Psychotic (or is It Schizoid) Game Design

[Le Joueur]

Hi Bruce,

You raise a pretty good argument, thanks for putting in the time.  I'm not sure how it relates.

That's an idea that I hadn't considered.  The idea that you are trying to achieve aesthetically pleasing results in spite of the rules isn't a new idea, but I hadn't considered it.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that accomplishment within the mutually agreed upon boundaries is a source of increased satisfaction for many people. Writers observe genre boundaries, or transgress them for deliberate effect.

...In addition, by defining boundaries, the rules channel effort in preparation and performance, allowing the kind of focus that makes for more meaningful comparisons. Comparing "a work of art" to "another piece of art" is often tricky; comparing two sculptures, or two symphonies, is easier. And so on with closer boundaries.

So gaming isn't at all unusual in this regard. The rules are fundamentally arbitrary, but then so are all rules. The point is that in a game people like, they're satisfying and stimulate satisfying activity. They are a positive good for people interested in a particular kind of shared creation.

I realize you didn't bring this up, I should have said "...that one is trying to achieve...."  Furthermore, you seem to be confusing players who are faced with rules that don't do a good job providing them with the experience implied by the reference to the source material and the people who make the rules.  This is not an uncommon source of confusion.  It's easy to confuse 'the game' (the printed book) with 'the game' (what you are doing while playing), and 'the rules' (the text written by an author) and 'da rules' (the things we're playing by).  Because of this, you point basically boils down to 'writers break the rules of writing to create better material, and players play within the rules for improved performance.'  These points aren't relative to my supposition.

I'm saying that if the football players bought a game that appeared to be about ball-field strategies based on board game play and opened it up and found chess, the rules of the game would clash with what they expected they would play.  Notice this does not even make the value judgment that chess is therefore a 'bad game,' just that it doesn't provide what was implied by the packaging.  What I am saying is that role-playing games, because of their aesthetic bases, cause the same clash when they provide rules based upon some kind of 'reality model' which isn't implied by their 'packaging.'

This does raise some interesting points about what someone might want based upon differing kinds of source material, but that's much too complicated a topic to delve into here.  I'm trying to stick with 'the traditional modeling fights the spirit of the source material' and not 'such and so is the right way to do it.'  Once I can eliminate (and therefore 'name') the thing that I find so irrationally matched to most of the source material, only then can we have a successful discussion of 'what else is there?'

Thank you very much for helping work this out, it has been unconsciously been bothering me for a long time.

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

Hey John,

I appreciate the patience you show taking this supposition up with me.  Thanks.  You raise some good points, unfortunately they're somewhat obscured by the frequently-misunderstood word 'story.'  Like I attempted in the starting post of this thread, how about we skip using this word and whenever motivated to, take a few more words and 'spell out' what we mean?

OK, I'll elaborate on my disagreements into two areas: first on goals, second on methods.  

What I am saying is use resolution rules that emulate reality to play games that take their sources from reality shows.  Equally, make resolution systems hinging upon 'story priorities' for games that take their sources from stories.

I'm saying to use one for the other is square-pegging round holes to be sure.  

You're assuming here that the goal of any game taking its source from stories is solely to create similar stories.  That's not necessarily true.  For example, I don't think that Star Fleet Battles would be improved by replacing its reality-style resolution with story-based resolution.  Even though it takes its source from stories, its goal is not solely to reproduce similar stories.  Part of the appeal of SFB is definitely how true it is to its source material, but it puts greater priority on being an interesting wargame.  The same thing applies to many role-playing games.  Indeed, many of them are explicit about it.

There's a distinct problem here, I pretty much sure there's no agreement on the status on Star Fleet Battles as a role-playing game.  When I played it back in the eighties, it certainly didn't seem to be to me; all we did was pit starship groups against each other in space.  That would make it a war or board game.

