Inherent to every game is some sort of goal or goals. They may not all be necessary, or may be equally important, but the goals often dictate how the game works and how it is approached. In chess, it is to defeat your opponent, while in double dutch, its to jump rope with style.
If we take the goal of beating up monsters, obviously the most important parts of the game will be the rules on combat, getting stronger, and getting things to help you beat up monsters. If we take the goal of telling a good story, we need to define what is going into this good story. Telling the story of a single hero, the reunification of a nation, the dying honor of a caste, the saga of a family history, and the tales of a civilization falling into doom are all different types of stories.
As many games attempt to be all things to all people, I find that many narrativist games likewise fail to define what scale of story they are trying to convey. Obviously most of this is defined when the campaign starts, but what people have in mind as the "story" of their character may be very different.
One person may be looking for redemption, another to restore their family, a third to solve mysteries, meanwhile the GM is also trying to tell a story. The problem that anyone with Director stance has is that they are trying to tell their story, but so likewise is everyone else.
Not only is it hard to mesh these different stories, even more so when each player is given more power to control the story, but also its hard to match the rhythm of escalation/climax/resolution. The problem lies in a basic question: Are we trying to compete for storyline control or are we trying to compromise for everyone and can we tell a good story while doing it?
Some in game mechanics do not match the goals they are intended for: A more powerful character does not entail a better story. Obviously every player wants to have their character fufill their "destiny" that sits in the player's mind while creating them(even if it is as simple as reaching 10th level, seeing Cthulu at least once before dying, etc.), so no matter the game, that is definitely an inherent goal in all rpgs.
My question is: has anyone looked at this idea of the player's imagined storyline as a goal? Or necessarily the means of creating it as part of the mechanics, more than a short author role specific to a character? When we speak of shared authorship, is there any rules to make it cooperative instead of competitive, or any rules to taylor it one way as opposed to the other?
Perhaps this is too vague, but its some ideas that have been rolling around in my head.
Bankuei
Yeah, this was much like the thought I had in the Player Character Premises thread. I definatley think there is a tacit "character destiny" effect at work, and furthermore I think that trying to meet those goals, consciously or otherwise, reqcuires a way to knit, synthesize, these into one coherent whole which is itself the narrative.
QuoteBankuei wrote:
Inherent to every game is some sort of goal or goals. They may not all be necessary, or may be equally important, but the goals often dictate how the game works and how it is approached.
Personally, I think this is a flawed premise in the case of role-playing games. I remember an interview with the creator of Sim City (a computer
game). The thing that most affected my thinking happened when the interviewer asked about the phenomenon that had grown up around this game and how it was so different from all the other computer games out there. Sim City's creator had a very simple answer.
It's not a game.
He put it quite simply; he said Sim City was a toy, a virtual toy, but not a game by any means. He likened it to a ball. A ball is not a game, but many games can be played with it. You can make up any number more games with a ball because it
is a toy. Now I am not trying to denigrate role-playing games by saying they are nothing more than a mere toys, but I do think it is clear that it is past time to get out of the 'thinking of it as a game' box. Call it a tool, a toy, a gadget, or whatever, but I think (especially in the realm of immersive simulation) saying that role-playing games have 'goals' the same way all games do is arguable at best.
QuoteObviously every player wants to have their character fulfill their "destiny" that sits in the player's mind while creating them, so no matter the game, that is definitely an inherent goal in all [role-playing games].
Considering the above, I do not think this is 'obvious.' Note, I am not saying that a player
cannot seek to fulfill character 'destiny,' it's the "
every player" part I have a problem with. I think its fair to say that some players do not consider destiny in any part of their minds whatsoever. I also don't think that this is a degenerative or 'wrong' way of playing. I just think you are looking too hard to find 'goals' in role-playing gaming. I don't think goals are necessarily inherent in what you do with a ball, is there?
Fang Langford
I think that games that may not necessarily have an obvious goal or winning scenario still have goals. At a basic level, you could say that the basic goal of many roleplaying games is to be able to keep playing(not die, reach oblivion, lose one's mind, etc.) In a game without any chance of death(chinese checkers) there is no rules for it, so that cannot be the goal of the game.
While you could use GURPS as a tool, it is not conducive to playing narrativist games. Story is not the goal of the game as much as simulation, and simulation of a character, not of a group, or a movement.
All balls roll, some bounce, and most can be thrown. Any game with certain goals can use a ball as a tool(we need something we can kick that rolls) to make the game work. You cannot play stacking games with a ball. Jenga will not work with a set of balls, even if magnetic.
Rpg's have much more open sets of goals than most games, but lets say at least these goals are commmon in most: Continued play, character growth, storytelling, acheiving story goals.
Would you say there's a game that doesn't include at least one of these?
Bankuei,
Unfortunately, I think your list ("Continued play, character growth, storytelling, acheiving story goals") is sufficiently interpretable to cover just about any human activity, and therefore cannot be meaningfully applied to role-playing as a distinct thing.
My GNS essay is basically about this whole issue: in my opinion, role-playing is a leisure, entertainment activity ("to have fun"). The further, specified versions of fun are articulated as the GNS modes.
I think that things like "storytelling" (in its various forms) are distributed non-randomly acrosss the GNS modes and their sub-types, in very sensible ways. To say that "storytelling" or "continued play" are BY DEFINITION role-playing goals is over-stating, in my opinion. I consider that to be synecdoche, as described in the essay.
However, I think that your first post in this thread asks a lot of excellent questions about techniques and game designs for CERTAIN (not definitive) role-playing goals. Addressing that is a big issue for me.
Best,
Ron
Bankuei,
If I might, I think that the idea of Narrativist play is to allow players the opportunity to create stories that are as individual or intertwined as one likes. If I can play a cooperative Gamist game as Gareth would assert (and with which I agree, conditionally), then why is it that I must compete in telling a story? That is a bad assumption. I have personally played in games where players lessen their own character's roles in order to enhance the entire story. Just as players in a gamist game might sacrifice their character's HP in order to come out ahead.
If you want cooperation amongst the players in acomplishing your GNS goal, there are mechanical ways to make this occur. In Gamist games, you can make team up attacks more powerful than single attacks, for example. In a Narrativist game you can require that all the players take the same goal as their primary goal (leaving other stuff as sub-plots).
If you want player competition make up rules like RUNE. If you want player collaboration, make up a game that requires common goals.
