There'll be links on the front page and in the forum soon, but until then:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/faq/

Enjoy. And thank Logan and Ron--they've worked hard on this one.

Hmm.

I have a lot of comments and queries, which I'll post when I've had more of a chance to read and digest.

My initial reaction is that your take on simulationism is fine up until:
"The second type is far more oriented toward the story elements of play and is often confused with Narrativism. In this case, the story is well-established by the GM or by a published text, and the role of the players is to experience it essentially as written. The linear or branched scenario designs are obligatory.

The most extreme form of this second style of Simulationist play is found in Metaplot: published plot events, usually in a series of supplements, that people are expected to insert into their own, ongoing games. "

Eh. No. Not simulationism. Not even vaguely. If the goal of simulationism is to see what happens, then how can you accomplish that goal when the GM knows what's going to happen in advance?!?

So, I just read the FAQ. It is pretty keen -- I definitely felt a greater sympathy for Ron's model after having read it than I had before.

A few comments:

Near the bottom, after the discussion of each stance, it says that Gamism is about winning. I buy into, and I think that the FAQ above that point basically buys into, Brian Gleichman's claim that Gamism is about challenging yourself -- winning is incidental. It's basically a semantic difference, but I think that saying that Gamism is about winning tends to put it in a somewhat derogatory light, which the FAQ otherwise takes great pains to avoid.

The description of narrativism reads differently from the other two descriptions. The prose there takes on a much more personal, less academic tone, and it sounds defensive. Since much of the purpose of the FAQ seems to be to dispell the idea that GNS is a model created by a bunch of snotty elitist narrativists to lord it over the other style, I think you may be defeating yourself with the more emotional tone of the narrativist section. (To put it another way: Ron claims to be able to tell the stance-leaning of a game's designer by reading the game. I feel, though I obviously can't test it myself, that someone unfamiliar with Ron could tell that the FAQ was written by a narrativist).

The above plays into this next comment, which is that the narrativist section doesn't feel like a big, catch-all category, it feels like how the authors of the FAQ play. I think that's bad for the above reasons -- defeating the purpose of the FAQ -- and also because I think it does a disservice to the model, which loses its ability to handle other styles of play which are largely similar to the described Narrativism, but not identical to it.

The claim that Narrativism never involves railroading of plot is neither justified, nor even explained in the text.

Finally, there seems to be a certain tension in the model as it describes things as broad as general desires ("Narrativists want to create a story") and fine details ("Narrativist GM's must support non-Actor stances"). It immediately begs the question of, "Oh yeah? What if I want to create a story, but don't support non-Actor stances?"

Nice job, guys. I'm taking my hard copy home to digest at length.

Best,

Blake

Clinton,

Thanks for posting the faq so quickly and adding the index links.

Everyone,

I think the faq is going to generate a lot of comments. Mytholder and Epoch have already made some good points. This is all just fine. I'm going to hold off a little before responding because I want to let more people have their say and see what more people think. I'm also taking notes. Ron and I figured we'd have to make some changes after the first few days, so don't be shy.

Best,

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-15 09:57 ]

A very well put together document. Seeing its scope, I'm impressed with how quickly you managed to finish it.

No time to dive in now, probably want to read it through a few more times first anyway, but I did come up with one factual/clarification kind of question.

Under the discussion of Audience stance you state first "that this This is the stance players are in when they're playing "20 questions" with the GM about the situation in the game and gathering information for deciding what their character will do next" You then state "in which a player whose character is not present in a scene may contribute information, opinions, or suggestions to the players whose characters are present. "

Can you clarify this for me, because they don't seem to be compatable items. The first statement is about a character in a scene seeking factual information about his surroundings, the second is about a character not in a scene offering "peanut gallery" type advice to players whose characters are. They don't seem to be related to me.

In fact, I would think 20 questions is more in line with Actor stance. The player is forced to use the awkward question system to determine what his character would know simply by looking around when the GM has not been forthcoming with description.

First, congratulations on a marvelously thorough job;
I'm glad y'all covered all the other "technical" terms
that crop up here. It's all very well written. Makes it a very good FAQ.

I especially liked the section on scenario design; never seen something like that before (although I was familiar with all of the specific methods, I've never seen them collected). In fact, my interest was immediately piqued; seems like an area in which more substantial thought would be very warranted, since it's what one spends the majority of one's time as a GM (as opposed to designer) working on.

My first impression of the G/N/S section once again gives me the sneaking suspicion that simulationism is the default, required by all, but you can add gamism or narrativism if you want. The reason I say this is that "providing the players with a believable simulation of life in the gameworld" seems like something you have to do no matter what other goals you've got, for most games.

- James

Valamir-

I guess maybe you've avoided having it happen ('cause I hate it) but sometimes players will ask you whole strings of questions that don't seem to be in character, related to anyplace their character is, etc., and in fact it puts you in a weird 'out of game' stance that I can easily identify as being seperate from other stances. This mostly starts out with them attempting to clarify things that their characters learned in the past, sometimes extends to broad exploration of background, and then slips into a 'lets forget all the role-playing, and just get the GM to tell us the clues" mode.
Seems very distinct to me, if this is what they're talking about.

- James

I guess maybe you've avoided having it happen ('cause I hate it) but sometimes players will ask you whole strings of questions that don't seem to be in character, related to anyplace their character is, etc., and in fact it puts you in a weird 'out of game' stance that I can easily identify as being seperate from other stances.

