The FAQ is up

[Clinton R. Nixon]

There'll be links on the front page and in the forum soon, but until then:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/faq/">http://www.indie-rpgs.com/faq/

Enjoy. And thank Logan and Ron--they've worked hard on this one.

[Mytholder]

Hmm.

I have a lot of comments and queries, which I'll post when I've had more of a chance to read and digest.

My initial reaction is that your take on simulationism is fine up until:
"The second type is far more oriented toward the story elements of play and is often confused with Narrativism. In this case, the story is well-established by the GM or by a published text, and the role of the players is to experience it essentially as written. The linear or branched scenario designs are obligatory.

The most extreme form of this second style of Simulationist play is found in Metaplot: published plot events, usually in a series of supplements, that people are expected to insert into their own, ongoing games. "

Eh. No. Not simulationism. Not even vaguely. If the goal of simulationism is to see what happens, then  how can you accomplish that goal when the GM knows what's going to happen in advance?!?

[Epoch]

So, I just read the FAQ.  It is pretty keen -- I definitely felt a greater sympathy for Ron's model after having read it than I had before.

A few comments:

Near the bottom, after the discussion of each stance, it says that Gamism is about winning.  I buy into, and I think that the FAQ above that point basically buys into, Brian Gleichman's claim that Gamism is about challenging yourself -- winning is incidental.  It's basically a semantic difference, but I think that saying that Gamism is about winning tends to put it in a somewhat derogatory light, which the FAQ otherwise takes great pains to avoid.

The description of narrativism reads differently from the other two descriptions.  The prose there takes on a much more personal, less academic tone, and it sounds defensive.  Since much of the purpose of the FAQ seems to be to dispell the idea that GNS is a model created by a bunch of snotty elitist narrativists to lord it over the other style, I think you may be defeating yourself with the more emotional tone of the narrativist section.  (To put it another way:  Ron claims to be able to tell the stance-leaning of a game's designer by reading the game.  I feel, though I obviously can't test it myself, that someone unfamiliar with Ron could tell that the FAQ was written by a narrativist).

The above plays into this next comment, which is that the narrativist section doesn't feel like a big, catch-all category, it feels like how the authors of the FAQ play.  I think that's bad for the above reasons -- defeating the purpose of the FAQ -- and also because I think it does a disservice to the model, which loses its ability to handle other styles of play which are largely similar to the described Narrativism, but not identical to it.

The claim that Narrativism never involves railroading of plot is neither justified, nor even explained in the text.

Finally, there seems to be a certain tension in the model as it describes things as broad as general desires ("Narrativists want to create a story") and fine details ("Narrativist GM's must support non-Actor stances").  It immediately begs the question of, "Oh yeah?  What if I want to create a story, but don't support non-Actor stances?"

[Blake Hutchins]

Nice job, guys. I'm taking my hard copy home to digest at length.

Best,

Blake

[Logan]

Clinton,

Thanks for posting the faq so quickly and adding the index links.

Everyone,

I think the faq is going to generate a lot of comments. Mytholder and Epoch have already made some good points. This is all just fine. I'm going to hold off a little before responding because I want to let more people have their say and see what more people think. I'm also taking notes. Ron and I figured we'd have to make some changes after the first few days, so don't be shy.

Best,

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-15 09:57 ]

[Valamir]

A very well put together document.  Seeing its scope, I'm impressed with how quickly you managed to finish it.

No time to dive in now, probably want to read it through a few more times first anyway, but I did come up with one factual/clarification kind of question.

Under the discussion of Audience stance you state first  "that this This is the stance players are in when they're playing "20 questions" with the GM about the situation in the game and gathering information for deciding what their character will do next"  You then state "in which a player whose character is not present in a scene may contribute information, opinions, or suggestions to the players whose characters are present. "

Can you clarify this for me, because they don't seem to be compatable items.  The first statement is about a character in a scene seeking factual information about his surroundings, the second is about a character not in a scene offering "peanut gallery" type advice to players whose characters are.  They don't seem to be related to me.

In fact, I would think 20 questions is more in line with Actor stance.  The player is forced to use the awkward question system to determine what his character would know simply by looking around when the GM has not been forthcoming with description.

