Topic: Resolution in sim games
Started by: Tony Irwin
Started on: 7/1/2003
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 7/1/2003 at 4:05pm, Tony Irwin wrote:
Resolution in sim games
I really enjoyed M J Young's article and have been thinking a lot about how sim games work/could work. I got some great respones in this thread when I was trying to understand how to create narrativist mechanics (still haven't posted the game I was working on yet) and was hoping to learn from you all again.
My question concerns this - previously I would have thought of sim conflict/resolution mechanics in terms of task resolution dice rolls. Now I'm wondering if meta-game resolution mechanics could come into any play in any situation that threatens the player's ability to use the character as a tool for exploration.
For example if an NPC is trying to pick my character's pocket. I would always have assumed that from a sim perspective what is important is the resolving the "reality" of the situation - the training of the thief, my own senses, etc. Now I'm wondering if I could resolve the extent to which it hinders my own exploration of the game. If my character has no money then he's trapped in the same locale and can't travel to other game areas. If my character gets killed then my ability to explore with them has been completely terminated.
Questions:
Is this making sense?!
Has anyone seen any games that take an approach like this?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 5436
On 7/1/2003 at 7:37pm, Tony Irwin wrote:
RE: Resolution in sim games
I'm sorry, I haven't really made any sense at all here have I?
Say I was playing drifted Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. We're going for exploration of setting, which Ron Edwards in this essay describes as
Setting: where the character is, in the broadest sense (including history as well as location).
So I'm giving xps for turning up, regardless of whether the players complete quests or overcome perils, and for getting their characters deeply engaged in the deadly and pesimistic Warhammer world. There's combat, politics, dungeons to explore, mountains to climb, betrayal, fearful and perilous moments, but all because that's what happens in Warhammer and it's fun to experience and be involved in.
The xp I award can be used to buy new skills and new careers each of which open up exciting new avenues of exploration. For example a character can start out a Rat Catcher and next become a Body Guard. This seems a suitable reward system for exploration of setting sim play as M J Young writes in this thread.
M J Young wrote: A character in a new city takes a job as a stablehand. The player puts effort into describing the life and activities of a stablehand, and his character's feelings about this; he controls the character to be a good stablehand. A tally is kept of the time he spends at this activity, with extra credits for doing it well. When a predetermined score is reached, the owner of the stable approaches the character and offers to promote him to work as a groom. This is arguably a simulationist reward system, as the rewards are given for playing appropriately in the context of the setting and lead to new opportunities to explore other aspects of the setting.
As a player in this setting my own concern in any situation is going to be "To what extent will this impede my ability to explore?" and I think I would want a resolution system that lets me prioritise that.
For example, compare a pickpocket stealing my pipe and tobacco, with a pickpocket stealing my travelling papers. The latter has impeded upon my ability as a player to explore the setting. The resolution system would typically prioritise reality (how well trained is the pickpocket determines the number of dice I get) but I want a resolution system that lets me prioritise my need for exploration of setting.
A meta-game currency, a pool of extra dice, would allow me prioritise like this. Obviously they could also be used to prioritise gamist or narrativist choices ("I need my papers to complete the baron's quest" or "I need my papers for the next bit I've got planned") but if extra dice are rewarded for decisions that facilitate exploration of setting (an extra dice for going to a new area/for getting to know a new person/for learning new facts about the world) then that would support sim exploration of setting play more than gamist or narrativist.
In that example my desire for a system that prioritises exploration of setting is overiding my desire for a system that prioritises the physics of that setting. But then the physics can still be given a nod just as they are in narrativist and gamist play. You use the system to make what you want happen, but then you explain it in terms of game-world events.
So anyway that's my idea, a resolution system for sim exploration that moves away from in-game task resolution and instead deals with conflicts that threaten to impede up player exploration.
Is this making sense?
Has it already been done?
When thinking about it, it seems that Wushu (forgive me - I don't own it so please correct me if I'm wrong) is about exploration of colour, and the resolution system lets players prioritise exploration of colour (extra dice for describing cool martial arts feats) but for it to be what I'm talking about, the resolution system would only come into play when the player's ability to explore colour is being impeded.
For example if all the characters fall through a trap door and fall down the same pit, then the player's ability to differentiate themselves through exploring color is being impeded (they're all having to do the same thing) so at that point the system kicks in to resolve the situation with respect to seeing whether players can color their character actions differently.
