guns works is just not "realistic." One man's opinion, but I think I had heard this opinion elsewhere so different people can reach this same conclusion separately. Also, fantasy seems to be the default genre which more telling that GURPS is a fantasy RPG being used for other genres.

GURPS claims realism but by no means always delivers. There are all kinds of widgets and blivets in it, and the folks in charge routinely dismiss well-documented evidence that contradicts their stylistic preferences. (Which is fine except insofar as they claim that this or that is how it really is, rather than how they'd like it for a game with a particular sort of default style of its own.)

Quote from: deadpanbob

Quote from: JereCould you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific  source material)? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly - lack of sleep and all - but isn't basic GURPS exactly this game?  I'm not sure, because a cursory glance of my GURPS basic edition doesn't show a smoking gun where the designers say "we're trying to simulate reality" - but that seems to be the effect in play (at least among the people I've played GURPS with).

GURPS doesn't succeed in simulating reality. I'd say that GURPS succceeds in providing the rools to build a simulation that meets your needs.

If we take a look at Steve Jackson's introduction (I only have 3rd edition revised on my shelves) he says:

"The basic rules emphasizes realism. Therefore, it can fit any situation -- fantasy or historical, past, present or future." he then goes on to say that "There are world books and supplements that "fine-tune" the generic system for any game-world you want."

Which, and you are right, indicates that Steve Jackson wanted GURPS to be that reality-mdoeling game, but even he realized that the game didn't succeed. I think, given SJGames recent design decisions, that the company has realized that it takes a lot more than 'fine-tuning' and have reacted acordingly with their Powered by GURPS lines. But even then they are more stressing specific emulations (Hellboy, WWII movies, Transhumanism).

GURPS can't even really claim to be a true attempt at reality modeling. They've steered away from comprehensive societal systems, economics, and other areas of human existence.

I just don't think GURPS makes it. There seems to have been the idea that that is what they were trying for, but I think they gave up actually trying to do that years ago and are quite a bit wiser now.

Jere

Hey Jason,

Gots one problem with the following:

Quote from: deadpanbob

Quote from: JereCould you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific  source material)? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly - lack of sleep and all - but isn't basic GURPS exactly this game?

Except that do you know anyone who plays only the basic edition?  (Not the 'complete' one that came later with magic and psionic rules, I think those "[emulate] a genre.")  As soon as you pick up one of the other products to play with it....

Fang Langford

Quote from: JereGURPS doesn't succeed in simulating reality. I'd say that GURPS succceeds in providing the rools to build a simulation that meets your needs.
....
Which, and you are right, indicates that Steve Jackson wanted GURPS to be that reality-mdoeling game, but even he realized that the game didn't succeed.
...
GURPS can't even really claim to be a true attempt at reality modeling. They've steered away from comprehensive societal systems, economics, and other areas of human existence.

First of all, you have just shifted the goalposts.  You initially asked for "an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre".  Jason did exactly that, and you admitted that he was right.  

Second, you have moved the goal-posts to a ridiculous point: that in order to "succeed", a game has to perfectly model every aspect of reality in the universe.  Now, I personally dislike the GURPS mechanics and I would agree that they does a very poor job as far as realism goes -- even in the fields where they try.  However, by your definition, it is patently obvious that nothing can ever succeed.  Heck, million-dollar scientific simulations fail even more thoroughly than GURPS does.  No simulation can cover all possible fields, and even within narrow fields, no simulation matches 100% with reality.  

Now, perhaps there is some Zen-like wisdom in saying "All simulations fail."  But we should recognize it as a statement of a universal truth, not an observation about particular games.

If no one's said it yet Jere, Welcome to the Forge!

If GURPS and historical RPGs don't fit the bill for you nothing will.  GURPS is the perfect example of stretching color over simulation rules (despite its fantasy roots).  From my PoV, you're definition of realistic and genre cannot be compatible.

No game will provide an objective simulation of reality - they are all written by people and reality is subjective (I think therefore I am and all that).  I don't think anyone really believes otherwise, but you have to take that into account when trying to find an RPG that's purpose is to simulate reality.  All the game needs to fit the bill then is the goal of simulating reality - the author will do the best he can from his PoV.  An author needs to draw his definition of reality for purposes of the game from somewhere, like historical source material or other things that if you try real hard you can claim are a genre.

Quote from: JereCould you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific  source material)?

From what I see here the question seems to actually be:

Quote from: ICould you give an example of a game that really tries to draw upon an external reference and develop a realistic model and isn't really just trying to develop a model based upon an external reference?

Pretty impossible unless you loosen your requirements to something more like:

Quote from: ICould you give an example of a game that really tries to draw upon an external reference and develop a realistic model and isn't using the same external reference for developing color as it is for it's realistic model?

To which I say, GURPS.

I can accept that I may not have been correct as to how the question is supposed to be taken, but I do think broad versus narrow definitions of reality and genre are obsuring the question.  Not saying we should drop the terms, just make sure we're all on the same page.


Fang Cross Post Reply:

Quote from: FangExcept that do you know anyone who plays only the basic edition?

Me, back in the day when I played GURPS.  Err...wait, memory...it was the 'complete' version.  But, you don't need to always play with those elements.  Besides, 'Yeah, but does anyone actually play this game?' is a pretty weak arguement.  It was written after all, and almost certainly played when that happened.  Given the fact the edition you are refering to was replaced, no people probably don't play it anymore.

John Cross Post Reply:
Yeah.

Quote from: Le JoueurExcept that do you know anyone who plays only the basic edition?  (Not the 'complete' one that came later with magic and psionic rules, I think those "[emulate] a genre.")  As soon as you pick up one of the other products to play with it....  

Any narrative can be related to a genre, regardless of whether it has magic/psionics/etc.  Even if I play using only the basic edition in a game set in the real world, my GURPS game will have a genre (like the modern adventure genre).  

However, your assertion here is that the presence of any similarity to a genre indicates that the game is "really" trying to emulate that genre, not reality.  i.e. If I have magic in my game, that automatically means that I want my game narrative to be just  like other fantasy genre stories.  I think you need to look at what the designers actually say and do, rather than just citing token similarities.  For example, GURPS Supers has costumed superpowered folk -- but it is also subtitled "Super-Powered Roleplaying Meets the Real World".  It isn't trying to be just like four-color comics, but rather explores "What if super-powers were real?"  

While the sourcebooks vary, overall GURPS is pretty committed to exploring a reality rather than trying to emulate the narrative of source material.  I would cite also the hard science-fiction games "Blue Planet" and "Aurora", which have similar "What If?" questions.  The same applies, I think, to HarnMaster and SkyRealms of Jorune -- which treat their fantasy worlds as real environments.

Quote from: crucielFang Cross Post Reply:

Quote from: FangExcept that do you know anyone who plays only the basic edition?

Me, back in the day when I played GURPS.  Err...wait, memory...it was the 'complete' version.  But, you don't need to always play with those elements.  Besides, 'Yeah, but does anyone actually play this game?' is a pretty weak arguement.  It was written after all.

