Why I Play (long)

[eef]

Who am I?

In real life, I am very careful, planning, introverted, somewhat closed off.

What would it be like if I was a person that took more risks?  That refused to take any?  If I  was blinded by greed, or belief?  What if I didn't care at all about other people, or cared so much I was willing to give my life?

In the exploration of rpgs, what I am really exploring is myself.  I am, in essence, making gedankenexperiments with my psyche.  It takes a certain amount of character identification to make this work.  On the one hand, I have to care about the character as if it were myself; on the other hand I have to not care about what happens to that character in the game.  For instance, if I am playing a risk-taking adventurer, then sooner or later the my number will come up and most likely in some small silly plotless thing.  If the GM fudges that result for the sake of the story, then the GM is invalidating the experiment.  If my character always wins, I can never experiment with soul-crushing defeat.  Without the real risk of failure, I have a hard time caring about my character.  Since I have to allow myself to identify with the character (method rpg!) my emotional risk is the character's emotional risk.

This personal exploration is really rather orthogonal to story-building.  For instance, say the group captures a prisoner.  Do we torture them?  Let them go?  Kill them outright?  What is it like to be a person that would torture a helpless enemy?  What would it be like to be a person that would defend a person from torture, even an enemy against my brother in arms?  The result of scene and the implications for a greater plot are irrelevant to the experience of that scene.

This personal exploration is also orthogonal to the explorations of other players (including the GM!)  Of course, as a player I have to understand their creative agendas and not invalidate them.

What I want from a ruleset is that I have a world I can work with easily and intuitively.  I want minimal time switching contexts from the character context to the rules context.  D&D flunks here; the ruleset is too cumbersome.  It would work if I could devote to time to studying the rules to the point where they were reflexive and immediate, but that is a _lot_ of time I have better uses for.  On the other hand, many 'rules-lite' systems also flunk; they way they work throws monkey wrenches into things.  I was playing a game that compared (skill + 1d10) to (skill+ 1d10), with skills ranging from 0 to 10.  In other words, no matter how good you are, even world-class against schmuck, luck is more important than skill.  Yuck.   What I really want is not rules-lite or rules-heavy but rules-elegant.  

I have a lot of trouble with Burning Wheel.  I love the traits, characteristics, and beliefs, but Rube Goldberg built the combat system.  Sorcerer works very well I think.  The unpredictability of the dice pool lends itself well to character epiphanies.

My current take on GNS is:
Do you care about the rules as such, or are the rules a means to an end?  If you care about the rules as such, that's Gamist.  If the rules are a means to an end, then do you care about the public story produced or the private experience of the story? If you care about the public story, that's Narr; if you care about the private experience, that's Sim.

[Andrew Martin]

My current take on GNS is:
Do you care about the rules as such, or are the rules a means to an end?  If you care about the rules as such, that's Gamist.  If the rules are a means to an end, then do you care about the public story produced or the private experience of the story? If you care about the public story, that's Narr; if you care about the private experience, that's Sim.

So which category of GNS most excites you? Would it be Sim?

[Walt Freitag]

Hi eef, and welcome to the Forge!

Your comments about GNS shows that you've put some thought into this but I can't say that they correctly characterize the model. Let me propose to you that the rules are always a means to an end, and that roughly speaking, the Creative Agenda (the aspect of play that can be categorized as G, N, or S) is that end.

Your own post contains a very interesting example that relates to this:

I was playing a game that compared (skill + 1d10) to (skill+ 1d10), with skills ranging from 0 to 10. In other words, no matter how good you are, even world-class against schmuck, luck is more important than skill. Yuck.

Sorcerer works very well I think. The unpredictability of the dice pool lends itself well to character epiphanies.

So in the first case, unexpected results (e.g. the schmuck beating the master) is a bad thing, and in the second case it's a good thing?

I'm not trying to catch you in a contradiction. I'm suggesting that you might find it revealing to think about why the two quoted judgments actually don't contradict one another. Comparing naked resolution mechanics from games you've liked and disliked can only go so far in understanding your role playing preferences. So, is Sorcerer's resolution mechanic innately better than the (1d10+skill), or is it the system as a whole that's betters suited to your particular ends?

I don't think it's necessary, or even a good idea, to stampede into the "am I Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist?" question here. Instead, let's talk more about your preferences and experiences. Why the "I think" in "Sorcerer works well I think." Have you not had a chance to play it enough to be sure? Or having played it, do you have some reservations about it?

