Quote from: John MorrowI think the problem may be even simpler than that.  Every model needs a place to put "bad role-playing", especially if it limits all of role-playing to only three categories.  In the case of the GDS, Gamist was the place where "bad role-playing" was inevitably put. [snip] In the case of the GNS, Simulationism was the place where "bad role-playing" was inevitably put.

Yes, this does happen. No doubt about it. And quite frankly, it's a natural human reaction, when your enjoyment of a certain activity is vastly different from others with whom you share the activity, to react in shock when that rift is demonstrated beyond doubt, in play. Ron calls it "Martians at the dinner table," or some such. I've been there. And for what it's worth, the couple of times that I've gone on the Forge with a play report ranting and raving about the "horrible" behavior of a fellow gamer, I wasn't greeted with any sympathetic "there, there, it's all right now, you're among friends, we won't let the bad, bad non-Narrativists get you." What I got instead was, "whoa, simmer down there fella, this guy may not be a badguy, he might just have different and totally valid expectations from play than you do."

And I think that's characteristic of where Forge Theory is at right now. On the whole, anyway. And yes, even including Ron Edwards, which is mainly why I posted those links. If you believe his understanding of Sim is poor, fine, that's a whole 'nother ballgame than "Ron really just thinks that Simmies are brain-damanged fraidycats who aren't man enough for his One True Way of playing."

In fact, even back in that old, old thread, Ron says a couple of posts down,

QuotePaul and I may not be right in applying this idea to Simulationism as a whole. We may be WAY off-base, or we may have identified the loser-equivalent for Simulationism (corresponding to munchkinism in Gamism, or to scenery-chewing in Narrativism). Working this out through dialogue is absolutely required.

So there's bad S, as well as bad G and bad N. (FWIW I think Ron has just as much disdain for "pretentious fucks" as the Pundit, though they obviously differ on what qualifies.) Not any one category as a "dumping ground." S may be underdeveloped at the Forge, but as people have pointed out that's just because most Forgers' interests lay elsewhere. I personally responded to Ron's Werewolf and Dead of Night threads with a big "O-o-oh." Really cleared a lot up for me. But your mileage may vary, I suppose.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: droogThe basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?

That supposes that "incoherency" exists, which supposes that things called "Gamism," etc exist. As I said, if you accept all the language, all the new words and definitions and categories, then you have to accept the conclusions.

It's like saying, "well, if you feel the Holy Spirit even outside the Eucharist, that's great! Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?" Such a statement begins by assuming that Catholic doctrine is entirely right; unsurprisingly, when you beging by assuming that the basic ideas are right, you end up concluding that the conclusions are right. If you begin by assuming that the Eucharist is real and meaningful, not just as something symbolic, but as something real, as in for example transubstantiation (the doctrine that the bread and wine really do become the body and blood of Christ at the moment of communion), you can't help but conclude a lot of other stuff, such as the importance of consecrated male priests, etc.

You're saying, "accept all the basic assumptions of the Forge, now tell me why those basic assumptions are wrong." Which of course is impossible, and why you've asked for it.

There is no such thing as "Incoherence", because there is no such thing as Gamism, Narrativism or Simulationism; and if there were, it'd still be entirely possible to have a game, or game session, with several of those appearing at once, and still have fun. We know this to be possible because it happens every day in game sessions; people do several different things in one session, and enjoy them all, and people compromise what they enjoy for the sake of others' enjoyment, and their own pleasure is greater because of, not despite, other people's fun. It's fun to see others having fun, so when I compromise on what I want so they can have some of what they want, I actually end up with more fun than I'd have without compromise.

GNS is inaccurate, and even if it were accurate, is an incomplete descrition of what happens in a game session. Same goes for the Big Model. To see this, a person need look no further than the Provisional Glossary. "Narrativism: see Story-Now." "Story-Now: see Narrativism." Brilliant!

Don't like it, don't talk about it. But that's different from misinterpreting.

Quote from: JimBobOzTo see this, a person need look no further than the Provisional Glossary. "Narrativism: see Story-Now." "Story-Now: see Narrativism." Brilliant!

That's pretty disingenuous, dude. It says no such thing. Whatit actually says is:

Story Now

    Commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) Premise through play itself. The epiphenomenal outcome for the Transcript from such play is almost always a story. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play.

You can complainabout terms like Premise, or whatever, but the definitition is there, anyway. And it's clarified by four additional terms in the Glossary (Addressing, Premise, Transcript, Story). Which a lot of people bitch about, too, but hey, whaddyagonnado?

At any rate, your claim here is false.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: droogThe basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?

The expectation that it won't work and is not reproducible is the problem.

The group of people I've played with since college plays incoherent games.  Contrary to Ron's caricature in one of the threads provided above, we've used all different systems from none and no dice to Hero and d20, plenty of homebrew systems, Fudge, and so on.   We play different genres, long campaigns, mini-campaigns, one-offs, and so on.  We seem to have a lot of fun, to the point where several of us were willing to take time off of work to play for a few years just to play with an old friend who couldn't give up a day of his weekend to play our regular game (we do ~12 hour sessions on Saturdays).

