Rifts is a narrativist game?

[Callan S.]

Rifts is a narrativist game?

From a recent thread, I've come to some disturbing conclusions about the game Rifts and other games like it, (the whole line of thought originally stemming from an older thread Early roleplaying and the interpretation of scripture). That conclusion is that ambiguity within its rules enables narrativism more than it helps with gamism (or sim).

To quote the thread that inspired this revelation:

Now I've seen people having these arguments... but the meat of the argument is always out-of-character. Like, they'll argue about whether their paladin gets protection against this or that, but what they're really arguing is whether the GM is letting them play the heroic character they were hoping to. But I've rarely seen the arguments stay healthy and entirely in-character, with people aware on all sides of what is happening.

I looked at this and thought 'Indeed! So what if we do don't go to the meta game level?'. I suddenly saw a narrativist statement: "Okay, this is a bad situation. My character is a hero! There, I've stated it! Therefore give me X effect!"

It's not exactly sexy address of premise, or all that amazing or difficult to express like you'd find in some narrrativist games around the forge.

But the fact is, it works along the same lines as spiritual attributes from Riddle of Steel: "My character has pursued his SA (or at least tried to) in this bad situation. There, I've stated something about him! Give me another die!"

Basically Rifts is soaked with powers and skills which have ill defined effects. Largely, if as a player you state that a power/skill does something, your saying something about your character (and his focus) rather than merely repeating anything written in the book.

I think this old rifts actual play account "A beautiful moment on Rifts earth" is one actual play example listed here on the forge.

Our Dog-Boy (Dog-Woman?) Corporal Risha wanted to go see her mother, found mom wasn't home, went to the local Dog-Boy bar, The Fire Hydrant, and proceeded to grill the bouncer, Frank, for information concerning an Underground Railroad for the liberation of Coalition Dog-soldiers. Then she went back home and hung out with her own of her many younger siblings, Marisa.

Our politician's-son turned Wilderness Scout, Devin, went home and likewise grilled the Chief of Security and the family's stablehand (ex-Cavalry) on the existence of an Underground Railroad for ANY detractors from the Coalition.

My character, a flirtatious Southern Belle Ley Line Walker named Beth Fishi (generally called Fishy by the rest of the unit) went off to see her wizard buddies (Tibbles, Joey, and Mari) for some drinking and spell-swapping at the local mage nightclub, The Ivory Tower.

In the middle of all this, it hit me.

We were building the setting ourselves, with little input from the GM.

The Fire Hydrant... Frank the bouncer... the Chief of Security... Risha's siblings... Tibbles, Joey, and Mari... The Ivory Tower... all made up by the players on the spot to add detail and personality to the world we play in. The GM just rolled with it, adding these places and people into the game as quickly as we uttered the words.

Never mind the director stance use. Look at what they are doing once they have framed the scene. Characters are going to 'grill' NPC's. They aren't going to pussy foot around, because that's not the sort of characters they are. Latter in the post she notes only two rolls were made during the whole session (and one just for some rough odds of an event). The point of the scenes weren't to resolve the grilling, it was to resolving that these PC's are the tough guys that will grill your ass (or drink and swap spells, even). Certainly the results of the grilling weren't important enough to note in the actual play account.

In it I probed the poster as to why a lack of rules were considered a good thing. Looking at it now I see that it was if the rules defined how good they were, it would mean the player could not state that for his character. And they would never have said something about their character.


The thing is (and why it was worded so carefully before), this is a suggestion that Rifts supports nar more than gamism* or sim. But it doesn't support narrativism in it's entirety (otherwise it would have been more clearly nar to begin with). It needs add ons from the end user to facilitate this. Something which I suspect the author (Kevin S.) would add so reflexively to play that he wouldn't even notice himself doing it, so as to ever write it down for others (except for some small things like the XP award for potentially sacrificing oneself to save another, being triple the amount for killing the most bad ass of monsters).

So something needs to be added on at the play end, particularly to avoid sneaking up on mode (even if it is as suggested, the mode the game should be played in).

Well, that's provocative stuff by itself, but I also want a practical look at enabling narrativism in Rifts.

