Cause Based Powers
Apr. 10th, 2008 01:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
subplotkudzuSomething that came up in another thread that I wanted to yank out and discuss separately. It's both long and technical so it goes
behind the cut.
Bothmylescorcoranand notthebuddhaused the term "Effects based" to define systems like GURPS and CHAMPIONS, where powers are defined entirely by what they do, not how they do it. My 10d6 laser beam is mechanically identical to your 10d6 lightning bolt. From a game mechanics perspective it's a reasonable enough way to handle powers.
However, both then contrasted it to Narrative Based. Now, I don't see Effect being contrasted by Narrative - I see Effect as contrasted by Cause. In a Cause Based system, which is where I’d put Villains & Vigilantes, my 2d8 laser beam is substantially different than your 2d8 Lightning Bolt. It generates different outcomes, is more or less effective against different defenses, because the Cause - light vs. lightning - is just as important than the mechanical Effect of delivering 2d8 damage.
In most cases those attacks are defined as part of broader powers - Light Powers and Lightning Control - that give a variety of different effects. If I want to illuminate a room I can do it with Light Powers rather easily, radiating light of any intensity or hue; you can do it with your lightning control as well, but by making an arclight between your fingers for harsh glare and heavy shadows. I can precision melt a steel door, you can't, but you can short out a computer, or perhaps even control it. Some of these would come naturally, and there would be clear mechanics written on the character sheet; some would not, and would have to be invented during play - the system had rules for inventing as well, which were manipulated to this purpose.
To me, this is a better system, as it cuts closer to the reality of comics, and it's what I'd like to see in my supers setting construction kit. I see it as containing a certain comic book logic in the setting that the players can define. I know from experience that this definition will occur anyway in a long term, maintained world. The vagaries of dice and player choices over 20 years of the Variants universe meant that Lightning Control was nearly always tied to increased strength and agility - the lightning controllers would electrify their reflexes and galvanize their muscles. Light control was nearly always tied with heightened intelligence, as their thoughts moved at lightspeed. Flame powers carried super strength and endurance. This just fell out over time, and became an engrained part of the setting, as regular as people with flame powers being able to immolate themselves and fly. It made the Variants universe distinct from the Marvel and DC ones that it inevitably sprang from. That's what I want to present in the kit - the chance to build a distinct world that is not hindered by how useful someone else somewhere thought an energy blast would be compared to invisibility, or that everyone who can run fast can vibrate through walls. Maybe they can. And maybe invisibility is incredibly rare and useful, or common and predictable. But it's the players choice.
But the decision that light powers makes me smarter or lets me carve holes in walls isn't related to the Narrative in any way. Since by simple inference on the term Narrative, Narrative based powers means I can use my light powers in whichever way best improves the story. If that means thinking at lightspeed, I do that. If it means flying on a stream of hard photons, I do that too. I might not remember to do it next session when it wouldn't serve the narrative, but, hey, that happens in comics all the time. But I'm not interested in Narrative based powers because it's too free-form. I want mechanics on the sheet indicating how good I am with my Light Powers and what I have learned to do with it, with a broad understanding of what I won't be able to get it to do. I know the Cause, and I want the Effects to tie to that, not to be ends unto themselves or be dependent on the current story.
Mylescorcoran as said this " but it is very much in the broader sense (in the hobby) of Narrative as player-empowerment."
When did Narrative become player empowerment?
Narrativist means you're trying to craft a compelling, or at least interesting, story. Gamist means you're trying to set a enjoyable challenge within the rules. Simulationist means you're trying to accurately create a reality (even if that reality has rules totally unlike our own). In a Gamist setting I have the most player empowerment because I have, written on my character sheet, exactly what I can and can't do, and the GM is obliged to give me a puzzle I can solve. I have taken away power from the GM to do whatever he wants and given it to me in the form of crunchy bits on my character. In a Simulation I still have rules, and an even greater sense that the rules will be followed because they define the reality we're trying to simulate - I have been given no explicit or implicit promises that I won't be led by circumstance into events entirely outside my ability, but the world will work the way the world works. But in a Narrative game my power only extends as far as the GM's sense of the story - if we're at odds, I have no recourse other than leaving, and can get railroaded wherever he wants or be put through hell because it's more "dramatic". Any control I have is part of an implicit agreement that the GM will take my wishes into account in the direction of the story, which is only as good as the GMs word.
Now, I can guess that the mutation started because people enjoyed the Narrativist style but not the loss of control under a bad GM, and started developing rules for player empowerment to let give players more control in the direction of the story. Fine and dandy, but that's a Gamist solution - there are now contractual rules for setting an enjoyable challenge. Don't try to sell me that the enjoyable challenge for Narrativsts is "telling a good story" because in my youth I spent many a Gamist afternoon setting enjoyable challenges that, when we were done, made good stories - they weren't classic stories, but they also weren't always the ones told at cons that make no sense to the people who weren't there' because they're all about HP loss and Backstab opportunities. I'll accept a blending of the two under a new term (just like I prefer Genereist for games that blend Narrative and Simulation) but it takes some through-the-looking-glass logic to get to the point where Narrativist means Player Empowerment when it's the least Player Empowering of the styles.
