Question on play style and characterization

[Callan S.]

This is a question really asking 'If I choose to play things this way during a situation, does that change how the situation actually plays?'

Say we start with an example that can happen in real life. There are two men, both going to dinner with two ladies. The first man is going to dinner with one lady, because he wants a root. The other is going because he really likes the lady he's going to dinner with.

The first guy has figured 'Doing this equals getting this'. He doesn't understand it when he doesn't get a root, but the other guy does. He did the same thing, why didn't it work for him.

Clearly, he played it as a 'what you do' situation. However, it was a 'what you want' situation, ie involving judgement on character.

Now, lets change the result and say the first guy gets lucky. Now, there are two options as to why this could happen.
1. The woman misreads his character, miss reads what he wants (he likes me) and on that makes a decision to sleep with the toad.
2. The woman recognises what he's doing and what he wants, but it doesn't matter to her. She wants dinner and then a sleeping partner.

Now, what does the second example represent? Did his deciding to play it as a 'what you do' situation turn it into that type of situation?

He might be led to believe so. However, it has not changed. It's still a 'what you want' situation. However, it isn't about what he wants now, its about what the woman wants. He hasn't changed the situation type, its still the same 'what you want'. He's just shifted focus on to the woman's wants, because she is showing a lot more about herself than he is. She is showing either that she's perhaps naive in the first instance and perhaps a woman who is assertive and knows what she wants, in the second. Or they could indicate a whole bunch of other things about the woman. But certainly we learn more about her character than we do about him (learning he wants to have dinner to get sex isn't much, in comparison).

So, lets apply this to a roleplay session. What happens when situations are played in a 'Do this to achieve this goal', or 'Do this to explore what will happen'? Lets presume the groups agreed to play this way.

The question is, has their agreement to play in that style, actually changed the style? Or are they still in analysis of 'what you want/care about', but have shifted the focus from their characters to the NPC's of the world? Do we learn more about NPC's than PC's, from the NPC's reactions to the PC's?

I imagine these are good questions to ask.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Someone else is going to have to field this one. Usually I'm right in there pitching when it comes to analogizing role-playing with sexual situations, but Callan, you've baffled me.

Something about intent and motives and ... huh?

Anyone?

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Hi Callan,

I'm a bit lost, but willing to venture, let me know if I'm completely off topic here...

As far as intention vs. actual results, people sometimes go completely backwards about achieving their goals.  That said, the only thing I can say is that if you are conscious and mindful of your goals, and what you are doing, you are more likely to achieve some results.

With that, realize that on the Social Contract level there's a lot going on that really results in the whether play is functional or not.  When "everyone agrees" to play with Goal X, there are some issues that need to be addressed:

-Does everyone understand what Goal X is?
-Does everyone mean the same thing when they think of Goal X(in otherwords, not X, Y, and Z all under the guise of X)?
-Does everyone REALLY want X, or are some people being pushed into it by the crowd, or more dominant personalties?
-Is there(perceived or real) subcontext along the lines of a power struggle, ego attack, etc, that will result in lashing out, "punishment", etc through play?

You can find tons of threads here, other forums, and in many books when talking about "problem" play that is effectively stemming from one of the above issues.  Mike's Rant on Sneaking up on Modes comes from people attempting X, which usually goes terribly wrong because they are unable to make the transition, though they may all REALLY want Goal X.

In the end, we can never really figure out everything that's going on in people's heads based on their words or "intents".  We can only look at their actions, and compare them to their stated intents and try to figure out what's going on.  If two people fight over every session, odds are its not about the rules, or "realism" or "fun" but simply that those two people like to fight.

As far as the shifting the focus from PCs to NPCs, you've competely lost me...If we're talking about the intent vs. the results of the folks at the table, the focus is really on the people at the table as far as I can tell.