Or if the Emperor hands out 5 identical magic swords among the PCs, this impedes upon the player's ability to use their character to explore color. So a resolution system kicks in to allow them to decide the extent to which they can affect this situation (eg I roll a 6, cool, I say my sword is green and made of Jade)
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 4075
On 7/1/2003 at 10:23pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Resolution in sim games
First, I'm pleased that my article has been helpful to someone already.
I think I follow what you're saying. Using your pickpocket example, the character encounters a pickpocket who attempts to take something from him. The pickpocket rolls. He might take nothing. A better roll and he takes something of little consequence, such as a pipe, pocketknife, or photographs. As we move up the scale, the character might lose (dependent a bit on setting) hotel key, traveler's checks, car keys, money, passport--each of which means more difficulties in exploring the setting, because the character's movements are impeded by the event.
I don't know any system that does this, but I think it's worth pursuing. In Multiverser, we'd handle it by having the pickpocket roll a skill success, and if successful use either relative success or a general effects roll to work out what he took--but that's not getting at it directly, and I like your thoughts. I hope you can do something with it.
--M. J. Young
On 7/2/2003 at 12:36am, Tony Irwin wrote:
RE: Resolution in sim games
M. J. Young wrote: I think I follow what you're saying. Using your pickpocket example, the character encounters a pickpocket who attempts to take something from him. The pickpocket rolls. He might take nothing. A better roll and he takes something of little consequence, such as a pipe, pocketknife, or photographs. As we move up the scale, the character might lose (dependent a bit on setting) hotel key, traveler's checks, car keys, money, passport--each of which means more difficulties in exploring the setting, because the character's movements are impeded by the event.
Yeah exactly - my understanding is that while waiting for the system to resolve the situation with the pickpocket, a narrativist would be thinking "What are the implications for Story Now, how can I use system to influence the outcome for a better story?" and the Gamist would be thinking "What are the implications for Step on Up, how can I use system to influence the outcome so I don't look like an ass?" If meta-game currency is available then the players will use it to affect the outcome appropriately.
My thought is that a simulationist would be thinking "What are the implications for my Right To Dream?" Most systems I've seen have mechanics that assume the simulationist will then say "How will system give an outcome that will preserve the internal consistency and apparant reality of that Dream?", but actually I think that I as a simulationist really want to ask "How can I use system to further my exploration of that Dream?". If the system gives a consistent and realistic resolution that accidentally means screwing my ability to explore (like the pickpocket takes my keys/passport/mobile with NPC contact numbers) then I'm miffed, the system is failing me. Like the Narrativist and Gamist, I want a meta-currency too, but I'll use it to effect an outcome that allows me to keep exploring the dream.
This game is my attempt at a sim game where the resolution system is about continuing exploration of the dream, rather than demonstrating the reality of the dream (I think). My intention was that when the player's ability to explore setting is threatened (represented by any circumstance that complicates the PCs relationship with their NPC guide in a city), the player can roll to preserve and re-establish that ability.
So the internal consistency and reality of The Dream is only as important as it is in Narrativist and Gamist play - where its a shared imaginative space for thematic material or contests and has to bend to those priorities. Except in this case the players' right and ability to explore are the priorities which the consistency and reality of The Dream must work around. (I hope)
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 7038
On 7/2/2003 at 2:26am, jdagna wrote:
RE: Resolution in sim games
Tony, isn't an impediment to one venue of exploration just an invitation to another venue?
If the pickpocket steals your travelling papers, you have
1) Become aware of the presence of thievery in the setting (a bit of exploration in itself)
2) Gained an opportunity to explore the difficulties inherent in governments that require travelling papers
3) Gained an opportunity to explore characters and policies in the government that you'd have ignored otherwise
4) Not lost the chance to explore elsewhere, just delayed it
I do understand your general point, so don't feel like I'm merely attacking the pick pocket example - in fact, I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you. I think any case where one form of exploration is limited offers new areas of exploration. Even PC death offers this - in dying, you've explored setting/system regarding to PC death and now must come up with a new character, who is a venue to explore in himself. Being arrested lets you explore prison life.
The only issue is whether the player wants to explore these new venues. If he really wants to kill dragons, he's going to be annoyed by three adventures spent re-acquiring stolen papers. If he still wants to explore aspects of his character, an untimely death could be unfortunate.
