The Forge Archives

Some thoughts:

*People buy games for different reasons than they play them. They are attracted by the genre, they like the text on the cover/box, they like the discussion generated on boards, they like what they imagine the game will be like...marketing at the moment is placing a lot of emphasis on "branding".

(note: this does not necessarily equate to giving Simulationist Games an edge for fans--"Really immerse yourself in Buffy's world!"--because a Gamist oriented fan is just as happy with a Buffy CCG)

*They play and replay the games those games that satisfy them, because the game has *sufficient* GNS characteristics to meet that player's satisfaction point. Note: an "incoherent" game can achieve this.

*They play and replay games that they can find enough fellow players motivated to commit to the game socially. Note: an "incoherent" game can satisfy players of different GNS needs.

*In the course of play, the group of players through social contract will customize their play, and the game, to meet their needs as a group. ("Drift")

*Players will buy and read those games that offer GNS elements they like and will port them over to the games they play--creating games of greater or lesser "incoherency" that reflect the specific incoherency of the player group. I think "Hackmaster" could be considered an example of this.

"Incoherency" is a perjorative and possibly over-simple term. Instead of elevating a Platonic Ideal of "Coherency", perhaps it is more a matter of ingredients, flavors; the combination of which may work well together; or not. But that each game, itself, will be composed of a recipe of GNS elements, and each group will tinker with it to create their own unique "dish". ("drift")

A certain amount of imperfection invites that tinkering; and that tinkering itself gives some players pleasure. Too much imperfection overwhelms. It tastes bad. It's a bad game.

Hello,

MK initially appended the above post to this thread:
Incoherency and sales

I've split it into its own thread as the initial discussion is a bit aged by now.

MK also raises a very, very interesting point that I think deserves serious attention. I'm intrigued by the idea that a certain amount of imperfection is actually a draw for sales and even sustained sales, and I think that if we could identify some of the sort of "imperfection" that works best, that it might even become a desirable design feature for some of us.

Both AD&D (of the ~1980 variety) and Champions prior to 4th edition seem to be good candidates for this category of design/product.

Best,
Ron

I don't necessarily know exactly what that incoherent X element is, but I do know from a couple of years of dealing with clients in the art field that most people 1) do not know what they really want, 2) have a hard time communicating what they think they want.  In gaming, this typically shows up when people bring up those fun phrases such as "Having fun", "Story oriented", and "Freeform" without any actual definition to them.

If we're talking about selling games, I think how a game is presented takes it much further than anything in actual play.  D&D is a game of heroic fantasy adventure, yet the rules do little to encourage heroic/adventurous risk taking.  White Wolf is sold as the Storyteller game, but has very little to aid either Narrativism or illusionism.  GURPS is sold as the do everything for everybody system, yet clearly cannot do so.

It's this idea of what people think they want, that they're sold on.

Chris

As it happens, I am just now caught up in this.

I am in a discussion with some folks on a Shadow World mailing list regarding problems with the products. I am fond of them, but there are certain things that get me about them. With regards to what I claim to be missing information, I have been informed that the more recent editions of the games have some of this info included. So, like a lemming drawn towards the Atlantic, I am off to buy more editions of products I already own.

Oh, did I mention that the same sources tell me that more questions are raised than answered?

I'd say it works and works well. Planned obsolescence, I believe they call it, and apparently it's been working for auto makers and Bill Gates for quite some time now. Seems it works for games, too.

OTOH, I am not happy about it.

Mike

Quote from: BankueiIIt's this idea of what people think they want, that they're sold on.

Chris

An example of what sounds good to an individual in fantasy may also be something very uncomfortable in an actual social setting.

In my case, the premise of Vampire of shared, emotionally intense, immersive experience appeals to me in fantasy, but in actual play overintense LARPER's scare me.

So the book has been purchased and read and sits on the shelf.

Now, providing a fantasy of play is something a game (in its literature) can validly offer...what do we want to call *that*? We can cast into that pot the games that are fun to discuss.

Hi there,

I guess I'm seeing two categories emerge from the discussion.

