All-out dissection (LONG AND BRUTAL)

[Ian O'Rourke]

Well, in the politest possible terms, I'd just say that is crap :smile:

You see Sorcerer is not about the demons. It's about he Sorcerers and what drives and motivates them to interact with these demons and what the consequences are. The fact that the nature of demons is not fully presented in the rules is not a cop out, because presenting a demon bibliography would go against the whole premise of the game. The demons are just a construct to explore this issue.

I've had my problems with the game in the passed, but I believe the above is true.

If Sorcerer was to include a Demon bibliography this would a define demons, and hence limit their story potential. The fact a player can describe the demon he wants to summon gives him control of his character development - rather than having to limit his character development from monster manual. If I have a character who's lost love has died, may be, as part of my Author Stance, I'd have my character summon a demon who's sole purpose is to mimic the appearance of my lost love? This sort of creature, and the unique 'problems' I want my character to suffer because of this action, may not be in the monster manual.

This is like saying that The Whispering Vault, or Over the Edge does not have detailed combat rules because they could not be bothered to put them in. It also means Unknown Armies copped out by being too lazy to put a complete skills list in the game.

In fact this comment is just weird, it shows a total disregard for a wide range of game design options - and basically says all games have to be  more simulationist (rather than actually simulationist) in goal.

[Ian O'Rourke]

On 2001-05-25 12:37, Mike Holmes wrote:

In fact, I believe that this "new" style is being proposed more as a style of play than a design goal. So could it be that we're comparing apples to oranges all along? IIRC, Ron has stated that his model is only pertinent in the context of it being about design.  If you are considering it from the POV of playing styles, maybe it should be be GED or Gamist, Explorationist, and Dramatist. After all Ron only changed Dramatist to Narrativist when he considered the model in the light of it being about design; all in the context of "System Does Matter".

A lot of IIRC, here, as well as IMHO.

Mike Holmes

I think this is the issue, we now have@

(1) The model for looking at games design
(2) The model for looking at player behaviour
(3) The model for looking at player/design interaction

I find it hard to believe one model will match them all (we already admit using GNS for option 2 is an interesting sideline at best).

As for 3, I'm really not sure what the point is? If your designing a game you have a goal and vision and you should design to that vision, using GNS (if you want) to keep a focus in the mechanics.

Analysing how the games mechanics are used or abused in session is not going to help you any, and trying to second guess this use/abuse to the nth degree is only useful to a certain degree.

You want someone creating something to stick to his vision and do that well, not second guess how people are going to use it, abuse it or perceive it.

Surely?

_________________
Ian O'Rourke
http://www.fandomlife.net">www.fandomlife.net
The e-zine of SciFi media, and Fandom Culture.

[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-05-25 18:11 ]

[Valamir]

On 2001-05-25 17:51, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
Well, in the politest possible terms, I'd just say that is crap :smile:

You see Sorcerer is not about the demons. It's about he Sorcerers and what drives and motivates them to interact with these demons and what the consequences are. The fact that the nature of demons is not fully presented in the rules is not a cop out

Ack, apparently I did a very poor job with that post because I absolutely wasn't presenting that as a "cop-out".  In fact, I think its one of the greatest features of the game.

I just don't think that its a particullarly compelling example of Author stance, since even in the purest "simulationist" game the Sorcerer would be doing exactly the same thing...summoning as close to precisely the exact kind of demon he wants.  Barring mistake or inexperience, a Sorcerer in any game isn't going to summon a titanic earth destroying monster when what he wants is a spy.  He's going to summon exactly the kind of demon he wants with various "simulation" rules indicating how closely he succeeds.  Similarly in Sorcerer you summon exactly what kind of demon you want, subject to GM alteration.

Its not so much Author stance as it is a short cut method that permits the game to be played in any setting with any definition of demon.  The game CAN'T define the demons in advance because that would limit its application.  So the mechanics allow for the demon to be conform to the particular setting being used.

[Supplanter]

1) How absurd is it to say, first, Simulationism is not a genuine stance but a shrinking in fear from the responsibilities of Gamism or Narrativism, and second, "No one... NO ONE... is under attack here?"

2) We can easily flip it around, though of course, by doing so, we attack...no one...NO ONE:

Narrativism is just an excuse to avoid the responsibility of Simulationism. A simulationist can say, "I failed. I didn't respect the integrity of the setting because of my desire for cheap thrills. I went for a hokey 'climax' at the expense of everything that makes the world worth imagining." A gamist can say, "I failed. Instead of accepting the outcome of the rules I fudged my roll for some transitory amusement."

