A note on GNS and scale ...

[Marco]

From the "Why Sim" Thread.

As to the original question:
I like different gaming styles (make different decisions in my gaming) at different times for a variety of reasons.

I agree with this (much snipped). After some analysis I've determined that our group (and to a certain extent most of the groups I've gamed with) appreciate:

A few "tight" tactical combats (not a whole lot of them--but roughly one good one a session seemed to be right). That's Gamist for a few "frames" (small scale).

The chance to explore situation in the hands of the GM when the "terrain" was interesting to them (Simulationist) (middle scale).

An overall story arc that was both specifically relevant to them and that they participated in (for some it just meant making characters with a suggested arc described to the GM--for others a lot more) (narrativist at the large scale).

More notably, despite the use of a Sim-system (GURPS, Hero ... etc.), the goals at different scales weren't interchangeable.  The group didn't want narrativist combat (well, what got the energy going was a live-or-die fight it out, fast-paced war-game style brawl). They didn't want an explore ... go up in level ... explore over-all plot--they wanted something that met their expectations as a story and when invited were willing participants in creating it (although in practice mostly on a large scale--possibly a limitation of the system).

During general gaming most players seemed to prize in-character play and would sometimes de-railed the action/story to "check out" the GM's world--in a decidedly non-story-oriented fashion (characters poking around a high-tech junk-yard because they wanted to see what the technology was like wasn't especially gamist -- they didn't expect treasure -- and would've made a lousy chapter in a novel).

So from my experince the GNS requirements seem to also relate to scale.

[Edited: The large scale story oriented stuff is really a collection of scenes where I, at least, and (I think) my players, are making decisions from Author Stance--Vannllia Narrativism, yes?  I think so--the idea is that play switches from story-advancement/priority to exploration during play which is pretty common--but ultimately I want the large-scale plot to be a good story and will act in Author Stance to see that happen as necessary.]

-Marco
[ I've been away a while. ]

[Andrew Martin]

From the "Why Sim" Thread.
During general gaming most players seemed to prize in-character play and would sometimes de-railed the action/story to "check out" the GM's world--in a decidedly non-story-oriented fashion (characters poking around a high-tech junk-yard because they wanted to see what the technology was like wasn't especially gamist -- they didn't expect treasure -- and would've made a lousy chapter in a novel).

That's because most game systems don't reward behaviour as expected in a book or movie. Instead they reward the characters becoming more powerful, either through XP or through in-game methods, like searching through a high-teck junk yard to find nifty tech.

Once you can reward players for movie/book in the system, players and their characters will automatically behave like movie/book characters. It's worked for me.

[Marco]

That's because most game systems don't reward behaviour as expected in a book or movie. Instead they reward the characters becoming more powerful, either through XP or through in-game methods, like searching through a high-teck junk yard to find nifty tech.

That example was one of exploration of situation. Maybe a better example would be when the PC's get into town and one goes walking around to see what he can see, talks to NPCS with no real goal other than learning the lay of the land--and with a genuine interest in the world and the people in it.

That's exploration of simulation and we find it very enjoyable--one of my great pleasures as a GM is to create interesting worlds for the PC's to explore. As a player one of my great pleasures is exploring interesting worlds.

It isn't about character-building. I've played in no-xp no-treasure games (one where we played ghosts with no ability to get equipment and no real advancement--it was a one-shot, where I've engaged (and reveled in) the same behavior--in-character exploration of setting--the world was *brilliant*, deep, surprising, and eerie).  If the game system denied me that, I'd be disappointed (an example of a way it could deny that would be to have a series of secens that I set up and then we played to resolve--which could work against exploration since I'd be setting a lot of the parameters up myself).

I'd thought I was pretty clear when I said "wanted to see what technology was like" and "didn't expect treasure." Martin, if I wanted to convey to you that the player's weren't engagin in C-RPG-like behavior what words would be clearer to you?

Also: the fact that it would have made a lousy chapter in a novel isn't meant to say that I didn't want it in my role-playing. The overall story arc, much of the action, and the plot of the game would make (of course) a great novel. That's large scale. I don't *want* the individual minutes of play to necessiarly conform to all drama-driven action. From your closing note it sort of sounds like that's what you're saying.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Marco!

Good to see you again.

