PDA

View Full Version : [TheoryITP] Higher Ground



Kalirren
2009-09-18, 11:56 AM
Yeah, so I couldn't think of a better title, but since we seemed to be swamped by a veritable flood of discussion about GNS I thought the metaphor was appropriate. There was a call and second for a new thread to be created so I did it, since no one seems to have done it yet. Now we can talk about this stuff without having to talk over GNS-bashing in the background.

Last I recall, we had Friv's Crunch-Fluff (or as amended by Winterwind, Crunch-Story-Character) and Railroad-Sandbox space.

We also had Raum's matrix of elements, containing a tripartite breakdwon of both levels and arenas of conflict. I'm pretty sure this is a great thing to have, I'm just not sure where and how to fit it in to a common framework, but I'll post it back here.



| |Action / Events |Social / Reputational| Narrative |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Tactical |combat / environment|social interaction |Success / failure |
| Strategic |plot |character development|path choice |
| Metagame |event control |relationships | story |

And we have a middle-term goal of replacing GNS with something more workable. My discussion with Aik made it very clear that GNS has two components, a descriptive one about player styles and group dynamics, and a predictive one which has implications for about system design and implementation.

As for methodology, we've had one second for the idea of starting small and working our way big, starting from systems as case studies.

I think the most immediate question that we need to resolve before us is this, how are we going to organize our efforts? RP theory is a big problem, and if we don't do some division of labor we're going to get not very far anywhere, we're all just going to burn out and this will die.

My first instinct is to start threads asking individual, answerable questions, get some discussion going, and eventually writing mini-articles out of the synthesis of those discussions. Unfortunately this would end up spamming a large chunk of Roleplaying Games forum, but we could do it anyway just to reinforce our own need. I think it would be useful to at least put in a request for a subforum. That in itself will attract people who are interested in the matter.

So that if any of you want to start a thread, go right ahead and do it but put a tag like [TheoryITP] in front of it so that if we end up getting a subforum, all of our things can be moved there easily. It would be clumsy to discuss all of the elements and themes we are currently already discussing in just one thread.

Edit: fixed Winterwind's proposed revision. Sorry! :smalleek:

Yukitsu
2009-09-18, 12:27 PM
Most of these sorts of things start off with a theoretical framework, a hypothesis, then data collection, compilation, interpretation.

You seem to have a loose framework there. Now we just need to derive a hypothesis from it. This is a fairly easy part. We just need to argue over it until everyone is satisfied, hash it out and start on data collection.

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-18, 03:41 PM
I've been following the GNS threads (urgh) so I know what's going on. I still have some questions, though, about the theory framework presented in your post.

The Crunch-Fluff-Story bit I'll address first. I still don't completely understand the distinction between Fluff and Story directions. Could that be outlined more?

Then Raum's stuff. To me, that is certainly not two different axes. The Rows seem to be one axis (going up and down, with Tactical on one end and Metagame on the other), but the Columns seem to be completely separate, not another axis.

If I were to take my own preference (and I play D&D 3.5) I would describe the way (with Raum's stuff) I like to play like this:


------------Action/Events---Social/Rep---Narrative
Tactical-----.................................................. ....
|................................................. .....................
|T/S midpoint.......................................... ...........
|.....................HERE........................ ...................
Strategic----.................................................. ....
|................................................. .....................
|S/M midpoint........................HERE.............. .........
|................................................. ...........HERE....
Metagame---.................................................. ....

If we treat the columns as an axis, this is impossible. Therefore, the columns should not be viewed as an axis.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 03:54 PM
...I have created a monster.

...Hooray!

The Glyphstone
2009-09-18, 04:42 PM
...gives +5 to your agility?

I guess I need to go re-read the GNS threads to know exactly what is going on, but it looks interesting.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 04:56 PM
...gives +5 to your agility?

I guess I need to go re-read the GNS threads to know exactly what is going on, but it looks interesting.
Please, feel free to just skim them. I'm sort of under pressure already...

Anyways. Back to the topic!

Winterwind
2009-09-18, 06:33 PM
Firstly, thank you for starting this, Kalirren. :smallsmile:


My first instinct is to start threads asking individual, answerable questions, get some discussion going, and eventually writing mini-articles out of the synthesis of those discussions. Unfortunately this would end up spamming a large chunk of Roleplaying Games forum, but we could do it anyway just to reinforce our own need. I think it would be useful to at least put in a request for a subforum. That in itself will attract people who are interested in the matter.

So that if any of you want to start a thread, go right ahead and do it but put a tag like [TheoryITP] in front of it so that if we end up getting a subforum, all of our things can be moved there easily. It would be clumsy to discuss all of the elements and themes we are currently already discussing in just one thread.Seems like a good approach to me! :smallcool:


The Crunch-Fluff-Story bit I'll address first. I still don't completely understand the distinction between Fluff and Story directions. Could that be outlined more?Certainly! :smallsmile:

Though I'm afraid I have to start with pointing out an error in the first post. My "amendment", if you want to call it so, was not to Crunch-Fluff-Story, but to Crunch-Story-Character (with Story and Character being two aspects previously both summarized under Fluff that, I feel, are distinct enough to warrant a seperation).

Also note that I always talk about things players may enjoy in roleplaying games (as opposed to roleplaying game design criteria or any such thing). And I don't think I need to add I consider these aspects to be mutually compatible and working hand in hand together harmoniously.


Okay, with that out of the way, let's start:

Story-focused roleplaying, then, would be if the players want the most is a story that is as interesting as possible. They want dramatic twists, exciting battles (not because fighting a dragon is a great tactical challenge and promises lots of loot, but because fighting a dragon is the adventure of your life and because defeating it may give you the key information to uncovering who is betraying the kingdom!), memorable locations and NPCs, etc. The character they play is a vessel to carry them through the story and allow them to affect it - it may in fact be a completely static character (Conan starts out as a powerful barbarian warrior who has a fixed personality, and after his adventure he still is the same powerful barbarian warrior with the same outlook on life. He may have become a king suddenly or been declared criminal and on the run, but the personality is unaffected, just the circumstances this person finds her or himself in changes), and it still doesn't matter, because the excitement comes from the great adventures the character goes through.