The new group I play D&D with (one person overlap with my regular group) plays incoherent games.  Great fun.  Heck, we were using D&D 3.5 to play a game with a great deal of deep role-playing and very little combat and it worked just fine.  Players in that game drive hours and spent entire weekends playing in a game that sounds incoherent to me, yet they seemed to have a lot of fun with that, too.  I've played in plenty of incoherent groups and "mismatched" system and had fun, to the point where I wonder what people are doing wrong when they don't.  

Several times, I've had people tell me to read one or more Actual Play threads on The Forge to understand what's so magical about a certain game (e.g., Dogs in the Vineyard) and walked away scratching my head thinking, "That looks like just about all the games I've played.  What's the big deal?" exept perhaps that everything was driven by abstract mechanics that didn't seem to have much to do with what was actually happening in the game.  Do I really need to play a quick game of Yahtzee! to determine how my character responds to having a gun pointed at them in a dramatic or interesting way?  I don't need rules for that.  

In fact, I think I just figured out how to explain, in quasi-Forge speak, why the rules in Dogs in the Vineyard (and very innovative and otherwise fine game) seem to bother me so much.  Using dice and rules do decide how my character responds through a conflict situation deprotagonizes my character.  Instead of the GM deciding what my character does, the rules do.  I should be doing that. (OK.  More correctly, it removed me from having ownership of my character's protagonism.  Better?)

Going back to this:

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's like saying, "well, if you feel the Holy Spirit even outside the Eucharist, that's great! Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?" Such a statement begins by assuming that Catholic doctrine is entirely right; unsurprisingly, when you beging by assuming that the basic ideas are right, you end up concluding that the conclusions are right.

Now, first of all, JB, this is one of your ploys. You're escalating here, by trying to insinuate cultishness. Remember what I told you, young man.

Secondly, you don't have to accept ideas in a final way. If I said, "Wow, your game is incoherent, but you make it work so well!", there are several possibilities:

1. We can debate whether 'incoherence' exists.
2. We can discuss what techniques you employ.

I've got a hypothesis on this point: I think it takes a very, very good GM to make an incoherent game work. That's one reason why people like you are so hot on the importance of the GM, because the whole shebang falls down if the GM doesn''t have his shit together.

Just an idea.

Quote from: droogThere are games that facilitate a sim agenda – i.e. if you are playing with a sim agenda, BRP or GURPS may be a good fit for you.

How about Fudge?

Quote from: droogIs it at all useful to classify these things? Well, people have been doing it for a long time. It helped me clarify my thinking and drive harder at an objective. For me, it's always been about trying things and seeing if they work.

I had the same experience on r.g.f.a with the GDS.  The GNS doesn't work for me.  The GDS didn't work for some people, either, and both don't work for some people.  Don't mistake personal utility with universal utility and don't assume that makes it harmless.

Quote from: John Morrowhttp://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24.0

Ok, I'm laughing my ass off at that description of Shadowrun.

:rolleyes: <-- Not directed at John Morrow.

Quote from: John MorrowHow about Fudge?

Obviously, Fudge is pretty much what you make it.

QuoteI had the same experience on r.g.f.a with the GDS.  The GNS doesn't work for me.  The GDS didn't work for some people, either, and both don't work for some people.  Don't mistake personal utility with universal utility and don't assume that makes it harmless.

If an analytical framework doesn't work for you, that's life.

[EDIT: I don't agree that the rules of DitV in any way decide what you do, but that is another argument]

Quote from: droogI've got a hypothesis on this point: I think it takes a very, very good GM to make an incoherent game work. That's one reason why people like you are so hot on the importance of the GM, because the whole shebang falls down if the GM doesn''t have his shit together.

I've seen incoherent games work more often than not.  When they don't work, it's usually because of problem players, not incoherency.  Where games do fail from incoherency is where a single style dominates a game of players with different styles, which is exactly what the theory of coherency says that you should do.  The way single style games prevent the problem is to exclude people of differing styles from the table instead of giving everyone something they can have fun with.

Quote from: John MorrowWhere games do fail from incoherency is where a single style dominates a game of players with different styles, which is exactly what the theory of coherency says that you should do.  The way single style games prevent the problem is to exclude people of differing styles from the table instead of giving everyone something they can have fun with.

Okay, and that's a preference and experience thing. I've seen some games that were utter shit because everybody brought different expectations to the table.

The thing about 'problem players', is more dismissive, I think, because you're not allowing for the possibility that the player is a problem because he's not getting what he wants. Going back to my game, there was a lot of muttering about the one guy who wasn't with the program. Socially he was fine, but for the purposes of the game he brought a certain atmosphere with him that clashed with the rest of us and made me feel awkward (at the time I saw it as partly my fault). He got accused of being a 'powergamer'. My diagnosis is that Glenn would have been happy with either crunchy gamism or full-on emo narrativism, but he simply wasn't on board with our style of sim, where just existing in the setting was an end in itself. Better we had just said, "No, why don't we get this other game together instead if you want to RP with us?"

