No More Incoherence! - A Rant

[Le Joueur]

Hey there,

First off, let me apologize that this may be quite likely the last thing I ever post here, my life recently having been turned upside down (in the good way).  This is not meant to be a 'parting shot,' but a final gift.  I've realized a way to make all Incoherent games golden.

I've been off the Forge for a while and a number of people have asked me why.  There are many reasons:

My wife and I no longer share the goal of putting out a role-playing game together (I only kept it up while she was busy dealing with some difficult medical problems

and I still had a publisher lined up); on the other hand, we very much like working together and we both love comic books (so guess what...).

I also reached a plateau of understanding where I realized there was more to designing a role-playing game than simply getting all the "System Does Matter" ducks in a row (after grammar, similar to the message hidden in the theme and metaphor of a story, role-playing games quite simply languish if they do not have that 'punch' - and I'm not talking Narrativism where you play with it - but where the game's author embeds the message in the game and only indirectly in the play).  Few, if any, on the Forge show any interest in discussing that; here it seems that 'System is All that Matters.'

And there is also 'the whole GNS thing....'[/list:u]About that.

I've been pondering my work here and 'money-successful' games in general.  I finally concluded something after reading Ron's glossaries in his latest GNS essays.  Just to be clear, I'm literally using the words of its creator, Ron Edwards, from his latest essays on the subject, rather than my own.  Just some simple logic to get you thinking now that I'm gone.

Here are Ron's going definitions of GNS in short:

Step On Up

Social assessment in the face of risk. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Gamist play.[/list:u]

Story Now

Producing, heightening, and resolving a Premise. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play.[/list:u]

The Dream

Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically in-game cause and pre-established thematic elements. As a top priority for role-playing, the defining feature of Simulationist play. See [Ron's] essay Simulationism.

The right to dream.[/list:u]

And for those it confuses, Premise is no longer considered present in all GNS modes of gaming.  That concept is now:

Creative Agenda

The aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing; replaces all uses of "premise" in the original essay aside from the specific creative agenda of Narrativist play (for which the term "Premise" is retained); Step On Up, The Right to Dream, and Story Now represent the creative agendas, respectively, of Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist play.[/list:u]

Premise [from the older work GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory]

The key to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by pre-planning.[/list:u]

Ron also goes on with the usage of the GNS as it relates to game design (and therefore analysis and discussion):

Coherence

Any functional combination, including singletons, of GNS priorities. Please note that "coherency" is not a word.[/list:u]

Incoherence

Incompatible combination of GNS priorities, applies by definition to play, but often applied secondarily to game design. Abashedness represents a minor, correctable form of Incoherence.[/list:u]

Abashed

Game design which displays features of one or more GNS modes that, in their applications, are operationally contradictory. It is a minor form of Incoherence. However, an Abashed design is easily correctable by ignoring or altering isolated portions of the rules (minor Drift); typically, extremely coherent play can result in either of the modes involved. However, this also means that two groups will effectively be playing completely different games. See

Abashed Vanillaism and my review of Little Fears.[/list:u]

And just to make sure we don't misunderstand what's wrong with Incoherence, it's pretty clear that when it becomes a problem, it is because of:

Dysfunction

Simply, role-playing which is not fun. Most Forge discussions presume that un-fun role-playing is worse than no role-playing.[/list:u]

Ron also offers us a few notes on examples of Incoherence, included here not for the issues they raise, but for concepts introduced within them:

The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other.[/list:u]

El Dorado

Originally, used to indicate the search for a Simulationist-Narrativist hybrid mode of play, with the Narrativism being the main priority; more recently, it has come to mean

Transition³ from Simulationist to Narrativist play without noticeable Drift in the rules-use. See Simulationism and Narrativism under the same roof and El Dorado.[/list:u]

Taken together, the above says that 1) Dysfunction occurs when two or more modes of GNS play are facilitated¹ at the same time by the same game, except....

