Topic: At the Center of the Triangle
Started by: Logan
Started on: 7/3/2001
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 7/3/2001 at 6:48pm, Logan wrote:
At the Center of the Triangle
In the Clarifying GNS thread, Pyske (aka Eric) made some good comments about the faq. One particular point got lost in the shuffle. I'll quote him here.
System does matter. However, I think it is poor form to dismiss unaligned games as badly designed. This is true only if the group desires a given triangle preference. OTOH, in a mixed group, a centrist game provides greater ease of accomodating ALL of the styles in proportion to their representation among the players, AND the preferences for various game tasks to be resolved using different styles. I realize this is likely to be controversial, but maybe a thread about it would be worthwhile.
I agree. The center of the triangle has been sort of an enigma. I had some thoughts about what it means with respect to players, but it's clear that this portion of the model could use more development. With respect to game design, it's been Ron's assertion that the "jack-of-all-trades" approach results in a weak-sauce game. Maybe. Unfortunately, I can't think of a single game that I've played, seen, or or heard about that turns out to be equally G, N, and S at the same time. Eric has an opinion worth considering. What do other people think about this?
Logan
On 7/3/2001 at 6:54pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: At the Center of the Triangle
M.J. Young and I kicked this idea around a long time ago. I can't speak for him, but my conclusion from that discussion was that a "serves-all" game design ended up being a big salad from which users customized their preferred combinations. In other words, there WASN'T a centrist game design, just a ton of dip-able components.
Now, whether that's a good thing or not is a personal call. I know that I consider it ... at the least, inelegant.
I'm open to all discussion about the matter, though. It may be the case that coherent "centrist" game design is possible, as opposed to confused & contradictory game design (N goals tripping over S ones, for instance). I'm inclined to say "not," but again, all arguments or points are welcome.
Best,
Ron
On 7/3/2001 at 8:39pm, jburneko wrote:
RE: At the Center of the Triangle
If you want my honest opinion I think 7th Sea is an excelently designed centerist game. Specifically, Drama Dice, the interperative nature of the skills and Backgrounds, catter to the Narrativist, (Sorte is an EXCELENT excuse to use relationship maps in your planning). The detailed skill lists particularly appropriate to the setting and in particular the excelently designed combat system that has seperate mechanics for all the cool swashbuckling moves (parry, lunge, riposte, swinging, leaping, rolling) appeal to the Simulationist. (At least the one who is interested in simulating genre). And finally 7th Sea has all the balancing mechanics and challegnes that appeal to the Gamist.
I think the key though is that you need a centerist GM. If your GM is concentrating on just one aspect of a centerist game then those who enjoy the other aspects are going to be left out in the cold. I think you need a GM who understands the needs and desires of his players and balances those elements both in his planning and in his judgement of the rules.
But that's just my thoughts.
Jesse
On 7/3/2001 at 10:01pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: At the Center of the Triangle
Just a quick note, if you don’t mind an edited quote from a rushed author:
On 2001-07-03 14:48, Logan wrote:
In the Clarifying GNS thread, Pyske (aka Eric) made some good comments about the faq....
System does matter. However, I think it is poor form to dismiss unaligned games as badly designed...this is likely to be controversial, but maybe a thread about it would be worthwhile.
I agree. The center of the triangle has been sort of an enigma. I had some thoughts about what it means with respect to players, but it's clear that this portion of the model could use more development....
Unfortunately, I can't think of a single game that I've played, seen, or heard about that turns out to be equally G, N, and S at the same time.
What do other people think about this?
I think it might be important that while considering the ‘centrist’ viewpoint we should also consider similarly ‘not perfectly aligned’ games ‘along the edges.’
Many games exist that are not precisely G, N, or S. Many have obvious trends to one schema, but still contain mechanics (or what have you) that score well into the other schemes. Though specific examples escape me, I have seen so many "well, so-and-so is a counter-example because..." arguments that I leave examples to the reader as an exercise.
I think the real point is not so much about how ‘well aligned’ a design is, but how consistent it is. If the ‘non-aligned’ mechanics are poorly conceived or seem at all ‘added on’ then the whole design suffers. This is not because too many cooks (fry-cook G, gourmet N, or chef S) spoil the broth; it is because a lack of consistency always makes for a bad design.
Elsewhere in this topic someone made the excellent point that some games that could be held up as examples of ‘non-alignment’ are in fact wrought with so many optional structures that when played they become ‘aligned’ per the GNS model. My argument would suggest that these should clearly show whether it is inconsistency that makes for bad design of any ‘multiply aligned’ game systems. If certain combinations of options can be teased out as problematic, then we could look to see if it is inconsistency or alignment.
What does this mean? I think games that are not ‘purely aligned’ can and do exist that are very well designed. I think it would be only purism to say that they cannot or assume that any kind of predictive model can be used to determine design quality. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. Write your rules and season to taste.
Fang Langford
On 7/4/2001 at 9:35am, Mytholder wrote:
RE: At the Center of the Triangle
Dying Earth might qualify. It's clearly intended as a Simulation of Vancian Fiction, but the methods for refreshing point pools and the taglines are story-oriented (and I can recall several bits of GMing advice in it which seemed narrativist). Meanwhile, over at Out of the Box, Ken Hite called the game's emphasis on out-of-character perceptions and forced roleplaying (e.g. when you're Persuaded, you have to go along with it) "gamist".
Robin Laws hates us and wants to kill our brains. First Feng Shui, now this...
On 7/4/2001 at 7:38pm, Damocles wrote:
RE: At the Center of the Triangle
On 2001-07-04 05:35, Mytholder wrote:
Dying Earth might qualify. It's clearly intended as a Simulation of Vancian Fiction, but the methods for refreshing point pools and the taglines are story-oriented
I think this is one of those cases where the model breaks down. Is there a meaningful difference between simulating fiction and telling a story of a certain kind? (Sometimes the whole triangle looks to me like one of these Escherian impossible ones) Somehow the criteria for the styles don't seem to apply on the same level. (I find this hard to put into words so bear with me, please, if this sound terribly vague.) If you play Sorcerer and give a cash award (determined by an independent jury) to the best player does it become Gamist?
Sigh. Somehow I can never quite get a handle on this. Never mind. Carry on...