Quote from: -E.

• There's no way to test a game for coherence

Sure there it.

You play it, and see if the game, played as written, does the job of informing everyone as to a single playstyle and is capable of selling players on the kind of fun that the playstyle provides.

Quote from: StuartThis concept gets a lot of emphasis from the Forge folk.  However, using these "actual play" reports to help design new games can be challenging.  To be honest, most "actual play reports" aren't nearly as useful as the title suggests.  Consider the difference between an audio recording of an actual gaming session vs. reading a forum post by the GM discussing how they felt the game went.  The actual play contains the good, the bad, and the ugly.  The "actual play reports" are often heavily biased, and miss the little details that really make a difference.

That's all quite true, but if incomplete information is all you have to go on, you use that.

The real problem with GNS is this...

From the wikipedia entry -- which I assume is most accurate or the legions of GNS fans would have corrected it by now...

    * Gamist decisions concern competition and challenge
    * Narrativist decisions concern story and theme
    * Simulationist decisions concern experience and celebration of source material

"Gamist" is a game -- even a game based on storytelling and improv.  D&D is a gamist.  Theatre Sports is gamist.

"Narrativist" isn't a game, particularly if you feel being N discounts being G or S.  Novel Writing is narrativist.

"Simulationist" isn't a game either, and it's not storytelling.  The SCA is simulationist.

GNS is fine for describing a set of activities with roleplaying as a component.  It is very poor for describing a set of games, because unless something is "G" it's not a game at all...

Think about it.  Football is a game.  If you had players make decisions NOT on playing the game but instead on creating themes (tragedy, foregiveness, etc) it would stop being a game.  However as soon as the players recieved points for these narrative elements, the narrative would become part of the competition and challenge, and the players would make decisions on football + themes in order to try and win the game.  It would be gamist again.

Quote from: Stuart"Narrativist" isn't a game, particularly if you feel being N discounts being G or S.  Novel Writing is narrativist.

Once Upon A Time is a game.  It's not an RPG, but it sure as hell is a game.

And it involves the same kind of decision-making.

So, uh, what?

Quote from: StuartThink about it.  Football is a game.  If you had players make decisions NOT on playing the game but instead on creating themes (tragedy, foregiveness, etc) it would stop being a game.  However as soon as the players recieved points for these narrative elements, the narrative would become part of the competition and challenge, and the players would make decisions on football + themes in order to try and win the game.  It would be gamist again.

Sorry, man – I can't do this Jesuitical thing. It's too futile.

QuoteOnce Upon A Time is a game. It's not an RPG, but it sure as hell is a game.

And it involves the same kind of decision-making.

So, uh, what?

Once Upon A Time is gamist.  Nothing wrong with that.

You make decisions in the game in an attempt to win the game, not to make the best story.  You won't produce any deep, moving narratives with OUAT.

In fact, this is a frequent criticism of OUAT -- the stories tend to be formulaic, and players can take steps to prevent other players jumping in.  If I say "The hero raises his *sword*" and you have the sword card, you can jump in.  If I say "The hero raises his *mace*" you can't -- there's no mace card.

QuoteSorry, man – I can't do this Jesuitical thing. It's too futile.

Never heard that term before...

QuoteAdj.   1.   Jesuitical - having qualities characteristic of Jesuits or Jesuitism; "Jesuitical education"

and at wiki...

QuoteThey have also been accused of using casuistry to obtain justifications for the unjustifiable. In several languages, "Jesuit" or "Jesuitical" therefore acquired a secondary meaning of "devious."

Classy.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSure there it.

You play it, and see if the game, played as written, does the job of informing everyone as to a single playstyle and is capable of selling players on the kind of fun that the playstyle provides.

I don't think that kind of test proves anything -- Vampire is an incoherent game according to the theory.

My experience of it was that the game, as written, met your criteria (we played vampires, it was fun).

If coherence / incoherence is something that actually exists and is an attribute of games (as in "Vampire is incoherent") then we should be able to find evidence of that in the game's rules and mechanics.

I can point to any game (including Sorcerer, GURPS, DiTV, etc.) and claim it's incoherent or coherent because of my personal experience of it or because of my interpretation of how a rules set supports an agenda.

