No More Incoherence! - A Rant

[Marco]

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.

I, not surprisingly, agree with all of this. If instead of saying Vampire is incoherent, we said "Vampire appeals primarily to people who like the intricate well crafted setting and don't mind sim-mechanics over nar-color" then, hey, I couldn't argue with you.*

That might even explain its popularity.

-Marco
*If someone added "and I wish they'd said that more clearly" I wouldn't argue that either.

I agree that GNS is useful. I do not agree that a declaration of incoherence is useful.

[Mike Holmes]

What about the fact that IMO it doesn't deliver on its claim?

This is why I spent all the time in the last post on this subject. "Doesn't do what it says" is also not a clear definition of Incoherence. That was my point. It can, again, be one way that a came can promote Incoherence, but it's not defining.

And perhaps Chris' game does promote incoherent play. Let's find out. What conflicting modes do you see it promoting? If you see the game promoting two or more modes in such a way as they might tend to be read such that play might tend to become problematic, then it's incoherent.

If, OTOH, you simply want a different mode than it provides, if it's just a preference, then we're not talking about a problem with Incoherence. You're example seems to me to indicate a preference problem. OTOH, maybe you feel that the game indicates to players somewhere that there will be mechanically detailed resolution, and then the game fails to put that out there. Can you point to such a problem? Or one in which using the single step resolution will conflict with other parts of the design in terms of what sort of GNS decisions the rules promote?

Mike

[Marco]

What about the fact that IMO it doesn't deliver on its claim?

This is why I spent all the time in the last post on this subject. "Doesn't do what it says" is also not a clear definition of Incoherence. That was my point. It can, again, be one way that a came can promote Incoherence, but it's not defining.

And perhaps Chris' game does promote incoherent play. Let's find out. What conflicting modes do you see it promoting? If you see the game promoting two or more modes in such a way as they might tend to be read such that play might tend to become problematic, then it's incoherent.

If, OTOH, you simply want a different mode than it provides, if it's just a preference, then we're not talking about a problem with Incoherence. You're example seems to me to indicate a preference problem. OTOH, maybe you feel that the game indicates to players somewhere that there will be mechanically detailed resolution, and then the game fails to put that out there. Can you point to such a problem? Or one in which using the single step resolution will conflict with other parts of the design in terms of what sort of GNS decisions the rules promote?

Mike

That's a bit clearer than it was in your second-to-last post--I've no absolutely concrete mode of play save gamist for Mayhem from the text, but the resolution system would work against that for me (it'd be narrativist in the sense that I'd narrate my successes for a better story).

As a player, a lot would depend on the GM. As a GM, I'd be inclined to set up step-on-up style obstacles. But I don't think I'd much enjoy winning or fighting or competing in the system--which is what the flavor text encourages me to do.

Yer call.

Is it possible that the way the rules strike me is my own look out? That the designer isn't responsible for that? That one person can look and see gamist influence and another see Sim?

-Marco

[W. Don]

it'd be narrativist in the sense that I'd narrate my successes for a better story

I've been following the discussion somewhat, but now I'm briefly jumping in here to quickly point out some small thing: the way I understand it the narrativist mode doesn't equate to narration. So, Marco, maybe narration is really what you're aiming for when you talk of the specific way you drift the rules in your Mayhem example?

[Marco]

I'm sayin' that the way the success mechanic works would make me inclined to use it to set up story arcs (the defeated Thermonuclear Volley Ball Women's team captain falls in love with/vows revenge against my character)--and that tendency wouldn't work all that well with the competitive nature of the world as I see it (i.e. there'd be no thrill-of-victory due to the one-roll resolution and the fact that any degree of success is "success"--if I understand it correctly, with higher ones being dramatic over-kill).

I haven't spent a lot of time on the bidding mechanic, however if I were making goal oriented decisions in the game (and I think I would be) I'd be hoarding my dice for the big show-down--and maybe having problems with other people expending dice (and losing them to the pool) if we were team-oriented ...

It *is* a complex dynamic--but I can see several ways it could break where there'd be problems.

I'm not 100% I have the definitions right myself tho ...

And more importantly, I think that all says *way* more about *me* than the game (which is kinda my point).
-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Well, we're getting into really tough territory here. Is it your preference that makes you see the potential of the system as one thing when another sees it as another. In any case, just that you've said this means that the game is slightly incoherent. But the thing is that by that standard, I'd think that almost all games would be incoherent. I mean, one could play Rune a Sim, but it would very much be missing the point of all the rules designed to determine who wins the game.

The point is that it is subjective in terms of what will work; as I said it's art. And you'll never be 100% coherent by the most stringent of definitions. But that's not the goal. We only want to be "mostly" coherent, or coherent enough.

