GNS and metagame machanix

[taalyn]

Many games have mechanics that support one mode of GNS play. Victory points, hero points, and the like for gamist criteria, and Luck or points to manipulate the story for narrativist criteria.

My question: what would such metagame mechanics look like if they were intended to support Simulationist agendas?

Aidan

[jdagna]

I think one of the points in Sim play is the absence of metagame mechanics that allow player-initiated plot changes (as opposed to character-initiated ones).

However, you can work those kinds of things in if you try to minimize the metagame aspects.  For example, state that some poeple are fated to do important things, and these people are by definition the player characters.  Thus, players can earn Fate points and spend them to gain some effect.  In fact, WFRP uses Fate points by that name as a way to keep characters from dying too frequently.  This kind of a justification could work well in a sim-based Greek mythology game, for example, where people really did believe in Fate.

Many games give extra experience as a reward for playing in character and doing other Simmy kinds of things.  But usually the experience gets spent to improve character effectiveness, which is more of a Gamist reward for Sim play.

But, really, you'd need a mechanic that rewarded Sim play and aided Sim play.  Very few of them do.

[taalyn]

I think one of the points in Sim play is the absence of metagame mechanics that allow player-initiated plot changes (as opposed to character-initiated ones).

This was exactly my thought. I have ideas on addressing Gamist or Narrative priorities, but there doesn't seem to be any metagame to Sim priorities. I wonder if they can exist, and if so, what they would look like.

Many games give extra experience as a reward for playing in character and doing other Simmy kinds of things.  But usually the experience gets spent to improve character effectiveness, which is more of a Gamist reward for Sim play.

But, really, you'd need a mechanic that rewarded Sim play and aided Sim play.  Very few of them do.

My question again - how can you use metagame resources to aid Sim play? The answer to this question might help address concerns about Sim's non-congruency with G and N (one of those things is not like the other...).

Aidan

[Shreyas Sampat]

I'm a pretty strong advocate of player creation; a player that does something quite Simmy is allowed to let the implications of that thing spill into the world at large.  If you describe something well, then it's true in a wider sense, and has deeper implications that you can Explore.

Let me put this into a very direct, crunchy contect: Charms in Exalted.  Charms are much like D&D3e Feats; they are localized rules shifts that permit you to do special things.  There is a strong Exploration of System thing here; the game encourages player development of Charms, and has a mechanic by which Charms may be combined to form Combos.

A player who creates a set of sufficiently interesting set of Charms has the added Explorative capacity to create interesting Combos out of them.  Granted, this probably isn't the main thrust of the rules, but it's sufficently interesting that there's a lot of fan attention paid to it.

[taalyn]

This sounds really interesting, and I'll definitely have to go investigate them. It could be useful in Crux.

But, as I understand them, Feats aren't metagame. Are Charms?

I suppose they can be turned into metagame currency easy enough - just present such items as rewards of play.

Aidan

[M. J. Young]

Aidan, I don't think that metagame mechanics are completely anathema in sim play; but they have to be effectively integrated such that the seem like part of the world, not some external events or interferences.

Years ago I was party leader in a D&D-style game in which I had some problems. The problems were that there were players in the game whom I found personally annoying, and there were characters in the game whom my character found unreliable, and sometimes, but not always, these corresponded. I felt I needed a method to keep my character's opinion of his individual party members separate from my own opinion of the players running them. To this end, I pulled up a spread sheet and listed each character across the top; then as play progressed I recorded events, actions, and decisions related to the characters which would reasonably have influenced my character's opinions of them, and scored these on a scale of how much positive or negative shift that would create. I now had a score for each character, a way of determining how much confidence my character would place in each of these, to which I could turn when I needed to make decisions about who to trust. That's a simulationist mechanic; it provides an out-of-game method of controling and understanding an in-game reality. Obviously, my character would never say, "well, Noar is a 45 on my chart, and Zetar is only a 33, so we'll give Noar this job." He would say, "I have confidence in both of these people, but I have more confidence in Noar, so I'll rely on him for this, and on Zetar for something less essential."

In my Game Ideas Unlimited article about Rewards, I suggest what I think might work as a metagame advancement mechanic in a simulationist game. I start the players as members of their high school newspaper, and let them explore the world as reporter, photographer, editor, assistant--that sort of thing. As they do this, if they are successful in their efforts they get points. The characters obviously don't get points; but when they graduate from school, enough points means they go on to become reporters, photographers, et cetera for the local town paper, and then when they get enough points they go on to the county, work for a national--maybe eventually they're working for CNN or something. The thing is, they advance in the news world by doing their jobs well; but we measure how well they do their jobs by the accrual of points earned in their investigations. The further they go in their jobs, the more they can investigate. (This becomes even less subject to gamist drift if the points are earned by the group rather than the individuals, having the team move to a new position all together when as a team they have impressed someone.)

