The Forge Archives

Hey guys,
If this isn't the right spot for this, please let me know.
I've read a little bit about D&D and its 'alignment' (no pun intended!) w/ GNS in different threads. IIRC, as written, D&D has been said to be a Gamist's game.
As they are written, where does the Storyteller system and Fasa's SR fall into the GNS classifcations?
What I'm trying to do here is clarify some points in my own brain so that I can further my thoughts on technique, what it is, how to use it, how it's currently used, how it does or does not directly relate to different parts of GNS and some other general flotsam that's floating around in my head these days.
For the record, I think (as in pretty sure, but not 100%) WW and SR are most closely aligned w/ S. Am I off my rocker here?
Thanks.

(edit: typos, doh!)

Hi Lisa,

Bearing in mind that classifying a game system is kind of a one-step-removed inference about playing that game ...

a) The White Wolf games ought to be considered singly and in terms of which books per line, not just via the dice system. For instance, I think first edition Vampire takes a mainly Simulationist approach toward resolution, but a fairly Gamist one toward character creation and improvement - but confusingly, a pretty Narrativist set of rhetoric about one's character. Frankly, I find it kitchen-sinky - almost a house-rules game based on GURPS, with a strong twist towards "GM says" when it comes down to it. I suggest that any particular group needs to Drift its rules to taste (not just can, but has to) in order to get a coherent play experience.

Whereas Werewolf strikes me as more directly Gamist - "furry supers," as its author is reported to have said, although within the context of a pretty strict metaplot over the course of supplement publishing, which makes things potentially more Simulationist-Situation depending on the group's use of that material. Exalted reminds me a lot of Werewolf in this regard.

It's also tricky because most of these games aren't merely a single rulebook, but at least three or four whole books for the "core set" and God knows how many more if you take various splatbooks, settings, and adventures into account. And because most of them went through two editions with significant changes.

b) Shadowrun is also notable for editions changes, so it'd be important to know which one was involved, as well as to know whether adventures were integrated with published metaplot and/or scenarios (which relied highly on GM-Force, a.k.a. railroading for some of us).

Going by early Shadowrun, before most of the current publications were available, I suggest it was mainly Gamist with a fair "underpinning" hybrid Simulationist emphasis. But later versions plus all the supplementary stuff pushed it more and more toward Simulationist/Situation.

None of the above ought to imply that this is how a specific person or group has actually played these games. These are my inferences about the "directions" that groups might be more likely to take, considered across a lot of people. Drift will change everything; given games with this much source material, you'll find groups playing extremely stripped down versions of them, to the extent that my inferences above are totally meaningless.

When talking about actual play and Drift, it's very important to consider what rules/guidelines are being thrown out, just as when discussing AD&D2 or Champions - different groups hardly ever played the same game, even if they owned and were faithfully using the rule books, because which 25% of the rules they ignored varied greatly by group.

That Drift is interesting stuff. I suggest that for both games, the emphasis on combat is a key factor, especially considering the time it takes in play. Two groups playing Vampire might represent very different GNS approaches if one has two or three bang-up combats per session and the other has one every four or five sessions. Typically, "combat" per se isn't that big a variable for talking about play modes, but in this case I think it is, due to the heavy rules-issues combat brings to both games.

Hope this helps or is otherwise interesting.

Best,
Ron

Alright, help me think through this then:
If we're talking about system separate from the dice rolling mechanics here (which seems to be the case when you said, "The White Wolf games ought to be considered singly and in terms of which books per line, not just via the dice system." ) then WW games as a whole are catering to all three priorities simultaneously? If this is so, and as you say, "any particular group needs to Drift its rules to taste (not just can, but has to) in order to get a coherent play experience."...then is system more of a non issue in the System doesn't Matter/ System Does Matter debate? IOW, since drift must occur for coherent play, aren't various troupes just now applying whatever techniques (whether they be straight from the rule book or otherwise) to fulfill the CA of the game they wish to play?

As far as product lines in WWGS being different from the other 'core' lines, the answer as I see it (just MHO based on observation and actually doing some work over there) is because while editors of different lines may chat about a cohesive 'world', authors for the different lines do not. In fact, sometimes authors writing in the same book do not consult each other. The result is a product in which the editor has set forth an outline of what the book is to be about and leaves authors to fill in the blanks. Those blanks may or may not correspond with each other depending on a particular author's take on the game/book in question, the vigilance of a particular editor in ensuring cohesion, and a few other factors. It's no wonder that you say that classifying WW material is tricky. It is. The common bond through all of the books is the Storyteller system itself.

