I'm new to this forum. New to game design. Been playing RPG's for longer than I'd care to admit - well, okay, since Chainmail.

First off, Ron's GNS essay was very well thought out, and provides a great functionalization of terms for the purposes of discussing game design. I, for one, much appreciate the effort that went into it.

My question or challenge: Can a game design support all three modes? Is it possible to successfully and equally reward/encourage all three modes in a single game, in the humble opinions of the forum participants?

I get the sense that the answer is no - but correct me if I'm wrong.

Couldn't a game include a sort of 'player pick your own reward system' that would allow the primarly Narrativist player more control and/or encourage/enable him to play in the Director/Author stance, while simultaneously offering the primarily Simulationist encouragement and proivde him rewards for playing in the Actor stance? And so on...

The reason I ask this question - it seems to me that Ron's essay, and the whole premise of G/N/S assumes that a person with a primarily Narrativist interest cannont play well with a person with a primarily Gamist interest or with a person who is primarly interested in Simulationism. This has not been my experience.

Hi there,

Welcome to the Forge!

This question has been asked before, as you can imagine I'm sure. The main men to suffer and struggle with it the most are:

Mike Holmes, co-author/designer of Universalis
M.J. Young, co-author/designer of Multiverser
Fang Langford, co-author/designer of Scattershot

You can see in the titles of their games the effort to include as much variety of application as possible, and I strongly recommend visiting the relevant forums and websites, as well as entering into dialogues with them.

Your suggestion about reward systems, for instance, is right in line with Rules Gimmicks for Universalis and some of the neat Experience Dice (so-called) approaches in Scattershot.

I've participated in literally years of GNS discussion with these folks (less in Fang's case, but equally meaty). I think the main insight, and correct me if I'm wrong, gentlemen, comes in two parts:

1) ... that a game that includes a customizable mechanism or potential to focus play in a GNS sense without breaking the system is certainly possible. Fang coined the word "Transition" to describe the behavior and associated game design.

2) ... that all three modes of play are not possible for a given person at a given time, and that systems attempting to promote this goal (usually with say a Simulationist event-resolution, Gamist reward system, and semi-Narrativist metagame context) tend to break down quickly.

[I mildly also suggest that even a "twosie" combination in design tends to let one of the two "horses" do most of the driving.]

Some other threads to check out include:
GNS and "congruency" and pretty much anything else featuring input by Walter (wfreitag)
Different goals at different scales of play
Model proposition

And just in case, Seven major misconceptions about GNS.

Can anyone help me find the stuff about the "atomic" discussion of GNS decisions? That seems right in line with the issues being raised.

Best,
Ron

Dramatism, what is it

I think is the thread you were looking for.

Yes,

As I've been trolling the Forge forums over the last couple of hours, I've begun to answer my own question - to an extent.

I understand that the premise of G/N/S explicitly states that most players are going to prefer one of the modes for any given instance - and in fact will probably skew toward one of the three modes most of the time and enjoy games that support that mode more than games that don't.

I guess the problem I'm having may be one of experience. I've been playing with the same group for ~10 years now, and we've got representatives of all three prefered modes of play.

Yet we usually manage to have gaming experiences that, on balance, are satisfying for everyone involved. Not that each experience is as satisfying for each player - but that on balance we seem to have unconsciously incorporated enough elements from all three modes of play that each mode had it's 'moment' during the session.

I'm in the beginning stages of designing my own game system (which is what brought me to the Forge in the first place).

The system heavily supports Narrative styles of play, with a strong secondary focus on Simulationist styles of play (a so-called hybrid). Would it be worth my time to pick up copies of the games you mentioned in order to see how to handle this issue of 'transition'?

I'll check out the threads you highlighted. Thanks again for the reply.

Valamir wrote: Dramatism, what is it

I think is the thread you were looking for.

To extend a bit on what Ron is saying, lets look at the systems he mentioned.

Multiverser was the first of these, and MJ, early on, claimed that his design encouraged all three simultaneously. I cannot remember the full course of the discussion, but his argument had to do with the ingenious structure of the game which the players switch worlds when they die (hence the title). In any case, it's the only case that I know of where anyone has suggested that the Setting (or metasetting in this case) was designed to accomplish this functionally.

OTOH, there were a lot of people who said that in fact it was mostly just Sim with touches of the other two modes. As always with these things it's a matter of perespective. But I while I don't think that MJ's game actually promotes all three at any one time (generally thought to be impossible), it's structure certainly does offer oportunities to do any of the three at different times. Such that if you don't mind small doses of certain modes (or like all three as I do), you will definitely enjoy the game. From that POV. I can't speak to the mechanics in action, as I have not actually played.

Next we have Fang's long standing project, Scattershot. His theory is that by allowing people to tweak the reward mechanic in use, that they can select play that is in whatever mode they want. When this is done by changing the rules in other systems this is called "drift" (as one is drifting away from the mode supported by the rules as written). Since this is a designed mechanic in Scattershot, Fang came up with a new term for it, Transition. That is, the game Transitions to the player's desired mode by use of the rules instead of their replacement (or ommission as is often the case in drift). The effectiveness of this has yet to be seen, however, as the game is still incomplete. Though the rules to enable the Transition are mostly done (and seem to make some sense), only inthe context of the game as a whole will we be able to see whether it will work or not.

