No More Incoherence! - A Rant

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

sigh....

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

Yes.  And if you buy a cheesecake expecting it to taste like steak, will you be upset at the cook?  

What I'm saying is, games should fulfill the Creative Agenda they advertise.  Excusing failure by saying, "Well you can drift it" is pure bullshit.  The failure is in what you claim to aim for and if you meet it or not, not in what other folks "want from it".  I can want cheesecake to taste like steak all day, but that's not a failure of the cook, but a failure of me to look at what the hell I was buying.

Now if the cheesecake tastes like crap for a cheesecake, then I can get upset at the cook.

Coherency is NOT, repeat, NOT based on subjective, "what I want".  It's based on "what it claims".

Chris

[Matt Snyder]

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

Fine, but that your needs aren't met does not make the game incoherent. You're putting the cart before the horse.

But consider this: as it stands, for me, it's not coherent (i.e. fun).

Whoa! I thought Mike Holmes has already shown you how this is a dangerous definition of coherence. Coherence DOES NOT equal "Fun for Marco." I keep seeing you make this claim as part of your explanations. Forget coherence = fun, becaue coherence MAY NOT equal fun FOR YOU. Or for Individual X, Y, or Z. That doesn't mean that me or Individuals A, B, or C can't enjoy the hell out of the game, nor does it mean the game is incoherent because it isn't fun FOR YOU.

[Marco]

Hi Marco,

sigh....

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

Yes.  And if you buy a cheesecake expecting it to taste like steak, will you be upset at the cook?  

What I'm saying is, games should fulfill the Creative Agenda they advertise.  Excusing failure by saying, "Well you can drift it" is pure bullshit.  The failure is in what you claim to aim for and if you meet it or not, not in what other folks "want from it".  I can want cheesecake to taste like steak all day, but that's not a failure of the cook, but a failure of me to look at what the hell I was buying.

Now if the cheesecake tastes like crap for a cheesecake, then I can get upset at the cook.

Coherency is NOT, repeat, NOT based on subjective, "what I want".  It's based on "what it claims".

Chris

Chris,

Gotcha. This must be very frustrating for you. You did say that "you" (meaning I) could reproduce what I was concerned about without rule mods. That was in the section I quoted. I'm going and assuming that's a claim. And--it's not true.

I'm not sayin' that to piss you off. It just isn't. If I did play The Pool I probably *would* have an issue with gear if I wanted to use it to drive an adventure (I'm not that familiar with the pool--but I brought up the same issue with you in PM for Mayhem).

You believe your system claims X--and delivers X. Clearly.

Do you think that either your claims or your magnitude of success in delivery could be the tinyest bit subjective? No? Okay.

-Marco
[Also: the cheese cake analogy is a bad one. I'm not ordering a meal in a resturant. I'm investing time in reading a book and analyzing a system based on about a page on setting (usually the back page). The standard for claims and delivery is very-very-very thin under those circumstances--and there is no standard like steak or cheesecake to measure the "taste" of an RPG against.]

[Marco]

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

Fine, but that your needs aren't met does not make the game incoherent. You're putting the cart before the horse.

But consider this: as it stands, for me, it's not coherent (i.e. fun).

Whoa! I thought Mike Holmes has already shown you how this is a dangerous definition of coherence. Coherence DOES NOT equal "Fun for Marco." I keep seeing you make this claim as part of your explanations. Forget coherence = fun, becaue coherence MAY NOT equal fun FOR YOU. Or for Individual X, Y, or Z. That doesn't mean that me or Individuals A, B, or C can't enjoy the hell out of the game, nor does it mean the game is incoherent because it isn't fun FOR YOU.

Mike did a very good job of separating drift from coherence. I agree. He didn't (in that post) bring up the idea of using the-right-tool-for-the-job (which I'm still iffy on) and he didn't invoke the "does what it says it does" clause.

Both of those are what I'm addressing here. I don't know if, under Chris' screwdriver/driftwood analogy one game is the screwdriver and one game is the driftwood. I'm equally unclear as to whether a coherent game is always a screwdriver and an incoherent game is always the driftwood. It's his analogy--I'm looking for non-analogous terms.

What I'm seeing so far:
A) "A coherent game is one shown to be fun more times than it's not."
B) "A coherent game is a better tool for the job than an incoherent one."
C) "A coherent game does what it claims to."

I'm still not sure which or if all of those are the standard description.

If it's A, then I would look at the vast popularity of seemingly incohernet games and question that (plus a few other problems: how many people have to play Nicotine Girls before we can say it's coherent?) And: how meaningful is the term when applied to games with very small numbers of players?

