Where is the innovation in System?

[Ian O'Rourke]

Okay, Ron's article on FLN got me thinking about narrativist games in particular. I find some of them great, and others I just find myself wondering how they can be called games at all. I also find myself looking at concepts, stuff that can be applied to any game, and I see them as concepts, when other people may be describing them as rules.

As an example, Over the Edge and The Whispering Vault, I have them both and I really like them. I've not played them, but I like them. I understand them as games, and while they leave out a lot of simulationist elements (they don't try to simulate a real or fantastical world and therefore limit player creativity) they do have rules.

I also like Sorcerer, again not played it (or paid for it for that matter – shit!), and I see the rules and it's all cool. A lot of the stuff in Sorcerer is not what I would consider rules though? Kickers, Bangs, Relationship maps – surely they are tools you could bang onto any game? No matter what the type? I'd not call them rules, but then may be no one is.

Then we have Inspectres. Great idea, I'll be tempted by the next version (is it a proper book a pdf file?), but it has virtually zero rules – you might as well sit around a table and just make it all up. Now, I have no problem with this, but what I don't understand is the trickle of rules that do exist. Then you have Inspectre's greatest strength, the Cops like confessionals, great idea, but again, it's an idea not really a rule. You could use that for character development in any game.

So what am I saying, not sure, it's all a bit muddled in my head, but I suppose I am saying I understand narrativism, indeed, been doing it for years (well, 80% there and moving onward every campaign) but I don't get the narrativist systems – they seem do innovative just because they dump simulationist elements. This is good, but I fail to understand (and may be my examples are bad) how the systems are innovative, some of the written ideas, yes, but that ain't system. Is it?

[joshua neff]

Ian--

I read your query about InSpectres over on FLN, & Ron's response. I agree with him--InSpectres very definitely has rules. I mean, they're right there in the game. Roll the dice. Figure out what happens. Are there specific rules for combat? Nope. But there are definitely rules for how the game works. The whole "monologue" system is a rule (& a really cool one at that). I've played InSpectres & I can attest to the presence of rules.

Beyond that, I'd say all games have rules--that's what makes them games. The rules may be mechanics for determining event resolution, like rolling for a fight or a debate or a seduction. The rules may be to generate conflict, like the Kicker in Sorcerer. The rules may be a more general "social contract"--"sitting around & making stuff up" still has to abide by certain restriction & systems, to ensure that everyone is enjoying themselves. It seems to me you're limiting "rules" to "ways to determine outcomes". But if you look at any RPG, there are all sorts of rules that don't have anything to do with that. Alignment in D&D. The way experience works in Amber. Character generation in Castle Falkenstein (which includes all sorts of non-outcome-deciding things, like creating a Nemesis & decided what your character's Goals & Passions are). Those are all parts of the game, they're all rules.

[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-12-17 22:39 ]

[Ian O'Rourke]

Mmmmm. True, I may be limiting my definition of what a rule is.

Your point about alignment is a case in point, but even that reads more like a rule - as in it is meant to provide a structure for balance - in essence it is a restriction, part of the game.

Surely though a lot of these games a blurring the line between what normally constitutes a rule and what would normally constitute a guideline for play (it's not a rule, just a suggestion that using flashbacks might be a good storytelling tool - for instance).

Or I'm talking shite.

What rules came into play on your Inspectres game? How did they influence the game?
_________________
Ian O'Rourke
http://www.fandomlife.net">www.fandomlife.net
The e-zine of SciFi media and Fandom Culture.

[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-12-17 11:42 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

You seem to be confounding the notion of "rules" with something that I think of as a small sub-set of rules.

Let's take RuneQuest: Ugly Pig Bob and Bethany are facing off with their weapons, and they announce their actions; Strike Ranks are determined and one gets the shot in first. Roll to hit. Roll to parry. Roll hit location. Roll damage. Subtract armor from damage. Compare damage to body part hit points; apply damage to total hit points. Check for impale.

These are rules, yes? My claim is that they are SOME of the rules for RuneQuest. Most of the rules in this game resemble them, especially in terms of resolving actions.

Now let's take a look at The Pool, which is the game in question in my essay.

Ugly Pig Bob and Bethany are facing off, and the first order of business is the player's goal, which is, say, "Bethany punctures his stinking heart." Bethany's player has 3 dice to roll automatically (1 for free, 1 for her Daddy's Sword, and 1 for her Brave). The player decides to allot 2 more dice from Bethany's Pool, for a total of 5. Roll five dice, get a 1 to succeed.

With success, Bethany's player may choose to create circumstances of victory that affect the developing plot - say, the effect of the victory on onlookers, or the character's position relative to someone to rescue, or any number of other things.

Simulationist elements of play are absent, granted. But I think you do The Pool a mighty injustice by saying that that is ALL that is different. Indeed not. The Pool provides strict instructions about how the player may utilize a resource to alter the chances regarding the outcome, as well as about what the outcome means in the bigger picture. These are rules too.

