Aesthetics and Conveying Reality

[John Kim]

OK, wait. Lightsabres are Baseline? How are they not part of the Vision?

If Baseline and Vision are a player thing entirely, then the Baseline for every human is their experience, right?

OK, it seems to me that a number of things are potentially being referred to here.  I could express them like:  
1) What the player expects based on reality.
2) What the player expects based on the genre.  
3) What the character expects based on his world.  
4) What actually happens.  

Now, of course this gets pretty hairy.  However, I don't think we can ignore the #1 vs #2 distinction.  I would argue that especially in things like light-sabre battles or even regular swordfights, the player expectations are probably more guided by other fictional sources (i.e. the genre) than by their real-world understanding.  That is, #2 instead of #1.  However, the game may intentionally diverge from the standard genre.  For example, Aberrant includes a lot of superhero motifs/tropes/whatever, but it isn't solely trying to reproduce the comic-book superhero genre.  Indeed, it is questioning many of those.  I would say that the tension of Aberrant between the comic-book genre and its Vision is very important -- at least as important as the tension between reality and its Vision.  

Mind you, I don't have a coherent model to express this, but I thought I would point that out.

[clehrich]

Just a very quick remark; I'm trying desperately to finalize another project, and if I get into this I'll spend hours at it.

OK, it seems to me that a number of things are potentially being referred to here.  I could express them like:  
1) What the player expects based on reality.
2) What the player expects based on the genre.  
3) What the character expects based on his world.  
4) What actually happens.  
Now, of course this gets pretty hairy.  However, I don't think we can ignore the #1 vs #2 distinction.

Seems to me John has neatly encapsulated the various parts of Baseline.  The thing is, I don't really think they can readily be distinguished in reality.  John's example of swordfights or sabre-fights is excellent: how many of us actually have the remotest idea what this would be like?  Even the SCA folks don't actually kill each other, and can't really speak intelligently to the question of a blade hanging up in somebody's ribs.

So the fact is that almost any situation outside of the norm of our everyday reality, i.e. a huge percentage of what we like to do in RPGs, is really based on loose guesswork about how reality ought to work, conditioned by encounters with all sorts of media.  This is where I started all this, a couple threads ago: this is an aesthetic judgment, not reality as it actually is.

My point is simply that game design needs to recognize that RPGs float in a tension-point between one aesthetic judgment (so-called reality, a naturalized and difficult to challenge judgment) and another (genre, source material, whatever, which is easier to get at).  By being aware of this tension, rather than simply trying to present one end of the spectrum, you account for and encourage dramatic tension by factoring it into the nature of the system.

Mike, I really don't get why this is related to GNS.  Can you explain?  I'm not sure: one of us is missing something, and it may well be both.

[Mike Holmes]

Chris,

It's related to the supporting theory behind the particular detail of GNS. GNS is just one axis of specifying these game realities. I'll get back to that. But the theory basically says that the system is Rules in the Social Contract sense (the Lumpley Principle). And Rules are what we use to define what happens in the "shared imaginary space", or rather, how it can be determined. What that form is that the rules determine is called the "creative agenda". The "shared imaginary space" (and Fang first came up with that, IIRC) is obviously fictitous, and as such may resemble, well, anything that one can imagine. That will range from something somewhat similar to reality to things completely different from it. You choose one of these things, and you make the game "about" that.

Now, there are three basic sorts of Creative Agendas, G and N and S; but while that's true, it's not particularly important to discuss here. I mean, every Creative Agenda will be either G or N or S, but that's only important where it's important.

The question I would have is, what, if anything, has been presented that's not covered in this theory.

You say:

My point is simply that game design needs to recognize that RPGs float in a tension-point between one aesthetic judgment (so-called reality, a naturalized and difficult to challenge judgment) and another (genre, source material, whatever, which is easier to get at). By being aware of this tension, rather than simply trying to present one end of the spectrum, you account for and encourage dramatic tension by factoring it into the nature of the system.

This would imply that there's some problem with game designers trying to do only one end or the other. But it seems to me that Fang's point was that one should strive for the Vision end point (actually I thiknk he meant something completely differrent, a cross reference of some sort, but it's too late to talk about that now). Now it seems that his point has been co-opted to say that one should be right in the middle somewhere, which is exactly where I think that Fang thinks most games are, and ought not to be.

I'd say that most games are neccessarily in the middle. Tell me, how can you create a perfect simulation of reality? You can't. How can you create a perfect replication of some aesthetic idea? You can't. So you're automatically in the middle somewhere anyhow.