Hello,

QuoteIf we're talking about system separate from the dice rolling mechanics here (which seems to be the case when you said, "The White Wolf games ought to be considered singly and in terms of which books per line, not just via the dice system." ) then WW games as a whole are catering to all three priorities simultaneously?

Umm. This is going to be hard to parse out, so let's see how well I do. First: you've mis-read me a little in saying "system is separate from the dice rolling mechanics." My point was that the system of each game, invididually, is composed of the dice mechanics plus everything else. The character creation options, the reward systems, all that stuff together with the resolution mechanics are the system. Since there are some big differences across the games in these things, despite the similar "what the dice say" mechanics, they have different systems.

I don't think that White Wolf games cater to all three priorities simultaneously. I think that some of them (Vampire in particular) are more of a scattered collection of game-stuff with little regard to shared Creative Agenda of any kind beyond Exploration of Color. I see it as a "cluttered attic," not "all three at once." Or hmmm, instead of a vehicle which can sail, fly, or speed along a road as desired, I see a vehicle with semi-finished bits of all three propulsion methods, and if you want to drive it somewhere, you first have to decide which medium to travel in, then add bits and saw off some of the existing ones so that it'll go.

Quotesince drift must occur for coherent play, aren't various troupes just now applying whatever techniques (whether they be straight from the rule book or otherwise) to fulfill the CA of the game they wish to play?

Yes. But I don't see how that makes system a non-issue. It strikes me instead that system is shown to be a central issue by this phenomenon; otherwise everyone could have met their separate Creative Agendas by using the same rules/mechanics. Since they couldn't, and therefore had to Drift, then it shows system does matter. Perhaps you are mistaking "system" for "rules in book?" When I say system, I mean, whatever the group does in order to have things happen in play.

QuoteAs far as product lines in WWGS being different from the other 'core' lines, the answer as I see it (just MHO based on observation and actually doing some work over there) is because while editors of different lines may chat about a cohesive 'world', authors for the different lines do not. In fact, sometimes authors writing in the same book do not consult each other. The result is a product in which the editor has set forth an outline of what the book is to be about and leaves authors to fill in the blanks. Those blanks may or may not correspond with each other depending on a particular author's take on the game/book in question, the vigilance of a particular editor in ensuring cohesion, and a few other factors.

I agree; my observations of WW freelancing jibe with that entirely. That's a good insight. I think the same thing happens with AEG's games and with some of the other "flood the shelves" publishers.

QuoteIt's no wonder that you say that classifying WW material is tricky. It is. The common bond through all of the books is the Storyteller system itself.

I guess my point is that I don't see it (the dice mechanic, which as I say above, is too limited a game-feature to be called System) as much of a bond. I consider each game individually to be quite simple to discuss in GNS/etc terms, but I don't see much reason to lump them together due to the shared resolution mechanic.

How's that doing? Am I making sense?

Best,
Ron

Yep. I'm going to give this some thought and more comment, probably tommorow.
Danke.

Ron says:

>>Yes. But I don't see how that makes system a non-issue. It strikes me instead that system is shown to be a central issue by this phenomenon; otherwise everyone could have met their separate Creative Agendas by using the same rules/mechanics. Since they couldn't, and therefore had to Drift, then it shows system does matter. Perhaps you are mistaking "system" for "rules in book?" When I say system, I mean, whatever the group does in order to have things happen in play.<<

