No More Incoherence! - A Rant

[John Kim]

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?  

The thing is, I think you have a particular view of what the rules of an RPG are.  A common theme to recent discussion has been confusion over what is referred to when we say "system".  That is, someone says "System matters"?  But what is included in system?  Is setting a part of system?  Many published games include a setting as an integral part of the system, such that it requires significant modification to use it for a different setting.  However, other games are designed to be universal.  

But it goes much deeper than that.  Some systems specify how to do things which are not specified in other systems.  At an extreme example, Puppetland has a rule which says that players cannot make out-of-character statements -- not even "My character sits down."  This is something which other games don't have rules for -- it is left up to the group.  In discussion, we want "system" to refer to a specific thing -- but published game rules cover different scope.  


Marco, you suggest defining "Heavy Drift" as "major modification to the rules system" -- but that means that the less that is specified in the rules, the less chance that Heavy Drift is called for.  Even though you specify that change is in proportion to the size of the rules, a very unspecific rules set likely means that no change at all is required.  This is exactly what you say when you refer to play becoming unrecognizable without changing a rule at all.  

Let me take a specific example:  I run a game of original AD&D, but it is set in a royal palace where the PCs are various residents.  As play progresses they discover that there is some sort of mystery going on.  We follow the rules exactly as written.  When combat comes up, we duly roll the dice.  However, for many sessions there is no combat: just dialogue with various palace members, finding clues, and wandering about.  This required no rules modifications -- but I would argue that it should be considered major drift from original AD&D.

[Marco]

Let me take a specific example:  I run a game of original AD&D, but it is set in a royal palace where the PCs are various residents.  As play progresses they discover that there is some sort of mystery going on.  We follow the rules exactly as written.  When combat comes up, we duly roll the dice.  However, for many sessions there is no combat: just dialogue with various palace members, finding clues, and wandering about.  This required no rules modifications -- but I would argue that it should be considered major drift from original AD&D.

Hi John,

I actually specified this description as "situational drift"--and for puppet land it would, I agree, be "major" to change the situation dramatically. But not "heavy" since no effort was expended changing rules.

For AD&D, though, I don't think you can say that though. I find nothing in the description of the game that tells you explicitly where or how to play. Sure, Chainmail took place in dungeons--but Village of Homlet wasn't so far off what you describe.

You choose Puppet Land--which explicitly has meta-game rules as a counter example--a good one, but I don't think you could easily argue it isn't extreme in that regard.

The idea that you can say you know what AD&D is supposed to be like is what I disagree with. There's nothing that mandates how often combat should come up. There's nothing that mandates that you can't play a political game. These assumptions are, IMO, like phrenologists pouring over a skull and going "there's a bump in the combat section--it must be violent."

It's a theory that, like subliminals, seems to make sense. I'm challenging it. Since the studies have not been done to provide the body of evidence needed (and heaven knows what you'd use for a control) I don't see any way to prove it--but are we really so sure that I'm the only wierdo who doesn't just buy into it that we can go around confidently saying "if you put a combat system in a game then the game is about combat?"--without even qualifying it as an unproven theory?

If you play so that rules sections are cut out--and construct the game so that that's intentional then, yes, I'd categorize it as drift (and for some examples, very major--for most, I think minor). But to decide what a game's base-line is when it's not specified seems very iffy to me.

-Marco

[Valamir]

The idea that you can say you know what AD&D is supposed to be like is what I disagree with. There's nothing that mandates how often combat should come up. There's nothing that mandates that you can't play a political game. These assumptions are, IMO, like phrenologists pouring over a skull and going "there's a bump in the combat section--it must be violent."

Oh come now Marco.  In the effort to make your point, you're straying into hyperbole.  Virtually every rule in AD&D and virtually every variant published in Dragon, and I'd venture to guess virtually every house rule ever written had something to do with Combat.  Either combat directly or with things whose primary purpose was modifying combat effectiveness (like encomberance, fatigue, and falling damage).  This is way beyond someones untested assumptions.

Besides you are falling into a trap that is a pretty common one with you.  Saying a game is "about" something in no way mandates that that's all it can be used for.  

Besides #2, if you can't tell what a game is supposed to be like and what it looks like in play from reading the text and playing a few times, that's a whole nother category of design failure.  One that Jack brings up in another thread, and one that most RPGs are guilty of.

[John Kim]

I actually specified this description as "situational drift"--and for puppet land it would, I agree, be "major" to change the situation dramatically. But not "heavy" since no effort was expended changing rules.

