The Forge Archives

Over here in Early roleplaying and the interpretation of scripture I put out the idea that making rules is satisfying in a narrativist way. I thought I'd write up a quick mechanic to highlight what I mean and perhaps the play you'd get from this mechanic would reflect game experience of other poster as well as myself.

Okay, each player has 10 points. They can choose to spend up to 4 points at a time.

Now, you play with some system like basic D&D, AD&D or Rifts, or whatever system that has material, but not solidly bound in your opinion or in the opinion of the rest of the group. In other words, for you and the rest of your group, it provokes this (it doesn't matter if for anyone else, it's all solid and completely clear. As long as it's vague for you).

Now, you play the game as normal. And you make descisions on how rules turn out, as normal (note: It's best you don't write down house rules before play...these desicisions are more interesting when made up in play). The thing is, the players can at any time elect to spend points to show that something decided makes them not want to play.

Now the GM has to decide whether he keeps what he chose, or dumps it (if he dumps it, the player keeps his points and the GM makes up something else, which the player can challenge again, of course).

Now, if any player ends up spending all their points, they instantly become the GM! The current GM has lost his position...but in defence of what he cared about in interpretation! I would think this is very interesting to have seen. The previous GM get's 20 (not ten) points as a player now, and all other players double their current points (even if that takes them above 10 points). The new GM has complete control over whatever elements the previous GM introduced (another thing the previous GM risked for what he believed in). But then again the previous GM can use his points to challenge to (but he gets 20 points, rather than 10, to bang in the point that he's risking something by doing this).

That's it, in the rough.

I doubt anyone has had instant take overs mid sessions, but changes to who's GM'ing next because of how the game turned out, are clearly very common on various other boards.

I thought I might make the stakes involved a little more clear, so the omph of the design is clearer. Now most of you probably enjoy GM'ing and being a player. But I don't think that dilutes this as a conflict. For example, I enjoy store bought and cooking pizza. But if I go out to a pizza joint, I don't want to end up cooking. And if I start cooking, I don't want to end up buying a pizza. Switching between GM and player role is an issue in the same way. Well, perhaps I should have gone with some lead singer/drummer switch analogy.

Callan, I think the bidding-point system you're proposing is intriguing, but I don't see much Narrativist about it.  In fact, this seems to me like a very strong Gamist metagame.  We have players carefully spending or hoarding points in order to affect not necessarily the story, but the mechanics--and by extension, the way the mechanics are interpreted.  This seems like a perfect example of the Crunch.

Meanwhile, I guess if we are playing d20 or Rifts, then we can take the assumption that whoever's the current GM is responsible for steering the story via world-building and NPCs.  But that doesn't seem very satisfyingly Narrativist at all, even when the GM role is passed around.  The challenging system doesn't handle conflicts between personal interest and plot twist--it handles conflicts between personal interest and rules interpretation.

What Brendan said. I think it's an intriguing metagame. But not really narrativism. Player power does not equal narrativism. Players making decisions about premises does. How does this promote that?

Actually I think it's a pretty modally neutral idea as you have it. In any case, I think that the underlying game would really inform the use of the metagame points. If, in fact, the underlying game were narrativism supporting, then they might get used in a way that was narrativism. But played over, as you suggest, Rifts, would definitely get Gamism most often.

Mike

Quote from: BrendanIn fact, this seems to me like a very strong Gamist metagame. We have players carefully spending or hoarding points in order to affect not necessarily the story, but the mechanics--and by extension, the way the mechanics are interpreted. This seems like a perfect example of the Crunch.

Not really. Think about why they are objecting and what that means. If you try to gain a gamist advantage by this system, your simply putting yourself closer to being the GM. Um, you wont be doing much stepping on up as a GM  (well, not player style step on up). It doesn't support gamism, since it's just a count down to gamism going down the gurgler for the player. You try to crunch here, you shoot yourself in the foot.

