Rules-lite = story? (split from Storyteller Heartbreakers)

[Jason Lee]

Or basically games that claim a focus on story yet have little if anything in their system to fascilitate the creation of a story.

I don't get it.  You need rules to create a story?  Where are all the rules-lite (TM) guys so they can lynch you? ;)

The text of A Random WoD: The Game continually says its focus is story.  That's the only rule it needs to support story.  Though, you could make an arguement for merits, flaws, backgrounds, humanity, and virtues all being plot hook tools.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Where are all the rules-lite (TM) guys so they can lynch you? ;)

I *am* the rules lite guys! nyah ha ha!

The text of A Random WoD: The Game continually says its focus is story.  That's the only rule it needs to support story.

But is it a rule at all, much less the only rule it needs when you have all of the other rules aiming straight into gamism?

[Jason Lee]

I *am* the rules lite guys! nyah ha ha!

Crap.  There goes that lynching I was looking forward to.

But is it a rule at all, much less the only rule it needs when you have all of the other rules aiming straight into gamism?

Sure, 'How do you play this frickin' game?' is pretty important, and I've never bought that WoD games are a Gamist design.  I've seen them played in a Gamist fashion, but this leads to crash and burn typically.  The games are full of little anti-Gamist rules:  dimishing returns on EXP cost for attributes and abilities, cannot purchase abilities above 3 at char gen without freebie points, cannot take more than 7 points in flaws, everybody gets EXP just for showing up and playing.  

Just my opinion here, but gamist players seem to choke and die on WoD games.  The Nar or Sim groups (little hard to tell the difference from my PoV, 'cause I've not see a direct conflict)  I've seen typically just chuck damage rolls, use simultaneous combat resolution, and are good to go (I think the combat system is GNS-independent poo).

EDIT:  Oops, noticed I'm into thread de-railing turf.  So, I do think there are Storyteller heartbreakers.  I just think it stems from the irritating tone of the text, not the system.  The games I can think with obvious Storyteller influences broke away from the actual mechanics in interesting ways.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The games are full of little anti-Gamist rules:  dimishing returns on EXP cost for attributes and abilities, cannot purchase abilities above 3 at char gen without freebie points, cannot take more than 7 points in flaws, everybody gets EXP just for showing up and playing.

Not to stay on VtM but I fail to see how any of these things are anti-gamist in any way. Maybe not to the liking of every player who prefers gamist style, but I don't see it as being anti-gamist in the slightest.

[Paganini]

The real question is:

VtM has a lot of text that basically claims that the game facilitates narrativism. Is the mere instruction to prioritize story enough for a system to facilitate narrativism? No! All of the storytelling heartbreakers that Jack is referring to have this problem. The goal of the designer is to prioritize story, but the mechanics do not actually encourage this in any way.

[Jason Lee]

Well, VtM it is then!

Not to stay on VtM but I fail to see how any of these things are anti-gamist in any way. Maybe not to the liking of every player who prefers gamist style, but I don't see it as being anti-gamist in the slightest.

The way I see it the dimishing returns are a fairly Sim mechanic (harder to learn equals more points), after play begins it can be a form of anti-gamist defense.  The char gen limits are obvious anti-gamist defense (min/maxing gamist creep in particular), again seeming in the Sim direction (to limit characters to 'realistic' skill set distributions).  Everybody getting the same EXP does not reward the Gamist at all for performance in game; there are some provisos for bonus points to good players, but that's more for social engineering purposes.  Granting equal EXP seems, again, very Sim to me (the same time passed for all involved).

VtM has a lot of text that basically claims that the game facilitates narrativism. Is the mere instruction to prioritize story enough for a system to facilitate narrativism? No! All of the storytelling heartbreakers that Jack is referring to have this problem. The goal of the designer is to prioritize story, but the mechanics do not actually encourage this in any way.

Well, as I doubt the authors of VtM believe in GNS they certainly aren't claiming Nar.  They are claiming story, universal to all modes.  VtM is fairly metagame-lite, and actor stance is the obvious preference.  So, I'd say all that story and moral struggle they are talking about is just Sim:Sit/Char.

Here's an interesting riddle:  The Humanity mechanic falls into which mode?

Gam:  You win by reaching golconda, you lose by hitting zero Humanity and turning into a monster.
Nar:  A mechanic to represent the moral struggle of the character central to the game.
Sim:  Just another Sanity mechanic, where character actions can be force  into consistency with a roll.

I lean towards the Sim agenda, because as I've seen it played it's been used more to force actions than anything else.

It's got some design flaws (The Golden Rule, Impossible Thing, extra rules for anti-gamist defense, role-playing versus roll-playing), but from a GNS angle it looks to me like a fairly coherent (at least abashed) Sim design.  Narrativism doesn't have the monopoly on stories.

EDIT:  So I hit my personal messages and Raven pointed out I may be erroneously defining Gamism in terms of Powergaming (being the obvious thing the designers were fighting).  Looking at it he may be right, you could interpet character generation limiters as a way of leveling the playing field - which would actually support Gamism.  Hmmm...I'm not certain, it's got a some of that Humanity riddle to it.

