Topic: System Typing
Started by: Ben Lehman
Started on: 4/19/2004
Board: RPG Theory
On 4/19/2004 at 6:19am, Ben Lehman wrote:
System Typing
I have an idea.
Now, as I begin to lay this idea out, I think people are going to instantly relate it to another set of three categories which have to do with RPG theory. I'd just like to suggest that there are lots of subtleties going on here and, although such a relationship may prove -- in the end -- fruitful, it is best to consider this idea on its own merits first, because I don't think that these categories have a 1-1 GNS correspondence.
There are three types of RPG systems. These systems are, in fact, *entirely different things*, and I think a lot of confusion and anger is based around mistaking one type for another, and thus making very unpleasant blanket statements like "Game Balance is an Illusion," "the Heart of Any Good Game System Is a Fortune Mechanic," "The System Cannot Apportion Credibility to Itself," or any other untrue sort of thing.
These three types are classified along the lines of how they relate to the shared imagined space.
I will call the first class of systems Physical Systems, or perhaps Natural Law Systems. These systems are those in which the system provides resolution roughly equivalent to the natural laws of the world. How fast does this truck go? What is the chance of this bullet hitting? Etc. Note that these systems are not necessarily "realistic," realism being a subset of these systems. For instance, Teenagers From Outer Space and Marvel Superheroes (FASERIP version) are two games which have this type of system and are hardly realistic at all. Other examples are Silhouette, GURPS, Nobilis, etc.
The important thing about Natural Law Systems is what the system does -- it literally describes nearly every action or occurence within the game world, or at least has mechanics which can be extrapolated for that.
The Second class of systems I will call, perhaps, Metaphysical Systems, or perhaps Entertainment Systems, to avoid confusion with the presence of a game metaphysic or "non-realistic" setting content. Actually, they really need a better name. The point is that the system structure does not dictate how objects in the shared imagined space interact with each other, but rather how players at the table interact with each other and the shared imagined space. These systems are often considerably more focused, in terms of mechanics, than a Natural Law System, and they tend to employ considerably more in the way of metagame elements. Examples of this sort of system include Dogs in the Vinyard, Universalis, the Pool, Basic Dungeons and Dragons, and so on.
The important thing about Metaphysical Systems is that they dictate what is going on at an out of game level, and literally control the shared imagined space largely by controlling the interactions between players.
The Third class (which is possibly two classes) I call Mixed or Ambiguous systems. Mixed systems take the two different types together, often (in the bad cases) somewhat ambiguous about what goes where. The most common type of mixed system is tacking a "hero point" or "dramatic bonus" system onto a Natural Law Chassis. Examples of Mixed Systems include Sorcerer, The Riddle of Steel, d6 Star Wars, 3rd Edition D&D, and so forth. Ambiguous systems are rather similar to Mixed Systems, but are completely ambiguous as to whether their resolution is in terms of players at the table, making decisions about the shared imagined space, or about the interactions of the shared imagined space with itself. The only system that comes to mind in this regard is Amber Diceless, which is blatantly nonspecific about say, whether Benedict is a good-sword fighter or whether he is symbolically dominant in the sphere physical conflict.
Any thoughts on these distinctions? Is there some other type along this distinction? How do these related to GNS? Has someone else made this point in the past, and I missed it?
And, most importantly: What are the design considerations for each type of system, and what to the following things mean in the context of each...
1) Scene vs. Task Resolution
2) Whether or not the System can be apportioned Credibility
3) The presence, or absence, of Fortune mechanics.
4) Game balance.
Thanks--
--Ben
On 4/19/2004 at 11:38am, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
Re: System Typing
I find at first glance that to my mind the Natural Law systems aren't really roleplaying game systems in any strong sense. They are just a bunch of guidelines about the explored setting for the GM to apply, more akin to physical models used in engineering.
Now, this opinion requires that you agree on the following: any die roll mechanics, when they are rolled, turn structures and such are actually a mixed in Entertainment system, or pieces of one. To say it in another way, the only pure NL systems to my mind are not games at all, but different kinds of simulation systems.
The above holds true with a great majority of systems; there are actually a couple of games which genuinely think that their dice mechanics simulate something. These are usually characterised by having a zillion different rules for different situations of die rolling. But for any game which uses just a couple of different rolls the conflict systems and such are really not a part of the NL system, but of the tagged on Entertainment system.
I don't have any special arguments for my opinion roght now, I just see it as natural. Anything at all in the game that can be removed by manipulating the game world (like classes in the new D&D) is really just formalized language conserning the game world. When the game world changes, these will change too. How can there be actual game rules connected to such phenomena? They aren't game rules, they are the things themselves. The game rules are always between the players, and the simulations are part of the world they explore. This is typified in a great majority of cases where the GM "cheats" or breaks the rules. Typically such a case happens when the common vision about a given game world thing clashes with how the rules concerning it work. In those cases the GM doesn't really change the rules, but the phenomenon explored.
On 4/19/2004 at 3:43pm, BPetroff93 wrote:
overlap?
Hold the phone for a second! Doesn't this sound similar to GNS design applied to game rules? I mean, natural law systems sounds just like a Sim design priority. Metaphysical could be either Gamist or Narritist design priorities, depending on which main road the group takes. A Mixed system is a Hybrid CA design.
On 4/19/2004 at 5:50pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: System Typing
Well Ben, I agree with you...
Except that I'd say that the distinction exists at the particular rule level, not the ruleset level - so it's a particular rule that's Natural Law or Entertainment or ambiguous, not a whole game.
I'd also say that Natural Law rules are, y'know, a kind of Entertainment rule, just as Eero says. They control what goes on between the players by controlling in-game causality.
Can I call Entertainment rules "Credibility rules" instead?
I've been thinking about this very subject a lot, especially about the balance between Natural Law rules and Credibility rules in any given game. For a while I was taking a pretty hard line: a game can exist, be playable, be fun, with no Natural Law rules a'tall, no point where the Credibility rules refer to the things and events in-game. I held up my Nighttime Animals game as an example to myself.
(Here's how the Nighttime Animals resolution works, for those of you who don't know: you say what your character does, like "I run along the power lines over the river." I say what the danger is, like "the danger is that the wind will knock you off and you'll fall in." I hold out a coin. If you hold out a bigger coin, the danger doesn't come true; if you hold out a smaller coin, it does. We swap coins. There's no relationship at all between your character's capabilities and the coins you start with, noplace where the coins follow any kind of in-game Natural Law.)
But now I think the opposite. Every RPG's gotta have some Natural Law rulage, and the RPG with no "naked" Cred rules is the one that's possible. The Natural Law rule in the Nighttime Animals is hiding in the danger: When I say what the danger is, I have to follow in-game causality. When the danger comes true, the consequences have to follow in-game causality. I can't introduce nonsense dangers or have them come true nonsensically without breaking the game.
