D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Oct 16, 2013 14:36:03 GMT -8
Does that include Russian roulette?
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Oct 16, 2013 14:55:37 GMT -8
Yes. And chess.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Oct 16, 2013 16:47:34 GMT -8
Does that include Russian roulette? I know a game that doesn't need dice. Step into my office.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Oct 17, 2013 4:42:30 GMT -8
Does that include Russian roulette? I know a game that doesn't need dice. Step into my office. Does it have a couch or a basement/cellar? Aaron
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Oct 20, 2013 8:29:39 GMT -8
Then you have GURPS, with its bell curve math and diminishing returns and strategic combat rules. A mans game. For killing shit in the face. Bzzzzzzt, sorry, NO. Look, I enjoy "hippy games" as much as the next person, but I am so freaking tired of hippy game proponents declaring that more "traditional" games with stats and stuff are only about combat and killing. Even though I know you were half-kidding, it is really getting to be a major peeve with me. GURPS in particular is a bad example of that, because it models everything numerically, including stuff that has nothing to do with combat. (Hey, you lured me into posting, at least....)
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 21, 2013 22:51:15 GMT -8
kaitoujuliet, there are hippie game proponents who claim that "trad" games are only about killing shit. For me personally, it's like squares and rectangles; all squares are also rectangles, but rectangles are not squares. What I mean is there are traditional, rules-heavy games that focus on combat, but not all traditional games do that. New World of Darkness and Vampire: the Requiem both spring to mind of example of systems that don't focus on combat. I think game systems that a) are rules heavy and b) primarily award XP for defeating foes in combat are the games those hippie game proponents are talking about. That's kind of neither here nor there though. I can see the appeal of both simulationist and narrative games, even though I prefer the latter. In simulationist games (and I'm generalizing here), players derive pleasure from getting the rules to do what they want. Or It's almost like a logic puzzle in a way. The rules provide the constraints within which the players must function, and doing something awesome within those constraints can be extremely satisfying. The rules dictate the reality of the game world, as the rules are attempting to simulate (a certain) reality. Mechanics come first in these types of games. Being awesome doesn't allow you break the rules. In narrative games (and again I'm generalizing) players derive pleasure from... Hmm... I'm not really sure. It's not from being awesome, because simulationist players also like being awesome. It's not doing what's fictionally appropriate, because you can still have your character do what's fictionally appropriate in a simulationist game. Maybe it's the pleasure of telling a good story. I know that sounds weak, and you can still tell an awesome story in simulationist games. I think the difference for me is that, in a simulationist game, the mechanics dictate more of what happens, while in a simulations game, the fiction does that. To illustrate what I mean, and lord knows I need an example to help clarify that, look at magic systems. If you were doing a modern day supernatural game (like Supernatural) in a simulationist system like GURPS for example, someone who wanted to cast a spell would deal with a lot of numbers and stats. How powerful is the spell? How many "resources" (mana points, blood dots, spell slots, etc.) does it take to have access to that spell, and then cast it? How many turns/rounds/minutes does it take to cast? What kind of defense roll does the target get, or how much material does the spell effect? And so on. This is because the system is attempting to simulate a reality, and changes in the variables involved in the situation will change the effect. The system is entirely impartial, as all these factors have most likely been recorded in numerical form somewhere. In a game like Monster of the Week, you don't have any of those stats and numbers. All you have is 6 or 7 broad categories of things spells can do. Things like "observe another place or time". "do one thing normally beyond human ability", or "trap a specific type of creature or a named individual". When casting a spell, a player says what they're trying to do and chooses the category that's most appropriate. If they're successful, that thing happens as they describe. So, in my opinion, simulationist games put the system and mechanics first, as the system is both replicating and enforcing the "reality" of the setting. Narrative games put the fiction first, with tone and genre being the enforcers. I don't really know if that makes any sense...
