Style Mixing

[Epoch]

Sorry, but a bit of opening preamble to get you to where I am, here.

I'm a proponent of non-pure-style gaming -- I think that the best gaming experiences come when you don't try to epitomize any of the various threefold ideals, but instead rest comfortably in the middle.  Because of that, I've devoted a fair amount of time to thinking about Ron's contention that, if you get to enough of a fine-grained view, the various styles of GNS are atomic.

Now, I've also been following the recent talk about Simulationism, and was struck by an exchange between, I believe, Mytholder and Raven, in which they discussed the possibility of genre-based simulations.

I think that what Raven was talking about -- wanting to play a character immersively who is set in a (for example) pulp detective novel -- may be an example of an honest-to-god mixed play style, between Narrativism and Simulationism.  That is, I think that the goal, as much as I understand it, is to simulate a character in a story, without sacrificing either.

Now, of course, that may not be possible.  Any thoughts?

[jburneko]

On 2001-06-18 18:10, Epoch wrote:

Now, I've also been following the recent talk about Simulationism, and was struck by an exchange between, I believe, Mytholder and Raven, in which they discussed the possibility of genre-based simulations.

Ah Ha!  Now we come across something that is at the heart of my own gaming philosophy.  I'm a STRONG proponent of Genre Emulation.  I use the world Emulation instead of Simulation because they mean two slightly different things.

To Simulate something means you break something down into it's core components and you recreate those core components acurately.  If all those core components work correctly you should get behavior similar to whatever you're trying to simulate.

The core idea here being 'if all those core components work correctly.'  I consider players to be core components.  If your players aren't in tune with your simulation or do their own thing the simulation breaks down and will fail.

Emulation on the other hand means that you take something and impose new rules on top of old behavior to get something else.  You can run a macintosh emulator on a PC.  The PC is not behaving any differently then it was before.  It's just following a new set of rules that make it look like a MacIntosh.

This is what a well designed rule set will do.  You can take your most hard-core munchkin power-gamer and have them play this one game the way they ALWAYS play and you'll still get the behavior of whatever genre your game is emulating.  In otherwords if you're playing by the rules you will get a game in the style of the genre independent of what the players actually do.

7th Sea, does this perfectly.  Take for example a hard core power-gamer who only cares about winning and not one wit about anything else.  The character creation system will prevent him from building an overwhelming power-house.  The Swordman School rules will force him to 'Parry', 'Riposte', 'Lunge' so to speak if he wants to win and thus act like a swashbuckler.  The Narrativist in the group will be earning far more drama die than the power-gamer and thus the power-game will have to become a better roleplayer in order to keep up and gain the drama die advantage.

What I'm saying is that I'm very big into having the genre built DIRECTLY into the mechanics.  So that even with the laziest unimaginative, 'I swing my sword' group, you still get behavior consistent with the genre the game was trying to emulate.

Jesse

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-06-18 18:10, Epoch wrote:
I think that what Raven was talking about -- wanting to play a character immersively who is set in a (for example) pulp detective novel -- may be an example of an honest-to-god mixed play style, between Narrativism and Simulationism.  That is, I think that the goal, as much as I understand it, is to simulate a character in a story, without sacrificing either.

Now, of course, that may not be possible.  Any thoughts?

Without EVER sacrificing either?  I'd say that's not possible, not ongoingly, unless the "rules" of your simulation line up exactly 100% with the "rules" of story in your genre (I'm ignoring the "collaborationst" priority of GNS N-ist at the moment).  You can probably get close to that, but I dount you'd get all the way there.

Probably just as good is if about half the time there's a conflict between the simulation and the narrative you pick pick the resolution that favors the narrative, and the other half you pick a resolution that favors the genre-sim.

(I've got an example here, and it may lead me to being unable to ignore the collaborationist issue . . . pardon me as I think while typing).

