What I was thinking was that it bears out the idea that a formalising of narration (who gets to say what and when) is one of the bases of Forge design.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou could also say that Forge games are typically expressions of Ron's skepticism that

QuoteI do not think that a story can be reliably created, with players as co-creators, via the means of Actor Stance, continuous suspension of disbelief, immersion (as narrowly defined), or anything similar.

I.e., in order to reliably accomplish their "Nar-ness", they explicitly call for players to assume OOC stances, break SOD, and/or give up immersion.

Thanks for that quote.  In  a discussion on RPGnet (that you were also involved in), Vincent Baker told me here:

QuoteIf you're playing and you address premise, you're playing narrativist.

The only definition of narrativist play is "we play and we address premise." If you're playing a game where sometimes you do and sometimes you don't address premise, that only means that sometimes you're playing narrativist and sometimes you aren't.

...and, more importantly...

QuoteExactly. Creating an interesting setup and then playing it out strictly by the internal logic of its characters and setting is a time-honored way to play narrativist.

As I told Vincent in that thread, I think the road to their "El Dorado" is an interesting set-up followed by playing it out within the internal logic of the setting and characters.  The key to Dogs in the Vineyard, as I see it, isn't the conflict resolution mechanics but the character and town creation components that produce characters and a situation almost guaranteed to generate an interesting situation no matter how it plays out.

Quote from: droogWhat I was thinking was that it bears out the idea that a formalising of narration (who gets to say what and when) is one of the bases of Forge design.

Gotcha. I'd add that typically the formalisation includes putting a lot of OOC-narration-authority in the hands of players, by one means or another.

John, right. But we're looking at the structure of Forge games, as opposed to the putatively-observed output of them. Part of Forge theory has come to say that people are often "playing Nar" even if they don't realize it. That's led to some heated debate but we can leave it aside for now and note that Forge games typically & deliberately include the types of mechanics I listed above.

Quote from: John MorrowAs I told Vincent in that thread, I think the road to their "El Dorado" is an interesting set-up followed by playing it out within the internal logic of the setting and characters.  The key to Dogs in the Vineyard, as I see it, isn't the conflict resolution mechanics but the character and town creation components that produce characters and a situation almost guaranteed to generate an interesting situation no matter how it plays out.

Well, I'd agree with you overall, even while noting that what makes the game distinctively Forge-y is the conflict resolution and other elements of distributed GMing, as well as bits of "flag-framing" guidelines that are designed to make the game "in your face" by deliberately pushing the players' buttons. And then there's the absolutely refusal to give the players a clear metaphysical framework, which is also supposed to give them the power to define their own morality or something (i.e., they can't just make legalistic decisions based on an embedded moral code). All of this is supposed to facilitate Vincent's idea of Narrativism, I guess; it's not clear which of them you could drop and still accomplish whatever it is he set out to do. Unfortunately, they all pretty much kill my sense of immersion and I feel they take all the air out of any decisions I make in the game.

Even if you only do what you suggest, you're still doing some OOC work which arguably validates the theory. But in my experience, the products of the Forge design school go way beyond that and tend to break immersion and require OOC stances at many points in the game. For some games (e.g. Polaris, Shab al-Hiri Roach), it's not a problem as I can just reorient myself to approach the activity as a "storytelling game" or "parlour game"; in other games it's pretty disastrous. I'm not sure why.

Let's look at what I earlier called the first wave:

2001
Sorcerer

2002
InSpectres
Universalis
Dust Devils
Trollbabe
Donjon
The Riddle of Steel (?)

2003
My Life with Master
Primetime Adventures
Burning Wheel Revised


Am I missing any big ones?

I think it's pretty clear that the 2002 crop are all playing with the factors you talk about, Elliot. InSpectres in particular breaks the fourth wall very decisively, but all of them have distancing techniques. They're very consciously playing with the relationship between success, failure and narrating outcomes.

It looks like 2003 is the year of experimenting with overt structure. BWR is the exception, but it's interesting to see what Luke's done with Burning Empires in that light.

QuoteNote that Mike Holmes doesn't really consider Universalis to be an RPG.

Funnily enough, I've never felt a great urge to play Universalis. It's the only one above I haven't played.

Capes, Donjon, and tRoS are all 2002. I've only read tRoS, which basically falls into the flag-framing category (or allegedly falls into it; I think there's some controversy over this).

Now for the big question behind the original post: have there been any major innovations since that initial crop, or have later games basically been various reconfigurations of narration-sharing and flag-framing?

Not that there'd anything wrong with that: as post-D&D RPG development shows, you can get a lot of mileage out of variation within a few key parameters (e.g. GM-player divide, character continuity/advancement).

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, I'd agree with you overall, even while noting that what makes the game distinctively Forge-y is the conflict resolution and other elements of distributed GMing, as well as bits of "flag-framing" guidelines that are designed to make the game "in your face" by deliberately pushing the players' buttons.

