The Forge Archives

Hi.  This may be a "duh" to a lot of people, but it struck me very hard, and as something which isn't necessarily talked about a lot in these parts, or talked about very in-depth, namely the relationship between a game's system text and creative agenda.

Jargon Alert
If you do not know what these words mean in Forge dialogue, look them up before reading this:
1) Creative Agenda
2) System, in the context of the lumpley Principle (of course, I'm not too sure about what this means myself, really...)
3) Shared Imagined Space
4) Exploration
5) Incoherence (in particular, at the play level, rather than the textual level)
6) Congruency
7) Drift
8) I also use the term "Narrativist," but all you really need to know for the point of this is that it is a particular type of creative agenda.  (Also, at the end, Gamist and Simulationist.  Same deal.)  If you want to read the examples and understand them in relationship to the game text that I'm citing then, yeah, you'll have to have a grasp on these, too, but if you just skip the examples section it won't matter.

So I've been having some private correspondence with Marco, recently, and the whole thing has spun off in my head into a thought about how systems interact with creative agenda, and the whole old bag about "GNS classifications of systems do not mean that you can only use the system for that, it just means that it best supports that mode of play blah blah blah."

And, separately, I think there a lot of confusion about mixed-mode game designs (like Riddle of Steel) and how those relate to all sorts of actual, rubber-hit-the-road play, particularly in regard to congruence.  Like, people think that mixed-mode games actually support congruence, by definition.

I think that's all shit.  By which I mean I think its more complicated than that, and I want people to shut the hell about about how "X is a Narrativist game" and start really talking about what is going on in the rules.

So lets start from zero.

You have a social group.  You want to play a game.  You have a system, which is coming from a combination of tradition, creativity, and rules text (but lets just think about rules text for right now, thanks).  And you have a creative agenda -- what you are trying to accomplish with the game.  I'd like to hold out that, if you want congruency in your game, it gets there right here right now, and that the system needs to support the congruency, rather than the two CAs separately.  There is no "separate" at the CA level in actual play.

(As a side note, there's a really fascinating conversation about "what is system?" here.  http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12001&highlight=">Another thread.)

So here you are, playing your game, interacting with your shared imagined space, doing your whole exploration shindig and, of course, kicking up the creative agenda.  Are you all still with me here?

Now, the System is going to relate to the creative agenda in one of three different ways.

1) It's going to help you kick it into gear.  When you're doing the creative agenda thing right, the system is going to be with you every step of the way, and if you get off track, the system'll all be like "get back on track, bitch.  And make me a sandwich."  At the most extreme, it is going to require the creative agenda to exist, like in MLWM, which pretty much grabs your ears and makes you play Narrativist.  Note that this is range, not a binary, and possible even a multi-dimensional range (from "prevents getting lost" to "if play is going well, makes it better," which are really two different things.)

2) It's going to suck for your creative agenda.  When you try to do creative agenda stuff, the system is going to come by and kick your ass and make you go crying home to mama.  With this sort of combination, your play is either going to lead to drift or frustration and, in all honesty, probably an awful lot of both.  This is also a range, not a binary.  Some things can trip you up a little bit, but you get over them.  Some things will stop your play dead.

3) The system will be totally orthogonal to your creative agenda.  That means, its not hurting, but it sure as hell ain't helping either.  With this sort of system, you can play your creative agenda without really any problems, but its a lot easier to get off track and its a lot easier to get game-play-level incoherence.  That said, if you have a strong social contract and are firmly on the same page about creative agenda, you can still have a run of it which is as powerful and satisfying as a type 1 game. (And the game text can help here, except that a lot of players are used to ignoring it.)