There always have to be exceptions, don't there?  Ron's recently added a couple to the GNS:

Hybrid

A game whose rules include facilitating elements for more than one mode of play. Observed functional hybrids to date include only two GNS modes rather than all three, and one of the modes may be considered primary or dominant, with the other playing a supportive role.[/list:u]

Transition³

Theoretically, shifting from one GNS mode to another (in the large sense, in terms of the overall goals of play for everyone) without Drifting the rules.

Scattershot², in development, is designed with Transition³ in mind. See the Scattershot² forum with reference to threads begun by me.[/list:u]

Considering these exceptions, it becomes all the more confusing¹ when you get to this definition:

Congruence

Refers to play in which two or more different GNS modes may be expressed in such a way that they neither interfere with one another nor are easily distinguished through observation; the term was coined by Walt Freitag in

GNS and "Congruency". I am revising the term to "congruence" in the interest of grammar.[/list:u]

Basically then, 2) you can have a game that supports more than one GNS mode by being a Hybrid or during points of Congruence (or by Drifting an Abashed System).  I'm not going to go into the number of times Ron has decried the impossibility of a 'three mode GNS Hybrid,' suffice to note he more-or-less rules them out.

Now before I tie all this into a knot, I need to cover a little about how a game design facilitates¹ GNS-mode-focused play.  Because "System Does Matter," it does this by some conspiracy of System:

System (character creation, resolution including IIEE, reward system, metagame mechanics)

The means by which imaginary events are established during play (see the Lumpley Principle).[/list:u]

The Lumpley Principle

"System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." The author of the principle is Vincent Baker, see Vincent's standard rant about power, credibility, and assent and Player power abuse.[/list:u]

Points of Contact

The steps of rules-consultation, either in the text or internally, per unit of established imaginary content. This is not the same as the long-standing debate between Rules-light and Rules-heavy systems; either low or high Points of Contact systems can rely on strict rules. See

Vanilla and Pervy, Pervy in my head, Cannot stand cutesie-poo terms, Pervy Sim, points of contact, accessibility.[/list:u]Transparency

Rules design that does not call attention to the rules in operation; highly controversial. See

Transparency and Transparency again.[/list:u]

Now we finally begin to reach my problem.  See, 3) all of the games that Ron deems Incoherent in design (because he observes that at some point the become Dysfunctional in play¹ as implied by their texts), also fit the definition he gives of a Hybrid (note, these aren't required to be non-Dysfunctional - he even notes something about "functional Hybrids," meaning there are those which aren't).

Ron has gone on to say that 4) with a little Drift, Abashed games become non-Dysfunctional or "extremely Coherent."  (Sorry, Ron hasn't recently given a clear definition for Drift, only the implication in the definition of Abashed.)  I'm the creator of Scattershot² and the term 5) Transition³, which is merely making Drift an explicit component of the written System.

Now, if you look closely enough at it, 6) the Lumpley Principle does not necessarily require that System be written out and explicit in the game's text.  This means that 7) Drift is traditionally a part of System, just never having needed to be as explicit as Transition³.  You could even say that there is a long-standing tradition in all of role-playing gaming that 'Transparent Transition³' is assumed or that Drift has always been a part of gaming.  It may not appear overtly in any product, but the implication is that 8) an Incoherent game will work with some Drift (Abashed games are therefore just 'a little Incoherent').

But if Drift is traditionally a part of System, then 9) how can any game be Incoherent?  (Barring the extremes of just bad writing.)

The problem is they aren't!

What is happening, in some cases of GNS breakdown, is that people aren't practicing the traditional assumed Transparent Transition³ (Drift) well.  Either by allowing "incompatible combinations" of System to play off each other or by letting "incompatible combinations" of play¹ come into conflict, 10) the only thing that Incoherence is then is an example of people playing the (partially-implied) System wrong.

