More on jargon and models [long]

[Tim C Koppang]

Marco,

I kind of got the impression from your last post [edit due to cross-post: your second to last post] that you don't really accept the theory that certain games necessarily encourage one of G, N, or S creative agendas.  Are you arguing that the group defines the creative agenda first and then plugs it into whatever game they want to play--drifting the rules, if only gently, as needed?  Or put another way, that one man reading a game text will map whatever creative agenda onto the rules he happens to prefer?  If that's the case, we have a fundamental difference separating our viewpoints.  Not that it isn't worth talking about though.

[MR. Analytical]

then it looks like you're disagreeing with the idea that those game texts are likely to lead to conflicts in Creative Agenda.

Again... I understand the position.  I just happen to disagree with it.


If a game is incoherent it is likely to lead to incoherent play
D&D and VAMP were played incoherently
therefore D&D and VAMP are incoherent.

In other words...

Some women are greek
Socrates is greek
therefore Socrates is a woman.


I don't think that you can infer anything about a game's design quality from what happens to it in play simply because there are SO MANY ways in which games can succeed or fail.

You CAN however say things about how play can fail and you can say things about how games can be poorly designed with conflicting goals (and you do).

Given that the link between the two sets of phenomenon isn't understood (you yourselves explicitly say it's not causation it's 'likely to lead to' whatever that means) it's not at all clear to me what work this link does.  It just serves to muddy the waters of 2 clear and distinct areas of interest.

I can understand WHY a link's posited.  If you don't argue that incoherent design leads in some nebulous way to incoherent play then it's not clear why system matters or why anyone should care about CAs.  I just don't think it's been A) proved and B) it actually helps the advancement of RPG theory in a general sense.

[Marco]

Marco,

I kind of got the impression from your last post [edit due to cross-post: your second to last post] that you don't really accept the theory that certain games necessarily encourage one of G, N, or S creative agendas.  Are you arguing that the group defines the creative agenda first and then plugs it into whatever game they want to play--drifting the rules, if only gently, as needed?  Or put another way, that one man reading a game text will map whatever creative agenda onto the rules he happens to prefer?  If that's the case, we have a fundamental difference separating our viewpoints.  Not that it isn't worth talking about though.

Hi Tim,
I wouldn't necessiarily even say "gently drifting" since I'm not sure what that means (is playing an AD&D scenario where you never fight an orc drift, for instance?)

It's not that I'm trying to make something out about TRoS other than that I feel it's a great example: both Ralph and I would play "by the rules." I've read it very carefully. So has he.*

The differences in our games would reflect our individual tastes and could fall, supported by system, at any point along the GNS spectrum (Ralph says that for the GNS-title it needs to provide "holistic support" for that CA, I disagree with that). You can say that means TROS is a hybrid but I think that's more of a matter of opinion than anything inherent in the game.

I mean, one can say that means it supports Nar play when SA's are heavily used but even that seems questionable to me since the GM decides when and how SA's come up (I question that getting +25 dice for being in the service of hte King is making much of a statement if the GM just has me dutifly slay one vile enemy of the realm after another with no moral issues to trouble the player whatsoever).

And if I change the setting (midieval call of cthulhu flavor with Warhammer-style chaos) then am I drifting? I can see an argument that says yes, although I could interpert TRoS's devils as fairly Warhammerish and set the game in a sleepy corner of the given-setting and achieve the same effect without doing anything in contravention of "the rules," IMO (the exact personalities of the devils aren't really spelled out as definitiviely non-chaos).

My observation isn't that system doesn't matter but that, rather, there's a fundamental expectation of what system ought to do in a game. Since I tend to expect system to simply represent the physics of the world with added support for distinguishing character from player (a gorgeous female player can use the system to play a stuttering male lout or vice versa) and I'll handle the emotionally resonant issues of play "above" the mechanics layer then Hero and GURPS and BRP from a Creative Agenda standpoint all look alike.

You can say that's because I'm using them to play Sim--and that's a fine observation, and one I don't disagree with--but if my play-style approximates Nar play then I think there's a legitimate question about what 'facilitation' means in that context.

I think in order to argue that system matters more than preference, I think you have to account for the extreme differences in what we'd do with the game (and it's appeal to each vision) while also understanding that there are probably aspects on *for each of us* that *could* interfere with what we want (i.e. Ralph would, IMO, likely complain if a GM dragged him around by a Flaw and I might find playing an always-on SA'd character a bit too superheroy for what I see as a gritty setting. Both are fully supported under the game text).

-Marco
* think the argument that rules are "emergent" is interesting. It looks to me suspiciously like the "you have to 'get it'" arguments that I'm wary of. If I said GURPS is Narrativist if you "get it" I don't think many people would agree with me.

[Tim C Koppang]

Hey Marco,

I wasn't going to post here again, as I think we've gone slightly off topic, but I wanted to clarify my viewpoint on at least one point that you brought up.

I think in order to argue that system matters more than preference, I think you have to account for the extreme differences in what we'd do with the game (and it's appeal to each vision) while also understanding that there are probably aspects on *for each of us* that *could* interfere with what we want...

I'm not arguing that system matters more than preference.  I'm not even arguing that preference matters more than system.  Although the later is probably true in the big picture, when actual play begins I don't think that the two concepts really interact in such a win/lose fashion.  Furthermore, I don't mean to imply that system ever overrides preference.  Game texts though can surely be designed to encourage a creative agenda in actual play.  That's why system matters.  It's not that you couldn't use any game to facilitate any creative agenda.  It's a matter of what the game text and mechanics encourage.

Admittedly, I'm wondering if Ron's post in this recent thread doesn't cover this issue in some way.

As far as defining drift, using the game text as your support, I'll grant you that the line can be fuzzy.  If I can draw an analogy to literature, people often run into similar problems when trying to support their interpretation of a book.  I usually break it down like this: you're either wrong because you can't support your argument, or you have a legitimate argument because you can.  The more support you have, the better the argument.  In RPGs, it's similar, and I also think it's perfectly fine to add actual play examples to the mix as well.  On the other hand, if there's no or very little textual support for the creative agenda that your group experienced, then you have to face the fact that drift may be occurring.  It doesn't mean you're playing incoherently though--just that you may be fighting against what the rules-as-written support.  No big deal from a practical standpoint if you can make it work.

I suggest a new thread for this particular tangent if you feel like discussing it further.  I still feel like I'm not grasping some unknown nuance of your argument.