Threefold model
Jim Henley
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> The PCs make a powerful enemy, who is capable of capturing them
> essentially without a fight, and motivated to do so. Does the GM
> allow this to happen?
>
> Game analysis:
>
> It's not fair or game-appropriate for the PCs to have no say in
> their own fate: they should have the opportunity, even if it's a
> slim one, to evade capture (or perhaps a chance to escape promptly).
>
> Comments?
Everything else made a good deal of sense to me, but I wonder at this
one. It would seem to me that an equally plausible gamist response would
be, "So long as the players had a fair chance to avoid making this
enemy, the enemy is itself a consequence of their play, and they deserve
what they get." This becomes the equivalent of "taking the stairs to the
seventh level" even though you are all first level characters.
That would make this a bona fide trifold agreement, then, which you had
been searching for, no?
I thought of a possible example of gamism in drama -- classic superhero
campaign, episodic format, script immunity, no catastrophic failures
(the city blows up; the planet blows up; the very fabric of reality
blows up). If it comes to it the GM will have Superman fly in at the
last moment, or the death machine misfire, or whatever. The game element
for the players is to avoid triggering the script immunity/failure
sprinkler system. If it goes off during the game, the players know that
they "lost."
Best,
Jim
Mary K. Kuhner
I haven't found a three-way differentiating question, so I've had to
settle for three two-way questions in my attempt to clarify my ideas
about gamist, simulationist and dramatist values. I would like to
make clear that I don't regard *any* of these terms as perjorative.
I am a fence-sitter and prefer mixtures; but I still find it useful to
know what the pure forms are like, in order to be able to make more
functional mixtures.
I have tried to stay away from hot-button issues like character death,
inter-player conflict, etc. because I think they muddy the water: many,
many games are "simulationist except with script immunity" or "dramatist
except the GM mustn't kill someone purely for effect."
All of these will be, of necessity, slight oversimplifications of
their respective positions, but I have tried to avoid caricature. I
would be willing, given the right game, to defend any of these
positions, though I certainly have preferences.
***
Simulation vs. drama/game:
Situation:
The PCs are setting up to make a daring raid into the enemy fortress
when one of them decides it would be better for them to ask an NPC
group to make the raid instead. On world considerations, it would
be reasonable for the NPCs to agree. Do they?
Simulation analysis:
If that's what would happen, that's what would happen: world
considerations are more important than the possible anti-climax and
player disappointment. (Maybe try speeding up the pacing to keep
the disappointment brief.)
Drama analysis:
Is there some way to make the players' proposed continuation interesting?
If so, it can be allowed: this may mean, for example, having the NPCs
fail and need rescue, or hurring past this scene into a PC/NPC rivalry
built on the event. But if it's headed hopelessly for anticlimax,
better disallow it and have the NPCs refuse.
Game analysis:
Having the NPCs do the challenging raid while the PCs sit around is
pretty clearly bad for the game, as game, and should be avoided if at all
possible; the NPCs should refuse. (And you may want to talk to the
player who made the original suggestion; it was inappropriate.)
***
Game vs. simulation/drama:
The PCs make a powerful enemy, who is capable of capturing them
essentially without a fight, and motivated to do so. Does the GM
allow this to happen?
Game analysis:
It's not fair or game-appropriate for the PCs to have no say in
their own fate: they should have the opportunity, even if it's a
slim one, to evade capture (or perhaps a chance to escape promptly).
Drama analysis:
As long as the GM can find interesting, engaging continuations after
the capture, there is nothing wrong with capturing the PCs and giving
them no chance to avoid it. (Cf. David Berkman's Star Trek example.)
Simulation analysis:
To be true to the NPC, the GM has to follow through with the plan the
NPC would use, even if it's so good that the PCs have no chance. (A
simulationist is perhaps more likely to play this out and see, whereas
a dramatist may just fiat it and go on.)
***
Drama vs. game/simulation
The GM has in mind an interesting continuation involving the PCs being
defeated and captured in combat. However, the players surprise her
with luck and/or guile when the scene is actually played out, and it
looks as though they are going to get away. Does she give the
opposition additional forces in order to ensure the capture?
Drama analysis:
Yes; this will produce an interesting storyline, and as long as the
players don't notice it should do no harm. (Some players won't mind
even if they do notice.)
Game analysis:
No; the GM has no right to take away the players' hard-earned victory.
Simulation analysis:
No; the GM's initial idea about the strength of the enemy was presumably
appropriate and natural for the game-world, and should not be changed
just to further the GM's ends.
***
It should become apparent from these examples that I believe the three
"isms" here are in fact distinct. I like the threefold model a lot
better than our old twofold model. When we were working on our two
current campaigns, my husband and I ran into trouble repeatedly because
we assumed that if I didn't want a strict simulationist game (and I
didn't) that I must want more dramatist elements (which I didn't
either). I was actually looking for more gamist elements such as
appropriate challenges for the PCs, and I was willing to give up
both some dramatic and some simulation values in return.
Comments?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Steven Howard
In <5p9ji0$3...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>Comments?
Just one:
>***
>
>Simulation vs. drama/game:
>
>Situation:
>
>The PCs are setting up to make a daring raid into the enemy fortress
>when one of them decides it would be better for them to ask an NPC
>group to make the raid instead. On world considerations, it would
>be reasonable for the NPCs to agree. Do they?
>
[Snip Simulation and Drama]
>Game analysis:
>
>Having the NPCs do the challenging raid while the PCs sit around is
>pretty clearly bad for the game, as game, and should be avoided if at all
>possible; the NPCs should refuse. (And you may want to talk to the
>player who made the original suggestion; it was inappropriate.)
