r/RPGdesign • u/jiaxingseng Designer - Rational Magic • Dec 25 '19
[RPGdesign Activity] Re-thinking the basic terminology of the hobby.
"What is a mechanic?" Re-thinking the basic terminology of the hobby.
We have run this type of topic before, and the problem is that even if we in this thread agree to some definitions, we then have the problem that our definitions don't extend out of this sub.
But I'm OK with that. And to make this more official, I'll link to this thread in wiki.
Our activity is rather esoteric and very meta. We are going to propose some common terms, discuss them, and WE WILL come to a mutual understanding and definition (I hope).
The terms we will discuss:
- narrative
- storygame
- mechanic
- crunchy
- pulp
- meta-economy
- meta-point
- simulation-ist
- game-ist
- plot point
- sandbox
- fiction first
- emergent story
EDIT:
- Fictional Positioning
- Gritty
- Action Economy
(if anyone has more to add to this list - of names that are commonly thrown about, please speak up)
This post is part of the weekly /r/RPGdesign Scheduled Activity series. For a listing of past Scheduled Activity posts and future topics, follow that link to the Wiki. If you have suggestions for Scheduled Activity topics or a change to the schedule, please message the Mod Team or reply to the latest Topic Discussion Thread.
For information on other /r/RPGDesign community efforts, see the Wiki Index.
5
3
u/anon_adderlan Dec 27 '19 edited Dec 27 '19
Our activity is rather esoteric and very meta.
Yes, but is it useful?
The terms we will discuss
Instead of starting with terms (especially ones with lots of other common meanings), perhaps we should start with the concepts we want to define.
That said...
-
narrative: A consistent set of events told in a sequence.
-
storygame: A game which produces a narrative.
-
emergent story: A narrative produced by a storygame.
-
sandbox: A game with no determined sequence of events which prioritizes exploration and experimentation.
-
mechanic: A set of procedures used to determine an outcome.
-
crunchy: Lots of mechanics.
-
fiction first: Mechanical results can not contradict the verisimilitude of the narrative.
-
pulp: A genre where the risk of death is low.
-
gritty: A genre where the risk of death is high.
-
meta-economy: The way in which players earn and spend meta-points.
-
meta-point: Player facing tokens used to change the narrative in ways which do not exist in the narrative itself.
-
plot point: The meta-points used in Cortex P.
-
action economy: Treating actions as discreet units which can be spent and saved. Gameplay revolves around doing this in a way which leads to
-
simulation-ist/game-ist: Different creative agendas. Note these are not what a game necessarily provides but what players prioritize.
-
fictional positioning: How where a character is in the fiction affects what they can do in it.
Finally, if we're going to tackle this issue could we please activate the built-in wiki to actually do so?
Nevermind, I was thinking of another sub.
→ More replies (1)1
u/jiaxingseng Dec 27 '19
Yes, but is it useful?
I don't know. I tried to teach some of this when we did the marketing thread a few months ago, but it seemed to fall flat. But anyway, a member wanted to talk about this and put it in the brainstorming list. See link above.
Finally, if we're going to tackle this issue could we please activate the built-in wiki to actually do so?
Uh... wat? We've had a wiki for 4 years now. At the bottom of every Activity Thread including this one is a link to a section of the wiki. See?
This post is part of the weekly /r/RPGdesign Scheduled Activity series. For a listing of past Scheduled Activity posts and future topics, follow that link to the Wiki. If you have suggestions for Scheduled Activity topics or a change to the schedule, please message the Mod Team or reply to the latest Topic Discussion Thread.
For information on other r/RPGDesign community efforts, see the Wiki Index.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/ArsenicElemental Dec 25 '19
Fun exercise, but this part worries me:
the problem is that even if we in this thread agree to some definitions, we then have the problem that our definitions don't extend out of this sub.
Making definitions to make definitions, to have some fun, is just that, having fun. Unless we are solving an actual problem that comes up while the RPG community is also working on it, well, then I wouldn't hold my breath for these definitions to catch on.
It's not the validity of the definition what makes it catch on. It's the use people need to give them. Unless the definition of "Gritty" becomes a talking point on its own, there's no reason for ours to branch out of the sub.
1
u/jiaxingseng Dec 25 '19
Well, we can use these in this sub. And I'm going to sticky this thread in the wiki. Even if we don't agree on any terms, if we discuss it fully, we can point people back to this so they get an idea.
→ More replies (1)
20
Dec 25 '19
So one that I can answer here is "crunchy", which is a short-hand for "number-crunching". That is, the system involves a lot of math. However, some people, myself included, use it to indicate a complicated system with a lot of rules rather than something math-heavy, considering math a normal part of the table and the presence of a calculator totally acceptable (maybe that just comes with playing a ton of Rolemaster).