I'll have to read through your game when I have time (which, unfortuantely, might be a while), but I'm curious how you feel about my suggestion that nothing in sim play really restricts exploration, it just changes it.
PS: This is an issue I've always solved at the social contract level. For example, I've always felt that dungeon traps add nothing to sim play and therefore never use them. I'm intrigued by the idea of a mechanic for it.
On 7/2/2003 at 6:48am, RobMuadib wrote:
Damn
Tony
Hey, lost the longer post I had made in regards to this subject. So really quickly. The idea of meta-game control of Sim play was discussed in the Is S out of balance with G/N thread. Basically concluding on two types of metagame control/authorial weight in regards to exploration of setting. First is the method employed in my own The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle. Where all players are given ability to focus the exploration of setting, as represented by the exploration of system present in the elements designed, by being empowered to cooperatively design that setting through meta-game means, so exploration through creation and directorial power. The other method is the idea of being empowered to have spotlight time for your character to engage in the exploration of setting elements you find compellign from character point of view, here through a meta-game screen-time point, allowing you to explore or focus on elements of interest in game, with the GM or other player channeling for your sim exploration enjoyment.
I see this vying of explorational elements as caught in the power distribution of normal RPG as regards to the setting. Pure exploration of setting through character means relies on a GM channeling the world for you. The reason it runs into power distribution concerns is that the game is shared, and what you may find interesting may seem terribly boring to the other players whoa re forced to twiddle thier thumbs while you consider the construction of grovignian wine barrels in the southern region. This ties into the problem of spotlight time, and the general thrust of play.
As for games that address these concepts. (There are no games that I am aware of that address the idea of "flat, character-up" exploration meta-game elements, and certainly none that reduce the exploration of setting, as channeled through detailed systems to a subordinate or secondary role to a conflict based resolution system driven by meta-game exploration of setting concerns among players, as your city sim game does.)
Games that cover similar concepts include the older Aria: Canticle Of The Monomyth. Which focused on front-loaded collaborative world design by the players, followed by detailed exploration of setting channeled through GM. It lacked any explicit "flat, character-up" meta-game mechanisms. Though it's detailed character creation, which was very heavily setting based addressed the idea of meta-game setting exploration by the use of Windows of Opportunity, allowing a character being developed to change his vocatonial settings, and gain different skills and experiences.
Ars magica had alot of collaborative/meta-game setting exploration elements, through their troupe play, the idea of covenant, and stuff such as wizard lab study and such. Though the actual in game play was standard GM-led participationist fare. Traveller has had bits and pieces of such things in it's character design/life path system (which was notorious since your character could die while designing him, or gain "Windows of opportunity" to gain new abilities and such, as well as the GM reserved creationist elements of planet/creature/vehicle design and such.
A game that focuses on the idea of collaborative RP in general is Ian Millington's Ergo, which can be found on his site at http://www.collaborativeroleplay.org, along with his game Wraiths, which posists an interesting concept on "competive" setting exploration.
Anyway, hope that provides you with some fodder to consider Sim meta-game concerns and play. and approaches to it. As I see it your game uses both types of meta-game "rewards" in this case, as intrinsic play process not sub-ordinated to exploration of system. First, by having players create tenets, creationist meta-game exploration of setting, and then by giving players meta-game means to address their in-play character actions. What is most innovative in this idea is the idea of reducing system to a sub-ordinate role to the meta-game exploration of setting concerns of the players. NO game that I am aware does that. (Probably due to the traditional sim design paradigm.)
Best
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 4164
On 7/2/2003 at 8:43am, Tony Irwin wrote:
RE: Resolution in sim games
jdagna wrote: Tony, isn't an impediment to one venue of exploration just an invitation to another venue?
If the pickpocket steals your travelling papers, you have
1) Become aware of the presence of thievery in the setting (a bit of exploration in itself)
2) Gained an opportunity to explore the difficulties inherent in governments that require travelling papers
3) Gained an opportunity to explore characters and policies in the government that you'd have ignored otherwise
4) Not lost the chance to explore elsewhere, just delayed it
Yeah that's a really good point - but then I think that could apply to the other modes as well,
If I want my character to hold onto the Maltese Falcon for Story Now purposes, but the pickpocket takes it, then I'm upset even though this has
1) Introduced new thematic material (Theft/Restoration/Revenge).
