No More Incoherence! - A Rant

[C. Edwards]

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, and probably many others, agree that as long as role-playing games don't work as written that there is zero chance of them reaching into the mainstream market. Just the fact that most rpgs don't have a 'goal' (generally meant as 'win condition' that determines when the game is over) puts them in another dimension. Having to play 'cut and paste' with the rules puts rpgs completely in the 'when hell freezes over' category for most people. Except for us pervy gamer types anyway. :)

-Chris

[Wormwood]

The paradox of sales is that if you give someone what they think they want, then you get the sale. But if you sell someone what they actually want, then you get the repeat business.

All too often these two things are quite different. One of the main utilities of drift, especially covertly supported drift, is that of giving the purchaser of an RPG both of them. For example, consider V:tM. The main selling point of the game is the idea of thematic play and deep moral conflicts. But the actual reason most people buy Vampire books is for the setting, and the "immersiveness" of it. Simply put if Vampire were coherent it never would have sold as well, and probably wouldn't play as well.

Ultimately the problem lies in understanding the layered elements of how the game translates through the text to the players.

To restrict this process to just the fully open level is tempting. Then indeed the game is what the game is, and is played as it is written. But this is not in practice how games are written, and trying to produce something like this is often very difficult. Especially since you must eliminate the key element of reader interpretation. By making the text transparent you can project the game as it is to the reader. Of course this projection will subsequently rely on memory and re-exposure to the text. Hence drift is inevitable, and innately part of what occurs in games. But on the other hand the risks of the lack of subtlety and directness of the single layer can be singificant. This will inevitably seem didatic and constrained. However, in the context of a game, there is a certain desirability for this as well.

Depth of translation provides a different structure, permitting more duplicity, and hence allowing the satisfaction of more readers. The risk in this case is that of overcomplexity, where the necessary drift to acheive a rapport (one of several possible ones, perhaps) is prohibitive. It is a subtle balance.

The key holy grail of this approach is that of the deep, but nearly transparent text. This provides, very clearly, one of a collection of translations, geared towards the reader. This is a powerful technique, but one that is difficult to study without accepting the depth as much as the transparency. In essence, the naive way to design is accidental depth, but lack of transparency. The more mature method is to develop transparency. But there is no easy method to reach both depth and transparency, the former must be explored.

Drift is an intrinsic part of the designer's art. In many ways, accounting and exploiting drift is a difficult but potent tool of game design. Making this explicit is one approach, but there are others as well. In the very least the eschewing of this principle leads to a poorer design space, and ultimately to misunderstand the richness of even accidental designs.  
I hope that helps,

   - Mendel S.

[ethan_greer]

I think I get what you're saying, Mendel, but I disagree with it.  Basically, game text that is more open to individual interpretation is problematic because it will inevitably lead to disfunctional play when one player's expectations are totally different from another player's.  This leads to rules arguments and all sorts of bad stuff that basically prevents good role-playing.

Then again, a game using this technique may very well sell better.  But sales are not what we're talking about, are they?  We're talking about actual play.

[Wormwood]

Ethan,

I argue that, a game which relies upon transparency will necessarilly have drift, regardless of the transparency, and hence will have uncontrolled interpretations. This leads to almost inevitable dysfunctionality, as it requires constant back-checking to maintain that transparency.

On the other hand a game which controls drift, is far more likely to produce multiple functional attractors for interpretation. The switching between attractors is easier the more "effectively transparent" the system is, and these attractors are innately more stable, since they incorporate drift as an element. This phenomena is analogous to people realizing that there is another way to interpret / play the game, and for lack of a better term converting. This adjustment occurs frequently, and is, incidently, part of the reason facilitation is so vital to understanding actual play.

Sure some people will find a perspective and adhere to it, inspite of reduced enjoyment. But this is quite possibly disfunctional behavior on the part of the player. On a side note, it also bears mentioning that drift is frequently found in even "well-defined" games. Observing the subtle drifts found in Pinochle and Monopoly is a useful excercise, as well as that of other "pure" games. Drift ultimately is a very deep and very important concept, it is a description of how humans interact with rules. To treat it as an error is a necessarilly a naive perspective on human behavior in games.

I hope that helps,

   -Mendel S.

[Marco]

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".

Hi John,

Okay, hold the phone: I'm not saying throw everything out and you'll be fine. I'm saying that deciding, say, not to use the Charisma Rules in AD&D isn't the same as totally re-designing the magic system (and if you think that's just pedantic, the reason I bothered to say that is because a post from one of the people here on RPGnet did use an extreme example of that as drift, concluding "why not play [game drifted to]?"

I'm also saying that constructing an adventure to work around the VtM frenzy rules (which I have seen cited as running counter to the Narrativist nature of the text--as an example) is not the same as not the same as, say, altering the speed chart in Hero (the idea that a GM might construct a scenario to produce coherent play is right in line with what I think Fang was saying--that some form of Drift is an irrevocable part of System).

