The Forge Archives

Reading the recent threads about Simulationism and Narrativism, and also reading over my copies of Sorcerer and Sorcerer and Sword that I just got last week, it seems to me that there's a bit of a false dichotomy here.  Simulationism and Narrativism aren't inherently opposed.  Simulationists and Narrativists can often be opposed, but that's not the same thing as the two philosophies being opposed.

I'm someone who loves simulation -- but I love the mechanics in Sorcerer and Sorcerer and Sword.  The thing that I think often gets missed is that the first question of simulation is "What are we simulating?"  Simulationism is generally associated with world-based simulation (especially "realistic" worlds), but there's no reason why it must be applied in such a way.

To me, Ron's mechanics are a simulation -- but they're trying to simulate particular genres of stories, rather than trying to simulate worlds.  A couple of cases in point:

[*] The discussion of weapon and armor types in Sword and Sorcerer, on pages 70-71.  Effectiveness of weapons and armor is discussed with reference to the way they work in stories of the genre, rather than how they "really" work.  To me, this is simulating the genre.
[*] Also in S&S, the section on how to interpret failed rolls on pages 67-68.  Again, this is simulating the genre -- Sword & Sorcery heroes are competent, so failure is not due to incompetence on their part.
[*] In one of the two books (forget which), there's a bit about allowing players to establish cuts to new scenes, without regard to how the character(s) get there from here.  To me, this is simulating a standard fictional device:  we know the characters got there somehow, but how isn't important to the story -- and story-flow is what's being simulated.
[*] To give an example from another game, Theatrix's primary descriptors simulates a literary/dramatic staple:  the character who is "the best" in his/her area.
[*] Also from Theatrix (though the same idea is mentioned in Ron's games) are improvisations.  The allow a player to state things about their character's surroundings and have them be true -- e.g., "I grab the fire extinguisher from the wall and wallop the thug with it", when it hasn't previously been established that there is (or isn't!) a fire extinguisher present.  This also simulates dramatic conventions.
[/list:u]
I don't know -- to me all of this seems obvious, but I rarely see anyone else mention it.  Is the "Simulationism" axis of GNS supposed to apply only to world-based or "realistic" simulation?  And if it is, what sort of terminology would you use to distinguish between narrativisist games that use rules to enforce/encourage narrative structures, as opposed to those that simply tell the GM to remember that story should come first?

--Travis

Keep in mind that Sorcerer, while it will contain some Simulationist elements to it, focuses on the narrative.  It is meant to explore a group of themes and the way in which people react to demonic power.  You could say that it's merely a simulation of what these effects would have on a person, but the game is meant to be used as a tool to create a story.  Simulationism in it's purist form, I think only concerns itself with the actual exploration - story goals come second.

You said that the game simulates fictional devices.  Here's where your terms are a bit mixed up.  Simulationism doesn't mean that the game simulates something.  Any game does that to a certain extent - even gamist ones.  Instead it implies a style of play and a general set of goals.  Sorcerer uses fictional devices because it wants to help you tell a story, but it's not trying to simulate a story.  A simulationist game wants to help you exlpore a specific setting/character/event from the point of view that you are actually there.  A narrativist game wants to use the setting/character/event to say something meaninful through fiction.

Quote from: fleetingGlow
You could say that it's merely a simulation of what these effects would have on a person, but the game is meant to be used as a tool to create a story.  Simulationism in it's purist form, I think only concerns itself with the actual exploration - story goals come second.

I don't agree there, though -- if what you're simulating is a story, then story goals must come first.  Otherwise, you've declared something else to be more important.

Quote from: fleetingGlow
You said that the game simulates fictional devices.  Here's where your terms are a bit mixed up.  Simulationism doesn't mean that the game simulates something.  Any game does that to a certain extent - even gamist ones.  Instead it implies a style of play and a general set of goals.  Sorcerer uses fictional devices because it wants to help you tell a story, but it's not trying to simulate a story.  A simulationist game wants to help you exlpore a specific setting/character/event from the point of view that you are actually there.  A narrativist game wants to use the setting/character/event to say something meaninful through fiction.

