Okay, this has been a long time coming, but I only conceived of it this week. It's a rather harsh theory and I need a lot of your experience and examples to help me work out how valid it is. (That means I expect either "No it's not!" or "Oh, So?" kindsa responses.)

And before this turns into a huge argument I need to point out two things. 1) I only just came up with this idea; I don't know if it's true, that's what I'm trying to figure out. In order to do this, I'll have to adopt a hard-line approach; this does not mean I am really convinced of it, but that I want to know if it can be adequately defended with ratiocination. 2) In all robust theories there will be a few exceptions. I usually refer to this as 'the exceptions that prove the rule.' A theory without exceptions is probably meaningless (a truism); this thread is where I'm trying to 'sniff out' any exceptions.

Speaking of huge arguments, this isn't one of them. I am not saying, by the presentation of this theory, that other people's beliefs are invalid. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Please don't assume I am attacking your way of seeing things, no matter how harsh of criticism I level. I'm not posting this to engage in baiting or empty provocation; I legitimately want to learn 'the lay of the land' in terms of examples and counter arguments. Given that, you can expect me to contrast some of the responses simply to clarify them and the just say, "Okay, I can see that." Provided enough contrary responses, I am perfectly willing to void this theory. I can't know 'how well it works' until I run it 'through the grinder' of discussion.

First some base definitions, these aren't 'you must separate all things by these categories,' but 'these generalities explain the following.' I need to explain a little classification so that I can make my supposition make sense. I give them in seemingly chronological order even though all of them are still being created today; think of it as 'order of the first appearance.'

First Generation

These role-playing games were based upon wargames (and others). Some of them didn't even have role-playing elements explicitly in them, but stood mostly as 'games trimmed down so you could role-playing game with them.'


Second Generation

Echoes of first generation games, these had the first 'self awareness' as a 'new thing.' They drew their sources from lotsa different places, but mainly out of the authors' heads.


Third Generation

These games were the first that took a 'from the ground up' approach to writing. Early on the suffered from not much to compare them to; recently they showcase a certain design naiveté.


Fourth Generation

Many of these games take a sophisticated look at how many different role-playing games have been created. Often they apply themselves to very precise goals based upon observations of what can and is being done in the field.


Next Generation

Don't you hate lists that go on to predict the future? For the purposes of this thread these games don't exist.

Okay, first generation games were based upon (mostly) wargames. One of the guiding principles of wargame design is aiming for some kind of mechanism that would present results in keeping with the set-up following the choices of the players. Historical reenactment wargames can be fanatical this way, but the basic principle has to do with emulating (sometimes by radical extension) reality. Thus it comes as no surprise that the early resolution systems bore a strong resemblance to this principle.

It comes as no surprise that second generation role-playing games were similar, considering the meager sources of information their designers had to draw upon. However, I think the most notable thing is that many (if not all) a second generation role-playing game harkens back to some form of narrative entertainment, books, movies, stories, and the like. This presents a problem.

That would be; the results of every action within narrative entertainment aren't the least bit influenced by any extension of reality emulation. Every outcome is tailored specifically to further the direction the author of the narrative chooses. Oh, such may be carefully presented to seem verisimilar, but in fact that's total conceit on the part of the creator.

It strikes me as odd that I cannot think of any third generation role-playing games that are not also similar in the attempt to make use of some guiding principle of extended reality emulation. Really odd. I can understand what the whole 'emergence of Narrativism' crux is about looking like that at these games. Narrativism and it's poorly-described cousin, Dramatism (everyone has a definition, few agree) both struggle against this very problem.

So here we have role-playing games in every way based upon media that give resolution results to the highest 'story' priority using resolution systems crafted to 'fairly' emulate some kind of extended reality. What a contrast. It wasn't until fourth generation role-playing games came along with a few attempting to overthrow this convention that it became apparent to me.

I'm still having trouble with how hard some role-playing games attempt to 'do both.' I consider all the buzz surrounding The Riddle of Steel to illustrate exactly this conundrum. I've seen no argument that the game doesn't capture the essence of medieval hand-to-hand warfare, and yet the author included Spiritual Attributes in order to cause the game to obey narrative entertainment aesthetic principles. I've not seen it, so you tell me; does the presence of Spiritual Attributes do more than 'tip the scales' in favor of the protagonists? In movies, there's a lot more than 'a little tilting' that makes for the protagonists winning; in those, there is no bones about 'who is going to win.'

Now, I know there are a bunch of examples of fourth generation games that don't make this bizarre mistake ('fair' resolution in aesthetically guided narratives), but I'm a starving artist; I've never seen one. I need your collective experience to help me understand the division between these.