Take The Window, which represents the ultimate in "strip it down" design. It is distinguished by that Simulationist-lack, but by nothing else except verbal admonitions to prioritize "the story." It provides no structure besides that of GM-fiat for the ritualized sequence of interactions that makes story. The Pool, Ghost Light, InSpectres, Wyrd, Soap, and others all do provide that structure, and it ain't some hand-waving, "Um, work it out 'cause we all like story here," but hard and fast rules that are followed to the letter.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, sounds like a POV thing to me.

Your argument seems to be that only a system that delivers a Simulative result is a system. This is yet another in a long series of people lately challenging a term or it's use. Call it methodology or scrumnabulate if you prefer. They are still ways to have fun playing RPGS that are inumerated in writing and presented as directions, whatever you call them. I'll stick to the term system for ease.

I think that it's interesting that you write, "they don't try to simulate a real or fantastical world and therefore limit player creativity." How's that so? Because the game doesn't tell me where I hit my opponent, and I have to decide myself, that limits creativity? I'd say that rather it enforces creativity. Often by the sorts of rules I cite above. The InSpectres confessional mechanic adds a descriptor to a character which then makes them potentially more effective in a situation by giving them another die to roll. That's a pretty hard mechanic, IMO.

I prefer Simulationism over Narrativism by a slight margin. But not because there are no "rules" to Narrativist games, or because of any lack of ability to be creative in them. Rather those are two things I like about most Narrativist games. I wouldn't have put a whole messa hours into investigating The Pool's pool mechanic if I didn't think that it was an interesting set of rules.

In fact I'd go as far as to define Narrativists as those folks who want to do Collaborative Fiction, but want a system of rules that go beyond the standard social contract that says, "thou shalt make a good narative" to make it work better as they see it.

Just my POV.

Mike

[jburneko]

Hello,

I thought I'd throw my two cents in here.  I really didn't get the Narrativist System thing either until I read Story Engine.  Story Engine explained it all in a way that totally blew my mind.  Story Engine has a whole lot of rules that when applied properly have an INCREDIBLE impact on play.

Here's the key innovation.  Story Engine resolves EVERYTHING at the scene level.  That is, if there's a fight scene, the players roll ONE gigantic die pool vs the enemy's ONE gigantic die pool.  Level of success is determined.  Seductions, Court Scenes, Car Chases, they're all handeled in one, very well defined, uniform way.

Now, more importantly the effect on actual play is startling.  They very nature of the system shifts the focus as to what's important in the scene.  Suddenly, you're no longer thinking about the HOW in the scene because the how is so uniform and simple.  To make the game work and get any enjoyment out of it at all you find that you must think about the *WHY*.  Why is there a conflict here?  Why is resolving it one way or the other important?

Trust me, when you run a game with Story Engine you suddenly realize how 'padded' your other games have been.  If you're not rolling the dice then you begin to seriously feel the lack of conflict.  If all you're doing is rolling the dice then you suddenly feel the hollowness of your game.  If, however, every die roll, even though it's just one, is a thrill ride of excitement then you've hit upon the magic of Story Engine.  And if you compare what you're doing in that game to what you were doing before I GUARANTEE you'll notice your game has totally shifted in style.

Just my thoughts.

Jesse

[joshua neff]

Mike--

I think Ian was saying that simulationist rules limit player creativity. Which I would argue, even though I prefer narrativist to simulationist. Good simulationist rules help player creativity, but in different ways than good narrativist rules.

I'm glad you beat me to it & brought up the Confessionals. But I'll talk about them, too. Ian, read through the InSpectres rules again, especially the Confessionals. They allow you to add a descriptor to another PC, which that character's player can later use to get a bonus die. Which seems like a pretty simple rule, but during play becomes very complex & interesting. For example, Mike does a confessional & describes my character as "clumsy". Later, during the big climactic fight with the ghosty, I declare I'm using my descriptor to get a bonus die. I roll & my highest die is a 6, a brilliant success! The GM asks me to describe what happens, so I say "My character runs towards the ghost and clumsily trips over his own feet. But when he hits the ground, he accidently hits the activation button on his ectoplasmic disruptor, which disperses the ghost."

[Mike Holmes]

Ah, yes, thanks Josh, it can be read that way. My mistake. In any case I always see the rules as a framework from which to hang your creativity, whether G,N, or S. When functioning really well, they are inspirational.

(BTW, at GenCon I used my confessional in Jared's game to give Clinton's character a "Careless" descriptor, or something like that. He then narrated how he accidentally used the wrong end of a Quantum Lactator thus destroying the greenhouse he was standing in with a burst of Atomic Foam. :smile:   )

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-12-17 13:34 ]

[Ian O'Rourke]

I will be replying - I'm just having trouble finding time to do it.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

The current, online version of InSpectres isn't quite as developed as the new one (probably as a PDF, then as a book, following the Sorcerer model). But the basic "rules" are more or less the same (although 2nd ed. has a lotta changes that address issues that came up in playtesting and in Clinton's review).