Hmm. I think this is "dramatism" masquerading as "gamism."
A purer "gamist" response might be something like "The NPCs are a
part of the game world -- interaction with NPCs is modeled by
game rules. Play out the scene between the PCs and the NPCs
using the normal procedure for such interaction. If the party thus
accomplishes their goals without substantial risk to themselves,
more power to them."
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word like "euphemism" doing in a sentence like this?
Fenyx3204
> A purer "gamist" response might be something like "The NPCs are a
> part of the game world -- interaction with NPCs is modeled by
> game rules. Play out the scene between the PCs and the NPCs
> using the normal procedure for such interaction. If the party thus
> accomplishes their goals without substantial risk to themselves,
> more power to them."
Agreed, but it could just as easily go the way Ms. Kuhner describes it as
well -- it depends on what flavor of "gamist" we are talking about.
Does the gamist see the value of the game in direct PC interaction with
challenges? Or does the gamist see the value of the game in terms of
outthinking situations?
Of course, this distinction horribly complicates matters. Are there
different "flavors" to dramatists and simulationists as well?
Justin Bacon
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <33b86...@news2.ibm.net> bl...@ibm.net writes:
>In <5p9ji0$3...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>>Having the NPCs do the challenging raid while the PCs sit around is
>>pretty clearly bad for the game, as game, and should be avoided if at all
>>possible; the NPCs should refuse.
>Hmm. I think this is "dramatism" masquerading as "gamism."
>A purer "gamist" response might be something like "The NPCs are a
>part of the game world -- interaction with NPCs is modeled by
>game rules. Play out the scene between the PCs and the NPCs
>using the normal procedure for such interaction. If the party thus
>accomplishes their goals without substantial risk to themselves,
>more power to them.
I would see that as a relatively simulationist approach; in my
experience one of the metalaws of gamist games is "The players
are here to play, not to watch the GM play. Don't do anything
which takes the action out of the hands of the PCs."
But I do see your point: the example's not as clear-cut as I hoped.
How about changing it so that, rather than being requested by the
PCs, the NPC help simply emerges naturally out of the setting
logic? That is, the PCs don't need to lift a finger to get the
NPCs to do their dirty work; it will just happen. At that
point I think most gamist GMs really would balk, using the
principle "Don't give the PCs successes they haven't earned" as
well as "Don't take the action away from the PCs."
Certainly a gamist GM who sees this kind of thing happen repeatedly had
better consider that he's designing his scenarios badly or letting
his players buffalo him. If the group wanted to do challenging
combat scenes, but all of them are being short-circuited by NPC
intervention, something is wrong.
Suggestions for improving or replacing the examples happily accepted!
_Radiant_ is an interesting case. At first blush it sounds very
non-gamist because the PCs always try to manuver the NPCs into
doing the fighting, and neither GM nor player lift a finger to
stop them. But the main reason is that combat is not the player's
chosen arena of challenge: we *do* take some care to insure that
the NPCs don't get all the juicy negotiation, persuasion, etc. scenes.
Which is, in my opinion, a value shared by dramatists and gamists
and in contrast to simulationists.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Bryan J. Maloney
I had exactly a situation in which the players outsmarted me. I was
running a superheroic GURPS campaign, in which the Funster was holed up in
a maze that he had made out of junked cars.
It just so happens that one of the PCs actually *did* turn out to be
strong enough to simply bash his way through the walls of the maze right
to the center.
Instead of being an anal git, and making up reasons why this perfectly
good idea wouldn't work, the idea worked, and the ending was a very funny
PC victory wherein the Funster ranted and yowled about how horrible the
heroes were for cheating.
Furthermore, it gave the Funster a REAL reason to hate the PCs from that
point on. Up until then, it was only fun and games for him. The PCs were
merely opponents. Now they were "dirty cheaters" and had to be dealt
with...
So, what is my religion? Am I of the Church of Dramatism? I used the
situation to add greater dramatic tension to my campaign. Am I of the
Holy Temple of Simulationism? I did not make alterations to the setting
_post hoc_ in order to maintain the original dramatic path I had planned.
Am I of the Vile Evil and Unspeakable Cult of Gamism? I permitted the
players to "win" in a game context by outwitting me and letting them use
the game model to gain their current goal more easily than I had expected.
Maybe these three approaches don't deserve to be dignified with dogmatic
names. After all, we don't have Wrenchism, Screwdriverism, or Hammerism
in the construction trades, do we?
--
To respond via email, remove non-licit characters to change my site to "cornell.edu".
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation."
Psychohist
Justin Bacon posts, in part:
... it depends on what flavor of "gamist" we are talking
about.
Does the gamist see the value of the game in direct PC
interaction with challenges? Or does the gamist see the
value of the game in terms of outthinking situations?
Of course, this distinction horribly complicates matters.
Are there different "flavors" to dramatists and
simulationists as well?
I think yes, but the flavors break down differently. Where gamist
preferences might run to things like 'tactical' (player characters should
do the fighting) or 'strategic' (okay to get the gamesmaster characters to
do your work for you), dramatist preferences might be things like
'tragedy' or 'slapstick'. A simulationist more interested in societal
interaction might design a high population density world with a well
developed civilization, while one more interested in ecology might do the
opposite.
Warren Dew
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <bjm10-01079...@potato.cit.cornell.edu> bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
[the PCs cheat the Funster]
>So, what is my religion? Am I of the Church of Dramatism? I used the
>situation to add greater dramatic tension to my campaign. Am I of the
>Holy Temple of Simulationism? I did not make alterations to the setting
>_post hoc_ in order to maintain the original dramatic path I had planned.