I'm guessing most people don't overload the term like I do.
10
u/Salindurthas Dec 25 '19
considering math a normal part of the table and the presence of a calculator totally acceptable
Can you clarify here? I understand this in isolation but in the context of the sentence I got a bit lost and couldn't parse it with the whole paragraph.
Are you saying that because you find maths (up to and including calculators) so normal that a game requiring their use is not inherently "crunchy" and is in fact "normal"?
Something worth noting is that I'd say that it is indeed normal or standard or traditional for games to be math heavy. That doesn't mean they aren't "crunchy". The norm can be described, and I think it is accurate to say that popular games like D&D are reasonably crunchy.
(This might be responding to me misunderstanding what you were saying, but it is my opinion regardless.)
Aside from that, I think I'd agree. A 'logical' crunch rather than a number crunch seems like a valid idea here.
If you have to look up 7 tables to resolve something, or think through 5 options deeply and logically, even if you don't have to do much maths, that those still sound crunchy to me.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)4
u/grit-glory-games Dec 25 '19
However, some people, myself included, use it to indicate a complicated system with a lot of rules
I think it goes hand in hand with lots of math and lots of rules because more rules tend to mean more math or more varieties of math.
Either way we split it, it comes down to a math-heavy and rules-heavy strand out of the same "crunchy" hair. Take D&D for example, it's fairly rules heavy but not overly so, so it'll make for a good example here. You could play it with its most base elements and get a good ways in but you won't find any appreciation beyond fighting the easiest targets. BUT, start adding magic, artifacts, features, etc. and you just like on the math. Basic addition, but a lot of it. Then there's the math a GM has to use should they want to create their own creatures, there we see a much more varied arithmetic. Optional, yes, but the rules are there, and they are crunchy.
Regardless, I think distinguishing the two (rules heavy and math heavy) is one of those "never leaving this sub" kind of deals.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/htp-di-nsw Dec 25 '19 edited Dec 29 '19
Narrativism: these are RPGs where the act of telling a story is first and foremost. Decisions are made and mechanics enacted primarily to further and improve upon the story happening.
The way that the FATE point economy works is a narrative mechanic--you make bad stuff happen to your PCs in order to gather fuel for the climax, creating a natural story flow of tribulations followed by triumph.
The way that PbtA games set "success with complication" as the most common result so that you are always amping things up and making the story "more interesting" rather than cleanly succeeding is a narrative mechanic.
The way D&D 3rd, 4th, and 5th use CR to build encounters that are exactly the right difficulty so that you feel like you might lose, but you are still nearly guaranteed to win unless you did something stupid--that's a narrative mechanic, too.
Even the fact that Savage World bennies refresh each session is a narrative mechanic because it causes a natural crescendo to happen at the end of the session. You hoard the bennies until you see the clock ticking near where you expect to stop and then rapidly spend them so as not to waste them.
Gamism: Gamist stuff is focused on the "game" aspects of roleplaying, obviously. It's when decisions are made and mechanics are enacted simply because it's fun to make decisions and engage in mechanics.
The way your particular build of stats/feats/powers/other character creation selections in D&D 3rd, 4th, and sort of 5th if your GM uses some common houserules can make you absurdly stronger than people who made bad decisions in the same places and win fights/overcome challenges much more consistently and easily is an example of gamism, where making the best mechanical choice is fun in and of itself.
The dice minigame you play during conflicts in Dogs in the Vineyard where you are trying to lose early to earn d4s of complications to maximize XP gain and slowly integrate more traits as the conflict goes on to maximize your success, and the very fact that you can make the right decisions with the dice to guarantee victory in the conflict is an example of gamism. Manipulating the dice game is fun by itself.
The Jenga tower in Dread, which, I mean, if you're good at Jenga means you never lose, is a great example of a gamist mechanic that, in my opinion utterly fails to deliver the suspense it claims because I'm good at the game part, but works for most people because they're only "ok" at jenga.
Literally any time people talk about "is this mechanic/character option/equipment balanced?" they're expressing a gamist concern.