As for what "rules" are, game rules are whatever details are used to run the game. So yes, to hit modifiers, attributes, yaddah yaddah but also Kickers and Bangs, Confessionals, Monologues of Victory and scene-based conflict resolution -- all are rules.

I prefer the term "mechanics" -- rules have connotation of being sacred, unbreakable laws.

And going back to InSpectres, I *think* that it's one of the only games out there that focuses on combat and action but doesn't have a combat system or health levels.

- Jared

Postcrypt: InSpectres 2 is about three or four times the size of the first version. No game fiction, no adventure scenarios...
_________________
jared a. sorensen / http://www.memento-mori.com
indie game design from beyond the grave

[ This Message was edited by: Jared A. Sorensen on 2001-12-18 09:52 ]

[Gordon C. Landis]

I feel so . . . inadequate.

When Paul was out in the fabulous Bay Area and arranged (what turned out to be) an InSpectres game with Jared, I used my soliloqy to establish that the ex-wife of Paul's character (a onetime congressman who lost his position in a sex scandal) was, in fact, a patient in the hospital where we had been sent to investigate the "odd occurences".  She was "recovering from a breakdown".

Nothing came of it.  Sigh.

To make this a LITTLE on-topic . . .  I guess it doesn't matter what you call it - a good idea, a rule, a mechanic, whatever.  It's just something made available for the play group to use.  Sometimes they will, and sometimes they won't.

Gordon

[Ian O'Rourke]

Okay, I agree, my definition of rules may have been a bit narrow.

Now my next point - does a narrativist game, by definition, have to contain elements that allow one player to influence another guys character?

As an example, I would not want someone defining my character as clumsy and it subsequently having to become fact. The same would be true of my characters ex-wife suddenly becoming mentally ill.

Why don't I personally like this? Why do I think it does not necessarily have anything to do with narrativism (and indeed it may not, hence the question above)? Simply because I think narrativism is about the characters period, and how the develop in response to problems, decisions and the consequences of those decisions. Why should another player be able to effect this? Directorial control great! But directorial control to effect the other character's story?

This is putting story as an entity in itself above and beyond any characters personal tale?

Take the InSpectres Cops-like scenes. They are great, but to me they have nothing to do with defining character altering issues about other player characters. They are chance for the character to offer analysis or depth (essentially character development) on issues that have arisen.

A character kills the murderer of his ex-wife - he should get a cops-like scene about that, giving him the player the opportunity to develop the characters feelings and reasoning behind that action. That's what it is about to me, not defining someone as clumsy just to get a humerous scene later.

In a way this is why I define such things as concepts rather than a rule - it's only a rule if it can effect other players, hence you need to list criteria for it to occurr. But to me its just an idea, a narrative construct, for character development.

Disclaimer: No offence to anyone is meant in this post.

_________________
Ian O'Rourke
http://www.fandomlife.net">www.fandomlife.net
The e-zine of SciFi media and Fandom Culture.

[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-12-19 07:46 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

No offense taken.

Your post illustrates some twistin' and turnin' that leads me to say, "Time to back off."

For instance, the notion that Director stance affecting someone else's character puts "story over character," doesn't make much sense to me, as stories are defined by what characters do. I would call that technique a degree of sharing authorship that not everyone is going to enjoy.

Similarly, it looks to me as if you're wrestling with [Narrativism as a goal] vs. [Narrativism as a design philosophy] vs. [Narrativist techniques]. The problem with this is that techniques are rarely if ever "pure" GNS devices, and it's incorrect to say that a game "is" Narrativist because it includes Director stance, for instance.

To get back to the issue of my essay, the games I listed in the #5 category (with The Pool as poster child) offer rules that enforce a very different approach to "story-making," by putting it squarely on the whole group as a metagame responsibility. The Pool's rules are nothing BUT this approach.

I'm not sure what to tell you beyond that, except to say that these games do not define Narrativism but are instead extreme facilitators/reinforcers of a certain brand of Narrativist play.

Best,
Ron

[Ian O'Rourke]

On 2001-12-19 10:56, Ron Edwards wrote:

I'm not sure what to tell you beyond that, except to say that these games do not define Narrativism but are instead extreme facilitators/reinforcers of a certain brand of Narrativist play.

Okay, fair enough. I can see/understand that fine. On a scale I would put them on the outer limit as well. I suppose I just have issue with the authorship/directorial stance intruding on someone elses character, which is a personal thing.

All interesting as they say.

[Mike Holmes]

Um, interestingly, Ian, Sorcerer is a somewhat Narrativist game that is much less "out there" in terms of extremes of directorial control, etc. In fact few games actually include the ability to affect other characters "directorily".

Mike