Character-focused roleplaying, on the other hand, would be if the players are mostly in for finding out more about the character they themselves created. They - and yes, I'm aware how similar the following part sounds to what GNS defines as Narrativism - desire first and foremost situations that challenge the character's identity, force them to show colour and make moral decisions. They derive their fun from observing how the character changes under stress, and are able to surprise themselves by discovering new facets in that character's personality or background. Just like the Story-players enjoy watching an epic story unfold, full of action and wonder (and influencing it themselves), the Character-players are more interested in the personal matters and psychology of what they play (and influencing those).

And before you protest, hey, most people will want the best of the two worlds and want to play non-static characters in exciting adventures, keep in mind that this is what I'm saying myself - all of these aspects are usually present in players to some degree, just the ratio varies. Those are supposed to be mutually inclusive, not exclusive like in GNS theory.

It might become more clear if I explain where I got this from. See, there was this big debate about metagaming two years ago in these very forums - the debate I found so interesting that I decided to join the forums because of it (I am so painfully shy I have even anxiety issues when entering an Internet community, so this should show you just how interesting I found that debate). An example that was used therein frequently was that - D&D trolls have a wound regeneration that can only be overcome by fire and acid. A player may know that - but when is it justified for the character to use that knowledge?

Some pleaded for the (Crunch-reason) "only when succeeding the appropriate Knowledge check". Some pleaded for "only when it is justified by the character's background or the details of the setting and/or previous events of the campaign" (which is essentially a Story-reason, as it basically calls for the players to undertake a quest to find out about the troll's weakness, should they not know it).

But one poster, Dan Hemmens, whom I hold in tremendous respect (as all of his posts have invariably been extremely insightful and given me perspectives towards roleplaying I had never considered before), said that personally, he would consider this as an opportunity for the character to grow, to add new facets. Maybe the character doesn't know about a troll's weakness - in that case, we have just found this much about that character.

Or maybe the player decides, spontaneously, in this very moment, that this character had some traumatic event involving trolls in the past and, for this reason only, has exhibited enough interest in them to know about that weakness. In which case the player has just learnt a new aspect about that character s/he never knew about before, that can be used for further roleplaying opportunities (so how does the character react to trolls now? How does this new encounter with a troll impact on the character? Etc.).

This is what gave me the concept of a Character-player, something I hadn't ever considered before.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-09-18, 06:55 PM
I don't think it has that much bearing with the theory being developed, but I'll post my spur-of-the-moment rehashing of GNS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6951514&postcount=105) here too.


There are three broad categories that classify the ways RPGs can be played. They arise from focusing play on the three aspects of an RPG: rules, characters and world.

- Character-driven: The main focus of play is to explore the characters being played and the relationships between them. In this mode the world provides events that facilitate explaration of character. The rules are used to regulate character interactions and (ideally) reward character exploration and development.

- World-driven: The main focus of play is the exploration of a fictional world. In this mode the characters are vessels with which the players interact with the world. The rules are used to regulate the workings of that world and (ideally) simulate the desired world faithfully.

- Tactics-driven: The main focus of play is the resolution of set tasks using the rules as a framework of what solutions are allowed or disallowed. In other words, exploration of the rules. The most common form of these tasks are combat and puzzle-solving. In this mode characters are implements with which to test the rules and the world's function is to give these tasks verisimilitude.

The only thing remaining is to say that all modes of play are compatible in theory. In practice there are a few provisos:

- People may actively dislike a given mode. In this case attempting to include said mode is an exercise in futility. ( I.E. Rollplay v. Roleplay)
- Mixing two or more modes simultaneously is difficult. It is however, possible to switch between modes.

Thus, I conclude that a well designed game will include ways to cater to all three modes of play and facilitate mode-switching. That way, each individual gaming group can decide what modes it is interested in at a given moment and use a single system to sastify whatever preferences it may have over time. Furthermore, it allows for those who actively dislike a given mode as they are free to ignore it in favour of whichever mode/s they enjoy.

Finally, and to achieve the total parallelism to GNS and crown my theory GNS's Evil Twin (I kid, I kid) I shall make up two more definitions:

Exclusive Game: A game system that does not facilitate one or more of the modes of play. This kind of game is a niche game (to varying degrees) as it excludes players who enjoy the non-facilitated mode of play.

Inclusive Game: A game that facilitates all three modes of play to equal degree. The Holy Grail of game systems.

You might find it useful. Even if it's just to have an example of not to go about things :smallbiggrin:

Roland St. Jude
2009-09-18, 07:04 PM
...My first instinct is to start threads asking individual, answerable questions, get some discussion going, and eventually writing mini-articles out of the synthesis of those discussions. Unfortunately this would end up spamming a large chunk of Roleplaying Games forum, but we could do it anyway just to reinforce our own need. I think it would be useful to at least put in a request for a subforum. That in itself will attract people who are interested in the matter....

Don't do this. It would (further) spam up the Roleplaying Forum. And this nascent theory doesn't warrant a subforum any more than we'd start a GNS subforum. I've capped the GNS threads at four with the understanding that all but the summary thread will soon fall into obscurity.

Winterwind
2009-09-18, 07:26 PM
On second thought (and a pirate-shaped sheriff dragging me back to reality from the land of RPG theory related lands in my imagination), I think the best way to go about this would be to keep a thread (for example, this one), as main collective RPG theory thread, use it to discuss RPG theory as we please, and to link any interesting thematically related threads from here (including any future articles on our personal musings about RPG theory that do not fit into this thread we might write, with the explicit note that these be genuine articles written in their own threads for the purpose of being discussed, rather than spamming up the forum).