* = I'll quote Clinton from an old post of his: "Rifts would be held up as an example of hardcore Gamism, yet I would now purport that it is an example of a Gamist RPG done wrong, wrong, wrong. ". I'll also state that almost all the nar games on the forge mechanically work out in what looks like a very gamist method (capes story point economy, the resource management of humanity in sorcerer). But if you remove the nar from them, they just don't fore fill gamism by themselves. Same with Rifts, it looks gamist but just goes wrong.

~~~ Enabling
So the enabling and reward of narrativism in Rifts comes from vaguely defined powers and skills. This is where

One problem is with how radically the powers can be translated. For example, telekinesis could be interpreted as being able to shake the aim of an enemies gun, making it inaccurate. Or able to pull the clip from that gun/pull the entire gun away. Or grab the guy, turn him around and spin him in midair so he's entirely incapacitated while you shoot him. The latter ones are particularly beefy when they are interpreted not to involve any saving throw.

The issue is that some players might see any of these as just a standard exercise of the power, while others may see it as an extraordinary use.

The first part of the problem is to get past the "That's not right for this game world!" response. In the narrativist context it is right, since it is inherently part of the characters address of premise. The player is defining how the game world works, by his address (though one can assume others of his profession really aren't as dedicated as he is, if the power is so world shaking that if hundreds of guys had it there wouldn't be much world left).

The second is that the player himself may think it's a normal exercise of the power. If other players eyes are bugging out, they need to recognise their making more of a statement to others than they realise, and need to decide whether they want to make that big a statement about the character. It's fine if they want to adjust their address to that. But for the address to be recognised by the group, the addressing player himself must recognise and support just what he's saying to other players when he makes that address.

I'm not sure how to put that second thing into laymans terms. Any ideas?

[Bankuei]

Hi Callan,

I'm totally not seeing the Nar angle.  Is it possible to throw in some great places for addressing premise in the setting of Rifts?  Sure.  Same thing with Storyteller games, L5R, and a ton of others.  The setting has lots of places for it to happen.

System-wise?  No support, and often stuff against such support.  The general Palladium system gives no incentive to ever focus resolution on anything relating to Addressing Premise, values issues never affect resolution, and there's no reward for doing so.  More importantly, the GM advice that is included usually falls into the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast category...

Remember- Nar requires:
1) Meaningful player input
2) Focus on Premise and addressing it (check how #1 is necessary for #2)

Rifts gives neither.  The setting has some neat themes, such as the classic issue of survival against evil outside forces, and what people are willing to do in terms of sacrifice and screwing each other over, racism, self destruction(Juicers), etc.  But nothing actually promotes making real statements on any of them in any way.

The argument that your character is a hero can be made from any of the Creative Agenda standpoints-

Gamist: "But my guy is a hero(he should be more powerful, you are circumnavigating the rules and reason I choose these powers)"
Simulationist:  "But my guy is a hero(you are violating the canon of the setting by reducing my guy's abilities)"
Narrativist:  "But my guy is a hero (you're blocking my input into Premise)"

The reason that Gamist and Narrativist play often seems similar in techniques is that resolution and reward are founded in metagame concepts- they are not based on emulation of canon, genre, or "realism".  Both also rely on resolution & reward as the way of encouraging and enforcing their style of play beyond simply canon/genre issues.

If anything, Rifts is a clunky, poorly high powered combat system + some skills ala D&D.  Unlike D&D, it never has cried about trying to "balance" things.

Chris

[Callan S.]

There is system support, but it's hard to see it by the fact its provided by an absence in the system. When a power isn't properly defined, it leaves a black hole in the system which the end user can fill with anything they care to really.

Take spiritual attributes in TROS, which I think it's agreed, support nar in an otherwise very gamist system. SA's give you dice, which helps you overcome challenges. Now, how do you think the player is going to interpret these black holes they are given in the Rifts system? In a beneficial manner of course. Just as beneficially as SA dice are beneficial. Now can they be associated with a narrativist reward?

Well, yes. These holes prompt me to say things like 'My character is so dedicated to being a mind melter, my telekinesis power should do X'. I mean, how else am I going to justify such a statement except in the context of my character? Whether he's a hero or a mind melter or whatever, I need to assert how he's dedicated his life to this stuff...I need to say something about him to get this across.

In terms of meaningful input, the player is defining how the power works for his character, as a direct representation of his characters dedication to his lifestyle.

The argument that your character is a hero can be made from any of the Creative Agenda standpoints-

Gamist: "But my guy is a hero(he should be more powerful, you are circumnavigating the rules and reason I choose these powers)"
