Okay, after reading Ron's recent essay, I'm starting to wonder if I'm somewhat "behind the curve" here in terms of my understanding of the GNS model.

Could someone tell me if my recent Unsung playtest is an example of Narrativist play, Simulationist play, or a mix? Undoubtledly a mix, but when and where, and how would I know?

Basically, when I designed Unsung to be a functional Narrativist/Similationist, but after reading the recent essay I'm starting to wonder/worry if I have an incoherent or "abashed" design...

[I dunno if this should be here or in the Indie Design forum...]

Hi Kirt,

Standard answer: "I don't know. I'd be happier actually playing with the group in order to say, and even then more sessions, checking out the fates of characters and the emotional or other communications among the group, would probably be necessary."

We are not talking about snap-shot classifications of short-term decision-making. We're talking about aesthetics, social interactions, and decisions that play out over many scenes.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: We are not talking about snap-shot classifications of short-term decision-making. We're talking about aesthetics, social interactions, and decisions that play out over many scenes.

I'm as guilty of the usage you mention, Kirt, so I'll try to explain.

First, this is going to be more art than science. I, and everybody else, has no font of data from which to make such conclusions. Still, there are times when it does seem pretty clear what style of play a system supports. Or, at the very least, parts of a system tend to stick out as supporting this or that mode.

Let's take a look at an example of a game that's often pegged as Gamist, D&D. Why would people make that claim? Well, let's look at the elements of the system.

First, there's chargen. D&D chargen is, supposedly, "balanced". Actually, a lot of people will argue that point, but look closely at the design, and see the intent. Why can't the magic users wear armor and wield most weapons? According to the text, it's because someone who studies magic doesn't have time to learn to use those things. But that's a pretty obvious croc, no? It's because there is an uspoken, yet clearly evident slant in the text that says that the game is about survival (I'll get to that momentarily). As such, one has great incentive to create the most powerful character possible. Given that, if one type were more powerful than another, everyone would select that type, the game would be a bore, and nobody would want to play. So, to make sure that people do select different kinds of characters, the classes are balanced in terms of power.

Resolution in D&D centers on killing stuff and surviving being killed. In later editions, more sorts of resolutoin are slowly expanded upon, but in earlier editions, fighting is practically the only sort of resolution for which there are rules. Amongst the character's most prized statistics are his hit points, the buffer between life and death. Play almost rotates around the preservation of these points and the resources required to keep them positive. As this is the only area that seems to demand attention, no wonder the chargen needs the aforementioned balance.

If that weren't enough, lastly there's the reward system. One could, I suppose create a game that was all about killing, in a Sim manner. It wouldn't be about success so much as the how and why of survival. But D&D rewards killing. Sure there are mentions of rewards for doing other things. But all the detail is given to the points one gets when one defeats a monster. Even if you say that defeat does not have to mean killing, then the problem becomes that this is the main way inth the chargen sets up characters to be able to succeed. The resolution system informs players that it's all about the combat.

Still, all the talk about combat doesn't matter. What does is that players are rewarded for succeeding at combat or "defeating" foes.

Now, all this is probably stone obvious. I'm not saying anything here that hasn't been said a jillion times, and it's all up front. The question is why is this all considered to support Gamism?

Well, what happens if players choose to decide things on Simulationism or Narrativism? In either, a player might reasonably decide that they are going to do something realistic, yet not tactically sound from a POV of the rules resolution. What does this get them in D&D? First, they are denied any poitive reinforcement, other than what a GM might allot in terms of "role-playing" rewards. Second, they are very likely to lose their characters, which is the ultimate penalty. Thus, players are not forced to make Gamist decisions, but they have very strong incentive to do so, and little incentive to do anyting else.

So, does that sound like a reasonable assessment of a game in terms of what mode it supports? I've probably only done a half-assed job, but do you see how one can make an assessment of what a system supports in it's parts and as a whole?

Please, lets not debate D&D here, in particular (new thread if someone wants to do that, please, or better yet, see the old ones on the subject). If someone want's to find fault with how one can apply an analysis, fine. But let's leave this particular analysis alone, as it's just an example. I may be competely wrong in my assessment (though I don't think I am); as I said, it's an art, not science.