Aik
2009-09-19, 03:31 AM
Lurking with interest but not getting too involved right now because the amount of time these threads take up is truly alarming.

One thing that I think you're going to run into here is terminology problems. People bitch and moan about the amount of jargon generated at The Forge, but having jargon (with well agreed on definitions) is pretty much essential for any technical discussion. I don't really know what you mean when you say 'crunch', 'fluff', and 'story' - I mean, I think I do - but you could be talking about something else entirely. Our group has had long misunderstandings over what it means to have a 'fluff' scene, for instance.

And more importantly: what's the scope? Mostly we've been looking at GNS - but The Big Model for instance has an entirely different scope - it attempts to model the process of play as a whole, while GNS is just a little part of that (and was originally created to solve the problem of playing with systems inappropriate to what you're trying to do). So - what problem are we sitting down and solving here?

(and just as a side note: I find it unfortunate that we duked it out over GNS rather than The Big Model. I think understanding that would make a far better launching place for this kind of discussion than GNS.)

Winterwind
2009-09-19, 07:25 AM
I don't really know what you mean when you say 'crunch', 'fluff', and 'story' - I mean, I think I do - but you could be talking about something else entirely. Our group has had long misunderstandings over what it means to have a 'fluff' scene, for instance. Alright, here would be my definitions:

Crunch - everything that deals with the mechanics and rules used in the game. Dice rolls, character sheets, action resolution mechanics, etc.

Fluff - everything that deals with the imaginary world and characters in it unrelatedly with the rules. The setting, the personalities of PCs and NPCs, the social interactions (as long as they are real talks, rather than Diplomacy rolls), etc.

Story - Okay, I expressed myself somewhat imprecisely there. On one side, I talked about the Story-focused preference players can exhibit (explained in my second-last post), on the other hand, about the story that Story-focused players desire, which would be everything that happens - the adventures, the fights, the evolving characters, the exciting situations, the character interactions, etc. Essentially, what one would write down if one decided to write a short story or novel based on a roleplaying session/campaign.


And more importantly: what's the scope? Mostly we've been looking at GNS - but The Big Model for instance has an entirely different scope - it attempts to model the process of play as a whole, while GNS is just a little part of that (and was originally created to solve the problem of playing with systems inappropriate to what you're trying to do). So - what problem are we sitting down and solving here?

(and just as a side note: I find it unfortunate that we duked it out over GNS rather than The Big Model. I think understanding that would make a far better launching place for this kind of discussion than GNS.)I have to admit, I know nothing about The Big Model... *reads up on Wikipedia*
Mhhhh... I see...
Seems about right with regards to the contents, but of course I don't know how complete the Wikipedia entry is - it doesn't state anything like the different aspects of GNS theory being mutually exclusive, yet I suspect that part is still included in the model, right? With which I would, then, disagree.

I do feel though that it tries to forcefully create hierarchical structures where there are none, or at least where none are needed.

I'd say that we aught discuss anything that might further the understanding of either
a) How roleplaying games can be played, or
b) Who the people we are playing with are (i.e., what they want, how this can be addressed or reconciled with each other, etc.)
Both of these could give new insight into how to improve one's games, and hereby give a justification for all the debates (rather than us creating theories for creating theories' sake). This ranges from the motivations of players to roleplaying/gamemastering techniques.

Raum
2009-09-19, 11:40 AM
Lurking with interest but not getting too involved right now because the amount of time these threads take up is truly alarming.Yes, this does consume more time than I'd planned on...


One thing that I think you're going to run into here is terminology problems. People bitch and moan about the amount of jargon generated at The Forge, but having jargon (with well agreed on definitions) is pretty much essential for any technical discussion. I don't really know what you mean when you say 'crunch', 'fluff', and 'story' - I mean, I think I do - but you could be talking about something else entirely. Our group has had long misunderstandings over what it means to have a 'fluff' scene, for instance. I recommend using standard definitions where possible. If it's not possible in some instance, concatenate or otherwise make up a word and provide a definition. Following the GNS model of redefining standard words is simply a recipe for more confusion and argument. Just look at the GNS threads (everywhere, not just here) for examples. :smallannoyed:


And more importantly: what's the scope? Scope is important. So is purpose. Basing either on another hypothesis is a mistake unless you're incorporating that hypothesis into yours.


Mostly we've been looking at GNS - but The Big Model for instance has an entirely different scope - it attempts to model the process of play as a whole, while GNS is just a little part of that (and was originally created to solve the problem of playing with systems inappropriate to what you're trying to do). So - what problem are we sitting down and solving here?

(and just as a side note: I find it unfortunate that we duked it out over GNS rather than The Big Model. I think understanding that would make a far better launching place for this kind of discussion than GNS.)The "Big Model" is GNS with a wrapper. GNS is still its core with all its assumptions...for good or ill.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So, what is our scope? All role playing games? Or perhaps limit it to all pen and paper role playing games? Or something else entirely?

Similarly, what is our purpose? Create a model for understanding or describing in-scope games? What about game play? Or game design? Or other aspects?

If we're looking at a group effort we'll need answers to the questions above simply to focus every one on the same problem. :smallsmile:

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-19, 03:47 PM
Thanks for the elaboration.

Hm... as for scope, I'll be perfectly honest - I'm thinking more in terms of pencil-and-paper RPGs, seeing how vastly different other ones can be. As for purpose, I propose both of the ones suggested by Winterwind, seeing as they aren't mutually exclusive and are in fact very closely related.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-19, 04:41 PM
...all but the summary thread will soon fall into obscurity.
Oh. -I was unaware of that last part. Very well, I shall turn my attentions instead to the summary thread...