So Marco (sorry, man, you're my example) talks about having a really fun Narrativist gaming experience with GURPS Vampire.  "But," he says (not a direct quote), "GURPS isn't a Narrativist system, and we had plenty good Narrativist play. So GNS theory is wrong about the whole system thing."  I agree with the first statement (as in, I believe him) but not really with the second.  Because, see, I think that GURPS is probably in category (3) with regard to Narrativist play, and the fact that the book contains some pretty strong textual support material probably helped them get on the same page, even.  In other words, GURPS doesn't have any powerful Narrativist engines, but it doesn't have anything which, in practice, strongly trips up Narrativist play.  So Marco can play a Narrativist game with it, no problem.  No sweat.  Easy-cheesy.  Perhaps the Narrativism is less direct and down-the-throat as, say, Sorcerer, but its all Narrativism.

So I think that classifying game systems needs to be a little bit more complex.  Particular, in regard to each CA (or each congruence), the game system either supports it, denies it, or does neither.  I would say, for instance, the GURPS is slightly Gamist supporting (like all point-build systems), a zero with respect to Narrativism, and who-knows-what-the-fuck with regard to Simulationism.  (I barely know what that word means.)

Whereas RIddle of Steel might be classified strongly Gamist supporting, softly Narrativist supporting, slighty-more-strongly Nar/Game congruent supporting, not-well-supporting of straight Sim, but reasonably well supporting of Sim/Game congruence with minor drift (de-emphasizing the SAs.)

Note how this is so much better (by which I mean more accurate, more precise, and less prone to misunderstanding) than saying "Riddle of Steel is Gamist."  Riddle of Steel isn't Gamist.  It's... complicated.  The nature of the text varies strongly depending on what Creative Agenda you approach it with.  Note also, that Riddle of Steel supports three separate creative agendas (two of them congruencies), but it doesn't necessarily support all combinations of those agendas.  Each combination is its own thing.

Note also, that a game text can still be incoherent.  I still think that Storyteller Vampire, for instance, is an incoherent game, because it preaches Nar in the game text, but its mechanics kill Nar pretty much dead and, whatever is left struggling for life, the supplements finish off (the supplements support Gamist or Simulationist play, but not both at once, and don't support Nar play at all.  Ugh.  I hate the supplements.)

It occurs to me that some people prefer neutral game texts (3) to supporting game texts (1).  I'm not entirely certain why, but I'd just throw it out there.

Agree?  Disagree?  Have a couple of pennies to donate to the cause?

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  In relation to my http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12001&highlight=">other thread on system definitions, what this post refers to as system is actually "system as provided by the game text(s)."  Thanks for understanding.[/url]

I'm a new poster, but I've lurked for a decent chunk of time now (longer than I've had an account), and I'll agree with you (for what it's worth).  I'd even go a bit further:  I think what confuses (and occasionally upsets) people about the whole GNS thing is the tendency for the language to pigeonhole at many levels, including the "system" as you describe as well as players themselves.  

Note how I mentioned that it's the language doing this, not necessarily the model itself.  I know I struggled less with this whole place once the bulb illuminated and I started mentally reading "Joe is a Xist player," as "Joe, in the aggregate, seems to be motivated more often by Xist concerns than he is by Yist or Zist concerns," and reading "Foo is a Xist game," as "Foo is a game whose rules, taken strictly as written with no modification or fudging, tends to produce Xist play."

Both of those lengthier phrases still don't quite sit well with me on their own, and for the system at least I would say that "Foo is a game whose rules yadda yadda yadda..." would in turn be "shorthand" of its own for what you wrote above.  I hope that made sense.

That's just my own experience, of course.  But I imagine that I wasn't the first one to come here and read "X is a Gamist game," and think to myself, "That's bull!  I have totally had Narr play using X.  This model is broken!"  Similarly with labeling players as being in one of the three modes.  Thing is, I'm pretty shy so I didn't speak up with my concerns, and I eventually figured things out.

Also, re: Neutral game texts.  I sometimes thing of the GNS mode of a system as being the mode of play that you need to struggle the least with the system to play.  So if you want to play Narr in X, a Gamist system, it may be perfectly possible but you'll find yourself ignoring certain rules, fudging other bits, adding house rules and so on.  I think that the motivation for all CA's have been around as long as RPGs have, but historically the systems, based on a strict interpretation of their rules, were very geared towards certain ones (like Gamism).  

