No More Incoherence! - A Rant

[Jason Lee]

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.

There seems to be a lot of disagreement about whether VtM is Incoherent or not; from one angle and group of play experience yes, from another no.  VtM is, for me, a great example of Incoherence being highly open to interpretation.  Don't mistake this for me saying a game cannot have internal conflicts, or present confusing message, or that drift is all there is  to play, or other system doesn't matter type stuff.  Just that Incoherent as a short hand label on a game may be too dependent upon PoV and not provide enough information to be useful.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

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 think this fits neatly under rules ignored.

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.

I think it may have something to do with leaving the rules path as described in Christopher's thread. Both VtM (Vampire the Masquarade, 1st ed BTW) and the Window claim to support creating a story in the text but how they support this they mostly just get out of the way. So they support the creation of the story by convince you to leave the rules and do...whatever. You see. Sorcerer, by contrast, also claims to encourage story making, but never leaves the rules path. As such it helps the players create a story. Granted a *type* of story, but a story nevertheless.

This seems to be a key factor. Doing...whatever, whether it's encouraged by the rules or not, and using the rules to facilitate, encourage, enforce, support play.

This is a heavy-handed and not very tight analogy but it's the difference between tossing someone in the deep end of the pool and actually teaching them how to swim.

[Marco]

This is a heavy-handed and not very tight analogy but it's the difference between tossing someone in the deep end of the pool and actually teaching them how to swim.

Marco's Law
"For every RPG analogy there is an equal and opposite counter-analogy."

Collary
"If the counter (counter-counter, etc.) analogy seems weaker, it simply may not have been the equivalent choice of counter-analogy."

Sorceror might be said to be tightly mechanically *focused* and The Window less so. That doesn't make it necessiarly any more fun (or un-fun). I read a post by Ron on RPG.net where he discussed how he'd had fun playing gamist games really gamist and simulationist games really simulationst, etc. I suspect that for a lot of people here coherent play means *focused* play.

Since coherent play is more or less defined as *fun* play, that means coherent = fun. That'd be in the neighborhood of a definitive, maybe proveable statement. Is anyone making it? I'm, y'know, not sure myself.

I can agree with "rules ignored" although in the examples discussed here and postulated the rule isn't actually ignored--it's just made differently (usually 'less') relevant.

So then it'd be a gradient of lack of use of rules and I think that gradient might be steep enough to be a silppery slope ("Tom doesn't put rust-monsters in his game ... except for that 1 time ... is he drifting?")

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

In this thread, people keep saying that the proponents of the theory are saying things that they've never said.

Nobody has ever said, that only single mode gaming is the only way to coherence. Ron can be quoted in several places saying the opposite. And Marco, you're above quote is simply reading into Ron's statement things he didn't say.

Nobody has said that coherence is the only ingredient to making a game "fun" or otherwise good. Just that INcoherence is one way a game can be "non-fun". Not the only way, of course, just one.

Nobody has said that GNS is the only thing that's important in design. In fact, we're all on record saying how we feel that it's just one small part of the whole picture. And Ron will even tell you that it's not really about design at all.

So people have to stop setting up these straw men. You can say all you want that we believe these things, but it will not make it true.

You're argument seems to be, Marco, that we won't say what our arguments really are, and that you know what they really are, and that those things that we're not stating aren't true. I could as easily say that you are a terrorist sympathizer, but just not stating it, and say that you ought to be jailed because of it. Do you see how that might be offensive?

We have put out our arguments repeatedly in cogent format. If you don't think that's true, then tell us where we've failed to be clear, and we'll try to be more clear. But don't argue against things that you "suspect" that we think. Please stick to the statements that we've actually made.

Mike

[Marco]

We have put out our arguments repeatedly in cogent format. If you don't think that's true, then tell us where we've failed to be clear, and we'll try to be more clear. But don't argue against things that you "suspect" that we think. Please stick to the statements that we've actually made.

Mike

I'm not looking for strawmen. I'm tellin you how I read the body of work on this. I'm not disagreein' with Jack or John--or anyone else to my knowledge (I'm frankly not sure if I agree with contracycle or not--but that may be due to tiredness).

I'd like to know how someone is supposed to try to design a coherent game--if armed with the definition and the tools and the concept what does one do?

Be real explicit about GM/Player power split?

Focus tightly to make sure rules can't be omitted? Make all rules explicitly optional so the game can never be said to be truly drifted? Does not using an optional rule constitute drift?