What's the value to such an assessment? Well, if I am aware of my style, and the proclivities of my group, I can better match the game to their style of play. Seems obvious to me. Have I answered the question, Kirt, or does it still seem hazy?

Mike

Hi Kirt,

"I know it when I see it" is totally invalid for any form of critical thinking or argument. That's an abomination, and doesn't reflect anything I'm saying.

The criteria are concrete. You haven't presented me with the data I need to apply them.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: "I know it when I see it" is totally invalid for any form of critical thinking or argument. That's an abomination, and doesn't reflect anything I'm saying.

The criteria are concrete. You haven't presented me with the data I need to apply them.

Thanks for your extensive response, Mike...

Mike Holmes wrote: What's the value to such an assessment? Well, if I am aware of my style, and the proclivities of my group, I can better match the game to their style of play. Seems obvious to me. Have I answered the question, Kirt, or does it still seem hazy?

Thats exactly what he means Kirt. GNS has always been about play and not systems. Evaluating systems comes about only after observing that a particular system has a high degree of correlation to a particular type of play. Measuring correlation takes several datapoints to do accurately.

Of course correlation is not the same thing as determination (something the anti tobacco staticians choose to ignore), which is why we try to say a game "supports" or "encourages" a particular style of play instead of "causes" or "is" a certain style (except when we get sloppy with our language).

From there the categorization gets a little more hazardous. There is a tendancy to identify parts of game A that are similar to parts of game B and since we believe that those parts of game B are largely responsible for B correlate to a particular style to assume that that will lead game A to correlate with that style as well.

While this is usually a fairly sound educated speculation; at times it leads to errors of the kind "A bird has wings, a 747 has wings, therefor a 747 is a bird". This is why Actual Play is always the preferred means of evaluation. Preferably several different sessions with several different groups although there is always the tendency to take short cuts. Take for example Ron's reviews. These reviews typically have some GNS analysis in them. I think Ron would agree that his GNS conclusions in the review are not based on as complete a set of data points as would be ideal (if Ron's full time job was playtesting games for GNS analysis). But they are at least based on actual play (usually of more than one session) with someone who has a little experience at extrapolating.

But evaluating a system is an inexact science at best. I think alot of the early friction at the Forge came from sounding too certain about a system evaluation based on too few data points. So Ron is rightly hesitent about offering an evaluation of a Unsung on the basis of a single partial second hand playtest report.

But you're not alone in asking the question. Marco has posted a number of his own actual play examples asking the "system does matter" crowd to identify a system that would have handled those sessions "better". I don't think anyone has attempted to take up that challenge, for pretty much the same reasons as I out lined above.

Valamir wrote: But you're not alone in asking the question. Marco has posted a number of his own actual play examples asking the "system does matter" crowd to identify a system that would have handled those sessions "better". I don't think anyone has attempted to take up that challenge, for pretty much the same reasons as I out lined above.

Good points, Ralph.

The reason I used D&D is that most of us do have a wealth of datapoints on actual play. That is, I could have easily have said that that D&D play that I've seen, has resulted in a preponderance of Gamist play. In that case, my analysis can be seen as breaking down the why. Then you can try to use that why analysis to evaluate other games.

But Ralph is right, it's not a simple thing, and guessing can be hazardous. Still, if I'm presented with a Fantasy Heartbreaker, for example, I can usually reasonable assume that if certain facets of the inherited D&D design have not been altered (or, in fact, enhanced), that the game will tend to produce Gmaist play. OTOH, there are certain standard adjustments that Heartbreakers make that indicate a move to Sim. Depending on the level of the shift, the game will likely produce play ranging from Gam/Sim Hybrid (or Incoherent), to Sim. For a game to produce Narrativism, it'd likely have to be so different from other Heartbreakers as to not be in that category.

Again, these are all rather unscientific observations. But they can still have value.

I'd also caveat this all by saying that if you're looking at a particular system for group suitability, that it may also be erroneous to assume that an analysis of a game as a particular mode means that it will have that effect on your group. It's always best to look at the particulars of both game and group when doing such an analysis.