That's not what people wanted, though, so people "broke" the rules to conform the game to their motivations.  Eventually this became codified (think of how many rulebooks have, in the GM section or elsewhere, the Golden Rule caveat or whatever, the thing that says "Ignore whatever rules you want to have fun.")  This made people happy:  If you get a bunch of people together who all have the same motives and all agree to break the rules in the same way, you can do whatever you want with whatever system you want.  And you're not REALLY breaking the rules, since there's a rule that says "Feel free to break any rules!"  

So a "neutral" text reassures people.  They feel they can bend or break it to conform to whatever they want.  Whereas a "supporting" text tells YOU how to play it, which might alienate some people (even if they would really enjoy the way the game is telling them to play!)  I think it's natural to think that it's easier to fit a neutral text to your own tastes than it is to find a supporting text that already fits your tastes.  

I have since been convinced otherwise, by the games here at The Forge.  That went a long way to selling me on this place, but I still think that the above paragraph is a very natural reaction.


Reading this over, I kind of suspect that I may be stating the obvious or just repeating material that has been drilled around these parts over and over again.  My apologies if that is the case.

-Nathan

Hi Ben,

I'm enjoying your sort of orcish battle-cry series of threads today. This post is intended to support yours.

Here's my only comment: the entire argument that proceeds as follows is false.

1. We play game X, and it turned out with a particular CA.

2. Over here at the Forge, game X is described in CA-terms, and it doesn't match the one we played at all.

3. The Forge description is all fucked up, and quite likely the basis for that description is too.

This is a tremendously sophist argument. I'll explain why slowly. I'll start with two circumstances in which the basic observations are in error, and then, positing that they are not in error, show why the logic is still incorrect.

To begin, I won't go into a particularly thorny issue for Marco and John Kim, which is "how do I know it's Narrativst," and just spot the speaker the accurate description of their CA in step 1. Whatever they say they played in CA terms, they played. This gets rid of the whole "But did you or didn't you" for purposes of this post.

Potential error #1 - people invariably claim they play using the unmodified rules (i.e. their System accords with the text), when a few questions almost always explodes this claim. It's especially hard when the issue concerns ignoring certain things; it's hard to see what one is not doing. But people even do it when they add phenomenal changes to the system. Naming the guilty: John Kim used this argument relative to the Hero System ... and his group uses Whimsy Cards! "We use the Hero System" - and my answer is, squint, no ya didn't.

Potential error #2 - people very frequently ignore qualifiers or even whole concepts regarding a given game text's tendencies or CA-leanings. For example, I do not consider pre-4th edition Champions to be a strongly Simulationist design; in fact, my discussion of the fascinating phenomenon of Champions/Hero is not publicly available. So where does this "the model says it's Simulationist" come from? From the speaker, and no one else.

Now I'll go on to assume that neither of these errors are in order. (1) They did play under/with Creative Agenda X. (2) The model does suggest that the rules/text strongly support Creative Agenda Y.

Is this possible? Sure. Does it falsify the model? Nope. Actual play tells the story, and it certainly might falsify a hypothesis within the model. That's no big deal. Models by definition pose questions; when data answers, well, that's a pretty good answer for that question - without necessarily damaging the model's integrity. Typically, one wants multiple corroborative evidence across several independent kinds of hypothesis tests in order to break the model itself.

I don't think I or anyone is automatically right about a given game text's tendencies in terms of Creative Agenda. It boggles me that people get so emotionally wrapped up in this particular detail of the discussions here. Look, it's easy:

Easy #1. Maybe your group did Drift some. Is that so hard to imagine? If you and your group are very good at CA-Y, then you can get there by maximizing what the game can offer along those lines, no matter how meager, even if you still apply the other (bulk) of the text.

Easy #2. Maybe the text here at the Forge (even written by me, gasp!) that names that game as CA-X is just plain wrong. Is that so hard to imagine? There is such a thing as choosing a bad example. Or disagreeing about how the rules interact with CA. These are questions to examine, not flip-out "wrong wrong wrong" red flags.