What's the problem?
Mike
I think perhaps "problem" was not the word I intended. I fully understand that many games are cooperative or competitive based on the players ability to work together or compete. I guess the question is better phrased as,"Are certain games goals to create a cooperative story, but instead have competitive mechanics, or vice versa? If so, why?" We can really look at all rules and mechanics as a system of story control("Did I succeed? By how much? Who can say what happens?").
What games are better at creating cooperative stories, some competitive, simply by their mechanics and why? Just as important, if the goal is to tell story, why are the mechanics not focused around the story, and what mechanics can create a good story(if mechanics indeed can)?
I guess its hard to narrow it down to a solid question at the moment, its fairly nebulous and large in my mind. It struck me while looking at Story Engine, Theatrix, and the Pool that while the goal is story, that most of the rewards come in improvements to your character's growth, and many of the mechanics are based off the character in game value of stats instead of story value. So if the goal of the game is to tell a good story, and most of these games were built on the premise that the rules should not get in the way of story, why are the rules themselves not much about supporting the story?
While I have seen Theatrix's flowchart, perhaps its just a little too dry for me to digest. Even then, why are character's measured in abilities and numbers? It seems to be unrelated to the story itself, and more a hold over from D&D...
Feel free to fling random responses into this stew :smile:
Bankuei
QuoteBankuei wrote:
I think that games that may not necessarily have an obvious goal or winning scenario still have goals. At a basic level, you could say that the basic goal of many role-playing games is to be able to keep playing (not die, reach oblivion, lose one's mind, etc.) In a game without any chance of death (Chinese checkers) there are no rules for it, so that cannot be the goal of the game.
I can tell I'm not getting through here. At the basic level a ball has no goals attached to it. This is true even though
I can't think of anything that a ball can be used for that does
not have a goal. The ball still remains goalless. That's the freedom of it. Like Sim City, you make up your own goals
because it's a toy.
QuoteWhile you could use GURPS as a tool, it is not conducive to playing Narrativist games. Story is not the goal of the game as much as simulation, and simulation of a character, not of a group, or a movement.
In the ball analogy, GURPS could be a rugby ball, not terribly conducive to playing baseball. This does not make goals inherent to balls, just to what people do with them.
A ball, as a toy, is for having fun. That is not its goal, but its
purpose. Parcheesi has a goal, winning, its purpose it to give fun in the process. I am saying that role-playing games are too diverse to say that they
all have goals inherent to them.
QuoteAll balls roll, some bounce, and most can be thrown. Any game with certain goals can use a ball as a tool (we need something we can kick that rolls) to make the game work. You cannot play stacking games with a ball. Jenga will not work with a set of balls, even if magnetic.
Jenga is a game, balls are toys; how many different games can you play with Jenga? Does that measure up to how many you can play with balls? Or with role-playing games (taken as an entirety)?
QuoteRpg's have much more open sets of goals than most games, but lets say at least these goals are common in most: Continued play, character growth, storytelling, achieving story goals.
Is there any point in me trying to name some examples that don't have any of these goals? Or that don't have any goals at all? Would you even take the effort seriously or are we at the point were we agree to disagree?
QuoteWould you say there's a game that doesn't include at least one of these?
I wouldn't even argue that something like these doesn't exist is all
non-role-playing games, but I have to ask, if I am trying to convince you that role-playing games don't all have goals and are therefore more toy-like than game-like, is there any point in looking for goals in other games?
If you are asking if there are role-playing games that do not have any of those goals, would my answer make any difference to you? I think one could clearly have a role-playing game without them (no examples even seem necessary), but I doubt I can say anything to make you agree.
Let me put it another way, if you are juggling all by yourself, not for practice, what's the goal? I do it all the time; do I have some kind of hidden agenda? Certainly the pleasure I evoke doing so is inherent, that's the purpose of my juggling, but not its goal. (And before you chime in with 'to continue,' I must point out that I am not so good that that is even an issue. I am always picking up after myself. Were that a goal, I would be a failure, but that's not how it feels.) I juggle Koosh balls, others use them as paperweights; role-playing games are this flexible
and goalless.
I do what I like. You do what you like; if you have a goal that's fine too, but you can't say that because you always have a goal, that all role-playing gaming is about goals. Is that any clearer?
Fang Langford
[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-10-26 19:06 ]
Fang, that's silly. A Goal doesn't have to be a "hidden agenda" or anything so sophiticated to be a goal. As Ron points out, the traditional goal of all RPGs is to have fun. The GNS "goals" then are the things that are pursued to have fun. I'm assuming that you juggle to have fun, even when you are alone. Or at least to improve, which would be to become generally more satisfied. The "to have fun" thing could be more precisely stated as to get some sort of satisfaction from the act.
Which is what my one year old son is doing right now with his toy ball. He's just batting it around. Why? Well, I can't read his mind, but there's a smile on his face.
What Sid Mier said about Sim City is more parallel to the difference between Gamism and Simulationism (no surprise). His game is a Simulation, hence the name. It is not a Game. Or, it is Simulationist, not Gamist to make the analogy.
Mike
QuoteMike Holmes wrote:
As Ron points out, the traditional goal of all RPGs is to have fun. The GNS "goals" then are the things that are pursued to have fun. I'm assuming that you juggle to have fun, even when you are alone. Or at least to improve, which would be to become generally more satisfied. The "to have fun" thing could be more precisely stated as to get some sort of satisfaction from the act.
The problem with the 'for fun' goal argument is that this kind of reasoning can be used to say that everything has goals, which is patently false. But I am not here to quibble. I just wanted to introduce the concept of role-playing games as not being games, but something akin to a toy.
QuoteWhat Sid Mier said about Sim City is more parallel to the difference between Gamism and Simulationism (no surprise). His game is a Simulation, hence the name. It is not a Game. Or, it is Simulationist, not Gamist to make the analogy.
But that's just it, does a simulation have a goal the way that has been suggested in this discussion? If games have goals, do simulations have likewise? I believe not. That's why I said that role-playing games were not 'games' in the way described earlier. Since some role-playing games can be Simulationist, they are therefore un-gamelike in that way. My only point is that thus they are not so casually ascribed goals like has been suggested. That's all.
