Alright I read several of the threads that talked about so called incoherant games, and this may be me coming from left field on the topic (as I usually do) however I need some leeway and time so bear with me.


Now having studies communication (uncompleted minor) I was considering games in light of what I know about modes, channels, noise, interferance, and so on and so forth so here is how I get to my take on "incoherance"


[Game] This is a /channel/ of communication


Normally we use this model

Player--- [Game]----Character/World

The idea is that the player communicates via the mode of game with the character/world--this communication is what we call /play/.


Now ordinarily humans don't use a single channel for communication, they use several. They have the primary one verbal/speech, and secondary ones that support and assist as well as provice additional channels on the side--non verbal cues, and tonal inflection in speech.

So this is also a bit of a three channel system


Speaker---Speech--Reciever.

But it also has

--------Tone---------
Speaker -----Speech---------- Reciever
-------NV Cues-------

This is a communication--using the entire mode/channel

Now if any one of those is intefered with destrucitive by noise (not sound--but a term meaning "outside non-relevant stuff" ) then the communication may be flawed.


The same may go to games.


------Gamism------
Player -----Narrativism----- World/Character
------Simulationism

Now many Forge goers want Narrativism to be the primary channel--or some might want it to be the /only/ channel, yet the other two channels can support the primary one.

However if we widen the Channel trying to shove all the "modes" of communication into it we don't screen out the noise but create a sort of jumbled compressed communication--IE so called incoherant games.

Many of these games because of their wide channel--allow different players to communicate using the same basic message, but using very differen channels/parts of the channel. Games break down when a person shifts their primary channel, or insist on using /only one channel/ to communicate.

If we use only one channel we lose a lot of the information that can be coneyed in the others subtly. That is if we only use Narrativism, we create a storyteller---someone telling a story or acting a story out, but we've lost the fact that this is /not/ the same thing as playing an RPG. It has many similarities but it is not the same.

THe same goes for using only gamism--we create a style of play that is all about the game--using only this mode we get peices on a field with numbers to be used/tweaked and manipulated to produce given results--in other words we too are no longer playing an RPG.


Simulationism, runs closely similar if the chennel is the only one used--all is done to simulate, we again find that if only one channel is used we are no longer playing RPG's.


Now don't mistake this---our primary channel can still be one of the three and that be our primary focus as gamers--but using the other channels only for /support/ of the main channel.

Static/Incoherance/noise occurs most greatly when players approach a using different primary channels--while it allows people with different "frames of reference" to play the same game, it also confuses, creates a less ideal experience.

When all players are using the /same/ primary channel we get an ideal game of that type--that retains its status and also allows for controlled communication within that channel.


Part of my problems Iv'e got with the terminology is that I, like many gamers switch channels from time to time, sometimes from decision to decision based on how I feel the play communication is occurring. Sometimes--this leads to serious play problems because if I switch to a channel that isn't supported I find problems---this is to say why incoherance somtimes is popular--because people have created channels for themselves--the game is not the only "mode" of communication for this to occur. It is an important one for many of us (Hence why I like rules-support for genre based actions--pulp games should allow pulp actions and support pulp play)


So basically the [Game] is a framework to communication using a particular mode and channel--ones that are popular tend to widen this so that they /seem/ to address all of them, or at least force people who use them /instinctively/ to fall into that mode. In this case the frame of reference the person is coming from creates the communication channels rather than the game as was intented (or should be).


Now some, confuse additional support channels, with "noise" and try and eliminate them--this why I find some games to be flawed personally because they are eliminating support for a wider variaty of communicators, and artificially trying to force everyone into the same mode/channel completely and to the same degree. While a good game that say is Narrativist, may make use of the Primary channel using the Narrative structure of a game, but is willing to use the supplemental channels to help produce results.



Does this make any sense?


Gah. It sounds coherant to me, but I may be daft. *L*

Marshal McLuhan was wrong: the medium is not the message. However, the message is very much influenced by the medium.

I see what you're saying, Sidhain, but I think that Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism are not the medium; they're the message, or at least the type of message. The game is the medium. Some games are better designed for communicating certain types of messages; and to a degree, the better a game is at communicating one type of message, the more noise it creates for efforts to deliver a message of a different kind. A game that is built specifically to support more than one kind of message is going to have that static present constantly. A game that supports one kind of message that is promoted as supporting a different kind will have that static whenever anyone attempts to use it for its promoted purpose.

You can create a medium that is low noise for all message types; I think it has to be designed such that it doesn't enhance any one message type--installing subwoofers on your stereo will give you great bass, but if you're trying to listen to piccolo solos you're going to have some sixty-cycle hum in the mix even if you've also got some horn and dome tweeters. A system that doesn't have any of those will have less noise overall, but won't deliver those particular messages as strongly.

The game is the channel; the mode is the message type.

That's my take.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: ...I think that Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism are not the medium; they're the message, or at least the type of message. The game is the medium.

I think I mostly agree with MJ, but I also find the analysis fascinating. Can you respond to what MJ has said? I'd like to see if we can come up with a valid communications model for RPGs.

Also, I don't entirely disagree with the analysis of the level of GNS required for optimum play. I don't ascribe to the purism school, myself (and I'm not sure anyone really does).

Mike

Basically I think that language of games is made up of several things

Words/sentence structure= Rules
Information/Message--the /playing/
However the tone we use is how we make use of the communication--that is if I say "What are you doing?" and say it with a smile, your going to take it as a friendly question. But if I say "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" and say it accusation style--your probably going to react like I've accused you of something. This is where GNS comes in from my perspective. You can take games using different rules and flavors--with different GNS "leaning" and strip out game speak and write a novel using that backdrop, and characterizations--now they will tell different stories, but may do so /with the same "words". This is why incoherance "sells" because it allows similar stories to be told from very different people styles of play because they instinctively fill in the gaps. Both MJ and I for example may pick up a game--say Game "X" which is seemingly incoherant. His leaning makes him present adventures/play in one way, while mine does another--both styles have gaps because the game is trying to cover so much as a complete "GNS" structure. Now both of us see some good things in the game, but approach it differently becuase of our different frames of reference--so we both see the good and bad differently, and react to it differently but both see the good as outweighing the bad in "X". (Note: Me and MJ might approach games the same way, don't know but just for an example we don't for sure)

So one game has sorta managed to make two style gamers happy--thus it has sold more.


I think MJ stated part of what I was aiming for, I don't entirely disagree, I was on some allergy meds and kinda out of it when I posted that so I'm not sure I conveyed it as well as I'd have liked. (Although rereading it I mostly see what I was aiming for..*L*)


I do need to examine it more in depth and see if I can come up with more game specific focus of the terms and ideas I have.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Also, I don't entirely disagree with the analysis of the level of GNS required for optimum play. I don't ascribe to the purism school, myself (and I'm not sure anyone really does).

Mike