categorizing mechanics

[Tim C Koppang]

Over in the "Sense of Wonder" thread, I started thinking about mechanics more closely.

What I'm starting to convince myself of is that you can group mechanics generally into two different categories: enforcing and encouraging.  Basically, I'm arguing that certain elements of play—certain behaviors—are either enforceable through rules, or merely encourageable.  Take character death for example: When your character reaches 0 hit points, he's dead.  Assuming a certain amount of reasonability, this sort of thing is literally enforced by the rules.  Unless you change the rule, things are clear cut and defined.  However, to take an opposite example, when we start talking about an individual mode of GNS play, then the rules are only able to encourage—hence we have the concept of drift.  Encourageable rules apply to other situations as well—things like the sense of wonder under discussion in the aforementioned thread.

Now, I run into problems with this theory however, when I begin to further consider the possibility of drift.  Is drift "breaking the rules," and therefore wouldn't GNS therefore actually be an enforceable rule?  I don't know.  That's why I posted.

[szilard]

It is never the case that rules are going to cover everything that could possibly occur in play. If drift occurs in the gaps between the rules, then it doesn't break any of those rules. That is not to say that drift doesn't deviate from the intent or spirit of the rules, nor is it to say that much drift doesn't involve changing or ignoring some rules.

Another point... I'm not certain I understand what you mean by enforceable rule. That strikes me as a subtly different thing than behaviors enforceable through rules.

Stuart

[Tim C Koppang]

Another point... I'm not certain I understand what you mean by enforceable rule. That strikes me as a subtly different thing than behaviors enforceable through rules.

Ehh...?  Sorry--inprecise wording.

I meant the second thing you said.  Behaviours are enforced or encouraged.    However, mechanics can either serve to encourage or enforce.

[Mike Holmes]

Tim,

What I'd say is that drift is changing the rules if everyone agrees to the change. I'd say that it's breaking the rules if drift is done without consent. You're breaking the social contract that states what rules will be followed.

GNS can be enforced, but it's extrememly difficult to do, and probably not worthwhile in most cases. Given that we're talking about a process of decision making that's internal to a player, the player can, for example, lie about his decision making process ("No, I didn't kill the baby kobolds because they're not worth any experience points alive, I killed them beause that's what my guy would do!")

It's a legal theory that laws that are impossible to enforce are not good laws. Given that Idea, I'd say that GNS rule should look to promoting behaviors, not trying to enforce them.

The best example are the "Gamist Creep" rules that exist in many games. These are almost always useless wastes of space as they are unenforceable. Worse, the attempt to enforce them is (as in the example above) exactly what leads to "My Guy" syndrome.

Mike

[Tim C Koppang]

Stuart,

I don't mean to say that enforcing rules (note the term change) are in any way bad, or less good then encouraging rules.  Nor do I want to argue about drift (it was mearly an example of a behavior that is IMO not enforceable).  I'm just categorizing mechancis for the sake of discussion: can you enforce something like GNS, for example?  I don't think so, but perhaps I'm wrong.  You can however, enforce things like character death--assuming the players don't change the rules.

What I'm asking as a sidebar is if what I'm calling encouraging rules are in violation when their purpose is not being accomplished.  Can you even say something like that without sounding stupid?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I'm having trouble seeing what the difference is between enforcing and encouraging. I also fail to see what is gained with this since it is conceivable that the exact same mechanic in two different games is encouraging in one and enforcing in the other. It lies in the application, not in the mechanic itself, I think.

[Mike Holmes]

What I'm asking as a sidebar is if what I'm calling encouraging rules are in violation when their purpose is not being accomplished.  Can you even say something like that without sounding stupid?

Oh, I see. Not stupid, Stuart, but definitely wrong. If a rule only encourages, then play in another manner cannot be breaking the rule. Possibly if breaks the spirit of the rule, which may or may not be part of the social contract.

Mike

[szilard]

I'm just categorizing mechancis for the sake of discussion: can you enforce something like GNS, for example?  I don't think so, but perhaps I'm wrong.  

That's an interesting question.

What if there were a rule that, for example, stated that players should be as competitive with each other and the GM as possible? Wouldn't that enforce a sort of (perhaps naive) Gamism? What if there were rules (more generally) dictating the decision-making process that players should use?

These may not be very good rules, in the sense that they would likely be vague and difficult to enforce, but they seem to be rules that would enforce a particular take on the GNS spectrum.

What I'm asking as a sidebar is if what I'm calling encouraging rules are in violation when their purpose is not being accomplished.  Can you even say something like that without sounding stupid?

Do you mean to ask whether they are being violated in such a case?

Hmm.