So it begins.

I should make a couple of points here. First, wherever possible, I've tried to set up a range of possibilities for each entry. Second, I'm very happy that we finally have a faq that I can point to and say, "Look, this is our position." Third, Ron and I ended up with a real collaboration. Some of the views are his. Some of the views are mine. We have a high level of agreement on a lot of things, and in spots, it's hard to see where my work ends and his begins. To me, this is neat. To others, this might look a little schizophrenic. I don't know. Right now, my goal is to smooth all that out and make the faq as good as it can be. On with the show.

I should start with the Simulationist definitions. First, I want to reiterate my thought on Simulationism as a whole. Simulationism is not a left-over or a dumping ground for games and styles of play that don't fit neatly into Gamist or Narrativist classifications. Simulationism is the foundation of roleplaying. The desire to see what happens, have an experience, and to "be your character" exists to some degree in all roleplaying games. Where Simulationism differs from Gamism and Narrativism is that these desires are the entire point of Simulationist gaming. Competition, winning, and creation of story are all very minor considerations in Simulationist endeavors.

Look at CoC. Characters who deal with the Old Ones and their artifacts will go insane or die. That is the reality of the "Cthulhu Mythos." You can't beat them. Even Randolph Carter, the Lovecraft character who saw more of the Mythos than anyone else, was eventually turned into a cockroach. He did not win. He kept hs sanity and his life, but he still lost. You can only say that he had a hell of an adventure along the way. This is the stuff that makes a Simulationist game.

Getting back to the idea of ranges and Simulationist adventures, Mytholder makes a point.

>My initial reaction is that your take on simulationism is fine up until:
"The second type is far more oriented toward the story elements of play and is often confused with Narrativism. In this case, the story is well-established by the GM or by a published text, and the role of the players is to experience it essentially as written. The linear or branched scenario designs are obligatory.

The most extreme form of this second style of Simulationist play is found in Metaplot: published plot events, usually in a series of supplements, that people are expected to insert into their own, ongoing games. "

Eh. No. Not simulationism. Not even vaguely. If the goal of simulationism is to see what happens, then how can you accomplish that goal when the GM knows what's going to happen in advance?!?
--------------------------

Okay. Simulationist adventures can range from a nonlinear, "Set of Encounters" adventure to a highly focused "Linear" adventure.

The open feel of a "Set of Encounters" is very much in tune with the goals of exploration and the freedom to see what will happen, but this sort of adventure isn't all that common. They're a little tougher to write than linear adventures because they don't have a very strong direction. The author must supply hooks that allow the characters to go in several directions, and the "path not taken" becomes extra baggage. As a result, I don't think all that many of them get published, either. I sure haven't seen too many at the game store. I do think that a lot of GMs make this sort of adventure as they write up their settings, and this is a big part of the appeal of setting books.

We know many Simulationist games have plot-heavy adventures and settings. The whole WoD/StoryTeller is acknowledged as a primarily Simulationist venture. There are plenty of scripted, pre-plotted CoC adventures. I think these adventures are Simulationist. The GM knows what the story will be. What he doesn't know is how the players will react, how the characters will deal with the situation. In this situation, the players will concentrate on playing their characters. They will deal with events as their characters would deal with the events as the events unfold. When the players reach a decision point, they'll decide what to do based on their characters' motivations and a desire to see what will happen as a result of their decisions. In this way, I don't think having a predetermined plot hurts or undermines the Simulationist nature of a game. It's just an approach which hits a different part of the range.

Next, Epoch made good comments on Gamism. Yes, Gamism is about competition and overcoming obstacles. But it's also about winning, "The ecstacy of victory and the agony of defeat." I have been there. I have done that. I have watched others do it. I think it's a positive factor, and a big part of many roleplaying interactions. This little bit of Gamism shines throgh most all RPGs: When a player rolls the dice, he really always wants to roll well enough to knock the big, bad monster flat on his back. Winning is a valid concern. The issue then becomes, what constitutes "winning." Much of my commentary on Gamism addresses that. I think both points are valid and both have been addressed pretty well.

Epoch goes on to make some valid criticism of our handling of Narrativism. Okay. Ron is a known, avowed, card-carrying evangelist for the Narrativist cause. He doesn't force his philosophy or techniques on people, but if you ask him about it, you will get a detailed answer. He's pioneered his share of Narrativist techniques, and he is uniquely qualified to tell us what Narrativism is and is not. I have my share of Narrativist influence, too. In general, I think most GMs don't give their players nearly enough access to Director stance. If some of that shows, then at least there is a reason for it.

Writing this faq and talking to Ron showed me some interesting things, though. For instance, Ron's approach to Narrativism shows more Gamist influence than he admits. OTOH, I have more Simulationist influence in my gaming than I let on, and more than I realized. Yet, when you get down to it, Ron is the guy with the highly dramatic, avant garde approach to gaming with his very cool relationship maps and his deep approach of looking into the character to find plot. I'm the guy who's happy to provide a few plot hooks or "landmark events" and then let the players set up a series of events, create a story around that. Him Dramatist. Me Storyist. Both Narrativist. Who knew?

But I should address Epoch's most important points.

