Decision Merging: An Appoach to Hybridization

[Wormwood]

First, a little history:

A while back there was a cyberpunk based CCG called Netrunner, put out by WotC using the same information property as Cyberpunk 2020. This game had a variety of interesting elements, not least of all the fact that the different sides had well defined roles in the game. You were either the Corp or the Runner. Cards typically gave significantly different options for each side, and there was a significant disjunction between their methods. One interesting side effect that seemed to come from this design was that it was necessary to play both sides with a very different mind set. After a while of playing this game I realized that the best way to encapsulate the strategy of a given role was to "play" that role. The Runner needed to play by the seat of her pants, and the Corp needed to be full of duplicity and double dealing. The very nature of the game meant that decisions that were made for purely gamist reasons of victory ended up being the same as those made for purely simulationist purposes. In a strong sense Netrunner was a game that allowed two distinct approaches to the same catagory of decisions. By merging these two, Netrunner quite possible became a true hybrid of Gamist and Simulationist gaming.

Now what's interesting about this situation, is that it doesn't seem to be all that difficult to design an RPG with similiar properties. All that is required is to develop the mechanics so that effectiveness in the game mechanical sense is equivalent to effectiveness in the setting. Thus the mechanics and the setting would cease the overt disjunction that requires one or the other as the primary focus. In a more naive way, the game can reward implicitly the depth of the simulation. Making the gamist into a natural simulationist and vice versa.

Additionally it is also possible to reward narrativist actions in a similiar manner. Making a given theme implicitly conjoined with immersive or tactical behavior is entirely feasible, and often aids the game play immensely. Simply put, thematic elements are an essential part of a good story, but they don't need to be overt, simply present.

Admittedly in this sort of merging there is a risk of disjunction, of there being discord generated by the different approaches working at ends. But implicitly when different approaches are merged this way, these disjunctions are indistinguishable from those which occur within a given approach. When the effect of a class of gamist decisions is merged with a class of simulationist decisions, a disjunction with a class of simulationist decisions will necessarilly be equivalent to just the disjunction of the two simulationist classes.

On the whole, this appears to produce a positive effect, reducing disjunction and allowing a wider variety of approaches to be valid in a given game, while not significantly increasing the amount of discord generated.

What I suggest is that hybridization provides an entire frontier of new design options and considerations. Ones which should be explored and considered. From what designs I have attempted in this area, there is much to be gained from trying to tie the different approaches to similiar ends. As I see it, Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist, are mostly just concerned with how, what, and why, respectively, by merging these considerations the game can come alive in new and unexpected ways.

  - Mendel S.

[M. J. Young]

Mendel, I see what you're saying; but I think that in doing this you create limits on the game that make it less like a role playing game.

I can easily see how one could create a game in which the players play members of a baseball team, and the object is to win ball games, and they focus on doing this. What happens off the field isn't important, and isn't played. In this case, the simulation of the ballgame creates the gamist priorities of winning. What it doesn't do is deal with the personal lives of the players. Start bringing it what they do off the field, and suddenly you have conflicting priorities. One player will toe the line on everything that might interfere with his performance--no parties, no personal relationships, no missed practices. Another might decide that it would be interesting to explore the issue of what happens to a ballplayer who lets fame and fortune lead him into decadent decay so he's not up to par--and suddenly there's conflict within the group between the simulationist/gamists who want every player to be in top form to win games and the simulationist/narrativists who want to explore what happens when a ballplayer's personal life starts falling apart.

Years ago, before E. R. Jones came up with the core ideas for Multiverser (or perhaps as part of that process), he devised another game idea, and ran it. In this game, also an I game, the player began by being kidnapped from his home by aliens, and informed that he had just been recruited to serve as a mercenary soldier in an interstellar war. He ran this game for years, and every player who came into the game bought into the idea and went for mercenary status. (Multiverser's character Whisp was such a character who transitioned from the one game to the other.) Then one day he brought two players into the game who didn't conform. One of them said that their war was immoral, and he wouldn't have anything to do with it; the other said that their war was impractical, and he wanted to find ways to bring the sides to a negotiating table and end the fighting.