So Ben. Is there something at the System level that you're seeing and I'm not, that lets us characterize a whole ruleset as Natural Law vs Credibility, or are you cool with applying the distinction to individual rules instead? And does it make sense to you to say that all rules are Credibility rules, and Natural Law rules have an added characteristic, which is that they're about in-game causality?
Oh and I agree ab-so-lutely that this has no direct relationship with GNS.
-Vincent
On 4/19/2004 at 7:11pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
BPetroff93 wrote: Hold the phone for a second! Doesn't this sound similar to GNS design applied to game rules? I mean, natural law systems sounds just like a Sim design priority. Metaphysical could be either Gamist or Narritist design priorities, depending on which main road the group takes. A Mixed system is a Hybrid CA design.
That is a common association which people make, but in GNS as it is currently defined, it has nothing to do with the GNS definitions. i.e. A system can be purely "Metaphysical" and still be GNS Simulationist. Conversely, there is nothing about a "Natural Law" system which makes it inherently GNS Simulationist.
This is instead similar to the Threefold Model split. The definition of "Natural Law" is similar to rgfa Threefold Simulationism, though not the same.
Eero Tuovinen wrote: Now, this opinion requires that you agree on the following: any die roll mechanics, when they are rolled, turn structures and such are actually a mixed in Entertainment system, or pieces of one. To say it in another way, the only pure NL systems to my mind are not games at all, but different kinds of simulation systems.
The above holds true with a great majority of systems; there are actually a couple of games which genuinely think that their dice mechanics simulate something. These are usually characterised by having a zillion different rules for different situations of die rolling. But for any game which uses just a couple of different rolls the conflict systems and such are really not a part of the NL system, but of the tagged on Entertainment system.
If I'm not mistaken, this is the concept that "A simulation has to be incredibly complicated and accurate or it isn't a simulation." Which is nonsense. All simulations have inaccuracies as well as deliberate simplifications, even state-of-the-art scientific simulations. Indeed, I would say that over-complexity often makes a system less accurate.
However, I agree that RPG systems aren't purely "Natural Law" (or "in-game-world") -- because such a system wouldn't have any provision for who decides what in the real world. i.e. There's no provision for someone being the player of a particular character, or someone being "GM". However, it is perfectly valid to have a purely in-game-world rule that, say, a spell has a 50% chance of success. Further, probabilities can be expressed as target numbers on 3d6 just as surely as percentages or any other measure of probability. A "Natural Law" rule can also appeal to judgement calls as long as the judgement is on the basis of in-game causes.
Threefold Simulationism can include more than "Natural Law" rules. It is defined as not allowing in-game results to be explicitly based on meta-game issues. But it can have purely meta-game rules, like who decides what, for example.
On 4/19/2004 at 7:51pm, cruciel wrote:
RE: System Typing
Though I don't think you can make a direct correlation to GNS, I think you can to the whole model.
DISCLAIMER: I'm ignoring Sim, because I do that.
Super-Duper Jargon Engine Switch On!!! Go Go!!! (Insert transformation noise)
It seems to me that natural law techniques are concerned with maintaining Fidelity of individual exploration elements, whereas metaphysical techniques are concerned with preserving creative agenda.
Taken in this context, I agree that game systems are always a mix, though the mix may vary.
If you buy my take on this, then that puts game balance in the category of metaphysical, as it is primarily concerned with creative agenda (a player need for a level playing field). It then follows that metaphysical mechanics would include player control mechanics, conflict resolution, and possibly scene framing.
On 4/19/2004 at 7:58pm, BPetroff93 wrote:
Not identity but inspiration
I was afraid of everyone saying that. I wasn't so much saying this IS GNS, but rather this seems to be how GNS design priorites influence system design.
On 4/19/2004 at 8:02pm, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
John Kim wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, this is the concept that "A simulation has to be incredibly complicated and accurate or it isn't a simulation." Which is nonsense. All simulations have inaccuracies as well as deliberate simplifications, even state-of-the-art scientific simulations. Indeed, I would say that over-complexity often makes a system less accurate.
Actually, what I was getting at here was that almost no roleplaying game claims that the system simulates the world explored. It's tacitly assumed that the world is a much more complex place than the rules make them. This is a main reason for "GM is always right" in many games; after all, if our rules are not perfect, we need the GM to override them sometimes. It's entirely possible for a game to claim that it's rules are the paramount definition of the game world, but it's rare; usually the paramount thing are sensible real world physics and such.
I'm familiar with the three-fold discussions, and do not hold any opinion similar to the quoted fallacy. Instead I was pointing out that for any Natural Law system there has to be a system bit of the actual game assigning that Natural Law system some relevant role in the game. If it just sits there with no claim to authority, it's not part of the game. There has to be some rules about how "this and this simulation is used to decide what's going on, except when the GM says so". The point is that this is essentially the same as assigning that authority to one of the players or a pure die roll without any in-game meaning whatever. There is no special role for the Natural Law systems, they are needed as an infodumb about the game world. Any associated game rules are Entertainment systems. This is essentially what lumpley said much better.
An illustrating example, Call of Cthulhu's skill rules. They are conseivably a simulation, but consider: I can interpret the rules as assigning success rights to characters in certain situations instead. My character with 90% skill in swimming is almost assured success in any task involving swimming. There need not be any Natural Law fact in place here, it's all game rules in abstract. It just so happens that the same 90% has a double role in the Natural Law system of the game, indicating that my character has swimming experience. This is incidental to the game rules themselves, we might as well decide after ten successes in the skill that my character is a good swimmer, so he must have some background. The latter way avoids using the Natural Law system concordant with the game rules, while the former uses the system to define in-world meanings to my character's skills.
So I'm still holding to the original point, that there is no Natural Law systems as Ben conceived them. Or rather they exist, but don't have any direct connection to roleplaying game rules.
I'm agreeing with lumpley in what he said. A great analysis.
On 4/19/2004 at 8:05pm, BPetroff93 wrote:
realism?
Are you saying that a Natural Law system must be attempting to simulate "reality" or just the reality of the game world?
On 4/19/2004 at 8:13pm, BPetroff93 wrote:
2nd question
Furthermore, it is also my understanding, from reading the original post, that "system" is being used to describe the entire game's system, not a subsystem such as combat, magic, or reward. Is this correct?
On 4/19/2004 at 8:50pm, FredGarber wrote:
RE: System Typing
Maybe they fit better somewhere else in the Big Picture?
Are there rules to describe In-Game conflict resolution versus Meta-Game conflict resolution?