- Walt

[eef]

I have played  Sorcerer once.  The game was focused on the emotions of the characters under duress.  Whenever we were doing some non-emotional stuff, the GM basically waved his hands at it.  That was the right thing to do, I  think; the core of the game is the emotions and ethical choices.

The Sorcerer dice system did an excellent job of modeling emotional termoil.  At one point my character was in an arguement with another and suffered a total failure.  This meant I was able to play a character emotionally crumbling, which was a fairly cool thing.

I think if we were trying to play combat wombats,  the system would have driven me nuts.  I've been looking at the staistical distributions of the results (basically "What's the probability that N dice beat M dice?")  and there is too much of a chance of the lower beating the larger (same "schmuck spanks the master" problem).  I can post the tables sometime if you're interested.

Sorcerer works great as a laboratory for the stuff the game was designed for.  Nice, simple, straighforward.  Elegant.

[Bill Cook]

Welcome to the Forge, eef. You write like a lurker. And it's very cool that you've read BW and played Sorcerer. I've done the same, and the experience has helped my understanding of RPG aesthetic and, to some degree, the Big Model.

This personal exploration is also orthogonal to the explorations of other players (including the GM!) Of course, as a player I have to understand their creative agendas and not invalidate them.

Here I paraphrase another Forge poster: the big idea is to form groups around a common agenda. In contrast, there's been a lot of four-quadrant-style gamer personality analysis written and printed, to support a GM in achieving greater mastery by accomodating every variation. It's nothing new.

At the Forge, the bold, new direction is to form groups that get on board at the outset; the Big Model is a tool or context to create and support that style of community.

What I want from a ruleset is that I have a world I can work with easily and intuitively. I want minimal time switching contexts from the character context to the rules context.

More well-read posters may offer specific systems as recommendations. It sounds like you want low handling time and low cost internalization. That suggests a focused design with high integration.  I read that your lead priority for play is exploration of character, in the context of internal experience.

BTW, I think you've really hit on something in requiring an immediate payoff to the standard of internalization. I feel similiarly. When I'm browsing RPG texts, if I get the sense that the author is being shy about coming out with how you do stuff, and if it isn't layed out and ordered to fly into my brain like telepathy, (1) there better be hellified buzz and (2) there better be strong secondary support (e.g. a delightful, responsive forum or someone else in my group going manic, bingeing on private playtest sessions and emerging from his basement to walk the rest of us through it); if not, I walk away, disgusted, looking for two Tylenol.

I have a lot of trouble with Burning Wheel.

BW is a game I had a lot of initial enthusiasm for. Various forces in my life have conquered my interest level. It certainly has that sheen of "D&D, done right," but for me, is now firmly in the category of "show me."

I think the best thing about BW is Luke Crane. He's built a reputation for enthusiasm in promotion. If he ever gave a demo within 100 miles of DFW, you couldn't keep me away.

* * *

I like your take on GNS. I suspect that it's a technical abomination, but it makes a sort of blissful sense. The most freeing thing I've read about GNS is that, despite preferences, each agenda is a potentially satisfying style of play, once you are aligned to it.

[eef]

Welcome to the Forge, eef. You write like a lurker.

Ha! Pegged!
I guess one has to get one's first post  out of the way eventually.

[Walt Freitag]

It's kind of boilerplate around here to recommend HeroQuest, but let me mention it again in case you've missed it in your lurking.

This personal exploration is really rather orthogonal to story-building. For instance, say the group captures a prisoner. Do we torture them? Let them go? Kill them outright? What is it like to be a person that would torture a helpless enemy? What would it be like to be a person that would defend a person from torture, even an enemy against my brother in arms? The result of scene and the implications for a greater plot are irrelevant to the experience of that scene.

Orthogonal perhaps, but also inextricably linked, aren't they? The emotional import of the decision on how to treat the prisoner is hard to interpret in any interesting way unless we know the situational context. If the prisoner is suspected of stealing your spare change yesterday, the import of a decision to torture is different from if the prisoner is known to be responsible for massacring a village, which is again different from if the prisoner knows where a massacre will occur tomorrow, which you could prevent if you knew, but is refusing to tell out of fear. It's from the "greater plot" that such current and future Situations arise.

Hence, the suggestion to look into HeroQuest, in which the "personal exploration" is spotlighted by virtue of the player-characters being overtly and explicity heroes, that is, people whose actions and decisions can establish new culture during a time of social upheaval. This involves a layer of metaphor between in-game action and its emotional meaning as a personal gedankenexperiment, but so does Sorcerer and you seem to be OK with that. And I believe the HQ system might have the kind of elegance you're looking for.

- Walt