However, it does provide an excellent reverse example.  It is a wargame based upon a property that is very much aesthetically driven.  (Kirk wins because the writers 'like him.'  And the then-recent release of Star Trek films hamstrung the then-new supplements which tried to justify aesthetically-driven 'improvements' using the "reality-style" rules.)  The problem is that I've not seen it portrayed as a role-playing game.

I might extend my supposition to suggest that anything which is a role-playing game must, by the generation model above, be based upon aesthetic narrative sources and therefore none (except a few fourth generation role-playing games) are therefore 'true' to the spirit of their sources.  I might, but I'm not interested in an all or nothing argument; far from it, I'm actually looking for examples of role-playing games that break the supposition.  Role-playing games that 'do justice' to their source material because they use a non-aesthetic-based resolution system.  (Exceptions like The Riddle of Steel are of the class I mentioned earlier that 'prove the rule.')

From the introduction to Shadowrun:

Everyone has read a book or seen a movie where the lead character does something that the reader or viewer finds so utterly wrong that he or she wants to yell out and warn them.  But whether the reader calls out or not, it makes no difference.  No matter what we say, the character will do what the plot demands; we're just along for the ride.'

The situation in a roleplaying game is very different.  When roleplaying, the players control their characters' actions and respond to the events of the plot.  If the player does not want the character to go through the door, the character will not.  If the player thinks the character can talk him or herself out of a tight situation rather than resorting to that trusty pistol, he can talk away.  The script, or plot, of a roleplaying game is flexible, always changing based on the decisions the players make as characters.

This nicely reflects the idea, I think.  Even though Shadowrun draws from sci-fi and fantasy stories -- it is selling based on the difference between playing a game and listening to a story.  In the game, you are not subject to the clichés or other arbitrary devices of writers -- you can play the character "right" (for some value of "right", of course).

See, this is the opposite direction of thinking form what I subscribe.  Note the example suggests you and try to talk your way 'out of a tight situation;' it also says the player 'thinks the character can.'  Then the dice come out and being based upon a 'reality model' the player fails, regardless of what the player thought.

I don't see it as being "subject to the clichés or other arbitrary devices," but being empowered by them.  Using something other than a 'reality-based' resolution system, the player can think "the character can talk him or herself out of a tight situation," and then do it because someone (him, the gamemaster, another player, just about anybody) believes it is appropriate to the 'spirit' of the game or the aesthetic of the source material, not because it fits the 'reality model.'

From my experience, Shadowrun is selling because it is based upon a really cool concept (even though it didn't originally have source material, it drew from many).  I believe it's gathering dust on many shelves because of how far 'outside' the cool concept the game's resolution system is.  We can't really argue this point because it's only my humble opinion.  Suffice to say that your quote illustrates my point indirectly; the player can do as they like, but it doesn't necessarily come out the way they think it will (or more importantly should).

I never said that a role-playing game was anything like writing a story, but I am saying that writing a role-playing game in the spirit of stories is going to fail if you use a resolution system that is in the spirit of emulating an extended version of reality.  Reality doesn't 'flow' like stories; stories don't 'move' like reality.  Does it make sense to use rules that 'move' like reality to engage in play that's based on stories?

First of all, I disagree that reality doesn't flow like stories.  People tell stories about reality all the time.  "Aha!"  you say, "But that isn't reality per se, those people create a story out of real events."  But we can do exactly the same thing in RPGs -- we first determine the fictional reality, and then create a story out of that.

Herein you conjure up exactly the problem with the term 'story.'  I simply will not debate you on whether 'stories' means 'a series of events' or 'a message cloaked in sophisticated metaphor.'  I will not go there.  What I will say is I have yet to see a role-playing game based upon "real events".  I will also not sink into the pointless argument about retrospective story creation.

I am not talking about stories.

I'm saying that role-playing games are based upon things which do not "flow like stories."  Actually the 'flow' issue is a distraction as well.  I'm not talking about patterns, methods, or practices specifically, but their cumulative results.  That being that a 'reality model' resolution system does not and cannot provide an cumulative experience similar to a source material that doesn't.