In addition, you could say TROS is just gamist. 'Oh, your just doing this because your SA applies....that's just smart gamism'

Actually, TROS can be played that way. You need some sort of SC arrangement made if you want to play nar and not powerup gamism. Same here. Prolly same for all nar games, given nar's close relation to gamism.

QuoteMeanwhile, I guess if we are playing d20 or Rifts, then we can take the assumption that whoever's the current GM is responsible for steering the story via world-building and NPCs. But that doesn't seem very satisfyingly Narrativist at all

I should have noted, this is not supposed to effect the CA of game being played at all. This is basically an entirely metagame game, played in tandem with say Rifts. This metagame is Nar, the other one is whatever it is in terms of CA.

This is metagame nar in the same way that 'truth or dare!' is real life nar, rather than SIS engaging. Can I assume truth or dare is nar, or before I can do that should that be discussed?

PS: Don't use D20...your supposed to use an ambiguous system. If there are no lingering real life questions about the rules then this metagame just wont get used.

Quote from: MikeI think it's an intriguing metagame. But not really narrativism. Player power does not equal narrativism. Players making decisions about premises does. How does this promote that?

For the GM: Do you care enough about your ruling that you would give up ruling, for it?
For the player: Do you care enough about your interpretation that you would give up playing, for it?

Both are contradictory issues. It's much the same as a news reporter who can either stifle his news report or loose his job over it. He wants to report, but will give that up in order to do so? I'm pretty sure that's nar, unless I'm reading the essay wrong.

Try not to think of the dizzying heights of nar you get in SIS narrativism, where kingdoms and true loves hang in the balance. It'll be hard to see the RL nar in contrast to that, since it's not as much of a burning issue. But on the plus side, it is real and is compelling for it.

QuoteIf, in fact, the underlying game were narrativism supporting, then they might get used in a way that was narrativism. But played over, as you suggest, Rifts, would definitely get Gamism most often.

Ever since I ran into the rough idea of Nar, when I've tried to implement it, I've seen players screw their faces up trying to figure out the gamist angle. I've had to usually describe it as a test of character, usually, before it sunk in. At least from my experience, SC is vital. I take your point that a gamist game might twist this metagame away from nar. But currently I've found that nar needs fairly constant nurturing anyway.

PS: It just confuses the issue, but I don't accept Rifts is gamist...it's sim with crappy, unsportsmanlike gamism possible. Indeed, crappy, unsportsmanlike gamism is possible in any sim game. I should write something in the GNS forum on it though, really.


Thanks to both of you for your responces, BTW. :)

Quote from: Noon
Actually, TROS can be played that way. You need some sort of SC arrangement made if you want to play nar and not powerup gamism. Same here. Prolly same for all nar games, given nar's close relation to gamism.

I think you need SC arrangements for any functional CA with a game of the scope of TRoS (or GURPS or Hero or whatever).

I think your mechanic is intesting but I don't believe that most (any?) mechanic is classifiable as supporting one and only one CA (you can see my post on playing Nar with Sim mechanics).

-Marco

Like Marco says.

You're hoping that this one thing will make for nar support.

The example that you give of the theoretical premise is not a premise because it has no specific kind of player interest. The decisions in question could be nar questions, or sim questions, or gamism questions that the player power given would support. For example, if I wanted a particular ruling to go a certain way, because I would win a combat, and that would make me look good, I'd be using this player power for gamism. Nar is about something akin to "moral and ethical" problems and that sort of thing. Questions where the player winning or losing can't be at question, and it can't be simply about making the "right" sim decision. Your mechanic doesn't narrow down the type of decision at all.


As for your players trying to figure out the gamism angle to presented nar situations...well, maybe they prefer gamism? Could just be tough luck for you, and they'll never like narrativism.

That said, what games have you tried on them? As we say, System Does Matter. If you're trying to get narrativism out of D&D, or Rifts (sim, game, whatever, it's not nar supportive), then I'm not surprised in the slightest that you haven't gotten a proper nar response. Tacking on a system like you're proposing, even if it did support nar, would be very hard pressed to change that. You can't put nar mechanics "on top" of a system that supports some other mode, and expect it to work. Never heard of such a thing working.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesLike Marco says.

