Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2012 4:27:07 GMT -8
Hey folks, So, thanks in part to someone I met at Gamicon, I've been getting a bit into game design theory, and considering what games I'm playing/running, why those games, what I'm really trying to do with these games, and what my players want from them. Anyway, it's lead me to some interesting articles, in particular this one: www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/It's pretty a pretty long and dense essay, but I found it fascinating, and I think it's really going to help me in planning my future games, thinking about what I'm doing with them, and what I want out of them. In general, the essays on the site as a whole seem pretty cool: www.indie-rpgs.com/articlesI haven't finished them all yet, but they're very interesting so far. Anyway, you might want to check it out! --Pukka Tukka
|
|
willh
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 220
|
Post by willh on Mar 15, 2012 5:39:15 GMT -8
The important thing about GNS is to think about why you play games and what you want out of them. Don't get to caught up in terms an definitions. They have been the source of many an internet argument. I wish you well on your journey through gaming pseudo academic beard scratching land.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Mar 17, 2012 9:23:57 GMT -8
I think GNS theory is a useful tool, but people sometimes take it too far and treat it like the be-all and end-all of game classifications. (I also think the articles at The Forge are really interesting, but I generally have to intersperse my reading of them with other things, as the atmosphere there gets a little thick at times. ) One thing that annoys me about GNS theory is that "N" and "S" each have passionate adherents, but "G" doesn't (that I've found) ... and the others both look down on "G" as an inferior type of gaming. Oh, they pay lip service to the idea that all three types are equal and there's no badwrongfun, but you can just feel them secretly despising the Gamism all the while. That's why I liked this statement of N-vs-S that I found recently and also linked on the "Manifesto" thread: community.wizards.com/themormegil/blog/2012/02/09/on_narrativism_vs_simulationism,_and_the_consequences_for_dd_next I like how TheMormegil folds different aspects of "G" into both "N" and "S," suggesting that both sides use "G" in different ways to further their goals for what the game should focus on overall. Oh, and if you like game theory, you might want to check out Jeff Rients' alternate threefold model ;D : jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2012 8:27:11 GMT -8
I'm in the process of reading a bunch of the essays there, and actually, Juliet, I'm right in the one on Gamism, and Edwards is annoyed about the same thing you are. And he makes a decent argument that there's a lot of Gamists out there who either try and hide it, or don't even *know* they're Gamists, because they've been taught on so much Simulationism.
These things are really dense, and overly complicated, but I'm plowing through them. They're vaguely interesting throughout, but I've hit on a few gems that are seriously making me rethinking my gaming. Sort of "I've always wanted X, and I thought Y would get me there, but really that just leads to more Y, and I've completely ignored Z."
I'm eventually planning to write up something simpler and in plain speech about what I've figured out about my gaming, and what I plan to do to change it. This will mostly be for the benefit of the poor schmucks who are stuck playing games that I run, but I may post it on here as well, so just shits and giggles.
--Pukka Tukka
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Mar 22, 2012 18:35:17 GMT -8
Pukkatukka,I'd certainly be interested in reading your thoughts on your gaming and how you plan to change it. I hope you will post it here whenever you write it up! Thanks for pointing me to that Forge article on Gamism, btw. I had not read it before, and I just finished it. I discovered that Ron Edwards' definition of Gamism is different from what I always thought it was all this time. His version is centered on the notion that there are "win conditions" for RPG play and the things that happen when players set out to achieve those conditions. Well, he invented GNS theory, so I guess his definition is the right one! But it's not as useful to me personally as what I previously thought gamism was about. I always thought Gamism was about the artifice of rpgs (or to put it another way, those rules and mechanics which neither contribute to the simulation of a coherent imaginary world nor further a story). The things that are just there and can't be explained in any way other than "those are the rules"--like the stuff Justin Alexander wrote up in this essay. And how the player engages with those mechanics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 4:05:34 GMT -8
Juliet, I just the other day finally finished all the Ron Edwards essays on that site regarding System/GNS/The Big Model. Now I'm going to check out some alternate perspectives, especially the stuff you've suggested on here. I'm hoping soon to then set all that aside and really look at *my* gaming, and go from there. --Pukka Tukka
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2012 12:59:39 GMT -8
Okay, it took awhile, but I finally put together a basic picture of where I've arrived with all my recent RPG-soul-searching. I emailed it to my players, and a couple of RPG-theory-geek friends.
