Axes: Plot/World, Drama/Simulation, etc. (long)
Leon von Stauber
struck me that treating something like the plot/world contrast as a
single axis is probably not really correct. We've seen that GMs have
varying degrees of both orientations in their games, and we've had
difficulty at times placing anyone at some point on this axis. I proposed
earlier, based on the thoughts of several in this group, that the
plot/world contrast could be estimated by the kind of preparation that
was put into a game. Plot-based GMs prepare for *depth* along a relatively
limited number of plotlines, while world-based GMs prepare *breadth* of
material to be ready for PCs to turn background elements into plot seeds.
Well, it seems that you would have both of these things to some degree,
and that you could estimate these things rather independently. Therefore
I now propose that plot and world be treated as separate axes defining
the "preparation space" of games. (Graph follows; I apologize to those
using proportional fonts to view this.)
_Preparation Space_
World axis
10-| /
9-| World-based /
8-| /
7-| /
6-| /
5-| (2,5) /
4-| / Plot-based
3-| /
2-| /
1-|/ (6,1)
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 preparation and how much
world preparation someone typically does, usually limited by the amount
of time he or she has to spend on game prep. Those who typically
spend more time on world design than on plot design would fall in the
"upper left" part of the graph, and would loosely be described as
"world-based". Those who fall into the "lower right" would be described
as "plot-based". (To those of you with a background in physics, this is
analogous to the definition of spacelike and timelike events on a
relativistic spacetime diagram.) With not a whole lot of time to spend
on game prep right now, and typically concentrating on world design, I
would place myself on this (plot,world) graph at around (3,4). If I had
more time to prepare, I'd like to be up around (6,8), but I don't think
that'll ever happen. (sigh) Jobs! :-)
It seems the same with the dramatic/simulationist contrast. I also
proposed earlier that this contrast was characterized by the kind of
improvisation a GM does, with a dramatic GM improvising in such a way as
to lead to dramatic consequences of PC decisions (roughly), and a
simulationist GM improvising what he/she thought would be most likely,
given the world setup. I would argue that *most* GMs include at least a
little of both when deciding in which directions to take a story, and
propose an "improvisation space" (better name?), defined by the drama
and simulation axes.
_Improvisation Space_
Simulation axis
10-| /
9-| Simulationist /
8-| /
7-| (4,7) /
6-| /
5-| /
4-| / Dramatic
3-| /(4,3)
2-| /
1-|/
0-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| Drama axis
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Again, the origin is meaningless: no improvisation. (Or is it totally
random improv, not directed by either drama or simulation?) The "10" on either
axis means...simulation to the point of total suspension-of-disbelief?
..drama to the point of tears and hugs and screaming in terror? I don't
know, these seem wrong. Perhaps "10" represents greatest possible human
focus on issues of drama or simulation while gaming. That seems better.
Anyway, you would place a GM on this graph according to how much his/her
improvisational decisions were influenced by either the need for drama
or for simulation. I think I would find myself on this (drama, simulation)
graph at around (2,8), placing myself firmly in the simulationist camp.
It seems as if the realism/romanticism contrast we've been making recently
really is a single axis. (Perhaps a "realism" axis, with "0" being totally
outlandish fantasy, and "10" being humanly achievable realism in a game.)
This would be pretty campaign-dependent. In fact, I wonder whether this
should really be applied as a measure of a particular campaign, and not of a
GM's preferences or style.
The auteur/troupe contrast also seems to be represented best by a single axis
(perhaps with "0" being total authorial control by one person?).
I don't feel that I understand the natural/directed contrast well enough
to comment on it.
So, with the "Plot" and "World" axes defining a 2-dimensional "Preparation
Space", the "Drama" and "Simulation" axes defining a 2-dimensional
"Improvisation Space", and with the "Realism" and "Authorship" axes,
we're looking at a *6-dimensional* space within which to define GMing
styles (leaving out natural/directed for now).
Comments are welcome and greatly desired, of course. If this seems reasonable,
I'd also like to see people start defining their own GMing styles. I
think this would help all of us get a better handle on each other's
arguments, which is, after all, part of the point of all this defining of
terms. I'll start with myself:
World prep: 4
Plot prep: 3 (making me somewhat "world-based")
Sim improv: 8
Drama improv: 2 (making me definitely "simulationist")
Realism: 5? (campaign-dependent)
Authorship: 1 (if "0" is total authorial control by GM;
I'd like to increase this one
in particular)
Whew! Do you think maybe I've been spending too much time on this newsgroup
lately? I have to wonder how healthy all this is...