That's what I was trying to get at with my final question, and I think you've answered it there.  To me, "Simulationism" just seems like a poor name if it's meant to only cover world-based simulations (the "you are there" sort).

--Travis

Quote from: efindel
To me, "Simulationism" just seems like a poor name if it's meant to only cover world-based simulations (the "you are there" sort).

If you've read Ron's article, "System Does Matter" and his new one on GNS then you'll notice a change in his definitions - or maybe a clarification.  A guy who goes by the name Scarlet Jester suggested an alternate model where the Simulationist was replaced with the Explorationist.  His model took a different look at the three-fold model with slightly different goals for each.  When I compared S D M with Scarlet Jester's suggestions I agreed with him, but I'd say the new definitions clarify and solidify each of the three styles sufficiantly.  If you want to look at SJ's work browse through the Gaming Outpost forums.  I think the post was in the Critical Hit forum.

Now you say that Simulationism is only for world based simulations.  Hmmm... I think we're on the same page, but just to be pedantic I'll write some more.  Make sure you don't confuse world based with setting.  Simulating a character is perfectly acceptable as is simulating an event.  Simulationism plays up the exploration aspect of role-playing.  All you have to do is be.  Explore the world you and your fellow players create and you're happy.

Actually I just thought of something.  How can you simulate a story?  You are either telling a story or you're not.  You don't simulate one.  You might be able to simulate a particular author's fictional world, but fiction is just a story you tell.  How do you simulate that?

Quote from: fleetingGlow
If you've read Ron's article, "System Does Matter" and his new one on GNS then you'll notice a change in his definitions - or maybe a clarification.  A guy who goes by the name Scarlet Jester suggested an alternate model where the Simulationist was replaced with the Explorationist.

I've read "System Does Matter", but not the newer one -- have to read it ASAP.  I agree that "Explorationist" does sound like a better way to put it.

Quote from: fleetingGlow
Now you say that Simulationism is only for world based simulations.

Small correction -- I'm not saying that it is that, only that most of the discussions I've seen of it seem to regard it that way.

Quote from: fleetingGlow
Hmmm... I think we're on the same page, but just to be pedantic I'll write some more.  Make sure you don't confuse world based with setting.  Simulating a character is perfectly acceptable as is simulating an event.  Simulationism plays up the exploration aspect of role-playing.  All you have to do is be.  Explore the world you and your fellow players create and you're happy.

Works for me, especially with a name change to "Explorationism".

Quote from: fleetingGlow
Actually I just thought of something.  How can you simulate a story?  You are either telling a story or you're not.  You don't simulate one.  You might be able to simulate a particular author's fictional world, but fiction is just a story you tell.  How do you simulate that?

I should have said that a different way.  The mechanics simulate certain aspects of the way stories are told/written, or of how a genre of stories "works".  Mechanics by themselves, of course, cannot create a story -- thus, the mechanics are trying to simulate aspects of a genre of stories, and the players then use them to create a story.    Does that description work better for you?

Hi Travis, and welcome to the Forge.

I'll start with saying that you are perfectly correct to state that Simulationism is not just about setting (and I think Tim mis-read you on that one).

I'd like to address this point of yours: "if what you're simulating is a story, then story goals must come first. Otherwise, you've declared something else to be more important."

I'm not sure if you've read my big essay ("GNS and related matters") in the Articles section of the site, but I spent a lot of time on this very issue. It all comes down to what is really meant by "GNS" in the first place - which is, goals of play.

Narrativist play relies on a person taking an author-type attitude toward the events and play as a whole, in that a judgmental theme is supposed to be generated. Playing a character is a means to do this, and attention to things like setting, or conventions of a certain sort of story, is there to reinforce the same goal.

Simulationist play relies on a person imagining being in a story, or setting, or situation, as the first priority. In other words, by definition, Simulationist play "declares something besides story creation" to be the the goal. The story, if present at all, is superimposed either before or after play by one participant. It is not a goal of play.

[Side note: either of these types of play may show a wide variety of the following things: degree of character identification, degree of formal rules-use, and degree of out-of-character discussion.]

