A gamist resolution system (no setting/game title yet)

[Callan S.]

Hi Justin,

I appreciate you putting a positive spin on exploration of system. But if your using hunter resolutions to get to the list you want, how far do you imagine you'll get if you ignore the SIS and just explore system?

In terms of exploring setting, probably a game like this actually does more to explore setting than simulationist games. Because IMO, simulationists don't explore setting, as much as narrativists don't explore character. They both DEFINE it. Exploration is merely seeing what's there. Defining it is creating what's there. In my game, you don't do any defining of setting, you just explore along.

I think I may have to watch out for a RPG cultural issue which sees simulationism as passive "see what's there" play. And my lists make the player group passive in terms of defining the world. A touch ironic! :)

[Callan S.]

In other words, you can't make a game more gamist by removing some simulation aspects. You make it more gamist by creating a mechanic that rewards players in game terms rather than in story or setting terms.

Your correct that trying to beat to death another agenda is pointless. But as I said, a focus on setting gamist reward in various resources is also pointless if the resolution system that controls those resources, encourages simulationism. As the resolution system is in control, the agenda it rewards is the agenda that will be most coherant in play.

And does the resolution mechanic actually lack gamist appeal? I see definite gamble appeal there and a reward for trying to work out the SIS. Do you have any actual play accounts gamist reward mechanics you've encountered and enjoyed, so I know the sort of gamist encouraging mechanics your refering to?

[Callan S.]

Okay, so my question now is how is the player's decision of what resource to look for made a meaningful decision if the information he's given by the GM is supposed to telegraph what he thinks is there?  Doesn't this just make it GM mind-reading?  How does the player's initiative to search for X translate into an address of challenge?

I think I need more information on what you mean by a meaningful gamist decision? Could you illustrate with a quick actual play account (functional or otherwise)? IMO, to make the wrong decision in gamism does not make that any less a meaningful descision.

On GM mind reading: As I said, it's boring for the GM to not give the player anything to work with. If he tries to be so tight lipped it's mind reading, he's bored to death as well. There's nothing in it for the GM to be like that.

Surely you've done some gamist play where you've carefully evaluated the SIS to help you get the goal you were seeking? Was that just GM mind reading or something different? Could you illustrate the difference with an actual play account?

On the address of challenge bit, I think that's a question for the broader design - it's like asking what the inspiration mechanic in capes, all by itself, does for an address of premise.

Also, random and tangential point, instead of picking one resource that's the most likely, assigning it a 'good' chance and the rest an even 'poor' chance, what would you think of ranking those resources, so that of the five, the most likely has an 80% chance, the second most likely a 60% chance, the third most likely a 40% chance, and so on?  (Numbers obviously being rough and tweakable for the end design.)

Assuming the GM is forced to assign each of those percentage rankings, it's essentially the same mechanically.

But doesn't your idea strike you as simulationist? Like it's trying to take into account that some things will have more of a chance of being there than others? And that the GM would enjoy considering if bird nests or firewood are more common, enough to take the time to do so?

This design doesn't actually care about bringing into play what chance anything has of existing. For example, to read the 75% assignment to a bird nest as how common bird nests are in the forrest, is a mistake. The 75% chance represents the answer which is (the most) correct. In the GM's mind there might only be one birds nest in the whole forrest - the players get the 75% because they, in the SIS, happen to be standing under the tree it's in. Circumstance, rather than world definition. Indeed, that's what the lists should be taken as - a grand list of circumstances, not a grand list of what the world does and doesn't contain. The circumstances can even be abberant to how the world works - strange combinations of resources which given a more natural situation, just wouldn't be together. Perhaps I should describe all the lists as abberant combinations of resources, to really undermine the idea that they in any way describe the game world?

I'm kind of probing you here, because I need to probe the expectations that are there when the mechanic is read. Because I now feel that's a real issue.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Well, personally I prefer Rules-lite Simulation by-and-large. Doe it appeal to Gamist players? I don't think so, it doesn't seem to reward good game play. There's no way to max out a stat to increase that 15% to an acceptible level. Not all of the objects have the same value,  why would you search for water in a forest? It seems like the Gamist appeal is lacking because of these sorts of issues.
  Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to pick apart your idea. But answer your question. I think it gets back to that idea that every game mechanic has elements of all three agendas in it, it's just a matter or proportions.
  Also, I think you have misunderstood the definition of simulationism. The goal is not to provide a simulation of Real life or to create a realistic game mechanic (i.e., the intuitive definition of simulation), but to simulate the setting the game takes place in. Just because a game assigns a detailed list of percentages to resources does not make it simulation play. When the mechanics and the setting is indivisible and the point of play is to reproduce the setting envisioned, you have entered simulation turf. Your mechanics put the setting first. By turning a whole range of skills into a set piece for players to play with, you move away from Gamist play and into simulation. Not that there is anything wrong with that, lol

[Justin Marx]

I think I may have to watch out for a RPG cultural issue which sees simulationism as passive "see what's there" play. And my lists make the player group passive in terms of defining the world. A touch ironic! :)

That's pretty much the issue with the percieved notions of what sim play looks like. I agree that what you're doing is not neccessarily the same. I think the key difference that you are using that makes your design gamist is that the players/GM control what is available - not any in-game causal relationships. BUT - as I said before, the simple fact that there is a list, and it is pre-determined to some extent implies causal something.