I think the question of scale is definitely an important one - but to me, the real issue is whether these different applications or goals-sets are alternatives (i.e. switching) or mutually-reinforcing.

If they're alternatives, then the shift in scale, plus its accompanying shift in behavior, is really very much like "we're playing a different game." If they're mutually-reinforcing, then what we have is Narrativism (in this case) being reinforced by the other modes at smaller scales of imaginative-focus.

Either way is perfectly possible. I'm a little iffy on the mutual-reinforcement being continuous from in-to-out ... it seems awfully hard to imagine a Gamist combat (with full Gamist priority) reinforcing a larger-scale Simulationist priority, with the combination in turn reinforcing a largest-scale Narrativist one. I mean, in terms of the actual behaviors and decisions involved. That's where the "push comes to shove" issue crops up, which could easily apply across scales as well as within one scale-category.

Interesting topic - more discussion seems warranted.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Free plug - people who have been looking for a pretty damn rigorous Sim-system Generalist game should lose no time in checking out Marco's JAGS.

[Marco]

Hi Ron,

Man--you go away from the forge for a few months and have to deciphere something like "I'm a little iffy on the mutual-reinforcement being continuous from in-to-out ..." ;)

If I understand what you're saying: "each element enforces the others or each element is enjoyed separately."

I'm not entirely sure. I enjoy the gestalt. In a system like The Window, I would be missing the possibility of crunchy combat. In a system like (as I understand it--I haven't played) Theatrixs, I'd be missing the element of real exploration (or maybe not--I know it's diceless and drama-driven which makes me think free-form simulationist exporation is probably hard to get at).

All in all, I prize each element strongly--and even moreso, the *possibility* of each element even if it doesn't arise in a given gaming session. So it's like 3 different games in a sense ... and in another it's the idea that too strong a focus in one direction can be detrimental.

Example: in our games, ever since Hero, XP have simply been an alotment at the end of each session (or every other). It's always equal (everyone gets the same amount) and it's just a sort of steady progression.  I've never liked the overly-gamist AD&D XP system and wouldn't like one that force me to "role-play" in order to get XP. I don't like XP as a reward system at all.  So overly gamist games don't appeal in that aspect.

I suppose that a hypotheitical game that turned role-playing decisions into dice-rolls based on your characters' "personality grid" would be too far in the Sim-Direction for me (or at least computer games with their limited interaction are too "sim" for me).

A game with simplified plot-driven combat and little by way of arbitrary resolution mechanics would be too nar for me. That would put it more in the switching category than in the reinforcing. But it's not drifty. The mode of play doesn't seem (to me) to work against the grain of the system at all (and that's been true for Hero, GURPS, and JAGS).

-Marco
[Wow! Thanks for the plug! I know you don't give free plugs often--that's really cool. If anyone is interested in checking out JAGS you can get it here: http://jagsgame.dyndns.org ]

[Daredevil]

Hello folks,

First off, I very much agree with Marco's first post in the sense that the way he describes his group seems to parallel my own thoughts and those of my group.

I totally get Ron's idea of mutual-reinforcing goals. Personally, I think that's a great way for success in a roleplaying game and how I work on designing both campaigns and games. Those types of games require some novel mechanics or at least very good technique to make them work. The currently often mentioned Riddle of Steel is a game like this, imo.

Otherwise, the various aspects do indeed become distinctive in a way that makes them almost separate games in themselves. However, all three aspects are experienced through the character (and by the player, of course). Perhaps it is the geographical proximity of Turku to my physical location that is giving me this (in my view) Turku school bias, but I think characters get devalued in many of the conversations here.

The fact that a character -- as a crucial element of the game -- binds these various aspects together enhances the experience. The continuity of the character is added value, even if the exact type of enjoyment varies from session to session. A certain amount of immersion is a prerequisite to this, of course.

Often various threads on here get me thinking that characters may be somewhat devalued here at times. The character -- as an avatar or tool of the player's interactivity -- is what makes RPGs unique from, for example, literature. Computer games are somewhat plagued by the idea that player interactivity could ruin the game's attempt at presenting a story (which is why interactivity in computer RPGs is severely limited). I believe the same issue is what makes some folks say (or made them say in the past) Narrativism and Simulationism are mutually-damaging goals.

It's a matter of design, however. The already mentioned tRoS is one example, but certainly there are other ways/games. If characters are appropiate designed their subsequent in character actions will address a premise. That is Exploration of Character and Narrativism in the same bag.