[james_west]

First, congratulations on a marvelously thorough job;
I'm glad y'all covered all the other "technical" terms
that crop up here. It's all very well written. Makes it a very good FAQ.

I especially liked the section on scenario design; never seen something like that before (although I was familiar with all of the specific methods, I've never seen them collected). In fact, my interest was immediately piqued; seems like an area in which more substantial thought would be very warranted, since it's what one spends the majority of one's time as a GM (as opposed to designer) working on.

My first impression of the G/N/S section once again gives me the sneaking suspicion that simulationism is the default, required by all, but you can add gamism or narrativism if you want. The reason I say this is that "providing the players with a believable simulation of life in the gameworld" seems like something you have to do no matter what other goals you've got, for most games.

                           - James

[james_west]

Valamir-

I guess maybe you've avoided having it happen ('cause I hate it) but sometimes players will ask you whole strings of questions that don't seem to be in character, related to anyplace their character is, etc., and in fact it puts you in a weird 'out of game' stance that I can easily identify as being seperate from other stances. This mostly starts out with them attempting to clarify things that their characters learned in the past, sometimes extends to broad exploration of background, and then slips into a 'lets forget all the role-playing, and just get the GM to tell us the clues" mode.
   Seems very distinct to me, if this is what they're talking about.

         - James

[greyorm]

I guess maybe you've avoided having it happen ('cause I hate it) but sometimes players will ask you whole strings of questions that don't seem to be in character, related to anyplace their character is, etc., and in fact it puts you in a weird 'out of game' stance that I can easily identify as being seperate from other stances.

Hrm, James explanation seems clearer than the FAQ's in this instance.  I immediately identified with it (having a player who does this constantly and breaks the game flow down by doing it), but the FAQ left me scratching my head about the "audience" stance, though I thought I understood what it was trying to say.

As to Simulation being foremost and Narrative and Gamism being "tacked on", I think that's missing the point of the Threefold.  Similarly, one could also claim that Narrativism is the base to which other things are 'tacked on,' because every series of events results in a "story," but as we all know, that really isn't really what the Threefold describes.
Likewise, Simulationism isn't about "accurately portraying life in the gameworld" and thus everyone does it, it -- like the other two axes -- is about the methodology of play and the play's goal.

If you really can't think your way past this, just remember instead that all elements of the Threefold are present in a particular game, some are just EMPHASIZED more.

Disagreements are welcome.  Slap me silly.
"No [slap] Raven [slap] that's [slap] not [slap] right [slap]"

_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/">http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-06-15 12:17 ]

[Logan]

So it begins.

I should make a couple of points here. First, wherever possible, I've tried to set up a range of possibilities for each entry. Second, I'm very happy that we finally have a faq that I can point to and say, "Look, this is our position." Third, Ron and I ended up with a real collaboration. Some of the views are his. Some of the views are mine. We have a high level of agreement on a lot of things, and in spots, it's hard to see where my work ends and his begins. To me, this is neat. To others, this might look a little schizophrenic. I don't know. Right now, my goal is to smooth all that out and make the faq as good as it can be. On with the show.

I should start with the Simulationist definitions. First, I want to reiterate my thought on Simulationism as a whole. Simulationism is not a left-over or a dumping ground for games and styles of play that don't fit neatly into Gamist or Narrativist classifications. Simulationism is the foundation of roleplaying. The desire to see what happens, have an experience, and to "be your character" exists to some degree in all roleplaying games. Where Simulationism differs from Gamism and Narrativism is that these desires are the entire point of Simulationist gaming. Competition, winning, and creation of story are all very minor considerations in Simulationist endeavors.

Look at CoC. Characters who deal with the Old Ones and their artifacts will go insane or die. That is the reality of the "Cthulhu Mythos." You can't beat them. Even Randolph Carter, the Lovecraft character who saw more of the Mythos than anyone else, was eventually turned into a cockroach. He did not win. He kept hs sanity and his life, but he still lost. You can only say that he had a hell of an adventure along the way. This is the stuff that makes a Simulationist game.

Getting back to the idea of ranges and Simulationist adventures, Mytholder makes a point.

>My initial reaction is that your take on simulationism is fine up until:
"The second type is far more oriented toward the story elements of play and is often confused with Narrativism. In this case, the story is well-established by the GM or by a published text, and the role of the players is to experience it essentially as written. The linear or branched scenario designs are obligatory.