Easy #3. And most importantly, what's the big deal about your particular result? All the "game texts which support" yadda yadda commentary is about trends, not instances. So you came up with CA-Y. Neat! Hey everyone, who else has played, how did it turn out with your group? See - dialogue and learning, not my-way vs. your-way. Is it so hard to imagine that your successful CA-Y play is not typical for this game? And that nothing about that means that you "played it wrong"?

If you can spot me the observation that often the potential errors #1-2 above are occurring, then I can spot you the observation that Easy #1-3 (especially #2-3) may apply.

Now for the big puncher-upper: the notion that the textual rules make a group play according to a particular CA is plain wrong. Now, I know it's wrong, and another person knows it's wrong, but for some reason, people sometimes think I'm saying that! I'll name another name: Bruce Baugh, whose discussions here and at RPG.net express the perfect and almost verbatim points of System Does Matteer, but who for some reason insists that he's objecting to System Does Matter when doing so.

I finally figured out why: he thinks I and others are saying, "textual rules determine CA," in much the same way people who know a little about genetics think genes determine things. I can't imagine what they think we're thinking actually happens at the table, although I'll try.

Bob, Sally, Jamie, and Eli get together to role-play. Wah! The book flies up above the table, extrudes tentacles, and holds each one fast! "Play my way," it hisses, until they all submit. Then later during play, Jamie does something the book doesn't like - whack! A stinging tentacle slap! Everyone ducks their heads and apologizes, then resume play.

It is exactly this outlook that leads people to say, "Ah, you just have to get it." Of course that's not a valid argument - but faced with a patently absurd and apparently very heartfelt reaction, no argument is worthwhile. Note: worthwhile. Can I provide valid argument about whatever detail the person is objecting to this time? Sure. Will it solve anything? No. He or she is not listening, but fighting the imagined tentacles, very furiously. It's literally not worth it to stay in there and try to re-construct a valid basis for discussion from the ground up.

Ben, is any of this helpful?

Best,
Ron

Ron, I'm groovin' to this post. God knows I've made these kind of errors before, I've done so recently, and I'll no doubt do it again. But, this thread helps me think about it, and to make better decisions about what I see in games and what I say about them. So, I can't speak for Ben, but it is helpful!

Hi Ben,

I'm cool with being your example. I think that the idea that GURPS doesn't have any powerful narrativist engine is on-target: the powerful narrativist engines I *do* see strike me as counterproductive or a matter of interpertation (as in SA's--which are seen as widely narrativst but, IMO, could apply to any SA equally well).

That's important: if I expect Narrativist facilitation to happen above the level of mechanics (in situation and setting) then the games that lack those mechanics will facilitate Nar Play for me.*

It's true that I haven't played some of the Forge games that do this--and it's something I'm interested in seeing in actual play. But using TRoS as an example, I can say that using the SA's to focus on moral questions seems potentially very bland to me.

As for drift: I can't say I didn't drift anything in the GURPS V:tM game. It was a long time ago and the specifics are lost to me now. We certainly didn't use whimsy cards and did look in the books a lot to clarify things. I can pretty safely say that I'm not drifting JAGS much** in play and it plays about the same way.

But what was touched on in the other thread and what Ron says here is still pretty meaningful: if taking a text and "maximizing" what you want from it is drift than any play that isn't the "platonic form" of the game is drift then I think the term is very fishy since knowing what a "platonic form of the game" is, is, IMO, effectively saying "you just have to get it, man."

That's something I'm very suspicious of.

-Marco
* This is heard as saying system doesn't matter--and I'm not sure why that is save maybe for the fact that I've argued against what I see as people saying System-Matters-More-Than-People which is equivalent to Ron's tentacles, I think. System's still important but how rules "faciliate a CA" can, IME, differ widely based on a person's POV.

** There are times when I decide something isn't working the way I want it and will change it--with an eye towards a new edition, like JAGS-2--so there's certainly some evolution of the game going on but in terms of CA, it's exactly what I was looking for, IMO.