>The claim that Narrativism never involves railroading of plot is neither justified, nor even explained in the text.
------------------------
This might be one of those points that requires more work. Ideally, the GM never railroads the players. This is true. It all goes back to the "Playing in the band" analogy. The GM sets the tone for the game, but the players are free to go where they want and make of it what they will in the interest of creating their story. In practice, the GM may well introduce elements intended to push the players one direction or another. It's up to the players to decide what they will do in light of this push.

>Finally, there seems to be a certain tension in the model as it describes things as broad as general desires ("Narrativists want to create a story") and fine details ("Narrativist GM's must support non-Actor stances"). It immediately begs the question of, "Oh yeah? What if I want to create a story, but don't support non-Actor stances?"
--------------------------------

If you don't support non-actor stances, then the players are going to have a very hard time creating story. Actor Stance, as the faq says, is playing "My Guy." If the player doesn't have the power to make changes in the game world, the player doesn't have the means to create story. But this should not be confused with IC/OOC mode. You can be in Author or Director stance and also be In Character while you do it. As an example, this is definitely the case in Puppetland. You as player have full access to Author and Director stance, but you must use it while In Character.

Audience Stance? Yes, I think James hit it pretty square. Audience Stance could use some more flogging in order to produce a more satisfying definition. It's certainly behind the other 3 stances in terms of depth of development, but it's important enough that I wanted to make sure it was included.

Best,

Logan

My old text preceeded by >>. Logan's preceded by >.

> Epoch goes on to make some valid criticism of our
> handling of Narrativism. Okay. Ron is a known, avowed,
> card-carrying evangelist for the Narrativist cause. He
> doesn't force his philosophy or techniques on people, but
> if you ask him about it, you will get a detailed answer.
> He's pioneered his share of Narrativist techniques, and
> he is uniquely qualified to tell us what Narrativism is
> and is not. I have my share of Narrativist influence,
> too. In general, I think most GMs don't give their
> players nearly enough access to Director stance. If some
> of that shows, then at least there is a reason for it.

Well, I'm not exactly sure which of my two comments on Narrativism you're responding to, here. Taking them in order: While I may have some criticism of the content of Narrativism, as well, (I want to think it over more first), I'm simply trying to offer some constructive criticism with respect to how to make this document fit (my perception of) your goals. Because, as best I can tell, the FAQ doesn't exist solely to explicate your positions, but, rather, to set a tone for discussion of the GNS and to, on an emotional level, make people less afraid of it/prima facia opposed to it.

I feel that the tone of the Narrativist-style text undermines those emotional goals, and, if my perception of those goals is correct, they would be better served to take a more clinical tone.

As to the second point, that the FAQ goes into more detail in Narrativism, I understand that part of the purpose of the FAQ is to explain some of Ron's intricate theories. However, I feel that the structure of the FAQ as currently written conflates Ron's intricate theories with the fundamental definition of narrativism. As such, the definition of narrativism ends up feeling like, "You play it my way, or you aren't doing it right," which is off-putting.

>> The claim that Narrativism never involves railroading of
>> plot is neither justified, nor even explained in the
>> text.

> This might be one of those points that requires more
> work. Ideally, the GM never railroads the players. This
> is true. It all goes back to the "Playing in the band"
> analogy. The GM sets the tone for the game, but the
> players are free to go where they want and make of it
> what they will in the interest of creating their story.
> In practice, the GM may well introduce elements intended
> to push the players one direction or another. It's up to
> the players to decide what they will do in light of this
> push.

Well, but why is that ideal, and why might the in-practice railroading be limited to "pushing"? The only justification I can see for that is the "band" analogy, and I'm automatically wary of anything which depends on an analogy for justification.

Suppose that I, the GM, wish to push the story in a tragic direction, and, say, kill someone close to the PC's, without letting them prevent the death. This sounds like a classic case of railroading, but it does not seem to me to be at odds with what the FAQ lays down as the definition of narrativism. To be clear, in this hypothetical case, I do share the directorial power with the players over the course of the game, I just happen to assert control at this one instance.

Indeed, taking a somewhat theory-oriented view of the whole thing, isn't every exercise of directorial power railroading to some extent?

>> Finally, there seems to be a certain tension in the model
>> as it describes things as broad as general desires
>> ("Narrativists want to create a story") and fine details
>> ("Narrativist GM's must support non-Actor stances"). It
>> immediately begs the question of, "Oh yeah? What if I
>> want to create a story, but don't support non-Actor
>> stances?"

> If you don't support non-actor stances, then the players
> are going to have a very hard time creating story. Actor
> Stance, as the faq says, is playing "My Guy." If the
> player doesn't have the power to make changes in the game
> world, the player doesn't have the means to create story.
> But this should not be confused with IC/OOC mode. You can
> be in Author or Director stance and also be In Character
> while you do it. As an example, this is definitely the
> case in Puppetland. You as player have full access to
> Author and Director stance, but you must use it while In
> Character.

I understand your point of view here, but you aren't addressing my point, but just a random example I drew to illustrate it. Regardless of whether someone who's inclined to create stories has techniques which help or hinder him from doing so, he may well still have that goal. That's where I see the tension -- The FAQ attempts to define what the (for example) Gamist player wants to do, and what techniques the Gamist player uses. At some level, I think that if you want to have a good mapping, you have to drop one of those as definitive.

