Second try...the Forge ate the first one as I was posting it.

Over in No More Incoherence, Fang asks a question that has been repeated for a couple months: namely "Why do Incoherent games sells so well?", and posits a solution: that gamers find Incoherence a desirable trait in games, that they WANT to be able to Drift their games.

I question the accuracy of this statement based on a number of observed behaviors among the game groups I have been a part of or have observed from the outside, either through reports on-line, or the groups of various friends.

Games that are considered "broken" and derided, mocked, and hated (as a specific example, there is great enmity for many for D&D of any stripe by GURPs players). Conversely, there are those on the other side of the fence who deride and pick-apart the problems in these other games (such as White Wolf games and GURPS).

The usual claims are that the other game is broken, incomplete, boring/difficult, or unrealistic.

Why am I bringing this up? Because the staggering amount of material out there which shows that games can be altered to suit an individual or group's preference: with all such material being available and obviously producable, all of which fix the "errors" commonly derided in a system by its detractors, why would people continue to deride such easily Driftable systems for those eminently repairable "errors"?

If most or even half of all gamers want to be able to Drift their games, why do at least half of all gamers engage in this behavior?

To me, this doesn't bode well as to the accuracy of the claim about Driftability being a desirable trait.

The other behavior that causes me to question the accuracy of the statement is one I have both observed and been directly involved in, on the recieving end.

I have both heard of and seen groups break up, individuals leave groups, or (more commonly) individuals become morose and agitated when they discover a rule being used in play is actually not the rule stated in the books.

In one case in a campaign I ran during late high school, I had a player quit the game when it was discovered a rule we had been using as canon and were continuing to use was not the rule for the situation presented in the book because, as he told me, the revelation "ruined the game" for him.
He went on to play and continued to play in other groups, but could not get past the fact that the rule we had been using the whole time was in error -- I believe it made all the achievments of the character and the events of the game suspect or inaccurate in some manner for the player.

So, how can such a thing happen -- how can a long established group utilize a rule they believe to be the actual rule as presented in the book which is actually not?

Easily. As has been established, despite the volumes of rules published, gaming and learning to game is mostly passed on through oral tradition. New group members learn to play from older group members. When those new group members go out and establish their own group, or the older members of a current group retire, the rules that have always been used (accurate to the text or not) are considered to be the actual, written rules of the game.

Particularly when established groups are in their second and third generations of players, and there are no older players who remember the rules being used are house rules -- alterations to the actual rules.

In fact, I have been surprised at how often a clearly written rule is forgotten about or used in an altered fashion in actual play, even when players have read the books and attempt to stick as accurately to the written rules as possible. This problem is particularly noticable when a gamer (either established or new) joins a new group with various house rules.

Why is this so? Actual play reinforces the rules of play as the actual rules, rather than the written rules.

All this above also ties into the discussion in Something By Way Of A Counterpoint, in regards to the desire of gamers to have grab bags as opposed to focused designs.

There's a disconnection between my personal experience and the behavior of players/gamers and the statements being made about what gamers really do want according to market/industry numbers in regards to sales and successes.

I think it's more that people look at the game and see something they want rather than "liking the incoherence of the game."

What Feng was really saying, I think, was that all an "Incoherent Game" really needs is 1 page of Transition rules--and that most groups don't even need that.

That fits, more or less, my experience.

I didn't play with all the AD&D rules--but it was a non-issue for us. Even when going to other groups it was a non-issue for us. Just never became a big deal. When I looked at Vampire I was far more interested in the content of the world than the specifics of the system--I decided they'd gotten something that worked *well enough* to give me a good, interesting game--and away I went: again, the coherence or incoherence was a non-issue. I didn't feel I needed to memorize the book before starting play to make sure I got it right.

I don't think most gamers feel that way either.

In a traditional system there's enough there to appeal to the user. It might appeal to different people in different ways, yes--but there's enough there to hook the person--so they buy the game.

And play it.

And, I think, mostly ... enjoy it.

-Marco

Greyorm wrote: why would people continue to deride such easily Driftable systems for those eminently repairable "errors"?

If most or even half of all gamers want to be able to Drift their games, why do at least half of all gamers engage in this behavior?

Damn, that's a good point, Thomas.

It doesn't address the other half of the data presented above, though -- the reaction of gamers to the game when they discover they aren't actually using the rules as written.

Marco, I get what you're saying, but that's exactly what I'm saying, too...or maybe I'm misreading you. You're just in the other half of gamers who don't go around trashing the "poor qualities" of other systems.

However, just because your type of gamer exists doesn't mean the other type doesn't -- and it is because of their existance that I am forced to wonder about the wisdom of Fang's belief that the majority of gamers desire or want Incoherence and Drift.

I think the responses of many to the sudden revelation of Inc. or Drift in their favorite game is telling in this respect, and I think the case has been made elsewhere about the oral tradition causing much of the perception in the first place: that is, since gamers learn through play/example, they tend not to realize that they aren't "playing by the rules."

Yes, it works for them because they find something that works -- but does that mean they desire or are comfortable the Incoherence in the game text?

I don't think one necessarily leads to the other.

greyorm wrote: Damn, that's a good point, Thomas.

It doesn't address the other half of the data presented above, though -- the reaction of gamers to the game when they discover they aren't actually using the rules as written.

That's a good point, Ian, but examine the problem as stated: we aren't talking about players who get ticked off when they discover a rule is being changed after play begins. I can understand that, empathize with it, and agree that is a situation to get ticked off about. It's something I would suggest to any group to avoid, and I can clearly see it has nothing to do with the above disconnect for me between behavior and claim.

Rather, we're talking about players who presume the rules they are currently using are the actual rules, and become distressed (sometimes to the point of quitting the game) when it is revealed (in some fashion) that the rule everyone has been using as "the rule" is not really "the rule."

In the specific case I cite above, the rule we had been using and assuming was the written rule was discovered not to be the written rule, after literally years of using it as such. We decided to keep playing using the rule we always had, but the player was still distressed over the mere fact that we had been playing "wrong."

Even offering to change the rule to the written one was not a viable fix to the situation for this player -- the game was simply "ruined" for the player because of the ongoing mistake we all had unwittingly participated in (including the distressed player).

As you can see, the situation is very different from the one you describe.

greyorm wrote: ...we're talking about players who presume the rules they are currently using are the actual rules, and become distressed (sometimes to the point of quitting the game) when it is revealed (in some fashion) that the rule everyone has been using as "the rule" is not really "the rule."

I don't know if it's that different - but as you actually talked to the guy you probably have a better idea of it than I do.

The way I was thinking of it was this:

Implied Social Contract = we are playing by the book
Reasonable Conclusion From This = any time I want I can go look up X
Actually Going On = using houserules
Reaction = becomes insecure as can no longer go look up X with any certainty

It sounds more like he was having a reaction like "What? We were cheating this whole time?"

That's actually a very good explanation for it. That's exactly how I would describe the reaction in hindsight ("What? We were cheating?"), as well as perhaps the unexpressed reasoning by way of unsurety about all the other rules.

I'm less certain in that latter case for the specific situation I describe because of the manner of reaction -- the idea that the whole game, including previous sessions that had been fine up until that point, was "ruined" for the player, indicating it was more a problem with his suspension of disbelief (after a fashion) -- though I have no doubt that such an insecurity would be the root problem in other situations.

Thank you both for the input! I find I have a number of things to mull about now in regards to my dismissal of the the claim about desirable Inc./Drift.