For AD&D, though, I don't think you can say that though. I find nothing in the description of the game that tells you explicitly where or how to play.

Well, I don't agree, but it doesn't really matter.  Regardless of what AD&D says, your point in general is true.  You can write a game which has no rules or hints for situation.  After all, the GM and/or players can make this up for themselves.  Further, I can write a game which has no rules or hints for setting.  The GM and players can create their own world however they like.  For that matter, I can write a game which has no character generation system.  The GM and players can make up characters however they like.  

Now, I would guess that you will jump in objection to that last one.  You will say that it's fine to create the whole rest of the world without any rules, but rules for player character creation are a "core" of the system.  I would say that this is a common custom in some previous published RPGs, but there's no intrinsic logic to it.  You just have a habit of doing things this way: i.e. certain things you always look in the book for how to do, certain things you make up for yourself.  

Nor do I agree that the customary "core" parts are the hardest.  Designing a complete world and characters is difficult and exactly how it is done makes a huge difference to play.  Nor is playing without any of the other stuff terribly difficult.  Heck, I did it when I was only nine years old.  

So getting back to the question of drift...  

The idea that you can say you know what AD&D is supposed to be like is what I disagree with. There's nothing that mandates how often combat should come up. There's nothing that mandates that you can't play a political game.
...
If you play so that rules sections are cut out--and construct the game so that that's intentional then, yes, I'd categorize it as drift (and for some examples, very major--for most, I think minor). But to decide what a game's base-line is when it's not specified seems very iffy to me.  

I could quibble about AD&D, but in general, sure -- you can make a game where you can't tell from reading it what play is supposed to be like.  I guess there is a gap in terminology here.  Perhaps we could say that requiring significant change for functional play is "Incoherency", while simply leaving vital elements unspecified is "Incompleteness".   The literal idea of drift only really applies to Incoherent games.  We need a parallel term, then, for what is done with Incomplete games to complete their functionality.

[Marco]

The idea that you can say you know what AD&D is supposed to be like is what I disagree with. There's nothing that mandates how often combat should come up. There's nothing that mandates that you can't play a political game. These assumptions are, IMO, like phrenologists pouring over a skull and going "there's a bump in the combat section--it must be violent."

Oh come now Marco.  In the effort to make your point, you're straying into hyperbole.  Virtually every rule in AD&D and virtually every variant published in Dragon, and I'd venture to guess virtually every house rule ever written had something to do with Combat.  Either combat directly or with things whose primary purpose was modifying combat effectiveness (like encomberance, fatigue, and falling damage).  This is way beyond someones untested assumptions.

Besides you are falling into a trap that is a pretty common one with you.  Saying a game is "about" something in no way mandates that that's all it can be used for.  

Besides #2, if you can't tell what a game is supposed to be like and what it looks like in play from reading the text and playing a few times, that's a whole nother category of design failure.  One that Jack brings up in another thread, and one that most RPGs are guilty of.

I think you're misunderstanding me.

AD&D is not "about" combat. A whole lotta people play AD&D with a whole lotta combat. Those two statements are not the same thing. A game with knights and cavaliers and rogues and wizards where romping off across the country side is exciting and there are all these mysterious lost tombs filled with traps and treasure that didn't have any rules for combat, magic, traps, or treasure would be (IMO) pretty lame.

If I decide I want to inhabit the world from the top of the social structure rather than the bottom, I'm not changing the game--I can still find a Rust Monster in the treasury (ack!) or throw a Maze spell on myself to be missing when the assassins come. I can get a Mace of Disruption from the catacombs or go out in the woods to find my Druid friend reincarnated as a bear.

Or I can plot and scheme and beware of poison and recruit followers and do all kinds of things. RPG's are a medium, not a message. Using the term "about" with them is, IMO, simply incorrect.

Also: I think I very much (but perhaps not in totality--and perhaps not with some of the more radical designs out there) *can* tell what a game is like from reading the rules (assuming I was going to run it). I think the idea that one can't exists because it's hard to make certain *kinds* of judgments about a game (what GNS mode a rule will result in in *your* play vs. *my* play). But no. I think you read the rules. You interpert them. You run the game. You have a pretty good clue.

Someone else runs it? Well, yeah I'm (hopefully) in for some surprises--but that's because situation is usually pretty darn key to experience--and situation *is* often different each time.

-Marco

[Marco]

I actually specified this description as "situational drift"--and for puppet land it would, I agree, be "major" to change the situation dramatically. But not "heavy" since no effort was expended changing rules.