I don't believe the arguement is that weak. The basic set is meant to be used with with one of the world books, or whatever GURPS calls them. It's like playing AD&D 1st ed with just the players handbook. You kind of need the dungeon master's guide and the monster manual.

Besides, if you buy my arguement that GURPS was built from and defaults to a fantasy genre, then even just playing using the basic rulebook would have some genre expectations. And even if a group did play with just the basic book and they didn't play fantasy, we could probably look at this hypethetical game played by a hypethetical group and notice it fits into this or that genre.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrBesides, if you buy my arguement that GURPS was built from and defaults to a fantasy genre, then even just playing using the basic rulebook would have some genre expectations. And even if a group did play with just the basic book and they didn't play fantasy, we could probably look at this hypethetical game played by a hypethetical group and notice it fits into this or that genre.

You're right, which is my problem here.  You can cram anything under the header of genre if you want to.  GURPS is now the 'Realistic Fantasy Genre', my job is now the 'Unix Genre', and my car is the 'Automotive Experience Genre'.  I don't think anything useful can be said about non-genre if non-genre doesn't exist.  In other worlds, using genre too broadly will make this conversation go thunk and then splat.

Since we're descending into the same madness as previously, I hereby retract my challenge.

To bring the word genre into all of it's common uses renders this whole discussion moot.  It's injection was originally as a substitute for 'source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,' which was an attempt to not use the word 'story.'  If you begin to use 'genre' to mean any roughly contiguous set of experiences ("Unix Genre" or "Automotive Experience Genre") then I vote we avoid it's use for the rest of the thread as that meaning is equivalent to 'thing.'

Cruciel creates a really interesting straw man to argue with essentially implying that it's impossible to simultaneously 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' and 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative."'  This is patently false; I doubt any game ever does one without any of the other.

And that was the basis of my original point.[/list:u]Without the presence of large measures of both, my point becomes nonsensical.  What I was trying to say and keep trying to say despite the frivolous use of 'genre,' despite the straw men stood up, is that since I can't see a game that is played without the presence of both elements in large measure, I argue that making the 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' the more important of the two, weakens (and renders 'harder to ignore the overt presence of') the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative."'

Try saying that before breakfast.

Anyway, since no one seems to agree that putting a game's 'creative agenda' ahead of the 'completeness' of its mechanisms is the obvious choice, I retract the opinion and plan on keeping it to myself from now on.  If you want a game that is 'more complete' than it is aesthetic, more power to you; I've never seen one of these 'succeed.'  (I plan on no one understanding that line and refuse to explain it.)

Fang Langford

edited to improve color choice and add "is the obivous choice" to a nonsensical statement.

Quote from: Le JoueurCruciel creates a really interesting straw man to argue with essentially implying that it's impossible to simultaneously 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' and 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative."'  This is patently false; I doubt any game ever does one without any of the other.

I don't remember saying that, and I certainly didn't mean to.  I was saying that reducing the definition of reality so it approaches zero and increasing the definition of genre so it approaches infinity would make the discussion impossible.

Quote from: Le JoueurAnyway, since no one seems to agree that putting a game's 'creative agenda' ahead of the 'completeness' of its mechanisms, I retract the opinion and plan on keeping it to myself from now on.  If you want a game that is 'more complete' than it is aesthetic, more power to you; I've never seen one of these 'succeed.'  (I plan on no one understanding that line and refuse to explain it.)

Don't think anyone disagreed with that as a worthwhile goal either.  The only contention is that that need be the only worthwhile goal which could result in a successful game.

Quote from: Jack Spencer Jr
I don't believe the arguement is that weak. The basic set is meant to be used with with one of the world books, or whatever GURPS calls them. It's like playing AD&D 1st ed with just the players handbook. You kind of need the dungeon master's guide and the monster manual.

Besides, if you buy my arguement that GURPS was built from and defaults to a fantasy genre, then even just playing using the basic rulebook would have some genre expectations. And even if a group did play with just the basic book and they didn't play fantasy, we could probably look at this hypethetical game played by a hypethetical group and notice it fits into this or that genre.

Firstly, I nod to John for saying elegantly what I was going to about moving the goalposts. I believe GURPS fits the bill quite well.

Secondly:

GURPS Basic. I did. Modern day. No set genre that the players were aware of. No special powers. We switched to GURPS because we felt the firearms were more realistic than what we were playing (Hero).

One of the reasons I especially like generic systems is because one can use them to set genre-expectations on their heads. That's a major strength. And when you've contra-genreed then you need some base-line reality to fall back on.

-Marco

I'm sorry Fang but I'm not sure that I understand what it is exactly you are arguing, and I'm not sure that anyone else here has either.  I may just be simpleminded but I'd like to understand where your coming from so I'll ask some basic questions.

Are you simply saying that most games focus almost exclusively on working out mechanics to resolve actions realistically and ignore mechanics that help to promote style of play desired ?

Or are you saying that game designers focus too much on developing the mechanics of games and not enough time with the atmosphere?

Quote from: Le JoueurPlus, let me add my opinion that those things "there's nothing inherently wrong with" (games that "stretch the color elements") won't be as popular if honestly portrayed as not "emulating their genre" (unplayed sales not withstanding).

I certainly agree with this opinion. Basically what I was saying with "there's nothing inherently wrong" is if someone wants to design a James Bond rpg that's a study in ballistic minutae and blood loss ratios for various types of wounds, more power to them. Just don't expect me to give a rat's ass.

I think that both types of games, those that emulate the atmosphere and conventions of the 'source material' and those that use the color elements of the 'source material' as a base for a 'realistic' simulation, have their place though. Different strokes for different folks. But, don't try and pass off one for the other. That's a common practice that is largely due to a lack of recognition of the different needs of varying playstyles and the unfathomable belief that one game can serve the needs of all playstyles.

Ok then, done ranting.

-Chris

Quote from: C. EdwardsI think that both types of games, those that emulate the atmosphere and conventions of the 'source material' and those that use the color elements of the 'source material' as a base for a 'realistic' simulation, have their place though. Different strokes for different folks. But, don't try and pass off one for the other. That's a common practice that is largely due to a lack of recognition of the different needs of varying playstyles and the unfathomable belief that one game can serve the needs of all playstyles.

I agree with this, and would like to point out there is another priority you could focus on here...sacrificing both realism and atmosphere to ensure the game provides a balanced challenge for the players.  In fact, I could say that you could prioritize the 'game challenge', the 'aesthetic conventions of the source material', or the 'simulation of reality'.  Then I could put labels on these groups and call them Gamism, Dramatism, and Simulationism.  Then I could argue about it and refine these definitions, maybe even evolving it into a different model.  But, I digress.

So, back to Fang...

Quote from: Le JoueurWithout the presence of large measures of both, my point becomes nonsensical.  What I was trying to say and keep trying to say despite the frivolous use of 'genre,' despite the straw men stood up, is that since I can't see a game that is played without the presence of both elements in large measure, I argue that making the 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' the more important of the two, weakens (and renders 'harder to ignore the overt presence of') the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative."'