Build however you want and then play-test and look for  ... what?

All of the above? More? What if I miss a piece?

And once you have your Coherent game, what's that mean exactly? That it "does what it says it does?" (according to who, then?) That people who play it will find it fun? (all people? most people? people who 'get it?' people who like the subject matter and the specific implementation?) That it will appeal to people who will play it as the designer intended? I really wouldn't know how to explain this to someone. Surely I can't be the only guy whose a bit confused about it.

-Marco

[Matt Snyder]

I'd like to know how someone is supposed to try to design a coherent game--if armed with the definition and the tools and the concept what does one do?

Be real explicit about GM/Player power split?

That's certainly one way of many, and it's one that's been very popular in games discussed here at the Forge.

Focus tightly to make sure rules can't be omitted? Make all rules explicitly optional so the game can never be said to be truly drifted? Does not using an optional rule constitute drift?

Trying to prevent drift to this degree is absurd. No matter how focused a game, someone will find a means to drift the damn thing. It's just bound to happen. As a game designer, it's something I accept. Hell, it's something I really don't think about. Yeah, somone's bound to beat and hammer Dust Devils into something it was never intended to do. <shrug> So what. That doesn' t prevent me from crafting a coherent game, a game that MOST of its players will play according to the way it was basically intended.

Again, as has been stated elsewhere, Drift is not a Bad Guy. Just make a coherent game. There are many ways. It's not always easy to do. But Drift-proofing your game is missing the point. Make your game coherent, and the likelihood that people will Drift the thing diminishes greatly.

And once you have your Coherent game, what's that mean exactly? That it "does what it says it does?" (according to who, then?) That people who play it will find it fun? (all people? most people? people who 'get it?' people who like the subject matter and the specific implementation?) That it will appeal to people who will play it as the designer intended? I really wouldn't know how to explain this to someone. Surely I can't be the only guy whose a bit confused about it.

First, it means you've likely done a good job. It also means that, yes, the game does what is says it does according to you, the person who owns (hopefully) and creates the game. Also, that that SOME people (perhaps a very small few,  perhaps more) will find it rewarding and entertaining. Marco, I don't understand why this is, as you say, hard to explain.

What exactly is the problem here, because I've lost any identification to what your concern is? Is it that you don't like the term Coherence?  Don't understand it? Don't think it exsits? Think Drift is required for all games? Can you clarify, simply and concisely? Sort of a "Class, lets review."

[Marco]

Hi Matt,

Actually the term I was questioning was "Incoherence" (although that, by nature questions Coherence.

I've seen it said that Incoherence can't apply to games (but Coherence can?)--I don't get that.

The best definition of an Incoherent game I've seen, then is "one that must be drifted for Coherent ('fun') play."

I don't know if anyone's subscribing to that--but if you subscribe to the notion of a coherent game that logically assumes an incoherent one exists--so what's the definition?

If my working defn' *is* valid, then what does drift mean? Since it seemed it could mean almost anything from playing nobles in AD&D (for some values of nobles) to a complete re-write, to not using the AD&D aging rules I was asking if it's so vauge then: "What does saying a game is coherent or incoherent actually mean?"

Also: I gave an example of a game that seemed pretty clean and focused that *I'd* have to drift to play what I wanted--that was thematically within the scope of it. It seemed a fairly strong dis-proof of my working definition of Incoherent.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I've seen it said that Incoherence can't apply to games (but Coherence can?)--I don't get that.

This is just an attempt to be rigorous. That is, these terms both refer to play. For purposes of design, what should be said is that one can attempt to design a game that tends to produce coherent play more often. Or that a particular game tends to produce incoherent play.

The best definition of an Incoherent game I've seen, then is "one that must be drifted for Coherent ('fun') play."

But that's diagnostic, or more closely, the desription of the solution to the problem, not a description of the problem. It's a true statement, but it doesn't say anything about the causes. It's like saying that a headache is something that you take asprin for. That's true. But you also take asprin to lower fevers, and relieve other problems. It doesn't say anything about the headache, or how you prevent the problem from starting in the first place.  

That's why Drift is not important to the analysis of play. Drift could mean that you have incoherence. It could also mean that the player just likes to tinker. Just like a person taking asprin could be a sign of a headache or a fever.

So what is Incoherence? It's when in play of a game, some player is dissatisfied with play because either they aren't allowed to play as they'd prefer, or other players are playing in a mode that annoys them. Is that clear? See why you can't say that a text is incoherent or coherent technically? A text can only tend to produce coherence or incoherence. More importantly, the text is only one potential source for the problem. They also originate from player behaviors, for example.

