Incoherent kit-bashing

[Jack Spencer Jr]

From this thread

What always puzzles me is that people who assert that incoherent game design is a good thing, because apparently it's desirable to tinker rules to taste, also assert very clearly that a game's design affects how well it plays.

It think we're talking about kit-bashing here. This is fairly well-known in modeling circles, such as warhammer mini conversions.

e.g. Say you want a particular elf miniature. You could build from scratch or kit-bash. Building from scratch requires taking raw material and then shaping it the way you want it. This is limited to your own sculpting talents, requires a great deal of effort, and may look like shit when you're done. (maybe not, but that can vary) Or you could kit-bash. You purchase a miniature that as closely resembles your desired mini as posible. Then you convert is. You reposition the arms and legs, cut the sword off and glue a spear on in its place. Glue other items onto the figure from you bits box. and then paint it. Because you're using parts already sculpted, the final result look pretty damn good.

So those who like coherent games see something they like in the game and then convert it into something they can use. Such is my theory.

[Marco]

I would put this at even the more extreme end of the scale--but yes, I do agree with it. I liked VtM's language. I liked their artwork and setting and world. I liked the powers and the concept of the clans. I felt the combat system had a weakness--aggravated damage--but I saw what they were trying to do with it.

Frenzy wasn't something we focused on, neither was hunting. That didn't happen too often in the game (although both did happen). Mainly they didn't happen because of *setting* and not *system* (okay, well mechanics, really).

That's not exactly shaving off a spear ... I see it more as *painting* the minature ("Hey--the army on the box is red--and you did it blue!")--but analogies are, I think, more damaging for role-playing discussion than anything else: they propogate ill-suited terms (story, protagonist, etc.).

If someone had designed VtM (with our example of functional play) off the game we ran ... it'd look a hella-lot like the book, I think. Now, if you removed everything we didn't *play* with (*poof* goodbye Ventrue!) yes, there'd be some changes--at that point, what does Drift become vs. the kind of decisions every GM makes ("I can't put *all* the monsters from *all* the books in my dungeon ...")

Surely Ron wouldn't be surprised by someone who says "I really like how AD&D was played ... but I never cared for some of the goofier monsters nor the psionics ... or the bard class--but that didn't change my appreciation of it!"

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Because you like to change games it's good that they need changing? As if you couldn't change a game that doesn't need changing?

I'm totally not getting it. Kit-bashing is great, I do it constantly (I rarely run a game that isn't of my own design, or two or more other systems smashed together). How does that mean that a game that doesn't work as written is good?

Mike

[Marco]

How does that mean that a game that doesn't work as written is good?

Mike

I'm not sure what "doesn't work as written" means (and since this is drift and incoherency related, I shall take the chance to point out again that the language can apply to a game written entirely in an imaginary language--which is worth less to me than the blank paper would be--or to a game that is perfect for me save for a numerical typo in a non-essential (for me as a player) sub-system--there needs to be some gradients, folks).

I think Jack is pointing out that if I read a game, and like it--but don't like some aspect, I may logically be much better off with that game and a modification (sometimes an *incredibly* minor one--or simply a setting decision) than any other game on the market.

-Marco

[Valamir]

Marco, between this and Fang's thread I have long since lost any sense of what your point is.

I am left to believe that you have your own personal hangup with the word "drift" and are working overtime to distance yourself from it, trying mightily to demonstrate that whatever it is you enjoy doing is not associated with the word drift in any way.  

Some months back you went through similiar gyrations to try and make sure no one would slap the dreaded Narrativist label on you.

I'm not sure where the hang up is, you like to Drift games, great.  So do alot of people.  Some games are designed to require Drifting, great, so what.  Drifting is work.  Some times hard some times easy...alot of people find that work enjoyable...again, so what.  All of that has been stipulated time and again.  Whatever personal distaste you have for the word "drift" whatever negative implications you read into the word "work"...frankly doesn't interest me in the least.  

I would really enjoy seeing some discussion on this that doesn't involve personal vocabulary preference.  Because frankly I've long since grown weary about worrying whether a particular term meets someone criteria or personal preference set.  

Ron uses "Step on Up" in his gamist essay.  I personally can't think of a sillier more ridiculous term than than (though I fully understand its derivation).  But so what, I'll get over it.

Seriously.  The amount of energy wasted on vocabulary nonsense is getting quite old.

This whole thing is ridiculously simple:

1)  Coherency occurs when all players can play within their GNS behavior set without interfering with other players ability to enjoy the game from within their own GNS behavior set.

2)  Incoherency occurs when the above is not the case.  This may be the result of group social dynamics or it may be the result of GNS incompatable rules.  The former is a social contract issue that has nothing to do with game design, GNS, drift or anything else.  The latter is very much a design / GNS issue.  An incompatable rule may be the result of how the rule was written or how a particular group chooses to interpret or apply how the rule is written.  

