Dormant Gaming Blog
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Moving to Livejournal exclusively...
Blogger seems to have a lot of neat features but I don't see a way to do the Friends thing (i.e., put a bunch of other people's entries all on one page), so LJ it is. Again, you can find my gaming journal over at http://www.livejournal.com/users/ewilen/. ¶ 1:42 PM 0 comments
Blogger seems to have a lot of neat features but I don't see a way to do the Friends thing (i.e., put a bunch of other people's entries all on one page), so LJ it is. Again, you can find my gaming journal over at http://www.livejournal.com/users/ewilen/. ¶ 1:42 PM 0 comments
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
I'd like to do some more posting but I'm hung up on whether to use Livejournal or Blogger. If anyone's reading this, any comments on the advantages/disadvantages of either would be warmly appreciated.
By the way, here's the link to my livejournal blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ewilen/ ¶ 8:41 AM 0 comments
By the way, here's the link to my livejournal blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ewilen/ ¶ 8:41 AM 0 comments
Friday, July 22, 2005
Over at his design blog, Matt Wilson has a post where he gives his take on GNS. I think it's a good summary, and it concludes,
I'm another one of those people who's poking at the GNS boundary, though I certainly haven't been doing it as long as John or Marco. The problems at the boundary have several dimensions but many of them center around the fact that GNS is presented as both a descriptive tool and a prescription for good play. And I think the implications of those problems go a long way to explaining why GNS is often dismissed or attacked.
At the descriptive level GNS contains an "exclusivity rule" that identifies the Creative Agendas based on the kind of fun being prioritized (for which, Matt's post is a good summary which also agrees with my understanding). Where one of the elements is prioritized, GNS says that a CA is present; the GNS term for play where there's no clear priority is "Incoherent". Furthermore, GNS defines the Sim-Nar border in such a way that you can never speak of Simulationist play supported by narrativist techniques: if there is ever a "human-centric" conflict in play, then the Creative Agenda is Narrativism.
If that was all there was to it, there wouldn't be much of a problem. One could argue with the terms, but if you change them the categories are still well-defined according to their descriptive characteristics and the "exclusivity rule".
However, as a prescription for enjoyable play (and as a design tool for creating game systems), GNS runs into problems. First, the categories themselves become controversial since they do not distinguish between play where the human conflict is strongly prioritized and play where the human conflict is buried deeply in the situation or is emergent. Second, GNS claims both that mixed ("Incoherent") play is particularly vulnerable to dysfunction (i.e., it's likely to be dissatisfying) and that games which focus on a specific, identifiable CA are more likely to provide consistent fun. By "focus", what is apparently meant is that elements of the non-prioritized CAs are treated, as much as possible, only as tools to support the prioritized CA.
By "deeply buried" conflict, I mean conflict that provides the stakes for evaluating the outcome of a situation. Compare a boardgame, particularly a wargame, which has clear win/lose conditions. Often such games hinge on an artificiality such as maintaining a single combat unit in a certain town; if you "win" by meeting the condition but you otherwise suffer enormous losses relative to the enemy, did you really "win"? To the extent that such a question is meaningful, one would have to look at the larger context and subjectively evaluate the overall priorities: just how important is maintaining the position relative to sustaining casualties? If you maintain the position and suffer light casualties, but the enemy advances well into your rear in full strength, does it matter? If you fail to maintain the position but you inflict lopsided damage on the enemy, might that aid your cause?
One of the attractions of RPGs is the way that such evaluations are often the only way of determining success or failure. Thus a situation where a SWAT team has clearly defined goals and interests, seemingly a straightforwardly Sim-ish hostage rescue mission, nevertheless contains conflicting priorities: save the hostages; capture the bad guys alive if possible, dead if necessary; minimize own casualties. Grouping the play of such a scenario under Nar just because there are embedded "human-centric" conflicts may completely overlook the fact that the group mainly gets its kicks from simulating the logistical, command, communications, and intelligence problems associated with carrying out the mission. The only reason the group chooses not to use explicit "victory conditions" to precisely define the various priorities (and thus answer all questions beforehand about what to do in any situation) is that such a thing is practically impossible. Therefore it does not seem useful to make a distinction that separates this kind of play from more straightforward Simulationism.