Chris

[Blankshield]

I think what Noon is trying to get at is "Is there a difference in the end results between goal-oriented and method-oriented play styles?"
...which might help clear it up, but I think the other big thing that has people scratching heads is that you're barking up the wrong tree, from a Forge perspective.

You're talking about what we learn about the characters from the way the players are approaching play.  Around here, as far as I can gather, there is a very strong undercurrent of 'the characters ain't nothin' but paper' - ultimately, it's the player who we are interested in learning about.

Goals vs methods is really a matter of prefered techniques.  I think they do emphasize different modes of play, and different stances (author vs actor, in particular), but don't really by themselves give us a good idea of what the players are wanting out of play.

To answer your question directly ("If I choose to play things this way during a situation, does that change how the situation actually plays?") then I would answer: Yes, System Does Matter.  The techniques we use can and will strongly affect how things play out.

Or I could be completely out to lunch...

James

[Callan S.]

Few, I didn't expect to be so incoherant!

Okay, I avoided some terms, in case I was using them incorrectly. But here, this example might help clear it up.

Now, say spider man is faced with rescuing Mary Jane or a bunch of kids. It's supposed to be about making a choice between them.

Now, say the player wants to approach it in a gamist sense (as I undestand it). His goal is to win. A full win involves rescuing both MJ and the kids via a plan to do this.

Or even say he approaches it in a simulationist sense (as I undestand it), seeing what doing this or that will produce in the situation.

Now, correlate this back to the guy dating the woman.
His goal is to have sex, so he makes a plan to do so. A gamist approach.
Or he is just having a shot, seeing if dinner ends up in sex. A simulationist approach.

But the thing is, the very principle of the test is not about WHAT happens, but WHY it happened. The test is about what that person cares about. You can not change the mode of the test, by just deciding to play it a certain way.

FURTHER more, attempting to change mode not only fails, but has negative ramifications. If the test is about what you care about, and you show up acting like its a game or pot luck, you tell the test very little about your character. Now, keep in mind, the NPC, the woman, isn't just part of the test, she can be considered to be being tested too.

Now, if she sleeps with him, we learn so much more about this NPC than him. She is either naive, and we discover her vulnerabilities and such, or we discover assertive and just wants dinner and sex, and more than that she's looking past his small mindedness for some reason. Interesting.

Pan back to the spider man situation, and instead of seeing just how much spider man loves everyone, we'll instead have more of an exploration of how pissed off MJ is when spider man plays it all like a game (or an exploration of her hero worship when she fails to see his tactics as treating it like a game/sim). We'll discover more about MJ, because from spider man we just learn that...yawn, he loves to win. Big deal.

Further, even if everyone agree's to play gamist or simulationist from the start...if the NPC's are played narratively, were going to end up having a narrativist exploration of their characters. Your setting yourself up to fall flat, if you have narrativist elements like this. They can produce so much material they dwarf the results of other elements. Even the absence of narrative material can dwarf other victories by the immensity of its absence (GM: 'The town cheers your victory and goes to bed', PC:  'Aww, that wasn't really worth it, was it?')

An example is where the player tries to play spider man in a gamist sense (and everyone agree's this is fine), to win that situation. Then he tries to go and talk to MJ, as if he were really just showing what he loved most (all life, whatever), when its clear to MJ he was living the moment like it was a game.

Even with an agreed mode shift, it was still a narrativist exploration of what you did (because the NPC's react), but worse, really we end up exploring just what those NPC's think of you. Your own characters motives are so small, the NPC's are dominating the narrativist limelight.

Of course, whether they actually take up that limelight or get played as cardboard, doesn't change the principle.

It's a suggestion that even if you save the world in a gamist mode or sim mode, little Timmy who witnessed it but did nothing produces a lot more material in terms of what he thought about it all. Following his thoughts would be richer than following the hero's exploits. In fact you sometimes see this in movies, like that arab dude in the thirtenth warrior. He wasn't the big dude who killed the enemies chief in the end...he was the guy that watched. Excuse the multi use of the word 'dude'.

