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 23, 2013 12:24:37 GMT -8
I don't know if it is fair to always have to disclaim the fact that 'everyone's game is different', and 'varies from gm to gm', when we are trying to compare games.
Just about the only constant is what is written in the game book/s - so when people start saying that all this hippy stuff is just what good gm's were doing in the first place......... my hipster radar goes off.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Oct 23, 2013 12:48:41 GMT -8
Whenever we talk about a social interaction of any kind, it works or not because of the implicit contract of interaction. For gaming purposes I call this the implicit contract of play. Simply put this implicit contract is the agreement between the participants for how things are going to be done and how they are going to interact. For the contract of play that can be based on any number of things. In a "traditional" game like oh I don't know say ... GURPS, Hero, Savage Worlds, Pathfinder, D&D .... It is based on the rules as written. Essentially the participants say, "These are the rules under which our game is going to be played and this is how we will resolve events." In the narrativist games that contract is based more on a common agreement between the participants. In other words, "we the players agree that events in this game will be resolved thusly." One of (in my opinion) the big reasons that some people hate on traditional games and like narrativist games is that they don't want some <expletive deleted> mouth breathing neck beard telling them how events are going to be resolved in their game. Conversely the reason many who play traditional games have despite for "hippie games" is that they don't want some smelly hemp wearing hippie changing how events are going to be resolved out from under them. It is a matter of feeling constrained by rules on one hand and having no structure on the other hand. Those are of course extremes that may or may not have any validity in the events of a particular game. I would hope that people who play in my games would find a balance between being free to do whatever they want and having the structure of rules to give a feeling of solidity to the game. I cannot and will not say one is better than the other. I play both ends of the spectrum with great relish and joy. I can sit down and play Fiasco or FATE or *World and have an awesome amazing time. By extension I would hope that HyveMynd who played in one of my Hero games at Gateway as well as a Mook GURPS game had fun and didn't feel bound up by rules in those games. The common element that makes games good (or bad for that matter) is not whether it's a simulationist or narrativist game. It is, in point of fact, the people who are playing it. I actually feel sorry for people who will only play what they know, or will only play ( fill in the blank ) for whatever reason, or will only play with (X) group of people. Ok, I will concede that if you try new things and new groups to play with you will sometimes have less than ideal results. The same is true of trying a new restaurant. But, if you always do what you've always done, you will always get what you've always gotten. As always this is just my 2 krupplenicks on the subject, your mileage may of course vary. JiB
|
|
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 23, 2013 22:16:14 GMT -8
There is quite a bit of overlap between these three types of games as you said jazzisblues. I forget who said it, but it was mentioned before in another thread that it's pointless to talk about extremes, as practically nothing is a perfect example of type. I agree wholeheartedly. However I still feel that "perfect examples" are useful despite being hypothetical, as we can then look at "real" examples and see what parts fall where. I doubt there are any RPGs out there that are absolutely, 100% gamist, narrativist, or simulationist. Though certain games definitely push for one type over the others. To answer your question JiB, I had a blast playing in your Zombie Mall HERO game and in Mook's D&D GURPS game. Specifically because in both games I very much felt that the rules were supporting the narrative, rather than dictating or interfering with it. However (and this is not a knock against either Hero or GURPS), I think that was almost entirely because both you and Mook knew your respective systems inside and out, allowing you both to, essentially, run the game without even thinking about it. That is something I think every GM, DM, Keeper, and MC should strive for.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Oct 23, 2013 23:06:56 GMT -8
One of my biggest gripe with the GNS theory is that many people either supposed or assumed each was mutually exclusive of the others.
There is no good reason why you can't have a game that is both narrativist and simulationist.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Oct 24, 2013 1:49:42 GMT -8
One of my biggest gripe with the GNS theory is that many people either supposed or assumed each was mutually exclusive of the others. There is no good reason why you can't have a game that is both narrativist and simulationist. GNS Theory: What you want is a Venn Diagram (with a separate circle all on its own for Fatal) Aaron
|
|
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 24, 2013 6:27:22 GMT -8
One of my biggest gripe with the GNS theory is that many people either supposed or assumed each was mutually exclusive of the others. There is no good reason why you can't have a game that is both narrativist and simulationist. GNS Theory: What you want is a Venn Diagram (with a separate circle all on its own for Fatal) Aaron "Roll for separate circle circumference size." By the way this thing is starting to smell like GM=#@q$%#@...just a comment. But please carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Oct 24, 2013 7:52:18 GMT -8
Do you mean GM= Solitary Young Sociopathic Total Extermination Master? 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 24, 2013 12:46:32 GMT -8
One of my biggest gripe with the GNS theory is that many people either supposed or assumed each was mutually exclusive of the others. There is no good reason why you can't have a game that is both narrativist and simulationist. GNS Theory: What you want is a Venn Diagram (with a separate circle all on its own for Fatal) Aaron I specifically stated in my original post that this was not to become a GNS theory circle jerk. Am I gonna have to use the hose again?
