More on jargon and models [long]

[M. J. Young]

Regarding the "false negatives" of D&D and V:tM, I think that the problem lies in the distinction between incoherent design and incoherent play.

The argument would be that as writ both games (referring to earlier D&D versions) are incoherent, but that no one plays them as writ. In support of that, it is generally suggested that the text descriptive of the adventures possible in those games is not supported by the rules provided.

Whether that's correct or not, diagnosing games by how they are played versus how they are written is a major distinction that must be made for the theory to be applied. If your gaming group is using those rules which are consistent with its agendum and ignoring those which are not, you are playing a coherent game that is distinct from that which is in the books. GNS conflict does not have to arise in such a situation because your group has determined how to interpret the rules consistently. Such conflict does arise when players of these games move to different gaming groups, and discover that the game the new group is playing is very different from the one they know, but ostensibly based on the same rules.

--M. J. Young

[pete_darby]

Also: the prediction made by the model is that an incoherent published game will force either drift or incoherent play.

What happened mostly, IMHO, is drift, especially with early editions of Vampire. Early D&D I don't know as much about (but I can certainly say that the 1st ed AD&D rulebooks were incoherent in a non-jargon sense. They certainly weren't a unified, coherent whole). Ron's early essays, especially, note that the greatest problems in play would come when memebrs of established groups, with established drifts, mix and mingle, and the "you're playing it wrong" debates would flair. Which, I'll agree with Ron here, I saw more with Vampire groups than any previous game.

So the prediction isn't that play is impossible, or necessarily bad, or even necessarily incoherent, with an incoherent rulebook, just that during or before play a degree of effort will be spent / wasted drifting the game before paly is possible, whether through ditching rules or background or colour or theme or whatever.

Now, with a lot of my friends, the activity that we call drift is assumed to be a natural part of pre play. "Of course you've got to trim the system, or ignore the colour text, or whatever, no rpg is ever right for your group right away." But, having looked around focussed designs, and designs built for drift, you find that it's just not always true, and even where drift is necessary, it can be facilitated and the players informed. In designs like Vampire first, drift is necessary but not facilitated, except by the deeply unhelpful "golden Rule."

[MR. Analytical]

Hmmmm....  I think bringing analysis of play into an analysis of a game is dangerous for 2 reasons.

A) Actual games are only one contributing factor in the generation of played games.  You also have to factor in egoes, existing styles of play, lack of comprehension of rules.  Unless you can actually identify how much of incoherent play is due to the game as published then it's not clear how you can establish any kind of causality and diagnosis of problems is all about tracking the causal history.

B) Another danger of this line of attack is highlighted by Ron's D&D article.  If you start allowing for play that's drifted in your analysis of the games themselves then the idea of there being an actual game becomes hard to maintain.  OD&D, according to Ron wasn't an actual game but this weird patchwork of different drifted styles of play bolstered by house-rules and institutionalised group dynamics that was loosely referred to as "Dungeons and Dragons".  Here be Dragons intellectually, if this is true of all games then there might be grounds for saying that the RPG author is dead and that games only exist in the playing, their characteristics determined by the interpretation of players... suggesting games aren't inherrently about anything.



So I think the whole play/game relationship needs to be considered quite carefully.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Jonathan, in a word, "Yes." The Big Model is talking about play, and game texts are different things. Everything M.J. and Pete wrote is dead on, and it all relies on taking care with exactly the point you raise, from the beginning.

Just as "Gamist game" when referring to a text is really short-hand for "rules which, when applied, provide a solid arena for Gamist play," the phrase "incoherent game" when referring to a text is really short-hand for "rules which, when applied, are likely to lead to conflicts in Creative Agenda, within or among participants."

System does matter; it's a feature of play. Rules "matter" only insofar as they are applied to System. Rules which (when followed) tend to result in Creative Agenda conflict are not, in my view, very fun to follow.

Note: not Creative Agenda differences or combinations, but conflict.

This is a big deal. If a person hasn't processed this, and persists in the notion that the Big Model is about how incoherent games make people play incoherently, then the person is doomed to futter around in a resentful circle.

This concept also took a long time to work out through essays, dialogues, multiple instances of play, and all kinds of disagreements. The current essays are an archive of that process, not a final and wonderful "hi! GNS for you, whoever you are!" manual. You'll find me grappling with rules vs. System all the way into the Narrativism essay.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

I think there's a fundamental paradigm split based on what one expects rules to do that determines whether they appear incohernent or not. Reading the boards it's clear that some people consider mechanics that formalize relationships, for example, to be an improvement over leaving that to human-human iteraction whereas others consider those to be getting-in-the-way.