But really this is an argument about methods.  Even if we assume the goal is to create stories which are true to the spirit of the inspiration, that doesn't inherently determine what the methods should be.  

This is the same issue in many other translation of media, but magnified.  Your argument is the simplistic one: that in order to stay true to the spirit, we have to stick to tried-and-true methods and terminology.  This is similar to the logic of saying that to make a movie of a book, you should just film literally every passage of the book.  However, it is pretty widely accepted that this simply isn't true.  Staying true to the spirit does not necessarily mean slavishly keeping to the source.

You mistake my point for an 'either-or' supposition.  It's not; I'm not saying that the translated media should make use of the same techniques as the source material (well, I did, but that wasn't what I meant to say).  I'm saying that tradition has people using the wrong ones (not necessarily which is the right one, that's a much bigger argument than this thread can handle).

Your example provides good fodder for this point:

As a hypothetical example, imagine that I'm a director who is directing a historical epic set in medieval France.  I want to film a battle scene from the book, but the book doesn't describe swing-by-swing what is happening.  But I have stuntman who know all about swordplay from the period.  I decide rather than telling them what to do, I'll rely on them.  "Go ahead and do whatever you think would be best for soldiers of the period."  I tell them, "Make it look real!"  Now I'm using reality-based resolution.

And any director will tell you how much of a waste of time that is.  You'll have to shoot and shoot and shoot, just to get a few 'good shots.'  Better they will tell you to use filmmaking techniques and film just what you want, just what will be 'good.'  That's exactly what I am saying here; if you want good gaming based upon aesthetically-driven source material, don't use 'reality model' rules.  (You'll have to try and try and try to have a great time, when you could use other role-playing gaming techniques and get it right the first time.)

Now, mind, I'm not saying that this is always the best method.  However, it is not a priori an invalid one. If a particular outcome is absolutely required at any given point for it to work, then obviously the reality-based resolution shouldn't give that.  However, in RPGs we are not working with a pre-written plot, and we often tend to try for stories which are not very predictable in that way.  Moreover, random story-based mechanics fall prey to the same criticism.  For example, I can say of Sorcerer that it makes no sense to bet a characters fall of redemption on a Humanity roll.  These are things which writers write.

I agree with what you say here in full.  The point I am making is not that "reality-based resolution" is not the right tool.  Let's see if I can put this another way.  Given that there are many tools for this job, does it make sense that the bulk of role-playing games use the same single tool even though it isn't even in the 'top ten' best tools for the task?  Furthermore, since I haven't seen any commentary that refutes the idea that the source material is exclusively aesthetically-driven, I'd am stating that I think "reality-based resolution" is probably in the 'bottom ten' tools that will give 'that feel' like the source material does.  It seems irrational that better than nine out of ten role-playing games all use the same tool.

The biggest problem I face as a designer today is that this 'all the same tool' mentality is so engrained in the hobby of design, that it is virtually impossible to hold a discussion about 'better tools.'

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

Hey Marco,

Good to hear another voice.  I need all the help I can get.  This is a really difficult supposition for me to work out and you've really helped me concentrate my problem.

Firstly, I think it's a cornerstone of RPG-narrative that the "story-like" aesthetic that emerges does so the way that "stories emerge from real life." That is, it doesn't *have* to go that way, it just *does* (and if it doesn't, well, that's life).

But the point is role-playing games aren't based on life!  Their based on many things, but I haven't seen one (well, not any that are popular) based on life.  So why stick with rules that are?

Secondly the term Narrativist game has some specific meanings....

That's a good deal different from Simulationist emulation of a genre (making a blow to the back of the head a clean, easy knock-out for a pulp genre game). In one the action is driven by pursuit of a theme. In the second the same action will be driven because it's encouraged in some way by the reality.