Hi Ben,

I'm pretty much there with you on this.  I think the issue is that for the most part, people have been looking for clear examples, so naturally people are going to point to #1(Facilitating System), or #2(Counter System), and not really so much at #3(Neutral System), to get their bearings.

Chris

Quote from: Ben LehmanSo I think that classifying game systems needs to be a little bit more complex.  Particular, in regard to each CA (or each congruence), the game system either supports it, denies it, or does neither.  I would say, for instance, the GURPS is slightly Gamist supporting (like all point-build systems), a zero with respect to Narrativism, and who-knows-what-the-fuck with regard to Simulationism.  (I barely know what that word means.)  

I would agree with this as a principle.  What interests me more, though, is the process of how a game system is classified.  i.e. If I want to argue the above, how do I do it?  For example, suppose I want to say that GURPS is strongly Gamist.  What is the basis for saying so?  One can argue on the basis of the sort of play it produces -- but that seems incredibly hard to measure.  I'm concerned that impressions and biased sampling overwhelm any measurement.  One can argue from first principles from what the mechanics do, but this seems to often bog down into the idea that no single mechanic can be classified -- only the whole combination.  

Quote from: Ron EdwardsPotential error #1 - people invariably claim they play using the unmodified rules (i.e. their System accords with the text), when a few questions almost always explodes this claim. It's especially hard when the issue concerns ignoring certain things; it's hard to see what one is not doing. But people even do it when they add phenomenal changes to the system. Naming the guilty: John Kim used this argument relative to the Hero System ... and his group uses Whimsy Cards! "We use the Hero System" - and my answer is, squint, no ya didn't.

Um, what the heck?  Ron, when I say that I'm using the HERO system, I mean that I'm using the HERO system.  None of the HERO System games that I GM'ed have ever used Whimsy Cards (i.e. "Mythic Investigators", "House Rules", "Worlds in Collision", and a few others -- Chris Lehrich played in most of these, and can confirm).  The most major variant that I had was my velocity-based damage system, which was later included in 5th edition HERO.  Now, there was a Champions game I played in that used Storypath Cards (at Columbia in 1992-93), but that was never the norm for me, and I would certainly mention it if I was talking about system.  

Quote from: Ron EdwardsPotential error #2 - people very frequently ignore qualifiers or even whole concepts regarding a given game text's tendencies or CA-leanings. For example, I do not consider pre-4th edition Champions to be a strongly Simulationist design; in fact, my discussion of the fascinating phenomenon of Champions/Hero is not publicly available. So where does this "the model says it's Simulationist" come from? From the speaker, and no one else.

I think it's pretty normal that people remember the primary classification rather than the qualifiers.  For example, here's what you wrote in the Simulationism essay:

QuotePurists for System
What games are these? EABA, JAGS, SOL, Pocket Universe, and Fudge are deliberately "generalist" regarding setting. The big commercial models are GURPS, BRP (in its "unstripped" form), DC Heroes (now Blood of Heroes), Rolemaster, D6 (derived and considerably Simulationized from Star Wars), and the Hero System (as such, mainly derived from Danger International and Fantasy Hero rather than early Champions).

So while you do make the exception of early Champions, you do clearly classify the "Hero System" as a Simulationist game of the "Purist for System" variety.  So yeah, I think that most readers would walk away from this with the understanding that that is your classification.  My understanding of Ben's point is that he is against these simple classifications for this reason.  i.e. Rather than classifying it and then slapping on qualifiers, he suggests a more complex rating system.  

Quote from: Ron EdwardsLook, it's easy:

Easy #1. Maybe your group did Drift some. Is that so hard to imagine? If you and your group are very good at CA-Y, then you can get there by maximizing what the game can offer along those lines, no matter how meager, even if you still apply the other (bulk) of the text.

