MICE model

[Ian Freeman]

This little post could go in either the GNS model discussion or here, but I have actually posted here before so I might as well put it here.

It stems from some reading I have been doing about fiction writing and I came across a little thing called the MICE model. MICE stands for Milieu, Idea, Character, and Event. These four things are argued by some (in the case of my source, Orson Scott Card) to be the four basic types of stories. The 4 types of stories revolve themselves around different things.

The Milieu is an exploration of a setting, where the revelation of a world is the driving force behind a readers intrest. Examples: The Left Hand of Darkness, LotR, and huge amounts of Sci-fi and fantasy.

The Idea is an exploration of an idea, or a puzzle with a solution. Mystery novels would most definetly be Idea stories, but so is a lot of other stuff (notably gadget oriented sci-fi, ir science fiction that checks out the effects of changes on a society). Example: Sherlock Holmes.

The Character story is concerned with a character and that characters arc (or not, some stories proclaim that peoples fundamental nature cannot change, but they are stories nonetheless). Examples: Ender's Game, "literary" fiction.

The Event story talks about a specific great event that must occur driven by the protagonist. This may sound very narrow, but it really insn't. An event story is essentially about trying to change something major in society, trying to initiate an Event. Example: Star Wars.

How does this bear any significance to RPGs?

Well... I'm glad you asked. Basically, Narrativist RPGs profess to be about telling stories, and they provide mechanics and such for streamlining this story-telling. Sometimes they go so far as to provide specific mechanics for the enhancement of this story-telling.

What I have noticed is that these enhancements are almost always concerned with the character elements of story-telling. Many games have mechanics for characters and their transformations/revelations/whatever but I have never encountered a narrativist game with mechanics designed with mechanics to accentuate any of the other three (equally legitimate) forms of story-telling.

Where are mechanics that are designed to help the players explore and slowly understand an enjoyable setting, where are mechanics for the gradual peeling away of the metaphorical layers of a really good idea or mystery and where are the mechanics for handling society shattering changes to a world or galaxy?

Sure, all this stuff can be handled by a good GM and good players, but then again so can character development. And character development IS aided by good mechanics, so in theory these  other things could also be aided.

Thoughts?

My question here is twofold. Firstly, has anyone encountered games that do in fact have quality stuffs for these situations? And, if not, does anyone have any ideas on how they really could be incorporated into an RPG

[james_west]

Oh, -GAWD- am I glad you posted this.

I've been trying to get at this idea in other threads (like "A mechanic for other plot types?" etc.) and have met mostly with confused silence. I think you've said it better than I did, and hopefully will get more cogent response.

       - James

[Ron Edwards]

My call is that we halready ave several good Narrativist RPGs that use depth of setting as the springboard, with character development occurring during play. Hero Wars, Orkworld, Prince Valiant, and Castle Falkenstein are good examples.

It is very easy to see the difference between these as a group and Sorcerer, Zero, and 1st-edition Cyberpunk as a group; the latter games begin with in-depth characterization and it is the setting which is developed during play.

So Ian, I'm suggesting that Narrativist games are not as focused on one type of story-creation as you perceive.

In fact, as a general concept, here are my notions about what any RPG in play must contain:
Character, Setting, Situation, Premise, System, and Color

By definition, the GNS focus of the game, if any, will be expressed in the way these things are presented and applied during play. And as I've said many times, within each category of GNS, we have lots and lots of different subsets.

Therefore, for a Narrativist game, Premise gets beefed up into a central issue, period. But then, within a wide spectrum of Narrativist games, the "starting emphasis" may vary widely across Character or Setting or whatever. It may even be System, which I suspect would be the case in The Pool even if a 400-page setting were tacked on.

James, one reason I have not spent much time addressing your questions about other modes of plot construction is that I'm writing a HUGE set of guidelines about this exact topic for the new version of Sorcerer & Sword.

It's very much about concentrating on the components of successful play DURING a session and series of sessions, as opposed to the emphasis on back-story that you're familiar with from The Sorcerer's Soul.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Ian Freeman wrote:
It stems from some reading I have been doing about fiction writing and I came across a little thing called the MICE model. MICE stands for Milieu, Idea, Character, and Event. These four things are argued by some (in the case of my source, Orson Scott Card) to be the four basic types of stories.

[Explanations snipped.]

Very cool, and exactly some of what I needed to hear right about now.

How does this bear any significance to RPGs?

I'd have to say that you sum up a lot of what the GNS model seems to be all about (and you also hint at its shortcomings).

Well... I'm glad you asked. Basically, Narrativist RPGs profess to be about telling stories, and they provide mechanics and such for streamlining this storytelling. Sometimes they go so far as to provide specific mechanics for the enhancement of this storytelling.

What I have noticed is that these enhancements are almost always concerned with the character elements of storytelling. Many games have mechanics for characters and their transformations/revelations/whatever but I have never encountered a Narrativist game with mechanics designed with mechanics to accentuate any of the other three (equally legitimate) forms of story-telling.

My take on this is this is because Narrativism is about 'storytelling' as a cooperative effort mostly of the people who virtually are the characters.  When it becomes as cooperative as it can be at times, it also is likely to become a story centrally driven by these characters.

In fact I might go so far as to say that Narrativism rather whet my appetite and then never went as far as I had hoped.  Where's all the use of symbolism, where's all the semiotic stuff?  (Granted Soap comes really close if you arrange the descriptors properly, but it doesn't suggest this in its writing.)

