Boundaries of "drifting"

[Manbearcat]

I'm curious about what people consider the boundaries of "drifting" a game system. I have an opinion on this but I'm not particularly interested in my own opinion as I'm well aware of it. I'd like to know how much variance there is in the gaming community with respect to drifting and is there a majority opinion.

A few questions to stimulate/guide peoples' thoughts (but feel free to go off-grid):

- If a ruleset has an implied setting, is moving away from that implied setting effectively "drifting?"

- If a ruleset presupposes specific genre constraints, is moving away from those genre constraints "drifting?" Is it binary or is there a continuum? If its a continuum, then how much genre manipulation is required to be classified as "drifted?"

- If a ruleset is relatively incoherent in its rulese prescriptions (eg it mandates several, sometimes at odds with one another, positions/styles/techniques simultaneously), is the classificaton of "drift" feasible?

- If a ruleset has very specified mechancis, prescribes very specific rules mandates, specifies/forbids very specific GM-techniques, is a single manipulation, lack of adherence to, any of those principles then "drifting?"

I am very much a "system matters" GM so I know there will be some folks who won't feel that they can answer beyond "well, system matters...that's the best I can do". But if this could be looked at rather broadly, in an RPG theory sense, that would be apprciated. I don't want to do a poll. Just want people's (rambling or coherent is fine) thoughts.

 

[Razjah]

I've generally regarding "drifting" as taking a mechanic from a game system and applying it to another. I have drifted the BITs from Burning Wheel- Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits (well mostly the BIs) to a 3.5 game. Roleplaying to a characters BIts earned action points which could then be spent to be more awesome.

I guess, overall drifting is just a different term for houseruling. You can houserule in mechanics from other games, drifting is just calling this something different, but it has the same effect on the game. While I have not defined moving away from genre constraints as "drifting," it is houseruling the game.

 

[Bagpuss]

I have never heard of the expression before. Can you give some examples of such systems or the use of the phrase elsewhere.

 

[billd91]

I think I'd look at this more like looking at shadows. Shine a bright light on an object and you get 2 regions of shadow it casts - the umbra and penumbra. All RPGs, as I see them, have an umbra in which the game is played pretty much as written, assumptions and settings largely intact. But they also all have a penumbra where most actual games played probably exist and probably coincides the areas into which you see a game "drifting". House rules may be present, some assumptions changes, some setting elements changed, some combinations of those.

And like shadows, it may be hard for an objective observer to tell from looking at it where the boundary of the umbra and penumbra are as well as where the penumbra itself stops and becomes, in this case, a different game entirely.

 

[Mallus]

The way I understand 'drifting' is it's when the gameplay at the table moves away from the activities directly supported/reinforced/rewarded by the mechanics. Drifting doesn't occur when you move away from a system's default genre --ie, when the fiction 'drifts'-- unless genre assumptions are hard-coded into the mechanics.

Full disclosure: I'm no expert in Forge theory, Ron Edwards, etc.

The implication is that RPGs should have the most rules for what the campaigns are about, ie they should be mechanically and thematically focused. Note 'thematically-focused' doesn't preclude the blending of genres. If your game/campaign is about exploring dungeons, overcoming deadly monsters & puzzles, and acquiring valuable treasures --ie, old-school D&D-- it doesn't really matter if said treasures are ancient magic swords or even-ancienter laserguns.

My problem with the drift construct is it sounds good in theory, inarguable good, even, but it doesn't accurately represent how I enjoy RPGs in practice. The most fun I've had RPG'ing comes from... how do I put this... pounding square pegs into round holes. Using systems to run games that frequently either ignore or run contrary to the default manner of play established by the mechanics.

I've found I want the rules to cover what I'm least interested in inventing myself (combat systems, exploration support, etc). Conversely, I don't want or need rules for the gameplay elements that most interest me, for example, social interaction, conversation, and negotiation, or rules with mechanically encode personality and interpersonal conflict. I also like to hand out a lot of narrative control to players in campaign run in systems without any formal rules for doing it.

I guess I have a conflicted relationship with formal rules...

I want to drift a system (usually). I like the tension between the world implied (or overtly established) by the rules and what I end up doing with (and to) them. That process of reconciliation/attempted reconciliation really drives my interest in a campaign.

I guess that makes me a 'system matters, but not in the way most folks think' sort of guy.

 

[Manbearcat]

I have never heard of the expression before. Can you give some examples of such systems or the use of the phrase elsewhere.

See Mallus's post below Bagpuss

The way I understand 'drifting' is it's when the gameplay at the table moves away from the activities directly supported/reinforced/rewarded by the mechanics. Drifting doesn't occur when you move away from a system's default genre --ie, when the fiction 'drifts'-- unless genre assumptions are hard-coded into the mechanics.

With respect to genre drift, I'm looking for commentary on when genre assumptions are (or at least appear to be) hard-coded into the mechanics; eg high powered gonzo mechanics/powers drifted toward low magic/gritty/process sim or the inverse (such as the HP paradigm being used for a gritty game). Or, perhaps reskinning MHRP as D&D and turning Affliliations (Solo, Buddy, Group) into Combat, Exploration, Social. Things such as that.

 

[pemerton]

I think drifting only makes sense if there is something reasonably well-defined being drifted. If the system prior to "drift" is fuzzy or incoherent, then "drifting" is really just rendering the system precise: anyone has to do that to play the game (some probably more self-consciously than others) and so they're not really drifting the game from any sort of default.

