Not sure if this is the place for it, but the Top 5 RPG's series of articles has begun on Fandomlife.net.

The first one is very interesting - or I thought it was anyway :smile:

There are to be more of these? I thought that it was just an article by Gliechman.

Readers should be aware that Gliechman's unompromising Gamism is the criteria by which he chooses his games, a fact which he spends a good part of the article explaining.

That being said I agree with a couple of his choices (especially number one), and a strictly gamist viewpoint was refreshing. Which means I've been spending too much time around here. :wink:

Mike

It is a series, always intended to be one, I should probably add something about that but that got lost in the move to weekly updates.

At the moment I have two others, I'd probably leave at this, though one may have dropped out - I'm not sure.

I'm not sure Deadlands (being on the list) was "strictly gamist." It's a good article. I agree with him about Hero and CoC.

Also, he's picking them by how well the system works and not what the concept is--is that 'gameist?' I thought gameist was a motivation (and a pure narrativist could like Hero because his characters come out the way he likes them to).

-Marco

This is one of the more interesting things about the series though. Brian has chosen his Top 5 almost excusively on system - or at least that is what he focuses on.

My Top 5 mentions system rarely and it's all about background and premise. Another person (who has not completed yet but he sent me a small sample) has an angle that seems to be linked in with effect on his gaming the game had.

Everyone has a different perspective.


_________________
Ian O'Rourke
www.fandomlife.net
The e-zine of SciFi media, and Fandom Culture.

[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-10-03 14:08 ]

Hmm.. Cool idea for a recurring column.

Brian has stated that he's a Gamist; if you don't believe me, then ask him.

And in the article he pointed out how he rated his games on how their gamist elements (especially maneuver and resource management in combat) were to him the most important things about a game. He discusses the importance of the wargaming heritage and the remaining links, and how good these games are, well, as wargames essentially. Yes, he does stick to the system which is what GNS is all about (System Does Matter).

As I said, it is refreshing to hear such an unabashed proponent of this style of play, and what games he thinks are good for his style.

And, oh yeah Marco, Hero System and CoC rock! But while narrativists may like the open endedness of the Hero System chargen, the majority of the rest of the system is directed towards gamism or simulationism. Very little that actually promotes or facilitates narrativist play. At least most narrativists will tell you this.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-03 15:25 ]

Ok--but I'm still murky: if what I really like is the stories that get told but I don't want to tell them myself as a player (being in the 'Director' stance?) and wish for the system to make things work out 'right' is that gamist?

That is, if I want a game mechanic naturally that conforms to my 'expectation of reality' so I don't want to have to worry about "burning plot points" or other such mechanics to tell the story does that make me a gamist or a narrativist? I'm not sure.

For me that's what Hero was (and GURPS to some extent too): I wanted a system that was detailed enough and flowed the way I wanted it to so that the stories I was playing in, or telling, worked out 'naturally' in the system.

When the system failed (firearms in Hero) we made changes to it (increased lethality). None of this was done to 'win.' In many cases I'd take a 'loss' (the unearthly demon escapes!) that was true to the narrative tone and story arc. But I wanted (badly) a system that was as close to my concept of reality as I could get so that the events in-game worked out as I thought they should. So maybe that's simulationist?

I'm probably missing something basic here. :smile:

Oh, and as for CoC: the game evokes great atmosphere--but it's not so much (IMHO) the system (outside of the basic mechanics of SAN, and the skill list, and the general lethality level). It's the monsters listed, the artwork, the price list and all that stuff.

I think if GURPS had exactly the same book but with GURPS stats (and the added on SAN system) it'd be just as good (same general lethality, same skill list, and SAN-points aren't all that heavy a mechanic).

So maybe: Cover Art and Source Material Does Matter? Really, I do think system is *very* important but it's important in different ways to different people.

Regards,
-Marco

On 2001-10-04 07:26, Marco wrote:
Ok--but I'm still murky: if what I really like is the stories that get told but I don't want to tell them myself as a player (being in the 'Director' stance?) and wish for the system to make things work out 'right' is that gamist?

That is, if I want a game mechanic naturally that conforms to my 'expectation of reality' so I don't want to have to worry about "burning plot points" or other such mechanics to tell the story does that make me a gamist or a narrativist? I'm not sure.

For me that's what Hero was (and GURPS to some extent too): I wanted a system that was detailed enough and flowed the way I wanted it to so that the stories I was playing in, or telling, worked out 'naturally' in the system.