All this discussion is a result of me hearing someone say what sounded like, "like all games, role-playing games have these goals...." The real question asked aside, I took 'offense' at the way this seemed to marginalize Simulationism. (To me, simulations do not have goals the way that games do.) Since this stems from my own opinion about the nature of the difference between simulation and game theory, I doubt that we will get any farther in this discussion. Since I already raised the question of whether role-playing games
necessarily have goals or not, my purpose is fulfilled. Therefore, I am prepared to let this go. Okay?
Fang Langford
Quote
On 2001-10-27 14:49, Mike Holmes wrote:
What Sid Mier said about Sim City is more parallel to the difference between Gamism and Simulationism (no surprise). His game is a Simulation, hence the name. It is not a Game. Or, it is Simulationist, not Gamist to make the analogy.
That would be Will Wright (Sid did the Civ games). I actually got to hear Will speak a few months back -- lots of interesting things to say, some of which applied to RPGs (obliquely, of course).
I disagree that SimCity is a toy -- it has specific goals set up, or goals that can be set by the player. It's more unstructured than a game like, say, Doom, but it is a game.
I guess to clarify what I'm saying, you're correct, the term I mean is purpose. I think we can all agree the purpose is to have fun, what I am talking about is the means that the toy or the game is intended to provide fun.
What I mean is that the wood blocks cannot fufill the same purpose as a ball in the ways you can use them. You cannot play the same games with jenga blocks as you can with balls, just as you cannot play basketball with a block(well, maybe, it just will suck to dribble :razz:). The design is the mechanics, and the mechanics are intended to facilitate the purpose of the game, whether it be narrativism, simulation, or gamism. A toy itself has no rules, while a game does.
Every rpg has a resolution mechanic, even if it is as simple as I say it happens, so it does. This mechanic already indicates that there is a possiblity of things happening that are against what I'm trying to acheive in the game. But does the specific mechanic fit in with the purpose of the game to simulate, create a story, or play as a challenging game?
Does competing authorship help tell a good story?
If the purpose is to create a good story, what does the mechanics do to benefit the purpose of story by making your character more powerful? Making the player more powerful to alter the story?
Many systems claim that the rules "allow" you to tell a good story, but shouldn't they support you in telling a good story?
It took me a week to get it straight, but maybe this will bring it back to focus...sorry it took so long... :smile:
Bankuei
Quote
Does competing authorship help tell a good story?
If the purpose is to create a good story, what does the mechanics do to benefit the purpose of story by making your character more powerful? Making the player more powerful to alter the story?
Many systems claim that the rules "allow" you to tell a good story, but shouldn't they support you in telling a good story?
I think the problem I'm having with answering this in a way that would be meaningful this is that 'good' has always been debatable and 'story' has several different meanings on The Forge.
That said:
I think a rules-system may have better luck trying to 'allow' good stories than 'support' them (This isn't to say that a given system can't greatly 'support' what your group is doing--just that it might poorly support another group who would say they're "trying to do the same thing.")
It's been my experience that 'good stories' are ones where the plot is interesting and exciting to all involved and the sense of timing is well handled. Great stories, in my experience, are those where there are literary themes at work (as well as other literary mechanics like foreshadowing, symbolism, etc.)
By literary themes I meam themes in the Lit 101 sense (and not The Forge sense) and I would extend that definition with "those themes which have emotional importance with the participants."
Because themes and emotional-resonances can change from person to person and game-session to game-session, a system which promotes theme-X at one point during the game, can actually work against desired theme-Y later on. So the creation of 'good stories' ultimately rests with the gamers, and a system can only allow it (IMHO).
Therefore, it seems to me that a game's biggest contribution to 'good stories' is the source material and that material's attention to theme and its resonance with the players (i.e. for a given genre and theme the gamers have more responsibility for a 'great story' than the mechanics).
Of course by this definiton, White Wolf's games are really good at creating 'good stories' (they have their own language, great artwork, strong thematic material), and lots of people here (myself included) found them disappointing to play.
I think Ron would say that they were miss-marketed to him with false claims of Narrativism.
I'd say I found the mechanics foggy.
But WW is a big, fairly-successful company and lots of people love their stuff--and I've played in a few *great* games in their universe (using GURPS rules :smile: )--so I think they've done their part in providing raw-meat.
As a counter example, I'd point to Call of Cthulhu which is, I think, pretty damn highly regarded in doing what it does.
-Marco
[ This Message was edited by: Marco on 2001-10-28 11:17 ]
QuoteBankuei wrote:
The design is the mechanics, and the mechanics are intended to facilitate the purpose of the game, whether it be narrativism, simulation, or gamism. A toy itself has no rules, while a game does.
And my point is that role-playing games don't have rules telling you what you are supposed to do with them (like toys, you can do whatever you like). As mentioned, a game (the non-role-playing style) has, for lack of better terms, victory conditions. You work towards a goal and then acheive it.
You can't do that in simulation.Any goal that is involved in simulation would be like 'staying in the zone,' right? To me this is about as ungame-like as it gets. Some role-playing games are like simulations therefore not all role-playing games are game-like, see my point?
QuoteEvery rpg has a resolution mechanic, even if it is as simple as I say it happens, so it does. This mechanic already indicates that there is a possiblity of things happening that are against what I'm trying to acheive in the game. But does the specific mechanic fit in with the purpose of the game to simulate, create a story, or play as a challenging game?
Now it sounds like your suffering from the idea that every mechanic has one-to-one specific purpose attachement. In my opinion this is not so. I believe there are a huge number of mechanics that lend themselves to many different goals, both within the GNS model and without.
Only when mechanics are brought together into a
system can you actually address how well 'focused' they are. At the 'is this one mechanic right for said focus' level, you can't really say anything without seeing how it all works together. (Though I am not versed in it,) take the Pool for example, if I am not mistaken it uses a dice pool mechanic vaguely similar to the ones found in Shadowrun and Vampire: the Masquerade, yet as a whole, it is very Narrativist while the other two arguably are not. Is the dice-pool mechanic Narrativist? Alone you cannot say. It can only be determined when the system is examined (and probably played) as a whole.
This is why I have had so much trouble with this, 'all games have purposes' talk and the fact that you have not really demonstrated that all role-playing games (despite their name) are games. The very fact that what you seem to be eventually driving at is a problem with systems that do not do what they say they are for brings this right back up. If you want to discuss where a specific system does not work as advertised, pick one. Simply saying that, being games, all role-playing games should have a focused purpose overlooks years of bad design in (my opinion) a poorly understood field.