Now I could understand a call for games that make Drift more explicit, I invented Transition³ after all, but demanding that games are only non-Dysfunctional when they either adhere to one GNS mode for facilitation (or some non-Dysfunctional or Congruent Hybrid) seems therefore narrow-minded.

The gaming community has a long history of practicing Drift.  It's so ingrained that perhaps no one ever thought to write it into their System, before.  So what?  That doesn't make those games 'broken,' unplayable, or Dysfunctional, simply poorly written from an era of poorly understood applied role-playing game design theory.

Granted an adherence to "System Does Matter," then supposedly Incoherent Systems (note: I've just shown that few actually are) are simply Hybrids that only lack explicit Transitional³ Systems.  I might go so far as to suggest that White Wolf's Vampire: the Masquerade (at least the earlier editions) isn't as Dysfunctional as Ron often likes to target them for.  Certainly the Story Now material is a bit weak, but that's just bad writing from before the invention of Story Now concepts (not all writers who want to design Story Now have had the luxury of studying Lajos Egri).  And while it can be argued that the absence of Transitional³ Systems tends to let Step on Up issues overwhelm the others, that's still only a minor example of bad writing (by absenting the Transition³).  And I can't see how it fails in any way to support The Dream; so what would fix it?  Write a chapter on a System of Transition³ and managing focus (it wouldn't even need to index the GNS) and voila!

As big of System as Vampire is ("big" as in 'doesn't convert well to a "lite" system' or 'doesn't support downloading from the internet well'), it can probably offer nearly all GNS modes, Hybrids, and combinations (either serially via Transition³ or Congruently) fairly well; it can and (in practice with a players who practice the traditional System of Transparent Transition³ - Drift - effectively without being conscious of it) does do this already.  This explains its popularity in the face of any supposed GNS Coherency problems (my dictionaries say coherency is a word).  Certainly "System Does Matter;" most importantly the System of Drift implicit (and unwritten) in all those games that don't clearly focus on singular GNS modes (or "functional Hybrids").

Why isn't there more analysis of existing games focusing on these kinds of Transitional³ strategies already employed by successful end-users (as a source to mine for new System ideas - the tradition of Transparent Transition³)?  Because of an incorrect bias towards 'monotheism' of the GNS I think.

Okay, let's review:

[list=1][*]Dysfunction occurs when two or more modes of GNS play are facilitated¹ at the same time by the same game.

[*]You can have a game that supports more than one GNS mode by being a Hybrid or during points of Congruence (or by Drifting an Abashed System).

[*]All of the games that Ron deems Incoherent in design (because he observes that at some point the become Dysfunctional in play¹), also fit the definition he gives of a Hybrid.

[*]With a little Drift, Abashed games become non-Dysfunctional or "extremely Coherent."

[*]Transition³...is merely making Drift and explicit component of System.

[*]The Lumpley Principle does not necessarily require that System be written out and explicit in the game's text.

[*]Drift is [therefore] traditionally a part of System, just not needing to be as explicit as Transition³.

[*]An Incoherent game will work¹ with some Drift (Abashed games are therefore just 'a little Incoherent').

[*]How can any game be Incoherent?  [Hint: they can't.]

[*]The only thing that Incoherence is then is an example of people playing the System wrong.  [As in 'forgetting traditional unwritten Transparent Transition³,' exempli gratia "Drift."][/list:o]I've gone to a lot of trouble and thought to make this theorem as obvious as possible, since I am not able to hang around for the discussion that will follow (my time only affording being a lurker now).  I suggest that any response try and keep to just one counter-argument per any one of these points (perhaps in individual threads connecting back to this one).  Discuss that any until the point is comfortably invalidated and then consider the theorem dismissed for as far as your personal opinion goes.  Considering the venue, I don't expect anyone to champion this argument despite the logic of it, but it would be nice if no one dismissed it out of hand, instead clearly invalidating at least one point for their opinion.  (Ergo, to satisfy yourself that the theorem fails for you, first find the weak link in this chain.)

