The Forge Archives

Over at http://www.geocities.com/lumpley/rant.html is a bit from a game of mine about narrative sharing for gamists.  I'd love to hear what all y'all smart people think.

However, and this is a big however, the game of mine, it's not a nice game.  Funny, but not nice.  Something like 2% of the text is swear words, which is a lot, plus it's called Kill Puppies for Satan and that's pretty much the plot.  So please, if you're not into it, don't trouble yourself.

But is anyone else out there thinking about how we non-narrativists might catch up with the very slick, very cool, very sweet things that people are doing these days in narrativist games?  (I just read The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, for instance, and it's left me a little sun-blind.)

-lumpley
http://www.geocities.com/lumpley/

Hey,

I'm eagerly awaiting my copy.

On the topic of Gamist developments, I am already enjoying the variety of innovations that have cropped up in the last few years. I think the first one is Once Upon a Time, which may fairly be called one of the Great Games, both fun and inspiring. Any number of the Cheapass Games should be considered, which although not really role-playing are certainly good meat for RPG design notions.

More on the role-playing side of things, we have Pantheon and Rune, and I suspect quite a few more to come.

I don't think Gamism has EVER really managed to get itself well-expressed in RPG design until recently. I also think there are many flavors of it that remain completely untapped; Pantheon (which was almost certainly influenced by Once Upon a Time) is a good example of bringing story-trophes and their management into the Gamist context.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Hey, can I ask you?  I've been reading in the faq about Gamism, and looking at Pantheon and Rune, and reading things that you and others have said in the past, and here's my question:

Is it narrative sharing for gamists?  

Your copy of puppies should be along any minute now.  I put it in the mail on Monday.  I hope you like it.

-lumpley



[ This Message was edited by: lumpley on 2001-09-27 14:22 ]

Lumpers,

Help me out a little. Is WHAT "narrative sharing for gamists"? If you're talking about Kill Puppies for Satan, then I have to wait until I've read it - and even then I hesitate to do any classifying until I've played it.

What do you mean by "narrative sharing"? I suspect violence is being done to the terminology. Let me see if I can make more sense by starting over.

1) Gamism, like Narrativism, has a very strong and obligatory component of metagame. That is, the PEOPLE'S priorities are overt and central. This leads to a lot of similarities between the two modes, although not in their details of expression.

For instance, I have observed Author stance to be common in Gamist play. This may manifest in its "Pawn" version, in which the player sees no reason to include the character's motivation or perspective in the character's decisions.

I have also observed that Gamist play does not necessarily treat the GM as any kind of authority. Or rather, that in some Gamist play, he is considered an opponent and thus has the same "status" relative to the rules as anyone else. Now that I think of it, of course, still other Gamist play is based on the GM being a referee who does not have any stake at all in the outcome but monitors the competition among players. And in still other Gamist play, no GM is necessary.

My point is that Gamism is wide open for system-development using a much wider spectrum of techniques and people-relationships than has been seen historically, until recently.

2) Drama methods, characterization, influence over outcomes employing overt currencies, strategic modifiers to Fortune methods both before and after the roll (or whatever) ... all of these are obvious and readily-used design components for Gamism just as they are for Narrativism.

Pantheon is an RPG with a Gamist focus that employs mainly Drama methods, managed by a currency using beads, modified by a Fortune method.

My point is that I still see it as Gamism - just because a Gamist game makes use of overt Drama methods does NOT make it Narrativist. It's using narrative as a competitive arena, not creating coherent-story structure as a goal.

And - just so people can't misunderstand - I think this is a brilliant and lovely thing. It's a new way to expand the possibilities of role-playing. It's fun. It's focused on its goals. It makes sense.

Was I on track regarding your question? Or am I misunderstanding the issue and going off on some tangent? If so, rescue me.