_____________________________________________________________
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!"
Rodney Payne
number of different models to describe the differences between games, and
that it's reasonable for these models to, to some extent, overlap. Much
like contemporary psychology, there are some things that the various
sub-disciplines describe poorly individually, and other things that they
describe well. While I don't think that our modelling approaches are a
far separtated as, say, humanism and behaviourism, describing roleplaying
games can be approached in different ways, and keeping the greatest
number of useful models availible is probably a good idea.
Leon von Stauber <leo...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
>Well, it seems that you would have both of these things to some degree,
>and that you could estimate these things rather independently. Therefore
>I now propose that plot and world be treated as separate axes defining
>the "preparation space" of games. (Graph follows; I apologize to those
>using proportional fonts to view this.)
> _Preparation Space_
> World axis
> 10-| /
> 9-| World-based /
> 8-| /
> 7-| /
> 6-| /
> 5-| (2,5) /
> 4-| / Plot-based
> 3-| /
> 2-| /
> 1-|/ (6,1)
> 0-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| Plot axis
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I'm fairly happy with this as distiction between the two styles you're
getting at, though I'd change `based' to `oriented'. If one were to
characterise a `plot-oriented' GM as someone who gave a preference to
depth of description of certain events during preparation, and a
`world-oriented' GM as one who gave preference to breadth of world, I
wouldn't argue.
One could then take the average of both axes, and produce a score which
ranges from `improvisational': very low level of preparation, to
`detailed: very high level of preparation. To be properly statistical,
we'd also take a measure of the difference between the two scores, to
show how meaningful the improvisation-detailed score was. If there's no
difference (you're on the 45 degree line), the score is a perfect
indicator. If there is a large difference (say six) the mean rating should
probably be discarded in favour of examining the two scores individually.
This also gives meaning to the origin, though of course 0/0 is undefined.
>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.
>It seems the same with the dramatic/simulationist contrast. I also
> _Improvisation Space_
> Simulation axis
This axis is basically a redrawing of my entire typlogy. Where I have the
dramatic-simulationist axis, you've got a dramatic one, except that yours
includes under the banner of drama both `interesting' events (or external
conflicts) and dramatic events (internal conflicts played as external
processes). Where you have simulationist, I have natural-directed: the
degree of world consistency. Change x and y over and I could virtually map
one onto the other, though mine is synergistic (non-mathematical) and
yours is one quarter of a Cartesian plane.
In other words, your model and my typology are doing pretty much the
same thing. Interesting case of synchronicity there, that we've come to
the same conclusion separately.
>Anyway, you would place a GM on this graph according to how much his/her
>improvisational decisions were influenced by either the need for drama
>or for simulation. I think I would find myself on this (drama, simulation)
>graph at around (2,8), placing myself firmly in the simulationist camp.
Yep. And on my model your games would be what I call representational
(simulationist and natural).
>It seems as if the realism/romanticism contrast we've been making recently
>really is a single axis. (Perhaps a "realism" axis, with "0" being totally
>outlandish fantasy, and "10" being humanly achievable realism in a game.)
>This would be pretty campaign-dependent. In fact, I wonder whether this
>should really be applied as a measure of a particular campaign, and not of a
>GM's preferences or style.
Well, these are all examples of GM (and player) preferences. Preferences
determine the content of a campaign.
I think there's been at least a tacit agreement that there are two
issues at stake for romantic/realistic: metagame issues (do I fudge dice?,
tone down that monster?, etc.) and diagetic (setting) issues (how harsh is
the world on its own?) The metagame decisions are pretty much unique to
dramatists, while the diagetic ones are more an issue of world design
than plotting. I say this because some settings are inherently harsh
(Plague infested Europe, cyberpunk), while settings don't tend to be
inherently dramatic. Drama is something we add to a setting (though I
suppose you could add romanticism or realism to a setting).
That's why I haven't added it to the typology (which deals with
plotting), though it is an important consideration in itself.
>The auteur/troupe contrast also seems to be represented best by a single axis
>(perhaps with "0" being total authorial control by one person?).
OK. The axis is a measure of non-GM participation. Nought is no player
input, 10 is equal player input (and possibly no GM).
>I don't feel that I understand the natural/directed contrast well enough
>to comment on it.
You do, you just dont' realise it. ;) It's just what you've called the
simulation axis.
