Social Contract Decisions for Coherency

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

I've been doing a lot of thinking about Coherency in games, and Incoherency as well.  I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that Incoherency(in design, at least), results from failing to provide clear guidelines on some key issues, instead leaving that to the individual group and their social contract to hammer out.  The more explicit and clearly these sorts of decisions and guidelines are given, the easier it is to have functional play.  Otherwise, its hit or miss depending on the group.

So with that, here's an incomplete list of some of the things I think need to be explained clearly in a game to increase the odds of coherent play...

-Creative Agenda
-Participationism/Illusionism/Protagonistic play?  Which one, and how?
-Who Narrates?
-IIEE
-Resolution Mechanics(how they work, what modifiers and why, interpretation for narration)
-Where does conflict/Situation come from?

You can look at games like Inspectres and find how it hits all these points and delivers strong coherent play, while other games, are completely vague or contradictory on some of these issues.

Thoughts? Comments? Additions to the list?

Chris

[M. J. Young]

Participationism/Illusionism/Protagonistic play?  Which one, and how?

I think this list of "possibilities" is incomplete; anyway, more to the point, they're all about distribution of credibility, which is what you want to address.

I just commented on this in the long thread, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7142&start=45">Something By Way of a Counterpoint (the fourth page), and referenced the http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory article on it, so I'll leave it at that. I think, though, that apportionment of credibility is really the problem behind The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast: it doesn't tell you how to do that, and assumes that you'll read into the text the same interpretation as is used in the author's games.

--M. J. Young

[Bankuei]

Hi MJ,

I had a moment of trouble parsing what you were saying, but after reading your post in the other thread, I get it now.  Yes, exactly what I'm saying.  Without either explicitly laying it out, or providing clear rules and guidelines for choosing an option, the group is left floundering and in trouble, really on any or all of these issues.  I also have a high and nagging suspicion that these issues, and perhaps a couple others, are really big determinants in a game's GNS leanings.

Although, to be honest, aren't all rules and power issues as far as System is concerned, one form or another of divvying up Credibility?  The key point is that I'm seeing these as prime issues that, when clear, lead to functional play, and when unclear, lead to problems.  The clarity can come from the rules, or by social contract.  Likewise for problems, although I think clarity in the rules is about the best we can shoot for here.

Chris