I have several times used an example in these forums of a concept in which setting and situation tend toward congruence--that is, in which gamist, narrativist, and simulationist choices would be so similar in play that players with different agenda could play together without serious conflict.

Well, I've decided, with your help, to attempt to create that game.

This is not on the game design forum because I have no particular expectations that it will ever be published beyond this forum; it is an attempt to determine whether, working together, the creative minds here can devise a game that demonstrates the possibility of congruence in play.

To start, this is the setting and situation. The players all play characters who are members of a small military unit fighting in Southeast Asia in the late nineteen-sixties. There will be military structure, that is, one of them will officially be the commanding officer, another will be his second, and there will be an expectation that the others will follow orders to the degree that they are able. This is a war zone; it is a particularly frustrating sort of war zone, as there are miles and miles of quiet jungle and at any instant enemy soldiers could rise out of the mud and gun you all down.

I think it will be necessary for the referee to play the role of command; that means that whoever is the commanding officer will receive mission objectives from the referee, and attempt to carry them out. Such mission objectives will be specific but not detailed. They may include such things as locating and destroying a hidden base, destroying a small convoy, rescuing someone (possibly a prisoner, more likely a downed pilot or someone similarly trapped in enemy territory--think Bat 21, but with ground force rescue). The characters will have the equipment to do whatever the mission requires, sufficient that they should have options on how to achieve it, but the details of how it is to be done are entirely in the hands of the players.

My idea is that within this context, the bulk of decisions will fit into any of the three agenda; thus decisions which explore premise will not overtly compete with those that attack challenge--after all, it is inherent in the very scenario that we all want to live, and we are committed to attempting to achieve the objective.

Having set up this as setting and situation, I'm thinking we need a mechanics base that is resolute but not overly complex. I'm inclined toward fortune in the middle, as it best supports narrativist play but is not inimical to gamist or simulationist objectives.

I haven't thought further than this (in truth, I haven't even really thought this far--the FitM idea just came to me now). I'm looking for what can be done with this to make it work in such a way that the system passively rewards all three agenda. So I'm looking for your thoughts.

Can it be done?

--M. J. Young

Are these American/European soldiers or Southeast Asians?

I would agree that the Vietnam War is a setting where (some types of) Sim, Nar and Gam pretty much coincide, *in terms of actions taken by the characters*

That is a very important difference, there. Because, for instance, if you end up killing an innocent woman to accomplish your woman, the Gamist player might be saying, out of game, "We whacked her good, yeah!" and the Narrativist player might feel like ripping his throat out at that point.

Also, I will note that this entirely depends on *what type* of Sim you're doing. Is this actor-stance immersion, genre recreation, military recreationist, etc? Because certain types are going to feel very differently.

yrs--
--Ben

Good questions.

I'm inclined to make them western soldiers. It gives the typical gamer a bit more of a handle on an already alien situation--if I have him playing Asian soldiers, he's got to change his thinking about a lot of things in that context.

I do see the problem about out-of-game conflicts; but I'm not sure it's a problem for congruence.

In your example of killing the woman to achieve the goal, the gamist hasn't really done anything all that impressive, and if it was necessary to achieve the goal he's actually addressed the premise in a specific way. Out of game, the narrativist says, "Was that necessary?"; the gamist answers, "Maybe not, but it sure was fun." In game, that same attitude exists between the characters--the one is thinking, we just killed someone who is probably an innocent civilian in the name of achieving a military objective; the other is thinking, dang, that sure took the stress off this situation, didn't it?

In a sense, congruence starts to arise because in that situation some people are going to have different views of the situation. Some are going to move into the gung-ho let's win this thing mold, some are going to start asking the difficult questions, and some are just going to attempt to live through it however they can manage. What the characters want reflect what the players want, but the conflict between those player desires expresses itself in the game which 1) address premise; 2) seem more real; and 3) directly impact the group's ability to face the challenge.

And although I'll agree that many approaches to sim could impact how this works in play, I'm not sure that it will impact whether it works in play. The three you've suggested will all work in this context without directly conflicting with either narrativist or gamist goals.