I can understand the current schizoid convention of designing games that attempt both priorities. I can understand how people will drift these to suit their own priorities, but it's like an itch I cannot scratch that few ever suggest to the writers that their resolution systems are so far out of whack with their source material that it isn't even funny. I only because closely aware of it when I was telling my partner about the attempt to create a Inuyasha game with a 'fair' extended reality resolution system. It was in that conversation that I realized that Inuyasha always lost fights when his relationship to the protagonist was suffering and always won them when it was her he was protecting, completely and exclusively. Dice certainly wouldn't support that heavy of a skew.

I look back over all the sources of material that form the backbones of all these games and I see none where the results of any conflict don't, just the same, come from the aesthetic principles that drive the source. Not one. And that leaves me sitting here and going 'why bother?' Isn't it the power of those sources that attracts writers to create role-playing games based upon them? Isn't it the same aesthetics that make those sources so powerful and define the outcome of every conflict in them? Shouldn't therefore, all resolutions be driven similarly? That is to say, if the role-playing game is based upon an aesthetic object, shouldn't the same aesthetics drive the resolution system of the game?

I'm serious. Certainly a Narrativist facilitating role-playing game has mechanisms that drive at the actual resolution of an aesthetic conundrum, but don't Gamist and Simulationist facilitating role-playing games also obey an aesthetic principle? Is it just me or does any game that finally manages to strip away all essence of the source material's aesthetics do poorly on the market (if not monetarily, critically)? I feel that was the failure of Cyberpunk 2020. I don't really see a huge amount of discussion of Pheonix Command, except by those who are very interested in firearms and simulation. Neither seemed to carry the promise of aesthetic gaming in any way similar to the source materials, except by invention of the consumer. (Is it fair to hand someone a system that emulates firearms and computer access so that they can play in a genre about the loss of humanity to technology?)

So you tell me; why shouldn't a role-playing game embed the aesthetic that drives the source media to the extent that it really does control the outcomes of the resolution system it comes with it? Or more simply, shouldn't all games be, in effect, Narrativist games?

Fang Langford

p. s. I thought I'd just reiterate that this is not a 'I am totally committed to it' kinda argument. I'm actually a lot less sure than it sounds. I simply don't have the breadth of experience with newer alternatives in role-playing games to make up my mind. (And I'm way into the Aristotelian dialogue.) Like I said, I'm not trying to put down anybody or their opinion, I need actual discourse and examples to understand the validity (or groundlessness) of my supposition. I'm not saying that Gamism or Simulationism don't exist or aren't valid or are subordinate, I'm saying that perhaps their systems shouldn't be so closely modeled on things driven so aesthetically (and that things that are, should be more openly so).

And the presentation is based upon an aesthetic 'kick' I'm on.

Le Joueur wrote: Isn't it the power of those sources that attracts writers to create role-playing games based upon them? Isn't it the same aesthetics that make those sources so powerful and define the outcome of every conflict in them? Shouldn't therefore, all resolutions be driven similarly? That is to say, if the role-playing game is based upon an aesthetic object, shouldn't the same aesthetics drive the resolution system of the game?
...
So you tell me; why shouldn't a role-playing game embed the aesthetic that drives the source media to the extent that it really does control the outcomes of the resolution system it comes with it? Or more simply, shouldn't all games be, in effect, Narrativist games?

Gaming has the sort of rules it does because the action of creation is a big part of the fun, along with appreciation for the (hopefully cool) results. It's not unprecedented in this - improvisational theatre often has rules about proscribed actions and reactions, for instance, and there are directors who shoot films with heavy doses of immersion and what we can plausibly call roleplaying. Mike Leigh's film Topsy-Turvy, for instance, has actors who spent six months studying the people they were playing and then saying "I think she'd react like this" as they worked through scenes. There are schools of art which are all about the application of fixed rules to one's media and tools. 12-tone serialism in music had a very simple rule (every note in the octave must be used once before any can be used again); other schools bring other sorts of rules.

In all these cases, the challenge is "What's the neatest thing I can do within these constraints?" The results may resemble related works without those constraints a little or a lot - Mike Leigh's films don't look like "they just made it up", while serialism does sound unusual. If a game says "you can make results just like the source material", that's sloppy. But if it says "you can create results much like the source material and share the fun of being there and doing it", that's true.

Hey John,

Thank you for the response. Let me try and bounce a couple of ideas of you and it.

John Kim wrote: There is no way to force the dynamic of RPGs into traditional narrative theory. RPGs are not simply a different way to write a story, they have fundamental differences -- like the audience being the same as the authors.