[Lugaru]

I just think most people are too spoiled from years of gamist play. I mean you all talk like alchoholics... "If the gamist system is there... OF COURSE Im going to play gamist style!"

I mean Ive played some incredibly story heavy games withing gamist rules going for weeks without phisical conflicts and so on... and I think it was just the chemestry, not the rules that caused this. If a designer blames the rules for the "kill em and take his stuff" play that's going on, its just that he really dosent have the social skills necesary to let players really do what they want... have fun with the story instead of the numbers.

[Valamir]

I hear what you're saying Jav, but I think your chemistry analogy is missing a key element.  The rules are a tool.  Like any tool having the right tool for the job is important.  I can (and have) chopped down a small sapling with the claw end of a hammer.  I would have much preferred to have a hatchet or a saw...something designed for the job.

If you get great players and a great GM with great chemistry and catch them on a good night...they can have a great Role Play experience using the rules from Chess.

But in the end:

1) why ask a group to make the extra effort to use a set of rules not designed for the task.

2) even if one doesn't think the effort is all that much how easily replicatable is it.  Clearly not all gamers are "great" and have perfect chemistry.

So how does this tie into being a heartbreaker...a heartbreaker is essentially a tool that doesn't live up to its design specifications.  

For example, a designer might see me hacking away at the sapling with my hammer...he gets an idea...he knows how to "fix" the problem I'm having.  So he designs a hammer where the claw end is sharper..."see how superior my tool is to that older model" he brags...that's a heartbreaker.  What he should have done is designed a hatchet.

Mike's Standard Rant #1 points out that a big part of the reason why heartbreakers get designed this way is that the designer has only ever seen hammers.  He's never seen a hatchet, never used one, and hasn't been struck with the bolt of lightning...so he works feverishly to make a "better hammer".

Seen in this way a Heartbreaker can really be seen in any type of game where the designer is really trying to do one thing, and is enthusiastically trying to do it using a tool that's just not designed for the job.  The effort often has moments of brilliance where the "fix" really is a productive one, but taken as a whole...its still disappointing that he didn't start with a hatchet to begin with.

[Bob McNamee]

There is a difference between avoiding using existing Gamist rules because they derail the written intent of the game (VtM), and having having a set of rules that actually encourage driving story themes (TROS?). Or rules-lite "The Window", which depends on GM fiat for when rules get applied and when ignored.

Social Contract as system works, but there's also the problem of one or more players not signing on to the Social contract fully. If the System doesn't provide backup, what then?

I like rules-lite concept (cause I'm a bit lazier than I once was for memorizing games), but the 'Lite' needs to be well designed and well focused on supporting the style of play.

This is working well for Squeam 3...  :)

edit: cross posted with Ralph....great post Ralph.
We have a saying at  the Mill about Millwright solutions to problems being a matter of "Use a bigger Hammer"   :)

[Mike Holmes]

Jason,

I agree that on balance VtM is Simmy. But it's incoherent enough that people try to play Gamist, and have the problems you describe. The rules you cite, as Jack points out don't thwart the Gamist, they just provide harder and harder levels of success to achieve. How's that any different from D&D levels? How is it not about character power?

But that's not the point. What Jack is talking about primarily anyhow, is that the game says Story, Story, Story, and what we all agree it's talking about is Sim Story. Well, the Narrativist players, not realizing who they are, will still play it in a Narrativist fashion. And since we agree it supports Sim best, what happens? Incoherency. And that's the problem. Most of the games that immitate WoD have similar problems. I wouldn't call this Heartbreaker territiry, because it's working off a flawed design to start.

Note how the typical response to the problems with Narrativism in VtM are solved by most designers afterwards by going "rules lite". They figure that, if it's the rules that are the problem, then we'll just get rid of the rules. And this works to an extent. It doesn't promote Narrativism, but it certainly hinders Narrativist play less. Till you get down to freeform which is completely GNS neutral.

The point is that what these designers are missing is that there are actually ways to support Narrativist play.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

(stolen from original thread)

Well, as I doubt the authors of VtM believe in GNS they certainly aren't claiming Nar.  They are claiming story, universal to all modes.  VtM is fairly metagame-lite, and actor stance is the obvious preference.  So, I'd say all that story and moral struggle they are talking about is just Sim:Sit/Char.

OK, I'll buy that. I've heard it said, though, that the VtM mechanics encourage powergaming in that the system has breakpoints and exchange rates and such, which would encourage Gamism. I've only read it, not played it. Would you agree with that assessment?

(Raven? I don't see a post by Raven. Are you guys doing the PM thing? I claim conspiracy to derive an unfair advantage! ;)

No, I think break points and exchange rate problems (like the Generation background, wow is that ever worth the cost) make for bad Gamist design, but if you aren't supposed to approach char gen with Gamist priorities than it shouldn't matter.  Except, I do think exchange rate problems may bring the inner Gamist out of people, hence adding Gamist priorities to char gen (why waste points when points have a limit?).  So, from a certain angle you could say it promotes Gamism while simultaneously deterring it.

That's the funny thing about trying to classify games with GNS. Arguements can be made from different angles until you've managed to squeeze the mechanic into the mode you want it to be.