Gamism is just an excuse to avoid the responsibility of Simulationism. A simulationist can say, "I failed. I accepted an absurd result of the mechanics because it benefitted my character. Had I the guts I'd have insisted that the GM grind my character into the dirt, as the situation demanded."

The above hypotheticals are every bit as valid as Ron's unless you start out biased against simulationism. And how valid are any of them, Ron's and mine both? Answer: Not. In gaming, you have the responsibilities you freely accept and no other.

Ron who is a self-described narrativist and an unacknowledged gamist, simply, as someone suggested above, doesn't get simulationism, and that, despite his painful attempts to be fair, sets a genuine limit on his criticism as criticism. One can follow him so far and no farther. Similarly, my belief that all too much of Narrativism is satisfied with reproducing the thinnest genre tripe (viz. Pantheon) at the expense of genuine human values, and focuses too much on plot at the expense of other literary qualities, limits how much I can usefully say to self-described Narrativists.

None of this makes Ron a bad guy. (As I said, NO ONE...is under attack here.) It makes him William Carlos Williams. It makes him Frost. That is, I class Ron with those practitionars of an art who need, for the sake of their own creativity, to develop systematic theories of their art that were necessarily partial, and necessarily dismissive of what they themselves do not value. Reading Williams' theories of poetry is a teeth-grinding experience for me. Reading at least some of his poems is a pleasure. I like a lot more of Frost's poems, and not surprisingly, feel more visceral approval of his theorizing. That doesn't make Frost right and Williams wrong. They're both "wrong," as critics, but right as artists. Not a little of Ron's discourse on his version of the Three-Fold Model exasperates me. But I contemplate playing Sorcerer with pleasure.

Best,


Jim

[Ian O'Rourke]

On 2001-05-26 11:37, Valamir wrote:

I just don't think that its a particullarly compelling example of Author stance, since even in the purest "simulationist" game the Sorcerer would be doing exactly the same thing...summoning as close to precisely the exact kind of demon he wants.  Barring mistake or inexperience, a Sorcerer in any game isn't going to summon a titanic earth destroying monster when what he wants is a spy.  He's going to summon exactly the kind of demon he wants with various "simulation" rules indicating how closely he succeeds.  Similarly in Sorcerer you summon exactly what kind of demon you want, subject to GM alteration.

Possibly, but in my take on it the type of demon summoned has nothing to do with its game application - such as it being good at spying, or the player wanting one that can fight.

It's the player choosing one which will drive the story in a particular direction - such as satisfying his obsession for his dead girlfriend, or summoning one that can really get under the skin of his enemy.

The Author stance comes in this respect - the player is summoning a demon who drives the direction his character wants to go in - not just summoning a demon to allow him to do a physical thing.

Do you see the narrativist side of this demon summoning issue at all?

[Valamir]

On 2001-05-26 19:16, Ian O'Rourke wrote:

Possibly, but in my take on it the type of demon summoned has nothing to do with its game application - such as it being good at spying, or the player wanting one that can fight.

It's the player choosing one which will drive the story in a particular direction - such as satisfying his obsession for his dead girlfriend, or summoning one that can really get under the skin of his enemy.

Do you see the narrativist side of this demon summoning issue at all?

No doubt it can be used that way, and no doubt it often is and is encouraged to be.  But according to the actual rules as written.  No, that is not its primary purpose.

from page 8 of the rules:
"Think your PC is combat-ineffective?  Summon a Parasite demon who protects you from bullets and allows you to spit napalm.  Feel left out?  Contact the demon your buddy Banished during the last run and off it a future Summoning if it gives you the dirt on its last master"

Seems to me those suggestions are much closer to "spying" than "dead girlfriends".

Now I'm hoping that in the second soon to be released print version, Ron incorporates tremendous amounts of all the really fun stuff he's been devoloping since 1998.  But for now...it just isn't there beyond vague suggestions for role-playing modifiers.

[greyorm]

Does this argument about whether summoning demons in Sorcerer is Authorial or Simulationist seem to anyone like excessive nitpicking?

It does to me.  So I'll just quote Ron himself to solve the Yes/No: "In a recent Sorcerer game, in the first run, one of the players rolled really well for a Contain role, her first act of sorcery in the run. She looked at me and asked, "What does it look like?" I replied: "You are the animator," and looked expectant. We were then treated to the coolest, most relevant, most perfect for her character description of her sorcery in action."

