Topic: Risk in C/As
Started by: Tony Irwin
Started on: 8/9/2004
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 8/9/2004 at 6:02pm, Tony Irwin wrote:
Risk in C/As
Folks, I'm trying to understand risk in Sim play, so that I can write a really great sim RPG! I'm trying to really nail down what I enjoy most about successful sim play, right now "risk" is causing me difficulties. Seems like sometimes I exalted in the feeling of risk, sat there genuinely petrified (yet loving it) at the thought of certain outcomes. Other times it annoyed me no end when something disruptive came along and seemed to interfere with the game. Here I'm hoping to nail down the role that risk might play in each agenda before I see what I need to provide for sim play in particular.
I don't participate much in discussions on this board, although I do read a lot. I'd be very grateful for any patient help and pointers,
Cheers!
Narrativism is where one player threatens the SIS with irrevocable change, but pauses before the full impact of that change is determined and accepted into the SIS. Players are invited to communicate moral values by which viable developments they try to secure for the SIS. The players risk the possibility that by failing to secure a particular development, their moral values will be irrelevant to the SIS. I.e. “What matters to me doesn’t seem to matter at all in there”.
Gamism is where one player threatens the SIS with irrevocable change, but pauses before the full impact of that change is identified and accepted into the SIS. Players are invited to demonstrate how gutsy and smart they are in their attempts to secure any one of the viable developments for the SIS. Players risk the possibility they will be insufficiently gutsy and smart to secure a particular development being accepted into the SIS. i.e. “I know I’m good, but I don't have any results to prove it”.
Simulationism is where one player threatens the SIS with irrevocable change, but pauses before the full impact of that change is identified and accepted into the SIS. Players are invited to demonstrate what is their vision for the SIS, by attempting to secure viable developments that best match their vision. Players risk the possibility that after the change the SIS will less resemble their own vision for it. i.e. “Things don’t look like they do in my dream”.
The Narrativist enjoys and chases risk because its an opportunity to show how much they are attatched to particular themes.
The Gamist enjoys and chases risk because its an opportunity to show how much guts and smarts they posses.
The Simulationist enjoys and chases risk because its an opportunity to show how much they love their dream.
An absence of risk robs the players of the ability to say “This is how much I…” to the other players. Players in all three agendas are dependant on someone to introduce irrevocable changes that will ask "How much do you..." to the other players.
On 8/9/2004 at 6:32pm, ErrathofKosh wrote:
RE: Risk in C/As
I think you nailed it.
Cheers
Jonathan
On 8/11/2004 at 8:59pm, Tony Irwin wrote:
RE: Risk in C/As
ErrathofKosh wrote: I think you nailed it.
Cheers Jonathon. Help me out with the next step. For risk, the player needs to put something tangible on the table, and fully accept that it may be lost or it may be multiplied (or maybe win something different). "Stakes" if you like.
So what are the stakes for each agenda?
How about
Sim - the extent to which the SIS currently resembles your dream*
Nar - the extent to which the SIS currently reflects your moral themes*
Gam - the extent to which the SIS currently has earned you peer esteem
The interesting thing about making it "currently" is that as a successful game progresses the stakes will grow bigger and bigger. As time goes on the SIS really looks like the one in your dream, its a much bigger risk to put that on the table. Play gets more intense as it progresses.
What do you think of those stakes? Suitable?
*To your own satisfaction.
On 8/11/2004 at 9:54pm, ErrathofKosh wrote:
RE: Risk in C/As
Alright, I've read (and reread) both posts...
I think that the stakes as defined for N are not complete. N is more than a player's need to insert their own morality into a game, but to address the theme present whether or not their own morality applies.
So, I would extend all of these "definitions" so that they are a little clearer:
Sim - the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream
Nar - the extent to which your contributions to the SIS address the Premise
Gam - the extent to which your contributions to the SIS allow you to Step On Up
Wow... If these are valid, I just "saw the light!"
A roleplayer is validated in the group activity by what he contributes and is accepted. This is what lumpley refers to as credibility. Denying credibility to a player is what I now believe is the foundation of player discord. If my goal is to address Premise, and you deny me that opportunity, I have been denied credibility. Thus, the risk for any player is credibility, either within a CA or beyond it. (A player's particular input or his whole CA can be denied.)
