The FAQ is up

[joshua neff]

mike--

if g/n/s isn't defined by mechanics, then what is it defined by? rpgs are centered around mechanics--even "my style of play" eventually falls down to "how you use mechanics" as much as anything else, & since ron has already made it clear that the model he wants can't be based on intent (intent being much more difficult to determine than mechanics), what should g/n/s be based on?
if ron & logan say "narrativist mechanics use systems that encourage & even formalize author & director stance, & simulationist games don't", & then you say "well, i just ran a simulationist game & i did have formal mechanics for player author & director stance", i assume ron would reply "well, you weren't really playing a simulationist game, you were playing a narrativist game", & then we all fall into a po-tay-to/po-tah-to argument. i don't see the problem with saying "narrativist games don't have such-&-such mechanics" anymore than i see a problem in saying "car's don't fly, airplanes do". when the flying car (a la blade runner & the fifth element) starts becoming a reality, then we'll talk.
again, try it out. run a "simulationist" game utilizing mechanics that the faq claims are exclusively narrativist. what are your results?
as for "ron edwards narrativism"--i suspect that since it's ron talking about it, it will always be "ron edwards narrativism", just like when i talk about it, it will be "josh neff narrativism", which may be exactly like ron's, or may be wildly different. if it's within the framework of the faq's definition of "narrativism", then i don't have a problem with it. (& as far as i can see, my definition & ron's do both fall under the faq's umbrella.) but no model can be everything to all people (even really broad & flexible meta-models are prey to some sort of standard--chaos magic, for example, has all sorts of "traditions" & "assumptions" attached to it, even while attempting to be "assumptionless").

[Supplanter]

if g/n/s isn't defined by mechanics, then what is it defined by?

It is, in the actual document before us, defined by combinations of mechanics, stance and intent, depending on the apex considered. Except for gamism, which seems to be defined largely in terms of intent. Narrativism is defined as a precise combination of mechanics (fortune-you-know-where), stance (distributed direction) and intent (work a premise through to resolution, in a way that produces a "story").

So the answer to your question, right off the bat, is "a lot more than just mechanics." Which is a good thing, for a couple of reasons: first, Theatrix, which some of us have indeed bought, played and run and are qualified to talk about, uses fortune-nowhere-a-tall, but has been acknowledged by Logan as not just a dramatist game but a narrativist one; and second...

rpgs are centered around mechanics--even "my style of play" eventually falls down to "how you use mechanics" as much as anything else

Which brings us to another game I have bought, read, played and run and am qualified to talk about: Amber. Amber has precious little that could be called mechanics. But the style of actual Amber campaigns varies widely: "Loose Ends" was thoroughly simulationist (http://brandspace.tripod.com) because of the leanings of the GM. Erick Wujcik himself, the designer, clearly runs in a dramatist (subclass traditional, genus railroading) fashion. Throne Wars tend to be gamist with bells on. And if you read through some PBEM websites it becomes clear that there are some campaigns out there characterized by distributed direction too (dramatist subclass narrativist genus diceless).

One game, one set of something that barely rises to the category of mechanics, many, many different and mutually-incompatible play styles - which is to say that any given player would love some and hate others. I for one am pretty sure I would despise Wujcik's own games, but other people adore them. Nor do I have any interest in playing or running Throne Wars, but a lot of people get a lot of enjoyment out of them. The distinctions in play are independent of mechanics, though not altogether independent of stance. But stance is not mechanical. The styles break cleanly along world/story/game lines and are intelligible to any theory that does not restrict itself to a mechanics-eye view.

How would you argue, BTW, that "my style of play" can be reduced to "how you use mechanics?"

since ron has already made it clear that the model he wants can't be based on intent (intent being much more difficult to determine than mechanics), what should g/n/s be based on?

If it is not to simply replicate (and obfuscate) the decision-based rgfa model then it should  center itself frankly in stance. But to center itself frankly in stance, it should drop what are in fact intent and decision-based terms for its apexes - gamist, narrativist and simulationist. It can draw valid distinctions between distributed-direction games and concentrated-direction games. As it stands, the model is in fact contrasting distributed-direction games with concentrated-direction games - this is the whole of the distinction it draws between what it presently calls "narrativism" and "simulationism."

A couple of problems remain for the model once it starts using terms appropriate to its real interest, which is stance-complexes. I agree with Mytholder that what exists right now is a two-fold model. Where I disagree with him is that I think Gamism is the odd style out. There is a clear enough contrast between the distributed-direction style and the concentrated-direction syle. But the model does not seem to have a way to define Gamism in terms of stance-complexes (or mechanics for that matter).

