In this thread...

Ron Edwards wrote:

Currency, IIEE, character creation, resolution (DFK), reward systems, and the comparatively fleeting Stances, are all "spheres" of Techniques.

Can we talk about a given profile, or set of profiles, defined by the Techniques it contains? Yes. Could it be possible that some sets, with very little adjustment among their members, satisfy or work well for more than one GNS mode? Yes. Could it be possible that some sets are limited to very specific pinpoint-spots within a single GNS mode? Yes.

Can you talk about Techniques in practical terms without at least referring to the GNS mode or modes also in play? Probably not.

Bob,

deadpanbob wrote: e.g. Does heavy use of actor stance with low points of contact with system and a complete lack of meta-game thinking (or as close as possible) describe a coherent brand of Simulationist play (all due shorthand filters intended)? Bearing in mind that I said "a coherent brand" and not "THE ONLY coherent brand".

Or does that example above apply equally well to all three modes?

AnyaTheBlue:

Yes - that example isn't terribly controversial - and it does feel like Simulationsit (read - tends to facilitate Simulationist priorities during actual play) to me too. And yes, I agree that it also probably applies at points to the other two modes.

But - it does seem to me to largely associate with Sim play.

And that's the point of this thread. I'm NOT looking at this point for any hardcore analysis and proof. Think of this thread as the beginning stages of a brainstorming exercise where I'm inviting everyone to throw out what they think - specifically to throw out combinations of techniques that tend to associate with or tend to be indicative of a given decision making priority (G, N, or S).

After we've gathered that response, we can begin to evaluate all of the suggestions thrown up.

My goal with this exercise is to leverage the knowledge base of the Forge to get some kind rubrics for what types of system design choices tend to facilitate which of the three priorities in play.

Cheers,


Jason

Jason, have you read the Applied Theory article in the articles section? I think it does offer some insight into how individual techniques can contribute to particular modes, but more importantly how to attempt to identify which techniques support which modes and in what way (as well as when you're looking at the wrong thing--character creation systems, such as point based or random rolled can be designed to support any one of the three modes, but there are important questions about character creation that relate to mode support).

If you haven't read it, that might help; if you have, maybe it's time to try brainstorming ideas that support two modes, and considering how well they do so by the models presented there.

--M. J. Young

M.J. Young:

Thanks for the heads up - and yes I have read your article on Applied Theory. It helped quite a bit - but I would still like to hear what specific sets of techniques tend to support which of the three priorities.

A lot of people here on the Forge agree that, for example, Sorcerer is a coherent game whose systems tend to best facilitate Narrativist prioritization in play. So - the combination of techniques described in Sorcerer might be said to generally be Narrativist supporting.

Maybe that's the way to approach this instead of talking about sets of techniques in the abstract - maybe to begin this discussion we really need to provide a techniques analysis of games that are generally accepted to be supportive of/facilitate one of the three decision making priorities?

So, I've never played Sorcerer - which means my analysis is certainly limited and potentially of little value - but I have studied it extensively from a game designer's perspective. Here's what I see:
-Heavy encouragement of author stance with some secondary support for Director Stance
-High points of system contact
-Stringently balanced game currency
-Metagame support for Premise through Humanity/Kicker/Bangs

That's what I read as being the critical techniques involved in Sorcerer as I read it. Does that seem correct - and does it seem that this set of techniques can be said to most easily/most generally support Narrativist decision making priorities during play?

Cheers,


Jason

deadpanbob wrote: Does heavy use of actor stance with low points of contact with system and a complete lack of meta-game thinking (or as close as possible) describe a coherent brand of Simulationist play (all due shorthand filters intended)? Bearing in mind that I said "a coherent brand" and not "THE ONLY coherent brand".
...
it does feel like Simulationist (read - tends to facilitate Simulationist priorities during actual play) to me too. And yes, I agree that it also probably applies at points to the other two modes.

But - it does seem to me to largely associate with Sim play.

deadpanbob wrote: That's what I read as being the critical techniques involved in Sorcerer as I read it. Does that seem correct - and does it seem that this set of techniques can be said to most easily/most generally support Narrativist decision making priorities during play?

John:

Those are good points. You are correct that the only associations that we can point to right now, probably ever, are personally subjective ones.

However, all of this does have a point. In another thread that's recently cropped up (Clarifying Simulationism if memory serves), Ron Edwards brought up the example of animal classifications (such as Mammal, Reptile, etc). Again, if memory serves, this was used to defend Simulationism as a homogeneous mode of play in the same way that Whales and Humans can both be said to be Mammals. That is - they share the same characteristics.

So - in the abscense of physical bodies to study empherically - I think we are all left to fumble around in the dark to describe the shared characteristics of Simulationist facilitating game design.

