Some thoughts:

*People buy games for different reasons than they play them. They are attracted by the genre, they like the text on the cover/box, they like the discussion generated on boards, they like what they imagine the game will be like...marketing at the moment is placing a lot of emphasis on "branding".

(note: this does not necessarily equate to giving Simulationist Games an edge for fans--"Really immerse yourself in Buffy's world!"--because a Gamist oriented fan is just as happy with a Buffy CCG)

*They play and replay the games those games that satisfy them, because the game has *sufficient* GNS characteristics to meet that player's satisfaction point. Note: an "incoherent" game can achieve this.

*They play and replay games that they can find enough fellow players motivated to commit to the game socially. Note: an "incoherent" game can satisfy players of different GNS needs.

*In the course of play, the group of players through social contract will customize their play, and the game, to meet their needs as a group. ("Drift")

*Players will buy and read those games that offer GNS elements they like and will port them over to the games they play--creating games of greater or lesser "incoherency" that reflect the specific incoherency of the player group. I think "Hackmaster" could be considered an example of this.

"Incoherency" is a perjorative and possibly over-simple term. Instead of elevating a Platonic Ideal of "Coherency", perhaps it is more a matter of ingredients, flavors; the combination of which may work well together; or not. But that each game, itself, will be composed of a recipe of GNS elements, and each group will tinker with it to create their own unique "dish". ("drift")

A certain amount of imperfection invites that tinkering; and that tinkering itself gives some players pleasure. Too much imperfection overwhelms. It tastes bad. It's a bad game.

Hello,

MK initially appended the above post to this thread:
Incoherency and sales

I've split it into its own thread as the initial discussion is a bit aged by now.

MK also raises a very, very interesting point that I think deserves serious attention. I'm intrigued by the idea that a certain amount of imperfection is actually a draw for sales and even sustained sales, and I think that if we could identify some of the sort of "imperfection" that works best, that it might even become a desirable design feature for some of us.

Both AD&D (of the ~1980 variety) and Champions prior to 4th edition seem to be good candidates for this category of design/product.

Best,
Ron

I don't necessarily know exactly what that incoherent X element is, but I do know from a couple of years of dealing with clients in the art field that most people 1) do not know what they really want, 2) have a hard time communicating what they think they want. In gaming, this typically shows up when people bring up those fun phrases such as "Having fun", "Story oriented", and "Freeform" without any actual definition to them.

If we're talking about selling games, I think how a game is presented takes it much further than anything in actual play. D&D is a game of heroic fantasy adventure, yet the rules do little to encourage heroic/adventurous risk taking. White Wolf is sold as the Storyteller game, but has very little to aid either Narrativism or illusionism. GURPS is sold as the do everything for everybody system, yet clearly cannot do so.

It's this idea of what people think they want, that they're sold on.

Chris

As it happens, I am just now caught up in this.

I am in a discussion with some folks on a Shadow World mailing list regarding problems with the products. I am fond of them, but there are certain things that get me about them. With regards to what I claim to be missing information, I have been informed that the more recent editions of the games have some of this info included. So, like a lemming drawn towards the Atlantic, I am off to buy more editions of products I already own.

Oh, did I mention that the same sources tell me that more questions are raised than answered?

I'd say it works and works well. Planned obsolescence, I believe they call it, and apparently it's been working for auto makers and Bill Gates for quite some time now. Seems it works for games, too.

OTOH, I am not happy about it.

Mike

Bankuei wrote: IIt's this idea of what people think they want, that they're sold on.

Chris

Hi there,

I guess I'm seeing two categories emerge from the discussion.

1) The game advertises itself as X but, frankly, ain't X at all. But it's exciting about X, on the face of it, and the user commitment to X is high (and buying the product advertises that commitment to others). This is the kind of game that's played with major Drift, tantamount to in-house re-writing, when interest in X is high enough to keep people committed to play. This seems, bluntly, like a good description of Vampire to me - I realize that a fair number of people have a different view. It's also what Mike's and Chris' comments are geared towards, and MK's description that the game essentially offers a fantasy of play rather than actual play fits well for me.

2) The game provides functional components of play that may not all mesh together well, or are in some cases contradictory. It's incoherent in GNS terms as a whole, but its parts, or most of them, are actually fairly strong in isolation. It's played by wildly divergent role-players (usually not in wildly divergent groups, though), each set Drifting, not very far, to emphasize the parts of play they prefer. This is what I was thinking of regarding pre-1989 Champions and old-old AD&D.