I think 4e is an example of a system that arguably has to be precisified to be played. It has modest but crucial moments of incoherence - like having a chapter called "Rewards" that then goes on to set out a system for XP and treasure acquisition that makes those things automatic and mere pacing devices for the development of story and of mechancial complexity; or in the PHB defining keywords only by reference to mechanical interactions, and leaving the relationship between keywords and fiction to be somewhat obliquely set out in the rules for attacking objects (leading to the well-known claim that in 4e fireballs can't set buildings on fire, even though the rules text is almost identical to the Moldvay Basic fireball spell).

Classic D&D probably doesn't need drifting to play if you've seen or heard of the Gygaxian playstyle, but given the difficulty of extracting all the details of that style from the rulebooks, it must be one of the most drifted of all systems. On another current thread I ran the argument that moving D&D play from dungeon to urban setting (with attendant social intrigue etc) is a significant drifting of the system, because it dramatically changes the capacity that the players have, consistent with the ingame circumstances of their PCs, to acquire the backstory knowledge that they need if they are to achieve their goals. (Why? Because the only real obstacle to turning over a dungeon in pursuit of backstory is wandering monsters, for which you can plan; whereas in an urban situation you're basically at the GM's mercy as s/he decides how the great and the good respond to being burgled, interrogated etc. Another option would be for the GM just to tell the players the backstory out of character, but this is an unusual approach in D&D play.)

 

[Bluenose]

I tend to think that it's a lot easier to "drift" a game from one setting to another than it is to go from one genre to another, and much more satisfying too.

One example I could suggest is Pendragon. The setting/genre is very strongly implied in the rulebook, and the rules support that. But if you discard the setting and use the rules in another situation where many of the same concepts come into play, the system remains perfectly usable with the changes being mostly nomenclature. Pendragon is being converted to a "Mythic Greece" setting, and I think it'll do it well given the similar genre assumptions. I'm working on a "Rot3K China" version of Pendragon, and I don't need to do much work with the rules - just the setting.

Conversely, a game which strongly supports a particular genre/playstyle doesn't seem to me to do well when you try to use it to play with a different genre. A game like GURPS would deal with the adventures of young Clark Kent and his friends in a very different way than Smallville represents, and probably wouldn't be as satisfying for someone wanting to reproduce the "feel" of the TB series.

 

[TerraDave]

I think drifting only makes sense if there is something reasonably well-defined being drifted. If the system prior to "drift" is fuzzy or incoherent, then "drifting" is really just rendering the system precise: anyone has to do that to play the game (some probably more self-consciously than others) and so they're not really drifting the game from any sort of default.

I think 4e is an example of a system that arguably has to be precisified to be played. It has modest but crucial moments of incoherence - like having a chapter called "Rewards" that then goes on to set out a system for XP and treasure acquisition that makes those things automatic and mere pacing devices for the development of story and of mechancial complexity; or in the PHB defining keywords only by reference to mechanical interactions, and leaving the relationship between keywords and fiction to be somewhat obliquely set out in the rules for attacking objects (leading to the well-known claim that in 4e fireballs can't set buildings on fire, even though the rules text is almost identical to the Moldvay Basic fireball spell).

Classic D&D probably doesn't need drifting to play if you've seen or heard of the Gygaxian playstyle, but given the difficulty of extracting all the details of that style from the rulebooks, it must be one of the most drifted of all systems. On another current thread I ran the argument that moving D&D play from dungeon to urban setting (with attendant social intrigue etc) is a significant drifting of the system, because it dramatically changes the capacity that the players have, consistent with the ingame circumstances of their PCs, to acquire the backstory knowledge that they need if they are to achieve their goals. (Why? Because the only real obstacle to turning over a dungeon in pursuit of backstory is wandering monsters, for which you can plan; whereas in an urban situation you're basically at the GM's mercy as s/he decides how the great and the good respond to being burgled, interrogated etc. Another option would be for the GM just to tell the players the backstory out of character, but this is an unusual approach in D&D play.)

All this makes me wonder how useful concepts like "drift" are.

Presumably, a game like Call of Cthulhu is well designed, as it really, really supports core play and its genre, while giving you a fairly robust skill system to fall back on when things, er, start to drift, which will happen in a game set in the 1920s.

And Call of Cthulhu is well designed. But I don't know if that justifies "drift" as a concept.

D&D is a broad game. Its the most popular RPG and the one that has to have the widest appeal. 4E, if anything, became to narrow, and focused on supporting a certain style well. Gods forbid if it was more "precise". And it does create a situation where a DM can have a real easy time in the core, but has to work more to broaden the experience to what traditional D&D covered.

OD&D was meant to cover a huge range of situations. If you look at the three little books, they touch on many, many things. It is just left it to the DM to figure out a lot of the details. This wasn't drifting, it was the point. Now, it did also support a style of play involving big dungeons (at least as well as it supported anything), but it certainly wasn't limited to that.

AD&D continues this. You do have lots of stuff in there for urban games. Its true that published adventures didn't provide a ton of support for this style of play. Its also, also true that there was no general task resolution or skill system in D&D, but this could also be an issue in a dungeon. Would an urban game be as easy to run as a classic dungeon? Probably not. But I don't know if it can truly be called drift, or, more precisely, if drift is a good critique of the related issues.

 

[the Jester]

I'm not sure I understand this "drifting" concept- is, for example, Dark Sun an example of what you're talking about? What about Oriental Adventures? Is "drifting" supposed to be a bad thing, a good thing, or just a thing?