The Forge Archives

It seems to me that some systems better meet gamism, simulationism and narratavism goals than other systems.

While in game design you must have a focus, and must to some extent choose between different styles, it seems there are rules mechanics that best meet the aims of all three systems.

An example is your average combat system.  Many systems are just mechanical (no choices - poor G), don't 'feel right' (poor S) and take a long time to resolve (slowing narratavism).

I have played fast, efficient systems that, to me, simulate their chosen designs very well, be it 'real-life', historical, film genre or supernatural combat.  Systems with well concieved, varied tactics.

It seems to me that a system can be produced to maximise all forms of play.   Maybe when we talk about a game, rather than classify it as N with S elements, we should talk about its ability to meet the aims of each form.  People could disregard failings in areas they don't value.

Any thoughts?  Any systems with absolute advantage over others?

This is an interesting point. I will say at first that in several of your posts I have seen you going down the road towards GNS combination. That is, you seem to be of the belief that having all three at once is a good goal, and that it is achievable.

I would agree that it is a lofty goal. But it may not be at all possible. When you understand that GNS are three mutually exclusive decision making modes of play, you see that creating a game that supports more than one in an effective way is not possible. That is, if you do have support for more than one mode, you get Incoherent play often. That is multiple players playing the same game in different modes. Which can be very dissatisfying to players. If one is playing in a Gamist mode, for example, he may be dissapointed that his buddy is playing Sim, and therefore not doing things tactically correctly. While the Sim guy is dissapointed because the Gamist guy is playing "out of character". In the end the players are not being given support for a unified mode of play.

Anyhow, what this means is that I and others here don't suggest trying to support all three withought some serious thought (see Scattershot). Another hazard with this is that you dillute all three when you try, producing conflicting incentives. This disorients players.

In fact, I feel, as do others that there is no system that "supports all three well" currently in existence. If you were to give me an example of a system that you though supported all three, I'd likely give an analysis that pointed out how it was Gam/Sim with emphasis on Sim or something. Pople disagree o these analyses, but the idea that one can support all three has been well debated, and discounted for the moment as something that at the very least has not been done yet. And may in fact be impossible.

Thus the designs of certain resolution systems are made intentionally to be "less effective", as it were, in two of the three modes. This is an attempt to reduce incoherency of play. For example, if I want to support more Narrativism in my combat resolution, I may eliminate traditional combat modifiers because they do not support Narrativism at all. A designer aiming for Simulationism may want more detail in his resolution, so he puts that in, not caring that it "damages" Narrativism. That's not his goal.

Worse, looking at a resolution system alone is prone to all sorts of failure in analysis. One really has to look at it in context of the whole system, and possibly most importantly, the reward system. Only them can yu see how it all hangs together in regards to GNS.

That all said, one can certainly perform the sort of analysis that you suggest. But it's of dubious usefulness. If I point out the Narrativist strenghths of D&D (there are a few), but fail to take them in the context of an overall very Gamist system, what have I accomplished? I cannot say that it's good for Narrativist play, particularly. I cannopt point to it as a model for Narrativist design. At best, I can say that that mechanic, in the environment of another system, might be good for Narrativism.

Are there systems with absolute advantage over others? Well, again, this is going to be subjective in the extrreme. But I'm sure that some systems are overall better for any style of play than others. Take DeadErth. That's not much good for anything, and I'd play Narrativist D&D before trying to play that game at all. But past the obviously broken systems, it bnecomes very much a matter of selectig the game that serves you're priorities.

Which is what GNS is all about determining.

Mike

Mike, I'm afraid that in trying to make your point, you're overstating things a bit.

GNS are three mutually exclusive decisions at the point of decision, yes.   But it is certainly possible (and in fact normal) to have all three in the same game at different points.  This, in fact, was the whole point to my GNS primer I wrote earlier...that the improper mapping of GNS to a game as a whole was what was causing alot of unnecessary confusion.