For AD&D, though, I don't think you can say that though. I find nothing in the description of the game that tells you explicitly where or how to play.

Well, I don't agree, but it doesn't really matter.  Regardless of what AD&D says, your point in general is true.  You can write a game which has no rules or hints for situation.  After all, the GM and/or players can make this up for themselves.  Further, I can write a game which has no rules or hints for setting.  The GM and players can create their own world however they like.  For that matter, I can write a game which has no character generation system.  The GM and players can make up characters however they like.  

Now, I would guess that you will jump in objection to that last one.  You will say that it's fine to create the whole rest of the world without any rules, but rules for player character creation are a "core" of the system.  I would say that this is a common custom in some previous published RPGs, but there's no intrinsic logic to it.  You just have a habit of doing things this way: i.e. certain things you always look in the book for how to do, certain things you make up for yourself.  

Nor do I agree that the customary "core" parts are the hardest.  Designing a complete world and characters is difficult and exactly how it is done makes a huge difference to play.  Nor is playing without any of the other stuff terribly difficult.  Heck, I did it when I was only nine years old.  

So getting back to the question of drift...  

The idea that you can say you know what AD&D is supposed to be like is what I disagree with. There's nothing that mandates how often combat should come up. There's nothing that mandates that you can't play a political game.
...
If you play so that rules sections are cut out--and construct the game so that that's intentional then, yes, I'd categorize it as drift (and for some examples, very major--for most, I think minor). But to decide what a game's base-line is when it's not specified seems very iffy to me.  

I could quibble about AD&D, but in general, sure -- you can make a game where you can't tell from reading it what play is supposed to be like.  I guess there is a gap in terminology here.  Perhaps we could say that requiring significant change for functional play is "Incoherency", while simply leaving vital elements unspecified is "Incompleteness".   The literal idea of drift only really applies to Incoherent games.  We need a parallel term, then, for what is done with Incomplete games to complete their functionality.

Maybe it's just a matter of degree. My guess would be that most people played AD&D with some kind of dungeon crawl, yes. The descriptions in the game mention that. The module B1 was one. Although I can see how it looks like I'm being blind to that--I'm not.

AD&D sort of defacto assumes a feudal structure. Most people have an idea of what that's like--somewhat (and probably more than what a "dungeon crawl" is like if starting from scratch). We know there were food tasters and kings and unscrupulous advisors and all that. If you ask a man on the street to describe some of that stuff, they're probably gonna give up some data.

If you ask them what's on the 32nd level of Angband, they won't have any idea what you're talking about. Agree?

I submit that, yes, running a court-intrigue game is a lot of work. I've done it. Making a dungeon is easier. And yes, a game of court-intrigue that gave a lotta background notes would assist greatly with that and push play in that direction. Agreed. No question.

But, and this is the imporant part: in the AD&D world, the intrigue game is implied. I think. There *are* castles. There are kings and dukes and thrones and successors and such. There are court wizards and deadly poison. All of that stuff goes on.

Any character, anywhere can (and likely, logically would if ascending in level) run into that. Saying that putting it in is a major departure from the concept of the game doesn't make sense to me.

The way it sounds to me when you say it is is that the combat tables are an itch and that not scratching them (running combat--and lots of combat--each session) is fighting against some kind of stream. The idea that the focus on something which, I think we'd agree already does exist in the world is somehow radical leaves me confused.

I don't see it that way, and I kind of doubt you do too. So maybe my language is too strong. Maybe nightfal is a "major" shift from day--a common one but still a "major" shift. Maybe your statement isn't as strong as I read it.

You liken making up a char-gen system to creating a world background. In some sense this is true. But the creation of setting is something you've always got to do--it's implicit. Even with heavily defined settings, the PC's won't find all the NPC's they meet in the book. They won't find every location detailed. You can buy products that give you detailed maps and such--but how many times will you re-use that?

Char-gen is substantially different than that.

I think a better comparison would be: making up characters rather than rewriting chargen.

-Marco

[John Kim]

But, and this is the imporant part: in the AD&D world, the intrigue game is implied. I think. There *are* castles. There are kings and dukes and thrones and successors and such. There are court wizards and deadly poison. All of that stuff goes on.

Any character, anywhere can (and likely, logically would if ascending in level) run into that. Saying that putting it in is a major departure from the concept of the game doesn't make sense to me.