It's also a suggestion that even if little timmy isn't there, the occasional flat 'We saved the world and...cough' is explained.

If you start letting narrativist get in there, the exploration of character can be so rich, so immense that even if it doesn't happen, it'll dwarf other accomplishments. Its presence or the hole where it should be but is absent, is so much bigger.

Your winning the flag is drowned out by what the world thought of it, or worse, it is drowned out by the silence when it comes to what the world thought of it.

Cough, actually my idea's advanced a little as I wrote. But even finding I was incoherant to others helped me explore it more :)

[RDU Neil]

Noon,
  I'm a real newbie here, as well... but let me try something...

I think part of your question may be heading in the wrong direction, because you are assinging GN or S motivations to "characters" instead of the players.

Example:  While Spider-Man may attempt to try and rescue MJ and the kids, both, because he wants to win... that is just the character motivation.  The player playing Spider-Man in this game, may actually be coming from a Narrativist mode, because the ultimate question for the player is "What does it mean to play-to-win in life?"  

(In fact, this might actually be a Simulationist style... simulating the action of a "gamist" character... with a Narrativist mode/motivation.)  

Ack... I think I just broke my brain.

Anyway... while interesting, I don't think you can really attach GNS motivations to "characters" since they are about the PLAYER motivations for gaming... not the character motivations for the actions within the game.

Or I could be totally wrong.  :)

[Silmenume]

I'm not quite sure why the idea of attempting to save everyone's life is considered Gamist in nature.  How about the character is simply compassionate is trying to aid as many people as his is physically, intellectually and most importantly, emotionally capable of?  Said Sim based player might just be exploring the depth of said chararcter's compassion for the helpless.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.

I apologize for jumping in this manner, but I felt it important to bring this up especially when characteristics of GNS modes are being discussed.

[Callan S.]

Noon,
  I'm a real newbie here, as well... but let me try something...

I think part of your question may be heading in the wrong direction, because you are assinging GN or S motivations to "characters" instead of the players.

Ah, now this is actually the important part, because the usual idea is that its just about players. The crucial part of it is that, yes, it starts with the player wanting something, but that is then expressed by their actions in the character. The player can want to switch mode, he can have full group agreement on switching mode, but his character doesn't switch mode with him. As long as there are witnesses in the game world who are played in a narrativist way, the possible narrative component dwarfs the gamist element, for example.

The other narrativist NPC's in the world choke any attempt at full mode change. Lets have an example I got from someone once:

The King is going to die soon, and we need a widget to find his air. There is little time to complete the quest.

Player A goes and slits the kings throat.

See, by the rules he doesn't age when dead, so they can just take their time, then raise him from the dead when they get back. WIN!


Now, you can clearly see if you have NPC's that are left to run in a narrativist mode in your world, the feedback from such an act would be so tremendous as to drown out the gamist benefit. Trying to play in gamist mode is drowned out by narrativist mode (and in this one, the GM can't suppress the problem by playing every NPC like cardboard, it would get even more silly). This is an example of mode switch being so problematic its impossible. And while its extreme, the principle extends to the spider man example and everywhere else.

If all NPC's were run in a gamist way, then there would be no problem. The kingdom would wisely nod at the PC's knowledge and the king would smile proudly at the PC as he had his throat slit. Huzzah.

Example:  While Spider-Man may attempt to try and rescue MJ and the kids, both, because he wants to win... that is just the character motivation.  The player playing Spider-Man in this game, may actually be coming from a Narrativist mode, because the ultimate question for the player is "What does it mean to play-to-win in life?"  
*snip*

I think my drift here is that he can do gamist from no other mode than a narrativist mode. He can either ask the question "What does it mean to play-to-win in life?" or try to play gamist as a player. But really he's just doing the former. The only way to avoid it is to expunge narrativist from the game world, so you don't get the problems it causes. Even if the NPC's are played like cardboard in reaction to PCs, problems can come even from the gapping hole where the GM should have depicted a reaction. But examples of that could fill another post.