Now, is there room for back and forth? Do some games favor one end or the other? Sure. But why is one point better than another. Things like GNS preference will make you want to put the point at exactly some particular place. This is the designer's aesthetic, and his choice. It's his artistic statment. And how there can be a "better place" amongst the artistic choices, I can't see. Do people not consider how "realistic" to make their games? I find that designers talk about little else.

Just choose an agenda that speaks to you and move on.

As for tension, it seems to me like you are talking about something that either doesn't fit the term Dramatic Tension (is this some new jargon here), or you're making an ancillary point. That is, if by dramatic tension you mean that one can get milage out of the fact that superpowers don't exist in real life, I'm with you. But I wonder why it needs to be mentioned. If by dramatic tension you mean something else, I'm not sure what you mean.

Yeah, Kewl Powerz are cool; hence the term.

So what am I missing?

Mike

[clehrich]

Mike,

As you say, it's long since past time to discuss Fang's notion; that was another thread, some time ago.  The idea I'm trying to get across has little to do with Fang's; in fact, I think we disagree fairly strongly here.

Again, as you say, most games are necessarily in the middle.  This raises at least one question: are they all aware of this?  I doubt that.

I'd also agree that GNS preferences will tend to encourage some approach or another to this balancing act, but I do not think that you could draw out a spectrum and "grade" GNS preferences on it.  That's part of why I don't consider this to have very much to do with GNS as such.

So what's the point here?  Well, I think a lot of people find that GNS is most useful diagnostically, i.e. in reference to games that have problems.  Ron makes this point himself.  I'm trying to analyze the way one goes about setting up a game, on purpose, from the outset.  And I think that a very useful way of doing this is to think analytically about your Vision and how it relates to Baseline reality.

In particular, I think it is useful to think about where the Vision differs from Baseline, and to what extent this is important to your sense of the game's normal desired balance.  I'm surprised this doesn't seem important to you: it fits very neatly into your Rant about emphasis in mechanics.

For example, suppose you are laying out a gritty reality game in which people get killed easily when they get into gunfights.  So you think to yourself, how far is this sense of combat from Baseline?  Not very.  Is it worth special emphasis?  Not a lot; perhaps just a general tone to make clear that violence is a pretty bad idea.  Now when you start laying out mechanics to support the balance you have in mind, it won't even occur to you to waste time detailing a combat system down to the last newton of kickback, because you've already realized that this is not something to emphasize mechanically.

In other words, I think that using a Baseline-Vision perspective from an initial design stage would obviate the need for your Rant.  In a way, I see this all as a large theoretical extension of that Rant.

Is this making sense now?

[Mike Holmes]

In other words, I think that using a Baseline-Vision perspective from an initial design stage would obviate the need for your Rant.  In a way, I see this all as a large theoretical extension of that Rant.

Is this making sense now?

But that generalized caveat exists already. It's that "system matters". I mean in all parts. You seem to be saying that this is only part of the system somehow (which is what my rant is, essentially; Combat System's Matter if you will), and I'm not seeing that. It seems that all of the system delivers the "what do you do", that Aesthetic that people are discussing here.

So, yes, I agree with you that you've said what's already been said. In more general terms than my rant, and in exactly the same terms as "system does matter" already does. That's been my point all along. Not that you're wrong, just that its just a restatement of principles that we've all been working with from the start.

Or is this just about Realism? I've suspected that for a while, too. If so, then we've had several threads about that subject specifically (which you've participated in, IIRC).

So, how is this not either about system as a whole, or realism as a part?

I'm not saying it's not; I give you guys the benefit of the doubt. But I can't see what's new here. I suppose that's my problem, but if there is something new here, I'd really like to be in on it.

In terms of GNS, I've always been an advocate that it has very specific application to design. Moreso than Ron. As an example of what we're talking about, if I want a Narrativist game, I ought to spend less time on worrying about the sort of minutia that would deliver that sense of "realism" in the physics sense that one might get were that minutia there. Instead I ought to concentrate on making mechanics that make the whole game deliver meaning to each decision in terms of player choice.

This seems to be very much the sort of thing we're talking about here. Not the sum total, no, but then GNS is only a subset description of Exploration (as enumerated in teh GNS essay), which is what we're talking about, I think.

If we are just saying that one ought to consider how to deliver the rules that inform the creation of the "shared imaginative space" (actually that's Ron, as it turns out), that we need to consider just how to inform that Exploration, then I totally agree. GNS is one way to consider that. There are probably others, too. If we can come up with other ways, I'm all for discussing that. But I'm not seeing what the hullabaloo is about the notion that one should design their games to deliver the desired effects. That's "System Does Matter" and we're all on board, AFAICT.