Winterwind
2009-09-19, 08:08 PM
So, what is our scope? All role playing games? Or perhaps limit it to all pen and paper role playing games? Or something else entirely?I have to ashamedly admit, it never even occurred to me to consider anything besides pen and paper roleplaying games (mostly because that's what I am thinking of whenever I enter this subforum).


Similarly, what is our purpose? Create a model for understanding or describing in-scope games? What about game play? Or game design? Or other aspects?See my last post for my opinion on that.

Raum
2009-09-19, 11:21 PM
Ok, so beginning with the following:
Scope: Pen and paper Role Playing Games
Purpose: Describe Role Playing Games, how they are played, and the players' goals.*

The first thing we'll need is a definition of P&P RPGs. Any thoughts?

Probably best to finish a definition first, but the next step is observation - what elements do you see in games, in game play, and in player goals? From there we'll need to work on a hypothesis and how to test it.

*First, let me know if I haven't captured the purpose correctly. But we also need to look at the purpose to see if it's really what we're aiming at. "Players' goals" may simply be fun. Do we really mean characters' goals here? Or is it really that simple?

Samurai Jill
2009-09-20, 04:16 AM
Alright, here would be my definitions:

Crunch - everything that deals with the mechanics and rules used in the game. Dice rolls, character sheets, action resolution mechanics, etc.

Fluff - everything that deals with the imaginary world and characters in it unrelatedly with the rules. The setting, the personalities of PCs and NPCs, the social interactions (as long as they are real talks, rather than Diplomacy rolls), etc.
FWIW, in GNS these would probably be referred to as System and Colour. (And also, depending on the rule-set, characters' personalities could very much be part of the System.)

One point of caution I would urge here is to consider that while very pronounced differences along these lines DO exist within RPGs, they're also obvious differences that rarely lead to interplayer disagreements. Everyone knows whether they like freeform or heavyweight, superheroes or lovecraftian horror, and players either find they share tastes or go their separate ways before play ever starts. Analysing these differences, by itself, is probably not going to be particularly illuminating.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-20, 08:18 AM
Is the only purpose of RPG theory the resolution of player disagreements?

If so, then why does GNS entirely ignore the volume of player disagreements that stem from non-game system related sources? Heck, I've seen plenty of players quit playing, or have fights over things that weren't related to the game system....in some cases, not even related to the campaign.

Intra-person conflict is pretty much part of being human. It's certainly not specific to RPGs, and RPGs should embrace much more than just player vs player conflicts.

Raum
2009-09-20, 10:07 AM
Is the only purpose of RPG theory the resolution of player disagreements?I think GNS has shown us that its purpose is to cause disagreements! :smalltongue:


If so, then why does GNS entirely ignore the volume of player disagreements that stem from non-game system related sources? Heck, I've seen plenty of players quit playing, or have fights over things that weren't related to the game system....in some cases, not even related to the campaign.Even if you're hypothesis is about player disagreements you have to limit your scope somewhere. A 'Unified Field Theory' is the holy grail of physics for a reason...and even it is limiting scope to fundamental forces between elementary particles.


Intra-person conflict is pretty much part of being human. It's certainly not specific to RPGs, and RPGs should embrace much more than just player vs player conflicts.There are many existing studies on small group dynamics.

To be clear though, I do not think the purpose of RPG theory needs to have anything to do with player disputes. That's where GNS went simply because its creators had an agenda. They wanted to emphasize a given style of play.

But that horse is dead. There are five recent threads beating it.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-20, 02:19 PM
Is the only purpose of RPG theory the resolution of player disagreements?
I think the purpose of a theory is to make non-trivial observations.

If so, then why does GNS entirely ignore the volume of player disagreements that stem from non-game system related sources? Heck, I've seen plenty of players quit playing, or have fights over things that weren't related to the game system....in some cases, not even related to the campaign.
It doesn't exactly ignore them, it just reckons they're down to things a theory can't actually do much about, or come down to differences in preference that the players can reasonably compromise about. (See the 'dysfunction' section here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/7/).)

The other problem here is that 'crunch' is often taken to mean roll-play, which players conflate with Gamism, and 'fluff' is confused with role-play, which players conflate with both Sim and Nar priorities. But the real difference here is underlying motives. You could be rolling lots of dice and closely inspecting the results because you want the outcome to be accurate/realistic, or because you're hoping to game the system for personal advantage.



- Character-driven: The main focus of play is to explore the characters being played and the relationships between them. In this mode the world provides events that facilitate explaration of character. The rules are used to regulate character interactions and (ideally) reward character exploration and development.
That's pretty close to Narrativism, yeah.

- World-driven: The main focus of play is the exploration of a fictional world. In this mode the characters are vessels with which the players interact with the world. The rules are used to regulate the workings of that world and (ideally) simulate the desired world faithfully.
That's pretty close to Simulationism, yeah.

- Tactics-driven: The main focus of play is the resolution of set tasks using the rules as a framework of what solutions are allowed or disallowed. In other words, exploration of the rules...
Here, I think you're confusing Sim with Game. Gamism doesn't get hung up so much over 'correct' solutions or verisimilitude, but on providing closely balanced choices to the players (in which respect it's similar to Nar play.) The difference is the arena of choice: In Gamism, it's the length of a bout, or a challenge, the implements are tactical or strategic, and the payoff is victory, in Narrativism, it's the length of a storyline or character-arc, the implements are emotional or ethical priorities, and the payoff is theme.

- People may actively dislike a given mode. In this case attempting to include said mode is an exercise in futility. ( I.E. Rollplay v. Roleplay)
Roll-play vs. role-play is nothing more or less than exploration of System and exploration of Character, both of which, when made first priority, are Simulationism. (Remember that in Narrativism, 'breaking character' is common.) Both emphasise the idea that in-world logic is the most important aspect of play.

