tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post3939508071931329038..comments2024-03-28T13:20:08.709+11:00Comments on Observations of the Fox: Vector Theory #3: Finite and Infinite GamesVulpinoidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04511600075328621953noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post-59650528337956475712010-01-17T15:45:46.290+11:002010-01-17T15:45:46.290+11:00Yes, I'm trying to take this analysis of the h...Yes, I'm trying to take this analysis of the hobby in a more specific light.<br /><br />As Greyorm pointed out in his comment to the last post, we also see things that are referred to as illusionism or sleight-of-hand in the big model. Things that make a participant believe they have a choice in the big story, while in reality they are simply following from a variety of predestined paths. When a GM performs this illusionism well, a good game can be had. So I certainly don't think that "illusionism" should be viewed in a completely negative light. If players think there are valid choices to expand the game, or if the GM works with the players to draw the game to a conclusion then a satisfying ending can be achieved.<br /><br />With this framework in place, I'd like to explore how game designers can create systems that facilitate the convergence or divergence of vectors, how GMs can develop stories and games within the mechanism systems they are using and how players can optimize their experience within the structure by understanding more completely what is happening within the play space.<br /><br />I'll be having a look at how certain games have succeeded (and failed) in their attempts to accomplish these goals. <br /><br />I'll also be addressing those big three questions (What is your game about? What do the characters do? What do the players/GM do?) through the context of this framework, in the hope that new game designers might have a grounded reference point on how to answer these.Vulpinoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511600075328621953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post-4041618589624571552010-01-17T14:42:45.732+11:002010-01-17T14:42:45.732+11:00I'm a little sorry I brought it up. I only mea...I'm a little sorry I brought it up. I only meant to say how I like the mathematical direction this is taking, rather than trying to understand games based on player motivations.<br /><br />Like in playing Dogs in the Vineyard, you have to describe your character taking a different course of action, bringing in different aspects, in order to get more dice to roll in conflicts. (That's just the most glaring example. In all games, the GM will give you slack or bonuses or whatever for having a good plan.)<br /><br />The GNS model has no way of telling us what that is without controversy. Your model doesn't care what the player wants, more dice or a cooler story. All it says is, "Did you have to make a choice or roll the dice?"<br /><br />And now it asks, "Did the choice lead to more possible outcomes, or less possible outcomes?" I think this is hugely important for the future of the table top or LARP hobbies (in difference to collectible card games or MMORPGs). In Table top and LARP games you have unparalleled ability to play divergently, because of what John Kirk called negotiated contests. You can try stuff that isn't in the rules.Sheikh Jahbootyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353865881591884445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post-62488459748210752752010-01-15T20:22:02.166+11:002010-01-15T20:22:02.166+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post-24989133114691420862010-01-15T07:26:48.745+11:002010-01-15T07:26:48.745+11:00My thoughts on vergent play paths was actually dev...My thoughts on vergent play paths was actually developed independent of the GNS model. The latter part of this posting is simply my attempt to crudely shoehorn the two theories into a similar pattern. <br /><br />I could have just as easily said...<br /><br />A gamist focuses on optimizing the decision within a game node. A narrativist focuses on optimizing the flow between nodes along the story vectors. A simulationists focuses on maintaining the fidelity of the whole wih respect to their genre/setting/real-world expectations.<br /><br />I actually think there are more subtle variations in play across a spectrum rather than just the three broad categories of the GNS model. But I'll gt into them later.Vulpinoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511600075328621953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post-45950130825682206602010-01-15T03:38:52.785+11:002010-01-15T03:38:52.785+11:00I'm intrigued at Simulationist play, especiall...I'm intrigued at Simulationist play, especially Sim-by-habit, being considered "play that must be learned". <br /><br />Since I've compared Sim play and art films for some time now, considering them both an exercise in "taking something as it is, and no more, no less", I would consider the skills necessary to appreciate Simulationist play as vaguely akin to those needed to discover Zen - you must be able to simply appreciate the pastiche, the genre, the kewl powerz, on its/their own merits only, rather than pushing them in a particular direction. <br />Exploration for its own sake is textbook Sim, but it sure sounds Zen, too, doesn't it?<br />As a Zen Buddhist, I simply must add that if one does not enjoy Sim, that does not mean in any way that one is incapable of experiencing Zen. Sim play is a very particular creature, that's all. <br />Also - I'm intrigued that co/di/vergent play forms/styles differentiated themselves for you in this way, V. Is that partially a product of your GNS experience, do you think? Certainly, the way you defined the "three vergencies" made me think you'd hared off in a Forge Theory direction with them.Zac in VAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09041672961685368893noreply@blogger.com