Groping for Coherence: Am I G or N or just plain wrong?

[Xose Lucero]

Long time reader, first time poster. Finding the Forge was an eye opener experience. After a long time grasping at the straws of comprehension I'm finally beginning to formulate intelligent questions. At least, that's my naive belief. After you read my questions you might have another opinion.

The system I've been working on in my garage has finally started to condense into something real. It's my hope that analysis by someone who really knows what they're talking about will help fill in blanks in my GNS understanding that abstract theory hasn't yet.

All system examples are highly simplified (Does this need to be said?). Questions in bold.

Players divide points among three attributes, each of which governs a discrete sphere of activity. These attributes do not represent any concrete property of their character. Rather, the number of points in different attributes represents the players' interest in influencing these areas of play via their characters.

It's important to know that "player" means anyone at the table. The system can be used in the traditional 1 GM / N players mode, or with GM duties distributed among fully equal players. Also, "character" means any entity in the imagined reality and can correspond to an army, a political faction, the weather, an individual, PCs, NPCs, or even inanimate objects that play a key role in a conflict, all depending on how the group agrees to play.

Characters of the traditional "PC" type are created with individual Premises and relationships to other characters. These are the usual family / friends / enemies relationships as well as links between similar Premises and intra-player determination to challenge or support these Premises. I think this is the right word but I might mean "kicker" or something in between.

Play is divided into scenes [scene framing omitted for clarity]. A player acts in the scene by stating their character's intent, setting the stakes, and stating the attribute / sphere of activity that governs their character's intent. Other players may allow the action to occur uncontested, may contest the stakes, or may contest the resolution. In a contest, the acting player and the opposing player bid points from their appropriate attribute pools (which pools depends on their characters' intended actions and intended results) while other players may bid points to support either player or oppose one or the other on their own. It might help to think of it as superficially like betting in Poker. Players receive bonuses to bids depending on whether their action, opposition, or support addresses a Premise of the acting player(s).

The very simple version is that bidding continues until one player (acting player or any opposers but not supporters) "folds" or runs out of attribute points. The winner of the bidding receives primary narration rights as do their supporters to a much lesser degree. The loser receives secondary narration rights and they and any supporters lose the attribute points they bid.

1. I would call this (karma + resource management) in-the-middle conflict resolution. Does that sound right?

It's a balancing act between bidding enough to get what you want and risking so much that you will be unable to further influence the scene if you lose. This is in fact one of the main Premises addressed by the system as a whole: how hard are you willing to push for what you want and how much are you willing to give up to get it? It should be obvious that a player can arrange things to win a bid easily, but this is a Pyrrhic victory and almost guarantees they'll win once and only once. The key to continued influence is to push just hard enough, but not so hard that you leave yourself without resources. It's also important to compromise and please other players enough that they will support your actions in the bidding. Hopefully a side effect is playgroup cohesion since no one can run away with the story without majority support.

Attribute points are regained over time and there are bonus points (used like attribute points but not limited to a sphere of activity) to be gained and lost in various circumstances. Players can also transfer attribute points to other players and those transfers can be opposed as outlined above.

2. I intend for this to support Narrativist play but I'm worried that the resolution system makes it Gamist Exploring Character / Situation. Is this a valid concern or does it represent a fundamental misunderstanding on my part? I don't yet have a firm enough grasp of GNS theory to spot coherence / incoherence with any certainty.

3. One of my design goals is for there to be minimal difference between Game and Metagame. Does this make sense and How'm I doin'?

4. Maybe this should be question zero but, does this vague simplified description of the game make sense at all? It feels like it needs to be horribly abstract or thirty pages plus detailed play examples and that's a ways away.

5. Unrelated to this but a couple of the articles around the Forge disparagingly mention "fiction thinly disguised as setting / source material" when discussing RPG supplements. What would proper setting material look like?

Thank you very much for your insight and your indulgence!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Xose, and welcome!

Everyone, I'd like to address these questions myself without interference, just this once.

Xose, unfortunately I'll have to get back to this tomorrow, so please forgive the delay. But I'm on it.

Best, Ron

[Xose Lucero]

Thank you very much; I'm looking forward to your reply. Obviously I know what my design's like inside my head but I'm not necessarily fluent enough in GNS theory to express it clearly in the proper terms so if you need any clarification I'll try to provide.

Thanks again.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I can see why Ron wants a go at this alone. Good luck, I'll follow this with interest.

Also: do you know about Universalis, Lucero? It's a game with sort of similar ideas, you might like it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Xose! Sorry about the delay.

First, have you looked at the diagram of the Big Model in The Provisional Glossary< play<

Characters of the traditional "PC" type are created with individual Premises and relationships to other characters. These are the usual family / friends / enemies relationships as well as links between similar Premises and intra-player determination to challenge or support these Premises. I think this is the right word but I might mean "kicker" or something in between.Quote

Play is divided into scenes [scene framing omitted for clarity]. A player acts in the scene by stating their character's intent, setting the stakes, and stating the attribute / sphere of activity that governs their character's intent. Other players may allow the action to occur uncontested, may contest the stakes, or may contest the resolution. In a contest, the acting player and the opposing player bid points from their appropriate attribute pools (which pools depends on their characters' intended actions and intended results) while other players may bid points to support either player or oppose one or the other on their own. It might help to think of it as superficially like betting in Poker. Players receive bonuses to bids depending on whether their action, opposition, or support addresses a Premise of the acting player(s).Quote

The very simple version is that bidding continues until one player (acting player or any opposers but not supporters) "folds" or runs out of attribute points. The winner of the bidding receives primary narration rights as do their supporters to a much lesser degree. The loser receives secondary narration rights and they and any supporters lose the attribute points they bid.

