Over in the “Sense of Wonder” thread, I started thinking about mechanics more closely.

What I’m starting to convince myself of is that you can group mechanics generally into two different categories: enforcing and encouraging. Basically, I’m arguing that certain elements of play—certain behaviors—are either enforceable through rules, or merely encourageable. Take character death for example: When your character reaches 0 hit points, he’s dead. Assuming a certain amount of reasonability, this sort of thing is literally enforced by the rules. Unless you change the rule, things are clear cut and defined. However, to take an opposite example, when we start talking about an individual mode of GNS play, then the rules are only able to encourage—hence we have the concept of drift. Encourageable rules apply to other situations as well—things like the sense of wonder under discussion in the aforementioned thread.

Now, I run into problems with this theory however, when I begin to further consider the possibility of drift. Is drift “breaking the rules,” and therefore wouldn’t GNS therefore actually be an enforceable rule? I don’t know. That’s why I posted.

It is never the case that rules are going to cover everything that could possibly occur in play. If drift occurs in the gaps between the rules, then it doesn't break any of those rules. That is not to say that drift doesn't deviate from the intent or spirit of the rules, nor is it to say that much drift doesn't involve changing or ignoring some rules.

Another point... I'm not certain I understand what you mean by enforceable rule. That strikes me as a subtly different thing than behaviors enforceable through rules.

Stuart

szilard wrote: Another point... I'm not certain I understand what you mean by enforceable rule. That strikes me as a subtly different thing than behaviors enforceable through rules.

Tim,

What I'd say is that drift is changing the rules if everyone agrees to the change. I'd say that it's breaking the rules if drift is done without consent. You're breaking the social contract that states what rules will be followed.

GNS can be enforced, but it's extrememly difficult to do, and probably not worthwhile in most cases. Given that we're talking about a process of decision making that's internal to a player, the player can, for example, lie about his decision making process ("No, I didn't kill the baby kobolds because they're not worth any experience points alive, I killed them beause that's what my guy would do!")

It's a legal theory that laws that are impossible to enforce are not good laws. Given that Idea, I'd say that GNS rule should look to promoting behaviors, not trying to enforce them.

The best example are the "Gamist Creep" rules that exist in many games. These are almost always useless wastes of space as they are unenforceable. Worse, the attempt to enforce them is (as in the example above) exactly what leads to "My Guy" syndrome.

Mike

Stuart,

I don't mean to say that enforcing rules (note the term change) are in any way bad, or less good then encouraging rules. Nor do I want to argue about drift (it was mearly an example of a behavior that is IMO not enforceable). I'm just categorizing mechancis for the sake of discussion: can you enforce something like GNS, for example? I don't think so, but perhaps I'm wrong. You can however, enforce things like character death--assuming the players don't change the rules.

What I'm asking as a sidebar is if what I'm calling encouraging rules are in violation when their purpose is not being accomplished. Can you even say something like that without sounding stupid?

I'm having trouble seeing what the difference is between enforcing and encouraging. I also fail to see what is gained with this since it is conceivable that the exact same mechanic in two different games is encouraging in one and enforcing in the other. It lies in the application, not in the mechanic itself, I think.

fleetingGlow wrote: What I'm asking as a sidebar is if what I'm calling encouraging rules are in violation when their purpose is not being accomplished. Can you even say something like that without sounding stupid?

fleetingGlow wrote: I'm just categorizing mechancis for the sake of discussion: can you enforce something like GNS, for example? I don't think so, but perhaps I'm wrong.

What I'm asking as a sidebar is if what I'm calling encouraging rules are in violation when their purpose is not being accomplished. Can you even say something like that without sounding stupid?

Mike Holmes wrote:

fleetingGlow wrote: What I'm asking as a sidebar is if what I'm calling encouraging rules are in violation when their purpose is not being accomplished. Can you even say something like that without sounding stupid?

Oh, I see. Not stupid, Stuart, but definitely wrong. If a rule only encourages, then play in another manner cannot be breaking the rule. Possibly if breaks the spirit of the rule, which may or may not be part of the social contract.

Mike

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: it is conceivable that the exact same mechanic in two different games is encouraging in one and enforcing in the other. It lies in the application, not in the mechanic itself, I think.

This thread on GNS Incoherency might be useful to the conversation.

Mike Holmes wrote: If a rule only encourages, then play in another manner cannot be breaking the rule.

szilard wrote:
That was Tim, not me.

Stuart

fleetingGlow wrote: While I agree that a rule that encourages is hard to violate, how then do you ensure that you are remaining true to the game text?

Mike Holmes wrote: Who is "you"? The player, the GM, or the designer?

fleetingGlow wrote: Still, does the player/GM have any responsibility to the designer, or to the game text as written?

fleetingGlow wrote: Still, does the player/GM have any responsibility to the designer, or to the game text as written?

Can't sue for that. Not unless they make copies or something.

No, what'll happen is that at that point you can stop delivering support as they'll have voided their service contract.

"What's that? You've been playing D&D without using Classes? Some sort of Single Class system you say. Well, I'm sorry to inform you that in doing so you've vioded the terms of your service contract, and we here at Hasbro Game Software International will no longer be able to help you with your service problems. If you'd like to purchase a new license, I'd be happy to transfer you to a Sales Representative, however..."