Simulationism: This is when decisions are made and mechanics enacted primarily to make the outcome of the in-game situation to match expectations of how it would actually play out if the game world were real. What I mean by that is, if you're playing a game set in the real world, we expect that a bullet does to a person what a bullet does in the real world. We expect in a super hero world that when superman punches a dude through a wall, that guy gets up later groggy rather than having a liquidized torso. In fact, we expect superman to punch people at all rather than causing mini-nuclear level explosions with his arms because that's what physics would demand in a realistic world. It's based totally on the setting being simulated, it is not about being realistic unless you're playing in a realistic setting, even though most people immediately assume realism when they hear simulation. And let me add that while video game "simulation games" are commonly heavy math intensive things with complex calculations and whatnot, that is not required for a simulation RPG.
The way the 3rd edition D&D designers took their jump distances from data on actual, real world athletes is an example of simulationism (even though they utterly failed to create a world that made sense since those real world people stopped leveling at 6th and the beginning of D&D 3rd was so boring that most people started at 6th to allow prestige classes...and ended at like 12th or 13th since the endgame was so broken and stupid).
The way World of Darkness used to list the sorts of things you could pick up and throw with superhuman levels of strength is a simulationist mechanic (motorcycles at 6!).
The way magic works in Mage is pretty simulationist, actually, since it allows you to do bullshit like turning Werewolf hearts in to silver tacos in their chests if you want to, which is utterly unfair (anti-gamist) and makes for a stupid anti-climatic story (anti-narrative), but technically allowed by the way they described and set up magic working in the game universe.
The way people with cybernetic or magical reflexes get more actions than anyone else in Shadowrun is simulationist (and utterly stupid beyond belief from any kind of gamist position at all).
The things to remember about GNS, though, are:
-
Ron Edwards was wrong primarily because he posited that people/games were aligned with one of these philosophies, when in fact every RPG has a spectrum of all three, so, let's call him wrong where he belongs and not throw out the baby with his bath water.
-
Ron Edwards was building on a previous model that split out gamism, simulationism, and dramatism not narrativism. But Ron didn't really understand or like dramatism, so he unceremoniously dumped it into simulationism and never looked back.
-
In fact, Ron Edwards absolutely didn't like or understand simulationism (or dramatism) in any way whatsoever and made almost no attempt to try. He just threw everything he didn't "get" into the simulation ghetto and focused almost entirely on gamism and narrativism. That's why the early days of the Forge birthed extremely gamist story games like Dogs in the Vineyard.
Edit: I personally want to experience something when I play, not actively partake in telling a story. But, I am concerned with some of the trappings of telling stories that assist immersion in the experience, like pacing and spotlight time. I feel as though are select elements from dramatism that bother me less than narrativism, but ended up in the simulation ghetto. I am enough of a gamist that I don't want to play an unfair game or choose to deliberately lose/have a bad thing happen to me no matter how much better it makes "the story" (because I want to be inside that character and experience their life and I don't want to experience bad stuff). So, for me, it's ultimately S > G > N, but really D > S = G and N can go away. Yeah, no, reading more, I'm very strongly S in both systems. And really it's the E from GEN that more clearly portrays my goals.
→ More replies (3)4
u/fleetingflight Dec 25 '19
Urgh. No.
To paraphrase Vincent Baker (here):
Gamism is where the fun of the game comes from proving yourself.
Narrativism is where the fun of the game comes from saying something ('in a lit 101 sense')
Simulationism is where the fun of the game comes from the feeling of being there.
If you think DitV is gamist I just have no words. You clearly have no understanding of what Ron Edwards or anyone else at The Forge was trying to say and have no basis for critiquing their work. Why use the same terms if you're going to redefine them completely?
→ More replies (14)
1
u/grit-glory-games Dec 25 '19
Role play
→ More replies (3)2
u/jiaxingseng Dec 25 '19
To take on the role of a character, by acting as the character or describing what the character does, or both. This could also include describing a story that happens around a character.
1
u/darklighthitomi Dec 28 '19
I suggest considering the term "role-playing game" as well. It has become so broad as to be nearly useless, even more broad in games than "anime" is for film/tv.
1
u/jiaxingseng Dec 29 '19
Do customers, hobbyists, or even designers have confusion about this?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/fleetingflight Dec 25 '19
We recently had a long hashout of the term 'story game' here. I think either it should be used as one of those meaningless marketing terms that vaguely indicate that we're playing to get stories and not crunch numbers, or it should be the broad definition of 'story game', where all RPGs are a form of story game, but also other games that create narrative but don't have roleplaying as a key part of play (e.g. The Quiet Year). But there are people who disagree. Any suggestion that games like, say, Fiasco are not RPGs, but 'story games', should be stomped dead.
Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist have perfectly good definitions in Forgey-theory and I think it would be wonderful if we all just collectively stopped using the terms unless specifically talking within that framework (or similar, like Threefold). The way they get casually used is worse than useless.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/sjbrown Jan 02 '20
For those interested in this topic, I highly recommend "Characteristics of Games" by Garfield, et al. There's great, relevant content in the first ten pages, which you can preview on Amazon.
