Seriously. When we say that "WOD's incoherence allows players to drift any way they want" how do they do it? I think that there are different levels of drift. Rules drift, which is ignoring or patching a published rule of the game, is the most obvious. But I don't think this happens with a majority of groups. In fact, I think that unwritten rules get drifted more.

Consider, the GM might want to run a more story based game. No focus on serious tactical combat. (I.e. system exploration or step on up). Most GM's aren't going to re-write the combat chapter of the WoD book. Instead, they'll recruit and encourage players to build characters who do things different ways. Non-combat skills and abilities will predominate. Fights will be few and far between. In short, I believe a lot of rules drift occurs by a unwritten rules changes.

Another example. I'm running a Shadowrun game which is focused on lower powered characters. I effectively created some house rules limiting the beefiness of starting Shadowrunners. Now those aren't written down, but everyone agreed to follow them.

I think drift takes place at Social Contract level, in other words, as much as at the System level. As long as the Social Contract is all right, Drifted play creates no problems.

There seems to be a sort of "meta rule" that says, roughly (and help me out here): characters will not take actions that violate the CA of this group. Or is it: no player will use techniques/ephemera that violate the CA?

Help me out here. Just how do I drift a game, assuming I wish to do so.

Any game text contains some of:
Color, Mechanics, Setting, Situation and Character

Changing any of these things is Drift. D&D 3e that isn't in a dungeon is drifted (interestingly, AD&D 2e that isn't in a dungeon is not drifted.) Vampire without the Camarilla or similar power structures is drifted. The first of these is a drift of Situation, the second is a drift of Setting. There are no effects on the mechanics, but they are still Drift.

yrs--
--Ben

Ben Lehman wrote: Any game text contains some of:
Color, Mechanics, Setting, Situation and Character

Changing any of these things is Drift. D&D 3e that isn't in a dungeon is drifted (interestingly, AD&D 2e that isn't in a dungeon is not drifted.) Vampire without the Camarilla or similar power structures is drifted. The first of these is a drift of Situation, the second is a drift of Setting. There are no effects on the mechanics, but they are still Drift.

Drift
Changing from one Creative Agenda to another, or from the lack of shared Creative Agenda to a specific one, during play, typically through changing the System. In observational terms, often marked by openly deciding to ignore or alter the use of a given rule.

The two most common forms of drift are adding to the rules and ignoring rules.

A WoD game where players start a couple of generations lower than given in the rulebook and have access to more disciplines has drifted towards different priorities - if not purely Gamist, then focusing on the original "kewl powerz".

House rules are drift in progress - they reflect the priorities of any given game (as a complete entity, including players and local influence) - taken to it's most logical extent, fantasy heartbreakers are what happens when drift takes a game outwith the recognisable confines of its parent.

Where and how this compares with the increasingly common practise of running one game world with another game system I leave to others - the gist is easy enough to pick up.

Drift is a change of priorities, simply, from as written/expected to those that work for a given group. Inconsistency and obfuscation are the parents of Drift because they require interpretation - no two people interpret something the same way unless they discuss it, and that often produces a third viewpoint -

The vagueness effectively allows play priorities to crystallise around particular features - this is the incoherence - as a whole most of White Wolf's games are wrapped in inconsistency "Vampire is a roleplaying game of personal horror; what is the damage rating of a jury-rigged flamethrower?", in that there are lots of rules and notions and ideas that do not add together simply.

By forcing groups to change their focus to produce something that works for them, you have introduced drift. The same is true of a large number of games - some do it by being sparse, some do it by being dense. Remember that WW _explicitly_ encourage rules drift with 'rule 0': the power to ignore or change a rule in your game if you don't like it.

Since my preference for drifting games is well known, I'll describe some practices I use:

1) Variable resolution detail: Once you have a core system it is very easy to customize how you want to apply that to a given situation.

For example, I can run a combat in a number of ways using the WoD dice engine. I can make opposed rolls for everybody and apply 1 HL of injury per winning success. I might use the entended roll rules for this, ending when a definite result is reached.

Alternately, I might use the actual combat system. Or, if I want even more, I may aggressively apply situational modifiers and even allow the synergistic use of other traits to provide an equipment-style dice bonus.

Of course, the common hue and cry is that the game doesn't really support it, but "systems are systems"; that is, any game systems that are applied to any given circumstance are a legitimate use of the system.

The truth is that people run lots of games like this all the time. Everybody adapts rules or declines to use certain rules.

What takes a bit more skill is to use multiple types of resolution on the same occassion -- to have one quick roll combat at the same time as a detailed slugfest.