When the system failed (firearms in Hero) we made changes to it (increased lethality). None of this was done to 'win.' In many cases I'd take a 'loss' (the unearthly demon escapes!) that was true to the narrative tone and story arc. But I wanted (badly) a system that was as close to my concept of reality as I could get so that the events in-game worked out as I thought they should. So maybe that's simulationist?

I'm probably missing something basic here. :smile:

Oh, and as for CoC: the game evokes great atmosphere--but it's not so much (IMHO) the system (outside of the basic mechanics of SAN, and the skill list, and the general lethality level). It's the monsters listed, the artwork, the price list and all that stuff.

I think if GURPS had exactly the same book but with GURPS stats (and the added on SAN system) it'd be just as good (same general lethality, same skill list, and SAN-points aren't all that heavy a mechanic).

So maybe: Cover Art and Source Material Does Matter? Really, I do think system is *very* important but it's important in different ways to different people.

and wish for the system to make things work out 'right'

That is, if I want a game mechanic naturally that conforms to my 'expectation of reality'

detailed enough and flowed the way I wanted it to so that the stories I was playing in, or telling, worked out 'naturally' in the system.

So maybe that's simulationist?

Mike,

Wow, one hell of a post :smile: I think what I was hung up on was the concept of story promoting simulation systems being picked as top products by an avowed gameist. Maybe put like that it's easier to see my confusion.

Your point about narrativist systems sacrificnign what I called "Naturalism" for 'story-promotion' was well taken too. It's not that I was 'confused' exactly but that I felt that things were being a bit fuzzy (which they could be since you suggested I might be a simulationist with narrativist leanings).

Btw: when I said 'right' I mean 'right for the story' not 'right for relality.' A "real system" would probably have plunged Luke into the Death Star's chasm in the swinging with Leia scene (this is highly debatable, of course depending on what reality it was simulating). I'd want a system that let him make it without the player having to "author" the scene himself.

Thanks,
-Marco

Btw: when I said 'right' I mean 'right for the story' not 'right for relality.' A "real system" would probably have plunged Luke into the Death Star's chasm in the swinging with Leia scene (this is highly debatable, of course depending on what reality it was simulating). I'd want a system that let him make it without the player having to "author" the scene himself.

This last that you describe is right on the Sim/Narr line. The classic example is Feng Shui. Nitpickers will point out that Feng Shui is is a Simulation of HK action stories. There are a number off games that do this. The mechanics do not so much promote story as try to make the action in the game seem like the sort of stuff that you'd find in that sort of story. Again, any actual story is not the product of the system so much as the GM and players. Lots of people like this mode of play including (unsurprisingly) myself. Pendragon is another good example.

Using your example, a Star Wars system of this nature would probably use the Robin Laws maxim from Feng Shui and state that exciting actions of this nature get a bonus to succeed. Note that you still have to roll, though. A truely narrativist system would probably just have a means for the player to ensure that he was successful, or at least that failures weren;t bad for the plot.

This is similar to the discussion of the "Whiff Syndrome". That is that many narrativist players find simulationist systems distastefull because characters spend a lot of time attacking each other and missing repeatedly. Many narrative systems have methods that avoid that entirely.

This relates to the difference between task resolution and conflict resolution. In a task resolution system you would roll to see whether you got across the chasm and would get some sort of result that would indicate your level of success. In conflict resolution, crossing the chasm would probably be part of a whole "fleeing" conflict, and failures could be interpereted in such a way that doesn't involve character death from a fall, but other negative consequences. Like getting hurt while swinging across. Or annoying Leia instead of impressing her. Or deciding not to jump and getting caught.

This is narrativist because it makes for a better story than if Luke plunges to his death. It is not simulationist because the player's declared action may not occur as declared. In a simulaionist game you say that you are going to jump and you do; the only question is level of success.

Conflict resolution can be decided by the GM. This is the Model that Ron promotes for the use of Sorcerer in general. So, it does not require directorial or even authorial play by the player, while still delivering the story enhancing play that you are looking for. The one place that this might disrupt the SOD of a simulationist is knowing that the GM is usig fiat to determine the exact effects. But if this sort of thing appeals to you, then maybe you are a narrativist with sim leanings instead.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the test is left to a randomized simulation of game reality which may produce results that are not good for the story, or there is some sort of mechanic operating that will keep the result good for the story but which may detract from SOD due to external monkeying. Which do you prefer?