Just because it logically exists in the world doesn't mean that such play is supported by the game.  As a counter-example, Nicotine Girls is set in the modern world -- so logically there should be organized crime and police conflict going on.  After all, there are cigarette-smoking girls in all sorts of police-action movies.  It could easily be that a PC's boyfriend is a hit man on the run from his former bosses.  He might be attacked by his former boss' men while they are out on a date, leading to a high-speed car chase.  

Mind you, I agree that Nicotine Girls is a more narrowly focussed game than AD&D.  However, the comparison has some validity, I think.  There is nothing in the rules which prevents a car chase.  However, there is also nothing in the rules to encourage it or make it interesting.  

The way it sounds to me when you say it is is that the combat tables are an itch and that not scratching them (running combat--and lots of combat--each session) is fighting against some kind of stream. The idea that the focus on something which, I think we'd agree already does exist in the world is somehow radical leaves me confused.  

But I never said anything about the combat tables.  Original AD&D is more than just combat tables.  It specifies in character creation that your character is an "adventurer".  It has an experience system which rewards particular behavior.  It does not narrowly conform to what you would intuitively expect for a feudal world.  For example, PCs gain followers and land ownership solely from experience level -- independent of their born social class.  In short, it says far more about what play should be like than just "If there happens to be combat, here is how to resolve it."  

You liken making up a char-gen system to creating a world background. In some sense this is true. But the creation of setting is something you've always got to do--it's implicit. Even with heavily defined settings, the PC's won't find all the NPC's they meet in the book. They won't find every location detailed.  You can buy products that give you detailed maps and such--but how many times will you re-use that?  

I never said that char-gen is exactly the same as world background in every way.  However, they are both required elements for play.  Sure, char-gen gets re-used more -- so if I come up with my own char-gen system, I can re-use it.  

However, it is not inherent that a game cannot provide the locations and characters for play.  For example, in my game The Business of Murder there are no NPCs.  All of the characters are played by players, and they are included with the game.  It doesn't have much re-play value, but on the other hand it is very easy to jump into.  I can invite a bunch of non-role-playing friends over and they can play it with ease.

[Marco]

Hi John,

I can agree with that: without some rules-mod, a purely aristocratic AD&D game would have some difficulties with character advancement (although a game with a heavily intrigue oriented bent that still included adventure wouldn't necessiarily). So yeah. I can agre that AD&D is "about" playing adventurers (which I still think is a big difference from Dungeon Crawls or Amassing Treasure or Leveling Up ... or Combat ... or a lot of other things I've seen people assume).

And yes--non-traditional designs can vary widely. I didn't intend to cast the net as far as apparently it came off.

Of course the idea that AD&D or Nicotine Girls would need some rules-mod to play comfortably within zones they might well wander into is pretty intrinsic to Fang's point. And for what it's worth, I think I'd have an easier time solving the adventurers-turned-politicans issues in AD&D than I would having a shoot-out at a night club go down dramatically in Nicotine Girls.

-Marco

[John Kim]

I can agree with that: without some rules-mod, a purely aristocratic AD&D game would have some difficulties with character advancement (although a game with a heavily intrigue oriented bent that still included adventure wouldn't necessiarily). So yeah. I can agre that AD&D is "about" playing adventurers (which I still think is a big difference from Dungeon Crawls or Amassing Treasure or Leveling Up ... or Combat ... or a lot of other things I've seen people assume).  

The thing is, I think you have an idea that certain things are the core of the system.  i.e. Someone can ignore over half the rulebook text, but as long as they are still using unmodified the core -- then the game is only lightly drifted.  

I see the game as a collection of parts.  The more you ignore or change from what is described (or implied) in the text, the further you are from the written game.  Certainly I see some things as being more central than others -- but that is a subjective judgement based on my own preferences.   What I feel is the core might be different than what you feel is the core.  

I certainly know that when I played original AD&D (many years ago), I would fairly regularly toss aside things which I think you regard as core.  For example, I would commonly play diceless: especially at school, on trips, or at other times when dice weren't practical.  However, other things like the magic item descriptions I strictly adhered to.

[Marco]

I can agree with that: without some rules-mod, a purely aristocratic AD&D game would have some difficulties with character advancement (although a game with a heavily intrigue oriented bent that still included adventure wouldn't necessiarily). So yeah. I can agre that AD&D is "about" playing adventurers (which I still think is a big difference from Dungeon Crawls or Amassing Treasure or Leveling Up ... or Combat ... or a lot of other things I've seen people assume).  