Both
mylescorcoranand notthebuddhaused the term "Effects based" to define systems like GURPS and CHAMPIONS, where powers are defined entirely by what they do, not how they do it. My 10d6 laser beam is mechanically identical to your 10d6 lightning bolt. From a game mechanics perspective it's a reasonable enough way to handle powers. However, both then contrasted it to Narrative Based. Now, I don't see Effect being contrasted by Narrative - I see Effect as contrasted by Cause. In a Cause Based system, which is where I’d put Villains & Vigilantes, my 2d8 laser beam is substantially different than your 2d8 Lightning Bolt. It generates different outcomes, is more or less effective against different defenses, because the Cause - light vs. lightning - is just as important than the mechanical Effect of delivering 2d8 damage.
In most cases those attacks are defined as part of broader powers - Light Powers and Lightning Control - that give a variety of different effects. If I want to illuminate a room I can do it with Light Powers rather easily, radiating light of any intensity or hue; you can do it with your lightning control as well, but by making an arclight between your fingers for harsh glare and heavy shadows. I can precision melt a steel door, you can't, but you can short out a computer, or perhaps even control it. Some of these would come naturally, and there would be clear mechanics written on the character sheet; some would not, and would have to be invented during play - the system had rules for inventing as well, which were manipulated to this purpose.
To me, this is a better system, as it cuts closer to the reality of comics, and it's what I'd like to see in my supers setting construction kit. I see it as containing a certain comic book logic in the setting that the players can define. I know from experience that this definition will occur anyway in a long term, maintained world. The vagaries of dice and player choices over 20 years of the Variants universe meant that Lightning Control was nearly always tied to increased strength and agility - the lightning controllers would electrify their reflexes and galvanize their muscles. Light control was nearly always tied with heightened intelligence, as their thoughts moved at lightspeed. Flame powers carried super strength and endurance. This just fell out over time, and became an engrained part of the setting, as regular as people with flame powers being able to immolate themselves and fly. It made the Variants universe distinct from the Marvel and DC ones that it inevitably sprang from. That's what I want to present in the kit - the chance to build a distinct world that is not hindered by how useful someone else somewhere thought an energy blast would be compared to invisibility, or that everyone who can run fast can vibrate through walls. Maybe they can. And maybe invisibility is incredibly rare and useful, or common and predictable. But it's the players choice.
But the decision that light powers makes me smarter or lets me carve holes in walls isn't related to the Narrative in any way. Since by simple inference on the term Narrative, Narrative based powers means I can use my light powers in whichever way best improves the story. If that means thinking at lightspeed, I do that. If it means flying on a stream of hard photons, I do that too. I might not remember to do it next session when it wouldn't serve the narrative, but, hey, that happens in comics all the time. But I'm not interested in Narrative based powers because it's too free-form. I want mechanics on the sheet indicating how good I am with my Light Powers and what I have learned to do with it, with a broad understanding of what I won't be able to get it to do. I know the Cause, and I want the Effects to tie to that, not to be ends unto themselves or be dependent on the current story.
Mylescorcoran as said this " but it is very much in the broader sense (in the hobby) of Narrative as player-empowerment."
When did Narrative become player empowerment?
Narrativist means you're trying to craft a compelling, or at least interesting, story. Gamist means you're trying to set a enjoyable challenge within the rules. Simulationist means you're trying to accurately create a reality (even if that reality has rules totally unlike our own). In a Gamist setting I have the most player empowerment because I have, written on my character sheet, exactly what I can and can't do, and the GM is obliged to give me a puzzle I can solve. I have taken away power from the GM to do whatever he wants and given it to me in the form of crunchy bits on my character. In a Simulation I still have rules, and an even greater sense that the rules will be followed because they define the reality we're trying to simulate - I have been given no explicit or implicit promises that I won't be led by circumstance into events entirely outside my ability, but the world will work the way the world works. But in a Narrative game my power only extends as far as the GM's sense of the story - if we're at odds, I have no recourse other than leaving, and can get railroaded wherever he wants or be put through hell because it's more "dramatic". Any control I have is part of an implicit agreement that the GM will take my wishes into account in the direction of the story, which is only as good as the GMs word.