Further your statement that creating a game that effectively supports more than one being not possible goes too far.  Very difficult...yes.  Not possible...no.  In fact, I seem to recall Ron several times referring to games as being hybrid designs...the difficulty being to ensure they are coherent hybrid designs.

I know you know this already but for the benefit of Nip, I thought it needed clarifying.

Quote from: Valamir
GNS are three mutually exclusive decisions at the point of decision, yes.   But it is certainly possible (and in fact normal) to have all three in the same game at different points.  This, in fact, was the whole point to my GNS primer I wrote earlier...that the improper mapping of GNS to a game as a whole was what was causing alot of unnecessary confusion.

I don't see how anything that I wrote suggests otherwise. Only that, in the end, a particular game will, for a particular person, seem to support one of the three best.

QuoteFurther your statement that creating a game that effectively supports more than one being not possible goes too far.  Very difficult...yes.  Not possible...no.  In fact, I seem to recall Ron several times referring to games as being hybrid designs...the difficulty being to ensure they are coherent hybrid designs.

Again, I didn't say this. I said that current theory says that it's difficult, and "may be" impossible. What is impossible is supporting two things simultaneously. Which would seem to be required for a game to qualify for dip's assessment as being able to "maximise all forms of play".

QuoteI know you know this already but for the benefit of Nip, I thought it needed clarifying.

Just qualifying your clarifications.  :-)

This was a complicated and difficult to write post, as some theory changes have occurred that made the old standard post no longer sensible. As such I hope I've shed more light than confused things. Please read closely.

Mike

Hi there,

Nip, an older thread you might find useful is Seven major misconceptions about GNS, especially point #3 which quotes an important paragraph from the essay.

The idea is that each mode (G, N, or S) is best understood as a priority, not as a quality. So for instance, tactical-advantage thinking is not necessarily Gamism - unless it's being given priority.

And yes, Ralph is right about the "hybrid" thing - they're not impossible, only very very problematic, and usually I can see one of the horses in harness being "the dominant," so to speak. One of the finest hybrid designs around is The Riddle of Steel, and yet I think that separate Drifts toward the Narrativist and Simulationist priorities are very evident in the discussions in its forum.

I have never seen any successful examples of all-three-hybrid design.

(Mike, in my view, you did over-state the combination-case issue in your first post, granted, among many other excellent points. If you want to debate this, please take it to email or private message.)

Best,
Ron

AD&D is not a good system.  It is adequate for gamism, but fails to do anything else.  Out of ten, I would rate it 5/2/3 on GNS.  There are games I would rate higher in all three methods.  It seems most people on this message board would give TROS higher marks in all three elements.

I think the assumption made in stating a game as G, N, S, or a hybrid, is that people want to play one way all the time, or that there is no cost in changing rulesets.  I have three groups that I game with.  One is moderate gamist, and the other two are very simulationist.  If I build a campaign I may run it with all three groups, and manipulate it for a gamist stance with the third group.  I won't use AD&D for this purpose, because its only good for the gamist group.  I play with the gamist group most often, and would consider TROS only if it could meet that form of play to at least adequate levels.

I think a campaign must have a communicated focus, or confusion will reign.  I don't think we should buy three systems (six with hybrids), one for each form of play, to have varied campaigns.  We should look for a system that has big slices of each pie, not 100% of a little one.

I don't think I said it very clearly on the last post.

A campaign has to be one thing, and the players and GM should all know what that is.  But a system that can, at three different times, be each, would be gold.

I certainly believe that a system can be run as gamist or simulationist, with only a change in focus, not in rules.  While a campaign must be one thing, can a system be more?

Well, I think Fang is trying to support all 3 with Scattershot, although not at the same time, which is probably impossible, at least if you want happy players.

Theoretically a system could support all three by providing a varied body of rules, not all of which would be used at one time. (Hey Fang!).  
I suppose you could just create a system that was amenable to Drift. Thus people would Drift toward whatever mode(s) work for them. As far as I know this has not really been done.  I think a prime difficulty is that some Drift is easier than others. Adding Gamism can be done by adding competion. Amber is the typical G-N combo I believe. Adding simulationism is more difficult as it requires adding rules. A little bit can be added  by doing a more careful consideration of cause/effect and actions, but you can only go so far. I know GM's who've done it successfully, but it's difficult.