>Am I of the Vile Evil and Unspeakable Cult of Gamism? I permitted the
>players to "win" in a game context by outwitting me and letting them use
>the game model to gain their current goal more easily than I had expected.
>Maybe these three approaches don't deserve to be dignified with dogmatic
>names. After all, we don't have Wrenchism, Screwdriverism, or Hammerism
>in the construction trades, do we?
<shrug> If you don't find the names useful, by all means don't use
them. They've been terrifically helpful to me.
I don't think your particular example is particularly of one or the
other; in your situation, game, simulation and drama values were all
pulling in the same direction, so of course you could label it any
way you chose.
I wish I knew, though, why even though my original post was *very*
emphatic that I don't consider any of these tools to be bad, I still
get responses like this one. Do you just unquestioningly assume that
no one ever gives something a name except to praise or disparage it?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Steven Howard
In <5pb5up$f...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
[snip one of Mary's fine examples, and my "goal-oriented gamist"
quibble]
>But I do see your point: the example's not as clear-cut as I hoped.
>How about changing it so that, rather than being requested by the
>PCs, the NPC help simply emerges naturally out of the setting
>logic? That is, the PCs don't need to lift a finger to get the
>NPCs to do their dirty work; it will just happen. At that
>point I think most gamist GMs really would balk, using the
>principle "Don't give the PCs successes they haven't earned" as
>well as "Don't take the action away from the PCs."
Yes, I think you're right. The "gamist" in me, along with
the "dramatist" would be thinking "So why is this even in the
game? If the West Coast Avengers were going to stop the Frightful
Four anyway, what's the point of bringing them up?"
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <5pbbla$h...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> I wish I knew, though, why even though my original post was *very*
> emphatic that I don't consider any of these tools to be bad, I still
> get responses like this one. Do you just unquestioningly assume that
> no one ever gives something a name except to praise or disparage it?
The "-ism"/"-ist" suffix in English usage is very highly marked. That is,
it is strongly associated with a particular connotation. "-ism" indicates
a sort of dogmatic, often a religion or religion-surrogate. It does not
merely identify a tool, but an entire worldview.
What is being identified by "-ism" in this group appears to actually be a
set of tools, not religions. Like it or not, we react to words
viscerally, even if we think we don't--ESPECIALLY if we think we don't.
The easiest people to manipulate with cunning use of language are those
who think they don't have gut-level emotional reactions to language that
strongly influence their thinking.
"He is a gamist." "He is a simulationist." "He is a dramatist." These
statements classify and pigeonhole PEOPLE, they do not describe different
methods of play that can be picked up or put down as the situation and/or
personal taste may call for them.
Whether that is the intent of the terms is irrelevant. The "-ism"/"-ist"
morpheme is so heavily marked in modern English usage that you cannot
escape undesirable effects.
)
Mary K. Kuhner writes:
| I haven't found a three-way differentiating question, so I've had to
| settle for three two-way questions in my attempt to clarify my ideas
| about gamist, simulationist and dramatist values. [Acknowledgement
| that these are a bit oversimplified. Summary follows]
| Simulation vs. drama/game:
[Example of GM upholding an original NPC concept but breaking drama,
versus breaking NPC concept to improve drama.]
| Game vs. simulation/drama:
[Example of inhibiting NPC use of power to render the players
powerless, versus just going ahead and playing it out.]
| Drama vs. game/simulation
[Example of players pulling a rabbit out of a hat to escape capture
and the GM choosing to quash the initiative, or not.]
What I find most interesting about these examples is that they all
highlight:
* where the balance of player/GM power lies in a single game
determination
* when the GM will make player concessions
* what justification the GM will use if the choice is challenged
* where a GM's strongest fears of failure might lie
In practice, I don't think that the sorts of decisions above are
usually made as a blanket rule, nor are the three basic principles clear
in what they advocate. In my experience, determinative power flows
around the game dynamically, rather than being tied up in a single
principle. For instance, a GM who's come down hard on players in an
earlier scene is far more likely to find an excuse to be lighter in the
next scene. The excuse might be an excuse of simulation, drama or game
dynamics, but the outcome is likely to be the same regardless.
Likewise, a GM who is worried that players have taken an overly strong
hand in an earlier scene is likely to compensate in a later, perhaps
unrelated scene.
A dynamic view of the flow of power may well be more indicative of
the GM's choices than a static threefold theory, once you take GM and
players personalities into account. I can't persuade myself `dramatic',
`simulation' and `game-oriented' reasons for asserting or relinquishing
power are anything more than excuses. The reason I feel this way is
that you can use each reason to justify either asserting GM power or
relinquishing it in *any* decision.
For instance, in a simulation decision you can always find
sufficient reason to reverse or weaken your decision simply by choosing
to examine the simulation more or less closely. As an example: A mugger
fires a gun at the chest of a victim from point blank range. The basic
sim says that given his skill alone there's a sixty percent chance of
the victim being hit. The roll is made, the hit is determined. Oh,
woops! We didn't take into account lighting or the weather. And the
guy is strung out on drugs, and we were using the skill for a `generic
mugger'. And the player was dodging, and we didn't take that into
account. And weren't there people nearby? Why didn't we roll for the
chances of someone intervening?