The spirit of the theory is that Drift is Transition³ that has always been with us and therefore an implicit part of System making all 'Incoherent' games merely mediocre Hybrids that can cause confusion in the absence of explicit Transitional³ Systems.  The hope is that, with this understanding, perhaps some analysis can be made of how those have worked in the past and how explicit Transitional³ schemes can be worked out from those practices for future Hybrid games.  (Or...what Transitional³ System would 'fix' Vampire: the Masquerade?)

Fang Langford

p. s. If it seems like I'm being a bit PMSy, it's because we're having another miscarriage (that makes it 8 pregnancies and 2 kids so far).

¹ Note: all the usual 'dodges' are in effect here; with actual real play/real people examples, with no mention of user-intent only observable behaviour, only when two modes are conflicting/when a choice must be made, only during full "Instances of Play," and et cetera.  Confusion often stems from ideas like Congruence, which seems based on a decision-level frame of reference, not the usual "Instance of Play."  (Why a model so 'integral' to successful gaming experiences needs to hide behind all these caveats baffles me.)

² The development of Scattershot is hereby permanently suspended.  This does not happen because 'it was too hard' or because 'it failed.'  (Despite implications and 'wait and see' statements to the contrary, no one has thus far presented a good case to justify their opinions that it is not possible to support any GNS mode or Hybrid desired within one game.)  I simply have other things I want to do more.  (Comics, comics, comics - hee hee!)  Having no intention to carry the effort further means I'm no longer a designer and therefore am a lurker.  If you have any questions on how to make use of what is here of it, I'm still available at

ripjack@mad.scientist.com to answer them.

³ I created the term Transition merely to lend Drift some legitimacy before I realized how widespread of tradition it was.  I'm not sure how 'Drift' became a 'dirty word' considering how widely accepted and expected it is.  Perhaps the connotation that supposedly 'Incoherent Systems are Dysfunctional' forced the implication that Drift was bad because you 'only needed it for bad games.'[/list:u]Addendum: I really have a problem with decrying gaming that is "un-fun."  Is fun being scared in a horror-genre game?  Is fun losing at a Step on Up game?  Is fun using gaming as a means of flirtation with the natural out-of-game intention?  Is fun learning tough lessons that conflict with one's unspoken beliefs?  I don't think so.  If it were, then saying you were avoiding "un-fun" games would be about as edifying as saying "I wouldn't cut off my arm with a dull pocket knife because it might hurt."  Let's lay off the ambiguous term "fun" and use something more appropriate, for example: engaging.  (That way we could invent games founded on things like tearjerkers: games to make you sad.)

[Wormwood]

Fang,

I must say I essentially agree with your thesis. I'd only add that covert methods for promoting drift may be even more crucial towards acheiving it's results than overt methods, i.e. transition.

From the perspective of technical play, what you say makes sense. When you take an ungraded class, the quality is often related to how the material is transitioned, not simply the nature of the material. A similiar feature seems to apply to differing modes in GNS.

So, I suppose that means I'll defend the point, until someone manges to change my mind on it.

  -Mendel S.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

As far as I can tell, the single point of contention is whether 1st edition Vampire "isn't that bad," or more generally, whether a game text can be counter-productive to having fun. I think it can.

Whether anyone else thinks so, all I can say is, "Up to you."

What always puzzles me is that people who assert that incoherent game design is a good thing, because apparently it's desirable to tinker rules to taste, also assert very clearly that a game's design affects how well it plays. Seems to me that there's no need on my part to talk with them - they've taken both sides of the argument and thus can argue against whatever point is raised.

Best,
Ron

[Anon LeBlanc]

ah, Rno's just sore 'cuz somebdy proved there ain't no incoherence.  all games work, just add drift rulez!

stop whining, la joueur makes a good argument, if you can't talk the points he used why answer?.