The thing is, I think you have an idea that certain things are the core of the system.  i.e. Someone can ignore over half the rulebook text, but as long as they are still using unmodified the core -- then the game is only lightly drifted.  

I see the game as a collection of parts.  The more you ignore or change from what is described (or implied) in the text, the further you are from the written game.  Certainly I see some things as being more central than others -- but that is a subjective judgement based on my own preferences.   What I feel is the core might be different than what you feel is the core.  

I certainly know that when I played original AD&D (many years ago), I would fairly regularly toss aside things which I think you regard as core.  For example, I would commonly play diceless: especially at school, on trips, or at other times when dice weren't practical.  However, other things like the magic item descriptions I strictly adhered to.

Well, hey bro,
You gotta give me some credit. I pepperd the list with IMO and noted that some cases might seem one way to one person and another way to another--and I did say the list was all off the top of my head. But I'll agree--I made some assumptions and I shouldn't have assumed mine'd be yours.

I'd consider diceless AD&D fairly major (yes, we played diceless on school field-trips too or used the 10ths/100ths of a second hand on a digital watch as a generator--but certainly not the standard numerical spread).

However, I'll try to stand by a stake in the sand:

Someone who comes up with a new magic system for AD&D, with, say some new currency (magic points)--and does it with the intent of changing the way the classes work (as opposed to, say being forced to play without dice or a book)--is doing more work than ... the guy who doesn't use the AD&D Charisma rules (the definition of work being effort expended in the construction of the rules as a game designer)

Okay, it's not much. And I bet someone disagrees with it. But it *is* a start.

Hell, I'll throw caution and go out on a limb here:

An AD&D player who leaves Char-gen, General Resolution, Combat, and Magic unchanged will find his game statistically recognizeable to another player over a course of several sections where those aspects of the game are in use. A player who heavily modifies Char-gen, General Resolution, Combat, and Magic--and uses those sections over several sections of play will be engaging in an activity that is significatntly less recognizeable.

The collerary
An AD&D player who engages in a game that doesn't modify those (above mentioned) "core" systems but modifies or ignores other systems of the same systemic magnitude as Charisma rules, aging rules, the omission of psionics, and the removal of several monsters from the game will still find their game where the afore mentioned major systems are used recognized by most players as often or not significantly less than the unmodifed game.

It's at least a place to start making some determination about how drift could be categorized.

Drift seems to be definable in how it separates a system's recognizability, the magnitude of work (again, defined as the exercise of game-design: the process that we recognize as game design) that is done by the drifter, and the stated purpose in the alteration.

If I wanted to stick by the nomenclature I happened to pick orignally:

Heavy would move towards the upper end of the un-recognizable and work-magnitude.

"Major" could be anything--totally in the eye of the beholder. Your description of AD&D without playing adventurers would still be recognizable and not much work--but it'd be, I concurr major.

Situational drift would mean the alteration to game-play experience comes from the setting and the in-game action rather than a rules-modification. It might be "major" ... it might be "minor"--but it wouldn't (using the terms I'm pickin') be "heavy" or "light"--it'd be "situational."

Finally though:
I really think someone has to make some hard and fast decisions about this stuff before the statement that an Incoherent game must be drifted for coherent play has any real meaning. As it stands, that could simply be a person's reading of it and interperting all the words in a fairly loose manner vs. another's reading it and having very specific interpertations of what it says. IMO That's not saying a whole hell of a lot.

-Marco

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Sitting here now, I see three distinct types of Drift: rules ignored, rules rewritten, and rules added

Rules ignored is fairly simple a particular rules for a particular purpose is simply not used and replaced with...nothing. The D&D aging rules being a classic example of this. In the play I had participated in, these rules were simply never used and no other rules for that situation were made. In short, the situation never came up.

Rules rewritten is when there is a rule in the book covering the situation, but this rule is somehow not to the taste of the players (in many cases, just the GM) and the rule is changed. This may be lightly difted, retaining the mechanics or dice-rolling techiniques etc but with modified values for thing that use this mechanic or totally rewritten as if from scratch.

Rules added if when a situation comes up and there is no rule covering this situation, so a rule is written to cover the situation. Most of early D&D, especially the suppliments, were this-- adding classes, falling damage, hit locations, psionics, etc.

I think that we can judge the amount of drift of a game by how much is drifted and by what type. Determining by which rules were drifted and which were not is subjective opinion and doesn't help anybody.

[Jason Lee]

I agree with Jack's types of drift.

*****

Marco,

I'm having trouble getting ahold of where you are going.  I'm agreeing with both sides of the arguement, but not really seeing how they connect (I could just be tired).

