Same game, different players, different rules?

[deadpanbob]

... an you understand why this concept scares me?


...So... don't throw out those social contracts yet.

- Walt

Walt,

I can certainly understand why the idea of a meta-metagame level scares you.  I scares me too.  It's like thinking, I mean really thinking, about Zeno's Paradox.  How in the F*** does the arrow get to its target?  Infinity is just an abstract notation - mathematical place holder if you will - that makes a lot of important theroies and formulas work out nicely.  Trying to really think about it just makes my head spin.

Still, I think this idea has merit.  Especially the FatB idea you mention.  That sounds really promising.  Especially if you can also add a meta-metagame level to *that* too...like biding for the right to control the Fortune or some such.

I also see a lot of potential for people to 'game' the system if you will, switching into modes for reasons that would actually improve their feeling of fit and mode use in that instance, but would appear counter-intuitive (like the Gamist using the Simulationist rule set b/c it's preceived to give his character an edge in the given situation).

I don't think that 3 whole sets of character stats would be needed.  Simply a flexible enough system of stats/skills/etc that would support each of the three modes of play, but which would interact with the resolution mechanics differently during each mode of play.

So that *any* character would have the potential to use *any* of the three mode supporting resoultion mechanics during play without the need to carry around three sets of character stats.

The stats could be of the 'data mining/drill down' variety - player defined with lots and lots of examples provided in the text of the game.  For the Narr player, they would only need to rate/purchase/roll what-have-you the general, broad brush Archetypes or Cliches (Risus!) or Attributes that cover a lot of skills.  Below that could be specific skills (for the Gamist/Simmist modes of play).  Each list/set of skills would be linked to a specific Archetype/Attribute/Cliche.  Then below the skills could be specialties, and below the specialties could be maneuvers, and so on.

Could be quite hairy to write and present coherently.  You'd almost need to construct the manuscript like House of Leaves...

Cheers,

Jason L.

[Jeffrey Miller]

Coincidentally, just this thing came up in my most recent Ars Magica session.  

Funny you should mention Ars - I was just thinking that Ars is a good game to illustrate the tension between Gaming types.  The Ars community is torn by an eternal debate - Mythic Europe, or Historical Europe.  It seems to break down into Narrativist Myth and Simulationist History (as I understand the difference..)

oh yeah - hi ^_^

[lumpley]

Hi!  Welcome to the Forge!

Yeah, I've been playing Ars Magica since the once and future edition (that is, the 2nd).  You're right about the debate.

I don't think it's between simulationists and narrativists, though.  I think that both camps are sim of different flavors, and what the game really needs is for narrativism to kick its butt.

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

(winces) (stentorian voice)

The bias exhibited by Vincent does not necessarily reflect the moderators and organizers of the Forge ...

(normal voice)

I agree about the modes of play in Ars Magica most likely being different varieties of Simulationism. Although this game certainly raises hackles whenever it's discussed; as with Vampire, Champions, or very old D&D, local play varies so widely that people get very defensive about what "the system" does or does not facilitate.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Funny you should mention Ars - I was just thinking that Ars is a good game to illustrate the tension between Gaming types.  The Ars community is torn by an eternal debate - Mythic Europe, or Historical Europe.  It seems to break down into Narrativist Myth and Simulationist History (as I understand the difference..)

Hi, Eogan, and welcome aboard.

Astute observation on the Ars thing. I've seen that debate in action. And its insolubility is exaclty why people say that such a design as is being discussed here may be impossible. Even if it were to be functional, it would still by the nature of its split priorities alienate some. In fact an attempt to have a compromise on the Ars matter might lose more than half the crowd.

There's just no getting around some incompatibilities.

Mike

[Jeremy Cole]

(Why does everyone seem to pick on the Gamists? ;-) )

Because every simulationist has a gun and a short temper, and no narratavist will ever shut up long enough for you to pick on him.
:)

I think the only way this could work is if the players are given different, specific characters.  Perhaps a game could consist of veteran soldiers, protecting a freak boy with psychic powers.  The freak boy could have the narrative parts, with his psychics based around inner passions, the soldiers could play gamist, through combat.  As long the different mechanic sets are kept well apart, and don't replicate anything, I think this is very possible.

Perhaps in this way you're actually looking at two or three games, with clear GNS lines, but intertwining stories, the freedom given to the freak boy depends on the soldiers' success, and the decisions made by the freak boy give the soldiers advantages and disadvantages.

I think this would be fairly workable, any thoughts?

[Jeffrey Miller]

Hi!  Welcome to the Forge!

Yeah, I've been playing Ars Magica since the once and future edition (that is, the 2nd).  You're right about the debate.

I don't think it's between simulationists and narrativists, though.  I think that both camps are sim of different flavors, and what the game really needs is for narrativism to kick its butt.