John Kim wrote: But ultimately, putting theory before practice is fundamentally wrong. For example, your logic here would suggest that "reality" TV shows and documentaries are wrong because you get more interesting stories if you just write it. But that Emperor is naked. There are people who enjoy watching such programs even if they have the option of aesthetically-written fiction. By the same token, there are gamers who enjoy non-Narrativist play.

Hey Bruce,

You raise some interesting points. At least one of which I hadn't thought of.

Bruce Baugh wrote: Gaming has the sort of rules it does because the action of creation is a big part of the fun, along with appreciation for the (hopefully cool) results....

In all these cases, the challenge is "What's the neatest thing I can do within these constraints?"

Bruce Baugh wrote: If a game says, "You can make results just like the source material", that's sloppy. But if it says, "You can create results much like the source material and share the fun of being there and doing it", that's true.

Fang,

It sound like you're saying that any game that references or was inspired by any Story driven source (Fictional Movie, Book, Literature, etc) need to be designed using a Story Priority (Narrativist facilitating) rules mechanic, is that correct?

I think that you may be glossing over the most important thing that John Kim said:

John Kim wrote: -- like the audience being the same as the authors.

OK, I'll elaborate on my disagreements into two areas: first on goals, second on methods.

Le Joueur wrote: What I am saying is use resolution rules that emulate reality to play games that take their sources from reality shows. Equally, make resolution systems hinging upon 'story priorities' for games that take their sources from stories.

I'm saying to use one for the other is square-pegging round holes to be sure.

Everyone has read a book or seen a movie where the lead character does something that the reader or viewer finds so utterly wrong that he or she wants to yell out and warn them. But whether the reader calls out or not, it makes no difference. No matter what we say, the character will do what the plot demands; we're just along for the ride.'

The situation in a roleplaying game is very different. When roleplaying, the players control their characters' actions and respond to the events of the plot. If the player does not want the character to go through the door, the character will not. If the player thinks the character can talk him or herself out of a tight situation rather than resorting to that trusty pistol, he can talk away. The script, or plot, of a roleplaying game is flexible, always changing based on the decisions the players make as characters.

Le Joueur wrote: I never said that a role-playing game was anything like writing a story, but I am saying that writing a role-playing game in the spirit of stories is going to fail if you use a resolution system that is in the spirit of emulating an extended version of reality. Reality doesn't 'flow' like stories; stories don't 'move' like reality. Does it make sense to use rules that 'move' like reality to engage in play that's based on stories?

Le Joueur wrote: That's an idea that I hadn't considered. The idea that you are trying to achieve aesthetically pleasing results in spite of the rules isn't a new idea, but I hadn't considered it.

Hey Jason,

I guess I'm talking about honestly capturing 'the spirit' of a source. I can already see that misapprehension over the word 'story' is beginning to creep into this discourse; how about this? As any of us writes here, when we come to the point we'd write the word 'story,' let's pretend it doesn't exist and be a bit more descriptive. I know I was trying to do just that when I started the thread and frankly, I'm beginning to see why.

deadpanbob wrote: It sound like you're saying that any game that references or was inspired by any Story driven source (Fictional Movie, Book, Literature, etc) need to be designed using a Story Priority (Narrativist facilitating) rules mechanic, is that correct?

deadpanbob wrote: I think that you may be glossing over the most important thing that John Kim said:

John Kim wrote: -- like the audience being the same as the authors.

And by extension - that there are multiple authors sitting at the table. There needs to be some level (however abstract) of resolution mechanic to help the negotiations between the various authors.

deadpanbob wrote: On another issue, I disagree, regardless of what the designers may be saying about their games, that any resolution mechanic is an extension of 'reality'. We don't have the space, math skills, or frameworks needed to accurately model reality. The best we can do is achieve a sense of internally consistent causality that feels like reality within the context of the source material.

deadpanbob wrote: Finally, I would say that when we look to the Story driven sources of our RPG inspirations, are we really saying "I want my stories to work out exactly like that story?" I would say a resounding NO. What we want, most of the time, is to be able to tell our own stories within the context of those sources. There is a world of difference there - and bear in mind that in the Stories there is the illusion of tension and risk - of things at stake for the protagonists. Or sure, we all know on some level that the protagonists will win in the end - but the best stories manage to Trump our worse if wiser selves on this issue and engage us in the Tension despite our understanding of how false it is.

deadpanbob wrote: When you are talking about games whose feel during play fails to capture the feel of the Source material - then yes I'd sign on to your contention that a lot of games are psychotic in just the way you describe.