If it's B, then for who? There are counter-examples a-plenty. The "right" tool for the job needs to posit an existing tool set before it's meaningful. Saying it might be *possible* to build a better game for your needs isn't.

If it's C then I'm questioning what claims are actually made by any RPG. What claims are precieved as being made. If a game says it delivers fast-and-furious action or dramatic vehicular combat, what does that really mean besides the designer's opinion? What do I have the right to expect from that?*

Edited to add: I would say from Mike's post that he came closest to A. Which is, IMO, the best working defintion yet. But if B and C are part of the definition of coherence, that's, IMO, weakening it. I've got questions about definition A--about the statement it really makes (I know of 1000 people who have played the game and X number had problems in the GNS mode arena therefore I can judge it Incohernet) vs what it's used to say ("This is a good clean design--It's coherent.")--but it *is* a potentially valid measure. I'm not so sure about the other two.

-Marco
* It seems that the Creative Vision statement means that the game needs to be internally consistent to the designer. By that standard VtM could as easily be coherent as not, I think. It would certainly mean you'd have to know what the Creative Vision behind it was in the first place.

[M. J. Young]

Since I don't know how to define Incoherent, I'm using: a game that must be drifted for fun play.

I don't think this is a good definition.

Let me try.

If a game can be can be played exactly as prescribed in the text and deliver an experience comparable to that presented in the text, it is coherent.

If a game cannot deliver the experience presented in the text without altering or ignoring at least some of the rules, it is mildly incoherent. That is, a game is incoherent of the rules can be played as written but will not produce the game experience the players are given to expect by the text.

If a game cannot be played at all without altering or ignoring at least some of the rules, it is strongly incoherent. That is, a game is incoherent if the rules cannot be played as written because they conflict directly with each other and no system is provided to control that conflict.

Someone reading http://www.multiverser.com/novel.html">Verse Three, Chapter One, not a gamer, wrote to ask me if the game played the way the story was told. I'm not sure I can answer that, exactly; I think it does. If I'm wrong, and if the novel were presented as part of the descriptive text of play, then the game would be mildly incoherent simply because although you can play it, you don't get the results you expect. Stronger incoherence would be if in reading the rules you were unable to determine how to play at all, without ignoring some of them.

That's my take on "what is incoherence". Any thoughts?

--M. J. Young

On designing a coherent game, my article, Applied Theory, is in Clinton's hands now, and he's going to have it up as soon as he's got a moment to do so. It may answer some of these questions.--M

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

At this point, you're spinning empty semantics.  Read the essay, comprehend the definition.  Your A, B, and C perceptions are based off of the original definition.  

A- Coherency means I don't have to screw around trying to drift the game around, and then try to get everyone on the same page, makes fun easier.  B- Coherency is a result of knowing what you want to do, and designing for that purpose(tool for the job).   C- Intent and results match, and we can see it in the writing, as players we're not confused by incoherency.

There is no contradiction here.  If you want to go into what the designer "intended", aside from what is stated in the written rules, well, let's just not wander down that path of hypotheticals...because nothing will ever come from it.

Finally, my game aside, my point still stands.  If a game declares it delivers X, your complaints it fails to deliver Y are completely irrelevant.  It is not Incoherent because you didn't have fun, it is not incoherent because it doesn't deliver Y.  It's Incoherent if it doesn't deliver X.

Marco, I'm going to ask you to really, really review the essay and what folks have said at this point.  Take some time and digest things.  Further discussion without understanding is going to be pointless.  You're reading a lot of contradiction where there is none, and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I feel that everything that need be said has been said perhaps 3 times already.  I'm not going to input further until I see some effort to digest being made.

Chris

[Marco]

Chris,

Looks like it on both sides then--I see you working double time not to understand what I'm saying.

For 'X' and 'Y' in an example of what Mayhem (or any game) does or doesn't deliver, put in real values. Tell me what:

a) you claim mayhem delivers
b) I want mayhem to deliver

And show me where you were clear in your statement of claim (a) that my (b) was outside the scope.

-Marco

[Marco]

Response to MJ Removed.

It all comes down to this: very, very few games make discrete claims as to what they're offering or "about" or what they do. Nicotine Girls doesn't. Mayhem doesn't (IIRC). Maybe Multiverser does--I don't know.

So when I as a reader go in, I (usually) have to decide what a game is claiming to do vs. what it isn't.

Due to my reading of words like "story" and "author" and "the pc's are the protagonists" VtM comes off as doing what it claims to. It was written as an answer to AD&D--which as has been pointed out here (and I agree) is about playing adventures (with, yes, a lot of combat). They gave you the "other stuff" to do--the polticking and the inter-relationship stuff.