I read this over a few times, and all this seems to be saying is that prioritizing realism over aesthetics takes something away from aesthetics...which I definately don't disagree with, but am failing to see the big revelation - there are always tradeoffs.  If that's it, that's all, and you aren't trying to say one decision is better than the other - then yeah, I'm with ya.  And yeah, designers should know they have to prioritize and clearly pick one.  That's just saying coherency is a good idea.

Quote from: crucielI was saying that reducing the definition of reality so it approaches zero and increasing the definition of genre so it approaches infinity would make the discussion impossible.

Then you're arguing against a straw man, cuz I ain't talkin' 'bout reducing anything to zero.  If I haven't said it clearly enough, I'm talking about one being 100% and the other being 101%.

My point is absolutely pointless if you imagine that I'm saying anything is reduced to 0%.  That would be like saying having an arm without a head to move it (or a head with no arm to do anything).  If you keep implying that my argument can be reduced by superimposing all or nothing labels on it, you continue to argue with straw.

Fang Langford

Quote from: CaldisI'm sorry Fang but I'm not sure that I understand what it is exactly you are arguing, and I'm not sure that anyone else here has either.  I may just be simpleminded but I'd like to understand where your coming from so I'll ask some basic questions.

Ye Gads.  Give the "Woe is me, I'm too stupid" crap a rest.  Nobody here is stupid.  I'm making a subtle point; that means it's tough to get.  Some things in life are hard, a lot of those are unnecessary.

Like this one.[/list:u]I'm entitled to have my own opinion.  I'm also entitled to have no one get it

and no one to give a rat's ass about it.

Please, oh please, if you don't care to 'get it' don't bother attacking it.  I'm almost positive it's implications won't mean diddly-squat to you.  However, if your curious: ask.

Quote from: CaldisAre you simply saying that most games focus almost exclusively on working out mechanics to resolve actions realistically and ignore mechanics that help to promote style of play desired?

I'm not simply saying anything.  There is no 'exclusive focus.'  I'm talking about a certain slight shading.  A hint, if you will, that most games, when the chips are down, will pick 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' over the other.  My experience is that in those cases it falls upon the individual's expectations and failing that becomes a 'bad experience.'  My intention is to say 'why do that?'

Quote from: CaldisOr are you saying that game designers focus too much on developing the mechanics of games and not enough time with the atmosphere?

It's not about atmosphere or anything usually treated so superficially.  I'm talking about implications flowing out of the movement of the entire structure of a game.  Things like the presence of 'extra rules' that never get used, but are there only for the sake of the 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life.'  I'm talking about 'what gets the most attention' in the rules.  I'm talking about 'where the buck stops' in the rules.  These are not easy things to suss out; they're very subtle.

That's why these subtle things, like my opinion on this, don't matter.[/list:u]I'm saying that when the

'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' clearly comes before 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' the game suffers.

If "the atmosphere" pimped by the color text can carry the game past this subtle failing, no one notices (except me).  I'm saying 'what if' you took the little effort to make the subtle difference in priority.

What I'm not saying is that the 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' exists at the expense of the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' or vice versa.  If you can't see how they both exist in every game¹.  Then you'll never get my point.

And it's mine and you can't have it.[/list:u]Fang Langford

¹ Back in the parent thread to this, I practically begged for an example where there was no

'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' even if it was just color text.  Now, I'd raise that bar to say that given a potential example of it, has the person suggesting it played it in a fashion where they or their group did not in some way create (either implicitly or explicitly) any 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' of their own.

I doubt such example exists.  That's right, I'm saying you can't play without some 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' in your play.  Like I said, it's my opinion and your welcome to leave it in the dust.  The door is over there.

Quote from: Le JoueurThen you're arguing against a straw man, cuz I ain't talkin' 'bout reducing anything to zero.  If I haven't said it clearly enough, I'm talking about one being 100% and the other being 101%.

My point is absolutely pointless if you imagine that I'm saying anything is reduced to 0%.  That would be like saying having an arm without a head to move it (or a head with no arm to do anything).  If you keep implying that my argument can be reduced by superimposing all or nothing labels on it, you continue to argue with straw.

Well, the post in question was actually responding to Jere's GURPS realism post that John also responded to (who apparently stated the arguement better than I did, as he isn't being flogged with his goalposts).

But, as you seem to have taken up the flag...

If a game that seems to prioritize realism first (GURPS) isn't sufficient enough to fall into the category of a game that prioritizes realistic mechanics over source material aesthetics then you're narrowing the definition of realism down too much to be useful.  It's saying 'Well, GURPS isn't actually realistic, so it can't have realistic mechanics - no matter what the designers wanted.'

Quote from: cruciel[Fang] seems to be saying is that prioritizing realism over aesthetics takes something away from aesthetics...which I definately don't disagree with, but am failing to see the big revelation - there are always tradeoffs.  If that's it, that's all, and you aren't trying to say one decision is better than the other - then yeah, I'm with ya.  And yeah, designers should know they have to prioritize and clearly pick one.  That's just saying coherency is a good idea.

I'm not saying "pick one."  I'm saying what if nobody ever picked 'the other one?'  What if it were never a matter of prioritizing the 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' before the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' but instead a matter of how much of the latter to show (even though it was the priority always).

What would happen then?  What if every game prioritized the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' but only a few showed it obviously?

To me, only to me, and very definitely only me, would that make all games better.  (Especially games who were original and had no single 'source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative.')

This is not an opinion I want verified or ratified.  It was an observation I wanted to share.  An idea that I thought many would benefit from.  A concept I felt I could understand better if I had to explain it.

Not at all how it turned out.[/list:u]Fang Langford

Quote from: Le JoueurI doubt such example exists.  That's right, I'm saying you can't play without some 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' in your play.  Like I said, it's my opinion and your welcome to leave it in the dust.  The door is over there.

I still (I did before too) agree with everything you've said in this post except the above quoted section.  We may have to agree to disagree here.  You acknowledge it's an opinion and that's good enough for me.  My opinion is that play needn't be reminescent of a fictional narrative.

Quote from: crucielBut, as you seem to have taken up the flag...

If a game that seems to prioritize realism first (GURPS) isn't sufficient enough to fall into the category of a game that prioritizes realistic mechanics over source material aesthetics....

There's that straw man again.  Did I ever narrow the definition of "realism first?"  I don't think so; I believe calling the phenomenon the 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' makes it a whole heck of a lot broader and GURPS most definitely fits this model.  I remember the amusing introduction to one of the earliest versions citing SCA sword practice experience as all the 'reality' they needed for the game.  That's enough 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' for me to think it prioritized.

Have you played it without any preconceived notions of the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' coloring your play?  If not, then the play wasn't free of at least some of it.  Note, I'm not trying to prove anything, but applying my recent criteria to the offerings as exceptions.  Yes, it's narrow to say that preconceived notions count, but my supposition depends on both always being present.

Quote from: crucielYou acknowledge it's an opinion and that's good enough for me.  My opinion is that play needn't be reminescent of a fictional narrative.

And mine is that it's unavoidable.  (And so far only one game has been listed doing this and as I said, that is just an example that proves my opinion to me.)

Fang Langford

Quote from: Le JoueurWhat would happen then?  What if every game prioritized the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' but only a few showed it obviously?

