[split] Imbedded in Sim play is...

[Ben Lehman]

split from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7819

I plan to spend a fair amount of time talking about how play/design in this category is extremely vulnerable to Narrativist powergaming (which is basically railroading by a non-GM).

When that powergaming, and who's "best" at it, becomes the point of play, then the Story Now priority shifts to Step On Up, which is to say a full GNS-Drift to Gamist play, of the hard core variety.

Which is why much Amber play and LARPing tends to look a bit Narrativist-y at first, but is actually solidly Gamist.

BL>  I have no idea if this is what Ron is getting at in this post, but this made me think about my experience with LARPs and Amber and some interesting ideas therein.

The classic Vampire LARP is, despite what anyone else will tell you about story development, essentially a simulationist game.  However, it is a simulation of a highly competitive situation (immortals jockeying for power) and, as such, often plays out on a Gamist level.  In fact, it can be played in a way that is satisfying both to Simulationists and Gamists.  I think that balancing the out-of-game Sim with the in-game Game is one of the fundamental challenges of long-term PvP LARP GMing (the other challenges have to do with the nature of the OOG LARP social scene and how it effects gameplay, but that's a different post for a different time.)

Amber is much the same way.  It is a simulationist game about all-powerful entities, but the simulation includes those beings competing with each other, and as such it contains many gamist elements.

Those two examples are a Gamist competition imbedded in a Simulationist game.  One could also imagine a Simulationist game which contained a powerful character fascinated by the hard decisions of others, essentially embedding Narrativism in Simulationism.

Is this a useful concept?  Is it worth talking about?  Are these hybrids?

yrs--
--Ben


P.S.  I've been offline for a while, and I will most likely continue to be offline for a while, because my hole-in-the-wall grad student apartment has no internet access.  Advance apologies for slow replies.

[W. Don]

Hi Ben,

I've yet to really grok all of GNS and the various bits of hellfire around here, but it seems to me that in a:

Simulationist game which contained a powerful character fascinated by the hard decisions of others, essentially embedding Narrativism in Simulationism.

One of these two things will happen:

(a) The "poweful character fascinated by the decisions" becomes a mechanic by which the "hard decisions of others" gets played out Nar style. That is the point of play isn't the powerful character, it's the hard decisions. The powerful character is a viewing medium or stage.

(b) It's all about the "powerful character" and how realistic his fascination of the hard decisions can become. The point if play is realistic fascination, and the hard decisions are only Color or Situation, or even a mechanic for that.

Something makes me a bit wary about the use of the word "imbedded". What does it mean exactly? Is it a game-within-a-game deal? Or maybe one game masquerading as another?

- W.

[Ben Lehman]

Simulationist game which contained a powerful character fascinated by the hard decisions of others, essentially embedding Narrativism in Simulationism.

One of these two things will happen:

(a) The "poweful character fascinated by the decisions" becomes a mechanic by which the "hard decisions of others" gets played out Nar style. That is the point of play isn't the powerful character, it's the hard decisions. The powerful character is a viewing medium or stage.

BL>  This is what I'm talking about.  Actually, I was abstracting a particular instance of actual vampire LARP play in which one player was a very powerful Malkavian (insane vampires, for the rest of you) named Harlequin who was deeply obsessed with theatrics, theatre, and storylines, and believed it was his purposes to remake the world as a dramatic story, with himself (magically disguised) in various bit parts or even as a "director."

Very cool character.  Also, very appropriate.  And a way for players to scratch their Narr itch in a fundamentally Sim setting.

Something makes me a bit wary about the use of the word "imbedded". What does it mean exactly? Is it a game-within-a-game deal? Or maybe one game masquerading as another?

BL>  I have no idea, although I don't think that it is masquerading (honestly, most games are pretty up front about this).  I'm in the "describing phenomenon" stage, not coining theoretical terms stage.

But I think that this style of play happens a lot, and isn't widely discussed here, as most of the Forge designers favor explicit, OOG, mechanical solutions.

yrs--
--Ben

[W. Don]

Hi again Ben,

This is what I'm talking about. Actually, I was abstracting a particular instance of actual vampire LARP play in which one player was a very powerful Malkavian (insane vampires, for the rest of you) named Harlequin who was deeply obsessed with theatrics, theatre, and storylines, and believed it was his purposes to remake the world as a dramatic story, with himself (magically disguised) in various bit parts or even as a "director."