It's hard to distinguish in words between certain types of Narrativist play and certain types of Simulationist play, without using the specialized jargon of the essay, but the difference in actual play is profound. There is really no mistaking it after you've played both ways, or kept an eye out for the issue among other players.

For example, Feng Shui, Call of Cthulhu, and Unknown Armies all offer good examples of Simulationist play with a lot of player input, but that input is limited in type - players are neither encouraged nor empowered to generate plot events, nor to influence the importance of a given scene, nor to modulate how "good" or "bad" a given outcome is. The player is able to interject style or color ("Oh jeepers!" "Take that you bastards!" "I kick the pool ball off the one guy's rifle barrel and into the other guy's temple!") but not to create plot outcomes and consequences.

Final note: I do not follow the Scarlet Jester's use of Exploration, in substituting it for Simulationism. Instead, I use Exploration as a baseline of all role-playing, and Simulationism is one set of goals of play from there (as are the other two modes).

I'll be curious to see what you think of the GNS essay.

Best,
Ron

>I don't know -- to me all of this seems obvious, but I rarely see
>anyone else mention it.

There were extensive threads on this . . . somewhere.  Over on Gaming Outpost?  Feng Shui seems to be the usual cannonical example of "simulation of genre".  

>Is the "Simulationism" axis of GNS supposed to apply only
>to world-based or "realistic" simulation?

Nope, not as I understand it.  Ah, to hell with the weasel-words - no frikkin' WAY is "realistic" the be-all and end-all of Simulationism.  Ron makes that very clear in his essay.

>And if it is, what sort of terminology would you use to distinguish between
>narrativisist games that use rules to enforce/encourage narrative structures,
>as opposed to those that simply tell the GM to remember that story should come first?

I'm going to quote Ron's GNS essay here, 'cause I think he's tried to address this issue there (and if it doesn't get the job done, perhaps revisions are called for):

"Controversy: But I'm story-oriented!"

A great deal of intellectual suffering has occurred due to the linked claims that role-playing either is or is not story-oriented, and that one falls on one side or the other of this dichotomy. I consider this terminology and its implication to be wholly false.

"Story" may simply mean "series of caused events," in which case the issue is trivial. However, most of the time, the term is more specific. More specific meanings of "story" may be involved in role-playing in a variety of ways. Narrativism is a no-brainer in this regard, as it is defined by the metagame attention to creating a story of critical merit (i.e. "good"). But story-creation and its elements are certainly possible, although not prioritized, in both of the other modes. Most generally, there are (1) forms of Simulationist play with a strong Situation focus, which provide a story for the participants to imagine being in; and (2) forms of Gamist play in which dramatic outcomes are the stakes of competition, which produces story as a side-effect of that competition."

I think what you're talking about is "Simulationist play with a strong Situation focus".  The priority is on staying true to the Situation being Simulated - and if that Situation is a particular "genre" (see the GNS essay for Ron's issues with this word, but I think it works in this context), you have a decent chance to produce a story that at least "tastes" like the genre simulated.  But suppose the Story these particular players are interested in in a given moment would be best served by an occurance that's NOT suited to the genre?  If you tend to stay within the situation being simulated in most cases, you're showing a Sim-focus.  If you (or the game system, or the GM, or whatever factors we're evaluating here) care more about a meaningful Story that fits the PCs involved, you're showing Nar-focus.

This can be a fuzzy area, as staying true to a particular mood and feel can be very supportive of creating a good Story.  The question is, is it REALLY just a means to an end (the good Story), or is it prioritized as goal in it's own right?

That's my take,

Gordon
Edited to fix "?"'s that showed up in the cut-and-paste from Ron's GNS essay, and to say . . .  wow, others managed to make most of my points while I wrote this.  Sorry for the redundancy . . .

I thought I'd jump in here as I've thought about this many times myself.  The issue here is something I call, 'genre simulationism.'  And I agree that the distinction between Genre Simulationism (or explorative emphasis on a combination of Character and Situation)  and Narrativism is VERY subtle and often hard to spot.  I was only recently able to put it concretely recently.