ROCK ON!
anon

--
member of the BLANK GENERATION

[Bankuei]

Hi Fang,

Glad to at least hear a last call from you here.  You've provided some great stuff, and good discussion for all.  On this one, I don't agree with a couple points, and unless someone cares to discuss them, I'm happy at leaving it at "My view, your view, cool".

1.   Dysfunction occurs when two or more modes of GNS play are facilitated at the same time by the same game.

(snip)

3. All of the games that Ron deems Incoherent in design (because he observes that at some point the become Dysfunctional in play?), also fit the definition he gives of a Hybrid.

Um, no.  Dysfunction occurs when two or more modes CANNOT be facilitated at once, but the game suggests that they can.  That really is the key difference between Incoherence and Hybrids, the functional ability to fulfill 2 or more modes at the same time, without having to necessarily sacrifice one for the other.

7.  Drift is [therefore] traditionally a part of System, just not needing to be as explicit as Transition.

You've just stated, System Doesn't Matter, and again, we'll go with the usual caveats("Yes, you can Drift to your delight", "Yes, Drift happens", etc.) and again come back to the point that there is a big difference between selling someone a car that needs a new paint job or interior, and selling someone a car without an engine or transmission.

To pull up a very clear example:  Why Scattershot?  Why not just use GURPS, or AD&D2E highly Drifted?  If we want to argue that anything is possible with "enough Drift" that's about the same as saying the Pool is a highly Drifted version of Rolemaster.

The key problem here is that the rules as written, give a guideline and roadmap for "System in play".  Nothing, and absolutely nothing, in Rolemaster as written gives any sort of guidelines to drift it over to the Pool, Scattershot, or a lot of other games.  Expecting a group of players to pick up a book as written, magically pluck the possible range of Drift, unto the point of never actually using the rules in the book, is crazy.  

It is effectively the argument held by a variety of folks, for a variety of games, when they say, "It can do everything!"(with enough Drift).

Under this logic, it is possible to design the perfect, do-everything game, and I'll give it to you right now:

-Do whatever you want

Brilliant, isn't it?  With enough Drift, you can add points of contact, kewl powers, gamist reward, thematic support mechanics, or genre enforcement.  It's so flexible!

Granted, this is a snarky example, but in all honesty, let's not confuse Drift and Design.  Design is the work of the designers and writers, its what we get with the written rules and whatever materials come with the game.  Drift is everything you choose to "make up" or change after that.  Design is the work of the designers, Drift is the work of the players.

Arguing that bad design isn't possible because drift can make up for it, is like arguing that a house without a roof is just as good as one with a roof, because you can always add your own.

Let's be honest about the situation: sure, we've got an evolving hobby, with understanding growing as it continues.  Mistakes will be made.  Let's not be afraid to call out bad design, so that we can analyze it instead of being caught up defending or attacking it based on identification rather than observation.  If people's feelings get hurt, well, that's too bad.  It's not like bad surgery or bad engineering where people's lives are on the line.  

Let's not overlook bad design with excuses, but rather look where it stands strong and where it falls down, and see about learning from it.  Let's stop having a hobby where you have to re-invent the wheel based on Drift, over and over, because someone failed to do their homework, and in most cases, you paid cash for it.

Chris

[ethan_greer]

Here's what I get from the essay:  Drift is bad when it leads to dysfunctional play.  Drift (Transition) is a good thing when it leads to functional play.  Pretty straight-forward.

Where I disagree with Fang is his ommision of the following observation:  Games whose written mechanics reward a certain style of decision are more effective at curbing Drift towards dysfunction than those that don't reward a certain style of decision.

Incoherent games (which I believe do exist) are games that are easilly drifted to dysfunction, or ones in which the author assumes Drift or Transition will take place in a functional manner when no guidelines are provided for such Transition.