-Vincent

*laugh*  well, I can't argue about that too much - I tend towards Narrativist play (even when I try not to!) so I've got my own blinders and biases to shed.  I like the GNS model, and was trying to apply it to games I've experience with, and Ars popped to mind.

-j-

[Jeffrey Miller]

Hey,
I agree about the modes of play in Ars Magica most likely being different varieties of Simulationism. Although this game certainly raises hackles whenever it's discussed; as with Vampire, Champions, or very old D&D, local play varies so widely that people get very defensive about what "the system" does or does not facilitate.

That's true.  Looking at just the -system- it seems to be Simulationist - c'mon, rules for 3 different kinds of lecturing, rules for how to write a book, etc?  :)  ..but then there's the whole "shared character" thing that seems to promote N play...

*leaps back from a tangled mass of worms the leap from the Ars can*

-j-

[Jeffrey Miller]

Funny you should mention Ars - I was just thinking that Ars is a good game to illustrate the tension between Gaming types.  The Ars community is torn by an eternal debate - Mythic Europe, or Historical Europe.  It seems to break down into Narrativist Myth and Simulationist History (as I understand the difference..)

Hi, Eogan, and welcome aboard.

Thanks!  Long-time scanner, first-time poster as it were.  

Astute observation on the Ars thing. I've seen that debate in action. And its insolubility is exaclty why people say that such a design as is being discussed here may be impossible. Even if it were to be functional, it would still by the nature of its split priorities alienate some. In fact an attempt to have a compromise on the Ars matter might lose more than half the crowd.

There's just no getting around some incompatibilities.

Forgive if its a topic discussed to death (yes, I read as much of the other threads as I could, but if I have to choose between reading old threads from last year and working on my game.. *grin*)  but if the incompatability is insurmountable, is there a way for us to embrace it? Can we co-opt the tension between play-styles to offer something new? Are there games that accomplish this today, or are we really talking oil-and-water between different camps of the GNS model?

-e-

[Mike Holmes]

No camps, just individuals. Some who like Sim play aren't annoyed by Narr play. Others are. The problem isn't that people have different preferences, but that some of those people with those preferences want others to play as they do in the same game. They are annoyed (to use a general term) by play of others that does not match their preferences.

What we're looing for is something to mitigate that potential problem. Difficult. Snce part of the assumption is that we aren't out to change that position.

What Walt's Congruence seeks to do is to create types of play in which players don't really notice each other playing in a different style. The best example I can think of is Stuational congruence like in Supers. In Supers, everyone want's to kick ass. The Gamists because they get more powerfu when they do so, the Simulationists because "that's what Supers do", and the Narrativists because that's how supers adress their issues thus creating story.

The questsion is how to apply this to System in addition to Situation. System possibly being the largest informer of player action, and largest source of satisfaction.

Not an easy task. I'm not sure that we've even seen the tip of the iceberg yet. If it exists.

Mike

[Emily Care]

I wondered how you solved this Walt. It seems that there might be a problem
when the adoslecents caught up with the adults.

If I can invoke Vincent to post, I seem to recall him writing a system or modifying the Ars Magica system to reflect the different learning modes that characters would have at different times of their lives. Ie: younger characters would have a lot of potential to learn, but not many skills. Mature characters would have a good lot of skills but still some potential to develop more/different skills.  And old learned characters would start off with high level skills, but it would take much more time/effort for them to develop new ones and cost to increase their existing scores was considerable.

Of course, this is my fuzzy recollection. This was a character generation system, too, so I'm not sure how they would progress, but it seemed quite reasonable that they could do so.

I think that since most people seem to exhibit a mix of modes, being locked into one for the entirety of long-term play would unfortunate.

If you play with multiple characters, you could play different types for variety.  However, allowing characters to be dynamic seems a better solution.

If seems you would need some sort of conversion mechanism, which would probably require tracking 3 sets of stats/player. This might be annoying to the players.  

Yup, sounds like a big record-keeping headache.  

In practice, it may be seen that characters flow from type to type naturally. Though this may be part of my fairly eccentric experience. :) That is, the majority of my roleplaying experience has been in campaigns that have lasted many years (real time), using the same or a shifting group of characters.  And the characters have been dynamic.  

As in the example Vincent gave earlier, a sim oriented character could easily become the center of a narrativist thread of game, after something about that character intersects with an issue or question that arises in the setting or plot.  And the opposite can happen. There is a character that Vincent plays in the same campaign who played out his story early in the campaign.  This character now operates mostly in the background, adding to the functionality of the mages' covenant.  

The threads can be woven together to avoid conflict, as in the Supers game that Mike mentions above.  All the characters can function how they will, based on the needs of the players and the game at the moment. In my experience it happens all the time. How wierd is that?

Are the conflicts that can arise mostly about differing expectations for the game between players? The 'drift' problem?

yours,
Emily Care

edited after posting.  9/13/02 10:50am EST

[Le Joueur]

As in the example Vincent gave earlier, a sim oriented character could easily become the center of a narrativist thread of game, after something about that character intersects with an issue or question that arises in the setting or plot.

