No More Incoherence! - A Rant

[Marco]

Ah, well, yeh--I could have it wrong. The definitions are hard for me to get right.

My play would, I'm sayin', be characterized by making decisions with "what would produce the best story" in mind--and lookin' for or trying to produce a theme.

I dunno. You tell me.

Edit: I've had a hard time parsing your stuff of late. The game was never labeled in its text. Or maybe I don't get what you're talking about. The alien-in-cat thing I had to look at a couple of times to get ... and I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying.

-Marco

[xiombarg]

Edit: I've had a hard time parsing your stuff of late. The game was never labeled in its text. Or maybe I don't get what you're talking about. The alien-in-cat thing I had to look at a couple of times to get ... and I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying.

I believe it's just a colorful way of saying that just because you claim to see something, doesn't mean that thing is really there. I can claim to see the sun turn blue, but this doesn't mean the sun really turned blue, and that we have to discuss astronomy based on the assumption that the sun can suddenly turn blue.

As far as your use of narrative power, Marco, Director stance isn't inherently Narrativist just because you can use it for that. Donjon uses Director stance and it's Gamist in orientation. Other people could use that poper differently than you do. At best, Director stance doesn't get in the way of Narrativism -- vanilla Narrativism at its finest. Your assertion is kinda like saying that dice are Narrativist because they can be used in a Narrativist way.

Contrast with Kickers, as seen in Sorcerer, which, as a mechanic, lean in a very Narrativist direction -- they're directly connected to story and theme, and the changes that happen after a Kicker is resolved are very non-Gamist, in that there's no mechanical advantage in the change, and they're not particularly Sim either -- why would a character's stats change just because they resolved a particular Situation?

You might want to check out some old threads on Narrativism and Director stance.

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

A strong consideration would be octaNe, with director stance all over the place, but still firmly Sim.  Again, it can be drifted to Nar fairly easily(I know I did), but its still strong Sim.  There's nothing in the rules to suggest otherwise, which isn't to say its a bad thing by any means.

The key problem in terms of determining Incoherency, as Mike and Marco both noted is that it comes out over a larger group of people than simply one person or one group.  There are numerous factors that go into Coherent or Incoherent play, and its rather hard to determine whether the results are due to the game design, Social Contract of that particular group, or the amount of drift going on.  All three of these factors play such a big role in acheiving Coherence or Incoherence, and are very difficult to determine without witnessing actual play, so we are left to trying to pick out the overall trend from a large enough test subject.

This isn't to say that numbers alone are the determinant, but also seeing the design operate for yourself, under a variety of conditions and people, probably plays a big, big role in understanding. I suspect folks like Ron and Jake who have demo'd from lots of different people have probably gathered an informal, but vital "index" of info regarding their particular games and what contributes to Coherent Play and what tends to screw it up.

Chris

[Marco]

Edit: I've had a hard time parsing your stuff of late. The game was never labeled in its text. Or maybe I don't get what you're talking about. The alien-in-cat thing I had to look at a couple of times to get ... and I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying.

I believe it's just a colorful way of saying that just because you claim to see something, doesn't mean that thing is really there. I can claim to see the sun turn blue, but this doesn't mean the sun really turned blue, and that we have to discuss astronomy based on the assumption that the sun can suddenly turn blue.

As far as your use of narrative power, Marco, Director stance isn't inherently Narrativist just because you can use it for that. Donjon uses Director stance and it's Gamist in orientation. Other people could use that poper differently than you do. At best, Director stance doesn't get in the way of Narrativism -- vanilla Narrativism at its finest. Your assertion is kinda like saying that dice are Narrativist because they can be used in a Narrativist way.

Contrast with Kickers, as seen in Sorcerer, which, as a mechanic, lean in a very Narrativist direction -- they're directly connected to story and theme, and the changes that happen after a Kicker is resolved are very non-Gamist, in that there's no mechanical advantage in the change, and they're not particularly Sim either -- why would a character's stats change just because they resolved a particular Situation?

You might want to check out some old threads on Narrativism and Director stance.

Oh, I didn't think Director Stance meant Narrativist--I was saying that the way the game used director stance made me inclined to particiapte in story-first preferably thematic game play. After all, when *I'm* handed directoral power of some scope (Dunjon's limits are pretty explicit--but that mechanic works against my preferred mode of Gamism--it isn't gamist for *me* at all.) I'll tend to use it to go Narrativist.

At least as well as I understand Narrativist gaming at all, which, I'm sure, isn't all that well.  You can decide the label.

As for the sun being blue? I don't think that's right. I'm talking about my reaction to a rule--not any inherent property of the rule itself. I'm not saying *directoral* power is narrativst--just that my tendency is to use it that way. In that context it seemed contra was trying to tell me I was wrong about how I felt about something. If he was, I admit I'd thought better of him.

-Marco

[xiombarg]

As for the sun being blue? I don't think that's right. I'm talking about my reaction to a rule--not any inherent property of the rule itself. I'm not saying *directoral* power is narrativst--just that my tendency is to use it that way. In that context it seemed contra was trying to tell me I was wrong about how I felt about something. If he was, I admit I'd thought better of him.

My guess is he was reacting to this statement of yours, which doesn't sound like an assertion of your opinion:

It gets even stickier: Chris feels the game doesn't push towards Nar play. He says it. He sounds sure. He's dead wrong.