And for that matter, why mechanics?  What's the deal about it all being about mechanics?

Where are mechanics that are designed to help the players explore and slowly understand an enjoyable setting?

Actually, I think those are all over in Simulationism, under 'tourist mode.'

Where are mechanics for the gradual peeling away of the metaphorical layers of a really good idea or mystery?

Hidden away under Gamism (but you probably need a semiotic-based descriptor system too).

And where are the mechanics for handling society shattering changes to a world or galaxy?

Unfortunately these are usually relegated to the works of the game's author listed under genre or setting, with no mention of 1) "handling" the changes or 2) 'exploring' those changes.  (Although it might come up under Simulationism provided the background material was handled properly.  I remember always liking this aspect of some of the early iterations of Gamma World.)

But frankly, the idea that all this should be the realm of mechanics has really tired me out.

Sure, all this stuff can be handled by a good GM and good players, but then again so can character development. And character development IS aided by good mechanics, so in theory these other things could also be aided.

Thoughts?

I think the most telling part of your message is how you chose the word "aided."  For a long time I have watched as games have become more and more just a setting strapped to a mechanic.  I have always subscribed to the theory that 'a good gamemaster can run anything.'  (While I agree with much of what Mr. Edwards wrote in System Does Matter, I cannot see it as the end-all, be-all of gaming.)  Where are the instructions on these things?  Why are games progressively growing away from 'how to play' and only really give mechanics and settings space?  (Other than market theories, that is?)

Personally, I feel that this is where the greatest mine for ideas for future role-playing games can be found.  All I see is so many 'new ideas' and innovations about mechanics and settings (and the admixture), but I never see any practical movement on the instruction of play.  Very few newly-published works give any space at all to 'how to' sections, and the industry ideal seems to be that publishers are only there to 1) push product (develop marketable settings) and 2) vend systems (all those games that start out, 'this game is for people who already know how to play').

I, for one, am really tired of this.  Elsewhere on the Forge, someone mentions the idea that all these innovations are to attract new players.  To this I say 'bah humbug!'  The only thing I have ever seen these do is reinvigorate old players who are falling out of the "like Dee und Dee" demographic.  How are 'new players' going to pick up a new game if it does not tell them how to play?  I think the real growth area in the market should be entry level games with robust 'how to' sections that really invigorate players to playing in traditional settings and genres.  (This is what we seek to do in Scattershot.)

My question here is twofold. Firstly, has anyone encountered games that do in fact have quality stuffs for these situations? And, if not, does anyone have any ideas on how they really could be incorporated into an RPG?

Personally, I think it is high time for designers to get past this 'mechanics are all that matters' stuff.  I see a lot of this in Mr. Edwards' work and am glad of it, but if I see another 'how can we get mechanics to force play into a certain form' thread, I am going to post a rant.  (Whoops, I guess that is what this is.)

His works are some of the few games out there with significant description of technique.  I believe the argument was that it is such an unusual technique that it needed to be explained, but I think these 'explanations' should be in there anyway.  This is how a gamemaster 'can run anything;' it is by technique.  It is not necessarily about how well a game facilitates it, but more about what the gamemaster (and players for that matter) bring to the game.  (The converse does fit the 'System Does Matter' scheme, though.  A bad system does make it much harder to gamemaster, but a good system does not insure good gamemastering, I think only technique does.)

Back to my original purpose.  One of the things that most intrigues me is the 'that gives me an idea for a (milieu, intrigue, character, or event)' effect.  This is because almost without question, these come from outside of gaming.  While most new players don't realize it, some conversion of inherent premise (not in the Edwards sense) is necessary.

My writing partner and I were looking at Bladerunner last night, and I had to point out that, like it, most cyberpunk works, while being 'really cool' in terms of gadgets and setting and imagery, are inherently statement pieces (well, the ones I like, at least) geared mostly to convey the theme and message.  The problem is the games based on cyberpunk are entirely based on the setting with no reference to the symbology and other semiotic concerns.

In order to create a really good cyberpunk role-playing game, one would have to look at how to 'bring these over' or how to replace them.  For example, this whole 'Mr. Johnson' thing (is that specifically Shadowrun or is it more general?) speaks to the inherent class warfare of that application of the genre (but Shadowrun really never gets at the meat of it) and would be good meat and potatoes to gaming.

It goes farther than this too.  Unless you are interested in a good four-color comics romp, most superhero role-playing games don't delve enough into the day-to-day life stuff.  (It actually seems hard for role-playing gamers to not go there, yet I have seen nothing discussing daily life or power and corruption issues.)  Every genre traditionally addressed by published games seems to lack this kind of 'translation.'

This probably doesn't sound like it speaks to the original question very well, but I think it does.  I really like the ideas you bring up with the MICE model, but as noted, I expect things to breakdown into GNS terms.  Also, in your words, I see a certain stigma attached to providing these things in games outside of mechanics.  That is what I'm on about.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-07-31 13:03 ]

[james_west]

On 2001-07-31 00:18, Ron Edwards wrote:
I'm writing a HUGE set of guidelines about this exact topic for the new version of Sorcerer & Sword.

It's very much about concentrating on the components of successful play DURING a session and series of sessions, as opposed to the emphasis on back-story that you're familiar with from The Sorcerer's Soul.

If I seem to be turning blue, it's because I'm holding my breath. :smile:

                        - James