The question then is: why is a player denied credibility?
The answer lies at almost every level....
At the Social Contract level, this denial is often predetermined for OOG reasons.
At the Exploration level, it often occurs based on CA.
At the CA level, it happens either because of discongruence of Exploratory element or of subject of Exploration
Even differing techinques lead to denial of credibility.
Some interesting points:
I think that differing CA's can exist side by side in a game, as long as the SC allows that to occur.
I think that using character rather than situation to explore a Premise (discongruence of Exploratory element) is rare. More often, which Premise to explore is a point of conflict.
The fact that differing techniques leads to denial of credibility occurs in everyday gaming. I.e., I supposed to roll some dice to determine my success and I just narrate it instead.
I hope all of this is helpful, I just kinda let it out...
Cheers
Jonathan
On 8/11/2004 at 11:09pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Risk in C/As
Tony Irwin wrote: So what are the stakes for each agenda?
How about
Sim - the extent to which the SIS currently resembles your dream*
Nar - the extent to which the SIS currently reflects your moral themes*
Gam - the extent to which the SIS currently has earned you peer esteem
The interesting thing about making it "currently" is that as a successful game progresses the stakes will grow bigger and bigger. As time goes on the SIS really looks like the one in your dream, its a much bigger risk to put that on the table.
This doesn't seem to resemble how I usually play. In general, I don't have a particular way that I want the game to go, and I'm happy to accept other people's input on that. I don't like it if I feel their input is low-quality (for example, unbelievable or stereotypical or unimaginative). I also don't generally like interference in characters which I view as mine (i.e. which I follow the internal life of). However, outside of that I'm open to a very wide range of possibilities.
I generally dislike it if the game resembles what I would have imagined on my own. I prefer for it to be different. This applies to both the specific elements and the meaning. There are things that I want to have control over (like my PC if I'm a player), but I usually prefer to have no risk over that control.
I'm not sure how this relates to what you're saying offhand, but I don't see how what I tend to prefer relates to your categories of risk.
On 8/12/2004 at 11:22am, Tony Irwin wrote:
RE: Risk in C/As
John thanks for responding, I really appreciate it.
John Kim wrote: This doesn't seem to resemble how I usually play. In general, I don't have a particular way that I want the game to go, and I'm happy to accept other people's input on that. I don't like it if I feel their input is low-quality (for example, unbelievable or stereotypical or unimaginative). I also don't generally like interference in characters which I view as mine (i.e. which I follow the internal life of). However, outside of that I'm open to a very wide range of possibilities.
What if we suggested that your dream is framed mainly in terms of character? Your vision for the SIS is "It's a place where this character I have created lives, talks, behaves, thinks, feels, and breathes exactly as they would in real life". Because your dream is character focused the GM and other players can turn the whole setting upside down, and encounter strings of different situations, but none of that is putting your dream at risk. The changes happening in the SIS won't leave your dream behind - in fact these are all just new opportunities to continue playing your character realistically against surprising new settings and situations. It's all pay off with no real risk.
Its only when the GM touches your character that they might be close to threatening your dream. Marco gave some good examples in the other thread, possible character death, possible character imprisonment, fundamental changes to who your character is - these may be direct threats to your dream (on the other hand you may take it in stride as new and interesting opportunities to faithfully play the character).
Does that seem viable?
John wrote: I generally dislike it if the game resembles what I would have imagined on my own. I prefer for it to be different. This applies to both the specific elements and the meaning. There are things that I want to have control over (like my PC if I'm a player), but I usually prefer to have no risk over that control.
Ditto, I'm thinking it comes down to how "complete" your dream is. When I played Seventh Sea, my dream was framed in terms of colour, and maybe situation. I asked the GM to write me characters, and I just learned about the setting through play. To this day I've never learned the system, I just got people to tell me what I should roll. Sure my dream was very specific and particular and I was personally very committed to it - but there was loads of stuff I wasn't worried about, and to have fun (in fact to have any roleplaying take place) I needed the GM and other players to fill in their dreams as well into the SIS.
John wrote: I'm not sure how this relates to what you're saying offhand, but I don't see how what I tend to prefer relates to your categories of risk.
