How do we go about Drifting a game? (Split from White Wolf)

[joshua neff]

Other reward methods: when players do stuff you think is cool, you grin and rave about how cool they are; when they do stuff you don't think is cool, you frown (or make no expression at all). If they attempt something cool, you might, rather than give bonuses, lower the difficulty of the obstacle--or fudge the die roll if the player would fail. If they do something you don't like, you might make the difficulty higher, or not even call for a roll at all, telling the player, "No, you can't do that."

I'm not saying that's what you, Malcolm, do--I've never gamed with you. But those are definitely reward methods that can reinforce certain styles of gaming, and they have nothing to do with "experience points" or other quantifiable rewards.

[eyebeams]

Malcolm,

other reward systems might be bonuses to dice rolls for situations (+1 for attacking from behind!) or rewarding a player for cool description with bonuses to rolls (Exalted's stunts),  that kinda thing.

Good example from WW is morality in Darkages:Vampire. You get modifiers to your social interaction rolls based on morality level. So keeping morality is rewarded by bonuses, losing it punished with penalties. There's a reward system right there that's not related to XP.

-Matt

Ah, I see what you mean. This is the kind of stuff I prefer to reward through consensus. Something like a stunt is basically a performance to the rest of the group. Something like morality bonuses is already wierd to the system, though, so the GM's roll is really to work with the morality systems, not the outcomes therof.

[Matt Snyder]

Nothing is really "wired" to any system (by which I take to mean the rules presented in the book, in this case) until the group agrees that it's wired. The GM is often the enforcer, but the other players must agree to go along for the ride. (See also: Lumpley Principal)

Similarly, ALL events are basically a performance for the rest of the group. This is a social activity. Everything you do is on display. People don't often recognize this (and there's no great need to do so), but it's going on all the time.

So, I guess that's my round about way of suggesting the the GM's role NEED NOT be limited to the outcomes of the morality system (and I'm not at all sure what that means).

The GM is, usually, the guy/gal who approves the rewards we're talking about here. His role isn't "just" enforcing rules. He is setting up the expectation among his players that certain behaviors are "good" and certain behavoirs "not so good" or "not allowed at all." Players will tend to go for the rewards, hence steer toward the "good" behaviors. This is what the Forge calls system (and it is more specific than what most gamers generally mean when they say system).

What do you mean by "award through consensus" and how is that different from ANYTHING in role-playing (a process I often describe as a consensus building process)?

[John Kim]

The GM is, usually, the guy/gal who approves the rewards we're talking about here. His role isn't "just" enforcing rules. He is setting up the expectation among his players that certain behaviors are "good" and certain behavoirs "not so good" or "not allowed at all." Players will tend to go for the rewards, hence steer toward the "good" behaviors. This is what the Forge calls system (and it is more specific than what most gamers generally mean when they say system).

What do you mean by "award through consensus" and how is that different from ANYTHING in role-playing (a process I often describe as a consensus building process)?

Well, I'm not Malcolm -- but I see a difference between GM-approved rewards and group-consensus awards.  You and Joshua have been emphasizing the GM as controller of rewards: whether those are social praise or mechanical bonuses for situation/description.  As you say, the GM often dominates such rewards and defines what is "good" and "bad" in the game.  

However, there are many cases where the GM does not dominate in that manner.  For some groups, the expectations for the game are set more by the group as a whole.  Similarly rewards can be given by all members of the group.

Anyone can give social praise -- so that can easily be from other players rather than the GM.  Mechanical bonuses vary depending on system.  Some systems support players being able to claim mechanical bonuses for themselves (i.e. they can point to the rule which provides it).  Other systems make it explicitly the province of the GM, in which case it is a slight system change for players to claim it.

[Ben Lehman]

Ben,

Would you say that playing a Narrativist GURPS game is Drift seeing as GURPS is usually considered a Sim system?

BL> No idea.  I have only played GURPS once, didn't like it, and never looked back.  I have no clue what creative agenda it supports, and that is almost tertiary to the discussion here -- what is important is did you change anything about GURPS.  I'm just widening the "about" to a larger scope than mechanics.

I think we're agreeing here or, rather, our disagreement is terminological rather than actual.

yrs--
--Ben

[Marco]

I think we're agreeing here or, rather, our disagreement is terminological rather than actual.

yrs--
--Ben

Edited to add: Yes, I think there's a lot of agreement. But I would be warry of calling playing a game in a manner you and I agree is "somewhat odd" drift. I think there may be better terms that revolve around discussing what *we* (or someone else) precieves as the foucs of play for a given game.