This is the same definition that's been stated repeatedly. Saying that it's the drift definition, and then knocking it down is exactly the sort of straw man that I've been talking about.

Also: I gave an example of a game that seemed pretty clean and focused that *I'd* have to drift to play what I wanted--that was thematically within the scope of it. It seemed a fairly strong dis-proof of my working definition of Incoherent.

Not at all, it just proves that drift is not proof-positive that incoherrence is happening. Which I keep saying.

As for the previous questions:

I'd like to know how someone is supposed to try to design a coherent game--if armed with the definition and the tools and the concept what does one do?

Armed with the definition I give, one should lool for mechanics that inform players that it's OK in particular places to use multiple modes, and has no mechanism for ensuring that the output is coherent. This is not to say that you can't promote more than one mode. It means that if you do so, you shouldn't just leave it there, and hope that it'll sort out in play. You should take steps to make sure that it happens.

Be real explicit about GM/Player power split?

That does tend to help, but it not the end-all solution. As I've said before, it's as useful to inform the participants of what the potential results of mixing are, and let them work it out themselves. I'm sure that there are lots of solutions. Conguence comes to mind.

Focus tightly to make sure rules can't be omitted? Make all rules explicitly optional so the game can never be said to be truly drifted? Does not using an optional rule constitute drift?

Completely wrong perspective. One should not make a game where one is forced to play some way or be "cheating". What one ought to do is to make a game well enough designed that the players always want to use the rules. I mean, they've decided to use this ruleset, presumably there's something about it that they like. To the extent that you can make it all "likeable" you're designing well. Sure that's a, duh, statment, but in large part it's what the theory is all about.

Build however you want and then play-test and look for ... what?

Players saying things like, "That's not realistic," in response to another player's decision. This is a tricky example. This doesn't indicate that the system is too unrealistic, neccessarily (though that's a possibility). It indicates that the game is telling one player that it's about being realistic, and telling another that it's not. That's one sort of place where incoherence comes in. There are lots of signs to look for that indicate incoherence in play as a problem.

All of the above? More? What if I miss a piece?

There are probably a lot more. You know what one big problem is? We've only just scratched the surface on this. We've done some stuff with stances, and reward systems, and the like, but to a great extent we don't know the answers.

What if you miss it? Probably not a big deal. At the very worst, it's got no more problems than Vampire. And since you think that's just fine, you shouldn't worry. Yes, that's right, it's not a big deal if your game is incoherent. All I've ever said is that it would be better if it weren't. Not that it's broken, not that nobody can play it, just that occasionally this will cause problems. For the most part, they'll be solved by drift, and no biggie, tho.

And once you have your Coherent game, what's that mean exactly?

A game that promotes coherence can be said to cause mode related problems less often. For everyone? No, just in general, and as a tendency. How will you know? You won't. Other than you hear back from informed people that play was coherent, the best you can do is to wait for reports that can be attributed to incoherence, and add that to your data set.

But is that limiting? I mean, we all talk about what rules are "realistic" all the time without knowing how the market players are going to percieve it. We make certain assumptions because they're safe to make, and other times we go out on a limb. Creating a game that tends to produce more coherent play is, and will probably always be more art than science. So there is no magic bullet.

But that doesn't mean that it's not useful to talk about. To the extent that you think that you want to address coherency issues in your design you should. Just like the decision to address realism issues, or any other of the myriad issues that a designer has to address.

Getting anywhere? Or am I just spinning in place?

Mike

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

GNS essay:

In terms of design, the issue is incoherence, defined here as failure to permit any Premise (or any element of Exploration) to be consistently enjoyed.

SNIP

*Incoherent 1: the design fails to permit one or any mode of play. In its most extreme form, the system may simply be broken - too easily exploited, or internally nonsensical, or lacking meaningful consequence, to pick three respective possibilities for Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.

*   Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others.

To me, it looks like Incoherence is fairly well defined.  Under Fang's original post, he's arguing that Incoherence doesn't exist because you can always Drift it into something Coherent.  That's rather like saying "Nothing is ever broken, because it can always be fixed or replaced".

GNS essay on Drift...

In terms of actual play, yes, one "can" bring "any" GNS focus to "any" RPG - but I argue that in most cases the effort and informal redesign to do so is substantial, and also that the effort to keep focused on the new goals as play progresses is even more substantial. This chapter discusses why that effort needs to be there at all.