Quote from: nipfipgip...dipI certainly believe that a system can be run as gamist or simulationist, with only a change in focus, not in rules.  While a campaign must be one thing, can a system be more?

What you are referring to is what we sometimes call drift. Which is fine. But the question is, why have to do the work to change focus? Why not have three different systems. I have literally a couple hundred RPGs at home. I can certainly find one in there to fit each of the three GNS priorities for any setting or campaign that you throw at me.

Why not have three different systems, all built to do best what you need? What's the downside? Learning curve? Presumably the GM has the time (he's preparing three games), and the players still only need to learn the one they are going to play. Prep time? I can give you examples of all three that require little to no prep time if that's an issue. Although I relish my prep time, personally.

OTOH, the benefits of a game focused on the style you are interested in can be multitudinious.

Mike

Hi Dip,

Most people here would agree with you that Coherence (ie a sensible, shared focus in GNS terms among the group and within the game-rules) is a desirable goal. I think most of us also agree that satisfying all three goals at once during play is pretty-near impossible.

For the record, "scoring" a given game using three numbers for the three modes doesn't accord very well with my definitions and concepts in my essay. The modes really apply to real-people behavior and not 100% directly to game design.

I'm thinking that a good look at Fang's Scattershot, as well as at Universalis (by Mike and Ralph), would be quite useful to you. Both of them are highly customizable through play itself, permitting the group to arrive at a given GNS focus that suits it best. Both are, to say the least, revolutionary and a bit weird/unfamiliar to most role-players, in fairly different ways.

Overall, I think this thread might benefit greatly if you clarify your question or proposal. On the one hand, you seem to be calling for greater focus per mode, per game (again, this isn't a very controversial idea at the Forge; most people here agree). On the other, you seem to be inquiring about a sort of three-in-one design, which is what's gained most of the attention by people responding.

Is the thread, so far, meeting your expectations or desires in terms of what we're addressing?

Best,
Ron

QuoteI certainly believe that a system can be run as gamist or simulationist, with only a change in focus, not in rules.

I disagree, but only in part, and there are a lot of nuances to keep in mind.

In my experience such a "change in focus" within the same system usually involves a change in which rules are being enforced, so it's really a change in rules. Either the combat system gives an unimportant enemy a realistic (albeit low) chance of killing my character or it doesn't. If it does, it gets in the way of Narrativist decision-making (specifically, I or the GM cannot make the decision of whether my character survives). If we want a more Narrativist focus, we can overrule the system (and that's what players and GMs often do, sometimes surreptitiously). But overriding a rule is really changing the rules. (Even if the rules include a provision allowing you to override the rules when you wish to.)

Sure, many systems can be given any of a variety of desired foci by overriding (or modifying) its rules selectively. One problem with doing so is that while some gamemasters seem to have an instinctive touch for knowing which rules to modify or overlook for a given effect, others do not and they struggle badly. (You might be interested in Scattershot, which prescribes rules variations depending on your desired focus of play.)

Another important factor is the social contract. If a focus on (say) simulationism means the players and GM all explicity agree to simulationist priorities for the time being, then the effects of incoherence in the system (e.g. rewards for gamist behavior in an otherwise simulationist game) can indeed be minimized. This is most effective in combination with rule modifications or deletions (e.g. don't apply those gamist rewards). Again this is often far from easy.