BTW, others would put you firmly in the dramatist classification which actually belongs to another model entirely, but in this case might indicate that you like story above all else, but are not willing to use authorial or directorial power necessarily to get there.

Probably not too important to nail it down perfectly, you might be satisfied by any of these sorts of games.

Mike

Mike,

Interesting thread (to me at least :smile: ).

I prefer games that have room for failure vs. rules for ensuring plot. For me it's a drama thing. I realize that drama can come from other areas (and that conflict resolution can be dramatic too)--but my personal preference leans towards making rolls against a chance of success.

*HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO*
Thinking about Narrativist Game Mechanics (NGM): I wrote JAGS (Just Another Gaming System) to be a simulation for many different genres. For 'realistic' games characters would be more likely to plummet (and probably shouldn't try such risky maneuvers). For more cinematic games characters would be more likely to succeed (part of my mechanic was the bellcurve for the game pretty steep: critical failures are 1:1296 instead of Hero/GURPS's 1:216)

JAGS is a rules-heavy 'simulationist' system with point-based characters. However, I've been toying with adding certain Narrativist mechanics as optional rules.

An example would be "Success Points" which guarantee success on a roll and get alloted based on things like 'being true to your character's theme.'

(I *think* that qualifies as an NGM.)

The idea would be, as described, to take some of the potential bite out of make-or-break die-rolls.

I'm not sure what those rules would be like in terms of dramatic impact for me. It might be cool (maybe players can buy a character enhancement: Gets to Talk His Way Out of Trouble Once Per Session for 12pts).

NOTE: If Luke is going to die and end the game, the GM is taking pretty severe chances with the story. It's much better if, instead of plummeting to his death, he gets captured and has to work his way out. 'Roll or die' is the absolute worst case of simulationism/gameism that I can think of.

*POINT BASED CHARGEN*
One of the great unsung advantages of point-based chargen (and there are many problems with it) is that point-cost systems provide a structure for character conception. I think it was Warren Zevon who said (on being commissioned for a song by, I think, an advertising agency) that he liked to work with parameters and structure because left to his own devices he'd just sit around like a lazy monkey.

Chargen with price-lists and point costs isn't a wonderful way to do make characters but it helps give someone casting about for an idea a way to solidify it.

-Marco
[ If you're interested you can check out JAGS at:
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org/jags/index.jsp ]

Jesse,

Good post, and good insights. I think you're right about me being a genre simulationist--at least it rings true to me. One way to play a gamist/simulationist system (if there can truly be said to be such a thing) is to run adventures where there's no chance of dice-failure.

Our JAGS Adventure: The Belltower has no combat at all (it's pretty bizzare in terms of story but it's an example of a module with 0-chance of a failure based on luck ... there is a bit of combat at the very end but the PC's literally can't lose, and more-or-less know they can't).

Another is the one-shot survival horror adventure: Season of Worms where the players may live or die (the first set of PC's *all* die, almost no matter what--and hopefully have fun doing it) and again there's no room for failure on rolls (there's a tiny chance but it's far more likely a player will gum things up than the dice).

In both adventures the combat is there for dramatic effect.

I agree with you in essence, though. I've had games go south on me due to bad roll. I've had more go bad due to players who either misunderstood something critical or simply *really* didn't share my world-view about what's going on (someone once executed a cleaning girl in a fantasy game because the "maid with a broom" was taken to be a "maiden on a broom--a witch").

You can always employ the narrativist solution of going back and re-rolling the dice (if the group considers this cheating they might well consider other narrativist constructs cheating too).

Finally, my gamist tendencies (I guess) give me a great deal of enjoyment out of playing my way out of bad situations. I and a friend were once run through a *very* unforgiving dungeon. Our characters knew they had no business being in there and had to play super-carefully to survive. It was quite a blast to know that the generally forgiving GM would mercillesly kill us if we screwed up. I wouldn't want to do that all the time-but once in a while, having no safety net was exciting.

Regards,
-Marco
[ both those adventures and more are available on the JAGS site. ]

On 2001-10-04 14:46, Marco wrote:

You can always employ the narrativist solution of going back and re-rolling the dice (if the group considers this cheating they might well consider other narrativist constructs cheating too).

Marco,
Yep, I've read through most of the JAGS stuff, and, yes, simulationist all the way so far. I'd like to comment on The Belltower. Some of what follows is not a nice assessment, so if you don't want to hear my criticisms please stop reading now. But I'm really tring to understand.

