Cause Based Powers

[subplotkudzu]

Something 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.

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. 

Comments

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I would be inclined to say, in fact, that Cause based powers are simulationist. If my character has the power to control electricity, and I say, "Okay, well, if he can generate enough electricity to inflict bodily injuries, he should be able to light up an incandescent bulb, right?" I'm appealing to the physics of electricity as an aspect of how the world works.

I'm not sure what a narrativist approach would be. But I don't think it would be either Cause or Effect.

Incidentally, it seems to me that the GURPS approach has at least some element of Cause-based. That is, if you use the mechanics of GURPS Powers, you define a theme for a power, which includes a bunch of specific abilities that share a common physical or supernatural mechanism; and you define a source, which is something like divine, magical, chi, psionic, or mutant, which is the cause of your having access to that mechanism, and which gives you limitations based on how the mechanism works—for example, if your source is Magical then your powers will fail in a no-mana zone.

Bill Stoddard

[mneme]

I think there's more to it than that.

Over time, the (Forge) dialogue re nar/sim/gam ended up coming down to a question of creative agenda -- specifically, what are the players creative agenda, and how are they pursuing that by interacting with the game.

In gamism, that's easy -- their agenda is to be challenged and overcome those challenges with a chance of failure, and the game allows them to pursue it by giving them challenges and letting them succeed or fail at them, and rewarding them for doing so.

In simulationism, that's hard -- their agenda is to make a consistent and believable X (where X is a simulated reality, a believable emulation of a genre or world, or whatnot), and they foster it by ? (where the Big Model has a big problem shoehorning Sim into its model in a coherent fashion).

In narrativism, that's interesting -- the player agenda is to have a compelling and coherent story, but having the GM provide such a story isn't an interesting game, or, really, much of a game at all. So the game supports the agenda by letting player actions influence and create the story, and making player choices meaningful in directing the choices; having the story develop from play and directing play to produce a coherent story.

Basically, the model is all about player empowerment -- regardless of creative agenda. This is a problem for Simulationism, because if you put it into the same box as Gam/Nar, rather than an entirely different box entirely, Sim is close to the antithesis of player empowerment (if you put it into a different box, you get Sim/Gam and Sim/Nar, both of which work better as long as you remember that the game is first about being a game or about creating a story, and only then about following your rules and having a coeherent dream), but it works just fine for the other two skews.

[mylescorcoran]

Look! A naked chick!

(I'll be more cogent later, once I've had a chance to catch up.)

[mylescorcoran]

Hmm, I just don't see it as Cause-based vs. Effect-based. Effect-based is a mechanical approach, where cause-based presupposes that the group (players and GM) have a means of deciding what is appropriate for a certain power (or origin, or what have you) and thereby what gets into play. From that perspective, Cause-based shades into simulation, where what works or doesn't work as an application of a power is decided by not by story or player concerns, but by the consensus of what's right for the world/setting.

I don't buy that Narrative means (solely) interest in and techniques for crafting a story. The idea that "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" is a nonsense compared to the actual rules of, say, Dogs in the Vineyard, which I would take as very much a Narrativist game, but one without a central 'story authority'.

No one of the Big Model agendas is more or less player-empowering, I feel, though I'd be willing to accept that everyone (GM included) in a Simulationist game gives over some (even most) power to the setting, or shared fictional world and its rules.

[mylescorcoran]

I very much like the idea of a pitch session defining (or at least outlining) the scope of powers and way in which everyone at the table can reasonably expect them to work.

The player who has the best understanding of the game mechanics can manipulate them to have the greatest effect on the story and best overcome the challenges presented by the GM.

Hmm. Any implementation in rules is going to be a Gamist implementation in that case and that seems too sweeping to me. There are rules that support focusing on character, conflict and emergent story, and there are rules that provide game challenges and reward the tactical-minded (for example) player. Of course, no one rule or set of rules is 100% one and not any of the others.

I can where the Gamist approach works to curb a dominant or inflexible GM, but I can also see where the Narrativist approach gives everyone a stake in establishing interesting and compelling characters and conflicts, working to address a theme.

I can also see that I'm not really invested in the Big Model and how bandying GNS terms about gets confusing. When are we going to see this supers setting construction kit?

[thismustbetheplace-rjs.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

It's not a hobby; it's a religion. :)

[thismustbetheplace-rjs.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

Believe it or not, not all of us apply this level of analytical thought to things we do for fun. :) That side of my brain gets plenty of work *at* work.

Sorry to interrupt!