Except a Simulationist 'emulation of a genre' (setting aside the potential confusion attached to the term 'genre') would be Exploration of Color wouldn't it?  Would you really be successfully Exploring Color if you hero dies swimming across the narrow rapids hundreds of miles from the arch-villain?  I'd say no, but swift waters carry that potential in reality.  As soon as you start adding rules to alter this kind of result you are moving the rules away from 'pure' "encouraged...by the reality" resolution and towards an aesthetic ideal related to the source material.

If yer gonna do that, why did you start with "encouraged...by reality" rules in the first place (especially if you have to 'fix them')?

Does that make my supposition any clearer?

Fang Langford

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Will this make for less popular games? Maybe. Are we about creating cool games or popular games around here? Leave it to the designer to decide for his game.

I hope I don't derail the thread here, but this all seems to be a matter of perception. Over on RPGnet in one of several threads that sprang up over the re-release of the board game Talisman there was this response:

I'll go one step further and knock every edition of TALISMAN for being actually pretty dull in play. You essentially have no control over your character. You roll the dice, move your character either clockwise or counterclockwise (there's the control), and you land on the space, where you either encounter a random "thing" (monster/follower/treasure) from the encounter deck, or you do what the space says. Repeat until you pass out...

Here's a guy who missed the point of the game entirely. I mean, you move that way because it's not an RPG it's a board game, ferchrissakes. I wonder if that fellow had complaints about Monopoly? I could see this being some sort of thing applied to RPGs, like someone complaining that T&T combat is bad because it is too abstract.

Hell. I'm sure I had a point, but I seem to have misplaced it searching for that quote. Do you see where I was going? If I recall I'll post further.

[Le Joueur]

Hi Mike,

I really appreciate that you are taking this supposition in the fashion offered.  A knee-jerk reaction wouldn't have helped me sort anything out.  It is probably my fault for using such provocative language (at least in the title), I'm gonna work on not giving that tone.

I hope you don't mind if I split up your post into the three modes it discusses.  I might be better able to focus my supposition that way.  I struggled with how not to say that one way of game design was better than the others (and failed apparently), but this is what I do mean.  If anything, I'm saying that one common (to the point of 'no one ever considers it') way of designing games is inherently problematic in every example I can think of.  (And I'm not going back on what I rescinded about The Riddle of Steel - it solves the problems it has, a truly exceptional game.)

But what do you lose when you go Narrativist? That's the important thing to discuss. For Narrativism to be "best" that means that there has to nothing in Simulationism or Gamism that is lost in going to Narrativism. But there are things lost. For a player who prefers Gamism, you lose the sense of challenge. As pointed out above, it's no longer a Game. And some people want it to be a game no matter how much you want RPGs to be Toys.

Okay, I'm going to take back the 'everything is Narrativist' statement.  It isn't what I am trying to say.  Thank you for making that clear to me.

As far as Gamism goes, there's a problem with your characterization of it.  Where does the 'competition' take place?  If the 'competition' is only between players, then I think the aesthetic bases of the source material are a darn site more important than hewing to some 'reality basis;' at that level, it hardly matters what the bases are because the 'points scored' are social increments (and somewhat temporary), so why choose conflicting bases?

When the 'competition' is chiefly at the game level, if you put some kind of 'reality bases' as primary, then you render the connection to the source material moot.  I never said that games not based upon aesthetic sources should have aesthetic principles in their make up, just the opposite.  If anything, if you use some kind of 'reality basis' for your Gamism-facilitating game, I'd say don't bother basing it on aesthetically-driven source material (being contrary to the bases of the game).

Gamist games that are based upon aesthetically-driven sources should use aesthetics to measure one's 'successes' within the game, shouldn't they?  Since I am trying to be clear that I am not proposing that 'Narrativism is better' (especially since it turns out I've been a Gamist all along), I guess I'm saying that rules should therefore be clear about whether they pay 'lip service' to the body of source material's aesthetic basis or have an aesthetic basis themselves.  Blurring the lines is what creates the sense of contradiction and forced drift in these rules.

