Seemed like I should split this out of the Narrativism thread if I wanted to comment on it - and I do . . .

Marco wrote:
So I think so long as GNS is preserved as a combination of what people want out of gaming and game design theory (which could be two entirely different models--see GDS) some poor fits (The Window) will have to be made to fit a three-bin system.

People don't know what they want until it's in front of them. Seriously.

If you ask someone what they want in a door, they'll tell you. But they won't tell you everything they want and they'll unintentionally leave out certain details (like, oh, what side the hinges are on and whether to use a pushbar, a plate, a doorknob, etc.).

This is how design goes:

Designer pulls together all the elements and incorporates them into a single thing. Designer shows gives it to people. People use it. How well they are able to use it is a measure of the Designer's ability.

And really, it doesn't matter whether you're designing RPG's, software, furniture or fountain pens. As my friend Joe says, "All design is old design." Just make it work ("work" including aesthetics and cost and such).

Hello,

My thinking on this topic is founded on what is apparently an unusual view.

My "biggest category" is role-players in the broadest sense. A sub-category is "designers," again, very broadly, including any and every effort in that direction. And then a sub-category of that is "commerce," in that some designed-games are offered to others for sale.

I contrast this view to the prevailing notion that we have designers over here, wondering or telepathically "just knowing" what is wanted by the players/customers over there, and players/customers over there eagerly anticipating what those designers, over here, will come up with next.

Now for two other categories of interest: 1) a role-playing game as an object, book, or set of information, and (2) role-playing as an activity. The one is simply not the other, and they cannot be confounded in any way, given a critical examination.

As far as I'm concerned, my priority of any effort at any level of the three categories (going inward: play, design, sell) should be #2, not #1. Therefore, insofar as #1 (making books) occurs, it exists in service to #2 (actual play).

So the issue Gordon raises seems very odd to me.

Best,
Ron

Though I'm not confident I/we have clearly articulated the issue Marco is poiting to, I'm pretty sure I'm with Jared and Ron. This IS (IMO) an odd issue, and my "instinct" is that there is no point/value in seperating out a theory of what people want from a theory of how to design.

But I've seen it raised a number of times by very clever people (like Marco), so I'm assuming there might be something I'm missing.

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote:
This IS (IMO) an odd issue, and my "instinct" is that there is no point/value in seperating out a theory of what people want from a theory of how to design.

But I've seen it raised a number of times by very clever people (like Marco), so I'm assuming there might be something I'm missing.

Gordon

Laurel wrote:
I agree; unless one is trying to determine "who wants what" which I think is the heart of G/N/S. What does player type G want, and how does that contrast from what player type N wants, and how can I as a S-loving designer create a G-oriented game that will be enjoyable without extraordinary drift?

Gordon C. Landis wrote:
I've seen this issue before. I'm not sure I fully understand it - but if I do, my respose is . . . why would you want to separate design from what people want? Wouldn't the goal of design be to provide - or at the very least not get in the way of - what people want? Thus, isn't a combination theory the "best" way to approach it?

Marco,

Doesn't GDS have the same issue with Sorceror that GNS has with The Window? So . . . I guess I still don't understand how you see the differeing Scope of the two theories really matters.

Obviously though, this isn't as big a deal for you as I'd thought it might be. Feel free to drop the issue. If there is anyone out there for whom it is a big deal, speak up - otherwise, it seems like I may have raised an issue that's not really an issue.

Gordon

In GDS, *players* of sorceor are looking for a dramatic story so they'd fall into D firmly (I don't know if it distingushes between a dramatic story and drama at the gaming table--but anyway). Not an issue for GDS.

In GNS, The Window appeals to D players but doesn't have N mechanics (i.e N-design) so it gets stuffed into the Simulationist box--which clearly doesn't fit it. The reason? Because GNS prescribes *system* and GDS discusses what *players* want. Is that any clearer?

-Marco

Marco wrote:
In GDS, *players* of sorceor are looking for a dramatic story so they'd fall into D firmly (I don't know if it distingushes between a dramatic story and drama at the gaming table--but anyway). Not an issue for GDS.

Marco wrote:
In GNS, The Window appeals to D players but doesn't have N mechanics (i.e N-design)

Marco wrote:
so it gets stuffed into the Simulationist box--which clearly doesn't fit it. The reason? Because GNS prescribes *system* and GDS discusses what *players* want.

Marco wrote:
Is that any clearer?

We can agree to disagree--but I think you're still missing my point.

N-Mechanics can be a player desire--sure. So can "always rolling low" or using funky dice. The fact that Sorceror is a definite subset of Dramatist play is clear because the D-player is focused *somehow* on story.

GDS does NOT purport to tell you HOW to focus on story. Finally, GDS isn't *at all* about systems. An AD&D player can be "focused on story" as can a Sorceror player and both are comfortably in the D-category.