You're hoping that this one thing will make for nar support.

I think nar is already happening and I'm just formalising it. This is a split off from the thread about rules and scripture and how they are read.

It's pretty clear people weren't just making up rules for no reason in the examples there. Some sort of enjoyment was prompting it. What was it? It certainly revolves around the problematic issues of how you shape other people enjoyment with rewards and punishment.

Gamism and Nar are close to each other because nar is a progression from gamism. Gamism is about using what you know to win. But what if you don't know how to win...what if both/all options are relatively nasty and there is no gamist tie breaker? Then you hit nar. Basically in regards to other peoples enjoyment it's a very problematic issue and often hit this point. There is no clear cut, yes/no answer. Your making nar descisions as you design a gamist game (it could even be nar descisions while designing a sim or even another nar game).

I mean, can you tell me what people like, so much so that I can wander off and make a best seller RPG? Or am I going to have to make some problematic descisions? It's nar...I'll get to your note on it needing to be ethical/moral below.

BTW, from latter in your post I think you've gotten the idea this is a nar metagame that then makes the game in question nar. No, as I said before to Brandon, you play the focus game in it's CA. If you play it gamist, then you play it gamist. That's not supposed to change.

QuoteThe example that you give of the theoretical premise is not a premise because it has no specific kind of player interest. The decisions in question could be nar questions, or sim questions, or gamism questions that the player power given would support. For example, if I wanted a particular ruling to go a certain way, because I would win a combat, and that would make me look good, I'd be using this player power for gamism.

No, you'd be using it to support gamist design. Gamism is hardly about 'Hey, I just say I have a big gun and then I say I shoot him and because it's big he's dead. WOW, check out my sexy step on up!'.

At the meta game level, your using these points to ensure gamist design is supported. That's not the same as playing gamist, because your designing Rifts right now, not playing Rifts. What's of interest is whether you will give up playing in defence of what you insist must be there to support gamist play.

QuoteNar is about something akin to "moral and ethical" problems and that sort of thing. Questions where the player winning or losing can't be at question, and it can't be simply about making the "right" sim decision. Your mechanic doesn't narrow down the type of decision at all.

This isn't about what happens in the SIS...the metagame is nar outside of the SIS. Think of TROS, and how wizards face loosing months of their precious, finite lives when they cast a spell. Now back in the real world, I have a finite life and what I do with this hard to get RP time is important to me.

The wizards problem is nar, isn't it? In the game the question is what he'll risk his precious life resource for. Here, I'm risking my time as a player or GM, because something is important to me in gaming. It's important enough to risk some of my life span for. Okay, it's not like loosing months of ones life, but it is your-real-life. Possibly the immersive nature of the game makes you forget that and so it might dissapear as a stake.

QuoteAs for your players trying to figure out the gamism angle to presented nar situations...well, maybe they prefer gamism? Could just be tough luck for you, and they'll never like narrativism.

That said, what games have you tried on them? As we say, System Does Matter. If you're trying to get narrativism out of D&D, or Rifts (sim, game, whatever, it's not nar supportive), then I'm not surprised in the slightest that you haven't gotten a proper nar response. Tacking on a system like you're proposing, even if it did support nar, would be very hard pressed to change that. You can't put nar mechanics "on top" of a system that supports some other mode, and expect it to work. Never heard of such a thing working.

Mike

Eh? TROS does just that?

Anyway, I'm not trying to change the game's CA. If were playing Rifts gamist, were playing Rifts gamist. This is about formalising the nar design of a gamist game. I presented the design mostly to try and underline the nar process I started to believe is going on, after reading the previous thread and the one it in turn was split from.