- Mixing two or more modes simultaneously is difficult. It is however, possible to switch between modes.
I don't see the functional distinction, short of simultaneously playing 3 different games.

Winterwind
2009-09-20, 05:08 PM
Ok, so beginning with the following:
Scope: Pen and paper Role Playing Games
[...]

The first thing we'll need is a definition of P&P RPGs. Any thoughts?Um... I appreciate your meticulousness and am well aware of how important a solid foundation is, but isn't this going a bit overboard? I mean, cannot we assume the definition of P&P RPGs is intuitively clear?


Purpose: Describe Role Playing Games, how they are played, and the players' goals.*
[...]

*First, let me know if I haven't captured the purpose correctly. But we also need to look at the purpose to see if it's really what we're aiming at. "Players' goals" may simply be fun. Do we really mean characters' goals here? Or is it really that simple?Personally, I'd replace "players' goals" with "players' goals and means of reaching them". Which will probably amount to "players' ways of having fun" 95% of the time.


FWIW, in GNS these would probably be referred to as System and Colour. (And also, depending on the rule-set, characters' personalities could very much be part of the System.)

One point of caution I would urge here is to consider that while very pronounced differences along these lines DO exist within RPGs, they're also obvious differences that rarely lead to interplayer disagreements. Everyone knows whether they like freeform or heavyweight, superheroes or lovecraftian horror, and players either find they share tastes or go their separate ways before play ever starts. Analysing these differences, by itself, is probably not going to be particularly illuminating.Hence why the post you quoted was not my disctinction of different playing preferences, but just a clarification of terms to ensure people know what I mean when I use them (as Aik had asked for). The actual model I proposed is described a few posts earlier.


Is the only purpose of RPG theory the resolution of player disagreements?As outlined above, I feel it's purpose is the understanding of how people play and why they play, and then figuring out from that understanding how to improve everybody's fun the most. Resolution of player disagreements is just a subset of that. Different GMing techniques, to share the tools of the trade, for example, would be another.


Here, I think you're confusing Sim with Game. Gamism doesn't get hung up so much over 'correct' solutions or verisimilitude, but on providing closely balanced choices to the players (in which respect it's similar to Nar play.) The difference is the arena of choice: In Gamism, it's the length of a bout, or a challenge, the implements are tactical or strategic, and the payoff is victory, in Narrativism, it's the length of a storyline or character-arc, the implements are emotional or ethical priorities, and the payoff is theme.He cannot possibly be confusing Simulationism with Gamism, because he is not talking about either in the first place.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-21, 05:13 AM
Hence why the post you quoted was not my disctinction of different playing preferences, but just a clarification of terms to ensure people know what I mean when I use them (as Aik had asked for). The actual model I proposed is described a few posts earlier.
I'll try to come back and read it in more detail later.

He cannot possibly be confusing Simulationism with Gamism, because he is not talking about either in the first place.
To my understanding, the poster in question was attempting to summarise GNS theory in their own words, as a prelude to exploring alternatives. The correction is valid.

Aik
2009-09-21, 06:11 AM
So, I don't want to argue about this stuff, but I really, really have to disagree with this:


The "Big Model" is GNS with a wrapper. GNS is still its core with all its assumptions...for good or ill.

Seriously, it's not. GNS is incorporated in the 'Creative Agenda' arrow, but you could remove that completely and it would still be a workable model (albeit a less useful one - I think the creative goodness everyone's getting from the game is pretty important - even if you just totally leave GNS out of it the basic concept of a creative agenda is valid).

Anyway ... let's not talk about GNS - but there's no reason to throw out all other ideas generated around the place, sooo:

There are some very cool pieces of theory floating around on the internet - I ran into this again today and thought it might be interesting to you: http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html

Vincent Baker in general has some cool stuff (although he is a dirty dirty Forgey, of course). I know I keep repeating it, but his Roleplaying theory, hardcore (http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html) page has some really useful things - see especially Roleplaying's Fundamental Act and Resolution, Why? (and scroll past the GNS talk if it offends you :p )



Crunch - everything that deals with the mechanics and rules used in the game. Dice rolls, character sheets, action resolution mechanics, etc.

Fluff - everything that deals with the imaginary world and characters in it unrelatedly with the rules. The setting, the personalities of PCs and NPCs, the social interactions (as long as they are real talks, rather than Diplomacy rolls), etc.

Story - Okay, I expressed myself somewhat imprecisely there. On one side, I talked about the Story-focused preference players can exhibit (explained in my second-last post), on the other hand, about the story that Story-focused players desire, which would be everything that happens - the adventures, the fights, the evolving characters, the exciting situations, the character interactions, etc. Essentially, what one would write down if one decided to write a short story or novel based on a roleplaying session/campaign.

I think your Story and Fluff overlap (and I really quite dislike the term 'fluff' - fluff implies to me that it's not significant).
You put 'the social interactions' under fluff - how it that any less part of the story than ... actually, you have it under story as well in 'character interactions'.

I'm fairly sure one of those catagories is superfluous - but what you're left will be far too bloated with too much in it to be of any use. Given those definitions I'd throw out Fluff for now, because it seems at the most a subset of Story (as you've defined story).

Eeeeh - I know if I break this down further than that I'm going to end up with the Big Model's situation, character, colour, etc. - but that's my bias shining through.

Heh - but it suddenly occurs to me that if you add 'Social', you'd end up with something very much like what Vincent Baker was doing in that first link I gave.

***

I'm not a big fan of the terms you've chosen generally. By 'Story' you mean ... uh, the totality of the fiction? I mean, I can see that Story could be technically that, but ... eh. The Big Model calls it the Shared Imagined Space, but it's normally called just 'the fiction' when everyone's not being technical in 'Forgey'-circles.
Eh - I dunno - 'Story' rubs me the wrong way - the story's the thing you tell after the game, but you don't really have one in play (unless you're on rails, I guess...). I could just be talking crap here.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-21, 06:23 AM
Personally, I would like to see this stay what it is. A thread for the creation of new theory. And I would NOT like to see GNS as a founding or a basis in early discussions. I believe it better to find what is, rather than focus on what we believe is not. For that purpose, I humbly submit that GNS has a thread, which is quite sufficient for the pro's and con's of GNS.