The reason I brought it up was that I provided situation, character, and setting for the game.  It's commonly said to be coherent Sim so if, in doing the SCS I managed to make it Nar, would you consider that drifted?

Assuming I ignored no rules that ought to have come into play as per the mechanics (i.e. we played with all the combat rules where appropriate) would you consider it possible that I drifted it?

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

I think it's important in the context of the original post here to distinguish several sorts of drift--

[*]Intentional informed drift.[*]Intentional uninformed drift.[*]Unintentional drift.[/list:u]
Intentional informed drift is the sort that is done to make a game work to facilitate a specific agendum, by a group that sees how to get what they want from play. I don't necessarily mean that they can articulate an agendum so much as that they know that what they enjoy is, for example, creating morally meaningful stories, and that some of these rules are going to get in the way of that so we'll ditch them or replace them with other rules. When the game is designed specifically to do this, in essence suggesting that the referee or the group choose between various rules which will support different sorts of play, we frequently call it transition (from Fang Langford's Scattershot game).

Intentional uninformed drift is generally facilitated by house rules. In essence, this springs from the group's recognition that something in the game doesn't work for them, so they discard it in favor of doing it "their way". It's somewhat more haphazard, but it effectively changes the focus of play to get to something else. An example of this is probably those "experience point rewards for good roleplaying" that are so often added to D&D games, because out-of-the-box D&D provides considerably better support for killing things and taking stuff than it does for having conversations and negotiating solutions, but players want to shift the focus to these other things. (This is a particularly good example of this, since as I've noted elsewhere it changes what is rewarded but not what the reward facilitates, and so becomes a different kind of gamism in which being the best role player makes yours the buffest character.)


Unintentional drift is the general agreement of a group to play a game a particular way without recognizing that they've changed it. This I think is what Malcolm means when he speaks of World of Darkness designs facilitating drift well; players play they way they think they should, and if the group is coherent they think that's the way the game is written. This is also the sort of drift Ron references regarding Champions.

How to facilitate drift depends on what you mean by that. The first sort is best facilitated probably by including alternate rules with explanations of the impact such rules would have. The third is probably best supported by including conflicting or incoherent rules and telling players to toss out everything that doesn't work for them. I'm not sure why you'd want to facilitate the second.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

Ah, I see what you mean. This is the kind of stuff I prefer to reward through consensus. Something like a stunt is basically a performance to the rest of the group.

You would be the one who evaluates what the concensus is and what effect/reward that grants?

Something like morality bonuses is already wierd to the system, though, so the GM's roll is really to work with the morality systems, not the outcomes therof.

Similarly, XP and defeating monsters are wired together in D&D. But the DM decides whether the monster is present to begin with (so the reward may be reaped), you would have to say. Which makes the GM in control of that type of outcome/reward.

[Ben Lehman]

Assuming I ignored no rules that ought to have come into play as per the mechanics (i.e. we played with all the combat rules where appropriate) would you consider it possible that I drifted it?

BL>  Yes.  Highly.

I cannot answer with regard to Sim simply because I'm not an expert on it.  But consider, for instance, if you changed D&D so that it was always wilderness situations.  That totally changes the gamist structures of the whole thing, heavily favoring rangers, barbarians, and certain rogues.  This is as big, or bigger, a rules change than, say, making Skill Focus a +4.

This all cycles back to that I think that any piece of the SIS can be considered a part of system.  Which I understand there is some disagreement on.

yrs--
--Ben

[eyebeams]

1) No, except as much that I make a suggestion after seeing the impact of the performance and that my players regularly tell me they want a reward added. I do voice what I think the consensus is, but if I'm wrong, I'll find out right away.

2) Maybe, maybe not. I provide opportunity, but they choose outcomes. If the playerwants an inescapable moral paradox or a powerup, they can take it. If they don't, they won't. Part of this is fulfilled by having a looser control on the game setting.

[Marco]

But consider, for instance, if you changed D&D so that it was always wilderness situations.  That totally changes the gamist structures of the whole thing, heavily favoring rangers, barbarians, and certain rogues.  This is as big, or bigger, a rules change than, say, making Skill Focus a +4.

This all cycles back to that I think that any piece of the SIS can be considered a part of system.  Which I understand there is some disagreement on.

yrs--
--Ben

I understand what you are saying--I don't consider that Drift. I believe there might be some other terminology that might apply--but I think lumping that in with a change in mechanics is a mistake.

What if the PC's all make rangers and just refuse to go in the dungeon? Then the players are drifting a game? I suppose you'd say so--but I see it as significantly different than changing a mechanic (especially in the way that people usually mean it--i.e. squinting at play and seeing that someone didn't use rule X or rule Y which in some way interferred with their CA).