You have to remember that there is a difference between Story Result as a priority and Story Creation as a priority.  I would say that MOST, not all, Call of Cthulhu and Vampire players hold Story Result to be their priority.  However, a great deal do not hold Story Creation as their priority.  Really, the GM is creating the story and the players are 'living' the story.  The players are in essence an element of the execution of the story but they are not creating the story.

So how does this relate to mechanics.  I maintain that it is possible for a mechanic to strongly fascilitate, 'genre simulationism' and still be very Anti-Narrativism.  The reason being is that it is very easy for a mechanic to fascilitate Story Result and hinder Story Creation.  How?  Well, it mainly has to do with the direction of ego assertion from the mechanic.

Let us compare Sanity in Call of Cthulhu to Humanity in Sorcerer.  Both can be gained or lossed on various die rolls and both force your PC to become an NPC at 0.  However, the Sanity rules in Call of Cthulhu perfectly simulate the genre and fascilitate Story Result, however, they completely hinder Story Creation.  Here's why.  

In Call of Cthulhu it is actions of the GM that bring about Sanity loss rolls.  That is, the GM throws down a monster and my character loses Sanity.  The GM throws down a vital clue in the form of an ancient tome and I lose Sanity when I read it.  Eventually, my character will go insane in a very Lovecraftian way and I'll have a fun Story Result to share with my friends.  However, *I* had no hand in the creation of that story.  In Call of Cthulhu I can't control how and when and why my character goes insane.  I can't even push him in that direction.  When my character goes insane is totally in the hands of the mechanics and the GM.  There's even the risk that my character will go insane in a way that is totally unappropriate Thematically for my character.

Now, take a look at Sorcerer.  In Sorcerer the GM can not FORCE a Humanity roll.  The GM can push situations that FORCE the player into making Humanity relevant decisions but he can not actually force a Humanity loss or even gain roll on the player.  The player KNOWS that if he summons a demon he'll take a Humanity hit.  The player can recognize when the GM will call for a Humanity loss roll if a certain action is taken.  All the Story Creation power is in the hands of the player.  *I* decide when my character loses it and sends himself into damnation.  *I* decide if why I'm summoning a demon is worth my soul.

I hope this makes the distinction a little clearer.

Jesse

Hey Jesse,

Didn't I read an essay by you, a couple of months ago, about explaining Narrativism? Yes I did. Did I ever see the revised version? No I didn't.

Gee, it would be swell if that essay were posted here at the Forge. Gee, it was really good, too.

Gasp! Did I just say all that in front of everybody? Did I just guilt-trip Jesse into finishing it and sending it to Clinton to be posted at the Forge? Oh, I am so sorry. Oh, wow.

Jumps up, makes gleeful ork-face, and runs off,
Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards
I'll start with saying that you are perfectly correct to state that Simulationism is not just about setting (and I think Tim mis-read you on that one).

Just because I feel the need to clarify my meaning... I wasn't trying to imply that simulationism is only about setting or that efindel thought it was.  I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion.  That's all.

Quote from: Ron Edwards
Final note: I do not follow the Scarlet Jester's use of Exploration, in substituting it for Simulationism. Instead, I use Exploration as a baseline of all role-playing, and Simulationism is one set of goals of play from there (as are the other two modes).

I agree.  As I said in my previous post, I agreed with Scarlet Jester at fisrt because I thought your original artical was lacking.  The new one clarifies and expands to the point where I agree again.  Whenever I talk about role-playing I can't seperate the term explore from any one style of play.  I think Explorationist may sound sexier, but by defining one style as such you imply that the others aren't concerned with exploring - not true.

Quote from: jburneko
Now, take a look at Sorcerer.  In Sorcerer the GM can not FORCE a Humanity roll.  The GM can push situations that FORCE the player into making Humanity relevant decisions but he can not actually force a Humanity loss or even gain roll on the player.  The player KNOWS that if he summons a demon he'll take a Humanity hit.  The player can recognize when the GM will call for a Humanity loss roll if a certain action is taken.  All the Story Creation power is in the hands of the player.  *I* decide when my character loses it and sends himself into damnation.  *I* decide if why I'm summoning a demon is worth my soul.

Well, your comment just helped me.  That's a great description and you just helped to put words to some of the thoughts swimming around in my head.