I sense some very specific complaints lurking in this discussion, to which I ask, "where's the beef?" If some specific system fails as portrayed, let us examine it openly instead of all this prevarication.
It has been said by many people, in many places, that you can't really design a role-playing backwards from its focus to its implementation. Trying to find a correlation between specific mechanics and their supposed purposes is likewise pointless.
Fang Langford (who is feeling a little crabby after the hell of last week)
Quote
And my point is that role-playing games don't have rules telling you what you are supposed to do with them (like toys, you can do whatever you like). As mentioned, a game
Not true. All games have feedback loops to induce behaviour. Pawns can only move forward, frex; you start at the back of the board. RPG's have feedback loops too: "kill all the monsters and grab their stuff for XP's" being among the most iniquitous. This is why system matters.
Quote
You can't do that in simulation.
Noooo.... but: the Situation has implicit goals. Take the wargame thread, implicit in any such game will be the personal goal "survive the war". This goal may be modified, even removed, in the course of play, but you can be confident that it is present in every character at the start of play, or at least there will be a specific reason why not. It is so implicit it needs no stating; but its very universality suggests that it operates with much the same breadth as a metagame goal "keep playing".
Quote
This is why I have had so much trouble with this, 'all games have purposes' talk and the fact that you have not really demonstrated that all role-playing games (despite their name) are games. The very fact that what you seem to
All games are composed of reciprocal actions. They feature reward and penalty systems (keep playing/stop playing at simplest). RPG's qualify.
Quote
It has been said by many people, in many places, that you can't really design a role-playing backwards from its focus to its implementation. Trying to find a correlation between specific mechanics and their supposed purposes is likewise pointless.
Really? Perhaps I misundretsand, would you like to exapnd on what you mean here?
On the subject of goals and games. I think that the definition of games is not particularly important. We want to do someting and it seems sorta gamelike, but may not be. OK, who cares? What we seem to agree on is that there are goals and that they are different for each GNS mode.
The question asked in the beginning of the thread was: do RPGs work against these goals when competition is introduced.
And I'd say to the extent that co-operation is what you want, then, yes, competitive mechanics may be detrimental, anbd vice versa. But what Fang says below also applies.
Quote
On 2001-10-29 00:45, Le Joueur wrote:
Now it sounds like your suffering from the idea that every mechanic has one-to-one specific purpose attachement. In my opinion this is not so. I believe there are a huge number of mechanics that lend themselves to many different goals, both within the GNS model and without.
Only when mechanics are brought together into a system can you actually address how well 'focused' they are. At the 'is this one mechanic right for said focus' level, you can't really say anything without seeing how it all works together. (Though I am not versed in it,) take the Pool for example, if I am not mistaken it uses a dice pool mechanic vaguely similar to the ones found in Shadowrun and Vampire: the Masquerade, yet as a whole, it is very Narrativist while the other two arguably are not. Is the dice-pool mechanic Narrativist? Alone you cannot say. It can only be determined when the system is examined (and probably played) as a whole.
This is an excellent point. The Pool's pool mechanic seems Gamist on the surface, but is actually there to support the MoV mechanic which is very Narrativist. Is it cooperative? Well, the consensus amongst Narrativists seems to be that giving power to players to affect outcomes is cooperative in that as long as they feel the need to do so they can make it happen. This is actually not a very strong argument for it being positively co-operative. In fact there is a stronger negative argument which says that a player can use such power to be uncooperative, but this is less likely to be fun so why do it?
OTOH, there are probably some who state that having the story go off in all sorts of different directions can be interesting as well, and, from that POV, "cooperation" as such is to be avoided. This is the same argument for competitive games (and I'd say Gamist RPGs that promote interplayer competition; see RUNE); it's the conflict itself that creates the interesting action. And, from the Hegelian synthesis POV, it's hard to argue against.
I like both cooperation and competition. I think others do as well, which is why the concept of cooperating as a team in competing against the scenario is such an attractive mode for some. It's the same as team sports, especially in something like team cycling where it can be the team against the course.
Interesting. I just thought of an analogy. Survivor (the TV show) is an example of playing in a team against another team
and against your own teammates, simultaneously. A friend of mine is developing a board game that has similarities. He got the idea from playing Republic of Rome. But his game has two countries at war. So you are on your countries team, but simultaneously trying to rise to power in that team to win the game. Cool...
Mike
Quote
On 2001-10-29 10:33, Mike Holmes wrote:
This is an excellent point. The Pool's pool mechanic seems Gamist on the surface, but is actually there to support the MoV mechanic which is very Narrativist. Is it cooperative? Well, the consensus amongst Narrativists seems to be that giving power to players to affect outcomes is cooperative in that as long as they feel the need to do so they can make it happen. This is actually not a very strong argument for it being positively co-operative. In fact there is a stronger negative argument which says that a player can use such power to be uncooperative, but this is less likely to be fun so why do it?
It's been my observation that people do a great deal of things that are both uncoorperative and 'not fun.' Could it be that highly cooperative players are drawn to Narrativist games (which would then produce that consensus aside from Narrativist mechanics)?
-Marco
Quote
It's been my observation that people do a great deal of things that are both uncoorperative and 'not fun.'
In terms of RPGs these are bad players. They should not count in any discussion other than possibly to consider what might work to rtransform bad players into good ones.
Quote
Could it be that highly cooperative players are drawn to Narrativist games (which would then produce that consensus aside from Narrativist mechanics)?
Yes, but what's the difference? If the mechanics in question produce cooperation through attraction of cooperative players, or by forcing players to be cooperative, either way the end result is the same. The question is, how do these rules work with uncooperative players. I'd hazard a guess that in fact most Narrativist rules dealing with player power are, in fact, "cooperative neutral" if you will, and that if a player can take things where they like, they will do so.
But the negative argument still applies. If uncooperative plot production is not fun, then the uncooperative players will not be attracted to the system, and all you'll be left with is the cooperative players. I think that this works to an extent in practice. Many "uncooperative" players prefer the competition provided by gamist games. So you'll see them there much more often than playing Narrativist games.
Anyhow, it is interesting to consider this as a form of negative reinforcement for competitive players. That is, if you give a competitive player no framework for competition, allow them to be as successful as they like, for example, then they may (after a short period of gleefull exercise) become disenchanted. A player who likes powerful characters, for example, in a game that allows characters to be as powerful as the player wants, may find that after they make their all-powerful god-character, and destroy a few universes, that there is no challenge, and wish to move on to a game that has the competitive framework limiting them. Or, in practice, they will sense that such will happen, and never get into the game in the first place.