When I think of a game (my example will be D&D3E) I think of the text and pictures.  The system (little 's') is about combat if that's what the book is talking about.  D&DE3 is about combat, practically every page in the book is devoted in one way or another to combat or things that relate to combat.  I just don't see how it could not be considered about combat.

Do you have to have combat in your D&D3E play?  No...but now we are talking about play, which is a whole different beast and can be about whatever the group damn well pleases.  Play is only colored by the game system, not created by it.

*****

As far as Incoherence goes, we seem to have taken the Drift angle and that's fine.  But, I'm still chewing on the square horseshoe and the chain kinda falls apart if you ditch the terms Hybrid, Congruence, and El Dorado; combine Drift and Transition; and consider games on that model.

However, I would like to say that I think Incoherence should get the boot in relation to this:

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).

First off, yes Incoherent as a label is short hand.

1.  Saying a game is Incoherent doesn't actually say anything useful.  Incoherent how?  And for whom?  See, my thinking is VtM is coherent Sim...but pretend with me for a moment that I think it's Incoherent.  How?  Incoherent Gam because the combat mechanics conflict with humanity?  Incoherent Nar because the text conflicts with itself about story authorship (still pretending, don't argue against it).  Incoherent what?  Saying that mechanic A conflicts with priority B has value.  Saying something is Incoherent does not define how or for what priority.

2.  Incoherence is about play, and so is Dysfunction.  Duplicate terminology?  You are also less likely to use Dysfunctional as a label on a game.

3.  You cannot rightly identify whether or not a game is Incoherent, Coherent, or Hybrid without playing it.  When you do, you may encounter Incoherent play.  But, the Incoherence in play could arise from your own priorities conflicting with that of the game as opposed to the game conflicting with itself.  For other priorities it may be very weak Incoherence (Abashed), or a completely different conflict.  If play is our only metric, and that metric is based on PoV; I don't see the functionality.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

3.  You cannot rightly identify whether or not a game is Incoherent, Coherent, or Hybrid without playing it.

Well, yes & no. I think the example of VtM goes that the text constantly says it's about story, like they invented Narrativism or something, but in play it is more Simulationist, as you had said.

[Marco]

I'm not ... I'm not sure I got much more to add here right now ... but yeah, I'm not *disagreeing* with anything Jack said just now--actually I'm in utter agreement (esp with the last bit about trying to make a determination about things from *which* rules were drifted being a rough call to make).

I posited "situational drift" wherein a rule isn't modified, added, or deleted--it's just made highly irrelevant by the circumstances of play. That's something I don't think Jack allowed for--but I don't see that as a disagreement. I do agree with what he said.

I allowed that AD&D is about *adventure* which, yes, is often gonna include combat. Absolutely.

As for the Incoherent design vs. Incoherent play thing? Well it is believed (by some, I think) that a given design can promote fun play (Coherent design). Not all designs, this thinking goes, *do* that.

Do they incourage dysfunctional play? I don't know? Do they just not *assist* fun play? I'm not sure--but there are some designs that are coherent ... and some that aren't. Saying those designs are incoherent doesn't seem to be much of a stretch.

However, I remain unconvinced. I suspect that one person's coherent game is another person's incohernet game. Since I don't know how to define Incoherent, I'm using: a game that must be drifted for fun play.

It's clear that some very focused games will be played with low amounts of drift. Larger rules-systems (GURPS?) will tend to have higher amounts (who uses all the rules?). Heavily disparate systems (AD&D) will tend to be higher than more centralized ones (Over the Edge).

One could make the statement that since simpler systems will tend to be drifted less, they'll lead to better play. But I'm not sure anyone *is* making that claim (Ron, IIRC, suspected The Window--a contender for the simplest system in existence--would need drifting for coherent play). So I don't know.

-Marco

[Marco]

3.  You cannot rightly identify whether or not a game is Incoherent, Coherent, or Hybrid without playing it.

Well, yes & no. I think the example of VtM goes that the text constantly says it's about story, like they invented Narrativism or something, but in play it is more Simulationist, as you had said.

No argument here--(and I dunno what VtM meant--at this point I will consider that, yes, they probably did get it all wrong and promise something they didn't deliver--I haven't the text so I can't say exactly what). But it is possible to claim to be "all about story" and still be completely simulationist ... I would say. The problem lies in what the speaker thinks story means vs. what the listener thinks it means. The whole "real life isn't a story" discussion is tied up in this.

-Marco