Now, I can guess that the mutation started because people enjoyed the Narrativist style but not the loss of control under a bad GM, and started developing rules for player empowerment to let give players more control in the direction of the story. Fine and dandy, but that's a Gamist solution - there are now contractual rules for setting an enjoyable challenge. Don't try to sell me that the enjoyable challenge for Narrativsts is "telling a good story" because in my youth I spent many a Gamist afternoon setting enjoyable challenges that, when we were done, made good stories - they weren't classic stories, but they also weren't always the ones told at cons that make no sense to the people who weren't there' because they're all about HP loss and Backstab opportunities. I'll accept a blending of the two under a new term (just like I prefer Genereist for games that blend Narrative and Simulation) but it takes some through-the-looking-glass logic to get to the point where Narrativist means Player Empowerment when it's the least Player Empowering of the styles.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-11 12:21 am (UTC)To an extent, the BM Nar (and to an extent, Gam) definitions are superior to what came before--they put gamism and narrativism on the same spectrum, give a point to nar rather than just "I want it to have a story", and conciously exclude gming-by-railroad as not-nar. OTOH, probably because of who was involved, as you mention, the depiction of simulationism is -awful-, mixing sim up with bad gaming, and constructing reasoning why you can't mix sim and nar that doesn't make much sense.
Now that I think on it, this may be because the thing identified as uniting the three ? Doesn't.
As you mention, the key point of simulationism is exploring -- the shared reality. "What if I go here?" "put ghost rock in acid?" "ignore the nonsense with the king and head for a ship to the indies?"
Similarly, the key point of narrativism is to explore the story, and by an extention, the characters.
But gamism, while quite worthwhile, is only pushed into an "exploration" mold by extreme force; if you want exploration with your gamism, you have to get it somewhere else than your urge for conflict and real opposition.
Basically, I think the Big Model idea of having different "skews" that bind together the different components of roleplaying is a good one. But I'm not at all convinced that Gamism, Simulationism, and Naratativsm are all the same -kind- of skew.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-11 07:38 am (UTC)It's like the Big Model designers were attacked by a copy of Harn as a kid or something....
if you want exploration with your gamism, you have to get it somewhere else than your urge for conflict and real opposition.
I don't see that, either. If I'm playing for Gamist reasons I want things to be a challenge, and will work within the system to maxamize effect. If I realize (as one of my more Gamist players has) that I can explore the world to gain benefits in my conflicts and against my opposition - in other words if I am exploring the world as a puzzle - then I will do so. I'll explore the history and culture of the Bear people because I can get a +2 circumstance bonus on Bluff & Diplomacy rolls to pass through their territory unscathed if I mention stories of their great heroes. It's still conflict and real opposition, but exploring the world was just as useful to me, and cheaper, than a Cloak of Charisma +2, and better still, it STACKS! I'm still interested in the world, still exploring it, but my brain is ticking over how I can use it to better solve the challenges I face, and how doing so makes me a better, more successful adventurer than those who don't.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-11 01:09 pm (UTC)Or playing with GMs who read too many of Gary Gygax's Dragon editorials.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-11 01:56 pm (UTC)That there can be narrativist literary works is more or less obvious. But let me tell a story to illustrate how one might say that a literary work is distinctively narrativist: Years and years ago, my then roommate was taking a course in set design, and was trying to work out the stage set for a play that her college was putting on. She asked me for advice on something. And I pointed at one of her walls, and asked her, "What's on the other side of this wall here?" And she looked at me blankly for a moment, and then said that there was nothing on the other side of that wall; it was the back of the stage, and whatever was behind it would not come into the action of the play. And I said that to visualize that the front of the wall looked like, I had to know what I was supposed to imagine as existing on the other side of the wall—which she had never thought about, because the drama was only taking place on one side of the wall.
So I think there is an approach to literature where the characters, the people you are bringing on stage or telling a story about, are "real," and what happens to them is real and is defined—but nothing that is not directly interacting with them has any substance, because it's not part of the narrative.
There is a simulationist interest in literature. It often has to do with envisioning a world with its own natural laws, its own geography and biology and cosmogony and so on, and working out how it functions as a self-consistent whole. This is the kind of thing that's found in Poul Anderson's fiction, or Hal Clement's, or that of other hard science fiction writers.
And there's also a gamist approach in literature. For example, the classic murder mystery is a game between the author and the reader: the author reveals all the clues, and the reader knows as much as the investigator, and is challenged to solve the mystery faster than the investigator does. Note that readers of such works talk about the author "playing fair" with the reader.
Or, for aspects of formal contest, consider the traditional Japanese custom of an exchange of verses between two people, each person's verse being expected to take off from what the other person just sent. For that matter, all traditional verse, verse that scans and perhaps rhymes and may be in a defined form, has a "game" aspect. Once you've written lines AbA' of a villanelle, the succeeding verses MUST rhyme aba, and must end alternately by repeating line A and line A' as the third line, until the final verse is abAA'. That purely artificial structural requirement makes writing villanelles something of a game.