Hi. First time posting. Not being involved in the process of game design (except insofar as customizing a set of printed rules to fit the needs of a particular scenario and group constitutes design), I want to talk about the concrete application of GNS considerations to an individual game rather than to a system.

So I stumbled across The Forge last month, and thought "Wow! A theoretical corpus that addresses the deficiencies I perceive in the RGFA model!" Having read all of Ron's essays, and followed a few dozen discussion threads, I conceived the (possibly foolhardy) desire to apply these theories to improve my Mage chronicle, which has been running for more than a year now. Not that it wasn't good already, mind you, but the good is the enemy of the great.

My first step was to try to determine, retrospectively, what mode my players seemed to be in, and what mode I was in. I came to the conclusion that I was practicing an Illusionist (Simulationist) GM style, which was at odds with my Narrativist tendencies as a player. In other words, I would not enjoy playing in the kind of game that I run. This caused me a bit of discomfort....

My player group consists of two men and two women, all veteran gamers and more or less experienced GMs themselves. I approached the task of determining their play modes by asking the question, "When does this person seem to be having the most fun as a player?" Based on that analysis, I came to the conclusion that, while everyone was in a Simulationist mode, the men were focused on exploration of Situation, while the women were focused on exploration of Character.

So far, so good. It seems to me that I can accommodate those two sets of goals reasonably well in the same game: the men want cool plot twists, while the women want events and characters that provoke an emotional reaction from their characters.

To verify my results, I took the first 90 minutes of our most recent play session to summarize the GNS model (and a few related considerations, such as player stance), and then asked everyone what mode they thought they were in. Their conclusions, gratifyingly enough, were the same as mine.

I'm now working on changes to the game mechanics that will better support our play style. For one thing, the few combat scenes that have occurred so far have all been whiff-fests (the Storyteller system is appalling in that regard: ten-die damage pools that produce only one or two successes, which are then soaked down to zero, seem to occur much more often than chance would dictate), so I'm trying to push things more toward Fortune-in-the-Middle, which would let me finesse the whiffs better. My first thought is to adopt the damage rules from Exalted, where the soak score is subtracted from the damage pool before dice are rolled.

I'm also pondering the reward system. I made the mistake of writing a deadline into the chronicle's scenario; in order for the climax to be satisfactory, the characters need to have achieved a certain level of power by that time. This means that it's important for me to hand out fairly large XP rewards consistently, regardless of player actions. I am therefore looking for an alternative currency with which to reward the players. Furthermore, it's not at all clear to me that the usual criteria for allocating rewards (attendance, roleplaying [defined as "portrayal of character consistent with the parameters on the character sheet"], plot advancement, risk to character's life and limb) encourage the kinds of behavior I want to encourage; I need to define a new set of criteria.

Holy cow! Well, welcome to the Forge. I'm glad it's been so utterly useful to you!

It sounds like you have a very functional group, which is good. But the system you use doesn't match anybody's play-goals. Have you tried other games to achieve your group's desires?

(And might I recommend the tons of free games available in the Forge's Resource Library?)

But the system you use doesn't match anybody's play-goals. Have you tried other games to achieve your group's desires?

MF--

Good post! I actually finished up a run on Mage a couple of months ago, & it was my intention to narrativist it up a bit. I was somewhat successful in streamlining the rules, at any rate, which is what it sounds like your after.

One thing I did was make combat much more abstracted. I took a page from the 2nd ed Mage Storyteller's Screen book, which had an abstracted combat system inspired by Chris Kubasik's brilliant & seminal "Interactive Toolkit" essays. Basically, you make a declaration of intent (with bonus dice for good description & such, which I cribbed from Sorcerer)--"I want to jump up, grab the chandelier, swing across the room over the heads of the thugs, & land in front of the main honcho, kicking him in the head as I come down." You roll your dice based on a generalized pool (in this example, I'd say Dex + Brawl, since the head-kicking is the main part & the rest is just trimming). The number of successes determines how well you did at what you tried. No initiative, no modifiers based on weapon or range or anything like that.

I also had the players roll dice only in times of conflict. If a player was doing a simple task that didn't involve some sort of dramatic conflict, I just used their traits as a Karma basis for determining how successful they were.

Overall, it flowed really well. I wish I'd been clearer about establishing a narrative Premise--the game kind of got kerblooey & ended up being mostly "what weird shit can Josh throw at us?" But the streamlined rules helped me enjoy the game a lot more (& my players seemed to enjoy it, too).