Similarly, GNS says that Narrativism encompass the address of "emergent human-centric conflict", no matter how small or how quickly dealt with. Consider a putatively Simulationist situation, with high emphasis on, say, portraying the struggles of a jungle expedition. At some point, an accident might present a player-character with a decision regarding how far he should go risking his life to recover someone who fell into a ravine. The definitional reason for classifying this as Narrativism is clear; what is not clear is the utility of such a classification.
In fact, due to certain prescriptive elements of GNS, the classification may not only be of limited utility--it may be positively harmful. As noted above, GNS claims that Incoherent play is particularly vulnerable to dysfunction and that games which focus on a specific, identifiable Creative Agenda are more likely to provide consistent fun. It naturally follows that even if some of the borderline Nar/Sim cases were classified as Sim, GNS would prescribe reducing or eliminating the "human-centric conflict" elements, perhaps (in the extreme case) yielding a kind of simulation wargame devoid of the subjective/imponderable evaluations that go into decisionmaking. On the other hand if the borderline cases are classified as Nar, GNS would recommend de-emphasizing the highly simulative elements of play in favor of focusing on and heightening the "human-centric conflicts". This is one aspect of GNS which I think tends to annoy roleplayers who enjoy precisely the type of play that emphasizes simulation but uses "human conflict" as a way to frame the stakes and subjectively evaluate outcomes. When GNS theory is qualified by saying that "unfocused" or "Incoherent" gaming isn't necessarily dysfunctional, merely "more vulnerable to dysfunction" or "less likely to provide consistent fun", the best these "borderline players" can conclude is that GNS is irrelevent. Without those qualifications, the theory is patronizing or even offensive ("badwrongfun") to "borderline players".
Now, I know that Ron bases GNS on a great deal of observation--so perhaps his experience does show that focus within the CAs as defined by GNS is the surest way to producing enjoyable gaming. There are even people who ascribe improvements in their gaming to learning about GNS focus. But I'll bet there are a lot of people out there who are enjoying the heck out of Incoherent designs and Incoherent, unfocused play. So at this stage, I view GNS more as a manifesto or a craft-manual than as a rigorously tested theory. The prescriptions may show you ways to make great games or run great game sessions, but to me it's not clear at all that they won't also steer you away from other great gaming experiencees. In fact, by admitting that Incoherent and unfocused gaming can potentially be just as enjoyable as CA-focused gaming, GNS implicitly contains a challenge to designers and gamers: develop the tools to reproduce this kind of enjoyment. ¶ 11:48 AM 0 comments
The trouble with S and N is that there's kind of a gray area regarding how much of the character traits are assumed up front. You could play Buffy as S, basing the characters' decisions on everything we know about them, or you could play Buffy as N, with the belief that the characters are dynamic, and there may well be a time when Buffy would choose to kill a human being, for example, even though she never does otherwise (I think. If I'm wrong, replace this with a different example).
I like it that folks like John Kim and that Marco dude are picking and poking at it, questioning various boundaries (that gray area between N and S is worth a lot of poking), but if you're one of those boobs calling the whole thing crap, chances are you just fear what you don't understand, like being the only person in the room who can't see those magic eye pictures.
I'm another one of those people who's poking at the GNS boundary, though I certainly haven't been doing it as long as John or Marco. The problems at the boundary have several dimensions but many of them center around the fact that GNS is presented as both a descriptive tool and a prescription for good play. And I think the implications of those problems go a long way to explaining why GNS is often dismissed or attacked.
At the descriptive level GNS contains an "exclusivity rule" that identifies the Creative Agendas based on the kind of fun being prioritized (for which, Matt's post is a good summary which also agrees with my understanding). Where one of the elements is prioritized, GNS says that a CA is present; the GNS term for play where there's no clear priority is "Incoherent". Furthermore, GNS defines the Sim-Nar border in such a way that you can never speak of Simulationist play supported by narrativist techniques: if there is ever a "human-centric" conflict in play, then the Creative Agenda is Narrativism.
If that was all there was to it, there wouldn't be much of a problem. One could argue with the terms, but if you change them the categories are still well-defined according to their descriptive characteristics and the "exclusivity rule".