To his credit, Jones rolled with the punches. He let the players do what they intended. The one wound up involved in intense discussions as the aliens attempted to grasp what this word "immoral" meant. The other proceeded to make peace with two of the four other sides in the war, by coming to understand what had brought them into the war initially and what they hoped to achieve as an outcome, and then producing compromises that were satisfying to both sides. But in doing this, Jones allowed those two players to step out of the simulationist/gamist framework in which all the other players were playing.

Sure, Netrunner creates a situation in which if you're playing the runner you have one set of strategies that are both gamist and simulationist choices, and if you're playing the corp you've got another set of strategies which again fill both shoes. But can you as the corp offer to hire the runner? Can you as the runner offer yourself as an employee of the corp? Can you play someone who is neither runner nor corp, or retire from one or the other and become something else? I'd wager you can't. In that sense, this is less like a role playing game--players are locked into defined roles, and can't get out of them.

You might be able to draw the lines so tightly that all decisions which promote gamist, simulationist, or narrativist outcomes would be the same decisions; I'm not sure you can do that. But in the process, you would have to cripple a lot of the options that make role playing games so attractive, the feeling that I Can Do Anything to answer the present situation.

You can still produce good games that are like RPGs; they'd be moving back toward wargames, I think, in that the options are becoming more limited.

--M. J. Young

[Wormwood]

M.J.,

I think it might be beneficial to clarify a few things:

First, Netrunner is not an RPG. I can (fairly easily) adapt it to become one. However, it's limitations as a CCG doesn't really make any difference to my point. Other options are of course feasible, it's not the limitation of tatics that makes this merging of approaches, rather the merging of consequences.

Second, RPG's necessarilly limit what players can do. However they do not specify what players can do. This is a fine, but necessary distinction. On the other hand, options need not be limited to enact this merging of consequences, simply the results of different approaches must be considered.

Third, players are always capable of disrupting or altering the focus of the game. This is true regardless of whether they are all of the same approach or not. The purpose of hybridization is to permit a wider variety of approaches to coexist harmoniously, not to remove all potential for discord.

I'm sorry if I come off as a bit terse, but your response indicated that several features of my original post needed clarification.

  -Mendel S.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

If I'm reading the posts right, then I think my response is, "Yes." One of the sections in the Gamism essay (now in final wait-for-reader stage!) is about how S and G hybridize ... and an interesting pattern emerges when you look across games and time.

If we're talking about play, then Gamist play "engulfs" Simulationist play fairly easily, which means that Sim-facility design works best as a subordinate hybrid. I think in RPGs, one can see that very clearly in Rifts, Shadowrun, and Age of Heroes. Gamist-facilitating games, strong Sim supportive mechanisms to set up the confrontations and resolve them primarily in in-game-world terms.

If we're talking about writing and revision, though, Simulationist-facilitating prose and presentation tends to "engulf" Gamist prose and presentation. It's pretty tempting to let all that Exploration just blossom, supplement after supplement. This isn't a 100% thing, and some mid-late 80s D&D publications demonstrate a tug-of-war, I think, between Gamist play-pubs and Sim stuff-pubs, but "Sim creep" in terms of text is worth considering as a real creative tendency out there.

Anyway, all this is merely to say, "Yup, I see the Netrunner point," meaning, yeah, G-S hybridization can be some good game design. For purposes of ongoing, successful play, I'd recommend keeping G in the driver's seat, but that's grading into "Ron's take" rather than what the theory & observations can tell us.

Best,
Ron

[Wormwood]

Ron,

I'm pleased to hear I'm not the only one investigating this arena. While, admittedly the linking of Gamist and Simulationist decisions is the most prevelant example, I am fairly convinced that other such hybridizations are equally feasible. One facet, which seems to be one of M.J.'s concerns on the matter, is that all the examples so far seemed to be limited in scope. In order for Exploration of Character or Setting to merge with a Gamist goal it seems the former needs to be inherently competative. This strategy of making the game into the setting, and then pulling out setting details from the game, is a valid one, but I think it limits the options available to hybridization.