[Marco]

Fang isn't saying a game's design can't effect how fun it is (at least for a given person)--he's saying that 'Drift' is an innate part of System--an unavoidable part of design, intentional or not--and therefore, even if it is true that a system need be drifted for a given group to produce fun play--that is not working against the system, playing outside it, or otherwise countermanding it in any way. It is, still, playing with that system.*

The problem is that Drift is so poorly defined as to be almost meaningless. Someone (Jack?) sorta likened playing AD&D without the aging rules to re-writing Monopoly to be chess. You mention "rules tinkering." Ralph declared drift to be "work" or "effort."

This is the heavy-side of drift. The vast, vast majority of what goes on in games I've seen that would even fit the definition (as I understand it) is so much lighter as to make it absurd when they're grouped  together.

Ron: I'm not arguing both sides. I'm arguing right up the middle. Take AD&D: if I figure I have to re-write the magic rules to enjoy play, yeah, I might agree that I'd be better off with another game. But if all I have to do is ditch the Psionics rules in the back of the PHB, I'm *not.* (and if someone is, cool--but that's why it's all super-duper-incredibly personal)

Tell me they're both the same thing--philosophically--and I'll look at you funny. Tell me you never *said* they were the same thing, and I'm not sure I agree with that--drift, IME gets treated implicitly as a boolean: it's either on or off.

-Marco
* I see this as very similar to the way that a traditional GM must set up situation for a game and the way that players make characters (each player then rejecting some aspect of the rules-set for some other one).

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The Venn diagram:

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

Drift, as I understand it, seems to come from the GNS box and effect the rules which has effects that travels up the diagram like dominoes.

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

With system does matter, part of what we seem to be saying is that the printed book, and the rules contained therein effects play in both directions. Certain rules suggest certain GNS mode, suggest certain Exploration suggest certian Social contracts

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

Drift comes when the published social contract, exploration or GNS mode is not desired by a play group but for some reason the rules, or a portion of the rules is desired.

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

(you'll have to imagine that the black portion of these two diagrams are actually on line and it then splits into the two colored forks, indicating  that the red portion is the game as written and the blue fork is how a play group varies the game rules.)

The question is how much drift does it take? Does it require so much work that you may as well start from scratch? (see the incoherent kit-bashing thread)

[Mike Holmes]

Marco, let's assume that your definition is right. Who ever said that drift was bad? I mean, some people like it, some people don't. Seems like a personal preference.

The question is one of design. Play and design are being mixed up here quite a lot once again. If I'm designing a game, do I want to make it such that it does not accomplish any goal? The idea being that the players can then do what it takes to make it accomplish some goal? Even if all games do require some drift, should I make mine such that it requires more than neccessary?

Actually, if you say yes, I'll agree with that, too. I mean, what is a non-system specific setting supplement, if not something that needs some drift to incorporate into a game? And that's fine. Players know what they're getting into here.

The only thing that anyone has ever said was always wrong was games that were written in such a manner as to cause confusion as to what the goal of play was. If a game indicates that it needs to be drifted, and what the likely effects of Drift are, then no problem. It's not making the required drift obvious and clear, and then making it neccessary that's problematic. What Fang would apparently call bad writing. I'd say it goes beyond that to include designers who write well, but are trying to advocate doing things that just can't be done effectively in RPGs. That is, they say, "play like this because this system will do that," and then it fails to do that for a significant number of players.

If and when Drift fixes this, it's a fine, fine thing, actually. The point is to design games that don't have severe problems that require Drift.
Because some players won't realize what needs to be done. They won't do the required Drifting, and then they'll have incoherent play.

Play can be incoherent, but not games. A particular game can tend to produce incoherency more than others, but that'll be on a case by case basis depending on the game and the group and how they employ it. Again, when drift fixes a problem in the sorts of play that a game is producing, then it's a wonderful thing.

I wouldn't say, "Don't make a game that needs to be Drifted." I'd say, "Make a game that doesn't need to be Drifted in order to make play that it tends to produce coherent." Given that incoherrent play is play that is dysfunctional by definition, and dysfunction means that games aren't (I'll stay away from "fun") engaging to the players, I can't see how one could say otherwise. Why allow for greater possibility of problematic play than one has to?