You've probably seen this kind of play. Ultimately it's a referee's
decision when the simulation is sufficiently accurate, and it's always
possible to argue that it's not accurate enough. It really comes down
to a flat assertion of GM versus player power, and sometimes GMs will
assert this, and sometimes they won't, and sometimes they'll side with
the players and find a simulation-consistent way out of an outcome.
In a dramatic or game-oriented focus you can do the same, depending
on how widely you place your perspective. Dramatic perspective: The
mugger shoots the victim. This is terrible! It's interfering with the
climax! Must abort. Or: the mugger shoots the victim. This is great!
It's such an unexpected shock that the backlash later can be used to
energise more story.
Game perspective: The mugger shoots the victim. This is awful! The
players didn't expect it! Must abort. Or: the mugger shoots the
victim. Great! The players will be outraged! And they'll be so
delighted when I reveal unexpected consequences!
What I find valuable about the three perspectives is not that
they're any good for telling you what to do -- ultimately, I think you
can get just about any game outcome through any perspective with a bit
of work. What I find valuable about them is that are *each* worth
considering any time a difficult decision is made. I think that all
players want their games to be credible (within the rules of cause and
effect of their game world). All players want great drama if they can
get it at no cost to anything else, and all players want a game that's
socially fun to play (whatever `fun' means to that group of players).
It seems clear to me that if you ignore any of these perspectives
when you make a difficult decision, then you risk losing an important
element of your game, and alienating some of your players. Moreover,
when players come to ask you `Why did you go this way', you should be
able to address all three perspectives, and explain the reason for your
choice. Deliberately sacrificing one perspective for the sake of
another is not the way to go. Ideally you want to keep touch wherever
possible with all three.
And I think that most GMs will agree that it's not always easy to do
this. It's a three-ball juggling act with sloppy, wet clay balls,
keeping credible cause-and-effect, keeping strong drama, and making sure
that the social purposes of the game are also met. I don't think
there's a good priority system for which perspective to sacrifice first.
Sometimes it comes down to -- which will the players most tolerate
losing in this instance? Sometimes it's -- can I find another way
through this problem, without dropping anything at all?
I'd be very interested to see if there are other GMs who feel this
way, and what kinds of techniques we can use to keep all three balls in
the air at the same time. I've some vestigial ideas myself, but I want
to save these for another posting.
Anyway, they were good examples for me, Mary, because they really
helped me think the ideas through.
---
Dr Mark Grundy, DCS, Phone: +61-6-249 3785
Education Co-ordinator, Fax: +61-6-249 0010
CRC for Advanced Computational Systems,
The Australian National University, Web: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Mark.Grundy
0200 Australia Email: Mark....@anu.edu.au
George W. Harris
In Wed, 02 Jul 1997 10:39:40 -0500 of yore, bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du (Bryan J.
Maloney) wrote thusly:
=In article <5pbbla$h...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
=mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
=> I wish I knew, though, why even though my original post was *very*
=> emphatic that I don't consider any of these tools to be bad, I still
=> get responses like this one. Do you just unquestioningly assume that
=> no one ever gives something a name except to praise or disparage it?
=The "-ism"/"-ist" suffix in English usage is very highly marked. That is,
=it is strongly associated with a particular connotation. "-ism" indicates
=a sort of dogmatic, often a religion or religion-surrogate. It does not
=merely identify a tool, but an entire worldview.
You mean like in the bloody Cubism and Surrealism
purges in Europe in this century? I think you overstate the
degree to which this suffix is associatied with fanatical beliefs.
It is also used in reference to schools of artistic style, as
expressionism, realism, cubism, etc., and it is more in this
meaning that it is used on this newsgroup. Why do you not
feel compelled to harass the users of the various arts
newsgroups for their dogmatic, tyrranical and intolerant beliefs?
=What is being identified by "-ism" in this group appears to actually be a
=set of tools, not religions. Like it or not, we react to words
=viscerally, even if we think we don't--ESPECIALLY if we think we don't.
=The easiest people to manipulate with cunning use of language are those
=who think they don't have gut-level emotional reactions to language that
=strongly influence their thinking.
Well, actually it is being used to described a number of
techniques which when combined form a style. Do you feel the
same visceral reaction to discussions of the French
Impressionists of the 19th Century? How about the German
Expressionist filmmakers of the '20s and '30s? Does analysis of
Fritz Lang set off your alarm bells?
="He is a gamist." "He is a simulationist." "He is a dramatist." These
=statements classify and pigeonhole PEOPLE, they do not describe different
=methods of play that can be picked up or put down as the situation and/or
=personal taste may call for them.
And they are also almost never used in such an absolute
manner in this newsgroup, except by people attempting to
deconstruct the newsgroup and who feel compelled to set up
straw men for this purpose. They are used to describe styles of
play, and styles of play are almost always described as
combinations, leaning more heavily toward one or more of the
three vertices of rpg styles that this group has settled upon.
=Whether that is the intent of the terms is irrelevant. The "-ism"/"-ist"
=morpheme is so heavily marked in modern English usage that you cannot
=escape undesirable effects.
The intent of the author is irrelevant...are you a Usenet
Deconstructionist? The only undesirable effect that seems
inescapable is an invasion by Usenet Deconstructionists who
are convinced that the language used in this newsgroup is evil
and dehumanizing when the only evidence for this is in their
imaginations.
--
They say that there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For my actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Fenyx3204
Brian J. Maloney said:
> Whether that is the intent of the terms is irrelevant. The
"-ism"/"-ist"
> morpheme is so heavily marked in modern English usage that you cannot
> escape undesirable effects.