For example, what's described here as a Natural Law system is a system in which the allocation of points on my sheet determine what I can do well. My GURPS character cannot ninja-climb up the wall with any good chance of success because he has a low climb skill. He can cook very well, because that is where I spent some points. I can spend my reward points to increase my character's ability to climb, cook, or swim. But I can't really spend my reward points (XP) to affect things outside my character. These games only let me spend the reward for challenges on things that affect my character (with a few exceptions.)
But what he describes as a Metaphysical system is more like the Pool, where how I can affect the world is more limited by the Social Contract that formed my initial Character description. I can spend my reward points either now (MoV) to control the game world as a Player. In other words, I might be playing an inept medieval wizard, but use my MoV to describe a magic sword that might aid my fellow player who is playing a swordsman.
(Note that taking the die in the Pool is like delaying my MoV from this challenge until some time when I feel that it is more important to make a MoV and can risk more dice. Note that spending dice on Traits increases the chance that I have a MoV, but doesn't really increase how effective I am. I could use all of my MoV to craft an bumbling fool detective character who muddles through the adventure and "failing" to succeed at anything, but I can give the rest of the party "my" clues through my MoV.)
In summary, I think the question simplifies to which "conflict resolution" do the rules tend to describe. Is it conflict between the players (and their differing ideas outside the Shared Imaginary Space) or conflicts between the characters (that is, conflicts inside the SIS).
On 4/20/2004 at 2:18am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
Eero Tuovinen wrote:John Kim wrote: If I'm not mistaken, this is the concept that "A simulation has to be incredibly complicated and accurate or it isn't a simulation." Which is nonsense. All simulations have inaccuracies as well as deliberate simplifications, even state-of-the-art scientific simulations.
Actually, what I was getting at here was that almost no roleplaying game claims that the system simulates the world explored. It's tacitly assumed that the world is a much more complex place than the rules make them. This is a main reason for "GM is always right" in many games; after all, if our rules are not perfect, we need the GM to override them sometimes.
But isn't this precisely claiming that a simulation by definition has to be perfectly accurate and detailed? I mean, when I run a high-energy physics particle simulation program, it is still true that the real detector is more complex than what is in my simulation. Using your logic, since I assume that the real detector is more complex than my program, therefore I cannot claim that my program simulates the detector. That's exactly the claim I am debunking.
My counter would be that an approximation is still a simulation. Moreover, it is possible for rules to be designed with GM moderation in mind -- indeed, this is generally true of tabletop RPGs. Let's consider a game set in the real world, and we want a mechanic for, say, jumping. Let me consider three cases:
1) An impossibly-complex rules mechanic which gives a good answer for 100% of the cases.
2) A complex rules mechanic which gives a good answer for 99.5% of the cases, taking into account all different types of species, scales, and terrains.
3) A simple rules mechanic which gives a good answer for most cases (maybe 95% -- works pretty well for humans and similar mammals), but gives bad results and should be overruled by the GM in some uncommon cases.
I'm saying that #1 doesn't exist, and that both #2 and #3 are valid choices for a simulation. #3 is not ceasing to be a simulation -- it is just a less accurate simulation which assumes human input. Simulations are not required to be purely digital mathematical equations. For example, free kriegspiel is a simulation which relies on human judgement.
Now, I agree that for something to be a true "game" it needs more than just in-game simulation. But on the other hand, one can make a decent case that typical RPGs are not "games" anyway -- since they lack winners and losers and victory conditions.
On 4/20/2004 at 4:52am, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
John Kim wrote:
But isn't this precisely claiming that a simulation by definition has to be perfectly accurate and detailed?
Really, believe me, I believe you. I agree on that count. What you are writing about (using Ben's parlance) is the Natural Law system. It does not need to be very real to the game world simulated. Some times it's more, sometimes it's less, and even a child should know that you cannot "simulate" anything perfectly without using as much detail as the thing to be simulated. Thus to simulate a world you'll need a wolrd, at least, as your medium.
That, however, is not the thing I'm arguing here. I'm talking about the relationship of the NL system to the Entertainment system, not about the world's relation to the NL system.
My counter would be that an approximation is still a simulation. Moreover, it is possible for rules to be designed with GM moderation in mind -- indeed, this is generally true of tabletop RPGs. Let's consider a game set in the real world, and we want a mechanic for, say, jumping. Let me consider three cases:
1) An impossibly-complex rules mechanic which gives a good answer for 100% of the cases.
2) A complex rules mechanic which gives a good answer for 99.5% of the cases, taking into account all different types of species, scales, and terrains.
3) A simple rules mechanic which gives a good answer for most cases (maybe 95% -- works pretty well for humans and similar mammals), but gives bad results and should be overruled by the GM in some uncommon cases.
Indeed so. Now, consider: the above rules systems are Entertainment systems with the added claim of giving out information about the game world. That's a fine way of doing things, sensible to human mind. Now, consider system number four:
4) A rules mechanic apportioning me credibility towards claims of jumping by my character.
You'll note that this could be any of the above Natural Law systems, but it could as well be something with no Natural Law behind it at all. My original point was that for any NL system to be actually relevant for roleplaying there has to be a nigh independent Entertainment system that applies the NL system for something. That system is something that says that "this here simulation is what were using to decide if your character can make the jump". Thus NL systems are not actually roleplaying games rules, but just rules about the game world, implemented for the game by an added layer of mechanics. This layer could be simply "this we use" or "this we use until GM says otherwise" or even "this we use, but you can override it with drama points".
I agree with lumpley in that we actually do need a kind of NL system for the games, but that system is not anything conveniently deemed game rules. The minimal expection for the NL system is world adherence in narration; the things claimed by the players have to be in harmony with the game world they happen in, as the world is only existing in relation to those actions. The actions are by definition in accordance with the NL system of whatever psychology controls the causal relations people keep to in narration. When we narrate a billiard ball first being hit and then moving we are applying this most basic NL system.
So, to recap, there are two kinds of rules systems, and roleplaying theory really concerns itself only with the Entertainment type and it's relation to the NL type. Every game has one of each in some form.
Now, I agree that for something to be a true "game" it needs more than just in-game simulation. But on the other hand, one can make a decent case that typical RPGs are not "games" anyway -- since they lack winners and losers and victory conditions.
Well, that was in essence what I was claiming. There need be the Entertainment system that references the NL system.
On 4/20/2004 at 5:32am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
Eero Tuovinen wrote: My original point was that for any NL system to be actually relevant for roleplaying there has to be a nigh independent Entertainment system that applies the NL system for something. That system is something that says that "this here simulation is what were using to decide if your character can make the jump". Thus NL systems are not actually roleplaying games rules, but just rules about the game world, implemented for the game by an added layer of mechanics. This layer could be simply "this we use" or "this we use until GM says otherwise" or even "this we use, but you can override it with drama points".