EDIT: BTW, Hi and welcome on board...I've only been here a few months, so I forget I can actually do some welcoming myself, as well. :)

[Bankuei]

Hi Callan,

I think you may be using the GNS terms in a manner very different than what everyone else here is used to.  NPCs cannot, and do not, produce any "mode" and cannot "be" in any mode.  In fact, neither can the PCs.  Only players(everyone at the table) can be part of any given GNS mode.

Any character, player or not, is incapable of "choking" or otherwise altering another player's agenda.  Only players can do that.  

Anything that happens in game, happens because somebody(at the table) makes it that way.

GNS mode, and all play, come about because the players make it happen, therefore, any changes in mode, or problems changing mode, are because of the players, not the characters.  

As far as focus on "what says more about what character" its really dependent on the group, and how they play, not with a particular mode.  

You might find it best to review the basic GNS essay, and digest it in chunks.  That's what I had to do.  And I'd only worry about it if you're really interested in it, there's no reward or degree for having grasped the theory here :)

Chris

[Blankshield]

Noon,
  I'm a real newbie here, as well... but let me try something...

I think part of your question may be heading in the wrong direction, because you are assinging GN or S motivations to "characters" instead of the players.

Ah, now this is actually the important part, because the usual idea is that its just about players. The crucial part of it is that, yes, it starts with the player wanting something, but that is then expressed by their actions in the character. The player can want to switch mode, he can have full group agreement on switching mode, but his character doesn't switch mode with him. As long as there are witnesses in the game world who are played in a narrativist way, the possible narrative component dwarfs the gamist element, for example.

If the NPC's are still being run in a narrativist mode (and I'm not sure they can be), then the person running them has bluntly, not switched mode.  They may have said they have, they may even have intended to switch, but if the game still plays out Nar, then they aren't playing Game.

However, that being said, I think you're using the term "narrativist" to mean what really has nothing to do with narrativist at all, but is actually more like consistency, or plausability.

The other narrativist NPC's in the world choke any attempt at full mode change. Lets have an example I got from someone once:

The King is going to die soon, and we need a widget to find his air. There is little time to complete the quest.

Player A goes and slits the kings throat.

See, by the rules he doesn't age when dead, so they can just take their time, then raise him from the dead when they get back. WIN!


Now, you can clearly see if you have NPC's that are left to run in a narrativist mode in your world, the feedback from such an act would be so tremendous as to drown out the gamist benefit. Trying to play in gamist mode is drowned out by narrativist mode (and in this one, the GM can't suppress the problem by playing every NPC like cardboard, it would get even more silly). This is an example of mode switch being so problematic its impossible. And while its extreme, the principle extends to the spider man example and everywhere else.

Hmm.  I wouldn't class your example as the height of gamism, actually.  I would class it akin to sweeping all the chessmen off the board and saying "I win!"  Gamist play, except at it's very farthest extremes, still stays within the rules - not meaning just the by-the-book mechanics, but also the scope of plausability and consistency.

If all NPC's were run in a gamist way, then there would be no problem. The kingdom would wisely nod at the PC's knowledge and the king would smile proudly at the PC as he had his throat slit. Huzzah.

Nope.  If the NPC's are being run in a gamist way, then they react in a way to push the rising conflict.  That may well be clapping the PC in irons and throwing him in the dungeon.  The player has solved the 'mini-goal' of buying more time, but now he has to Step On Up again and figure out a way to go get the widget, and bring it back to ressurect and save the king with every hand turned against him.  Kick ass!  My inner gamist wants to play this now.

James

[Callan S.]

Hi Chris,

Really, NPC's do enforce mode, because they were created to do so by the people at the table, as you say. You can say your game has a G, N or S slant, but if nothing is inserted into the shared imaginative space, then nothing is there. We decide the mode ourselves, but we set it by what we insert into the shared space. Certainly, if we want to talk to people, we don't put ourselves in a dungeon full of mindless killing machines. Those killing machines aren't IN a mode, but they clearly support one.