I'm saying that the concept (and hell, maybe I'm the only one that has it) that an Incoherent system needs to be drifted to produce coherent play is highly questionable until drift is better defined.

I'm having a PM discussion with Chris about MayhemPT right now in PM's. It's about rule-changes to his system (in this case: the representation of gear). The fact that I'd (likely) drift his system to do what I want to with it (play a Robo-Racer and compete against peers in an arms-race (literally!) of building better and better (and more outrageous) machines doesn't say anything about the system's ability to produce coherent play without those rules.

The fact that I'd need to drift it (in this case, maybe heavily) still says nothing about the rules themselves. I'm certainly not saying I'd throw the rest of the system out--far to the contrary, I think it's the core of the system that makes it clear how gear can/should/would work.

And yet, that still says nothing at all about the rules ability, as they stand, to produce coherent play.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I totally agree that a game that is clear about how to drift it, and what the results of such drift are, is a good thing. The question is, does a game like V:TM inform players that they may need to drift, and what the effects of such drift might be. Or does it present a lot of material that players will tend to look at as optional given that it all doesn't seem to work together.

Because the former model is fine. But I think that the problem with these games is that they are the latter. They claim to be fine as is. So when they do get drifted, players who don't like the direction of the drift, who haven't been part of chosing the direction of the drift, may (note "may", this is not absolute) become disenfranchised.

Again, it's not drift that's bad, and it's not that a game can be drifted or even needs to be drifted. It's that the game that needs to be drifted doesn't tell you what the ramifications are.

In Universalis, we present the Gimmick rule. Basically this says to the players that it's totally OK to drift the rules. But it does it in the framework of the game. Such that any player can object. In the process of which, hopefully, players will ensure that the system that results is one they like, and does what they want. The idea being that drift (or transition since this is enabled by the game) will occur, and all will remain functional.

Few other games have that sort of control over drift. Or text explaining the ramifications of drift (though I've seen that on occasion as well). The result of which is a higher tendency to produce incoherent play.

So are we agreeing or disagreeing still, Mendel?

Mike

[Marco]

I think I get what you're saying, Mendel, but I disagree with it.  Basically, game text that is more open to individual interpretation is problematic because it will inevitably lead to disfunctional play when one player's expectations are totally different from another player's.  This leads to rules arguments and all sorts of bad stuff that basically prevents good role-playing.

Then again, a game using this technique may very well sell better.  But sales are not what we're talking about, are they?  We're talking about actual play.

It will potentially lead to a resolution of what is delivered vs. what is expected (and this is on the parts of the players, not the game). That doesn't inevitably lead to dysfunction. C'mon, this exactly sort of prescriptive stuff is what I'm objecting to.

And it's not the language I'm talking about--I credit ethan with the acumen to use the term inevitable (in italics) to mean "assuredly" or "without fail"--and I categorize that in the realm of belief.

No one always gets what they expected in real life. It doesn't always lead to dysfunction. When it *does* lead to bitter disappointment it's because the level of expectation was both extremely high and unrealisitc. The inevitably doesn't credit the participants with any responsiblity for their own dysfunction--I guarantee you, if you're in a power-struggle it's *your* responsibility--not all the other guy's and certainly not some game designer dude.

-Marco

[Marco]

I totally agree that a game that is clear about how to drift it, and what the results of such drift are, is a good thing. The question is, does a game like V:TM inform players that they may need to drift, and what the effects of such drift might be. Or does it present a lot of material that players will tend to look at as optional given that it all doesn't seem to work together.

Mike

For what it's worth, I agree that it would be hella-good for a game to decribe different potential modes and focuses of play. One good thing that has come out of this thread is that I'm doing that in my current designs.

I suspect that it's the lack of necessity of that for most people that accounts for the popularity of a lot of designs.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Marco, when I read "inevitably" in Ethan's post, I read it to mean that in some game, somewhere it will happen. Not that it will inevitably happen in every game. And even that statement may be too much. But would you buy it if we were to replace inevitably with "likely"? Or "more likely" (really more accurate because dysfunctions like this will occur despite system sometimes?

Would you then agree?

Mike

[Marco]

Marco, when I read "inevitably" in Ethan's post, I read it to mean that in some game, somewhere it will happen. Not that it will inevitably happen in every game. And even that statement may be too much. But would you buy it if we were to replace inevitably with "likely"? Or "more likely" (really more accurate because dysfunctions like this will occur despite system sometimes?

Would you then agree?

Mike

Yuh, I think I could agree to that.

I'd prefer it be presented as "a potential-trigger for dysfunction" rather than a "cause." But I could, y'know, buy the "more likely" as a personal take on it that I wouldn't have responded to.

The italics are pretty strong for sometime-somewhere though. I mean, everyone agrees that nothing is 'always' (in anything)--but there's a lot of space between "produces a higher incidence of" and inevitable (IMO).