If you look at it this way, you're (0,0) position becomes meaningful.
The GM at this point on the scale does not care about consistency at all,
and improvises events that will be `interesting' (external conflict) but
not dramatic (internal struggle represented as external processes, in
other words, character in action).
The reason I prefer my non-mathematical model is because I don't think
there's anyone at nought on your simulationist scale. In other words,
nobody is that unconcerned about consistency (or possibly some people
are, but they're probably not running quality games (just like a film
full of continuity errors is flawed), and I think if nothing else we're
all agreed that we want quality in our roleplaying.
>So, with the "Plot" and "World" axes defining a 2-dimensional "Preparation
>Space", the "Drama" and "Simulation" axes defining a 2-dimensional
>"Improvisation Space", and with the "Realism" and "Authorship" axes,
>we're looking at a *6-dimensional* space within which to define GMing
>styles (leaving out natural/directed for now).
Well, I hope *you* know how to visualise it. ;)
Actually, I see the world/plot plane and the drama-simulation plane two
models which overlap slightly, not as parts of an overall typology. What
I'd do is add pregame preparation consistency to improvisational
consistency (since people with high pregame consistency tend to opt for
the same during play, and vise versa), thus making it all part of the
second model. I'd leave the world/plot plane looking at only pregame
planning. In that sense the two overlap to some extent.
Leaving romaticism/realism as a question of setting rather than
plotting, you then have three typlogies, two two dimensional
(world/plot and drama-simulation/natural-directed (or just
drama/simulation if you like), and the other one dimensional
(auteur/troupe). If you like, you can add auteur/troupe to either of the
others, and have one three and one two dimensional axis. Whew!
>Comments are welcome and greatly desired, of course. If this seems reasonable,
>I'd also like to see people start defining their own GMing styles. I
>think this would help all of us get a better handle on each other's
>arguments, which is, after all, part of the point of all this defining of
>terms. I'll start with myself:
> World prep: 4
> Plot prep: 3 (making me somewhat "world-based")
> Sim improv: 8
> Drama improv: 2 (making me definitely "simulationist")
> Realism: 5? (campaign-dependent)
> Authorship: 1 (if "0" is total authorial control by GM;
> I'd like to increase this one
> in particular)
I have no particular preference, though if pressed, I'd probably prefer
to approach representational (simualtionist and natural) more often than
not. But I like all styles. The only one I'm extreme on is auteur/troupe:
I'm pretty much an auteur (though I'm fairly free about character
design). I guess it comes from a background in film criticism (I've seen
too much damage done to film scripts from `design by committee').
Probably an unfair bias, but it's become ingrained.
Oh, I forgot my world/plot preference. Hm, I'm a bit of a
perfectionist, so when I GM I like to up around (8,8). When I play, I
don't care unless I start to notice the effects of lack of planning, and
often not even then. But the pace of games when I play is usually pretty
slow (yeah, I'm one of those people who just won't let my character shut
up ;)), so it doesn't come up much anyway.
--
Rodney Payne | What is the meaning of life? Life has no
| meaning. It's just a fortunate coincidence
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | of carbon chemistry. Forget about it.
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | Anonymous
Mary K. Kuhner
>Comments are welcome and greatly desired, of course. If this seems reasonable,
>I'd also like to see people start defining their own GMing styles. I
>think this would help all of us get a better handle on each other's
>arguments, which is, after all, part of the point of all this defining of
>terms.
Okay, here goes:
World prep: 4 (it was higher when I had more energy for it)
Plot prep: 2 (definitely "plot-based")
Sim improv: 6
Drama improv: 4 (more towards "simulationist" but not completely)
Realism:
Um, this one is trouble. Does "realism" here mean how much like this
world the game is (in a way that makes all fantasy unrealistic)? Or
does it represent absence of genre convention and romantic exaggerations
(which can occur even in intensely magical worlds)?
Authorship: 3 (I get considerable world-design input from players
but retain almost complete control during play)
Hm. This feels kind of like the difficulty I had with Aria/Worlds:
I have reduced the problem to a neat list of numbers, but they don't
mean much to me. I wonder if a series of test case questions would work
better than the raw numbers? Could be fun....
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Rodney Payne
>From: spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Rodney Payne)
>Subject: Re: Axes: Plot/World, Drama/Simulation, etc. (long)
>Date: 20 Aug 1995 19:28:40 GMT
> Oh, I forgot my world/plot preference. Hm, I'm a bit of a
>perfectionist, so when I GM I like to up around (8,8).