Game design itself isn't very gamist. Most of the big questions about design you need to just decide what you believe a design should have...what your willing to use up some of your life designing for, you believe in it so. I think 'it must be moral and ethical to be nar' is a little narrow, as the TROS sorcerer shows. Sure, the sorcerer wants to protect his son, or rebuild a kingdom. But why is that important to him...and why is any particular CA important enough to you in RL to use up life on?


On a side note, the last time I offered a nar choice which got taken on in a gamist manner, the player came up with a reasonable tactical 'please all sides' answer. So I said, we can go for that, because it is a reasonable answer. But it wont tell us much about your character. We would learn something about your PC if we assume those tactics aren't possible. Up to you which way we go, I said. His next post (it was a PBP) had him answering in narrativist terms. I think it's just an education issue, really.

Actually, I suppose that isn't a side note. It highlights the design level I'm talking about. He decided the CA at that moment. He wasn't deciding something that would assist him in his gamist efforts...he was deciding whether he would play gamist. Now I'm not talking about deciding CA, but it's from that same position of choice you decide what rules you'll use to support a CA. And from that position, would you be adamant about a certain rule, even if it put your GM or player position in danger?

I'll give you a demo of what I mean. The first one is without any negotiation support, and is reminiscent of both conversations I've had and those that go on at the palladium boards ad infinitum.

Player: "Okay, so I won initiative, so I use my super TK power to grab the guy, spin so he doesn't face me and then rotate him so as to disorientate him. On my next turn I'll just start whittling him down with my gun, since he's going to be incapacitated for as long as I like anyway. Oh, and since I'm third level I'll do this to three guys at once."
GM: "I'll just roll their saves first"
P: "They don't get saves...TK just...happens"
GM: "How about them at least shooting at you over their shoulders?"
P: "That's why I was spinning them"

Okay I'm GM and at about this point I don't believe this is interesting step on up. It actually kills a lot of the intelligent moves that would otherwise be used, which makes the time I've invested in gaming not as interesting. Plus I'd have to spend more time on this to keep up the challenge with a move I don't actually think is cool (it doesn't get step on up appreciation from me).

On the other hand, this player may flake out with work concerns or just say they are 'too tired'. Which means my decision could loose me my GM position.

Additionally, perhaps their just isn't much opportunity to step on up in this system in a sportsmanlike way and they are working with what little they have.

Also I hate it for my secondary sim preferences reasons...TK guys aren't presented as being as boss as they would be in the setting, if they could do this. The infraction is grating and spoils part of my GM entertainment. (Note: Most games use sim as hybrid support, so I hope no one distracts the issues at hand with claims of CA clash).

Finally and most damning, this is my friend (or someone I at least feel friendly to...who else do you game with?). Will I crush what he clearly enjoys the idea of? Am I letting my enjoyment get ahead of theirs? Or am I just trying to get them out of their comfort zone? And if I am, then I'm doing so without system support here...damn, that's more pressure on me. Do I want that? Wouldn't it be easier to cave in?



Okay, now a second example with support from the mechanic I suggested.
Player: "Okay, so I won initiative, so I use my super TK power to grab the guy, spin so he doesn't face me and then rotate him so as to disorientate him. On my next turn I'll just start whittling him down with my gun, since he's going to be incapacitated for as long as I like anyway. Oh, and since I'm third level I'll do this to three guys at once."
GM: "I'll just roll their saves first"
P: "They don't get saves...TK just...happens"

Now, I think about some of those things from above. But the pressure is off me quite a bit...the player can use points if he cares about this. I don't have to second guess him...he is mechanically empowered to try and change things himself.

P: "Umm, I'll use two points on this"

Ah, so it is important to him. Interesting it's only two points though, not four. Now, do I want to get closer to loosing the GM role on this? Perhaps I can work something out...since instead of talking with him and neither of us having real clout, he has these points now. Ie, we have a resolution mechanic for discussion.  That works for me to: Perhaps I decide not to work something out and stick to this...this is important to me and the player clearly witnesses it since the stakes are now made clear by the point mechanic.