Then we'd have all Sim/Nar hybrids and the Gamists would go play computer games and Warhammer (which may well happen in your undefined Stage 5 for all I know).

QuoteTo me, only to me, and very definitely only me, would that make all games better.  (Especially games who were original and had no single 'source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative.')

This is not an opinion I want verified or ratified.  It was an observation I wanted to share.  An idea that I thought many would benefit from.  A concept I felt I could understand better if I had to explain it.

Given the prevailing opinion (I think it's prevailing) that a functional Sim/Nar hybrid needs to have Nar as the priority and Sim as subordinate this seems to sync up nicely and explain quite a bit about that approach.

Quote from: Le JoueurThere's that straw man again.  Did I ever narrow the definition of "realism first?"  I don't think so; I believe calling the phenomenon the 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' makes it a whole heck of a lot broader and GURPS most definitely fits this model.  I remember the amusing introduction to one of the earliest versions citing SCA sword practice experience as all the 'reality' they needed for the game.  That's enough 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' for me to think it prioritized.

Well then, I guess I wasn't the one who put up this straw man to begin with.  'Cause you're saying my arguement against Jere's post is wrong because you said something different than he did.  Umm...ok, sure.  I'm gonna let this particular disagreement drop.

EDIT:

Quote from: Le JoueurHave you played it without any preconceived notions of the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' coloring your play?  If not, then the play wasn't free of at least some of it.  Note, I'm not trying to prove anything, but applying my recent criteria to the offerings as exceptions.  Yes, it's narrow to say that preconceived notions count, but my supposition depends on both always being present.

Too narrow for my tastes, and too narrow to exclude any rpg (hence the genre approaching infinity arguement) - therefore impossible to argue against.  I'm gonna chalk this up to an unresolvable difference of opinion as well.

I seem to have stirred a wasps' nest.

So far as I can tell, Fang is saying something like this (Fang, correct me if I'm wrong; this is an honest attempt):

1. All games in some manner or other emulate what we perceive as ordinary reality.

2. All games are at the same time colored by "source material," i.e. non-real representations which impose non-real expectations.

3. All games which claim to prioritize #1 and ignore #2 are in fact combinations, despite themselves.

4. Many games which seem as though they ought to prioritize #2, in that they claim reference to specific source material, actually waste a lot of time prioritizing #1.

5. Therefore, it would be best to focus game design priorities upon #2, and to a great extent let #1 take care of itself.

Now if I've got that right, it seems to me an enlargement or extension of one of Mike's Rants, specifically the one about how if you spend 50 pages detailing combat mechanics, you have just announced that your game is about combat, whether you like it or not.  Fang, I think, is extending this: if you spend time detailing exactly how to model reality in a game based upon, say, Space 1999, you're detracting from the really important focus on modeling Space 1999.

Now the point I brought up at the outset was that all this essentially amounts to aesthetics of degree; as Fang has noted repeatedly, it's not a question of absolutes on any end.  But I'd push a little further.

Seems to me that what's called for here is a focus on the intersection of the two regions.  Space Opera means nothing without reference to reality, and reality means nothing without reference to ideas and structures outside of formal reality and in the bounds of pure ideation.  Setting the latter half of that aside, the point is that every game system has to come up with a way to bridge between reality and the source material, however defined.¹  Now the trick is that this depends upon your aesthetics of how that intersection works within the source, which is what you really have to model.

For example, if you think The Matrix is really about grittiness and true reality, focused especially upon combat, but that it extends this in a narrow range of absolute categories, then you will want a fairly gritty and real-feeling combat system, with specific rules for how this same set of rules can be bent or broken by people like Neo.  But if you think this is really a fairly wild comic-book sort of thing which is only colored grittily, then you will want a very different set of rules.  It all depends upon how you interpret the intersection of perceived reality with the fantastic elements of the source.

If I've understood all this reasonably correctly, I just don't see why it's such a bone of contention.  You have to interpret your sources, however many and varied, and you have to formulate a mechanics system that appropriately represents your interpretation of how those sources intersect with perceived reality.  You can do this implicitly or explicitly, of course.  

If the point is that lots of games don't seem to do this coherently, I agree entirely.  But does this get us anywhere?  The way to make this a useful principle for game design and diagnosis would be to formulate it in schematic model form.  Here's a few suggestions (which I hope will spark further discussion):

A. To what extent does this specific sort of incoherence overlap with GNS incoherence, if at all?

B. I recommend that we refer to Baseline (or something of the kind) instead of reality; retaining "reality" as a term seems to spark all sorts of difficulties incidental to the actual point at stake.

C. I recommend that we scrap "genre," "source," and everything of the sort.  Again, they spark all sorts of problems.²  How about Vision?

D. I think we need to come up with some classification for the different types of intersections that get rendered in mechanics.  There's physics and so forth, of course, but there are also what might very loosely be called narrative concerns.  I don't think we want "narrative," owing to overlap with GNS, and "story" seems a disaster waiting to happen.  Furthermore, I don't think that material reality plus (loosely) narrative elements cover the complete range.

Thus:  as Baseline intersects with Vision, mechanics are formulated to represent that intersection.  These mechanics will render, in more or less detail, a range of factors (materiality, fiction/story/plot/narrative elements, etc.).

E. The diagnostic issues are, then:

(1) Is prioritization of factors appropriate to the Vision?
(2) Is the balance of emphasis in mechanical rendering appropriate and adequate to the range of intersection?  That is, does it stress one or the other side of Baseline/Vision?
(3) Does the totality of the game's material support these mechanics, such that it is clear how the various pieces work together?[/list:u]
Anyway, I think that might be a useful place to begin.  I do not think this is the same as GNS, but it's probably a layer in the Big Model (on whose pieces I am unclear, and most of which I believe have not adequately been detailed).

Thoughts?

Notes
1. "Source material."  Without wanting to provoke arguments about the nature of genre, the point here is that those aspects of a game which are fantastic are strongly colored by prior encounters with some sort of source material. If nothing else, we've all seen movies and TV, whether we use them consciously or not.  The most creative idea does not exist in a vacuum.

2. "Genre."  I note that Ron pushed for the elimination of the term "genre" in "GNS and Other Matters."  I rather wonder whether this was (at least in part) the problem he was trying to avoid.

Clehrich is 'close enough for government work.'

My silence otherwise is me attempting to be less reactionary than yesterday.  Right or wrong, I think people understand what I think.

Fang Langford

Quote from: Le JoueurHave you played it without any preconceived notions of the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,"' coloring your play?  If not, then the play wasn't free of at least some of it....

And mine is that it's unavoidable.  (And so far only one game has been listed doing this and as I said, that is just an example that proves my opinion to me.)

I don't know. I've got this feeling that this notion of "fictional narrative coloring your play" can be stretched so far that there's no way around it; at the same time, I think that taken as stated, it is not unavoidable.