Le Joueur wrote:
So you tell me; why shouldn't a role-playing game embed the aesthetic that drives the source media to the extent that it really does control the outcomes of the resolution system it comes with it? Or more simply, shouldn't all games be, in effect, Narrativist games?

First, I agree with John. You can have a Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV Show, a Buffy RPG, and a Buffy lunchbox; each can be true to the spirit of the source material and be a unique Buffy experience.

Second, as for all games being Nar. (I think all games are Sim, so this might not get anywhere). All games that attempt to emulate the narrative experience of some piece of media are Nar. Or, all games that strive for Story Now are Nar...which is a nice fat non-statement (circular definition of Nar).

Third, I think your right about reality emulation mechanics being often unnecessary included in a Nar game. However, when there are reality emulation elements that are in fact part of the Genre Expectations I would expect them to be included. When comparing this to narrative media this could be thought of as the boundaries the author comitted to staying within when he wrote the story. It's not unusual for the author of a book to do his research and know how big the exit wound would be from a .357 round (so an appropriate RPG should include detailed firearms rules). These rules needn't necessary be true in the 'how reality works' sense, just as long as they are consistent rules within the Genre Expectation. As long as you keep the reality emulation rules to those elements that the source media holds as its definition of reality, I think you're good to go. (I haven't read TROS, but from my understanding of it, it is a perfect example of what I'm saying).

There may be some key to how functional Sim/Nar hybrids are created here.

OK this is similar to something that I have been struggling with myself for a while now. It seems to me that major bone of contention here is the concept of reality or realism in a game. Versimilitutde. Call it whatever you want, it's what players are talking about when they say a game is realistic or not. The problem is this is highly subjective. What is highly realistic to one snaps the suspenders of disbelief of another. The reality of the situation is that no game system is reality. It is a matter of perception. Smoke and mirrors.

To put it another way, performing this action rolls a handful of dice on the table has precious little in common with doing this deftly swings a wavy-bladed Frankish sword in a deadly arc, or this does a triple back flip, or this convinces the arab trader to take far less gold than he wanted for the magic lamp, or even this makes highly proficient love with a beautiful woman. This is the reality of the situation. People can talk about satistics or similar things all they want but it still boils down to sitting around the table, talking, rolling dice and comparing numbers on the papaer.*

So to me, the whole concept of realism is a non-thing. It isn't really there and I personally find it a waste of time. I also find many other pursuits to be a waste of time and it is not my place to criticize those either, although that subject had come up once on the Forge, to my shame.

So I find keeping an eye on the Lumpley Principle helps. Now a game may, as part of following the Lumpley Principle, pay some sort of attention to what is realistic or not. Looking at it that way, I can then appreciate a game based on how well it does this, more towards how well being realistic leds to consensus than the quality of the realism. The quality of the realism is highly subjective, as I had said, and does not help when attempting to appreciate a game. How well it reaches consensus is a much better criteria for assessing a game since this reflects usefulness in actual play. The most realistic system ever made is worthless if it does not arrive at group consensus easily.

This, I think, is why game design has always had a preoccupation with realism. It is believed that it is the easiest, best, etc. way at arriving at group consensus in play. But the notion of realism is highly subjective and consensus can be reached just as easily, if not easier in some cases, without realism. I therefore feel that realism is neither here nor there as far as suppporting any style of play, be it Narrativism, Simulationism, or Gamism.


*This may be why I hold DeProfundis in such high regard. It is a PBM RPG where the character communicate via writing letters. A better trick of smoke and mirrors, I feel. For a traditional RPG to do this, it would have to be a game where the player characters are also sitting around the table talking and rolling dice. Funny how I don't hold LARPS in the same regard, but I digress.

It's hard not to respond here and not sound like I'm making a kneejerk reaction. Try to take this with the same salt that we're supposed to take your post with.

But I agree with all the opposition to this idea, and have further problems with it. I'll stick to the new stuff, here, and say, John, Bruce and everyone are all right on all that they've presented.

Basically John nails it in general when he points out that your mistake is in assuming that one wants to emulate the aesthetics of the genre automatically. That is, for a player who enjoys Gamism or Simulationism, this is simply not true. They have different primary goals. All you've done here is point out the Narrativist reasoning, and said that it's superior.

But what do you lose when you go Narrativist? That's the important thing to discuss. For Narrativism to be "best" that means that there has to nothing in Sim or Gamism that is lost in qoing to Narrativism. But there are things lost. For a player who prefers Gamism, you lose the sense of challenge. As pointed out above, it's no longer a Game. And some people want it to be a game no matter how much you want RPGs to be Toys.