Anyway, that's it. I can see the nar there in both examples, but I suppose it doesn't really matter if anyone else can, I proposed it's there because of the previous threads questions. It would seem to mechanically duplicate and assist coherent in game rules discussion that would happen in the other threads examples.

Treat it simply as a negotiation mechanic if you prefer. We don't need to go into what negotiation involves in real life stakes and choices. But this is my answer to those other threads.

Ah, I realised that A: I should have said telekinesis at first instead of casually saying TK and B: I should note that TK is not well defined in the Rifts book. A lot of talk in it about making objects fly around and using them as clubs, no talk about how this translates to moving the objects known as NPC's or PC's. Sorry to tack on an extra post for this.

Quote from: NoonIt's pretty clear people weren't just making up rules for no reason in the examples there. Some sort of enjoyment was prompting it. What was it? It certainly revolves around the problematic issues of how you shape other people enjoyment with rewards and punishment.

Well, then here's the question. Are you making this game for that specific group of people? Or is this a general design? Sure, if you're talking about a group that already drifts their games to Nar, then the CA is strong, and this will probably be used to further support that - I completely agree. But in that case, do they need the extra support? Maybe a better question, why not just give them an entire game that has ground up support for nar? Why just tack on a rule that can be used for nar?

If this is for general consumption, I think, again, that you'll find it used for whatever the group's current bent is. Meaning mostly gamism in the case of D&D players. Not all, but the majority. Generally, the rest of the system will tend to inform play, because the method in question doesn't do so itself at all.

QuoteGamism and Nar are close to each other because nar is a progression from gamism. Gamism is about using what you know to win. But what if you don't know how to win...what if both/all options are relatively nasty and there is no gamist tie breaker? Then you hit nar. Basically in regards to other peoples enjoyment it's a very problematic issue and often hit this point. There is no clear cut, yes/no answer. Your making nar descisions as you design a gamist game (it could even be nar descisions while designing a sim or even another nar game).

This is a very confusing paragraph. I agree that there are some similarities between Gam and Nar, but I don't see Nar as "gamism with no best answer." I mean, that's probably how one gets narrativism from a gamism game. But a game designed ground up to be nar dosesn't have the gamism support at all.

Anyhow, your commets about design and play modes are opaque. GNS is about play, not about what the designer does - he can only attempt to support particular modes with his rules.

QuoteI mean, can you tell me what people like, so much so that I can wander off and make a best seller RPG? Or am I going to have to make some problematic descisions? It's nar...I'll get to your note on it needing to be ethical/moral below.

This isn't about the in-game situation. It's not CA. It's Social Contract level stuff where you're deciding what to play. There's no GNS at that level.

QuoteBTW, from latter in your post I think you've gotten the idea this is a nar metagame that then makes the game in question nar. No, as I said before to Brandon, you play the focus game in it's CA. If you play it gamist, then you play it gamist. That's not supposed to change.

This is a contradiction. Or, rather, again you conflate the social contract level with the CA level. In any case, making decisions of this sort on the social contract level will not satisfy a need for narrativism.

Quote

QuoteThe example that you give of the theoretical premise is not a premise because it has no specific kind of player interest. The decisions in question could be nar questions, or sim questions, or gamism questions that the player power given would support. For example, if I wanted a particular ruling to go a certain way, because I would win a combat, and that would make me look good, I'd be using this player power for gamism.

No, you'd be using it to support gamist design.

OK, I buy that. Creating a gamism design isn't gamism, you agree. Creating a narrativism design isn't narrativism either.

QuoteThe wizards problem is nar, isn't it? In the game the question is what he'll risk his precious life resource for. Here, I'm risking my time as a player or GM, because something is important to me in gaming. It's important enough to risk some of my life span for. Okay, it's not like loosing months of ones life, but it is your-real-life. Possibly the immersive nature of the game makes you forget that and so it might dissapear as a stake.