However, and even though the Forge membership doesn't represent a valid cross-section of all roleplayers, I think that if a critical mass of Forge members agreed that, for instance, games that tended to support/encourage heavy use of actor stance with low points of contact with system and a complete lack of meta-game thinking (or as close as possible) tended to facilitate Simulationist decision making in play - we could assert that games designed in this manner would, all things being equal, tend to facilitate Simulationist priorities in play.

For combinations of techniques where absolutely no agreement can be found - we'd have to say that those combinations of techniques are not sufficient to make a game design specifically support a given mode in play.

For combinations of techniques where general agreement can be found - we could say that use of such combinations of techniques in a game design are more likely to lead to a G, N, or S facilitating game.

Another possible approach is to get a list of games that a plurality of people would classify as G, N, or S facilitating and try and figure what, if any, combinations of techniques they all seem to have in common. That list then becomes a list of the possible combination of techniques that, when used, would tend to result in game designs more likely to be G, N, or S facilitating. Put another way, if it walks and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

I've tried to go down this path once before here at the Forge - and gotten pretty hard core push back that this was even possible. I thought - given Ron's comments about talking techniques - it might be possible to try and slog through it again...I could easily be wrong about that.

Cheers,


Jason

Does heavy use of actor stance with low points of contact with system and a complete lack of meta-game thinking (or as close as possible) describe a coherent brand of Simulationist play (all due shorthand filters intended)?

I've been letting this rattle in my brain and thinking that I probably didn't have much more to add, but suddenly something came to me as I was reading the new posts, not particularly connected to any one of them.

GNS in game design is not really about techniques or mechanics; it's about focus.

Multiverser provides every bit of support for crunchy combat that D&D does, and maybe then some; but D&D is roundly considered gamist and I've had to admit that Multiverser is simulationist. Why?

In D&D, everything flows into the advancement of the character and the increase in the challenge. The entire game is built around that aspect. Even those who forcibly drift it toward narrativist or simulationist play can't escape this aspect of collecting experience points to improve your ability to collect experience points. That's what the game is about; that's its focus.

Now, in Multiverser, you can advance your character and you can increase the challenge--or not, as you prefer. You can deal with moral issues or leave them alone, as you prefer. It's easily drifted into gamist or narrativist play for those who want to do that, and there are published worlds designed specifically to encourage that side of the game. Yet ultimately the game is about discovery--discovering new worlds to which you've never been before, finding out what you would do in them, exploring what you might become if everything were possible. The focus of the game is really on exploring everything. That does not exclude either challenge or issues; but it doesn't encourage those particularly either. The sheer lack of support for gamist advancement tends to short circuit the gamist spiral; the tendency toward being a stranger in every world you visit undermines efforts to do narrativism beyond certain limits.

It has nothing to do with the resolution mechanics (which can be adjusted significantly by the referee in play), or with character design (which is extremely freeform and could lend itself equally well to any type of play). It has to do with the focus of the game. The focus is on exploring new and different worlds and situations, and it thus at the core is simulationist.

I would wager that you could Iron Game Chef any set of mechanics and procedures you like, and get games from it that fall into all three categories. It's not in the mechanics; it's in how the mechanics aid the focus.

Make sense?

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote:

I would wager that you could Iron Game Chef any set of mechanics and procedures you like, and get games from it that fall into all three categories. It's not in the mechanics; it's in how the mechanics aid the focus.

Make sense?

Hi Jason,

There's your Eureka, right there. It's what I keep talking about in terms of rules/techniques/system facilitating modes, rather than being them. It's why even this thread, well-phrased as it is, fell into the trap of trying to ascertain The Narrativist Game (e.g.) by listing Techniques.

I suggest instead: "If Narrativism, then Premise; if this particular Premise, then which particular play-habits; if these particular play-habits, then which Techniques; if these particular Techniques, then these rules." Or back up the chain if you want to be working with a text.

I also suggest that the primary system feature which should gain central attention in such an analysis is the Reward System. Stance and Narration issues tend to capture people's attention, which is guaranteed to go nowhere.

Best,
Ron

The problem with even these trends, Jason, is that outside of the context of a particular design, one that specifies a focus as MJ would put it, or a Creative Agenda as a whole, I think it's hard to be predictive. I'd posit that Ron's pointing to Reward Systems has to do with the fact that they, more than anything else focus the game.

Mike

Ron:

Thank you for that insight - that helps out a lot.

Ron & Mike:

Thanks also for pointing to the rewards system as potentially the most cirtical component of system focus.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is done, unless someone else has information or a POV that's radically different than those already expressed here.

I still need to do some more thinkning on this issue - but the initial point of this thread has been satisfied for me.

Cheers,


Jason