For the Simulationist, you lose the sense that you are, yourself, inside the game. That's my the thing I refer to recently as Special Simulationist Immersion (SpecSimInt). If you have no feel for that, then you can't appreciate it's loss. But compare it to this. You know that moment in a movie where the director goes over the top with something, breaks continuity, and just does whatever he wants in order to get the plot to go where he needs it to go? Like In Star Trek when they use the Transporters yet again as a Deus Ex Machina at the end of an episode in a way that messes with the continuity of the universe in a way that makes you lose faith in the show? You know that feeling? That's how someone wanting SpecSimInt feels as soon as he realizes that the universe his character is in isn't guided by concrete rules that simulate some sortt of existance, but are instead ruled by principles designed to produce drama. It's just not satisfactory.

No, RPGs have evolved as they have simply because they are unique in that you can attempt to have all three of these things. Yes, in combination they can be toxic to themselves. But it's exactly that you can do all three of these things that makes RPGs what they are.

As pointed out above, you might as well not ever play a wargame because given the innaccuracy of models, you can never achieve a simulation that represents an accurate version of reality. Well, know what? It's close enough for government work. Those of us who appreciate it can put up with that. When a person makes a game like Cyberpunk they are inspired by the genre, not, I say again, not trying to recreate it (and BTW, how wasn't the game successful; next you'll tell me that D&D3E hasn't been successful because it's not an accurate representation of Fantasy Literature).

TROS is a successful hybrid. Why would you think otherwise given what you've read here? There's some debate on whether it's primarily Sim or Narr, but it definitely appeals to both sorts of players, and in a very coherent way. Your assumption that a game has to have only one goal is erroneous, too*.

Now Narrativist games do try to recreate the narratives of these genres (hence the name). And that's great. But it's just one way to play. Anything else to be said on the subject is just personal preference, IMO. I find this all odd coming from the guy who was going to solve the "problem" presented with his own ideas on Transition, and claimed to have "discovered" El Dorado. Have you had some sort of epiphany?

I don't mean to sound snarky in all this, but consider the tone of your original post, when reading this (and consider how thoughtful the other responses have been despite this). It seems to me a bit disingenous to me to say, "I'll argue hard, but I'm not really convinced" and then to use such relatively acrimonious language. I mean "schizoid"? "mistake"?

Mike

*No, this does not mean that the Impossible Thing is possibe; nor should this be seen as a call to start up yet another "can we make a game that does all three" thread.

Following up my post above with a response to Jack...

I agree, Jack, that realism is problematic. But I also agree that there are a lot of powwerful reasons for designers to go with that rout. I'd say it's, again, merely another choice. I'd tell designers what I said in the threads about Realism. Be careful with assumptions. But do it if that's what you really want to do.

Will this make for less popular games? Maybe. Are we about creating cool games or popular games around here? Leave it to the designer to decide for his game.

Mike

Le Joueur wrote: These are then, for the sake of my supposition, separated by rules that govern resolutions based upon other concerns. In my main example, the aesthetics that drive powerful or attractive source material (which I argue place "feels like reality" as at least secondary).

Hi Bruce,

You raise a pretty good argument, thanks for putting in the time. I'm not sure how it relates.

Bruce Baugh wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: That's an idea that I hadn't considered. The idea that you are trying to achieve aesthetically pleasing results in spite of the rules isn't a new idea, but I hadn't considered it.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that accomplishment within the mutually agreed upon boundaries is a source of increased satisfaction for many people. Writers observe genre boundaries, or transgress them for deliberate effect.

...In addition, by defining boundaries, the rules channel effort in preparation and performance, allowing the kind of focus that makes for more meaningful comparisons. Comparing "a work of art" to "another piece of art" is often tricky; comparing two sculptures, or two symphonies, is easier. And so on with closer boundaries.

So gaming isn't at all unusual in this regard. The rules are fundamentally arbitrary, but then so are all rules. The point is that in a game people like, they're satisfying and stimulate satisfying activity. They are a positive good for people interested in a particular kind of shared creation.

Hey John,

I appreciate the patience you show taking this supposition up with me. Thanks. You raise some good points, unfortunately they're somewhat obscured by the frequently-misunderstood word 'story.' Like I attempted in the starting post of this thread, how about we skip using this word and whenever motivated to, take a few more words and 'spell out' what we mean?

John Kim wrote: OK, I'll elaborate on my disagreements into two areas: first on goals, second on methods.

Le Joueur wrote: What I am saying is use resolution rules that emulate reality to play games that take their sources from reality shows. Equally, make resolution systems hinging upon 'story priorities' for games that take their sources from stories.

I'm saying to use one for the other is square-pegging round holes to be sure.