Mike

[clehrich]

If we are just saying that one ought to consider how to deliver the rules that inform the creation of the "shared imaginative space" (actually that's Ron, as it turns out), that we need to consider just how to inform that Exploration, then I totally agree. GNS is one way to consider that. There are probably others, too. If we can come up with other ways, I'm all for discussing that. But I'm not seeing what the hullabaloo is about the notion that one should design their games to deliver the desired effects. That's "System Does Matter" and we're all on board, AFAICT.

Okay, let me lay this out schematically:

Top level:  System Matters

Next level: GNS, other approaches to exploration supported by system

I gave an example about a gritty, violence-realistic game:

For example, suppose you are laying out a gritty reality game in which people get killed easily when they get into gunfights. So you think to yourself, how far is this sense of combat from Baseline? Not very. Is it worth special emphasis? Not a lot; perhaps just a general tone to make clear that violence is a pretty bad idea. Now when you start laying out mechanics to support the balance you have in mind, it won't even occur to you to waste time detailing a combat system down to the last newton of kickback, because you've already realized that this is not something to emphasize mechanically.

Now there is no way to analyze this example in GNS terms.  There's simply nothing here about goals in play.  All I laid out was some stuff about what sort of setting, in the broad sense of Vision, we have in mind.

Still, the Vision-Baseline model does allow a number of preliminary analytical moves.

Now if, on the other hand, you said:

I want a game that's about people making sacrifices.  The question is, "What will you give up in return for what?"  And I'm interested in pushing this to be a question about giving up common decency for physical powers.

Then it sounds like you're looking at something Narrativist, right?  And we could formulate Gamist and Simulationist parallels.

But the Vision-Baseline thing would be no help here.  There isn't anything to analyze in those terms.

In other words, the GNS model, while larger and I think probably more important than the Vision-Baseline model, is as far as the latter model (1) totally in agreement about System Mattering, and (2) not talking about the same things.

Are we talking about exploration?  About setting?  About stance?  I'm really not sure.  That's what I've been hoping we could discuss.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

You've got your layers all bollixed up. Try this (from the about-to-be posted Gamism essay):

[Social Contract [Exploration [GNS [rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]]

Every inner "box" is an expression or realization of the box(es) it's nested in.

1. Everything occurs embedded in the Social Contract, which includes many things about play and not-play, especially the Balance of Power.

2. Exploration is the primary act of role-playing, composed of five parts with some causal relationships among them.

3. The "modes" of play (because they have to be expressed via communication and play itself, not just "felt") are currently best described as Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist play. Play (as opposed merely to hanging out with friends) cannot occur without such an agenda. I'm now using the term "creative agenda" to refer to the three modes as a concept, replacing the small-p "premise" term in the older essay.

4. Techniques of play include many different relationships among rules, people's decisions, announcements, and similar. "System" (or rather textual system) interacts with Techniques all the time, in terms of things like Currency, Resolution (DFK, IIEE), and Reward systems. Which of these is inner or outer is debatable and probably variable, although I've diagrammed it in keeping with the idea that techniques are applied within a framework of rules.

5. Actual play shifts quickly among Stances.

Therefore your example, which as far as I can tell gives us only "gunfights" and "killed easily," concerns only a tad of Exploration and one consequence of System, and not much of either, and nothing about Social Contract at all. No wonder you can't see the Baseline/Vision stuff - you'll need all of Exploration for that, and a Social Contract box at least to imagine it in; the combination of the two will then kick off a GNS approach that would suit you best in play. I maintain that GNS literally is Social Contract operating on an Exploration-package.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

You're making a straw man out of GNS. I've said repeatedly that GNS is only one part of the equation.

Mike: it's the theory underlying GNS
Chris: no, it's not GNS at all
Mike: right, it's the theory underlying GNS

System Matters doesn't say that GNS is the only way to analyze a game. If you look at it, it says that this is one analytical tool. We completely agree there.

What it does say is that one ought to consider what to put into a game. GNS being one thing. Level of realism, perhaps being another. And many many others. All these things together would form what the GNS essay puts forth (in describing the underpinnings of the theory, not the theory itself) as Premise. Which has since been renamed Creative Agenda.

From the essay:

Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color.

Character: a fictional person or entity.
System: a means by which in-game events are determined to occur.
Setting: where the character is, in the broadest sense (including history as well as location).
Situation: a problem or circumstance faced by the character.
Color: any details or illustrations or nuances that provide atmosphere.
At the most basic level, these are what the role-playing experience is "about," but to be more precise, these are the things which must be imagined by the real people. In this sense, saying "system" means "imagining events to be occurring."

Exploration and its child, Premise
The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration. Initially, it is an individual concern, although it will move into the social, communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements becomes an issue of its own.

