Does internalization characterize simulationism?

[Alan]

John Kim's essay, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10685" >Immersive Story Essay, and a quick study of the http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/faq_larp.html" >The Threeway Model FAQ triggered some ideas for me.

Can we differential GNS styles based on the amount and nature of external communication preferred?  

For example in both gamism and narrativism, external events - those shared with the game group - are what are valued most highly.  A gamist's reward is in the group acknoweldgement of his moxie, and a narrativist reward is in feedback about the coolness of his thematic choice.  Both of these are expressed by descriptions of character actions which are communicated to the other players.

On the other hand, John Kim's essay, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10685" >Immersive Story Essay, focusses on the internal rewards of roleplay in general, and a kind of play I would term simulationist in particulary.  Whether the following is John's point, or just my own interpretation, the essays points to prioritizing internal, unshared experience as a mode of play.

Is a focus on the consistent internal experience of the player definitive of all simulationist play?  Or is it just one sub-genre?  Every RPG requires some consistency of internal experience, but does simulationism prioritize it above all other concerns?  Or is there some external expression of simulationism?

Acting performance is sometimes associated with simulationism, but I wonder if that isn't really gamism.  (If you have response to this particular assertion, see http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10692">Acting as Gamism in GNS Theory.)

If simulationism really does prioritize internal experience of concerns of external expression, does it also intentionally avoid feedback from other players? (That sounds like a can of worms!)

Responses?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Alan,

If we're discussing observed or associated features, then I think you're on the right track. But if we're discussing definitional features of the GNS distinctions, then I think this thread will become all strange.

So on the assumption that the first is correct ...

... yeah.

What gums up the point, though, are the two sorts of play that I criticize in the three specific GNS essays: versions of preferred Gamist and Narrativist play which insist on internal cause and the same sort of internal enjoyment you're talking about as "motors" for imaginary situations which lead, eventually or possibly, to their goals.

What especially characterizes these profiles is the willingness not to be fully satisfied with a session of play. If the G or N doesn't "appear" tonight because the various internal states didn't line up together and the various imaginary circumstances didn't seem to "yield" it, well, OK then. Guess we'll keep playing next week and see.

Folks who prefer (or habitually do) either of these often use the same terminology as full-on Simulationist-preferring folks - "immersion," "suspension of disbelief," etc. "Plausibility" won't do it for them, because they don't want even the hint that the imaginary stuff is being judged - even though their enjoyment (or putative enjoyment) is always under self-scrutiny for whether it "feels real enough."

Opinions about all this differ - speaking only from my observations, I consider these aims of play to be low-yield, perhaps with one payoff scene per eight or ten sessions of play. Apparently for some people that's enough, although the social context for their enjoyment seems dubious to me as well.

Best,
Ron

[Alan]

If we're discussing observed or associated features, then I think you're on the right track. But if we're discussing definitional features of the GNS distinctions, then I think this thread will become all strange.

Hm.  This is tricky.  All roleplaying has some observable behaviors.  I suppose those are the features available for definitional description.  We can only infer prioritization for internal and external experience from the kind of observable behaviors and the player self-reports.

I might be only able to infer it, but I suspect that, this prioritization of the quality of in-mind experience over external behaviors and acts of communication is the ideal for which simulationist players strive.

Does that make sense?

What gums up the point, though, are the two sorts of play that I criticize in the three specific GNS essays: versions of preferred Gamist and Narrativist play which insist on internal cause and the same sort of internal enjoyment you're talking about as "motors" for imaginary situations which lead, eventually or possibly, to their goals.

It seems to me that both gamist and narrativist play require some "meta-game" communication - communication about what the story is going to do - to consistently and regularly meet their needs. It canhappen by accident, but direction helps a lot.  

If simulationism finds that kind of communication at odds with the maintenance of an internal experience, then there's a huge conflict built into playing sim and hoping for narrativist or gamist moments.

This last seemed profound when I first thought of it; now it sounds like something I've heard before.

---------------

Is it about rewards?  Are the rewards of G & N external - the approval of other players, the power over the story - while those of S are internal - Ah!  Crap!  That's where the Dream comes from isn't it?

Yeah, I'm starting to restate GNS from my own angle.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Alan,

That's right, you are, just as Jay (Silnemume) is doing in his Simulationism and Character thread. Which is all fine, but I hope you guys won't mind if my main contributions are to say "Yup," and keep going.

Best,
Ron

[RDU Neil]

Alan wrote:

It seems to me that both gamist and narrativist play require some "meta-game" communication - communication about what the story is going to do - to consistently and regularly meet their needs. It canhappen by accident, but direction helps a lot.

It seems to me that this is a dichotomy "metagame story vs. accident" and is missing a third option.