I started play with OAD&D. Now, in OAD&D there's a long list of fiction that was considered inspirational source materials. At the time I hadn't even heard of 90% of the stuff; even now, I'm sure I haven't read quite a lot of what's listed there. I came to OAD&D in some sense looking for a Tolkienesque experience within a game. Did I find it? Well, yes and no. Did the books influence the way we played? That's just it: I don't really think it did. I think that the only "fictional narrative" that impacted how we played was the rules to the game themselves. We recognized rather quickly that the elves of the game were different from the elves of Tolkien, and the orcs were even more different, and although the dwarfs and halflings and rangers certainly owed a great deal to those books, they weren't the same thing by a long stretch. We also recognized that although we were creating heroic adventures, they were entirely different heroic adventures from those we read in books (and although I hadn't read many of the cited source books in OAD&D, I'd read quite a bit of fantasy that was not so cited).

I played Metamorphosis Alpha; I don't know whether there actually is any fictional narrative source material for that, but it certainly didn't impact the way we played. I'm sure there are post apocalyptic movies, but I saw no similarity at all between our Gamma World experiences and, say, Mad Max, or even Time Machine. Star Frontiers had only passing similarities to Star Trek or Star Wars. None of these games were "realistic" in the conventional sense; but at least when we played them, the rules created the worlds, and not our expectations.

In playing Multiverser, I usually start people in NagaWorld. We usually call NagaWorld a fantasy world, but in all the time I've run it or played it I think I only once was aware of any character or creature using magic within the world, and that in a single instance of play. There is no narrative source material NagaWorld is trying to copy; it's very specifically attempting to be completely unlike anything you've ever encountered anywhere else, from the superficial (orange grass) to the incredible (the universe is only a thousand miles in diameter, with all the stars points of light a mere five hundred miles from the center of the world). I've created other worlds that weren't supposed to be "like" anything else. In one sense, I was creating new genres in which there was a single example; in another sense, I was ignoring genre completely.

I've also created and run at least one world that leaps to mind in which everything is realistic twentieth century with an alternate history that turns it into something of a nightmare world; but the villains are all ordinary humans who think they're doing the right thing. Now, you could argue that I'm allowing the "fictional narrative" of modern realism to "color my play"; or you could as easily argue that I'm coloring it directly from my perceptions of reality. It seems like as long as you can find some book or story somewhere that resembles what is being attempted in the game, you can argue that the game is influenced by the fictional narrative. I don't buy it. If I'm playing the Civil War era and building my world on, say, the PBS documentary series, I'm not necessarily influenced by any fictional narrative.

I'll also mention Legends of Alyria. Is play here "influenced by the fictional narrative" because it creates its own fictional narrative to help illustrate how play should proceed? There is no world I've ever encountered that remotely resembles Alyria. Seth Ben-Ezra has admitted to many influences in the imagery and flavor and function of the world, but those with which I am familiar of the ones he lists are so completely different in all the ways that seem to matter that nothing here is trying to imitate anything there.

It is entirely possible for a game to define its own narrative expectations completely outside any reference to any known fictional narrative. It is entirely possible to play in such a game. Some such play attempts in some way to simulate reality (with more or less success) as we perceive it. Some tries to create a different reality and simulate that.

I certainly agree that a game that is trying to give form to a known narrative source ought to emphasize those mechanics which will realize that source material over those that will create "realistic" results. To harken back to an earlier example, in a four-color superhero game when Lois Lane is tossed out of the airplane, we should be concerned with whether Superman can save her, and not with how long it will take for her to hit the ground when falling from that altitude. At the same time, it's one thing to say that some games ought to pay more attention to the fictional narrative source material they are trying to recreate, and quite another to insist that all games are trying to recreate some fictional narrative source material. The former is excellent design advice; the latter is patent arrant nonsense. If all it means is that games have to be about something to be played, it tells us nothing; if it intends to mean that all games are about something that is represented in other narrative sources which they are committed to emulate, it's already demonstrably false (the summary dismissal of GURPS notwithstanding, it is only the clearest example of this).

I'm sorry, Fang:  All Generalities are False. There are games committed to attempting to emulate reality, in which narrative fictional sources are irrelevant. Make positive statements about those games in which such sources matter, but don't try to claim that this is the entire universe of role playing games.

--M. J. Young

Edited to fix a quote tag.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI don't know. I've got this feeling that this notion of "fictional narrative coloring your play" can be stretched so far that there's no way around it; at the same time, I think that taken as stated, it is not unavoidable.

I'd agree that the concept of fictional narrative coloring play can be stretched ridiculously far.  In fact, don't fictional narratives color our views of reality to begin with?  If so, then even an attempt to simulate reality would be influenced by the fictional narratives that color our understanding of reality.

What comes to my mind is journalism.  Think of the difference between these headlines:
"Drug addict kills three"
"Gun owner kills three"
"Church-goer kills three"
All three can be equally true at the same time; but each will tell a different story using the same facts.  Furthermore, all three could be considered "unbiased" reporting.  

Isn't this why books are divided into fiction and non-fiction (instead of fact and non-fact or something else)?  Non-fiction isn't necessarily true, it just purports to be.

With such blur between fiction and reality in real life, I think it's fair to say that systems like GURPS (Basic) strive to establish a simulation of reality as opposed to a simulation of genre.  Are there particular biases?  Of course.  Is the GURPS reality the same as the Palladium reality, or your personal one? Of course not - just like your reporting of a factual event isn't identical to anyone else's.

I would actually include a large number of games into the reality simulation (or non-genre) group, depending on which term you prefer.  We might disagree over individual titles or elements within the title, but I think recognizing a non-genre book shouldn't be any harder than identifying a book as mystery, epic fantasy, space opera or horror.  And yes, we'll even disagree over what exactly constitutes each genre but I don't think that disagreement invalidates the usefulness of genres to classify works of art.

In the end, both aesthetics and reality are going to be found to some extent in everything.  If our definitions of fiction and non-fiction can distinguish when reality or aesthetics has taken the lead, I don't think we should have any trouble determining when genre or reality has taken the lead in an RPG.  And, as has been pointed out, sometimes the advertising on a book's cover doesn't accurately portray which element is really leading.

Quote from: clehrichA. To what extent does this specific sort of incoherence overlap with GNS incoherence, if at all?

From where I'm standing it directly overlaps, as in that's what we're actually talking about.  The tradeoffs between Sim and Nar, while leaving Gam priorities out of the discussion.  Sure, not in a refined sense...but I think I'm getting a view into the past of GNS in this discussion (which is fascinating for someone like me who doesn't exactly agree with the theory - I think I'm beginning to see its necessity).

On another topic:  MJ and jdagna, I agree.  Thank you for presenting the agruement better.

Okay guys,

Unless you missed the point, I'm talking strictly about my opinion.  There is no expectation of truth or fact to what I'm saying.  I'm talking strictly about my interpretation of what I've seen/see.  To that end I only need to clarify what I've said where it has been misrepresented or misunderstood.  There's no reason anyone needs to agree with my interpretation of things.  It isn't especially important that anyone understands, however I feel it necessary that it is stated clearly.  This apparently isn't so.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI don't know. I've got this feeling that this notion of "fictional narrative coloring your play" can be stretched so far that there's no way around it; at the same time, I think that taken as stated, it is not unavoidable.