Easy #2. Maybe the text here at the Forge (even written by me, gasp!) that names that game as CA-X is just plain wrong. Is that so hard to imagine? There is such a thing as choosing a bad example. Or disagreeing about how the rules interact with CA. These are questions to examine, not flip-out "wrong wrong wrong" red flags.

Easy #3. And most importantly, what's the big deal about your particular result? All the "game texts which support" yadda yadda commentary is about trends, not instances. So you came up with CA-Y. Neat! Hey everyone, who else has played, how did it turn out with your group? See - dialogue and learning, not my-way vs. your-way. Is it so hard to imagine that your successful CA-Y play is not typical for this game? And that nothing about that means that you "played it wrong"?  

Agreed.  The question is about how to diagnose the trends and how to debate the diagnosis.  A problem that I often have is judging one game (say, Universalis) based on how Forge users tend to play it -- while judging another game (say, GURPS) based on how people at game conventions tend to play it.  I suspect that this says more about the Forge user base vs game convention attendees; rather than about Universalis vs GURPS.  The issue for game design, though, is: if you hand each game to the same group of players, what will happen?

Quote from: Marco
I'm cool with being your example. I think that the idea that GURPS doesn't have any powerful narrativist engine is on-target: the powerful narrativist engines I *do* see strike me as counterproductive or a matter of interpertation (as in SA's--which are seen as widely narrativst but, IMO, could apply to any SA equally well).

BL>  I think (and this should have been in the original post) that the problem here is that you, like a lot of other people both pro- and anti- GNS theory, are trying to approach this as if the RPG (let's look at Riddle of Steel here) was some sort of object that would imprint its CA on your "neutral" brain.

I contend that this is not possible.  Because, when you read an RPG or play an RPG, you are coming at it from the perspective of some sort of CA.

The point here is not that RoS Spiritual Attributes *are* Narrativist, in some sort of abstract sense.  The point is that, if you come to RoS with a bent towards Narrativism, the SAs will provide you with a lot of support.  If you come at the game with a Gamist/Narrativist congruency goal, it will just *sing*.  If you come at it with some other goals in mind, it will look totally different.

Let me repeat:
The point is not that RoS is abstractly Narrativist.  The point is that people who come at it with the goal of Narrativist play will find it good.  If you come to it with some other CA, you will see it entirely differently.

Quote
That's important: if I expect Narrativist facilitation to happen above the level of mechanics (in situation and setting) then the games that lack those mechanics will facilitate Nar Play for me.*

BL>  Sure, but then you're going to support Nar through non-mechanical parts of the system, like situation and setting.  This is great.  It's awesome.

As a side note:  Is there any particular reason you don't want to use mechanics?

yrs--
--Ben

Ron--

I totally agree with everything you said, particularly grooving on the bits about textual system not determining game play.  In fact, apropos to that other system thread, I would say that textual system doesn't even determine system which, yes, a way of saying that every single game group drifts the rules a little.

But there is also some other things, I think, important, and I want to see if we're on the same page about them:

1) My post, above to Marco, and the whole thing about a total lack of "abstract" CA in game text.  Rather, saying that a game text supports a particular CA means that, if you come to it with that CA, it will resonate with you.

2) The fact that a whole lot of Narrativist and Gamist play is done with game texts that are neutral or just slightly opposed to that creative agenda which, I think, may lead to a sort of resentment of textual system.  Again, see Marco, talking about how "If I don't expect narrativism at the mechanics level, the presence of narrativist rules at the mechanics level may well trip me up."  I think that this is a really interesting point, and perhaps just goes to show that the textual system is really just a part of the system as a whole.

3) The general existence of neutral texts.  For instance, I would say that Over the Edge (the mechanics, not the setting) is neutral to Narrativism.  This still means that Narrativist play is possible and, in fact, a Narrativist group may find such a text quite refreshing if they are used to mechanics that trip up their playstyle.

yrs--
--Ben

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben Lehman
I think (and this should have been in the original post) that the problem here is that you, like a lot of other people both pro- and anti- GNS theory, are trying to approach this as if the RPG (let's look at Riddle of Steel here) was some sort of object that would imprint its CA on your "neutral" brain.