To paraphrase:
It's a matter of where the the power of choice lies.

Do I have it correct?

Thanks.

Quote from: jburneko
In Call of Cthulhu it is actions of the GM that bring about Sanity loss rolls.  That is, the GM throws down a monster and my character loses Sanity.  The GM throws down a vital clue in the form of an ancient tome and I lose Sanity when I read it.  Eventually, my character will go insane in a very Lovecraftian way and I'll have a fun Story Result to share with my friends.  However, *I* had no hand in the creation of that story.  In Call of Cthulhu I can't control how and when and why my character goes insane.  I can't even push him in that direction.  When my character goes insane is totally in the hands of the mechanics and the GM.  There's even the risk that my character will go insane in a way that is totally unappropriate Thematically for my character.

'I can't control how and when and why my character goes insane?' Isn't that what players do? As a player you can manipulate when and where you make that die roll (if you make it at all).

The statement that "... *I* had no hand in the creation of that story ..." implies that:

a) the player will take no action that GM hasn't forseen --or--
b) the GM will let no unforseen action have any result.

That isn't "Simulationist" play--that's just disfunctional (or the GM has arranged a *very* controlled situation).

-Marco

[ Note: Sim-gaming won't, probably, be as heavily thematic as Nar gaming (I'd guess), but the above makes it sound like you might as well use pillows instead of players. ]

Quote from: Marco
'I can't control how and when and why my character goes insane?' Isn't that what players do? As a player you can manipulate when and where you make that die roll (if you make it at all).

Not really.  In CofC you have to make a sanity check when you see the great googly monster from beyond.  You, the player, don't decide when the great googly monster from beyond attacks - the GM does.  So, in effect you don't have complete control over your character's sanity loss.  It depends on the events the GM throws at you.

In a Narrativist game the player may be able to decide when the great googly monster from beyond attacks.  In Sorcerer you decide when to call upon the demonic powers from beyond.  You have the power to alter the events of the story - to help create the story.  As was stated above, a Simulationist game often times finds the players merely expiriencing the GM's story.

Quote from: Marco
The statement that "... *I* had no hand in the creation of that story ..." implies that:

a) the player will take no action that GM hasn't forseen --or--
b) the GM will let no unforseen action have any result.

I think you are assuming that jburneko was impling that in a Simulationist game there can be no proactive play - that characters merely react.  This most definately isn't the case however.  As with all styles of play characters can take matters into their own hands, but Narrativist play goes one step further.  It allows players to craft the story in ways a Simulationist game may reserve for the GM alone.  Am I saying that GMless games are only Narrativist?  No, Pantheon is GMless and Gamist.  Many Simulationist games have a metagame mechinc to alter die rolls in some way.  Narrativist games tend to ephasize theme though, and therefore will provide players tools to correctly portray the theme of their character for example.

The above suggestions aren't meant to say this type of game will use this type of mechanic.  They are simply examples of pre-existing games.

Quote from: fleetingGlow
Not really.  In CofC you have to make a sanity check when you see the great googly monster from beyond.  You, the player, don't decide when the great googly monster from beyond attacks - the GM does.  So, in effect you don't have complete control over your character's sanity loss.  It depends on the events the GM throws at you.

fleetingGlow,

In a Narrativist game the GM can frame to your first demon summoning if he wants to. If that's a breach of social contract, so is the CoC monster ambush if the players are the type that want a fair-chance.  

If you wish a context example, the monster is in the house with its prisoner. My near-insane, desparate character burns the house down rather than face the monster. I've answered the Narrativst-sounding question: Are your friends worth your sanity? No. It's a pure sim game--and I haven't made the SAN roll. I've played in games like that--good games.

What you're saying--your explanation of Narrativism is very even-handed and non-controversial. It's also reads with a very different tone than statements like this:

Quote
Eventually, my character will go insane in a very Lovecraftian way and I'll have a fun Story Result to share with my friends. However, *I* had no hand in the creation of that story.

This isn't to pick on Jesse, he's a smart guy and I like reading his posts--but the offical Forge language surrounding 'creation of a story' and its attendant 'Impossible Thing To Believe' seem pretty biased to me.

--Marco