I've been playing in an adaptation of the Night Below campaign, with GM-written system that is probably best described as simulating Heroic Fantasy. The mechanics are quite different from D+D, more rules-light for one thing, but the overall result is not so very different.

Recently, the party came to a nexus of tunnels being controlled by a bunch of Derro (Duergar) on ledges with siege crossbows. We managed some recon without being detected. A debate then broke out over whether we should attack them or try to go around them, whether attacking them was likely to raise an alarm and damage our chances of achieving surprise in later, more significant combats, or whether the information we might get from captives would outweigh this consideration, and the best approach to the fight considering their good defensive position. Etc.

Some of us were talking "in character" (Actor stance), others (myself included) were discussing tactics OOC to a large extent (some Author, maybe some Pawn stances, not sure). This produced some mild conflict, as one of the Actor stance players has a character who is incurably optimistic. When trying to assess the risks of a plan, having someone suggest improbable ways in which things could turn out better than expected, isn't exactly helpful! But we coped. Eventually we chose to attack, and it went quite well, despite the arrival of some Kua-Toa.

My question is: how do you assess these playing styles in a Big Model way, particularly those of us talking OOC? On one level, it looks quite Gamist - we were trying to "win", and we weren't too concerned with whether our characters would necessarily share these opinions, or whether it was the "right thing for the story". OTOH, we were keeping a strict line between SIS issues and mechanical stuff. No-one was interested in how to manipulate the game system to get the best result. No-one suggested that actually we needed to kill as many Derro as possible between here and the bigger fights, in the hope of "levelling up" by the time we got there. That kind of distinction looks quite Sim to me.

Is this just a Gam/Sim crossbreed, somewhere on a spectrum between two extremes? Or is my Big Model understanding faulty?

I do think there are many Gam/Sim semi-functional "hybrids" out there, but opinion differs.

They to CA determination is to think about, and better, write down or otherwise express the Coolest Moments you had in these games; if you do this here, then we might be able to see what kind of cA the game favours.

It might also be an interesting exercise to ask other players in the game to do likewise.  That may show if you are all grooving on the same thing, or different things.

David,

Looks like standard Gamism. All you are saying is that you play normal instead of Hardcore. See the Gamism article for explanation of Hardcore play.

John

contracycle: Maybe I should have been clearer that my purpose is mostly to see whether I understand Big Model terms. I'm new to the BM - only started reading stuff here a few days ago - but I've found it useful in analysing moments of play, esp. wrt moments of tension between players (when their characters were getting along fine). I appreciate its Big Tent approach (it doesn't dismiss people's experience as Not Roleplaying) and the way it tries to see the good side of all playing styles. But sometimes I find it confusing, and this is one of the simplest situations I could find where I was unsure how to think about what had happened. I could feel the slight tension between me and the person playing the optimistic dwarf (though they were clearly less bothered about it than I was). And I wanted to hear what the Model had to say about it.

John: I don't want to put words in your mouth here, but are you saying that if someone *had* raised the issue of killing the Derro because we might need the experience points later, we would have been into Hardcore gamist territory? That doesn't seem to match any of the four examples in the essay.

I must say, I feel some identification with the Bitterest Man in the World in that essay, except that I'm not bitter. Maybe because I'm a bit more adaptable than that.

David, welcome to the Forge!

I think contracycle's dead on; sussing out what you were all really interested in would be helpful for clarifying what sort of CA your group "naturally" (i.e., without explicitly talking about it) leans toward.  The "obvious" CA isn't always actually the base of what's happening.  

Also, it can be tricky to try and define CAs through the Techniques being utilized (different stances, etc.),  most of which can  be used equally effectively in any CA ; which I guess just reinforces the importance of nailing down what jazzed you most during the play-instance at hand...

Aaron

The problem is it can be very hard to focus on a specific thing and say "it was X".  It might have been, or it might be that one bit of data that wasn;t mentioned shows conclusively that is was Y.  The other thing is, you can and will switch in and out of all modes, probably, in the course of a single game.  And if you are one mode and interacting with a player in another, your communication might be highly distorted and not in itself say anything about your goals.