I agree with lumpley in that we actually do need a kind of NL system for the games, but that system is not anything conveniently deemed game rules.
OK, I think I understand you here and we're saying nearly the same thing. However, I have a quibble over semantics. If there is a mechanic which says how many meters a Strength 17 character can jump, that is commonly called a "game rule". You can make a case that theoretically it is a separate system from true instructions to the players, but you're deviating sharply with language which nearly all RPG players use.
Eero Tuovinen wrote:John Kim wrote: Now, I agree that for something to be a true "game" it needs more than just in-game simulation. But on the other hand, one can make a decent case that typical RPGs are not "games" anyway -- since they lack winners and losers and victory conditions.
Well, that was in essence what I was claiming. There need be the Entertainment system that references the NL system.
Yeah, here we're agreed. Note that the rgfa Threefold Simulationism allows that there is a meta-game level of rules -- i.e. it includes both "Natural Law" subsystems and pure-metagame "Entertainment" systems, but not systems which cross and designated non-in-game-caused in-game effects.
On 4/20/2004 at 5:45am, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
John Kim wrote:
OK, I think I understand you here and we're saying nearly the same thing. However, I have a quibble over semantics. If there is a mechanic which says how many meters a Strength 17 character can jump, that is commonly called a "game rule". You can make a case that theoretically it is a separate system from true instructions to the players, but you're deviating sharply with language which nearly all RPG players use.
Certainly, but consider the thread in it's entirety. I'm not talking about my own parlance, I'm analyzing Ben's. He offered the distinction between the two types of systems, and I started arguing for them being really two different levels, both needed for the games.
In real life it's quite true that both of these are called game rules. That's not an useful fact for a thread concentrating on the difference between the types of rules, though. I chose to call only Entertainment systems game rules because there's not anything really gamey in the NL systems without the entertainment. They are just relatively simple notions about how such and such phenomenon can be codified with simple addition of integers.
Ben: any further thoughts on the matter? Seems we are all essentially agreeing here.
On 4/20/2004 at 7:48am, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: System Typing
I'm going to responding to people's posts in roughly chronological order, and possibly in seperate posts, if this one goes on too long.
Eero Tuovinen wrote:
I find at first glance that to my mind the Natural Law systems aren't really roleplaying game systems in any strong sense. They are just a bunch of guidelines about the explored setting for the GM to apply, more akin to physical models used in engineering.
BL> This is actually the start of a long discussion, largely between Eero and John Kim, and I may reply to later developments later on in the thread, but let me say here that, if we choose to restrict our discussion to mechanics elements of the system only, I disagree with this statement, largely because I've played a lot of games that seem to be entirely "natural law" in the mechanics (Silohouette, say) and had great fun with them as role-playing games, in Simulationist, Gamist and Narrativist contexts (just to divorce this from CA talk, which I think hurts its development as a concept at the time being.)
Now, if you want to consider a non-mechanical, unspoken Credibility rule like "you control the conscious actions of one character within the shared imagined space" as part of the set, you are absolutely right.
To clarify on some things -- a natural law system can include dice, or be diceless, and remain a natural law system. It doesn't necessarily simulate well, just simulate. If you got something else from my definition, we have a serious, serious miscommunication issue.
lumpley wrote:
Well Ben, I agree with you...
Except that I'd say that the distinction exists at the particular rule level, not the ruleset level - so it's a particular rule that's Natural Law or Entertainment or ambiguous, not a whole game.
BL> Y'know, I thought about making the thing resolve at this level, as well, because you can really talk about it either way. But then I thought to myself "self, there are a lot of games that are all one, or all the other. So why not do a system classification, in which case you can talk about system things, and just include a 'mixed' category."
So I think that we agree here. There are two levels going on. Let's dissect.
Natural Law rules control the interaction of the shared imagined space with itself.
Credibility rules control the interaction of the players with each other and the shared imagined space. (I still think that this phrasing is slightly off, but can't think of a better one.)
Ambiguous rules are ambiguous as to whether they are Credibility rules or Natural Law rules.
Natural Law systems are those in which all or effectively all rules are Natural Law rules.
Credibility systems are those in which all of effectively all rules are Credibility rules.
Mixed systems are those which are composed, in significant measure, of both Credibility rules and Natural Law rules.
Ambiguous systems are those which are composed entirely of ambiguous rules (this category solely exists for Amber DRPG, and possibly Nobilis.)
I think that, however, the systems definitions are important, because my point is that these systems are, in fact, entirely different creatures. They perform totally different functions.
I'd also like to divorce myself, for the time being, from the idea that any particular system type is the best, or the idea that they are all equally valid. All my statement is, again for the time being, is that the are fundamentally different, and should have different theory describing them. In particular, I think a lot of Forge designers have Credibility systems in mind, and thus give Credibility fuelled advice to someone trying to design a Natural Law system.
Advising someone to switch to a Credibility system is not necessarily a bad thing (see caveats above.) But being conscious of the difference between the two ought to make advice more coherent, which is definitely a good thing.
lumpley wrote:
I'd also say that Natural Law rules are, y'know, a kind of Entertainment rule, just as Eero says. They control what goes on between the players by controlling in-game causality.
BL> Sort of. You could also call it the other way around -- the shared imagined space is a world in which certain heroes are puppeted around by extra-planar entities. :-) See my response above about unspoken, non-mechanical credibility rules, and tell me if that resolves anything.
lumpley wrote:
Can I call Entertainment rules "Credibility rules" instead?
BL> You will note that I have adopted this as terminology, so that's a big "yes!" This eliminates the unpleasant connotation that Natural Law rules aren't entertaining, which is wildly untrue.
(If people really don't like this because of the mix-up with credibility terminology, I will also throw out "Recieved Law rules" which is perhaps too steeped in Christian theology to be of any use, but is cute.)
lumpley wrote:
But now I think the opposite. Every RPG's gotta have some Natural Law rulage, and the RPG with no "naked" Cred rules is the one that's possible. The Natural Law rule in the Nighttime Animals is hiding in the danger: When I say what the danger is, I have to follow in-game causality. When the danger comes true, the consequences have to follow in-game causality. I can't introduce nonsense dangers or have them come true nonsensically without breaking the game.
So Ben. Is there something at the System level that you're seeing and I'm not, that lets us characterize a whole ruleset as Natural Law vs Credibility, or are you cool with applying the distinction to individual rules instead? And does it make sense to you to say that all rules are Credibility rules, and Natural Law rules have an added characteristic, which is that they're about in-game causality?