You're assuming here that the goal of any game taking its source from stories is solely to create similar stories. That's not necessarily true. For example, I don't think that Star Fleet Battles would be improved by replacing its reality-style resolution with story-based resolution. Even though it takes its source from stories, its goal is not solely to reproduce similar stories. Part of the appeal of SFB is definitely how true it is to its source material, but it puts greater priority on being an interesting wargame. The same thing applies to many role-playing games. Indeed, many of them are explicit about it.

John Kim wrote: From the introduction to Shadowrun:

Everyone has read a book or seen a movie where the lead character does something that the reader or viewer finds so utterly wrong that he or she wants to yell out and warn them. But whether the reader calls out or not, it makes no difference. No matter what we say, the character will do what the plot demands; we're just along for the ride.'

The situation in a roleplaying game is very different. When roleplaying, the players control their characters' actions and respond to the events of the plot. If the player does not want the character to go through the door, the character will not. If the player thinks the character can talk him or herself out of a tight situation rather than resorting to that trusty pistol, he can talk away. The script, or plot, of a roleplaying game is flexible, always changing based on the decisions the players make as characters.

This nicely reflects the idea, I think. Even though Shadowrun draws from sci-fi and fantasy stories -- it is selling based on the difference between playing a game and listening to a story. In the game, you are not subject to the clichés or other arbitrary devices of writers -- you can play the character "right" (for some value of "right", of course).

John Kim wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I never said that a role-playing game was anything like writing a story, but I am saying that writing a role-playing game in the spirit of stories is going to fail if you use a resolution system that is in the spirit of emulating an extended version of reality. Reality doesn't 'flow' like stories; stories don't 'move' like reality. Does it make sense to use rules that 'move' like reality to engage in play that's based on stories?

First of all, I disagree that reality doesn't flow like stories. People tell stories about reality all the time. "Aha!" you say, "But that isn't reality per se, those people create a story out of real events." But we can do exactly the same thing in RPGs -- we first determine the fictional reality, and then create a story out of that.

John Kim wrote: But really this is an argument about methods. Even if we assume the goal is to create stories which are true to the spirit of the inspiration, that doesn't inherently determine what the methods should be.

This is the same issue in many other translation of media, but magnified. Your argument is the simplistic one: that in order to stay true to the spirit, we have to stick to tried-and-true methods and terminology. This is similar to the logic of saying that to make a movie of a book, you should just film literally every passage of the book. However, it is pretty widely accepted that this simply isn't true. Staying true to the spirit does not necessarily mean slavishly keeping to the source.

John Kim wrote: As a hypothetical example, imagine that I'm a director who is directing a historical epic set in medieval France. I want to film a battle scene from the book, but the book doesn't describe swing-by-swing what is happening. But I have stuntman who know all about swordplay from the period. I decide rather than telling them what to do, I'll rely on them. "Go ahead and do whatever you think would be best for soldiers of the period." I tell them, "Make it look real!" Now I'm using reality-based resolution.

John Kim wrote: Now, mind, I'm not saying that this is always the best method. However, it is not a priori an invalid one. If a particular outcome is absolutely required at any given point for it to work, then obviously the reality-based resolution shouldn't give that. However, in RPGs we are not working with a pre-written plot, and we often tend to try for stories which are not very predictable in that way. Moreover, random story-based mechanics fall prey to the same criticism. For example, I can say of Sorcerer that it makes no sense to bet a characters fall of redemption on a Humanity roll. These are things which writers write.

Hey Marco,

Good to hear another voice. I need all the help I can get. This is a really difficult supposition for me to work out and you've really helped me concentrate my problem.

Marco wrote: Firstly, I think it's a cornerstone of RPG-narrative that the "story-like" aesthetic that emerges does so the way that "stories emerge from real life." That is, it doesn't *have* to go that way, it just *does* (and if it doesn't, well, that's life).

Marco wrote: Secondly the term Narrativist game has some specific meanings....

That's a good deal different from Simulationist emulation of a genre (making a blow to the back of the head a clean, easy knock-out for a pulp genre game). In one the action is driven by pursuit of a theme. In the second the same action will be driven because it's encouraged in some way by the reality.

Mike Holmes wrote: Will this make for less popular games? Maybe. Are we about creating cool games or popular games around here? Leave it to the designer to decide for his game.

I'll go one step further and knock every edition of TALISMAN for being actually pretty dull in play. You essentially have no control over your character. You roll the dice, move your character either clockwise or counterclockwise (there's the control), and you land on the space, where you either encounter a random "thing" (monster/follower/treasure) from the encounter deck, or you do what the space says. Repeat until you pass out...