So although all of us in this newsgroup use this terminology equally
(typically when "-ism"/"-ist" is being used negatively (e.g.,
"Republicanism") it is *not* used by those it applies to (e.g., "I am a
Republican" not, "I am a Republicanist")), and none of us (except you) see
a negative connotation to it . . . the connotation is still there?
> "He is a gamist." "He is a simulationist." "He is a dramatist." These
> statements classify and pigeonhole PEOPLE, they do not describe
different
> methods of play that can be picked up or put down as the situation
and/or
> personal taste may call for them.
Now there I'll kinda agree with you. To say "s/he is <anything>" is to
draw this discussion immmediately into extremes -- although I think in
general most of us reading such a statement in regard to this discussion
understand the statement to be nothing more than a statement of a
preternatural inclination.
Justin Bacon
Irina Rempt
After hours of trying to find a satisfactory example of a three-way
decision, I finally came up with this:
World
/\
/ \
/ \
/ * \ * = Irina's estimated position
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Story ---------------- Challenge
Oh, and call the points whatever you like, and turn the triangle any
way you want.
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
III. "Scis quod dicunt: hodie adsit, cras absit."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychohist
In response to Bryan J. Maloney:
"He is a gamist." "He is a simulationist." "He is a
dramatist." These statements classify and pigeonhole
PEOPLE, they do not describe different methods of play
that can be picked up or put down as the situation and/or
personal taste may call for them.
George W. Harris responds:
And they are also almost never used in such an absolute
manner in this newsgroup, except by people attempting to
deconstruct the newsgroup and who feel compelled to set up
straw men for this purpose.
Well, actually, I've explicitly described myself as a 'strict
simulationist', and I don't think I was attempting to "deconstruct the
newsgroup" (though I'm not clear on exactly what that would mean). And
I'd like to take a moment to explain why I think there's some value to
pigeonholing myself, sin though that may be.
Much of the value of r.g.f.a to new readers comes from getting a
crystallized understanding of the concepts that are represented by
specialized jargon in the newsgroup.
Most readers come in with some vague ideas about various types of games
and players - but they only know a few characteristics of these types.
They might think, 'Dave likes to play to win', or 'Larry and Warren run
similar games, but they are very different from Bill's game'. They
generally won't, however, have come in with a clear understanding of the
factors that cause Dave to play as he does, or that cause them to like
games like Bill's more than those like Larry's and Warren's.
This newsgroup has done a lot of exploration of what factors are likely to
be correlated, and why, and has assigned names to these correlated groups
of factors. This can help new readers better understand campaigns and
other players. For example, they might realize that they prefer Bill's
game oriented campaign to Larry's and Warren's world oriented ones because
they prefer to play in surrogate mode rather than immersively. One key
point of understanding is that there is no perfect style - that certain
enjoyable elements of different games can only coexist through
compromises, or are even mutually exclusive.
Now, I think that my gamesmastering style comes pretty close to the world
oriented, simulationist vertex of the space defined by the threefold
model. By identifying myself as such - pigeonholing, if you will - I also
identify all the examples I give and arguments I make based on my own
campaign to be things that are consistent with this style of play. I
think this can be useful to new readers of the newsgroup since they now
get a bigger space of examples from which to draw an understanding of the
terms 'simulationist' or 'world oriented'.
Now, I agree that there are very few pure examples of world oriented,
story oriented, or game oriented campaigns. However, I think it's easiest
to get an understanding of the space these terms define by first
understanding the extreme cases represented by the vertices.
Warren J. Dew
Irina Rempt
Irina Rempt (ir...@lamarkis.uucp) wrote:
> After hours of trying to find a satisfactory example of a three-way
> decision, I finally came up with this:
> World
> /\
> / \
> / \
> /* \ * = Irina's estimated position
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> Story ---------------- Challenge
> Oh, and call the points whatever you like, and turn the triangle any
> way you want.
Rather embarrassed to have to follow up on my own post, but I realize
that some people prefer a thousand words. I think World is the most
important thing in my games, both as GM and player; Story is an extra
(sometimes necessary, sometimes pleasant, most of the time both); I
don't absolutely exclude Challenge, but it's not at all important to me
and I could do without if my players were willing to go with that.
To see if it works for other people, I now invite comments from Mary,
Sarah, Warren and Mark, whose opinions have been clearest to me:
World
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \ * = Mary's estimated position
/ * \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Story ---------------- Challenge
World
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \ * = Sarah's estimated position
/ \ (with the proviso that it may be
* \ one or two notches more towards
/ \ World)
/ \
/ \
Story ---------------- Challenge
World
/\
/* \
/ \
/ \ * = Warren's estimated position
/ \ (or even completely World, but
/ \ there's no room at the top ;-)
/ \
/ \
/ \
Story ---------------- Challenge
World
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \ * = Mark's estimated position
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ * \
/ \
Story ---------------- Challenge
Note: this is not to state the inherent superiority of one thing over
another, just to see if my own opinions are clear and I've understood
everybody else properly.
I've been half-lurking lately because every time I thought I had
something to say little flame battles broke out before I could get into
it (net lag here has been horrible) but I can't keep from contributing
my two (still virtual) eurocents now.
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
XVIII. "Id imperfectum manet dum confectum erit."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On Thu, 3 Jul 1997 11:14:51 GMT, ir...@lamarkis.uucp (Irina Rempt)
wrote:
>Oh, and call the points whatever you like, and turn the triangle any
>way you want.
Sorry to be a stick in the mud, Irina. I think I understand Story and
World, but I'm worried about the relationships implied when you treat
them as points on a single diagram. That implies that (say) the
closer you get to one apex, the further you are from the others. And
I don't see things that way.