1
Dec 25 '19 edited Dec 25 '19
Simulationist
Narrativist
Gamist
Fiction-first
Fiction
What is fiction? Fiction refers to interactions and characters within the gameworld, as well as the existence of the gameworld itself. Both story and simulation are 100% dependent on fiction.
As such, the difference between simulationism/narrativism is merely down to the reason they tap into fiction:
-
Simulationist - the quality of attempting to emulate a fictional world. Simulationist gameplay mechanics are used to steer the outcome of in-game situations lies closer to what would actually happen in the gameworld, regardless of how it impacts the story. I.e : Voldemort fails to kill Harry because Love Magic is a thing and it manifested itself as a very potent shield.
-
Narrativist - the quality of attempting to emulate a story or story structure. Narrativist gameplay mechanics are used to steer the outcome of in-game situations closer to the desired story progression, regardless of how it impacts the simulation. I.e : Voldemort fails to kill Harry because the story demands a protagonist with a scarred past and an antagonist who yearns to finish what they started.
These two qualities can both align and go against each other, so mechanics can easily be both simulationist and narrativist.
Fiction-first is a bit tricky. Fiction-first refers simultaneously to:
-
Quality of mechanics that either prioritize fiction over other mechanics or require fiction to function in the first place
-
Style of play that prioritizes fiction over mechanics in general
These two things don't always align:
-
Dread has to be played in a fiction-first way, because it's literally impossible to play it otherwise: players create fiction. At the same time, Dread's primary resolution mechanic is the antithesis of fiction-first: literally the only thing that matters is whether the tower stands or falls. Player decisions within the game don't do anything to impact who lives or dies
-
DnD isn't commonly known for being a fiction-first game. At the same time, it has a plethora of simulationist fiction-first mechanics(such as encumbrance or fall damage) that don't function without fiction at all.
In terms of design the same(let's say simulationist) mechanic can be implemented in a fiction-first or non-fiction first way:
-
Game A's Encumbrance mechanic states that you can hold up to 3 Medium objects in your Backpack and a single Large object in each of your hands.
-
Game B's Encumbrance mechanic states that you can hold up to 30 ENC on a character with X STR without being encumbered, as long as your character has a way to store these items. A Backpack holds 20 ENC.
Now imagine how a common real-life Call of Cthulhu scenario plays out in each of these systems: You are asked to go to the tool shed and bring the group some shovels because you need to bury a few bodies. A shovel is considered a Large object with an ENC of 4
-
Game A: You are literally incapable of carrying more than 2 shovels. You have to make 3 trips to bring the group the 6 shovels needed to complete the task. Since it takes 3 trips you fail to bury the bodies by whatever deadline has been set and you all rot in jail;
-
Game B: You strut into the tool shed and manhandle 6 shovels at once with your powerful right arm. You even appropriate a brand new ENC5 Chainsaw with your slightly less powerful left arm because hey, those don't grow on trees and the dead guys won't need it anyway. You easily bury the bodies and go back home in time for dinner: those cultists were destined to be buried in a shallow grave anyway.
Now, in many cases the situation in Game A will play out on the table exactly the same way as in Game B: The GM and the players will simply choose to ignore ENC rules that conflict with how reality would work. This shows why rules that are either fiction-first or fiction-friendly are important: If these rules don't align with player perception they WILL be ignored.
Gamist, in all of this, is the quality of mechanics that are able to function either in complete isolation from fiction or with little dependence(dependence which stems from the fact that most mechanics are rarely purely one flavour of "ist") on it. Essentially gamist mechanics are meant to be functional and enjoyable in and of themselves. When it comes to RPGs and gamist mechanics it's easier to look at entire systems or subsystems, as the individual elements that make up those systems are often simulationist or narrativist in nature.
Examples:
-
DnD combat(especially DnD4 combat) is gamist: you can strip the fiction right out of it and still end up with a tactical game where abstract combatants try to reduce each other to 0 HP while inflicting status effects.
-
Mythras combat is a mix of simulationist and gamist: while it might partially be played as an HP-exchange simulator, the wound/limb system and the various manoeuvres both describe and are impacted by fictional positioning.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/AceOfFools Dec 25 '19
“Fail forward” another one is used like it’s more common knowledge than it is.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Fheredin Dec 28 '19
Crunchy
To my eye, Crunchy can refer to two completely different phenomena; cost of operation and mechanical potential. I liken crunch to a chemical equation;
Stuff you have to do to keep the system running (cost of operation) ==> Stuff the mechanics encourage you to think about (mechanical potential).