When a person perceives the listed elements together and considers Exploring them, he or she usually has a basic reaction of interest or disinterest, approval or disapproval, or desire to play or lack of such a desire. Let's assume a positive reaction; when it occurs, whatever prompted it is Premise, in its most basic form. To re-state, Premise is whatever a participant finds among the elements to sustain a continued interest in what might happen in a role-playing session. Premise, once established, instils the desire to keep that imaginative commitment going.

This is all very straghtforward so far, right? I haven't done any weird interperetations, have I?

Now, you seem to be saying that the Baseline/Vision thing is not the totality of the Creative Agenda. That it's some discrete sub-set that can be discussed in particular terms. Well, to the extent that these things deliver the totality of the "what to do" and "how to do it", I think that you're missing the fact that they are one and the same.

Now, if you're just talking about Realism, then, sure, that's a subset. But you seem to want it both ways. You want it to be larger than the level of Realism, but smaller than everything. I'm just not seeing where that leaves you.

Worse I keep hearing:

Still, the Vision-Baseline model does allow a number of preliminary analytical moves.

And no moves. There's the tension thing that's been floated, but until I can wrap my head around that, it seems to either be just a discussion of how having in-game realism be somehow different from the RW, and this somehow building tension. Which I'm not seeing particularly, and even if I did, seems to all be statable in terms which we already have.

But I seem to be repeating myself. Basically we seem to have a fundamental disagreement on whether or not you've described something smaller than the Creative Agenda, and not simply Realism. Or do I misunderstand the disagreement?

Mike

[Harlequin]

Okay.  Guys, calm down.  We're talking past each other.

About a week ago I lost a solid reply to Mike's query about three posts up (to a Netscape crash), and Grr-I-don't-want-to-redo-it plus lack of time anyway has prevented a repost.

I'm still shy of time, so I'll try to keep this brief, but I'll probably fail.

The primary use of the Baseline/Vision analysis seems to be in its local applications.  I think my usage of the word "local" may be confusing things, stemming as it does from physics - space is locally Euclidean, a function may be locally smooth, and so on.  If this word is still causing confusion after you read this post, please let me know and I'll try to define it in terms relevant to us here.  If you're looking for techniques, Mike, please go back up and reread my Ars Magica and Shadowrun examples, carefully; each of those is an example of 'local' Tension.

What we're talking about with this taxonomy is just a way, one of many, in which the Explored elements relate to each other in the work.  A given element can be helping to express the Vision of the work, or it can be helping in several ways (cf. the hermeneutic cycle, accessibility, et al) by being an element of the necessary Baseline.  The relations of those elements to each other form the Tension of the work, as we have defined it here.  

We express the idea of an overall Tension but frankly that's just an abstraction which stems from the Creative Agenda.  Players perceive it, therefore it matters, but we're all of us getting bogged down discussing it.  The Baseline/Vision spectrum must be incarnate in the Tension between two specific elements of the work for it to be meaningful in terms of techniques, at least right now.  I used the relation between the skill-rules and the magic-rules in AM, and between dissimilar archetypes in Shadowrun, as examples of places where the Tension is being used to generate an effect on the reader.

If this relates to Premise, it is only in a building-blocks way.  Perhaps a player (a) dimly understands the thematic object "The street finds its own uses for things," in a Shadowrun setting.  The Archetypes section uses Tension-related technique (b) to bring this thematic element into higher relief in the reader's mind (and in the creation of his PC); alternately, one could say that the text is further communicating the Vision of the material, and is using a low level of Baseline/Vision contrast in a particular way to do so.  This thematic element may become one of the building blocks of (c) a level of player-interest which crystallizes into (d) an Edwardian Premise, such as "When the street abuses an idea, is the creator responsible for that abuse?"

Does that help?

Mike, I think that the quote you provided, and the definition of Premise Ron sketched out to me by PM, have a subtle disconnect, which may be part of why we're having communications problems here; see my distinctions (c) and (d) above.  This thread will not attempt to define or redefine Premise, thank you.  In the above I sketched out why I feel that the Baseline/Vision thing is a  characteristic of the Premise, or more precisely a characteristic of an intermediate thing with no name [a "thematic element"] which is one of the building-blocks of Premise.  And as such, Baseline/Vision/Tension can be discussed separately, just as one could discuss the characteristics of the fan-belt separately from the car itself.

Chris and I are talking about adjusting the Tension on the fan belt.  While this relates to GNS (the way the car is to be used), and in fact has a strong linkage (because different intended purposes for the car will indeed want different fan-belt tensions and other adjustments), we're a pair of mechanics trying to talk about (a) ways to tighten the belt, and (b) when one might want to specifically apply more, or less, tension in it, and what that would do to the car.  Of course the intended use of the car (GNS mode) and the reasons people will have for driving our car (Premise) and the reactions they'll come away with after doing so (Theme) are all important; but we'll leave that for another level of discussion entirely.