2) Rethinking the concept of the creative agenda: Games are meant to entertain individuals, not collectives, and games ought to be run accordingly.

The virtue of a toolkit design is that it encourages a dialogue about what the game can accomplish for the player. It it's worst form, this is called rules lawyering, but with players who don't suck, it's really rules-generated inspiration. In a group, then, some systems are going to be more attractive than others to different people. The GM makes a note of this and proceeds accordingly. Player A wants a detailed computer hacking system and B doesn't. We give each player what they want according to the principle of variable resolution detail.

Ben Lehman wrote: Any game text contains some of:
Color, Mechanics, Setting, Situation and Character

Changing any of these things is Drift. D&D 3e that isn't in a dungeon is drifted (interestingly, AD&D 2e that isn't in a dungeon is not drifted.) Vampire without the Camarilla or similar power structures is drifted. The first of these is a drift of Situation, the second is a drift of Setting. There are no effects on the mechanics, but they are still Drift.

yrs--
--Ben

Ben Lehman wrote: Any game text contains some of:
Color, Mechanics, Setting, Situation and Character

Changing any of these things is Drift. D&D 3e that isn't in a dungeon is drifted (interestingly, AD&D 2e that isn't in a dungeon is not drifted.) Vampire without the Camarilla or similar power structures is drifted. The first of these is a drift of Situation, the second is a drift of Setting. There are no effects on the mechanics, but they are still Drift.

yrs--
--Ben

Marco wrote:
I strongly disagree with this. The 3rd Ed rules, for example, contain wilderness encounter tables, the ranger class, etc. These are all out-of-dungeon things. Even if there is a piece of flavor text that says "You MUST ALWAYS play in a dungeon" I would consider that an incredibly weak form of "rule" that would be being changed.

Marco wrote:
Where do you find the Color, Setting, and Character for GURPS or Hero? If I have my Vampire players go down into a tomb does that make it drift because "they're in a dungeon?" What "Situation" is specified in The Riddle of Steel?

Note: I would consider playing non-vampires in the original V:tM drift, yes--but playing above-ground 3rd Ed? There's a lot of rules that support that in black and white in the book.

eyebeams wrote: The virtue of a toolkit design is that it encourages a dialogue about what the game can accomplish for the player. It it's worst form, this is called rules lawyering, but with players who don't suck, it's really rules-generated inspiration. In a group, then, some systems are going to be more attractive than others to different people. The GM makes a note of this and proceeds accordingly. Player A wants a detailed computer hacking system and B doesn't. We give each player what they want according to the principle of variable resolution detail.

Matt Wilson wrote:

eyebeams wrote: The virtue of a toolkit design is that it encourages a dialogue about what the game can accomplish for the player. It it's worst form, this is called rules lawyering, but with players who don't suck, it's really rules-generated inspiration. In a group, then, some systems are going to be more attractive than others to different people. The GM makes a note of this and proceeds accordingly. Player A wants a detailed computer hacking system and B doesn't. We give each player what they want according to the principle of variable resolution detail.

I have no argument with this viewpoint, but I think any "toolkit" should provide the players with an understanding of how to reward different kinds of play with that specific game.

Clinton's "The Shadow of Yesterday" is the coolest example of that I've seen. Players choose the "keys" that interest them and are rewarded for factoring those keys into play. For example, if you have something like "the key of glittering gold," you get xp for being greedy. If you have the "key of the mission," you get xp for overcoming obstacles while trying to complete the mission, etc.

What that means in play is that the guy who likes fighting and tactics and the guy who likes hamming it up with his master diplomat both get rewarded. - and all the GM really needs to look at on the players' sheets in order to whip up an excellent adventure are those keys.

Hi Malcolm,

In terms of

I typically follow the players' intentions and err on the side of generosity for the latter.

Noon wrote: Hi Malcolm,

In terms of

I typically follow the players' intentions and err on the side of generosity for the latter.

That'd be quite a rewarding benefit for you, as your in the pivotal position of deciding rewards (by how you read player intentions), rather than the rules in the book doing more to determine that. Wouldn't it?

Brownie points or experience points aren't the only reward method.

Let's say they aren't being used. There are still rewards present though, even once these brownie points have gone.

Which are distributed by you as GM. That's should make my question clearer and easier to answer.

Ben,

Would you say that playing a Narrativist GURPS game is Drift seeing as GURPS is usually considered a Sim system?

Also: I don't recall rules for normal people in early V:tM--so if there were rules I'm not sure I'd consider it drift. If you played V:tM without Vampires I would consider it a very strange use of the rules (John made a fairly convincing argument on this point concerning non-adventurous D&D characters)--but I think using Drift as the term weakens it and puts the speaker in a position of claiming to know what "canonical play" of the game is--something that I think you'll find quickly becomes unwelidly.