I view them more this way:
World (setting):
I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
Schematic Detailed
Low verisimitude High Verisimitude
Reactive to the Players
Independent of the players
^
Me
Story (Drama)
I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
Diffuse Focussed
Reactive Proactive
^
Me
I'm not sure what I understand the third axis is, so I won't comment
on it.
Anyway, your diagram would seem to imply that I can't be both
world-intensive and proactively dramatic. And that just does not jive
with my experience. My strongest, most detailed worlds have also been
developed in my most proactively dramatic games.
Have I misread you?
Best,
Kevin
Mary K. Kuhner
> It seems clear to me that if you ignore any of these perspectives
> when you make a difficult decision, then you risk losing an important
> element of your game, and alienating some of your players. Moreover,
> when players come to ask you `Why did you go this way', you should be
> able to address all three perspectives, and explain the reason for your
> choice. Deliberately sacrificing one perspective for the sake of
> another is not the way to go. Ideally you want to keep touch wherever
> possible with all three.
Mark goes on to say "And of course this is hard." But I'd go further.
I tried to run this way for many years when I was a new GM, and I felt
like a failure whenever my decisions couldn't simultaneously be
correct by simulation, drama, and game standards. Whenever I had to
slight one aspect I felt I was doing something wrong. This was
intensely demoralizing, and in fact many of the problems that plagued
my early games (being bullied by strong players, having trouble sticking
to rulings) were clearly, in retrospect, morale problems.
My notebooks are full of games I started that went for five or
ten sessions and foundered--because I couldn't simultaneously get
the drama and the simulation and the game to work, and whenever I
bungled one of them I'd feel I'd blown it. (And frequently I had--
often the failures were quite clearcut.)
I have had a much easiler time GMing since coming to the realization
that sometimes the three goals are incompatible and I have to choose;
and the realization that the standards I should use in choosing are
not some abstract "ideal play" but the game contract of my own group
*for this specific game*.
I've given myself permission to say "I'm going to run the Honolulu
game Feng Shui style, and thus world considerations just aren't
going to get the kind of priority that they usually get--it
would make getting the gamist and dramatist aspects (fast pacing,
interesting and challenging combats, splashy color) to work
out the way we want much too difficult."
And, honestly, if Jon decides he wants rock-solid setting values,
then we'll pitch this game and start another, one where it's understood
that he *won't* get a challenging fight every week without fail.
Both players and GM need to be aware of the tradeoffs, and not
expect the impossible.
Sometimes ideals can be a useful guideline. But this particular
ideal, for me, has been a burden instead. I think I'm better off
setting priorities, not trying to make the game work in all respects
all the time. And the threefold model is an improvement over our
homegrown models for discussing how to set those priorities--
particularly because it lets us unconfound "I want you to break
simulation so as to reduce the frequency of unwinnable fights and
dead-end investigations" and "I want you to break simulation so as
to increase the frequency of gripping scenes and subplots." It
may sound obvious in retrospect, but when we thought of the
difference in style as a single axis, any attempt to break simulation
in the first way tended to be accompanied by what proved to be
unwanted and harmful attempts to break it in the second way as well.
I'm not saying that simulation is always damaging to drama, or
game values always damaging to either. But I think there will
always arise situations where you have to favor one at the
expense of another, and it's better to have a plan in mind (as
a group!) for how you'll decide.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Psychohist
Irina Rempt posts, in part:
World
/\
/* \
/ \
/ \ * = Warren's estimated position
/ \ (or even completely World, but
/ \ there's no room at the top ;-)
/ \
/ \
/ \
Story ---------------- Challenge
Hey, how come my triangle's imperfect? (Just kidding.)
I think you're pretty close. I'd make one minor correction to the
position:
World
/\
/ *\
/ \
/ \ * = Warren's estimated position
/ \ (a small amount of game and
/ \ an even smaller, though still
/ \ nonzero, amount of story)
/ \
/ \
Story ---------------- Game
The non-world part comes not in my actual adjudication of the game, but
rather in what I encourage and discourage in my players.
I occasionally encourage the players to, and more frequently fail to
discourage the players from, causing their characters to make marginal
decisions in a way that will result in less metagame strife.
A recent example is when I failed to discourage Stan from having his
character Owain stay with Earl Janistaar, rather than allowing himself to
be hired away by Duke Arn, because staying with Janistaar would be less
likely to result in tension between Janistaar's player Kim and Arn's
player Spencer. This was despite the fact that Stan felt that without the
metagame considerations, Owain would probably have taken Arn's offer.
Actually, I later regretted this decision mildly, since the in game
tension between Janistaar and Arn would have been very realistic given
typical relationships between nobles, and the players involved are
probably mature enough to handle it.
The only example I can remember of my being dramatist is when I once
rather strongly discouraged a specific action on the part of a player
character because the obvious alternative would result in a better, though
politically incorrect, story. In fact, I hinted that the player might
want to take back the character's action - a strong hint coming from me,
since I've never even allowed such a take back on any other occasion.
This doesn't mean I can't enjoy other stories that happen naturally in a
world oriented game - just that I don't do anything to encourage them.
And some of the players are more interested in the challenge than the
simulation, though I don't do anything to specifically insert it.
Looking at Mary's triangle, I do think 'challenge' is not the right word.
After all, the game elements Mary seems to like - in particular, mild
script immunity - aren't the ones that increase the challenge.
Mary K. Kuhner
psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) writes:
>Looking at Mary's triangle, I do think 'challenge' is not the right word.