But the thory exists, and seems to make sense.

And finally the game written by Ralph Mazza and myself, Universalis. All this game does is facilitate rules changes in play. Which means that, yes, if you can create a rule that will facilitate a mode of play (and people do), that you can Drift the game to where you like. I say this is still Drift, as the rules only facilitate the change, and it's the change that creates the effect (not the facilitating rule). As such I wouldn't say that the game can Transition, but that it legitimizes and empowers Drift to such an extent that the effect is much like Transition. In fact, as we post add-ons to the game, well thought out additions to the rules that you can plug in, the game gets closer and closer to beig Transitional, and has that effect n all but techniocal description (the actual mode supporting rules are not in the book, just the rules to adopt them).

That's about it. A lot of people who do not understand the modes odel well will claim that their game supports all three modes simultaneously (it's almost part of the definition that this is not possible). But they may have a true calim that their game has support for all three modes in an incoherant fashion. Whether or not this is an advantage or not is the subject of quite a bit of debate.

Mike

Hi there,

The three games I mentioned are excellent resources for a "customization" style design, in GNS terms. Scattershot tends to favor shifting toward Narrativism or Gamism in a nifty covert sort of way; Multiverser, in my view (not everyone's), tends to work from a strong Simulationist base; Universalis is a bit too wonky to summarize easily in this regard.

The game I'd recommend checking out first, though, is actually The Riddle of Steel. My GNS comments about it are available in my review. Even though I consider it a "successful hybrid" design, you can see really strong instances of both Narrativist and Simulationist Drift across all the discussions in its forum.

One dinky thing ... You wrote,
"it seems to me that Ron's essay, and the whole premise of G/N/S assumes that a person with a primarily Narrativist interest cannont play well with a person with a primarily Gamist interest or with a person who is primarly interested in Simulationism."

This actually doesn't represent my views or the essay's text very well at all. I'm pointing out a source of contention or dissatisfaction during play that does appear frequently - which is very different from (a) classifying humans 1:1 with GNS or (b) stating that such interests can never work together. "Coherence," as defined in the essay, does not mean "single GNS mode" - although I do contend that focusing on one mode is a pretty reliable way to be Coherent.

Another major issue at work is that GNS represents only one level in a multi-level model - what might be called the "Edwards Boxes RPG Thing." The biggest box is sociality at the most basic human leve; Exploration is the next box in, and included inside that is GNS. From there the whole thing shifts to "application" and we can start talking about standards & practices of specific play, which brings up rules and so forth.

The reason I'm mentioning this (and I can't find the thread in which I lay it out, except for the Seven Misconceptions one) is that people often think GNS alone is supposed to account for anything and everything to do with role-playing and its succcess or failure, which is not the case.

With that notion in mind, another thread that might be handy, with suitable warnings that it's a trifle dense, is GNS, transaction, and game design.

Best,
Ron

Mike,

Thanks for the overview of the games. They all sound interesting.

I've seen lots of press and reviews surrounding Universalis, and it looks like a very interesting, unique game. I've checked out the website, and I'm still thinking about ordering the game.

Do either Multiverser or Scattershot have websites?

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi there,


One dinky thing ... You wrote,
"it seems to me that Ron's essay, and the whole premise of G/N/S assumes that a person with a primarily Narrativist interest cannont play well with a person with a primarily Gamist interest or with a person who is primarly interested in Simulationism."

This actually doesn't represent my views or the essay's text very well at all. I'm pointing out a source of contention or dissatisfaction during play that does appear frequently - which is very different from (a) classifying humans 1:1 with GNS or (b) stating that such interests can never work together. "Coherence," as defined in the essay, does not mean "single GNS mode" - although I do contend that focusing on one mode is a pretty reliable way to be Coherent.

Another major issue at work is that GNS represents only one level in a multi-level model - what might be called the "Edwards Boxes RPG Thing." The biggest box is sociality at the most basic human leve; Exploration is the next box in, and included inside that is GNS. From there the whole thing shifts to "application" and we can start talking about standards & practices of specific play, which brings up rules and so forth.

Hey,

Yeah, that works for me. It's a commonly-observed outcome that the play group fractures based on these differing goals. "Common," however, doesn't mean "inevitable."

I suggest that when a GNS-diverse group does work well together, that there may well be compensating mechanisms going on, whether at the whole-social-group level, or at the rules-techniques level, or both.

For example, let's say that Gamist George and Narrativist Nguyen are in a group, and they like each other a lot. OK, first of all, it could be that "congruence" as Walt calls it, is going on - their expression of their preferences simply doesn't impinge on one another's own enjoyment, because they "translate" well in this particular case. George's jockeying for advantage feeds well into Nguyen's desire to address some Narrativist-style premise, and Nguyen's characters' actions tend to set George's up for neat strategy-sessions. All well and good. (Walt, correct me if I'm misrepresenting your ideas.) The compensation is mainly internal, in this case.