Here's what I'm trying to suggest as an example.  Let's make a Gamist Star Wars game and let's make 'the big finish' an advertised part of the game.  If you base the resolution on some kind of 'reality based' system (like when you get hit by a blaster shot - it really knocks you down); you will either betray your advertising or have to include 'backpedaling rules' that keep protagonists 'in play' until 'the big finish.'  Wouldn't it therefore be easier, more true (if not the spirit of the source material) to your advertising, and simpler to use something like where you have some resource-based upon your relationship to the 'plot' that allows protagonists to 'spend' their way to success 'if they do it right?'  (Or any other 'non-reality-based' resolution system?)  Aren't the 'backpedaling rules' this anyway?  Why bother with some kind of 'reality basis?'

For the Simulationist, you lose the sense that you are, yourself, inside the game. That's the thing I refer to recently as Special Simulationist Immersion (SpecSimInt). If you have no feel for that, then you can't appreciate it's loss. But compare it to this. You know that moment in a movie where the director goes over the top with something, breaks continuity, and just does whatever he wants in order to get the plot to go where he needs it to go? Like In Star Trek when they use the Transporters yet again as a Deus Ex Machina at the end of an episode in a way that messes with the continuity of the universe in a way that makes you lose faith in the show? You know that feeling? That's how someone wanting SpecSimInt feels as soon as he realizes that the universe his character is in isn't guided by concrete rules that simulate some sort of existence, but are instead ruled by principles designed to produce drama. It's just not satisfactory.

Quite right, this also frames my argument about creating role-playing games that aren't based upon aesthetically charged source material (if that's possible).  Ah, but the inherent problem with using a purely 'some kind of reality' basis for a Simulationism facilitating game is that at some point doesn't it become 'the character is just another cog in the whole wide world.'  I've not seen a Simulationist game that doesn't purport to elevate the characters to some level of importance relative to source material.  Whenever you give them that 'special quality,' whenever you empower them to Explore their prioritized feature over being 'at the whim of the system,' you change the focus of the rules away from the 'some kind of reality' basis and turn it to an aesthetic.  Why not start there?

Using a deus ex machina is bad form in Simulationist play priorities to be sure, but on some level you are giving something based on aesthetics (and usually not 'realistic bias') to the player characters to make them more interesting (and more important) than the rest of the population.  I believe recognizing that as a central rather than peripheral concern would liberate a lot of clumsy 'more realistic' Simulationism facilitating games.

Now Narrativist games do try to recreate the narratives of these genres (hence the name). And that's great. But it's just one way to play. Anything else to be said on the subject is just personal preference, IMO. I find this all odd coming from the guy who was going to solve the "problem" presented with his own ideas on Transition, and claimed to have "discovered" El Dorado. Have you had some sort of epiphany?

Yes I have.  I believe that Gamists like better and better 'challenges,' that Simulationists like 'to matter,' and that Narrativists like to 'get their hands dirty.'  All of these come from adhering to an aesthetic principle that will always eventually be betrayed by a resolution system that doesn't reflect that.  The current crop of up-to-the-minute role-playing games keep picking at this 'feels real' ideal for individual resolutions that I can't see doing much else.

The only difference I see with Narrativists is that their prioritized determinations spotlight an Edwardian Premise, otherwise their play is just as subject to the detriments of basing it on some idea of reality.

Over all, you've made a very good case for role-playing games to (in some cases) not be based upon an aesthetic source material.  I'll have to think about that.  I haven't seen any (that I know of) and no one has suggested any examples, so I don't know what's possible this way (if anything).  It still doesn't say much about the sense I have that so much focus on 'realistic bias' and true-to-situation resolution is at the detriment to what made that game attractive in the first place, its source material.

Gosh darn this is a hard point to voice.  I feel like I am running around in circles in all these responses, just trying to clarify what I've only just realized (barely).  I sure hope some of what I am getting at comes through because I think using rules biased towards some kind of abstract modeling are not the most effective way of connecting players of any mode to the types of games they want or expect because of the source material related to what the game provides.  (Nope that doesn't sound right either, rats.)