The RGFA approach, of course, is to make their model address solely goals, not techniques. From my previous reading of Ron's works (I don't recall having read a lot of Logan's stuff, so I won't venture an opinion as to his point of view), I suspect that Ron wants something more ambitious, but, frankly, there will always be people out there who have certain goals, but don't approach those goals in any way that you're (that's the generalist you, not Logan in particular) familiar with.

Epoch,

I'm interested in making progress. I've answered your thoughts as best I can in the time available. At this point, I ask you: What specific changes would you recommend to make the document stronger?

Best,

Logan

Epoch,

"Suppose that I, the GM, wish to push the story in a tragic direction, and, say, kill someone close to the PC's, without letting them prevent the death. This sounds like a classic case of railroading, but it does not seem to me to be at odds with what the FAQ lays down as the definition of narrativism. "

This is not railroading at all. Please see my definition in the text.

Your comments on the Narrativism text are noted and logged. Perceptions of "tone" and "meaning" are notoriously difficult comments to work with, but I'll make an effort to regularize the prose throughout the categories.

You realize, I'm sure, that you are looking at a rough draft. After some days of comment, a lot of re-working will be done.

For everyone,
I am disinclined to debate any details of the FAQ, but would rather simply collect comments and sift through them over an extended period.

Best,
Ron

Ron: The FAQ defines railroading as the GM assuming the player's decisions or limiting their opportunities for action. If the GM kills an NPC that the PC's will not want killed, and does not let them change that fact, that sounds like limiting their opportunities for action to me.

Logan: I'd either shorten the Simulationist and Narrativist introductory paragraphs (the bit between the title and the Simulationist Games or Narrativist Games sections) to match the simple one-sentence summary provided in the Gamist definition, or broaden the Gamist one to match the Simulationist and Narrativist ones.

I'd change the phrasing in the Narrativist GM's section slightly: In the last sentence of the last paragraph, you have emphasized the words "by definition," which ends up causing the reader to recall the first-paragraph assertion that Narrativist GM's by definition allow Author and Director stances. Since the latter use of the term is in the implicit negative, and doesn't really have anything to do with first paragraph, it is confusing (to me, at least).

I'd add verbage to the Narrativist section that more sharply defined what ideas that you put forward you regard as essential aspects of Narrativism and what ones you regard as common examples of how Narrativism is put forward in play and/or techniques which you feel are worthwhile to discuss.

I'd expand the section on Narrativist players, which feels cursory.

I'd expand the section on Gamist Games to explain how you feel "giving players assets they can use to overcome the challenges in the game world" differs from the simulationist notion of "describing a character's capabilities and flaws."

The last paragraph of the Narrativist section confuses me. Is that supposed to be more on Narrativist adventures? It seems more like general commentary. Maybe it's just that the title heading "X Adventures" should be re-titled to "X Gameplay" or "X Play," as "Adventures" focuses the concept, for me, more on the notion of scenario design, not the actual play of the scenario.

I think that, in general, I'd simplify the definitions of all three of the styles of play down to more of a minimum, and then put an entirely new section into the FAQ on the same level as "The G/N/S 3-Fold" or "The G/N/S Triangle" that was something like, "Facilitating Styled Play" (or something like that), which focusses more on how to get the concepts of the previously defined 3 extrema into actual play. That way, you can meet the goal of expressing some of the more advanced theories you've constructed here, without making the three styles be, "How I play." "How Ron plays." "How Fred plays." (Or whatever).

Hope that helps. Do keep sight of the fact that I basically like the FAQ, and I do think it's helpful as-is.

Logan wrote:

The whole WoD/StoryTeller is acknowledged as a primarily Simulationist venture.

On 2001-06-15 14:34, Mytholder wrote:
No, it's not. I have NEVER, on ANY forum, seen WoD called simulationist EVER. Has anyone else?

You can pretty much tell the Storyteller System is simulationist by three things:

1) It has a name -- the Storyteller System
2) It uses the same basic system for several games, theoretically inhabiting the same world but all with very different themes and styles
3) It uses attributes like Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, Appearance, etc. despite those statistics not being especially needed to explore the themes that the game suggests it is about (and is interested in exploring).

In fact, cut out the Storyteller System and you're left with whatever stats and mechanics that have been tacked on for the specific game. THAT is all you need to play the game...

Vampire: Blood, humanity, disciplines, virtues
Werewolf: Rage, gnosis, gifts
Mage: Quintessence, paradox, spheres, arete
Wraith: Angst, Pathos, Passions, Fetters, Arcanoi
Changeling: Glamour, Banality, Arts, Realms

Doing that would make them a lot closer to being Narrativist games.

"This [game system] needs an enema!"

Mytholder,

I'm not a WW/WoD expert/lover, so I may not have been paying as close attention as a "fan" would when they are discussed, but my recollection is that anytime, EVERY time I've seen WoD assigned a "bucket" under GNS, it ends up in Simulation. I assume this is due to an analysis of what the system as written actually most easily supports, NOT (necessarily) because this is the most common way it is played - nor is it necessarily the way the designers wanted it to be played. As a system, under GNS as defined in the FAQ, it just fits there best. Simulate being a Vamp in a world "like ours but . . ". Simulate a Werething in that world. Simulate a Fey creature. The goal is to experience that "flavor" - maybe even experience that flavor in the context of the Metaplot.