Second, it could be that social compensators are going on. George and Nguyen simply "back off" when the other person's goals are prevalent in play in a particular scene. All kinds of possible versions exist: let the other person shine and enjoying it as a spectator, participating in it in the "off" mode (ie Drifting briefly), or just taking time off and not Exploring much at the moment.

Third, it could be that the group has agreed, tacitly or otherwise, that the rules simply don't apply the same way to George and Nguyen. It could be the reward mechanics, or damage mechanics, or whatever. Everyone's cool with this and probably doesn't think twice about it, to the extent that they'll even claim that the game system "supports" the two modes of play.

#1-3 are of course compatible in varying degrees as well.

Of all the games I've played, Champions (especially 3rd edition with 2nd edition supplements, the mid-80s mode) is probably the king game for learning how to develop and implement solutions like the above. It doesn't surprise me at all that the early texts dealing with "player type" and similar issues arose in its supplements and fanzines.

And the final point: In my experience and observation, success in accomplishing any of the above is relatively rare, compared to fizzling and fracturing based specifically on GNS differences.

Best,
Ron

Note Ron's "can happen" attitude, and not "must happen". There will often be cases of players who will be just fine playing with each other's different modes of play, without compensators. They are just very tolerant. Which is fine. As Ron has often said, you can't use GNS to solve a problem that doesn't exist. If your game works fine, then looking for GNS incompatibility is, of course, nonsensical.

GNS does not predict that problems with differing styles of play must occur, it just identifies the nature of thses sorts of problems when such exist.

Mike

quote=

GNS does not predict that problems with differing styles of play must occur, it just identifies the nature of thses sorts of problems when such exist.

Mike

Ron Edwards wrote: in GNS terms. Scattershot tends to favor shifting toward Narrativism or Gamism in a nifty covert sort of way;

Ron wrote: For example, let's say that Gamist George and Narrativist Nguyen are in a group, and they like each other a lot. OK, first of all, it could be that "congruence" as Walt calls it, is going on - their expression of their preferences simply doesn't impinge on one another's own enjoyment, because they "translate" well in this particular case. George's jockeying for advantage feeds well into Nguyen's desire to address some Narrativist-style premise, and Nguyen's characters' actions tend to set George's up for neat strategy-sessions. All well and good.

www.multiverser.com/

for Multiverser.

For Scattershot the only place that I know of that it's posted is here on the Forge in the Indie Games Forum section.

Mike

Mike,

Thanks for the link.

I, too, want to thank Mike for providing the link. I try to get here once a day, but it seems everyone else is much more immersed in what's happening on these forums than that.

If there are questions about Multiverser, I do frequent these forums (I'm new here, having been more involved in the discussions maybe two years back when they were elsewhere), trying to keep pace presently with Indie Game Design, GNS Model Discussion, and RPG Theory, so I'll answer anything asked here. There are advantages to asking things over on our official forum at http://www.gamingoutpost.com/forums/index.cfm?Action=ShowForum&ccurrentforum=83; I get there first every day, pay a bit more attention to every thread, and there are at least a few people there who are also familiar with the game (although I'm not certain how familiar any of them are with the GNS model). You can also reach me by e-mail, ICQ, and AIM; on the last two, I should warn that if I'm here I'm busy doing something, and you probably won't get as full attention as you'd get by other methods.

I would agree with Ron that games which do support all three modes (or goals) do so by shifting between them, hopefully in response to player expectations. Although Multiverser was written without the benefit of GNS discussions, it incorporates a level of flexibility within the rules and relies on the referee often to choose which of several means of resolution will provide the needed balance between accuracy and speed in this particular situation. As a result, it tends to drift between modes in response to player choices. Some of my players are extremely gamist; they only ever play D&D, Multiverser, video games, and MUDs. When they play, they often push the envelope to bring greater challenges, and then scramble to find ways to overcome them--and the game tends to respond to their hopes. Others take a much more story-oriented approach, becoming involved in the lives of the people they meet, finding conflict and resolution in the personal stories. Several are more like me, shifting from one concern to another as the nature of the events move. We run a game on the forum. One of the players, finding himself in the post-war world of The Postman, has built a dam and a sawmill, encouraged others to restore technology in an environmentally sound way, and is currently working on a steam engine and an airship. What happens in the game worlds is very responsive to player choices and expectations most of the time.

Mike Holmes wrote: MJ, early on, claimed that his design encouraged all three simultaneously. I cannot remember the full course of the discussion, but his argument had to do with the ingenious structure of the game which the players switch worlds when they die (hence the title). In any case, it's the only case that I know of where anyone has suggested that the Setting (or metasetting in this case) was designed to accomplish this functionally.

Quick point to M.J.,

Regarding "designer intent," your second description is absolutely on-target in my view. Nothing about GNS relies on the authors using or thinking about the issues at all - my claim is that the issues operate regardless of the authors' awareness of them.