Let's take Sorcerer. A Narrativist-facillitating rule is that each player comes up with a Kicker for their character. Now, a Gamist-oriented player might generate a Kicker that involves, say, his character finding a suitcase filled with gold bars in his attic. Does this violate the rule? No. In fact, it need not even hinder Narrativist play.

Maybe that's not a good example, since the purpose might still be accomplished... even though the player's intent was largely to subvert that purpose.

Can you give a better example?

Stuart

[szilard]

What I'm asking as a sidebar is if what I'm calling encouraging rules are in violation when their purpose is not being accomplished.  Can you even say something like that without sounding stupid?

Oh, I see. Not stupid, Stuart, but definitely wrong. If a rule only encourages, then play in another manner cannot be breaking the rule. Possibly if breaks the spirit of the rule, which may or may not be part of the social contract.

Mike

That was Tim, not me.

Stuart

[Tim C Koppang]

it is conceivable that the exact same mechanic in two different games is encouraging in one and enforcing in the other. It lies in the application, not in the mechanic itself, I think.

How so?  Can you give me an example?

I think I know what you are getting at, but I would disagree.  I'm talking about specific instances of mechanics in specific games.  That game's individual mechanics are either going to enforce an effect or encourage an effect.  If you were to transfer a mechnic as a whole to another game then I believe the category would remain the same.

Now, if you are talking about how a particular player/GM uses the rule apart from what's written in the text, then we are getting into something entirely different.  I'm talking about using rules/mechancis as written.

[Valamir]

This thread on GNS Incoherency might be useful to the conversation.

[Tim C Koppang]

If a rule only encourages, then play in another manner cannot be breaking the rule.

I think this is right.  Obviously, if a rule only encourages something and that something doesn't occur, then you're not in any sort of violation.

I suppose my question arises out the notion of using game texts as written.  A game designer can say that Game X facilitates Sim play, for examlpe.  Now, if the game design is tight and actually includes mechanics that encourage Sim play, then to drift into Nar play would be using the text in a manner contrary to its design.  We all talk about "system does matter" a lot around here, but isn't this sort of drift working against the system?  Isn't that bad?

Now, in this thread I'm trying to get all grand and apply this thought to all mechanics in general.  While I agree that a rule that encourages is hard to violate, how then do you ensure that you are remaining true to the game text?

[Mike Holmes]

That was Tim, not me.

Stuart

Oops, I knew that. But when I looked up one post, I saw the name Stuart, and grabbed it (he was addressing you).

That said, I'll respond to something you said, Stuart. Yes, you can suggest that one be competitive. But that just encourages. I've played wargames in complete Sim mode on occasion, sometimes to the dismay of my opposition who have too easy a time beating me because of it. Basically in a particular game I may refuse to use a rule in a "gamey" (that's wargamer for Pawn Stance), because it bugs me to do so. An opponent who then has no such compunction has an edge in winning.

Rune, BTW, does have exactly those sorts of rules, and they are pretty good (some mechanical problems, but that's neither here not there). And while these rules encourage a player to play Gamist, and while most would, I can see someone like myself playing Sim (not that I have, but I might).

To the extent that the other players are expecting my "best game" I'm breaking the rules. To the extent that they don't care, I'm just drifting.

No enforcement as I take Tim to mean must mean things like, "When a combat round starts roll for initative." That's enforcement in that a player either abides, or he is definitely not following the rule.

As you point out in your Sorcerer example, Stuart, GNS rules merely suggest a way to play. It's interesting that the means that's always given for attempting to enforce such play is the same. The GM is given authority to veto. Even in Sorcerer, the GM is encouraged not to let players take "utility demons".

This always leaves the GM in a weird position of having to interperet to determine what is a violation and what is not. But it does represent how most games enforce certain GNS play.

There are other ways, however. For example, in Ron's game Elfs, when trying certain things the player is asked to state what he wants, and what the Elf wants from the resolution as two different things. This enforced author stance tries to enforce a sort of Narrativist statement about Gamism. But in the end it's up to the GM to determine if the player is doing it right. A player certainly could state that his desire was for the character to do whatever the character would do, and, therefor be playing explicit Sim.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

While I agree that a rule that encourages is hard to violate, how then do you ensure that you are remaining true to the game text?

Who is "you"? The player, the GM, or the designer?

I think you mean the latter. And the answer is that you can't ensure that people will even play your game, much less that they'll follow the rules or even the spirit of the rules.

But I'm a statistician. And what I can tell you is that, all things being equal, a bias towards a mode will tend to produce that mode relatively often.

That has to be your goal. To make a game that, for some people, will create play that is functional and fun. You can't force everyone to play your way.

Mike

[Tim C Koppang]

Who is "you"? The player, the GM, or the designer?

I actually meant the "you" to mean the player, or the GM--but I get your point all the same.  Still, does the player/GM have any responsibility to the designer, or to the game text as written?