SNIP

Drift is a related issue: the movement from one GNS focus to another during the course of play.

Ok, so your example of politics in D&D is a matter of drift by choice, not drift by necessity.  D&D doesn't claim to be a political game.  Here, you are choosing to change the focus of the game, and that's fine.

I'm not sure what the confusion is about, it's really simple:

-Games are supposed to play in a certain way(according to design), when they fail to do what you intended(as a designer), or what they claim to do(as a player), then that is "not good" compared to ones that do.  

This is no different than comparing a hammer, a saw, and a broken piece of rotted wood.  The hammer and the saw, each, have their own uses, and are good at that particular use.  The rotted wood, fails both as a hammer and a saw, and most anything else(except maybe firewood or mulch).  

Does that clarify anything for you?

Chris

[Marco]

Getting anywhere? Or am I just spinning in place?

Mike

Nope--'s a good post. I'll take a close look through it when I have the chance but it looks like a well wrought explanation.

-Marco

[Marco]

Chris,

I'm good with ya, all the way to this:

-Games are supposed to play in a certain way(according to design), when they fail to do what you intended(as a designer), or what they claim to do(as a player), then that is "not good" compared to ones that do.

This is no different than comparing a hammer, a saw, and a broken piece of rotted wood.  The hammer and the saw, each, have their own uses, and are good at that particular use.  The rotted wood, fails both as a hammer and a saw, and most anything else(except maybe firewood or mulch).  

Does that clarify anything for you?

Chris

I see this as relating coherence to drift (something I think mike nicely separated).

I have big questions about this. I realize that the right-tool-for-the-right-job analogy gets tossed around a lot.  It's an analogy and so I'm not going to debate it with another analogy or an extension of that one--that's just not workin'.

I got like 4 games I want to run--and none of them mesh directly with an existant system or setting. How does the theory apply to that (this has nothing to do with coherence as I see it, but the analogy was in your post).

One of the problems with RPG discussion is that a lot of things in RPG's (story) are analogous to other things (literature)--but not identical. So the tool analogy, I think, by its very existence, will create problems.

-Marco

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

Ok, we'll drop the analogy bit for now(although I tend to use the a lot for pretty much everything, not just rpgs).

I got like 4 games I want to run--and none of them mesh directly with an existant system or setting. How does the theory apply to that (this has nothing to do with coherence as I see it, but the analogy was in your post).

Ok, let's start with the "heart" of GNS.  To paraphrase:  There are different ways to play.  Figure out what you want, coordinate it with mechanics that support that, and a group of folks on the same page.

So you've got 4 different games you want to run, and you know nothing fits it exactly.  Identify what "exactly" that is, see what comes close to it, and identify what falls short of that exact need.  Now, you can either choose to Drift it(which has nothing to do with the games Coherency or lack of it), or else design something ground up that takes what you like, or else does it better.

To give you a solid example:  Mayhem High is the result of the influence of 3 games, Teeanagers from Outer Space, Feng Shui, and the Pool.  Obviously if one of these could easily fulfilll my needs I would have either used it raw or drifted slightly.  Instead, I looked at what each one fulfilled, and where it fell short of my needs.  

TFOS has great setting,  but the system does nothing to encourage proper play(as I see it).  Feng Shui's unpredictable rolls were great for what I was looking for.  The Pool's narrative sharing also was what I wanted.  I took the Pool, added rules to increase the "chaos" in the game, and designed background around an actual TFOS game I played in, years back.

In other words, I used actual play experiences from a variety of games, from Incoherence(TFOS in my opinion), and Coherent play(the Pool) and used experiences from all as guidelines of what to do, and what not to do  in order to create my own game.

By your question of "How do I make these 4 games work?" you've just pointed out that Drift (theoretically) could solve everything, but simply is too much work(for you) to make it happen.  As you've pointed out, no system or setting is "close enough" for you to drift it.

I think the only arguments being made on my part here, is that the existance of Drift is no excuse for a poorly designed or incomplete game.  The ability to fix objects does not excuse selling incomplete or broken merchandise.

All that aside, I'm not sure where you're confused here.  If you'd like to hop onto the topic of GNS theory to actuality, we can take it to another thread.  I think the confusion of GNS is simply that it points out some pretty obvious things that somehow don't get considered in roleplaying...