1) The game advertises itself as X but, frankly, ain't X at all. But it's exciting about X, on the face of it, and the user commitment to X is high (and buying the product advertises that commitment to others). This is the kind of game that's played with major Drift, tantamount to in-house re-writing, when interest in X is high enough to keep people committed to play. This seems, bluntly, like a good description of Vampire to me - I realize that a fair number of people have a different view. It's also what Mike's and Chris' comments are geared towards, and MK's description that the game essentially offers a fantasy of play rather than actual play fits well for me.

2) The game provides functional components of play that may not all mesh together well, or are in some cases contradictory. It's incoherent in GNS terms as a whole, but its parts, or most of them, are actually fairly strong in isolation. It's played by wildly divergent role-players (usually not in wildly divergent groups, though), each set Drifting, not very far, to emphasize the parts of play they prefer. This is what I was thinking of regarding pre-1989 Champions and old-old AD&D.

Best,
Ron

Hi,

I think Ron's category 2 (mentioned by MK in his first post), is very important.

Given the common truth/believe that fellow players are hard to find, a game that draws players with different goals for fun into the same session can be very powerful.  If each gamer's needs are being met enough each night of play, odds are they'll keep showing up.

Ron's view (and mine, and others) is that enough is not enough, and so the desire for coherency -- and so the pickiness about who to play with.  Not because players who want something else that night are bad, but because we want to play what we want to play and not compromise our fun with time spent on not fun.

Whether or not it actually *is* nigh impossible to find fellow players -- for coherent or incoherent games -- is still up for debate.  But the belief that it is really that tough -- and so there's an acceptence of the game that please most of the people some of the time.  

We all recognize, I'm sure, those odd phases of the evening where one or more players simply sit back, putting down pencils or whatnot, not as we give focus (which might actually make us lean forward as we pay more attention to the person with focus, fer crying out loud), but instead surrender the game for a while, saying with our body language, saying, "Well, this ain't my thing, but Nate sure likes it."  And then wait for our style of play to come swinging back around.

This of course deals with MK's points about games that sell to be played.

The other points of the fantasy of the game goes back to questions I asked over on RPG.net (I believe) some time ago: Why do people keep buying games they don't play?  And why don't people buy more games than they *can* play?  Because they like to read them.  For some of us, the strange world background, metaplots and the like are fun enough to wallow in our thoughts.  We assume because there are rules attached the materials should be played.  But perhaps some books are just better reads than they are games.

MK's point of the uncomfortableness of real play for some games had never occurred to me -- but it's a damned good one.  (I'm not the kind of guy who gets uncomfortable, but I've been called by fellow players for moving games into areas that make them uncomfortable.)

Christopher

Quote from: Ron Edwards
2) The game provides functional components of play that may not all mesh together well, or are in some cases contradictory.

I'll add that "mesh" can be highly subjective. As is "contradictory".

For example, I was thinking about my son's desire for "more combat!" in our gaming. Yet, my husband, the Simulationist Gamer, points out that combat is when time stands still in our sessions and it takes forever. (We are working on tweaks to streamline it.)

So, from a Simulationist standpoint, which would be better? A detailed combat system that generates realistic results (optimized for detail and event accuracty) or fast resolution system that generates a sense of speed and immediacy (optimized for subjective experience of excitement and lack of analytical thought)?

OK, I cheated in the above paragraph. Both are Simulationist, but optimized for different aspects of the event. A fully Simulationist experience would be getting out in a field and actually combatting.

What, then, is my son, 11 years old really asking for? I'd go with speedy resolution; but this will have to be negotiated with Dad, who wants realistic results.

Whoops, forgot the point:

Both husband and son are seeking satisfaction of simulationist desires. If asked, both would so reply.

Yet, they are satisfied by contradictory game mechanics. Thus, were they reviewers of a game, one might see a good "mesh" where the other sees "incoherence".

Quote from: Christopher Kubasik
......Ron's view (and mine, and others) is that enough is not enough, and so the desire for coherency -- and so the pickiness about who to play with.  Not because players who want something else that night are bad, but because we want to play what we want to play and not compromise our fun with time spent on not fun........