Clearly either POV is a spectrum (a person who expects mechanics to handle real-world representation of the character only and work relationships above that level might be swayed by a relationship-system that *really* works for them) but I think there's something fundamental about how a system is judged (and not just for incoherence, but for CA-facilitation) that depends on the inital expectation the player comes in with.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

That's no surprise, Marco. That's why the Big Model puts System in its unique position as the "path" or specification of Social Contract, via Creative Agenda, down into Techniques. Of course people bring their expectations and standards into a play-situation.

If you're angling toward a criticism that, therefore, classifications of game texts as incoherent is therefore "in the eye of the beholder," then you've just entered a whole world of debate about this issue in regard to classificatory systems of any kind. I usually shrug at this point; if the issue of calling game designs incoherent seems invalid to you, then don't do it.

As I see it, since patterns of certain texts' use do appear, and do include extensive Drift of identifiable kinds, as well as bitter and acrimonious histories of working out the Drift (or encountering others' versions), then I'm happy with the utility of the term.

Let me anticipate another Marco-ism: "But it's pejorative!" Whatever. I'm now convinced that any term can be interpreted as a pejorative, and reacted to with great and angry resentment, and therefore, it's another shrug for me.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hello,

That's no surprise, Marco. That's why the Big Model puts System in its unique position as the "path" or specification of Social Contract, via Creative Agenda, down into Techniques. Of course people bring their expectations and standards into a play-situation.

If you're angling toward a criticism that, therefore, classifications of game texts as incoherent is therefore "in the eye of the beholder," then you've just entered a whole world of debate about this issue in regard to classificatory systems of any kind. I usually shrug at this point; if the issue of calling game designs incoherent seems invalid to you, then don't do it.

As I see it, since patterns of certain texts' use do appear, and do include extensive Drift of identifiable kinds, as well as bitter and acrimonious histories of working out the Drift (or encountering others' versions), then I'm happy with the utility of the term.

Let me anticipate another Marco-ism: "But it's pejorative!" Whatever. I'm now convinced that any term can be interpreted as a pejorative, and reacted to with great and angry resentment, and therefore, it's another shrug for me.

Best,
Ron

No criticism of any sort. More like an ah-ha (as I ponder why I don't see TRoS as especially Narritivist more than Gamist or maybe Sim). Actually, I think that the taxonomy could potentially include a level of expectations or desires about the role of setting vs. mechanics in terms of system that would make classification more accurate, or at least account for some of the difference of opinion (whether related to incoherence or not).

-Marco

[MR. Analytical]

Ron,

Yeah... I understand your position and the terms.  

I disagree though that either of those games are incoherent, largely because I think that you're then forced into murky theoretical waters that you don't need to in order to allow for the fact that an incoherent game can generate a widely recognised and much lamented style of play.

The A + B is a dichotomy you don't necessarily need to put up with theoretically if you ask me but as it stands you're kind of forced to put up with it.  I think :-)

So I'm disagreeing and expressing myself poorly, not mis-comprehendifying :-)  thanks though.

[Valamir]

I'm not following your last post Jonathan.

when you say:

I disagree though that either of those games are incoherent,

what do you mean?

If we take Ron's previous statement of

the phrase "incoherent game" when referring to a text is really short-hand for "rules which, when applied, are likely to lead to conflicts in Creative Agenda, within or among participants."

then it looks like you're disagreeing with the idea that those game texts are likely to lead to conflicts in Creative Agenda.

Since conflicts between "play styles" (which we would now see as being conflicts of Creative Agenda) are well documented among D&D players in the late 70s and early 80s and among Vampire players in the early 90s, I don't see how you can conclude that those texts aren't incoherent.


Its a fairly simple measure really.

If you take 2 groups and give them the rule books in isolation they will figure out a way to play the game.

If you then take the players of those 2 groups and mix them up into new groups and observe their play you have a spectrum of possibilities.

On the one end of the spectrum you discover that the text of the rules was so clear that both of the initial groups "figured out" a way to play that was essentially the same.  When you mix them up and they play together they find that the members of the other group pretty much play the game the same way they do and prioritise the same things.

On the other end of the spectrum you discover that in the course of "figureing out" how to play the two groups came to radically different decisions, different priorities, and placed different emphasis on what elements they found important and which they found unimportant to play.  When you mix these groups up you will have conflict as the individual players are confronted with other players who are playing "wrong".  Both groups can lay claim to "playing right" because both groups play derived directly from the rule text.

This is simply what incoherence means.  Since we know for a fact that there were vehement arguements between groups of D&D players over differences in play and vehement arguements between groups of Vampire players over differences play exactly like this illustration, it seems to me to be a fairly compelling diagnosis of those texts as being incoherent.  