Some of you (okay, maybe just Juliet) expressed an interest in seeing what I came up with, when I did, so I reprint here the email I sent, in its entirety.
************************************************
Okay, let's try this out. I'm gonna avoid using the terminology from the essays I just read, because it makes me feel pretentious, and also makes this useless for anyone who hasn't read them.
For as long as I've actually thought about why I play RPGs (this probably only *really* goes back a few years, but in lesser forms, has been pondered since my teen days), I've been big on "story." I wanted a good story, an exciting tale that we could tell later. I like to reminisce about my RPGs as these adventures we've been through, against the bad guys, rather than what kind of stats the of the NPCs that we beat with our PCs.
I also really loved getting into the head of the character. The "immersion" of it, you know? In fact, I think this has sort of trumped my desire for story. Not consciously, necessarily, but I think I always just sort of believed that if you got into the character's head, and responded to everything like they did, that a compelling story would spontaneously grow out of that. As I say, I never necessarily articulated that belief, even to myself. But I think that's how I've been operating for many years.
I'm not sure I believe that anymore. You see, it never works for me, when I run games. I try and let the story just appear, and it never appears, unless I force it. I lead the players by the nose. But then I feel too railroady, so I back off, and the players flounder, doing nothing, waiting for the directions that never come. So I go back to pushy-GM. Meanwhile, those few campaigns that I *played* in, where I was sure that we were just building a story spontaneously? I'm pretty sure most of those were just the story the GM made, but with a GM sneaky enough to make us *believe* we'd helped create it.
At this point, it's all just a theory, but I'd like to run with it, and see where it goes. I'd like to start running some games that are directly focused on making a story. Not just *telling* a story, but *making* a story. Together. I want to work with the players to come up with a narrative, based on whatever themes or directions we decide. I want my players to decide, "this would be a cool direction to take this character, let's facilitate that," or "I think it'd be a cool story if my character had to face this particular kind of crisis, let's set up the story so that it happens."
I want my players to stop saying, "If I were my character, what would I do now?" and say, "If I was reading a book about my character, what would be a cool thing to happen right now?"
I don't want to build a scenario or situation, and have my PCs react to it. I want my players to come up with a story about their characters, and have *me* make the world react to it.
To that end, here's some stuff I plan to do, moving forward. Some of this I'm implementing already. Some of this will have to come with the next game/campaign:
1. Moving forward, for now, I would like to focus on systems that are designed for more "Narrative" play. In the immediate future, that will most likely be some flavor of FATE.
2. I want to establish a "theme" for the campaign, amongst the group, before we even start making characters. Not something too narrow, since we want to build as we go, but just a general sense of what perspectives we want to focus on in the game. Examples could be "Does power ultimately corrupt?" or "Can you maintain your humanity in an inhuman world?" Setting the theme beforehand gives us a chance to build both character and setting with that in mind, so we can create issues/flaws/concepts that will play well to that theme.
3. I'm going to try really hard to get better saying, "yes, and." It's very important that the players be involved in determining the story. On the side of my players, this will require a lot of extra work. I am NOT creating a story for you to play through, so if you just wait for the story to happen, we're all going to get really bored. Along this line, I want to try having players come up with adventure concepts. For example, after we've finished a particular adventure, a player might say, "Next time, let's have an old friend from out of town visit my character, but secretly be smuggling something illegal." I'll flesh that out, as the GM, but I want those seeds from the players.