In fact, I feel there is a style of play focused on character that transcends GNS boundaries. Various co-existing GNS goals all reinforce the character focus That is, however, currently just a personal hunch which should be better defined.  

This reminds me of a tangential matter. I've been thinking about the question "what is enough for a good rpg campaign?" What I mean here is, what is the minimum of various elements needed for an enjoyable rpg experience? I'll proceed with an example.

A game can have a lot of elements. Going back to the first post, a game can have an over-arching story, exploration of setting and tactical combat scenes. However, if my premise is related to personal politics, it may seem contrary to it to have any kind of combat scenes. If the game is about exploration of the setting, an overall plot or premise may seem useless.

Using my own players as an example, though, I believe a certain amount of diversity enhances the experience. The presence of many elements makes it more enjoyable. I fear a too tightly focused game will be too minimalist for some of their tastes. Any thoughts on or personal experiences with this concern?

Joachim Buchert

[Thededine]

The essential question here, I think, is whether the different modes are enjoyed separately or whether two of the modes exist primarily to support the third.

Are the Gamist combats and Simulationist exploration there to provide risk and context, respectively?  Are their purposes to encourage players to engage in the storyline that knits all the aspects together?

Is diversity of modes and the variety that it engenders something like a fourth element that can be enjoyed on a par with the three modes?

I can see both scenarios being correct, and I fear the question can't be answered in any absolute terms. The answer lies in the players who are experiencing the game.

[Jeremy Cole]

With simulationism, you are to play in character, and in the session's gamist element you are to play for maximum tactical effect.  Does the gamism mean that for a portion of the game the players are now out of character?  

In an ambush, they would now act in best tactical way (smoke, and a suppressing fire withdrawal, or whatever the rules dictate is the best option), not in character (run screaming, cower, surrender, or whatever their cannon fodder training failed to beat out of them).

Even experienced soldiers don't act 100% efficiently, firing way too many rounds way too long, having foolish attempts to resuce injured friends.  The only gamist mechanic out there is morale checks, and these can't really enforce in character acts.

I find combat is most fun when players keep in character, and they don't even think of the action's likelihood until the dice roll is made.  I am very simulationist, but I don't see how you can have a wargame element and maintain character consistancy.

Does anyone know any gamist mechanics to ensure character consistancy (other than bonus exp)?

[Mike Holmes]

With simulationism, you are to play in character, and in the session's gamist element you are to play for maximum tactical effect.  Does the gamism mean that for a portion of the game the players are now out of character?  

In an ambush, they would now act in best tactical way (smoke, and a suppressing fire withdrawal, or whatever the rules dictate is the best option), not in character (run screaming, cower, surrender, or whatever their cannon fodder training failed to beat out of them).

Even experienced soldiers don't act 100% efficiently, firing way too many rounds way too long, having foolish attempts to resuce injured friends.  The only gamist mechanic out there is morale checks, and these can't really enforce in character acts.

I find combat is most fun when players keep in character, and they don't even think of the action's likelihood until the dice roll is made.  I am very simulationist, but I don't see how you can have a wargame element and maintain character consistancy.

Does anyone know any gamist mechanics to ensure character consistancy (other than bonus exp)?

What you have discovered is what we refer to as Pawn mode. Pawn stance is a subset of Author stance. That is, the player is making the decisions based on what he wants. Often a player will then retroactively assigne motives to the character that explain the selected actions. If no attempt is made to explain why the character did what they did, that is Pawn mode in action.

Remember that Pawn mode is considered a valid stance. Some people like to play that way.

But if you're question is how to get away from Pawn stance, and into other stances, you're on the right track. The "Role-playing" EXP bonus is the traditional incentive. Often this is problematic, however. What ends up happening is systems which reward tactical acumen, and "role-playing" is that you get a conflict of interest. In practice one player will make his decisions based on "what the character would do", which is Actor stance used to make Simulationist decisions. While others will "play to win" using Pawn stance to make Gamist decisions (note that these are not always related one to one). What happens, then is that these players will feel that the other side is playing incorrectly.

This is the classic example of dysfunctional incoherency of design, and the primary problem with D&D.