I started play with OAD&D. Now, in OAD&D there's a long list of fiction that was considered inspirational source materials. At the time I hadn't even heard of 90% of the stuff; even now, I'm sure I haven't read quite a lot of what's listed there. I came to OAD&D in some sense looking for a Tolkienesque experience within a game. Did I find it? Well, yes and no. Did the books influence the way we played?...I'd read quite a bit of fantasy that was not so cited).

The mistake here is I'm not saying specific 'source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,' just such in general.  Since your play of Original Dungeons & Dragons was influenced by some 'fantasy that you'd read,' you brought those expectations to the table.

I'm saying, in my opinion you wouldn't find Original Dungeons & Dragons interesting without this influence.  Furthermore, I'm saying that such 'influence' is never absent in role-playing games.

Quote from: M. J. Young...You could argue that I'm allowing the "fictional narrative" of modern realism to "color my play...."  ...I don't buy it.

That I am.  You're not expected to "buy it" because it's just my opinion.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI certainly agree that a game that is trying to give form to a known narrative source ought to emphasize those mechanics which will realize that source material over those that will create "realistic" results.

...It's quite another [thing] to insist that all games are trying to recreate some fictional narrative source material...[and] is patent arrant nonsense.  ...If it intends to mean that all games are about something that is represented in other narrative sources which they are committed to emulate, it's already demonstrably false (the summary dismissal of GURPS notwithstanding, it is only the clearest example of this).

The only mischaracterization here is that I'm supposedly saying that all games are "committed to emulate" something necessarily fictional.  I never said they were committed to doing anything.  I said I felt that being "about something that is represented in other narrative sources" is unavoidable.  I most definitely am not saying that every game is 'trying to be about something.'  I'm saying that they can't help but 'be about something.'

Given that, I wondered what it would be like if the designers consciously 'took advantage' of what their games resembled rather than trying to use some 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life,' to do less work.

Just the wild speculation based upon the opinion attempted to be expressed.  Not the point.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI'm sorry, Fang:  All Generalities are False.

And I've always taken that to mean they can be generally true, but should not be expected to apply to all cases.  (Except you're just being funny, as in "All extremists should be shot" is an extremist statement.) Furthermore, this does not mean that everything stated as a generality is false in all cases.  (Simply because I say "All men are essentially good" and that's false does not mean that "No men are essentially good.")

Quote from: M. J. YoungThere are games committed to attempting to emulate reality, in which narrative fictional sources are irrelevant.

Not in my opinion.  Likewise, simply lacking a specific or singular source does not alleviate that idea that a game with fantasy elements (for example) is '[working] to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative"' that is fantasy.  To me, this is inescapable.  Besides, it's just the old truism that 'nothing is without being influenced.'

Why is it so important to prove my opinion wrong?  What happened to 'agreeing to disagree?'  If I say that everything ever written is influenced by something else, of course it is meaningless, because it goes without saying.  If I take that notion down to role-playing games, it is no less meaningless.  If I take it and say, garsh wouldn't it be neat if writers saved themselves a lot of work by taking advantage of this 'meaningless' truism instead of attempting 'completism,' why is it drawing so much impassioned response?

It's just an opinion.  For the sake of civility, if you don't agree, please drop it.  I am sorry I ever put it up in the first place.  If it is something you don't agree with, instead of picking it apart, trying to disprove it, accept that you don't agree with it and let's talk about something we don't all have opinions on.  Constantly mischaracterizing my opinion such that it needs to be reclarified (just so we can drop it), wastes time.

Fang Langford

p. s. This is as bad as the time I said I thought that all gaming attempted to be more aesthetic than reality.

Fang,

A funny little thought has just crept into my head.  Your opinion seems very similar (note:  I'm not saying identical, you can figure that out) to the big horseshoe theory of GNS - that Sim cannot be an exclusive priority, that it's just a dial that is adjusted on the Sim spectrum with Nar on one endpoint and Gam on the other.  Maybe someone who knows more about this theory can expand on the idea.  Maybe there is something you can work with in this theory.

First of all, this isn't a theory; it's an opinion.  Theories are potential facts.  Opinions are mislead observations.

Quote from: crucielA funny little thought has just crept into my head.  Your opinion seems very similar (note:  I'm not saying identical, you can figure that out) to the big horseshoe theory of GNS - that Sim cannot be an exclusive priority, that it's just a dial that is adjusted on the Sim spectrum with Nar on one endpoint and Gam on the other.  Maybe someone who knows more about this theory can expand on the idea.  Maybe there is something you can work with in this theory.

If memory serves, the Beeg Horseshoe theory fell apart because it confused Simulationism with Explorationism in general.  Furthermore, I was under the impression that no GNS stance is considered to be exclusive (no game, nor "instance of play," is 100% any mode).

Beyond that, my opinion is not GNS dependant no matter how much you want to confuse the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative"' with following Narrativism.  My opinion is just as relevant when talking about a Gamist game.  I think that a Gamist game that doesn't 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative"' at all would be drab indeed.

But I only bring this up because I don't want my opinion confused with being a theory or a GNS priority.

Fang Langford

Quote from: MarcoGURPS Basic. I did. Modern day. No set genre that the players were aware of. No special powers. We switched to GURPS because we felt the firearms were more realistic than what we were playing (Hero).

One of the reasons I especially like generic systems is because one can use them to set genre-expectations on their heads. That's a major strength. And when you've contra-genreed then you need some base-line reality to fall back on.

Hey, Marco.

I don't see how any of this counters what I said. Part of the problem is that we are dealing with very slippery terms like "realism" and "genre." I did note that the realism of GURPS firearms was one person's opinion (albeit one I recall hearing elsewhere) and comparative realism does not necessarily mean one is indeed more realistic, just less unrealistic than the other.

We would have to examine the game you mention to determine if there is a genre it would fit in, but I think that would be a fruitless pursuit because genre is, as I had said, slippery. Besides, why bother when you had pretty much backed up my point:

"One of the reasons I especially like generic systems is because one can use them to set genre-expectations on their heads."

That's what I said. GURPS is meant to be used in conjunction with some kind of genre expectation either from a world book or developed by the players themselves. Whether the expectations they arrive at fit into any established genre is irrelavant. What matters is they have them, most likely they came from somewhere. Possibly several sources.

Thanks for helpiong me clairify my point. :)

Hey Fang,

I completely and wholeheartedly concur with your opinion.

That's all I have to say about that.

Sylus

Quote from: Mr. Fang 'Le Joueur' Langford...it's just my opinion....

Why is it so important to prove my opinion wrong? What happened to 'agreeing to disagree?'

(Emphases in original.)

Somehow, Mr. Langford seems to be suggesting that if he states something is his opinion, no one should argue the point. I must not be understanding his use of those words.

If by saying "It's just my opinion" he means that it is not true and can't be defended, but is just some fantasy he has about the nature of reality that he likes to entertain and thought we might enjoy or perhaps indeed gain some benefit from, what does he expect from us? Does he expect the sort of paternalistic praise given to children who draw simple crayon pictures to receive the encouraging words that they have created great works of art? Does he want us to say that what he thinks is very nice, leave it posted, and then ignore it?