3)  Certain rules sets have different parts that service different GNS modes to a greater or lesser extent.  Players may find that they cannot play within their desired GNS behavior space without adjusting the rules in some fashion.  Adjusting may mean adding rules that are missing, modifying rules that are present but don't support the desired GNS mode as well as desired, or dropping rules that interfere.  This is Drift.  Adjusting may occur entirely for aesthetic reasons that have nothing to do with GNS mode.  This is not Drift (though I suspect that most supposed "aesthetic" changes have a GNS root somewhere)

4) When play is Incoherent due to incompatable rule design it may be possible to Drift it back to coherency as described in #3.  If this is not possible, than dysfunction will result.  Dysfunction will result because the definition of Coherency is the ability to play within ones preferred (at that time...there is not universal permanent preference) GNS mode without interferring with another player's enjoyment.  If you are interfering with another player's enjoyment and you can't fix it through Drift or Social Contract negotiation, than you have dysfunctional play.  Period

It doesn't get any more basic or simple than this folks.

[Marco]

My point was that when Ron says this:

"What always puzzles me is that people who assert that incoherent game design is a good thing, because apparently it's desirable to tinker rules to taste, also assert very clearly that a game's design affects how well it plays."

I was responding that "tinker rules to taste" is not incompatable with "game design affects how well it's played" unless one makes some assumptions about tinkering.

Maybe you could tell me if it puzzles you.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'll clarify that passage ... I am referring to the claim made recently by a number of people in the RPG.net thread we were both on, specifically Chris Dicely and to a lesser extent Bruce Baugh, which is that a game which must be tinkered with offers a distinct source of enjoyment, and that an extremely important aspect of role-playing hobby is somehow diminished by focusing game design in GNS terms.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Roger that--I missed the context when looking at Jack's post. I still think that Drift needs some modifiers:

:: top of my head ::

Heavy Drift: extensive modification of a major rules system.

Resolution Modification Drift: changing the way in-system mechancial resolutions are interpeerted (could be fortune in the middle-but most severely: ignoring dice rolls)

Light Drift: ignoring non-relational sub-system/rule (no Aging rules)

Medium Drift: lots of light-drift--still staying away from major systemic subsections (combat, resolution mechanics, char-gen): dissalowing the Bard class is probably light drift. Not playing with elves and dwarves is probably medium (IMO). This is still a judgement call--and should be held porportional to the size of the rules (GURPS requires a good deal of drift to reach the medium point, Nicotine Girls probably goes straight to Heavy when you change something).

Correctional Drift: a change to a rule that is done to correct a percieved mechanical flaw. Different from Heavy Drift in that it is usually seen as more of a tweak (by the person doing it--maybe not by anyone else) than a change in philosophy. May also be applied to correcting what the reader regards as a typo.

Situational Drift: creating a scenario/situation that avoids the use of certain rules. Only *obviously* drift when the creator does it intentionally (otherwise it might be inferred--but can't be proven).

So we look at me:

I played AD&D with light to medium drfit.

I played Vampire with Situational, Correctional, and Light drift (to my recollection)

I would play MayhemPT (as currently posted) with Heavy drift.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Cool. Categorization. I dig.

Is Heavy Drift the point at which it would be easier to just use a more appropriate system? Or would that be "Extra Heavy Drift"?

Mike

[Marco]

Mike,

That *is* the question. Some people will say you should be using a new system at light.

I think the lightbulb for me is this:

Despite the fact that I'd heavily drift MayhemPT--I'd still have excellent utility for it over TFOS or GURPS IOU. The kicker is this: my modification (gear rules for robo-racers) would:

a) fit nicely in the system and play to its strenghts
b) leverage the rest of the cool-ness of the system in ways I like
c) The existence of robo-racers (and the background in particular) feeds well into what I want to do with it. That doesn't exist in IOU (which has the gear and vehicle rules I'm askin' for ... but damn dude, I'm a gear head and ... well, you've *seen* that book!?)

So no. Drift never means you should use another game. Big over-generalization. Maybe the big overgeneralization. It's really a very indivualized matter.

-Marco

[Valamir]

Ultimately EVERYTHING comes down to a very individualized matter.  But its completely useless to default to that as an answer to everything.

Models are by definition a simplification, abstraction, generalization of reality.  That is their purpose.  To take a reality that is too complex and detailed for analysis and put it into a manageable form.  The net result is a guarenteed, and EXPECTED loss of granularity.  

That's what models do, its what they're for.  

So you have a choice.  You either make a generalized statement knowing full well that there will be exceptions and outliers, but which is a useful principle to use as a discussion point and to enhance understanding.

Or you make a a vague, all inclusive, statement that because it tries so hard to not exclude anyone or anything is so broad and non specific as to be completely useless for any form of analysis.