I don't know what exactly to call the third option... Guided Story maybe...
... but what about a game with a classic GM in one person set up... and the GM guides the game in a Threefold Model "dramatist" kind of way... often very invisible to the players.

It is not "an accident" that story comes about... the GM is positioning premise moments throughout the game, consciously... but there is minimal or no metagame talk where the entire group discusses "the story"

So story happens, enhanced, fleshed out, and to some extent audienced (ugh, changing a noun into a verb) by the players... but guided and shaped primarily by the GM.

Now... to this, I think Ron might call it Sim with heavy Illusionist... or it might be a lot of Backloaded Nar (giving meaning to an event afterwards, rather than during play) but I still think it is an option... and an option that probably most resembles actual play out in the world of RPG players.

Is there a reason this kind of play is ignored?  Is it just not a GNS issue at all, since GNS seems to ignore the roll of a GM as separate from that of "players of the game" in general?

Anyway, I just thought this was an intriguing dichotomy that might have a lot of gray area in between to examine.

[Valamir]

Good question.  My take on it would this.

Sure the GM is inserting alot of Premise Potential moments into the game; but the real question is whether the players are engageing those moments.

The players might engage them or they might leave them lie and ignore them.  If the player is entirely unaware that the GM is placing these premise nuggets in the game, then whether they engage or not will be a result of other factors (like "what would my character do") which just happens to line up with a "premise nugget" because the GM skillfully placed that nugget right where he knew the player would fall into it.

So this is what I think is meant by Story by Accident.  If the player doesn't "fall into" the nugget then premise doesn't get addressed and story doesn't happen.  If they do then premise does get addressed and story happens.  But its rather accidental that it happens.  The GM can more or less skillfully place the nugget based on what he knows of the player...but its still much like throwing a hook in the water and hoping to get a bite.

[RDU Neil]

Couple of things I need clarification on...

There is a consensus that "story by accident" is not Nar play.  Yes/no?

Second, I interpret your response to say that "Anything less than explicitly stated Premise moments is basically story by accident."  Maybe you aren't saying that, but that is what I read in your post.  

So, taking those two together, Nar play can't just happen.   That goes against very clearly stated bits from Ron and others that say addressing premise/Nar play can be unconscious.

Hence my confusion.  

Basically, if Nar play (addressing premise) can be done unconsciously, then isn't that "story by accident?"


Also, as the GM is considered just one of the players, and she is placing her "premise nuggets" consciously, then she is certainly playing Nar.  Now, I totally agree that the other players may not... but isn't, by Ron's own assertions, the player who is consciously or unconsciously looking for those premise nuggets ALSO playing Nar.   Granted, without the full on metagame discussion, some nuggets are missed or interpreted differently... but it's still Nar play... isn't it?
Even metagame "let's address such and such premise" won't lead to seamless communication and interpretation.

Also... what if I really feel that my personal priority is this "Premise Nugget" kind of play?  I don't want metagame discussion to contrive too much, but as GM I will be placing these nuggets all over... as a player I'll be looking for those moments that speak to me as "premise" of one sort or the other.   To me, this is Nar, absolutely, but because it is "premise by accident" (as you defined it) the definition says this is NOT Nar.

See... I confuse myself.  Help?

[Valamir]

Yeah, the whole "unconcious" thing I think was an early attempt at expressing something that was difficult to put into words, and is thus too easily confused with "by accident".  It threw me to.

My own use of the phrasing "premise on purpose" however, was too easily confused with being premeditated.

Check out this thread from back in March and see if that helps.

It includes the following from Ron.

I do think the term "mindful" is involved, which is only to say that I don't think Creative Agendas arise through some kind of confluential accidents, but rather through the mental, emotional, and communicative capacities of human beings.

I like "mindful" as a term because it connotes, to me, that some part of the person's mind is involved in the Creative Agenda, and it avoids to some extent (although apparently not for you) the baggage-heavy, openly-verbalized connotations of "conscious" or "aware."

[RDU Neil]

Thanks for the reminder of "mindful."  I read that thread when it was active, and didn't get it, at the time.  Makes more sense, now.

Anyway... this "Premise Nugget" style is very important to me as a GM and player.  Now this has me thinking about effective ways to structure the game to facilitate "Premise Nugget" play, that doesn't cross too far into open metagaming which can feel contrived to me, and cause me to lose interest.

I may not be a game designer, but I run so many games, that I look at "play session design" as the critical application of all this theory for me.  How will I run this session?  What needs to be explicitly stated and agreed upon by the group?  What can I do with the illusion of simulation?  What can I "just let happen" that will still be dramatic?

(Uh, oh thread drift now...)

Hmmm... since much of this discussion is to help you designers figure out effective game design, is there a place where you guys discuss... Balancing The Creative Agendas.