Fang Langford

p. s.

I don't mean to sound snarky in all this, but consider the tone of your original post, when reading this (and consider how thoughtful the other responses have been despite this). It seems to me a bit disingenuous to me to say, "I'll argue hard, but I'm not really convinced" and then to use such relatively acrimonious language. I mean "schizoid"? "mistake"?

Nope, you've got me dead to rights there "schizoid" was definitely a "mistake."  One I will attempt to not repeat.

[deadpanbob]

When you are talking about games whose feel during play fails to capture the feel of the Source material - then yes I'd sign on to your contention that a lot of games are psychotic in just the way you describe.

Now this part confuses me.  First you rake my supposition over the coals because you propose that 'the illusion' of "tension and risk" from the source material must be replaced by a (not really) real sense of "tension and risk" created by rules that have 'the feeling' of reality.  Now you completely restate my point?  (More accurately?)

Fang,

The thread has progressed past this point - but I guess my communication skills suck.  I don't subscribe to the notion that 'reality' has anything to do with, or any place in roleplaying - period.

The best we can hope for are internally consistent causal resolution mechanics that have generally predictible outcomes within an acceptable range (acceptable is a very subjective term, and varies with each person).

You seem to be continuing to argue for some as yet unspecified, game system/mechanical way to handle some given unit of roleplaying time in such a fashion as to capture the asthetic feel of the source material - and on that point I agree with you.

However, I think you missed my point about tension.  I'm not equating tension to reality in any sense of the word.  Tension in this case is defined by feeling that the protagonist of (arrgh, have to use the word, sorry) a story might fail at some task at hand, or fail to acheive his (implicit/explicit) goals.  In most of the sources that inspire roleplaying, this tension is an illusion, because the audience mostly knows that the protagonist is going to succeed in the end, and the only question open for debate is how or at what cost?

I'm saying that the mechanics of the game - whether they Fortune or Karma or Drama - are what provide roleplaying games with that illusory tension.  Now, in the case of Fortune mechanics, the tension has more bite because the outcome is to some degree determined by a random element.  With Karma mechanics, the tension is slightly more under the control of the player - but not fully.  With Drama mechanics, the tension is totally controlled by the group's consensus/social contract/methods of driving the story.

I like John's example of James Bond Roleplaying - where the hero points allow the players to subvert the fortune mechanics in order to enforce the feel of the source material for any given moment in play.  You get a similar effect in Adventure! with the Inspiration Points and Dramatic Editing.  In Riddle of Steel, you've got SA's to help enforce the feel - but in this case it's the feel of the game itself, not nec. some specific source material.  You mentioned an anime series that, according to you, has the protagonists succeeding or failing depending on his relationship with another character - sounds like Trollbabe might work to produce just this sort of asthetic.

Finally, I'll say it again, I agree with you that a lot of games fail to capture the 'feel' that they promise - particularly when they are based on very narrow, very popular source material from other media.

However, I strongly disagree that Fortune mechanics automatically fail to meet a given source material's asthetic.  The rules of a game in total must be considered (i.e. the James Bond/Adventure! examples).  I also disagree that all roleplaying is an attempt to capture the feel of a given set of source material.  Some people have a hell of a good time playing the game for the sake of the game - precisely because it either provides them with some degree of tactical challenge or sense of gambling.  Some people have a hell of a good time playing the game just to Explore the setting, or the color, or whatever - but don't nec. get caught up in how/whether their character succeeds/flows/works/feels like a character from the source material.  And some people have precisely your concern - they want their experience playing the game to fully capture the feel of the source material's asthetics.

Most people will tend to have a mix of these concerns, but perhaps but one above the others (G/N/S, right?) most of the time.

I know you said this thread wasn't the appropriate place - but what other kind of mechanics can we come up with outside the traditional Fortune/Karma/Drama ones spelled out by Ron in his essays?  I can't think of anything that will guarantee that a given instance of play will capture the feel of a given source's asthetic.  I can't even think of one that will nec. shade the experience in that direction definitively, because there's still the problem of how the rule gets applied in play.