Hi Ben,

No, that's not what I'm thinking. Firstly, I reject the idea that anyone really has a "neutral brain"--in fact, I think people do have very strong desires about play that are *not* quantified easily or solely by CA (I can already hear someone saying this doesn't conflict with the theory--they're right--I'm not saying it does conflict with the theory--I'm saying my POV is a long way from suggesting anyone has a neutral brain). For instance, as I've said, I think many people have strongly differing ideas about the role rules and setting/situation should play in their game (perhaps related to CA, perhaps not).

Here's what I am thinking:

1. When I come to GURPS with my possibly/sometimes Nar-play I also find it "good," perhaps even superior to stuff people tell me the theory says ought to be better (like I'm using the wrong tool for the job).
2. When I come to TRoS with with my goal of Sim or Gam play I find it "good" as well.
3. When I come to TRoS and look at how SA's "address Premise of What are you willing to kill for?" I don't find it "all that good." Yes: it answers the question--but it doesn't do so in what I find to be an especially interesting fashion from the perspective of one who might ask or answer it.

As I pointed out, the knight who takes Drive (To serve the Realm) isn't, IMO, doing much premise addressing by simply slaughtering foes in the service of the king. Well, he is--but so is the AD&D Paladin.

I also find that the SA's don't seem like they'd help with the "hard questions" because the answer is already right there--either you get a whole bunch of dice for following your GM-dictated Conscience or you don't and if the fight required SA's to win you either don't fight or you die and the game is over.

Additionally, I'm told, strongly, that TRoS is definitiely Nar and not Gam (this is derrived, I'm told, by hollistic analysis that's opaque to me). Also I'm told it's a Nar/Sim hybrid. I'm told that the SA's are highly antethitical to Sim sensibilities. This all seems contradictory and in some cases un-true (SA's can be used to facilitate play in the heroic action genre nicely, IMO). These comments are all by top-10 Forge posters.

Finally when I look at the person that says RoS will support your Nar experience, I contrast it to the guy who says GURPS will destroy your Nar experience with deadly Force from character-hijack disadvantages.

When I apply the same logic to RoS I see that, yes, it has the same sort of disadvantages. If SA's 'facilitate' Nar play but Force kills it dead then it seems logical that TRoS should fail to be Nar in the same fashion as GURPS.

So I go: "Looks to me like you get out of TRoS what you came in with. If you think it's good for a lot of things it's there. If you think it's only good for one thing: it appears to me 'it's there too'."

I think this POV somehow becomes distorted into Ron's bizzare tentacle scenario but I'm not certain because I really couldn't follow that.

Note: I like TRoS--I'm going to play it. I plan to use it for some deep player driven gaming. I think it looks great for that--but I think the textual analysis I've seen either shows that sort of analysis is basically flawed or has, in this case, been inappropriately applied--especially considering the strong nature of the comments that were made to me about it (the comments were uniformly unequivocal* save for Ron's recent post suggesting someone may've gotten it wrong).

-Marco
* When Ralph says "just letting players scratch their gamist itch doesn't make the game gamist" that's not leaving much room for debate: I can point out all the stuff in the text that talks about strategy. The many pages of combat that detail moves and player-driven challenges. I can look at how having no SA's or some-but-not-overwhelming SA's will make the game highly challenging--but I'm, apparently, still not seeing the hollistic picture which tells me that, no, it's not gamist.

Hi everybody, this is my first post ever, but I've been lurking the forum a lot lately and I've been completely fascinated by the depth of some discussions going on there...

I didn't know it until I saw it explicitly described in these pages, but I think that my approach to roleplaying could be described as Narrativism. One thing that strikes me however, is the fact that most people seem to be convinced that to have Narrativism, you've bound to have some Narrativism-driven game *mechanic* in your game.
I think that this thread can be viewed much in the same way, i.e, "OK, so your crative agenda does include Narrativism elements. Do you need something in the *game system* to do this for you?"
Whilst I'm totally convinced that 'system does matter', I also think that 'narrative' elements are possibly the most difficult part of any creative effort to encapsulate in 'mechanics' and still retain their spontaneity (Sp? sorry) and freshness.