So, we've got our hard-boiled detetctive (call him Max) on his was to a fancy social event, none too comfortable in his rented tux.  On the way, he's walking through Big Louie's territory, and it would really fit the genre if a couple of the local "boys" were to corner him to "teach him a lesson about messin' wid the boss".  Now, I'm going to assert that it's "better" for the story if Max makes it to the dinner party unscathed - you could say it's a perfectly good story (and within genre-sim) for him to show up late and well beaten-on, but let's say (due to previous collaboration between player and GM, if that's what it takes) that story concerns say no.  But the genre-sim of the game says "if you're in a Mob Bosses' home turf, roll against your current Conspicuousness to see if the locals notice you."  What do you honor - the sim or the story?

If you frequently pick story more than sim, maybe you'd be better off thinking about things from a Narrativist perspective and make it policy (either formal rule change or by-agreement-as-needed mods) that the Conspicuousness rules are secondary to story.  Or that the GM just says "no, you get a cab - you're too smart to walk through Big Louie's territory dressed like that."

If you frequently say "dammit, he just couldn't walk through that territory in tux without getting noticed", and "I can't  let him change his mind - he said he's walking through Big Louie's territory, that's what's happening" . . . go ahead and embrace the Sim aspects.

Seems entirely possible that you could choose pretty evenly each time this kind of thing comes up, and then you've got your "mixed model" game.  The primacy of Genre in this case might even make it less disorienting to flip between Narrative and Simulative concerns.

hmm . . . if Narrativism is about asking "does this serve the goal of creating a good story in a collabaritive manner?", could we make this about asking " . . . creating a good DETECTIVE story in  . . . ?"

Man, whenever I think I understand this stuff, I go and confuse myself.  Make of my ramblings what you will - bottom line is, give it a try and see how it works.

Gordon C. Landis

[greyorm]

That is, I think that the goal, as much as I understand it, is to simulate a character in a story

Exactly, the goal here is to Simulate, doesn't matter what the context of the simulation is (in this case a story), because the goal isn't to *create the story, it is to see what the story is like.

(Again the evil mass-connotations of "story" rear its ugly head)

Basically, simulating a story doesn't mean you are playing Narratively JUST because you're using the word "story" in the description of your game.  It most definitely isn't a case of two styles being used at once.

Man, I hope that was clear enough to understand...I desperately need to find a new word to try and convey this.

I personally do not believe the that mixed styles leads to better gaming...mostly because all of my experiences have proven otherwise.
I've tried the mixed-style approach myself, and for what it is worth, it left my players confused and disgruntled about the whole experience, "Should I be trying to win?" "Should I be trying to 'stay real'?" "Should I try to tell my guy's story?"
They couldn't tell, heck, I couldn't tell.

And honestly, who can blame them?
If you start making decisions about when a certain goal applies when, your players, not being mind-readers, will be one step behind constantly...and these decisions will be arbitrary.
You can't seperate out the mechanics from the game itself, so applying, say, Simulation only to dice-rolls and saying Narrative focus occurs at other times will ultimately result in conflicts when you decide that a situation requires Simulation and THEY decide it requires Narration.

Do story concerns count here, so should I rush on in?  Does winning count, so should I maximize my roll with tactics or not venture into the crypt to avoid losing?  Should I do what my character would do in this situation?  What does the GM/other players want from me?!

Probably just as good is if about half the time there's a conflict between the simulation and the narrative you pick pick the resolution that favors the narrative, and the other half you pick a resolution that favors the genre-sim.

Gordon, it is that sort of thing which I am speaking of...flip-flopping.  Which instances do you choose one, which do you choose the other?  How can you decide to do so in a manner that the others in your group will agree is fair and consistent?
More often than not, you'll be accused of NPC favoritism or railroading...as I said, I played in a game like this: Half the time it was one, half the time it was the other; all of the time it was frustrating.

So ultimately I don't believe it's possible, or rather, that running a GOOD game is possible when you try to strive for more than one of the goals in a single game.