Determined Simulationists (without an attachment to realism) can run with it pretty much as is.

Gamist types can use the WoD general point-buy and Vampire-specific diabliere mechanics to build/develop combat monsters - that seems a perfectly valid use of the system as written, but rather starkly contradictory to what the flavor text claims most of their games are "about", and thus not really supported by other aspects of the design.

Narrativists have a lot of good "material", but they need to adapt things - not so much rules, but they need to bend the WoD to their wills, not WW's. I played in a Werewolf game for a good 4-5 months. After it . . . faded away, I read some of the WW Werewolf stuff - that group (not really a bunch of dedicated Narrativists, by any means - part of what killed the game is the Storyteller system didn't work for the combat-orientation of a few players) would have been hard-pressed to make ANY use of the material I read, as we'd filled in so many holes (in the material we already had), added so many explanations, had the GM make so many choices, that our WoD wasn't very compatible with theirs anymore.

Wow - not sure why I went there, I just meant to say "huh, I always remember WoD as getting tagged a Sim". Maybe I'm testing my understanding of the model again? Gotta stop that :wink:

Gordon C. Landis

Hullo. Yes, I recall having seen that point discussed over on GO, without (interestingly enough) much contention. Basically, the consensus seemed to be that White Wolf lauds narrativist goals, but its Storyteller system operates in a Simulationist fashion that doesn't easily facilitate Narrativist games.

Best,

Blake

Add Diablerie to the "gamist" column (especially in Vampire LARP). Oh heck, the LARP facilitates Player vs. Player conflict and it always degenerates into a free-for-all mob combat scene. Simulationism and Narrativism fall by the wayside as everyone tries to grab the "level-up" of Diablerie.

The Storyteller system isn't strongly typed enough to be assigned to any of the three types definitively. Taking Jared's comment

1) It has a name -- the Storyteller System
2) It uses the same basic system for several games, theoretically inhabiting the same world but all with very different themes and styles
3) It uses attributes like Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, Appearance, etc. despite those statistics not being especially needed to explore the themes that the game suggests it is about (and is interested in exploring).

Ever see The Adventures of Baron Munchausen?

Remember the big guy at Vulvan's place? The enormous, strong guy who dresses up as a maid. He wants to be dainty and delicate and wear frilly clothes. But he's huge and strong and tough.

Storyteller says it WANTS to do something...then gives you a whole heap of rules that are counter to this. End of story. WANTS and DOES are two completely different things...

i'm with Jared.

Storyteller continually claims to be about "storytelling", but it's big concession to any sort of "narrativism" is to tell you "ignore the rules if they get in the way of the story". Personally, i find this neither helpful nor enlightening. Basically the message is this: you just shelled out $25 (or so), at least part of that for our mechanics, & now we're going to tell you to ignore the very mechanics we designed. What the fuck? Wouldn't it be more constructive to design mechanics to facilitate the stated goal ("storytelling")? Hero Wars does it. Castle Falkenstein does it. Prince Valiant does it. Hell, go to Brian Gleichman's website & read his designer's notes for Age of Heroes, for a different perspective on "rules that facilitate what the game claims to do". The only thing White Wolf has done is perpetuate the idea that narrativism means ignoring rules in favor of "story"--that, & the idea that "story" is more important than "roll-playing", which, as a confirmed narrativist, i think is total bullshit. Story is in no way "better" or "more fulfilling" than, say, tactics or simulation or whatever gets you off, RPG-wise.
The Storyteller games make a lot of noise about "storytelling", but then they have all this extraneous stuff that isn't necessary for "everybody creating stories driven by the premise", & lacks any rules to facilitate the same thing. Vampire has a list of various firearms & the different damage they do, the different ranges, etc. When was the last time you read Anne Rice & she started elaborating on exactly what type of gun Lestat was carrying & how it was different than the gun some other vampire was carrying?
Whatever White Wolf RPGs are, they sure ain't narrativist.

[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-06-15 23:50 ]

Okay. Enough about WoD. It's a peripheral issue. Let's get back to the faq. Gareth, you promised more comments. I'd like to hear them. Gordon, Blake, Jared, Josh - I want to hear from all of you, as well. For that matter, where is Brian Gleichman? I assumed he'd have *something* to say about all this. Levekius, too.

Best,

Logan

Ok. I just read it.

Before I comment, I'd like to remind everybody that I did not visit GO much. I knew John Kim's name only from a page of "free systems". I do not dig newsgroup either. And lastly, I bought my first computer around 3-4 years ago. This means I come from a very different background from most of the hardcore roleplayers who have used the internet to discuss, share and design.

So what did I think of the FAQ ? Fascinating. There's a big big number of gamers who are completly unaware of the roots of indie gaming.

I really appreciated the approach. Introducing "historical" elements of designs, where they come from, how they were develop.

I also liked the tone. You guys have obviously tried not to belittle anyone. Or take yourself too seriously:

"We have no delusions regarding our importance in the grand scheme of roleplaying. This debate is a fragment developed from a related debate on the fringe of a niche hobby. If you're here and you're reading this, you're one of relatively few. We welcome your input."

So, kudos for all that. On to the meatier part. I will comment on different sections. Please, do not take offense. Those are suggestions and comments. I do not expect a reply or debate. I know you guys want feedback. Take it for what it is. If a particular section is not mentioned below, it means I understand it well enough (or at least think I do)not to need any clarification.

