tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post1033313534915209549..comments2024-03-28T22:00:35.840-07:00Comments on Playing D&D With Porn Stars: The Plottist In Westworld: What Simulation Isn'tZak Sabbathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-80688514197442692642018-03-30T07:45:12.644-07:002018-03-30T07:45:12.644-07:00Mr. Zak, thanks for posting these long and interes...Mr. Zak, thanks for posting these long and interesting essays on GNS. <br /><br />You say: "I'm guessing Edwards would say Apoc World is fortune-in-the-middle. You might say a random encounter table is fortune-at-the-beginning."<br /><br />In my opinion Apoc World (and also Dungeon World, can't speak for other pbta rpgs) uses a fairly traditional Fortune in the End resolution system, with the addition of degrees of success and multiple choices. <br /><br />Concerning the flow of the game, the bit of downtime it might take after a roll, is compensated by the fact that only the PCs roll for resolution, not the GM/NPCs. Based on the degree of success/multiple choises of the roll/action, a PC in combat, for example, can inflict, take, share or double Damage, with a single roll.<br /><br />An example of Fortune in the Middle, also imho, is offered by Dogs in the Vineyard (that you mention sometimes), in which PC and NPC: agree to disagree on something; roll the dices at their disposal; then the actual 'combat', or 'conflict', begins and they use those (usually many) rolled dices, taking turns against each other, while describing their actions, to see who wins. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17645745444153106048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-42432388522435840692018-03-22T07:11:22.790-07:002018-03-22T07:11:22.790-07:00@Menace3Society
I think the most important thing ...@Menace3Society<br /><br />I think the most important thing for these gamers is the Predictable Experience.<br /><br />I wanted x, I got x.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-11074625754831680132018-03-22T07:03:13.906-07:002018-03-22T07:03:13.906-07:00This is most interesting. I didn't follow the ...This is most interesting. I didn't follow the Forge back in the day, and while I've seen chatter about GNS here and there, I haven't really delved into it. Never seemed to solve any kind of real-world problem, or reveal anything interesting.<br /><br />Glad to see I wasn't missing anything except nonsense.<br /><br />It seems to me that any theory that strictly categorizes things is going to be at best marginally useful. Things just don't fit neatly into categories most of the time. It's why models that deal in continua like the Big 5 or HEXACO work so much better than, say, Meyers-Briggs.<br /><br />We can see this in how Edwards struggles to categorize games. His decisions seem entirely arbitrary, and, as you point out, seem to have more to do with his perception of the people playing them than any feature of the game itself. Even if he restricted his criteria to objective features of the games, by categorizing, you end up with the problem where the theory makes two things look like they're totally different when really they're both right on the shared border between their categories and are really very similar. <br /><br />Any theory purporting to explain RPGs is going to have to deal with continua, not categories, and be based on the features of the game itself, not some individual's perception of the play or the people playing it.<br /><br />The game text - and even more so, the mechanics - are something real and verifiable that can be discussed on equal footing by anyone with a copy of the game. Edwards' perceptions of what players want or are getting out of the game are only accessible to him, and are therefore of - at best - marginal or zero value.Charles Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941603544547428940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-38918846068880585462018-03-22T06:55:47.633-07:002018-03-22T06:55:47.633-07:00Thinking about the system-mastery versus system-ag...Thinking about the system-mastery versus system-agnostic player skill distinction, does it maybe make sense to introduce some kind of preparation versus improvisation (not limited to the theatrical sense) axis? As in, what both min-maxers and story gamers have in common is the idea that you spend a lot of time, thought and energy into creating a character, which is then heaved into a game world where it affects outcomes by nature of its original design, like some kind of Leibnitzian monad? It wouldn't make sense to say any tabletop game or player would be purely one or the other, but you might say that certain games or players are more disposed to influencing events in-game through before-the-game planning and preparation. Sort of like strategy and tactics, only those terms already implies a Gamist/challenge-based perspective that doesn't necessarily apply. Because I think there's a reason why it seems like people who are really into "power gaming" features/systems seem (to me, at any rate) to be on at least an adjacent page to heavily narrative/story gamer types. Menace 3 Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10697437012473847456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-47291810907837502912018-03-21T18:41:44.236-07:002018-03-21T18:41:44.236-07:00@ Zak