Quick note: this wasn't to suggest that highly improvised games are less
`perfect', it's just that my improvisational skills aren't all that high, so
if I don't plan well my games suffer for it.
Rodney Payne
David A Bonar
: Leon von Stauber <leo...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
: >Comments are welcome and greatly desired, of course. If this seems reasonable,
: >I'd also like to see people start defining their own GMing styles. I
: >think this would help all of us get a better handle on each other's
: >arguments, which is, after all, part of the point of all this defining of
: >terms.
I'm going to turn this around some. The graphic method leaves
me cold. I just can't visualize it. So I'm going to describe myself
without refering to the chart.
Prep
Fairly heavily plot based in prep (or character based if you
are using the terms that I coined in the motivation thread). I like
world based prep but I agree that pre-plotting and tying the characters
into things from the get go can lead to a better game. I do have
some world based views though. I still hate handing out GM created
characters.
Improv.
Simulationist. I try to keep thoughts of drama and specifics
about the characters out of my thoughts when I'm doing either creation
work during the game (oops, they've flying to Berlin, I better create
something for next session) or true improv.
Realism
I'm with Mary, this can be tough. Basically I'm a simulationist
at heart and this really comes out at the micro level. While I try
to keep drama and character concerns out of view when I'm doing
creation or improv work I'm even stricter on myself at the micro level.
Dave
Dorian Davis
>
<Cry Snip! and cut loose ... >
>I'd also like to see people start defining their own GMing styles. I
>think this would help all of us get a better handle on each other's
>arguments, which is, after all, part of the point of all this defining of
>terms.
According to the criteria, here's how I tend to pan out:
World prep: 6
Plot prep: 4
Sim improv: 6
Drama improv: 4
Realism: 8.75
Authorship: 1
However, I do confess to a certain degree of contradictoriness re: World
and Plot prep. As my *Bushido* campaign is deeply rooted in historical
foundations (therefore, I'm a genre [chanbura] GM), these values might
very well be interchangeable. The same with Improvisation (I gauge the
flow of *each* particular game and decide accordingly). By far the most
important aspect I strive for is Realism, which exlains why Authorship
is so low.
>
>Whew! Do you think maybe I've been spending too much time on this newsgroup
>lately? I have to wonder how healthy all this is...
I don't know, but my head's spinning ...
Abayo,
- Dorian
Snow yet remaining/ The mountain slopes
are misty/ An evening in Spring
Sogi (1421-1502)
Kevin R. Hardwick
Kevin Hardwick
World Prep 8 (A rich and detailed and consistent world is important)
Plot Prep 7 (I ensure dramatic situations for the PCs)
Sim/Improv I'm still not sure
Drama/Improv about these two axes
Realism 7 (setting consistency and believability matters)
Author 9 (Troupe style game with many authors)
Hmm. I'm still confused about the middle two axes--I think we need
Rodney's master document--there's been rather a lot of change or
discussion of the axes, and I'm not sure what is current anymore.
Best,
Kevin
Leon von Stauber
> Hmmm. There have been a number of responses which have been
>GM's rating themselves along several axes. I feel a bit uncomfortable
>reducing a creative endeavor this way -- Does anyone recall the scene
>with the introductory essay of how to rate a poem in _Dead Poet's
>Society_?
Yeah, I've been having these same feelings myself. As in RPG: a set of
stats does not a character make.
I'm thinking that it would be useful to use a more interesting "front
end" to the numerical rating system, along the lines of Mary's list of
questions. They're a lot more to-the-point and understandable. However,
I would like them to lead into numerical ratings, as I think I'd be
interested in gathering numbers and running them through some sort of
analysis. See "Axes II" for more along these lines.-
> Hrrm. To start with, I can't see rating myself on these axes --
>my style varies from campaign to campaign.
Yes, which is why in my restatement of this model, ratings on these axes
apply explicitly to *campaigns*. They may be somewhat less useful in
measuring general GM tendencies/preferences, and seeing how consistent
one's own tendencies/preferences are.
Another note: Not only are these ratings not really consistent across
all of a GM's campaigns, they're also often inconsistent within a
campaign, as some of your own comments indicate when rating your own
campaigns. For example, you may start with heavy Plot prep, but then
devote your design time after the campaign's going to World prep and
let the Plot prep drop once the characters are fully integrated into
the setting.