Anything that happens in game, happens because somebody(at the table) makes it that way.

Someone made all those NPC's. These NPC's push for something, because their maker pushed for something in their design.

The problem is, NPC's typically get designed in a narrativist way. They just live their lives and react according to character. This can not be altered by the GM with a snap of the fingers, once created. This creation, though the shared space, tends to have an ongoing life beyond its creators will, since he doesn't control everyones mind.

This presumably instinctual design element then goes on through its creation to fail to support gamist or simulationist style, because as they were built with a narrativism design, they support that.

An analogy would be an RPG about teen angst and trying to fit in...that has a very large combat system filling up many pages.

One might like to think ones agenda when using this RPG would be up to ones self. But clearly its going to either subvert your intentions, or leave you stepping around a black spot with no real support for what you want to do.

So what happens when you have a super hero game (for example) all about winning each situation, and it's full of NPC's that support narrativism?

[Callan S.]

Blankshield

Hi,

I mean narrativist in terms of exploring NPC's character. Typically such are designed/percieved to have ongoing memories. This isn't just about consistancy, its about narativist elements designed to be persistant. In other words, a tool for one thing which is designed to keep doing that, even if you want to go and do something else now. These NPC tools keep operating in each users mind at a narrativist character examination level, even as they attempt to play in another mode. Ignoring or supressing them doesn't change their nature because the player wanted to change mode.

Hmm. I wouldn't class your example as the height of gamism, actually. I would class it akin to sweeping all the chessmen off the board and saying "I win!" Gamist play, except at it's very farthest extremes, still stays within the rules - not meaning just the by-the-book mechanics, but also the scope of plausability and consistency.

In terms of characters, plausability and consistancy are not structured to support this. The king may indeed see it as important to be killed, then keeps it hushed, a secret never to be known to others. This is an expression of the kings character. It is not a matter of 'do X and Y will happen' plausibility and consistancy. Its confusing a narrativist designed characters reactions as an add on to the rules. If he is indeed designed this way, things can be deeper than 'oh, you killed him, go to jail, do not collect 200 gold' and he can't be relied on as a type of rule, in terms of plausability and consistancy. Like all people/characters, he's too irrational for this purpose.

And I'd disagree how a gamist designed NPC would always react. Your only suggesting a technique, it's not a design rule. Otherwise when spiderman rescues MJ and the kids, they all turn out to be mind possesed and attack him or such, each time. There is no point of success, only more problems caused by playing to win. Either that or the GM can have designed a lull in conflict here, a win state. MJ and the kids are rescued, that's it. Same with the king, time is bought with a clever plan, that's it.

[Bankuei]

Hi Callan,

I think you're misunderstanding a critical point.  Characters do not enforce mode, HOW players(including the GM) USE characters(along with the other Explorative elements, Color, Setting, Situation, System) are what enforce mode.  

I can give you a set of characters from any game text, and your group can play them in ANY mode.  We have threads that show folks playing D&D in a Narrativist mode, Heroquest in Sim, etc.  Characters alone, do not enforce anything.  A group of techniques, utilized by the group, are what enforce anything and everything you see at the table.

The problem is, NPC's typically get designed in a narrativist way.  They just live their lives and react according to character.

I think you're confusing Nar with Sim goals.  Nar play utilizes characters in a fashion that supports the group addressing Premise, nothing else.  As far as Nar play is concerned, "life" outside of what happens in play, to address premise, is unnecessary.  Sim play might be concerned with the characters' "lives" and how they would react, solely on character.

This presumably instinctual design element then goes on through its creation to fail to support gamist or simulationist style, because as they were built with a narrativism design, they support that.

I can point to dozens of examples of characters designed for gamist or Sim play, but very few designed for Nar play.  