_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/">http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-06-18 21:18 ]

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-06-18 21:13, greyorm wrote:
I've tried the mixed-style approach myself, and for what it is worth, it left my players confused and disgruntled about the whole experience, "Should I be trying to win?" "Should I be trying to 'stay real'?" "Should I try to tell my guy's story?"
They couldn't tell, heck, I couldn't tell.

The key question is, how much does this flip-flopping and uncertainty about "should I win/simulate/storytell" bother you?  In theory, I can see folks saying it doesn't bother 'em at all.

In practice, I think most people I've played with are bothered by such things in at least a minor way (I'm reminded of my game yesterday, but that's a different thread that perhaps I should start soon over in Actual Play . . .)  But like I said, maybe something like a Genre that sits as an equal (or even higher?) "should" would help with that.

Gordon C. Landis

[Epoch]

Okay, first off, lemme apologize, because my original message was rushed and not well thought out.

I'm also not sure if it's actually on to something, but let me rephrase it and see if it strikes more of a chord with people:

So, here I am as the guy playing Max, the Hard Boiled Detective.  I'm this hypothetical Sim/Narrativist mix.  I want, don't get me wrong, to have this game end up with a good story.  I want to participate in creating it, albeit probably from Actor stance, or, at most, Author.

I've created a personality for Max, the Hard Boiled Detective, and I'm not willing to sacrifice that personality for any concerns (that's the Simulationist aspect of my play), and probably also not Max's personal capabilities.  But I don't have any other Simulationist concerns -- I'm expecting the GM to create, and, indeed, I will help create, a world that conforms to dramatic necessity, not to in-world laws.  That's the Narrativist concern.

So, to partially answer my own question, in-game decisions are atomic for me -- if a question involves Max's person, then I react Simulationistly.  If a question doesn't, I react Narrativistly.  At that level of detail, the model holds.  However, describing me is not easy.

I reject calling such a person either a Narrativist or a Simulationist, because the standard acid test of "which one do you go with more" or "which is your highest concern" both fail to express the complexity of the situation.  This has larger implications, I think, than mere labelling concerns, as our hypothetical player will want to facilitate his play style with, I think, techniques distinct from or mixed from the Simulationist and Narrativist camp.

Corrollary:  Do players such as this actually exist?  I am not, in real life, such a player, though I do think that this comes closer to my own style of play than other models I've seen advanced here.

[Valamir]

Interesting.  I think players such as that do indeed exist...and now that you've pointed it out for me to ponder, they are (in my experience) fairly common.  Now, as to where this stands in the model, I don't know.  Since the model seems primarily intended to categorize the games, and only attempts to categorize players in order to match them to appropriate games...it may not be material to precisely categorize this type of play...merely to recognize it and use that information in the game selection question.

But I will say that I've seen this "Max" style of play quite frequently, especially in AD&D games.  In those sessions the players were clearly not simulationist.  They expected the torch to blow out just as the crypt starts to get creepy, and other such events that have been described above as being anathema to simulationists.  They didn't mind "story" concerns encroaching on the game world.

But they'd defend the sanctity of their characters with vigor.  In other words they had a very "My Guy" mentality.  The DM was free to screw around with the world as much as he liked, even when it didn't make much sense...but he'd better not dare to try and manipulate "my" character.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Epoch, in regard to your Max example, it seems very clear to me that we are talking only about Narrativism.

All the way back to my first posts on GO, I've been distinguishing between:

1) Simulationism as a goal
2) Plausibility & consistency as an internal component of good Narrativism

I don't think these are the same thing at all. Therefore wanting to maintain the integrity of a character concept, specifically for the purposes of generating a good story, is not Simulationist.

My apologies if I'm missing any point or purpose of your post, or not addressing the main point at hand, but this one point just jumped at me.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

OK, now I'm ready actually to address the issue of the post.

You ARE describing a hybrid of "play habits." The player is interested in and would like to see a good story get going, but is protective of "my guy" in the usual GM-world, player-PC fashion. I am very familiar with this style of play.