4. I would really like more frank discussion about where the story is going, and where we want it to go, as a group. I know this could, taken too far, result in spoiling some of the "surprise" of it all, but if we talk in themes and characters, I think it could help build a great story.
That's pretty much it. Remember, this is all just theory. These are new ideas I have, and I want to try them. I'm not saying this is the only way I'll game from now on, or that everything has to follow this model. Mostly, I've just discovered that there may be ways of gaming that I enjoy vastly more than the current formula for a hobby I already love. So I figure that warrants a little exploration.
TO MY CURRENT PLAYERS:
The above is largely why I've been pondering the idea of stopping (or pausing) the Traveller game soon. Obviously, a lot of the stuff above can't be incorporated into a game already under way. But more than that, in the midst of all this talk of story and theme, I find myself really at a loss with the Traveller game. I genuinely don't know where the campaign is going, or even what it's really about. It feels very much like "here's some random people hanging out together, and the random things they do." I don't understand what motivates the PCs, and I don't have a real plotline waiting in the wings either.
Again, this doesn't mean I've decided to stop Traveller. I'm still pondering. And most of you have sent me feedback on the subject, publicly or privately. If you have any insight into the stuff I just mentioned in the last paragraph, please share it. And we'll talk about it more in the future. Again, this little bit was mostly just to let you know where I'm coming from, regarding the Traveller game.
--Tony
**********************************************
--Pukka Tukka
|
|
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 Mar 29, 2012 18:22:49 GMT -8
Hey Pukka Tukka. Thanks for that; it's always helpful to read through someone else's thought process when going through your own. I'm sort of doing the same thing with my newly started Apocalypse World campaign. I'm trying to do more "yes, and…" with my players while hoping to get them to contribute to the story more. Overall, my group is mildly proactive but certain players tend to just sit back and wait for the story tracks to appear. I don't think that they understand that if their characters don't go out and do things or interact with NPCs, then nothing will happen. No one is going to walk up to their character and give them something to do. I'm trying to change that, but it might require me being totally blunt with those players and straight up telling them.
I've never run a FATE game and I've only played two sessions of it in the past, but personally I don't really think it's the system to 'wean' players off of railroading and onto narrative style games. Like Tappy, I think that the system is too pervasive; players have to think about the mechanics all the time. Yes, it's the same mechanic for everything, but it's always there. I might recommend a system that you all know pretty well (and if that's FATE, then, well you can ignore this). Similar to what JiB says, but when a system is so unobtrusive (or so well known) that the players don't even consider it when making decisions for their characters, that's when you get narrative play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 4:06:32 GMT -8
Honestly, I don't think I agree with Tappy or JiB in this case. I think I have a different definition of what makes Narrative play. But this is all experimentation at this point, so we'll see how it goes down.
Unfortunately, my group has been cobbled together over time, with people of such varying backgrounds and experience levels, we don't have a system anyone is so familiar with that we could make it *that* unobtrusive. The good news is, I recently got to watch a couple of my players in a FATE game, and it brought them out of their shells more than I'd seen in awhile, in terms of being more involved in crafting the story. Of course, some of that may have been the GM (who wasn't me)...
And all of this talk of the system is partially me rationalizing, of course, because I just *really* want to run Dresden Files. But I also really, really like FATE, so we'll see. I have been discovering a few interesting indie games, including Apocalypse World and Sorcerer, that I want to try too.
We'll be stumbling a lot in the beginning, but I hope that if we're very open in out group communication, and we stick with it, we'll make it work. This will be a pretty big paradigm shift for some, but I have faith in my players.
Finger's crossed!
--Pukka Tukka
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 30, 2012 7:17:07 GMT -8
Pukka,
Based on what you wrote, I don't think we do disagree. I think I have a somewhat different method, and a (to me) very simple goal. I am curious though in what way you think we disagree? Allow me to (in brief) explain my fundamental theory of game building. Note, this is for campaigns not for convention games which are a different beast.