However, as a prescription for enjoyable play (and as a design tool for creating game systems), GNS runs into problems. First, the categories themselves become controversial since they do not distinguish between play where the human conflict is strongly prioritized and play where the human conflict is buried deeply in the situation or is emergent. Second, GNS claims both that mixed ("Incoherent") play is particularly vulnerable to dysfunction (i.e., it's likely to be dissatisfying) and that games which focus on a specific, identifiable CA are more likely to provide consistent fun. By "focus", what is apparently meant is that elements of the non-prioritized CAs are treated, as much as possible, only as tools to support the prioritized CA.
By "deeply buried" conflict, I mean conflict that provides the stakes for evaluating the outcome of a situation. Compare a boardgame, particularly a wargame, which has clear win/lose conditions. Often such games hinge on an artificiality such as maintaining a single combat unit in a certain town; if you "win" by meeting the condition but you otherwise suffer enormous losses relative to the enemy, did you really "win"? To the extent that such a question is meaningful, one would have to look at the larger context and subjectively evaluate the overall priorities: just how important is maintaining the position relative to sustaining casualties? If you maintain the position and suffer light casualties, but the enemy advances well into your rear in full strength, does it matter? If you fail to maintain the position but you inflict lopsided damage on the enemy, might that aid your cause?
One of the attractions of RPGs is the way that such evaluations are often the only way of determining success or failure. Thus a situation where a SWAT team has clearly defined goals and interests, seemingly a straightforwardly Sim-ish hostage rescue mission, nevertheless contains conflicting priorities: save the hostages; capture the bad guys alive if possible, dead if necessary; minimize own casualties. Grouping the play of such a scenario under Nar just because there are embedded "human-centric" conflicts may completely overlook the fact that the group mainly gets its kicks from simulating the logistical, command, communications, and intelligence problems associated with carrying out the mission. The only reason the group chooses not to use explicit "victory conditions" to precisely define the various priorities (and thus answer all questions beforehand about what to do in any situation) is that such a thing is practically impossible. Therefore it does not seem useful to make a distinction that separates this kind of play from more straightforward Simulationism.
Similarly, GNS says that Narrativism encompass the address of "emergent human-centric conflict", no matter how small or how quickly dealt with. Consider a putatively Simulationist situation, with high emphasis on, say, portraying the struggles of a jungle expedition. At some point, an accident might present a player-character with a decision regarding how far he should go risking his life to recover someone who fell into a ravine. The definitional reason for classifying this as Narrativism is clear; what is not clear is the utility of such a classification.
In fact, due to certain prescriptive elements of GNS, the classification may not only be of limited utility--it may be positively harmful. As noted above, GNS claims that Incoherent play is particularly vulnerable to dysfunction and that games which focus on a specific, identifiable Creative Agenda are more likely to provide consistent fun. It naturally follows that even if some of the borderline Nar/Sim cases were classified as Sim, GNS would prescribe reducing or eliminating the "human-centric conflict" elements, perhaps (in the extreme case) yielding a kind of simulation wargame devoid of the subjective/imponderable evaluations that go into decisionmaking. On the other hand if the borderline cases are classified as Nar, GNS would recommend de-emphasizing the highly simulative elements of play in favor of focusing on and heightening the "human-centric conflicts". This is one aspect of GNS which I think tends to annoy roleplayers who enjoy precisely the type of play that emphasizes simulation but uses "human conflict" as a way to frame the stakes and subjectively evaluate outcomes. When GNS theory is qualified by saying that "unfocused" or "Incoherent" gaming isn't necessarily dysfunctional, merely "more vulnerable to dysfunction" or "less likely to provide consistent fun", the best these "borderline players" can conclude is that GNS is irrelevent. Without those qualifications, the theory is patronizing or even offensive ("badwrongfun") to "borderline players".
Now, I know that Ron bases GNS on a great deal of observation--so perhaps his experience does show that focus within the CAs as defined by GNS is the surest way to producing enjoyable gaming. There are even people who ascribe improvements in their gaming to learning about GNS focus. But I'll bet there are a lot of people out there who are enjoying the heck out of Incoherent designs and Incoherent, unfocused play. So at this stage, I view GNS more as a manifesto or a craft-manual than as a rigorously tested theory. The prescriptions may show you ways to make great games or run great game sessions, but to me it's not clear at all that they won't also steer you away from other great gaming experiencees. In fact, by admitting that Incoherent and unfocused gaming can potentially be just as enjoyable as CA-focused gaming, GNS implicitly contains a challenge to designers and gamers: develop the tools to reproduce this kind of enjoyment. ¶ 11:48 AM 0 comments