Again, it's like Realism. You'll never get 100% there. But you sure as hell can try to achieve it to some extent. Coherence isn't binary. It's a spectrum ranging from horribly, brokenly, incoherent, to coherent enough that you really don't have to worry.

As a designer, Chris has to take your comments and decide if they're potent enough to merit change (assuming he's really concerned with coherence). Are you just not the target market, or can he make the game more coherent in a way that satisfies your particular proclivities in a consistent manner?

So I'm not sure how you seeing his game as incoherent "disproves" the idea. You've just proved the usefulness of it. Either the test deluded you into thinking that there was this other way to employ the rules (incoherent) or you're just changing it because you're adjusting it to your play preference.

Mike

[Marco]

I'm mulling over what you posted Mike--and a good post it is. I agree with the language and the message. That "tough territory" was where I felt I started out. It took a long time to get to the question of whether I was responsible for reading gamism into the rules (and the scale of coherence-incoherence).

I wanted to address something before responding to your post though:

Several times people have said "we shouldn't just throw up our hands and assume we can't say anything about design" (paraphrase).

I'm not, and never have been advocating that. That people like Ralph and John thought (did they? I'm not sure they were responding to *me* but it seemed like it) I *was* speaks volumes to the poorness of this mode of communication.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Well, I think they're overstating the case. This is just one area of design, so even if it turned out to be bogus it wouldn't mean that we can't improve on designs in other ways.

But they are saying that it sounds like you're saying that there's no reason to improve games in this area. That's only, I suspect because your contention is that there's no improvement to be done. So the whole "throw up your hands" arguments are passing each other. I think we all agree that one can and should make better games. It's just a quesiton of whether or not the concept of Coherence can be used in that regard.

Mike

[Marco]

After taking some time off and mulling over the posts, here's my conclusion. I believe there's a lot of congruence here--although I'm pretty sure I feel the degree of variance in these things is *far* larger than Mike does (I could be wrong, however).

Well, we're getting into really tough territory here. Is it your preference that makes you see the potential of the system as one thing when another sees it as another.

[emphasis added]

I have always believed this is the case. I think that very, very few rules (a terminal win-condition being an extreme case and one of the execptions that probes the rule, as you note) have a predictable invocation of mode.

A discussion of how the game might be approached is always good. It will come off a lot more like how I think Universalis reads than The Window (that is: a lot less strident).

It seems to me that if a game will never be 100% coherent then it'll always be "incoherent." Or rather, that no game can be comfortably described as either one (especially considering the amount of connotation it seems to have in any discussion in which it will be included).

I'm certain that Chris feels coherence is important to his design but: if he changes his rules to assist me, someone who sees Narrativism in his design will find the gear-rules cause munchkining and maybe dislike the multi-phase combat system they'll feel shifts the game to one about combat.

Given this, I'd want to qualify any statements about coherence or incoherence--and specify the magnitude of the phenomena. Without that, I'm not sure the statement will lead to meaningful discourse save with those who already agree with what is being said.

-Marco

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

I'm certain that Chris feels coherence is important to his design but: if he changes his rules to assist me, someone who sees Narrativism in his design will find the gear-rules cause munchkining and maybe dislike the multi-phase combat system they'll feel shifts the game to one about combat.

This whole affair has led me to consider some serious issues in regards to communicating Creative Agenda as a whole.  

First, as has been stated before, drift happens, and that's just fine.  The only point of trouble with that comes in when someone reads a set of rules and takes it as "Oh, this is supposed to be about X, but only produces Y", when in fact, Y is exactly what was intended to begin with.

Second, that sort of issue often comes up based on assumptions about how play is supposed to go, often based on other games.  This is why a lot of folks pick up Sorcerer, play it, and don't get it.  They run Sorcerer like a typical Sim game, and miss all the fun of what its really about.  Unless you either are already freed from those assumptions, or pick up the supplements which really go into counteracting them, you might have trouble "getting it".

Third, using GNS discussion with only partial understanding, basically results in the same sort of dialogue you get when you throw around terms like story, genre, or roleplaying vs. rollplaying- everyone talks past each other without being on the same page.  The GNS essay as a written document provides an invaluable reference tool for people to dialogue.  Like anything else, it still requires effort on the part of the reader to "meet it halfway" in terms of understanding.

This being the case, conveying Creative Agenda is vital towards producing coherent play.  The Impossible Thing before Breakfast, probably can be attributed to failing to have a Creative Agenda match up with system or advice on how to run the game.  Likewise, much of my issues with WW games comes about through a mixed message in Creative Agenda.

All this said, it becomes very clear why "what is your game about?" becomes a fundamental question.   What isn't clear is why its so hard for so many people to formulate and communicate such a concept.  I'd venture it links back into the dysfunctional conditioning of "Don't talk about it, don't acknowledge it" which leads us to using crappy terms like story-oriented, genre, "You adventure and stuff!" as substitutes for what we really mean.