So, it is better to take an overview first.  I don't mean to eliminate the specifics, but first concentrate on the moments when you were beaming from ear to ear, loving every minute of it.  What you ACTUALLY enjoyed, viscerally, is important.  Think about a handful of those, and they will illustrate what really rocks your boat, as opposed to things you just like, or worse, tolerate.

Thanks for the welcome! I think I get your drift.

The bits that have made me grin the most, and I think met with universal approval, were the times when the aforesaid Optimistic Dwarf threw himself headlong into combats where prudent council would have dictated otherwise, and by a combination of sneaky tactics (mostly involving the rolling-on-the-floor school of brawling) and good luck, managed to prevail over far more dangerous opponents, such as a high-level wizard. Also the time when he hitched a ride on a Black Pudding, and then set fire to it using his lantern. Someone had to pull him out in the end, and he lost a pair of boots, but it was all very entertaining. We enjoy those bits the more because they are not only great theatre, but because they represent a triumph of "playing the character as written" over "common sense", IMO. Similarly the half-orc monk attempting to negotiate with a fire-breathing wyrm-thing, rather than attacking it, was much enjoyed, even though it was doomed to fail.

Is that helpful?

David,

If you were to treat the imagined game and the mechanical stuff as completely equivalent and manipulated the reward/effectiveness system to win no matter how contrived or silly that makes your actions, you'd be powergaming.

In my recent Castles and Crusades play, I'm playing a knight who's into "lead, follow, or get out of the way" thinking. The local authority figure claims that the main threat is the goblins in the forest. Others claim that the danger is from Blacktooth Ridge. Given the module has "Blacktooth Ridge" in the title, I'm guessing that the peasant was the correct one. I also guess that we want XP from the forest before moving to Blacktooth Ridge. I say during the game something like "We go to XP Forest to deal with the threat the local authority thinks is there. That way we get some XP off the disorganized goblins." I want to use the reward system to manage risk in a way that produces game play we all feel good about. I wouldn't have gone off hunting XP without some way to fit it into how we were imagining the characters.

John

John,

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that I don't find that approach satisfactory either. I would have said though, that a truly hardcore Powergamer views the story and setting elements as mere window dressing to the central concern of character advancement, not as equivalents. Whether the things killed are goblins or Balrogs doesn't really matter, nor does whether the party as a whole succeed or fail. What matters is (i) did their character survive; (ii) did they become more powerful (iii) did they get powerful stuff to use in the next session. No doubt this is an extreme picture, but it's the one I get from Ron's essay. And from my early years of play, when I did meet players like that.

To get back to your original diagnosis, it makes me wonder: What does it mean to be less hardcore? Does that mean that there are more Sim/Nar aspects involved by way of compensation? Or  what? And if the play I described is mainstream Gamist, how much less hardcore would it have to be before you started to reconsider?

But these are just my idle wonderings. Only attempt to answer if you would enjoy doing so...

David,

Your wording is better than mine.

I wouldn't see your play description as Gamist if there were nothing to indicate the use of Exploration to meet Challenge in interesting, cool ways, or if the overall context showed that to be of lesser importance. If the examples you present as representative continue to be about meeting Challenge in effective or cool ways, I'll continue to see Gamism as fitting. That is largely independent of how much Exploration richness is required to make meeting the Challenge cool.  I really should have emphasized more that the intensity of Exploration varies in Gamist play, instead of jumping to the category where it was pushed aside.

You may be coloring your examples with your own expectations in a way that oversuggests Gamism, but there's not much I can do about that possiblity. I welcome a more extended example, if only because I like interesting actual play writeups. Your group sounds like fun guys.

The point I want to make is that the presence of Exploration doesn't cancel out Gamism. If you were to produce an example of players addressing Premise during play, the presence of Exploration wouldn't cancel out Narrativism either.

John

David wrote:
What does it mean to be less hardcore? Does that mean that there are more Sim/Nar aspects involved by way of compensation?

Kesher, I was following you until the final sentence, which probably indicates where my understanding of Gamist play is faulty.

two different techniques to Step on Up

David wrote:
Can you explain?

Tonni wrote:
The challenge is enhanced: not only do you defeat the challenge, but you defeat it while stayting true to your character (a handicap). Greater risk, greater fun.

Another option: a gamist does not (always) only enjoy stepping on up. It is the fundamental, but not the only reason. A bit of entertainment enhances the overall experience. Kind of like the presence of friends (as opposed to random people) enhances it.