If you still disagree, please describe in some detail how and where.


Now what comes out of the conflict between the players coming from the different groups depends in large part on the Social Contract.

One of the mixxed up groups might simply blend easily together finding a happy medium and adapting each others methodology to a new compromise style that produces completely coherent play.  This is drift.

Another group might wind up in out-and-out bickering and nastiness.  This is dysfunction.

Another group might wind up taking a "can't we all just get along approach" with everybody trying to play in the style they're used to as best they can while relying on the personal maturity of the other players and the iron rulings of the GM  to keep the situation from degenerating.  This is incoherent play.

I'm not sure how it could be any clearer than that.

[Marco]

I suspect that just about any traditional RPG (no end-conditions, a variety of goals in in-game context, and a GM) will show as incoherent to some degree. It's a matter of where you draw the line.

For example, I would play TRoS *substantially* differently than Valamir (and, when I do play it after I'm done traveling, will do so). Raven plays a Narrativist D&D game and corrected someone in a thread in Actual Play (IIRC) who said that it was meant to be played in one fashion (unsophisticated, combat oriented, etc.)

Clearly even "within" GNS CA's there's no real standard: different groups of Gamists are going to say others are "playing wrong." Same, especially, for Sim (Dramatists vs. Virtuality).

I think that test is far more of an examination of whether the two groups have different priorities on a social level (as GNS supposes, I'd say) than on a system-level.

Or to put this another way, how do you factor out for system apart from social? One might look for "tells" or certain language--but what exactly would those signposts be?

-Marco

[Tim C Koppang]

Marco,

For example, I would play TRoS *substantially* differently than Valamir (and, when I do play it after I'm done traveling, will do so). Raven plays a Narrativist D&D game and corrected someone in a thread in Actual Play (IIRC) who said that it was meant to be played in one fashion (unsophisticated, combat oriented, etc.)

I'd call this drift--not necessarily incoherent play, but drift nonetheless.  If you're going to play TRoS without spiritual attributes (Just an example.  I have no idea how you would change things.), you can get something more comfortably Simulationist, but that still changes things from the way the game was designed.  It's drift, unless I'm missing a nuance of your argument.

I think that test is far more of an examination of whether the two groups have different priorities on a social level (as GNS supposes, I'd say) than on a system-level.

Here you seem to argue that system doesn't matter.  You couch it in terms of social contract, but it's there nonetheless.  I suppose that with enough social maneuvering, a group could shove a certain play-style into any system, but it seems as if that would necessarily involve drift.  Then you're back at square one.  It isn't incoherent play, but it's not the same game described in the rule text either.

Or to put this another way, how do you factor out for system apart from social?

You don't.  System is dependent on social, just as the old dichotomy between system and setting is a false lead as well.

[Marco]

Marco,

For example, I would play TRoS *substantially* differently than Valamir (and, when I do play it after I'm done traveling, will do so). Raven plays a Narrativist D&D game and corrected someone in a thread in Actual Play (IIRC) who said that it was meant to be played in one fashion (unsophisticated, combat oriented, etc.)

I'd call this drift--not necessarily incoherent play, but drift nonetheless.  If you're going to play TRoS without spiritual attributes (Just an example.  I have no idea how you would change things.), you can get something more comfortably Simulationist, but that still changes things from the way the game was designed.  It's drift, unless I'm missing a nuance of your argument.

For the record, I don't know how exactly Ralph would run or play it--I'm taking my cues of his assessment of it during another discussion. My understanding is that our read of the rules was very different.

The way I'd play it is that there would (likely) be combats during which the characters would either not have SA's in play or the SA's would, perhaps, even out the combats rather than giving an overwhelming advantage.

As a player, this too, is how I'd 'expect' it to be run (in the raw sense of the term--I wouldn't complain if it was run otherwise).  

This is a very big difference between playing TRoS without SA's. And that's the problem: where does one draw the line between drift and "running a game?"

I agree that removing SA's would, indeed, make it a different game--but there's a very big stretch between SA's dominate the game and SA's are an important part of some action. Specifically, I suspect, the degree of focus on SA's (note that I don't think that even a completely SA heavy game would necessiarily be Narrativist, this is just one of the many indexes one could vary a given use of the system).

The problem comes in when you say "Well, Marco, you're playing 'wrong' because you're focusing on the strategic combat system too much and not enough on the SA's"--if you said that, I think you'd have a very hard time backing it up from the rules even if, maybe 6 out of 10 combats involved no SA's.

That makes me think that drift is a hard-to-draw-line.

