Okay, I'm creating a lot of threads lately, ignore me if I'm annoying.

What I want to discuss is this:

I honestly enjoy all three modes of play. Seriously. I like a little competition, I like a bit of pure exploration, and sometimes I like being able to address a Premise.

So, why wouldn't I like an incoherent game? What makes incoherence bad in this case? Why can't you engage in the various modes at different times, in differing amounts, so long as you're enjoying it? Why must an incoherent game always Drift if it is to remain functional?

Let's take Vampire as an example. Why can't a group engage in a contest to see who can get the most influence through court intrigue (Gamism) while enjoying the exploration of the Color of the setting (Simulationism) and addressing the ultimate emptiness of such a life in the long term (Narrativism)? Why can't I enjoy a game on all three levels?

You'd like a hybrid game. An Incoherent game is one in which the elements that are supported actaully interfere with succesful operation of the game. A game can support just one mode, and still be incoherent if it does it wrong. The point at which a game goes from Hybrid to Incoherent is neccessarily one of subjective opinion.

You want a Hybrid game. No surprise, a lot of people (myself included) do.

Mike

I am not entirely certain how to answer you, Kirt, except to say that there is a difference between liking a "little bit" of competition and having Gamist priorities, etc, etc. A very big difference, I suspect. the GNS modes are about the communication happening at the table during play. It's when one person is going one way and another person is going another that things become incoherent. Look at some of the threads in Actual play to see some incoherent play in action.

Hi Kirt,

Here's my thought on this one ... would an Incoherent game (let's pick Vampire, not to pick on Vampire, all right?) actually help you in that shall-we-say "catholic" desire?

I like all those things too. Didn't used to, but now I do. For Gamist play I'll take Ninja Burger; for Sim I'll take Godlike or Fvlminata; for Narrativism I'll take Sorcerer or Hero Wars. (Nuance: I'm not taking these games to be definitive of the modes, but representative of some of the diversity within each one.)

It strikes me that the desire to play one game to suit all these aesthetic interests of yours is a separate issue from the most effective utility or range of a given, single game.

It also strikes me that you're leaving out an important element of the picture: everyone else. Do they know you're doing this shiftin' around? Are they OK with it? Do they shift around too? Is every possible combination of the modes among all the people a functional combination? Do people wear hats to communicate the (substantial) shifts in their aesthetic priorities for a given session?

I'd put that issue as more central than looking at the poor game and expecting it, alone, to make this desire of yours possible.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I'd put that issue as more central than looking at the poor game and expecting it, alone, to make this desire of yours possible.

I suspect that one person's Hybrid Game is another person's Incoherent Game.

Also: at one point wasn't Incoherent a non-derrogratory term ("Like sunlight vs. laser-light"?) That appears to have changed. When?

-Marco

Marco wrote: Also: at one point wasn't Incoherent a non-derrogratory term ("Like sunlight vs. laser-light"?) That appears to have changed. When?

From a post by Ralph.

I find nothing inherently negative or biased in the term Incoherent so I will continue to use it as its definition fits pretty well. After all if you focus light you get a laser. But the light we use every day is incoherent (i.e. unfocused) and its perfectly useable in that form.

Uh, we're drifting topic here, a little. I tend to agree that incoherence is a prejorative term, and it certainly is in the GNS essay, which is where I'm getting it from. In an incoherent design, the elements of the design work against each other, which is bad.

Basically, I'm concerned, in this thread, as to whether it's possible to satisfy all three GNS modes in a Hybrid game, in a certain specific way in each case, as opposed to satisfying all the people all the time, which is somewhat broader, and I agree is impossible.

Also, I think Marco made an excellent point that we're missing here: "I suspect that one person's Hybrid Game is another person's Incoherent Game."

This is certainly possible, IHMO. In theory, the reason an incoherent game is bad is because the different elements work against each other. However, one might not agree that the elements work against each other. For example, I disagree with Ron that Vampire: The Masquerade is an incoherent game -- I think it's an excellent "high concept" Simulationist design, if you actually run it according to the rules (which is a big "if" in a lot of groups).

(On the other hand, my impression that Ron thinks Vampire is incoherent comes from the GNS Essay, and the mentions of Vampire in the Simulationist essay may indicate that Ron has changed his mind, or that I'm mis-reading him. Ron?)

xiombarg wrote: This is certainly possible, IHMO. In theory, the reason an incoherent game is bad is because the different elements work against each other. However, one might not agree that the elements work against each other. For example, I disagree with Ron that Vampire: The Masquerade is an incoherent game -- I think it's an excellent "high concept" Simulationist design, if you actually run it according to the rules (which is a big "if" in a lot of groups).

(On the other hand, my impression that Ron thinks Vampire is incoherent comes from the GNS Essay, and the mentions of Vampire in the Simulationist essay may indicate that Ron has changed his mind, or that I'm mis-reading him. Ron?)