1. It's really all about the player characters
No matter what else is going on the player characters are the heroes of the story and it really is all about them, what they want and what happens to them.
2. Story trumps rules no matter what and always err on the side of the player characters.
I have espoused a number of theoretical points that are very important to me but they ultimately devolve to and derive from this point. Rules as written exist to support the game we're playing and the story we're crafting and I will change, ignore or throw out rules that do not support that objective.
3. The optimal viewpoint for the players is to be looking out through their character's eyes.
As players when we're "on it" we try to act as our characters would act, but it goes beyond that I want the player to feel what their character feels emotionally. If I do that the rest will actually follow.
4. Throw circumstances in front of them and let the players do what they will.
I've said many times that my job is to fill in the little fiddly bits around the story. So when I'm crafting a game I create multiple story lines and leave it to the players to decide what (if anything) they're going to chase. If they choose to chase nothing that I've thrown out that's fine. Something is still going to happen, and the threads that I've thrown out are still going to be there for later.
It's not railroady to throw things in front of the players. It is railroady to force them to do what I envisioned happening.
The thing (in my opinion) that makes this work is not that I've crafted this amazing story that the pc's are going to follow. It's that I've thrown out things they might (if they want) get involved in and then the story becomes theirs not mine and what I do is fill in the details and the atmosphere and ambiance and the rest just sort of flows.
That's my view anyway and what I try to accomplish as a gm. Sometimes I'm better at it than others, and sometimes it just works better than others. But, that's the goal.
Cheers,
JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 15:38:26 GMT -8
Well, keep in mind, my statement that I thought I disagreed was based on what Hyvemind said about what he thought you said. Based on that, and what I just read, we're pretty close. But there are a few things that, although I won't say you're wrong, are counter to the experiment I'm doing. 1) Hyvemind's mention that the system is best when it's unobtrusive. I have always believed this, but I'm starting to question that. I'm not sure that the pervasiveness or obviousness of the system actually impacts the narrative play. It can be argued that it takes you out of the immersion, but that's a very different thing. 2) The idea that it's best to see through the characters' eyes at all times. Again, I've also always felt this way, but I'm starting to think this is not the way, and I'm working away from that. Basically, the *character* isn't interested in making a compelling story, but the *players* are... or should be. So the idea is that, while you do roleplay your character, and in general, stick with their view point, in order to have compelling narration, you need to regularly step out of your character, and say, "This would make things awesome, from a story perspective, even if my character would disagree." And I should say that I'm not suggesting that you act *counter* to your character, or do things that make no sense for the character. But taking the "more compelling" of two fairly believable options, rather than the "most like my character" option, I think could be useful. And *especially* having the players come up with things external to their character that the character wouldn't like, but the players think makes good story. Sorry... I'm rambling a bit. But I gotta run, so there it is. --Pukka Tukka
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 31, 2012 10:24:23 GMT -8
Pukka
Was not in any way offended. Quite the contrary I enjoy lively debate and other viewpoints. That's how we get better.
You raise a valid point about game systems. Perhaps if I try to elucidate what I'm after with making the game system non-intrusive it will help. I try to take the mechanics of playing the game off of the players so that they can focus on what they need to do, namely doing what their character would do in the present situation. So fundamentally what I'm trying to do is keep them in their character's headspace rather than the headspace of a player at a gaming table.
I am fairly convinced that if the players are immersed in the game and in their character and are looking out through their character's eyes, that awesomeness of story that you're after will come automatically and without me having to interfere or push on it at all.
There are some assumptions made both ways.
You are working under the assumption that the player will decide to make the choice that is best for driving the awesomeness of the story. Perfectly valid position and one I agree with.
I am working under the assumption that the player will automatically do the awesome thing because it's a natural flow from the character.
