GM fiat - an illustration

[Micah Sweet]

"The game" can mean too many different things. In one place, I might (mildly) insist that "the game" does mean "just the mechanics", as when I say "I'm not sure if I still want to play the same game, or if I'd prefer to play Shadowrun instead". In another, I might insist that it has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with the mechanics!

This is one of the reasons I talk about how games (of all stripes) are designed, and thus have elements of technology and technique, in addition to elements of aesthetic or taste; that design is pointed at trying to invite or foster a certain experience in those who play them; that a game design goal is distinct from the inspiration which leads a designer to begin designing; and that there can be distinct game-design-purposes toward which specifically RPGs usually tend. It's also why I adamantly insist that it is unwise to conflate (what I call) "emulation" with (what I and many others) call "simulation", for example.

If we're going to really, deeply talk about a particular TTRPG, as opposed to just lightly dancing around its contours, we're probably going to need to be more specific than just throwing around casual terms like "the game."

The experience of any game is always more than the rules of that game, because rules on a page are dead things. They require human effort to have motion, life. It is not demeaning to describe, in clear and unambiguous terms, the tools that a TTRPG uses in attempting to cultivate a particular experience in its players. Naturally, the tools that attempt to cultivate that experience are distinct from the experience itself, just as my skillet is distinct from the flavor of the food I cook with it.

Many games that (often proudly) call themselves "old-school" are of consciously minimalistic bent. Why, then, should it be insulting to note that their core, fundamental process is, itself, minimalistic? A minimalist aesthetic can be breathtakingly beautiful in the right context. We do not assert that architecture is inherently insulting for describing minimalism as...intentionally not using many elements. (As a good example, I will never like Brutalism as we actually have it--but in its highest ideals, it can actually be quite beautiful, all the more tragedy then that its boosters almost always neglect all the things that were required for those highest ideals to manifest in actual buildings!)

Or, if you prefer: The highest and most succinct tier of describing the art of swordfighting, which has more variations and beauty than I could ever know, is "by blocking and chopping, thrusting, or slicing, kill the other person first." Undoubtedly, thousands of styles, perhaps millions of maneuvers, literally thousands of years of technique and style, boiled down to a relatively pithy sentence. I suspect others, who know the art better than I, could trim it further.

To respond to that with, "But you agree that the campaign isn't just the bladework?" is...well, it's injecting an entirely different conversation in, because it (seemingly?) upsets you that someone focused on an analysis of combat isn't talking about the entirety of war every time they mention to any degree what swords do.

I was responding to @Umbran 's IMO reductive claim that "the game is the mechanics and processes".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree, but it can only work if everyone on all sides drops their value judgements and accepts the validity of other points of view and perspectives without trying to prove their opinions (by any means, including trying to claim that they aren't opinions) wrong. I just don't see that happening, unfortunately.

If the validity of the assertion is, itself, what is being challenged, that sounds to me like the social equivalent of a gag order. No one is allowed to challenge anyone else on anything they assert, ever, no matter what--that isn't conducive to any kind of discussion environment.

Particularly when I know, as a matter of absolute fact, I have seen the tables precisely reversed on this, with pemerton defending a position and you, specifically, being one of the people on the attack--and I never saw a request for something like this then.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the validity of the assertion is, itself, what is being challenged, that sounds to me like the social equivalent of a gag order. No one is allowed to challenge anyone else on anything they assert, ever, no matter what--that isn't conducive to any kind of discussion environment.

Particularly when I know, as a matter of absolute fact, I have seen the tables precisely reversed on this, with pemerton defending a position and you, specifically, being one of the people on the attack--and I never saw a request for something like this then.

You can disagree with someone without saying their opinion is somehow objectively wrong, and if I've been less clear about that in previous remarks, well, I'm not immune to error and I apologize. The emotional component is always a factor, and I don't think it can be completely excised from most topics, including RPGs we've all invested in to some degree.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was responding to @Umbran 's IMO reductive claim that "the game is the mechanics and processes".

The problem is, it is the mechanics and the processes--in some contexts. In other contexts, the mechanics and processes are utterly irrelevant to what "the game" is.

Hence why I say we should talk about the experience (including possible differences between intended and actual experience), or about the design (e.g. what goals it had, whether it met those goals, how those goals could be achieved, etc.), or the mechanics with all the attendant elements, or...etc.

Trying to talk about "the game", as a monolithic unit, is like trying to talk about "chemistry" or "French cuisine". It's too broad. Even if it is somewhat specific (e.g. "French cuisine" singles out dishes with a common geographic origin), it is simply too easy to talk past one another. When I say "The game is the mechanics and the processes" and mean "the tool that we use for manifesting experiences is the mechanics and the processes" and you hear "Your experiences and best practices are irrelevant, only the mechanistic elements matter", neither of us is wrong, but we are failing to communicate nonetheless.

Hence, it's not productive. "The game" means too much. What about the game are you interested in talking about? Personally, unless it's a really focused discussion, I find the discussion focused on reflecting back on what personal experiences a specific person has had is...well, it doesn't really go anywhere. It ends up being what I referenced above, nothing can be challenged, nothing can be examined, we just do a much longer and more involved version of "I saw yellow and felt happy" "I saw blue and felt sad" "Alright.", followed by silence. A discussion about the tools we use, however, is much more engaging--especially because, in many cases, it allows us to learn how to use those tools better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem is, it is the mechanics and the processes--in some contexts. In other contexts, the mechanics and processes are utterly irrelevant to what "the game" is.