That sounds pretty Author to me...and Author style is about intent and method, not application, otherwise by the reasoning posted by Valamir above, one could paint every action in a game as being done for "Simulationist" reasons.

"Yes, but he chose to have the detective find the clue because that is what would happen under those circumstances.  Simulationist!"
Or "There was a shotgun in the shop because it is the most powerful weapon and his character looks awesome with it.  Clearly a gamist approach, not Authorial!"

These statements -- like the statement that the demon's in-game function remove Author stance -- show a clear misunderstanding about the nature of the models being discussed.

Hrm...besides, trying to compare Author stance to Simulationist style is like trying to compare apples and hematite -- they aren't even the same sort of thing nor opposed to each other!! (G/N/S and Ac/Au/D aren't inter-comparitive models)

_________________
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 2001-05-26 23:19 ]

[Valamir]

You're taking it out of context Raven, but I'm not going to into that here, because all of the context can be found in my subjective simulation thread.

I will say this, however.  There is absolutely no fundamental difference between a purely simulationist sorcerer attempting to make contact with the precise demon he's looking for within the limits imposed by the game on what is available and a Sorcerer sorcerer attempting to make contact with the precise demon he's looking for with the ability of the GM to make alterations to it.

Same exact thing.  If this is Authorship, than it apparently is possible to have Authorship in a simulation which blows the current definition of simulation.  If this is not Authorship than Sorcerer continues to be devoid of any mechanics encouraging authorship and hense still qualifies as a simulation.

Try these on for size if your still not following me:

"A player may describe a demon for their PC to contact, even specifying numerically if they want, but the GM can always alter the demon who actually shows up"

"...all the creative work described above does not necessarily mean the sorcerer, the PC, can summon "whatever they want"  That rests with the definition of sorcery specific to the play group (see Chapter Three)"

"Ordinarily, the GM builds the demon characters.  Sometimes a player has a say in how a demon is built...but the GM has the final word"

Regarding initial demons "This is the only demon sheet the player will ever get to see, and even then it can be altered once it gets in the GM's hands.  After that, the GM generates and controls ALL demon sheets"  Gee, somehow the deliberate restriction of OOC information doesn't seem to mesh with this supposes encouragement of Author stance idea.  Nope, the above "secret info the players aren't allowed to know" is VERY VERY VERY Simulationist.

A final observation, defining what the nature of a demon is in the particular gaming world is (according to page :cool: wholly the province of the GM.  His definition of demons and their characteristics places an absolute restriction on the type of demons a player can summon.  There is absolutely no difference between this and if the game provided such restrictions.  The effect on the player is the same.

Really Raven.  I think some of you people have played Sorcerer so much, and incorporated so many of Ron's advanced ideas about narrative play into your group that you've forgotten the actual rules to the darn game.  I suggest if you're having trouble following me you go back and read the rule book, cause NONE of that advanced narrative play stuff is in there.

[Supplanter]

Same exact thing. If this is Authorship, than it apparently is possible to have Authorship in a simulation which blows the current definition of simulation.

Someone defined simulationism in such a way as to preclude author stance? Why did they do that?

Best,


Jim

[Valamir]

Yup, Ron did.  In the very first part of his definition as found in the Alternate Phylogeny thread (which since this is the thread he refers people too I have to assume this is his desired definition).

In this definition, Author stance is deemed completely incompatible with Simulation.

One of the reasons I dislike Simulation as a category is because you can have Actor and Author with Gamist, you can have Actor and Author with Narrativist, but you can't have Actor and Author with Simulationist.  This tells me that Simulationism is NOT measuring the same type of thing as the other two and therefor is NOT appropriate as the third leg of the model.

Explorative on the other hand, which is NOT the same thing as Simulation with a new name, can handle both Actor and Author stance just fine.

Again I encourage folks to examine the GEN threads on GO.  The GEN model does not eliminate Simulationism or claim it doesn't exist.  Rather what it does is pull Simulationist
out of the triad and turn it into an independent measure of game mechanics in the same way as the Fortune/Karma/Drama trio is.

Thus, if one is designing mechanics that are a simulation of something, this is completely independent of the type of game it is.  You can make a Gamist Game with simulationist mechanics or an Explorative Game with simulationist mechanics or even a Narrativist Game with simulationist mechanics.  In other words Simulation is not an objective, it is one of the paths that can be used to achieve an objective.  And for those who say that Simulation can be an objective in itself, yes this can be handled in GEN too.