Best,
Ron

Hi,

I think Ron's category 2 (mentioned by MK in his first post), is very important.

Given the common truth/believe that fellow players are hard to find, a game that draws players with different goals for fun into the same session can be very powerful. If each gamer's needs are being met enough each night of play, odds are they'll keep showing up.

Ron's view (and mine, and others) is that enough is not enough, and so the desire for coherency -- and so the pickiness about who to play with. Not because players who want something else that night are bad, but because we want to play what we want to play and not compromise our fun with time spent on not fun.

Whether or not it actually *is* nigh impossible to find fellow players -- for coherent or incoherent games -- is still up for debate. But the belief that it is really that tough -- and so there's an acceptence of the game that please most of the people some of the time.

We all recognize, I'm sure, those odd phases of the evening where one or more players simply sit back, putting down pencils or whatnot, not as we give focus (which might actually make us lean forward as we pay more attention to the person with focus, fer crying out loud), but instead surrender the game for a while, saying with our body language, saying, "Well, this ain't my thing, but Nate sure likes it." And then wait for our style of play to come swinging back around.

This of course deals with MK's points about games that sell to be played.

The other points of the fantasy of the game goes back to questions I asked over on RPG.net (I believe) some time ago: Why do people keep buying games they don't play? And why don't people buy more games than they *can* play? Because they like to read them. For some of us, the strange world background, metaplots and the like are fun enough to wallow in our thoughts. We assume because there are rules attached the materials should be played. But perhaps some books are just better reads than they are games.

MK's point of the uncomfortableness of real play for some games had never occurred to me -- but it's a damned good one. (I'm not the kind of guy who gets uncomfortable, but I've been called by fellow players for moving games into areas that make them uncomfortable.)

Christopher

Ron Edwards wrote:
2) The game provides functional components of play that may not all mesh together well, or are in some cases contradictory.

Whoops, forgot the point:

Both husband and son are seeking satisfaction of simulationist desires. If asked, both would so reply.

Yet, they are satisfied by contradictory game mechanics. Thus, were they reviewers of a game, one might see a good "mesh" where the other sees "incoherence".

Christopher Kubasik wrote:
......Ron's view (and mine, and others) is that enough is not enough, and so the desire for coherency -- and so the pickiness about who to play with. Not because players who want something else that night are bad, but because we want to play what we want to play and not compromise our fun with time spent on not fun........


We all recognize, I'm sure, those odd phases of the evening where one or more players simply sit back, putting down pencils or whatnot, not as we give focus (which might actually make us lean forward as we pay more attention to the person with focus, fer crying out loud), but instead surrender the game for a while, saying with our body language, saying, "Well, this ain't my thing, but Nate sure likes it." And then wait for our style of play to come swinging back around.


Christopher

I think that if we could identify some of the sort of "imperfection" that works best, that it might even become a desirable design feature for some of us.

On the other hand, the WHFRP ruleset is quite incoherent. But, to my mind, the ruleset fits the setting. Going into a game, I have a ruleset that is semi-S, semi-G, but a setting that will remain 'true' under drift to S or G.

I don't think ruleset coherence to G, N or S should be worried about, coherence to me is about the rules supporting the setting. I think it is coherence to the setting that has to be followed. Anyhow, this is what I've been pondering based on a recent ce playtest.

Jeremy

MK Snyder wrote: So, from a Simulationist standpoint, which would be better? A detailed combat system that generates realistic results (optimized for detail and event accuracty) or fast resolution system that generates a sense of speed and immediacy (optimized for subjective experience of excitement and lack of analytical thought)?

From several years in the software design world, I can say that while people may not know what they *want* they're usually very good about knowing what does or doesn't meet their needs.

I'm really clear that I want different levels of abstraction for different arenas of gaming. I like Gamist combat--I find it excting and fun in its own right. I often want plot lines that ask N-style premise questions. I want to have the ability to act as I see fit without being forced by a GM in the meta-game mode into some avenue of behavior. I want a system that will give me good exploration capabilities (and often a campaign where the situation and setting are interesting enough to be worthy of exploration in their own right although perhaps not as the primary focus over multiple, lengthy gaming sessions).