That seems like... really on nose & I ...@ Zak <br /><br />That seems like... really on nose & I assume a corollary is that given the extremely rulebound nature of their games:<br />the social tendencies that can’t be checked in other games don’t show? (Or simply don’t matter as best as I understand some rules light games?). <br /><br />Or they don’t play them? I guess FM Geisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06185541338779784634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-57933827010131063622018-03-21T17:24:39.548-07:002018-03-21T17:24:39.548-07:00@FM Geist
Like a lot of early internet phenomena ...@FM Geist<br /><br />Like a lot of early internet phenomena I suspect GNS found purchase because <br />a) it got there first and <br />b) it appealed to the unusually socially dysfunctional people who had rushed to the internet to complain about games as soon as it was invented.<br />Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-86629356311367940032018-03-21T17:13:19.754-07:002018-03-21T17:13:19.754-07:00“Edwards--well on the way to the kind of Always Fo...“Edwards--well on the way to the kind of Always Follow The Rules We Handcrafted Them From Our Norwegian Vegan Wood They're Perfect ideologies that characterize hippie narrativist games--assumes a totally adversarial power-struggle will ensue in the absence of clear procedures”<br /><br />So, what baffles me working through these essays is:<br />1) how did GNS become ascendant? It seems to describe a totally alien experience of playing RPGs and (I assume) the people who craft these games have experiences that drive them to believe this particular theory?<br /><br />Which 2)<br />[couched assumption]: theories usually find a hold because there is a receptive audience. I missed most of the era of this theory being developed and it seems to be tied to a really particular set of experiences of playing games (especially since 2nd edition D&D and Vampire seem to be singled out frequently). But what makes this audience? (Obviously speculative) <br />Since:<br />3) there isn’t really a strong impetus (in theory) from me reading this and assuming everything is true (I don’t) to just say “wow, why would I want to play RPGs”? Rather than design the sort of games this generated? <br /><br />I dunno it just seems like impossible someone would read this & then conclude it’s correct & a good theory from which to make something?FM Geisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06185541338779784634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-1023304622725346332018-03-20T22:25:24.851-07:002018-03-20T22:25:24.851-07:00@PMark
Roughly, yes. Or at least Edwards aaid he ...@PMark<br /><br />Roughly, yes. Or at least Edwards aaid he saw a lot of "incoherence" in itZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-26121781691124509992018-03-20T22:23:35.275-07:002018-03-20T22:23:35.275-07:00@ant wu
"A lot of tabletop RPG analysis and ...@ant wu<br /><br />"A lot of tabletop RPG analysis and advice tends towards "well, know your audience". Good advice, but also marketing101 right?"<br /><br />Except marketing is what you say your game is and design is what it actually IS. So much harder to implement.<br /><br /><br />" GNS tried and failed to push for something beyond that advice, something universally applicable."<br /><br />Yes and they failed, with terrible effects.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-40724761900952690072018-03-20T22:19:08.232-07:002018-03-20T22:19:08.232-07:00So, it's late, it was long and I'm not a n...So, it's late, it was long and I'm not a native English speaker. Please take that into consideration.<br /><br />The notion that these GNS authors are harboring some grudge toward Vampire and WoD games in general is an intersting one. What I discerned from your remarks (and adding my own observations) seems to boil down to this:<br /><br />The game's narrative, especially the ST sections were pretty "narrativist", or as you said, "plot first". Then the system and setting was fairly simulationist, in the sense of the system having fairly well defined simulation of "realism"(and no directly plot-influencing mechanics) and the setting being a thing that worked outside the table, through the metaplot and novels, etc. <br /><br />And in the end, they've felt betrayed. <br /><br />Am I getting it right?<br /><br /><br /><br />PMárkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10256484067620600724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-78013707548057123812018-03-20T17:30:40.744-07:002018-03-20T17:30:40.744-07:00"I don't know what the saving throw point..."I don't know what the saving throw point has to do w/ anything or why you brought it up."<br /><br />Part of these essays talk about GNS being wrong, but you also opened with hopes to replace it with something better.