You're making a parallel here between interaction at the different levels, but, as I've said, that doesn't make them the same thing. More importantly, let's say that you're right. As has been said many times before. Play that appears one way, but which overall supports a different mode of play is play of the supported type. People look at the Sorcerer bonus dice and think, "gee, that's gamism!" But though it might look like a mechanism that would support gamism in another game, in fact it ends up supporting a narrativism CA. So it's really part of an overall narrativism design.

Any rule which when employed ends up with more gamism play is supportive of a gamism CA. There is no other level for CA. So despite the fact that it might seem overall to be somehow narrativism to you means nothing. If the play it supports ends up being gamism, then it's supporting gamism.

Quote

QuoteTacking on a system like you're proposing, even if it did support nar, would be very hard pressed to change that. You can't put nar mechanics "on top" of a system that supports some other mode, and expect it to work. Never heard of such a thing working.

Mike

Eh? TROS does just that?

No, not at all. SAs do not exist purely at the social level. It's more accurate to say that the modes alternate in TROS. And Ron would say that actually the overall mode is really largely narrativism anyway.

The point is that with your system you're not even alternating, because the decisions in question are never about the player deciding something about what's going on in the SIS, but instead deciding how those decisions can be made. This cannot inform the CA, because it leaves the decision to the player. The only way to inform CA is to have rules that support it.

Mike

Argh!

Quote from: MeAnyway, I'm not trying to change the game's CA. If were playing Rifts gamist, were playing Rifts gamist.

I'm not trying to switch the CA by having a narrativist design level. This level is a game unto itself and independent in its play (it'd be like TROS SA's not effecting combat). Only it's side effects would change the game in question, rather than it's goal.

Imagine it this way. Your not actually playing rifts, but just sitting with friends talking about how to improve it.

Now, we could just talk about it or we can have some structure to talking about it. I mean, if your discussing it in a group, you obviously want the input of others there...that requires structure of some sort. One design to bust out would be universalis...the play of it would add to the design, negotiating its structure. Normally universalis is used to figure out how things are and then make a story. I'm pretty sure that could be switched to determining how rules are and how they are used (to latter make a story).

Quote from: MikeThis isn't about the in-game situation. It's not CA. It's Social Contract level stuff where you're deciding what to play. There's no GNS at that level.

I just put it there...I've turned parts of the social contract into a game. This just means that social contract forms above this game I've added, and as usual the SC still dominates all. The thing is, instead of a fuzzy SC, we now have some rules. Hackmaster is basically a post modernist LARP, where you pretend to be roleplaying geek stereotypes who are pretending to be in a game world. Those geeks would have a SC...now there are rules to emulate that! GNS is there now (but real life SC still floats above the larp rules, dominant...I'm not saying otherwise).

Now, I think universalis is pretty CA neutral. The reason I bring in narrativism, is as an answer to that other thread. I think gamers are making difficult decisions as to what they believe should be in the game/game world, and instinctively do so in a nar way. I consider this similar to a song writer birthing a song. Whether it takes him 2 minutes to write a hit or a month just to write something he feels strongly about, he's expressing himself in the same way a narrativist choice lets the player expresses something about himself. Here we are birthing the structure of a game. Start on this point if you want to hammer out any part of my arguement, because I'm relying strongly on a parralel with other creative arts and how they involve addressing premise. Because I'm relying on the idea that the exact same thing happens in game design (either when your designing from the ground up, or modifying a rules set).

QuoteMore importantly, let's say that you're right. As has been said many times before. Play that appears one way, but which overall supports a different mode of play is play of the supported type.

I just want to say (again) that I don't want to turn Rifts into nar. I want to support the series of design questions which I presume to be nar.

I don't know how to describe it again. This isn't about overiding which way you want a design to go...G, N or S. It's about supporting the question like "Why go for X, when Y and Z are the same??" (fill in X, Y and Z with GNS in any combination you please). WHY go for a particular CA? WHY do you believe that to be worth some of your finite lifetime? Why not one of the others? Their all roughly equal (making it not an easy choice).

