Axes II: A Proposal for Campaign/GMing Classification (pretty long)
Leon von Stauber
Just when you think you've got a handle on things...
Well, my ideas have undergone some recent transformations after catching
up with the last week's news; some things have changed, but mainly my
understanding has expanded (I hope :-) ). Following is an actual attempt
at a complete classfication of campaign styles based on axes. This is the
second or third stab at this on my part, and certainly not the last. But
I did first want to make some acknowledgments.
This is pretty much entirely a summation of other people's ideas, hopefully
presented in a manner that will clarify, rather than obscure, the issues.
It draws especially heavily on Rodney's recent and not-so-recent ideas.
The ol' plot/world business is still in here: I can't remember if that was
yours, John, or if you were summarizing the "story/world" distinction.
The Diagetic setting issues here were spurred by Mary's original
"romantic/realistic" contrast. Also, I can't remember who recently suggested
the "Conflictual/Mundane" distinction recently; speak up, so I can properly
credit you on the upcoming Web page! (John Kim has inspired me!) And of
course, all of the people engaged in the discussions here on r.g.f.a. have
added immeasurably to the exposition and value of these ideas. (Please let
me know if you think I've left you or anyone else out! My memory's not so
good, and it's even worse with names! :-) )
That having been said, onward we go!
I've placed the axes into three categories. (It just happened to come out
to three groups of three, which is nice...until more need to be added...)
Here's an overview:
Preparation
Plot (Light/Heavy Plot prep)
World (Light/Heavy World prep)
Drama (Light/Heavy Drama)
Diagesis
Realism (Realistic/Fantastic)
Romanticism (Romantic/Nihilistic)
Conflict (Conflictual/Mundane)
Metagame
Authorship (Auteur/Troupe)
Direction (Directed/Natural)
Mechanism (Mechanical/Freeform)
Some of these terms suck. "Mechanism", in particular. "Mundane" seems to
imply boredom. Also, is "Diagesis" a word? Rodney, or somebody, help me
out on this one. I couldn't find the def in an online Webster's, and I
don't have a hardcopy dictionary handy.
Another term for "Plot" might be "Story", and "World" might well be
"Setting". "Romanticism" may be more clear if it's called "Heroism".
I'll be taking votes on these names, so speak up!
A note on choosing these terms: on the axes with clear duality (the
Diagetic and Metagame axes), I chose the terms that seem easier to grasp.
For example, from "Fantasy/Realism" I chose "Realism" as the term for the
axis, since "Fantasy" doesn't seem to get the point across.
I know these terms are stepping all over Rodney's typology. Sorry ;-).
Now for some details:
Preparatory issues
These deal with the *kind* of preparation a GM does. They deal
fairly directly with the motivations and limitations behind the
preparation for a campaign.
Plot and World
I still like setting up the Plot and World axes so as to
define a plane, as below (again, my apologies to those
using proportional fonts):
World axis
10-| /
9-| World /
8-| -oriented /
7-| /
6-| /
5-| /
4-| / Plot
3-| / -oriented
2-| /
1-|/
0-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| Plot axis
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The origin (0,0) of this graph is pretty much meaningless
-- it indicates no preparation of any kind. "10" on these
axes might represent some sort of humanly achievable limit
on the amount of preparation.
With this, you would describe how much Plot prep and how
much World prep went into the campaign, usually limited
by the amount of time the GM has to spend. Campaigns with
more time on world design than on plot design would fall
into the "upper left" part of the graph, and would loosely
be termed "World-oriented". Campaigns which fall into the
"lower right" would be described as "Plot-oriented". (For
those of you with a background in physics, this is analogous
to the definition of spacelike and timelike events on a
relativistic spacetime diagram.)
(Rodney, your idea to do some basic statistical analysis on
this sounded intriguing, but I often wonder if we're already
taking things too far. ;-) )
Drama |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| Drama axis
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
My ideas on this have changed, and I agree that this is
better viewed as an issue in GM campaign preparation. (See
the notes on the Direction axis for what happens in play.)
It deals with the degree to which the plot or world hinges
on the "dramatic necessities" of the PCs. This may still
require some definition, but basically it describes how
much the plot/world hooks into and is dependent upon
elements of the PCs' personalities and backgrounds.