Hi Mike,

I really appreciate that you are taking this supposition in the fashion offered. A knee-jerk reaction wouldn't have helped me sort anything out. It is probably my fault for using such provocative language (at least in the title), I'm gonna work on not giving that tone.

I hope you don't mind if I split up your post into the three modes it discusses. I might be better able to focus my supposition that way. I struggled with how not to say that one way of game design was better than the others (and failed apparently), but this is what I do mean. If anything, I'm saying that one common (to the point of 'no one ever considers it') way of designing games is inherently problematic in every example I can think of. (And I'm not going back on what I rescinded about The Riddle of Steel - it solves the problems it has, a truly exceptional game.)

Mike Holmes wrote: But what do you lose when you go Narrativist? That's the important thing to discuss. For Narrativism to be "best" that means that there has to nothing in Simulationism or Gamism that is lost in going to Narrativism. But there are things lost. For a player who prefers Gamism, you lose the sense of challenge. As pointed out above, it's no longer a Game. And some people want it to be a game no matter how much you want RPGs to be Toys.

Mike Holmes wrote: For the Simulationist, you lose the sense that you are, yourself, inside the game. That's the thing I refer to recently as Special Simulationist Immersion (SpecSimInt). If you have no feel for that, then you can't appreciate it's loss. But compare it to this. You know that moment in a movie where the director goes over the top with something, breaks continuity, and just does whatever he wants in order to get the plot to go where he needs it to go? Like In Star Trek when they use the Transporters yet again as a Deus Ex Machina at the end of an episode in a way that messes with the continuity of the universe in a way that makes you lose faith in the show? You know that feeling? That's how someone wanting SpecSimInt feels as soon as he realizes that the universe his character is in isn't guided by concrete rules that simulate some sort of existence, but are instead ruled by principles designed to produce drama. It's just not satisfactory.

Mike Holmes wrote: Now Narrativist games do try to recreate the narratives of these genres (hence the name). And that's great. But it's just one way to play. Anything else to be said on the subject is just personal preference, IMO. I find this all odd coming from the guy who was going to solve the "problem" presented with his own ideas on Transition, and claimed to have "discovered" El Dorado. Have you had some sort of epiphany?

Mike Holmes wrote: I don't mean to sound snarky in all this, but consider the tone of your original post, when reading this (and consider how thoughtful the other responses have been despite this). It seems to me a bit disingenuous to me to say, "I'll argue hard, but I'm not really convinced" and then to use such relatively acrimonious language. I mean "schizoid"? "mistake"?

Le Joueur wrote:

deadpanbob wrote: When you are talking about games whose feel during play fails to capture the feel of the Source material - then yes I'd sign on to your contention that a lot of games are psychotic in just the way you describe.

Now this part confuses me. First you rake my supposition over the coals because you propose that 'the illusion' of "tension and risk" from the source material must be replaced by a (not really) real sense of "tension and risk" created by rules that have 'the feeling' of reality. Now you completely restate my point? (More accurately?)

Fang, I think that everyone gets the point that you're making that Realism might not be the best tool for all games. The thing is that this misses the point. If I decide that I want to make a "realistic" James Bond game, have I made a mistake?

I think that you assume that what people want to do is to emulate the genre. But what I think RPGs are about it "being inside" the genre. Not recreating it, but experiencing it for yourself. The sort of "What if?" quality that people are trying to get you to see, but you obstinately ignore. You don't get that with certain kinds of rules designed to tell stories.

Thus if the goal of some designers and gamers is not to emulate the genre chosen, but to provide the feel of being in the genre, are they wrong to want that? Because it's what people have designed for in the past, and what some gamers continue to clamor for.

Mike

Le Joueur wrote: Over all, you've made a very good case for role-playing games to (in some cases) not be based upon an aesthetic source material. I'll have to think about that. I haven't seen any (that I know of) and no one has suggested any examples, so I don't know what's possible this way (if anything). It still doesn't say much about the sense I have that so much focus on 'realistic bias' and true-to-situation resolution is at the detriment to what made that game attractive in the first place, its source material.

Hey Jason,

You've actually found and interesting way to support my supposition, albeit not directly.

cruciel wrote: I think you're right [John] about reality emulation mechanics being often unnecessary included in a Nar game. However, when there are reality emulation elements that are in fact part of the Genre Expectations I would expect them to be included.

...As long as you keep the reality emulation rules to those elements that the source media holds as its definition of reality, I think you're good to go.

John Kim wrote: I would argue that the [James Bond] films do put "feels like reality" as primary.

...So how do you adequately convey the spirit of that cliff-climbing scene?