Rodney Payne
>From: "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu>
>Subject: Re: Axes: Plot/World, Drama/Simulation, etc. (long)
>Hmm. I'm still confused about the middle two axes--I think we need
>Rodney's master document--there's been rather a lot of change or
>discussion of the axes, and I'm not sure what is current anymore.
Hopefully it'll be posted Saturday night/Sunday morning, eastern Australian
time. I'm pretty busy until then
Rodney Payne
John H Kim
GM's rating themselves along several axes. I feel a bit uncomfortable
reducing a creative endeavor this way -- Does anyone recall the scene
with the introductory essay of how to rate a poem in _Dead Poet's
Society_?
To whit...
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Kevin Hardwick
>
>World Prep 8 (A rich and detailed and consistent world is important)
>Plot Prep 7 (I ensure dramatic situations for the PCs)
>Sim/Improv I'm still not sure
>Drama/Improv about these two axes
>Realism 7 (setting consistency and believability matters)
>Author 9 (Troupe style game with many authors)
Hrrm. To start with, I can't see rating myself on these axes --
my style varies from campaign to campaign. For example, most of my
campaigns are on the "auteur" model where I the GM know and coordinate
all the secrets. However, I have played in troupe-style games.
For example, I will address two campaigns I have run in: the
recent Immortals campaign, and my old Modern Paranormals campaign.
Of course, I have chosen them for deliberate contrast...
-*-*-*-
Immortals Game:
Author -- 9? A troupe style game with nearly each session switching off
GM's. Authorship was shared based on a general concept.
World Prep -- ?? Much research was often done into real history for the
stories, but the supernatural aspects of the world were
confused and inconsistant.
Realism -- 5? How situations resolved varied from GM to GM. In general,
though, there were concessions to realism for the sake of story.
Plot Prep -- 7? The plots were often worked out in a _Theatrix_ style
fashion,
Sim/Drama -- 8? Fairly high on injected drama, such as monologues and
setpiece conflicts.
-*-*-*-
Modern Paranormals Game
Author -- 1 I had a complex back-story on paranormal powers and various
forces and characters which was a complete mystery to the
players at the start.
World Prep -- 10? Carrying on from a previous campaign, I had worked
out the goings-on of a hundred of paranormals in the world and
other stuff.
Realism -- 8? Using the HERO system, I stuck with low deadliness;
but everything else was about as realistic as I could manage.
Plot Prep -- ?? I started with a dramatic premise to draw the PC's
together, but after that all of the plots followed out of
what I had worked out was going on. I would prepare "plots"
by figuring out what other paranormals were working on.
Sim/Drama -- 2? Pretty heavy on the simulation in play, although the
setting could be described as "heroic" because paranormals by
their nature had large egos and were very active in pursuing
their goals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
Tom Stevens
: Leon von Stauber <leo...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
: >Comments are welcome and greatly desired, of course. If this seems reasonable,
: >I'd also like to see people start defining their own GMing styles. I
: >think this would help all of us get a better handle on each other's
: >arguments, which is, after all, part of the point of all this defining of
: >terms.
: Okay, here goes:
: World prep: 4 (it was higher when I had more energy for it)
: Plot prep: 2 (definitely "plot-based")
: Sim improv: 6
: Drama improv: 4 (more towards "simulationist" but not completely)
: Realism:
: Um, this one is trouble. Does "realism" here mean how much like this
: world the game is (in a way that makes all fantasy unrealistic)? Or
: does it represent absence of genre convention and romantic exaggerations
: (which can occur even in intensely magical worlds)?
Good question. For my part I'll assume it means "how far are you willing
to stretch credibility?" 1 = completely 10 = not at all..
: Authorship: 3 (I get considerable world-design input from players
: but retain almost complete control during play)
: Hm. This feels kind of like the difficulty I had with Aria/Worlds:
: I have reduced the problem to a neat list of numbers, but they don't
: mean much to me. I wonder if a series of test case questions would work
: better than the raw numbers? Could be fun....
: Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
1 = none at all, 10 = almost completely
World Preperation: 3 (I like to have the players define the world 'as
they go"
Plot Preperation: 8
Sim Improv: 2
Drama Improv: 9 (we have TONS of interplay)
Realism: 7
Authorship: 5 (For the plots and stories I tend to steer things, for the
drama stuff, i tend to sit on the sidelines)
--
N...@thepoint.com
First master of the backwards philosophy.
Hail Eris and Praise the Huddab!