The FAQ is up

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-06-15 14:34, Mytholder wrote:
No, it's not. I have NEVER, on ANY forum, seen WoD called simulationist EVER. Has anyone else?

I've personally called it that a few times, although in retrospect, I'd have to say that WoD is simulationist in nature with some intent to be narrativist, which falls flat.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

You can pretty much tell the Storyteller System is simulationist by three things:

1) It has a name -- the Storyteller System
2) It uses the same basic system for several games, theoretically inhabiting the same world but all with very different themes and styles
3) It uses attributes like Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, Appearance, etc. despite those statistics not being especially needed to explore the themes that the game suggests it is about (and is interested in exploring).

In fact, cut out the Storyteller System and you're left with whatever stats and mechanics that have been tacked on for the specific game.  THAT is all you need to play the game...

Vampire:  Blood, humanity, disciplines, virtues
Werewolf: Rage, gnosis, gifts
Mage: Quintessence, paradox, spheres, arete
Wraith: Angst, Pathos, Passions, Fetters, Arcanoi
Changeling: Glamour, Banality, Arts, Realms

Doing that would make them a lot closer to being Narrativist games.

"This [game system] needs an enema!"

[Gordon C. Landis]

Mytholder,

I'm not a WW/WoD expert/lover, so I may not have been paying as close attention as a "fan" would when they are discussed, but my recollection is that anytime, EVERY time I've seen WoD assigned a "bucket" under GNS, it ends up in Simulation.  I assume this is due to an analysis of what the system as written actually most easily supports, NOT (necessarily) because this is the most common way it is played - nor is it necessarily the way the designers wanted it to be played.  As a system, under GNS as defined in the FAQ, it just fits there best.  Simulate being a Vamp in a world "like ours but . . ".  Simulate a Werething in that world.  Simulate a Fey creature.  The goal is to experience that "flavor" - maybe even experience that flavor in the context of the Metaplot.

Determined Simulationists (without an attachment to realism) can run with it pretty much as is.

Gamist types can use the WoD general point-buy and Vampire-specific diabliere mechanics to build/develop combat monsters - that seems a perfectly valid use of the system as written, but rather starkly contradictory to what the flavor text claims most of their games are "about", and thus not really supported by other aspects of the design.

Narrativists have a lot of good "material", but they need to adapt things - not so much rules, but they need to bend the WoD to their wills, not WW's.  I played in a Werewolf game for a good 4-5 months.  After it . . . faded away, I read some of the WW Werewolf stuff - that group (not really a bunch of dedicated Narrativists, by any means - part of what killed the game is the Storyteller system didn't work for the combat-orientation of a few players) would have been hard-pressed to make ANY use of the material I read, as we'd filled in so many holes (in the material we already had), added so many explanations, had the GM make so many choices, that our WoD wasn't very compatible with theirs anymore.

Wow - not sure why I went there, I just meant to say "huh, I always remember WoD as getting tagged a Sim".  Maybe I'm testing my understanding of the model again?  Gotta stop that :wink:

Gordon C. Landis

[Blake Hutchins]

Hullo. Yes, I recall having seen that point discussed over on GO, without (interestingly enough) much contention. Basically, the consensus seemed to be that White Wolf lauds narrativist goals, but its Storyteller system operates in a Simulationist fashion that doesn't easily facilitate Narrativist games.

Best,

Blake

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Add Diablerie to the "gamist" column (especially in Vampire LARP).  Oh heck, the LARP facilitates Player vs. Player conflict and it always degenerates into a free-for-all mob combat scene.  Simulationism and Narrativism fall by the wayside as everyone tries to grab the "level-up" of Diablerie.

[Mytholder]

The Storyteller system isn't strongly typed enough to be assigned to any of the three types definitively. Taking Jared's comment

1) It has a name -- the Storyteller System
2) It uses the same basic system for several games, theoretically inhabiting the same world but all with very different themes and styles
3) It uses attributes like Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, Appearance, etc. despite those statistics not being especially needed to explore the themes that the game suggests it is about (and is interested in exploring).

A name means bugger-all. The Window has a name. d20 has a name. It uses the same, fairly conventional system because it's trying to appeal to the mass market with a fairly conventional, easy-to-understand system - and I agree, that system is a mess in terms of GNS, and doesn't support the goals of the game - but that's not reason enough to throw it into the simulationist bucket. Not every game is strongly typed. There's a whole section in the middle of the triangle where most games sit.

The WoD games are intended to be played in a "storytelling" fashion. All the designer's notes and GMIng advice are aimed at this style of play. Yes, part of the game is "simulating" being a vampire/werewolf/mage, etc, but that simulation is always secondary to stories introduced by the GM.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Ever see The Adventures of Baron Munchausen?

