![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hybrid genre games are difficult to create. In GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying Theory Edwards proposes two possibilities:
(1) two modes are simultaneously satisfied in the same player at the same time
(2) two modes can exist side by side in the design, such that differently-oriented players may play together
Edwards admits to being skeptical of both, but one clue to that skepticism may be found in his preference for narrativist games. I explored this before and it makes heavy use of Edwards’ essay, System Does Matter", but I’m going to rehash the basic points here.
Narrativist games explore a topic and usually present an opinion on that topic through their rules. Any change to the rules results in a change to the opinion, or completely messes it up. To make matters worse, most narrativist games take a rules-light approach, meaning that changes would likely be far more drastic. This is not exchanging a +1 for a +2 in a task resolution system. Instead, narrativist games tend to be shaped by concepts like scenes and conflict resolution systems that ask “why,” instead of “how.” If you're changing anything, it has to be a big change. Furthermore, narrativist games' rules tend to produce meaning by their interactions.
I’m going to explore hybridity through Joshua A. Newman’s Shock: Social Science Fiction. Shock attempts to simulate the genre of social science fiction, but that genre always revolves around a premise. That premise qualifies it as an early narrativist game. I’ve written a lot about Shock before because I admire its originality in terms of its rules, and my hate for how it handles story.
Newman claims that it uses conflict resolution, but I would argue that it’s a hybrid form of task and conflict resolution. Conflict resolution normally has two forces going against one another, and so you always have a story to tell. Shock requires that each characters’ action have a different goal. It is possible for both actions to fail, leaving the storyteller without an obvious story to tell.
Nonetheless, every challenge is shaped by the issue made up at the start of the game, and the character’s approaches to that issue. If the rules are followed to the letter and in their implications, it definitely asks, “why.”
Despite being difficult to play and not having rules to resolve things at the story level, Shock was a big hit with The Forge crowd, including many non-designers. The game doesn’t have to be ideologically perfect in order to be fun. The rules don’t have to be perfect, either. It only matters that they’re good enough, and the players will fill in the rest.
This is where story games have an advantage over other types of games. Because there’s no way to create rules for everything that a player could imagine. Players accept a certain degree of hand-waviness because it's the story that they're interested in, not the rules.
(1) two modes are simultaneously satisfied in the same player at the same time
(2) two modes can exist side by side in the design, such that differently-oriented players may play together
Edwards admits to being skeptical of both, but one clue to that skepticism may be found in his preference for narrativist games. I explored this before and it makes heavy use of Edwards’ essay, System Does Matter", but I’m going to rehash the basic points here.
Narrativist games explore a topic and usually present an opinion on that topic through their rules. Any change to the rules results in a change to the opinion, or completely messes it up. To make matters worse, most narrativist games take a rules-light approach, meaning that changes would likely be far more drastic. This is not exchanging a +1 for a +2 in a task resolution system. Instead, narrativist games tend to be shaped by concepts like scenes and conflict resolution systems that ask “why,” instead of “how.” If you're changing anything, it has to be a big change. Furthermore, narrativist games' rules tend to produce meaning by their interactions.
I’m going to explore hybridity through Joshua A. Newman’s Shock: Social Science Fiction. Shock attempts to simulate the genre of social science fiction, but that genre always revolves around a premise. That premise qualifies it as an early narrativist game. I’ve written a lot about Shock before because I admire its originality in terms of its rules, and my hate for how it handles story.
Newman claims that it uses conflict resolution, but I would argue that it’s a hybrid form of task and conflict resolution. Conflict resolution normally has two forces going against one another, and so you always have a story to tell. Shock requires that each characters’ action have a different goal. It is possible for both actions to fail, leaving the storyteller without an obvious story to tell.
Nonetheless, every challenge is shaped by the issue made up at the start of the game, and the character’s approaches to that issue. If the rules are followed to the letter and in their implications, it definitely asks, “why.”
Despite being difficult to play and not having rules to resolve things at the story level, Shock was a big hit with The Forge crowd, including many non-designers. The game doesn’t have to be ideologically perfect in order to be fun. The rules don’t have to be perfect, either. It only matters that they’re good enough, and the players will fill in the rest.
This is where story games have an advantage over other types of games. Because there’s no way to create rules for everything that a player could imagine. Players accept a certain degree of hand-waviness because it's the story that they're interested in, not the rules.