Where do you see the problem in that?

--M. J. Young

How about three character classes (!), on for each mode? Really. For example, the "Gung Ho Warrior" will apply to the Gamist type: accomplishment of objectives with a bizarre *capability* (not always expressed) to ignore the emotinal impact/objectives. The squad could be comprised of a mix of Gam and Sim soldiers, and one (maybe two) Narr protagonist players, who inject the narrated events with moral import.

You might consider a reward system where the player chooses his reward. Remember the game Careers, where everyone specified their "success formula" before starting play? You could have three reward choices, each corresponding to GN or S. The player could assign weights to each category between sessions.

In your example of killing the woman to achieve the goal, the gamist hasn't really done anything all that impressive, and if it was necessary to achieve the goal he's actually addressed the premise in a specific way. Out of game, the narrativist says, "Was that necessary?"; the gamist answers, "Maybe not, but it sure was fun." In game, that same attitude exists between the characters--the one is thinking, we just killed someone who is probably an innocent civilian in the name of achieving a military objective; the other is thinking, dang, that sure took the stress off this situation, didn't it?

O.K., I've been giving more thought to the sort of system that would work here, and I have some nuts-and-bolts ideas.

I like Dev and Alan's thoughts very much, but I'm going to have to mull over how to make them work.

I'm inclined toward a skill-driven system. Attributes don't seem especially relevant to my mind on this--most soldiers have been through basic training and so are in similar physical shape, have had standard weapons training, and are of about the same intelligence, at least close enough for what they do. At this point I'm envisioning something in which skill plus die roll must meet target number.

Skills in my short list (that is, those that strike me as important to include) would be sniper, communications, medic, maybe demolitions, maybe scout. I'm also thinking that several of these skills are exclusionary, because that's the way military units are generally constructed--the unit is given one guy who is a good sniper, who has the sniper rifle, and he's not the medic, who is a different guy who went through specific training for that. Otherwise, everyone has baseline skills in a variety of tasks.

I was also turning over a somewhat odd idea about incorporating traits. The only trait which caught my fancy was bravery. I imagined this as something that would change through play, more so perhaps than skills, which is why I didn't think of it as an attribute. I also see it as a bonus to skill use where it would be appropriate.

I want the scale to be entirely positive, because it encourages the player to remember to include it. That is, although the low end of the scale would be cowardly, I want cowardly to be +1; my thinking is that if it ran from, say, -5 to +5, as soon as it hit zero players would tend to forget to mention it (at least, gamist players would), but if it's +1 to +11 (the same range) even the most cowardly will want his bonus.

I was also thinking of a six-point scale for this. I've a Pendragon-like notion that whenever the character comes through a frightening situation, he rolls a d6 against his courage--if the roll is below the current courage, he loses a point, if it's above he gains a point, and if it's the same he is unchanged. This would have a couple of specific in-game effects.

First, it would tend to push people toward the middle--the lower your courage is, the more likely you are to have it increase, while the higher it is the more likely it is to drop.

Second, because the courage score is a modifier on your chance of success in dangerous situations, it should have some impact on how much risk you take--if your courage is low, you're going to hold back because your chance of success is lower, while if it's high you'll have more confidence as a player.

I don't know if there's any need or place for any other trait; this is the only one that really struck me.

What's missing in all this is the balancing point between skill, trait, and fortune. I am inclined to think they should be roughly equal, but I'm not sure. If we used the idea of rolling against the trait after use to see whether it increases or decreases, that would impact the choice on how large a range that value had. The more pips on the die, the more likely it is change from roll to roll.

On the other hand (talking completely off the top of my head at this point) you could give the players the option in character generation to apportion this for each character individually. What I'm thinking is a 6 to 8 to 10 arrangement, where one is the range for courage, one the range for skill, and one the die rolled. If starting courage is shy side of center and starting skill is shy side of center, then you would have characters with 3 skill capable of reaching 6, who would also have either 4 or 5 courage that could range to either 8 or 10, and correspondingly would roll either a d10 or a d8 with it. Meanwhile another character could start with 5 skill capable of reaching 10, but his courage could only be 3 or 4 to start, rising only to six or eight, and the die rolled would be a d8 or d6 respectively.