Now, one more time, go back up and look at the Ars Magica and Shadowrun examples.  Meanwhile, I'm dragging this thread back on topic...

If we take it as given that the game has a Baseline to hold on to, and a Vision to communicate, and that it therefore includes a lot of "baseline elements" and "vision elements," it seems obvious to me that these elements may or may not have the same role in this spectrum depending on context or usage.  

However, despite this, some relationships between textual elements will have a Baseline/Vision Tension between them, and in such a relationship one of them holds up the Baseline end and one the Vision end of their string.  The fact that we spotted a Tension in that relationship means that we can probably tell the roles of the two elements, right now, as well.  (Sometimes you're the butch, sometimes you're the fem, but if somebody looks over and you and your girl are playing it up to tease, then odds are that an onlooker can tell which boots fit each of you at the moment.)

And you can play up that Tension to do one thing - start a bar fight? - or play it down to do something else - not piss off her aunt and cousins.  

The definiton of "baseline element" and "vision element," versus the Tension between them, is sort of circular, but only sort of - you need not have set out to generate that Tension, it may have emerged just because the two of you are sitting together, dancing together, what have you.  The skill rules in AM and the magic rules in same have an intrinsic relationship (sharing the same essential mechanic), so you get the choice of either play up the difference (make the magic mods higher so that it stands out) or play it down (make everything use same-magnitude dice mods to convey similarity).  But you have to pick one or the other, the Tension comes with the territory.

How do we, as designers, spot places where the Tension will arise, so we can decide whether to tweak it or not?  How do we look ahead and say intelligent things about the Tension-spots in our emerging game, and design for it, or are we doomed to merely use this as an editing tool?  I think we can look ahead at least somewhat; take the organization of the work as a whole.  If you have a "miraculous deeds" chapter and a "mundane life before you were EnNobled" or whatever chapter, think about sequencing... do you want them (a) high-Tension, by placing them bang up against each other and giving them similar systems, or (b) low-Tension, with a buffer of unrelated material and dissimilar systems?  High-Tension focusses attention on the dichotomy, and helps make the overall Vision feel more estranged from reality; low-Tension hides and diffuses attention, makes the overall Vision feel more familiar.  Which do I, in this game, want?  That's the question we should be asking ourselves.

What I'm curious about is how we spot such instances in the first place, so as to ask it at all.  Preferably in advance.  Any comments?

- Eric

[Mike Holmes]

Okay.  Guys, calm down.  We're talking past each other.

Is someone not calm? I thought it was going as well as possible for a disagreement...{shrug}

The Baseline/Vision spectrum must be incarnate in the Tension between two specific elements of the work for it to be meaningful in terms of techniques, at least right now.  I used the relation between the skill-rules and the magic-rules in AM, and between dissimilar archetypes in Shadowrun, as examples of places where the Tension is being used to generate an effect on the reader.

OK. But you have to choose a spot for all of these things, right? I mean you can't not choose. So what you end up with is a tapestry of all of the elements that determine how to play, right? So this is all of game creation it seems to me.

Put it this way. What else do you do when making a game?

If this relates to Premise, it is only in a building-blocks way.  Perhaps a player (a) dimly understands the thematic object "The street finds its own uses for things," in a Shadowrun setting.

...

This thematic element may become one of the building blocks of (c) a level of player-interest which crystallizes into (d) an Edwardian Premise, such as "When the street abuses an idea, is the creator responsible for that abuse?"

You've made a classic misinterperetation. In the essay, there are two definitions for Premise. The first is just premise as above. It has nothing to do with "Edwardsian Premises" or Narrativism. They do not have to be questions. They are just what they say they are above. The "what do you do and like about" part of a game.

Then there are Gamist Premises, Sim Premises, and Narrativist Premises. The last of which are what you refer to as "Edwardsian Premises". Thematic questions and all that garbage.

The confusion over this is and has been so great, in fact, that Ron decided to change the term. Hence Creative Agenda. And hence my use of these terms equally (you'll note that I pointed this out in a previous post). I should have just stayed away from Premise entirely, I suppose.

But I don't know that this changes anything for either of us.


To the issue at hand, if all you're saying is that these terms help you come up with nifty techniques like the ones you point out for Ars and SR, then I lose my heart to argue with you. I mean if it's helping out, I have a strong urge to just let it go. That's the relativist streak in me.

But I just think that we don't need it (and we all know why term proliferation is dangerous; some people refuse to come here as it is). Can't it suffice to say that the Creative Agenda for Ars Magica is in part playing wizards in historical Europe? And that, to get that, one ought to emphasize parts of the rules that inform the player that this is what it's about? Mechanically (as System Does Matter).