BL> I think we're discussing different things. When I wrote the first post, I said I was talking about "system," but I was really just talking about "sets of mechanics," the difference being the system includes all the unspoken rules of the Social Contract and RPG in general, including continuity and player influence of shared imagined space, which are a Natural Law rule and and a Credibility rule, respectively. So, given that essentially any RPG (someone is going to pop up here and say "Tuxedo Ninjas do Dallas has no contuinity rules and is still an RPG," I just know it, so I say "essentially any") has these two rules, it falls into the mixed category. But I think that we can still talk about scale in one direction or the other, and we can talk about these categories in terms of "sets of mechanics" which is nearly as good.
And the point that the two types mechanics are totally different things is still important.
John Kim wrote:
This is instead similar to the Threefold Model split. The definition of "Natural Law" is similar to rgfa Threefold Simulationism, though not the same.
BL> This is very exciting, but I must confess to not having a great understanding of the Threefold. Could you elaborate on this a little bit more? I'm getting the feeling that the Threefold is, possibly, describing something nearly orthogonal to Ron's Creative Agendas, but I'd love to hear more from the expert. How do you see Gamism and Dramatism (threefold style) falling into my categorization?
John Kim wrote:
Threefold Simulationism can include more than "Natural Law" rules. It is defined as not allowing in-game results to be explicitly based on meta-game issues. But it can have purely meta-game rules, like who decides what, for example.
BL> Doesn't appointing any out of game "decision maker" figure, by definition allow some crossover from meta-game issues to in game events? (see my "unspoken, unwritten law of RPGs" in response to Eero) Or is this considered not important for Sim purposes?
cruciel wrote:
It seems to me that natural law techniques are concerned with maintaining Fidelity of individual exploration elements, whereas metaphysical techniques are concerned with preserving creative agenda.
BL> Can you give me a reference on the term "Fidelity?" Is that essentially "contunuity?"
cruciel wrote:
If you buy my take on this, then that puts game balance in the category of metaphysical, as it is primarily concerned with creative agenda (a player need for a level playing field). It then follows that metaphysical mechanics would include player control mechanics, conflict resolution, and possibly scene framing.
BL> As far as game balance, I think you're dead on target. I am curious, however, as to the inclusion of "conflict resolution," which it seems could be handled by either type of rules... Either you roll a strength contest, or your compare narrative pools to see who narrates results. Either way, the outcome is determined.
Eero Tuovinen wrote:
Actually, what I was getting at here was that almost no roleplaying game claims that the system simulates the world explored. It's tacitly assumed that the world is a much more complex place than the rules make them.
BL> Not necessarily. See Teenagers from Outer Space and Marvel Superheroes, which contain many natural law rules that, effectively, completely describe the space of the game. They can do this because they are describing simple worlds (High School SF romantic anime the first, comic books the second.)
Then again, "GM fiat" can, indeed, by a Natural Law rule, it is just motivated by "drama" (in Jon Tweet's definition) rather than "karma" or "fortune." An example of this law being implemented.
"I'm a Navy SEAL, I should know how to swim"
"Okay, sure, you swim to shore."
This is that sort of Drama based Natural Law rule in action.
John Kim wrote:
OK, I think I understand you here and we're saying nearly the same thing. However, I have a quibble over semantics. If there is a mechanic which says how many meters a Strength 17 character can jump, that is commonly called a "game rule". You can make a case that theoretically it is a separate system from true instructions to the players, but you're deviating sharply with language which nearly all RPG players use.
BL> Yes. This is exactly what I am doing. Both Natural Law rules and Credibility rules exist within the subset of 'game rules' and I am making a distinction between them, although I would say that neither of them is more "true" than the others.
"A character with a Strength of 17 can jump 2 meters horizontal with a running start" is a game rule.
"The player who spends the last Narration token can decide the results of the scene" is also a game rule.
My point is that these two game rules are actually doing entirely different things, are entirely different in nature, and thus making the same suggestions regarding them is, well, muddled. I am attempting to address this by building some technical language for the situation, and also exploring whether or not they are really the same, whether there is overlap, etc.
If you feel that this venture is misguided, please explain why.
Thanks all--
--Ben
On 4/20/2004 at 8:13am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
Eero Tuovinen wrote: My original point was that for any NL system to be actually relevant for roleplaying there has to be a nigh independent Entertainment system that applies the NL system for something. That system is something that says that "this here simulation is what were using to decide if your character can make the jump". Thus NL systems are not actually roleplaying games rules, but just rules about the game world, implemented for the game by an added layer of mechanics. This layer could be simply "this we use" or "this we use until GM says otherwise" or even "this we use, but you can override it with drama points".
I agree with lumpley in that we actually do need a kind of NL system for the games, but that system is not anything conveniently deemed game rules.
I think this is very much what Mike Holmes and I are getting at when we speak of the distinction between credibility and authority. We've agreed that people at the table have credibility, but codified rules have authority.
The distinction lies here.
There may be, as John suggests, a rule which says how many meters a Strength 17 character can jump; it's in the book, on page twenty-seven, or whatever. It has authority. Anyone who is at the table can appeal to the book and say, "according to the book, this character can jump three meters from a standing position, because he's got a 17 strength".
However, as long as no one at the table does this, that rule is irrelevant. What matters in play is who has the credibility to decide how far that character can jump. That credibility may be exercised by referencing the authority of the rule; it may be exercised by overriding the authority of the rule.
• Yes, but you are attempting to jump two meters forward a one and a half meters up, and that is farther than a strength 17 can jump.• Yes, but since you are jumping down three meters you can actually get an extra meter distance out of this jump.• Yes, but the ground here is slick, and you can't get the traction you need for that kind of jump.• Yes, but Josh has been putting on a lot of weight lately, plus he's carrying that golden idol in his pack, and I think he's underestimated just how much of a burden all that is to his effort to make this leap.
What matters primarily is not the rule in the book, but the credibility of the players who make the decision. It might well be that the credibility of the players is distributed such that Josh's player can force adherence to the rule if it is in his favor, based on the authority of the text; it might be that credibility is distributed such that the rule will never apply except in the abstract sense that we reference it for a general idea of how far Josh could jump in ideal circumstances, such as in a track and field competition. The rule has authority in that we can appeal to it, but it has no credibility in that it cannot speak to the in-game situation without someone applying it. Once you recognize that credibility is the issue as to when and whether rules apply, you have to realize that the apportionment of credibility is the critical aspect of role playing game design.
Unfortunately, few games recognize this (and I'll admit that Multiverser is not among them--credibility distribution is not clear in all cases). Thus we get rules systems and vague statements about overriding them when the results are inappropriate, instead of clear statements regarding how these decisions should be made and applied in play.
--M. J. Young
On 4/21/2004 at 12:28am, cruciel wrote:
RE: System Typing
Ben Lehman wrote:cruciel wrote:
It seems to me that natural law techniques are concerned with maintaining Fidelity of individual exploration elements, whereas metaphysical techniques are concerned with preserving creative agenda.