The most extreme form of this second style of Simulationist play is found in Metaplot: published plot events, usually in a series of supplements, that people are expected to insert into their own, ongoing games. "

Eh. No. Not simulationism. Not even vaguely. If the goal of simulationism is to see what happens, then how can you accomplish that goal when the GM knows what's going to happen in advance?!?
--------------------------

Okay. Simulationist adventures can range from a nonlinear, "Set of Encounters" adventure to a highly focused "Linear" adventure.

The open feel of a "Set of Encounters" is very much in tune with the goals of exploration and the freedom to see what will happen, but this sort of adventure isn't all that common. They're a little tougher to write than linear adventures because they don't have a very strong direction. The author must supply hooks that allow the characters to go in several directions, and the "path not taken" becomes extra baggage. As a result, I don't think all that many of them get published, either. I sure haven't seen too many at the game store. I do think that a lot of GMs make this sort of adventure as they write up their settings, and this is a big part of the appeal of setting books.

We know many Simulationist games have plot-heavy adventures and settings. The whole WoD/StoryTeller is acknowledged as a primarily Simulationist venture. There are plenty of scripted, pre-plotted CoC adventures. I think these adventures are Simulationist. The GM knows what the story will be. What he doesn't know is how the players will react, how the characters will deal with the situation. In this situation, the players will concentrate on playing their characters. They will deal with events as their characters would deal with the events as the events unfold. When the players reach a decision point, they'll decide what to do based on their characters' motivations and a desire to see what will happen as a result of their decisions. In this way, I don't think having a predetermined plot hurts or undermines the Simulationist nature of a game. It's just an approach which hits a different part of the range.

Next, Epoch made good comments on Gamism. Yes, Gamism is about competition and overcoming obstacles. But it's also about winning, "The ecstacy of victory and the agony of defeat." I have been there. I have done that. I have watched others do it. I think it's a positive factor, and a big part of many roleplaying interactions. This little bit of Gamism shines throgh most all RPGs: When a player rolls the dice, he really always wants to roll well enough to knock the big, bad monster flat on his back. Winning is a valid concern. The issue then becomes, what constitutes "winning." Much of my commentary on Gamism addresses that. I think both points are valid and both have been addressed pretty well.

Epoch goes on to make some valid criticism of our handling of Narrativism. Okay. Ron is a known, avowed, card-carrying evangelist for the Narrativist cause. He doesn't force his philosophy or techniques on people, but if you ask him about it, you will get a detailed answer. He's pioneered his share of Narrativist techniques, and he is uniquely qualified to tell us what Narrativism is and is not. I have my share of Narrativist influence, too. In general, I think most GMs don't give their players nearly enough access to Director stance. If some of that shows, then at least there is a reason for it.

Writing this faq and talking to Ron showed me some interesting things, though. For instance, Ron's approach to Narrativism shows more Gamist influence than he admits. OTOH, I have more Simulationist influence in my gaming than I let on, and more than I realized. Yet, when you get down to it, Ron is the guy with the highly dramatic, avant garde approach to gaming with his very cool relationship maps and his deep approach of looking into the character to find plot. I'm the guy who's happy to provide a few plot hooks or "landmark events" and then let the players set up a series of events, create a story around that. Him Dramatist. Me Storyist. Both Narrativist. Who knew?

But I should address Epoch's most important points.

>The claim that Narrativism never involves railroading of plot is neither justified, nor even explained in the text.
------------------------
This might be one of those points that requires more work. Ideally, the GM never railroads the players. This is true. It all goes back to the "Playing in the band" analogy. The GM sets the tone for the game, but the players are free to go where they want and make of it what they will in the interest of creating their story. In practice, the GM may well introduce elements intended to push the players one direction or another. It's up to the players to decide what they will do in light of this push.

>Finally, there seems to be a certain tension in the model as it describes things as broad as general desires ("Narrativists want to create a story") and fine details ("Narrativist GM's must support non-Actor stances"). It immediately begs the question of, "Oh yeah? What if I want to create a story, but don't support non-Actor stances?"
--------------------------------

If you don't support non-actor stances, then the players are going to have a very hard time creating story. Actor Stance, as the faq says, is playing "My Guy." If the player doesn't have the power to make changes in the game world, the player doesn't have the means to create story. But this should not be confused with IC/OOC mode. You can be in Author or Director stance and also be In Character while you do it. As an example, this is definitely the case in Puppetland. You as player have full access to Author and Director stance, but you must use it while In Character.