The second problem is that, since distributed-direction games are relatively new in RPG history - Theatrix as a published product is only 8 years old - the model could stand a certain epistemological modesty, about which more below.

if ron & logan say "narrativist mechanics use systems that encourage & even formalize author & director stance, & simulationist games don't", & then you say "well, i just ran a simulationist game & i did have formal mechanics for player author & director stance", i assume ron would reply "well, you weren't really playing a simulationist game, you were playing a narrativist game", & then we all fall into a po-tay-to/po-tah-to argument.

And that would be a weakness in the model itself, not in the response to it.

when the flying car (a la blade runner & the fifth element) starts becoming a reality, then we'll talk.
again, try it out. run a "simulationist" game utilizing mechanics that the faq claims are exclusively narrativist. what are your results?

And here is where the epistemological modesty should come it. The becoming thing for the model to say would be, "For the life of us we can't imagine how distributed direction and FITM could support simulationist goals, since all the simulationist games we've seen follow the unipolar model, but the proof remains to be found in those games that do or don't get designed in the future. What we can say now is that we know of no designs that have attempted to employ what we think of as these narrative means to simulationist ends."

As it stands the historical correlation actually is:

MOST OF RPG HISTORY
Concentrated-Direction (Unipolar) --> all styles (world, story, contest-oriented)
JUST RECENTLY
Concentrated-Direction (Unipolar) --> all styles
Distributed-Direction (Multipolar) --> story-oriented

Not only do we face the age-old reality that correlation is not causation, the correlation is itself brief and, so far, not separable from what may be a historical accident - a particular group of story-oriented designers began working with distributed direction tools before anybody else did.

I have not seen, in the FAQ, a causal explanation of an exclusive association of multipolar means to narrative ends.

but no model can be everything to all people

But if one is to have a model and not a manifesto, it needs to be something to non-narrativists.

Best,


Jim

[joshua neff]

How would you argue, BTW, that "my style of play" can be reduced to "how you use mechanics?

well, in retrospect, that was overstated, since there's really a wealth of aspects that contribute to the phrase "my style of play"...i guess what i meant was that eventually the decisions you make regarding a roleplaying game, in game play, will end up having to do with mechanics. but now that i think about it, that's way too simple a statement to support.

[Valamir]

Damn Jimmy.  Yew Shore use dem big werds uh lot.  My hed is thumpin like I jist drunk a gallon of pa's piss-wader moon shine.
-----
Ahem,
Its an interesting point you raise. Given that traditionally RPGS have been GM centered and that only recently have RPGS with a more distributed focus been developed, if I follow you correctly, you're suggesting that it may only be a coincidence that the distributed focus has been tied to story based/narrativist play...simply because they were the ones who started playing with it first.

[Mytholder]

I suspect a simulationist game with distributed focus is possible. Basically, it would have each player taking charge of a character or faction or section of the game world, and having authority over the actions of that area. However, all decisions would be subject to the group consensus.

I think it's possible, but it'd also be very prone to falling over into arguments and conflictiing ideas about how the world "should work".

[Supplanter]

Damn Jimmy. Yew Shore use dem big werds uh lot. My hed is thumpin like I jist drunk a gallon of pa's piss-wader moon shine.

And they say sprawl has made Frederick increasingly cosmopolitan...

if I follow you correctly, you're suggesting that it may only be a coincidence that the distributed focus has been tied to story based/narrativist play...simply because they were the ones who started playing with it first.

I'm saying I don't know. Player authority tools seem to have developed simultaneously as defeat hedges (game value) and genre aids (story value). The first authority tool I remember is James Bond hero points. It doesn't seem coincidental that the early "plot point" type mechanisms all seem to work as character-preservers. It shows not only what players wanted (I want to live!) but what they were afraid of (game masters! randomness!).

The first director tool I can specifically recall is Theatrix plot points. (I am convinced there was something similar in Toon, which was in many ways, IMHO, a landmark design.) Plot points work as defeat hedges, and more broadly and intriguingly than ever before. Example from the Core Rules: [you're in Alien,] the monster is bearing down
and there's a password-activated control panel between you and safety. One of your descriptors is "Coward." You can spend a plot point to activate "Coward" and win! Let me at that thing! gibbers the Coward and starts punching buttons at random, "just happening" to hit the right combination.