-Marco

Noon wrote: Brownie points or experience points aren't the only reward method.

Let's say they aren't being used. There are still rewards present though, even once these brownie points have gone.

Which are distributed by you as GM. That's should make my question clearer and easier to answer.

Malcolm,

other reward systems might be bonuses to dice rolls for situations (+1 for attacking from behind!) or rewarding a player for cool description with bonuses to rolls (Exalted's stunts), that kinda thing.

Good example from WW is morality in Darkages:Vampire. You get modifiers to your social interaction rolls based on morality level. So keeping morality is rewarded by bonuses, losing it punished with penalties. There's a reward system right there that's not related to XP.

-Matt

Other reward methods: when players do stuff you think is cool, you grin and rave about how cool they are; when they do stuff you don't think is cool, you frown (or make no expression at all). If they attempt something cool, you might, rather than give bonuses, lower the difficulty of the obstacle--or fudge the die roll if the player would fail. If they do something you don't like, you might make the difficulty higher, or not even call for a roll at all, telling the player, "No, you can't do that."

I'm not saying that's what you, Malcolm, do--I've never gamed with you. But those are definitely reward methods that can reinforce certain styles of gaming, and they have nothing to do with "experience points" or other quantifiable rewards.

Matt wrote: Malcolm,

other reward systems might be bonuses to dice rolls for situations (+1 for attacking from behind!) or rewarding a player for cool description with bonuses to rolls (Exalted's stunts), that kinda thing.

Good example from WW is morality in Darkages:Vampire. You get modifiers to your social interaction rolls based on morality level. So keeping morality is rewarded by bonuses, losing it punished with penalties. There's a reward system right there that's not related to XP.

-Matt

Nothing is really "wired" to any system (by which I take to mean the rules presented in the book, in this case) until the group agrees that it's wired. The GM is often the enforcer, but the other players must agree to go along for the ride. (See also: Lumpley Principal)

Similarly, ALL events are basically a performance for the rest of the group. This is a social activity. Everything you do is on display. People don't often recognize this (and there's no great need to do so), but it's going on all the time.

So, I guess that's my round about way of suggesting the the GM's role NEED NOT be limited to the outcomes of the morality system (and I'm not at all sure what that means).

The GM is, usually, the guy/gal who approves the rewards we're talking about here. His role isn't "just" enforcing rules. He is setting up the expectation among his players that certain behaviors are "good" and certain behavoirs "not so good" or "not allowed at all." Players will tend to go for the rewards, hence steer toward the "good" behaviors. This is what the Forge calls system (and it is more specific than what most gamers generally mean when they say system).

What do you mean by "award through consensus" and how is that different from ANYTHING in role-playing (a process I often describe as a consensus building process)?

Matt Snyder wrote: The GM is, usually, the guy/gal who approves the rewards we're talking about here. His role isn't "just" enforcing rules. He is setting up the expectation among his players that certain behaviors are "good" and certain behavoirs "not so good" or "not allowed at all." Players will tend to go for the rewards, hence steer toward the "good" behaviors. This is what the Forge calls system (and it is more specific than what most gamers generally mean when they say system).

What do you mean by "award through consensus" and how is that different from ANYTHING in role-playing (a process I often describe as a consensus building process)?

Marco wrote: Ben,

Would you say that playing a Narrativist GURPS game is Drift seeing as GURPS is usually considered a Sim system?

Ben Lehman wrote:
I think we're agreeing here or, rather, our disagreement is terminological rather than actual.

yrs--
--Ben

I think it's important in the context of the original post here to distinguish several sorts of drift--

• Intentional informed drift.• Intentional uninformed drift.• Unintentional drift.


Intentional informed drift is the sort that is done to make a game work to facilitate a specific agendum, by a group that sees how to get what they want from play. I don't necessarily mean that they can articulate an agendum so much as that they know that what they enjoy is, for example, creating morally meaningful stories, and that some of these rules are going to get in the way of that so we'll ditch them or replace them with other rules. When the game is designed specifically to do this, in essence suggesting that the referee or the group choose between various rules which will support different sorts of play, we frequently call it transition (from Fang Langford's Scattershot game).