The solution is to only reward one of the two behaviors. For example, TROS only rewards playing the characters personality. Nothing else. In Rune, the only thing that is rewarded is tacctical success. Both systems are very clear about what they are about, and players have no problem figuring out how they should play. Incoherency is never a problem.

So to answer your question, are there Gamist mechanics that encourage character consistency? The answer is yes, but not what you're thinking. In games like Primeval and Pantheon, the player is rewarded for portraying their character well, in a gamist fashion (both have winners). But that's not to say that these systems support tactical decisions.

What you want sounds like an inconsistent request. I want pleyers to play tactically, but I also want them to play in character. Well, as you point out, real people don't go tactical 100% of the time. So you can't always have both. Yes, occasionally, the decision in question will happily align so that it satisfies both. But in other cases it won't. The question is, in those cases where the priorities both do not support the same decision, which decision would you like to support? If you want Gamism, see Rune for how to do it right. If you want Simulationism (or possibly Narrativism), see TROS.

I think what you want is Simulationism. That is, that in all cases the player should decide to do "what the character would do". Which doesn't mean that the character cannot be tactical. It's usually in his best interrest to be so. But that when there are circumstances where the chips are down that he will make some "wrong" decisions tactically in the name things that are important to him. Like his life.

In TROS, for example, a character might have a Passion: Esmerelda. In a certain circumstance the character might be better off fleeing from her captor, and coming back to rescue her another day. But TROS rewards the player for having the character do the heroic thing in this case, and going after his beloved. In this way it simulates the Heroism of the setting. And gets away from purely tactical play (which the rest of the system enforces tremendously).

Does that help?

Mike

[jdagna]

Does the gamism mean that for a portion of the game the players are now out of character?  

I find combat is most fun when players keep in character, and they don't even think of the action's likelihood until the dice roll is made.  I am very simulationist, but I don't see how you can have a wargame element and maintain character consistancy.

Does anyone know any gamist mechanics to ensure character consistancy (other than bonus exp)?

I think Mike already gave the first part of my response: that your definition of "out of character" isn't necessarily everyone else's.  Pawn mode is often seen as legitimate.

In my own gaming experience, I have to think about combat in the following way:

My soldier character doesn't understand the metagame dice mechanics, but he does understand combat.  He's going to know things like the likelihood of his surviving a bullet or how effective a grenade will be - again, not in a game-mechanic sense, but in the sense of "this is how I was trained" or "this is what happened in the last battle."  So I don't feel like I'm going into a Pawn mode by making tactical decisions within the game system because the game system presumably describes the reality my character was trained in.  Now, I'll play my computer hacker character in an entirely way, because he probably didn't go through basic training.

In terms of offering gamist rewards to gamist players to make them play in a simulationist manner... I think that's just self-defeating.  You can try - and many have - but you're more likely to make everyone miserable.  I'd say that explaining your perspective to them and then living with whatever they do is probably the best solution short of finding new players.

PS: You talked about people firing too many shots as a common real-life panic situation.  A game mechanic in my system encourages that.  In full-auto firing modes, the chances of hitting with successive bursts goes down with each extra burst... but most players have their characters fire until they get to 0%, even when the last three shots only have 2% chances of hitting.

[contracycle]

With simulationism, you are to play in character, and in the session's gamist element you are to play for maximum tactical effect.  Does the gamism mean that for a portion of the game the players are now out of character?  

I don't think so, because most of the time the character and the player are congruent in terms of tactical goals.  The gamist play is the means by which this is expressed, and can be enjoyable in its own right; let us say being frightened of the dice, in a sense.  This can reinforce the subjective sensation of fear by the character.  The GM can't play gamist though usually IMO.  I kinda think of as a bit like a boxer staging a good thrown bout, covertly.

In an ambush, they would now act in best tactical way (smoke, and a suppressing fire withdrawal, or whatever the rules dictate is the best option), not in character (run screaming, cower, surrender, or whatever their cannon fodder training failed to beat out of them).

I agree with jdagna essentially, that is what prevents it from being full-out gamism or Pawn mode, becuase the tactical decisions will be made in character.  The gamist element of the mechanics structures the exchange, makes it "fair" and therefore "dangerous".  The game lends authenticity to the experience.

Even experienced soldiers don't act 100% efficiently, firing way too many rounds way too long, having foolish attempts to resuce injured friends.  The only gamist mechanic out there is morale checks, and these can't really enforce in character acts.