And in any case, isn't the final decision going to be completely artistic anyhow?

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Just to poke my nose in where it has been mentioned so many times....

Mike and company,

I kinda like where all this Vision and Baseline stuff is going.  Baseline is a very clever description for things I've always struggled to talk about.  While I recognize a need to talk about things 'not Baseline,' I don't think Vision is a good word for it.  Vision sounds to me too much like the apex of one's 'Creative Agenda,' the real ideal of play one strives to facilitate.  But yeah, there needs to be a word for all of what the Baseline isn't.

Now, on 'what Fang was going on about.'  The games I started out talking about simply have an obvious disconnect between Baseline and Vision.  This would be like creating d20 Sorcerer without any Humanity rules.  Such a design spends a lot of time concentrating on the Baseline and then the Vision seems only like an afterthought.  I'm not saying all games are like this, but all of the really good designs here on the Forge, that I've been privy to the design-process of, seem to connect Vision to Baseline in a completely unconscious and intuitive fashion.  This does not help me in my deliberate design style.  ("Just do it!" they say.  "Do what?")

I first tried to discuss both this problem and this 'disconnect' in the worst possible way, with the worst possible terminology, in the most unfairly provocative way in "Psychotic (or is It Schizoid) Game Design."  It was very shabby of me, so I cut the thread off.  Somehow I managed to let myself get drawn into a furtherance of that mistake in the thread called "Aesthetics and Reality," also very poorly done of me and again I withdrew.  It seems strange to me that no one seems to realize I'm still talking about the same things.

So I pondered and thought, I worked and I considered, until I came up with entirely different terms and a new analogy.  This was "Elegance and Deliberateness."  It really seemed to be going great guns about some of the more esoteric techniques one might employ until....

...Y'see, it wasn't just about Elegance; that would have been a ridiculous waste of time (but that seems to be how it was read).  It was about Elegance and Deliberateness.  The thread's topic certainly wasn't simply "System Does Matter," BECAUSE IT DOESN'T.  Saying that "Elegance and Deliberateness" provides nothing new or useful is about as fair as saying the GNS just says "Play Nice" or "Don't Play with People who don't Play Like You Do."  (Because that's all the GNS does say, doesn't it?)

At those times when "System Does Matter," "Elegance and Deliberateness" is just one approach to make it "matter" more.  No where in that venerable document does it detail any specific ways how to make system "matter" more.  "Deliberate Elegance" is more a discussion of how the different components, not just of system but of the whole game, relate to each other with their differing amounts of 'mattering.'  Moreover it talks about composing the relationships between those (and their attendant "Elegances") "Deliberately" with a focus on relativity and an overall structural scope or plan.  I realize I am one of the most deliberate designers on the Forge and that most people do this kind of thing completely subconsciously, but that doesn't mean discussing it is meaningless or completely implied by a more rudimentary predecessor.  That strikes me like saying that there is no point in discussing conscious cinematography, that one should simply get in there and direct.

I've decided it's high past time that I finally settle down and become the resident nay-sayer, but if you please, I'll keep it in the Scattershot Forum.

Fang Langford

p. s. I'd just like to know how saying 'this is nothing new' and 'that is already in another article' are anything but making categorical statements and why I get called on such statements especially when repeated requests for explanations or citations by these other authors go unheeded.

[Matt Snyder]

I re-read those examples. I have the same problem with them that I did when I first read them. It is, to me, wag-the-dog design. It seems you're looking at a game and reverse-engineering its design in a way I just can't accept.

Here's why. I just plainly don't believe that the designers sat down and said, chronologically:

1) "Ok, we're making a Medieval Europe Game."

2 or 3) "It should have skills with a mechanic."

2 or 3) "It should have magic, with the same mechanic.

4) "The magic stuff should be more important than the skills!"

5) "We'll make the modifiers higher to emphasize this!"

I just don't believe it happened that way. The game had an initial spark before any conscious choice of weight between skills and techniques/forms. That initial spark may or may not have been the game's creative agenda as we define it here (it very likely was). The spark was likely something akin to: "Let's make a game of wizards in the medieval world." I just don't comprehend how the designers didn't already know magic was more important than skills from square one. That was the whole concept of the game.

(EDIT: I think you're "atomizing" Creative Agenda into discrete aspects that miss the forest for the trees. That is, I think you're improperly dismantling the creative agenda as a whole to look at components of the whole. This may be useful in analyzing games that exist, but I find it unhelpful in shaping games that don't yet exist)

Making skills "less important" via smaller modifiers than magic was a no-brainer. It's an after-the-fact detail added in. It is, to me, an obvious, unconscious choice.