Consider that I can make a case for DiTV being incoherent ("I say it's incoherent because the mechanic is Gamist, and the yet the flavor text and the premise is Nar") and the theory doesn't provide any guidance.

Judging a game coherent or incoherent comes down to nothing but an unsupported assertion. That's a good indication that the theory isn't actually usable (in this case, even as a critical/literary theory).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: StuartOnce Upon A Time is gamist.  Nothing wrong with that.

You make decisions in the game in an attempt to win the game, not to make the best story.  You won't produce any deep, moving narratives with OUAT.

...I'd like to throw in an "oh, really?" here, and talk about some deep narrative I've built with Once Upon A Time, but it'd be a lie; most of our games of OUAT devolve into shallow porn (I tend to play it with otherwise-all-female groups, often including a lesbian couple, so I got no complaints, but still).

I would do so in order to make a point I still believe, despite not having an easy-to-share example on hand:

It is possible for a game to be engineered so that 'smart' decisions also make good story.

Quote from: StuartThe real problem with GNS is this...

From the wikipedia entry -- which I assume is most accurate or the legions of GNS fans would have corrected it by now...

    * Gamist decisions concern competition and challenge
    * Narrativist decisions concern story and theme
    * Simulationist decisions concern experience and celebration of source material

"Gamist" is a game -- even a game based on storytelling and improv.  D&D is a gamist.  Theatre Sports is gamist.

"Narrativist" isn't a game, particularly if you feel being N discounts being G or S.  Novel Writing is narrativist.

"Simulationist" isn't a game either, and it's not storytelling.  The SCA is simulationist.

GNS is fine for describing a set of activities with roleplaying as a component.  It is very poor for describing a set of games, because unless something is "G" it's not a game at all...

Think about it.  Football is a game.  If you had players make decisions NOT on playing the game but instead on creating themes (tragedy, foregiveness, etc) it would stop being a game.  However as soon as the players recieved points for these narrative elements, the narrative would become part of the competition and challenge, and the players would make decisions on football + themes in order to try and win the game.  It would be gamist again.

The wikipedia entry is actually not correct; I dunno why no one corrected it, but that's not the way the terms are used at the forge...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I don't think that kind of test proves anything -- Vampire is an incoherent game according to the theory.

Vampire's GM advice is what causes it's incoherence according to GNS theory.

Did your GM follow that advice as written?

QuoteIt is possible for a game to be engineered so that 'smart' decisions also make good story.

Absolutely.  No argument at all.  In fact, that's where I think people should be putting their effort -- making better games (meaning GAMES) that produce good story.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenVampire's GM advice is what causes it's incoherence according to GNS theory.

Did your GM follow that advice as written?

... yeah... I did it wasn't a problem; my guess is that in any english-language set of instructions there is room for multiple interpretations. I chose a set of interpretations that wasn't problematic.

I didn't play a whole lot of Vampire, but we did a campaign or two and found it to be a reasonable game -- certainly not the disaster GNS has it to be.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.... yeah... I did it wasn't a problem; my guess is that in any english-language set of instructions there is room for multiple interpretations. I chose a set of interpretations that wasn't problematic.

I didn't play a whole lot of Vampire, but we did a campaign or two and found it to be a reasonable game -- certainly not the disaster GNS has it to be.

So, you had a pre-plotted story along which you guided the players, carefully, using such great tools as foreshadowing, flashbacks, and...

Okay, I'll stop there.

My point is that, yes, of course, the "your game is DOOMED!" line you might occasionally hear is baloney.

But there is also stuff in Vampire: The Masquerade, specifically in the GM advice section, and very specifically where it talks about how story comes to pass in RPGs, that sucks much ass.  There have been attempts at running games directly by those guidelines that have led to really shitty play.

The thing I found *wrong* with Vampire was that the game text suggested game mechanics would revolve around social machinations, and a more subtle approach to interacting with others in the game.  The reality was that it was full of swords, guns and cool powers.  If the combat emphasis had been replaced with rules to support other approaches, it would have worked a lot better.

I don't think it had anything to do with G vs N vs S though...