How did the optimistic characters player recact to all this?

OK, it is my understanding• that individual instances of play don't really have CAs on their own. A gamist game can have bits or moral dilemmas and Nar game can have tactical choices once in a while. Instead of looking at moments you have to look at the whole of play and what the system (meaning of course both the rules and the SC) rewards.

You've said what style of fansty the game is, and that you enjoyed a bunch of tactical moments, but you have not really talked about rewards either social or exp.  Are they also D+D like?

• I'm fairly new at this and could be wrong.

I think this account is pretty indicative - but it'd be nice to know the players expressions/turns of phrase during it.

the times when the aforesaid Optimistic Dwarf threw himself headlong into combats where prudent council would have dictated otherwise, and by a combination of sneaky tactics (mostly involving the rolling-on-the-floor school of brawling) and good luck, managed to prevail over far more dangerous opponents, such as a high-level wizard. Also the time when he hitched a ride on a Black Pudding, and then set fire to it using his lantern.

It occurs to me I may have distorted the discussion by requesting moments of smiling and so forth; I did not specifically mean to refer to moments that comedic, but ones which were important, or profound, or the kind of thing you wished would happen every time you sat down to play.

Ooh, that's a few answers to deal with at once. Thanks, everyone.

For future reference, the player of the Optimistic Dwarf is actually a "she", though her character is male. This doesn't seem important to me, except to explain my choice of pronouns, which would otherwise be confusing, I imagine.

Tommi and Kesher: I see your point, that staying in character could be construed as a form of Stepping Up. But it makes me wonder sort of things would I have to say to make you think this person had more of a Sim agenda. As you point out, staying in character no matter what is only a technique, and can be used by anyone, despite it's near-compulsory use by some hardcore Simmers. But if this game were a Sim game (and most of this GMs games are, I think), the genre being Simmed would be Heroic Fantasy, which the Optimistic Dwarf is certainly living up to! What inclines you towards the one rather than the other?

Btw, I don't think the group is unaware of my agenda. They know I like character roleplay, and my sometimes lengthy tactical discussions are hard to ignore. Fortunately we're a pretty happy, easy-going bunch on the whole. So you might deduce there are no major style clashes.

Anna: I don't honestly think she was bothered, except to wonder why I seemed to be. I'll ask her sometime. I understand (I think) that a game design can support (or not support) different CAs (and can't usually give solid support to more than one), but if individual moments of play don't have CAs, where does it all come from? Or do you see it as some kind of emergent property, not resident anywhere except in the whole? If you're right, perhaps I'm on a wild goose chase, but it seems to make the theory a lot less useful if you can only analyse games as a whole. To answer part of your question about rewards, one noticeable difference from D+D is that XPs are handed out equally to all players, more or less by GM fiat, after major encounters only. And your character only gets the XP if your player was there for the play session. Partly because if you're not there, the GM will keep your character alive. And partly to encourage you to turn up! I don't think he actually gave us anything for the Derro. All other rewards are in-game only, e.g. stuff you find, etc. Quite Sim in that respect.

Callan: Yes, you could be right. I'm not sure what I'd gain by asking her to restate though. Can you explain what you're hoping for?

contracycle: Hmm. Well, if I'm honest, this game is a bit of light relief for the group, and we don't get anything very profound out of it, so far. There's also an Everyway game going on, but I lack the time to join in right now, so I can't tell you much about it. To give you an idea of what the group enjoys, recent years have included Ars Magica, Amber (both same GM as this game), Champions, various homebrew games with unique settings and system (one in medieval France where the players were monks, one on the Moon, in a SF world a bit like an understated Alpha Complex) (both with the OD player as GM), CoC (mostly me as GM). I've also run a Jorune campaign, but only one of the current group played in that. There may well be others I've forgotten about. So this game is mainly for fun and a bit of nostalgia for those of us who last went on a dungeon crawl more than 20 years ago...

David,

I think the fact that this is a change in pace complicates your perception. Back when I played D&D with my older brother in the early eighties, we played Narrativist when he was the GM, and Gamist when I was. It never took any thought to switch back and forth, it just happened depending on who was GM.