Hence Tunnels & Trolls = astonishing Gamist design; Prince Valiant = astonishing Narrativst design; Jorune = astonishing Simulationist design. Or to take it in another direction, Champions (3rd) = Driftable Incoherent design; Shadowrun = Gamist + Simulationist-helper-hybrid design. I imagine that any of the authors would regard my theorizing as at best interesting, and at worst pinheaded and intrusive ... but I still claim that I'm describing what they're doing very accurately.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
Hence Tunnels & Trolls = astonishing Gamist design; Prince Valiant = astonishing Narrativst design; Jorune = astonishing Simulationist design. Or to take it in another direction, Champions (3rd) = Driftable Incoherent design; Shadowrun = Gamist + Simulationist-helper-hybrid design. I imagine that any of the authors would regard my theorizing as at best interesting, and at worst pinheaded and intrusive ... but I still claim that I'm describing what they're doing very accurately.

Thse things are subjective to an exent. One can discuss and come up with a consensus on what sorts of mechanics support what modes, but only in looking at a game as a whole can one determine what it supports. And that is so compex that subjectivity is unavoidable. That said, one can argue points about a particular system. But defining a particular system with any certainty can be problematic. OTOH, some systems do have a more obvious slant than others.

The criteria you're using sound good, actually, but again would only make sense in the context of analyzing a particular game.

And, as always, remember this is shorthand. When Ron says Gamist design, he's saying a design that best or most consistently supports Gamist play. Not that it can't do other play or anything.

Mike

Hi there,

What Mike said, pretty much. Plus these points ...

1) I'm not sure it's "subjectivity" so much as difficulty with (say) my perceptions and ability to understand a given system. Ideally, we'd have a lot of people with a strong shared understanding playing a lot of these games, and discussing them with one another, in order to hammer out what the system does and does not facilitate.

2) On the other hand, quite a lot of game-play and some design turns out to be so GNS-focused that all our usual provisos are unnecessary. Wham bam, T&T is a very focused (specific) Gamist design - anyone who thinks differently is probably misunderstanding the game (ie confusing their own Drift for "the game") or misunderstanding GNS.

As Mike says, this assessment arises from observing a variety of aspects of the game system, and most especially their interaction with one another.

3) I've played a lot of RPGs, very critically and also with a strong intent to have a good time. Whether this has left me with a good 'eye' for GNS issues in design, well, that's something everyone who reads my stuff with have to decide for themselves. I can't claim any kind of infallible GNS-o-meter ability. Again, what I'd really like is for folks to compare instances of play and talk about them with GNS (and other) stuff in mind, which is pretty much how the Actual Play and RPG Theory forums can reinforce one another.

4) I try to avoid classifying a game without playing it - any time I mention a game, and if someone asks, and if I haven't played it, then I have to say, "All this is speculative." The more play, the better for the assessment, of course, especially if I'm being careful not to tweak things more to my liking.

Best,
Ron

The more play, the better for the assessment, of course, especially if I'm being careful not to tweak things more to my liking.

Valamir wrote:

But, barring all of the difficulties, such discussions can provide interesting insights...especially as to the nature of drift. If we can agree that "as written" Game X best supports A-ist play, but you've managed to drift it successfully towards B-ist play, and I've managed to drift it successfully to C-ist play (or drift it unsuccessfully) than some interesting discussions can be had.

This is an interesting point, as it brings the discussion around full-circle.

My hypothesis:
A game can be focused, or unfocused. Note that neither of these categories require the author's knowledge of GNS - solely that the author either focuses a game towards a certain play style or not.

Coherence does fit into this - an unfocused game will almost always be incoherent. However, an incoherent game can be focused on one play style for the majority of it, and then have some incoherent rules jammed in it. (I think Dying Earth is a prime example of this sort of game.)

Anyway, the games that we normally think of as commercially successful are often unfocused. By not concentrating on any play style, they open themselves up to be drifted easily into a play style. As I often do, I'd use D&D (3rd edition) for an example of this. It doesn't really have a play style, and in fact gives options on several parts of it to support various play styles (read the experience section of the DM's Guide - traditional D&D experience vs. story awards.)

I can pretty much guarantee that no two games of D&D are played exactly the same, barring some RPGA madness. It's easily driftable, and is thereby giving a better chance at success when success equals "a lot of people playing it." Whether or not those people are happy with it is a different issue (and in that arena, I'd wager highly focused games are more successful.)

Sorry this is so late (everybody else posted their games' descriptions earlier). Better late than never.

Scattershot

The overall game is based on what the group expects from the genre the play in (the Genre Expectations) and the desires of the players for their characters (Sine Qua Non). Both literally drip with player-engaging character and go so far as to fuel and respond to the Experience Dice Mechanix. One of the best effects of the Genre Expectations is they give play an 'instantaneous reading' of what level of 'epic scope' it is running (this keeps things 'on track' especially during things like pulp fantasy continuous escalation). And Genre Expectations go a long way towards eliminating the 'this game is so huge, where do I start?' problem

The game also offers personalized versions of the Genre Expectations that can afford things like Destinies or personal Motifs (the forgetful spellcaster who constantly remembers just the right spell at the last moment or a character who constantly benefits from their alliances).

