In the early numbers of White Dwarf Lewis Pulsipher (who posts on these boards as [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION]) had a series of advice articles on playing D&D. I talked about one of these in an earlier thread. In this thread, I want to talk about the following passage (first published in White Dwarf 24, April 1981 - reprinted in Best of White Dwarf 2):
I think this is pretty interesting stuff, especially considering it was written over 30 years ago!
I like the basic analysis of the styles. As someone who has GMed a lot in the "simulation" style (not C&S, nor my own game, but Rolemaster, which was published in 1982), I agree that there are challenges in preserving player agency in that sort of system. Rolemaster achieves this through three main devices - rather widespread magic, which allows the players to head off or reverse undesired but "realistic" outcomes; a skill system that makes it fairly easy for a player to get big numbers in the abilities s/he wants for his/her PC, thereby dominating over the vagaries of the dice in action resolution; and a rather complex combat system which makes player choices about how to allocate combat bonuses from round to round very important in determining how the declared actions actually resolve.
I also like the "novel" style, however (and have combined it with the "simulation" style in GMing RM, and the "wargame" style in GMing 4e). I think there are two main devices for preserving player agency in the "novel" style. The first is putting limits around when and how the GM can make things up: a clear distinction has to be drawn between making up backstory and framing scenes by reference to it, and action resolution. A GM has to do the first if the players are to get the experience of being their characters in the story; but if the GM also just makes up outcomes, then the players didn't exercise agency at all (except perhaps at PC generation).
The second device is the complement to this restraint on GMs: the action resolution mechanics have to let the players actually make their mark on the story. Of mainstream FRPGs 4e is the best game I know for this. Once you move into indie territory there are a range of other options (eg Burning Wheel or HeroWars).
The problem with railroading-type "novel" games like the original Dragonlance modules, or a lot of Planescape material, is that they tend not to use these devices. There tends to be an emphasis on pre-plotting, which of course means that outcomes have to be pre-determined, which means that the GM is not just controlling framing but resolution. And the actual game systems tend to lack action resolution mechanics that the players can use to affect the content of the fiction (especially outside of content) - most action declarations are mediated through very strong and wide-ranging GM judgement calls, which once again means that the players aren't exercising agency.
Conversely, once a game includes rules that the players can use to affect the fiction, and that are not hostage to free-ranging GM judgement calls, then we have something the mechanically looks very like the "wargaming" style, even if the purpose and aesthetics of play isn't quite the same as what Gygax and Pulsipher had in mind.
Mapping Pulsipher's terminology onto Ron Edwards' terminology, I would say that:
simulaton = purist-for-system simulation
wargaming (on its own) = skill-based step-on-up
absurd = luck-based step-on-up
novel (on its own) = high concept simulation
wargaming + novel (combined as described above) = story now
Given that D&D didn't really set out to facilitate "story now" play until 4e, and that "story now" clearly remains a very contentious approach to playing D&D, I think Pulsipher's classification does a pretty good job. It seems to me to capture the same distinctions in GMing and RPGing that Ron Edwards thought were worth drawing 20 years later.
Basic D&D styles range from the "simulation" through "wargame" to "absurd" and finally "novel". As one moves along this continuum the DM's procedures become less rigorous. . . .
The simulationist wants to reflect reality as much as possible. A fight with a broadsword and chainmail ought to work just as it did in the Middle Ages. . . . These people have no place in D&D; D&D is solidly in the wargame camp, and simulationists should try Chivalry & Sorcery or make up their own games.
The "wargame" style is how D&D is designed to be played. . . . As much as possible, all that happens should be believable . . . if you read it in a fantasy novel. . . .
[T]he "absurd" style condones unbelievable occurences. . . . Monsters such as a "spelling bee" may appear, causing magic-users to foul up spells by misspelling them. This style is great for laughs when played occasionally . . . The average game tends to fall between wargame and absurd game.
Finally we have the "novel" style. . . . [T]he DM writes an oral novel in which the players are participating characters. This can be pretty bad, but the players don't mind because they're helping "write" it. In such games the DM may make up everything as he goes along.