I dig. A request for clarification though: The way I understand it is that the other players were playing the characters involved in the hard decisions. If that was the case, then maybe the Malkavian was playing Sim, while the others were playing Nar or thereabouts (with the Malkavian Sim player as the GM).

Meaning there were two games happening simultaneously and it wasn't really one game. Maybe it was two different games running side-by-side -- with one game using the input from the other but two separate games nonetheless. Then again, I hope I'm not muddling things here.

All of this is seems to be a really interesting experiment by the way (reminds me of John Tynes' Powekill).

- W.

[gentrification]

If, in the Vampire LARP, players are free to explore the situation of being powerful, power-jockeying immortals to whatever degree and in whatever aspect they like -- up to and including not participating in the politics (because your character is aloof, or a loner, or whatever), then exploration is being prioritized and you're supporting Sim goals. On the other hand, you could have a game wherein players who do not make an effort to compete with the rest of the group actually find themselves "edged out" -- their character is rendered ineffective, and their ability to participate and enjoy the game is functionally curtailed. You could say that what you are doing is "simulating" a highly gamist situation, but if you have to make gamist decisions (at the expense of any other kind) in order to properly experience the game, then for all practical purposes the game is supporting gamist goals.

It doesn't seem to me like you can claim Exploration is supported in a meaningful way, if it's only supported insofar as you can "explore" how to satisfy Gamist or Narrative goals. A perfect simulation of a Gamist game does not seem meaningfully different, to me, than a Gamist game.

[W. Don]

Hi Michael:

It doesn't seem to me like you can claim Exploration is supported in a meaningful way, if it's only supported insofar as you can "explore" how to satisfy Gamist or Narrative goals. A perfect simulation of a Gamist game does not seem meaningfully different, to me, than a Gamist game.

I completely agree. Which is why it seems more likely to me that in Ben's LARP example there's two different games happening, each with it's own primary GNS goal and each with its own identifiable set of mechanics. Each set of mechanics telling where, among other things, each game is to get its input from. Within each of the two separate games, the mechanics for that particular game tell what kind of play is expected of each set of players -- one kind of play for the Sim guy, another kind for the "hard choices" Nar group.

Edited to add: If there are two different games happening, then maybe one is actually Setting (and Color?) for the other and vice-versa.

- W.

[contracycle]

Edited to add: If there are two different games happening, then maybe one is actually Setting (and Color?) for the other and vice-versa.

Interesting way of looking at it.  Yes, makes a kinda sense to me, might also allow some diagnostic insight into incoherence.  there are multiple games but one of them is REALLY intended to be The Game that is played - but the other 'games' are themselves functional and attractive to some and hence players engage with them.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Apologies for the empty post, but I'm writing only to say that this is a very interesting discussion, and I'm learning a lot from it. Carry on!

Best,
Ron

[Tony Irwin]

Edited to add: If there are two different games happening, then maybe one is actually Setting (and Color?) for the other and vice-versa.

Interesting way of looking at it.  Yes, makes a kinda sense to me, might also allow some diagnostic insight into incoherence.  there are multiple games but one of them is REALLY intended to be The Game that is played - but the other 'games' are themselves functional and attractive to some and hence players engage with them.

That makes a lot of sense to me guys. I can point to personal experiences where when my group started drifting a game system, it wasn't with an acknowledged desire to add new or different elements to the game's system and its play. Rather it was justified in terms of bringing a sense of focus and completeness to a game that we perceived to already be present in the system. We experienced shock when we discovered other groups who perceived an entirely different game within the same system (and realised that what they saw was quite legitimate).

Many times we played two games concurrently in scenarios like you described. In political scenarios gamist players would step on up to outfox the GM's NPCs. They worked co-operatively with Sim players who were living the dream, immersed to the hilt in wily courtier personalities. Two different games, each one being played "right" according to the rules, each satisfying enough to keep us all playing.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

This seems to suggest a kind of "GNS neapolitan." Favoring either the chocolat, vanilla, or strawberry depending on preference yet it comes out of the same box.

[Ben Lehman]

This is what I'm talking about. Actually, I was abstracting a particular instance of actual vampire LARP play in which one player was a very powerful Malkavian (insane vampires, for the rest of you) named Harlequin who was deeply obsessed with theatrics, theatre, and storylines, and believed it was his purposes to remake the world as a dramatic story, with himself (magically disguised) in various bit parts or even as a "director."