Scattershot uses a sometimes-aggressive Design-in-Play feature. Players can give or take advantages and disadvantages to their characters at almost any time. This can be long forgotten alliances or newly gotten friends, it can be recently acquired artifacts or sudden inspirations or 'hidden talents,' it's all moderated by the expenditure of Experience Dice. (Note: to 'buy off' a disadvantage requires appropriate In-Character activity and development in the Sine Qua Non.)

What Makes It Go?

The 'motor' that make Scattershot run is the Experience Dice Mechanix. There are five ways to get Experience Dice, Keepers, Gimmes, Freebies, Loaners, and 'Buy Back.' Keepers come when you do something 'cool' in the game or 'drive play' into the Genre Expectations; these you can keep and use later for anything you want. You get Gimmes when your character suffers from one of their disadvantages, the Genre Expectations are supposed to dump on the character, or you 'catch someone out' at following the Genre Expectations (if you 'fix the problem' In-Character, you get even more as Payback); you keep these too. You get Freebies to use whenever your character is at the advantage (as listed on their character sheet and in their Sine Qua Non) or when you 'go with the flow' of the Genre Expectations; they can only be used at that time. Loaners come out your 'karmic bank account' and those you use them 'against' must save them and use them 'against you' later. You get 'Buy Back' when you can 'buy off' an advantage or disadvantage during the game; each point becomes one Experience Dice (this relates directly to the DiP features).

Part of the Genre Expectation involves what kind of Approach is expected 'at the table.' If you're using the GNS, then aggressive competitive play could be part of the Genre Expectations when using Gamism. People are expected to use their Experience Dice to further their goals; you can play for a lot of Experience Dice (monty haul style) or for a little (just to 'see them sweat') as noted in the group's play style. On the other hand, if you're going Simulationist, expect the Experience Dice to flow in that direction (if hardly at all, depending on what kind of Simulationism you're following). Finally, if you want Narrativism, just think of every Experience Dice as your own personal plot device (a handful then becomes deus ex machina). Really, how you use them is that flexible and largely covered somewhere in the Genre Expectations.

Now the Mechanix Ron referred to (I think) are the Critical Threshold number Mechanix. The Critical Threshold is chosen at the beginning of play; what it does is limit 'how big' a result gets (in the resolution Mechanix) before the game 'jumps' to player-defined-Detail mode. For example, if you roll to see how well you cook a meal and you exceed the Critical Threshold in the positives, you've just blown the socks off your audience (and like everything else in the game, they have to decide what effect that has beyond the numbers). Let's say you exceed the Critical Threshold (positively, this called a Telling Blow) with an attack in combat; now the victim is compelled to describe in Detail some kind of lasting impact that the blow delivers (beyond just the damage done). What if you exceed the Critical Threshold picking a lock negatively?; they you describe exactly what happens as a result of the "Catastrophic Failure" (it might even include incarceration).

Now the 'either-or' effect Ron mentions works something like this. If you crank the Critical Threshold number up high, it rarely comes up (and when it does you can do things like convert some of the effect number, called a MIB, into things like crippling injuries and such) and things tend to get a little Gamist. If you turn the Critical Threshold way down, it comes up a lot; this compels lots of 'significant effects on the character' and that's often good 'grist' for the Narrativist 'mill.' However, these are merely tendancies; I've seen one group (while doing the 'test to destruct' on our combat system) playing arena combat with the Critical Threshold really low to get lots of blood and 'crits.' Likewise, as I've pointed out on a number of occasions, exceeding the Threshold only compels narrative interpretation (as opposed to numerical); actually, you can do the same any time your character is on the receiving end of anything.

Conflict

While I am going to describe this in the familiar terms of 'combat,' Scattershot's Conflict resolution scheme works just as well for car chases, court cases, and military engagements. Most playtesters use this at the single-action, first-person level, but the system is designed to allow both of these divisions to be broaden (all the way out to multiple-war, national level). Most melee is handled at the single-action, first-person level, also called 'blow by blow' combat. Scattershot is set up with three levels of Mechanix to allow for more user flexibility without the runaway effect of multiple 'optional rules;' they are Basic, Intermediate (also called Tournament level), and Advanced (not terribly surprising, but that's part of the charm).

Basic Scattershot combat is largely defined, from engagement to engagement, by whoever gains or maintains Combat Advantage (the method of tracking situation-based residual penalties). Few choice Flurries of Actions are listed (such as Parry/Riposte) and Hit Location is completely abstracted. The effects of damage are completely up to the victim.

Intermediate Scattershot combat is largely defined, from engagement to engagement, by whatever Actions were performed earlier in a 'flurry.' Flurries of Actions are the primary concern at this level, allowing almost instantaneous trading of multiple blows (treated as a singular action). The functional 'body postures' are dependant upon the most immediate prior engagement. Martial Arts 'scripts' for flurries, where available, are at more of a menu approach, if any are given.