Mike
Hey,
I should like to distinguish between "uncooperative" and "competitive" players.
Functional competition demands cooperation about the rules of engagement. No competitive game is possible if the means by which success is designated may be controlled from within the game; you end up with Calvinball. Competition with no cooperation as a foundation means nothing but a fight.
(This distinction is so well understood by actual humans in most contexts that it is often left unsaid. "KILL'EM!" people shout from the stands, with absolutely no intention whatsoever that corresponds to what they are literally saying.)
I agree with all of Mike's points, but that distinction seems completely necessary to me. It also seems to be missed or avoided in a lot of discussions about competition in role-playing.
Best,
Ron
Ron's right of course. By uncooperative, I mean merely unwilling to operate as part of the team, not wanting to operate outside the framework of the game. That is what I was trying to point out in my first statement to Marco. First we all agree to play the game within the rules. Then some players will form teams with the other players and others won't. The latter are the "uncooperative" players I refer to. This is a compleely valid way to play, and a desire that should be considered.
Players who compete amongst themselves are "uncooperative" yet may be playing within the rules of the game. Competitive in this sense would be a subset of uncooperative. Another sort would be the player who played the narrativist game just to promote his own story. Anyhow, the question in Narrativism is, if a player plays this way is that automatically disruptive to play as a whole, or can good group produced play still occur? Additionally, are there mechanics that work to make this sort of play good? I'd suggest that, perhaps the relationship map for the group would be one such mechanic. If you give everyone interrelated goals then a single player promoting only his story may help all the stories. Not my his design, but becuse the mechanic has made it so.
This is what I mean by considering the particular mechanics of a design for whether or not they promote good stroy in concert with either cooperative or uncooperative play. The same goes for the G and S goals. (Hmmmm... Uncooperative Simulationist... not even sure what that would mean... Makes characters that would have nothing to do with the other characters? hmmm...)
Mike
Mike,
If I read you correctly, you are really referring to uncooperative CHARACTERS, not players. This is crucial.
Biggest dichotomy: uncooperative vs. cooperative PLAYERS. I think it's an issue, but not a hard one - we jettison any concern about the former and continue with our analysis only of the latter. I also want to specify that I am not talking about OBEDIENT players, relative to a GM. I am talking about cooperating in the sense that we are having a good time together.
So, given cooperative PLAYERS, we can now break them down into competitive vs. noncompetitive players. As you know, if we are talking about first priorities, this is the boundary between Gamist and non-behaviors. [This discussion in many ways is getting ahead of Gareth and me in our dicussion of Gamism at present, but for now, let's go ahead and use "competitive" without value-tags or concern with the "struggle" term.]
Completely in parallel with the above (neither in nor out of the competitive/noncompetitive issue), there is a totally different issue: cooperative vs. uncooperative CHARACTERS. Remember, we are totally within the cooperative-player box. This is the basis for the very fruitful Dickweed Character discussion that may be found on the Sorcerer forum at the Gaming Outpost, which generated the idea that a real dickweed of a character may be very valuable and enjoyable in a Narrativist game as long as the player was often in Author Stance.
Best,
Ron
Quote
On 2001-10-29 11:33, Mike Holmes wrote:
In terms of RPGs these are bad players. They should not count in any discussion other than possibly to consider what might work to rtransform bad players into good ones.
Hell's bells, Mike, that's pretty severe. Not everyone has to play on the same team all the time. You asked if Narrativist mechanics were more cooperative and said using the power to be uncooperative wasn't fun so why would someone do it?
I guess I wasn't clear: "uncooperative" and 'not-fun' are relative (a person who would define his own actions that way *would* probably admit that they were being a bad roleplayer) and what's fun for one person often isn't fun for someone else.
But you do make exactly my point: the more 'in-team' a group enganged in mutual co-authorship is, the more successful they'll be. So I'd doubt that Narrativist games coerce cooperation--rather that they'd only appeal to groups that were mutually goal oriented (where the goal is the creation of the story).
But it's a good point: what happens to the Narrativist experience when participants *don't* agree on what the story should be like (and I'm not talking about 0-sum games like Primeval where that's the point)? I haven't played in any narrativist games, and I'm interested in trying it out--that's a serious question of mine. It seems like it'd be a possible sticking point.
-Marco
Note: you were a lot clearer in your next post. I missed that when I did this one.
[ This Message was edited by: Marco on 2001-10-29 14:40 ][ This Message was edited by: Marco on 2001-10-29 14:41 ]
I definitely believe that both cooperative and competitive gameplay can be fun, whether it is us vs. them, or an all out political struggle for a throne. But my question focuses more on the mechanics allowing cooperative gameplay by players rather than necessarily the characters.
Obviously cooperative Players can work with many systems to tell a story, but having good mechanics to support it is my concern. While I love the Pool's MOV, I guess the question comes in that it seems one player is getting a significant portion of story control at crucial points. Assuming all players have good intentions, but differing story ideas, there does become a slight competition in how its going to turn out(even if the intent is the best story possible).
Now, I know no rules can make a "good" or "bad" story, since its based on your views of what is good or bad, but we can certainly say some rules give more freedom, and other hinder that. Writing a story gives you complete control to the story, and you can make it "good" to your heart's content. The fact you have multiple players contributing to the story means you cannot predict the outcome, thereby making it a game.
I'm just wondering about some of the principles or ideas that would allow the players as a group to work cooperatively, with cooperative rules to create the story they want, without losing sponteneity or the mystery of how it will turn out. Many games provide competitive rules for cooperative stories or reward inappropriately to actually aiding the goal of making a good story.
Bankuei
Quotecontracycle wrote:
QuoteFang wrote:
And my point is that role-playing games don't have rules telling you what you are supposed to do with them (like toys, you can do whatever you like). As mentioned, a game
Not true. All games have feedback loops to induce behaviour. Pawns can only move forward, frex; you start at the back of the board. RPG's have feedback loops too: "kill all the monsters and grab their stuff for XP's" being among the most iniquitous. This is why system matters.