Call me crazy, but that sounds like you're asserting that the mechanic DOES push towards Narrativism, and not just for you. Sure, you qualify it later in the post, but there's a strong implication that your reaction is the usual reaction.

I think part of the problem here, Marco, is that when people talk about incoherence -- or anything in RPG theory -- it's a general thing. That is, when we say that a mechanic pushes toward Narrativism, we mean that most people, IN GENERAL, would find that it facilities Narrativist play. Your milage may vary, but that doesn't disprove anything -- it just proves that you're different. Special, even. ;-D

Most mechanics are GNS neutral. That's why it takes effort to avoid Incoherence.

So, returning to the topic of this thread, just because Incoherence doesn't (in a sense) exist FOR YOU, doesn't mean it doesn't exist for most people -- whether or not they recognize it.

[Marco]

As for the sun being blue? I don't think that's right. I'm talking about my reaction to a rule--not any inherent property of the rule itself. I'm not saying *directoral* power is narrativst--just that my tendency is to use it that way. In that context it seemed contra was trying to tell me I was wrong about how I felt about something. If he was, I admit I'd thought better of him.

My guess is he was reacting to this statement of yours, which doesn't sound like an assertion of your opinion:

It gets even stickier: Chris feels the game doesn't push towards Nar play. He says it. He sounds sure. He's dead wrong.

Call me crazy, but that sounds like you're asserting that the mechanic DOES push towards Narrativism, and not just for you. Sure, you qualify it later in the post, but there's a strong implication that your reaction is the usual reaction.

I think part of the problem here, Marco, is that when people talk about incoherence -- or anything in RPG theory -- it's a general thing. That is, when we say that a mechanic pushes toward Narrativism, we mean that most people, IN GENERAL, would find that it facilities Narrativist play. Your milage may vary, but that doesn't disprove anything -- it just proves that you're different. Special, even. ;-D

Most mechanics are GNS neutral. That's why it takes effort to avoid Incoherence.

So, returning to the topic of this thread, just because Incoherence doesn't (in a sense) exist FOR YOU, doesn't mean it doesn't exist for most people -- whether or not they recognize it.

Well, to mis-quote the open source movement: do you mean "special as in forces? or special as in olympics?" ;)

I agree that with a proper control group (I've no idea what it would be) and a significant statistical sample (I've no idea how you'd measure that) and a way to work around observer bias and incorrect mode-analysis (again, a formidable challenge, IMO) then one might find a general trend in a mechanic or a game. I'm willing to allow that this maybe *could* be done. I'm damn sure it hasn't been. Talking like it has been does no one any credit.

If you turn your statement around, how does a designer know if s/he's the special one or not? And if, perhaps,  The Forge attracts a certain kind of individual, how is the discussion here proven to be any kind of relevant sample (I suspect many posters here wouldn't count themselves in the average gamer population).

If I find VtM doesn't work for me, is that the game's fault or mine? A poster above declared Mayhem at least a little-bit incoherent based on my assessment of a dichotomy between the goals I precieve and the mode I would play (or was it the mechanic and the setting--or whatever--doesn't really matter). As a game designer I'd pay much, much more attention to whether it worked *for* me, than for some random guy--and a random guy who seems to be a Simulationist, at that.

Let's get this thread back on track:
If I decide that VtM's mechanics support Sim, then all I have to do is transition my play to sim and I'll be in line (happy is still a matter of taste).

I submit (Occam's razor again) that that's what the thousands of people who play, buy, and continue to play and buy do with it. They play any game in the way that works: NOTE: I am not discussing drifting it at this point. Simply transitioning their play.

A game is therefore incoherent for people who:

a) need special rules telling them how to transition the game (it'd be nice to print up a page of those for VtM--I think it's appearant that most people don't need one)
b) refuse, for whatever reason, to do it--and therefore get into power-struggle.

Whether or not a game "needs to be drifted" is, I think up to the group, again. It'd be based on how they decide to transition it.

-Marco

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

As a game designer I'd pay much, much more attention to whether it worked *for* me, than for some random guy--and a random guy who seems to be a Simulationist, at that.

Could you provide some context for that statement?

Chris

[Marco]

I'm sayin' that fixing the game for *me* is probably not going to get you closer to a game that will do what *you* want it to. I'm often playing in a simultionist mode. I thought (IIRC) that you were pretty much usually playing in a Narrativist mode.

Since I don't believe the game is really "Incoherent" (although by some of the standards it could be seen that way) if I were you I would make any changes I suggest that you agree with, not worry too much about what I feel your game "claims" or "promises" and build the game that plays the way you want it to.

If that means 1-phase combat and no gear, so be it.

As it presently stands, it'd be worth drifting.

-Marco

[Jason Lee]

Call me crazy (I don't mind, really), but I don't think the issue with Incoherence is whether or not Marco can have Coherent play with System X.  Or that Incoherence is a non-valuable term for play.  Incoherent play doesn't seem to be a sketchy concept at all.  It's these transitions:

I had/saw Incoherent play with System X -> System X is Incoherent
I had/saw Coherent play with System X after drift -> System X is Incoherent.

Big jumps, and part 1 has a frame of reference which part 2 does not.

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

Agreed in full.

Chris