I am loathe to directly attack a theory of someone who is not there to defend it, lest I seem to be cherrypicking. So, I haven't gone into my particular objections here to Fang's post, except as they pertain to Marco's comments. If Mendel or, given that he states that he fully supports the theory, Marco want me to make that argument with them playing the part of the opposition, then I will do so upon their indication of such. I'm not enthusiastic to do so, and Ron has summed it up rather well without going into details. But I will if it's seen as neccessary.

Mike

[Marco]

Marco, let's assume that your definition is right. Who ever said that drift was bad? I mean, some people like it, some people don't. Seems like a personal preference.

The question is one of design. Play and design are being mixed up here quite a lot once again. If I'm designing a game, do I want to make it such that it does not accomplish any goal? The idea being that the players can then do what it takes to make it accomplish some goal? Even if all games do require some drift, should I make mine such that it requires more than neccessary?

:: snip ::

Mike

Hi Mike,
I think I said that there is no valuable definition of drift. It means one thing to some people and another thing to others (and mostly in terms of degree--but the change in degree is so sweeping as to make the conversation seem absurd to the opposite interpertation).

I didn't say Drift was bad. I said it was described (often) as "effort" or "work" and had been likened to "rules tinkering" or "re-writing monopoly to be chess." (and then blinking in surprise when someone asks "why not play chess?"). The examples I can think of in my on play of "drift" don't come close to that.

As long as drift is treated like a boolean, the idea of coherent game design is, IMO, in question. How much drift is necessary?*

-Marco
[ * I read, and much liked Chri's MayhemPT game file. If I was going to use it I'd want to add a cool two-phase "climactic battle" resolution system with a higher-risk dice wager on the second half to allow losers of the first round a chance to "come back." Does that say any damn thing at all about his design? No. I can give you every piece of information about how I'd drift it and why and it doesn't tell you if the game lends itself to coherent play as written or not. ]

[Mike Holmes]

Right, Marco, we agree. Drift is not part of the definition of coherence. Never has been. Drift is sometimes a result of incoherence, but certainly not the cause of Incoherence, nor even neccessarily a symptom of it.

Basically if you have to do something to fix a game because it's "broken" for your purposes, then that's what's bad. I think that's one cause of Drift. But it's the problematic design that's a problem, not the Drifting. The Drifting is likely the solution to the problem in this case.

Mike

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

My take on drift is:

Playing in a manner not indicated by the rules as written

recognizing that there is a definite range of drift, from small stuff("All Elves must have Elf History skill") to really big stuff ("We use the Pool for metagame stuff, but using Marvel Universe's stone system instead, and we're playing Rolemaster but utilizing TROS's combat system...").

With that, I think the problem with Incoherence and Drift is that we have a lot of games that claim to push certain agendas, and fail to back it up with usable guidelines or rules to enable that agenda.  There is a big difference between Drifting cause you want to and Drifting because you have to.

For me, the most glaring example is the various Storyteller games, that give you a chapter or two extolling effectively narrativist goals, and then throwing you mercilessly into a World of Sim mechanics where the only recourse is to GM Fiat and fudge, fudge, fudge your way to Golcanda/Ascension/Functional play.  

Playing according to the rules does not deliver the thematic entertainment and "Storytelling" it promises.  You are forced to either ignor the chapters explaining what storytelling is about, or you're forced to ignor rules as written.  This is not Hybrid play in any fashion.

To give a counter-example, TROS can be played all the way according to the rules, and will deliver the goods it promises.  High Sim stuff happens, Narrativism happens, and neither shoves nor jostles the other. That's functional hybrid play.  I'm not forced to have to renegotiate the Social Contract based on choosing between rules as written and "intended creative agenda" all the time.

My key point is that drift is always an option.  When you MUST drift, in order to play, then we have incoherency.