Marco, in your quest to see that nothing gets left out and that nothing is said that you can think of a counter example for...you're going to wind up being left with model so ill defined as to be worth nothing.

It is impossible to identify every single individual play group's idiosyncracies.  Therefor any statement that ends with "it all depends on individual play group idiosyncracies" is essentially a dead end, closed off to further analysis.  

That to me is self defeating and to be avoided.

[Mike Holmes]

I do see your point, Marco, that the "new" game created by a lot of work with the old game can have advantages over any other game that exists.

How about this? Is there a point where it would simply be better to create a game from scratch than to have to deal with the problems of the original game? I can say with some certainty that when my Rolemaster game started looking a lot like GURPS that I'd crossed this barrier. No levels, no classes, all point based generation including gifts and flaws... Basically, I was taking a system that my players demanded that I use, and making it into the system that I wanted to use. Sorta underhandedly making the change in systems (all made possible by the RMCs).

Would have been much easier to convince them to use GURPS if I could have. I'd have tinkered with that as well (big Umanna fan), but at least it would have required less mess. The players rightly complained that they had to rewrite their very complicated characters every month or so as I discovered revisions I liked.  

Mike

[Wormwood]

Ralph,

A model comes associated with it an error depiction. Namely where does it apply to the real system, and what is the indication of error when applied to this region. It is necessary to either constrain the application or note significant (and hence highly bluring) error terms in order to model a complex system with a very general statement. Likewise a complex model makes these elements simpler. The value of a model is derived from both the complexity of the model, it's error degree, and it's narrowness of application. Suggesting that the model should significantly reduce error by using a sliding scale, in my mind a probabilistic judge for the utility of drift. For example, the number of people who will with good reason drift falls off linearly with the increase in drift complexity. This can then be modeled with player values for cutomized and non-customized system, as well as a shifting cost scale for drift investment (necessary because some people dislike it and others enjoy it in some quantity). Once sheared down a bit, this model would be a little more complex, but would remove error easily.

Ultimately this is simply an example. Marco is not suggesting a model with no generalization, rather he's suggesting a sharper model. While I agree the model needs some development, dismissing it out of hand because it is sharper is very much over-kill.

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.

[Wormwood]

Mike,

Designing your own game to avoid a massive drift implies foreknowledge of the destination of that drift. It's why writting a story from an exercise is easier than doing it from scratch. If you know what you want, designing the game is probably the way to go. But alas, remarkably few designers seem to know what they want. To me that should be the first rule of game design, all design decisions should have a reason, both positive and negative decisions.

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.

[Marco]

Or you make a a vague, all inclusive, statement that because it tries so hard to not exclude anyone or anything is so broad and non specific as to be completely useless for any form of analysis.

Marco, in your quest to see that nothing gets left out and that nothing is said that you can think of a counter example for...you're going to wind up being left with model so ill defined as to be worth nothing.

It is impossible to identify every single individual play group's idiosyncracies.  Therefor any statement that ends with "it all depends on individual play group idiosyncracies" is essentially a dead end, closed off to further analysis.  

That to me is self defeating and to be avoided.

Hi Ralph,
Actually I'm looking for someone to make a hard-hitting, verifiable, and solid statement.

"System Does Matter?" -- How much? How? Where? Does it matter the same way to most people? More than cover art? Always? What does that mean save to address the counter-argument. You postulated a formula. Is the weighted value a constant? Do we think there reall is one? Can we guess at what it is? Can we describe the terms underwhich it changes?

"If you are heavily drifting a game you should play another game?" Is anyone saying this? Would someone? That would be a concrete statement. I happen to have a crystal clear counter-example here. We could discuss if it's the exception or the rule. It would, I think, shed light on why drifted games are so popular. I would've expected some discussion into amounts of drift and such (it's very core to the SDM argument) before I got to this thread.

"If people in a group have different interpertations of what a game will be played like it will lead to dysfunction." No more so than it will lead to consensus. It depends on the maturity level of the people involved. Not only do I think maturity is the major factor in dysfunction--I think it is the only truly relevant one.

Is anyone arguing this? Is that statement as hard and fast as I'm reading it--or are people really saying "hey, misunderstandings are bad."

If it's the latter, no argument--and not much content. If it's the former, I think it's clearly wrong. If we believe that gaming rules *are read* as legal and binding contracts and that each party coming to the table has the right to expect contractual obligation of a play-style based on the other parties agreement to play the game then that'd be a good discussion point--if phrased in such strong and definitie languge--and it'd be one that'd be succeptible to proof or disproof.

Is anyone making it? Do we want to discuss that? I'm not sure. The discussion of that, IMO, would look different from what I've seen before here--and it would confine system to only what's in text--and it would prescribe social contract as subordinate to system--and a *lot* of other things that aren't in the theory now (AFAIK).

But--still--is anyone saying that?

-Marco