One design which I've been working on recently is called Pure Shoujo. It's an attempt to simulate the extreme soap opera genre. However during the design process, the game ended up merging in a strongly gamist direction. The result seems to be a surprisingly uncompetative game where nearly all of the simulationist and gamist decisions merge, even some of the narrativist ones as well.

Admittedly the nature of my design process is meant more to produce spurious, but novel results, rather than fitting into a specified catagory, so I'm uncertain of the repeatability of this sort of result. However I believe that it is worthwhile to attempt such an exploration of design space. This is especially true in attempting to merge narrativist decisions with those in other classes. One of my designs, Clandestine, seems to be pushing in that direction, but only time will tell.

I look forward to comments and results in this area, and must confess a general curiosity about how much interest there is in making functional hybrids.

  -Mendel S.

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Mendel,

For the phenomenon you call Decision Merging (that is, I believe it's the same phenomonenon), I've proposed the term Congruence. See this thread for the initial discussion of the idea.

Here's a quick summary of the current consensus about Congruence, paraphrased from a post in a different thread: Congruence is the adjustment of the circumstances of play (not, usually, the system itself) to make the different GNS priories not (or less) mutually exclusive during individual instances of decision-making. Congruence can be achieved to varying degrees but apparently at a high cost in constraints (usually on character or situation). For example, if all the characters are greedy and dispassionate, then few gamist choices will conflict with simulationist choices in a kill-monsters get-treasure situation. If the characters are thrown into a save-the-world situation, then it makes perfect simulationist sense for them to overlook their personal preferences in favor of tactical optimization. Sometimes congruence can cure a particular problem area. For example, gamist and simulationist priorities often come into conflict over using out-of-character knowledge. It's possible to design situations in which out-of-character knowledge is never useful. Some of Robin's Laws are effective because they lead toward congruence.

The Netrunner example appears to fit the established pattern pretty well. G-S congruence is achieved, but notice that it's achieved in a context of play that allows only two well-defined (read: closely circumscribed) different roles in the game.

My interpretation of Congruence/Decision Merging is that it's a specific type of hybridization, and that there are practical and successful aspects of hybridization apart from Congruence. (This rather technical thread discusses Congruence in the context of other forms of functional hybridization.) You also have the possibilities of deliberate juxtaposition of primary/supporting priorities, transition and drift of priorities, systematic chronological alternation of priorities, and at-the-table ad hoc adoption of "different rules for different players" (see this thread.). Teasing apart those effects from Congruence/Decision Merging effects is an analytical challenge.

I think it's fair to say that there's a high amount of interest here in making functional hybrids, and also in making hybrids functional (just a slight difference in the teleology there). I'd love to hear your reactions to the previous discussions linked above, as well as your thoughts about how you're approaching hybridization with your own designs.

- Walt

[Wormwood]

Walt,

I'd actually looked over the congruence discussion earlier. It seemed along a similiar vein, but somewhat distinct as well. Mostly it seemed a matter of coincidental, or at best situational, cooperation between particular approaches. Argueably this includes the idea of indistinguishable approaches, but doesn't really consider the ramifications of this. Especially since indistinguishability can help to alleviate some of the frustrations of players with each other, reducing discord based on expected future decisions.

Also, the principle of indistinguishability seems much easier to design, than a general situation of cooperation. In the very least I suspect that it will tend to be less limited in terms of player options.

On the other hand, I'm unconcerned with limitations on the decisions players can make. Simply put, I believe that all good game design defines a definite space of play. How it defines this space is rather complex, and rarely equates with what many people call setting. It is the domain of fitted play. The scope of game decisions to which the game is best suited. For example, Sorcerer is confined to the domain of play space where it is feasible to set up the power - consequences dynamic as pre-eminent.