An "incoherent" game can work very, very well for that. It just needs to have the abstraction in the right places (right for the individual, that is). I've seen it written here that at different moments of play different GNS modes will be primary--wouldn't you want a system that contained the capablity to encourage those modes in the areas where you wanted to change them? Might such a system be, by definition, "incoherent?"

Look at Greyorm's Narrativist 3eD&D game: although he's succeeding "in spite of the system," he's not fighting it--not ignoring the game text or accuring lots of house rules. His latest example discusses an exciting tactical fight with a dragon combined with Narrativist player-driven premise-addressing plot--his players, at least, seem to feel that for the experience they want, 3eD&D is spot on.

-Marco

Andrew Martin wrote: Why not both? A fast resolution system that generates realistic results, and is fun and challenging to play. It's not that hard to create.

Hello,

As usual, I think people have lost sight of the idea in my essay that Coherence does not mean "one GNS mode only, ever," but rather, consistently enjoyable play. I state that certain combinations of GNS-focuses are perfectly capable of facilitating Coherence, just as a very strong single-GNS-focus can.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

As usual, I think people have lost sight of the idea in my essay that Coherence does not mean "one GNS mode only, ever," but rather, consistently enjoyable play. I state that certain combinations of GNS-focuses are perfectly capable of facilitating Coherence, just as a very strong single-GNS-focus can.

Hello,

Marco, with respect, I think you are mis-reading a key element of my essay, despite its absolutely explicit presentation, due to your perception that I "must" be saying an XYZ phrase that you are projecting into the content.

Coherence is and can only be about enjoyable play, which I associate only with being able to consistently (meaning through time) address Premise in the most basic and general use of the word. This definition is rock solid and has no other meaning.

Now, my claim, which is not the same thing as the definition, is that in-Coherence is affected by game design as follows (I've bolded certain text for emphasis):

Incoherent 1: the design fails to permit one or any mode of play. In its most extreme form, the system may simply be broken – too easily exploited, or internally nonsensical, or lacking meaningful consequence, to pick three respective possibilities for Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.

Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others.

The second type is a probability-thing - such a "mixed bag" as such does not create or facilitate Incoherence, but many mixed bags do. One of my favorite examples to illustrate both sides of these possibilities is pre-4th-edition Champions, which (I submit) cannot and has never facilitated Coherent play as written in full, but which can facilitate Coherent play given selective amputations.

And finally, another claim of mine is that GNS-focus is the most basic and straightforward way to facilitate Coherence. Its price is to reduce the pool of available people who want to play, which in practice, I claim, isn't much of a price at all (counter to the common kneejerk reactions). However, this claim tends to whack people out - they overlook the blunt and obvious point that I also acknowledge functional combinations of GNS-focus in design.

[I've stated this so often, and provided so many examples, that I'm not especially inclined to do so here. It's time for people to get the message, not for me to gentle them and "hope they get there one day." Anyone is free to disagree with my two claims; I've yet to see or hear any argument that does so with any rigor.]

MK's post interests me because we're not talking about Incoherence at all. We're talking about mixed-GNS design that facilitates Coherence (at least in the #2 category that I identified). What's interesting, though, is that if played in full, the game is Incoherent, but it also happens to be easily tinker-able (as in Champions and, I think, Little Fears). This possibility represents a fascinating mixed-GNS design option that's very different from the overt hybrid option (as in The Riddle of Steel).

Best,
Ron

It seems that previous examples of "modular" incoherence were the result of house rules, or modifications which were added on through actual play, which, when all used together fail to work, but when drifted appropriately, support a style of play. If we were purposefully designing such system, would it make sense to be thinking in modular sets, like legos?

For example, one could have a set of critical hit rules that are optional, and probably work well with either Sim or Gam play, and a set of cinematic rules that work with Nar play, etc.?

Chris

We're talking about mixed-GNS design that facilitates Coherence

Ensuring Coherence is then the second step, would my assumptions on the focus of an element hold for anyone wanting to play? As such, are the mechanics as a whole Coherent, or are there elements of the mechanics that don't support the premise? The assumption made is that if the premise is clear, and held true in all parts of the game, then the focus of each portion of play will be clear to all players, and this should be supported by an appropriate mechanic.