Now there's an idea that I might ponder for a while (especially in the light of these 'blended' games).  This might work as far as a single 'odd man out' scenario.

What if you treat characters played subscribing to other GNS modes (or tending to) as meta-plot?

You know; each mode has different techniques for dealing with what amounts to the same kinds of problems when it comes to meta-plot.  (You can't change it, it rarely fits what you do with your character, and et cetera.)  If you use those here, it would be the Narrativists weaving their thematic statements around one character's 'quest to be the best' (or whatever).  Mode conflicts are dealt with various ways, but mostly as irrelevant.

Hmm, this might even work as a way to react to all other player actions (within the context of the game).  Must find time to give this thought.

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

What if you treat characters played subscribing to other GNS modes (or tending to) as meta-plot?

Yes, this is what we've been about (or I have) all along. The thing is that Emily's experience is a bit eccentric. Or rather her group is one in which the lay is congruent enough that it doesn't reach a level where differing styles of play get to anyone. And I assume that's also in part because their tolerance is high, and they sort of sub-consciously strive for that congruence.

Most players will not have there characteristics, however. Or, rather, as somebody once said, System Matters. If we are to create a game wherin this sort of play will be engendered, then we have to find that combination of System, Setting, Situation, etc, that will engender it.

And so far we've very little that sounds broadly applicable, or even feasible.

You know, thinking about it, the "three sets of stats" is not so hard. Consider, many of the Sim/Gamist stats will overlap. And for Narrativism, we just need meta-game. Again, this is why TROS comes to my mind when I think about this. It has the appropriate mix of these sorts of traits. What happens in that game, however, is drift to one of the poles. What we need is a similar set of rules that mandates focusing on the traits that you prefer. So for the Narrativist, the SAs would become more important. For the Simulationist, the traits that deal with "realism" of the setting or character would become more important. For the Gamist, the traits for resource management, and power, or whatever metric they selected would become more important.

So you could have the player select one sort of Trait and have it then stand out in such a way as to produce the sort of experience that the player in question is looking for.

This is very theoretical, and only addresses one mechanics issue, but it might be a useful observation. Combine it with Walt's charracter types, however, and it might become more potent. As an example, the adolescents would get prioritized SAs (assuming that's what we want from that archtype), while the "adult" would get prioritized Sim stats or something.

Yes I'm into meta-meta-game. But I'm afraid that this is the level we're dealing with and that there's no avoiding it. As such, there are the usual suspects as far as making these things easier to deal with. Specifically, Embedding the mechanics in the player CharGen selections, etc. For example, the "prioritized stat" thing could lead automatically to the resolution system working in the desired manner.

Just some more thoughts on the issue.

Mike

[deadpanbob]

Specifically, Embedding the mechanics in the player CharGen selections, etc. For example, the "prioritized stat" thing could lead automatically to the resolution system working in the desired manner.

Mike

I concur with this - rather than having three sets of stats/traits/what-have-yous, allow the characters to prioritize one or perhaps to even customize each trait with their favored mechanic.

So you could set up a system where the resolution mechanic could work to grant narrative control in some cases, optimize resources in others, and...well I can't think of something that facilitates Sim play ('cause I don't usually play that way - go figure ;) )

Then each player could customize their traits - asigning a resolution mechanic to each trait.

So they could say "My perception trait will allow me to use the resolution mechanic to take over narrative control (ala Donjon), while my toughness trait will allow me to regenerate (Gamist play resource mgmt?)..." etc.

It's not fully fleshed out, and perhaps allowing that level of customization on a trait by trait level could be difficult during play to say the least.

But, the decision could be the same for the overall character as well.  Perhaps the players could prioritize the resolution method (i.e. Narrativist method, Gamist method, Simulationist method) - and be allowed more bonsues etc. for resolving actions using their primary method?

It seems like we may be on the right track - but the answer still keeps coming up added complexity and potential problems during play.

I need to think some more about this.

Cheers,

Jason

[Emily Care]

So they could say "My perception trait will allow me to use the resolution mechanic to take over narrative control (ala Donjon), while my toughness trait will allow me to regenerate (Gamist play resource mgmt?)..." etc.

I think you just said a mouthful there.

Traits that allow/encourage you to take narrative control, I like it, I like it...  Things like "Luck" on the character sheet are time honored ways to make the gm be nice to you, which amounts to having leeway in the narrative.  Does having input on the narrative flow (as a player) encourage narrativist play?

Sim traits, of course, would give you power to develop world elements.


(A tangential issue: I did the reverse with the NPC in question: I gave her a trait (Divination) that I used to direct her actions in play.  It pleased me/was necessary for my engagement/enjoyment for her to have an in-game reason to do what I needed her to for metagame reasons.  Breaking the 4th wall in a constructive manner. )

---Emily Care