Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Mike Holmes, May 29, 2003, 03:13:46 PM
Quote from: Jason a.k.a. CrucielThat kind of stuff is what validates Sim as an independent priority in the GNS model, except for the fact that they happen to be metagame reasons so they don't technically fall under Sim either.
Quotegenre adherance, for comedy, for gee-wiz-bang-cool-like-it-would-happen-in-the-movies, or for its own sake....
Quote from: crucielChallenge/Theme doesn't seem right. Theme implies the GNS definition of Nar.
QuoteBut, gee, isn't Challenge/Story Now Axis an ugly term? Trouble is, I also can't think of a single word that doesn't favor one end of the axis.
QuoteI also think that in regards to this model Exploration should be left floating in its own island, much like Stance. It shouldn't rest above or below, but be part of a matrix. Such that you could say High Fidelity|Story Now|Explore Char|Author Stance. Different players with these same goals may choose to layer them differently, and if they ever have to choose between them they may choose different categories as a primary motivation.
QuoteLet's see...Baseline and Vision. Gonna need a solid definition, but... My understanding was that Baseline was sort of the framework of expectations you can draw on to fill in unstated paramaters and Vision was the elements you needed to specify to the reader as coloring and diverging from your Baseline.
Quote from: M. J. YoungI'm not persuaded.
Quote... war games ...In that context, neither narrativist nor gamist priorities were so useful. That is, we're not asking either whether the opponent is going to have moral issues about a particular approach or which approach is strategically best for the opponent, but given what we know about the opponent, what strategy is he most likely to use?
QuoteWe want to know what will happen given everything we know about those commanders.
QuoteI don't think that's a non-existent thing.
QuoteThe metagame priority in simulationism is verisimilitude itself, whether this would actually happen given the assumptions of the game world. Thus simulationism of movie reality is simulationism if that's the priority, because our metagame priority is to make it as much like the source material as possible.
QuotePut me down as seeing Simulationism as one of the Big Three, and not The Other Thing.
QuoteThe real test would be if there were a game where players just played aliens on an alien planet, and no conflict occured. You were just presented with typical day to day stuff, and were told to "react" appropriately.
Quote from: Walt Freitag1. The nature of play midway along the G-N axis is unclear. You describe it as an equal mix of G and N, but could it not also be the complete lack of both G and N priorities? If G and N are incompatible mind-sets is not that the more likely possibility? And yet, if all play must contain one or the other, that appears a contradiction.
Quote2. There's also a point in the continuum representing low-fidelity neither-G-nor-N (or equal G and N) play. What does that play look like? (Perhaps, one of those endless Trivial Pursuit games with no one keeping score that happen when everyone is too tired or drunk to think of anything else to do?)
Quote3. We know that problems relating to player differences on G vs. S priorities do occur. A GM says, "Your character's intelligence is too low to have thought of that." A player joins a dungeon crawl and wants to play a priest opposed to all killing of animals. We've characterized whole systems as being G-S incoherent. What do these things mean, in terms of the proposed new version of the model?
QuoteI think I can give a partial answer to #2. I believe that any representation of GNS space as a continuum, including yours and including the conventional "big triangle," covers a space larger than the general consensus of what role playing games are. ...Velllly innnntelesting.
Quote from: M. J. YoungActually, Jason, those examples,Quotegenre adherance, for comedy, for gee-wiz-bang-cool-like-it-would-happen-in-the-movies, or for its own sake....point up the metagame priority of simulationism quite well. You could be going for realism, for fidelity to a published reality, or for adherence to any of those priorities you named, and be involved in simulationism. Narrativism doesn't say that verisimilitude doesn't matter, but that it can't be allowed to derail consideration of the theme (why narrativist games so often allow people to arrive on the scene "at the right moment" instead of "when they would get there", a point I make in the other thread). Gamism doesn't say that verisimilitude doesn't matter, but only that we need to have a solid basis on which to predict what will happen so we can make fully optimized choices and have the system validate those choices through consistency.