Heh, no conspiracy - Raven was pointing out a possible error on my part, and he's just better at recognizing off topic than I am ;).

[Lugaru]

Since it splintered I guess I'll just answer here to not suck up unecesary bandwith...

About the claw hammer example: genius. Yeah, a completely different tool is in need but the problem is that coming up with a new tool is not always spontaneus.

I mean RPG's alway's give me the impresion of being one of the less proggressive things out there... updating computer games, automoviles, hardware, software and what not even by an inch is always welcome, but in rpg design it tends to unleash some freaky kind of backlash. I guess the ideal concept is "keep your hearbreakers at home untill you can come up with something genuinly innovative" but even so making your research available should be a very positive thing.

About story teller games though, I was never implying that "at times the system should be neglected if you want a story telling game"... I do believe that the system matters and a lott. I just think that with a little creativity you can come up with good story telling within any system... hell, even playing risk. "Ahh... after drafting thousands of slaves from the colony that we adquired, your empire shall fall before mine!". You know what I mean.

Still something that happens with game's like VTM is that it starts rule's light, but then they realize "dude, people other than us will play this... we need to set limits" and well you know where that leads. A simple rule can have a whole page of limits, exeptions and cases... and well its not as simple any more. Kinda like "if you roll a 6, you kill your oponent... expet for when its dark you need 2 6's, or if he's wearing a vest you need a 6 and a 4 or more, and of course an extra success if your running and..."

This is kinda what Im thinking, and if its wrong or off topic too sorry but here it goes... in a game (game being the key word) the only things that should be supported by a system are things that are competitive, like combat or contests. If you want to buy a car, I wont make you roll to not get lost on your way to the dealer... I *might* make you roll if you want to haggle the price though, because that is a bit of a competition.

With story teller games the only problem is making systems for story elements... rolling to seduce? You should be able to do it for free if you can actually describe it right. The same applies for having points in personality traits and all that... I mean "Curiosity: 8" is just begging the story teller to say "no! You have to see what's behind the glowing, oozing door because of your curiosity!" "but I have cowardness of 8 too!" "then roll curiosity against cowardness!"

Also story teller game's foccuse too much on balance and even include it in their texts... "Matt was a badass, he rode a bike and had a black jacket, but then he encountered Carmilla who was a badass in her own way, since every one desired her and she owned two art galleries. Of course Fred the wolf showed up who was a badass because...". Your flaw's are always over compensated in one way or another.

Now personally I like gamist play... but because of the randomnes during conflicts of course. I like players to lose from time to time, or things to go much better than expected. That make's the narrative improvised and chaotic... or fun from my point of view. Story tellers point of view + "non railroaded" players point of view + "chaos factor" of the dice = story's you REALLY didint see coming. It just shouldent be a story about the time I rolled all sixes.

[Jason Lee]

Mike,

What I don't get here is how the Gamist or Narrativist trying to play in a Sim design and failing miserably makes the game incoherent.  The Nar player will experience dysfunction, it's not the fault of the designers that they choose the wrong game for their priorities.

What I think is that VtM is a design that, on average, creates more violent dysfunction with non-Sim players.  It has rules designed to try to force a Gam or Nar player to play Sim, to adhear to the mode of the game (like starting point limits and the player not having full control of the Humanity trait).  If there's a design flaw there it's that trying to enforce Sim play instead of just encourage it means congruent play is impossible (which I do think is a majorly bad idea, but YMMV).

[Mike Holmes]

Jason,

We're agreeing here. Not knowing GNS theory, VtM could hardly have been expected to be coherent. The criticism of it is based mostly on the fact that it has elements that attract all three players, and then cannot support them all. Including the text which appeals to the Narrativists via the claims that the game can creat "Story".

Basically it's the "fault" of the designers for making a game that looks and says it will support Narrativism and failing to deliver. But again, it's not at all surprising. I daresay we wouldn't be here discussing Narrativism had not Storyteller at least made the idea of the "story" mode legitimate. It's the fault of the Narrativists for not havintg been able to state what they wanted in a way that allowed games to be made that catered to them.

Remember, Narrativists playing VtM at the time were going, "Well, I want story, but this isn't what I mean by story." I don't really think they understood the problem they were having at all.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

Mike,

Putting aside the whole GNS incoherency and Narrativist != Story gobble-dee-gook for a moment.  I think we are in agreement, probably even if you don't set those aside.

We've got players expecting narration, not knowing whether it be specifically Sim, Nar, or whatever - just something, anything, that allows them to participate more actively in the creation of the story.  So you march into it seeing potential for Author or Director stance, and the game mechanics don't actually support anything but Actor stance - even to the point of spanking you for not conforming.  You've got the narration carrot dangling at the other end of the hallway, all you have to do is leap through the spinning blades of The Impossible Thing, The Golden Rule, and The GM is God.  While the text cheers your mad dash to doom on with 'This is your chance to participate'.

That's the problem I see.  Which, in my opinion, is a lot more serious than GNS incoherency and can effect any Sim, Nar, or Gam player who's got an earnest desire for narration.