A "0" on this axis means that the plot/world is designed
completely without regard to the PCs that will be
involved. A "10" describes a plot/world that is formed
entirely from PC considerations. This, of course, means
that a lightly Dramatic game would probably have the GM
design world/plot long before the players make up
characters, while the very heavily Dramatic game requires
knowledge of already-made (or nearly so) PCs.
Heavily Dramatic could also be called "character-oriented".
Diagetic issues
These are also issues for campaign preparation, but they deal
with *what* the GM prepares. They describe the internal
characteristics of the campaign or setting.
Realism Fantastic <-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-> Realistic
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is a measure of the extent to which a setting abides
by the same physical, sociological, and psychological
rules that govern the real world. (Of course, we may not
all completely agree on what those are!) A "0" on this
axis represents an outlandishly fantastical setting which
violates everything we know about how the world works
(Lovecraft's stories set in the Dreamlands come close),
while a "10" is a faithful model of reality (something
scientists are still trying to achieve!).
Romanticism Nihilistic <-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-> Romantic
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Will the PCs prevail against overwhelming odds (most supers
campaigns?)? Or are the PCs doomed, and it's only a matter
of time (Call of Cthulhu)?
"0" - "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."
"10" - The PCs almost can't lose.
Conflict Mundane <-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-> Conflictual
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Is the setting rife with conflict (war, political intrigue,
etc.)? Or are things pretty quiet, and it's up to the
PCs to find something interesting to do?
"0" - Kansas.
"10" - Bosnia, early 15th-century Europe
Metagame issues
These deal with how a GM handles things on a level external to the
game setting or story. Two of these axes are the only ones in this
scheme that really deal with in-play decision-making.
Authorship Troupe <-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-> Auteur
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is a measure of how much authorial control is in the
hands of one person. A "0" indicates equal control among
all participants (perhaps no GM as such), a "10" disallows
any meaningful player input ("control freak" GMs).
Direction Natural <-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-> Directed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is an important one. It measures the degree to which
the GM will take a hand to keep things "on track". In a
Directed game, the GM will make a conscious attempt to
keep things Dramatic (i.e. especially relevant to PC
backgrounds and personalities), to keep the Plot moving,
to make sure the Conflict level stays high, etc., perhaps
giving up some setting consistency to do so. In a
Naturally-GMed campaign, the GM will interpret and respond
to PC actions in the way that seems most likely and
consistent, given the particular setting, even if some
Drama is lost or the Plot is derailed.
"0" - Any way the campaign goes is fine.
"10" - Complete railroading.
Mechanism Freeform <-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-> Mechanical
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is a measure of how unwilling the GM is to bend or
break the rules in favor of game considerations. Its sort
of a game-mechanically-oriented form of the Direction
axis. Note: "Mechanical" is a *terrible* term.
"0" - "Dice? What dice? And did you say something about
a rule book?"
"10" - The GM will beat rules lawyers to the punch. "The
dice are always right."
Comments:
This scheme presumes in its descriptions a simplistic pattern of game
design followed by game play, and never the twain shall meet. Of course,
this doesn't actually exist, but I think the system is still valid for
the normal routine of design/play/design-while-playing/design-some-more/
play/design/etc.
Notice that I've been using this as a system to classify individual
campaigns (or settings, or stories, pick your favorite). It could also be
used to rate general GM tendencies and preferences, which is probably
most of what we'll be doing in this group.
Did I hear the word "simulation"? Not until now. While this term doesn't
have an official place in this classification anymore, I think it's a
GM style with which most of us are familiar and which we can comprehend.
So here's what I think: Simulationism is primarily characterized by a
strongly Natural style, usually associated with heavy World prep, light
Plot prep, light Drama, and a healthy dose of Realism. (At least it's
not typically strongly Fantastic.) It's middle of the road on the Romantic
axis, and usually pretty true to the Mechanical side of things. I think
this probably describes Mary pretty well.
If this works, perhaps it would lead to some interesting discussion on
the implications of various styles on SOD, type of gaming (tabletop,
solo, one-on-one, PBM, PBeM, network, IL), and similar issues.
If we can get a lot of this stuff on the campaign/GM side of things to
shake out soon, then I think it's time to turn our attention back to
the role-playing/player side. Some nuggets of ideas for RP
classification:
Narrative Stances
Audience
Author
Actor
In-character
Proactive/Reactive PCs
PC (integration into)/(dependence upon) setting
PCs with many/few dramatic hooks
Yowza! Time to rest my brain for the weekend before diving back in on
Monday. Have fun!