There would have to be a skill improvement mechanic; but one thing at a time.

This might actually accomplish Dev's character class arrangement without having to explain what the three choices are. If I were playing gamist, I would use the ten range for my skill, because it starts me on a higher reliable base and gets me the highest reliable roll. If I were playing narrativist, I would probably put the ten range in courage; in once sense, courage would be most volatile because it would change on nine out of ten rolls--in another sense it would be more reliable because its midpoint is higher and it's less likely to reach the extremes. Now, whether simulationists would put the ten range in fortune I'm not sure--might do, or might configure the second and third choices differently. There are obviously six configurations possible for the three relevant factors.

I'm brainstorming here; nothing is in stone.

Alan, any thoughts on those reward system possibilities? Not to put you on the spot, but I never played Careers so I'm not seeing the example.

--M. J. Young

Real quick: I do not intend to be dismissive of Mike's comments. I can think of a lot of reasons why this wouldn't work, or at least a lot of situations in which it wouldn't work well. The point of the exercise is to see how close we can get to something that does create congruence in play, such that players working from different agenda will only rarely and/or minimally clash.

--M. J. Young

Some thoughts on the "let the woman go" scenario.

So we have a narrativist and a gamist sitting at the same table. For right now, we're going to ignore social-contract level violence, because MJ seems not to have avoiding that as a design goal (I say "sna?" and move on.)

The narrativist lets the woman go. The gamist, immediately and without regard for "realism" or where his character is, shoots her. Which is clearly the "right course of action" for him.

Well, first, from one perspective, he's invalidated the narrativist's decision. For the second, he's probably pissed off the simulationist. But he has a right to do it. Or does he?

From this perspective *the absolutely most important thing* for this system is IIEE ordering.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. I still don't see how this is going to keep the people from thrashing each other, out of game, which is really the *point* of GNS categories all together.

P.P.S. I assume that, by "Simulationist," we are referring here to the "Forge Ideal Simulationist" who wants a character-exploration heavy, actor-stance experience of a vaguely "real-world" flavored scenario. While recognizing that this, in no way, makes even a slight percentage of simulationists happy. Right?

Ben Lehman wrote: The narrativist lets the woman go. The gamist, immediately and without regard for "realism" or where his character is, shoots her. Which is clearly the "right course of action" for him.

Well, first, from one perspective, he's invalidated the narrativist's decision. For the second, he's probably pissed off the simulationist. But he has a right to do it. Or does he?

Mike, Ben, Marhault:

Hey guys, your discussion of the possibile pitfalls and/or impossibility of a design that serves all three agendas is cool - but this thread is an experiment in _making_ that design. Sure, MJ might not succeed, but how about we support his effort? It's really hard to create something under constant criticism. Would you be willing to start a new thread and take the "can it be done?" discussion there?

My point, Alan, and MJ, is not that it can't be done, or attempted. Just that, so far, you've not gotten one iota closer to the goal than when you started. Situation itself can't affect GNS. How the situation is established might. IIEE, like Ben pointed out, might. But the situaiton that's been proffered here makes the game no more congruent than any other, nor do I think that there is any that would. Because any player can approach any situation from any GNS angle.

I am trying to help out when I say that the way to get closer is via system, not situation.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: But the situaiton that's been proffered here makes the game no more congruent than any other, nor do I think that there is any that would. Because any player can approach any situation from any GNS angle.

Alan wrote: Mike, Ben, Marhault:

Hey guys, your discussion of the possibile pitfalls and/or impossibility of a design that serves all three agendas is cool - but this thread is an experiment in _making_ that design. Sure, MJ might not succeed, but how about we support his effort? It's really hard to create something under constant criticism. Would you be willing to start a new thread and take the "can it be done?" discussion there?