Thoughts?

Chris

[John Kim]

I didn't say Drift was bad. I said it was described (often) as "effort" or "work" and had been likened to "rules tinkering" or "re-writing monopoly to be chess." (and then blinking in surprise when someone asks "why not play chess?"). The examples I can think of in my on play of "drift" don't come close to that.

As long as drift is treated like a boolean, the idea of coherent game design is, IMO, in question. How much drift is necessary?

OK, here is the problem I have with this.  Essentially, you seem to be saying that dropping rules is essentially effortless.  i.e. It counts very little towards rules.  

The problem I have is this:  I have run and played in a number of "systemless" games (i.e. in a broad sense we have an unwritten system, but there is nothing written down).  Essentially, the GM is final arbiter but is flexible.  We may occaisionally throw dice if the outcome is in doubt.  

Basically, it is effortless to drift into this.  i.e. I can pick up virtually any game and play it in a more-or-less systemless mode.  Heck, it's actually easier to play systemless since I don't have to read the rulebook very well.  But really what I am doing is substituting one system (i.e. my unwritten, intuitive one) for another.  

Now, on the other hand, a game could really aim for systemless (or intuitive-system) play.  For example, Fudge is essentially a toolkit -- and moreover it is a toolkit which encourages fudging and/or drift.  The less a system specifies, the more it puts in the hands of the participants.  For example, a universal system with no sourcebook is a less complete game that asks that the participants make up their own world.  On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with that.  On the other hand, the system definitely is doing less.  

If you judge that "doing less" and "allowing for drift" is just as good as actually specifying how to play, then you really get to the point of saying that the perfect system is "do what you want".

[M. J. Young]

The gaming community has a long history of practicing Drift.  It's so ingrained that perhaps no one ever thought to write it into their System, before.  So what?  That doesn't make those games 'broken,' unplayable, or Dysfunctional, simply poorly written from an era of poorly understood applied role-playing game design theory.

I've had two threads in my mind that I've been thinking of starting for a couple weeks now, holding off until I have time to initiate something of that sort. It appears tonight that both have been started. This is one.

Long before I heard of role playing games I was a gamer--board games, card games, parlor games, trivia games, even the occasional bookcase and war games.

As a gamer, I expect the rules of the game to tell me how to play. It's as simple as that.

Sure, people adapt games. I don't. I play as close to the rules as I can manage, and if it doesn't work, it's a broken game, and I have no intention of fixing it.

Call me strange; call me an outsider, someone who doesn't understand the hobby. But allow me this much: role playing games cannot reach the mass market as long as it's inherent in the design that they don't work as written. Most people expect a game to play as designed, not as adjusted by the user.

I think Fang is saying something I've heard a lot of people say of late: that incoherence is good and sells well because it provides support for multiple goals, and players can ignore the support for those goals that don't interest them, in essence customizing the game to their own needs. I find this at least foolish. Multiverser is certainly customizable--it frequently says that the referee should use whichever of certain rules seem most appropriate and best for the circumstances of the moment, about many things. It doesn't thereby create rules that must be ignored to be able to understand or play the game. It explicitly assigns referees the task of setting some of the dials and switches, but other than in those situations in which it's this way or that way there isn't any overall "this choice won't work in this area if you made that choice in that area"--you don't have to "ignore entire chapters" to get it to work.

Incoherence is not necessary for customizability, and is an obstacle to play. Customizing incoherent games into coherent play inherently means making choices that will make the game in play unrecognizable to some players whose customization choices were contrary.

Incoherence is still bad design.

--M. J. Young

[Jake Norwood]

My key point is that drift is always an option. When you MUST drift, in order to play, then we have incoherency.

I'll agree with that. I'd like to add more, but I can't. I don't have a problem with incoherent games anymore than I have with poorly written action movies. I'll watch 'em and buy 'em, but they'll never capture me like Gladiator did.

Jake