Simulationist: "But my guy is a hero(you are violating the canon of the setting by reducing my guy's abilities)"
Narrativist: "But my guy is a hero (you're blocking my input into Premise)"

If someone said this about spiritual attributes, what would you say to them about that? If they said that SA's really don't provoke any particular CA? Remember how many character classes there are in Rifts (for no apparent reason)? Each is essentially a single SA.

The poorly defined powers are the key to this. They force you to read an interpretation into them. I know plenty of people say 'Awww, all these powers are extremly clear cut' but that's a load of crud. These provoke you to read into the power what it does, because it is not there to just be read. If you want to play, you have to fill out these powers like you have to fill out SA's in TROS.

Narrativism includes the theme "What does my character deserve for having lived as they have?", to quote how Tony aptly phrased it. How my powers work will answer that question. And when I as a player am forced to insert my own reading into just how those powers work...who's answering this question? Who's addressing premise (by the round about method of addressing what the power does)?

The reason that Gamist and Narrativist play often seems similar in techniques is that resolution and reward are founded in metagame concepts- they are not based on emulation of canon, genre, or "realism". Both also rely on resolution & reward as the way of encouraging and enforcing their style of play beyond simply canon/genre issues.

Isn't that something we should both be keeping in mind, since it works both ways? Apparent gamism is actually narrativism?

[greyorm]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees, Callan.

When a power isn't properly defined, it leaves a black hole in the system which the end user can fill with anything they care to really.

This is the main confusion/argument I'm seeing, that "filling in the details" is somehow Narrativism. But where is the Premise being addressed by such an action (keeping in mind that a Premise is a (moral) question the player has (not the character))?

interpret these black holes they are given in the Rifts system? In a beneficial manner of course. Just as beneficially as SA dice are beneficial. Now can they be associated with a narrativist reward?

It is not "can they", it is "ARE they"? SAs in TROS are about more than getting dice, because of the rest of the system. On their own, they are just a mechanic and can be used to support pretty much any agenda. There's a specific reason they end up being Narrativist supporting in TROS play.

whatever, I need to assert how he's dedicated his life to this stuff...I need to say something about him to get this across.

Again, where is the addressment of Premise? How does being a powerful mind-melter say something about a moral issue? How does the system support answering a moral question?

TROS works because the moral question is right up there in the main text: "Am I willing to risk death for what I want?" and then tidied up with some SAs. That's not to be found in Rifts, and that's not to be found in what a person has dedicated their life to. The system used in Rifts does not support a Narrativist agenda because "black hole" powers are not by themselves supportive of a Narrativist agenda.

In terms of meaningful input, the player is defining how the power works for his character, as a direct representation of his characters dedication to his lifestyle.

That's not Narrativism. In fact, I could easily argue that is Sim, because it is Character Exploration in that instance.

you to read into the power what it does, because it is not there to just be read. If you want to play, you have to fill out these powers like you have to fill out SA's in TROS.

Filling out one's powers, reading into one's powers, defining one's powers, and most obviously, defining one's character: these are not Narrativism.

Again, where's the Premise? What's the Premise? How is filling out a power or defining a character answering a moral question through play? (It isn't.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

This conversation is suffering very greatly from the usual problem in this forum: all "could be" and "would be" and no actual play.

Callan, I think you're making a good case for having played Rifts in a Narrativist fashion, and unlike Raven, I can see how "justifying my character's lifestyle" can be a good question underlying play. However, whether I can see it as a possibility is totally uninteresting, from a discourse point of view.

We can't be talking about whether Rifts itself, as a game design, "supports" this. We have to be talking about whether you played Rifts this way.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Hi Callan,

I am not arguing that it is impossible to play Rifts Narrativist.  Like I said, it has lots of stuff (in Setting) that a Narrativist can have a field day with.  

Poorly defined mechanics do not equal support.   I've just shown you three examples of potential arguments a player can make from 3 different CA views- and that those arguments are properties of the player, NOT the book as written.  Having to argue, renegotiate Social Contract is definitely not support by system.  

What you are missing in your comparison to Spiritual Attributes is that they ARE a well defined mechanic, and that is why they support the CA that they do.  Anything which increases the probability of certain outcomes in Resolution based on a certain CA's requirements, and/or rewards the group so that it can happen more often, support that CA.