Advanced Scattershot combat is largely defined by some extra attention to how blows affect the victim (rather than the damage). Also the various Martial Arts have limited sets of potential Following Actions (conforming to listed scripts or menus) with an accent on cinematic combat. While hit location is tracked for shock, pain, sudden death possibility, and loss of Combat Advantage, in the form of residual penalties, the exact nature of wounds are still left to the imagination of the victim.

All levels of Scattershot Combat afford a player two Actions (per Turn) to manage. The complication lie in the choice of Forfeiting one's Action to respond in defense (to an engagement) or falling back on 'Free Actions.' Order of Turns is rigidly around-the-table (the needs usually fulfilled by complicated initiative systems are met by the Combat Advantage Mechanix); this simplifies greatly what becomes complicated or tedious in some games. And Hit Points don't track alive-or-deadness, but the capability for physically intense actions; what actually 'knocks ya down' is a combination of proprietor choice and using up-front group chosen conditions.

Only as much detail is used as the group decides when they first begin to play the game or between sessions as their Approach to play and group style develops. One of the guiding principals has been to work towards a high degree of 'immediacy' to engage the players. The different levels work based largely on the group's needs for Detail and how well they 'internalize' the 'earlier' information.

The attack/defense dynamic is driven by how players choose to respond to Actions resolved prior to their turn (by Forfeit or Free Action) as well as what kinds of Combat Advantages are in effect. This causes the players to do the thinking rather than letting the dice do it for them. Currently I am seeking consultants that I may make the Martial Arts descriptions and scripts as accurate as possible; we are also working with a number of sources to group medieval weaponry by historical use rather than arbitrary choices.

One thing that comes back, again and again, is how flexible the Experience Dice Mechanix are. In combat, they can be used to simulate passion or drive, dramatic intensity/necessity, or just plain player-competitiveness; it all depends on what kinds of Approaches are being explicitly practiced and that gets rolled into the Genre Expectations or group play style. Taken with detail similar to The Riddle of Steel, Scattershot could theoretically support any GNS mode tendancy. It still depends on how well I design and write it.

Fang Langford

Le Joueur wrote: Sorry this is so late...

...Scattershot could theoretically support any GNS mode tendancy. It still depends on how well I design and write it.

Fang Langford

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

Coherence does fit into this - an unfocused game will almost always be incoherent. However, an incoherent game can be focused on one play style for the majority of it, and then have some incoherent rules jammed in it. (I think Dying Earth is a prime example of this sort of game.)...

...Whether or not those people are happy with it is a different issue (and in that arena, I'd wager highly focused games are more successful.)

deadpanbob wrote:
So wouldn't it then be possible to create a game that is unfocused (in the narrow sense of not zeroing in on full on support or preferential support of any of the three G/N/S modes) and yet still coherent?

But if a designer goes into the game with the intention of trying to provide mechanical support in equal measure for each of the three modes of play, couldn't they manage to make a coherent game in the broader sense of the term? (in this sense I mean internally consistent, logically constructed, deductively presented)

I mean, I look at all the material for Scattershot, and it seems like a lot of these core ideas are there. Same could be siad for Multiverser. I havn't purchased Multiverser yet, but I probably will. Scattershot isn't really written yet, so it remains to be seen.

But nonetheless, it seems at least like there are some people who frequent the Forge who are trying to overcome the G/N/S divide - in a sense, to those of us who are latecomers here and don't know the timing of things, they seem to be rising to an unspoken challenge in Ron's essay: you can't create the universal roleplaying game, so don't try.

I am about 40%N/40%G/20%S in my personal play style. I want a game that can handle all three, to at least this degree. My main goal, in fact, is the ability to use my homebrew system for the majority of my RPG needs.

Hey 'bob,

Quick clarifier - you wrote:
"Also, that only games that are focused on supporting (either consciously or unconsciously) a single mode of play are truly coherent."

Ah, nope ... nope, that's over-stated. Coherence includes functional hybrids. The most extreme I'll go is to say (1) single-mode GNS focus is more reliable toward generating Coherence, and (2) all-three mode GNS "focus" usually breaks apart very quickly.

Another point is that strictly speaking, Coherence and similar terms all apply to actual play, rather than to design. I'm assuming everyone in this thread is mentally editing "facilitates Coherence during actual play" onto "Coherent" when we talk about design.

Now, as to your point, I'm on record for while now in saying that a lot of Gamism and Narrativism have huge areas of functional/play/rules overlap. That's not hard to understand, because these modes of play are defined by "real person agenda" at the metagame level. If mechanics exist to permit that agenda to "interfere" with in-game-world events (some of my language here is a bit Sim), then shifting agenda with the same mechanics isn't very hard.

So Scattershot's customization-potential regarding Gamist and Narrativist play makes perfect sense to me. However (and pending more info abou the game), I wonder whether Scattershot can "cohere" toward or into Simulationist play, rather than spin off into Gamist or Narrativist play. I grasp how it can do the latter (and in fact I rather like its sneakiness in doing so), but the former still seems pretty iffy to me - what an evolutionary biologist would call an "unstable strategy," without self-sustaining properties.