We all recognize, I'm sure, those odd phases of the evening where one or more players simply sit back, putting down pencils or whatnot, not as we give focus (which might actually make us lean forward as we pay more attention to the person with focus, fer crying out loud), but instead surrender the game for a while, saying with our body language, saying, "Well, this ain't my thing, but Nate sure likes it."  And then wait for our style of play to come swinging back around.


Christopher

Yet there are also players (Allston's Buddy Player, for example) who are perfectly content with other types of play. While not personally being good at In Character acting, a player may enjoy a friend's In Character performance; may enjoy the Mad Thinker's solution and the Gamemaster's creative response; or everybody looks forward to the moments when an in character comment is hilarious to our cultural sensibilities out of character.

The juncture points of disparate play styles can create humor, and a play experience that brings them back to the table.  So, an "incoherent" game, if it provideds enough resources for this kind of interaction, provides a pleasurable social style of play overall.

As for the frustration with "down time", again, I'll submit that's a personal preference. We gamed four hours without a break last session; the offstage time gave players a chance to use the loo, snack, make notes, and rest while the Game Overall Went On.

QuoteI think that if we could identify some of the sort of "imperfection" that works best, that it might even become a desirable design feature for some of us.

To my mind, a ruleset should fit a setting, and vice versa.  Settings almost always contain elements of N, overarching themes and premises, and S, internal mechanisms, such economic structures, technological systems, cultural elements etc.  And of course, the in-built conflict of any setting can produce G.  To the extent that all elements of GNS are present in the setting, the ruleset should support this.

Whenever incoherence is mentioned, the prime example given of 'incoherence as a bad thing' is Vampire.  To my mind, the ruleset of Vampire is by and large coherent gamism.  Its only when you include the setting, much N with a little S, that things get incoherent.

More to come...

On the other hand, the WHFRP ruleset is quite incoherent.  But, to my mind, the ruleset fits the setting.  Going into a game, I have a ruleset that is semi-S, semi-G, but a setting that will remain 'true' under drift to S or G.

I don't think ruleset coherence to G, N or S should be worried about, coherence to me is about the rules supporting the setting.  I think it is coherence to the setting that has to be followed.  Anyhow, this is what I've been pondering based on a recent ce playtest.

Jeremy

Quote from: MK SnyderSo, from a Simulationist standpoint, which would be better? A detailed combat system that generates realistic results (optimized for detail and event accuracty) or fast resolution system that generates a sense of speed and immediacy (optimized for subjective experience of excitement and lack of analytical thought)?

Why not both? A fast resolution system that generates realistic results, and is fun and challenging to play. It's not that hard to create.

From several years in the software design world, I can say that while people may not know what they *want* they're usually very good about knowing what does or doesn't meet their needs.

I'm really clear that I want different levels of abstraction for different arenas of gaming. I like Gamist combat--I find it excting and fun in its own right.  I often want plot lines that ask N-style premise questions. I want to have the ability to act as I see fit without being forced by a GM in the meta-game mode into some avenue of behavior. I want a system that will give me good exploration capabilities (and often a campaign where the situation and setting are interesting enough to be worthy of exploration in their own right although perhaps not as the primary focus over multiple, lengthy gaming sessions).

An "incoherent" game can work very, very well for that. It just needs to have the abstraction in the right places (right for the individual, that is). I've seen it written here that at different moments of play different GNS modes will be primary--wouldn't you want a system that contained the capablity to encourage those modes in the areas where you wanted to change them? Might such a system be, by definition, "incoherent?"

Look at Greyorm's Narrativist 3eD&D game: although he's succeeding "in spite of the system," he's not fighting it--not ignoring the game text or accuring lots of house rules. His latest example discusses an exciting tactical fight with a dragon combined with Narrativist player-driven premise-addressing plot--his players, at least, seem to feel that for the experience they want, 3eD&D is spot on.

-Marco

Quote from: Andrew MartinWhy not both? A fast resolution system that generates realistic results, and is fun and challenging to play. It's not that hard to create.

Uh, is that sarcasm? Do you have an example?