Incoherence and sales II

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

As usual, I think people have lost sight of the idea in my essay that Coherence does not mean "one GNS mode only, ever," but rather, consistently enjoyable play. I state that certain combinations of GNS-focuses are perfectly capable of facilitating Coherence, just as a very strong single-GNS-focus can.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hey Ron,

As usual, I think people have lost sight of the idea in my essay that Coherence does not mean "one GNS mode only, ever," but rather, consistently enjoyable play. I state that certain combinations of GNS-focuses are perfectly capable of facilitating Coherence, just as a very strong single-GNS-focus can.

I did think that (I took it to mean that a coherent game was very, very largely--if not completely--because almost nothing ever is complete--slanted towards a particular mode of play).

I don't see how "consistently enjoyable" would stand by itself as a descriptor without a bunch of other qualifiers (as in, to whom, and what does consistent mean ... and a whole bunch of other things ....).  And wouldn't that make incoherence inherently undesirable ("Regular sunlight is not as 'consistently enjoyable' as laser light.")?

I think focused and/or GNS-'coherent' (with my assumend meaning) are valid paths to an enjoyable, well built game--but I do think they should stand apart as terms.

What is the term for a game that *is* designed to strongly fascilitate a mode of play? (and I don't mean a specifc mode as in a 'Gamist Game,' I mean an indetermine mode as applied to a school of design).

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Marco, with respect, I think you are mis-reading a key element of my essay, despite its absolutely explicit presentation, due to your perception that I "must" be saying an XYZ phrase that you are projecting into the content.

Coherence is and can only be about enjoyable play, which I associate only with being able to consistently (meaning through time) address Premise in the most basic and general use of the word. This definition is rock solid and has no other meaning.

Now, my claim, which is not the same thing as the definition, is that in-Coherence is affected by game design as follows (I've bolded certain text for emphasis):

Incoherent 1: the design fails to permit one or any mode of play. In its most extreme form, the system may simply be broken – too easily exploited, or internally nonsensical, or lacking meaningful consequence, to pick three respective possibilities for Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.

Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others.

The second type is a probability-thing - such a "mixed bag" as such does not create or facilitate Incoherence, but many mixed bags do. One of my favorite examples to illustrate both sides of these possibilities is pre-4th-edition Champions, which (I submit) cannot and has never facilitated Coherent play as written in full, but which can facilitate Coherent play given selective amputations.

And finally, another claim of mine is that GNS-focus is the most basic and straightforward way to facilitate Coherence. Its price is to reduce the pool of available people who want to play, which in practice, I claim, isn't much of a price at all (counter to the common kneejerk reactions). However, this claim tends to whack people out - they overlook the blunt and obvious point that I also acknowledge functional combinations of GNS-focus in design.

[I've stated this so often, and provided so many examples, that I'm not especially inclined to do so here. It's time for people to get the message, not for me to gentle them and "hope they get there one day." Anyone is free to disagree with my two claims; I've yet to see or hear any argument that does so with any rigor.]

MK's post interests me because we're not talking about Incoherence at all. We're talking about mixed-GNS design that facilitates Coherence (at least in the #2 category that I identified). What's interesting, though, is that if played in full, the game is Incoherent, but it also happens to be easily tinker-able (as in Champions and, I think, Little Fears). This possibility represents a fascinating mixed-GNS design option that's very different from the overt hybrid option (as in The Riddle of Steel).

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

It seems that previous examples of "modular" incoherence were the result of house rules, or modifications which were added on through actual play, which, when all used together fail to work, but when drifted appropriately, support a style of play.   If we were purposefully designing such system, would it make sense to be thinking in modular sets, like legos?

For example, one could have a set of critical hit rules that are optional, and probably work well with either Sim or Gam play, and a set of cinematic rules that work with Nar play, etc.?

Chris

[Jeremy Cole]

We're talking about mixed-GNS design that facilitates Coherence

As I said in my first post, isn't mixed GNS appropriate where the premise itself needs a mix of GNS elements?

I have been unconsciously following a methodology and the Coherence discussion has helped me put the methodology to words.  The key is in determining the GN or S priority in each element of the system (character creation, plot development etc), and ensuring that that part of the game has an appropriate resolution mechanic.

More to come...

[Jeremy Cole]

Ensuring Coherence is then the second step, would my assumptions on the focus of an element hold for anyone wanting to play?  As such, are the mechanics as a whole Coherent, or are there elements of the mechanics that don't support the premise?  The assumption made is that if the premise is clear, and held true in all parts of the game, then the focus of each portion of play will be clear to all players, and this should be supported by an appropriate mechanic.

In TROS, the narratavist mechanics give players motives to act, but simulationist resolution limits their abilities to act as they might desire.  What is worth killing for, and what is worth risking your life for.  Premise supported by hybrid mechanics.

Jeremy

[Andrew Martin]

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.

