Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Or basically games that claim a focus on story yet have little if anything in their system to fascilitate the creation of a story.

cruciel wrote: Where are all the rules-lite (TM) guys so they can lynch you? ;)

The text of A Random WoD: The Game continually says its focus is story. That's the only rule it needs to support story.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I *am* the rules lite guys! nyah ha ha!

But is it a rule at all, much less the only rule it needs when you have all of the other rules aiming straight into gamism?

cruciel wrote: The games are full of little anti-Gamist rules: dimishing returns on EXP cost for attributes and abilities, cannot purchase abilities above 3 at char gen without freebie points, cannot take more than 7 points in flaws, everybody gets EXP just for showing up and playing.

The real question is:

VtM has a lot of text that basically claims that the game facilitates narrativism. Is the mere instruction to prioritize story enough for a system to facilitate narrativism? No! All of the storytelling heartbreakers that Jack is referring to have this problem. The goal of the designer is to prioritize story, but the mechanics do not actually encourage this in any way.

Well, VtM it is then!

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Not to stay on VtM but I fail to see how any of these things are anti-gamist in any way. Maybe not to the liking of every player who prefers gamist style, but I don't see it as being anti-gamist in the slightest.

Paganini wrote: VtM has a lot of text that basically claims that the game facilitates narrativism. Is the mere instruction to prioritize story enough for a system to facilitate narrativism? No! All of the storytelling heartbreakers that Jack is referring to have this problem. The goal of the designer is to prioritize story, but the mechanics do not actually encourage this in any way.

I just think most people are too spoiled from years of gamist play. I mean you all talk like alchoholics... "If the gamist system is there... OF COURSE Im going to play gamist style!"

I mean Ive played some incredibly story heavy games withing gamist rules going for weeks without phisical conflicts and so on... and I think it was just the chemestry, not the rules that caused this. If a designer blames the rules for the "kill em and take his stuff" play that's going on, its just that he really dosent have the social skills necesary to let players really do what they want... have fun with the story instead of the numbers.

I hear what you're saying Jav, but I think your chemistry analogy is missing a key element. The rules are a tool. Like any tool having the right tool for the job is important. I can (and have) chopped down a small sapling with the claw end of a hammer. I would have much preferred to have a hatchet or a saw...something designed for the job.

If you get great players and a great GM with great chemistry and catch them on a good night...they can have a great Role Play experience using the rules from Chess.

But in the end:

1) why ask a group to make the extra effort to use a set of rules not designed for the task.

2) even if one doesn't think the effort is all that much how easily replicatable is it. Clearly not all gamers are "great" and have perfect chemistry.

So how does this tie into being a heartbreaker...a heartbreaker is essentially a tool that doesn't live up to its design specifications.

For example, a designer might see me hacking away at the sapling with my hammer...he gets an idea...he knows how to "fix" the problem I'm having. So he designs a hammer where the claw end is sharper..."see how superior my tool is to that older model" he brags...that's a heartbreaker. What he should have done is designed a hatchet.

Mike's Standard Rant #1 points out that a big part of the reason why heartbreakers get designed this way is that the designer has only ever seen hammers. He's never seen a hatchet, never used one, and hasn't been struck with the bolt of lightning...so he works feverishly to make a "better hammer".

Seen in this way a Heartbreaker can really be seen in any type of game where the designer is really trying to do one thing, and is enthusiastically trying to do it using a tool that's just not designed for the job. The effort often has moments of brilliance where the "fix" really is a productive one, but taken as a whole...its still disappointing that he didn't start with a hatchet to begin with.

There is a difference between avoiding using existing Gamist rules because they derail the written intent of the game (VtM), and having having a set of rules that actually encourage driving story themes (TROS?). Or rules-lite "The Window", which depends on GM fiat for when rules get applied and when ignored.

Social Contract as system works, but there's also the problem of one or more players not signing on to the Social contract fully. If the System doesn't provide backup, what then?

I like rules-lite concept (cause I'm a bit lazier than I once was for memorizing games), but the 'Lite' needs to be well designed and well focused on supporting the style of play.

This is working well for Squeam 3... :)

edit: cross posted with Ralph....great post Ralph.
We have a saying at the Mill about Millwright solutions to problems being a matter of "Use a bigger Hammer" :)

Jason,

I agree that on balance VtM is Simmy. But it's incoherent enough that people try to play Gamist, and have the problems you describe. The rules you cite, as Jack points out don't thwart the Gamist, they just provide harder and harder levels of success to achieve. How's that any different from D&D levels? How is it not about character power?

But that's not the point. What Jack is talking about primarily anyhow, is that the game says Story, Story, Story, and what we all agree it's talking about is Sim Story. Well, the Narrativist players, not realizing who they are, will still play it in a Narrativist fashion. And since we agree it supports Sim best, what happens? Incoherency. And that's the problem. Most of the games that immitate WoD have similar problems. I wouldn't call this Heartbreaker territiry, because it's working off a flawed design to start.

Note how the typical response to the problems with Narrativism in VtM are solved by most designers afterwards by going "rules lite". They figure that, if it's the rules that are the problem, then we'll just get rid of the rules. And this works to an extent. It doesn't promote Narrativism, but it certainly hinders Narrativist play less. Till you get down to freeform which is completely GNS neutral.

The point is that what these designers are missing is that there are actually ways to support Narrativist play.

Mike

(stolen from original thread)

Paganini wrote:

cruciel wrote:
Well, as I doubt the authors of VtM believe in GNS they certainly aren't claiming Nar. They are claiming story, universal to all modes. VtM is fairly metagame-lite, and actor stance is the obvious preference. So, I'd say all that story and moral struggle they are talking about is just Sim:Sit/Char.