Remember the big guy at Vulvan's place?  The enormous, strong guy who dresses up as a maid.  He wants to be dainty and delicate and wear frilly clothes.  But he's huge and strong and tough.

Storyteller says it WANTS to do something...then gives you a whole heap of rules that are counter to this.  End of story.  WANTS and DOES are two completely different things...

[joshua neff]

i'm with Jared.

Storyteller continually claims to be about "storytelling", but it's big concession to any sort of "narrativism" is to tell you "ignore the rules if they get in the way of the story". Personally, i find this neither helpful nor enlightening. Basically the message is this: you just shelled out $25 (or so), at least part of that for our mechanics, & now we're going to tell you to ignore the very mechanics we designed. What the fuck? Wouldn't it be more constructive to design mechanics to facilitate the stated goal ("storytelling")? Hero Wars does it. Castle Falkenstein does it. Prince Valiant does it. Hell, go to Brian Gleichman's website & read his designer's notes for Age of Heroes, for a different perspective on "rules that facilitate what the game claims to do". The only thing White Wolf has done is perpetuate the idea that narrativism means ignoring rules in favor of "story"--that, & the idea that "story" is more important than "roll-playing", which, as a confirmed narrativist, i think is total bullshit. Story is in no way "better" or "more fulfilling" than, say, tactics or simulation or whatever gets you off, RPG-wise.
The Storyteller games make a lot of noise about "storytelling", but then they have all this extraneous stuff that isn't necessary for "everybody creating stories driven by the premise", & lacks any rules to facilitate the same thing. Vampire has a list of various firearms & the different damage they do, the different ranges, etc. When was the last time you read Anne Rice & she started elaborating on exactly what type of gun Lestat was carrying & how it was different than the gun some other vampire was carrying?
Whatever White Wolf RPGs are, they sure ain't narrativist.


[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-06-15 23:50 ]

[Logan]

Okay. Enough about WoD. It's a peripheral issue. Let's get back to the faq. Gareth, you promised more comments. I'd like to hear them. Gordon, Blake, Jared, Josh - I want to hear from all of you, as well. For that matter, where is Brian Gleichman? I assumed he'd have *something* to say about all this. Levekius, too.

Best,

Logan

[Levekius]

Ok. I just read it.

Before I comment, I'd like to remind everybody that I did not visit GO much. I knew John Kim's name only from a page of "free systems". I do not dig newsgroup either. And lastly, I bought my first computer around 3-4 years ago. This means I come from a very different background from most of the hardcore roleplayers who have used the internet to discuss, share and design.

So what did I think of the FAQ ? Fascinating. There's a big big number of gamers who are completly unaware of the roots of indie gaming.

I really appreciated the approach. Introducing "historical" elements of designs, where they come from, how they were develop.

I also liked the tone. You guys have obviously tried not to belittle anyone. Or take yourself too seriously:

"We have no delusions regarding our importance in the grand scheme of roleplaying. This debate is a fragment developed from a related debate on the fringe of a niche hobby. If you're here and you're reading this, you're one of relatively few. We welcome your input."

So, kudos for all that. On to the meatier part. I will comment on different sections. Please, do not take offense. Those are suggestions and comments. I do not expect a reply or debate. I know you guys want feedback. Take it for what it is. If a particular section is not mentioned below, it means I understand it well enough (or at least think I do)not to need any clarification.

Historical Background: It would be nice to have a link to Kim's page.

Supporting Terminology: Maybe the term "drift" (mentioned later in the FAQ) could be put in there ? Or is it too soon ?

Plot: If the word has two levels of application, maybe they should be explained here, both of them. Or maybe one of the word should be changed ? I like "storyline", or how about scenario ?

Before I keep up with my section by section commentary, I now have to adress stances. I was wondering what the &%$* you guys were talking about. Despite the flak GNS has made on RPG.net, "stances" have not been mentioned much (to my knowledge).

Simply put, stances rock. Of course, like most of what is in the FAQ, I was already using stances to some degree in my own game. But, like everything else, having all of this *written down*, explained, is going to make my life more easier as a designer and a GM.

I did have a minor understanding promblem with stances. What I saw as some small overlaping between "Author" and "director". One of the classic example is "criticals".

For instance, I have a lite system I use for fun, and that works well for cinematic roleplaying. I borrowed the concept of "critical rolls" (pretty much a standard in any fortune-based mechanics) and that of "burning descriptors" found in SE.