So if we're looking at comparative mechanics, we could say D&D's Kewl Powers to Kill Stuff = XP = More Kewl Powers cycle is the same as TROS's SAs.  Because they use the same technique to achieve different things doesn't make them equivalent.   One can use a fire to cook food, or to burn down a house.  That doesn't make cooking and arson the same thing(and woe to those who cross that line, intentional or not).

Can you show me an example of where the mechanics supports player input and/or addressing of premise by the group?  And that overrides and countermands the Illusionist GM's advice as well as the Reward system?

Chris

[John Kim]

First, as a disclaimer, I own Rifts and have skimmed it, but I haven't played it.  So I can't directly say what agenda(s) it does or doesn't support.  

Poorly defined mechanics do not equal support.   I've just shown you three examples of potential arguments a player can make from 3 different CA views- and that those arguments are properties of the player, NOT the book as written.  Having to argue, renegotiate Social Contract is definitely not support by system.

Well, leaving things undefined is a choice of system which may support a given agenda.  For example, does Dogs in the Vineyard support defining Stakes?  I would say yes, but it is also something left undefined in the system.  It's up to the players to argue and negotiate for themselves to determine what the stakes are and indeed how to decide on the Stakes.  I would argue that is an essential element of the Dogs system.  By leaving it open, it is telling players to set the Stakes as things which are important to them.  My point is just that I don't think we can reject Noon's suggestion simply on the basis that leaving things up to the group means lack of support.  

Also, lack of overt named morality mechanics (i.e. Humanity, Self-Loathing, etc.) isn't inherently anti-Narrativist.  For example, The Pool is widely considered Narrativist.  

Can you show me an example of where the mechanics supports player input and/or addressing of premise by the group?  And that overrides and countermands the Illusionist GM's advice as well as the Reward system?

Here I agree.  To suggest that it is Narrativist, we need examples of how the System (which is more than just isolated mechanics) supports Narrativist play.

[Bankuei]

Hi John,

I'm not arguing that morality mechanics are at all necessary to produce Nar support.  For example, Universalis & HQ both swing from Nar to Sim easily depending on the group and how they choose to use it, and neither make Addressing Premise a requirement.

What I am saying, is that this is an argument similar to "You can do anything with D&D(given enough drift), therefore D&D(as written) does everything well".  Undefined powers do not equal player input, impetus to address premise, or reward for addressing premise.

Chris

[Callan S.]

We can't be talking about whether Rifts itself, as a game design, "supports" this. We have to be talking about whether you played Rifts this way.

Good call, of course.

The best one I can describe is how the current two players I have play a cyber doc and an operator. Neither is described as a warrior type. So they both say they need a warrior type to round out the party.

The thing is, I know for a fact statistically they would be identical to a similar human fighting class. They can just chuck on some power armour or such and perform the same function. This isn't D&D 3E, with each class being very neatly niched. One of the players GM's rifts a lot and should be able to see this, and certainly the other player is skeptical enough to work such things out. There's really no point in saying they need a warrior.

Except there is, as someone who plays a fighter can fill in the ambiguities of their powers in ways that would befit the life a fighter has dedicated himself to. Thus he would be more powerful than they and would forfil that role.

Other than that, I can't think of anymore right now. I've mostly GM'ed Rifts in a gamist way...it's clunked along. I'm not convinced the way I tried to make it work, is the way the system supports. For example, I can chase up three TROS reviews where the reviewers ditched or mangled SA's, then said TROS is crap. They tried to make it work another way and the results were ugly.

When GM'ing Rifts, I've been the decider of how the power works...obviously mangling any narrativist power the ambiguous rules would have had. Now I'm hypothesizing that if I left that decision entirely to the player (and it was made implicit what their decision means), the game would run along a hell of a lot smoother than it would as gamism or sim. I'd swear I was seeing system mattering, in how I'm hypothesizing it. Of course I want to test this, that's why I included the notes on enabling in case I can get some help with how to say this without jargon.

[Callan S.]

Chris,

I'm not sure what difference your seeing in poorly defined rules verses well defined rules. The effect of a poorly defined rule is that it gives a well defined area of ambiguity.

Nar games involve the player injecting their own values into the system. You don't see the system defining exactly what a PC will do when faced with his woman and her secret lover. This is well defined as an area of ambiguity, because it's up to the player to inject his own values into that area. There isn't some D&D-esque alignment system telling you what to do here...that would defeat the purpose of the design. Edit: Ooops, John already said this.

What I am saying, is that this is an argument similar to "You can do anything with D&D(given enough drift), therefore D&D(as written) does everything well".

