paul wrote:

I still maintain that preferred play style self-selects the game system people choose - and I think our two example so far illustrate that.

There are a few major problems with that notion.
a) Some people are using games that don't fit them. I've seen too many people struggle with D&D, simply because they didn't have any idea that other games existed.
b) The group as a whole has influence, as well as variation in mood. I'm currently GMing three systems, Alchemquest, Atlantis 2.0, and Titled, of which the first two are Fudge variants. They are all very different, and certain combination work with some groups and not others. Atlantis 2.0 has high combat resolution* for instance, because that and humor is what the group enjoys, Titled has extremely low resolution* everywhere.

*I'm thinking this term doesn't really exist as gamer slang yet. As such, it can be put wherever it needs to be, and I'm thinking it works.

paul wrote:

Jonathan - was "Rule" in your example intended to the the equivalent of GM Judgment in Knaight's example?

That's a yes and no. I meant it as a dependence between the rules and the GM authority and how much the GM would have to step in and make a "split decision" when the rules seem to be vague.

This also assumes I'm on the same page with the rest of you.

JonathanS223 wrote:

paul wrote:

Jonathan - was "Rule" in your example intended to the the equivalent of GM Judgment in Knaight's example?

That's a yes and no. I meant it as a dependence between the rules and the GM authority and how much the GM would have to step in and make a "split decision" when the rules seem to be vague.

This also assumes I'm on the same page with the rest of you.

So it was using my attribute list in its entirety. That's no fun, we need more options.

Knaight wrote:

a) Some people are using games that don't fit them. I've seen too many people struggle with D&D, simply because they didn't have any idea that other games existed.

Okay. True. Sad for them, but true. I seriously forget that in the year 2011 there are still a lot of people with out Internet access (or even with Internet access who just don't know even the basic skill at research and searching for information). My bad.

With regard to people seeking variety and a group playing different games at different times to suit tastes, I still hold that a game system generally embodies a given play style. When a group elects to play game A, they are in fact electing to play style A as well. The next day they may elect to play game system B and switch to play style B. I'm not saying that situations don't occur where the game system, players, and GM are all going for play style A and 1 player is trying their hardest to play in play style B. I have managed such situations when i have run convention games on more than one occasion. It is generally clear to most people that B either is at the wrong table or is intentionally trying to be disruptive to others enjoyment. In other words, such situations generally are undesirable and should not occur. The best games come from the group being in alignment on a general style of game and play - "We all want a dungeon crawl tonight. Let's play Munchkin."

Oh, I have to add that "Resolution" as an attribute for game system is really really growing on me. I have come full circle to now consider it a "must have".

JonathanS223 wrote:

paul wrote:

Jonathan - was "Rule" in your example intended to the the equivalent of GM Judgment in Knaight's example?

That's a yes and no. I meant it as a dependence between the rules and the GM authority and how much the GM would have to step in and make a "split decision" when the rules seem to be vague.

This also assumes I'm on the same page with the rest of you.

Thanks for the clarification and, yes, you are on the same page. As Knaight said though, we need some other attribute suggestions to kick around.

Okay, you have enough in this forum that I am starting to take offline notes.   I guess that means you have really caught my attention (or at least this is more interesting than doing more snow shoveling).  I have been thinking about the third leg of your original question for which I have more experience than as a game designer or GM.  So, here is some further brainstormimg of thoughts to be mixed in or discarded for what it's worth.

There are three elements of RPG (or gaming generally) that you have sought to characterize: (1) the game system (structure, rules), (2) the player(s), and (3) the coordinator (GM, focus, facilitator, referee, "decision maker").  You offered the hypothesis that players will find the games and GMs which match their styles/preferences and, I think, you acknowledged the truth that some players are such games-junkies that they will play almost anything if it is the only thing going (albeit perhaps half-heartedly, uncooperatively, and/or poorly). 