Best,
Ron

P.S. "Focus" as a term seems to have crept into discussions lately without the loincloth of a definition to hide its bare ass. Mike seems rather certain of its definition, but perhaps that's worthy of a thread in Theory some time.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Anyway, the games that we normally think of as commercially successful are often unfocused. By not concentrating on any play style, they open themselves up to be drifted easily into a play style. As I often do, I'd use D&D (3rd edition) for an example of this. It doesn't really have a play style, and in fact gives options on several parts of it to support various play styles (read the experience section of the DM's Guide - traditional D&D experience vs. story awards.)

I can pretty much guarantee that no two games of D&D are played exactly the same, barring some RPGA madness. It's easily driftable, and is thereby giving a better chance at success when success equals "a lot of people playing it." Whether or not those people are happy with it is a different issue (and in that arena, I'd wager highly focused games are more successful.)

Ron Edwards wrote: Hey 'bob,

Ah, nope ... nope, that's over-stated. Coherence includes functional hybrids. The most extreme I'll go is to say (1) single-mode GNS focus is more reliable toward generating Coherence, and (2) all-three mode GNS "focus" usually breaks apart very quickly.

Another point is that strictly speaking, Coherence and similar terms all apply to actual play, rather than to design. I'm assuming everyone in this thread is mentally editing "facilitates Coherence during actual play" onto "Coherent" when we talk about design.

Hi Jason,

The only solutions are as follows.

1) Practice self-critique and critical reading, so that when we do Drift or otherwise interpret game texts to increase our own satisfaction during play, we know it. That's why "as written" shows up so often as a qualifier in the discussions, and I think that's a good thing.

Good recent example: Vincent talking about his InSpectres play in Actual Play forum, being very clear about whether the Premise [which is in the text] matched what they ended up doing, and using other games for comparison and clarification.

Obviously, play overrides text in terms of "having fun," so no discussion of this sort is about "being faithful" or "purer" forms of play in terms of following the text.

2) During discussions, reinforce the necessary reader-perspective of translating "Gamist player," "Gamist play," and "Gamist design" into the appropriate long-hand versions, throughout all the discussions. It's a minor hump that newcomers to the Forge pretty much have to get over, I think, but considering that doing so actually clears up a lot of concerns, it's worth taking the time to do so.

3) Recognize that conclusions here generally result from corrroboration. It takes a lot of dialogue and multiple instances of play and discussion of play to arrive at them. Most references to (say) Vampire are based on a lot of discussion, some of it dissenting, rather than on just me saying "I played it and that's how it is."

Part of this idea is based on the notion of productive discourse. If I critique my play of Champions, and you critique yours, and if we can communicate about that relative to the same game texts, then our different behaviors can be made sensible in terms of the Forge theory-vocabulary.

This method also admits that variation is possible; that not everyone has to experience the play of a given game the same in order for its text to be classifiable. Sort of the "close enough for government work" idea.

It also leaves every conclusion open for further investigation. "Hey, you guys all say that GURPS is a big Sim game, but lookit the point-balance rules - how does that fit in?" And then we discuss that, as well as experiences during play, and so on.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: "Focus" as a term seems to have crept into discussions lately without the loincloth of a definition to hide its bare ass. Mike seems rather certain of its definition, but perhaps that's worthy of a thread in Theory some time.

Mike Holmes wrote: Coherence refers to GNS. Focus refers to subject matter.

Dead Pan Bob wrote: So wouldn't it then be possible to create a game that is unfocused (in the narrow sense of not zeroing in on full on support or preferential support of any of the three G/N/S modes) and yet still coherent?

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Coherence does fit into this - an unfocused game will almost always be incoherent. However, an incoherent game can be focused on one play style for the majority of it, and then have some incoherent rules jammed in it. (I think Dying Earth is a prime example of this sort of game.)...

I guess I just move a bit too slowly to keep up with these forums. I get called away for a couple hours in the middle of writing a post, and the discussion just moves beyond what I was saying into new areas.

Dead Pan Bob wrote: But, your response raises a couple of other questions - specifically this notion of "facilitates X during actual play" bothers me a bit. Unless we limit our discussions to also include "as written" tags or "as played by me" tags, we can introduce some confusion, can't we?

I mean, the critical language of G/N/S doesn't preclude me from having the opinion that when I paly Champions that it facilitates Coherence during play, as I play it - even if everyone else on these boards feels otherwise.

M. J. Young wrote:
You might be very good at drifting a game to work in the way you prefer during play. If so, the way to discover how it's geared to work is to examine what you had to ignore or change, and why.

--M. J. Young

My mistake on the focus thing. I was defining it as we've used it a lot about here before. And Bob probably was asking about something else. Perhaps if he rephrased that question. Ah, but I think he has...

Mike

Brass tacs. Cool.

deadpanbob wrote: I want to design a game that fulfills my wish to facilitate Narrativist play and Gamist paly in equal measure - so what rubricks does one use to assess this "as written"?

FREX: From the G/N/S material, I get that a low search and handling time mechanic is important for enjoyable Narrativist instances of play - but how quick and easy does the S&H have to be in order to optomize for Narrativist play? So with all that, it's not an issue.