The example you posed has, in a sense, the "Baseline" as the intial launchpad from which this issue (i.e "tension" between skills and magic) is then analyzed. I see this as entirely backwards. "Medieval Europe setting" is not square-one. Playing a Magus (cool!) is square one. Medieval Europe comes either simulataneously or secondly.

In other words, I cannot fathom how a designer who creates a game like Ars Magica starts with "Medieval europe" and then subsequently, consciously decides (after thinking about tension) that "Magic" should be emphasized. It's just far more likely, from where I'm sitting, that emphasized magic was the choice from the git-go (it was entirely the point of the game), and that making skills therefore less important as a means to emphasize the vision was a "well, duh" moment.

So, I'm still not seeing how this is all useful. I keep seeing, perhaps wrongly, the examples presented thus far as starting at Baseline working the analysis toward making that Baseline jive with Vision. If anything, for me as a designer, Vision is the starting point.

Case 2: Shadowrun archetype design

Here, too, I'm seeing backwards analysis, and therefore have a hard time seeing how it's applcable to future game designs of our own.

I doubt very strongly that "equitable" layout presentation of the archetypes was part of the game design process. I think this was an effect after the fact (after all, you've noticed and/or interpreted it as such after the fact), but I am highly skeptical (as a game designer and especially as a graphic designer) that the archetype page layouts were designed originally for that express purpose. I simply don't buy it. I don't think it was a problem the creators of the game acknowledged. As in: "We better make that Former Company Man have some really neato stuff so people will actually play him over the more detailed Street Mage. I know! We'll make their portraits equivalent!"

I just don't think it happened like this. More likely, the game designer and the art director were different folks, and it's very likely that the art director didn't say boo about game balance and making all the archetypes equally desirable to play.

Further, the character creation mechanics of Shadowrun reinforce equivalent characters via the "priority" creation system and Essence. I don't think graphic page layout is needed, nor sufficient to remind players that everyone's on the same level. System mattered in that regard, and System and Character mattered far more in that regard than did Color (which is what that graphic presentation amounts to).

In sum, I'm saying you and others have done a fair job presenting this Baseline & Vision as an analytical tool for existing examples, but I can't understand how it applies to sitting down and actually making a game.

Let me pose some candid questions for you guys for which I'm not seeing sufficient answers:

How is this Baseline / Vision / Tension technique sufficiently different from System Does Matter? For that matter, how is any of this discussion sufficiently different from 1) System Does Matter and 2) Creative Agenda? If it is not sufficiently different (a new outlook or explanation on those things, for example) are the new terms worthwhile? If it is different, how can it better be expressed so that designers can use the theory practically?

How is Vision discrete from Creative Agenda?

How are are the discrete design decisions (tensions) you're trying to analyze not defined as a"art", by which I mean that un-namable ability that a person does to create "stuff"?

If this is "art" (or perhaps "craft"), then at what point do discrete choices about game design become something you can't analyze -- that is, where's the mystery that is "creation?" Is there no such mystery?

If these discrete processes are not "art", then what are they?

Either way (art or not), how does this model actually help you make decisions about creating a game?

[Harlequin]

Matt - See the earlier analogy to colour theory.  No, most people don't design like that.  Neither example was presented as "they did it this way," and in fact they were accompanied by an explicit disclaimer that they propably weren't.  Nonetheless, the games probably succeed in part because they made these kinds of good aesthetic and communicative choices.  Does that make asking what those choices were, and why they work, invalid?  In short, if you're the kind of person who, as a painter, would find studying colour theory obstructive, then by all means, paint.  I'm writing for the kind of person who, after reading and thinking about colour theory, would eventually incorporate those ideas into their work, and paint more effectively for it.

Mike - "How is this not all of design?"  Well, switching previously applied analogies, how is "tighten this fan belt" not "all of auto repair"?  Of course these are aesthetic choices - we're explicitly studying aesthetic choices.  Of course this about the Creative Agenda - we're explicitly talking about how you communicate the Creative Agenda.  (I do feel there's a basic distinction between Creative Agenda and the Vision, because the Creative Agenda is an overall game designer's vision of his game and the Vision is simply that which is new within the game reality which the designer is trying to communicate.  Vision does not include the GNS mode he wishes to support, for example.  Also, you can talk about a single element as helping convey the Vision, as distinct from the Baseline, whereas by necessity everything you put down is theoretically helping convey the Creative Agenda.  Maybe if you stopped mapping everything into existing terms, and thereby making subtle shifts like this, then we'd be doing better at progressing with our analysis.  By my terms, Tension - along with everything else one does in a design - helps communicate the Creative Agenda, which is only somewhat more useful than Douglas Adams' quip about the planet Jupiter being heavier than a duck.)

