Does internalization characterize simulationism?

[RDU Neil]

I agree with both of you that the other player (the samurai player in this case) may or may not be addressing premise, but I can't help that.  I can't force them to a certain CA.  I can only do what I can do to enhance the CA I want.  I desire Nar in this case, and if, over time, the player gravitates to these "nuggets" and finds satisfaction in "mindful choice" then great... but all I can do from my point is give him that option.

Ok, it's not ALL I can do, but it's all I can do without stepping OOC and getting into metagame discussions where I explain exactly what I'm hoping with be addressed by any one scene.  That is something I'm not prepared to do... it's a technique I'm not comfortable with.

So I will play Nar from my point of view, and it may be a less efficient form of Nar play, and I may be frustrated at times... but hell, that's life.  Nothing is perfect.  

In the end, I just want to clarify that Nar play doesn't require Successful addressing of premise... but just the desire to address premise... at least from the point of me, the individual.  Would it be better, more fulfilling if every player addressed premise the same way, all the time?  Maybe... but it's unrealistic, and such an ideal shouldn't be the ONLY way to play Nar.

Or is that what GNS says?  My reading doesn't support such a "only like this" interpretation, and that's why these threads can be confusing.  Too many opinions can be contradictory in their interpretations.

[Caldis]

In the end, I just want to clarify that Nar play doesn't require Successful addressing of premise... but just the desire to address premise... at least from the point of me, the individual.  Would it be better, more fulfilling if every player addressed premise the same way, all the time?  Maybe... but it's unrealistic, and such an ideal shouldn't be the ONLY way to play Nar.

Right you are.  You cant force someone to address premise, what defines narrativism is that they are free to adress premise.  It sounds like you are providing that freedom, if you do that your game will have a narrativist feel provided that the players are interested in it.

Now what you have to realize is that some players may not value that style of play you are choosing.  They may tend to spend time exploring some piece of color you feel is irrelevant when you'd rather be moving on to the dramatic situations that address premise.  Or maybe they lose focus when you make a fight scene that is purely about the honor of the individuals involved and not a challenge to their combat skills.

When you see situations like that come up you may be seeing a different GNS preference in action.  At that point (or maybe it would have been better to do it up front) it might be worthwhile to have a discussion about what people want from the game.

[RDU Neil]

Caldis,
  I agree completely, and we definitely have "out of game" discussions about this to a very large extent.  I am now much more aware when I find myself switching CA in a game based on a spark of an idea... and we definitely break out of game if frustration is too great or communication is getting heated.

I just wanted to clarify some issues, because I felt a number of posts were contradictory.  i.e. the basic definition of Nar play seems to make sense, but very clearly individuals with their own idea of "the RIGHT way to play Nar" tend to couch things as "Nar only if you do it THIS way" which confuses me.  (I don't think these opinions are intended this way, it's just the nature of forums, so I'm just nitpicking for my own clarification.)

[Alan]

Hi Neil,

It isn't about the right way to do narrativist play.  If you're player put addressing premise ahead of other concerns, then he would be playing narrativist.  That's the _definition_, not the prescripton.  If he tends to miss or avoid addressing premise, then he's not playing narrativist.

Now _you_ may want him to address premise, while he isn't.  This is called incoherance - the  classic disjunction of GNS preferences, which as Ron observes, causes much frustration among players.

If you want to resolve your frustration, you might consider two levels of the game you're playing.

The following may appear to be "the right way to play narrativist" but in fact, it's the "right way to have coherent play" - gamist, simulationist, or narrativist.  You just have to choose one.

1) At the level of social contract: make sure all your players want to play a particular way and that they understand that's what's going on.

2) At the level of Technique: focus rewards on the GNS aspect you want to see.  So for narrativist play, instead of, for example, giving XP for killing monsters, give XP when the Samurai addresses premise.

These two elements are key to keeping players focused on a particular GNS prefence.  Some may discover they like whichever it is, others may not.

[M. J. Young]

I think Walt really nailed it. There's good reason to think that Neil is playing to a narrativist preference with high immersion, and the others are not on the same page, but he just accepts that. A lot of referees get enjoyment from having others enjoy the game.

2) At the level of Technique: focus rewards on the GNS aspect you want to see.  So for narrativist play, instead of, for example, giving XP for killing monsters, give XP when the Samurai addresses premise.

I'm a stickler on this point. A coherent reward system has two prongs:[list=1][*]What conduct is rewarded.[*]How the reward is used.[/list:o]If you give XP for addressing premise which makes you better able to kill monsters, then you are still promoting gamist play--you're just making tackling questions part of the challenge.

--M. J. Young

[RDU Neil]

I think Walt really nailed it. There's good reason to think that Neil is playing to a narrativist preference with high immersion, and the others are not on the same page, but he just accepts that. A lot of referees get enjoyment from having others enjoy the game.

Sometimes not on the same page, sometimes they are right with me.  I'd say they just aren't as narrativist bent as I am, maybe out of habit.  Old school gaming, the story is the GMs realm, players not as comfortable taking control... yet.  So, yeah, because some of 'em don't really care all that much about narrativist as a priority, so I give 'em what they want... combat, sim character... whatever.  They have fun, that's 90% of the satisfaction, right there.

This is really about me, here... not them.  As a group, we aren't at the place where we are going to be discussing "How can we make our play more narrativist"... but I'm looking to see what I can do, within the limitations of the group, to get a little of what I want.