I find combat is most fun when players keep in character, and they don't even think of the action's likelihood until the dice roll is made.  I am very simulationist, but I don't see how you can have a wargame element and maintain character consistancy.

Does anyone know any gamist mechanics to ensure character consistancy (other than bonus exp)?[/quote]

[Walt Freitag]

...gamist mechanics to ensure character consistancy...

Hackmaster is full of them. What Hackmaster did was to take all the incoherently simulationist concepts from 1e AD&D, like alignment and religion, and turn them into coherently gamist mechanics.

Notable examples are the Honor system, and the Alignment Charting procedure. Honor probably isn't quite what you're looking for, because it's largely character independent, rewarding all characters for following a general code of behavior that's roughly comparable to that of a 1950's street gang, and punishing them for acting otherwise (e.g. wimping out when challenged). Alignment is more character specific. It is as incomprehensible and internally inconsistent as it ever was in D&D, but in Hackmaster it's backed up with specific procedures for determining the magnitude of alignment drift resulting from alignment-incompatible actions, and prescribed penalties for such drift. It's openly acknowledged that all this just encourages players to try to get away with as much Gamist mayhem as possible while avoiding the penalties (knowing that it's the GMs job to try to hose the player if the player gives him an opportunity to do so).

Other Hackmaster mechanisms in the same category include patron Gawds, who very actively reward and punish their followers based on how well they adhere to a given Gawd's code of ethics; Blood Oaths and Gawd Oaths, which invoke metagame penalties when broken; the rules for hireling NPCs, always ready to turn on their masters at the first sign of inconsistent or irresolute behavior; and many of the class-specific abilities that are only useful in the context of certain expected behavior patterns (e.g. the much-feared apology powers of the Knight Errant class). As for bonus exp for "good role playing," as the Hackmaster core books would probably put it, you might find those in Wussmaster, but they have no place in Hackmaster.

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

Hackmaster is full of them. What Hackmaster did was to take all the incoherently simulationist concepts from 1e AD&D, like alignment and religion, and turn them into coherently gamist mechanics.

I suppose from this POV that SenZar also qualifies.

The problem is that what you get is parody. Intentionally with Hackmaster, and accidentally with SenZar. Not that I've ever actually played SenZar, but any game where you get EXP for catching the GM making a mistake in rules interperetation would seem comical to myself.

The reason is that no set of rules, no matter how comprehensive, can actually force players to act like heroic people, unless the rewards are also for acting like heroic people. Like they are in a game like Primeval. Like they definitely aren't in a game like Hackmaster, SenZar, or even D&D.

See my point? This is the power of reward systems. They can totally thwart the intentions of any other part of a system.

"Sure I'm lawful good. But those baby kobolds weren't worth any EXP alive, now were they?"

Mike

[Jeremy Cole]

Mike, could you read my initial post again, as I think you may have misunderstood me.  I agree with what you've been saying, you can't have character consistancy and a wargame element.  Perhaps my question at the end confused you, because I don't think such mechanics can exist.  I was really asking how people who play this way avoided the problems I suggested.

Players tend to be heroic (well brave and level headed, if not noble), where combat is involved.  Some of the most limiting factors in combat are psychological, and are not just break tests.  A shot fired from a rifle over 400m away is not effective fire, and doctrine states you should continue to move forward as if no bullet had headed your way.  But when a live round passes by, even a stray, even well trained combatants will think twice about marching on unabated.

I'm having trouble posting, so this is coming in two bits.

[Jeremy Cole]

As Contracycle stated, GMs (myself included) will often play combat as if its a 'boxing fight' the NPCs are throwing.  If this the case, there is no game, the PCs have to win.  Combat is then just simulating the game world's event.  I think this is the key, forgetting about any gamist mechanics, win/lose fights and the attached rewards.

I just think that otherwise you get that funny feeling of the undisciplined louts in town, and lean mean killing machines in the dungeon.  I don't think simulationism and gamism can be mutually reinforcing here.  If a game is mostly simulationist, then combat should have that focus, as should GM rewards.  Reward only one style, and outline this to players.

I think the other way to look at things is as Gamism, with simulationist or narratavist back elements.  Rewarding players for tactical play, and put the others objectives a distant second.  Simulationism and narratavism come in where there is no chance of winning anything.