-Marco

[Callan S.]

1) No, except as much that I make a suggestion after seeing the impact of the performance and that my players regularly tell me they want a reward added. I do voice what I think the consensus is, but if I'm wrong, I'll find out right away.

Why (and how) do they tell you they want a reward?

Also, I should have said it before, but would this be for all types of conflict. Eg, persuading a persuadable owner of a company that what his company is doing wrong and he should stop it. Does group concensus apply here?

And you didn't confirm it's you who determines how much of a reward is given (for example, how much of a bonus).

2) Maybe, maybe not. I provide opportunity, but they choose outcomes. If the playerwants an inescapable moral paradox or a powerup, they can take it. If they don't, they won't. Part of this is fulfilled by having a looser control on the game setting.

'Which makes the GM in control of that type of outcome/reward?'
It's clear your not in control of the players choice. Are you in control of the reward?

[Matt Snyder]

Anyone can give social praise -- so that can easily be from other players rather than the GM.  Mechanical bonuses vary depending on system.  Some systems support players being able to claim mechanical bonuses for themselves (i.e. they can point to the rule which provides it).  Other systems make it explicitly the province of the GM, in which case it is a slight system change for players to claim it.

Right, John, you're getting 100% agreement from me. Not sure if you're implying I meant otherwise, but to clarify I did not mean otherwise. This is Lumpley Principal, pure and simple. I've made several points supporting and cherishing the concept, pretty much exactly as you've explained it in this quoted section.

Perhaps your point was whether or not the "system" requires mechanical bonuses from players or GMs. I say such systems exist only as much as  players agree to go along for that ride. Like this:

GM: You can't just give yourself a bonus, it's not in the book.

Player: Yeah, well we all think that rule stinks, so let's do it this way instead.

GM: Ok

-or-

GM: No way. My way or the highway.

Player: Oh, ok, have it your way.

-or-

Player: See ya, sucker!

That's system in action -- the process by which players agree with one another what the heck happens in the game, and HOW it happens (who gets to say what, and when they get to say it).

My quesiton to Malcolm was earnest. I just plain don't know what he meant by the phrase "award through consensus." It was, for me, too vague (hence all the lumpley principal discussion we've had), and I couldn't figure out what it rewarded, whom it rewarded, how it rewarded and how ulitmately it affected actual player behavior in the game.

[eyebeams]

How does it "affect player behaviour?" It doesn't in the sense of being coercive. I've already coerced a bunch of grown men and women to pretend they're elves or posthuman mercenaries or whatnot, and to accept my role as the guy who populates the universe extenal to the characters and to facilitate what they want to do in it.

I'll give you an example from a recent session:

Player: So, Titus is balancing on the top of the hovercraft? I launch the thing through the window and yell at Titus: "Go!"

All: Woo! Argh! Oh no! Yeep! Woah!

Me: So, what's that then -- a +2 bonus?

All: Yeah!

Me: Right-o, then.

My suggestion comes from player input. It does not coerce player behaviour. I may give a little speech about my hopes for the game, but we'll then chat about all of our respective hopes and I'll assign ways that they can be fulfilled in an *individual* and collective fashion.

Theoretically, they could do this all wiuthout me (and often do, in fact), but it's often more effecient for me to make a suggestion based on how they're feeling.

Talking about permanent awards, as I've said, I don't play favourites. Things like XP get handed out equally to all. They do *not* react the player performance. If somebody thinks they sucked, they can always bank what they've got or ignore it.

[eyebeams]

Why (and how) do they tell you they want a reward?

Them: "We want a reward."

or Me: "It sounds like you want a reward."

Also, I should have said it before, but would this be for all types of conflict. Eg, persuading a persuadable owner of a company that what his company is doing wrong and he should stop it. Does group concensus apply here?

Sure, unless other folks would rather handle it some other way, or there are a few different ways they want to handle it. For the most part, I can support different apppraoches even in the same scene, so long as the narrative is mostly the same from player to player. One person can want a straight social role and the other one can want the gab. Consensus is going to favour the most performative approach, but sometimes, it just isn;t worh comment either way.

And you didn't confirm it's you who determines how much of a reward is given (for example, how much of a bonus).

I'll make a suggestion. They'll either say yes, say no, or offer an alternative. What they want is what they get. The pleasure I get from GMing is in trying to guess what they want and surprising them with it. That element is different from Donjon, though there are similar things (a player may make something up on the fly, and it may be liked or disliked by all or some, which determines its ultimate significance).