Since a person in my group (Jason) is notorious for switching games as GM, we concentrate on one-shot games. Sometimes after a game, I'll voice my assessment on what agenda I perceived in the game. Since Jason managed to get players making their own choices, I don't recall having any disagreement on the assessment. Before that there was a lot of incoherence. When he'd run a game under the pretense of continuing on only to drop it as usual, the game would often have no agenda because it went nowhere.

Without examples of how you guys play those other games, titles don't tell us much.

With the XP being awarded to the group per major encounter, who determines when major encounters happen? If the GM decides when they occur, you've got an attendance reward. If you create them through character actions, that could still be a reward for stepping up at a bigger scale than head-counting. And the role loot plays can vary also.

John

John:

the fact that this is a change in pace complicates your perception

Without examples of how you guys play those other games, titles don't tell us much.

David wrote:
Anna: I don't honestly think she was bothered, except to wonder why I seemed to be. I'll ask her sometime. I understand (I think) that a game design can support (or not support) different CAs (and can't usually give solid support to more than one), but if individual moments of play don't have CAs, where does it all come from? Or do you see it as some kind of emergent property, not resident anywhere except in the whole? If you're right, perhaps I'm on a wild goose chase, but it seems to make the theory a lot less useful if you can only analyse games as a whole. To answer part of your question about rewards, one noticeable difference from D+D is that XPs are handed out equally to all players, more or less by GM fiat, after major encounters only. And your character only gets the XP if your player was there for the play session. Partly because if you're not there, the GM will keep your character alive. And partly to encourage you to turn up! I don't think he actually gave us anything for the Derro. All other rewards are in-game only, e.g. stuff you find, etc. Quite Sim in that respect.

Hey, *excellent* thread, Anna. I hadn't seen that one before. So many threads, so little time, which to choose...

But that was a great discussion, which I think I need to read several times. The thing I got from it most immediately was that the system may hand out XPs for this and that, but that's only a reward if getting XPs/going up levels is what your group truly values. Or a friend used to say: "Boring books are interesting if you're interested in boring books". Is that close?

It also helps to explain some of the questions people have been asking me.

*And* Impro is one the most interesting books I have read wrt RP, so the link collection is much appreciated too!

Many thanks.

David wrote: Callan: Yes, you could be right. I'm not sure what I'd gain by asking her to restate though. Can you explain what you're hoping for?

Thanks Callan, I see what you were thinking of. Based on my chat with that player yesterday, though, saying that would actually have been quite counter-productive. If anything was frustrating her, it was too much OOC conversation.

I'm not sure how to characterize her CA. She seems to enjoy her dwarf doing dangerous impulsive things in combat. She doesn't like systems much: she feels they never help her do anything, they only assist the GM, making them a necessary evil. I asked her what she would like a system to help her to do (this is an important question for me, as I'm currently designing a homebrew system for a game she'll be playing later this year), and she wasn't able to give a very clear answer. She saw some benefit in stats that gave her a clear idea of what her character could be expected to do - she particularly dislikes the experience of proposing what seems to her a reasonable course of action, and then finding out when it comes to rolling the dice that the chances of completing the action successfully are very low. But that clash with expectations is bad in any CA, AFAICS.

So I'm not sure. If you go by what she says, she's all about the experience of being in character. If her account is accurate, that sounds pretty Sim to me. Or am I all wet?

David wrote:

So I'm not sure. If you go by what she says, she's all about the experience of being in character. If her account is accurate, that sounds pretty Sim to me. Or am I all wet?

I see your point re Narrativism, and I can't rule that out from anything she's said or done.

Your comments about Sim are unclear to me. Probably this means I understand Sim the least well. Maybe I've been too into it in the past to see it at a critical distance and recognize its key features. I've read Ron's essay several times, it seems to make sense, but...

the mechanical representation of the world

the GM's plot

a group concession to sticking together

David, let me give you an alternative way of looking at the Sim CA that seems to me to fit what your Dwarf player is talking about. Sim is about the fiction being its own reward. Not the player's ability to engage with some issue or theme that's important, not the opportunity to show how well they can meet a challenge, but just the imaginary stuff for its own sake.