The Belltower is not an RPG scenario in my opinion. Or rather I can't see anyone running it or playing it as an RPG. Reading through it, it was an interesting story. But you are right when you say that the players cannot lose the scenario. From what I can see, they cannot have any effect on the direction that the scenario takes. Is this what you mean by ensuring that a story turns out "right"? Have you ever run the scenario? Or more importantly, played it? Are those player cards actually meant to be read verbatim by the players? Why not just make a play of it and put it on stage, and have actors ad lib the dialog that you haven't already included? That is what you have in The Belltower. There are some CoC adventures that are written somewhat like this, but none that I've ever seen which go this far.

This seems very odd to me, and at odds with what you've said elsewhere. There would be no dramatic moments in The Belltower due to die rolling. Very quickly players will realize that they have no power to control the direction that their characters go in, much less the game as a whole, and that any die roll is just for color as they were handed from godlike being to godlike being. The satisfaction that I get from roleplaying (and I'd hazard a guess most others as well) is from being able to contribute to the world at least as far as controling my own character's actions and having those actions have some significance. Even if it is failure, that's better than no significance at all. Even in the most extreme railroading games, most would agree I think that the players should at least have some illusion of ability to add to the game.

I am truly puzzled. Most simulationists these days are working towards mechanics to simulate their genre and make it more "realistic" so that they can appreciate the natural outcome produced. They do this by giving the player an environment in which the decisions he makes will tend to produce appropriate effects or even by limiting the range of the decisions in some cases, but not by making those decisions for them. Similarly, with narrativism, people are working towards giving the players power to create story and letting them loose, not forcing them to make good stories. And there is no challenge; as you said, the players can't lose, so there are no gamist elements to it.

Sorry, I don't get it at all.

Mike Holmes

Hey! You don't need to 'get it.' Firstly, I did run it and the players *loved* it (two other groups have loved it as well). Appearently they liked the story direction, the story telling, etc.

The player-cards are a way of controlling play-flow without the GM saying "You see the new night-club that's opened in town and want to go in." Instead the GM hands them the card (which says "you've kinda been interested in that new club and think it might be fun to go with your friends.") and they look it over and then play in character (or not, a player can certainly ignore the card--but why would they do that?)

A couple of other points:
1. The Belltower has a *WARNING* on it. It warns the reader that it's weird and not to waste time on it if they don't like that sort of thing.

2. It's not a simulationist game. It's the second JAGS module we did (we didn't advertise it anywhere but the site--and with the same warning). It's an interactive story. The pleasure comes from roleplaying your character in a very werid situation.

The PC's (and I play with some gamist-munchkins) got a real kick out of it. Some of it came from digressions that aren't in there (when the PC's were looking for jobs a character with photographic memory tried to get a local bartender to hire himself out as a ringer in a card game). Some of it came from trying to figure out what was going on. Some of it came from enjoying the story.

It doesn't contain any dramatic dice-rolling. That's not the point of the module. It most definitely *is* an RPG adventure (at least three groups have played and enjoyed it). One group just loved making characters with all the special 'slacker' abilities. One guy is writing a sequle to it.

So you might not like it and it might not fit your idea of what JAGS is (or whatever) but the feedback's been more good than bad.

As far as the PC's having no effect on the outcome: I don't know if they do or not. The way it's written they don't, really. The way it played they could have changed a lot of things. IMHO The Belltower is for the right group of players in the right mindset: looking for the experience.

Since it's more or less a story, I'd say that's narrativist with the players more or less observing and playing in character rather than directing.

Hey, I'd like to know what you think of our cool cyberpunk game StarPower!
-Marco

Jesse,

You're right. I knew (should have known) that dice-fudging wasn't narrativism (I meant that the GM was trying to keep the 'plot' on track).

I agree with your assement.
-Marco

Marco,

All assessments of JAGS or the module aside, your references to what Narrativism is are truly hair-raising - even your "corrected" ones.

Dialogue at the Forge is based on at least provisional agreement on definitions, or, if that can't happen, debate about the definitions. Please feel free to contact me by private e-mail, or to begin a GNS thread about basic Narrativism or other definitions, 'cause currently your use of the terms is setting up roadblocks rather than helping us to discuss things.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-10-04 19:54, Marco wrote:

Since it's more or less a story, I'd say that's narrativist with the players more or less observing and playing in character rather than directing.

If nothing else this thread is trumpeting in loud brassy tones the necessity for a complete and useable FAQ, or manifesto, or shoot...at least a damn glossary.