Best,
Ron

Hey Lumpley,

From the teasers you've got at your site, Kill Puppies for Satan looks pretty darn clever. And I just emailed you my mailing address. Real comments will have to wait on the postal service, but I'll say now that I'm particularly partial to Satan's attitudes toward killing and engendering the suffering of others. It reminds me somewhat of Lord Entropy's rules in Nobilis that forbid Nobles to love their Anchors, despite game mechanics that rely on relationships of either love or hate to link a Noble to his Anchor. Similarly, there seems to be a lot of narrative potential in the fine line that Satan requires of his servants. I'm looking forward to seeing the whole game.

I'm glad you liked The World, the Flesh, and the Devil. I've been trying not to think about it too hard myself, in hopes that a setting idea will come to me if I don't force it. But if the ideal setting for the game seems apparent to you, please drop down to the "I created The World, the Flesh, and the Devil" thread and let me know what you're thinking. You seem to have a mind for setting, and I'm realizing that I clearly don't. I'm finding that I tend to steal settings from published games for my scenarios, and my current game is no exception.

Paul

Hey All.

Oopsie.  How 'bout this:

Over at http://www.geocities.com/lumpley/rant.html is a bit I wrote about narrative sharing for gamists (which happens to be from a game of mine, but that's not the point except don't read it if you don't like swears.)

That's what I meant to say.  Naturally I'm not asking you to comment on Kill Puppies for Satan, since you haven't even seen it yet.  That would be tacky, or at least plenty confusing.

So anyway, Ron, yes, I'm almost certainly doing violence to the terminology, since my understanding of it is more intuited and less actually informed.  What I mean by narrative sharing is when the non-gm players get to say what happens, not just the gm, like the victory monologues in The Pool.  What I mean by Gamism is that you want things to be challenging more than you want them to be a. realistic or b. a good story.

The essay of mine is about making your players responsible for messing up their own characters' lives, by having them describe the trouble they get into (and punishing them with worse if they don't make it good).  My "is it?" question is, is this Gamist?  I'm not looking for An Answer so much as I'm trying to just talk a bit about Gamism.  I read the Gamist Examples and Redifinition thread over in GNS, where people seemed to become entrenched in their disagreements, and I don't think it helped me.  In the faq you talk about winning, mostly, and I guess I think that playing well is more important than winning.

Hey!  I did learn something in little league!

Paul, I put the cleverest bits of Puppies up on the web site on purpose, I hope you're not disappointed when you get it.  And I will pop over to your thread, thanks!

-lumpley

Ah, the perils of starting a thread.  I always discover at about my third post that all I really have to say is Hey Everybody!  Pay attention to ME!



[ This Message was edited by: lumpley on 2001-09-27 22:20 ]

I'm all over this. I emailed you, I can't wait to see this. The website had me rolling, folks. God bless Satan.

James V.

Quote
On 2001-09-27 21:37, lumpley wrote:
So anyway, Ron, yes, I'm almost certainly doing violence to the terminology, since my understanding of it is more intuited and less actually informed.  What I mean by narrative sharing is when the non-gm players get to say what happens, not just the gm, like the victory monologues in The Pool.  What I mean by Gamism is that you want things to be challenging more than you want them to be a. realistic or b. a good story.

Hi L,
Around here what you refer to would be called Director Stance, or sometimes Directorial Power. The definition of Narrativism includes that players have this power. And that is a fairly good definition of Gamism; close enough for governmetn work, anyway. Be careful with Realistic, though around here. Most people would replace Realistic above with something like "Suitable for the setting". In some games a good simulation means being very unrealistic.

Quote
The essay of mine is about making your players responsible for messing up their own characters' lives, by having them describe the trouble they get into (and punishing them with worse if they don't make it good).  My "is it?" question is, is this Gamist?  I'm not looking for An Answer so much as I'm trying to just talk a bit about Gamism.  I read the Gamist Examples and Redifinition thread over in GNS, where people seemed to become entrenched in their disagreements, and I don't think it helped me.  In the faq you talk about winning, mostly, and I guess I think that playing well is more important than winning.

The winning thing is kinda misleading. What they mean by that is playing to win. That is, that the gamist style of play is to make decisions based on whatever will help the characters overcome the in-game obstacles best.