I abbreviate this to discussing "Left Crunch" when discussing stuff on the reactant side of the equation, like rules or arithmetic, or "Right Crunch" when talking about the products side; choosing to spend stamina currencies or activating called shot rules or the like. The two are closely related, but they are also completely different kinds of crunch.
Meta-point
I typically prefer calling this MGC or Metagame Currency. MGC is a player-facing fudge for randomness. Given the huge number of dice rolls in most campaigns, eventually you will come to stretches of gameplay where 10, 15, sometimes even 20 checks in a row all go against the players. Clumpiness is a sign of randomness. If you don't give the players a coping mechanism, they could wind up in a no-fault TPK. Which is much more destructive than giving players a stipend of roll fudges.
MGCs are not universally necessary, but just giving it to players can reduce their stress level. In general, I think the improvements to gameplay outweigh the loss of immersion.
1
u/sjbrown Dec 31 '19
I've seen an attitude in discussions of RPG design that RPGs are special and deserve special terminology. As the market grows and lines blur between board games, story games, video games, etc, some special terms will seem just... silly.
I prefer to avoid terms with specific cultural baggage like "crunchy" and the "-ists", and I encourage everyone else to drop them. They ghettoize rpg design.
1
u/CH00CH00CHARLIE Jan 01 '20
Well this has caused me to go down a forge rabbit hole about narrativist, simulationist, and gamist. The forge description of these seems a bit vague but the way I interpret it is as what you want out of the game. What I will say differs a bit from what the forge said but I think it knocks on the same ideas. Do you want to overcome challenge or have creative solutions? Gamist. Do you want to tell a compelling story with resolutions and plot twists? Narrativist. Do you want to discover a new world and directly embody a character? Simulationist. Now my problem is that I feel these terms have baggage outside this definition (also the forge leans a little to much into narrativist being the solution for many RPGs problems, which I view a bit as solving a rule issue by changing the game you are playing). Most of these describe mechanics and I don't think all these mechanics lead to these broad style of play changes that the forge describes. I actually think these are good categories and important for discussion but new words should be used for them, not jargon that means other things. Narratavist means, to me mechanics that give authorial control to the players. Think fate points or make a map leave blanks. Simulationist means means mechanics that emulate real life. Think encumbrance, 1 second rounds, reloading, ammo, and attack locations. Gamist means mechanics that are abstractions that are more about effect than how you got there. Think using blackjack as resolution, the jenga tower in Dread, or raises in Dogs in the Vineyard. Each of these may have the net effect that the forge describes if you use enough of them, but I feel they can be in games with a different goal, or they can even be used in service of different outcomes. My thoughts go to Dogs in the Vineyard that uses its gamist conflict resolution to help it narrative elements.
8
u/jiaxingseng Dec 25 '19
Here is how I define things. Not saying you should adopt my definitions, but these should be up for consideration.
The terms we will discuss:
narrative
Two definitions. 1) As marketing language, means the emphasis is on building a story as opposed to combat. This is an over-used and almost meaningless descriptor applied to WoD as well as Savage Worlds. 2) as design terminology and marketing segmentation, the quality of a game to manipulate story (emergent or plot-points) through rules and actions other than what the player character does. Fate points creating Aspects is a prime example. Stress points which retroactively change actions in Blades in the Dark is another example. Also all Ability Points in GUMSHOE. When I need to be more specific, I call this "meta-narrative control".
storygame
A game which is has a lot of meta-narrative control.
mechanic
Rules that make up an RPG
crunchy
Describes games with lots of detailed rules (not necessarily lot's of math though.)
pulp
In RPGs, denotes a style in which mook NPCs fall quickly, like 80s action movies.
meta-economy
The spending and gaining of resources for manipulating the story manipulation (ie. meta-narrative control) resources.
meta-point
The resource traded and spend in the meta-economy. Because HP is really a meta-economy resource which is only remotely tied to in-game events (ie. in D&D), it is a meta-point. But more often this applies
simulation-ist
A goal of the game is to simulate a shared reality with mechanics, rather than build up a story.
game-ist
Aspects of the game which are meant to add game-like elements, like winning, losing, and abstract game-y simulations.
plot point
Describes a type of story which has plot structures.
sandbox
A style of play that has few, if any, plot points. Sometimes this is combined with random tables to create procedurally generated game-play.
Gritty
(common definition) Could mean dark or noir. 2) (my preferred definition) high levels of danger with characters who could die or be taken out easily.