Can the resolution mehcnaic also include some tactical meta-game choices that will allow for one character to be in Author stance making tactical chocies for his character using his knowledge of the rules to maximize his Gamist mode for that instance while also not annoying the player who is currently in Directors stance trying to make decisions based on thier vision of fulfilling a dramatic story arc?

What I want to know is, are there any accepted methods for assessing these things as the game is being designed, or do we necessarily have to take a build-playtest-assess G/N/S support - rebuild - playtest - asses G/N/S suport approach?

If the later, doesn't that then mean that my natural tendencies as a GM will nec. drift the game in ways that better Faciliate Narrativist Play and Gamist Play, but when I unleash my derivitive screed of a game upon the world, it won't meet my design criteria?

Hi Jeremy,

You wrote,
"What I want to know is, are there any accepted methods for assessing these things as the game is being designed, or do we necessarily have to take a build-playtest-assess G/N/S support - rebuild - playtest - asses G/N/S suport approach?"

The latter. Emphatically, the latter. GNS-thinking can help this process, especially in terms of evaluating others' enjoyment and their comments, but it cannot provide the handy-dandy "use this mechanic to be Narrativist" toolbox that, in some ways, your question is shooting for.

It may seem as though phrases like "Tunnels & Trolls is a Gamist design" are so strong that one might then say, Ah, it must have had The Gamist Dice Mechanic, then, or something like that - but such statements are produced through corroborative experience and assessment, not through insta-diagnosis.

Side note, regarding Mike's comment: I think that some modes of play prefer/favor higher handling-time, particularly those with very strong commitments to in-game causality (ie some forms of Simulationism). I agree with the second sentence in his paragraph very strongly.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote:

What we can offer is Walt's solution of congruence, which would be to try to establish elements of the game such that when what you described occured, that nobody could tell the difference. This has been theorized about a lot, and I think the best answer so far is that you can make a game more congruent. Total congruence is likely not possible.


Mike

Jason,

Almost all of our terminology applies to play. Mechanics that facilitate X or Y term are often referred to in shorthand. So "congruent play" would be very much like my George and Nguyen description; congruent rules would be those which (we think, or have experienced, or have hopefully corroborated with others) facilitated such play.

I'm not sure whether that point clarifies your understanding or not, but it seems to be a point that I'm repeating a lot lately. I'm bringing it up here in order to say that referring to a rule/design as X is never anything but a "I think it facilitates X play" statement.

I also think that "subjective" isn't really the issue - as I said before, good discourse actually removes the "well, I feel this way and you feel that way" option from the discussion.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
You wrote,
"What I want to know is, are there any accepted methods for assessing these things as the game is being designed, or do we necessarily have to take a build-playtest-assess G/N/S support - rebuild - playtest - asses G/N/S suport approach?"

The latter. Emphatically, the latter. GNS-thinking can help this process, especially in terms of evaluating others' enjoyment and their comments, but it cannot provide the handy-dandy "use this mechanic to be Narrativist" toolbox that, in some ways, your question is shooting for.

Ron Edwards wrote:
I also think that "subjective" isn't really the issue - as I said before, good discourse actually removes the "well, I feel this way and you feel that way" option from the discussion.

Hey,

Actually, my line of thinking in the example concerns the rules facilitating the kind of congruent play going on, not just staying out of the way. At least if we are talking about "congruent design," that is.

Best,
Ron

Hi Jeremy,

You wrote,
"What I want to know is, are there any accepted methods for assessing these things as the game is being designed, or do we necessarily have to take a build-playtest-assess G/N/S support - rebuild - playtest - asses G/N/S suport approach?"

nipfipgip...dip wrote:

Hi Jeremy,

You wrote,
"What I want to know is, are there any accepted methods for assessing these things as the game is being designed, or do we necessarily have to take a build-playtest-assess G/N/S support - rebuild - playtest - asses G/N/S suport approach?"

No I didn't. Is there two Jeremys?

deadpanbob wrote: I agree with Mike, btw, about having other groups playtest besides my own. Which is why I'm happy to have found the Forge. I'm assuming that you all consider doing this from time to time for games that get built under these kleig lights?

Mike Holmes wrote:
Oh, no you don't, people still owe me playtests!

But, um, yes, in general, you'll find that often people are willing to do playtesting for you here. Often theoretically in exchange for playtesting thier games. Thoretically...

But I'm not bitter...

;-)

Mike

Hey,

Quick check then:
- Jason = nipdip etc
- Jeremy = deadpanbob

Two "J" guys joining up more or less at the same time, both enthusiastic posters to the GNS forum ... OK, I'm old.

Tangents about names and plaints about playtesting aside, I'm pretty sure we've hammered out what needed discussing about this topic. If anyone wants to continue, please make it clear what you're asking/claiming, and that's cool. But usually, when a thread starts to meander like this, it's time to tuck it in and let it lie.

Best,
Ron

To clarify, Ron, I think that you have those two names reversed.

As far as the topic, I think that the thread might be petering out, but that this is a subject that we've really only scratched the surface of. I hope it pops up again in potential designs.

Mike

Fuck!

You see? You see??!

Best,
Ron