Hi there,

I won't address the topic of Vampire and Incoherence here because clearly the topic-drift on this thread is already way out of hand. Thanks, Kirt, for focusing it on the issues you raised.

And don't anyone take that as a challenge to set up such a thread, please, because I'd really prefer to get the Forge booth at GenCon happening as well as finish four reviews. There's a bit of a bear-pit thing starting up in this forum lately that I'd like to nip in the bud.

Kirt, I think part of the problem is that you're expecting System to Be Everything, rather than just To Matter. Incoherence as a design feature only exists insofar as it tends to give rise to Incoherent play. Therefore asking, can an Incoherent game give rise to Coherent play is something of an abomination.

One possible answer is "sure, it can," but that would presuppose (for purposes of labelling that game Incoherent in the first place) that it typically and reliably does not. Another possible answer is, "by definition, it cannot," but that is putting too much emphasis on System as a deterministic thing rather than as an influence ("matters") on the real thing, which is play.

So if I'm reading you correctly, what you'd like is one of these:

- A game that probably can't be played exactly as written, but can facilitate its own Drift in any direction. The term for this kind of Drift (which isn't really Drift, as the rules help) is Transition. Mike Holmes would like to see one too, and I suggest getting into private email with him. I also suggest that Scattershot (as conceived, not yet realized) does not do this, but is a from-Sim springboard engine to one of the other modes.

- A game that can take any of the modes as its primary focus, with the other two acting as (switching to) functional subordinates. This is distinct from, say, a solidly-Gamist game with two functional subordinates (N and S), right? You want the primary-mode to be customizable but the other two will always "slip into" subordinate facilitators. I think my Gamism essay will outline some of the reasons why this is not likely to be realized, based on my thinking that the three modes are not like three li'l fruits hanging on a branch side-by-side.

Best,
Ron

Try these threads:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1733
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3396
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3408
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4151


The first thread is Walt's work on Conguruence which I think is the only coherent theory that works at all to really promote multi-mode play. The later three are all about people asking the exact same question that you have.

Mike

I will echo Ron's desire not to go into a detailed Vampire thread. I brought it up only as it was the easiest example that came to my mind of two people disagreeing about incoherence.

Now, on with the show...

Ron Edwards wrote: - A game that can take any of the modes as its primary focus, with the other two acting as (switching to) functional subordinates. This is distinct from, say, a solidly-Gamist game with two functional subordinates (N and S), right? You want the primary-mode to be customizable but the other two will always "slip into" subordinate facilitators. I think my Gamism essay will outline some of the reasons why this is not likely to be realized, based on my thinking that the three modes are not like three li'l fruits hanging on a branch side-by-side.

Kirt, we cross posted. See my above post about links to discussions on exactly this topic.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Kirt, we cross posted. See my above post about links to discussions on exactly this topic.

xiombarg wrote: ...what I'm driving at is I'm not sure why it's not possible for a system to support all three GNS modes without incoherence - that is, a game where all modes are of equal priority

I think the problem, Kirt, with supporting multiple GNS goals was expressed long ago in a currently unavailable GO forum post Ron kept referencing as Where the Rubber Meets the Road. The three questions he asked are preserved in my Gamers Preference Quiz (and before anyone comments, Ron does not believe the quiz is useful).

The point is that a game cannot support one mode of play without inherently (if nothing else, by opportunity costs--which oddly is the subject of my Gaming Outpost Game Ideas Unlimited article for tomorrow). To use the three questions as examples (although they may be a bit simplistic):

If it's the final combat of the game, what matters most? Do we want to streamline events so that this combat runs smoothly and comes to the outcome which makes the best story? Do we want to pay strict attention to the detailed rules of the combat system, so we can fairly and accurately determine exactly who would win in this situation? Do we want to emphasize the combat strategies inherent in using game mechanics to character advantage? These three choices are not compatible. A game cannot support all three at once in any primary sense. Either you want to know who would win, or you want to choose who would win, or you want the challenge of trying to win. In that sense, you can't do all three. You can do any one and probably slip in influence from the others, but only one can function as primary at this moment.

If the prep materials say that the characters travel via a risky form of transit, and the rules state that a survival roll must be made for each character, what do you do? Is this plot exposition, explaining how the characters got to the starting point, and so assuming that they all got here alive? Do you make the roll because the rules dictate it, and let a player character die before the adventure really begins? Do you give the player some outside chance to save his character by some second roll? Again, you can't do all three. You can respect the rules of the simulation and have the character die; you can accept that the story doesn't begin until they're ready to start; you can make it something else to overcome. At this moment, you have to choose your poison.

If the character is thrown in prison, sentenced to some extended (but not interminable) jail term, how do you play it? Is this a challenge, so that like Monty Cristo you're going to find a way to escape? Is it an opportunity to explore the gritty realities of an imprisonment in this milieu? Is it a part of the story, through which your character will learn and grow and build toward that future climax? This one might be blended to some degree; but in the end, one of those will probably dominate.

(There are three other questions on the quiz, but these will suffice.)