It's in GNS that the player desire for story gets tied into game mechanics and puts The Window (and any non-narrativist story-telling game that doesn't include a set of specific mechanics) in the "horribly dysfunctional," (and possibly "deceptive" if it contains a setting or situation with "Narrativist Color." In other words, story-oritented non-narrativist play is treated as broke (and that's often done in the text of some posts on this board as well).

-Marco

Marco wrote:
Because GNS prescribes *system* and GDS discusses what *players* want. Is that any clearer?

-Marco

Hello,

Marco, over and over I see a fair statement of a GNS point followed by what seems to be a wild leap of "therefore." Here this has happened in two steps.

"It's in GNS that the player desire for story gets tied into game mechanics ..."

That's fair. "Story" of course is pretty vague, and I'd qualify it as "story in some specific fashion," such that one may want to create it, or experience it, or see it as a side-effect, or whatever.

Then,
"... and puts The Window (and any non-narrativist story-telling game that doesn't include a set of specific mechanics) in the "horribly dysfunctional," (and possibly "deceptive" if it contains a setting or situation with "Narrativist Color."

I balk at the "any" part. Unknown Armies is a fine example of a non-Narrativist story-telling game, and it's as peachy an example of Simulationist-play-facilitating design with an emphasis on Character Exploration as could be found. There are many, many others covering a range of emphases, such as RuneQuest or Cyberpunk (with a qualification there) or all sorts of things.

You seem to be stuck on that "horribly dysfunctional" phrase, as if it applied to any and all games that aren't Narrativist yet include "story." It does not so apply, in my text. It simply doesn't, and repeating that it does isn't getting us anywhere.

And then the bonkers part,
"In other words, story-oritented non-narrativist play is treated as broke (and that's often done in the text of some posts on this board as well)."

Oh for golly goodness' sake. What's broken is the insistent claim that "story-oriented" can be a single, unified concept. You even agreed with me that it cannot, a bit ago. As for non-Narrativist play w/story of some sort, or rather, for design that facilitates such play, nothing's broken about it until some aspect of the design fails to facilitate it in some consistent way, or until said aspect promises something that it cannot deliver. Vampire qualifies, drastically. The Window qualifies, mildly - this is not a horrible screaming indictment but an observation; see my review for precisely the degree to which I think it's an issue during play.

You may want to consider that "I perceive it as treated as ..." or "People might perceive such text to be implying ..." and similar phrases are completely irrelevant to me, and to any thinking person engaged in discourse. I deal with specific text and rhetorical necessity, not with flighty inferences about what I or others "might mean," or "could be thought to mean if you squint and cock your head to one side."

Best,
Ron

Marco,

Sure, I'm up for looking at this further. [Turns out I'm going over your post with a fine-toothed comb, in that "quote and respond" method some folks dislike. Please, I use this simply as an attempted method to reach clarity - I do not mean to offend.]

Marco wrote:
The fact that Sorceror is a definite subset of Dramatist play is clear because the D-player is focused *somehow* on story.

Marco wrote:
GDS does NOT purport to tell you HOW to focus on story.

Marco wrote:
Finally, GDS isn't *at all* about systems. An AD&D player can be "focused on story" as can a Sorceror player and both are comfortably in the D-category.

Marco wrote:
It's in GNS that the player desire for story gets tied into game mechanics

Marco wrote:
and puts The Window (and any non-narrativist story-telling game that doesn't include a set of specific mechanics) in the "horribly dysfunctional," (and possibly "deceptive" if it contains a setting or situation with "Narrativist Color."

Marco wrote:
In other words, story-oritented non-narrativist play is treated as broke (and that's often done in the text of some posts on this board as well).

Gordon C. Landis wrote:
Marco,

Sure, I'm up for looking at this further. [Turns out I'm going over your post with a fine-toothed comb, in that "quote and respond" method some folks dislike. Please, I use this simply as an attempted method to reach clarity - I do not mean to offend.]

But how is that useful? In particular, how is it any more useful than GNS saying the D-player is focused *somehow* on prioritizing Exploration

OK, I can see that - I'm certainly not saying there aren't differences in the "scope rules" of GDS and GNS, just questioning what the advantage is. GNS does tell you HOW Narrativism focuses on story, because the manner in which you focus IS what distinguishes it from other kinds of story-orientation (e.g., Dramatism). But it does not say *only* N may be be story (little-s) focused. So I'm not sure what the absence of HOW in GDS adds to its' applicability - if the how is not in GDS, then in needs to be in some explanatory commentary/thread. Just like GNS needs that explanation/thread for The Window.

Oh, this sparked a KEY realization for me - comfortably in the D-category, fine. But they would NOT neccessarily be comfortable in each other's games.