OK, I'll buy that. I've heard it said, though, that the VtM mechanics encourage powergaming in that the system has breakpoints and exchange rates and such, which would encourage Gamism. I've only read it, not played it. Would you agree with that assessment?

(Raven? I don't see a post by Raven. Are you guys doing the PM thing? I claim conspiracy to derive an unfair advantage! ;)

Since it splintered I guess I'll just answer here to not suck up unecesary bandwith...

About the claw hammer example: genius. Yeah, a completely different tool is in need but the problem is that coming up with a new tool is not always spontaneus.

I mean RPG's alway's give me the impresion of being one of the less proggressive things out there... updating computer games, automoviles, hardware, software and what not even by an inch is always welcome, but in rpg design it tends to unleash some freaky kind of backlash. I guess the ideal concept is "keep your hearbreakers at home untill you can come up with something genuinly innovative" but even so making your research available should be a very positive thing.

About story teller games though, I was never implying that "at times the system should be neglected if you want a story telling game"... I do believe that the system matters and a lott. I just think that with a little creativity you can come up with good story telling within any system... hell, even playing risk. "Ahh... after drafting thousands of slaves from the colony that we adquired, your empire shall fall before mine!". You know what I mean.

Still something that happens with game's like VTM is that it starts rule's light, but then they realize "dude, people other than us will play this... we need to set limits" and well you know where that leads. A simple rule can have a whole page of limits, exeptions and cases... and well its not as simple any more. Kinda like "if you roll a 6, you kill your oponent... expet for when its dark you need 2 6's, or if he's wearing a vest you need a 6 and a 4 or more, and of course an extra success if your running and..."

This is kinda what Im thinking, and if its wrong or off topic too sorry but here it goes... in a game (game being the key word) the only things that should be supported by a system are things that are competitive, like combat or contests. If you want to buy a car, I wont make you roll to not get lost on your way to the dealer... I *might* make you roll if you want to haggle the price though, because that is a bit of a competition.

With story teller games the only problem is making systems for story elements... rolling to seduce? You should be able to do it for free if you can actually describe it right. The same applies for having points in personality traits and all that... I mean "Curiosity: 8" is just begging the story teller to say "no! You have to see what's behind the glowing, oozing door because of your curiosity!" "but I have cowardness of 8 too!" "then roll curiosity against cowardness!"

Also story teller game's foccuse too much on balance and even include it in their texts... "Matt was a badass, he rode a bike and had a black jacket, but then he encountered Carmilla who was a badass in her own way, since every one desired her and she owned two art galleries. Of course Fred the wolf showed up who was a badass because...". Your flaw's are always over compensated in one way or another.

Now personally I like gamist play... but because of the randomnes during conflicts of course. I like players to lose from time to time, or things to go much better than expected. That make's the narrative improvised and chaotic... or fun from my point of view. Story tellers point of view + "non railroaded" players point of view + "chaos factor" of the dice = story's you REALLY didint see coming. It just shouldent be a story about the time I rolled all sixes.

Mike,

What I don't get here is how the Gamist or Narrativist trying to play in a Sim design and failing miserably makes the game incoherent. The Nar player will experience dysfunction, it's not the fault of the designers that they choose the wrong game for their priorities.

What I think is that VtM is a design that, on average, creates more violent dysfunction with non-Sim players. It has rules designed to try to force a Gam or Nar player to play Sim, to adhear to the mode of the game (like starting point limits and the player not having full control of the Humanity trait). If there's a design flaw there it's that trying to enforce Sim play instead of just encourage it means congruent play is impossible (which I do think is a majorly bad idea, but YMMV).

Jason,

We're agreeing here. Not knowing GNS theory, VtM could hardly have been expected to be coherent. The criticism of it is based mostly on the fact that it has elements that attract all three players, and then cannot support them all. Including the text which appeals to the Narrativists via the claims that the game can creat "Story".

Basically it's the "fault" of the designers for making a game that looks and says it will support Narrativism and failing to deliver. But again, it's not at all surprising. I daresay we wouldn't be here discussing Narrativism had not Storyteller at least made the idea of the "story" mode legitimate. It's the fault of the Narrativists for not havintg been able to state what they wanted in a way that allowed games to be made that catered to them.

Remember, Narrativists playing VtM at the time were going, "Well, I want story, but this isn't what I mean by story." I don't really think they understood the problem they were having at all.

Mike

Mike,

Putting aside the whole GNS incoherency and Narrativist != Story gobble-dee-gook for a moment. I think we are in agreement, probably even if you don't set those aside.

We've got players expecting narration, not knowing whether it be specifically Sim, Nar, or whatever - just something, anything, that allows them to participate more actively in the creation of the story. So you march into it seeing potential for Author or Director stance, and the game mechanics don't actually support anything but Actor stance - even to the point of spanking you for not conforming. You've got the narration carrot dangling at the other end of the hallway, all you have to do is leap through the spinning blades of The Impossible Thing, The Golden Rule, and The GM is God. While the text cheers your mad dash to doom on with 'This is your chance to participate'.

That's the problem I see. Which, in my opinion, is a lot more serious than GNS incoherency and can effect any Sim, Nar, or Gam player who's got an earnest desire for narration.

One of the things about storyteller is that its golden rule "if you don't like it ignore it", causes the game to drift to a particular groups prefered play style.

Lots of people play storyteller in a narativist fashion (ie exploring a thematic question) by relying heavily on this golden rule (I know, I've done it). The game they're playing is based solely on social contract (often unspokenly so), the rulebook's constant references to theme and mood, and not on the actual rules at all. If they try to use the rules as written, then they get in the way, so they just ignore them.

The problem is that lots of groups drift the game in other directions, and you only notice this if you move between groups. This is most noticeable if you play in the LARP version, where flitting between groups even within the same umberalla organisation, completely different play styles are in evidence.

-Matt