Topic: Is Gumshoe simulationist?
Started by: Moganhio
Started on: 10/23/2010
Board: First Thoughts
On 10/23/2010 at 11:31am, Moganhio wrote:
Is Gumshoe simulationist?
Is Gumshoe (Trail of Cthulhu) simulationist or gamist? this question comes from a debate in a spanish forum where no agreement was reached. I felt curious about what would pop up in this forum about it.
The point for simulationism: Gumshoe is simulationist as Call of Cthulhu is. In both of them goal is not 'winning' but 'living' the experience.
The point for gamism: creative agenda is not about characters, but about players. Though characters share the same game experience in ToC and CoC, for players experience is worlds apart: Gumshoe is basically a cluedo-style game where there is a clear challenge: solving the mystery.
So, some oppinion?
On 10/24/2010 at 4:15am, Ar Kayon wrote:
Re: Is Gumshoe simulationist?
I don't understand. Towards what purpose does this classification serve? Just for argument sake?
On 10/24/2010 at 6:55am, Moganhio wrote:
RE: Re: Is Gumshoe simulationist?
Ar wrote:
I don't understand. Towards what purpose does this classification serve? Just for argument sake?
This classification comes from the GNS theory, that classifies agendas in narrativist, gamist and simulationist. This are the links for articles:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
Though there is a really nice summary here.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=23094
Up to a point games are classified too. We could translate it as 'system matters, ergo system creates a specific agenda'.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 23094
On 10/24/2010 at 6:56am, Necromantis wrote:
wrong forum?
I am not sure I understand Either.
If I do however, I think you meant to post this in the actual play forum.
However, I could be wrong and you are working on a game based off one of these games and you are trying to decide which type of game model to work with.
Perhaps CoC is Simulationist in your mind and you'd like to make a more gamist version of it?
Could you provide more information?
Thanks
-Brent
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 14
On 10/24/2010 at 8:59am, Moganhio wrote:
Re: wrong forum?
Necromantis wrote:
If I do however, I think you meant to post this in the actual play forum.
Yeap, I think you're right about it.
Necromantis wrote:
However, I could be wrong and you are working on a game based off one of these games and you are trying to decide which type of game model to work with.
Indeed, I'm doing with regard to some mechanics. But it is not the purpose of this post.
Necromantis wrote:
Could you provide more information?
I'm not really sure about how to provide more information about the question 'would be Trail of Cthulhu a gamist rpg or a simulationist rpg?'. But, well, it's not that important. I was not trying to find the right place to classifiy the game, just was feeling curious about what people here think about this game...
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 14
On 10/24/2010 at 4:00pm, Chris_Chinn wrote:
RE: Re: Is Gumshoe simulationist?
Hi Moganhio,
Is Gumshoe (Trail of Cthulhu) simulationist or gamist? this question comes from a debate in a spanish forum where no agreement was reached
Ron will probably chip in at some point, but questions born of debate elsewhere are usually not good material here.
That said, if you're interested in the Big Model theory stuff:
1) The Creative Agendas are used to talk about a specific instance (campaign, series of sessions, etc.) of people sitting down to play an rpg
2) Some rules-as-written games support certain CAs better than others. The shorthand might be "X is a gamist game" with the explicit understanding that any game group might drift it- house rule, forget certain rules, etc. to play in other fashions.
If you go over to Actual Play and talk about some of your experiences playing the game, we can talk about what your specific experience points towards in CA. ("points towards" because aside from you, none of us were there).
Chris
On 10/24/2010 at 6:19pm, Moganhio wrote:
RE: Re: Is Gumshoe simulationist?
Chris_Chinn wrote:
Ron will probably chip in at some point, but questions born of debate elsewhere are usually not good material here.
That's because I avoided to write any specific name or reference.
Chris_Chinn wrote:
2) Some rules-as-written games support certain CAs better than others. The shorthand might be "X is a gamist game" with the explicit understanding that any game group might drift it- house rule, forget certain rules, etc. to play in other fashions.