They didn't have a well-defined concept of Narrativism--nor were they (I doubt) aware of the controversy around the word "story."

That's something the people here have brought to the discussion--after being disastified with their solution (and in the original essay Deadlands and 7th Sea and all those other games of a similar bent are included).

But a game text can be only partially responsible for what a reader brings to it.

Mayhem isn't "incoherent" because it doesn't satisfy me as originally written--but neither can you say it "delivers what it claims to" because it makes no clear and definite claim (or if it does, I'm asking to see it)--like VtM it has a setting and a system and a flavor. How well those mesh is a matter of opinion. I don't see how that can be seen any other way.

I've seen it said that the ultimate test is statistical. An analysis of how often it's said to work vs. how often it doesn't. I can agree with *that*--but then there'd be questions that I still think have yet to be answered (does that mean across the entire space of RPG'ers, for example? Or is just a sub-set enough?)

-Marco

[contracycle]

Mayhem isn't "incoherent" because it doesn't satisfy me as originally written--but neither can you say it "delivers what it claims to" because it makes no clear and definite claim (or if it does, I'm asking to see it)--like VtM it has a setting and a system and a flavor. How well those mesh is a matter of opinion. I don't see how that can be seen any other way.

Well if a) GNS is a valid model, and b) coherence as described is indeed useful and valuable, and c) it is designed according to GNS and the theory of coherence, then... we know what it was intended to deliver.  It is a demo or a working experiment.  And therfore we can assess it as being coherent or otherwise.  

If "how well they mesh is a matter of opinion" then we can do nothing.  If it is instead, something that can be analysed and understand - in fact the very claim the GNS presents - then we can learn from extant mistakes and design better games in the future which are less likely to suffer those problems.

[Marco]

Mayhem isn't "incoherent" because it doesn't satisfy me as originally written--but neither can you say it "delivers what it claims to" because it makes no clear and definite claim (or if it does, I'm asking to see it)--like VtM it has a setting and a system and a flavor. How well those mesh is a matter of opinion. I don't see how that can be seen any other way.

Well if a) GNS is a valid model, and b) coherence as described is indeed useful and valuable, and c) it is designed according to GNS and the theory of coherence, then... we know what it was intended to deliver.  It is a demo or a working experiment.  And therfore we can assess it as being coherent or otherwise.  

If "how well they mesh is a matter of opinion" then we can do nothing.  If it is instead, something that can be analysed and understand - in fact the very claim the GNS presents - then we can learn from extant mistakes and design better games in the future which are less likely to suffer those problems.

I'm real close to done with this myself--but I dunno if Chris is gonna respond ... so maybe you can: take a look at Mayhem ('s worth the look!) and take a look at what I felt it didn't deliver on--and show me where my expectation was outta line with it's "claim."

Or maybe where my expectation *was* in line and the rules needed to be changed ...

Either would be evidence of your a) and b).

-Marco

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

You've taken this thread way off topic.  Anything Mayhem specific is going to PM.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

First, Marco, your desire to drift Mayhem does not make it incoherent.

Let that sink in.

Drift is a possible sign of incoherence, but it's also a potential sign of a lot of other things. But just because you don't want to play a particular game as written does not mean that it's not coherent. This is where you keep getting confused.

Incoherent does not simply mean "not fun", it means "not fun because there are problems with play conflicting in terms of GNS.

The test for coherence in Chris's game would be if you played it as written, and saw if any problems pertaining to conflicting modes of play came about because of the rules. Now, that probably wouldn't be fun for you because you don't like the modes being promoted. But that just means it's the wrong game for you. Not that it's incoherent. Incoherence is a very tight group of problems that you're trying to make into a bigger issue.

Incoherence does not relate to preference. We accept that certain people will not like certain modes. That's not incoherence. That's simple preference. In fact, the theory here all says that you shouldn't try to make a game that satisfies all the people all the time. Because it's unlikely to work. What you need to do is to create a game that's functional for some people.

Interestingly, if a coherent game produces modes of play that you don't like, you can still drift it to fix that. Which is what you're doing, Marco. This is one of those many other reasons that people drift games.

The "do what they say" thing is being overstated. What people are trying to convey is that one source of incoherence is for a game to set up expectations of supporting certain modes of play, and then failing to do so for whatever reason. This tends to produce incoherency because people believing that the game can do these things will play in those modes. When the game fails to support that mode, then they feel let down.

Thus, if Chris' game said that it supported a hightly technical view of gear in his game, saying that it supported Sim play, he'd be lying. And then, a player expecting that would be dissapointed. This is the general concept.