To do a simulationist metamechanic, you have to consider what it represents within the game world, and how to make it feel as if it represents that and not some arbitrary interference from outside.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

[taalyn]

Thanks MJ, that does help. It gives me somewhere to start, at any rate.

Aidan

[John Kim]

That's a simulationist mechanic; it provides an out-of-game method of controling and understanding an in-game reality. Obviously, my character would never say, "well, Noar is a 45 on my chart, and Zetar is only a 33, so we'll give Noar this job." He would say, "I have confidence in both of these people, but I have more confidence in Noar, so I'll rely on him for this, and on Zetar for something less essential."  

But how is this any different from any other simulationist mechanic?  It seems to me that you can say the same thing about, say, a Strength rating.  The character would never say, "I have a 17 Strength" -- he would instead say that "I am very strong."  But the numerical rating gives a way of understanding the in-game reality.

[M. J. Young]

But how is this any different from any other simulationist mechanic?

Which is a really excellent question for which I don't have an answer.

The reason I have trouble answering this is that I have a difficult time distinguishing "mechanic" from "metamechanic". The distinction seems to be made on the idea that the metamechanic is something that overrides the regular mechanic, but is still part of the game. Using my example of choosing a character my character trusts, we could conceive of at least four basic approaches:[list=1][*]I like and trust Bill, so my character is going to like and trust Bill's character Noar, and have him do the job.[*]My subjective impression overall is that Noar acts in a manner which would cause my character to trust him, so my character will have him do the job.[*]The (admittedly subjective but accrued over time) ratings I have of my character's reactions to Noar's actions in the past suggest that my character would trust Noar to do this job.[*]I note that Noar has a seventeen charisma, therefore my character must like and trust him more than any other in the game, and I'll give him the job.[/list:o]It seems to me that option three is a metagame mechanic intended to override option four; that is, if it happens that Zetar has an eighteen charisma and therefore would logically be liked and trusted more than Noar, I might be able to trust Zetar with the job based on that assessment that people (including my character) like him better and trust him more due to his charisma, or I could invoke my tabulation of prior conduct reactions to override that fact and place Noar above Zetar on that basis. Note that I could use option two in the same way, but this is not a mechanic--it is a metagame influence or decision with in-game consequences. Option one is also a metagame influence, but not a mechanic (although I suppose one could create a metagame mechanic by which I decided which players had been the most annoying and which the best friends, and use that for my in-game selection of characters, which would also be a metamechanic but not at all simulationist).

But then, the notion of what is actually metagame is still difficult for me; I tend to see most "metagame" rules as merely game rules applied in certain circumstances to override other game rules. So don't take this as writ or anything.

--M. J. Young

[Darren Hill]

Many games have mechanics that support one mode of GNS play. Victory points, hero points, and the like for gamist criteria, and Luck or points to manipulate the story for narrativist criteria.

My question: what would such metagame mechanics look like if they were intended to support Simulationist agendas?

Aidan

I'm new to GNS but (based on the Sim essay), S seems to be very near and dear to my heart. (That's assuming I understand it correctly, of course!) Bu tI'll leap in and have a go.
One thing Ron mentions in the essay is that metagame mechanics can exist in, say, Nar and Sim games, and can be mechanically identical. More precisely, he says that the interpretation of such mechanics can be metagame or non-metagame (game?), depending on how it is perceived within the game.

The example he gives is Karma:

compare the following: (1) an in-game essence or metaphysical effect called "Karma," which represents the character's moral status in that game-universe according to (e.g.) a god or principle in that game-world; (2) a score on the sheet which has literally nothing to do with the character's in-game identity, also called "Karma," recognized and applied by the real people with no in-game entity used to justify it. In both systems, Karma is a point-score which goes up and down, and which can be brought into play as, say, a bonus to one's dice roll. But I'd say that #1 is not metagame at all, and #2 is wholly metagame.

Mechanically, how do they differ? One thing to consider is how the score goes up and down - by player-use, or by in-game effects? Another is whether the score is integrated with the reward/improvement system - does spending a Karma reduce one's bank of improvement points? In fact, is Karma a spent resource at all? Still another issue is whether in-game effects must be in place, or inserted into place, to justify its use. No one of these indicators is hard-and-fast, however; one must consider them all at once, and how they relate to Simulationism (and non-Simulationism) is a fascinating issue. At this point I tend to think that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them - character or player.