Yet another consideration is what I've termed "congruence," which is attempting to adjust the circumstances (not, usually, the system itself) to make the different priories not (or less) mutually exclusive. Congruence can be achieved to varying degrees but at a high cost in situational constraints. For example, if all the characters are greedy and dispassionate, then few gamist choices will conflict with simulationist choices in a kill-monsters get-treasure situation. If the characters are charged with stopping the world from ending, then it makes perfect simulationist sense for them to overlook their personal preferences in favor of tactical optimization. Sometimes congruence can cure a particular problem area. For example, gamist and simulationist priorities often come into conflict over using out-of-character knowledge. It's possible to design situations in which out-of-character knowledge is never useful. Some of Robin's Laws are effective because they lead toward congruence. (I should say, though, that there is not yet any Forge consensus on the usefulness of congruence as a concept.)

What all these options have in common is that the system isn't helping you do them. Quite the contrary, you're achieving your focus and/or congruence in spite of the obstacles the system puts in your way. Some people apparently have little difficulty doing that; perhaps they're the ones who find focused games "too limited" and prefer games that give them lots of room to tinker and make choices.

- Walt

Excellent points as usual, Walt. I agree that drift is being applied. Or, actually he may in fact be referring to a social contract negotiation or congruence (which, BTW, I agree with given the caveats you mention). In any case, it requires effort. My point is merely to echo what other's have said before and ask, "why swim upstream" when a system that meets your needs is available?

Quote from: wfreitag
Some people apparently have little difficulty doing that; perhaps they're the ones who find focused games "too limited" and prefer games that give them lots of room to tinker and make choices.

This is a spurrious argument that these people make, given that a game that meets their current goals or something closer to the "unfocused" game in question almost certainly exists. The usual response is that it's easier to play a game that comprises the lingua franca of the gamers present (which is why we think D&D most often when thinking about this issue, and Peter Seckler's Narrativist D&D) and drift said game than it is to teach a new system.

Which I obviouly do not agree about, either.

Mike

Quote from: damionWell, I think Fang is trying to support all 3 with Scattershot, although not at the same time, which is probably impossible, at least if you want happy players.

Theoretically a system could support all three by providing a varied body of rules, not all of which would be used at one time. (Hey Fang!).  
I suppose you could just create a system that was amenable to Drift. Thus people would Drift toward whatever mode(s) work for them. As far as I know this has not really been done.

Actually, the trick with Scattershot is that it isn't "drift" because it's supposed to happen.  Once completed, Scattershot is supposed to help play cluster around a focus of play-style (laid out around four modes of play).  When the group determines the appropriateness of a change in focus, the Mechanix of Transition¹ will help them 'reshape' their way of gaming (and how they use the game) to suit a newer focus.  Or at least that's the design specifications.  Honestly, we're getting really bogged down laying out just the core Techniques so that they apply at all points of focus; we haven't even begun to work on the Techniques of awareness or analysis of focus², much less the actual practice of Transition.  We don't really know if it'll work ('Orville says we should try anyway.' -- Wilbur).

I'm afraid I can't offer much more than friendly advice; right now our production schedule is set at the harshest 'as fast as grass grows' level.

Fang Langford

¹ The focused, mechanical, and intentional analog of "drift."

² That's what Walt was referring to.

Hey Fang,

Yeah, that's a good point about Scattershot, which applies to Universalis as well - developing/customizing focus and coherence during play isn't "Drift," technically, 'cause the idea is to cluster sensibly around Z, via play, rather than drift from Y to Z.

Best,
Ron

I think an assumption being made in the one-game, one-system mode is that players know where they want to go at the campaign's beginning.  Its not a bad thing, sometimes campaigns develop focus different from the original group consensus.  As long as the GM and players discuss this change, I think campaigns should be allowed to find their own focus.  The world may become more interesting than trying to save it.

A GM who does not follow this, because he lacks the ruleset, will create the confusion and cross-focus that destroys games, and stifle the progression of the campaign.

You can change systems, but how well would it go down with players to change from WFRP to TROS three weeks into a campaign because of the move to a hybrid NS focus?

A flexible ruleset for a flexible campaign.  A three in one may be extremely difficult, but S with the ability to move to G?  I think I'm actually getting at Ron's point four of his seven major misconceptions post.  Play isn't always one thing, should a system be able to facilitate a campaign which may end up with a different focus?