Now, on those questions, I'm simulationist on the first (I expect the combat to run very much by the rules, especially when the ultimate outcome is on the line), narrativist on the second (that's plot exposition; characters don't die in the backstory), and gamist on the third (escape would be the first thing I'd examine). So it's quite possible for a player to exhibit different modes of play. It is also quite possible, in my perhaps not so humble opinion, for a game to be simple enough (not a rules length or complexity issue, but in terms of core mechanics structures) that it does not get in the way of any one of these.

However, the moment you insert rules that are functionally supportive of one or another mode of play, you create incentive to play that way--and disincentive to play in the other modes. As has been said of D&D, any time you negotiate and don't kill the monster and take the treasure, you've cost yourself experience points (not to mention treasure), and so not improved your character on the only track the game provides. It costs you to play that way; and if you're playing with people who don't play that way, you get left behind.

I think perhaps there might be three ways that a functional hybrid cold be achieved.

• The game does not support any one mode of play, but does not interfere with any one mode of play either, such that players, referees, and module designers can impose their own preferences on the engine in play. Such imposed preferences would have to be consistent between the parties involved; if the referee is imposing narrativist preferences on players attempting to run gamist play, play becomes incoherent.
• The game provides optional rules which ultimately represent three related game engines, one of which supports each mode of play, such that narrativist players and simulationist players would be playing different games that were superficially similar. Which engine was used would have to be agreed before play, so everyone was using the same concepts.
• The game provides optional rules that permit transition during play. This would seem like drift, but could be incorporated into the rules system by allowing players and referees the power to determine when to use which rules.
• The game specifies transition between different modes at identifiable junctures, such as gamist combat in an otherwise simulationist model. These would have to be clearly delineated to avoid incoherence, and might well be incoherent anyway, particularly at the transition points, and especially if the players had contrasting preferences.
• The game provides alternate engines that are nominally compatible with each other, such that narrativist, gamist, and simulationist players each use those rules that appeal to them. Whether such a system can be designed that is coherent is doubtful, but hasn't to my knowledge been proven impossible--just awkward.


I think those are the possibilities; they might not all be feasible, and they are all challenging. If I am correct that Multiverser supports multiple modes, it does so by permiting transition through optional rules at the discretion of the referee. If Scattershot does so, I think it does so by providing related game engines from which the players choose when play begins. Fang will probably amplify that.

I hope this explains why hybrids that support conflicting play modes don't work, in the general sense. Anyway, if not, maybe someone can clarify my points.

--M. J. Young

Dag, M. J., that did the job as far as I'm concerned.

Best,
Ron

P.S. "Dag" is a childhood expletive immortalized in the cartoons of Lynda Barry.

Er, ditto on dag for me too.

Could some kind soul direct me to threads analyzing the question of Transition? It seems to me, from reading the Scattershot stuff for example, that the whole question of keeping a hybrid game from going incoherent is the ability to Transition among GNS priorities gracefully. I presume this has already been discussed at length --- where?

Excellent post, M.J. Stuff to chew on. I'll have to mull it over, perhaps come back in another thread.

I think, however, this answers my question: It's not that a functional three-mode Hybrid is always incoherent, but that it's difficult for it to NOT be incoherent, which, actually, is more or less what I thought at the start of this thread: I never said such a Hybrid would be easy to create.

I think the situation on transition is more like: its been proposed as a theoretical possibility, its occassionally been chewed over whether its feasible, and Fang's Scattershot is probably the best standing example of an implementation.

M. J. Young wrote: I think perhaps there might be three ways that a functional hybrid could be achieved.

• The game does not support any one mode of play, but does not interfere with any one mode of play either, such that players, referees, and module designers can impose their own preferences on the engine in play. Such imposed preferences would have to be consistent between the parties involved; if the referee is imposing narrativist preferences on players attempting to run gamist play, play becomes incoherent.
• The game provides optional rules which ultimately represent three related game engines, one of which supports each mode of play, such that narrativist players and simulationist players would be playing different games that were superficially similar. Which engine was used would have to be agreed before play, so everyone was using the same concepts.
• The game provides optional rules that permit transition during play. This would seem like drift, but could be incorporated into the rules system by allowing players and referees the power to determine when to use which rules.
• The game specifies transition between different modes at identifiable junctures, such as gamist combat in an otherwise simulationist model. These would have to be clearly delineated to avoid incoherence, and might well be incoherent anyway, particularly at the transition points, and especially if the players had contrasting preferences.
• The game provides alternate engines that are nominally compatible with each other, such that narrativist, gamist, and simulationist players each use those rules that appeal to them. Whether such a system can be designed that is coherent is doubtful, but hasn't to my knowledge been proven impossible--just awkward.

I think those are the possibilities; they might not all be feasible, and they are all challenging. If I am correct that Multiverser supports multiple modes, it does so by permiting transition through optional rules at the discretion of the referee. If Scattershot does so, I think it does so by providing related game engines from which the players choose when play begins. Fang will probably amplify that.