That's just my point. In chess your goal is to win, obviously. My main thrust here is that
not all role-playing games are made this way. They just aren't. Can you show me where The Pool has this kind of "feedback loop?" Besides, the best games of Dungeons & Dragons I ever played was when we negated this "feedback loop" and pursued our own agenda. The fact that you
can go these ways without leaving the 'system' is where "you can do whatever you like." In chess, you pretty much either attack, defend, or position, by contrast.
QuoteAll games are composed of reciprocal actions. They feature reward and penalty systems (keep playing/stop playing at simplest). RPG's qualify.
And so do conversations. Are you now going to tell me that every single conversation, without exception, has goals? To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.
QuoteQuoteIt has been said by many people, in many places, that you can't really design a role-playing backwards from its focus to its implementation. Trying to find a correlation between specific mechanics and their supposed purposes is likewise pointless.
Really? Perhaps I misundretsand, would you like to exapnd on what you mean here?
Not in this thread. Perhaps you could start another stating what you think I mean and I can clarify.
Fang Langford
Quote
That's just my point. In chess your goal is to win, obviously. My main thrust here is that not all role-playing games are made this way. They just aren't. Can you show me where The Pool has this kind of "feedback loop?" Besides, the best games of Dungeons & Dragons I
Yes - in the risk vs. reward decision in how many dice to commit to a given decision. Q.v. thread analysing trends in result behaviour, the inverted pool, and strategies for maximising outcome based on probability of result.
Quote
ever played was when we negated this "feedback loop" and pursued our own agenda. The fact that you can go these ways without leaving the 'system' is where "you can do whatever you like." In chess, you pretty much either attack, defend, or position, by contrast.
Certainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot more subtle than in something like chess... but at the simplest level, the very chance of success or failure in a diced model is such a loop. Some, like Vamps humanity, are very explicit, and many, like XP's, feature the law of diminishing returns. Character death, a very common feature, is certainly a negative feedback result (action X caused unwelcome consequence Y)
Quote
And so do conversations. Are you now going to tell me that every single conversation, without exception, has goals?
Yes, in essence, although the goal might be something like "confirm my membership of this community". A prime example is the "Aint It Awful" game. Two people have a conversation, "did you hear about X, aint it awful", "yes and then Y, aint it awful". This can go on for up to hours, no information has been exchanged by either party, but both have had a good experience composed of reciprocal strokes whos goal is to validate each parties world view (belief system).
This is not to say that no conversation is about transmitting data/has the goal of transmitting data - many are, especially in the technical arena. But much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.
cf. Games People Play, What Do You Say After You Say Hello - Erich Berne; Game Theory & Drama Theory (which superceded Game Theory).
Quote
To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.
Uh, OK...
Quote
Not in this thread. Perhaps you could start another stating what you think I mean and I can clarify.
Umm, doesn;t seem right to me to start a whole thread just for a clarification of one paragraph. You appeared to mean that there is no point trying construct games deliberately; never mind.
Quotecontracycle wrote:
QuoteFang wrote:
That's just my point. In chess your goal is to win, obviously. My main thrust here is that not all role-playing games are made this way. They just aren't. Can you show me where The Pool has this kind of "feedback loop?"
Yes - in the risk vs. reward decision in how many dice to commit to a given decision. Q.v. thread analysing trends in result behaviour, the inverted pool, and strategies for maximising outcome based on probability of result.
Except none of that tells you what you
must to do. There is no, 'staying alive' goal or anything 'built in.' You can still put in any of your own goals,
or none at all. That's what I have been trying to say. Not every game has goals.
Like a ball, you can play whatever you like, with or without goals. With chess, you have clear goals, not much choice.
QuoteQuotewhen we negated this "feedback loop" and pursued our own agenda. The fact that you can go these ways without leaving the 'system' is where "you can do whatever you like." In chess, you pretty much either attack, defend, or position, by contrast.
Certainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot more subtle than in something like chess...
That's the point. My opinion (and my point) is that at when it gets that "subtle" and that open-ended, it fails at being a game. Game theory practically ceases to be relevant in many 'non-system' role-playing games and yet they are still clearly role-playing 'games,' to me this underscores how they
aren't games at all, but
are more like toys.
QuoteBut much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.Quote
To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.
Then we can agree to disagree at this point?
QuoteQuoteNot in this thread. Perhaps you could start another stating what you think I mean and I can clarify.
Umm, doesn't seem right to me to start a whole thread just for a clarification of one paragraph. You appeared to mean that there is no point trying construct games deliberately; never mind.
No, I was just repeating the line I have seen so much around here (I think), that you can't really start out
only with the idea of making a Narrativist game (or any other feature of Ron's theories).
Deliberately taking a game design and optimizing is for such a purpose is fine, I've just heard it said that you must bring something else to it, that you cannot start that way. (Here I am just doing my part to carry the 'company line.')
Fang Langford
Quote
Except none of that tells you what you must to do. There is no, 'staying alive' goal or anything 'built in.' You can still put in any of your own goals, or none at all. That's what I have been trying to say. Not every game has goals.
Untrue - as I pointed out previously, the most BASIC goal is to "keep playing". this is analagous to the real life experience of having the goal "stay alive".
Like a ball, you can play whatever you like, with or without goals. With chess, you have clear goals, not much choice.
QuoteQuote
Certainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot more subtle than in something like chess...
That's the point. My opinion (and my point) is that at when it gets that "subtle" and that open-ended, it fails at being a game. Game theory practically ceases to be relevant in many 'non-system' role-playing games and yet they are still clearly role-playing 'games,' to me this
No, it does not cease to be a game. More precisely: the box or book you by is a toy; what you do with it is a game. Subtely and open-ended-ness do not disqualify RPG as a game; that was precisely the point of departure which develop drama theory as an outgrowth of game theory. As soon as you move from the abstract realm of, say, two perfect abstract prisoners and a perfect abstract prison in the Prisoners Dilemma, you get RADICALLY differebnt results from that predicted by the PD and the Iterated PD. As the reserachers said, "we realised that we were telling stories" as soon as they broke out of the idealised realm.
Thus: an open ended game is implicitly story-like (in that it has a narrative direction). I think that this is the very basis of RPG.
Quote
QuoteBut much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.Quote
To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.
Then we can agree to disagree at this point?
Yes, but I think you are missing a major tool for the analysis of human interaction.
Once more with emphasis....
Quotecontracycle wrote:
QuoteFang, stating his opinion wrote:
Except none of that tells you what you must to do. There is no, 'staying alive' goal or anything 'built in.' You can still put in any of your own goals, or none at all. That's what I have been trying to say. Not every game has goals.