>After all, the game elements Mary seems to like - in particular, mild
>script immunity - aren't the ones that increase the challenge.
Irina's triangle, not mine. I'm terrible with ascii art.
I think "challenge" is not a perfect word, though "game" isn't either.
But the script immunity example is not so clear. The choice for
me may be between no script immunity and very conservative play,
so conservative that it avoids most potentially challenging situations;
or mild script immunity and more bold play, engaging challenging
situations, but not allowing the challenges to include death as
an outcome. Script immunity may be penny-a-point poker, but that
is still more challenging than solitaire. The second half of the
_Radiant_ campaign, with script immunity, has seen the characters
tackle many more difficult problems than they did in the first.
There was some really good analysis of "turtling", players adopting
a purely defensive, conservative strategy, in _The Wild Hunt_. I
turtle easily if provoked, but dislike the resulting games quite
a bit.
I'd say my game values are:
--the player should have something to do all the time, and not
get completely stuck.
--the game should keep going, and not stop due to character
death or other intractable situations.
--each PC should have something to do reasonably often.
--the player should be able to make plans and see them
through, and make decisions and see their consequences.
--the mix of action, conversation, and other activities should
be one the player likes.
--the problems posed shouldn't be so hard that the player feels
stupid or helpless, nor so easy that there is no sense of challenge.
--if the player does everything right, the results should not be
disasterous. (I.e. no situations where, unbeknownst to you, doing
the best you can must lead to a worse outcome than doing nothing
would have.)
There are no guarantees of any of these with a pure simulation,
unless the player is willing to change characters whenever something
goes wrong, which I'm not. (A limitation of develop-in-play; it
takes a while for the character to be enjoyable.)
I guess I need a disclaimer: these are *my* game values. If they're
not yours (generic "you" here), that's okay.
I'd put myself fairly close to the middle of the triangle, but
displaced somewhat towards the "world" point and a very little
bit towards the "challenge" point. It varies from game to game,
though.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
scott....@3do.com
In article <ECqp...@lamarkis.uucp>,
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl wrote:
>
> After hours of trying to find a satisfactory example of a three-way
> decision, I finally came up with this:
>
> World
> /\
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> Story ---------------- Challenge
>
> way you want.
>
Very interesting. Unlike Kevin, I think this does show some merit.
Judging by the positioning i would place myself about...
World
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \ * = Scott ruggels' estimated position
/ \
/ * \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Story ---------------- Challenge
Makes sense...
Scott
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mark Apolinski
Irina Rempt wrote:
>
>
> World
> /\
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / * \
> / \
> Story ---------------- Challenge
Actually, I rather thing of myself as being smack in the center of such
a diagram.
World
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ * \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Story ---------------- Challenge
I'm fairly simulationist, yet dramatist too. I strive for high
verisimilitude in my games, but I also pay attention to genre and prefer
'happy endings'. Depending on the game, I might detail the World quite
a bit and allow events to follow their natural, logical development, but
events will tend to center on the players mostly for reasons of economy.
(ie. I don't have time to work out the Chinese political situation when
it won't get used in the evening's game.) And I've never run a game in
as obviously story-oriented a manner as, say, Feng Shui.
Mark
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 18:36:15 GMT, krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
wrote:
Oops. When I saw the actual post, I realized that my reader
reformatted what I had written:
>World (setting):
>
>I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
>Schematic Detailed
>
>Low verisimitude High Verisimitude
>Reactive to the Players
> Independent of the players
>
>^
>
>Me
This should have been over here ..................^
instead--that is, I value detailed, high-verisimilitude, independently
existant settings, AND I also value dramatic games too:
>Story (Drama)
>
>I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I
>Diffuse Focussed
>
>Reactive Proactive
I think Scott has over-stated my position. Its not so much that I
find it without any value at all--its rather that I cannot seem to
locate my preferences on your diagram. It does not seem to have any
way of reflecting them--I'm way off to one end of the spectrum on BOTH
scales.
All my best,
Kevin
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 19:41:13 -0600, scott....@3do.com wrote:
>In article <ECqp...@lamarkis.uucp>,
>Very interesting. Unlike Kevin, I think this does show some merit.
>Judging by the positioning i would place myself about...
I think Scott has over-stated my position. Its not so much that I
find Irina's diagram to be without any value at all--its rather that
I cannot seem to locate my preferences on it. It does not seem to
have any way of reflecting them--I'm way off to one end of the
spectrum on BOTH the Story and World axes . . .
My best,
Kevin
Mischa Damon Krilov
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
: Sorry to be a stick in the mud, Irina. I think I understand Story and
: World, but I'm worried about the relationships implied when you treat
: them as points on a single diagram. That implies that (say) the
: closer you get to one apex, the further you are from the others. And
: I don't see things that way.
In an attempt to understand Irina's diagram, I think it would help if you
didn't think of it in terms of a triangle, a plane. I'f you've ever used a
graphics prog that gave you a little three-dimensional view of the color
you used on an RGB axis, you'll see what I mean.
I'm not looking at the point as a measure of value placed on the axes so
much as attention focused on the axes as an aspect of a game. I'm not
entirely convinced that you can do without one entirely.
Me.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mischa Krilov | I have seen the future
mkr...@tiger.lsu.edu | and it works.
http://wwwlfpl.forestry.lsu.edu/mischa/ | - Lincoln Steffens
Irina Rempt
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
> Anyway, your diagram would seem to imply that I can't be both
> world-intensive and proactively dramatic.
