Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, 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 big GNS essay defines two kinds of Incoherence--one is where the game is substantially broken and is unplayable in some (meaningful) sense.

The other is a clash of agendas. In this case, Narrativist setting and Simulationist rules.

You can argue for the first case (V:tM is, as written, unplayable) because railroading is dysfunctional in any CA (unless you're in the Sim is okay if it's railroaded camp, something a lot of people do believe--which makes dysfunctional Nar functional Sim and leads to the idea that GNS says all kinds of bad things about Sim-play).

In the second case, though, Narrativist fluff (you're a vampire) and Sim game mechanics (real-world physics) is the one that is discussed in the essays.

Playing a game this way (I played GURPS V:tM which did not contain, as far as I recall, the same V:tM game advice) is still incoherent under GNS terms. That wasn't my experience either (the game didn't degenerate into power-struggle, there wasn't an on-going war with the GM vs. the players, there was no pre-planed plot).

At any rate, testing your game isn't a way to determine if the game is coherent or not (according to Ron). It takes hundreds of hours of observation and a proper assessment of the CA's attempted and the CA's supported by the rules.

There simply is no way to do this. Tony, for example, can't distinguish between Gamism and Narrativism in Capes (and, he says--and I'm inclined to believe him, neither can anyone else). I don't think when I play GURPS there's any clear distinction between Sim and Nar play (and same for Sorcerer and Dogs).

I believe that outside of "the game is too broken to play" (which may be the case with the GM adivice) the fundamental theoritical use of the term Incoherent isn't spelled out enough to be useful or objective in any sense.

I don't think the theory is ... coherent.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoYou can argue for the first case (V:tM is, as written, unplayable) because railroading is dysfunctional in any CA (unless you're in the Sim is okay if it's railroaded camp, something a lot of people do believe--which makes dysfunctional Nar functional Sim and leads to the idea that GNS says all kinds of bad things about Sim-play).

Honestly?

I believe what Forge theory says about Narrativism.

And that is all.  That's the base sytle there, and they know it front to back.  What they say about the rest, I ward off with the mystic element of handwavium.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHonestly?

I believe what Forge theory says about Narrativism.

Including when it says a given instance of play is (or isn't) Nar, and when it says a given game is (or isn't) Nar-facilitating?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHonestly?

I believe what Forge theory says about Narrativism.

And that is all.  That's the base sytle there, and they know it front to back.  What they say about the rest, I ward off with the mystic element of handwavium.

I'd say: the Forge is on to something about premise and addressing it. However: that doesn't necessiarily make Vampire "incoherent" and it doesn't mean you can point to mechanic X and mechanic Y and say "This makes the game problematic because the Address of Premise facilitated by X will get in the way of the Gamism facilitated by Y."

This has been tried to death with Riddle of Steel. The GM-advice there isn't Narrativist (it isn't utterly railroady advice, in fact, it's, IMO, decent advice--but it isn't distinctly Narrativist either). People (top-10 posters) have told me that "I'm playing it wrong if I don't play to the point of having SA's completely eclipse the tactical element inherent in the combat system."

So, no. Some of what Forge Theory says about Narrativism is on the money, IMO. But all of it? Or even major segments? I don't think so (OtE is Narrativist, because the setting winds up challenging the character about the basic nature of reality--I think that's ... highly questionable).

I also don't think that anything discussed on The Forge at any time is a good way to describe 'Forge Theory.' If I've never heard of the short-story ... and every time I wind up trying to pad out my 30 page narrative, it sucks, I could claim that my trip to the bookstore helped me design my novel when I discovered a book of short fiction and heard a discussion about book types I term 'Barnes and Nobles-theory.'

And I'd be right to claim that in a very foggy sense--but I think it would be stretching the words "theory" and "design" unnecessarily. There's a middle ground somewhere there--but if Forge Theory doesn't refer to GNS/TBM theory and a pretty distinct collection of related terms (pretty much in the articles section) then I'd question (but ... not actually condemn) the usage as being unnecessarily vague.

-Marco

Quote from: Elliot WilenIncluding when it says a given instance of play is (or isn't) Nar, and when it says a given game is (or isn't) Nar-facilitating?

If I say that Dragonraid is excellent for my trivialist agenda because it allows me to answer trivia Bible questions in order to successfully use abilities...  ...Sure, I'm being odd.  But, it's my agenda - it's proprietary, in a fashion.  So, I'm right.

