talkin' 'bout degeneration

[Paul Czege]

On the "Mixing Styles Across the Table" thread, Gordon wrote:

I'm already well aware of many degenerate forms of G and S. I would like to see more discussion of degenerate Narrativism...

I think there's potential for quite a compelling discussion here, but it might help if we first wrangle out an understanding of what we mean by "degenerate". So I'll put something on the table. My initial parse of degenerate is:

It's specific to actual play. It's behavior reinforced by group dynamic. And beyond that, it's behavior that has drifted from the initial social contract of the group, whether that social contract is articulated primarily by the text of the rules system or not.

And I'm tempted to say that it's an over-preferencing of specific aspects of the initial social contract in such a way that the group's goals are eclipsed by involvement with the new dynamic. What do you think?

Paul

[Mike Holmes]

I'll buy that.

Given your suppositions, Paul, I'd say that the most cliche degenerate form of Narrativism (Dramatism) is GM dependence. This would probably start with the contract idea that the GM is the "framer of the plot". With lazy players and a GM with an active imagination, this can often degenerate into the GM simply telling a story with little input from the players. This abuse exceeds the normal level of control that even simulationist and gamist GMs have. Which can become really frustrating to players who are not lazy and really want to participate.

Mike Holmes

[Ron Edwards]

I think all the forms of dysfunctional play are, at root, a breakdown of the social contract. It takes different forms in different GNS contexts, with several well-known versions within each category.

In certain forms of Simulationism: arguing over what "would" happen, and whether a given rule is sensible or not, or has been consistently applied or not.

In certain forms of Gamism: arguing over the logic of rules loopholes and the effective boundaries of strategizing.

In certain forms of Narrativism: railroading, railroading, railroading. Basically, any breakdown of GM or player in the "protagonism" concept.

None of the above are intended to represent the full spectrum of possibilities in each category.

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

And I'm tempted to say that it's an over-preferencing of specific aspects of the initial social contract in such a way that the group's goals are eclipsed by involvement with the new dynamic. What do you think?

So - something that becomes more important and/or controlling of gameplay than "doing our best to make sure everyone has fun" is degenerate/disfunctional.  Sounds good to me.

I actually have an example that made me very "worried" about what I though of then as Narrativist play.  A group I sat in with (once and only once) was running a very variant Vampire - not quite LARP rules, but none of the system-heavy WoD stuff was in use.  There was one player, a theatre major, that literally dominated all of play.  As the game relied on player behavior rather than rules to influence game flow, and as the GM was obviously incredibly entertained by the acting job this player was doing with his moody-dramatic vamp . . . no one else did anything.  They were an audience for the player's performance, for which the GM provided direction.

I spoke with a few of the other players afterword, to see if it was always like this, and they said it was, usually.  They didn't sound happy about it, but they went every week.  I guess this COULD be a "functional" play style if everyone likes watching the GM/actor performance, but me . . . I dug up an old Tunnels and Trolls solo dungeon and used that to stave of my RPG cravings for the next few months.

Anyway . . . generalizing, 1 or 2 players dominating play seems one form of disfunction/degeneration.  In what ways is Narrativist play vulnerable to this?  I'll think on it, but I'd love to hear what others think . . .

Gordon C. Landis

[Zak Arntson]

Anyway . . . generalizing, 1 or 2 players dominating play seems one form of disfunction/degeneration.  In what ways is Narrativist play vulnerable to this?  I'll think on it, but I'd love to hear what others think . . .

Gordon C. Landis

During gaming sessions, I think a lot of us can become a dominating player.  But I try and recognize when it's happening and keep the action on other people, too.  

I'd say, as a GM, you should try and include everyone.  Say the vocal player is split up from the rest of the group.  Find appropriate times to break from that player and concentrate on everyone else.  If the player is still out of hand, just tell them to hold tight.

As a player, look out for signs that you're hogging everyone's time.  I think players should take initiative and help game and fun flow smoothly ... it's not just a job for the GM.  Voluntarily direct attention to other players!!

Anyhow, those're my thoughts.  And I think they apply to all types of roleplaying.

[Ron Edwards]

Zak,

Those are fine sentiments, and I agree with them, but they don't speak to how Paul has defined degenerate play. He's talking about behavior that has, for lack of a better word, "replaced" the social contract that was to lead to enjoyable play, and has now become (a) the norm and (b) not fun.

So plain ol' game-hogging really doesn't fit, I think (although it IS a general issue for role-playing; I don't mean to discount the basic validity of your point). Instead, I think the issue is, for Narrativist play, when only one of the players is really acting as co-author, and the others are not.

Who knows why not? It could be because they are being marginalized by the GM and the one player; it could be because they keep tossing away the ball when it's handed to them. As instances, these aren't too big a deal. As an ongoing thing (the new norm), they are real problems.

THE MAIN POINT
I am thinking that most of "degenerate" play, as Paul has defined it, derives from rejecting the specific responsibilities of G, N, or S (or of any FUNCTIONAL combination of them). Because each of them does have responsibilities and a specific (or set of specific) social contract(s).