You know, I re-read this paragraph a dozen times. It made me laugh because maybe we're getting to the same place just through different routes.
When I say, 'System doesn't matter, except when it does,' what I am really talking about is the rules, written in the book, as they are. Now some games I think are critically tied to their rules as written. No rules means no game (or rather, none of that particular game because by discarding the rules you've abandoned that game's particular flavor). Some examples of this that come to mind would be mini war games, (there's others, I'm sure, if I think about it.) Yeah, you can port the rules out, but what do you have after that? Not much because at that point you may as well be playing something else. Some games, like WW's lines, you can freely discard any and all rules, but after that you're still playing a game that's recognizably Vampire, for instance. So, in that respect, system does not matter. If it mattered, I wouldn't be able to throw it away and still play.
NOW! What you're saying here if I'm reading correctly is that what the assembled group decides *is* the system, not what's necessarily in the book. If that's what you're saying, then I agree wholeheartedly that system doesn't only matter, but it's critical to play experience. Although I thought this particular point was really all about CA.
System (rules as written) also matter if a particular group is unwilling to 'hot rod' their own play experience by discarding or using other rules as they see fit. In this case, System Matters because if the rules as written encourage antagonistic (or other negative) behaviors, which some games do, then the group is pretty much sunk. By following the rules as written, that group is set up for a social mishap. Not cool.
Am I reading you right, here?

Plus there's the next step that ties these two together.

System matters because you shouldn't HAVE to perform major surgery on the game just to get it to play the way its supposed to.  Part of what "system matters" says is that game designers should spend more time paying attention to making a system that delivers the game experience rather than just throwing any old bog standard thing down and relying on players to rewrite it.

Amen to what Ralph said.

Also, I would argue that if you discard and all rules from Vampire, it is often NOT "recognizably Vampire". In fact, this is the biggest problem with most incoherent systems -- when a new player is integrated into a game, chances are very high that the game is NOTHING like that player expects.

I have seen VERY wide divergence in the way Vampire is played. Yes, this happens in all games, but compare to, say, D&D 3E: The rewards system and methodologies in that game mean that most D&D games are reasonably similar, much more so than Vampire. At the very least, there are things you can more responably expect.

In fact, I could argue that the "reboot" of the World of Darkness is because the current people at White Wolf want to focus Vampire a bit more.

Yup.

I suggest we adopt a standard to avoid confusion.

System = very general term indicating "what we do" so that fictional events will take place among our imaginations

Techniques = physical and communicative acts that make up System (rolling dice, announcing actions, whatever)

Rules = text about any aspect of play, very often about Techniques

The point is that System and Techniques are "real" and always present, relative to play-content, whereas rules are merely referenced and may or may not be employed.

When I say "System does matter," what I mean is, "the specific Techniques we employ do affect our enjoyment." When we take that idea to game design, it seems like a no-brainer - provide, in your rules, techniques that work really well for a certain kind of enjoyment.

Best,
Ron

xiombarg said:

>>Also, I would argue that if you discard and all rules from Vampire, it is often NOT "recognizably Vampire". In fact, this is the biggest problem with most incoherent systems -- when a new player is integrated into a game, chances are very high that the game is NOTHING like that player expects. <<

I would argue against the first part of your statement. Here's why: If someone sat down to witness a Vampire game that had 'house rules' instituted, they would still know that the game is Vampire:TM. It's lexicon of terminology for certain splats, events, and actions is very specific. Players are still talking about Primogen and Camarilla, and whatever else even if the conflict resolution system has been completely reworked. The game is still Vampire. If this weren't the case, then V:TM 1st Ed wouldn't be recognizable as Vampire because V:TM revised now has different systems (rules as written). That any edition of Vampire (just as the example here) would be unrecognizable because of a rules change (whether it be canon or house rules) isn't correct from my view.
Now, if you started changing the splats, the powers, the actual vibe of the game but kept the storyteller system intact, I would say *that* game is less recognizable as Vampire. And so in that event, I would say system (rules as written) are far less important than the other aspects of the game. Put another way, system doesn't make the game what it is in most cases. So, it's easy to see why if we're talking about system (rules as written), I would say, 'It Don't Mattah!'

As far as expectations. This should be solved on the social and CA levels. This has very little to do w/ the actual books themselves. This has to do w/ the people sitting down, FTF, playing a particular game and making sure that a new player is fully up to speed on exactly what's going on, how it goes on, and why it's done that way.

Oh! I see Ron as provided a little lexicon so that we can all talk about the same thing. Cool. Thanks!

QuoteI would argue against the first part of your statement. Here's why: If someone sat down to witness a Vampire game that had 'house rules' instituted, they would still know that the game is Vampire:TM.

In the interest of clarity, I would say that the SETTING is recognizable as Vampire: The Masquerade.  I've seen some play that is clearly a part of that setting, but which is unrecognizeable as the game.  Take most Minds-eye LARPs.  Clearly the same setting.  But not at all the same game.