I'm a complete newbie here, so sorry if this has been debated before.
Also sorry for my approximative english, I'm not a native speaker.

You have to be happy with what you have to be happy with
MarcoBrucale

Marco,

Just because a game doesn't facilitate the type of play you prefer, doesn't mean that the game, as an example, breaks the model.  Under each creative agenda there are many ways to facilitate that agenda.  You've told me that you prefer immersion and actor stance almost to the exclusion of anything else.  So, for you, any mechanic that interferes with that preference isn't going to help you roleplay the way you want.  Most of the Nar games you're citing use mechanics that while they facilitate Nar play, tend to break actor stance for you.  But that doesn't mean that the game doesn't facilitate Nar play in general.

For example, you don't like TRoS's SAs because you feel that they don't address Premise in the way you'd prefer.  But they're still addressing Premise, and that helps Nar play--maybe not in the ideal fashion for you, but certainly for other people.  I'm guessing that you haven't played a game that facilitates Nar play as you would have it and promotes deep imersion.  Therefore a game that's neutral on the subject, like GURPS, seems like a better fit.  And I wouldn't say that you're using the wrong tool for the job, just one that doesn't get in the way.  Yes, some will tell you that the advantage/disadvantage system therein harms Nar play, but that doesn't mean you can't make it work for your purposes.  IMO, GURPS is the type of system that doesn't get in the way of anything if you don't let it.

As I've said before, it's all about looking at a game text and deciding what type of CA the system harms, and what type it doesn't.  In the ideal world then, a system will not only not harm your preferred play style, but it will also promote and reward that style/CA.

Quote from: MarcoIf SA's 'facilitate' Nar play but Force kills it dead then it seems logical that TRoS should fail to be Nar in the same fashion as GURPS.

As a side note too, I don't think that force necessarily kills Nar play.  It just depends on what the force is doing.  Could you expand on this thought of yours please?

Hiya,

THING ONE
Everyone, let's not get into a Force discussion here. Recent threads have convinced me that everyone needs to duck their heads into cold water and return to the topic in a month or so.

THING TWO
MarcoBrucale, welcome to the Forge! I do agree with your post and think it's a resoundingly successful entry to the discussion.

Your name is going to be tricky, because as you can see, we already have a very active poster named Marco. So is it OK to call you "Marco B" or something like that? I'm not talking about your username, but just for purposes of casual interaction.

THING THREE
Ben, your three points seem fine to me. The only quibble I have is with the "neutral game" concept, because I suspect that people will flock to identify game after game (especially their own) as neutral. It's kind of a fluffy hammer to hit problems with and solve them. But as a concept, I do think you're on the right track, and it might be very helpful to people who really hate the notion that a game text is identifiable in terms of Creative Agenda.

Best,
Ron

QuoteMarcoBrucale, welcome to the Forge! I do agree with your post and think it's a resoundingly successful entry to the discussion.

Thank you very much! It's good to be here.

QuoteYour name is going to be tricky, because as you can see, we already have a very active poster named Marco. So is it OK to call you "Marco B" or something like that? I'm not talking about your username, but just for purposes of casual interaction.

Well, I like to use my real name on forums, and Marco Brucale is my real name. But of course you can call me in any way.
Since I just started to post, if you think it could help keeping things tidy, I could start another account with a different nick.

Back in topic:

QuoteMost of the Nar games you're citing use mechanics that while they facilitate Nar play, tend to break actor stance for you.

This describes exactly my feelings toward most 'narrativism-boosting' game mechanics. Could anyone direct me to an existing game or game mechanic that facilitate Nar play while not breaking actor stance, i.e, helps the narrative flow whilst not intruding too much in freeform roleplaying?

thanks in advance

You have to be happy with what you have to be happy with
MarcoBrucale