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: OTOH, if a game is well designed, the participants may be doing themselves a disservice by not trying to use the game as it was designed to be used.

If I'm understanding "encouraging" versus "enforcing" mechanics aright, the D&D experience point system is an encouraging mechanic. During play, if you kill the monster and take the treasure, you get experience points; but there's nothing that says you have to fight at all. You can play D&D all year and never fight a thing. I knew a guy who took asked if he could play a local blacksmith (as a second character), and put everything into working in the blacksmith shop and selling his goods and services. He never killed anything, and he never "took" anything other than fair payment for goods and goods/supplies for fair payment.

On the other hand, I'm having trouble thinking of an enforcing mechanic in a role playing game that would make the player engage in combat. Having played Shukenja (who are not permitted to kill), I am quite aware that you can always avoid a fight if you so choose. The only think I can find is that there are some gamist CRPGs I've seen played in which once you've entered the encounter area you cannot avoid the fight--you must attack even if you wish to retreat, and you may be attacked before you do so. In this sense, combat is forced upon you. I can't think of a way to do that in RPG play, at least at the moment.

Someone mentioned a hit point system in which you are reduced to zero points and then die (was that this thread?); that's clearly an enforcing mechanism. In contrast, Legends of Alyria lets the player decide when his character will die. (I have not yet seen this in action, shame on me.) If you've got a mechanic that rewards the player if on his decision the character dies, that would be an encouraging mechanic for character death.

However, it is inherent in the concept of the "encouraging mechanic" that the player may choose not to do that now. Thus not having done it is not breaking the rules. If the rules force you to fight, or determine that you die at zero hit points, and you ignore them, you've broken the rules; but those are enforcing mechanics. If he rules encourage you to fight or to die and you ignore them, that's not breaking the rules--it might not even be violating the spirit of the rules, depending on the circumstances. However, in the main encouraging rules mean that there are benefits to the desired action which will be foregone by avoidance, thus play will be rewarded more clearly by doing what the rules encourage.

Is that what you mean?

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: On the other hand, I'm having trouble thinking of an enforcing mechanic in a role playing game that would make the player engage in combat.

M. J. Young wrote: If the rules force you to fight, or determine that you die at zero hit points, and you ignore them, you've broken the rules; but those are enforcing mechanics. If he rules encourage you to fight or to die and you ignore them, that's not breaking the rules--it might not even be violating the spirit of the rules, depending on the circumstances.

M. J. Young wrote: However, in the main encouraging rules mean that there are benefits to the desired action which will be foregone by avoidance, thus play will be rewarded more clearly by doing what the rules encourage.

On the subject of a RPG that Enforces fighting, one could imagine a game in which the choice to fight was not a given part of the player's purview. So, in Pitfighter, the RPG (hypothetical), you end up going from combat to combat (it's an RPG because you get extra points for boasting well in play) killing other fighters and gaining glory.

The rules would state stuff like. Each charactr chooses a door through which to enter the arena. Then the first round begins with each player choosing an offensive and devensive tactic.

You get the picture. In such a game failing to fight would be breaking the rules (pretty much failing to play the game).

Mike

I was recently involved in a thread on rec.games.frp.gurps which I think hinges on the difference between enforcing and encouraging.

GURPS has mechanics for some of its mental disadvantages which are enforcing mechanics -- for example, the "Lecherousness" disadvantage states that when the character is in contact with a person of the opposite sex who is attractive, the character has to make a Will roll in order to keep from making a pass at him/her, with penalties depending on just how good-looking the person is.

To me, that's enforcing -- the player makes the roll, and the roll can require that a certain thing be done.

A system I'm currently using for a pbem has an encouraging personality mechanic -- players have Story Points. You can gain Story Points by accepting "complications". This can be used as a personality mechanic -- e.g., if a character has the "lecherous" trait, you could create a complication involving that character trying to get a date with someone. On the other hand, though, there's nothing that requires you to do that -- there's simply a reward system for players who do choose to do that.

Some systems go a bit farther by requiring characters to pay a penalty to get out of having a personality trait used against them -- e.g., Theatrix, where one can pay a Plot Point to avoid having to do something based on a personality trait.

The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG has an interesting middle ground -- it has mechanically enforced personality traits, ala GURPS... but a player could spend a Drama Point to do a Heroic Feat to try to resist, which will almost certainly let them resist it, unless there's a very large penalty involved. Thus, it has enforcement, but with the potential to "buy out".

IMHO, personality mechanics are a very good place to use "encouraging" rather than "enforcing" mechanics -- see the recent thread on "character ownership".

Another example of enforcement vs. encouragement could be a pair of Universalis gimmicks. Some groups like to use a gimmick which states that at least half of the coins gained from a conflict must be spent on things related to that conflict. This is an enforcement mechanic.

An encouragement way of doing a similar thing might be to state that any coins gained from a conflict which are not spent on that conflict are halved. This encourages spending coins through the conflict from which they were gained, so you can get more "bang for your buck".

--Travis