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Oct 24, 2013 12:51:37 GMT -8
That was two pages of posts ago. I can't be expected to remember all the way back to that.
|
|
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 24, 2013 13:07:53 GMT -8
That was two pages of posts ago. I can't be expected to remember all the way back to that. WHY DO WE ALWAYS FIGHT ON VACATION!
|
|
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 24, 2013 16:22:59 GMT -8
I specifically stated in my original post that this was not to become a GNS theory circle jerk. Am I gonna have to use the hose again? Yeah, sorry about that maxinstuff. I'm with Stu here though. Two pages ago might as well be last century for a forum. I think part of what makes discussing this topic so difficult (and argument prone) is that people have incorrect definition of "simulationist" and "narrativist" games. I sure did, which is why I looked them up on Wikipedia and shared those definitions in my post above. There is also whole lot of blur and overlap between the different types of games. As Stu said, narrativist and simulationist are not mutually exclusive. Just this morning while in the shower (you're welcome for that image) I was trying to come up with examples of narrativist and simulationist games and why they're different. I started thinking about Monsterhearts, and how that is not a simulationist game, because it pushes drama. Events happen in Monsterhearts not because they are "realistic" or probable, but because they will cause drama. Just like a cheesy teen drama on TV, of course the hot guy you have a crush on shows up at your doorstep just as you start to turn into a werewolf. Of course the person you tackle to the ground with the intention of eating to satisfy your ghoul hunger is your younger sister's best friend. Of course the head cheerleader, whom you have a rivalry with, just happens to be standing being you when you have a secret conversation. Those events happen specifically because they will cause drama, not because there is a high probability of them actually happening. So, Monsterhearts and its ilk are not simulationist games, right? And then it hit me. Monsterhearts is in fact a simulationist game. But it's not simulating reality. It is simulating a genre; melodrama.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Oct 25, 2013 6:40:02 GMT -8
There is quite a bit of overlap between these three types of games as you said jazzisblues. I forget who said it, but it was mentioned before in another thread that it's pointless to talk about extremes, as practically nothing is a perfect example of type. I agree wholeheartedly. However I still feel that "perfect examples" are useful despite being hypothetical, as we can then look at "real" examples and see what parts fall where. I doubt there are any RPGs out there that are absolutely, 100% gamist, narrativist, or simulationist. Though certain games definitely push for one type over the others. To answer your question JiB, I had a blast playing in your Zombie Mall HERO game and in Mook's D&D GURPS game. Specifically because in both games I very much felt that the rules were supporting the narrative, rather than dictating or interfering with it. However (and this is not a knock against either Hero or GURPS), I think that was almost entirely because both you and Mook knew your respective systems inside and out, allowing you both to, essentially, run the game without even thinking about it. That is something I think every GM, DM, Keeper, and MC should strive for. First off thank you. I am very glad you had a good time. I had a great time meeting you and getting to game with you. I would have really enjoyed getting to do more with Ubiquity and Monster Hearts had time allowed. I think you raise a very good point. I have always strived as a gm to reduce the impact of the rules on the game and have always taken the position that the rules exist to serve the story not the other way round. Cheers, JiB
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Oct 30, 2013 4:39:37 GMT -8
I love me some crunch. (Which is funny in this context, because "crunchy" often refers to "granola" which refers to, you guessed it, HIPPIES!)
bbbuuuttt...I also love stories, so much so that there was a time where I can see how I might have been very drawn to the hippy games.Then I lives with some hippies for a year and....well, that's enough to make anyone run screaming back into the arms of their "trad" games.
Having only a mediocre understanding of hippy games, at best, I think maybe the difference lies in what is being "ruled". Does your game "simulate" by creating rules for modeling reality, expecting that the resultant events will evolve into a story? or does your game "narrate" by giving you rules to control the story more directly and expect that the details will fill themselves in.
I'm a fan of the "GM knows the rules and lets the players just announce what their intentions are for the story and then figures out what they need to roll" approach because it lets the hippies worry about the story while the crunch-monsters can get their jollies too.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Oct 30, 2013 5:20:12 GMT -8
I love me some crunch. (Which is funny in this context, because "crunchy" often refers to "granola" which refers to, you guessed it, HIPPIES!) bbbuuuttt...I also love stories, so much so that there was a time where I can see how I might have been very drawn to the hippy games.Then I lives with some hippies for a year and....well, that's enough to make anyone run screaming back into the arms of their "trad" games. Having only a mediocre understanding of hippy games, at best, I think maybe the difference lies in what is being "ruled". Does your game "simulate" by creating rules for modeling reality, expecting that the resultant events will evolve into a story? or does your game "narrate" by giving you rules to control the story more directly and expect that the details will fill themselves in. I'm a fan of the "GM knows the rules and lets the players just announce what their intentions are for the story and then figures out what they need to roll" approach because it lets the hippies worry about the story while the crunch-monsters can get their jollies too. Living with hippy's for a year . . . I can directly relate to that experience. You have my heart felt sympathies . . . my breaking point came when a (yet another) crisis beset the household: their response 'chill man, we need to relax a bit more before we deal with that heavy shit (pfttt)', my response? . . . 'anymore fucking relaxed and you would all stop breathing then I'd have a fucking zombie problem as well as the actual problem to deal with . . . ' (thus ended my strange year in hippy hell) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Oct 30, 2013 5:32:43 GMT -8
My favorite was when my girlfriend went into the downstairs bathroom, came out disgusted, grabbed a piece of paper, wrote something in fat permanent marker and went back into the bathroom. She didn't say a word.
I went in the bathroom and saw a sign that said, "The Towering Tower of Kleenex and Condoms!" above a trashcan that had been filled to twice it's height with used tissues and condoms. It was pretty disturbing.
For me, that year basically ended with me, drunk at four in the morning, yelling at my other (non-hippy) roommate "Are you fucking insane? You're going to live with them again next year? Do you really want to put up with this shit that whole time?!" I turned around and saw the hippy chick standing in the hallway. "Well, this is awkward. I guess I should probably go to bed now," I said before slinking off to my room like a little bitch.
Grog
|
|