Rifts is a narrativist game?

[greyorm]

Callan,

Lack of rules or definition does not equate narrativism. This is a point a couple folks have brought up, and I think you've missed it every time. What, specifically, in the RIFTs rules supports "exploring a Premise"? How does the game reward you for exploring a Premise and making Premise-based choices above/ahead of making Gamist or Simulationist ones?

If the answer to the former is "nothing" (and having played RIFTs for a while in the past, that would be my call) then it is not "narrativist", it is "incoherent". Note that TROS is different than RIFTs because every game is about "What are you willing to die for?", which is supported in the deadly combat tied to the SAs which function as XP. That's Nar-facillitative. RIFTs does not have that focus or reward, however.

Perhaps RIFTs it can be Drifted to Nar more easily than Gamism or Sim, but I see no reason why that would be so, either. As a game, its rules, taken as a whole, are definitely not Narrativist-facillitating.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey guys,

With the help of a PM, I'm seeing what Callan is driving at. Unfortunately, the thread title is getting in the way.

We are not talking about whether Rifts is a Narrativist-facilitating RPG in the same ways that Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard are.

We are talking about design which is all too obviously going to facilitate (if that's the right word, possibly inflict, induce? no, too active) incoherent play ... and looking at that as a kind of anti-Gamist defense, a forced focus on the SIS perhaps.

My take is that the outcome is more of a stumbly Sim, with Gamist stuff flashing up all over the place and perhaps taking over, at its most coherent (barring major Drift).

In other words, I see your point about the incoherence and what might be called a "hope it happens" design approach toward CA, Callan. I'm not sure that Narrativism per se is really the focus that makes most sense to discuss this phenomenon from, unless we all recognize that it would arise if that's what the group wanted and took some steps to achieve.

Raven and others, I think you guys might do well to back off on the Narrativist issue too. We all know Rifts isn't Dogs. That's not the issue.

Hope this helps.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

Hrm...indeed, the title does get in the way, in that case. New thread to refocus, perhaps? Or can we get a refocus in this thread and just avoid the "is it/it is Nar" issue altogether as an apparent bugaboo?

[Callan S.]

The title by itself is missleading. In terms of 'system does matter' I'd taken it if a game is incoherant, whatever CA it gets closest to facilitating mechanically, is the CA it's closest to supporting (if user add ons are introduced...which would require the user to be inclined toward the CA the add ons assist). A title like 'Rifts is closest to facilitating nar?' might help clear things up, beyond what was noted about add ons.

Ron, I think you've mentioned the Champions RPG before, and how by ignoring certain parts, it could facilitate any creative agenda. Which CA required ignoring the least amount of parts?

In that case your ditching components. I'm assuming its valid to judge which CA champions was closest to, by how few parts you had to ignore to facilitate a particular CA (if it isn't valid, we should get into that). For Rifts I'm looking at a glass half full version...what CA would require the least amount of rules add ons to be facilitated? The anti gamist design certainly makes the number of add ons required to facilitate gamism, very high.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Callan,

It's an interesting thesis, but I'm not sure I agree. All of the following is just food for thought.

1. Number of components ignored is going to be a squishy variable, because the better currency might be the effort to ignore, if any.

In the case of my Champions experience, I and a few of the folks I played with considered it "effortless" to ignore/disallow the power Damage Reduction. This was considered pure and simple cheating by others, and to ignore the "rule," as they saw it, was an act which must have taken immense effort and intent to "change the game."

I also don't want to lose the point that adding emphasis to certain rules was also part of the picture. It's not just a matter of ignoring stuff. A good example is the role of NPC-based Disadvantages, mainly Hunted and DNPC. Depending on how the group interpreted them, they were either Hooks or Kickers - but to do either meant adding elements of prep and interpersonal interaction during play which were not explicit in the rules.

2. If a person is not especially inclined to the Exploration-heavy form of Gamist play, then it's hard to recognize that many "anti-Gamist" rules in many games are actually honey to Gamists. Imagine a long but shallow trench, as a barrier. Ever-present, but easy to get across. Now imagine that different portions of its length have different secondary elements, like guard dogs or booby-traps or whatever. But the trench (and most importantly the boundary) is still there.

So which if these two situations do you think will be more fun for the Step On Up process? Particularly if each of the secondary "don't" elements is hampered by a need to justify it in Explorative terms?

As many of us have learned, the only solution to disincentivizing Gamist play is simply not to have that boundary at all - just structure the reward system so the whole terrain is unsuitable for it.

So my suggestion is that this sort of approach to saying "no Gamist!" is actually quite appealing to Gamist play of a certain kind, the kind which makes extensive use of "it would" or other justificatory logic as a moment-to-moment tactic.