By this I mean, it has been stated over and over something like, "Likely, any really good player incorporates all three CAs in their actual play."   To this I agree.

The next step SEEMS to me to say "Likely, any really good GAME incorporates all three CAs in it's actual design," but instead just the opposite seems true.  Game design seems to focus on "This is gamist" or "This is Nar."

What about a game who's structure was intended to guide the GM/players to a recognition of all three elements as necessary in play... "to create the best game possible!" (or some such hyperbole.)

If nothing else, such a design would be helpful for GMs to design their play session to be responsive to all three in varying degrees.

Or is that heretical to GNS game design thought?

[Alan]

Couple of things I need clarification on...

There is a consensus that "story by accident" is not Nar play.  Yes/no?

Yes, it is not.  Narrativist play actually chooses Story Now over simulationist concerns.  Story by accident holds simulationist concerns first and hopes that moments of thematic choice will happen along the way.

Second, I interpret your response to say that "Anything less than explicitly stated Premise moments is basically story by accident."  Maybe you aren't saying that, but that is what I read in your post.  

No explicitly stated moments are not required.  In coherent narrativist play, the participants remain - shall we say "sensitive" - to detecting the thematic potential of events and are always ready to put it first.  This may result in more explicit statements that recognize such moments, but this is just a by product.

Also... what if I really feel that my personal priority is this "Premise Nugget" kind of play?  I don't want metagame discussion to contrive too much, but as GM I will be placing these nuggets all over... as a player I'll be looking for those moments that speak to me as "premise" of one sort or the other.   To me, this is Nar, absolutely, but because it is "premise by accident" (as you defined it) the definition says this is NOT Nar.

That's right.  The definitive part of a particular creative agenda is what you  are prioritizing - what will you consistently take while letting the other concerns slide.  Narrativist play will accept - even promote - a good chance for thematic choice, even if it means the causal chain of fantasy events doesn't quite make sense getting there.  (Usually such holes are filled in afterward, if they gape too much.)

What you describe is most likely simulationist play with hopes that thematiccally meanginfull choices will occur - I guess that's story by accident.

Also there's a factor here: even if a thematic moment shows up, how important is it to the players?  If it was planted by the GM, it may not be any issue the player cares about and so will not notice.  Many of the best narativist game design allows players to project situations that have emotional oomph for them into play.  This makes the thematic choice more interesting to them and play more engaging in general.

[Gordon C. Landis]

By this I mean, it has been stated over and over something like, "Likely, any really good player incorporates all three CAs in their actual play."

I'll point to Things NOT GNS (including g, n, and s) for my take on why this both is and isn't true.  Ralph recently included it with some other referenced threads, so you might look for those too (sorry, can't find where he did it, but it was recent).

Briefly, in the context of this thread - no, all three CA's are not incorporated into a particular set of actual play, ever.  By observation this doesn't happen, and by definition it is impossible.  A CA is a prioritization within a particular instance (instance being a vague time period, usually in the hours to sessions range).  Now, exploring and narrating and applying system and lots of other stuff - that happens all the time.  There's some sorta-analogy between those things and S and N and G, which causes all sorts of mischief - because those things aren't CA's.  The only thing that's a CA is a Prioritized Agenda (you might lobby that they be called PA's rather than CA's).

Gordon

[M. J. Young]

Uh-oh--this is one of those threads that seem to require that I start writing answers before I finish reading posts. I hope I can bring this together intelligently.

Alan, I think that it can be said that simulationism is more internalized and less metagame driven than the other two agenda in general, but that it's not a hallmark that can be used specifically.

First, in any coherent play, part of how we know it's coherent is that all of the player tells are approving the same actions. That's communication (albeit subliminal) between the players. It's also inter-player reward (or discouragement) for play within the agendum. Thus in (a certain sort of) sim play if someone gets out of character to do something tactical--say the quiet studious magic user suddenly starts telling the other characters what sort of battle formation would be best to fight against the enemy, and steps up to lead the fight--there are frowns and scowls on the faces of the other players, because this guy is out of character; the guy who does a good job of bringing off the revelation of new material within the parameters of the group is rewarded by tacit approval.

Second, all reward in all play has this combination of the approval of the group feeding the internal satisfaction.

Third, there are forms of gamist and narrativist play which are much more internalized that some forms of simulationist play.

Thus overall it's a broad generalization which proves true sometimes.

Simulationism can be driven by metagame communications. It's unusual, particularly traditionally. However, having players discuss what to explore next, or where they want the game to take them, is perfectly consistent with simulationism. After all, no matter how "internally consistent" you play your character, there will be some choices which really could go any of several ways, and it is entirely up to what the player wants to explore next to determine which way it does go.

Neil, I think you've got a couple of different things going.