1. I would call this (karma + resource management) in-the-middle conflict resolution. Does that sound right?

Yes indeed, you are.

It's a balancing act between bidding enough to get what you want and risking so much that you will be unable to further influence the scene if you lose. This is in fact one of the main Premises addressed by the system as a whole: how hard are you willing to push for what you want and how much are you willing to give up to get it? It should be obvious that a player can arrange things to win a bid easily, but this is a Pyrrhic victory and almost guarantees they'll win once and only once. The key to continued influence is to push just hard enough, but not so hard that you leave yourself without resources. It's also important to compromise and please other players enough that they will support your actions in the bidding. Hopefully a side effect is playgroup cohesion since no one can run away with the story without majority support.Quote

2. I intend for this to support Narrativist play but I'm worried that the resolution system makes it Gamist Exploring Character / Situation. Is this a valid concern or does it represent a fundamental misunderstanding on my part? I don't yet have a firm enough grasp of GNS theory to spot coherence / incoherence with any certainty.then<<

3. One of my design goals is for there to be minimal difference between Game and Metagame. Does this make sense and How'm I doin'?Quote

5. Unrelated to this but a couple of the articles around the Forge disparagingly mention "fiction thinly disguised as setting / source material" when discussing RPG supplements. What would proper setting material look like?

[Xose Lucero]

Thank you very much for the reply! There's a lot of food for thought there. I was expecting a sandwich with the crust cut off and got a five-course dinner. I'll try to keep my response succinct but I apologize if it ends up running away.

The Big Model is one of the things I'm still groping for. I come from a background of horribly dysfunctional play. A lot of the articles make statements that blow my understanding out of the water and shoot it twice before it hits the ground. When they don't include hand-holding examples I'm sometimes left wondering, "Well, if the only way I thought this worked isn't true that leaves (counts on fingers) zero ways it could work. How else could it be?" I've read all the articles at least twice but, of course, that doesn't mean I've understood or internalized them yet. Hopefully conversations like this will throw my misunderstandings into relief and help clear them up. It's working a treat so far (thank you)!

Anyway, when I said "my GNS understanding" I think I meant the totality of the Big Model, the glossary, the three Creative Agenda articles, and GNS and Other Matters. Maybe a better phrase would have been "my Forge RPG theory understanding"? I take it that "GNS" refers only to the three CAs and I misused the term (synecdoche?).

Quote

The thing is, if you mean Forge-vocab bona fide Premise...

I thought I might get in trouble with this one. I found two definitions of Premise in the articles. One is in the glossary and Narrativism: Story Now. I think I understand that one and agree that it should be looked at out of the corner of the eye during play so as not to scare it away. The other definition is in GNS and Other Matters: "Premise is whatever a participant finds among the elements to sustain a continued interest in what might happen in a role-playing session." So if I make a character who is a blind gunslinger driven by suicidal urges because he couldn't save the one woman who ever loved him and someone says, "Wow, I want to play in a game with him!" that's Character Premise of the second definition?

The problem is, I don't think that's what I was talking about. I admit I have no idea what to call it but it feels like Premise as defined in the Narrativism essay. Here's an example: you make a Conan clone and for the Whatever that I called Premise you write...

Conan - Premises

• "What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
• "Nothing is stronger than Steel (force of arms). Not men. Not women. Not beasts. Nothing is stronger than Steel."

I think I called it Premise because it's a judgment that can be questioned and challenged. "Nothing is stronger than Steel? Not even Flesh?" And they can, through challenge, produce Theme for that character (I think).

(Apologies to the author of Riddle of Steel. It's just an example. I don't even intend this to be a Fantasy game. One of my design goals is for it to be a General system as defined in GNS and Other Matters, not tied to setting, etc.)

Quote

Quick question: all points bid are lost, right?

Yes, with some possible softening of the blow via the reward system to prevent a death spiral where losing inevitably leads to losing. Right now I think players regain points after a scene and I think the proposal to end a scene can be opposed like any action. This might prevent it just being an escape hatch for players running low on points, while also giving people an incentive to change scenes after big bloody (in terms of point loss and therefore, usually, investment-heavy(?)) conflicts. Hopefully this would keep the pacing crisp but it needs testing. Thought experiments aren't much help on this point.

Gah.

This part was extremely extremely helpful. I think I see what you mean. But does this mean that all this RPG theory is less helpful as a design tool than it is as an analysis tool? Do you say, after testing, "Ah, I've made a Narrativist game," rather than sitting down and asking, "What should I do to design a Narrativist game?" Did I just reveal that I don't see what you mean at all?

	Logged

[greyorm]

	Logged

Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
Wild Hunt Studio