Untrue - as I pointed out previously, the most BASIC goal is to "keep playing". This is analogous to the real life experience of having the goal "stay alive".
QuoteQuoteQuoteCertainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot [subtler] than in something like chess...
That's the point. My opinion (and my point) is that at when it gets that "subtle" and that open-ended, it fails at being a game.
No, it does not cease to be a game.
Sir, you are getting dangerously close to dictating
my opinions.
QuoteQuoteQuoteBut much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.Quote
To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.
Then we can agree to disagree at this point?
Yes, but I think you are missing a major tool for the analysis of human interaction.
And
I believe you are missing something in the over-generalization that everything (including "real life") is gaming. I simply wanted to share a new and perhaps unusual opinion on what role-playing gaming might be. And I
do take offense at you attacking my
opinion. If you can't stand the polite suggestion about a different perspective than your own, I think you might need to take a break and reassess your priorities. I believe the Forge is no place to attempt to dictate the opinions
of others.
(I never said I refuted the use of game theory totally in gaming, even though that is what you imply. My idea was that one could add perspective to one's thinking by
also considering the 'toyishness' of role-playing games.)
Fang Langford
[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-11-01 08:59 ]
Quote
And I believe you are missing something in the over-generalization that everything (including "real life") is gaming. I simply wanted to share a new and perhaps unusual opinion on what role-playing gaming might be. And I do take offense at you attacking my opinion. If you can't stand the
Chill, dude. Your statement of opinion does not mandate against the expression of a counter-opinion; to do that you need your own 'board. I have solid grounds for disagreeing with your opinion as expressed; you sound very much like you cannot stand to have an opinion challenged.
Preview my next game: Opinion: The Wordwar... :razz:
I'm glad to see so many different views about the subject.
Thank you both for teaching me that I need to better define my question and ideas before sharing them. Let's agree to disagree in a civilized manner and not worry about converting each other. I look forward to hearing more about your ideas in the future, and hopefully we learn and build from them.
Thanks for the input,
Bankuei
Look, I don't feel like I want to 'chill.' In fact, I'm feeling a little attacked here. Everyone else reading can skip this rant....
Listen, when I heard Bankuei write, "Inherent to every game is some sort of goal or goals," followed by text that clearly assumed that role-playing games were like all games everywhere, I decided to offer a new perspective of my own: "but I do think it is clear that it is past time to get out of the 'thinking of it as a game' box." I added that I thought thinking 'in that box' "is arguable at best," meaning that there might be other frames of reference.
I certainly believe that meant I was not saying that all role-playing games are toys or that all role-playing games are never games. I thought it clear that I felt, by considering the Sim City toy example with reference to role-playing games, a little more depth could be had.
Later I stated, "and my point is that role-playing games don't have rules telling you what you are supposed to do with them." "My point" means it's my opinion. Yet you immediately came back with, "Not true." As an opinion, I hope it's obvious that it does not have a true or false quality. Opinions can be based on facts, but are not facts unto themselves. The only fact inherent in an opinion is that the owner holds it. Which in this case is quite true.
Then you went on about "implicit goals," which I thought spoke for the idea that role-playing games weren't like non-role-playing games, which have explicit goals. You also remarked on how role-playing games were "a lot more subtle than in something like chess," reinforcing this idea. Yet you decide to go over to the inflexible idea that any goals, no matter how implicit, subtle, unvoiced, or under-expressed make something, nay everything, a game. This is clearly your opinion, because it certainly isn't fact.
I try to sum this up with, "That's what I have been trying to say. Not every game has goals." This is a restatement of my opinion. And still you return with, "Untrue," thereby dictating my opinion back at me.
I think this idea is driven home when I write, "My opinion (and my point) is that when it gets that 'subtle' and that open-ended, it fails at being a game." And you immediately come back with, "No, it does not cease to be a game." This is a direct statement, no effort to frame it as an opinion. Simply saying that I am incorrect (or not true, or untrue, in your words) in my opinion is dismissive and not constructive.
Tiring of this endless circle, I simply tried to emphasize that all of this is my opinion, not some statement of fact, adding that it was only to offer a wider perspective than the 'role-playing gaming is only gaming' idea. To this you seek to dismiss with "Chill, dude," which I find insulting.
The biggest problem I have is no less than three postings ago, I suggested that we disagree and should leave it at that. Even in the post after that I suggest, "Then we can agree to disagree at this point?" You declined saying I was "missing a major tool." How can I be missing something when my opinion is to be added to game theory when approaching role-playing game design? By the post after that, I certainly was losing my cool in the face of your insulting responses; who can blame me?
Why do I interpret your writing as venomous? There's the fact that you seem to be knee deep in at least two other (at least it sounds this way to me, an opinion again) brusque discussions elsewhere in the Forge. Also the fact that not once did you ever say you were voicing another opinion (until here at the end with "expression of a counter-opinion" comment), you instead use terms attacking the 'truth value' of my opinion.
I especially like the way you took to the moral high ground with the "I have solid grounds for disagreeing." The grounds upon which your comments stand have no bearing upon what I said (not solid at all?). So what if everything can be looked at as if it is a game? My question was whether any value might be added considering role-playing games also as toys (not exclusively but in addition to 'as games').
Finally, you ask, "you sound very much like you cannot stand to have an opinion challenged." Ooh, very passive-aggressive. I can stand to have my opinion challenged; yet you have not once made any attempt on the basis of my idea. All you have done is denounce it in favor of a contrast. Still, when your opinion was challenged (the parts where I suggest that goals so subtle don't count well in game theory and might be better treated as toy theory), you become very condescending and yet never willingly agree that we will not agree. (Even the threads generator, Bankuei, has suggested that we "agree to disagree in a civilized manner," as I had asked so long ago.)
You want to challenge my opinion? Try finding ways that role-playing games could not be thought of as toys at all. (While I do not stand on the point of them being strictly toys as opposed to anything else, I know that its impossible to prove that they are not everything else.) That would at least call my theory into question as opposed to simply, blindly denouncing it.
(For those of you who have stuck it out to this point, let me apologize for the tone I have taken here. It has been a very hard fortnight for us at Impswitch and I really do appreciate the opportunity to vent some rather unpleasant emotions in such a civilized atmosphere. I realize I have sunk a bit lower than ever, but I hope you can forgive my passions. I always think very fondly of all of the members of the forum and the things I have learned here as well as what I have learned because of these experiences. Thank you for your time and kind attention.)