No, I wouldn't put it that way - in GNS, the player desire for story is tied into game style, which may be best served by particular mechanics, but not of neccessity. N is characterised by a player desire to participate, during play, in the creation of a likely-meaningful story. There's nothing prescriptive about mechanics in that. It may turn out (and it does, best as I can tell) that certain mechanics best fascilitate the goal . . . but the initial, theoretical focus is still on the goal.

Ron has addressed this from his angle . . . uh, I guess I'll leave it at that.

Or maybe I do have something to say - story-oriented non-narrativist play *IS* broken - for someone with Narrativist desires. It most certainly AIN'T broken for, e.g., a Dramatist.

There is a lot of focus on Narrativism here at the Forge, and I certainly can understand how that can come across as disparaging to other play styles. But really - IT IS NOT MEANT THAT WAY.

I've got nothing against people speaking up from time to time and saying "hey, it seems like you're slighting Gamism" or whatever, but when the response is "No, that's a valid play style, just not what I'm talking about at the moment" . . . at some point, you just have ask to people to accept that you mean it. *I* most certainly mean it - while I'm very interested in the Narrativist stuff, I'm not yet clear (and haven't been able to experiment in play enough to determine) exactly where my preferences lie. A decent amount of Immersion is pretty important to me, and "dramatism" may do a better job of preserving that than N does. That's what my "Player Illusionism" thread was meant to be about. And I can see a fascinating discussion of story-focus in a G context . . .

But back to the topic at hand - does that make MY position clearer? Or at least, do you now believe I understand your position, and just disagree with it?

Gordon

Hello,

As the originator of these statements, I think I'll point out when they're being misquoted and misused.

"I've seen posts that say something is broken if you need house rules to play it. I've seen a post that says that The Window will need some house rules to play in a Narrativist Fashion or a Sim Fashion. I've seen posts that say The Window isn't broken. I think they were all from people in general agreement."

The phrase is italics is incorrect. The Window is mildly broken, in terms of facilitating goals of play.

I have seen absolutely no evidence, direct claim, or even straight-up responsibility taken for the claim that The Window, as written and presented, facilitates a coherent mode of play.

All I've seen is a claim that The Window necessarily occupies/facilitates a mode of play that is not accounted for by GNS. Marco has stated that "everyone would agree" on this, which amuses me - that's the same "everyone" that gets referred to by any special-interest group who is trying to get its way.

I shrug. No argument to contend with means no need to engage in one.

That leaves us with these:
"... makes it sound like"
"a language thing"
reading "not necessarily" as sarcastic
adding puerile to "power struggle"

Marco, this stuff doesn't fly. You may read all the vicious bias and marginalization into others' words as you please, and shake your head in pained righteousness in response, but you have not identified any point of necessary outcome or contradiction to criticize.

"What it makes it sound like if you add words here and here ..." has no place in this discussion. You've already sent me suggested rewrites for the tone of the essay, and I've told you that they are under consideration. Hammering on that point, now, is wasting your time.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I have also seen some claims about Vanilla Narrativism that are grossly off the beam, which could legitimately be phrased as questions ("Hey, what does player story-power look like in VN?").

Ron Edwards wrote:
Hello,

As the originator of these statements, I think I'll point out when they're being misquoted and misused.

"I've seen posts that say something is broken if you need house rules to play it. I've seen a post that says that The Window will need some house rules to play in a Narrativist Fashion or a Sim Fashion. I've seen posts that say The Window isn't broken. I think they were all from people in general agreement."

The phrase is italics is incorrect. The Window is mildly broken, in terms of facilitating goals of play.

I have seen absolutely no evidence, direct claim, or even straight-up responsibility taken for the claim that The Window, as written and presented, facilitates a coherent mode of play.

All I've seen is a claim that The Window necessarily occupies/facilitates a mode of play that is not accounted for by GNS. Marco has stated that "everyone would agree" on this, which amuses me - that's the same "everyone" that gets referred to by any special-interest group who is trying to get its way.

That leaves us with these:
"... makes it sound like"
"a language thing"
reading "not necessarily" as sarcastic
adding puerile to "power struggle"

Marco, this stuff doesn't fly.
...

Marco,

Thanks for your open-mindedness and general approach to disagreement/debate. I appreciate it a lot, and I'll try to apply the same to all of your suggestions.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:

"I've seen posts that say something is broken if you need house rules to play it. I've seen a post that says that The Window will need some house rules to play in a Narrativist Fashion or a Sim Fashion. I've seen posts that say The Window isn't broken. I think they were all from people in general agreement."

The phrase is italics is incorrect. The Window is mildly broken, in terms of facilitating goals of play.

I have seen absolutely no evidence, direct claim, or even straight-up responsibility taken for the claim that The Window, as written and presented, facilitates a coherent mode of play.

Paganini wrote: Let me pose a hypothetical question for you that may help clear things up.