I'm aware of it. And Gumshoe looks (from my point of view) a interesting system in the sense that there is not a CA so clearly supported as it happens with other games. I think this game has someway a foot in nowhere land. And because that, I thought it could be a interesting matter to debate.
Question was just a trigger to create this debate that obviously didn't work and, as far as it's concerned, it's probably my fault. So I think it's better to leave the post die.
On 10/24/2010 at 7:25pm, Chris_Chinn wrote:
RE: Re: Is Gumshoe simulationist?
nd Gumshoe looks (from my point of view) a interesting system in the sense that there is not a CA so clearly supported as it happens with other games.
Actually, it's pretty common for a lot of game texts to NOT clearly support a specific CA, either through vagueness or contradictory aspects- this is what people mean when they use the term "Incoherent" here.
The lack of clarity in a text means that a group usually has to pick apart a subset of rules/advice and ignore others to make clean play. This is usually an invisible process for a lot of folks- it "just happens" and no one notices that, in fact, they're ignoring a significant chunk of the game.
When this process doesn't happen, you end up with breakdowns in play and extreme points of dissatisfaction with part or all of the group.
If you want to talk about playing the game and how it played out for you, it might be useful to understanding what it does and doesn't support.
Chris
On 10/24/2010 at 8:13pm, mreuther wrote:
RE: Re: Is Gumshoe simulationist?
So is the general consensus that "coherence" is preferred? Or is letting a reader/group interpret and drift also perfectly viable? (Not directly related to Gumshoe, sorry. I have no clue what the product itself is, otherwise I might have something more, uh "coherent" to add. :) )
On 10/24/2010 at 9:57pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Is Gumshoe simulationist?
Hey everyone,
Lots of moderation to do here, of the "getting used to Forge categories" variety rather than the "fuck-up! you're moderated!" variety, which I don't really do.
1. The topic itself should be based on discussing what Gumshoe, or rather Trail of Cthulhu, was like to play. This is very flexible, focusing mainly on the text, or mainly on the play-experience, or any number of other topics. But actual play should be involved and the thread could go into that forum. In that context, talking about the Creative Agenda involved should be clear and easy.
2. There is no Forge recommendation or "consensus here" about Creative Agenda. Identifying it as a phenomenon, discussing its overwhelming relevance to game design, and talking about how it's generated are all important enough without turning it into a hammer with which to pound people. I do, myself, think that designing along one or another Creative Agenda makes better games. That's a position I hold as a participant here (and essayist), but not as moderator. It is not a "consensus," nor is it an expectation for agreement.
3. As a combined actual moderator point regarding both #1 and #2, I do think it's an excellent topic. Incoherence as productive design space has been discussed here for a long time and there's a lot to go over - in fact, if we had a good modern thread about it, then I bet Moreno Roncucci would do some of his amazing detective work on old threads to set up quite a library in the Archives forum. So I'm all for it and would be sad to see the topic die.
4. Minor point: my policy toward debates elsewhere is subtle. If anyone is actually interested, I'll dig up older threads where I explain it. For now, suffice to say, if the topic is stated fairly and productively here, on its own terms and in its own way that suits this site, then it's a good topic. Which usually means the debate elsewhere can be both abandoned and remain totally unmentioned.
Best, Ron
On 10/24/2010 at 10:48pm, davidberg wrote:
RE: Re: Is Gumshoe simulationist?
Moganhio,
If you're wondering where to start in discussing your play in Actual Play, I would love to hear about some Cluedo-style mystery solving. That hasn't happened when I've played Gumshoe, so I want to know what your group did!
On 10/28/2010 at 3:12am, Bloomfield wrote:
RE: Re: Is Gumshoe simulationist?
I'd like to hear about that, too.
My take on Gumshoe is that it's in the nature of advice for GM'ing a mystery game ("don't make players roll for clues that you need them to find to progress the story") that can be applied to any system and doesn't require a "Gumshoe Rule System." (Which tends to make the simulationist/narrative question moot imho.) But I think Esoterrorists and Fear Alone are pretty cool settings. Not really into Cthulu, so I haven't check out CoC.