_____________________________________________________________
Leon von Stauber <leo...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~leonvs/
University of Texas, Computation Center Consulting Services
"We have not come to save you, but you will not die in vain!"
Leon von Stauber
> Preparation
> Plot 6
> World 8
Some heavy plotting, but as I've been reminded of by
answering Mary's questions, the world takes
precedence in my games.
> Drama 3
I won't design a campaign around character issues,
but if there are some interesting hooks I'll use them.
> Diagesis
> Realism 3
Highly campaign-dependent, but I tend to run pretty
high fantasy (around a 2 or 3).
> Romanticism 6
I try to design it so that PCs have fair chance of
doing well if they can think to do the right stuff,
but there are plenty of things bigger and meaner
than they are.
> Conflict 6
Slightly more than the average amount of conflict
present (compared to real world?).
> Metagame
> Authorship 9
I've got pretty total control, but I'd like to
encourage myself and my players to increase player
participation in design.
> Direction 3
I leave a pretty loose rein on the players. I'll
occasionally try subtle guidance to the interesting
stuff, but I'm not good enough to do it often and
still the let the players feel that they're in
control of their characters. Besides, it keeps it
more interesting for me!
> Mechanism 8
I admit it. I'm a rules lawyer. Even if a rule bugs
me, I'll use it if it's there, or I'll replace it
with a new one. I will, however, let the dice slide
sometimes if it'll help the game in my estimation.
Well, this is not quite as dry as I had thought it might be. But I still
like the idea of a questionnaire front end to rating on the axes. That can
wait for another week, though.
Mary K. Kuhner
>Also, is "Diagesis" a word? Rodney, or somebody, help me
>out on this one. I couldn't find the def in an online Webster's, and I
>don't have a hardcopy dictionary handy.
It's not in my online OED or Websters. Maybe we just made it up.
>Did I hear the word "simulation"? Not until now. While this term doesn't
>have an official place in this classification anymore, I think it's a
>GM style with which most of us are familiar and which we can comprehend.
>So here's what I think: Simulationism is primarily characterized by a
>strongly Natural style, usually associated with heavy World prep, light
>Plot prep, light Drama, and a healthy dose of Realism. (At least it's
>not typically strongly Fantastic.) It's middle of the road on the Romantic
>axis, and usually pretty true to the Mechanical side of things. I think
>this probably describes Mary pretty well.
My favorite games are actually well over on the Fantastic side of things
no matter what genre I'm playing (as the space vampires might tend to
hint). Lately I have been running in very loose homebrew systems which
tend to obscure the Mechanical axis--with no written rules to consult it
is hard to say if something is by the rules, though I try to stick to
those unwritten rules as strictly as I can. With published rules,
though, I modify them but seldom break them, and I very rarely fudge die
rolls.
Other than that, a pretty good classification. The scales are clear
when presented in the way you did. Unfortunately, I rapidly forget how
they work as soon as they're off screen (is realism the opposite of
romance or of fantasy?) so the nomenclature may need a little work.
I'd suggest naming the axis after *both* endpoints: not the Realism
axis but the Realism/Fantasy axis.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Leon von Stauber
>when presented in the way you did. Unfortunately, I rapidly forget how
>they work as soon as they're off screen (is realism the opposite of
>romance or of fantasy?) so the nomenclature may need a little work.
>I'd suggest naming the axis after *both* endpoints: not the Realism
>axis but the Realism/Fantasy axis.
That's a good point. So mote it be!
James
tools which anyone can use. If I were you I would keep a strong
control on the authorship over these axes. We all have different
views on what the different terms mean. I might understand the term
'Romantic' in a different way than you and using the word 'realistic'
seems like asking for trouble. But this doesn't matter as long there is
a base definition all can to refer to.
You might want to investigate a way to indicate that the terms used
refer to your model, something like 'this is a Leon-Mundane setting..'
or 'Romantic a la Leon'. Otherwise all the usual confusion will creep
in.
Regards, --
-- James --
Scott A. H. Ruggels
rest of the posters are weekend warriors, a lot will probably happen
betwenn Now and Monday.
Scott