BL> Can you give me a reference on the term "Fidelity?" Is that essentially "contunuity?"
Certainly. The short answer is, yes, it's essentially continuity.
The long answer involves some historical connotations that are sort of important, so I'll elaborate (just 'cause). Fidelity is the term we used in Beeg Horseshoe Theory Revisited to refer to verisimilitude/integrity. In that thread it was used essentially as an overall measure of Sim-ness (reference Sim definition: internal causality/Exploration squared); adherance to some consistency requirement, not necessarily realism. Fidelity is a minimum requirement, there is no maximum; you can be more consistent without dysfunction, it's simply dropping below the Fidelity requirement that causes problems. My take on Fidelity is that an overall Fidelity requirement is sort of a slippery idea, and that it's better to consider Fidelity as it relates to individual Exploration elements, at least as much as you can draw distinctions between Exploration elements.
I'm not really a Beeg Horseshoer at this point, if I was I could sum up my take on this by saying that natural law rules pull the system towards the middle of the horseshoe, and metaphysical rules pull the system towards one of the ends.
Ben wrote:cruciel wrote:
If you buy my take on this, then that puts game balance in the category of metaphysical, as it is primarily concerned with creative agenda (a player need for a level playing field). It then follows that metaphysical mechanics would include player control mechanics, conflict resolution, and possibly scene framing.
BL> As far as game balance, I think you're dead on target. I am curious, however, as to the inclusion of "conflict resolution," which it seems could be handled by either type of rules... Either you roll a strength contest, or your compare narrative pools to see who narrates results. Either way, the outcome is determined.
My thinking on conflict resolution is that it is primarily concerned with resolving a player's intent, whereas task resolution is concerned with resolving the description of what a character does (not to be confused with action and scene resolution, which concern scale of resolution); conflict resolution is player negotiation (meta-game), and task resolution is causality driven (in-game). I've been thinking a lot about these two resolution types recently. Many of my theories on them are still in their infancy, so grain of salt and all, but that's where I was coming from.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 6663
On 4/21/2004 at 7:04pm, BPetroff93 wrote:
requested lack of CA
Personally I think this concept is directly tied with CA in determining what rules systems are desireable. In other words what play priority they are designed to support. Do to your request Ben, I'll bow out unless you would like to reinclude CA.
On 4/21/2004 at 9:18pm, Emily Care wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
Hello Ben and all,
Eero Tuovinen wrote: My original point was that for any NL system to be actually relevant for roleplaying there has to be a nigh independent Entertainment system that applies the NL system for something.
Agreeing completely with M.J.'s post about authority and credibility, Eero's statement is an extremely strong argument for the existence of any unmixed system being very unlikely. All games need to apportion credibility somehow. It seems perfectly reasonable to, instead, characterize sets of mechanics/game texts as either predominately Credibility or NL based, ambiguous or otherwise, as I believe, Ben has suggested.
But what exactly constitutes NL? If internal causality is "hidden" inside the narration apportionment of Nighttime Animals, does that mean these mechanics play a dual role? I don't think so. NL rules quantify the characteristics of an in-game element in some way. This quantification is the basis of justification for an action/event/quality being able to be added to the shared imaginary stuff. The quantified characteristics of the element interacts in a certain mechanical way with other quantified in-game elements, so therefore the outcome may be said to occur. It's a long chain of procedures that award credibility based on what has already been established. Authority is invested in these procedures, which then confer credibility on the interpretations and statements made by folks.
Credible statements made using Credibility mechanics are justified by the fact that the person who made the statement was mechanically (or otherwise) awarded the right to add something to the shared imaginary stuff. The mechanics confer authority to players. And these statements are made with the caveat that they shouldn't break the other players' senses of internal causality.
As we know, really, both types of rules are doing the same thing, but through different avenues. The differences are striking and worthy of note. However, are these the only avenues which are being used?
Yrs,
Emily
On 4/21/2004 at 11:04pm, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: System Typing
Ben wrote: If you feel that this venture is misguided, please explain why.
Ben: I'd like to point out that if you consider rules systems divorced from credibility, the two kinds of rules are still largely similar. An NL rule is one that pertains to the reality of the game world, right? Then, what would be the rule that does not have such an interpretation? If we have a rule that the player clockwise from the GM will always act first, this can be interpreted as a fact of the game world. His character is faster on the uptake than the others, or something, taken as locally as needed. Similarly any other credibility rule is just a limitation of the game world if one doesn't consider credibility distribution. You could claim that the rule doesn't explicitly claim to represent something in the world, but many NL mechanics usually don't. It's just "to jump over the crag, roll more than five" or something like that, with no explicit connection. That mechanic could as well be credibility apportioning by dice.
The difference between these types of rules, it seems to me, is that the NL kind apportion credibility to game world facts, while the other kind apportion it to real world facts. You'd consider a random draw from a card deck an Entertainment mechanic if used for initiative, right? And the same with the GM deciding initiative? But mechanics that roll against situational bonuses or character skill are Natural Law? The difference I see is that the rationale for the former is some real world reason, while for the latter it all depends on the game world.
What I'm getting at is that you can parse this difference as being between what the rules represent, but I prefer rather considering simply the constraints placed on players. I'm debating the usefulness of the differentiation. The simplest way to prove me wrong is to offer some insight about an existing system or rpg theory based on the classification. What does it mean for the game to be either NL or E? I had some interesting times with this question when writing the Battle of the Frozen Waste last week, as I came to doubt player motivation concerning the game world. What reason do players have for narrating the game at all, if the game has no NL rules to start with? I finally came to the conclusion that it doesn't make any difference; my extremely abstract rules system has defined (frequently by players) links between the rules and the game world, links that give meaning to the actions taken towards the mechanics. It is as authoritative about the game world as any traditional sim (threefold sense) game ever, despite not having any rules directly pertaining to the world. A given instance of rules manipulation is always meaningful in the game world if it has any repercussions there, as there cannot be a contradiction between the two, except by accepting some informal rules about who decides what's possible.
I feel that we are really agreed about the nature of the two kinds of systems; you persist in dividing a continuum phenomenon (credibility distribution) into two distinct classes (the game world gets it or the players get it), and it's OK by me. Now I'd like to see if you have anything in mind for using the definitions?
Emily: Your interpretation of the world facts investing credibility on their sensible consequences is correct, as far as I see. I'd like to note, however, that this is a game mechanic (clear to everybody, I trust) and can be interpreted as NL or credibility distribution. The guy who makes the conceptual leap from "there is gravity" to "you character falls" has to be using credibility invested in the established fact of game world gravity, or he has to be using his own credibility. In both cases we have a NL mechanic too, as in this game world falling results from gravity or in this game world it results from an extraplanar player deity making the decision. Regardless of whether the character falls due to previous decision about gravity or a specific player decision, the rule in question is both NL and credibility rule at the same time.