We could come up with the best mechanics/system to drive a given source material asthetic - but if the people playing the game don't use the rule the way we as designers intended it to be used - the game will fail to deliver that feel to those players.

After rambling on and on for far to long - I get the feeling that we're talking at cross purposes here, or having an ultimately hollow semantic argument that's ultimately going to boil down to 'agree to disagree'.

Cheers,


Jason

[Mike Holmes]

Fang, I think that everyone gets the point that you're making that Realism might not be the best tool for all games. The thing is that this misses the point. If I decide that I want to make a "realistic" James Bond game, have I made a mistake?

I think that you assume that what people want to do is to emulate the genre. But what I think RPGs are about it "being inside" the genre. Not recreating it, but experiencing it for yourself. The sort of "What if?" quality that people are trying to get you to see, but you obstinately ignore. You don't get that with certain kinds of rules designed to tell stories.

Thus if the goal of some designers and gamers is not to emulate the genre chosen, but to provide the feel of being in the genre, are they wrong to want that? Because it's what people have designed for in the past, and what some gamers continue to clamor for.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

Over all, you've made a very good case for role-playing games to (in some cases) not be based upon an aesthetic source material.  I'll have to think about that.  I haven't seen any (that I know of) and no one has suggested any examples, so I don't know what's possible this way (if anything).  It still doesn't say much about the sense I have that so much focus on 'realistic bias' and true-to-situation resolution is at the detriment to what made that game attractive in the first place, its source material.

I'll bite.  What about supplement-less GURPS?  The only arguement you can make for source material is a that the book is full of a little from this and a little from that.  It's also all 'realistic bias'.

[Le Joueur]

Hey Jason,

You've actually found and interesting way to support my supposition, albeit not directly.

I think you're right [John] about reality emulation mechanics being often unnecessary included in a Nar game.  However, when there are reality emulation elements that are in fact part of the Genre Expectations I would expect them to be included.

...As long as you keep the reality emulation rules to those elements that the source media holds as its definition of reality, I think you're good to go.

That is very much true; I concur.  The problem is can you show me any games where the source media hold realism as central?  John brings this point home farther down:

I would argue that the [James Bond] films do put "feels like reality" as primary.

...So how do you adequately convey the spirit of that cliff-climbing scene?  

The James Bond 007 RPG takes a different approach...the main question is not whether Bond will succeed, but how well

For some people, the framework of these rolls gives a partial illusion of reality

I'd argue that the fact that they refilm a scene until it lives up to the expectations of the script first and the 'realism' second pretty must sews up this point.  If the script weren't the primary concern, they'd pick the shot which was most realistic regardless if Bond dies or not.  In every case you can mention, they always craft the realism to support and enforce the aesthetics of the script, never the other way around.

How do you do a cliff hanging scene?  That's always the trouble; my argument is that using reality as a basis will as often undercut the tension desired as enforce it.  (Why use rules that don't predictably support your preference?)  What you list for 'how the James Bond game does it' in fact seems to completely toss out realism; failure is real, by making the focus on 'how well' you've just eliminated failure as much of an option (and with it, realism).

My practice with No Myth gamemastering suggests that you do make success or failure of climbing the issue, but have the aesthetics decide what the results are, not realism.  So it isn't 'fall or not fall,' but 'face the villain or find his secret escape route.'

I'm not saying that any amount of realism is bad in role-playing games, I'm saying it has no place as the primary crux of the resolution system.  I very much believe that role-playing games should have a bias towards 'good ole familiar reality,' but they cannot aim for that and doing up aesthetically based source material right.

As a framework, reality gets an A+ from me for inclusion in every role-playing game.  Make it the focus of the resolution system and there goes the source material.  Like Jason offered, use it for what it's good for; I'm saying don't make it 'the point' in the game.  Start with something else, then add the realism.