Hi MF, and welcome to the Forge,

Frankly, I hardly know what to say. Everything you wrote is so attuned to why this site exists at all, that I guess the only possible response is: Thank You, and keep us posted on how the game is going.

...

Of course, I lied. I have tons to say. Let's see ...

1) Putting aside for the moment the tremendous potential of the game you describe, now that the same-page effect has been generated, what concerns me is your statement that you would not enjoy playing in the very game you are GMing.

My question is, do you think that, now that the game-goals are better articulated, this discrepancy might become repaired? I don't speak of making the group or play more Narrativist, but rather of you, now knowing "what's up" so to speak, being comfortable with the primarily-Simulationist focus that it does have.

2) Regarding possible reward systems, have you considered "story points" or, basically, metagame power? I'm speaking of things like Certificates in Prince Valiant, Hero Points in Hero Wars, or Dumb Luck in Elfs - quantified or at least unitary elements that permit players to re-roll, state an outcome, or boost effectiveness as they see fit.

Granted, it may be a bit more authorial/Narrativist than the group wants, but who knows - they might like it after all, and it appears that you are already considering more of a Fortune-in-the-middle resolution anyway. If they do, nothing beats such things as reward-system elements.

3) There's more Simulationist design at the Forge than you might think. I suggest checking out the websites of Marco and Rob MaudDib, both of whom offer extremely extensive, highly nuanced systems.

Also, the reason that the Narrativist madmen get so much air-time in Design and so forth is because they (we) play one another's games. If anyone(s) would step forward and begin doing the same for Simulationist design, I for one would be ecstatic.

Once again, welcome to the Forge.

Best,
Ron

One thing I did was make combat much more abstracted. I took a page from the 2nd ed Mage Storyteller's Screen book, which had an abstracted combat system inspired by Chris Kubasik's brilliant & seminal "Interactive Toolkit" essays. (details elided)

I also had the players roll dice only in times of conflict. If a player was doing a simple task that didn't involve some sort of dramatic conflict, I just used their traits as a Karma basis for determining how successful they were.

Regarding possible reward systems, have you considered "story points" or, basically, metagame power?

My question is, do you think that, now that the game-goals are better articulated, this discrepancy might become repaired? I don't speak of making the group or play more Narrativist, but rather of you, now knowing "what's up" so to speak, being comfortable with the primarily-Simulationist focus that it does have.

Hey,

Got it: uncomfortable before, but comfortable now, so all is well.

Best,
Ron

Metal Fatigue wrote:
... There's no way I'm going to abandon a game that's going as well as this one.

I don't mean abandon the game you're playing ... simply switching the system!

I am serious when I say try a new system. I don't know how often your game meets, but you could try this:

If you meet often enough, and you reach a slow-point in the campaign, and run a few sessions of a game in the same campaign with different characters (maybe new Mages or something), using the new system.

It's a guerilla technique: The players only have to learn the system (since they are playing in the same campaign setting), and they will be playing new characters, so there wouldn't be any "but my old character could do this." And then, if the players love the new system, when it's time to shift to the old campaign they will hopefully be up to changing to the new system.

Just a thought. Or you could ramp up the speed of you current campaign to get it done with, and then spring the new system on them. The game would then be new system + ramifications of old campaign + new campaign.

Hey Zak,

I am pretty sure that Metal Fatigue is not asking how to change the current game. Maybe you should lay off on that particular topic?

The "easy out" of this exchange has been suggested and agreed upon - to talk about new & different system stuff over in Game Design.

Best,
Ron

Metal fatigue does hint at an issue that has previously occurred to me, however:

The mode that many fairly sophisticated groups that haven't ever explicitly thought of GNS play in is a bit hybrid.

It has struck me that the definition of 'illusionist' simulationists looks a lot like a GM whose primary concern is story, running a bunch of players who think they're strictly simulationist.

However, this can shade even more into narrativism when a GM whose primary concern is story doesn't have a particular outcome in mind, but rather fudges things towards the sort of outcome and addressing the sort of issues it seems the players are interested in.

I'm better at it now that I have explicit tools to deal with it, but even before I knew anything about this stuff, the way I designed scenarios generally consisted of coming up with a basic situation, a few interesting settings and characters, and then a series of 'set pieces' (very similar to bangs) which I would dispense with when something grabbed the players' interest enough that they started driving the story rather than reacting to it.

My point here is that, while it is true that in any particular decision you can only serve one master, it seems like in play for most 'normal' games, it's actually pretty muddy where your dominant form is. (Note that some games are so avante garde that this isn't true - but I find that while people enjoy playing them once, they mostly are more comfortable with a more traditional style).

- James