2) Introduced an exciting dramatic turn around in the story.
3) Demonstrated that the doings and existence of my character are central to the game and that NPCs are interacting with and responding to my character.
4) I've not lost the chance to develop my initial story intentions, just delayed/complicated it.
Same could be true for Gamist, I could be legitimately upset with getting my Holy Avenger nicked even though it
1) Provides an new obstacle with new Step on Up opportunities.
2) Presents a very suitable goal for me to use my character to pursue.
3) Means I've not failed at my previous goals, just delayed them.
So yeah I agree with what you're saying (and really like the way you've put it) that no system outcomes could really restrict my ability to operate in that mode, just change the way I'm doing it (maybe change the "avenue" is how I should put it) But as a player I want to reserve the right not just to explore in my chosen mode, but also to explore down my chosen avenue.
So for Narrativist, the player says "Screw this, I need the falcon for my big confrontation scene. I'll spend a plot point (or something) to cancel the pickpocket." because although he's committed to Narrativist play, the system is threatening to take him down a different narrativist avenue from the one he wants.
For Gamist, the player says "I'll spend a void point to boost an attribute check to try and spot this guy before he picks my pocket. I'm on my way to the Big Bad and don't have time with this" because although he's committed to Gamist play, the system is threatening to take him down a different gamist avenue from the one he wants.
So for Sim, I feel I should be able to say "I'll do xyz, because this could otherwise force me down avenues of exploration I'm not interested in right now."
My first thought was a meta-currency but now I've been thinking about other ways games do this -
Narrativist
Sorceror has players write their own kickers. Story Now could still be achieved by the GM figuring out how the game and character are kicked into play, but the Sorceror system preserves the player's right to say "this is the narrativist avenue I want to go down."
Trollbabe - players can request scenes. This lets players say, "of all the narrativist choices I could making in this game, I want to be making these ones."
Gamist
Donjon players can create their own encounters - gives players the right to say "this is the Step on Up situation I want right now".
Simulation
Not sure about this - I guess character creation is usually the point where you specify what you want to explore. Non-gamist character hooks are the player's way of saying "this is want I want to dream about today".
I do understand your general point, so don't feel like I'm merely attacking the pick pocket example - in fact, I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you. I think any case where one form of exploration is limited offers new areas of exploration. Even PC death offers this - in dying, you've explored setting/system regarding to PC death and now must come up with a new character, who is a venue to explore in himself. Being arrested lets you explore prison life.
The only issue is whether the player wants to explore these new venues. If he really wants to kill dragons, he's going to be annoyed by three adventures spent re-acquiring stolen papers. If he still wants to explore aspects of his character, an untimely death could be unfortunate.
I'll have to read through your game when I have time (which, unfortuantely, might be a while), but I'm curious how you feel about my suggestion that nothing in sim play really restricts exploration, it just changes it.
PS: This is an issue I've always solved at the social contract level. For example, I've always felt that dungeon traps add nothing to sim play and therefore never use them. I'm intrigued by the idea of a mechanic for it.
Yeah as you say this is something that could just be solved at the social contract level - "Can we just forget that happened", or "Wouldn't it be cool if...", I wonder if that's also a cause for fudging dice results... the dice are offering a legitimate sim/narrativist/gamist resolution but would confine the players to sim/narrativist/gamist avenues that the players clearly don't want to explore, so the gm fudges it.
Anyway thanks for your replies, everything you said makes a lot of sense to me and helped me clarify in my own head what I'm thinking about.
On 7/2/2003 at 11:28am, Tony Irwin wrote:
Re: Damn
Thanks Rob this helped, thanks also for the linked thread.
RobMuadib wrote: Tony
Hey, lost the longer post I had made in regards to this subject. So really quickly. The idea of meta-game control of Sim play was discussed in the Is S out of balance with G/N thread. Basically concluding on two types of metagame control/authorial weight in regards to exploration of setting. First is the method employed in my own The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle. Where all players are given ability to focus the exploration of setting, as represented by the exploration of system present in the elements designed, by being empowered to cooperatively design that setting through meta-game means, so exploration through creation and directorial power. The other method is the idea of being empowered to have spotlight time for your character to engage in the exploration of setting elements you find compellign from character point of view, here through a meta-game screen-time point, allowing you to explore or focus on elements of interest in game, with the GM or other player channeling for your sim exploration enjoyment.