Audience Stance? Yes, I think James hit it pretty square. Audience Stance could use some more flogging in order to produce a more satisfying definition. It's certainly behind the other 3 stances in terms of depth of development, but it's important enough that I wanted to make sure it was included.

Best,

Logan

[Epoch]

My old text preceeded by >>.  Logan's preceded by >.

> Epoch goes on to make some valid criticism of our
> handling of Narrativism. Okay. Ron is a known, avowed,
> card-carrying evangelist for the Narrativist cause. He
> doesn't force his philosophy or techniques on people, but
> if you ask him about it, you will get a detailed answer.
> He's pioneered his share of Narrativist techniques, and
> he is uniquely qualified to tell us what Narrativism is
> and is not. I have my share of Narrativist influence,
> too. In general, I think most GMs don't give their
> players nearly enough access to Director stance. If some
> of that shows, then at least there is a reason for it.

Well, I'm not exactly sure which of my two comments on Narrativism you're responding to, here.  Taking them in order:  While I may have some criticism of the content of Narrativism, as well, (I want to think it over more first), I'm simply trying to offer some constructive criticism with respect to how to make this document fit (my perception of) your goals.  Because, as best I can tell, the FAQ doesn't exist solely to explicate your positions, but, rather, to set a tone for discussion of the GNS and to, on an emotional level, make people less afraid of it/prima facia opposed to it.

I feel that the tone of the Narrativist-style text undermines those emotional goals, and, if my perception of those goals is correct, they would be better served to take a more clinical tone.

As to the second point, that the FAQ goes into more detail in Narrativism, I understand that part of the purpose of the FAQ is to explain some of Ron's intricate theories.  However, I feel that the structure of the FAQ as currently written conflates Ron's intricate theories with the fundamental definition of narrativism.  As such, the definition of narrativism ends up feeling like, "You play it my way, or you aren't doing it right," which is off-putting.

>> The claim that Narrativism never involves railroading of
>> plot is neither justified, nor even explained in the
>> text.

> This might be one of those points that requires more
> work. Ideally, the GM never railroads the players. This
> is true. It all goes back to the "Playing in the band"
> analogy. The GM sets the tone for the game, but the
> players are free to go where they want and make of it
> what they will in the interest of creating their story.
> In practice, the GM may well introduce elements intended
> to push the players one direction or another. It's up to
> the players to decide what they will do in light of this
> push.

Well, but why is that ideal, and why might the in-practice railroading be limited to "pushing"?  The only justification I can see for that is the "band" analogy, and I'm automatically wary of anything which depends on an analogy for justification.

Suppose that I, the GM, wish to push the story in a tragic direction, and, say, kill someone close to the PC's, without letting them prevent the death.  This sounds like a classic case of railroading, but it does not seem to me to be at odds with what the FAQ lays down as the definition of narrativism.  To be clear, in this hypothetical case, I do share the directorial power with the players over the course of the game, I just happen to assert control at this one instance.

Indeed, taking a somewhat theory-oriented view of the whole thing, isn't every exercise of directorial power railroading to some extent?

>> Finally, there seems to be a certain tension in the model
>> as it describes things as broad as general desires
>> ("Narrativists want to create a story") and fine details
>> ("Narrativist GM's must support non-Actor stances"). It
>> immediately begs the question of, "Oh yeah? What if I
>> want to create a story, but don't support non-Actor
>> stances?"

> If you don't support non-actor stances, then the players
> are going to have a very hard time creating story. Actor
> Stance, as the faq says, is playing "My Guy." If the
> player doesn't have the power to make changes in the game
> world, the player doesn't have the means to create story.
> But this should not be confused with IC/OOC mode. You can
> be in Author or Director stance and also be In Character
> while you do it. As an example, this is definitely the
> case in Puppetland. You as player have full access to
> Author and Director stance, but you must use it while In
> Character.