When you say "playing well" it all depends on what you mean exactly. If you mean defeating obstacles well, that would be gamist. If you mean accurate portrayal, that would be Simulationist. If you mean participation in such a way that you advance the story, that would be Narrativist. You can play well in all three ways, so playing well in general cannot be attributed to gamism.

Here's my standard example: choosing a sword. If the player chooses a sword for his character because he reads in the rules that it does the most damage then he's making a Gamist decision. If he selects a broadwsord because his character is a knight and he believes that knights use broadswords in the setting provided, that's a Simulationist decision. If he creates an old battered and nearly rusty sword that his father wielded before he died and uses that, that's a narrativist decision. Note that these could all be the same sword by chance.

The question is not necessarily what the result is as why the decision was made. To the extent that a player tends to consistently make a particular type of decision, I refer to them as Gamist, or Simulationist, etc, but the more proper phrase might be to say that these individuals prefer this mode (some are adverse to people being labeled as such).

Anyhow, keep in mind that many people, like myself are fond of more than one of these modes. But particular games tend to lend themselves to only one sort of decision making by their design.

Is any of this helpful in defining Gamism?

Mike

In the spirit of endless clarification,

Mike's totally on target except for this little weenie point ...

"The definition of Narrativism includes that players have this power."

This is over-stated. Historically, Narrativist play makes use of Director stance more than the other modes. Currently, especially in games like Pantheon, Director stance is hootin' and hollerin' right there in solid Gamism.

Narrativism may INCLUDE Director stance, and it may be that such play includes it a LOT. It doesn't have to, though; stance plays no role in the definition of Narrativism or either of the other two goals/modes.

The overall point is that stance is a totally different issue from GNS, and (for instance) a person playing with Gamist goals might shift stance all over the place through a session of play.

Best,
Ron

Hmmm. That seems to be recanting to me, but we'll just attribute it to me mischaracterizing some statement that strongly linked the Director stance with the Narrativist mode as a definition. Obviously, though, you can have Director stance in any mode.

Mike

Hey All.

Mike Holmes says:

QuoteWhen you say "playing well" it all depends on what you mean exactly. If you mean defeating obstacles well, that would be gamist. If you mean accurate portrayal, that would be Simulationist. If you mean participation in such a way that you advance the story, that would be Narrativist. You can play well in all three ways, so playing well in general cannot be attributed to gamism.

Playing well, playing well.  I was thinking of Netrunner or Buttonmen as I wrote it.  I don't mind losing a game if I played well but lost, and I'm not satisfied winning a game if I played poorly but won.  What "playing well" means in that way varies from game to game, whether it's being able to distill a strategy from the rules, or knowing when to gamble and when to hold back, or whatever.  Playing up at the leading edge of your skill, not beneath it.

For rpgs, I guess I mean playing in such a way that you contribute to the game (which may or may not contribute to the story, secondarily, if anybody's even paying attention).  I don't think that it's about overcoming obstacles, since a. GMs can be Gamists and b. GMs don't overcome obstacles much at all.  Making good obstacles is as important a part of Gamism, I suggest, as dealing with them is.

And let's see, isn't Elfs about Director Stance, but you're expressly never allowed to direct anything but your own character?  I think Narrative Sharing is a different thing, a particular application of Director Stance, giving the players Directorial Power over events and the larger world, not just their guys.  (Although -- look out -- I think you can do it from Actor Stance too if you're willing to.)

But I agree with you -- I thought that people were linking Narrative Sharing / Directorial Power in general with Narrativist play too.  Must just be because it's Narrativists who've been talking about it.

-lumpley


[ This Message was edited by: lumpley on 2001-09-28 13:25 ]

Your "playing well" refers to the Uber-goal. That is having fun. Yes, if you play well in any or all of the three ways that you can, you'll have fun. But as such that has nothing to do directly with gamism.

And yes, what you describe as Narrative sharing sounds just like Director stance. It may be a particular way to apply it, but almost certainly director stance play. One word of caution, the prevailing notion around here is that mixing your priorities can be dangerous, an idea that I tentatively agree on. Ron has stated that he doesn't feel like he's ever seen a game that does it well, although he does admit that it's not impossible.