Arrgh, arrgh, arrgh.  Dammit, I just can't get this to come out right.  Grrr.  What the hell am I trying to say?!?

Aw heck, anyway.  You guys have really given me a lot of good information.  Some concepts I hadn't even thought of.  I'm sorry I just can't make this thought come out in words; it's driving me crazy.  I didn't mean to disappoint or anger anyone, I just felt that perhaps a little Aristotelian dialogue might bring it out.  But damn, it ain't working.

I apologize for wasting so much bandwidth.

Fang Langford

[Jason Lee]

Hey Jason,

You've actually found and interesting way to support my supposition, albeit not directly.

I think you're right [John] about reality emulation mechanics being often unnecessary included in a Nar game.  However, when there are reality emulation elements that are in fact part of the Genre Expectations I would expect them to be included.

...As long as you keep the reality emulation rules to those elements that the source media holds as its definition of reality, I think you're good to go.

That is very much true; I concur.  The problem is can you show me any games where the source media hold realism as central?  John brings this point home farther down:

Minor correction.

Heh, you're gonna love this.  When I said 'I think you're right', I was talking to you, not John.

[Marco]

Hey Marco,


But the point is role-playing games aren't based on life!  Their based on many things, but I haven't seen one (well, not any that are popular) based on life.  So why stick with rules that are?

Fang Langford

As far as I'm concerned (and insofar as the words apply) I think RPG's are based on "life." In the sense I mean it, I mean a chance for failure--a chance of anti-climax, a chance to circumvent those literary complications if I'm clever enough.

Story-oriented? Sure. Gnere compliant? Of course. I want my cake--and I want to eat it too. Does that carry a risk of failure? Sure it does. I enjoy winning at chess more than losing--but the gradient isn't so wide that I don't want to play.

I think the whole "but life *isn't* a story" meme is a flawed premise when told to traditional gamers.

-Marco

[Le Joueur]

I'll bite.  What about supplement-less GURPS?  The only arguement you can make for source material is a that the book is full of a little from this and a little from that.  It's also all 'realistic bias'.

GURPS is a good example of 'reality based' mechanics furiously undercutting any of the aesthetic packages they sold for it.  As a matter of fact, I got an incredible kick playing it back when it was just Man to Man (the combat rules released prior to the publication of the game).  It felt like a complete let down when the Supers rules came out; back then I could understand why.  Now I do, but I'll be damned if I can put into words.

Fang Langford

[Jason Lee]

GURPS is a good example of 'reality based' mechanics furiously undercutting any of the aesthetic packages they sold for it.  As a matter of fact, I got an incredible kick playing it back when it was just Man to Man (the combat rules released prior to the publication of the game).  It felt like a complete let down when the Supers rules came out; back then I could understand why.  Now I do, but I'll be damned if I can put into words.

'Cause comics are all wiz-bang special effects and story first.  Mechanics geared towards realism and character power restrictions based on points instead of events/motivation aren't true to the genre?

(Never was a big comic or superhero game fan, you'll have to let me know if I'm right.)

[Mike Holmes]

Damnit, Fang, you're making me agree with Marco. :-)

I like GURPS Supers. It's not a way to tell superhero stories. Never was meant to be, really. It's a way to say, hey, if I was a superhero, this is what would happen.

Is that really so foreign to you that you can't wrap your head around it?

Mike

[Le Joueur]

If I decide that I want to make a "realistic" James Bond game, have I made a mistake?

I have to say I believe so.

I just can't make words say what I mean.  It's like trying to say 'emulating the genre can't be done if the genre never has the heroes losing and you apply "realistic" rules.'  It just doesn't say what I'm trying to get across.  Saying 'going "what if" into the world that the genre is in, isn't honest about what made the genre great, it's just the world' doesn't even come close either.

I'm all in, guys.  You've been really peachy to put up with it this long, but if I keep at it like this I'll either be raging or whining and none of us want that.  I just want you to know that I am listening, I'm just not capable of communicating (that).

Fang Langford