Over in Game Theory there's a thread about Illusionism and GNS; someone brought up Concentration as an example, and it came back to me as something potentially enlightening.

Let us suppose for the moment that because it is being played by characters in a role playing game the results of a game of concentration are going to be determined by resolution mechanics. How would those mechanics differ?

I suspect that for the Gamist, the game would become one of player skill at remembering and matching the cards as they appear. One would simply play the game as the best way to resolve the outcome. However, I don't think this would be the best way to resolve the outcome for the Narrativist, or (perhaps surprisingly) for the Simulationist.

The Narrativist distinction is obvious. In this case, as each card is turned up, whether it matches or not is going to be determined by reference to the sort of tension we want the game to have. Should this be a situation in which the player character has a dominant win, or is devastatingly defeated? Or should there be a lot of tension, as the leader shifts from one to the other, and then on the last card the outcome is determined? One can see that in this case, playing the game is not the best way to create the desired outcome. I'm reminded of radio in the very early days. To broadcast a baseball game, someone sat at the game sending the raw information by telegraph to the studio, where a telegraph operator translated the Morse code to the simplest statement of the events of the game, and then the man on the microphone invented all the color. One announcer confessed that on one occasion he realized that he had somehow missed an out, so he immediately corrected the situation by having the runner tagged out leading off second--and the manager, listening to the broadcast, fined the player for his error. The narrativist play of this imagined game of concentration would have much in common with that, as the events are created to tell a story about a game.

It seems on the surface that the simplest way for a simulationist to simulate the play of such a game would simply be to play the game; but it can be objected in this regard that the question is not whether Bob can outplay Bill, but whether Sir Tavedor can outplay Zemar the Astounding. Thus the appropriate simulation would most likely involve some system of fortune mechanics whereby the "chance" of drawing a match is combined with the intelligence of each of the characters, and possibly other abilities (tactical skill?). As the game progresses, the number of unrevealed cards decreases and the function of chance in play is similarly reduced in favor of the memory skills of the players; but the number of unclaimed matches also is decreased, so the importance of memory may begin to decline as the number of cards on the table changes. An elaborate system which calculates chance based on the ratio of unknown cards against total cards and factors in memory and tactical skills thus provides a better simulation for how the game would proceed for the characters than simply having the players play the game.

I find the example interesting, because if it is correct it may be helpful in illustrating the different modes of play to people who don't understand them as well; but as I've only just thought of it, I'm not certain I've considered it fully and hope to get some feedback on whether I've got it right.

--M. J. Young