Emily wrote:
As we know, really, both types of rules are doing the same thing, but through different avenues. The differences are striking and worthy of note. However, are these the only avenues which are being used?
The question you posit is great for the topic, but IMO the differences between the rules types are in emphasis of interpretation only, so I wouldn't know what to do with the answer. We already have a model of interpretation that analyzes the kinds of things this classifying does in the credibility apportioning theory, also known as the Lumpley principle.
The answer, by the by, is to consider what other things than the player and the game world may have a say in the game. Ben: are developments decided by abstract mechanics NL or credibility in your definition? If they are neither, we have a third class of rules in that. I'm talking about some mechanic the players do not have any control over, but that doesn't implicate any fixed game world phenomenon either. A good example would be a random monster table that's used every turn. Another is using a card draw to decide on the primary mood of the next scene.
One could also differentiate further between the types of mechanics inside Ben's classes: NL mechanics are either situation or character mechanics (or mixed, or ambiguous) for example, depending on whether they draw their justification from character skill or a given world situation. Credibility mechanics are either performance or balance mechanics, depending on whether justification is some abstract resource (Universalis) or player performance (MLwM bonus dice). You can really instate these classes quite freely by considering what gets credibility. I fail to find a reason for fixating on two certain classes.
By the by Ben: if your point in this excercise should be pointing out that there is a differing ethos to actually existing game systems and in truth they do fall into these categories, I agree. There indeed is tendency among the game designers to write either from the world viewpoint or the player viewpoint. This is however a historical fact, and seems to result from manyfangled artistic ideas of roleplaying, not from any theoretical divide. It's traditional to consider the game world over the plot, and thus we have first a prepoderance of NL systems and then, as a counterreaction, many systems of the opposite ilk. When the history calms down in this regard I expect that the scene will follow board games in this regard: after the great simulation wars board game designers have largely agreed in that there is great strenght in catering to theme (which thereabouts means the game world) as far as player satisfaction goes, but that should not lessen the loyalty to good design either.
Well, I cannot say my piece any clearer than that. I keep an open mind, so please do continue the conversation, preferably by demonstrating attributes that point to these categories being real.
On 4/22/2004 at 10:13am, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
Emily Care wrote:
Agreeing completely with M.J.'s post about authority and credibility, Eero's statement is an extremely strong argument for the existence of any unmixed system being very unlikely. All games need to apportion credibility somehow. It seems perfectly reasonable to, instead, characterize sets of mechanics/game texts as either predominately Credibility or NL based, ambiguous or otherwise, as I believe, Ben has suggested.
BL> Yup. I'm not entirely convinced that there can't be sets of *mechanics* that are entirely NL or Cred in terms of rule phrasing, but as far as Systems go, I think you're right on the money.
But what exactly constitutes NL? If internal causality is "hidden" inside the narration apportionment of Nighttime Animals, does that mean these mechanics play a dual role? I don't think so. NL rules quantify the characteristics of an in-game element in some way. This quantification is the basis of justification for an action/event/quality being able to be added to the shared imaginary stuff. The quantified characteristics of the element interacts in a certain mechanical way with other quantified in-game elements, so therefore the outcome may be said to occur. It's a long chain of procedures that award credibility based on what has already been established. Authority is invested in these procedures, which then confer credibility on the interpretations and statements made by folks.
BL> Yes. In fact, Authority rules might be a better name for Natural Law rules.
Note, however, that in one case the Credibility is solely invested in the person, and in the other case the Credibility is invested in the person who invokes the rule. Big difference.
(I am also detecting a bit of drift in definition, as we move into Credibility talk from whatever muddle I was talking about in the first post. I think that this is fine, but I wanted to note it for those who are trying to make sense of things here.)
As we know, really, both types of rules are doing the same thing, but through different avenues. The differences are striking and worthy of note. However, are these the only avenues which are being used?
BL> That is a very good question. I can only respond: Not that I can think of.
Now that we have nailed down, more or less, the actual differences and similarities between these rules, can we address the following questions:
1) Is there any direct CA connection (yes, you can talk about this now)? Is there an indirect one. My opinion is no, and if you think otherwise, back it up with arguments.
2) Is there a connection between this and RGFA Sim? If "no" to 1 and "yes" to 2, this is fascinating.
3) Is the absence of fortune mechanics significantly different in terms of the two types, particularly in regard to protagonization, the presence of particular CAs, etc.? (I'm particularly thinking of Nobilis, here.) I don't have a good answer to this question, yet.
4) Emily's Question. My hunch here is "no," because (apropos of her description of NL mechanics influencing credibility) I now think of NL mechanics as the way that shared imaged space influences the metagame, and Cred mechanics as the way that the metagame influences the shared imagined space. The two remaing slots (shared imagined space influencing itself -- is this different from NL mechanics?) are either total blanks or well explained. (Metagame influences metagame is "just" social contract.)
yrs--
--Ben
On 4/23/2004 at 4:26am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
Ben Lehman wrote: I now think of NL mechanics as the way that shared imaged space influences the metagame, and Cred mechanics as the way that the metagame influences the shared imagined space.
That's fascinating; I hope I remember that.
Again Ben wrote: The two remaing slots (shared imagined space influencing itself -- is this different from NL mechanics?) are either total blanks or well explained. (Metagame influences metagame is "just" social contract.)
I'd say that the shared imagined space cannot influence itself directly; it has to pass through the metagame to get there, in the way you're using it (or perhaps the way I'm understanding your use of it). You can argue that the character who falls from the bridge lands in the water below as the effect of the in-game controling the in-game, but in fact it only happens because (and when) the person with credibility declares that it does. There's no reason we can't have a Richenbach Falls event, in which the other character believe that this character has fallen to his death in the falls, but he's actually landed on a ledge and will make a sudden return at a later date. The fact that something else might happen (no matter how absurd it may seem to us at that moment) means that what the in-game dictates does happen doesn't until it's been entered through the credibility of a participant.
I think. Em?
--M. J. Young
On 4/23/2004 at 5:39pm, Emily Care wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
Ben Lehman wrote: BL> Note, however, that in one case the Credibility is solely invested in the person, and in the other case the Credibility is invested in the person who invokes the rule. Big difference.
Let me explore another angle. What about NL rules amounting to codified or mechanic-ized causality/continuity? Instead of leaving the creation of internal consistency up to the judgement of the players as Credibility rules do.