That's fine.  It's just helping me understand why they took the path they did.  I guess it makes sense based on those assumptions.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd then there's the absolutely refusal to give the players a clear metaphysical framework, which is also supposed to give them the power to define their own morality or something (i.e., they can't just make legalistic decisions based on an embedded moral code). All of this is supposed to facilitate Vincent's idea of Narrativism, I guess; it's not clear which of them you could drop and still accomplish whatever it is he set out to do. Unfortunately, they all pretty much kill my sense of immersion and I feel they take all the air out of any decisions I make in the game.

I'm pretty sure I could do immersion with the setting and characters and even the ambiguous metaphysical framework, and I think the "in your face" nature of the milieu is going to shine through so long as they players create characters designed to engage the setting and situation.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenEven if you only do what you suggest, you're still doing some OOC work which arguably validates the theory.

Well, character creation is generally OOC work to at least some degree, so I'm not sure you can ever escape that.  But I think the key there is to confine it to the set up.  It's like that old computer game "Life" where pixels "live" or "die" based on how many surrounding pixels are "alive".  You set up the field and then just let it run and see what happens.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut in my experience, the products of the Forge design school go way beyond that and tend to break immersion and require OOC stances at many points in the game. For some games (e.g. Polaris, Shab al-Hiri Roach), it's not a problem as I can just reorient myself to approach the activity as a "storytelling game" or "parlour game"; in other games it's pretty disastrous. I'm not sure why.

Yeah, that's the interesting point to me and it explains a great deal about why Forge games seem so unappealing to me.  Is this because there are no real voices of immersion in that design community?  Or are they just like Vincent, who seems to be able to immerse (his descriptions of what he does sound like he does to me), but also seem to have little trouble switching in and out of it?

Okay, so:

2004
Dogs in the Vineyard
Conspiracy of Shadows

2005
Capes
Polaris
The Mountain Witch
Breaking the Ice
Under the Bed

2006
The Shab-al-Hiri Roach
Burning Empires
Agon
Shock
It Was a Mutual Decision
Don't Rest Your Head


DitV is in many ways the culmination of all the previous development. For instance, the basic set-up is influenced by Trollbabe, but Ron doesn't provide a systematic way of creating the situations a trollbabe wanders into.

CoS I'm not sure about – somebody else will have to comment.

I think what you see after 2004 is the effect of all the competitions, for better or for worse. You're still seeing experimentation in mechanics, structure, character creation and the role of the GM.

There seems to be a tiny movement towards exploring subjects other than the usual fare (BtI, UtB, Roach, IWaMD). IWaMD is additionally an experiment in format.

I'm only familiar with about one game per year (or 1.17/year).

Hey, wait a sec. Don't Rest Your Head?

Anyway, of the later crop, I know Polaris, TMW, and Roach. And all use various varieties of stakes-setting/narration trading, with Polaris also having flags. (Though, at least when I read it, I didn't pick up on their use to generate conflict or even as a continuity tool--somebody had to point out how things got onto your sheet and how they might be used.) Polaris also has the most interesting, if also the most confusing, method of regulating the "who can say what when". What I like about it, in principle (only did a little bit of play) is that it pretty much eschews all pretense of being anything other than a mechanic for regulating player interaction, thus almost pure storytelling.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHey, wait a sec. Don't Rest Your Head?

Well, maybe.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnyway, of the later crop, I know Polaris, TMW, and Roach. And all use various varieties of stakes-setting/narration trading....Polaris also has the most interesting, if also the most confusing, method of regulating the "who can say what when". What I like about it, in principle (only did a little bit of play) is that it pretty much eschews all pretense of being anything other than a mechanic for regulating player interaction, thus almost pure storytelling.

Yeah, in a sense it's a very pure outcome of Forge design practice.

I think it's now at a stage where people are playing with the big concepts to see what can be done. Consolidation, if you like. For instance, the addition of structured campaign rules to BE, or the team roleplaying in IWaMD.

I'd say that's a logical outcome of the minor flood of designs that came out of the Ronnies, Game Chef etc.

Agon may or may not be the first gamist Forge game since Elfs. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call it 'thematic', but I've only played it once. It seems to be built for competition between players (while characters ostensibly cooperate).

Agon is a Rune clone.

Quote from: Erik BoielleAgon is a Rune clone.

Maybe in concept, though I don't think it's got a rotating GM. But the rules are very different as far as I can tell.

Quote from: droogMaybe in concept, though I don't think it's got a rotating GM. But the rules are very different as far as I can tell.

A Rune Heartbreaker then.

:-)

Quote from: droog2002
[ .... ]
Capes

Say what?  No man, no.  Dunno where you got that date.  I'm pretty sure that Capes was released in january 2005.

Quote from: TonyLBSay what?  No man, no.  Dunno where you got that date.  I'm pretty sure that Capes was released in january 2005.

Damn! I took Elliot's word for it. I'll go and edit it.