At any moment in the game, you can burn a descriptor to change slightly an outcome. Likewise, anytime you roll a crit something special happens.

Now, when you roll a crit *and* on top of that burn a descriptor, something truly unique happens. All of this is very much character-based, which gives me the impression this is author stance.

But at the same time, it can affect things outside of the character control:

Example: The GM describes a room, and tells Scary Snail The Rogue that he detects a trap. On further inspection, Snail discovers it is activated by a small lever on a throne 40 feet away. Right then, his nemesis enters from a door on the other side of the room.

GM: The archmage Irons has made his dramatic entrance. "Ha ! Fool ! Now you shall regret making those comments about my anti-fantasy el cheapo haircut !" With that, he begins a chant, the words are spelled in an almost backward way... and energy bolts circle his hand, growing, and growing...

Player: I have no choice, he blocks the only way out. By the time I'd get near him I'd be KFC material. I'm gonna wait until the last possible moment and then dodge !

(Next everyone uses fortune... Snail gets a crit)

GM: Wow ! Those bolts do not touch you in the least, almost miraculously !

Player: Wait... it DID hit me ! Right on the "Blue Lips of Cheesiness" pendant I wear as a good luck charm around my neck ! (Burning the pendant's "protect from mage" descriptor) The pendant snaps from around my neck, pushed by the energy all the way to the throne... and on the lever !

The GM sees where this is going. And (whether through drama, fortune, karma... whatever) determines that Irons is on the trap... and falls in the pit.

So what is that ? Was the player an author or part-director ?

Or what about this: A player succeed an agility roll and burns his "acrobat" descriptor. I double-flip right past him. Just at this moment, a car passes nearby. I jump on it and then jump from it 1 second later right on this thug !

Obviously, in that scene, the player did pull the car out of his &%$, but it is inconsequential. It doesn't change the numbers, the outcomes. He just added "color" so to speak. However, it IS part of the background.

Listen, the stances are so interesting I have neglected the GNS thing in this post. And now is time for me to go.

I'll continue later today !

Great job, lots of potential here. Even those who do not believe/agree with the model will at least KNOW what it's about. And anyone citing the model now has a good base to work from.

Before I go, I'd like to know of a few games that  push the "stance" concept. Any games at all ? I've seen the word "stance" associated with Ron's latest game, but anything else ? (Note that it doesn't need to have the word attached to it. Just like GNS, a designer can focus on an aspect without even knowing about the model)

Great job, many thanks !

TTYL :smile:

Martin

[GreatWolf]

I have a brief comment regarding the scenario design section (specifically the relationship map definition).  Currently, the definition states: "[A relationship map is] a chart which shows relationships of family and ties of sexual contact among various NPCs in the game."  I think that this should probably be broader.  For instance, my Alyria playtest group just set up a joint relationship map last night for our next playtest.  While some of the relationships were family (or faux family), others were bonds of fear, respect, or hate, based on prejudice, not family or sexual contact.  However, these relationships are based on the Premise of the game as specifically interpreted for this particular story.

In addition, in Alyria, the relationship map is structured by the entire gaming group, not just the GM.  PCs are selected after the map is established from the various characters that have been set in relation to each other.  Therefore a relationship map need not be just about PCs.

So, I rather think that a more accurate definition would be something like this:  "[A relationship map] is a chart which shows relationships significant to the Premise of the scenario between the various major characters in the game."

[joshua neff]

First of all, thanks to Logan, Ron, & Clinton.

Having read it through twice now (but not thoroughly--i mean, i didn't go through it word by word, attempting a Samuel R. Delany-esque semiotic deconstruction of the text), i think it's a very good start.

To address some of the criticism voiced so far--i think it would be pretty obvious, with Logan & Ron writing the faq, that there would be some "narrativist bias". There's always gonna be bias. If the bias is too bothersome, i can't think of a better way to address it than for some of the more simulationist & gamist folks here to start contributing to the faq, finetuning it. i didn't really have a problem with the way anything was defined or described, but i have my own narrativist bias.

Um...that's all i can think of right now. i'll try to think of some more constructive & critical comments.