Its important to be clear about what exactly is being talked about.

Agreed w/ Ralph on setting clarification.
But that brings up another thought, which ties back in w/ my search for technique truth, as it were.
Does your statement mean that by changing techniques (System) that we have now changed games? How far of a variance is required to actually cause a game change? Can it be said that by following GNS in one particular setting (let's run w/ the Vampire example) that Vampire can now be 3 seperate games?
Help me think this through, please. Because if setting is not what the game *is* and system, as Ron describes it *is*, any setting could be any different number of actual games? I'm not talking about game variants here, I'm talking about totally different and classifiable games.

Edit: clumsy fingers.

Quote from: ValamirIn the interest of clarity, I would say that the SETTING is recognizable as Vampire: The Masquerade.  I've seen some play that is clearly a part of that setting, but which is unrecognizeable as the game.  Take most Minds-eye LARPs.  Clearly the same setting.  But not at all the same game.

Exactly my point, thank you.

See, I've been playing Vampire since its 1st edition. I've played a LOT of Vampire. I've played Vampire LARPs (using both dice and MET) and under a wide variety of STs.

If anything, this idea that everyone is all playing "VampireTM" because it uses the same setting is even more misleading than it seems at first, because people don't even agree about the setting, and people often don't find out about this until the middle of play. "Oh, of course we don't use the metaplot, who does?" vs. "Of course you can't play a Tremere Antitribu, they were all killed in Mexico City."

Or, contrast the 1st edition MET rules with, say, 2nd edition tabletop. The way the same-named Disciplines worked, not to mention the clan disadvantages, were sufficiently different that it was obvious that MET was in an entirely different World of Darkness, where basic elements of the setting were different. The play of the game, and the feel generated, was (and is) very different.

To claim the setting and rules can be completely divorced is to deny that one affects the other, which makes no sense. In actual play, system (and any rules its derived from) and setting have a direct affect on each other. The lethality of combat, alone, is one obvious example of this. Using the setting from GURPS Technomancer with GURPS and with, say, Feng Shui are two very different games, and I could easily see how a fan of vanilla GURPS Technomancer might revolt in the Feng Shui version, since in his mind, the game isn't about being able to dodge bullets.

I've have been in a lot of games where the differences in rules and rules intepreation (and, therefore, system) has caused new players (sometimes me, often others) to literally go: "That isn't VampireTM!"

Edit: Lisa, I think the answer is that Vampire is a bunch of pieces that can be turned into three or more different games, which isn't the same as it being three different games. (Tho I disagree somewhat with Ron about Vampire's incoherence, at least in its most recent incarnation -- but I'm talking strictly about the "Revised" tabletop rules in that case.)

Quote from: The GMAgreed w/ Ralph on setting clarification.
But that brings up another thought, which ties back in w/ my search for technique truth, as it were.
Does your statement mean that by changing techniques (System) that we have now changed games? How far of a variance is required to actually cause a game change? Can it be said that by following GNS in one particular setting (let's run w/ the Vampire example) that Vampire can now be 3 seperate games?
Help me think this through, please. Because if setting is not what the game *is* and system, as Ron describes it *is*, any setting could be any different number of actual games? I'm not talking about game variants here, I'm talking about totally different and classifiable games.

Edit: clumsy fingers.

I'd absolutely agree with the idea that changing the system sufficiently qualifies as playing an actual different game.  Where exactly that line is, is going to be fuzzy and is going to depend alot on the motivations of the person asking the question at the time.

Someone who "hates d20" but had an enjoyable time playing (say) Mutants & Masterminds is likely to say that they are "different games".  Someone who enjoys d20 in all its forms including Mutants & Masterminds is likely to say that M&M is just a particular variation on the d20 core and is thus the same game.  


For me, the closest thing to an objective evaluation that may be possible is to say "can I take the character I made in X (D&D 3e, Vampire 2e) and play it in Y (M&M, MET Larp) without needing to significantly rewrite it."  

But that only addresses the rules aspect of system.  Techniques include alot more that goes beyond rules.

For instance I could easily see going from one D&D 3e game (say Raven's narrativist game) to another and feeling like I'm in a completely different game.