I understand your point of view here, but you aren't addressing my point, but just a random example I drew to illustrate it.  Regardless of whether someone who's inclined to create stories has techniques which help or hinder him from doing so, he may well still have that goal.  That's where I see the tension -- The FAQ attempts to define what the (for example) Gamist player wants to do, and what techniques the Gamist player uses.  At some level, I think that if you want to have a good mapping, you have to drop one of those as definitive.

The RGFA approach, of course, is to make their model address solely goals, not techniques.  From my previous reading of Ron's works (I don't recall having read a lot of Logan's stuff, so I won't venture an opinion as to his point of view), I suspect that Ron wants something more ambitious, but, frankly, there will always be people out there who have certain goals, but don't approach those goals in any way that you're (that's the generalist you, not Logan in particular) familiar with.

[Logan]

Epoch,

I'm interested in making progress. I've answered your thoughts as best I can in the time available. At this point, I ask you: What specific changes would you recommend to make the document stronger?

Best,

Logan

[Ron Edwards]

Epoch,

"Suppose that I, the GM, wish to push the story in a tragic direction, and, say, kill someone close to the PC's, without letting them prevent the death. This sounds like a classic case of railroading, but it does not seem to me to be at odds with what the FAQ lays down as the definition of narrativism. "

This is not railroading at all. Please see my definition in the text.

Your comments on the Narrativism text are noted and logged. Perceptions of "tone" and "meaning" are notoriously difficult comments to work with, but I'll make an effort to regularize the prose throughout the categories.

You realize, I'm sure, that you are looking at a rough draft. After some days of comment, a lot of re-working will be done.

For everyone,
I am disinclined to debate any details of the FAQ, but would rather simply collect comments and sift through them over an extended period.

Best,
Ron

[Epoch]

Ron:  The FAQ defines railroading as the GM assuming the player's decisions or limiting their opportunities for action.  If the GM kills an NPC that the PC's will not want killed, and does not let them change that fact, that sounds like limiting their opportunities for action to me.

Logan:  I'd either shorten the Simulationist and Narrativist introductory paragraphs (the bit between the title and the Simulationist Games or Narrativist Games sections) to match the simple one-sentence summary provided in the Gamist definition, or broaden the Gamist one to match the Simulationist and Narrativist ones.

I'd change the phrasing in the Narrativist GM's section slightly:  In the last sentence of the last paragraph, you have emphasized the words "by definition," which ends up causing the reader to recall the first-paragraph assertion that Narrativist GM's by definition allow Author and Director stances.  Since the latter use of the term is in the implicit negative, and doesn't really have anything to do with first paragraph, it is confusing (to me, at least).

I'd add verbage to the Narrativist section that more sharply defined what ideas that you put forward you regard as essential aspects of Narrativism and what ones you regard as common examples of how Narrativism is put forward in play and/or techniques which you feel are worthwhile to discuss.

I'd expand the section on Narrativist players, which feels cursory.

I'd expand the section on Gamist Games to explain how you feel "giving players assets they can use to overcome the challenges in the game world" differs from the simulationist notion of "describing a character's capabilities and flaws."

The last paragraph of the Narrativist section confuses me.  Is that supposed to be more on Narrativist adventures?  It seems more like general commentary.  Maybe it's just that the title heading "X Adventures" should be re-titled to "X Gameplay" or "X Play," as "Adventures" focuses the concept, for me, more on the notion of scenario design, not the actual play of the scenario.

I think that, in general, I'd simplify the definitions of all three of the styles of play down to more of a minimum, and then put an entirely new section into the FAQ on the same level as "The G/N/S 3-Fold" or "The G/N/S Triangle" that was something like, "Facilitating Styled Play" (or something like that), which focusses more on how to get the concepts of the previously defined 3 extrema into actual play.  That way, you can meet the goal of expressing some of the more advanced theories you've constructed here, without making the three styles be, "How I play."  "How Ron plays."  "How Fred plays."  (Or whatever).

Hope that helps.  Do keep sight of the fact that I basically like the FAQ, and I do think it's helpful as-is.

[Mytholder]

Logan wrote:

The whole WoD/StoryTeller is acknowledged as a primarily Simulationist venture.

No, it's not. I have NEVER, on ANY forum, seen WoD called simulationist EVER. Has anyone else?