Identity Crisis

[Paganini]

Ron mentioned elsewhere that The Window has a GNS identity crisis. As The Window was my first introduction to story centric gaming, it's still one of my "fan" systems, even though I don't use it, because I don't like the underlying math in the resolution system. Anyway, I'd like to see some more info on why there's an identity crisis between the precepts and the resolution in the mechanic. And, why not take it all the way, and turn it into a general discussion of such things? What other games are there that have identity crisies [sp?] and why?

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

There's a great example in the GNS essay about Vampire.

Vampire had chapters and chapters on theme, mood, and story. It was the first game that pointed out to me how important these elements could be. That's why I thought it was a mature game, heh. It had advice on working with your GM, developing a theme for the game, the whole kit and caboodle.

Vampire has absolutely no rules for developing a story. Characters have no say over the plot. There are no 'plot points' to spend. or rolls to influence where the story will go. With just a few tweaks, combat works just as it does in most other games, with no 'respect' paid to the characters being the protagonists in their story.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I might as well be first in on this topic. I used The Window as an example in a previous thread because I think it exemplifies a major point of my essay, or even more than one.

The game is extremely up-front about the priorities of its design: story creation, in-game, no exceptions or other priorities at all. It even provides Three Precepts which are supposed to be treated as the arbiters of any decisions during play, by everyone involved, GM and players alike. As I stated in my review of the game, it's pretty Narrativist so far. I don't consider this text to be window dressing (heh) because of the explicit "power" or authority given to the Precepts by the text. They are, bluntly, overt rules.

Now for the mechanics. They present several features of interest.

1) Low handling time: usually use Drama, but once in a while, grab a single die and roll; 6 or lower succeeds. Abilities are simply rated by die type (ie d4 = utter master, d30 = goof). Lininger, the author, apparently considers this Drama-heavy design to be most appropriate for story-creation, which as I've said is a common assumption.

2) There are no intent-initiation-execution-completion rules at all. As I stated in a very important thread, the effect of this situation is to permit the GM amazing power over what actually happens during play, as he or she now controls the timing and order of characters' actions while ostensibly controlling only "the world."

3) At a closer look, all instances of whether to use Drama or to roll are under the GM's control. All instances of deciding whether someone's decision/action is indeed in accord with the Precepts are adjudged by the GM.

4) In fact, all instances of whether one's die type gets to be modified (for advantage or disadvantage) are up to the GM. There is no metagame that permits a player do the latter, for instance, say, "I spend a story point to reduce my die size."

The control of target number is adjustable as well. The usual target number is 6, but the GM may lower this at will. This produces two dials to spin, die type and target number; and remember that the context (even the existence) of the Fortune mechanic's use is up to the GM as well.

SIMULATIONISM
The essence of game design which facilitates Simulationist play is that in-game causality is king. It doesn't matter what methods are used to do this: Drama, Fortune, whatever; dice, cards, whatever. Whatever Explored-elements happen to be a big deal at a given moment of play, the next given moment of play about those Elements must arise from the previous events in a causal, non-metagame fashion. Commitment to the Exploration is paramount.

Please note that this may be done in-character or out-of-character, and that emphasis on Exploring System leads to such game mechanics as found in BRP or GURPS, whereas emphasis on Exploring Character leads to much different mechanics (e.g. those of many LARPS).

CONCLUSION
What it all comes down to is that The Window is a vehicle for players' Exploration of whatever elements the GM cares to provide. The Precepts assure/encourage that the result be a story, but the mechanics ensure that said story is going to be the GM's creation at all moments of play.

The Window thus promotes either (1) a pre-planned GM story, for the players to play in (Exploration of Situation); or (2) a post-hoc-assembled GM story, for the players to provide material for (Exploration of Character or Setting, mainly). It diminishes Exploration of System, but remains wholly Simulationist.

Thus the Three Precepts are not empowering methods for the act of a player's role-playing, they are warnings of what the players better be ready to abide by, when the GM makes his or her call regarding any event during play.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

1) Low handling time: usually use Drama, but once in a while, grab a single die and roll; 6 or lower succeeds. Abilities are simply rated by die type (ie d4 = utter master, d30 = goof). Lininger, the author, apparently considers this Drama-heavy design to be most appropriate for story-creation, which as I've said is a common assumption.

I don't remember a definition of Drama in your essay (I probably just missed it), but it sounds as though you're using it in a very specific way, since certain mechanics can encourage it. Could you reiterate your definition for me?