Your player sounds to me like she's got an idea in mind of what kind of character she wants to portray, and what a character like that ought to be doing, and what sort of world that character ought to be a part of, and her jazz comes from getting to make that stuff happen in the fiction. That's the Sim agenda in action.

People get verisimilitude and realism and lots of other highly specified Technical concerns mixed up with Sim very easily, probably because our game texts have been telling us to for a long time.

David wrote: So I'm not sure. If you go by what she says, she's all about the experience of being in character. If her account is accurate, that sounds pretty Sim to me. Or am I all wet?

Let's see if I can give you some examples of what I'm talking about.  The mechanical representation of the world is about the game mechanics but it is really about what it is they are modelling and the motivations behind that.  For instance a typical process in many games is character advancement schemes, now these can be modified to suit any CA but for sim games the accumulation of different scores and abilities can become an end to themselves.  Fully rounding out the character by acquiring new scores and abilities to define them, especially when you include ones that dont really have a gamist application.  Developing the characters personality, beliefs, and a thematic story based around them comes in second to detailing their actual status in the game world  Gurps does this fairly well.

You were right with my comments on the GM's plot, it's not so much the fact that it's the gm's plot as much as it is one that the group is working towards fulfilling.  It works best when the players are invested and committed to it.  The way I've usually noticed it unfold is when the plot or story is more of a background element, or rather the players are not the central figures in the conflict but an assorted team of specialists that aid on one side of the big plot. 

The comments on sticking together refer to a typical group aspect of assuming party unity.  The group will stick together no matter what happens.  Even if you have a paladin in a group with a bunch of thieves, we dont explore the difficulties of that relationship we avoid it in the name of team unity.  The paladin just happens not to be around when the thieves are thieving and any other excuses we need are manufactured.  It's really a predefined theme about party unity that we make work in play.  Allowing us to explore the game world but not worry about the moral quandries.  This is an active avoidance of the character defining issues.

These are all just some examples of how sim play can functionally work and there can be fairly similar examples that are indicative of another CA when used with different motivations.  These are all forms of what Ron called Constructive Denial in one of the last threads in the GNS forum. I can dig up a link if you are interested.

So to relate this back to your incident and how you hope to engage the player in the future I dont see a lot of desire for sim on her part.  It could easily be gamism with more of an emphasis on gamble rather than crunch, if so you could move towards a more rules light game something with less number crunching.  The little bit you've told about the game seems to suggest she is using exploration to back up her approach to gamism.  I also think that her desire to get into the character may be indicative of an interest that could be sated by several nar games.

Thanks to everyone for their helpful comments. I think we can draw this to a close soon. I feel better informed about differentiating Sim and Gam, which was my goal in posting. It's probably best if I take some time to digest the info presented, and come back with another example if I have more questions. But if you have any further comments based on this post, feel free to add 'em.

Mark: Thanks, that's very helpful. Hearing you describe what a genuine Sim agenda would look like on her part makes me see that there are differences from that, even though there points of agreement too. I don't think the background is really so important to her, compared to her character. It's interesting to me that the Nar agenda is the one I can't rule out still.

Callan: I think I can answer that query, both from observation and from talking. Her focus would be "what would the character do?" and "go with your instinct, because he's impulsive", combined with "don't be too cautious or strategic - he's not like that". She would then announce a course of action, without particularly considering how it would translate in system terms - that's the GM's job, to her. The GM would nod appreciatively, say: roll on this and that. Assuming she got some decent rolls, she would expect a good result, until the GM pointed out that various modifiers were in place, and that it couldn't be seen as an unqualified success. She would sit back, thinking "Bah, I don't understand this system. Why does it block me?", but be re-engaged if the GM (as he usually does) came up with a more interesting result than straight failure ("OK, he managed to parry your dagger, but 200lb of flying Dwarf is still more than he can stand up to. You knock him over, and you are both rolling on the floor"). So long as something interesting happened, she wouldn't be too bothered.

Caldis: Thanks for the clarifications. I think I see now what you're getting at in each case. Yes, a good thread link is always welcome. Anna's was a cracker. I think before I run my game later this year in which I attempt to keep a number of CAs relatively happy, I'm going to get a copy of DitV, and run it with some smaller subgroups (sounds to me like it needs smaller numbers than eight!). Should give me a clue which of my players are closet Narrativists. And it sounds like fun too!