Other than Knaight's reference to the GNS (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulatist) model, we largely have ignored the players' motivations and styles.  Personally, I have my days when I want "to beat something," others when I want "to hear (create!) a good story," and probably no fewer when "I wonder what it would be like to ...".   Roughly, that mood I'm in will be the first cut on what gaming activity I will chose (or I will torque my mood to accompany what is available (or not "play")).  In responding the first time, I offered the term Goal Objective as my interpretation of your initial "hack/slash"<--> "storytelling" axis.  GNS model suggests they are largely exclusive of each other, but I would start with a 3-D space (Terrible<-->Superb Goal Achievement (win), T<-->S Narration (story), T<-->S Simulation (recreate)) to describe a game's Goal Objective if I was attempting to guide a player to a game he might enjoy (at the moment).  A game may (will) not be optimal for all three goal objectives, but most have some potential for all and can emphasize different aspects depending on how the GM and players choose to play them (today, routinely).  I have played Civilization to see how fast I can win and again to see if I can win without ever attacking an opponent; both very gamist (as most computerized GM games are), but the latter is much more "I wonder if" simulatist (and a better story when I consider the new strategies (to this session) I used to occupy territory with zones of control to provoke opponents to attack me (so I was merely counter-attacking in the "history according to me")).

In most ways, I see two components to a Game particularly highlighted in RPG offerings and the axes we have discussed so far.  The first is the Procedures (Rules Text and GM functions) and the second is the Actors (pieces, cards, characters).   We have spent less time to discussing the Subject Matter (setting, genre) that might also attract some players and not interest others.  The Universality axis describes the Game (flexibility in covering multiple settings), but the player's immediate selection/preference is a "game session" which would only have a single Subject Matter.  The GM may be more concerned whether a Game has the Universality to handle her thoughts about a setting than the player, but the player still needs to make an investment in "learning the Game" that a GM choses, so a player might prefer to learn "one system to cover the most options".   Perhaps that translates to a player axis of Learning from Terrible adversion-ability to learn new/complex rule sets to Superb eagerness-ability to do so.

So, what the Player must Learn is defined by the rules weight and precision/control aspects Knaight proposed that I am thinking pair up as System Weight &  Character Weight and Resolution & GM Reliance.  But the Character Weight is not synonymous with the Character Creation; the former is the product (Light<-->Heavy) while the latter is the process (Objective<-->Subjective).  I think my pairing of Knaight's four factors follows the same Product (weights) and Process (resolution, reliance) split.

So, I have worked myself into a digression from the original intent of the forum (linearly defined set of factors using Fudge scale adjectives).  Who is surprised?   Maybe I can get back, but let's go on a field trip to explore the same scene from a different angle.

Extending your original question to delineate three sources of game definition would say that a Game arises from the varying degrees of input from the Designer (written rules), the GM, and the Player.  If there are also three elements to be defined (Procedures, Actors, and Actions), we might get at style/preference based selection (by GMs and by Players) of a Game from the degree to which these three sources create the three elements.  At one end, we find Games like boardgames in which the Procedures, Actors, and Actions (but not the choices of Actions which is the "playing" of the Game) are all completely defined by the Design.  And the other end is role-playing Cowboys and Indians on the playground where everything is argued out by the Players.  A very Subjective RPG might define much of the Procedures in the Design while leaving the definition of the Actors (characters) and their potential Actions to the division between GM and Player; a more Objective RPG has greater involvement by the Designer and/or GM establishing objective limits.

So, now I have three 3-D spaces: (1) Procedure construction, (2) Character creation, and (3) Action definition by involvement of Designer, GM, and Player.   If I constrain the choices for the involvement levels to require that the sum of the levels remain constant, they are not cube shaped.  I.e. an equal participation Game (for one element) has D-Fair, G-Fair, and P-Fair, so if there is more Designer involvement, either the GM and/or the Player level needs to drop.

These three factors describe the Process (Character creation, GM Reliance, maybe Designer contribution to Resolution) by which the Game is defined but not the complexity (Weight) of the Product (in Procedure, Character, and Action?).  It also does not address Universality nor GNS motiviation.

Enough fuel for the fire for now.