Even once you pick one, say gamism, there are many types of gamist design that are valid. Why are you going for one of them? Why are you spending your life on that particular one?

This isn't a 'why are you wasting your life on that' put down. It's a damn fine question that tells you something about the author.

I suppose it might be a bit full on that I propose you play the game (gamist rifts) as you also design it this way.

The thing is, I'm guessing thousands of gamers do this combo every day. With their litany of posts about players arguing with their rulings, with all the traits of suffering typhoid mary syndrome (from the players not respecting the GM's belief in a rule and pushing for 'a better story/game').

BTW, please excuse my 'Argh!'. I appreciate your time put in...the vent just slipped out regardless.

This is a little off topic, so I'm seperating it here:

Quote from: Mike

Quote from: MeGamism and Nar are close to each other because nar is a progression from gamism. Gamism is about using what you know to win. But what if you don't know how to win...what if both/all options are relatively nasty and there is no gamist tie breaker? Then you hit nar. Basically in regards to other peoples enjoyment it's a very problematic issue and often hit this point. There is no clear cut, yes/no answer. Your making nar descisions as you design a gamist game (it could even be nar descisions while designing a sim or even another nar game).

This is a very confusing paragraph. I agree that there are some similarities between Gam and Nar, but I don't see Nar as "gamism with no best answer." I mean, that's probably how one gets narrativism from a gamism game. But a game designed ground up to be nar dosesn't have the gamism support at all.

Just for interests sake I'm quoting Tony from another thread:

QuoteOkay, how about we posit Game C: You can get 50 XP and an ally by defeating the monster, or get 500 XP and the potential ally holds you in contempt if you lose.

Now, that 500 XP. Scale it up and down....scale it down to 0 XP or scale it up to 5000 XP. Or to any old number.

I can just see a sliding bar. And with its movement I can see gamism sliding into nar. Or vise versa, if you prefer. Gamism is nar "with a fairly good answer".

Although we get more on topic here:

Quote from: MikeAnyhow, your commets about design and play modes are opaque. GNS is about play, not about what the designer does - he can only attempt to support particular modes with his rules.

It's not about what the designer does...until I make it about what the designer does. It's like AD&D play didn't involve the players actually choosing CA...until hackmaster made such (conflicting choices) it into a LARP. With the way HM sets off the LARP, your emulating those CA choices. This geeky choice of CA is now part of the game.

In fact Universalis has the Gimmick rule by which you make up other rules. So it's pretty darn similar to what you're proposing except with no GM switching condition. And I've said many times that I think that all of Universalis is CA neutral. So we agree there.

I'm just wondering then, if Universalis is so similar, and neutral, then why is your extra layer narrativism?

If you were just to say, "Hey, I want an extra layer where players design rules" then I'm right there with ya, you've got what you wanted. There's just nothing narrativism supportive about it. You say you don't want to change the CA, but add a layer on with another CA. But that layer isn't about play, it's about how to play. So it's not CA.

Is it somehow parallel to the narrativism CA? I think that's a senseless question. CA only applies to play. It's like you've said, "I'm going to give the buyer the ability to affect the design of their car, and the experience of doing so will be like driving a sports car." Design and rules alteration are not play. You're warping the meaning of narrativism so far that it's no longer useful anymore. Narrativism is precisely what bothers the people who want gamism in play, or simulationism. That is, it's part of a theory of play that looks at what is compatible, and how to make for better play internally. As soon as you apply it to something like design - well is there gamism design, too, where players compete? I mean, what's the point of calling it narrativism? How do we know any better about it now who will like it, what it'll conflict with, how to do it better?

We won't. Put it another way, what does it matter if it's narrativism?

The whole TROS thing is way off. A decision about an SA has in-game impact. If you did as you suggest, and made it not impact anything, then what would be the point of it (and in any case, this is the "contrary to fact" fallacy)? SAs are about play, not about design. You can't change the game rules by changing SAs. So I have no idea why you keep bringing this up as a parallel. SAs are a player making a decision about his character, and so CA related. Your mechanic is about a player making a decision on what the rules are like, and so not CA related.