As one passes along the continuum one finds that players are most passive in the novel style and most active in the wargame style. (The simulation style stresses realism so much that the characters tend to be hostage to the dice, the rules, and the DM.)
The simulationist wants to reflect reality as much as possible. A fight with a broadsword and chainmail ought to work just as it did in the Middle Ages. . . . These people have no place in D&D; D&D is solidly in the wargame camp, and simulationists should try Chivalry & Sorcery or make up their own games.
The "wargame" style is how D&D is designed to be played. . . . As much as possible, all that happens should be believable . . . if you read it in a fantasy novel. . . .
[T]he "absurd" style condones unbelievable occurences. . . . Monsters such as a "spelling bee" may appear, causing magic-users to foul up spells by misspelling them. This style is great for laughs when played occasionally . . . The average game tends to fall between wargame and absurd game.
Finally we have the "novel" style. . . . [T]he DM writes an oral novel in which the players are participating characters. This can be pretty bad, but the players don't mind because they're helping "write" it. In such games the DM may make up everything as he goes along.
As one passes along the continuum one finds that players are most passive in the novel style and most active in the wargame style. (The simulation style stresses realism so much that the characters tend to be hostage to the dice, the rules, and the DM.)
I think this is pretty interesting stuff, especially considering it was written over 30 years ago!
I like the basic analysis of the styles. As someone who has GMed a lot in the "simulation" style (not C&S, nor my own game, but Rolemaster, which was published in 1982), I agree that there are challenges in preserving player agency in that sort of system. Rolemaster achieves this through three main devices - rather widespread magic, which allows the players to head off or reverse undesired but "realistic" outcomes; a skill system that makes it fairly easy for a player to get big numbers in the abilities s/he wants for his/her PC, thereby dominating over the vagaries of the dice in action resolution; and a rather complex combat system which makes player choices about how to allocate combat bonuses from round to round very important in determining how the declared actions actually resolve.
I also like the "novel" style, however (and have combined it with the "simulation" style in GMing RM, and the "wargame" style in GMing 4e). I think there are two main devices for preserving player agency in the "novel" style. The first is putting limits around when and how the GM can make things up: a clear distinction has to be drawn between making up backstory and framing scenes by reference to it, and action resolution. A GM has to do the first if the players are to get the experience of being their characters in the story; but if the GM also just makes up outcomes, then the players didn't exercise agency at all (except perhaps at PC generation).
The second device is the complement to this restraint on GMs: the action resolution mechanics have to let the players actually make their mark on the story. Of mainstream FRPGs 4e is the best game I know for this. Once you move into indie territory there are a range of other options (eg Burning Wheel or HeroWars).
The problem with railroading-type "novel" games like the original Dragonlance modules, or a lot of Planescape material, is that they tend not to use these devices. There tends to be an emphasis on pre-plotting, which of course means that outcomes have to be pre-determined, which means that the GM is not just controlling framing but resolution. And the actual game systems tend to lack action resolution mechanics that the players can use to affect the content of the fiction (especially outside of content) - most action declarations are mediated through very strong and wide-ranging GM judgement calls, which once again means that the players aren't exercising agency.
Conversely, once a game includes rules that the players can use to affect the fiction, and that are not hostage to free-ranging GM judgement calls, then we have something the mechanically looks very like the "wargaming" style, even if the purpose and aesthetics of play isn't quite the same as what Gygax and Pulsipher had in mind.
Mapping Pulsipher's terminology onto Ron Edwards' terminology, I would say that:
simulaton = purist-for-system simulation
wargaming (on its own) = skill-based step-on-up
absurd = luck-based step-on-up
novel (on its own) = high concept simulation
wargaming + novel (combined as described above) = story now
Given that D&D didn't really set out to facilitate "story now" play until 4e, and that "story now" clearly remains a very contentious approach to playing D&D, I think Pulsipher's classification does a pretty good job. It seems to me to capture the same distinctions in GMing and RPGing that Ron Edwards thought were worth drawing 20 years later.