Quote from: Bankuei#2-Low fidelity(genre expectations don't matter so much), Low Gam, Low Nar, what's the draw? Socialization. If we're using a X,Y,Z thing mapped to G/N/Fidelity, then we're talking about close to the zero point. I'd say the zero point itself is hanging out with buddies and bullshitting. It's the point where the game doesn't matter.p
QuoteSo, looking at that idea, if you're not very heavily into the G/N aspect of things, but high on Fidelity, perhaps you're either in denial of your G/N desires or there for socialization.
QuoteA third aspect that may come into play is basing your actions off of social approval of others, in which case the G/N decisions are more based on the preferences of the group, or specific individuals within the group.
QuoteIf we're talking good stuff like GURPS, the classic high sim, no filler game, then what we're talking about is a High Fidelity game, that has room for drift from slight to gross drift towards G/N.
QuoteFunctional/Dysfunctional- It would seem that play is more functional when the group as a whole is playing in nearby coordinates on that X,Y,Z map.
Quote... distance between emphasis of G/N and Fidelity can cause problems.
QuoteSingle Mode/Hybrid- I think this model perfectly encapsulates the G/S, N/S sorts of gaming. Observe range from the Pool, TQB, Inspectres, octaNe, Dust Devils, Sorcerer, and TROS, as a range of Low to High Fidelity sorts of games in the Nar range.
Quote from: crucielThe metagame priority occuring in those examples isn't verisimilitude - it's what would make for the most interesting sequence of events. But, because prioritizing engagement in the charm of the sequence of events doesn't spring from a moral or ethical question it isn't Nar. I like action movies and pop fiction, not cinema and literature - that distinction pushes me into the Sim category by process of elimination only.
QuoteHigh Fidelity|Story Now.
Quote from: Mike HolmesJason, I'm going to leave most of your thoughts about Narrativism alone, and let Ron or somebody else respond to them if they feel like it. Because my new model doesn't challenge Ron's definition of Narrativism, but as it happens, it does reconcile the problems that you're seeing, I think. At the very least, I think it makes it easier to look at.
QuoteHere's why. The problem that I see with people trying to disect where the divergence occurs between Char Sim and Char Nar, for example, is that when it's Nar, people are usually playing up the "what would my character do" aspect. This is why Ron always tells me that my examples are incorrect, and why it's hard to delineate the line. Examples don't work precisely because what one does is to prioritize both at the same time. Ron says that all action must be Plausible. Well that just means that there's some element of Fidelity inherent in every decision. Dividing that out into it's own priority doesn't say that this is not true. But it does make it hard to think about which is "more" prioritzed in most situations. I would say that they're often both given high priority.
QuoteNothing in there goes against any of the current theory you'll find. So what I'm presenting is what I think is a superior model for how to look at these things.
QuoteYes, but it's key so we'll have to work on that. See, that axis I see as the "what the player expends his power to decide upon axis". That is, if I make a decision, I can make it "to win" or "to be dramatic". These are truely mutually exclusive. That is, the decisions to do one or the other, though they may look similar, have such different mental approaches to the game that they can't be the same at one time. Hence why when it does become apparent what the thought process is, those that prefer one over the other have problems with the other. The Roll playing Vs Role Playing thing in action. So this still needs its own axis to define that incoherency.
Quote from: crucielExplore + NarExplore + GamExplore + NarExplore + Gam
QuoteAnyway, that's how all this has me thinking. I find it much easier to define my priorities using this approach than Nar/Sim allows.
QuoteA way of looking at this all that's been rattling around in my head, has been that there are multiple metagame goals: fidelity of the various sorts, narrativism, challenge, social standing, personal exploration, education, etc., any of which can be a primary goal of play and which may be more or less encouraged by given sets of mechanics or system elements. If instead we go with saying that some sort of fidelity is included in all play, and there really are only two other goals (nar/gam) where does everything else fit in?
QuoteBut what if the particular goals that may be social or psychological in nature take pre-eminence? Are gamism and narrativism avenues through which these goals may themselves be reached?