To the issue at hand, if all you're saying is that these terms help you come up with nifty techniques like the ones you point out for Ars and SR, then I lose my heart to argue with you. I mean if it's helping out, I have a strong urge to just let it go. That's the relativist streak in me.

Please!

Because, like the painter I describe above, who eventually internalizes colour theory and makes decisions with that as part of his understanding, I think that yes, this discussion - without the constant stream of people questioning its purpose or terminology - will do exactly that.  For me, and possibly others, who for the moment cannot get a word in edgeways.

Everyone who this thread is not helping: kindly leave those comments to yourself.  Obviously if this thread is of no interest to you, then it should be left alone.  Ditto for if it does not help your design philosophy.  If your only fear is proliferation of taxonomies, don't worry - like colour theory, you can perfectly well do beautiful work without ever having to talk about it in those terms, and in fact, in the end, those who master it don't talk about it... whether they came to that point through study of the terms or simply from intuition and practice.  It's hardly about to become canonical.

Okay. Sorry for the tone, all, I'm just getting very tired of this (and have a baby whining in my ear to boot).  At the end of my previous post I attempted to get things back on topic; can we go back to those questions, please?

- Eric

[Matt Snyder]

I understand the analogy, Eric, but I find it not terribly enlightening. I am not trying to "disprove" the notion of Baseline / Vision / Tension. I am trying to understand it, and more importantly understand on a specific level how it's useful for designing new games (not analyzing existing ones).

In your reply to Mike, you answered what you see as the difference between Creative Agenda and Vision. However, several of my questions remain, and I find your painter-color-theory analogy not informative in answering any of the other specific questions I posed.

I have already acknowledged in this thread that people design differently -- Fang doing so deliberately as he describes it, for example. I further stated that I do not design in this way. This does not bar me from discussion of the topic, and I'm amazed to find language in these forums that somehow views that with a kind of subtle sarcastic disdain (accidents of talents, as Fang called it).

But I must say that it troubles me to see such emotional responses from you. I think you're seeing antagonism in Mike's queries and my questions. Knowing Mike personally and from his MANY posts here on the Forge, I know that he's not, nor am I, trying to shoot you down. We are offering serious, critical thought, and we are interested in keeping theory from being redundant and confusing for site visitors. To ask us to go away after insufficiently answering questions that you must answer (for your own sake, not to answer to "US") to make this theory useful is profoundly unhelpful to you and insulting to us.

Forge discussion is so rewarding because people generally are able to keep discussion civil and refrain from saying "leave us alone" when discussing nascent theory. It should be obvious that I'm hardly disinterested in this topic. I wouldn't post here otherwise.

Finally, you request that the discussion get back on topic in part by addressing questions you pose in your penultimate thread. There, you said:

How do we, as designers, spot places where the Tension will arise, so we can decide whether to tweak it or not? How do we look ahead and say intelligent things about the Tension-spots in our emerging game, and design for it, or are we doomed to merely use this as an editing tool?

This is precisely what both Mike and I have been asking for the entirety of the thread. I'm concerned that you do not seem to recognize that, and view our replies as somehow distracting. We're asking for exactly what you are asking for! How can you, on a very specific level, make this whole idea useful in making games, and how is it anything but an analytical tool for existing designs.

[Le Joueur]

How do we, as designers, spot places where the Tension will arise, so we can decide whether to tweak it or not? How do we look ahead and say intelligent things about the Tension-spots in our emerging game, and design for it, or are we doomed to merely use this as an editing tool?

...We're asking for exactly what you are asking for! How can you, on a very specific level, make this whole idea useful in making games, and how is it anything but an analytical tool for existing designs.

I was under the impression that Eric is asking these questions, not engaging in rhetoric.  You know, like they say, "Most discoveries don't start with 'Eureka!' but with 'that's funny?'"  We've stumbled onto something, possibly, and are only just beginning to wrestle with what it could be, how it might be used, and potentially if it could be used to effect (at least by deliberate designers).

Having the legitimate questions thrown back in his face probably sounds like dismissive or sarcastic responses, as opposed to constructive discussion.  (Imagine someone who comes into a dark room saying, "What if we opened our eyes?"  Only to have others saying back at them, "What if we opened our eyes?" instead of discussing what might happen if light could be introduced into the room afterwards.)  Instead of reflecting the questions, could you possibly speculate upon some answers?

I know I'm having a hard time answering them.  So I'm attempting a game design using them to 'see how it feels.'  I caution Mike to please not follow this link until the judging of the Iron Game Chef Contest is finished; I don't want to predjudice the voting.

So far, I need more time to digest and discuss it.  So can we agree that neither side is being sarcastic, but that neither side have the answers.  Please, speculate.

Fang Langford