I'm not sure how to say this without being perceived as something-or-other, but bluntly, I don't see people ENJOY themselves consistently using this style of play. Or, even if they have fun being with their friends, the role-playing itself rarely seems to pan out for them.

In my experience, here's what happens - they change into either (1) a classic Simulationist, Call of Cthulhu style, in which the GM or GM+book takes the whole story into his hands; or (2) a Narrativist who keeps a strong eye on Balance of Power issues. Both of these are well and good.

(3) Can a person "hover" in the state you describe forever? Sure. Speaking again from experience, I have seen lots of players do this - and again, I perceive low levels of satisfaction. They either want story so much that their inability to contribute to it as an Author is maddening, or they want safety from railroading, for instance, so much that they "turn turtle" in the way I described in another post. The former tend to stop role-playing; the latter tend to continue, sporadically.

Apologies if this post stepped on anyone's feelings.

Best,
Ron

[Epoch]

Valamir wrote:

Since the model seems primarily intended to categorize the games, and only attempts to categorize players in order to match them to appropriate games...it may not be material to precisely categorize this type of play...merely to recognize it and use that information in the game selection question.

I certainly agree that the model doesn't need to categorize this style of play into a top-level goal.  However, I'm increasingly realizing that GNS depends on being able to categorize people and games entirely in order to be useful.  It's explicitely a game design tool, right?  That means that, implicitely, you have to nail down the player's play style completely at design time in order to design mechanics to appeal to that player.

That means that you have to identify all the areas in which a player will want to behave, say, as a Sim vs as a Narrativist before they begin to play, to appropriately reflect that in the mechanics.

Thus far, it appears that that has de facto meant that the GNS model only truly supports pure-style or nearly pure-style players, despite verbage in the FAQ that suggests a more loose categorization.  However, I'm not convinced that, at least in the case of my Max example, it must.  If a player's style of play is truly deterministic but not pure-style at design time, it should be possible to cater the mechanics towards him.

Ron Edwards wrote:

Epoch, in regard to your Max example, it seems very clear to me that we are talking only about Narrativism.

All the way back to my first posts on GO, I've been distinguishing between:

1) Simulationism as a goal
2) Plausibility & consistency as an internal component of good Narrativism

Whereas my Max example is character exploration within a story as a goal.  I'd suggest that if this is pure-style play (and, obviously, I'm less than convinced that it is), it's Simulationism, not Narrativism.  That is, to a certain extent, the story is a means to an end.

If this were mere character exploration within a genre, I think that you'd have no trouble categorizing it as Simulationism (though I am less certain).  You pin down Feng Shui as a Simulationist game, yes?  It has tools for reinforcing the genre, but not for creating a story.  Now, Max's player goes one further.  He states that he's not interested in exploring a hard-boiled detective merely against the trappings of a pulp universe, he wants to be placed in an actual story, and to have that story play as a story would, and is willing to help make that story play as a story should, in order to explore his character.

The goal, then, is, I think, the explorative dialect of Simulationism (or perhaps, as Supplanter has suggested, Simulationis is a dialect of Exploration -- whatever).  But the methods used, and I think that GNS is more useful when it looks at methods and not goals, are Narrativist, except as they relate to Max's own actions.

I'm not sure how to say this without being perceived as something-or-other, but bluntly, I don't see people ENJOY themselves consistently using this style of play. Or, even if they have fun being with their friends, the role-playing itself rarely seems to pan out for them.

"Arrogant" is what you're in danger of being perceived as.  :razz:

That said, I'm not sure enough of my characterization of Max's hypothetical player to challenge your assertion -- maybe others will, or maybe you're wholly right, and people like Max's player are generally unhappy.

However, I feel that if we begin to identify styles of play which are fundamentally unresolvable into a single corner of the triangle, but identifiable and distinct, someone will eventually come up with one that he or she, at least, enjoys playing in.