Most people who say "It's my opinion" mean something more on the order of "I believe this is true;" if they qualify it as "It's just my opinion" it is possible that they mean "I believe this is true, but really have no evidence to support it and can't defend it at all."

Now, in the former case, when someone says "I believe this to be true," we naturally expect to be able to challenge and question the statements, to attempt to draw out from them what they really mean and clarify our own positions (particularly if contrary) in an effort to reach some better understanding of reality. Perhaps in the end we would agree to disagree; but until we've established what the alternative positions are, we can't really even do as much as that. The most we can do is agree that we don't care what anyone else thinks--and that's not true, at least on my part.

In the latter case, I suppose we have to come to grips with why someone would bother to tell us that they believe something to be true for which they have absolutely no evidence or support. I can think of two possibilities for that, as well.

The first is that they by raising the issue are hoping that people will present them with the evidence both for and against their position, so that they can come to a better understanding of whether what they believe is viable and credible, and what its weaknesses might be.

The second is that they are announcing to the world that they are opinionated fools who don't care what the truth of the matter might be but have made up their minds and don't wish to be confused by the facts.

Since I refuse to believe that the generally articulate and intelligent Mr. Langford is in this last category, I am genuinely mystified as to why he has objected so vehemently to my single post on this thread, and several times emphasized that his entire position was, if I can so characterize it from the various phrases he used, "nothing more than an opinion".

I am quite comfortable with the idea that Mr. Langford believes all narrative is dependent in some form on prior narrative, and that he thinks it will always make for a better game to turn to the narrative rather than reality in designing game systems. I think he's mistaken, and that in making this mistake he is limiting himself in the possibilities--particularly for the design of a game with as much promise as Scattershot.

I also think that in the examples I gave, the influence of prior narrative was minimal. When I said that I had read other fantasy, I specifically did so in the context of stating that I did not feel the D&D games we played in any way modeled the fantasy I had read. For what it's worth, I believe that our key players were not fans of fantasy literature or films, and had never read even Tolkien nor seen such fantasy films as were available at that time--they were science fiction fans with a penchant for Atari games and other games who found in D&D an interesting exercise in game tactics and story creation.

I maintain that if stating that play was influenced by the existing corpus of fantasy narrative means no more than that we were aware that such a corpus existed which had similarities to what we were doing, it is meaningless. It's like saying that the fact I have visited Atlantic City a couple of times affects the way I play Monopoly, or my studies in World History in eighth grade have had a significant influence on how I play Risk.

I certainly agree that if you are attempting to emulate or draw from the narrative corpus of a particular genre, it is good to use rules that emphasize such tropes over those that emphasize reality; I also suggest that to the degree you are attempting to capture the feeling that this is "real" (whatever you take that to mean), it can be useful to use mechanics that attempt in some weak way to model reality.

I also find it offensive that you would imply that when you state that something is your opinion, that means no one should disagree with it. It is generally recognized that we who write are stating our own opinions. Saying so does not alter the fact that we have put our ideas forward for scrutiny, comment, and objection. Defend or accede or acquiesce or ignore, but don't get defensive.

--M. J. Young

M. J.,

With all due respect, I'm surprised by this type of challenge coming from you.  Throughout both this thread and its predecessor, I've been confounded by an inability to communicate.  Last time I resorted to draconian methods to end it.  This time it isn't my thread and I wasn't terribly comfortable entering it, but felt that as much as I was being cited, I couldn't 'leave it be.'  In trying to graciously withdraw I seem to have insulted you; this was not my intent.

Quote from: M. J. YoungMost people who say "It's my opinion" mean something more on the order of "I believe this is true;" if they qualify it as "It's just my opinion" it is possible that they mean "I believe this is true, but really have no evidence to support it and can't defend it at all."

Not that there is no evidence, but that I'm incapable of communicating it.  Either it is considered meaningless and dismissed or it is regarded on the plateau of extremes and unrealistic.

Quote from: M. J. YoungNow, in the former case, when someone says "I believe this to be true," we naturally expect to be able to challenge and question the statements....

Sadly, of late questions are very few and challenges seem inconsiderate.  Even your post is scant on questions.  Do I serve anyone's interests constantly responding to challenges not to the idea but to the generalizations?

Quote from: M. J. YoungIn the latter case, I suppose we have to come to grips with why someone would bother to tell us that they believe something to be true for which they have absolutely no evidence or support.

I thought I could explain it...that it might have been useful.  I see that even if I did manage, it'd be regarded as no more interesting than 'design deliberately.'

Quote from: M. J. YoungThe second is that they are announcing to the world that they are opinionated fools who don't care what the truth of the matter might be but have made up their minds and don't wish to be confused by the facts.

That's me, the madman.  Very clever, Mr. Bond.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI am quite comfortable with the idea that Mr. Langford believes all narrative is dependent in some form on prior narrative,

That half is right...

Quote from: M. J. Young...That he thinks it will always make for a better game to turn to the narrative rather than reality in designing game systems.

And that mischaracterizes it as an extremism.

I can't seem to communicate the difference between 'plain design' and design with the perspective of some knowledge of 'pleasing design schemes.'  Or whatever my point is.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI also think that in the examples I gave, the influence of prior narrative was minimal.

...But never absent.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI maintain that...it is meaningless.

And I disagree; can we agree on that?

Quote from: M. J. YoungI also find it offensive that you would imply that when you state that something is your opinion, that means no one should disagree with it.

That is not my intent, but that no one should bother to agree with it, nor attempt to understand it.

I have been trying to hold out the olive branch of "agreeing to disagree."  My purpose is to shift the focus off my single opinion so that it may return to the original topic of this thread.  I brought this opinion up mostly because of the "If Fang will let it" comment.

We are at an impasse because a breakdown in terminology.  "Genre" and "realism" are both being used in many different ways.  I've tried to be very clear about 'what I mean' about these issues.  If I cannot make a point about subtleties due to persistent misuse of terminology, I can 'give up' and state that my opinion is meaningless because we have no common language.  What do I say to close an argument (we're past discussion here) I have neither the time nor inclination to salve?

"Please ignore the opinion of a person whose perspective you aren't willing to take the time to understand."  Rather than pick apart the presentation of a subtle idea that bothers you, either admit you don't understand or simply agree to disagree (as I said).

I apologize that I am incapable of explaining this concept.  I offer the agreement to disagree because none of the responses thus far have even touched upon the 'theatre of the subtle concept,' but instead mire in the overt issues.

What can I say that we may give up on me making my point clear?  No one seems to care to ask questions in order to comprehend it.  Even limiting myself to responding to gross misrepresentations of my words is turning this into a back-and-forth 'nothing new created' thread.  In the absence of constructive or advancing dialogue, I seek to end it offering my opinion as unbelievable.

Should we go on?  Howso?

Fang Langford

Well, I'm not the moderator round these parts, folks, but I think that unless someone wants to take up these questions in terms of a model (GNS or otherwise), as I proposed a bit earlier, this thread has pretty much run itself into the ground.  If I have any weight, having restarted the thread on my own recognizance, I say this:

Either add something new to the discourse, preferably by responding to the proposed model, or let it lie.