Unless the tables spiral off each other - so if you're lucky you can get a magical item, for example, and that refers you to another table with potential magic item tables. Let's face it - treasure tables - are the meat and potatoes of much of D&D play. You are not on touchy ground there at all.

I think in theory the Hunter Resolution is gamist - that's my take on it, I don't think arguing about it is that important - even though it does smack of sim to many people. But that's not the issue I suppose - the issue is how to make it work in play. As a point of mild critique, I find the tables a little cumbersome, when you could go all-out player defined and play Donjon. They add a LOT of search and handling time to play. How can you use these lists efficiently, because the more time you spend looking through lists and rolling probablity dice the more people are exploring the setting. This is not in itself a bad thing, and as you said, not neccessarily sim play - BUT, it does detract from the address of challenge in gamist play the longer you indulge in it. I suppose that is my mild disinclination to such list systems. But my opinion is pretty small - I could only suggest that you make list navigation/resolution as efficient and rapid as posssible.

And how many items are you intending to put on each list as well? Four or five? Ten or Twenty?

Justin

[Callan S.]

Hi!
  Well, personally I prefer Rules-lite Simulation by-and-large. Doe it appeal to Gamist players? I don't think so, it doesn't seem to reward good game play. There's no way to max out a stat to increase that 15% to an acceptible level.

I think you may have equated gamism to mean purely mechanical resource management. This doesn't really help me with the questions I have, about how well this mechanic lets the player interface with the SIS to better his position.

Not all of the objects have the same value, why would you search for water in a forest?

Currently none of the objects have mechanical values added to them. What's the value your refering to?

Also, I think you have misunderstood the definition of simulationism. The goal is not to provide a simulation of Real life or to create a realistic game mechanic (i.e., the intuitive definition of simulation), but to simulate the setting the game takes place in. Just because a game assigns a detailed list of percentages to resources does not make it simulation play. When the mechanics and the setting is indivisible and the point of play is to reproduce the setting envisioned, you have entered simulation turf. Your mechanics put the setting first. By turning a whole range of skills into a set piece for players to play with, you move away from Gamist play and into simulation. Not that there is anything wrong with that, lol

Emphasis mine.

I can't help feeling I've parralled the old "Simulationist designer tries to design out gamism, but ends up making honey for gamists". It's as if I was trying to keep out narrativists and wrote a rule for a character "He will never lie". The narrativists then go ape for it "Oh yeah, what if his son's life is in danger? What if a whole country would go to war?". The fact is, it's a rule - he would never lie, even if the whole world would explode if he tells the truth. "Oh, but he's not a robot, he'd make a choice" the narrativists would insist. The very thing that's supposed to spoil the agenda, if the players assume it's something they get a choice about, is the thing that fuels the agenda.

A question for all: How do you stop roleplayers from assuming/insisting that rather than something being a rule, you have a choice about it? I think there must be something you can do about it - in games like chess, because of the competition element you don't tend to have each player deciding a new way for knights to move "Because the old way was silly". Each player has very good reasons for insisting that the rules stay as they are during play. I'm going to stop and think about it now - but I wanted to propose that juicy question to everyone.

[Callan S.]

Unless the tables spiral off each other - so if you're lucky you can get a magical item, for example, and that refers you to another table with potential magic item tables. Let's face it - treasure tables - are the meat and potatoes of much of D&D play. You are not on touchy ground there at all.

They do spiral off each other, if what you mean by spiral is that from list A you can only get to lists K, L and D, and from list L you can only get to F, N and Q (using hunter or seeker resolution (not sure which I'll use yet) when determining which list you go to), etc, etc. And essentially they are treasure tables. In fact, 'treasure tables' is a powerful, suggestive phrase. Perhaps I should use it extensively, to help clarify the games intent?

As a point of mild critique, I find the tables a little cumbersome, when you could go all-out player defined and play Donjon.

Ironically (given my protests  about my own design), I'm not sure I see Donjon as gamist. The strongest example I see is the actual play account given early on in the text with the stirges and the frustration at their not reacting to smoke as it was asserted they would.

They add a LOT of search and handling time to play. How can you use these lists efficiently, because the more time you spend looking through lists and rolling probablity dice the more people are exploring the setting. This is not in itself a bad thing, and as you said, not neccessarily sim play - BUT, it does detract from the address of challenge in gamist play the longer you indulge in it. I suppose that is my mild disinclination to such list systems. But my opinion is pretty small - I could only suggest that you make list navigation/resolution as efficient and rapid as posssible.

As I imagine it now, the narration that occurs before each resolution roll, is the meat of play. It wont be like rolling up a treasure in D&D, where you just hop from table to table over and over until you get to some meat. I don't think handling time will be a problem, if every single time it leads to intense narration/questioning. What do you think?

And from a broader perspective, the address of challenge is reverberating with each narration, as they contain the players deployment of skill that he asserted he had enough of to meet the challenge.