I'm going to meditate further on my own style of play and see whether I can't put it into words.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Now, Max's player goes one further.  He states that he's not interested in exploring a hard-boiled detective merely against the trappings of a pulp universe, he wants to be placed in an actual story, and to have that story play as a story would, and is willing to help make that story play as a story should, in order to explore his character.

I think I'm repeating myself here, but - what happens when his desire to explore/simulate his character come into conflict with the needs of a good story?  Which do you choose to honor?  If the choices tend strongly towards one side or the other, you've probably got a dialect of that style, and would be best served my mechanics and attitudes suited for it.  If you're really mostly even with the choices . . . GNS may not be able to tell you much besides "forget about these mostly Gamist things, but you're on your own sorting out the Sim and the Story."  Or maybe it can, just not as substantially as it helps a more "pure" player.

BTW - thanks, everyone, for excellent points about "purity"  and identifying styles of play here.

Gordon C. Landis

[Epoch]

Glandis writes:

I think I'm repeating myself here, but - what happens when his desire to explore/simulate his character come into conflict with the needs of a good story?

You are repeating yourself, but that's okay, I'll repeat/rephrase myself for the answer, and we'll maintain parity.

The situation I postulate is that Max's player acts simulatively when things regard Max's internal character, and narrativist with respect to everything else.

I think that if you ask Max's players what happens when his priorities conflict, he'd look at you strange.  He doesn't have any Narrativist priorities when it comes to playing his character, and he doesn't have any Simulationist priorities when it comes to anything outside Max's skin.

I don't think it's profitable to call such an individual a narrativist or a simulationist, because, even when the definition of an Xist is not terribly strict, it implies a general uniformity ("in 75%+ of all decisions, Bob chooses the Narrativist course.")  That doesn't describe Max's player well.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey there,

My only concern with this phase of this thread is that we're dealing with complete hypotheticals, which are grading into assumptions = conclusions.

If we describe Max as you have done - then we get Max as you have defined him. He does "S" 100% for his PC, and "N" 100% for everything else. OK, so GNS thinking doesn't fit him well, because that's how he's defined. This would only be a problem for the theory if Max were a real person.

However, I'm having a hard time imagining Max, as he (or a functional version of him) certainly doesn't correspond to any behavior I've encountered in 20+ years of role-playing. My "real" Max - or the persons who seem most like him, in my experience - I discussed above. They are frustrated and conflicted, which supports the notion that N and S do not co-exist well at the boundary of character vs. non-character. Max-ness seems to be a pathology, rather than a mode.

Last point: I can think of lots of modes of play in which N and S do co-exist well, and perhaps the most obvious is genre-heavy play. This is probably why I stuck with Champions for so long in the 80s, with heavy tweaking to reduce the Gamist opportunities. If you spend a lot of time defining what SORT of comic book you're creating, then both Narrativist and Simulationist priorities can be met TO SOME EXTENT during play. It broke down over time, as the  illusionist/orchestral model tends to do, but it did function well in many instances.

Best,
Ron

[Epoch]

Yah, I agree that this is too far into the hypotheticals.  I think it has been valuable, and hopefully I'll be able to articulate some of the value I got from this thread in a new one that's grounded in my own play style -- but not right at this moment.

[Gordon C. Landis]

This bit from Ron (in some form) may be FAQ-worthy . . . and I don't say that just because I had a similar thought elsewhere in the thread :smile:  Given the attention Genre gets in RPG discussions, I think this is a big realization.

Last point: I can think of lots of modes of play in which N and S do co-exist well, and perhaps the most obvious is genre-heavy play. This is probably why I stuck with Champions for so long in the 80s, with heavy tweaking to reduce the Gamist opportunities. If you spend a lot of time defining what SORT of comic book you're creating, then both Narrativist and Simulationist priorities can be met TO SOME EXTENT during play. It broke down over time, as the  illusionist/orchestral model tends to do, but it did function well in many instances.

Gordon C. Landis