Okay, I've put up February's game: Divine Right.

It was originally about exorcists, but then the basic Premise, "What would you sacrifice to save another," kept sticking in my head. The thing expanded into a system to support just that.

So, game design ... I talked a little about this game in some other threads in RPG Theory (just do a search on "Unknown Factor" and "Operant Conditioning" ... Divine Right was created with direct application of my current design theory:

Premise - I nailed this as soon as I could. And kept checking everything to make sure it follows the Premise.

Unknown Factor - I didn't want the traditional "outcome of the conflict" to be the Unknown Factor, but rather the actual conflict itself. The tension provided is that the Player's sacrifice can be greater or less than intended -- a little gamble. In this case, the mechanic is Player-Influenced. The Player makes a roll, and that roll is modified by the Sacrifice made.

Conditioning - I figured the positive reinforcement of gaining Dilemma Points would outweigh the punishment of Sacrifices. Especially since people can really get into narrating failure, so there may be _no_ punishment!

Now the big question I have for everyone: I tried to create a Narrativist game, what with the Theme and Dilemma and Characters consisting of Concept and Risks. But then I still have the Dilemma Points aspect. The game remains some sort of "competition against the Dilemma," while tied into the "let's create a story _during play_ about how we overcame this Dilemma."

So is this a Gamist-Narrativist game? Is it overtly Gamist? My intent was a purely Narrativist game with a finite session-length (hence the Dilemma Total). What do you think?

Hi Zak,

I think you're making the GNS aspect of game design a lot more complex than it is. GNS is about priorities during play, and thus various elements that you might think of as Gamist are perfectly welcome (given your desire to make a focused, coherent game) as long as it seems to you that they motor or power the first priority.

Look at Soap - every time I've played it, everyone instantly grasped that the point is to make a soap opera episode, in terms of conflicts and revelations and so forth. Thus any pegging of the bidding-mechanic and cries of "Gamist element! Gamist element! Unclean!" are, to coin a phrase, perfectly stupid.

Thinking of this sort spirals swiftly into Crazy Logic Land - "Oh no, if I propose a problem for the characters, then I'm expecting the players to compete against it, hence it's Gamist!"

For pity's sake, what's wrong with seeing the Dilemma for what it is, Situation, and enjoying how it permits Narrativist priorities to be realized? This is a lot like the babble about heavy-setting RPGs being inherently Simulationist.

Best,
Ron

Ron, you are awesome. And I mean that with good old 80's sensibility.

During the design and writing phase, I didn't concern myself with "is there a Gamist mechanic? Yikes!" Every time it occured to me I quickly realized there was no way a point-juggling strategy would outweigh Dilemmas and Sacrifices.

It was when I posted it here and started thinking about the design when the worry of Gamism vs. Narrativism popped up. I thought, "Crap, this game is all about earning points towards a Dilemma Total!" On the surface (and at 2am), it sure sounds like an obviously Gamist attack. I've run into the same pitfall I've warned others against: Any piece of mechanic can support G,N or S. It's how all the mechanics tie together that makes the _SYSTEM_ ... that's the important part.

Silly Zak.

In any case, Ron, you have a knack of saying just the right things (to me, anyway). ... as long as it seems to you that they motor or power the first priority. ... is now permanently part of my game design philosophy.

So with my own worries about conflicting play-styles put to rest, how do you like the game itself?

Hi Zack,

I'll drop my comments...even if I'm not Ron ! ;)

Well...I'm seduced.

I was at first a little afraid about those Dilemma points, but it appers clearly that it's just a tool, not an objective.

I think it could be nice that the group decide of a game's lengh, but that the players don't know the exact total they must garner. This way, it even remove the possibility of gamist decisions such as "un-ho, still 5 pts ...I'll go for a minor sacrifice" or "we just need two minor and one significant".

But hey!, that's just for my taste. I think that people willing to play your game the way you envision it will get the point. ;-)

I would just like to say that IMO, the sacrifices made should make sense with the kind of (supernatural) dilemma that's been faced. I think it's quite clear, but i can't forbide myself to think of the comedy players I know would make of your game (it would make you sick, or laughing to death).

I liked your explaination of Premise, Theme and Dilemme. It will help me explain those thing to my players (even for other games).

I think you it your mark quite nicely.

Damn ! Still 25 days 'til i can see your march's game.

Bye,
Fabrice

Little Nicky,
I saw the visibility of Dilemma Total as an aid to storytelling. Seeing how many points are left would, rather than a Gamist "How do I plan my strategy "win" the session", it's a Narrative "How do I plan my strategy to further the telling of story. I could end the game with a Mortal Sacrifice, making things super exciting. Or I don't feel it's time for that yet, so I'm going to make a Small Sacrifice and give another Player the chance to save the day."

At least, that's how I'm looking at it.

If you get around to playing the thing, please let me know!