Higher Ground is just starting out, and one of the principle complaints many have with GNS is that it is reputed to drown out other theorycraft. I think it would be a very diplomatic gesture, for GNS proponents and opponents, if we not compare and contrast this theorycraft exercise too much with GNS until we have a chance to establish what this theory really stands for, on a nuts and bolts level.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for open debate. I like that. I just see the GNS thread pretty much sitting on back and forth disagreements with perceived inconsistencies over the tenets, and someone else correcting. That's fine for GNS. It's an established theory, and is at the stage where its views are challenged and defended.
Correction assumes too much right and wrong, here though. I believe we're still in the brainstorming stage here, and too much correction/insistence on precision just sets off this adventure on the wrong tone. There's no room for right and wrong when brainstorming. It's all about generation of ideas. Sorting it all out typically comes later.

Winterwind
2009-09-21, 06:54 AM
I'll try to come back and read it in more detail later.Though that post does not contain my concept in its entirety either. For completeness, it would probably help to read this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6942002&postcount=48) (Friv's theory) and this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6942267&postcount=51) (my response to it) post as well.


To my understanding, the poster in question was attempting to summarise GNS theory in their own words, as a prelude to exploring alternatives. The correction is valid.Not summarize. Create his own counterpart.


I think your Story and Fluff overlap (and I really quite dislike the term 'fluff' - fluff implies to me that it's not significant).
You put 'the social interactions' under fluff - how it that any less part of the story than ... actually, you have it under story as well in 'character interactions'. What do you mean, "my" Fluff? There is no Fluff in my version of the theory, only in Friv's - which has no Story. Which explains the overlap - Story covers part of what was Fluff under Friv's theory.

Kalirren, please, fix the first post already, so that people stop accusing me of saying something I never said. :smallfrown:


I'm fairly sure one of those catagories is superfluous - but what you're left will be far too bloated with too much in it to be of any use. Given those definitions I'd throw out Fluff for now, because it seems at the most a subset of Story (as you've defined story).I think you might want to reread my first post in this thread where (part of) my theory is detailed. You might notice then that it contains no such thing as Fluff.


I'm not a big fan of the terms you've chosen generally. By 'Story' you mean ... uh, the totality of the fiction? I mean, I can see that Story could be technically that, but ... eh. The Big Model calls it the Shared Imagined Space, but it's normally called just 'the fiction' when everyone's not being technical in 'Forgey'-circles.
Eh - I dunno - 'Story' rubs me the wrong way - the story's the thing you tell after the game, but you don't really have one in play (unless you're on rails, I guess...). I could just be talking crap here.I see this differently. To me, everything that happens during play (sans rules, mechanics and dice rolling) all is part of a story in progress. The players and the gamemaster create it together; the existence of rails or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-21, 08:17 AM
Not summarize. Create his own counterpart.
Fine. Then I'm pointing out the qualities he lists have nothing to do with eachother, as plenty of games, both RPG and non-RPG, clearly demonstrate.

I see this differently. To me, everything that happens during play (sans rules, mechanics and dice rolling) all is part of a story in progress. The players and the gamemaster create it together; the existence of rails or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant.
It certainly is not irrelevant. A fixed plot dictates that player authorship of story is zero. I really, really, really wish people would just accept this, and move on. It doesn't make this style of play bad, but it's dishonest to claim that collaboration on story is present when none exists.

Kalirren
2009-09-21, 08:36 AM
Kalirren, please, fix the first post already, so that people stop accusing me of saying something I never said.

Done. Sorry. Was away without internet access for the weekend. This situation will persist for at least 6 weeks.


Um... I appreciate [Raum's] meticulousness and am well aware of how important a solid foundation is, but isn't this going a bit overboard? I mean, cannot we assume the definition of P&P RPGs is intuitively clear?

Well, actually, I don't know. You can talk about a P&P ruleset very easily. People have numerical stats and/or denominated traits and powers, which they keep track of on a piece of paper called a character sheet. That's a P&P ruleset.

But to talk about a P&P system, or a P&P game is actually much harder. There are a lot of groups I belong to who start a game playing under a P&P ruleset (say d10), start out totally within the crunch, and then as time goes on and their characters crystallize, eventually move away from their character sheets, indeed the entire P&P aspect of it, and eventually end up exploring things in ways that the original ruleset just wouldn't be able to handle. The point I'm trying to get across with this example is that in any given game, the system and the ruleset are two different things, and examples can be raised of play in which the system evolves away from the ruleset, into territory either not covered by the ruleset or in which the ruleset does a poor job of providing a language of communication between the players.

So I have to disagree with you here, Winterwind, the extent of P&P games is not at all obvious, since any "solid" delineation between P&P and non-P&P would not be useful to describe fully half the games I play.

But this isn't to say that I think Raum's idea is unworkable. If we're going to look at "P&P games" we're going to be looking at games in which the play group agrees on the meaning of certain traits and stats and powers that characters have. In that light I think the natural questions to ask in terms of system design and architecture become:

1) what kind of traits, stats, and powers are there? How do they relate to the types of activities that the players do, the situations that the game explores?

2) how do players -use- them to legitimize their actions in game? (This is essentially a question about the relationship between system and ruleset as defined by and mediated through the social contract of the game.)

After we've settled that we can hash out the questions involving what people think is fun:

3) What are the different patterns of player actions in game? How do those patterns relate to individual creative agendas?