However, as pointed out, it's rare that these things are stated explicitly. Actually, VTM is the classic example talking only about telling a story, and then supporting all three modes. But let's consider a game that didn't say such a thing. Like if Vampire hadn't had such promises (or if you don't think that it does). Well, does that mean that the game isn't promising anything in particular? Actually, no, the game mechanics themselves will tend to suggest modes of play. And when one player sees one thing, and another player sees another, that's when you have the potential for trouble in terms of coherence.


The game designer can't know who is going to pick up his game and play. He can't assume all that much about what the player wants in terms of mode. What he can do is present the game's modes of play in such a way that the players have an understanding of what play is supposed to look like, and how the modes are supposed to exist with each other in play. That way, he's presented one way to play that does not have the potential trouble of incoherency. If the players then want to drift the game because they don't like the modes presented, or for any other reason, well, that's fine.

It's just not a sign of incoherency.

JAGS is a pretty coherent Sim game (some currency stuff we could debate, but overall...). No matter what anybody thinks about Sim, that will remain true. You've done what you need to do there, I think. Do you have people come to you complaining that they're not sure if it's supposed to be about realistic portrayal of the world, or if it's supposed to be about winning? As opposed to complaints like complexity, or focus on realism or something? The former complaint might indicate incoherence. The latter complaint indicates preference problems (to which you ought to respond that this is not the game for them).

If GMs or players change the game to have, say, a more gamist bent, that represents their preferences, and not incoherence.

This is nothing new, and I feel that I'm repeating myself. But I'm not seeing where it's not clear.

Mike

[John Kim]

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

Well, this is definitely true in some sense.  The exact same game which one person considers fun and exciting, another person might not like.  However, I am not satisfied that this means that we should simply toss up our hands and suggest that nothing can possibly be said about the quality and design of any games.  

GNS is one attempted step towards understanding the variation of taste among different gamers.  Thus, ideally, we would be able to say "This game doesn't work for those whose tastes correspond to XYZ -- but it is fun for those whose tastes correspond to PDQ."   At present, with just three categories, I think it is pretty self-evident that it doesn't fully describe the taste preferences of role-players.  Still, many people have found it useful.  

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.

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.

It's a good point.  I don't think it is reasonable to use language like saying that a game provides "exciting", "tense", or "fun" play without qualification -- because these describe reactions in the player which will vary based on taste.  But the question is, what makes the races exciting to someone else but not to you?  (Note: I haven't read Mayhem yet, but I'm interested.  What's the URL?)  If this is explainable by GNS, that would suggest that someone else finds it exciting perhaps because they are more inclined towards Narrativism, while you are more inclined to Simulationism.  Thus, you would find it more exciting if you drifted it towards your preferred style of play.

[Bankuei]

Hi John,

My point being made is that my terminology of Broken Merchandise is based on the concept of "Game claims X, but fails to deliver X."  You are correct that terms such as "exciting, fun, etc." are biased, but my point is that the Pool is NOT incoherent or broken because it "fails to give specific rules" for each of the cases in point.  In other words, the rules set is flexible enough to cover all those cases without requiring special mention.

The reason for the initial comparison is that MH is based off of the Pool, with some modifications.

The major point I want to bring to the table is that "Fun for me= Coherence / Not fun for me = Incoherence" is incorrect.  Incoherence is the inability to solidly deliver on any GNS mode, regardless if we're talking XYZ, or PDQ as you put it.  

Chris

Playtest version is available on Yahoo Groups under MayhemPT at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indie-netgaming/files/

[Marco]

First, Marco, your desire to drift Mayhem does not make it incoherent.

Let that sink in.


Mike

It did. I didn't argue that. Your point was well made.

My wish to drift it came from the fact that one-phase combat, for me, didn't "deliver on the claim" for me. That the text indicated situations the rules wouldn't adequately cover:

That my interpertation of the promisies made by the genre and the rules would be: in a fight between A and B character A blows up a gas tank. Character B turns around and says "oh yeah?" and blows up a service-station ... etc. One roll doesn't deliver that.

The game is about rivalries and big races and The Big Game. Having it come down to a single roll robs me of the drama inherent in that--the sense of chaos and excitement and one-ups-man-ship.

The fact that there are gear-using racers in the game but no way to implement, say tuning up a car, means that essentially one archetype doesn't work for me--even though those actions would be in-genre and within the style of the game.

You *are* repeating yourself--but I heard you the first time.

The fact that I want to drift it does NOT make it incoherent.

What about the fact that IMO it doesn't deliver on its claim? (It mentions doing all this stuff "in the name of good grades" too--but there's no rule for grading, either).

-Marco