Historical Background: It would be nice to have a link to Kim's page.

Supporting Terminology: Maybe the term "drift" (mentioned later in the FAQ) could be put in there ? Or is it too soon ?

Plot: If the word has two levels of application, maybe they should be explained here, both of them. Or maybe one of the word should be changed ? I like "storyline", or how about scenario ?

Before I keep up with my section by section commentary, I now have to adress stances. I was wondering what the &%$* you guys were talking about. Despite the flak GNS has made on RPG.net, "stances" have not been mentioned much (to my knowledge).

Simply put, stances rock. Of course, like most of what is in the FAQ, I was already using stances to some degree in my own game. But, like everything else, having all of this *written down*, explained, is going to make my life more easier as a designer and a GM.

I did have a minor understanding promblem with stances. What I saw as some small overlaping between "Author" and "director". One of the classic example is "criticals".

For instance, I have a lite system I use for fun, and that works well for cinematic roleplaying. I borrowed the concept of "critical rolls" (pretty much a standard in any fortune-based mechanics) and that of "burning descriptors" found in SE.

At any moment in the game, you can burn a descriptor to change slightly an outcome. Likewise, anytime you roll a crit something special happens.

Now, when you roll a crit *and* on top of that burn a descriptor, something truly unique happens. All of this is very much character-based, which gives me the impression this is author stance.

But at the same time, it can affect things outside of the character control:

Example: The GM describes a room, and tells Scary Snail The Rogue that he detects a trap. On further inspection, Snail discovers it is activated by a small lever on a throne 40 feet away. Right then, his nemesis enters from a door on the other side of the room.

GM: The archmage Irons has made his dramatic entrance. "Ha ! Fool ! Now you shall regret making those comments about my anti-fantasy el cheapo haircut !" With that, he begins a chant, the words are spelled in an almost backward way... and energy bolts circle his hand, growing, and growing...

Player: I have no choice, he blocks the only way out. By the time I'd get near him I'd be KFC material. I'm gonna wait until the last possible moment and then dodge !

(Next everyone uses fortune... Snail gets a crit)

GM: Wow ! Those bolts do not touch you in the least, almost miraculously !

Player: Wait... it DID hit me ! Right on the "Blue Lips of Cheesiness" pendant I wear as a good luck charm around my neck ! (Burning the pendant's "protect from mage" descriptor) The pendant snaps from around my neck, pushed by the energy all the way to the throne... and on the lever !

The GM sees where this is going. And (whether through drama, fortune, karma... whatever) determines that Irons is on the trap... and falls in the pit.

So what is that ? Was the player an author or part-director ?

Or what about this: A player succeed an agility roll and burns his "acrobat" descriptor. I double-flip right past him. Just at this moment, a car passes nearby. I jump on it and then jump from it 1 second later right on this thug !

Obviously, in that scene, the player did pull the car out of his &%$, but it is inconsequential. It doesn't change the numbers, the outcomes. He just added "color" so to speak. However, it IS part of the background.

Listen, the stances are so interesting I have neglected the GNS thing in this post. And now is time for me to go.

I'll continue later today !

Great job, lots of potential here. Even those who do not believe/agree with the model will at least KNOW what it's about. And anyone citing the model now has a good base to work from.

Before I go, I'd like to know of a few games that push the "stance" concept. Any games at all ? I've seen the word "stance" associated with Ron's latest game, but anything else ? (Note that it doesn't need to have the word attached to it. Just like GNS, a designer can focus on an aspect without even knowing about the model)

Great job, many thanks !

TTYL :smile:

Martin

I have a brief comment regarding the scenario design section (specifically the relationship map definition). Currently, the definition states: "[A relationship map is] a chart which shows relationships of family and ties of sexual contact among various NPCs in the game." I think that this should probably be broader. For instance, my Alyria playtest group just set up a joint relationship map last night for our next playtest. While some of the relationships were family (or faux family), others were bonds of fear, respect, or hate, based on prejudice, not family or sexual contact. However, these relationships are based on the Premise of the game as specifically interpreted for this particular story.

In addition, in Alyria, the relationship map is structured by the entire gaming group, not just the GM. PCs are selected after the map is established from the various characters that have been set in relation to each other. Therefore a relationship map need not be just about PCs.

So, I rather think that a more accurate definition would be something like this: "[A relationship map] is a chart which shows relationships significant to the Premise of the scenario between the various major characters in the game."

First of all, thanks to Logan, Ron, & Clinton.

Having read it through twice now (but not thoroughly--i mean, i didn't go through it word by word, attempting a Samuel R. Delany-esque semiotic deconstruction of the text), i think it's a very good start.

To address some of the criticism voiced so far--i think it would be pretty obvious, with Logan & Ron writing the faq, that there would be some "narrativist bias". There's always gonna be bias. If the bias is too bothersome, i can't think of a better way to address it than for some of the more simulationist & gamist folks here to start contributing to the faq, finetuning it. i didn't really have a problem with the way anything was defined or described, but i have my own narrativist bias.