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

I think my S combat system for Fudge fits the requirements. If not, I'd like to hear about it! :) That way I can make it better.

[xiombarg]

I think my S combat system for Fudge fits the requirements. If not, I'd like to hear about it! :) That way I can make it better.

My response to this doesn't really belong in this forum, so I moved it to another thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39533

[MK Snyder]

Ok, I'm all for games composed of mixed GNS design elements, as appropriate for the element and for the composition of the gaming group in the mix of demands created by the mix of individuals.

What constitutes incoherence, or clash, could be hard to objectively measure. One person's hideous collision of esthetics is another's happy compromise or fulfillment.

That's one topic...

Then there's the idea of the appeal of incompleteness; inviting tinkering; planned negative space...as opposed to the fortiutous gaps of idiosyncratic design.

[Jeremy Cole]

What constitutes incoherence, or clash, could be hard to objectively measure. One person's hideous collision of esthetics is another's happy compromise or fulfillment.

Yeah, I think its got to be taken case by case, and not just game to game, but also play group to play group, even campaign to campaign.

Then there's the idea of the appeal of incompleteness; inviting tinkering; planned negative space...as opposed to the fortiutous gaps of idiosyncratic design.

Yeah, there's always talk on realistic combat, which ignores the fact that people, assuming they even want realistic combat, have very different ideas on what realistic combat actually is.  Even if you did design a combat mechanic that did meet some objective truth on combat, most people would still see the results as 'inaccurate'.  For my mind though, modules, optional rulesets, and invitations to modify and aren't really the way, as much as 'wiggle-room', fortune results that allow subjective interpretation, allowing the play group to determine what they think is appropriate.

Jeremy

[MK Snyder]

I'm thinking of Bank's idea of modular design.

Experienced players already do that, in the sense that they will adopt the mechanics they prefer from one game into another, creating their uniique Frankengames. Some designers do include a suite of mechanics for character generation, combat, etc.; with the Open License, some games offer two sets (their own and D20 versions).

GURPS is somewhat modular; I see the Basic Rules as attempting to breakout the Gameist portion and the many supplements as providing Simulationist/Narrativist material; mostly Sim. Some of the GURPS supplements stand on their own as excellent reference works, not just as gaming references but also as history or cultural references that I can interest my kids into reading and learning something!

I have thought it might be interesting to collect a book of mechanics and systems that is modular. I was set on this path of thought by Ron's Fantasy Heartbreakers essay.

[Bankuei]

Experienced players already do that, in the sense that they will adopt the mechanics they prefer from one game into another, creating their uniique Frankengames. Some designers do include a suite of mechanics for character generation, combat, etc.; with the Open License, some games offer two sets (their own and D20 versions).

Yes, actually I was thinking in terms of how players already snip out certain rules.  Taking classic(not 3rd edition) D&D, I believe most people skipped a lot of encumberance rules, rules for overland travel and foods, or the personality traits in old 1st edition DM's Guide.  What it is, is that several rules were presented, and people took what they liked.  Although that may have been the intent, it was never designed that way, but instead haphazardly.

What I'm suggesting is giving players a lot of options with rules already understanding that only some of those options will be used.  For example, if we broke up the rules into Character Creation, Resolution, and Reward, and gave 3 different options for each, a group could have 27 options from those modules.  Of course the goal is not simply a ton of mishmashed options slammed together, but modules that work together no matter the combination, each with their own design strengths and weaknesses.

The simplest form would be to have modules of greater/lesser detail and crunchiness, although it would also makes sense to have modules with different focuses such as more Gamist, more Simist bents to them.  Perhaps some are more Sim real, others more Sim Cinematic, etc.

Chris

[Le Joueur]

What I'm suggesting is giving players a lot of options with rules already understanding that only some of those options will be used.  For example, if we broke up the rules into Character Creation, Resolution, and Reward, and gave 3 different options for each, a group could have 27 options from those modules.  Of course the goal is not simply a ton of mishmashed options slammed together, but modules that work together no matter the combination, each with their own design strengths and weaknesses.

The simplest form would be to have modules of greater/lesser detail and crunchiness, although it would also makes sense to have modules with different focuses such as more Gamist, more Simist bents to them.  Perhaps some are more Sim real, others more Sim Cinematic, etc.

All this and make it so that the participants could Transition the game if their interests 'evolve.'  I like this idea a lot, I wonder if I can do something with it?

Just kidding.  Good to see similar thoughts, keep up the great works.

Fang Langford

[M. J. Young]

What I'm suggesting is giving players a lot of options with rules already understanding that only some of those options will be used.

If I'm understanding this aright, Multiverser does something very like this, providing several mechanical approaches for most situations and allowing the referee to determine which (if any) is the best to use moment by moment.

--M. J. Young

[MK Snyder]

Edited to remove quoted material from newsgroup.