And lastly, because we are interested in talking about everything that GNS talks about,

4) What are the different ways in which groups integrate individual creative agendas into a workable agenda for play? How do they decide how to allocate a limited amount of play time?

Edit: Winterwind, I guess this just ends up being a breakdown into higher resolution of your two points above re. "a) How roleplaying games can be played, or b) Who the people we are playing with are." Is there anything you think I'm missing?

Edit 2: I guess it might be important to mention now that I use the term "player" in this post to refer any participant, including any and all GMs. I guess it's a bit counterintuitive and that in the interest of not turning into an Edwards clone I should find a better word for it (perhaps "participant"?) but it's borne out of the notion that within a gaming group, all of the people who are playing ought to be equal as players, even if only one of them may have GM powers and duties.

Random832
2009-09-21, 08:56 AM
A fixed plot dictates that player authorship of story is zero.

Right, but presence of "rails" don't dictate that there is a fixed plot. It could for example simply mean keeping players in areas that have been designed in detail, while allowing them more or less complete freedom to choose what they do in those places.

Even if there is a fixed plot, that doesn't have to be the _only_ plot. Consider: The OOTS could be on rails as far as the "main" plot (to defeat xykon and save the world, as opposed to ignoring xykon and doing their own thing), but the Roy resurrection arc was entirely an outgrowth of a single stupid action on Roy's part, not planned at all by the DM in advance.

Which brings me to another thing. I know that there aren't REALLY players in OOTS, but bear with me a moment. Suppose that the reason it took so long for Roy to get resurrected was that his player was unavailable. Under this interpretation, the parts where he was in Celestia could have been done separately from the rest of the group, and the parts where he was observing the others could be the DM giving him a separate recap of events from an earlier session, still without him being available to sit in on the sessions in real time. This interpretation also neatly explains the uncharacteristically dumb action of jumping onto a dragon controlled by the enemy with no access to flight or feather fall.

But I digress. My point is, to some extent real life can write the story.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-21, 08:57 AM
It certainly is not irrelevant. A fixed plot dictates that player authorship of story is zero. I really, really, really wish people would just accept this, and move on. It doesn't make this style of play bad, but it's dishonest to claim that collaboration on story is present when none exists.
I don't believe that was the point he was making. I don't believe he was claiming collaboration existed.

I believe he stated that freeform (non railroaded) plot is a story.
Also, Fixed Plot (Railroaded) is a story.

It sounds to me like he's saying, "whether a story is interactive or not is irrelevant for the purpose of defining what it is."

What a good story is to a specific individual is neither here nor there. What he's saying is that if a part of a game isn't dealing with the rules, the mechanics, or the rolling of dice, it's dealing with the story. Whether it does so well is a matter of personal opinion, but there it is.

Winterwind
2009-09-21, 09:30 AM
Fine. Then I'm pointing out the qualities he lists have nothing to do with eachother, as plenty of games, both RPG and non-RPG, clearly demonstrate.Fair enough.


It certainly is not irrelevant. A fixed plot dictates that player authorship of story is zero. I really, really, really wish people would just accept this, and move on. It doesn't make this style of play bad, but it's dishonest to claim that collaboration on story is present when none exists.This:

I don't believe that was the point he was making. I don't believe he was claiming collaboration existed.

I believe he stated that freeform (non railroaded) plot is a story.
Also, Fixed Plot (Railroaded) is a story.

It sounds to me like he's saying, "whether a story is interactive or not is irrelevant for the purpose of defining what it is."

What a good story is to a specific individual is neither here nor there. What he's saying is that if a part of a game isn't dealing with the rules, the mechanics, or the rolling of dice, it's dealing with the story. Whether it does so well is a matter of personal opinion, but there it is.is precisely what I was trying to say. Though I see how I may have expressed myself in a way that was easy to misunderstand there.
Also, thanks, PhoenixRivers, for writing that up so much more clearly than I did. :smallredface:


Done. Sorry. Was away without internet access for the weekend. This situation will persist for at least 6 weeks.S'alright. Thank you. :smallsmile:
Also, awww, too bad. :smallfrown:


Well, actually, I don't know. You can talk about a P&P ruleset very easily. People have numerical stats and/or denominated traits and powers, which they keep track of on a piece of paper called a character sheet. That's a P&P ruleset.

But to talk about a P&P system, or a P&P game is actually much harder. There are a lot of groups I belong to who start a game playing under a P&P ruleset (say d10), start out totally within the crunch, and then as time goes on and their characters crystallize, eventually move away from their character sheets, indeed the entire P&P aspect of it, and eventually end up exploring things in ways that the original ruleset just wouldn't be able to handle. The point I'm trying to get across with this example is that in any given game, the system and the ruleset are two different things, and examples can be raised of play in which the system evolves away from the ruleset, into territory either not covered by the ruleset or in which the ruleset does a poor job of providing a language of communication between the players.

So I have to disagree with you here, Winterwind, the extent of P&P games is not at all obvious, since any "solid" delineation between P&P and non-P&P would not be useful to describe fully half the games I play.You are entirely right. I, too, would for instance consider freeform to still be part of P&P games (or, at least, part of what we should be discussing), so I really should have thought of this myself. :smallredface:


Edit: Winterwind, I guess this just ends up being a breakdown into higher resolution of your two points above re. "a) How roleplaying games can be played, or b) Who the people we are playing with are." Is there anything you think I'm missing?I am not sure if it's covered by one of your points already, but I don't quite see where it would fit in, so I would probably add "GMing techniques" as another point. There are all sorts of interesting things a GM can do (brief cut-aways to scenes the PCs do not witness to build up atmosphere and have the players start wondering, handing out some characters for the players to play in some brief scene for whatever purpose - like, say,
>>if people who play with me are reading this, keep the hell out of this spoiler!<<
a group of nomads that accidentally stumbles into the accursed location where the showdown of the campaign shall take place, and end up facing the horrors intended for the PCs proper once they get this far - most of them probably end up being slaughtered, though depending on the actions of the players some might escape. The purpose, setting up the horror of what the PCs are up against, build up suspense and make the final victory - should they be able to achieve it - all the more satisfying for them., and many more). Sharing them, seeing what little tricks with plotting, description or whatever else belongs to the GM-trade the other GMs use would give plenty of opportunities for learning new things to use oneself, and therefore be quite useful, I believe.