Fang Langford
[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-11-01 19:37 ]
Well, its true to say that most people who know me would probably describe me as rather abrasive and confrontational; its the nature of this particular beast. There is also a tendency for text conversations to flatten tone and aggravate contentious issues.
Some of this arises from an impatience with that old saw of sitcom TV - "I only did what I thought was right". Not good enough; you have to do what IS right. Accordingly, the fact that something is "an opinion" is no excuse, as any opinion should at least be formed by constructive analysis. This means that I have an expectation that anyone advancing an opinion would and should be able to defend it. To merely exchange some stolid statements of how we think the world works achieves nothing; progress arises through the thrashing of these differences until the wheat is separated from the chaff.
Stating that something is an opinion does not exempt it from critical analysis. Insisting that an opinion be shielded from criticism suggests a certain unwillingness to have the concept challenged at all, whether by good reasons or bad. Sometimes, people appear to employ such devices for lunatic or larcenous purposes, and I think it is reasonable to be suspicious of the request for such special protection.
Surprisingly, I completely agree with you (except for what you imply without saying).
Quotecontracycle wrote:
...you have to do what IS right. Accordingly, the fact that something is "an opinion" is no excuse, as any opinion should at least be formed by constructive analysis.
While this is true, what could be more constructive than, "There seems to be something more to gaming than just being a game, perhaps it's also like a toy."
QuoteThis means that I have an expectation that anyone advancing an opinion would and should be able to defend it.
This is also true, but against what can I defend? You continually dismiss any argument by saying that
everything is a game. That is both condescending and does not even challenge the core idea that role-playing games might be
more than just games or even that they might be more
something else than games.
That you come back to the same hackneyed denial smacks of shouting, "Is not!" in my face no matter what I suggest. Until you can substantiate the idea that there cannot be any 'toyishness' in gaming, what can I defend? Since I have steadfastly never had the intent to say that role-playing games were not games
too, I have no way of contradicting you. Yet you seem to think that if you say they are games, I have no 'solid ground' to found a theory on.
QuoteTo merely exchange some stolid statements of how we think the world works achieves nothing;
Okay, this I disagree with. I believe it allows us to agree to disagree. You confuse interpretations with facts when you subscribe to the idea that if one is right all others are wrong. This is what is called a difference of opinion. And since you did not seem interested in describing
why role-playing games could not be toys, I thought we had reached such an impasse. This does not mean either of us is wrong, simply that we disagree. I cannot fathom why you have made this an attack on my character.
Quoteprogress arises through the thrashing of these differences until the wheat is separated from the chaff.
That's quite true and very civil of you.
Perhaps you could try it. Instead of denouncing my supposition, try examining why role-playing games could or could not be toy-like. Show the ways that the toy is a bad model (instead of only saying that role-playing games are games as if they couldn't be both).
QuoteStating that something is an opinion does not exempt it from critical analysis.
Of course this is correct. But you have yet to actually criticize
the opinion, instead you simply announce a narrower view and support
that. That is not criticism; that is not even analysis. That is attempting to force me to disprove what I already accept as a part of my ideas. Potentially, this is a clever way to cause me to waste my time looking like a fool contradicting myself. Except your denouncement of my idea is not under analysis here.
QuoteInsisting that an opinion be shielded from criticism suggests a certain unwillingness to have the concept challenged at all, whether by good reasons or bad.
An interesting characterization that, alone, is true, but has nothing to do with my stand. I am unwilling to have my idea dealt with by simply having is called "untrue." If you would care to take a moment to criticize my idea instead of looking for ways to prove that everything is a game, you might see me respond to a challenge; but if you insist instead to attack my character as being "unwilling to be challenged" without making the challenge yourself, you will be guilty of attacking the person and not the idea.
The only thing I have insisted is that
having an opinion different from yours should be shielded from character assassination.
QuoteSometimes, people appear to employ such devices for lunatic or larcenous purposes, and I think it is reasonable to be suspicious of the request for such special protection.
Also true, except nowhere have I ever shrunk from a challenge to
the idea. It is you, sir, who turns this from a discussion of whether there is merit in considering role-playing games as toys as well as games, to an attack upon my character, indirectly suggesting that I am turning from a challenge.
I would have taken this to a private venue long ago were it not for these ever-increasing attacks on my character. A problem with my theories could have been cleared up quickly, long ago, were it not for your practice of simple denial of my points (as opposed to thoughtful analysis or critique) and even then in private. While I have little interest in bringing the whole forum into this attack on my character, I can hardly shrink from it even as I would not a credible challenge to my ideas.
And again, I must apologize for this turn of discussion and thank everyone reading for allowing me to defend my
self against these attacks (whereas I would much rather defend my ideas against thoughtful challenge).
Now it is my turn to suggest that
you "have to do what IS right." Stop implying that I am somehow 'doing wrong' thus attacking
me, try substantiating a discussion that
my idea has flaws in it. Instead of just stating that it is wrong, do what is right,
show what's wrong with it. (I hardly think that any proof of 'everything is a game' shows a flaw in the idea that role-playing games might be thought of as toys
as well.)
Fang Langford
[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-11-03 01:20 ]
I basically agree with Fang's view on roleplaying games being more like toys than games per se. I haven't formulated a fully fledged view yet, but to start with I'll say I agree with him.
The evidence is there to support the view.
Every player can have different goals in playing a roleplaying game - that's a given. More or less you can say the players create their own goals, although influenced by the game, fellow players and gamemaster. It is a shared medium in almost every instance.
Though there can be argued to be bad players (that is beyond the scope of this discussion, though), one can't say that having different goals in roleplaying makes certain groups of people bad players. Whether one is a bad player or not is not really dependant on this.
I can definately agree with the idea that roleplaying games are like balls, that by their inherent nature suggest certain types of behaviour (you don't write poems with balls, obviosly, but you can play a variety of games). They're complex "balls" and the activity which follows is usually equally complex. Different games, just like balls (soccer balls, rugby balls, tennis balls), favor certain types of activity. Now, I want to end the comparison and return to the point.
Roleplaying games are what you make of them, even more so than most things (since I'd argue that everything is what you make of it - heh). I think everything in this forum, the GNS paradigm and all else pretty much just supports the view.
Thanks for the bandwidth guys.