An example I can give from my mediaeval fantasy game is Faith. This is something that looks a lot like Karma above - it gets adjusted based on how well the character follows his faith, among other things. The character can call upon it to produce minor feats of divine intervention, in a similar form to many luck or hero points, and whether he gets aid depends on maintaining his divine relationship. Not all characters have (or want) it. It can break (or at least bend) the established rules of reality, but does so within the confines of certain expectations - you'd need to be extremely saintly to part a sea, for example, but having minor coincidences work in your favour is easily justifiable.

So, to conclude, I'd say that the answer to your question:

My question: what would such metagame mechanics look like if they were intended to support Simulationist agendas?

Is that they could look exactly like the metagame mechanics designed to encourage other game styles. The important thing is that they be integrated into the game world, and used to encourage and reinforce the simulationist aspect of play.

[Darren Hill]

Just had an idea for a more concrete idea for metagame mechanics in sim play.
It's not unusual for games to give some kind of hero point- you spend a hero point, gain a bonus to an action, and later either recover the hero point or do something to earn a new one.
A sim example of such a system could be:
You are playing a game set in the Wild West, based on the film, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It's an accepted part of the genre that shootists are bad hombres, and rarely miss. They certainly don't fumble drawing their pistols from their holsters (the setting isn't based on The Unforgiven, or grim reality.)

In such a setting (or any setting), you could have a pool of points that can be used only to reinforce character concept - our shootist can use them to make him a better shootist, or to ensure he is able to function as one (get rid of inappropriate fumbles and whatnot that might tarnish the character concept) and could even be applied by the GM to encourage this. He sets up a farm, and his Shootist points are invoked to cause the farm to fall to ruins, or bandits to raise it and run off with his daughter. He's soon back following the path of the shootist.

This looks like a sim example of metagame points - to me, anyway. If I'm mistaken, let me know.

[taalyn]

Demiurge,

 That's an even better explanation. So, Crux has Boons which can 1) allow the player to get autosuccesses. If the autosuccess isn't tied to character concept in a significant way, then it becomes a gamist metamechanic. If it is tied to the concept, it is simulationist. Or rather, to be precise, they support those modes of play. 2) gives player the ability to create some part of the world - that there's a gun under that carseat, that the guard is my cousin Ronny, etc. This supports Narrative play.

 Am I interpreting those uses correctly?

 Aidan

[jdagna]

On the general definition of "metagame mechanic"

My opinion has always been that a metagame mechanic is one that is:
1) Not a result of internal causality
2) Invoked at the player's discretion

In other words, a standard shooting mechanic is (presumably) a result of the game's internal causes, with a die roll to represent causes we're not aware of.  The mechanic works based on the character's actions (he shoots or he doesn't) and doesn't directly involve the player (except to the extent that he decides the character's action).

A metagame shooting mechanic might feature bidding to see who hits.  Highest bidder wins.  If you want bidding to represent causality you have to do some mental gymnastics to get there.  However, the player directly participates in the bidding mechanic - he isn't restricted in his bid by "what his character would do" because the bids are based on factors like the player's current bidding resource, the player's desire to succeed now, and other factors.  Neither the player's resources nor his desire stem from the game's internal causality.

This definition is why I can say with some confidence that metagame mechanics don't really belong in Sim games.  Ideally, players in a Sim mode wants to minimize both factors in the definition.

Just had an idea for a more concrete idea for metagame mechanics in sim play.
It's not unusual for games to give some kind of hero point- you spend a hero point, gain a bonus to an action, and later either recover the hero point or do something to earn a new one.
A sim example of such a system could be:
You are playing a game set in the Wild West, based on the film, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It's an accepted part of the genre that shootists are bad hombres, and rarely miss. They certainly don't fumble drawing their pistols from their holsters (the setting isn't based on The Unforgiven, or grim reality.)

In such a setting (or any setting), you could have a pool of points that can be used only to reinforce character concept - our shootist can use them to make him a better shootist, or to ensure he is able to function as one (get rid of inappropriate fumbles and whatnot that might tarnish the character concept) and could even be applied by the GM to encourage this. He sets up a farm, and his Shootist points are invoked to cause the farm to fall to ruins, or bandits to raise it and run off with his daughter. He's soon back following the path of the shootist.

This looks like a sim example of metagame points - to me, anyway. If I'm mistaken, let me know.