<br /><br />When I read to the maintenance illusions part of this essay, I wondered if a replacement theory would treat suspension of disbelief differently.<br /><br />Then I came up with a random example to frame that question. That's all.<br /><br />A lot of tabletop RPG analysis and advice tends towards "well, know your audience". Good advice, but also marketing101 right? GNS tried and failed to push for something beyond that advice, something universally applicable.<br /><br />I was perhaps too eager, asking you what a replacement theory would say, when it hasn't been formulated yet, beyond the statement that having a replacement would be nice.Jojirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07964753232938742421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-8989916674774097232018-03-20T14:05:00.022-07:002018-03-20T14:05:00.022-07:00"These are good values to have"
Whether..."These are good values to have"<br /><br />Whether or not they are good "values" they represent different things to different users of the words. That's all. They're less precise than suspension of disbelief<br /><br />"does that move immersion-destroying mechanics into the sort of space where polls and playtesting don't particularly help design?"<br /><br />no, theyre unrelated<br /><br />I don't know what the saving throw point has to do w/ anything or why you brought it up<br /><br />"so in its place do you just say "it depends on your nature-nurture" and leave it at that?"<br />Depends on the intended audience of your game. YOu make them happy.<br /><br />"often give people a framework to legitimize (or delegitimize) arguments about taste."<br />yep<br /><br />" Is that something which you'd want in a model that replaces GNS?"<br />no<br /><br />"Is it a waste of time?"<br />GNS: yes.<br /><br />"Or do you think there is a valuable game design answer to tease out of a "taste" debate like the saving throw example?"<br />The answer to variant feelings about how saves should work is to find one that does the best to make the target audience happy (keepng in mind that's the goal of the system as a whole, and saves have to fit into it).Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-22317564778996614592018-03-20T12:29:07.014-07:002018-03-20T12:29:07.014-07:00I tried to be brief, but I seem to be bad at that....I tried to be brief, but I seem to be bad at that. You mentioned this:<br /><br /><i>After a second, you are all going to just realize it's a glitch and go back to what you were doing. You all have--regardless of your GNS goal here experienced a failure of simulation as a distraction.<br /><br />Again we have a familiar art concept hidden beneath maligned online-RPG arglebargle words ("realism", "verisimilitude", "immersion", etc) that is: willing suspension of disbelief and things that distract from it.</i><br /><br />I do think the maligning is unfair, re:"online-RPG" attitude. These are good values to have in a game where part of the playerbase really wants to dive deep in a world.<br /><br />If we have a lot of these nature-nurture hard-to-define moments of distraction, then does that move immersion-destroying mechanics into the sort of space where polls and playtesting don't particularly help design?<br /><br />To give a really basic example: Saving Throws. I've heard that the latest version of Lamentations will run 2 saving throws. Retroclones run 5, 5e runs 6, Swords & Wizardry runs 1, Pathfinder runs 3.<br /><br />There are actual debates about the best number to have, right. It's a game mechanic, everyone accepts that. But the preferences can go from mild to wild.<br /><br />I'm discarding the other implications (game balance, ability score impact as you level, level impact as you level) even though they're also pertinent. I'm just talking about debates about how "simulation-heavy" saving throws are. Arguments about whether dodging magic from a wand should be different from a wizard-cast spell, or about how not having dexterity contribute to dodging is weird. Those persist, and have persisted as long as the hobby has been around.<br /><br />You commented that:<br /><br />"After a second, you are all going to just realize it's a glitch and go back to what you were doing," and later you discuss maintenance illusion.<br /><br />I know the scope of this essay is in large part informative - but I'm curious about how to go about using this in a practical case - either when making a game or just participating in TTRPG discussions. Is that debate just flat-out invalid? People under GNS might say, "well, it depends on how simulationist you are", but simulationism isn't a thing...so in its place do you just say "it depends on your nature-nurture" and leave it at that?<br /><br />I feel that the answers under GNS often give people a framework to legitimize (or delegitimize) arguments about taste. Is that something which you'd want in a model that replaces GNS? Is it a waste of time? Or do you think there is a valuable game design answer to tease out of a "taste" debate like the saving throw example?Jojirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07964753232938742421noreply@blogger.com