Anyway, we've looked at a Gamist example, now let's look at a Narrativist example, and see if we can find that Sim/Nar line you're looking for.

Hero Wars
Oft touted as a Narrativist design, does that stand up to measurement? Lets see.

Character generation involves selecting several keywords, and/or picking Attributes from a written background. As such, there is no attempt to state that certain Attributes are more common or easier to learn than others, thus, there is no attempt to make these things correspond to some in-world causality (I'm obviously steling this part of the analysis from Ron's essay). Further, however, and just to be clear, there's no attempt to balance the width or nature of an Ability. As such, we can se that there is no Gamaism present in chargen. Instead what is created is a character who has hooks to the setting, his occupation, and his beliefs.

Now, hooks as such could be Sim. After all a Sim GM looks for these sorts of hooks to entangle the PC in his plots. But the resolution system of HW proves to be otherwise. That is, a player has incentives to employ his Attributes to allow the character to be more effective (thus protagonizing him/her). So the player is induced to figuring out how an Attribute like Loves Ray, can come into play. Almost all reasonable answers revolve around addressing a Narrativist premise. As such, the resolution system uses the characters created by it's chargen method, and propells Narrativist play.

The reward system is not so directly Narrativist, looking a lot like many other systems. Still, rewards are not given for "winning" or for doing things "correctly" in play so much as for doing entertaining stuff. This fact, combined with the fact that the only things to buy are, again, the story propelling Attributes, and such, it also seems to trend to Narrativism.

And if you look at it altogether, the combination of mechanics seems to come together in a fairly Narrativist fashion. Now, the design is not so far from Sim that one can say that there isn't a touch of it in there. And I suspect that Sim players could play HW with little drift, and still be pretty satisfied. But mostly this would then be on the GM. "Swimming upstream" a bit as it's referred to.

Where's that ellusive line? Well, by allowing and encouraging (nearly, but not quite, ensuring) attributes that can only be used in a way that's dramatic, the game steps over the line into Narrativist territory. For example, if a character has a Attribute of Wolf Clan Communnity 18, it's hard to imagine the use of that Attribute in a way that doesn't move the story forward. In either Sim or Narr I'm going to need a rationale for why I can use the Attrribute in a given situation. Can you think of a Rationale that a player could come up with that doesn't have moral implications for the character? Sure, I can say that I'm just defending my community "because my character would", and getting the bonus therefore, but that's almost intentionally ignoring that it's a cool thing to do. And that the opposite, running away, would be just as cool. So, use the mechanics, don't use the mechanics, you still are likely to make a statement. And likely (though not ensured) of playing Narrativist.

Does that make sense?

Now, I could go on to do Sorcerer, and explain how that goes even further into Narrativist territory by disallowing most character enumeration that might distract from the Narrativist Premise of the game. But do you see where the analysis lies.

FWIW, I have to say that it's probably unimportant what mode your players play in. Did they have fun? Then their is no GNS conflict between players, or with the system. Or did you detect some friction?

Mike

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: FWIW, I have to say that it's probably unimportant what mode your players play in. Did they have fun? Then their is no GNS conflict between players, or with the system. Or did you detect some friction?

xiombarg wrote: I guess my problem is I'm having a sort of "crisis of faith" in GNS. I'm increasingly unsure as to what it's supposed to be used for, and why that is good. But that's a topic for another thread, I think...

GNS isn't even really a tool that you use. Its more of an awareness building exercise. It forces you, in the process of learning it, to adjust your thinking about things you thought you knew about "how RPing is done" in a fairly complete and systematic way. It identifies areas where potential conflict may arise so that when they do, you're more in a position to understand and deal with them rather than have them ruin your game. Sort of a meditative, contemplative kind of thing.

I suspect Balb, that you probably use GNS (or rather the concepts about play that GNS comments on) alot when you play without ever paying any attention (or needing to) the specific nit picky details that us theorists like to bat around.

Balbinus wrote: Now, if I were actively designing game mechanics for a particular project that would be another matter...

Valamir wrote: I suspect Balb, that you probably use GNS (or rather the concepts about play that GNS comments on) alot when you play without ever paying any attention (or needing to) the specific nit picky details that us theorists like to bat around.