You used some phrases that caught my attention here - "Where all players are given ability to focus the exploration of setting," and "so exploration through creation and directorial power."
Do you think that creation (where its an act of consciously meta-game building of concepts for placement in the game world) represents focusing exploration or that exploration is taking place as you create?
eg Universalis, TMW emphasis player creation. Does this focus the players for coming exploration, or is that actually an act of exploration in itself? Paladin (coming up with a code of laws) also has player creation but which is linked to exploration of a narrativist theme. In fact character creation in D&D3E is linked to exploration of gamist goals. Do you think the act of creation is exploration, or focuses everyone on exploration to come?
I see this vying of explorational elements as caught in the power distribution of normal RPG as regards to the setting. Pure exploration of setting through character means relies on a GM channeling the world for you. The reason it runs into power distribution concerns is that the game is shared, and what you may find interesting may seem terribly boring to the other players whoa re forced to twiddle thier thumbs while you consider the construction of grovignian wine barrels in the southern region. This ties into the problem of spotlight time, and the general thrust of play.
I like the phrase "vying of explorational elements" and I think it might sum up what I'm after - a system that will identify and resolve this vying.
In the pickpocket example if he takes my wallet and passport then its my ability to explore that is at stake - so as a Sim player my desire to explore the setting is vying with the setting itself (and the crooks that inhabit it). I want a resolution system that allows me to resolve that crucial issue rather than how well the pickpocket is trained or anything like that.
Anyway, hope that provides you with some fodder to consider Sim meta-game concerns and play. and approaches to it. As I see it your game uses both types of meta-game "rewards" in this case, as intrinsic play process not sub-ordinated to exploration of system. First, by having players create tenets, creationist meta-game exploration of setting, and then by giving players meta-game means to address their in-play character actions. What is most innovative in this idea is the idea of reducing system to a sub-ordinate role to the meta-game exploration of setting concerns of the players. NO game that I am aware does that. (Probably due to the traditional sim design paradigm.)
Thanks I really appreciated and benefited from everything you wrote here. On reflection I think that the act of creating civilisation tenets in Exploring the City, is more the players exploring (or focusing for exploration of) colour rather than setting. The players are presented by the GM with a list of behaviours and then each player colours them according to the civillisation they've created. So when situation arises it's the differences in little cultural details and responses that are getting explored. (or is that actually exploration of setting?) The way I understand it, exploration of setting is happening the minute the PCs make contact with the guide and start following her about. Please do correct me though - still struggling with lots of this.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 4164
On 7/5/2003 at 7:03am, RobMuadib wrote:
RE: Re: Damn
Tony Irwin wrote: Thanks Rob this helped, thanks also for the linked thread.
You used some phrases that caught my attention here - "Where all players are given ability to focus the exploration of setting," and "so exploration through creation and directorial power."
Do you think that creation (where its an act of consciously meta-game building of concepts for placement in the game world) represents focusing exploration or that exploration is taking place as you create?
I would say it depends on the system Somewhat. Universalis would be more towards focusing exploration I say, since it lacks detailed creation mechanics. I See TMW as being both. Since the game will feature a detailed Design Architecture, by creating Game entities for the system
you are doing Exploration of System. Traveller featured this kind of thing for it's GM's in all sorts of things, it's planetary creation rules, animal creation, etc. It is akin to Character Creation, particularly in systems
with lifepath systems. It was an explorational element all it's own. Traveller's Lifepath had this element as you considered his advancement through his career, heck your character could even die inthe process. That is certainly some exploration in and of itself. Aria:Canticle Of The Monomyth's character creation was massively Exploratory as it was so steeped in cultural elements. Alot of things in Ars Magica I considered exploration of system, and in many ways situation/setting. Like the lab work rules, where players could play at researching spells and such during a season. Exploring the system and the idea of what it is like to be a wizard in this world.
I do consider tinkering with mechanical systems to create game entities/elements exploration. You are explorating the imaginative space of the game as represtned through it's system. Creating weapons, vehicles, and similar crunchy bits lets you explore elements of the setting. Which you can then share witht he other players when it is introduced into a narrative or whatever. I consider such "solo play" exploration because of it's imaginative content, and it is confirmed as exploration once the designed elements are introduced into the narrative, allowing the other players to explore soley in game by the creator or whoever channeling it for them.