M. J. Young wrote:
Any player can approach any situation from any GNS angle. What I think this particular situation does is limit the options in a manner that GNS conflict is channeled into situation and works itself out through play. As noted above, the conflict between the gamist player shooting the woman after the narrativist lets her go, when we describe it that way, sounds like a player disagreement--but it is immediately channeled into being a character disagreement.

Aren't we commenting on the example from too much knowledge? It's a constructed example, so we know the guy who shoots the woman in the back is a gamist, because we created him that way. But what happens when you forget that and only observe the actual play?

Is this guy a gamist trying to win?
Is he a simulationist playing the `I don't give a damn about other people' type?
Is he a narrativist chosing to address the premise in a different way?

And the guy who lets the woman go, is he

A gamist who took a handicap (will not kill civilians)?
A simulationist playing the `noble soldier' type?
A narrativist addressing premise?

I do see the potential for player conflict in this game, it's certainly not for everybody, but I'm not convinced yet that any of it is GNS conflict.

SR
--

Not trying to disrupt this thread but I have a question. I've read the GNS essays and followed several threads on it. IIEE has been thrown around in them. What is it? Where can I find it explained in detail?

Gaerik wrote: Not trying to disrupt this thread but I have a question. I've read the GNS essays and followed several threads on it. IIEE has been thrown around in them. What is it? Where can I find it explained in detail?

From: Gamism: Step On Up:

IIEE :
Intent, Initiation, Execution, and Effect - how actions and events in the imaginary game-world are resolved in terms of real-world announcement and imaginary order of occurrence.

I think the problem with congruence here is that your pitching the three modes into an area where they create results that clash with each other. You've put them on three roads that crisscross each other, rather than parralel each other. I can't quite describe it, but making the focus of the game physical actions in the SIS does this. You need them to each have their space which they play in their own way, and the only way another can effect them is through a method that changes their mode to the users mode. In other words, each plays in their little space in their preferred mode, and your rules filter how they can effect each other, so each is only effected in the mode they wish to play in.

Okay, an example.
Say the game is about stone cold killers in the nam.
1. You can play it to maximise how much of a stone cold killer you are, try to be the most stoney.
2. You can play it to act out a stone cold killers decisions in the face of a premise.
3. You can play it by exploring what its like to be a stone cold killer

Well start with the gamist. His game isn't to choose the moves of the killer, his game is to maximise mental values and reactions of the killers mind. When combat comes around, decisions on these determines what the killer does. Note, this is a WAY big difference. His domain he works on is the killers mind. Since he can't directly affect the word, he can't directly affect the other PC's with his gamist style. He has to go through a filter, which can translate his actions to something suitable for the others modes. Note: This isn't as restricting as it sounds. He could set the mind to charge in as a high priority and generally his PC would. But he doesn't just get to decide it directly himself.

Second, the narrativist. This guy sets the killers mind so that he can express his address of premise through the killers actions. To be more precise, he expresses his address of premise by the way he sets up the killer, because he doesn't have direct control over the killer either. For example, he might try to set up the killer to do something about the gamist PC who chopped through a woman to get to his goal (killer with a concience, perhaps). It's important that he declares the intent at the table, because his PC might not actually do it, system determined. In fact he might, gutlessly, laugh with the other PC. The narrativist player might further express his address of premise by setting the killer to self mutilate his arm, latter, in shame.
Note: It might seem that the system undercuts the narrativists ability to address premise, but not letting him determine his PC's actions directly. While expression is important, true intent is far more important, I think. As long as that true intent is known around the table, the address has been shared.

Finally the simulationist. This guy sets the killers mind so he can basically explore the situation thoroughly. Sometimes the killer might not respond to piloting, but then again that's also exploration of the killers life. The filter between him and the other two mode players means what they do in the world is really just more material to explore, for him.


The important thing is, that they can't push their mode preference down each others PC's throat, directly. In other systems, the shared arena is the game world. If what you can do in a shared arena is directly controllable by the player, the player can push their mode preference directly and dominate or clash.

Now, if you have a shared space where the system ensures you have to go through it before you can affect others in the shared space, you have a system which can heavily ablate mode dominance in that shared space.

I think. :`