Really, though, the thread's about drift being implicit in system--and I'm not sure we're any closer to that. I suspect my "toolkit" way of looking at a design comes from the fact that when I play, it tends to be relatively condensed sessions with beginings, middles, and ends where the genre is not appearent at the outset and the starting sitution is usually very carefully considered--and the PC's identities are known by the GM during set up to ensure extremely relevant games (and the players discuss PC's with with eachother during generation).

I try to run games that way too.

It's clear not everyone does it like that--so ultimately it comes down to a matter of personal experience and perception thereof.

-Marco

[ethan_greer]

I shouldn't have used italics.  Marco, I didn't mean to get your hackles up.  Let me rephrase:  When, in a single group of players, one player's expectations are at odds with another's expectations, that group's play will be dysfunctional.  I believe that to be the case, but I might be wrong.  My point is that a game text that does not effectively address the players' expectations is more likely to lead to such dysfunctional play.

Is a game text such as Mendel postulates possible?  I think it is.  Has such a text been produced?  I don't know.  But I don't believe that Vampire fits the bill.

[Wormwood]

Mike,

I see drift control as a very effective work horse in game design. Of course the hard part about drift control is that an explicit method will tend to be a bit more subject to drift itself (although any method is, ultimately). I expect that there may be implicit elements in Universailis that help on that end too, alas I haven't yet managed to look it over.

I never claim Vampire acheives more than an accidental drift control, as much culturally as otherwise. The same also appears in several versions of D&D. This drift control is apparent from the ease by which people take the game with something in mind, and then immediately drift to something else. This does frustrate the consumer who wants truth in advertising, but regretably this is a minority. Ethan, I expect this answers your question on this matter too.

One thing I've been meaning to post about is how game design mimics play. Not in the sense that play can be defined by the design, as much as the processes to achieve one have strong associations to the processes in the other. I think that there is an element of drift in design. But tweaking where that comes from is a difficult task in itself.

Thank you for your time,

   -Mendel S.

[Green]

I think I get what you're saying, Mendel, but I disagree with it.  Basically, game text that is more open to individual interpretation is problematic because it will inevitably lead to disfunctional play when one player's expectations are totally different from another player's.  This leads to rules arguments and all sorts of bad stuff that basically prevents good role-playing.

Then again, a game using this technique may very well sell better.  But sales are not what we're talking about, are they?  We're talking about actual play.

This is true.  It has been my experience on several occasions when my idea about what a game was about was different from the group's.  Even though I was willing to admit that RPGs, as a form of literature and drama, are by necessity interpretive, the group was having none of that, and my thoughts and views more or less discarded.  Needless to say, it was not a pleasant experience.

[Marco]

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

Well MJ, I don't think you're wrong or strange--but I do think you're applying your standard universally.

1. RPG's may have rules but they are essentially a medium--that requires creative interpertation of some sort. Unlike chess. One groups play may be unrecognizable to another group without chaning a rule at all (a session when no mechancics come up is possible in many games, I don't know about Multiverser--in that event it could be mistaken for something else quite easily).

2. "Doesn't work" is poorly defined. Do you mean if you can't make out the rules you won't fix it? Does it mean that if you play GURPS you have to buy all the additional books? If you'd run into Time Ship, would you have lit the candles and held the seance before playing? When I see "doesn't work" I'm not sure what that means.

My read is that the writer is usually saying "I'd have done it different." Under many common meanings of "work" Vampire worked fine. Note that while it didn't hit "main stream" it did bust out of the D&D corridor.

3. Fang is saying that drift is inherent in system (I think). I think that's true. If I were to buy and play Multiverser and find that some aspect of it didn't suit me, I'd be drifting it, no? (I mean. I'm sure it's modular and such--but I could decide to use Fortune in the Middle if it's not already in there--or Fortune at the end if it does--and if holds forth on both of those aspects, I'm sure I could find somehting else I might want to drift).

Does that make Multiverser Inchoherent? A bad design? What does that mean? (very little as far as I can tell).

Does drift (you say "customization"--I'm not clear on whether that's a subset of drift or not) only cross the boundary into existence when it makes one groups play unrecgonizable to the next?

In short what are you saying beyond "I think Multiverser is well designed and you don't need to change any rules to play it?" I think the Vampire guys probably thought that too.

-Marco

[Marco]

This is true.  It has been my experience on several occasions when my idea about what a game was about was different from the group's.  Even though I was willing to admit that RPGs, as a form of literature and drama, are by necessity interpretive, the group was having none of that, and my thoughts and views more or less discarded.  Needless to say, it was not a pleasant experience.

There is no ruleset I'm aware of that will turn jerks into reasonable people. I think their dismisial of you owes more to them than the game they were playing though.

-Marco
[Edited: came off flippiant. ]