Hence why I say we should talk about the experience (including possible differences between intended and actual experience), or about the design (e.g. what goals it had, whether it met those goals, how those goals could be achieved, etc.), or the mechanics with all the attendant elements, or...etc.

Trying to talk about "the game", as a monolithic unit, is like trying to talk about "chemistry" or "French cuisine". It's too broad. Even if it is somewhat specific (e.g. "French cuisine" singles out dishes with a common geographic origin), it is simply too easy to talk past one another. When I say "The game is the mechanics and the processes" and mean "the tool that we use for manifesting experiences is the mechanics and the processes" and you hear "Your experiences and best practices are irrelevant, only the mechanistic elements matter", neither of us is wrong, but we are failing to communicate nonetheless.

Hence, it's not productive. "The game" means too much. What about the game are you interested in talking about? Personally, unless it's a really focused discussion, I find the discussion focused on reflecting back on what personal experiences a specific person has had is...well, it doesn't really go anywhere. It ends up being what I referenced above, nothing can be challenged, nothing can be examined, we just do a much longer and more involved version of "I saw yellow and felt happy" "I saw blue and felt sad" "Alright.", followed by silence. A discussion about the tools we use, however, is much more engaging--especially because, in many cases, it allows us to learn how to use those tools better.

Great. Find a way to do that that doesn't make people feel disrespected because they disagree with you (general), and you're golden.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Great. Find a way to do that that doesn't make people feel disrespected because they disagree with you (general), and you're golden.

Thus far, the one and only way I have seen anyone permit others to discuss it--as a pretty clear form of tone policing, mind--is total surrender on all fronts.

I can't imagine why such a thing would not go over well!

 

[Campbell]

My only question here is how much the priorities shape the results. For example if the GM has decided from teh start of the session that professor plum murdered Mrs. Peacock with the Knife, can the priority or anything else in this process alter that? (and would it be okay for the GM to have such a concrete detail in the session). Just genuinely curious as some of the scene framing language is not always easy for me to fully understand

I'm not going to dig into the technical bit of Apocalypse World, but instead take a higher-level view. We're deciding to play a game designed narrativist because we want a particular arrangement of things:

Same thing with narrativism. Here’s the dynamic that narrativism refers to:

1. The PCs have vision, self-interests, best interests, passion, an ideological commitment: something they want and care about. Lajos Egri says “passionate.”
2. Their passions put them in conflict with others — other PCs or other NPCs, it doesn’t matter. Their passions oppose others’, threaten others’ interests, provoke others into passionate reaction.
3. Both the PCs and their counterparts are equipped to pursue their passions in conflict. Egri says “fit.” They’re physically equipped, emotionally equipped, morally equipped; they have skills, tools, initiative, stamina, followthrough, staying power.
4. Nobody pre-plans how it’s going to turn out. The characters are passionate, conflicted, and fit; now turn them lose. Play to let them pursue their passions. Play to find out how far they go, how they escalate, who comes out on top, who compromises, what they win, what it costs, what they prioritize, what they abandon. The only way to know how it plays out, is to play it out!

That’s narrativism, nothing else.

Now that particular piece of prep is only useful to us (assuming we want they above arrangement [which we should if we are playing Apocalypse World]) if it helps to either create or sustain this dynamic. Does it introduce powerful conflicts of interest that speak to the characters' passions? Does it help establish or refine PC values? Does it help to make sure the salient players in these conflict are equipped for them? If does none of those things than it's not useful prep for Narrativist play (which we want if we're playing a game meant for that).

We have to start with that desire and our prep should serve that. That doesn't mean a particular level of myth. It just means what we create should be fit to purpose.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So my experiences regarding success rate have been more positive than yours, but yeah, with a real mystery it is perfectly possible outcome that the characters fail to solve that. If one doesn't want such possibility, then one should not run a game that way.

My solution to this in my D&D game has been to make the mysteries to be just a part of what's going on. Like sure, there is a mystery that can be solved, but there is other stuff going on too. Solving the mystery might be beneficial to the PC, it might put them into a better position, but the game does not just stall if they fail to solve it.

Yeah, that seems like a viable approach. It could work fine in D&D, where action adventure, or exploration are central activities. My CoC GMing just ran out of gas at a certain point. That system provides little alternative, and the genre is basically mysteries of a certain sort. You can try to play it for yuck factor, or jump scares, etc but I found that to be thin gruel. And truthfully, really solving those scenarios, I never saw it as the key goal of play. Cosmic Horror has other fish to fry.

 

[zakael19]

I'm not going to dig into the technical bit of Apocalypse World, but instead take a higher-level view. We're deciding to play a game designed narrativist because we want a particular arrangement of things:



Now that particular piece of prep is only useful to us (assuming we want they above arrangement [which we should if we are playing Apocalypse World]) if it helps to either create or sustain this dynamic. Does it introduce powerful conflicts of interest that speak to the characters' passions? Does it help establish or refine PC values? Does it help to make sure the salient players in these conflict are equipped for them? If does none of those things than it's not useful prep for Narrativist play (which we want if we're playing a game meant for that).

We have to start with that desire and our prep should serve that. That doesn't mean a particular level of myth. It just means what we create should be fit to purpose.

That new blog post is such a wonderfully clear and simple statement of narrativist play.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@Campbell in that style of game with characters having possibly conflicting goals, do the players decide how and why they are together and how their initial adventuring foray is somehow serving all their personal goals directly or indirectly?
Because I'm imagining quite a player turn-based initial session if that is not the case.