Its possible that your Null Compliance game idea might be the first Narrative Simulation I've heard of.

[greyorm]

NOW WITH 33% FEWER INSULTS!!  TRY IT TODAY!!

the deliberate restriction of OOC information doesn't seem to mesh with this supposes encouragement of Author stance

NO ONE said that Authorship entails complete control of information by the players, which is what your examples and statements seem to be claiming.

the above "secret info the players aren't allowed to know" is VERY VERY VERY Simulationist.

Somehow having certain information kept from the players is and can only be Simulationist?

Have you never played a narrative detective, mystery or horror game?  By your account, such a beast would be impossible(!) since the players wouldn't be allowed to know certain secret information necessary to the unfolding of the genre.

A final observation, defining what the nature of a demon is in the particular gaming world is (according to page :cool: wholly the province of the GM.  His definition of demons and their characteristics places an absolute restriction on the type of demons a player can summon.  There is absolutely no difference between this and if the game provided such restrictions.  The effect on the player is the same.

According to the above, any time the GM or group determines any metagame realities, restrictions appear and thus destroy the possibility of Author stance?

So if the game is a medieval fantasy, the GM is restricting his players by not allowing them to Author in a '60s style gangster or an astronaut, or an alien beast from Xorgon, and thus Author stance is destroyed.

Or that dwarves might be dour sourpusses who like gems, or elves might be savage, bloodthirsty killers...oops, darn Narrator restricting the nature of certain types of things.  There goes Author stance, eh?

Narrativist play isn't a cartoon!

(You know the type: objects and people appearing illogically out of the vaccum with nothing really holding them together)

Really Raven.  I think some of you people have played Sorcerer so much, and incorporated so many of Ron's advanced ideas about narrative play into your group that you've forgotten the actual rules to the darn game.  I suggest if you're having trouble following me you go back and read the rule book, cause NONE of that advanced narrative play stuff is in there.

You'd be surprised how little I've played Sorcerer.

I'm not arguing this from a "Sorcerer fanboy" standpoint, or even a "narrativist" standpoint, just a logical one with an apparently clearer understanding of the terminology, especially as it relates to the workings of Author stance.

And considering that I've discovered recently I am a definite simulationist in practice and haven't used many narrativist ideas in my games, particularly the 'advanced narrativist' ones you're off about (especially since I didn't quite get them until sometime last week)...

Well...how does that foot taste?

_________________
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 2001-05-27 20:12 ]

[Valamir]

Dude, what is with you.  Is it possible for you to at least try to make a legitimate arguement here.  So far every single one of your posts have been "lets see how I can mock Valamir today".  Half of your arguements where you claim to somehow be devastating my case don't even make sense, and the other half conveniently take the whole issue out of context.

I at no time suggested that narrativist play did not involve restrictions.  Do you perhaps have at least one arguement that isn't flammable and better suited for standing guard in a corn field?

The point, and I will try to make this very clear one last time since you can't seem to be bothered to discover the context yourself.  IS NOT that there is not room for Author stance in Sorcerer, IS NOT that Author stance can't be used in Sorcerer, IS NOT that Author stance means players can act without restriction and therefor restrictions equate to it not being author stance.  IT IS SOLELY AND ENTIRELY nothing more than to demonstrate that there is nothing in 1st edition sorcerer rules that ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES Author Stance (even accounting for the fact that the term wasn't known at the time...there is not a hint of the concept).

It was suggested that that was not true.  That the ability to design a demon by the player was in fact encouraging Author stance even if it wasn't explicitly identified as such.  The rest of the discussion was to counter that claim.  My case is that the ability to design a demon in and of itself is NOT an example of Author stance at work, because you can also design a demon with essentially the exact same effect in a purely simulationist game.  And since by Ron's definition a purely simulationist game cannot have author stance than this ability can not be an example of author stance.  If it is than the ability to do it in a simulationist game is also author stance thereby invalidating that part of the definition.  If it is not than once again we are back to no Sorcerer rules which actively encourage author stance.

Now if you can come up with an effective counter to that to continue the discussion in a manner that doesn't provide a place for crows to perch, I will be more than happy to engage in the debate further.  If not, I'm pretty much done here.

[greyorm]

Well, I honestly don't know where you're coming from...I think you're over-reacting and blowing things out of proportion.

Every single one of my posts has been 'mocking' you?  How do you get this?  Every single one?  I don't see it.  I see some harsh judgements of your statements, but nothing about you personally.
Don't take my argumentativeness for anything more than it is.