Quote from: droogIf an analytical framework doesn't work for you, that's life.

Or it could indicate a weakness in the analytical framework.

Quote from: droog[EDIT: I don't agree that the rules of DitV in any way decide what you do, but that is another argument]

Do the rules deal with social encounters?  Is the example of play in this review reasonable?  If they don't decide how the social encounter plays out and is resolvecd, what am I rolling dice for?  Why do I need dice mechanics at all to play out a scene like this?  Can't I just, you know, role-play through it?

Quote from: droogOkay, and that's a preference and experience thing. I've seen some games that were utter shit because everybody brought different expectations to the table.

I think that's the player version of coherency -- a player that's only happy with one style of play and can't endure other styles.  Flexibility, on the part of both players and GM, makes a great deal of this disappear.

Quote from: droogThe thing about 'problem players', is more dismissive, I think, because you're not allowing for the possibility that the player is a problem because he's not getting what he wants.

I don't consider that a problem player.  I consider the problem player who has a "creative agenda" that could be called "annoying everyone else"/"jerkism" or the drunk player who shows up at the game and insists on playing an inappopriate character.  There are players like that.  To a lesser degree, there are players with deficient social skills and players who can't follow instructions.  If a player is willing to bring a ninja to a pirate game (and a cave man game, and a Western, etc.), then I'm not convinced they won't also try to bring a ninja to a Dogs in the Vineyard game.

Quote from: droogGoing back to my game, there was a lot of muttering about the one guy who wasn't with the program. Socially he was fine, but for the purposes of the game he brought a certain atmosphere with him that clashed with the rest of us and made me feel awkward (at the time I saw it as partly my fault). He got accused of being a 'powergamer'. My diagnosis is that Glenn would have been happy with either crunchy gamism or full-on emo narrativism, but he simply wasn't on board with our style of sim, where just existing in the setting was an end in itself. Better we had just said, "No, why don't we get this other game together instead if you want to RP with us?"

Have you read Robin Laws' book Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering?  It has a seven-category way of describing players but instead of saying that you should run games with only one player type, describes how to run games with different types in the same game.  In other words, the alternative to kicking him out may have been to toss him a cookie every now and then.  Would that really have ruined the game for everyone else?

Quote from: John MorrowDo the rules deal with social encounters?  Is the example of play in this review reasonable?  If they don't decide how the social encounter plays out and is resolvecd, what am I rolling dice for?  Why do I need dice mechanics at all to play out a scene like this?  Can't I just, you know, role-play through it?

Look, dude, millions of electrons have died in the arguing of social-mechanics vs none. It's a preference in system. Try and remember that.

Let's look at this:

QuoteAnyway, there wasn't much to the plot. The PCs showed up, spoke with the Steward and his two wives, and ended up engaging in a social contest to convince him that there really was a problem with the town (he didn't want to believe it). Once they succeeded in that, they were able to get the townsfolk to open up a little... the wife of one of the gamblers gave them hints and the PCs ended up pretending to leave town and lying in wait to see where the sinners were going.

What's actually happening here? The players want their characters to convince the NPC of something. He's going to end up convinced or not convinced, and somehow you must resolve that.

In the specific case of DitV, you can:
(a) Say, "Okay, the steward loves you."
(b) Roll for it.

Once you begin rolling, either side can Give at any time. Nothing ever says, "This is what you must do."

In another game, you might act it out. Same thing happens: he's convinced or not convinced and that must be resolved. In this case it's resolved by the GM using his judgement.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that's the player version of coherency -- a player that's only happy with one style of play and can't endure other styles.  Flexibility, on the part of both players and GM, makes a great deal of this disappear.

Exactly.

The success or failure of a game session isn't about the particular styles of play everyone wants matching ("Coherency") or not ("Incoherency"), but about people getting along, working with each-other, compromising, having fun because someone else is having fun, etc.

For example, droog won't game with me, not because he's a "Narrativist" and I'm a "Gamist" or any shit like that, but because he thinks I'm a cock, or whatever his favourite insult is today. Our game play style preferences, however you wish to label them, are irrelevant, because he doesn't feel we'd get along at a person-to-person level. Whether he's right or not I've no idea, but that's the way game groups work, or don't work - because of how the people get along.

If you see a game group break up, or form, it's got fuck-all to do with play style preferences, and all to do with how the people get along as individuals.

Play style talk may take an okay group and make it into a great group, but it won't take no group or a crap group and turn it into an okay group - that's what individuals have to do, by getting along with one another. The fact is that if people can sort out that basic person-to-person stuff to get an okay group, they'll muddle through on the rest, and don't need an elaborate rpg theory for it.