Intentional uninformed drift is generally facilitated by house rules. In essence, this springs from the group's recognition that something in the game doesn't work for them, so they discard it in favor of doing it "their way". It's somewhat more haphazard, but it effectively changes the focus of play to get to something else. An example of this is probably those "experience point rewards for good roleplaying" that are so often added to D&D games, because out-of-the-box D&D provides considerably better support for killing things and taking stuff than it does for having conversations and negotiating solutions, but players want to shift the focus to these other things. (This is a particularly good example of this, since as I've noted elsewhere it changes what is rewarded but not what the reward facilitates, and so becomes a different kind of gamism in which being the best role player makes yours the buffest character.)


Unintentional drift is the general agreement of a group to play a game a particular way without recognizing that they've changed it. This I think is what Malcolm means when he speaks of World of Darkness designs facilitating drift well; players play they way they think they should, and if the group is coherent they think that's the way the game is written. This is also the sort of drift Ron references regarding Champions.

How to facilitate drift depends on what you mean by that. The first sort is best facilitated probably by including alternate rules with explanations of the impact such rules would have. The third is probably best supported by including conflicting or incoherent rules and telling players to toss out everything that doesn't work for them. I'm not sure why you'd want to facilitate the second.

--M. J. Young

eyebeams wrote:
Ah, I see what you mean. This is the kind of stuff I prefer to reward through consensus. Something like a stunt is basically a performance to the rest of the group.

Something like morality bonuses is already wierd to the system, though, so the GM's roll is really to work with the morality systems, not the outcomes therof.

Marco wrote:
Assuming I ignored no rules that ought to have come into play as per the mechanics (i.e. we played with all the combat rules where appropriate) would you consider it possible that I drifted it?

1) No, except as much that I make a suggestion after seeing the impact of the performance and that my players regularly tell me they want a reward added. I do voice what I think the consensus is, but if I'm wrong, I'll find out right away.

2) Maybe, maybe not. I provide opportunity, but they choose outcomes. If the playerwants an inescapable moral paradox or a powerup, they can take it. If they don't, they won't. Part of this is fulfilled by having a looser control on the game setting.

Ben Lehman wrote: But consider, for instance, if you changed D&D so that it was always wilderness situations. That totally changes the gamist structures of the whole thing, heavily favoring rangers, barbarians, and certain rogues. This is as big, or bigger, a rules change than, say, making Skill Focus a +4.

This all cycles back to that I think that any piece of the SIS can be considered a part of system. Which I understand there is some disagreement on.

yrs--
--Ben

eyebeams wrote: 1) No, except as much that I make a suggestion after seeing the impact of the performance and that my players regularly tell me they want a reward added. I do voice what I think the consensus is, but if I'm wrong, I'll find out right away.

2) Maybe, maybe not. I provide opportunity, but they choose outcomes. If the playerwants an inescapable moral paradox or a powerup, they can take it. If they don't, they won't. Part of this is fulfilled by having a looser control on the game setting.

John Kim wrote: Anyone can give social praise -- so that can easily be from other players rather than the GM. Mechanical bonuses vary depending on system. Some systems support players being able to claim mechanical bonuses for themselves (i.e. they can point to the rule which provides it). Other systems make it explicitly the province of the GM, in which case it is a slight system change for players to claim it.

How does it "affect player behaviour?" It doesn't in the sense of being coercive. I've already coerced a bunch of grown men and women to pretend they're elves or posthuman mercenaries or whatnot, and to accept my role as the guy who populates the universe extenal to the characters and to facilitate what they want to do in it.

I'll give you an example from a recent session:

Player: So, Titus is balancing on the top of the hovercraft? I launch the thing through the window and yell at Titus: "Go!"

All: Woo! Argh! Oh no! Yeep! Woah!

Me: So, what's that then -- a +2 bonus?

All: Yeah!

Me: Right-o, then.

My suggestion comes from player input. It does not coerce player behaviour. I may give a little speech about my hopes for the game, but we'll then chat about all of our respective hopes and I'll assign ways that they can be fulfilled in an *individual* and collective fashion.

Theoretically, they could do this all wiuthout me (and often do, in fact), but it's often more effecient for me to make a suggestion based on how they're feeling.

Talking about permanent awards, as I've said, I don't play favourites. Things like XP get handed out equally to all. They do *not* react the player performance. If somebody thinks they sucked, they can always bank what they've got or ignore it.

Why (and how) do they tell you they want a reward?

Also, I should have said it before, but would this be for all types of conflict. Eg, persuading a persuadable owner of a company that what his company is doing wrong and he should stop it. Does group concensus apply here?

And you didn't confirm it's you who determines how much of a reward is given (for example, how much of a bonus).

Thanks for your answers so far, Malcolm,

So you resolve what consensus is and introduce material you guess they might like. Does anyone else in the play group typically have the capacity to do this on their own during a play session?