-In order to get what you want, it helps if you know what that is
-You should check to see if it really does just that
-Using something for what its not intended usually doesn't work out so hot

Nothing controversial here...

Chris

[Marco]

With you so far. But--

You said something I don't understand:

You pointed out that my choice of game (with drift) would have nothing to do with the coherency of the game. Why did you bring that right-tool-for-the-job issue into the discussion in the first place then:

Is the game I'll likely have the best results with *unrelated* to their coherence?

Also: Does *my* requirement of drifting Mayhem to play what you might be seen as claiming to offer (robo-racers with, presumably dramatic robo races) make you guilty of selling broken merchandise?

-Marco

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

The initial comparison of "tool for the job" was based on the recurring theme of "What is Incoherence?".  

If we're talking about a game that produces play other than what it claims, then you may find that a game serves a different GNS purpose better than what it claims("this saw is advertised as a hammer, but works better for this!").  If we're talking about a game that fails to produce any mode, then we're talking about a complete failure as a tool.

Dig?

In the first case, you may find that some game actually produces better play X than Y, although its toted as good at Y.  Consider that the Window claims to support Narrativist Goals, yet pretty much gives you another version of Sim gaming.  For a Sim player, the Window may be their perfect system.

Your enjoyment of the games may come from that situation.  If the game is really incoherent and just doesn't fly any possible way, then it's not going to produce enjoyment without Drift.

Also: Does *my* requirement of drifting Mayhem to play what you might be seen as claiming to offer (robo-racers with, presumably dramatic robo races) make you guilty of selling broken merchandise?

By no means.  The Pool regularly delivers exciting combat scenes, tense political negotiations, and melodramatic emotional action, all without requiring special rules to make it happen.  MH is about chaos and mayhem, and that's what the rules deliver.  You can produce those very things you're concerned with, without having to create special rules for them.

Now consider any given WW game, and all the chapters about story, theme, etc.  Then look to see if the rules support it in any fashion.  That's broken merchandise.  The rules do not deliver anything close to what the "ideal" in the game claims.  The rules may have been made with consideration, but the issues considered(game balance, etc.) was not the creative agenda being touted throughout the book.

Please don't mistake the overall Creative Agenda of a game for the minutae.  Otherwise we might as well say D&D is broken for not giving us the density and melting temperatures of gold pieces, or Legend of the 5 Rings is broken because it doesn't give a complete dictionary of 16th century japanese.

Chris

[Marco]

::nods::

Hi Marco,

The initial comparison of "tool for the job" was based on the recurring theme of "What is Incoherence?".  

If we're talking about a game that produces play other than what it claims, then you may find that a game serves a different GNS purpose better than what it claims("this saw is advertised as a hammer, but works better for this!").  If we're talking about a game that fails to produce any mode, then we're talking about a complete failure as a tool.

Dig?

No--sorry: Still a bit fuzzy. Is an incoherent game seen as being a "complete failure as a tool" (like the piece of driftwood?). Or is that refering to a hypothetical good-for-nothing game?

Also: Does *my* requirement of drifting Mayhem to play what you might be seen as claiming to offer (robo-racers with, presumably dramatic robo races) make you guilty of selling broken merchandise?

By no means.  The Pool regularly delivers exciting combat scenes, tense political negotiations, and melodramatic emotional action, all without requiring special rules to make it happen.  MH is about chaos and mayhem, and that's what the rules deliver.  You can produce those very things you're concerned with, without having to create special rules for them.
Chris

I couldn't. For me the drama in a race would come from a multi-phase resolution (which was what I suggested). For me, being a racer would mean fixing up my 'bot (gear rules). The system wouldn't handle that either.

What *you* consider meeting my needs and what *I* consider meeting them could be two very different things.*

-Marco
* which is not a slam on the game. But consider this: as it stands, for me, it's not coherent (i.e. fun). With a moderate amount of drift (multi-phase resolution, simple gear rules) it would become not only fun, but possibly a first choice amidst the other things in the field.

What you have already provided is a good framework for me to "roll my own" with it.

But: if I'd paid $24.99 for it in the store ... broken--unable to meet my needs out of the box. And I would've lamented the lack of any kind of gear (a group of students driving around with a hijacked martian death ray too, for example)--and the fact that a roll/roll and then someone wins takes the drama out of combat for me.

Could it be that "broken" is entirely a mattre or taste (or almost so? Incomprehensible incoherent (the real meaning, not the GNS meaning) rules would be almost universally broken)