One of them is what is called "frontloaded narrativism". This is the sort of play in which the characters are created and the world designed such that premise exists within the world, and the players will almost certainly address premise merely by playing their characters internally consistently. In such play, premise is addressed whenever the players consider how the character is going to react to the situation, to the degree that this is not writ in stone. That is, if we all know that the samurai will not violate his honor and he chooses not to violate his honor, then premise likely has not been addressed. If we know at the moment the choice comes that the samurai player is seriously considering whether or not the character will violate his honor, premise is being addressed regardless of which the player chooses to do. Frontloaded narrativism is usually avoidable, but there is strong impetus to address premise in the setup.

What you call "backloaded story" seems to be more story by accident, as suggested--you see events that have happened, and you work behind the scenes to create a story around them. That's not narrativism--the players are not addressing premise and creating story, but the referee is taking the character actions and weaving story around them.

I think most of the rest is good, particularly the idea that you can enjoy all three agenda, but only one at a time.

--M. J. Young

[RDU Neil]

Alan wrote:

What you describe is most likely simulationist play with hopes that thematiccally meanginfull choices will occur - I guess that's story by accident.

See, this I can't agree with.  As GM, I'm consciously trying to place "Premise Nuggets" in the game.  I'm doing this because I want situations where players question meaning and the like by making choices.  To M.J. Young's example, I'm constantly presenting the Samurai with situations that test his honor.

Now, to continue this example, the player may not pick up on these all the time... may go with the easy, "Always does X" answer... but the situation is still premise based... and sometimes they will truly question the premise of "follow honor or not"

Now, the GROUP may not have a coherent Nar agenda... but I, as player (GM being just another player) clearly do have a Nar agenda, but I feel that for my and the group's enjoyment, I won't force the issue in a blatant way, but I'm almost always deciding Nar when figuring out what an important scene should happen next, etc.  

So, unless I'm reading GNS wrong, I'm still Nar... even if the group is not coherently so.  Is it being said that an individual can't have an agenda?  That a CA only applies to a group, and individuals only have desired mode or something "less" than a full GNS mode/CA?

I guess I'm saying that certain people, Ron included, say that Nar play does not require breaking character and heavy metagame discussion... but when I describe what I think would be Nar play that sticks to "in character" talk and at least the illusion of sim (no blatant conversations explaining why the current scene is thematically imporatant) everyone here is saying, "Nope, that's not Nar."

It just seems that I'm getting conflicting answers here.

[Alan]

Alan wrote:

What you describe is most likely simulationist play with hopes that thematiccally meanginfull choices will occur - I guess that's story by accident.

See, this I can't agree with.  As GM, I'm consciously trying to place "Premise Nuggets" in the game.  I'm doing this because I want situations where players question meaning and the like by making choices.  To M.J. Young's example, I'm constantly presenting the Samurai with situations that test his honor.

Narativism is defined not by the presence of an opportunity to address premise, but by whether the player, in that moment of play, _chooses_ to address premise and whether he puts that choice ahead of consistency of his internal experience.

You might plant premise opportunities, but if your player doesn't recognize them, or doesn't choose to act on them, he is obviously not prioritizing thematic choice over a consistent internal experience - so he is not playing narrativist in that instance.

[Walt Freitag]

Described that way, it sounds like Narrativism to me. That is, you (singular,  Neil, the GM) are playing Narrativist.

Whether your players are playing Narrativist depends on how they digest those nuggets. Is the Samurai's player addressing -- emotionally engaged with, when making decisions; making a statement about, by making those decisions -- honor? Is the Samurai's player mindful of questions of honor?

Suppose you do have those Premise-nugget Situations rigged so that no matter what the player decides, it says something about honor. Does that mean that the player is necessarily addressing honor by playing? No. Suppose, for instance, the player is making the decisions by flipping a coin. That player isn't addressing anything, let alone honor. Something is perhaps "being said" by the process, but it's not the player saying it, any more than my cat is "writing" when he walks on my keyboard. What's missing is the mindfulness, which distinguishes "addressing" from cat-on-keyboard happenstance.

Now suppose that the player is making those decisions based entirely on which choices give him the best prestige payoff within the group. As far as the question of whether he's addressing honor or not, that's no different from when he's flipping a coin. The outcome will still be "about honor" in some way, because you've set it up so that that happens no matter what the player decides or how he decides. But the player isn't addressing honor; he's not mindfully engaged with the issue of honor while making those decisions. He's playing Gamist.

It's also quite possible, even likely, that your players are eating up those Premise-nuggets, getting emotionally engaged with the decisions the characters face, addressing the Premise, mindfully generating theme in the outcome. Narrativism for sure, at least during those segments (and if the rest of play is perceived and treated primarily as a way to get to those nuggets, it's Narrativism all the way).

Edit: cross-posted with Alan, who said it rather more succinctly.

- Walt