Edit 2: I guess it might be important to mention now that I use the term "player" in this post to refer any participant, including any and all GMs. I guess it's a bit counterintuitive and that in the interest of not turning into an Edwards clone I should find a better word for it (perhaps "participant"?) but it's borne out of the notion that within a gaming group, all of the people who are playing ought to be equal as players, even if only one of them may have GM powers and duties.I share that notion; I usually use the term "group member" when I want to refer to both GM and "regular" players, though I cannot exclude the occasional slip up when I just say 'player' while meaning both, simply because I view them all as equals..

Kalirren
2009-09-21, 10:24 PM
This is just a quickie post before I got to bed.

I just wanted to say that I think developing this theory in a forum is ill-suited to the classical paradigm of hypothesis formulation and statistical testing. Data collection is difficult and the practice of RP across different systems and player networks is ultimately akin to a cross-cultural study, for which it's notoriously difficult to be able to find a diversity of the sort that I at least am interested in developing the theory for. It's all too easy to design a survey like WotC's, which, while it provides valuable actual data on RP style, also reinforces core assumptions about the way RPGs are played that we are already challenging in this discussion. I agree that we should find ways and techiques to make existing play more fun, but I think (and maybe this is a very naive hope) that that will come naturally as a result of (eventually) extending our awareness to encompass activities like actors doing improvisation, cRPGs and MMORPGs.

In short, I think that trying to use a survey to get distributions of player answers to questions about their play isn't going to be good until we have a better idea about what questions need to be asked. That's not what we need to do right now - it's too much of a commitment in what may well not be the right direction. I think what we need to do right now is compare notes about our own play experiences to see what sort of framework encompasses most of the possible forms of RP. In this way we take advantage of the large forum-based community we have here, instead of running up against the inherent weaknesses of asychronous communication.

Given that we've chosen to tackle P&P, I'd like to throw a couple of questions out to the general wisdom of the audience.

1) It's well known that many P&P gaming groups arrive at the concentration of a large amount of narrative power in a single individual. Many systems require and presume this structure to exist. What is/are the role(s) of the DM/GM/Storyteller?

2) In searching for a game to play these days, there are large number of choices in system. What are the factors that influence your choice of system?

I'll write more in the morning possibly to elaborate on these questions, certainly to respond to past posts. But now I've got to get to sleep.

Winterwind
2009-09-22, 01:10 PM
1) It's well known that many P&P gaming groups arrive at the concentration of a large amount of narrative power in a single individual. Many systems require and presume this structure to exist. What is/are the role(s) of the DM/GM/Storyteller?That can vary wildly between groups. In some mechanically focused groups, the GM can be a tactical opponent, the one who runs the monsters and traps the players have to surmount. In some, s/he may be the one who comes up with the story, and there are sufficient rails to ensure the players follow the general plot (whatever deviations there might be due to player actions). In others yet, while s/he may have some plot in mind (or may just be improvising spontaneously), the players' actions matter to such a degree that they can completely topple the original plot and send the story in a completely different direction than the GM envisioned (but it remains her or his duty to come up with an interesting plot for the players to wade through, with a lot of quick thinking and improvisation). Lastly, the players can have major rights with regards to changing aspects of the world around them as they please, bringing their narrative power to a similar level as the GM's; or there may not even be a GM, or may be changing every couple of minutes. I haven't played in a group playing in the last mentioned style, but have heard about it.

Completely unrelatedly with the amount of the GM's narrative power is the amount of... hmmm... might call it 'action resolution power', though I'm not quite satisfied with the term. What I mean is, in some groups, there is a strong focus on the ruleset, and it's mostly dice rolls and character statistics that decide what happens. There may be rules in place that prevent the GM from treating the characters 'unfairly' (where 'unfairly' is usually taken to mean 'not in accordance to the rules as written'), and in any given situation it's usually pretty clear what one has to roll to succeed or fail, with little possible influence from the GM to impact on whether it succeeds or fails. In other groups, the GM's power in this regard can be bigger - allowing her or him to override the rules frequently or (as is the case in many freeform groups) replacing the rules with GM power entirely, making the GM the only arbitrator on what the exact results of anything happening in the game might be.

Of course, depending on playstyle, the GM is not necessarily the only one who is allowed to override rules (to a smaller or bigger degree).

(also, I'm sticking to the term 'gamemaster'/GM, because it is not specific to any particular game, as opposed to DM or Storyteller)


2) In searching for a game to play these days, there are large number of choices in system. What are the factors that influence your choice of system?I'm very open towards new systems, always eager to trying new ones out (even if they obviously are not in line with what I usually like the most about systems) just for the sake of trying them out. And when deciding which one to play at the moment, it's usually a spontaneous decision between me and my friends which one of the stories in which one of the settings we would like to continue (i.e., completely 'fluff'-based reasons, not ruleset-related ones). Accordingly, the most important thing about a system for me is "what is the system's setting?" and "what setting do I feel like playing in right now?".

As for the ruleset, however, I generally have a preference for light and quick rules, where a single, simple and quick mechanic covers as much as much of the ruleset as possible and the number of special rules and exceptions from that mechanic is low (because I want the time taken up by finding out the results of a player's actions to be short, so we can go back to the actual story and the impact these actions have on it as quickly as possible). I also greatly prefer rulesets without classes or levels to those with, as I feel they give a lot more freedom with creating a good mechanical representation of the character one envisioned.