On Gamism and designers, you're just trying to force things to fit your very odd perspectives. EXP that support narrativism is narrativism, not gamism. If, in fact, the reward can be used for one thing, but is given for another, you get incoherence, not bi-modal play. That is, when people try to give EXP for "Roleplaying" what happens is that some players see it as supportive of Narrativism, and play that way, and others see it supportive of Gamism and play that way. Because you can't play both ways at once, by definition. They might shift back and forth, theoretically, but generally players just pick one, and wonder why the other players aren't playing the same way. If, in fact, you make the spending end narrativism, too, then all you have is support for narrativism. Narativism is not, not, not, Gamism with no right answer. That represents a fundamental flaw in your preception of the model.

As for what you're doing, you're making the player the designer, yes. We agree. But that doesn't make that activity any more about establishing SIS than when you or I do it before the players get the product. CA is about play, meaning about establishing what happens in the SIS. Not about deciding how to establish what happens in the SIS.

Hackmaster as a LARP is an interesting idea that I'm not sure I agree with. But the CA support is set in stone in that game, it's intentionally stilted Gamism. The players have no choice about that if they play by the rules. So I'm not even seeing this as parallel. Again, you seem to be making the social contract level decision of what game to play to be a CA decision. Next you'll tell me that the decision of whether or not to get pizza, since it has an effect on the players and interrupts play is somehow narrativism. And then the decision to pay the light bill earlier that month is narrativism.

Narrativism is a term invented by one Ron Edwards to mean something very specific. "Like Narrativism" is simply a pointless thing to say. Why not say what you really mean instead so it makes some sense?

Mike

So you'd like to work out some shared terminology.

Okay, let me tell you a real life story and then we can try and work out some terms we both share: Okay, a friend of mine was doing work as a signing up guy for recycling. He was working with a lot of guys (who owned buisinesses) who were not primary english speaking. Eventually his boss proposed this to him; Sign up all these guys without actually getting their consent (as they'll never protest) and there's something in it for you...otherwise you'll loose your job.

How do you describe that position, in real life terms?

Further, how about this in game example: Your playing a god, and you determine stuff like when earthquakes happen and various natural disasters. You control them to an extent, but they are going to happen. Your a good god and your flock are basically a bunch of good people...but you have to inflict these disasters on them. But you can choose which groups of your flock get it. The question is, who? Basically none of them clearly and easily deserve it.

Now, is that shaping up to be the foundation to be a nar game? Obviously you could take it to gamism or just sim, but is it the sort of stuff that is probably going to prompt nar the most?

Finally, another game example: Your playing a supervisor of an office. You decide the rules. However, the rules you choose can spoil the lives of your co-workers. Also, these rules will affect your own work life and whether it's really worth the time you put into it. Basically, whatever rules you choose, you always seem to piss off roughly an equal amount of people. So who do you choose to piss off? Whoever you choose...what does that say about you?

Actually that last one reminds me of an Australian series called Grass Roots, about a local councils political machinations. Which doesn't help you visualise anything, except it made a pretty interesting series when I watched it. It was enough of a similar issue to make a compelling series from. Oooh, it reminds me of MDA as well...another show about medical insurance and the lawyers fighting it out over peoples deserving and undeserving ailments. Always left you thinking about the myriad issues involved, especially the 'did they deserve compensation' bit. Just mentioning this because these shows were compelling for...well, I can't use the word nar right now. What word would you prefer to use (assuming I described them in enough detail to decide)?

Now, not to get to ahead of myself. What if a roleplay session management, atleast IMO, reflects (in minature) the political mechanations depicted above. Mechanations which seem to lead to no clear answer, so your left to just pursue what you believe in.

Like I might want to depict the god game, or the council politics show/medical insurance show, what if I wanted to depict roleplay politics. And do you think it would be more friendly to a particular CA than the others, based on those things I'm suggesting it's similar to?