But the Statement Activation option for plot points rises from authorship to the level of what Ron calls Director mode. In fact, "Director mode" probably begins here: If you have a qualifying descriptor, you can spend a plot point to make something your character says true. The example given is a murder mystery scenario. The GM has an elaborate plot in mind about jilted love etc. A character with the Detective descriptor activates the following statement: "From the marks on the victim's neck he could only have been killed by an escaped gorilla." And it's now true! Bye bye relationship map! Cool! Or, Appalling! depending on what you like.

"They weren't sure they approved
but they knew that it was modern.

I suspect that it makes sense historically that it was dramatists who seized on the possibility of distributed direction to develop what Ron calls narrativism. I'm just unconvinced that player authorship and distributed direction must be story-oriented. I was initially thinking of things I've actually seen in Amber games, where, say, the player whose character commands the southern fleet may do the heavy lifting of developing the southern fleet - naming the ships, choosing the types, setting patrols etc. Having done that, the player may well be the authority on the southern fleet in play, and have some say in intragame decisions on its actions, but the decisions will not necessarily be made with story ends in mind. "Would the Southern Fleet have ships here, Barbara?" Thinks, then, "Probably not, no." Ars Magica's troupe style seems to spread authority around, but simulationists seem to love Ars Magica. AM campaigns were among the most referenced personal accounts of simulationist behavior when I was following rgfa.

Note well: AM use fortune-you-know-where too.

But then I remember OD&D - the little white box. "When a fighter attains to the ninth level he may build a keep and attract men-at-arms who will be his followers." What was supposed to happen was that the fighter's player himself could design his castle, equip the men, maybe even draw the map. Since the keep would now become a center of campaign activity, the very character of the campaign could change based on what the player wanted for his PC. And this was not OD&D in its gamist aspect either.

Best,


Jim


_________________
-----------------------------------------
 Let's start a ridiculous trend
 You and I, let's pretend
 We know what's going on
         Tim Finn, End of a Popular Song

[ This Message was edited by: Supplanter on 2001-06-18 14:01 ]

[Mike Holmes]

I love it when someone responds to a criticism of one of my posts with exactally the same logic that I would have used (and probably better than I could have). Makes for much less typing.

Er, um.... what Supplanter said.

OK, that's lame. What can I add?

I think that the problem is that there is an assumption that there is only one way that you can develop a stance mechanic. A director mechanic means giving over control to the player to do anything. Which is one way. But even Ron's systems limit the players in some ways. Consensus is often a limiter. What if you limited a players ability to create to just his hometown, just for the purposes of coming up with justifications for successful knowledge skill rolls. "I learned that from Pete the Carpenter." That sort of Authorial power won't snap the belief suspenders of most Simulationists, whilst simultaneously making the character more realistic." Has no effect on the plot currently and isn't intended to (but might later if the character returns home). It just makes a portion of the game more believable and interesting. Which is the Simulationist goal.

This example is off the top of my head and may not be perfect in illustrating what I mean. But if I can get that close without thinking about it that much, I imagine that it can be done and well with some consideration. Time will tell.

So the answer to your question is not that "G/N/S is not about mechanics", but that it is about particularmechanics that support that style. Stance mechanics can be defined so many different ways that I think that only a subset of them would be Narrativist. To the extent that a particular mechanic supports the intent of a particular goal, that very particular mechanic could be said to be Narrativist, or Gamist or Simulationist. Whether a particular mechanic does or not is likely to be very subjective. And no *class* of mechanics, such as a particular stance, can possibly be definitive. Would you say that reward mechanics are of a certain "ism"? Or even experience reward mechanics? I'd think that you'd want more details.

So in defining the "isms" leave mechanics particulars out of it. It works perfectly well to go by intent.

Hm..seem to have had something to say after all. But a lot is reiteration of Supplanter's notes. Oh, well...

Mike Holmes

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-06-18 13:13, Mytholder wrote:
I suspect a simulationist game with distributed focus is possible. Basically, it would have each player taking charge of a character or faction or section of the game world, and having authority over the actions of that area. However, all decisions would be subject to the group consensus.

I think it's possible, but it'd also be very prone to falling over into arguments and conflictiing ideas about how the world "should work".

Perhaps a vote when conflicts arise? A very democratic sort of game? Seems entirely reasonable. Yes, particular players might have problems with particular rulings, but the majority would be satisfied by them. Dissatisfaction would probably be no less than with the rulings of a GM. And other arbitration tools could be used as well. Might be interesting.

Mike Holmes