Which is right? Which is better? Beats the fuck out of me. I think that both are right in the right circumstance and with the right gm and players.
Cheers,
JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 7:19:07 GMT -8
Pukka Was not in any way offended. Quite the contrary I enjoy lively debate and other viewpoints. That's how we get better. You raise a valid point about game systems. Perhaps if I try to elucidate what I'm after with making the game system non-intrusive it will help. I try to take the mechanics of playing the game off of the players so that they can focus on what they need to do, namely doing what their character would do in the present situation. So fundamentally what I'm trying to do is keep them in their character's headspace rather than the headspace of a player at a gaming table. I am fairly convinced that if the players are immersed in the game and in their character and are looking out through their character's eyes, that awesomeness of story that you're after will come automatically and without me having to interfere or push on it at all. There are some assumptions made both ways. You are working under the assumption that the player will decide to make the choice that is best for driving the awesomeness of the story. Perfectly valid position and one I agree with. I am working under the assumption that the player will automatically do the awesome thing because it's a natural flow from the character. Which is right? Which is better? Beats the fuck out of me. I think that both are right in the right circumstance and with the right gm and players. Cheers, JiB No, I pretty much thought that's what you meant (or Hyvemind meant) about the mechanics. And that's what I've always believed to. But I've begun to question it. As for the "assumptions," I have always tended to share the one you have. But the games I have run haven't borne it out. So now I'm questioning that assumption, and going in a different way. All of the stuff I say in that email above is very much experimental. I have operated on certain principles (for quite awhile), many similar to what Hyvemind and JiB are describing. But I have had definite problems with it, and based on what I recently read, I'm questioning them. So we'll see how it goes. This isn't what I *believe* in gaming. This is about what I'm going to try next.
|
|
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 Apr 1, 2012 22:18:37 GMT -8
I try to take the mechanics of playing the game off of the players so that they can focus on what they need to do, namely doing what their character would do in the present situation. So fundamentally what I'm trying to do is keep them in their character's headspace rather than the headspace of a player at a gaming table. Those were the words I was trying to remember in that last post I made, but I garbled them. Darn. RPGs are kind of weird when you stop and think about them. As the players, we are both the audience for and the characters in the stories we are creating. As JiB said, if the players are totally immersed in their character then they can be expected to do what that character would do in the given situation. Which is awesome. Yet as pukkatukka points out, players can also have their characters do things that might not necessarily be 'in character' but will result in a great story for the audience. And that's awesome too. Neither way is better, they are just different. I think that most games combine a little of both view, and that finding a game that is either one or the other would be pretty rare. In the latest HJ's episode (Season 07 Episode 11) there was a little discussion on player immersion. Sometimes it's rewarding to get a genuine emotional reaction from the players as they, and their characters, react to some piece of surprise information. "Oh my God! What do you mean he's the murderer? All the clues totally pointed to Bob over there!". The players are essentially experiencing a first-person narrative, as they only know and see things that their character would know and see. Meaning that the DM/GM only gives them the information that their PC would have access to. But it's also just as rewarding (though possibly in a different way) to have information as player that your characters doesn't. You're watching the story of your character unfold and enjoying the things that happen, even if the character would certainly not enjoy their situation. I've used this example before, but in our old Vampire: the Requiem game I played a super-charismatic character who was trying to build up a herd of mortals that I could feel from regularly. Things started to get messy as I was juggling about 4 relationships all at once and had to keep all the girls away from each other or constantly lie to them about them being "the only one". Had I only been looking through my character's eyes, this situation would not have been enjoyable because failing would mean a hell of a lot of nasty fallout. But as the audience of the story, watching my PC attempt to walk this razor's edge was great. Both failure and success would have consequences and create an interesting and engaging story, so at times I almost wanted to fail rolls just to see what new drama would happen. So... yeah. I dunno. Sometimes you want to experience the story as your character and other times you want to experience the story as an audience.
|
|