[Marco]

The Window does not have an identity crisis. It isn't Incoherent (despite a post to the contrary).

The Window is a Simulationist Story-Oriented system. It is one of the purest systems imaginable designed to give story-delivery capability to the game-master (or story-teller in terms The Window uses). From a mechanic that's almost Drama based (that, simplified, means the system (GM) decides what happens based on what's most dramatic outcome) to a complete lack of other rules to "get in the way" of the story teller directing a plot-line (there will be no rules-lawyers in The Window) it is a dedicated story-telling machine.

In another thread Ron said that he agrees that there are different types of story oriented play and that (I think he agrees) one is not more or less sophisticated  or better than the others.

That would be:

1. Narrativist: there is no primary (single) "story teller"--the players exercise directoral control.

2. Simulationist: there is a primary story-teller: the GM. The players exercise comparatively little directoral control.

3. Gamist: ?

Now:

The Window is clearly story-oriented.

The Window is clearly simulationist.

Why suppose there's an identiy crisis (or that The Window is one of those "horribly disfunctional" games mentioned in Ron's Essay that claim to be Narrativist but aren't).

CONCLUSIONS
If one did think that The Window was doing something wrong that would have to be "generating a story." That's all it does. It's pretty clear on that account. The Window, in it's online write-up (is there any other?) , _nowhere_ uses the magic words "story creation." It doesn't use or acknowledge GNS terminology. It doesn't discuss the "creation of a story by the players." It doesn't do any of the things that might get it branded Narrativist. It doesn't ask you to believe anything before breakfast other than that one can have a good time playing with the GM as the story creator.

From the above posts it appears that being story-oriented was all it took to get the game held up to the Narrativist standard--and if it fails to provide player authorial power rules--be found wanting.

The then seems that the Narrativist analist considered Narrative play to be the only valid story-oriented play ... and I was just told that wasn't true by Ron.

So there is no crisis.

-Marco

[ Note: What's really going on here is that the creator of The Window doesn't share the Narrativist concerns about the necessity of player-authorial power. He's perfectly happy to give all the power to the GM and play in a story-oriented fashion.

Also Note: The Window is a TERRIBLE simulation of ... just about anything. It doesn't simulate. And yet, it's gotta be simulationist because it doesn't include the all-important Narrativist mechanics. That suggests to me that either the term Simulationist isn't very accurate or Narrativist should be expanded. ]

Edited to modify conclusion ...

[Paganini]

Also Note: The Window is a TERRIBLE simulation of ... just about anything. It doesn't simulate. And yet, it's gotta be simulationist because it doesn't include the all-important Narrativist mechanics. That suggests to me that either the term Simulationist isn't very accurate or Narrativist should be expanded. ]

I think you're right. I vote for expanding the definition. That way I'd get to be a narrativist instead of a story explorer. Whee! :)

[Marco]

Also Note: The Window is a TERRIBLE simulation of ... just about anything. It doesn't simulate. And yet, it's gotta be simulationist because it doesn't include the all-important Narrativist mechanics. That suggests to me that either the term Simulationist isn't very accurate or Narrativist should be expanded. ]

I think you're right. I vote for expanding the definition. That way I'd get to be a narrativist instead of a story explorer. Whee! :)

I should change that post--but since you've quoted it ... I'll leave it. I'd like to change my statement to something like this:

This suggests to me that the term Simulationist comprises two different principles:

1. The game system as a simulation (of reality, a genre, or whatever) in terms of exploration. --and--

2. The game system as a GM-story delivery method.

These aren't the same thing and are probably at odds (The Window vs. GURPS). They have to be in the same group because system _intent_ isn't taken into account (i.e. saying you're story-oriented won't get you into the Narrative category--you have to have player-directoral-stance mechanics to do that) so the terminology is misleading.

Opening up Narrativism to _intent_ wouldn't make anyone happy.

So I think so long as GNS is preserved as a combination of what people want out of gaming and game design theory (which could be two entirely different models--see GDS) some poor fits (The Window) will have to be made to fit a three-bin system.

-Marco

[contracycle]

I largely agree that the window is built for Sim/Story; the only reason I don't use it is I can't be bothered with all the piddly dice.

I think its very much the kind of thing I'm after, though.  I fully agree that Narrativism is different from the way a Sim GM goes about "making a story", not least because it is the GM thats doing it.  But I think thats a feature rather than a bug.