Snip. Unless you can show that those people are, in fact, drifting, and that it's impossible to play the Window without drifting, I don't think the feeling of "exclusion from GNS" is going to be resolved.

Hi there,

Paganini, Fang and I are in 100% agreement regarding the "proof" issue, and I will be happy to explain to you why using that term at all is contradictory to the task at hand, by private email. I do not have to "prove" anything to anyone - only to be consistent, to be fair, and (in sum) to make sense. None of the current discussion is about any attempt to change anyone's mind about anything, a concept which seems to elude the grasp of those who spend a lot of time in other forms of internet discourse.

I also agree with his assessment of your play of the game, relative to its text.

Let's get at the underlying concept of the discussion.

Your position, as I understand it, seems to assume that any game design "must be categorized" according to GNS, into some pocket or slot that it provides. This is not correct. GNS is about actual play decisions (by player/GM, ie, humans), and game design is a related, not definitive issue. If you have some image of me with a GNS-o-meter, passing it over stacks of game books and listening to it go "queep," then you're simply not following any aspect of the essay.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
Your position, as I understand it, seems to assume that any game design "must be categorized" according to GNS, into some pocket or slot that it provides. This is not correct. GNS is about actual play decisions (by player/GM, ie, humans), and game design is a related, not definitive issue. If you have some image of me with a GNS-o-meter, passing it over stacks of game books and listening to it go "queep," then you're simply not following any aspect of the essay.

Paganini wrote,

I think that Logan and Marco feel that the Window will work perfectly well without alteration for a specific play style - a style that they're calling Dramatism, for lack of a better term. By insisting that a group using the Window must drift into one of the boxes, you're excluding the group who plays without drift. You're invalidating a style of play that is preferred by some

To start,

Marco wrote:
Yes, clear. Was I clear about the split between GNS and GDS?

Marco wrote:
a) More correctly GNS doesn't address Dramatist concerns (the Dramatist exists between S and N)

Marco wrote:
Under GNS simulationist applies to two modes of play:

a) those interested in simulating a reality--or exploring/experiencing play in one.
b) story-oriented simulationist play (where the GM is the story teller or the simulation is not one of a reality but of some sort of fiction). This also comprises character development (in the lit-sense, not the 17th level sense).

Marco wrote:
GDS doesn't tell you how to design a system. It does tell you what sorts of things a player might/might not like.

Marco wrote:
[Aside] Most good S-GM's in my experience will, over the course of a multi-story-line game take into account what the players want and thus, with their input, create story-lines that suit them. I don't see a VN player having a lot of conflict with a S-GM who is also story-oriented in the sense that the GM wants to use a N-Premise theme, doesn't railroad (maybe frames excessively--but certainly keeps tabs on player frustration), etc. [/Aside]

Marco wrote:
Right. Hardcore N-players (as opposed to VN who *might* be) have a very specific story-oriented view: specifically they want player-authorial mechanics or (failing that) a social contract where they get a lot of say in the story

Marco wrote:
A few points:
1. the term creation of a likely meaningful story either requires specific mechanics or gets the game system declared broken (i.e. needing house rules) or at best drifty (which, implies it's weak if not actually broke).
2. again, the goal BY IT'S DEFINITION requires game-mechanics to execute properly.

Ron Edwards wrote:
A person is free to "feel" whatever they like, which has absolutely no impact on the argument without some kind of thinking basis.

Marco,

I have little to add to Gordon's treatment of the "language" issue above, and what I've said previously.

Here is that little bit, then.

Either you accept that the language of the essay is undergoing review, or you don't. At this point, with every confirmation that the phrase "horribly dysfunctional" upsets you, I shrug. Be patient, have faith that you are being listened to, and also be aware that I am not you, and am not writing your essay.

As for "feel," I misunderstand nothing and I stand by my point. I do not accept, under any circumstance, that "I feel" can be a stand-in for "I think," or "I have considered," or "I propose that ..." Using "I feel" specifically and only means the absence of such reasoned responses. The same goes for "believe," which is perhaps the least relevant mental act imaginable for purposes of discourse.

This may upset you as well: When it comes to discourse among peers, I have neither respect for nor interest in what anyone feels or believes.

Obviously, such an outlook is not functional if we are talking about "friendly chat," or teaching, or any number of other activities. But here, we are talking about discourse - making sense. Feeling & belief are utterly unwelcome and useless in reference to supporting or validating points. (I acknowledge that passion is very important as a motivator of debate, but it has no place in proposing or resolving specific issues.)

Necessary clarification: nothing about my point justifies lack of courtesy. Saying, "I don't care how you feel about this point" is not the same as saying, "I can be a rude bastard to you." I do not advocate or permit the latter on the Forge.

Back to the point, if someone wants to propose or to resolve or to debate a concrete issue, they must put feeling and belief aside as mechanisms. Otherwise, it's not discourse and has no place at the Forge.

Best,
Ron