We don't get to tell people that they're wrong about their own playstyle, unless we want to be assholes.

I can say that I play in a style that Ron calls Narrativism (true), but which doesn't match all particulars of GNS Narrativism in terms of what fits and what doesn't, and how it fits or doesn't (also true).  It's my playstyle; I call it "my playstyle" rather than calling it Narrativism, so as to not confuse the already-confused issue.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, 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.

... Incoherence (in GNS) isn't the same thing as "shitty GM advice."

Coherent games can have shitty GM advice. Coherent games could be railroaded.

But beyond the definitions (which are famously hard to figure out) -- I asked if it were possible to test for incoherence; you told me that playing the game would perform the test.

But is that *really* the only way to test?

If I'm a new game designer who's run into GNS and I'm worried that my game might be Incoherent, is the only way to find out to conduct a wide variety of playtests and determine if ongoing powerstruggle is the most-likely result?

How many tests would I have to do? How many were done to determine that Vampire is Incoherent? Since games like Sorcerer have been played *orders of magnitude* less than Vampire, how do we know that they're coherent? Maybe the sample size is just too small?

Of course there aren't any answers to any of this.

GNS Coherence judgements are made informally based on textual analysis all the time -- just exactly the same way you asked me if I used the GM's advice.

That's because the informal definition of GNS Incoherence is something like, "bad." or -- more specifically -- "implies a traditional GM and places value on story" because GNS views the GM role as a magnet for power struggle.

If this were baked into the theory in a formal way, you could have an actual model:

"Games with a traditional GM that recommend the GM have a story in mind are likely to cause power struggle."

I don't think this quite... revolutionary enough for GNS to bother with -- and, of course, it's still wrong (games don't cause power struggle... missmatched expectations don't even cause power struggle -- and certainly on-going powerstruggle is purely the responsibility of the people involved).

But to be an actionable theory, the concept that there's something called Sim and something else called Nar and games that sort-of / halfway cater to both cause powerstruggle requires definitions of

* Sim
* Nar
* How games cater to one or the other

That simply don't exist. It's not a design principle without this.

Cheers,
-E.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.(games don't cause power struggle... missmatched expectations don't even cause power struggle -- and certainly on-going powerstruggle is purely the responsibility of the people involved).

"Mismatched Expectations" is pretty close to "Incoherence", in that terminology set.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen:confused:

Uh, okay?

To clarify: He stated a bunch of things that he though DitV was about, you dismissed them out of hand because he didn't design the game.  I suggest that if you continue to dismiss them as unimportant if he uses those 'about' things IN PLAY that you have essentially gone into the closed minded set, thus are not 'open minded'. After all, what people do 'at the table' is pretty damned important for game theory in some regards... yes?

Your 'it doesn't matter because you didn't design the game' struck me as completely out of character for what you are normally about. that's all.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen"Mismatched Expectations" is pretty close to "Incoherence", in that terminology set.

Sort of.

TBM/GNS poses a pretty dark view of games and gamers. According to GNS, there are these 3 CA's and they're incompatable; the proposed solution is not to game together. On the topic of adjusting the game to suit dynamic goals and player desires, TBM/GNS is equally dismal: it can be done ("drift"), but this causes "degredation."

Compare this to other theories--say, yours: people have different approaches people can get along. When drift happens it's fundamentally okay and usually the result of people taking the game in a fun direction.

Both of these theories address a real issue: missmatched expectations and goals within a group. They take very different approaches to the outcome.

This isn't a minor point of disagreement:

Accepting that GNS-Inoherence exists means accepting it's stark, anti-social nature of gaming.

Using the term informally to mean "missmatched expectations" means selling out on the idea that the theory represents deep, useful thought -- it's just jargon that's used instead of plain english.

It sounds to me like you'd prefer to take the second approach: to ignore the more strident and hysterical (brain damage) parts of the theory and use it as shorthand for a relatively tame concept ("People have different desires; this can cause conflict...")

I think this is probably a good social approach: what I'm doing isn't getting me invited to The Forge booth or making me popular over on Story Games.

But -- and this is completely sincere -- I think treating the theory seriously and not using terms informally -- is actually *good* for theory as a whole. It might not be so good for GNS (that stuff is embarassing, at best, to the community), but if you're not going to use those terms the way they're formally defined, why have them at all?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SpikeTo clarify: He stated a bunch of things that he though DitV was about, you dismissed them out of hand because he didn't design the game.