And how many items are you intending to put on each list as well? Four or five? Ten or Twenty?

The same number as the number of options you have to choose from (currenly five). The lists are short - but there would be quite a few lists with various paths between them (which you navigate through with the resolution mechanic, of course). Still, the number of lists probably wouldn't be great either - perhaps twenty or so. The narration will be what lends variety to the discussion/SIS, rather than the lists.

[Josh Roby]

Actual Play of a gamist stripe... yeah, I have to think back for that one.  This wasn't an overtly gamist game, but the example will do:

I'm GMing a Riverworld campaign in which the player characters wake up naked on the banks of a giant river along with thousands and millions of other people.  A large part of the game is "nation-building" and the characters spend a large amount of time searching for and acquiring resources with which to build a nation to protect itself from the barbarians all around them.  This is a highly constrained setting, and the naked protagonists will need tools.  The "best" way to acquire these is to find the flint and chert deposits some ten miles away from the river bank and start tooling wood from the forests between the river and the stone deposits (this is the sequence of events presented in the novel that the sourcebook is based on, which is a profoundly simpleminded approach to adventure design, admittedly).  The problem arises, however, that the PCs have no good reason to go stomping off ten miles to get Resource One so they can make Resource Two so they can build Resource Three, etc.  (Being a good illusionist GM I put a waterfall over there to draw their attention.)

In this situation, there is only one address that is potentially successful (so sayeth the gamebook), but without some sort of context (there's workable stone over there) they are incapable of making that address.  The other time I GMed the same scenario I added an NPC metallurgist or something who was able to identify the far-off cliffs and suggest that there'd be stone there, which helped, but it was still breadcrumb illusionism.  Throughout the game, one of the players repeatedly added to his narration, "And under a rock I find a gun."  He did so jokingly, but it arose out of a very real problem where he knew what he wanted but he did not have the information and context with which to even begin forging a path to get there.

Now, to your game, if I'm a player going from point A to point B and have an opportunity in transit to search for something that might be useful, I cannot make a meaningful decision without context.  I can certainly tell you what it would be nice to have, but unless I know what might be available and how likely it is, I have no way to turn my desire into an address.  Usually such search-for-stuff procedures work with the player making a suggestion of what would be likely and the GM deciding if (a) it is likely, (b) the player has the ability to find it, and (c) the GM wants the player to have the resource.  This process is often iterative, with the player saying "I want to find a swamp with poisonous frogs," the GM saying "Okay, there's one to the west, but there's quicksand," the player responding, "I use my brachiating feat to swing from tree to tree instead," and so on.  The likelihood of a resource being available and its "harvestableness" are not pleas for simulationism, they are necessary bits of data that the player needs in order to make his address on how he will apply his character traits to the situation.

This is what I see missing from your design -- the player isn't making an address at all, they are trying to figure out what the GM thinks is the most likely resource, deciding if they want whatever they think that is, and deciding whether to go for the likely win or some unlikely other thing that they really want.  At no point do I see player resources (character stats, story tokens, whatever) being applied tactically or strategically.  A large amount of this resolution is punted up into the social level, preventing players from addressing the situation with their characters.

[Callan S.]

Thanks Joshua, an actual play account really helps the discussion.

I can certainly tell you what it would be nice to have, but unless I know what might be available and how likely it is, I have no way to turn my desire into an address. Usually such search-for-stuff procedures work with the player making a suggestion of what would be likely...

A large amount of this resolution is punted up into the social level, preventing players from addressing the situation with their characters.

I think I need more information on this. Take Capes for example. If you successfully target the other characters 'moral hot buttons' by starting certain conflicts, your going to get more resources in the long run. Rather than mind reading, it's trying to understand the characters that are in the SIS, for profit.

But there is no concrete way to turn your desire into a profit. Your not in a position to say "I suggest it's very likely your PC is morally invested in this conflict". It's the other players choice which conflicts he enters into. In my own game it's the GM's choice which resource he enters into. But I think in both cases, by shrewdly watching the SIS, players can turn a profit.

Turning a profit with this resolution system is getting any resource at all. That's to be considered a win, rather than getting a specified resource. It's from a deep love I have for 'work with what you can get, to forfil your goal' style of play.

Does it change anything if I explicitly say the players goal in engaging the resolution system is to get a resource of any type, rather than any specific one he might want?

Also at the bigger picture level we have treasure tables connected to each other in various pattens. I'm not sure how much there will be, but some seeker resolution (where the players declare the table they want to get to* as the prize), gives them a chance at the table that contains the resource they want.

* Chosen from the list of what tables the current table has connections to.

[Josh Roby]

To my eye, the interchange from Capes that you present is just as much a social-level matter, but there's a large difference between "I correctly figured out what you, as a player, care about" and "I correctly figured out what you, as a GM, think is the most likely thing that my character can find."  The Capes example is about people; the resource example is about a mental simulation of fictional circumstances.  Maybe guessing what the GM is thinking and correctly interpreting their telegraphing is enjoyable for you -- in which case, continue full steam ahead producing a system that supports and encourages that.  I just don't see the appeal, personally.