Ron, I'd ask that we wait and see if anyone wants to take it up; if not, feel free to exercise a kill.  I'm about ready to wash my hands of this, and Fang has made it very clear that he is too.

Hi there,

Chris is acting entirely on his rights as the initiator of the thread. You read his post, people - what he said there, goes.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: clehrichI seem to have stirred a wasps' nest.

buzzz-buzzz

Quote from: clerichA. To what extent does this specific sort of incoherence overlap with GNS incoherence, if at all?

B. I recommend that we refer to Baseline (or something of the kind) instead of reality; retaining "reality" as a term seems to spark all sorts of difficulties incidental to the actual point at stake.

C. I recommend that we scrap "genre," "source," and everything of the sort.  Again, they spark all sorts of problems.²  How about Vision?

D. I think we need to come up with some classification for the different types of intersections that get rendered in mechanics.  There's physics and so forth, of course, but there are also what might very loosely be called narrative concerns.  I don't think we want "narrative," owing to overlap with GNS, and "story" seems a disaster waiting to happen.  Furthermore, I don't think that material reality plus (loosely) narrative elements cover the complete range.

Thus:  as Baseline intersects with Vision, mechanics are formulated to represent that intersection.  These mechanics will render, in more or less detail, a range of factors (materiality, fiction/story/plot/narrative elements, etc.).

E. The diagnostic issues are, then:

(1) Is prioritization of factors appropriate to the Vision?
(2) Is the balance of emphasis in mechanical rendering appropriate and adequate to the range of intersection?  That is, does it stress one or the other side of Baseline/Vision?
(3) Does the totality of the game's material support these mechanics, such that it is clear how the various pieces work together?[/list:u]

Great round up, Chris.  I liked your initial post, too.  Pulling order out of the chaos, and makin it clear. Now about the question:

D. I think we need to come up with some classification for the different types of intersections that get rendered in mechanics.

Baseline and Vision are excellent terms.  They are (as I see it) non-controversial, and get at the relative nature of the concepts.  Also may make it easier to remember that what's going on is communication of a shared vision, rather than interaction with some static "thing" out there that one is bringing into being in the game play. (I'm thinking of how one can get hung up on the details of how a system varies from the source material--I like the word Referent, but I was a semiotics geek back in the day. )

Let's see: where do Baseline and Vision intersect? How can mechanics help the crossover be smooth? Baseline is what everyone can assume is true.  (I see it as choosing a horizon if one is in null-g, a useful, though arbitrary choice that allows everyone to share a perspective).  Vision is the artistic creation that one/some people wish to share with the whole group. Hopefully creating a new Baseline--(Hey, that's got another meaing too--back to Ron's band metaphor.)--on which to riff.  

So areas that Vision butts up against Baseline:  stuff we've talked about like character death (or lack thereof), magic, superheroic feats etc.  How/why that happens needs to be shared so that when it happens in game folks can assimilate it into their world view.

How do I say the next thing without saying "g*nr* conventions"?  This is seperate from narrative concerns, though that would be one too.  What makes up a Vision? Setting, situation, goals, descriptions?

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to a constructive vein.

Regards,
Emily Care

To Fang: Please accept this as my apology.

I certainly understand what it's like to explain something repeatedly in the face of others who don't seem to understand what seems clear to me. In fact, just this past week I was doing that on the participationist/trailblazing thread, and at the same time by e-mail with someone talking to me about the wormhole theory of time travel. Whether it is something you are unable to express clearly enough (I've had many of those ideas over the years) or some subtlety I'm just not grasping, I did raise the tension level some with my first post, perhaps, and that was not necessary.

I still don't get it, but hope that as Scattershot develops this idea of relying on the fictional narrative rather than emulating reality will show itself through the design. I look forward to it.

Look at the bright side: obviously you know that it's going to take some work to communicate the new ideas to some of us old guys, so you know where you're going to have to do the work.

--M. J. Young

Emily,

Many thanks for your responses.  Let's see...

Quote from: Emily CareBaseline and Vision are excellent terms.  They are (as I see it) non-controversial, and get at the relative nature of the concepts.  Also may make it easier to remember that what's going on is communication of a shared vision, rather than interaction with some static "thing" out there that one is bringing into being in the game play. (I'm thinking of how one can get hung up on the details of how a system varies from the source material--I like the word Referent, but I was a semiotics geek back in the day. )

It's funny, I originally thought of Referent as well, but decided (1) not everybody is a semiotics geek like you and me, and (2) I think Baseline is also a referent; furthermore I think probably both are better understood as signifieds and not referents, but now we're down to a conversation of about three.

QuoteLet's see: where do Baseline and Vision intersect? How can mechanics help the crossover be smooth? Baseline is what everyone can assume is true.  (I see it as choosing a horizon if one is in null-g, a useful, though arbitrary choice that allows everyone to share a perspective).  Vision is the artistic creation that one/some people wish to share with the whole group. Hopefully creating a new Baseline--(Hey, that's got another meaing too--back to Ron's band metaphor.)--on which to riff.  

Interesting.  That's not how I meant it, but I want to think for a minute about which version is more helpful.

What I meant was that every game lives in between Baseline and Vision, necessarily, and that therefore it's an entirely aesthetic question as to whether the balance is appropriately maintained.  The difficulty is then how to think about what goes wrong when it does go wrong, because it's not terribly schematic.

Your version suggests a perpetual pull against Baseline and toward Vision.  The advantage here is that Vision is prioritized, which may seem a smoother use of the word; the difficulty is that it seems to obviate the need for Baseline at all.  Am I misunderstanding?

I'm currently thinking that the version I put forth evades the whole Genre thing because you're never in it; that is, insofar as genre arises, it's as something exterior to actual play (Vision), and it's a question of ideal-types rather than actualities.  By your formulation, I think the tendency is to think that we can actually play Star Wars, which simply means that everyone's going to think "genre" and write "vision."

QuoteHow do I say the next thing without saying "g*nr* conventions"?  This is seperate from narrative concerns, though that would be one too.  What makes up a Vision? Setting, situation, goals, descriptions?

Yes, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it?  I'm not really sure, at the moment.  Seems to me that if I ever have any time to think intelligently on this forum again, the thing to do would be to analyze some game with a clear and well-known Vision, considering actual play examples, and see whether we can come up with some kind of schematization.

You know, the more I think about this, the less it seems to me to have to do with GNS issues at all.  Ron, am I right about this, do you think?  Seems to me we're talking about "that which is Explored"; since GNS is (very broadly)about how one goes about Exploring, I don't see much overlap.  If I've got that straight, is there a general term for this problem in the Big Model?

QuoteThanks for bringing the discussion back to a constructive vein.

Bless you, Emily, for (1) saying that, and (2) responding constructively.  Let's see what happens now....

Quote from: clehrichIt's funny, I originally thought of Referent as well, but decided (1) not everybody is a semiotics geek like you and me, and (2) I think Baseline is also a referent; furthermore I think probably both are better understood as signifieds and not referents, but now we're down to a conversation of about three.

Yay! Semiotics geeks! Huzzah!  What would Piaget do?

I see this has been taken up on a different forum.  Let's see what happens indeed...

--EC

:)