Thanks John, how about how I've put it now? Do you think that at leasts starts to account for your preferences. (I realise I still haven't accounted for why you might accept and enjoy risk to your dream of character exploration.)
On 8/12/2004 at 12:05pm, Tony Irwin wrote:
RE: Risk in C/As
Jonathon wrote: I think that the stakes as defined for N are not complete. N is more than a player's need to insert their own morality into a game, but to address the theme present whether or not their own morality applies.
You're right of course - thanks. I think Nar wants to discuss morality, not preach morality (and by morality I just mean "What are the important things?"). My wording suggested otherwise.
So, I would extend all of these "definitions" so that they are a little clearer:
Sim - the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream
Nar - the extent to which your contributions to the SIS address the Premise
Gam - the extent to which your contributions to the SIS allow you to Step On Up
This is interesting to me Jonathon, because it implies that what the player is putting up as stakes is the ability to make future contributions. I think we touched on that in the other thread when discussing meta-game currency in Nar. "I'll spend all points/coins/rerolls I have on this outcome, because the thematic statement I want to make is closer to my heart than any I might want to make in the future".
Is that how you see it? If so do you have any examples for Sim and Gam?
Tony
On 8/12/2004 at 10:19pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Risk in C/As
Tony Irwin wrote:John Kim wrote: In general, I don't have a particular way that I want the game to go, and I'm happy to accept other people's input on that. I don't like it if I feel their input is low-quality (for example, unbelievable or stereotypical or unimaginative). I also don't generally like interference in characters which I view as mine (i.e. which I follow the internal life of). However, outside of that I'm open to a very wide range of possibilities.
What if we suggested that your dream is framed mainly in terms of character?
...
Its only when the GM touches your character that they might be close to threatening your dream. Marco gave some good examples in the other thread, possible character death, possible character imprisonment, fundamental changes to who your character is - these may be direct threats to your dream (on the other hand you may take it in stride as new and interesting opportunities to faithfully play the character).
Does that seem viable?
Well, I'll buy that my emotional investment is primarily in character. However, your examples don't match up. I want my character to be affected by what happens in the game, and preferably in unexpected ways. I don't generally object to death or imprisonment -- though I am annoyed if I feel that my character was railroaded into those. I don't even mind magical mind control particularly (I often enjoy it). The main thing I object to is the GM saying "Your character feels X" to represent just normal internal mental state.
Actually, this is often a clash of styles with other players and/or GMs. i.e. It is commonly assumed that as player, I naturally want my PC to not be harmed and succeed. I think that's an important style difference from how many people play.
Tony Irwin wrote:John Kim wrote: I'm not sure how this relates to what you're saying offhand, but I don't see how what I tend to prefer relates to your categories of risk.
Thanks John, how about how I've put it now? Do you think that at leasts starts to account for your preferences. (I realise I still haven't accounted for why you might accept and enjoy risk to your dream of character exploration.)
I'm still not very happy with it. The way it is phrased suggests that my investment is that I want the game to be a particular way and my satisfaction is based on how well the game matches up with my expectations. It's true that there are limits to how far a game can vary from my expectations and still be fun for me. However, within that outer limit, how close a game matches my expectations doesn't correlate well with my enjoyment of it.
On 8/13/2004 at 1:28pm, Tony Irwin wrote:
RE: Risk in C/As
John, thanks for responding,
John wrote: I'm still not very happy with it. The way it is phrased suggests that my investment is that I want the game to be a particular way and my satisfaction is based on how well the game matches up with my expectations. It's true that there are limits to how far a game can vary from my expectations and still be fun for me. However, within that outer limit, how close a game matches my expectations doesn't correlate well with my enjoyment of it.
Well if we simply say that your "dream for play is that its a place where your character behaves as you would expect him to"?
Your investment is that you want the game to be in a particular way - you want it to be a place where you can play your own character. It's just that your investment won't irritate most people, keeps within traditional player/gm boundaries (We play our characters in your setting) and will allow you to enjoy play pretty much what ever happens. However if someone finds a way to take that away from you, by saying "Your character feels X" then that represents a loss to you as player. You have expectations for play (expectations that are very congenial for most play) and will sense some level of personal loss if they're not met.
How's that? Have I established that when playing sim this way, you still have something to lose?