Chris

PS- Marco, you might be surprised to find out that Mayhem High is strictly Sim, not Nar.  It can be drifted to Nar, but there's nothing in it to "push" it that way.  Plus, like the Pool, it sucks for gamist play.  The only sort of "Step on up" at hand is who can be the funniest.

[Marco]

PS- Marco, you might be surprised to find out that Mayhem High is strictly Sim, not Nar.  It can be drifted to Nar, but there's nothing in it to "push" it that way.  Plus, like the Pool, it sucks for gamist play.  The only sort of "Step on up" at hand is who can be the funniest.

It doesn't strike me at all strange that you see it as "Sim." It also seems that you don't understand how it can be seen other ways--each equally "correct". Hence your use of the "Impossible Thing" term.

-Marco

[Jason Lee]

Given this, I'd want to qualify any statements about coherence or incoherence--and specify the magnitude of the phenomena. Without that, I'm not sure the statement will lead to meaningful discourse save with those who already agree with what is being said.

Agreed.

A game might be Abashed if you've been playing for 20 years and know the common mistakes and easy fixes, Coherent if you interpret the text a certain way (which will be based of previous play experience), Incoherent if the text doesn't fit with your preconceptions (the word 'story', for example), and other fuzzy areas.  You can find an inconsistency in any game if you are looking for it.  How much inconsistency is Incoherent?  Abashed?  Typographical error?  Expecting the reader to read between the lines? Just an earlier stage in RPG development?

Anyway, on to the point.  GNS breaks down at the atomic level, which isn't where it is supposed to work so I guess that's just peachy.  Perhaps Incoherent simply doesn't work on the whole game level.  Mechanic A conflicts with priority B could still be a perfectly valid statement.  The rub seems to be that mechanic A will then fall into another priority, and then which priority do you judge the game on?  Particularly slippery when there isn't a clear majority priority, but if there was a majority priority you probably couldn't call it Incoherent anymore.

[Marco]

The rub seems to be that mechanic A will then fall into another priority, and then which priority do you judge the game on?  Particularly slippery when there isn't a clear majority priority, but if there was a majority priority you probably couldn't call it Incoherent anymore.

It gets even stickier: Chris feels the game doesn't push towards Nar play. He says it. He sounds sure. He's dead wrong. My proclivites mean that when I get directoral power I go around setting up plot arcs and aiming towards climaxes and advancing themes. If I don't wanna be doing that, I don't want directoral power.

So for me the game has a H-eeeuuu-ge push towards Nar play. Despite what the designer thinks.

-Marco

[Jason Lee]

Behold my off-topic post!  It's short I promise.

I think I blame Sim for my difficulty with Incoherence.  Seems to me, that games most often pegged as Incoherent (cough...VtM...cough) are at least largely Sim.  Like an unclear addressment of the metagame priority (challenge/theme) leads to the Incoherence.  No clear addressment of challenge or theme, just addressing verisimilitude (which can pop up in Gam or Nar as well) is what gets you Sim, right?  As if the Sim priority isn't strong enough to guide the creative agenda once the inevitable happens and someone's challenge or theme agenda creeps into the play.  Just fuel for the Conflict/Fidelity fire for me I guess.

Just a stray thought full of assumptions and babble.

Editted for clarity...sort of.

[contracycle]

It gets even stickier: Chris feels the game doesn't push towards Nar play. He says it. He sounds sure. He's dead wrong. My proclivites mean that when I get directoral power I go around setting up plot arcs and aiming towards climaxes and advancing themes. If I don't wanna be doing that, I don't want directoral power.

First of all, I still don't see the relevance of this.  For all I know or care, it is also Quite Obvious to you that alien shape-changing mutant xenomorphs live inside your cat.  Just because you claim to see it does not mean it is a) there or b) significant.

So for me the game has a H-eeeuuu-ge push towards Nar play. Despite what the designer thinks.

Secondly: How?  Now above you say that your proclivities lead you to go around setting up climaxes etc. if given directorial power.  I would suggest in the first place, that this is not necessarily narrativism - in which case, the assertion that the game is prompting you to Narrativism is not true.

It still does not appear to me that the case has been made that incoherence is itself an incoherent concept or problematic.  Although its difficult with such fuzzy objects as games, I really don't think that the mere assertion is itself sufficient to form an opinion about much.  MArco, if it is your assertion that a particular game is MISLABELLED, that is entirely different from ciriticism incoherence.  If your assertion is that a given game did not meet your every expectations, I would suggest this is irrelevant to the coherence or otherwise of the game.  And, it seems to me, you could still be transposing "directorial power" with Narrativism in a manner I would not think to be Narratavism.