Umm, that's reading a bit of a fanboy rant into this. I'm suggesting that to play rifts in a gamist way requires lots and lots of sweat and toil on everyones behalf (to be clear, it DOESN'T do gamism well), while I hypothesize playing in a narrativist way will be considerably smoother. Path of least resistance = the CA the game supports the most.

Can you show me an example of where the mechanics supports player input and/or addressing of premise by the group? And that overrides and countermands the Illusionist GM's advice as well as the Reward system?

I can only note that the player can easily say what they think their power does, and indeed has to as he can't just paraphrase the book. Being forced to say what you think it does, is support. Whether the GM and others take this in or not, isn't really up to the system. I could subvert SA's in TROS as a GM "Oh, no, you didn't really try to save her!". But that would just be using force techniques to ignore the input the player was forced (by the system) to insert into the system.

The actual advice in the books is that the GM gets the last word on these things...but that's about as realistic as practising the impossible thing before breakfast. If the GM doesn't get automatically get cred from everyone else for 'the' last word, he aint got that power. Though I admit many groups do give the GM absolute cred (I'm sure there are quite a few sim/illusionist games of TROS running around the world. I think I played in one once myself). Usually though, the GM merely acts as a backstop to the groups judgement on the players address.

If that sets up play to be neutral to any agenda, what happens when players start describing how their powers work, in relation to how their character devoted their life to making it work this way? When the blank areas force the player to answer "What does my character deserve for having lived as they have?".

As I've said, I've run Rifts as gamist...and felt like I was going against the grain for a long time in doing that (because it's just a ton more work, compared to playing gamist D&D). I've always thought there was something else beyond that against the grain play, like a vein of gold a miner might search for for years. I think it's pretty common play rifts in a gamist way, but it doesn't mean everyones using the game in a way which has the least resistance.

Anyway, actual play to test if there is a lower level of resistance in play, and reporting what happens, is the next step. Can you help with the enabling questions?

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

I don't know where I have said, insinuated, or given off the impression that I am arguing that the system has to define every decision or ramrod value judgements down the players' throats.  Please stop aiming at the straw man, he never hurt nobody.

Can a solid Nar supporting mechanic leave room for decision, input or creativity?  I'd say it's a requirement of player input(check my previous posts).  "Create 3 NPCs to whom your character has a strong tie.  Get extra 50 happy points when you act towards that tie" doesn't define who those NPCs are, or what the nature of the relationship is- BUT it DOES tell you what to do, and also defines in what regards you do get choice.  That's well defined.

If we take a hypothetical, but very close to Rifts like rule, "This power lets a character set fire to things", then we have the issues of range, time to do so, what things can be set on fire, how fast they burn, etc, etc.   That's poorly defined.  And what that means, as Callan points out- is that it is up to the group to have to fall back to Social Contract to figure out what its going to mean.  That does not support any CA at all.

Now, add in that resolution has nothing to deal with addressing premise, nor does reward, and you have something that simply does not support Narrativism.  Period.  It took me awhile to follow Ron when he pointed out that octaNe wasn't Nar facilitating either(though its easier to drift than many other games).

So, Callan, feel free to show me, either from the Rifts text, or from an example of play (and the interpretation of text), how "My power can do this" produces:

1) Actual player input(not argument)
2) specifically focused on Premise(Not, "Well, it could be on Premise", but how it makes the group focus specifically ON Premise, of any kind)

?

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Excuse me. This thread has turned nasty and I'm tired of reading it.

Shuddup, both of you. Dunk your heads in a horse trough.

Come back to this thread after a day or something. Geez.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

Heya Chris,

If we take a hypothetical, but very close to Rifts like rule, "This power lets a character set fire to things", then we have the issues of range, time to do so, what things can be set on fire, how fast they burn, etc, etc.   That's poorly defined.  And what that means, as Callan points out- is that it is up to the group to have to fall back to Social Contract to figure out what its going to mean.  That does not support any CA at all.

Ah. This is where I meant the add ons to go; where normally they'd turn to the group to determine what happens, instead the SC says the player in question detemines it. And the SC says how that's meaningful in a narrativist sense.

I'm going to go in reverse a bit. I haven't been meaning to say that the rifts book has everything you need to play nar. It just doesn't contain everything you need, I fully agree. It needs add ons as I mentioned, to do it. But oooh, it's sooo close! It's just so close to supporting nar over gamism, for example. I have pages of gamist house rules, as do many other players (who profess it on posting boards). This nar adjustment could fit into a paragraph or two and really fit every bit of Rifts material so much more. It's like if I stripped out SA's from TROS, I'd need to work out some sort of challenge rating system which would take up so much more page space than the SA's do.