Of course you can:
World
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
* \ * = Kevin's estimated position
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Story ---------------- Challenge
> And that just does not jive
> with my experience. My strongest, most detailed worlds have also been
> developed in my most proactively dramatic games.
The above puts you as close to World as to Story, and without any
Challenge (or Game) at all. Kind of like Sarah, as far as I can see,
and indeed you seem to have a lot in common from *this* point of view.
(You may want more Challenge, but we weren't talking about that).
> Have I misread you?
I may have misread myself; perhaps I should have labelled the axes, not
the points. Like most of my ideas that turn out to have something
(anything, even if it's only controversy) in them, it was just an idle
thought to start with - remember it was me came up with the Gathering
idea? And you're also free to *stretch* the triangle any way you like,
but that's hard to do in ASCII :-)
(Now you're someone I *enjoy* arguing with - it's just that we've never
had anything to argue about before. Are you coming to the Gathering, so
we can do it in person over a drink? :-)
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
XVI. "De stella Martis vere venisti."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jered Moses
ir...@lamarkis.uucp (Irina Rempt) writes:
>krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
>> Anyway, your diagram would seem to imply that I can't be both
>> world-intensive and proactively dramatic.
>Of course you can:
> World
> /\
> / \
> / \
> / \
> * \ * = Kevin's estimated position
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
>Story ---------------- Challenge
Perhaps rather than a triangle, it would be better to map one's
position in 3-space (or, if you prefer finite spaces, into a cube):
*(0,0,1)
W |
o |
r |
l |
d |
|
|(0,0,0)
*---------------* (0,1,0)
y / Challenge
r /
o /
t /
S /
/
* (1,0,0)
Now, it admittedly is a bit trickier to display one's position on such
an ascii-graph, but one could then simply describe oneself as, say,
(.1, .2, 1.0). I think this adequately addresses Kevin's concern, and
maintains the basic structure of the original model...
--Jered (The Artist Formerly Known as Kid Kibbitz)
--
"From childhood's hour I have not been | |
As others were -- I have not seen | "Alone," a poem by | je...@purdue.edu
As others saw -- I could not bring | Edgar Allen Poe |
My passions from a common spring." | |
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <ECqrJ...@lamarkis.uucp> ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl writes:
>To see if it works for other people, I now invite comments from Mary,
>Sarah, Warren and Mark, whose opinions have been clearest to me:
> World
> /\
> / \
> / \
> / \ * = Mary's estimated position
> / * \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> Story ---------------- Challenge
It really depends on the game, lately, and whether I am GMing or
playing, so I get to have more spots on my diagram than anyone else:
World
/\
/ \ 1 Honolulu Feng Shui game
/ \ 2 _Radiant_
/ \ 3 about where I'm aiming for
/ 3 2 \ the Gathering
/ \
/ \
/ 1 \
/ \
Story ---------------- Challenge
But Irina's original guess is probably my normal working style: if
the game elements are taken care of well enough that things move
along, I don't worry much about story--it seems able to take care
of itself.
Ah, it's murkier than even the three-prong diagram captures, of course.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Psychohist
Mary Kuhner notes that there are sometimes some unavoidable tradeoffs
between the different styles of gaming. And, indeed, Irina's triangle
diagram seems to emphasize tradeoffs.
I wonder if there's some significance to the fact that the the three
people who thus far seem to see the triangle diagram as most useful - I'm
thinking of Mary, Irina, and myself - all place their normal gaming styles
closer to the world apex than to the story or challenge/game apices. Is
there some reason why simulationists should see tradeoffs where others do
not?
I think, perhaps, that there is. In a strict simulation, the world should
run by itself, independent of any input from the players or gamesmaster.
Any attempt by, say, the gamesmaster to improve the story or improve the
game necessarily involves some gamesmaster input - some bending of the
world - that necessarily compromises the independence, and thus accuracy
and credibility, of the simulation. So while a tolerant simulationist
might introduce such improvements, he is aware of the compromises
involved.
A fundamentally dramatic viewpoint, however, might not recognize such
tradeoffs. Indeed, a more consistent background ought to improve most
stories, rather than detracting from them. Any tradeoffs only become
apparent when world consistency gets so much emphasis that it begins
interfering with the authorial freedom of the gamesmaster - and dramatists
don't stray that close to the world oriented apex.
This tolerance may also apply, though perhaps less strongly, to a
dramatist's view of game elements. Appropriate challenges, for example,
can improve the story. From a dramatist's standpoint, the only threat
from a game orientation comes from players and characters who try too hard
to 'win', at the expense of characterization and other elements of a good
story; thus the abhorrence of munchkins, powergamers, and optimizers.
The more consistent background of a world orientation ought also improve
game play, to a point. It's only when the simulation begins to make too
many things impossible - and most of the remaining things trivial - that
the game becomes less enjoyable; again, this only happens when the
simulationist apex is approached very closely.
A gamer might feel more threatened by a story orientation, however. A
good game challenge requires a broad range of potential results - a big
difference between success and failure. If the results that don't make
good stories are removed from this range, the game can lose depth.
Any comments from avowed gamists and dramatists?
Warren J. Dew
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:15:17 GMT, ir...@lamarkis.uucp (Irina Rempt)
wrote:
>(Now you're someone I *enjoy* arguing with - it's just that we've never
>had anything to argue about before. Are you coming to the Gathering, so
>we can do it in person over a drink? :-)
I am so sorry that I cannot. I'm teaching a course in Summer School,
which will be occupying all my time. So raise a glass to me at the
Gathering, and know that I'd be there if I possibly could!
Best,
Kevin