I think this could be a sim mechanic, IF (and only if) the source of the points make sense in a Simmy kind of way.  For example, if you get points for killing bad guys, you've really got a Gamist mechanic (by beating one challenge, you get resources you can use to beat the next one).  If you get these points as a result of playing your character in a Simmy way, then I think you wind up with a Sim mechanic, but one that could easily be subverted by those evil Nar/Gam types.  The example of points being used to cause a farm's destruction sounds more Nar than Sim to my ears.

[Darren Hill]

Demiurge,

 That's an even better explanation. So, Crux has Boons which can 1) allow the player to get autosuccesses. If the autosuccess isn't tied to character concept in a significant way, then it becomes a gamist metamechanic. If it is tied to the concept, it is simulationist. Or rather, to be precise, they support those modes of play. 2) gives player the ability to create some part of the world - that there's a gun under that carseat, that the guard is my cousin Ronny, etc. This supports Narrative play.

 Am I interpreting those uses correctly?

 Aidan

That looks good to me, though I'm saying that without any knowledge of Crux.
Also, I had another insight, bu I can't think of a good example to llustrate it offhand. I'm thinking that these Boons could be used to reinforce not just character concept, but the way the world's internal reality is supposed to work.
Take Fudge - it's a game with a very high random factor. On the fudge mailing list, it's a not uncommon complaint (though certainly not universal) that the way dice are used fails to properly represent reality. A Good Doctor gets fair too many Mediocre and Poor results - if he rolled dice for every operation, a lot of people might die on the operating table.
Some people solve this by saying you only roll when it's important. Others reinterpret what those Mediocre, Poor, and Terrible results mean based on the situation. Others say this isn't right, because the dice should model standard and exceptional situations, not just exceptional ones, and the effect of a Terrible result ought to remain consistent.
So, a metagame-like point system might be used to escape the tyranny of too-random dice results, say to turn that "disastrous operation" into a "complication during operation, roll again to confirm" result, or something like that.
So, for fudge, such a metagame system might be tied to skill level, rather than character concept (i.e. anyone who has a Great skill may gain autorerolls of failure unless the difficulty exceeds skill, and the reroll turns the action into a marginal success; or some such mechanic).

It becomes more metagame-like if there is a cost to be paid for using such an advantage, and remains Sim if there cost is paid in some kind of in-game effect.
Using the Doctor example, you get a Poor result and fumble the operation. But, your a Great doctor, so you have the option of rerolling: but doing so takes an extra hour, and requires so much extra plasma - and the patient might fail his Health roll during that hour.

Ron mentions in his essay that the line between metagame-like Sim mechanics and in-game resources can get very blurry - this doctor example I think is a fine example of that. I think the point with metagame mechanics for Sim purposes is that it should be blurry. It wouldn't be Sim otherwise.

[Darren Hill]

On the general definition of "metagame mechanic"

My opinion has always been that a metagame mechanic is one that is:
1) Not a result of internal causality
2) Invoked at the player's discretion

In other words, a standard shooting mechanic is (presumably) a result of the game's internal causes, with a die roll to represent causes we're not aware of.  The mechanic works based on the character's actions (he shoots or he doesn't) and doesn't directly involve the player (except to the extent that he decides the character's action).

The die roll might not represent just the causes we're aware of, but also the range of performance that a character is capable of. Sometimes you perform blow your best, sometimes you excel. The points usage I suggested would be one way to control the tyranny of the dice.
Simulationism is about exploring what happens, but that doesn't necessarily have to mean that whatever the dice produce is automatically right.

You could argue that a better way would be to use a different dice mechanic. True, but there could be justifiable reasons for having an inerently random roll and a pool of points to boost your performance - maybe they represent fatigue, for example.

I think this could be a sim mechanic, IF (and only if) the source of the points make sense in a Simmy kind of way.  For example, if you get points for killing bad guys, you've really got a Gamist mechanic (by beating one challenge, you get resources you can use to beat the next one).  If you get these points as a result of playing your character in a Simmy way, then I think you wind up with a Sim mechanic, but one that could easily be subverted by those evil Nar/Gam types.  The example of points being used to cause a farm's destruction sounds more Nar than Sim to my ears.

In the case of the farm's destruction, you may be right, but I think it is possible to get Nar-like effects while emphasising a Sim agenda. (Something I'll have to think about a bit more.) As regards the points, though, what if you get those points at character design, and then never get any more? They are just replenished at the start of each adventure to the same total. You get them because of what the character is.
If you do get more, it should be tied directly into the character experience system - then gaining these points is no more Gamist than increasing skill levels is Gamist. Mind you, a simulationist game could probably get along well without much of an experience system - I know I view experience systems as a bit of a necessary evil :)