I dig. A request for clarification though: The way I understand it is that the other players were playing the characters involved in the hard decisions. If that was the case, then maybe the Malkavian was playing Sim, while the others were playing Nar or thereabouts (with the Malkavian Sim player as the GM).

BL>  Absolutely correct.

Meaning there were two games happening simultaneously and it wasn't really one game.

BL>  Incorrect.  The players (nearly everyone in the LARP) who were influenced by the Malkavian were still part of the normal, everyday simmy LARP, and the competitive (one might say Gamist) events therein.  They were just also being harrassed and manipulated by this Elder into making difficult moral decisions, and many chose to do so in what might be considered narrativist ways.

Please note that the elder Malk is a PC, not an NPC.

Maybe it was two different games running side-by-side -- with one game using the input from the other but two separate games nonetheless. Then again, I hope I'm not muddling things here.

BL>  I don't think (see above) that this is actually two different games.  It is a game which plays in one mode which contains characters that, effectively, are playing in a different mode.

Game-within-a-game is probably the best term here.

All of this is seems to be a really interesting experiment by the way (reminds me of John Tynes' Powekill).

BL>  Powerkill is a game like this, yes (It is gamist in sim).  But I don't think that this is a highly experimental mode.  Political LARPs and Amber throne wars are played all the time.

--Ben

[W. Don]

Incorrect. The players (nearly everyone in the LARP) who were influenced by the Malkavian were still part of the normal, everyday simmy LARP, and the competitive (one might say Gamist) events therein. They were just also being harrassed and manipulated by this Elder into making difficult moral decisions, and many chose to do so in what might be considered narrativist ways.

Got it now. Thanks for clearing up the picture, Ben, and everyone else for chiming in too.

So in the Malkavian string puller example you've given: Yes, indeed it is one game. However, it really also could be one game promoting two GNS goals (as contracycle and the others have suggested) which might account for the game-within-a-game effect.

I'm not sure if this will help but maybe, as gentrification's post suggests:

If... players are free to explore the situation of being powerful, power-jockeying immortals to whatever degree and in whatever aspect they like -- up to and including not participating in the politics... then exploration is being prioritized and you're supporting Sim goals.

looking at the roles (specifically concerning author and directorial power, ie: who's got which  and to what degree) might give us more clues as to what's happening.

Perhaps the social contract allows what looks like an incoherent game to work by smoothing out and meshing well the author/director powers distributed throughout the group. It's either that or maybe the overarching Sim goal allows the Nar one to flourish by fleshing out the Premise.

Anyone got any ideas?

Apologies about being so open-ended. I wish I had more time right now to mull things over, but real life is screaming at me at the moment. Talk about being harrased by the Powers that Be. I'm going to go now and get all Narrativist for a while.

- W.

[Wormwood]

Ben,

To me this sounds just like unintentional (although in the case of the Malkavian, perhaps it is intentional) decision merging, a subtype of congruence.

Essentially the nature of these game is to confine most meaningful decisions so that there is no distinction between two or more modes. In the case of the Malkavian, the player is manipulating things so that there is no distinction between a narrativist and a simulationist in those game events. Likewise gamist and narrativist agendas can be merged in a competitive "sim" game, like standard vampire. Part of my original reason for bringing up this point dealt with a design of mine which appears to merge gamist and narrativist agendas (and in some cases sim as well) but I still need to test that hypothesis. The key disadvantage most people see to decision merging is that you are limiting player choices, which seems a rather silly complaint, after all why use rules that restrict your options in play (as all RPGs do) if you don't want your player choices to be limited.

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel

P.S. - oh, and you can easily describe sub-games to your hearts content, but this doesn't make the entire game no longer a game, nor does it make these subgames more "atomic".

[W. Don]

To me this sounds just like unintentional (although in the case of the Malkavian, perhaps it is intentional) decision merging, a subtype of congruence.

Essentially the nature of these game is to confine most meaningful decisions so that there is no distinction between two or more modes. In the case of the Malkavian, the player is manipulating things so that there is no distinction between a narrativist and a simulationist in those game events.

Hi Mendel,

We'll hear from Ben later on I hope. Meanwhile, thanks for pointing out the decision merging congruence angle.  I've been looking for some explanation along those lines myself, so I've been reading the thread you've pointed out and trying to relate these to the games I know. I really need to play more Nar games to get the whole picture though. Too many games, too little time.

Best,

- W.