Further, I have yet to see any reason that limitations on play space are additionally necessary to make games with decision merging. Rather, I suspect that it is simply easier to do so, as it reduces the space of decisions to consider. Remember, for example, that this process can be extended, a given game can have several gamist goals available, several major themes, and several major regions to explore. Associating them via the system and the setting can be difficult, but the ultimate result is a game that is built in upon itself, resilient and self-supporting even in the face of multiple play styles. Of course such a game may be insanely difficult to design, even if it is quite simple mechanically and setting-wise. As I've said before every game design decision is important, both the decision to add something, and the decision not to.

As an aside, I do find the idea of designing a game with general congruence, in particular cooperation intriguing. (Yes for me it all comes down to design, I'm very interested in play, but primarilly in building good models of play to guide design processes.) I have yet to really look into that arena however, but I'm seriously considering it. Perhaps, while more difficult than indistinguishability, it will provide a simpler way to link a variety of approaches which have already been made indistinguishable.

As far as my approach to game design to attack this, and any other theoretical game design question, I use what I refer to as holistic design. Essentially put, I produce a core element or elements which seems inline with the area I want to explore. Then I filter the ideas back and forth between specifying setting and system elements in turn. The intent is to create a merged setting and system for the game, permitting them to support each other exceptionally well. I could go into more detail, but I already have at RPGnet. Suffice it to say hybrids are only one of my theoretical interests, but it seemed an apt time to bring it up at the Forge.

I hope that answers some of your questions,

  -Mendel S.

[Mike Holmes]

Can you give us an example of this principle in action? Is it extant in any current game, or is it purely hypothetical. I'd guess that its already a part of some games that are coherent hybrids, but I can't be sure yet.

BTW, the examples that Ron gave of hybrids are not exclusive. The consensus is that, yes, all hybrids are possible (the G/N/S one is the only one that's slightly contentious). It's incoherent games that are problematic, not well designed hybrids.

Mike

[Wormwood]

Mike,

As far as I can tell, decision merging is not the only method to produce viable hybrids. However it seems a cost effective one.

As far as examples, the first one I can offer is Pure Shoujo on my website. This particular game uses a sort of dual reward system. Playing cards, to make a given relationship definite, has two major advantages. First, it produces a small increase in character effectiveness and second it makes a relationship determined, i.e. changing the situation in a definite manner. In my experience of watching people play this game, both reasons are equally valid. Hence the game lends itself to a variety of decision classes, some simulationist and some gamist. Further, a small class of themes also maps effectively to those decisions, mostly involving romance and human arbitraryness. I wouldn't say it's a real triple Hybrid, but it seems to push the envelope towards one. This is especially interesting since the design was not planned in that direction. (In fact, during early design it had a GM.)

One important distinction, is that this is not a "coincidence" of goal and setting, rather it is a carefully built goal which aligns with the setting. This fact suggests to me that hybrids of this sort may in fact be easier to design, once the designer has managed to get a handle on decision classes. (If player decisions are atomic, then decision classes are analogous to the periodic table of elements.)

In a more general sense, you could argue that decision merging happens in many games, but often in unuseful ways. This is sort of a dual to the designed merging. If you have a given decision motive built into the game, then there are inevitably other motives which correlate, quite possibly in other modes. For example, to return to the idea of CCGs, in Magic there are several winning strategies, but the wizard who wins in the duel is typically one who has learned a small selection of spells very well (multiple duplicates of cards) and has a small collection of resources (a minimum deck size). However against some decks this strategy can often backfire. A thematic space dealing with specialization, both it's strengths and frailties could easily account for much of what occurs in the deckbuilding prior to a major tournament. So, while Magic is very obviously not a narrativist game, it can naturally support some themes, those found in a small, but extant decision class of narrativist decisions.

I feel that concerns of this sort should be considered. Especially since their investigation may lead to better understanding of the theory, and an increased accesibility (my primary worry about the GNS theory at large).

I hope that helps,

   -Mendel S.