And in line with that, my arguments don't make sense?  Which ones and how?  
Would you be so kind as to point out which arguments don't make sense and how they don't, instead of just claiming they don't and chiding me about my bad attitude.

For example, you stated that you have never suggested Narrativist play does not involve restrictions.
Yet if you go back and read the post I was responding to you'll find that you were making statements about the GM's ability to control the demons after creation, as a counterpoint to my statements about player-design being Author stance.
Thus the reader must assume you are claiming that restriction and the stance are exclusive of each other.

If you don't see that, it might be because you are too close to it...knowing what you wanted to say but not seeing what you actually said.

And in another instance, your exact words were "'secret info the players aren't allowed to know' is VERY VERY VERY Simulationist."
I responded to this, saying that the mere fact that restricted information exists in a game does not make the game simulationist.  You have yet to respond to this.

You also went on to say, "...places an absolute restriction on the type of demons a player can summon. There is absolutely no difference between this and if the game provided such restrictions. The effect on the player is the same."
If this has NOTHING TO DO with the disagreement (that Sorcerer demon summoning is/isn't Authorship), then for what reason in the context of the discussion of Author stance and demon-summoning was it brought up?

The manner in which it was phrased can be seen as nothing else: "somehow the deliberate restriction of OOC information doesn't seem to mesh with this supposes encouragement of Author stance idea"

But you aren't arguing that?
Then I'm sorry, but you've utterly lost me.

Simply, everything I had said was a response to your claim that "There is absolutely no fundamental difference between a...sorcerer attempting to make contact with the precise demon he's looking for within the limits imposed by the game...and a Sorcerer sorcerer attempting to make contact with the precise demon he's looking for with the ability of the GM to make alterations to it."

I disagree (for the third time); there is a fundamental difference, one which you apparently don't see but which I do.  I've tried to point it out, but you still don't see it.

This, apparently, is somehow insulting.  I feel that next time I'll just nod and agree with you to save you the trouble of feeling hurt when someone doesn't agree with your stance.

Given the content of the other recent thread we clashed in, I'm getting the feeling you're not seperating judgements upon your logic and premises from judgements upon you, personally, because honestly that's what it looks like from here.

As to the flammability of my arguments, let's get to that...

The point, and I will try to make this very clear one last time since you can't seem to be bothered to discover the context yourself.

And I write flamebait?
Have I openly INSULTED your intellect or called you names?  No.  I have not.  I've pounded on some of your statements pretty hard, but not you personally.  I'd appreciate if you would extend me the same courtesy.

Thus far you've accused me of being a blinded Sorcerer fanboy ("Really Raven. I think some of you people have played Sorcerer so much...") and assumed that I was just a narrativist defending his holy writ and couldn't really understand a simulationist viewpoint, and now you've gone and called me stupid.

And when I point out that you're making a rather big assumption about my reasoning or background, you take it as an insult.  Sure, no one likes having it pointed out that they've put their foot in their mouth, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just ignore that you did.
(not to mention, the foot statement was meant lightly, not harshly...of course, that inflection is hard to translate here)

Finally, in regards to the context issue, I'm not at you about the point you'd like to be discussing -- is Sorcerer overall Simulationist or Authorial -- but instead at you about your claim that demon-summoning is supposedly Simulationist and lacks any elements of Authorship.
Are you with me now?

Here's my point in a nutshell: I don't buy your logic in regards to Sorc demon-summoning being non-Author.  I think it's skewed.  I provided reasons why.
If that isn't obvious, and you need to fire off insults and accusations in order to feel better about the discussion, I have to wonder if you are capable of dealing with criticism, because, to me, your attitude doesn't feel like it.

My case is that the ability to design a demon in and of itself is NOT an example of Author stance at work, because you can also design a demon with essentially the exact same effect in a purely simulationist game.

And I pointed out that this sounds like a misrepresentation of the terms Author and Simulationist to me, intent and method and all that which I won't go into again since you can read it all above.

Now if you can come up with an effective counter to that to continue the discussion in a manner that doesn't provide a place for crows to perch, I will be more than happy to engage in the debate further.  If not, I'm pretty much done here.

As to coming up with an effective counter to your 'challenge', please check all my posts above since my responses to your arguments are therein, and frankly, since your shorts are in a serious knot over this and it seems unlikely right now to improve with further discussion, I'm done too.  Sorry it had to come to bickering.

_________________
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 2001-05-27 20:19 ]