Just looking at the work involved for getting rifts to work in any particular CA, I'd say Rifts is closest to forfilling narrativism. That's how I've chosen to judge it in making this statement.

[groundhog]

I've played lots of Rifts. I've also played some Palladium Fantasy, some TMNT, and I've used the converson kits to move characters between these games and Star Wars d6, Dark Conspiracy, Cadillacs and Dinosaurs, Twilight 2000, and Merc 2000. I have also moved Rifts characters back and forth to and from Shadowrun 1st edition, GURPS, and Webs by hand. I just thought I'd give that background to establish that I am very comfortable with the system.

I agree that gamism in Rifts can be difficult. It in fact feels strained, and more than one Rifts campaign in which I've been involved has fallen apart or switched the same characters to another system due to people wanting to work towards gamism.

Rifts mechanics don't support Nar really well, either. The text does call for people to decide what's worth fighting for and what's worth dying for, even if only implicitly. It also calls for experience points to be given to plyers who make a good story, come up with novel actions, and step up to big challenges. A little extra XP isn't direct (and most GMs don't consider that too binding). When players reward each other the XP instead of one GM determining who gets it, that helps. There is a little help there, and some minor drift can make Nar work.

What Rifts really supports IMHO is Sim. There are lots of crunchy bits, there's lots of ways to play a character from principles, etc. It doesn't do this really well mechanically, either, as the mechanics don't do anything paricularly well.

I think the mechanics and other parts of the system combined support Sim better than anything, with Nar not far behind if you want to drift that way. There's not much in the mechanics for Nar, but mechanics alone don't make a system.

[Callan S.]

I'd thought Rifts was sim as well. I was even going to start a post on it, previously. But I'm thinking vanilla narrativism now.

I can see what your saying about the XP reward mechanism not having much focus in any direction.

The thing is, I think of all the 200 to 300 MDC monsters in the game world, and how there really aren't any cool tricks to beating them like you could find in D&D 3E. So you can either pound them to death or they kill you (there is some gamist wiggle room, but it's painfully small IMO).

It's the same in TROS. The severity of combat means your grasping for some means to survive. In Rifts, your grasping for some means to survive (either that or the games a pushover).

In TROS you grab for the SA rules. In Rifts, you look at the rules...and they are full of holes about what your character can do. You grab for the holes.

This could still go sim or gamist, but the fact is the player is filling in what he wants the power to do, and stating it. For gamism? You win because you decided how the pivotal factor works? Lame! For sim? The game world causality works...just however you decided it would at this moment? Feeble causality!

I would really love to see an actual play from Kevin S., the games author. I can supply some indirectly though: A little while ago Kevin killed the ability to dodge shots...he wrote up a big old rant in his magazine (the rifter) about how dodging shots was just so unrealistic...and then completely ignore this rule if the character is saving someone other than themselves.

I'll quote the relevant portion here, emphasis mine (rifter 17, page 24):

Note: For dramatic purposes, I sometimes use the same rules to see if a spell caster or psychic can raise a force field or energy armour or similar barrier in place in time to block the gunshot, especially if the character is trying to save an innocent person other than himself. This rule can also be used for the OCC's noted above, to see if a character can dive and knock the intended target out of harms way. However, the diving hero is likely to get shot in his place. After all, the character is trying to "save" somebody else and his focus and action is devoted to that purpose, making it impossible for "him" (or her) to dodge the attack. I usually reward such heroics by inflicting half the normal damage.

I think Kev is a bit in love with the 'take a shot meant for someone else'. But regardless of whether he just uses one trick narrativism all the time, the inclination is clearly there. I mean he gives a crappy sim reason why the dude couldn't dodge the attack, and then doesn't even explain why he inflicts half damage for the heroic act. It's because he doesn't really care about simulationism. And don't forget, it's not just half damage...there's a 700 XP reward for potential self sacrifice. Vs a 300 XP reward for killing the most bad ass of monsters...like godlingss and greater demons.

I'm thinking that all the holes he left in the rules are used just as I note, when he plays. He'd reject a statement about the rules, if it was for pure advantage. But if the player was really saying something about their PC, he'd accept their interpretation. But he hasn't recognised his own preference, so as to actually add it to the rules so others could just play that way.

I'm asserting Rifts is narritvist in that it does everything poorly, but narrativist support is least poorly done. Which is to say, you'll need more house rules to run Rifts in a gamist or simulationist CA, than you will need for narrativism. Coupled with the authors own shown preference, I think it explains a lot about the 'faults' in the Rifts game system.