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Oct 21, 2013 23:41:25 GMT -8
kaitoujuliet, there are hippie game proponents who claim that "trad" games are only about killing shit. For me personally, it's like squares and rectangles; all squares are also rectangles, but rectangles are not squares. What I mean is there are traditional, rules-heavy games that focus on combat, but not all traditional games do that. New World of Darkness and Vampire: the Requiem both spring to mind of example of systems that don't focus on combat. I think game systems that a) are rules heavy and b) primarily award XP for defeating foes in combat are the games those hippie game proponents are talking about. That's kind of neither here nor there though. I can see the appeal of both simulationist and narrative games, even though I prefer the latter. In simulationist games (and I'm generalizing here), players derive pleasure from getting the rules to do what they want. Or It's almost like a logic puzzle in a way. The rules provide the constraints within which the players must function, and doing something awesome within those constraints can be extremely satisfying. The rules dictate the reality of the game world, as the rules are attempting to simulate (a certain) reality. Mechanics come first in these types of games. Being awesome doesn't allow you break the rules. In narrative games (and again I'm generalizing) players derive pleasure from... Hmm... I'm not really sure. It's not from being awesome, because simulationist players also like being awesome. It's not doing what's fictionally appropriate, because you can still have your character do what's fictionally appropriate in a simulationist game. Maybe it's the pleasure of telling a good story. I know that sounds weak, and you can still tell an awesome story in simulationist games. I think the difference for me is that, in a simulationist game, the mechanics dictate more of what happens, while in a simulations game, the fiction does that. To illustrate what I mean, and lord knows I need an example to help clarify that, look at magic systems. If you were doing a modern day supernatural game (like Supernatural) in a simulationist system like GURPS for example, someone who wanted to cast a spell would deal with a lot of numbers and stats. How powerful is the spell? How many "resources" (mana points, blood dots, spell slots, etc.) does it take to have access to that spell, and then cast it? How many turns/rounds/minutes does it take to cast? What kind of defense roll does the target get, or how much material does the spell effect? And so on. This is because the system is attempting to simulate a reality, and changes in the variables involved in the situation will change the effect. The system is entirely impartial, as all these factors have most likely been recorded in numerical form somewhere. In a game like Monster of the Week, you don't have any of those stats and numbers. All you have is 6 or 7 broad categories of things spells can do. Things like "observe another place or time". "do one thing normally beyond human ability", or "trap a specific type of creature or a named individual". When casting a spell, a player says what they're trying to do and chooses the category that's most appropriate. If they're successful, that thing happens as they describe. So, in my opinion, simulationist games put the system and mechanics first, as the system is both replicating and enforcing the "reality" of the setting. Narrative games put the fiction first, with tone and genre being the enforcers. I don't really know if that makes any sense... Yep it does make sense (except in the middle paragraph where you example simulationist twice instead of comparisons sim v Narr - either that or I totally got it wrong). For me, as either a player or a GM, I really enjoy what you call 'the logic puzzle within the constraints of a given game/setting'. It's a perfect explanation of what I have tried to articulate several times. The logic puzzle appeals to a certain mindset . . . It's not wrong or right it's a matter of preferred flavour. Like icecream : I like it vanilla and sometimes a bit Ben&Jerrys but Ben&Jerrys all the time and some of the weird flavours at that? . . . I suppose someone likes those weird shit flavour or they wouldn't sell but obviously not everyone or all the ice cream companies would do it . . . Aaron
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Oct 22, 2013 2:57:18 GMT -8
Then you have GURPS, with its bell curve math and diminishing returns and strategic combat rules. A mans game. For killing shit in the face. Bzzzzzzt, sorry, NO. Look, I enjoy "hippy games" as much as the next person, but I am so freaking tired of hippy game proponents declaring that more "traditional" games with stats and stuff are only about combat and killing. Even though I know you were half-kidding, it is really getting to be a major peeve with me. GURPS in particular is a bad example of that, because it models everything numerically, including stuff that has nothing to do with combat. (Hey, you lured me into posting, at least....) For the record, my comment about GURPS is meant to express how fucking awesome I think it is. In GURPS you can quite literally kill shit in the face. Hit locations, damage types, it's all there and more. When you connect that called shot to the neck with a swung bladed weapon..... BOOYAH! Then pass out because your character faints at the sight of blood. Had to pay for that 19 in melee (swords) somehow
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Oct 22, 2013 16:08:00 GMT -8
It's not the systems. It's the players.
I've seen sessions of HERO where not a single die was touched. I've seen someone try to munchkin Amber.
I'm listening to an AP from RPPR right now, where every time they roll badly, they scream "I hate D20!!!!" as though bad luck was baked into the game rules. The system's not to blame for your string of Nat1s.
We had a whole session of D&D 4e go by without a single die roll. Narrative control was given over to us, the players. In fact, when I answered a question at our trial, and another player asked if I had Bluff, the GM answered "He doesn't need it. He answered truthfully as Orsik understands things."