But then, to look at a specific example, traits/possessions and relationships in Dogs in the Vineyard do not interact with other traits etc. as traits in other systems do. You don't get a +1 to swim across a river if you have the trait "swims well". Instead, you get die that you will use strategically to gain the opportunity to narrate that you cross the river safely. However, the trait does function to create internal consistency--since you have it there on your sheet as a resource, you will use it again and again, creating a consistent pattern of interaction on the part of your character. This is how traits can create themes as well, when you invoke the trait, you are choosing to see how it interacts with the situations the character is confronting. Answering the questions of premise by her actions.
So, no, Credibility rules may generate internal consistency as well. That's not the difference. I think Ben is on to something in his quote above.
(Another Question aside: How would you compare the use of traits in Dogs (for those who have seen it?) and traits/relationships/possessions in Trollbabe? )
More questions, from Ben:
1) Is there any direct CA connection (yes, you can talk about this now)? Is there an indirect one. My opinion is no, and if you think otherwise, back it up with arguments.
2) Is there a connection between this and RGFA Sim? If "no" to 1 and "yes" to 2, this is fascinating.
3) Is the absence of fortune mechanics significantly different in terms of the two types, particularly in regard to protagonization, the presence of particular CAs, etc.? (I'm particularly thinking of Nobilis, here.) I don't have a good answer to this question, yet.
My answer to one would be that since narrativism requires, as part of its definition, for the players to be able to address premise (ie there is not pre-determined answer to the questions of premise), the freedom and authority given to players in systems that use credibility mechanics greatly supports this creative agenda. The dissassociation of credibility from player that occurs when NL/Auth. rules are used could easily contribute to player disenfranchisement from addressing premise.
The fixed nature of the shared imaginary stuff in NL rule sets also leaves less room for the introduction of elements that have meaning to the players. If all my choices for characters are templates that I have no resonance with, how will I find meaning in playing any of them? If the traits that I choose give me aid in overcoming tasks, but none of the mechanical system elements deal with the larger conflicts my characters are engaging in, how can the obstacles I am dealing with rise above the level of tatical/pragmatic engagement? Does that make sense?
I think what I'm getting at is that as most Auth. rules deal with task resolution rather than conflict resolution, then there is not much room for meaning. There is meaning in a fight where a character struggles to keep her brother from murdering innocents. There is opposition, but little meaning, in the mechanical tasks of punching someone, putting them in an arm-lock and then dis-arming them. Where is meaning introduced into mechanics? And what kind of meaning does each encourage the creation of? The drama of a conflict are generally outside of the mechanics of an NL system. Why then should we be surprised if not enough meaningful play is generated using them?
Ok, that was a mouthful. M.J. I like the uncertainty principle you are getting at. Sis affecting sis is always going to be through the grace of player implementation. Doesn't mean it's not significant. Play builds upon preceding play. New imaginary stuff will be spun from threads connected to what has been but what those connections will be cannot be predicted from looking at the past, it can be unexpected or contradictory as with the Falls example. Given a commitment to internal causality sis will influence sis, but in a passive way. Human agency is required.
Hmm.. NL rules could be attempts to provide parameters for the human input based on past input into the sis.
I finally came to the conclusion that it doesn't make any difference; my extremely abstract rules system has defined (frequently by players) links between the rules and the game world, links that give meaning to the actions taken towards the mechanics. It is as authoritative about the game world as any traditional sim (threefold sense) game ever, despite not having any rules directly pertaining to the world. A given instance of rules manipulation is always meaningful in the game world if it has any repercussions there, as there cannot be a contradiction between the two, except by accepting some informal rules about who decides what's possible.
Eero: I'm going to have to take a closer look at your game. I keep hitting a similar question to ones you posed--both types of rules do the same thing, why distinguish? But the way that they allow for the establishment of fact does have a great impact on play. Perhaps for the meaning generation reasons I discuss in this post.
Thanks all.
Regards,
Em
On 4/23/2004 at 8:22pm, BPetroff93 wrote:
My CA argument
Earlier I made a statement that I thought system typing was directly linked to CA. Ben wants me to actually back up my argument [scoff! disbelief! rolled eyes! (j/k Ben)] So here goes nothing.
First off I think the term "metaphysical" is potentially misleading. In the real world we have physics and the stuff beyond or behind physics (ie: metaphysics) but in an RPG you just have the physics of the world (ie: Natural law systems) and the stuff above or behind are the intereactions of actual people playing the game (ie: metagame). For example in Legend of the 5 Rings the elemental stats from our standpoint are "metaphysics," spiritual attributes that underlay reality, however they are the "physics" of Rokugan and hence fall under the catagory Natural Law. Therefore I like the term Metagame vs Metaphysics.
A game system may be designed to do 2 different things. One, address the natural laws of the game world or two, address the interaction of the game's participants. Which is desirable depends on the CA. For pure Sim design a natural law system is a priority. Essentailly all we are trying to do is mimic an imaginary enviroment. I'm a proponant of the theory that sim is actually immature naritivism so I think these systems are outmoded. For gamist or narritivist design hybrid or metagame systems may suffice, but the priority is to the metagame concerns. Therefore those are the issues the rule set must address.
One may argue that narritivist or gamist play may evolve from pure natural law systems. This may be true but is dependant on a large amount of drift, in which case we are no longer talking about the game as written. One may also argue that a "natural law" system may be constructed in such a way that it facilitates metagame concerns. However the emphasis here is on metagame concerns so therefore this is a metagame system, or at best a hybrid, and not natural law.
In the initial post the term system was referenced to whole games. While I think this distinction of in-game vs metagame priorities is nicely covered by GNS and the Beeg horseshoe theory I do think there is lots of room to discuss parts of systems (ie: combat, creation, reward, skills, magick) as either natural law or metagame and how the difference affects play. For example, TROS uses a natural law skill system and combat system with a metagame creation and reward mechanic to produce narritivist play with strong gamist potential.
On 4/27/2004 at 7:07am, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: Re: System Typing
Emily Care wrote: How would you compare the use of traits in Dogs (to Trollbabe)?
BL> Having not played Trollbabe, I'm not fit to comment on this directly, but...
There is a phenomenon in Credibility systems, especially new ones, where player credibility and character ability are related (yeah, the Pool, Pretender, I'm looking at you.) This is, I think, flamingly a bad idea, and results from not realizing that these systems are about entirely different things (also, perhaps, the assumption that players will always narrate results in their character's favor.)
I mention this in regard to Dogs, because Dogs *looks like it has this problem* but actually does not. In Dogs, your traits are really just schticks -- if you do them, you get bonuses, but their quality are really in no way directly related to narration ability (flaws are a bonus, say.) In Dogs, as far as I can tell, all the rules save one are actually Credibility rules, and that one is a squirrly little thing living in the Fallout rules. (Well, maybe two...)
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. Okay... It's the "results of fallout must relate to the conflict" rule.