You, or I, or any number of other people who aren't inclined toward this particular brand might see all the barriers as stuff to ignore if you want to play Gamist. But the folks who are inclined in this way will see it as "interesting and dangerous ground."

That's the reason I've referred to Rifts as favoring Gamist play in the past. Not all Gamist play, to be sure.

And again, none of this is intended to refute your point. It provides some perspective on the topic, I hope.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

Heya Ron,

That's the reason I've referred to Rifts as favoring Gamist play in the past. Not all Gamist play, to be sure.

Ah, that made some pennies drop on Rifts previous listing and why.

Even though it was presented as food for thought, I think your whole post makes a very good case of what end users will think of the game when its on the table in front of them.

Does it fit the GNS forum to talk about what the author may have intended? And that although end users may see it as facilitating a particular CA, what was released is actually an incomplete game? The complete version requires bits which are only in the authors head and weren't transcribed to text by him. This complete version would facilitate something else entirely. It would sort of be like Jake Norwood not adding spiritual attributes and instead only adding that himself when he GM's a group. Indeed, I think Jake had said that SA's were added almost as an experiment...they could have easily been left out. This would have left everyone with a very different impression of what TROS was about. In terms of Rifts, I'll hypothesise the complete version would support nar more effectively than gamism or sim.

On point 1, since I'm focusing on the authors ill communicated intent rather than what the end user makes of it all, looking at the effort involved is a bit tricky. If they start off by getting into the idea it's gamist, then it's going to take quite some effort to steer them off from that. The TROS reviews I mentioned tie into that, where the reviewers just took it that the product worked in much the same way as D&D (they ignored the SA rules). From when I've played face to face in a TROS game, they got ignored. Even when I GM'ed TROS a couple of times (different group), I failed to utilise them properly! And I sort of knew what I was supposed to be aiming for! And that's when SA's were textually clear and present!

Effort involved is the better currency to judge by, I agree. As long as we carefully take into account the effort already required to get past preconception and habit. On that note, I suppose there's not much more to say on that until I have an actual play account to give. I'll just list the non jargon rules I'm going to explicitely add and talk about with my group, for a test run.

1. Players declare their actions as usual. If everyone in the group isn't sure if the PC could do that, the player decides (based on how dedicated the PC is to doing things like the action) how well the PC will do that.
2. This is important because it shows everyone how dedicated the PC is and what he's dedicated his life to. So make sure he's dedicated to doing what you as a player want him to be dedicated to. Think about the concept you have for him.

On an unrelated side note, the gamism you describe seems to skim very close to simulationism to me. The goal may be to win and get accolades...but I can see more time spent on talking about causality (so as to eventually win an advantage), than time spent on high fives. Gah, it sounds like the high fives becoming secondary to me!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Callan,

H'm. I must say I'm pretty allergic to talking about author intent in just about any and every context imaginable. At least when dealing with a given playable game, as opposed to a design in progress and dialogue with the actual author.

It seems to me that author's intent is not so important as the game's textual ability to reward a given agenda brought to it by others. So that's where I tend to focus my attention.

Others may differ in their tastes of what to discuss about texts and authors, so I'll let that sort of discussion carry on without really getting too invested in it.

Regarding the brand of Gamism we're talking about, you can probably find some juicy comments about it in my essay, now that you're oriented toward what to look for. Note the "bitterest gamer in the world" section.

Speaking only from experience and observation, but not generalizing, I suggest that such Gamism may well have Simulationist moments or underpinnings, bordering on or even being hybrid (if such is possible). However, I will also point out that winning/losing in this Gamist context often involves, not high fives, but determining who's forced to sulk more. Some of us may find this brand a bit distasteful, bordering as it does on "control of the SIS" at the Social Contract / Explorative boundary.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

Heya Ron,

Fair enough on the author intent. I think your focus is more like looking at what a machine does once it's out in the field. I'm sort of trying to do that as well, but as I watch the machine limp along on land I'm thinking 'Hey, maybe the designer meant it to go into the water? Well just put a cork in that hole there and...now that I'm lowering it into the water, I can already see it zooming along now!'

Rifts got under my skin some time ago and I find it compelling. But compelling me to do what? What's is/isn't it doing? Can I replicate what it is doing myself, mechanically? It's like trying to figure out some ancient language or something.

However, I will also point out that winning/losing in this Gamist context often involves, not high fives, but determining who's forced to sulk more.

Oh, that's terrible! I'm no enlightened gamer, but jeez...I'll read through the bitterest gamer again soon.