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 22, 2013 18:30:47 GMT -8
We had a whole session of D&D 4e go by without a single die roll. Not to be a douche here, but not rolling dice does not mean you're playing a narrative game.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Oct 22, 2013 19:08:55 GMT -8
Which is why there was clarification afterward.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 22, 2013 20:14:43 GMT -8
INarrative control was given over to us, the players. In fact, when I answered a question at our trial, and another player asked if I had Bluff, the GM answered "He doesn't need it. He answered truthfully as Orsik understands things." That, to me, still does not mean you're playing a narrativist game. It just means the GM made a ruling without using the dice to decide what happened. For that period of time, you were playing a diceless game. I went back and read the Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist article on Wikipedia just to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass, as usual. Here's what I took away. Gamist players focus on (duh) playing a game. Games can be won, and gamist players are the one who talk about "winning" the game, or "beating" the encounter. Gamist systems focus on pitting the characters against ever escalating challenges/opponents, and don't spend much time (or any at all) dealing with why the characters are facing these challenges in the first place. A typical dungeon crawl is a good example. Who cares about why you're in this dungeon, or why you're working with these other people. The focus of the game is reaching the end of the dungeon and whatever prize awaits you, while getting past all the traps, puzzles, and monsters that stand in your way. Narrativist players focus on creating drives and/or motives for their characters, and then putting their characters into situations where those motives come into conflict. Narrativist systems therefore either require or encourage players to give their characters these drives and motivations, and often reward players for putting their characters in situations where these drives come into conflict. I don't know if I would consider them narrativist games, but FATE and New World of Darkness spring to mind here. Narrativist games focus on the conflict between a character's (or characters) value, and often "reality" has to be bent or broken to put the characters into the appropriate situation. Narrativist games then, just like TV dramas, do not attempt to simulate reality. Simulationist players want to (duh) simulate a particular reality. That reality can be the real world, or it could be the "reality" of a fantastic setting. Internal consistency is the primary focus here, which is, in my opinion, why simulationist games are often very numbers/rules heavy. As the game system is attempting to simulate the "laws of reality", they need to be impartial so that identical actions will produce identical results, or at least identical chances of probability. GURPS is a simulationist game (Steve Jackson and crew went out into the backyard and swung swords at each other to make sure their rules were "right", remember), but so is TOON. As simulationist games focus on simulating reality, bending reality to have dramatic events occur (such as a narrativist game would) is often seen as being undesirable.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Oct 22, 2013 21:28:38 GMT -8
Look, the stories are long, and I haven't the inclination to try typing them up. Trust me that they quite firmly fit into the Narrativist definition you put up there.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 22, 2013 21:49:59 GMT -8
I'll take you at your word, ayslyn. I'm not trying to say that you're not playing a narrativist game, mind you. All I'm saying is that the example you've given is too small of a sample for me to tell what type of game you're playing.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Oct 23, 2013 6:25:00 GMT -8
INarrative control was given over to us, the players. In fact, when I answered a question at our trial, and another player asked if I had Bluff, the GM answered "He doesn't need it. He answered truthfully as Orsik understands things." That, to me, still does not mean you're playing a narrativist game. It just means the GM made a ruling without using the dice to decide what happened. For that period of time, you were playing a diceless game. I went back and read the Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist article on Wikipedia just to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass, as usual. Here's what I took away. Gamist players focus on (duh) playing a game. Games can be won, and gamist players are the one who talk about "winning" the game, or "beating" the encounter. Gamist systems focus on pitting the characters against ever escalating challenges/opponents, and don't spend much time (or any at all) dealing with why the characters are facing these challenges in the first place. A typical dungeon crawl is a good example. Who cares about why you're in this dungeon, or why you're working with these other people. The focus of the game is reaching the end of the dungeon and whatever prize awaits you, while getting past all the traps, puzzles, and monsters that stand in your way. Narrativist players focus on creating drives and/or motives for their characters, and then putting their characters into situations where those motives come into conflict. Narrativist systems therefore either require or encourage players to give their characters these drives and motivations, and often reward players for putting their characters in situations where these drives come into conflict. I don't know if I would consider them narrativist games, but FATE and New World of Darkness spring to mind here. Narrativist games focus on the conflict between a character's (or characters) value, and often "reality" has to be bent or broken to put the characters into the appropriate situation. Narrativist games then, just like TV dramas, do not attempt to simulate reality. Simulationist players want to (duh) simulate a particular reality. That reality can be the real world, or it could be the "reality" of a fantastic setting. Internal consistency is the primary focus here, which is, in my opinion, why simulationist games are often very numbers/rules heavy. As the game system is attempting to simulate the "laws of reality", they need to be impartial so that identical actions will produce identical results, or at least identical chances of probability. GURPS is a simulationist game (Steve Jackson and crew went out into the backyard and swung swords at each other to make sure their rules were "right", remember), but so is TOON. As simulationist games focus on simulating reality, bending reality to have dramatic events occur (such as a narrativist game would) is often seen as being undesirable. Good definitions HyveMynd the only thing I would add is that the lines blur between them and there can be a great deal of overlap and elements drawn from each into the final construct that is the game as played. JiB
|
|