Um...that's all i can think of right now. i'll try to think of some more constructive & critical comments.

okay, i have some more thoughts.

basically, i see the faq & the gns model as a beginning, not an end. don't take the model as is without question, but don't dismiss it out of hand just because the sentences don't quite add up to you, either.
be scientific about it. take a so-called narrativist game & run it as written, without messing with the rules. how does it help or hinder mutual story-creation? take a different game, say vampire or d&d & run it, as written (ignoring none of the rules, except maybe that "ignore these rules" rule), with narrativist concerns in mind--with player authorial & directorial stances, with player & gm contribution towards story creation. how does the game help or hinder story-creation? now run the same game with simulationist or gamist concerns. now how does it run? now fuck with the rules until you can run the game you want & get the most satisfaction out of it--what did you have to change to get it to be the way you like it? (or was that impossible & you ended up writing your own game? having read the designer's notes for age of heroes, that's obviously what brian gleichman did--played fantasy rpgs with gamist concerns, found them lacking, & so wrote his own game. same, i think, goes for sorcerer.)
but look for results, not theory. try stuff out. if you find that through actual play, the gns model does nothing to help you, then lose it. forget about it. the next time you see someone posting about "this narrativist game", chuckle to yourself & ignore it. (don't, however, start mouthing off about how crap the model is. i was raised unitarian-universalist, & i found that particular flavor of organized religion to be wanting--but i don't go to the local uu church every sunday & start shouting about how stupid it is.)
to be honest, i'm really not all that interested in the gns model, because i have little to no interest in playing gamist or simulationist games. all i really care about is narrativism, how i can be the best narrativist player & gm i can be, how i can get the most out of my games. that's my own bias. (which is probably why i'm not interested in debating the model. i mean, if gamists have a quibble with how gamism is defined, then by all means, argue about it. but i'm not getting into these arguments anymore, cos it's really none of my business.)
if you're driving to podunk, iowa, & the road atlas your using doesn't have it represented on the map, the atlas will at some point become useless. time for a new map.

On the FAQ:

So far, any comment that occurs to me has already been made by someone else. I like it, a lot, and thanks to all who put in the work to pull it together. To my ear, there is a pronounced "style" change in the Narrative section compared to the others.

I've got a Word-ified printout at home, and read over it from time to time in case an obvious improvement occurs to me . . . wait, I lied, there is one thought I had that I haven't seen much about yet - maybe because I'm not sure it'll really help. With that warning . . .

More examples. Ton and tons of examples. Situations where G or N or S make different decisions about the same thing. "Campaign" designs that are clearly better suited for G or N or S. Character descriptions/stats that show the concerns of each. And etc.

Good idea, or waste of time?

Gordon C. Landis

Hello all, good discussion so far.

I have to say that I agree with the vast majority of criticisms, so far, and can only encourage the writers to consider their own bias when they do revamp it. Joshua Neff points out that bias may be impossible to remove, and, though I know that you are trying to do so, it is certainly more difficult to do so when couching things in the terms of your own corner of the debate. I also, however, believe that it may be removed at least to the point that alienation becomes unlikely which seems to be a reasonable goal. Obviously it is not there yet. Again, to do so effectively requires careful consideration of ones own bias, critical thinking, and an empathic consideration of those on the other end of the debate. Logan, I hope you and Ron can accomplish this without killing yourselves over it. It may not be quite that important. :wink: The suggestions here are good, and will help if looked at with an open mind.

Now for my personal gripe.

Something that has bugged me for a while is the attempt by Ron, especially, and some others to try and define the categories by a strict consideration of particular sorts of mechanics (stance, for example). The motive, it would seem to me, is to make it possible to more easily decide which games are which. I believe that this may be unnecessary and counterproductive. First, the discussions of the mechanics and spectra themselves may in the end become more important than the actual categorizations that such combinations may fall into. For example, we might do better to talk specifically about player preference for stance instead of which style that preference puts them into. I think things may end up this way no matter what happens to G/N/S.

Leaving G/N/S with simple definitions of intent is simpler, more intuitive, and more widely accepted (at least here and so far), than trying to say that a particular style cannot include a particular type of mechanic as an addition to its basic intent definition. I’ve noticed a few people, in fact, respond to posts here and elsewhere stating that including a specific mechanic in a specific game would make it a certain style because all other games that had that mechanic were that style as well. This is not proof, and might stifle creativity. Let individuals argue whether a particularly designed mechanic actually does or does not support a particular intent.

Worse, attempting such tight definitions threatens to make Narrativism into "that thing that Ron Edwards says is Narrativism". Or rather the pertinence of the model may be lost to all but a few (in which case the manifesto is, again, a better idea). If it must be so narrowly construed, then I’d suggest as (Mytholder?) said to call it a subset of Dramatism (or something else if that term still carries some sort of definition that is counterproductive; although I for one have not seen such a problem). Otherwise, you may find G/N/S only being used by Narrativists in the future.