Part of TMW & lots of Universalis is focusing exploration by setting boundaries and defining the imaginative space, by setting Tenets or my Production Scripts equivalent. So I guess anytime you are working with some kind of design or creation system, you are doing exploration of system, and for detailed character creations you also achieve exploration of setting as reflected in the creation system and such. Again, I am of the opinion (and have had it advanced by others) that such play is legitimate exploration, and is appealing to players, doubly so once you get to share with other players within a narrative.
So, to summarize, I consider creation to be exploration, usually evidenced as exploration of system, which usually reflects elements of situation/setting/character.
As for directing exploration, I consider creating Tenets/Production Scripts directing exploration, as the shared imaginative space of the game is being set and described. Also in TMW, the players have the power to introduce game Entities and situations into the narrative, which is certainly directing exploration, leading into exploration of setting/situation as evidenced by system.
For instance, a player could have designed the Imperial black guard earlier using the design Architecture. During the game, he could spend Nomenar on a Casting Script to introduce the Imperial Black Guard into the Narrative, under his control if he should like. Which could lead to all sorts of fun, the players could behold the awesome presence of the legendary black guard etc, learning of their history and reputation within the kingdom. Or they might end up facing their martial prowess. Leading to lots of wicked fun exploration, by letting a player's particular favorite "action figure" get used in the game, etc. (The idea of my system as a system to design neat toys(with detailed accessories and kung fu grips!) that you get to see in action through the narrative is part of my particular creative vision for the game. )
Tony Irwin wrote:
I like the phrase "vying of explorational elements" and I think it might sum up what I'm after - a system that will identify and resolve this vying.
In the pickpocket example if he takes my wallet and passport then its my ability to explore that is at stake - so as a Sim player my desire to explore the setting is vying with the setting itself (and the crooks that inhabit it). I want a resolution system that allows me to resolve that crucial issue rather than how well the pickpocket is trained or anything like that.
Hmm. You could do it like a Narration Rights system like the pool. But
I think the approach you are looking at is someway to quantify Authority/Power between players in regards to particular Game Entities. Perhaps you could develop some sort of Meta-currency like Universalis or TMW uses to track that Authority/Power. With detailed rules regarding
Proprietorship of game Entites. Such that another player can only impose a game effect on an Entity if you agree to it, or a Veto. So if one player wants to introduce a Thief character with the intent of stealing your wallet/Passport. You'd have to agree to that, i.e. no Fiat/effects without consent of Proprietor. Now, you'd probably want some sort of baseline Resolution mechanics to handle in-game actions based on character's actual abilities, this could be a simple Narration Rights system, or a detailed sim style resolution system. (In TMW, it is a detailed realistic resolution system.)
Basically, you'd be providing a system so that your character can go left or right at a corner, and an enforcement means to make sure that someone channels for you, and it won't be a suprise you don't want.
Of course what makes this interesting as it is heavily based on character-up in-game reality assertion. Essentially the players have to right to enforce "The Myth Of The Real" such that different choices will open and close different paths, and you won't be forced into any conflicts when you should be able to avoid them. No railroads, no rising action, unless the player commits to it. (Obviously, allowing for collaborative playing in this regard really helps to avoid dead action and stuff, such that if one players idea hinged on "turning left" another player can channel for you if you "turn right" or something similar.)
Is an interesting idea.
Tony Irwin wrote:
Thanks I really appreciated and benefited from everything you wrote here. On reflection I think that the act of creating civilisation tenets in Exploring the City, is more the players exploring (or focusing for exploration of) colour rather than setting. The players are presented by the GM with a list of behaviours and then each player colours them according to the civillisation they've created. So when situation arises it's the differences in little cultural details and responses that are getting explored. (or is that actually exploration of setting?) The way I understand it, exploration of setting is happening the minute the PCs make contact with the guide and start following her about. Please do correct me though - still struggling with lots of this.
Well I'm am kind of lax and under-rigorous in my usage of GNS terms. But since they have an important effect on the way the character behaves in the game, they would seem to be exploration of Situation (How would a character of the northlands react(Character as reflected by Culture) to this in the city(Setting)).