The James Bond 007 RPG takes a different approach...the main question is not whether Bond will succeed, but how well

For some people, the framework of these rolls gives a partial illusion of reality

Le Joueur wrote: Hey Jason,

You've actually found and interesting way to support my supposition, albeit not directly.

cruciel wrote: I think you're right [John] about reality emulation mechanics being often unnecessary included in a Nar game. However, when there are reality emulation elements that are in fact part of the Genre Expectations I would expect them to be included.

...As long as you keep the reality emulation rules to those elements that the source media holds as its definition of reality, I think you're good to go.

That is very much true; I concur. The problem is can you show me any games where the source media hold realism as central? John brings this point home farther down:

Le Joueur wrote: Hey Marco,


But the point is role-playing games aren't based on life! Their based on many things, but I haven't seen one (well, not any that are popular) based on life. So why stick with rules that are?

Fang Langford

cruciel wrote: I'll bite. What about supplement-less GURPS? The only arguement you can make for source material is a that the book is full of a little from this and a little from that. It's also all 'realistic bias'.

Le Joueur wrote: GURPS is a good example of 'reality based' mechanics furiously undercutting any of the aesthetic packages they sold for it. As a matter of fact, I got an incredible kick playing it back when it was just Man to Man (the combat rules released prior to the publication of the game). It felt like a complete let down when the Supers rules came out; back then I could understand why. Now I do, but I'll be damned if I can put into words.

Damnit, Fang, you're making me agree with Marco. :-)

I like GURPS Supers. It's not a way to tell superhero stories. Never was meant to be, really. It's a way to say, hey, if I was a superhero, this is what would happen.

Is that really so foreign to you that you can't wrap your head around it?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: If I decide that I want to make a "realistic" James Bond game, have I made a mistake?

Le Joueur wrote: I just can't make words say what I mean. It's like trying to say 'emulating the genre can't be done if the genre never has the heroes losing and you apply "realistic" rules.' It just doesn't say what I'm trying to get across. Saying 'going "what if" into the world that the genre is in, isn't honest about what made the genre great, it's just the world' doesn't even come close either.

Mike Holmes wrote: Damnit, Fang, you're making me agree with Marco. :-)

Mike

Le Joueur wrote: GURPS is a good example of 'reality based' mechanics furiously undercutting any of the aesthetic packages they sold for it. As a matter of fact, I got an incredible kick playing it back when it was just Man to Man (the combat rules released prior to the publication of the game). It felt like a complete let down when the Supers rules came out; back then I could understand why. Now I do, but I'll be damned if I can put into words.

Good point, John. This all goes to refute the idea that GURPS is the "do anything" RPG, and that it is only good for when you want a bit of human level "realism". So does it oversell itself as something more? Yes. But for a 1985 design it's not too bad.

But the fact that people still play GURPS despite the fact that this is really obvious once played says that what they're looking for is exactly "realistic" Fantasy. Or whatever genre. If not, people buy the source books and use other systems that cater more to the level of Sim or Nar that they are looking for.

This is just GNS preferences plain and simple, and I can't see why Fang has suddenly gotten all wrapped around the axle with the idea that people want to make something that emulates genres (genre is just the inspiration for the game or the sim). As soon as he admits that's not what all players want, the sooner we can move on.

Mike

Way off topic, but...

As far as examples games other than GURPS that don't emulate a source material...

I'm making one...
Mike's got one...
So does Marco...
Fang sorta does too, for that matter...

If Jack, John, and deadpanbob had one (which they might, I dunno) we'd have a complete set.

Sorry, the weirdness of that...was, well, really weird.

Mike Holmes wrote: Good point, John. This all goes to refute the idea that GURPS is the "do anything" RPG, and that it is only good for when you want a bit of human level "realism". So does it oversell itself as something more? Yes. But for a 1985 design it's not too bad.

But the fact that people still play GURPS despite the fact that this is really obvious once played says that what they're looking for is exactly "realistic" Fantasy. Or whatever genre. If not, people buy the source books and use other systems that cater more to the level of Sim or Nar that they are looking for.

cruciel wrote: As far as examples games other than GURPS that don't emulate a source material...

Fang sorta does too, for that matter...

Le Joueur wrote: I resent that remark. Don't you realize that what I'm trying to do is emulate lotsa sources 'honestly'?

Le Joueur wrote: See? "Realistic Fantasy" doesn't exist in stories, books, movies, or anything other than role-playing games, SCA events, and the like. It has no source material! All you've done is prove the point I'm failing to make!

Best thing I heard all day.

Let that end this thread.

Fang Langford