Flux

[Daredevil]

Very well, point taken. My next operation will be to offer you folks the specificity that is asked for. I'll just finish composing one of my drafts which possesses all the necessary elements.

Before we go into that, however ...

Lance, you have just discovered the difference between a system that supports Narrativism versus a system that supports Simulationism. DD's system here is meant to prioritize story, not an accurate simulation of anything. Your comment is eqivalent to saying that he should make his Narrativst game more Simulationist. Something that I would highly suggest against.

You see -- heh -- I'm a simulationist myself and would probably wither up and die if exposed to an entirely narrativist setting. Well, not wither up and die as I'm willing to try anything once (or a couple of dozen times), but in designing my own system I have retained a lot of my simulationist bias. Of course, though there is a lot that my initial design philosophy takes from the GNS paradigm (System Does Matter, for an important first) it is somewhat designed with a different methodology behind it.

However, I should point the readers' attention to the following thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1149 and others that can be reached by searching for the El Dorado keyword.

I am somewhat of a believer in finding my way to this said El Dorado and this system is an attempt at it. Of course, whether or not the system fits into a model (sim or narrativist) is not really a concern for me as long as it works and is found enjoyable. The model (not the implicit categories) can, at times, help me with that, though. If GNS fanatics think it is doomed to fail for pursuing to fulfil two categories, I'll listen to the critique and playtest.

I'll quote something said by Ron Edwards in that thread:

Narrativist play relies on a person taking an author-type attitude toward the events and play as a whole, in that a judgmental theme is supposed to be generated. Playing a character is a means to do this, and attention to things like setting, or conventions of a certain sort of story, is there to reinforce the same goal.

Simulationist play relies on a person imagining being in a story, or setting, or situation, as the first priority. In other words, by definition, Simulationist play "declares something besides story creation" to be the the goal. The story, if present at all, is superimposed either before or after play by one participant. It is not a goal of play.

Now, before this spins out of the scope of this topic, I'll focus back to Flux. Ignoring the implication of the italicised text, Flux is designed with both of those in mind. There are different types of sim players, certainly, and this may not be for each of those. Perhaps this is even a Dramatist game (or a narrative game with simulationist drift, or on the contrary...). Who cares?

My point (in designing Flux) is that so called simulationist games usually fall short of actually providing a working set of reality -- or rather, or presenting the player with it. That is of course in one view a certainty, but that is besides the point. They typically become a game of "ask, and the Gm will tell" -- an exercise in futility and not an actual act of immersion into a fictional world. The mechanics of Flux are meant to immerse the player in the awareness of the character -- so that the character's available options are revealed to the player. In this way, the game is in my view simulationist.

In addition to that, the mechanic itself provides a narrative function. While I think the application of Lit 101 story concerns can add tremendous power to roleplaying games, I believe there is an inherent (interactive-)narrative power of its own unique to the media. These mechanics presented here are in my view an exploration of that, rather than a consideration on how traditional premise can affect roleplaying.

[Mike Holmes]

You make a very good point. What I was calling a Narrativist mechanic might just actually be a story-creation mechanic or something like that. My point though was that not all such mechanics have to dwell on traditionally simulationist detail. I like how your mechanic works and would not want to see you change it just so that armor had an advantage over infantry (especially since everyone knows that field artillery is the King of Battle).

(formerly)
SGT Mike Holmes
1st Batallion 126th FA, 57th FA Brigade, WIARNG (AKA The Iron Brigade)

[Daredevil]

I've ran into a small internal inconsistency (somewhat created by the sim/nar rift, mind you) in the system which is shifting my focus to repairing that (I can elaborate on that later). I'll get back to the topic of the game mechanics in Flux -- with updated mechanics, streamlined explanations and the needed detail -- in another thread later on when I've had the time to work it all out.

However, in the meanwhile I'd be happy to hear Walt's take on the details of the system with the warning that any mechanics presented in this thread may well end up becoming a part of the final design if they're good enough. :)