Late, grain of salt, two cents, YMMV, all IMHO, The opinions expressed herin are not ne... you get it

Mike Holmes

mike--

if g/n/s isn't defined by mechanics, then what is it defined by? rpgs are centered around mechanics--even "my style of play" eventually falls down to "how you use mechanics" as much as anything else, & since ron has already made it clear that the model he wants can't be based on intent (intent being much more difficult to determine than mechanics), what should g/n/s be based on?
if ron & logan say "narrativist mechanics use systems that encourage & even formalize author & director stance, & simulationist games don't", & then you say "well, i just ran a simulationist game & i did have formal mechanics for player author & director stance", i assume ron would reply "well, you weren't really playing a simulationist game, you were playing a narrativist game", & then we all fall into a po-tay-to/po-tah-to argument. i don't see the problem with saying "narrativist games don't have such-&-such mechanics" anymore than i see a problem in saying "car's don't fly, airplanes do". when the flying car (a la blade runner & the fifth element) starts becoming a reality, then we'll talk.
again, try it out. run a "simulationist" game utilizing mechanics that the faq claims are exclusively narrativist. what are your results?
as for "ron edwards narrativism"--i suspect that since it's ron talking about it, it will always be "ron edwards narrativism", just like when i talk about it, it will be "josh neff narrativism", which may be exactly like ron's, or may be wildly different. if it's within the framework of the faq's definition of "narrativism", then i don't have a problem with it. (& as far as i can see, my definition & ron's do both fall under the faq's umbrella.) but no model can be everything to all people (even really broad & flexible meta-models are prey to some sort of standard--chaos magic, for example, has all sorts of "traditions" & "assumptions" attached to it, even while attempting to be "assumptionless").

if g/n/s isn't defined by mechanics, then what is it defined by?

rpgs are centered around mechanics--even "my style of play" eventually falls down to "how you use mechanics" as much as anything else

since ron has already made it clear that the model he wants can't be based on intent (intent being much more difficult to determine than mechanics), what should g/n/s be based on?

if ron & logan say "narrativist mechanics use systems that encourage & even formalize author & director stance, & simulationist games don't", & then you say "well, i just ran a simulationist game & i did have formal mechanics for player author & director stance", i assume ron would reply "well, you weren't really playing a simulationist game, you were playing a narrativist game", & then we all fall into a po-tay-to/po-tah-to argument.

when the flying car (a la blade runner & the fifth element) starts becoming a reality, then we'll talk.
again, try it out. run a "simulationist" game utilizing mechanics that the faq claims are exclusively narrativist. what are your results?

but no model can be everything to all people

How would you argue, BTW, that "my style of play" can be reduced to "how you use mechanics?

Damn Jimmy. Yew Shore use dem big werds uh lot. My hed is thumpin like I jist drunk a gallon of pa's piss-wader moon shine.
-----
Ahem,
Its an interesting point you raise. Given that traditionally RPGS have been GM centered and that only recently have RPGS with a more distributed focus been developed, if I follow you correctly, you're suggesting that it may only be a coincidence that the distributed focus has been tied to story based/narrativist play...simply because they were the ones who started playing with it first.

I suspect a simulationist game with distributed focus is possible. Basically, it would have each player taking charge of a character or faction or section of the game world, and having authority over the actions of that area. However, all decisions would be subject to the group consensus.

I think it's possible, but it'd also be very prone to falling over into arguments and conflictiing ideas about how the world "should work".

Damn Jimmy. Yew Shore use dem big werds uh lot. My hed is thumpin like I jist drunk a gallon of pa's piss-wader moon shine.

if I follow you correctly, you're suggesting that it may only be a coincidence that the distributed focus has been tied to story based/narrativist play...simply because they were the ones who started playing with it first.

"They weren't sure they approved
but they knew that it was modern.

I love it when someone responds to a criticism of one of my posts with exactally the same logic that I would have used (and probably better than I could have). Makes for much less typing.

Er, um.... what Supplanter said.

OK, that's lame. What can I add?

I think that the problem is that there is an assumption that there is only one way that you can develop a stance mechanic. A director mechanic means giving over control to the player to do anything. Which is one way. But even Ron's systems limit the players in some ways. Consensus is often a limiter. What if you limited a players ability to create to just his hometown, just for the purposes of coming up with justifications for successful knowledge skill rolls. "I learned that from Pete the Carpenter." That sort of Authorial power won't snap the belief suspenders of most Simulationists, whilst simultaneously making the character more realistic." Has no effect on the plot currently and isn't intended to (but might later if the character returns home). It just makes a portion of the game more believable and interesting. Which is the Simulationist goal.

This example is off the top of my head and may not be perfect in illustrating what I mean. But if I can get that close without thinking about it that much, I imagine that it can be done and well with some consideration. Time will tell.

So the answer to your question is not that "G/N/S is not about mechanics", but that it is about particularmechanics that support that style. Stance mechanics can be defined so many different ways that I think that only a subset of them would be Narrativist. To the extent that a particular mechanic supports the intent of a particular goal, that very particular mechanic could be said to be Narrativist, or Gamist or Simulationist. Whether a particular mechanic does or not is likely to be very subjective. And no *class* of mechanics, such as a particular stance, can possibly be definitive. Would you say that reward mechanics are of a certain "ism"? Or even experience reward mechanics? I'd think that you'd want more details.

So in defining the "isms" leave mechanics particulars out of it. It works perfectly well to go by intent.

Hm..seem to have had something to say after all. But a lot is reiteration of Supplanter's notes. Oh, well...

Mike Holmes

On 2001-06-18 13:13, Mytholder wrote:
I suspect a simulationist game with distributed focus is possible. Basically, it would have each player taking charge of a character or faction or section of the game world, and having authority over the actions of that area. However, all decisions would be subject to the group consensus.

I think it's possible, but it'd also be very prone to falling over into arguments and conflictiing ideas about how the world "should work".