In TROS, the narratavist mechanics give players motives to act, but simulationist resolution limits their abilities to act as they might desire. What is worth killing for, and what is worth risking your life for. Premise supported by hybrid mechanics.

Jeremy

xiombarg wrote:

Andrew Martin wrote: Why not both? A fast resolution system that generates realistic results, and is fun and challenging to play. It's not that hard to create.

Uh, is that sarcasm? Do you have an example?

Andrew Martin wrote: I think my S combat system for Fudge fits the requirements. If not, I'd like to hear about it! :) That way I can make it better.

Ok, I'm all for games composed of mixed GNS design elements, as appropriate for the element and for the composition of the gaming group in the mix of demands created by the mix of individuals.

What constitutes incoherence, or clash, could be hard to objectively measure. One person's hideous collision of esthetics is another's happy compromise or fulfillment.

That's one topic...

Then there's the idea of the appeal of incompleteness; inviting tinkering; planned negative space...as opposed to the fortiutous gaps of idiosyncratic design.

MK Snyder wrote: What constitutes incoherence, or clash, could be hard to objectively measure. One person's hideous collision of esthetics is another's happy compromise or fulfillment.

Then there's the idea of the appeal of incompleteness; inviting tinkering; planned negative space...as opposed to the fortiutous gaps of idiosyncratic design.

I'm thinking of Bank's idea of modular design.

Experienced players already do that, in the sense that they will adopt the mechanics they prefer from one game into another, creating their uniique Frankengames. Some designers do include a suite of mechanics for character generation, combat, etc.; with the Open License, some games offer two sets (their own and D20 versions).

GURPS is somewhat modular; I see the Basic Rules as attempting to breakout the Gameist portion and the many supplements as providing Simulationist/Narrativist material; mostly Sim. Some of the GURPS supplements stand on their own as excellent reference works, not just as gaming references but also as history or cultural references that I can interest my kids into reading and learning something!

I have thought it might be interesting to collect a book of mechanics and systems that is modular. I was set on this path of thought by Ron's Fantasy Heartbreakers essay.

Experienced players already do that, in the sense that they will adopt the mechanics they prefer from one game into another, creating their uniique Frankengames. Some designers do include a suite of mechanics for character generation, combat, etc.; with the Open License, some games offer two sets (their own and D20 versions).

Bankuei wrote: What I'm suggesting is giving players a lot of options with rules already understanding that only some of those options will be used. For example, if we broke up the rules into Character Creation, Resolution, and Reward, and gave 3 different options for each, a group could have 27 options from those modules. Of course the goal is not simply a ton of mishmashed options slammed together, but modules that work together no matter the combination, each with their own design strengths and weaknesses.

The simplest form would be to have modules of greater/lesser detail and crunchiness, although it would also makes sense to have modules with different focuses such as more Gamist, more Simist bents to them. Perhaps some are more Sim real, others more Sim Cinematic, etc.

Chris a.k.a. Bankuei wrote: What I'm suggesting is giving players a lot of options with rules already understanding that only some of those options will be used.

Edited to remove quoted material from newsgroup.

Thanks for the post MK. But the two models are completely seperate entities. They bear superficial resemblance to each other but both have completely different goals in what they're trying to accomplish and have evolved very differently from each other.

In short, the above post...while likely very interesting and relevant to a threefold discussion, doesn't really apply directly to a GNS discussion.

Its certainly good and useful to be familiar with both theories and see what ideas might enhance each other...but its very dangerous to read them too closely together. Both theories share certain terminology...but the definition of those terms can be very different. i.e. what GNS means by the word "simulation" is not what the threefold means by "simulation". Therefor the cross pollination of ideas is often much more difficult than cut and pasteing bits of discussion.

In short, the Forge is not an alternate site for discussion of the three fold. It is a site for discussing GNS. Which while related in some concepts are radically different in others.

Hi there,

I'd also like to emphasize that posting other folks' words here at the Forge is a questionable practice. Some of them might not like the act as a general thing, and some might disapprove of this particular site, or whatever.

MK, I'm likin' all your input at the Forge, and I don't want to moderate this in a "smack" sort of way. There's no Forge policy about this because it's never come up before, which is a lapse on my part. So maybe this can be considered one of those limits that we hit by application, and just take it from here that "quote posting" ought to be considered carefully; at the very least, it should come with the permission of the quoted parties.

Best,
Ron