He gave answers to one of a set of questions specifically and clearly intended as a design tool, and asked me how his answers measured up in the context of using that tool.

In that specific context, the answers can't be measured.  

Not "they're bad answer" - just "doing this, in this way, makes no sense".

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHe gave answers to one of a set of questions specifically and clearly intended as a design tool, and asked me how his answers measured up in the context of using that tool.

In that specific context, the answers can't be measured.  

Not "they're bad answer" - just "doing this, in this way, makes no sense".

I think design tools can be used analytically on finished products.

If the concepts behind the questions are meaningful and valid, I think I ought to be able to look at how they were applied -- at very least to focused games.

Is DiTV "about" something in the sense of the Power 19? Does it's resolution mechanic reenforce what it's about?

My honest answer is: I'm not sure.

In engineering and art (you used the color theory example), I can look at theories that were used on certain finished products and the exercise deepens my understanding of the theory.

I'm not sure how to do that with the Power 19 and a game like DiTV.

Don't get me wrong: I can come up with an answer, and build an explanation around it that kind of makes sense. But I can do that with any *number* of answers.

This makes me *skeptical* that the concept of a game being "about" something and the resolution mechanic supporting it is really fleshed out.

I think there are a lot of theory people who would like that to be true -- but I don't think they've done the work necessary to help a game designer apply that concept. Trying to use the *concepts* with successful games, I'm lost:

Champions is about playing super heros... how does the resolution mechanic support that? Call of Cthulhu is about playing investigators... how does the resolution mechanic support that?

Can you answer these question? Or do they not apply to games like Hero and Champions? Or does a game's aboutness/resolution mechanic only apply to games you're making -- and make no sense when looking at other games.

If that's the case, then it seems like a dead end: I may make a game, think it's "about X" and think "here's how the resolution mechanic supports X" -- but if it's all intensely personal, then why bother? The players of my games will all have their own answers and they may find that my resolution mechanic absolutely does not work for whatever they think the game is about (or even if they agree on aboutness, they may not agree about the supporting relationship).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I think design tools can be used analytically on finished products.

Okay.  In this case, I don't agree.  The tool is useful, to me, for design.  I don't see any benefit in using it for analysis.

Quote from: -E.If that's the case, then it seems like a dead end: I may make a game, think it's "about X" and think "here's how the resolution mechanic supports X" -- but if it's all intensely personal, then why bother?

Because it's useful to get new perspectives on your own design?

QuoteCan you answer these question? Or do they not apply to games like Hero and Champions? Or does a game's aboutness/resolution mechanic only apply to games you're making -- and make no sense when looking at other games.

If you changed your POV it could work... you could apply aboutness/resolution mechanics to any game... but you need to abandon the GNS idea that Narrative games are not games.

A game about tactics should have resolution mechanics based on good tactical decisions.  Like most war games.

A game about improvisation should have resolution mechanics based on good performances.  Like Theatre Sports.

A game about storytelling should have resolution mechanics based on successful storytelling.  I don't think there's as many successful storytelling games as people believe... but if the game is about storytelling, then being a good storyteller should lead to success at the game.

Quote from: StuartA game about tactics should have resolution mechanics based on good tactical decisions.  Like most war games.

A game about improvisation should have resolution mechanics based on good performances.  Like Theatre Sports.

A game about storytelling should have resolution mechanics based on successful storytelling.  I don't think there's as many successful storytelling games as people believe... but if the game is about storytelling, then being a good storyteller should lead to success at the game.

By that measure, DitV would be about "How much of your character are you willing to risk for this?"

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOkay.  In this case, I don't agree.  The tool is useful, to me, for design.  I don't see any benefit in using it for analysis.

Because it's useful to get new perspectives on your own design?

The analysis is used (amongst other things) to validate that the design principle works. If games can actually be "about" something, we should be able to use the design principle to look at games and observe that.

In terms of getting perspective, would *any* question about your game ("What is your game's cardinal direction? What is your game's polarity?") yeild the same level of perspective?

If not, then there's something about "aboutness" and "supporting aboutness" that's implied somewhere -- that's where the deep thinking takes place, yeah?

Where is that body of thought and theory?

Cheers,
-E.