Best,
Ron

[Zak Arntson]

On 2001-08-23 12:36, Ron Edwards wrote:

Those are fine sentiments, and I agree with them, but they don't speak to how Paul has defined degenerate play. He's talking about behavior that has, for lack of a better word, "replaced" the social contract that was to lead to enjoyable play, and has now become (a) the norm and (b) not fun.

Yikes! That's what I get by responding without reading the original post.  I think Paul's definition of degeneration is good:  Moving from the initial Social Contract so that the group goals are shifted.  If the shift is for the betterment of the group (as in, everyone WANTS the shift), then it's hardly degeneration.  If we're looking at degeneration as a negative.

Is this thread solely for definition of degeneration?  Because I'd like to bring in game design and point out that many Narrativist games don't have much in the way of SYSTEM that prevents degeneration.  A game that over-rewards outspoken players and thereby punishes quiet players can serve to increase the degeneration of play.  You could make the same arguments for each G/N/S style.  How could a Gamist game stop degeneration?  Clearly-defined rules.  Etc. Etc.

Once we've identified degeneration as a gaming event, we can now take better steps to prevent it, beginning with game design.

[Supplanter]

In principle, you might find a gaming group that actually likes almost any kind of play and incorporates it into a contract. But my guess is that the following would tend to be degeneration for most narrativist groups:

1) One player using author/director power to turn another player's PC into the first player-character's foil.

2) When the mechanics of story production take precedence over the quality of the story itself.

In any style, lack of buy-in by all parties. I have discovered that I have a buy-in problem with one of my PBEM players and it's a definite, if manageable, risk to the campaign.

In simulationism: A certain kind of dishonesty, where one uses in-game arguments or actions as a weapon to prosecute a disguised metagame argument. This is everything from the bored player who goes on a rampage against his fellow PCs to the GM who kills off the obnoxious player's character to get him out of the game.

In gamism: Something of the same thing, I would think. Frex, using the contest aspects to gang up on the player no one likes.

Best,


Jim

[Ron Edwards]

This is one of those horrible "me too" posts that we're all supposed to be avoiding, in Netiquette-land.

But I can't help it. What Jim said? That.

Zak,
A while ago, the term "drift" was proposed to describe change from one style of play to another, in GNS terms. Generally, the discussion at that time focused on drifting to a MORE functional (fun) playing situation, for that particular group.

"Degeneration," as far as I can tell, is far more specific - the disruption or subversion of the social contract, regardless of its GNS categorization. It's predicated on the idea that what is happening is NOT more fun, at least not at the group level.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Jim,

1) One player using author/director power to turn another player's PC into the first player-character's foil.

Yes! And beyond this, any other use of author/director power that deprotagonizes another player character, including things like killing the other PC's significant foils.

And Zak, even if it's not game mechanics per se, I think there's definitely room in a game for guidelines on what a player is permitted to do with director power.

Paul

[Ron Edwards]

Paul,

With respect, I'd be interested in your thoughts after reviewing the "My girlfriend is a ... simulationist" thread. Your account there, to me, bears some resemblance to the exact abuse that Jim has described and that you have quoted.

Best,
Ron

[pacific_steve]

This is an interesting thread. Now, I'm thinking of my own experiences with sessions that have degenerated and a number of thoughts spring to mind.
I dig the idea of a shift in game play/style reflecting a change in social contract. There is a contract at work in gaming sessions since they are social interactions and we've all seen them break down at one point or another.
What occurs to me is that many of the problems arise due to the fact that there are a mix of players who fit one or more of the GNS types. I think of it like a classroom. When I was teaching, behaviour management was of paramount importance. This is one of the central tenets of teaching and gives us a clue as to how society as a whole operates. We work within limits and bounds and when we overstep, we are pulled up for our behaviour. Same goes for game sessions, but, using the GNS model again, each system style dictates the limits for that particular group and social contract. I don't see any reason why, as a GM, I should not talk to my players and say to them: "OK, this is a game and in any game there are limits that we work within to provide dynamic push and pull. Just as I will be using these rules, I expect that you as players will fulfil your part of the game/social contract and play within the framework set out"
So, if it's a narrativist game I'm running, my expectation is that players will participate on a different level, with an emphasis on story evolution and character. No doubt the RPG is far more complex that Tic Tac Toe for example...but if I play Tic Tac Toe I expect that the other player will stick by the rules just as I do. The limits challenge us and this challenge provides enjoyment.

Steve

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Steve,

One thing I'm seeing in a lot of the new games appearing from Forge members is an explicit opening statement about the social contract, often with a fairly strong GNS focus (just as yours did).

I think this is an astoundingly important element of game design and presentation, and it's interesting to review quite a few published games to see how they did or didn't manage to communicate it. A couple patterns show up:
1) the contract/etc of the game is scattered across several places, rarely at the beginning, and is often referred to rather than addressed directly.
2) the contract/etc of the game is justified because it corresponds to what (according to the authors) role-playing obviously IS.

One of the benefits of GNS thinking is the willingness to accept the existence of other outlooks or priorities besides one's own. Therefore, in many of the new games I'm seeing here, the social contract is BOTH more explicit AND less dismissive - more on the order of, "this is how we're thinking about it, and other modes, while nifty, aren't what this particular game is up to."

Best,
Ron