Do you think you could define what you mean by "narrativist designed characters" and provide some examples from any game or modules?

Chris

[RDU Neil]

Hmm.  I wouldn't class your example as the height of gamism, actually.  I would class it akin to sweeping all the chessmen off the board and saying "I win!"  Gamist play, except at it's very farthest extremes, still stays within the rules - not meaning just the by-the-book mechanics, but also the scope of plausability and consistency.
James

James,
  Just a question.  This is only from my experience, but I would almost define gamist experiences as I have seen them as "well within the rules" but "well outside plausibility."

i.e. the main thrust is "if the rules allow it then I shouldn't be penalized for using the rules in a way they allow"   Plausibility and consistency don't come into play... the great example is "Ok... large monster coming afer me, and I'm backed up to a sheer drop... but I have plenty of HP, so I'll just jump off the cliff, because the max it can do to me won't kill me, and I'll be fine to escape."

Nothing plausible about this in any kind of story with verisimilitude... it is just rules raping... and if the GM keeps escalating the threat... "Ok, as you jump, you notice that between you and the ground is a nest of Razor Spiders, whose webs are micro-fiber and will slice you to ribbons"   And the game then degenerates into something so silly that it breaks down completely.

This is why I don't understand how Gamist can work for any length of time.  If it truly is player vs. GM... then the game is over, the GM wins... because all they have to do is say "Rocks fall, everybody dies."

Unless the group has agreed to share a plausible simulation, or has agreed to cooperatively explore a narrative... I just don't see how a gamist RPG can function as anything more than a one shot joke.  Plausibility, causality, story... these things have no "rules" to abide by... if they do (again, in my experience) it is because the group has decided on rules that actually enforce Nar or Sim gaming... even if they don't understand what they have done.

Does that make any sense?

[Valamir]

Two key things you're missing here Neil.

The first can be found in your statement of "in my experience".  While I have indeed seen and experienced the same sort of play, my experience with overt gamism has been much different.  "Plausibility" was viewed in our group as yet another rules constraint.  See, 'winning', means seeing who can use the rules most effectively to level up, get more stuff, and be acknowledged as MVP of the session.  The key is staying within the rules, because otherwise you're just cheating and there is no bragging rights in that.  For us, the rules of physics, were absolutely rules of the game.  They weren't in the rule book, because they exist outside of mere game rules.  

That's why for our group, the Dungeoneers and Willderness Survival Guides for AD&D1e were considered the absolute best gaming book ever written (at the time...now they make me shudder).  They had rules for falling damage that included the difference between impact and abrasions from rolling down a slope.  They provided a translation of reality into game mechanics.  But we were still following the rules of reality before those books.  We just had to adjucate ourselves.

So, sure, plausibility can get thrown out the window for certain types of gamist play (and for certain surreal psychodelic episodes in Nar play too), but that isn't a defining feature of Gamism.  That's just one possible combination of techniques (once again a technique useable with a CA being confounded for that CA)


The other thing you're missing is labeling such non plausible play as a joke.  You may not enjoy it, because in the weighted average of factors in a game, you give great weight to plausibility and verisimilitude when it comes to measuring your own enjoyment.  But surely you must realize that you are merely expressing a personal preference.

I've also played in games where people jumped off of the cliff to save their lives.  Its not necessarily silly at all.  In fact, our group had a very enjoyable time exploring the ramifications of game rules.  Consider:  you are starting from the perception of "reality works this way, the rule violates reality, therefor the rule is a joke".  Instead work backwards.  "The rule works this way, therefor what does that say about reality in this world?"  Reverse engineering the fabric of reality out of the game mechanics was quite enjoyable.

In other words take "of course hps don't really represent actual injury and the ability of a person to absorb more punishment than a herd of cattle" and turn it into "wait a minute, what if it does...hmmmm".  It was certainly unusual, but in no way a "joke".