As far as System-Doesn't-Matter: it seems like saying "people matter more" is heard around here as System-Doesn't-Matter. That's my whole point on this thread: for some POV's and some goals system will be incredibly important. For other's, 'merely' important--but not necessiarly the biggest factor in determining style of play.

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

Marco, I don't know TRoS well enough to go too far with this as an example, but it seems to be the example at hand.

Let's suppose that you and Ralph and I were playing in the same game. You say that your view of the game is such that SAs won't matter very often, and Ralph's is that they should matter most of the time. Since I'm unfamiliar with the game, I don't know how I would handle them. However, imagine the game with each of us as referee.

[*]If you are the referee, is there some way in which you are going to prevent Ralph from using his SAs when he thinks they're relevant?[*]If Ralph is the referee, is he going to force you to use them more than you would expect?[*]If I am the referee, what's going to prevent you from using them sparsely and Ralph from using them frequently, within the same game? How much would you impact each other in this, and would it be problematic in play?[/list:u]I'm inclined to suspect that neither of you would actually see the other as "playing wrong" in this regard, although you each might be surprised by the other's mode of play in some respects.

If that's correct, then it's not incoherent; you could play together, each in your own way, without significantly interfering with each other.

That's a far cry from the arguments between V:tM players or D&D players about what "playing right" was.

--M. J. Young

[Valamir]

I don't want to derail this into a discussion on TROS.  But I would direct interested parties to this thread on emergent vs. explicit rules and my comments to Tony in it.

TROS rules are very emergent, in that you don't know where they lead you up front in the rules.  Having experience with them, I've seen pretty clearly where they lead, but the text does not force the situation.  There is no rule in TROS that says you can't fight someone unless an SA applies.  There is, however, a statement that clearly says if you do, be prepared to have your character killed.

Marco, what I submit will happen if you play TROS with frequent combats in which no SAs apply or in which the SAs are just enough to make the combatants equal is that you will wind up with lots of dead PCs over the course of the campaign.  

I hestitate to make too specific predictions about what you will do about that but I suspect you will either 1) embrace the fatality rate, justifying it as being a realistic portrayal of a gritty world, or "tough breaks" to players who screw up the combat; OR 2) you will stop throwing out combats where SAs don't apply, and players will begin rabidly avoiding combats where SAs don't apply.

From choice #1 its an easy matter to drift the game to support a Gamist or Simumlationist agenda.  From choice #2 the increased reliance on SA and the players ability to choose the same will put you on the road to narrativism.

That road is an emergent one, in that the system didn't tell you what to do.  It taught you what to do by killing your characters off until you start playing the way the game was designed...or until you start drifting in some other direction.

Does that make the TROS text and incoherent one?  I've already stated numerous times that there are places where it is a bit schizophrenic.  But no, on a relative scale it is far less incoherent than most other games out there.  But, like Sorcerer, you have to actually play the game and listen to what the system is telling you to do because the rules don't explicitly lay it all out in neat black and white.

Yes, I'm a fan of laying it all out in neat black and white.  I wish both TROS and Sorcerer did a better job of that.  I'm a big fan of rules sets that come with training wheels.  But the lack of training wheels does not incoherence make.

[Marco]

That's a far cry from the arguments between V:tM players or D&D players about what "playing right" was.

--M. J. Young

MJ,

I'll take your word for it on the orders of magnitude--but where I saw those arguments they weren't backed up by textual or rules analysis save in the most basic sense. That's one reason I question the GNS analysis of the arguments: I suspect that some of the groups that played V:tM as vampire-super heroes would've played Sorceror that way too.*

But I can't help but suspect that one of us would see the other as playing wrong since there are elements of play that I think are in direct contention (the need to use strategy during many/most combats). The reason I bring it up was that when I asked why it was considered a Nar facilitating game despite the tactically complex combat system, I was given specific guidance on how it might be run to negate the need for strategy: something I don't agree is found in the rules.

Also: a key element of TRoS is that the GM decides when the SA's are in play--so while I certainly wouldn't object to my SA's always being in-force  and to overwhelming effect from a survivalist standpoint, having an effectively super-powered character wouldn't fit my image of what the game is like (I'm not saying anyone would necessiarly do that--I don't know what other people's actual play would be like). But either way, it's not something a player can necessiarly choose.

But even more importantly: you'll note the discussion above suggests that if we're playing it very differently someone is drifting it--that's as opposed to the reader making the assumption that there are simply a wide variety of ways to play.

-Marco
* I can see a case to be made where they might not "play it all" but some of the groups I saw were interested in playing dark, angsty super-heroes with little by way of moral issues and think they'd be able to make Sorceror work for that without breaking the rules.