HTH
On 7/7/2003 at 4:11pm, Tony Irwin wrote:
RE: Re: Damn
Rob wrote: Hmm. You could do it like a Narration Rights system like the pool. But I think the approach you are looking at is someway to quantify Authority/Power between players in regards to particular Game Entities. Perhaps you could develop some sort of Meta-currency like Universalis or TMW uses to track that Authority/Power. With detailed rules regarding Proprietorship of game Entites. Such that another player can only impose a game effect on an Entity if you agree to it, or a Veto. So if one player wants to introduce a Thief character with the intent of stealing your wallet/Passport. You'd have to agree to that, i.e. no Fiat/effects without consent of Proprietor.
Well I think I'd be happy just seeing the usual sim split - GM controls the world, players control their characters within it. Something like The Pool really interests me - players use the system to get narration rights, but its in order to pursue a sim agenda (meaning a desire to explore rather than a desire for a "reality").
I've been interested by something I've seen Valamir write a couple of times - just reminding people that everything in the game world is imaginary. You can't think about "what would my character do" because your character is just an imaginary construct, it will do whatever you want it to do.
That's obvious in gamist and narrativist play - I have an agenda and I'll use the character to pursue that agenda. I'm just thinking now that as a Sim player my agenda is exploration and that's just as meta-game as the N or G players. So a pool-like system that gives players narration rights could work for me as a sim player, because I'll be using it to ensure I can keep using my character as a tool for exploration. I think one of the interesting ideas here is that, just like N and G play, the entire gameworld/imaginary space, will be bent out of shape and squished and squashed whenever it's necessary to get it to fit my agenda of exploration. The imaginary space must serve my Sim agenda, not the otherway round.
If... I was to look at exploration as seeking the answer to a question, then Narrativist exploration seeks the answer to a real life (meta-game) question, "What is honour?", but looks for the answer in the shared imaginary space. Gamist exploration seeks an answer to the meta-game question, "Am I as good as these guys?", but looks for the answer in the shared imaginary space. Sim exploration has questions that directly address the actual imaginary space "What is it like to be a samurai in a feudal Japan where magic is real?", and the answers are also found within that imaginary space.
So if that's a given (and I think I've twisted "exploration" to my own ends here), then I'm wondering if system should be more concerned with ensuring that the Sim player will actually be able to find the answers to their question (just as good narrativist and gamist systems are)
I can see three frustrations for me, the Sim player:
i) There is no answer to that question in that shared imagined space
Asking "What's life like as a samurai with conflicting loyalties?" when we're playing in a world without samurai.
ii) The character is an incapable tool for pursuing the answer.
Asking "What's life like as a samurai with conflicting loyalties?" when your character is not in the samurai caste.
iii) The character is an unsuitable tool for pursuing the answer meaning that attempts to do so could render the character incapable of pursuing it.
Asking "What's life like as a samurai with conflicting loyalties?" when your character is a crap samurai and likely to die in the first session.
So in order to support my Sim agenda the system will need to
i) Ensure that there are answers to my questions.
ii) Ensure my charater is a capable tool for pursuing answers.
iii) Ensure my character is a suitable tool for pursuing answers.
What's interesting to me is that all of these are usually dealt with before play begins, during character creation, or even at the point of deciding what we're going to play tonight. I guess void/fate/luck points address iii) ensuring that the character is a suitable tool for pursuing answers once play has actually begun: at points where it seems that the act of using a character for exploration could render that very character incapable of exploration, the player can overide the circumstances using a meta-game currency. Thing is though, "emergency points" like that usually focus just on momentarily increasing character effectiveness in a situation. So if you "guessed wrong" about how to do iii) at the beginning then you can always burn a luck point.
Anyway I suppose what I'm interested in is to what extent the system can support me as a Sim player during play, rather than just before play begins. Also how beneficial it is to have clarity about i), ii) and iii) with the other players. In successful narrativist play we all talk to each other to figure out where we want to go, in fun gamist play we ensure everyone is on the same boat about the stakes, but in Sim play I build my character and then just hope that when the GM looks at my character sheet she'll figure out what I'm hoping to explore. In fact I've only got a very half-assed idea myself of what I'm hoping to explore that I might not even be able to verbalise coherently. A possible result is arguments about who's "playing it right", what this setting is supposed to "be about", and references to game-fiction and art in an effort to prove what we think is self-apparant in the rule book.
So anyway, I'm going to keep rewriting Exploring the City, in an effort to find new ways of doing i), ii), and iii)
Standard questions -
Is this making sense?
Am I grasping the vocabulary (particularly my use of exploration)?
Tony