[joshua neff]

okay, i have some more thoughts.

basically, i see the faq & the gns model as a beginning, not an end. don't take the model as is without question, but don't dismiss it out of hand just because the sentences don't quite add up to you, either.
be scientific about it. take a so-called narrativist game & run it as written, without messing with the rules. how does it help or hinder mutual story-creation? take a different game, say vampire or d&d & run it, as written (ignoring none of the rules, except maybe that "ignore these rules" rule), with narrativist concerns in mind--with player authorial & directorial stances, with player & gm contribution towards story creation. how does the game help or hinder story-creation? now run the same game with simulationist or gamist concerns. now how does it run? now fuck with the rules until you can run the game you want & get the most satisfaction out of it--what did you have to change to get it to be the way you like it? (or was that impossible & you ended up writing your own game? having read the designer's notes for age of heroes, that's obviously what brian gleichman did--played fantasy rpgs with gamist concerns, found them lacking, & so wrote his own game. same, i think, goes for sorcerer.)
but look for results, not theory. try stuff out. if you find that through actual play, the gns model does nothing to help you, then lose it. forget about it. the next time you see someone posting about "this narrativist game", chuckle to yourself & ignore it. (don't, however, start mouthing off about how crap the model is. i was raised unitarian-universalist, & i found that particular flavor of organized religion to be wanting--but i don't go to the local uu church every sunday & start shouting about how stupid it is.)
to be honest, i'm really not all that interested in the gns model, because i have little to no interest in playing gamist or simulationist games. all i really care about is narrativism, how i can be the best narrativist player & gm i can be, how i can get the most out of my games. that's my own bias. (which is probably why i'm not interested in debating the model. i mean, if gamists have a quibble with how gamism is defined, then by all means, argue about it. but i'm not getting into these arguments anymore, cos it's really none of my business.)
if you're driving to podunk, iowa, & the road atlas your using doesn't have it represented on the map, the atlas will at some point become useless. time for a new map.

[Gordon C. Landis]

On the FAQ:

So far, any comment that occurs to me has already been made by someone else.  I like it, a lot, and thanks to all who put in the work to pull it together.  To my ear, there is a pronounced "style" change in the Narrative section compared to the others.

I've got a Word-ified printout at home, and read over it from time to time in case an obvious improvement occurs to me . . . wait, I lied, there is one thought I had that I haven't seen much about yet - maybe because I'm not sure it'll really help.  With that warning . . .

More examples.  Ton and tons of examples.  Situations where G or N or S make different decisions about the same thing.  "Campaign" designs that are clearly better suited for G or N or S.  Character descriptions/stats that show the concerns of each.  And etc.

Good idea, or waste of time?

Gordon C. Landis

[Mike Holmes]

Hello all, good discussion so far.

I have to say that I agree with the vast majority of criticisms, so far, and can only encourage the writers to consider their own bias when they do revamp it. Joshua Neff points out that bias may be impossible to remove, and, though I know that you are trying to do so, it is certainly more difficult to do so when couching things in the terms of your own corner of the debate. I also, however, believe that it may be removed at least to the point that alienation becomes unlikely which seems to be a reasonable goal. Obviously it is not there yet. Again, to do so effectively requires careful consideration of ones own bias, critical thinking, and an empathic consideration of those on the other end of the debate. Logan, I hope you and Ron can accomplish this without killing yourselves over it. It may not be quite that important. :wink: The suggestions here are good, and will help if looked at with an open mind.

Now for my personal gripe.

Something that has bugged me for a while is the attempt by Ron, especially, and some others to try and define the categories by a strict consideration of particular sorts of mechanics (stance, for example). The motive, it would seem to me, is to make it possible to more easily decide which games are which. I believe that this may be unnecessary and counterproductive. First, the discussions of the mechanics and spectra themselves may in the end become more important than the actual categorizations that such combinations may fall into. For example, we might do better to talk specifically about player preference for stance instead of which style that preference puts them into.  I think things may end up this way no matter what happens to G/N/S.

Leaving G/N/S with simple definitions of intent is simpler, more intuitive, and more widely accepted (at least here and so far), than trying to say that a particular style cannot include a particular type of mechanic as an addition to its basic intent definition. I've noticed a few people, in fact, respond to posts here and elsewhere stating that including a specific mechanic in a specific game would make it a certain style because all other games that had that mechanic were that style as well. This is not proof, and might stifle creativity. Let individuals argue whether a particularly designed mechanic actually does or does not support a particular intent.

Worse, attempting such tight definitions threatens to make Narrativism into "that thing that Ron Edwards says is Narrativism". Or rather the pertinence of the model may be lost to all but a few (in which case the manifesto is, again, a better idea). If it must be so narrowly construed, then I'd suggest as (Mytholder?) said to call it a subset of Dramatism (or something else if that term still carries some sort of definition that is counterproductive; although I for one have not seen such a problem).  Otherwise, you may find G/N/S only being used by Narrativists in the future.

Late, grain of salt, two cents, YMMV, all IMHO, The opinions expressed herin are not ne... you get it

Mike Holmes