Mike

I read the rant, and, yep, that's handing direcorial power to the players all right. The slapdown method for keeping it in line is an interesting tactic for trying to keep them on target, but in most narrativist designs this sort of thing should not be necessary. Or rather, if you find it necessary to reign in players who abuse directorial power, they are probably playing in a gamist fashion. One easy way to get beyond this is to let them. If they just run away with the game and never create anything interesting, then they either don't get it at all, or are Gamists who don't want to change. If they do get it and like it, they'll start to make up good stuff on their own.

An easier way around this is to play SOAP (this is my standard litmus test these days, and at only an hour, it's a fast one). After one game you'll know if they get it (they will), and then you can ask them if they'd like to play that way in other games.

Mike

Hey Mike.

I still think you're not getting me about playing well.  I said, playing well contributes to the game.  I meant, playing well (in this Gamist sense) contributes to the game part of roleplaying, the give and take here's a clever difficulty here's a clever solution part of the evening.  I don't mean the meta-goal of everyone having fun, I mean the goal of everyone being challenged and engaged and not sure whether they're going to pull it off against the odds or not.  The Gamist goal.

I already know for sure that my players want, like, and are very responsible with directorial power.  (When I say my players, I mean my co-players / co-gms.)  What I want is to open the idea of shared directorial power to Gamists -- by making a game of it.  The game starts out as How little grief will the gm let me give myself?, and before you know it you're a co-owner of the world instead of just a houseguest.  But, and this is important, you're still a Gamist playing a Gamist game.  I'm not trying to turn Gamists into Narrativists, I'm trying to give Gamists directorial power.

So let's see, let me take a step back.  Here's what I think.  I think that shared directorial power is great for Narrativists, because a. it gives the players more investment in the story and b. it lets the players tailor the story to their own interests and c. probably more reasons I'm just not thinking of.  I say that shared directorial power is great for Gamists, too, for the precise same reasons, substituting Challenge or Strategic Tension for Story as appropriate.

(Oh, and of absolutely course when I say Gamists, I mean Gamists as though it were possible for any person to be only and entirely a Gamist, which I for one don't think it is.  Naturally.)

-lumpley

I think I see what you're saying. And it's an interesting idea. I was advocating for a while implementing Directiorial power for Simulationist games. The problem there is that many people who play Simulationist games are in them for the much debated Immersion. Or rather they find things that break their suspension of disbelief damaging to their enjoyment. Such that giving a player directorial power detatches the player from his character, distracting the player if you will, it damages suspension of disbelief for some, and makes such a game less enjoyable for said players.

Similarly, the players that you have to worry about with your idea are simply the gamists who don't want to make any narrativist decisions. Or rather they don't care about the story, but instead only about how many puppies they stomp or whatever is the gamist meter of success in the game. These players (and we've all met some, I'll bet) will resent that you try to control their actions with such use of drama, and from their viewpoint they are totally justified. The way they see it, you have said that it is legal to do something, but then you punish them for doing it. Without any consultation of a rule or anything, but just by fiat. This is the opposite situtation of what they desire, and will disapoint them.

I do believe that many if not most players constantly make either G, N, or S decisions. This is most commonly found due to not having experienced the others, but also occurs by preference. Those who haven't experienced narrativism may take time to adjust to it, and may never in fact. I feel lucky that I seem to be able to enjoy them all more or less, but even I have leanings. So there will be players who would normally be attracted to the gamist parts of your game who will be disapointed by the directorial parts.

If you're players are comfortable shifting between gamism and narrativism, then this dichotomy will not be a problem for them. But as a general product, it is likely to have detractors who find that the clash of modes in the game make it unplayable for them. Moreso than would just dismiss a game for focusing on one mode, which is the minimum and, therefore unavoidable.

Given what you have in the rant, essentially the GM using drama resolution to teach players via negative reinforcement to play in a more narrativist fashion is quite suspect. Do you have anything other to back it up? If that is the whole of the means by which you intend to create the effect you seek, I fear that you'll find that it alienates far more than it works.

Mike