I think the major difference in this regard is that narrativist players are consciously acting with story intent, IC and OOC, whereas as Sim players, are not, and may well find the attempt to do so jarring.  Its more than just a distinction of goals, it is a distinction of behaviour.  In this regard, I think it is quite possible, in games where the dividing line between GM and player is strong and explicit, for the GM and the players to have differentiated goals - i.e. the GM considers part of their function to be story-creation, whereas the players do not.  I think this permits the GM to apply conscious direction in a similar way to that of narrativist players; to "sculpt" events so that they fulfill the emotional requirements of story creation.  This is not narrativism, becuase the players are not dirceting; but I think that describing such systems as Dramatic rather than narrativist sounds good to me.

[AndyGuest]

Also Note: The Window is a TERRIBLE simulation of ... just about anything. It doesn't simulate. And yet, it's gotta be simulationist because it doesn't include the all-important Narrativist mechanics.

Curious, one one hand this makes perfect sense to me, narrativist games are games with narrativist rules.

One the other hand this implies that a game is narrativist if it has narrativist rules, rather than anything to do with the importance of story. Surely narrativist rules (story points, players as authors) can be used to make the game more interesting, without any need for the driving power of story. For example, if I as a player use a plot point to change a scene to add a wandering monster or a vehicle breakdown and if I do this specifically to see what happens in such a situation where does this fit in to GNS ?

Instinct tells me I'm using a narrativist system to engage in simulationist play ;-). So is the definition of a narrativist game one that has narrativist rules or one with a story focus or are both required ?

Andy..

[AndyGuest]

Just been thinking about the above report and I think I'm just stating the obvious aren't I ? Namely that narrativist play and narrativist rules are different things - one doesn't require or enforce the other.

Hmm, another thought - do narrativist rules restrict and control a group of people who are creating a story and provide the 'game' aspect of a narrativist game ? After all a group can write a story without any rules can't they ?

Andy..

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Andy,

I think the key to your musing is that GNS terminology only applies, ever, to actual play. The description of a game design (or a human being, for that matter) as any one or combination of GNS is always shorthand.

Thus, "Hero Wars is a Narrativist game" is not literally correct; it is shorthand for, "Hero Wars' design facilitates Narrativist play."

I think that ought to help, if I'm reading your posts correctly.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Marco et al.,

We have a problem in this thread, to some extent. That problem is the idea that I have called The Window "horribly dysfunctional," which I haven't.

The Window's system fits the Simulationist model very well, with its primary Exploratory focus being on Situation (ie the GM's preferred outcomes).

However, its text urges an aesthetic for creating story upon the players yet provides no system for them to implement that text; they are "privileged" only to obey.

Thus I think that if one reads that text as primary for all people involved, as the game's text explicitly states, you get "abashed Narrativism." If that text is read instead as "GM's prevailing aesthetic," which is what occurs in practice, you find that the Simulationist play I've described above is the most likely outcome.

None of this is "horribly dysfunctional." It does correspond to a degree of incoherence in GNS terms, and I have found that people's reaction to The Window, both in my play and by account, indicates a degree of dissatisfaction.

Thus I cannot see any way in which The Window "falsifies" GNS analysis at all. The whole point of the essay is that most RPGs are designed and presented without coherent reference to goals, and that they often become internally contradictory when "story" is included in the mix. The Window is one of these, but to a degree that I think is relatively mild.

Finally, we are straying from the point: Paganini wanted to know why I consider The Window to suffer from internal contradictions in regard to actual play. I'd like to know whether I've presented my case in this regard to his satisfaction.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

..

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Logan's nailed it.

I'll toss in a little footnote or coda

1) By "player," I (as paraphrased by Logan) am speaking of any human involved in role-playing, whether GM or player in the usual use of those terms.

2) I think Dramatism is accounted for in my essay, as an imprecise "umbrella" term describing several distinct sorts of play. The most common seems to be the category I've described for The Window in action: Simulationism with Exploration of Situation, with two sub-categories (GM preps story prior to play [Illusionism]; GM assembles story afterwards). Another seems to be "Consensual story-telling which works insofar as we always agree."

3) I also think the term also suffers from confounding system with goal, in that self-described Dramatists mistake the use of Drama mechanics for (in my terms) Narrativist goals. In other words, I think the term is not useful because it cannot reliably describe system, goal, or actual play.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

..