A Simulationist Thinks About Narrativism

[jburneko]

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.

What essay?

*Looks around innocently.*

Oh!  You mean THIS essay:

The Narrativist Mindset

I've had that up on my personal site for a while now.  It's the same one you saw but with the minor revisions you suggested.  I haven't really mentioned it because the big change I wanted to make was to include a system section.  However, I found myself unable to articulate that section very clearly.  I've only recently been able to successfully describe the role of system in a Narrativist game mostly thanks to one of my players constantly goading me about this mindset, "That's all fine and dandy Jess, but what's any of this got to do with the SYSTEM."

So, erm, alright, I'll get off my ass and write that final section.  I'll run one more draft by you and then submit it for the articles section.  In the mean time the rest of you are welcome to view the first two sections at my website.  Feel free to send me comments but please keep them confined to private email until the fully revised version shows up here.

Jesse

[Tim C Koppang]

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.

Hmmm.... ok, let me first say that I can't speak for Jesse nor for the official forge languge.  I hope I don't come off that way.  However I think that if in a Narrativist game the GM framed to the demon summoning and refused to give you a choice in the matter, then there may be a breach of contract.  Depending on the game and the importance of the player's control of his own character the GM may simply be setting up a dramatic or themematic dilema.  Same goes for the Simulationist situation.

The differance comes when you compare the tools a Sim and Nar game make avalible to the players.  While in a typical Sim came the players would be forced to deal with whatever situation the GM throws at them, there is 1) a trust that must exist between the players & the GM stating that the GM will do his best to simulate the world and 2) the belief that the exploration of said situation should not be tampered with by thematic goals.  In a Nar game however, the players tend to have a great deal more dramtic power to shape situations so that when the GM or other players lead a player's character into a situation he does not wish to be in that player has an escape route so to speak.  Escape routes may come in the form of metagame mechanics or even simple scene structure guidelines.

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.

Yes, you are correct, but you did not escape the situation through any Nar mechanic.  You acted proactively within the confines of the exploration.  You did not break any simulation limitations - you controlled your character's destiny.  Again, in a Sim game you have control of your character's actions, but not necesarlly over the story the GM is telling.

[Marco]

Yes, you are correct, but you did not escape the situation through any Nar mechanic.  You acted proactively within the confines of the exploration.  You did not break any simulation limitations - you controlled your character's destiny.  Again, in a Sim game you have control of your character's actions, but not necesarlly over the story the GM is telling.

Hi, fleeting
No--it's most definitely *not* a Nar mechanic--I'm not saying Sim = Nar. I'm saying that in Sim-play one can make major story decisions and one has control over things like SAN checks (crafty play).

I think that your statement "the belief that the exploration of said situation should not be tampered with by thematic goals" might be misleading: Sim gamers can encourage and enjoy thematic goals--they may even rationalize out-of-character action to achieve them (I'm not talking about grossly breaking character either, just finding a view-point to further a story theme)--but more importantly:

A well constructed Sim-game will be thematic if the GM/players wish it to be. Furthermore, this isn't "drift."

In strong-nar play everyone involved has already said "we're so focused on Thematic play that we want to shift the system in that direction." A Sim gaming group might feel *simaliarly* but want less of a strong move in that direction (I enjoy playing in themed games but like the odd gamist-combat scene or being the recipient of Sim-story-telling).

-Marco

[jburneko]

Alright, I think I finally know how to address Marco's complaints.  I think you're mistaking raw mechanic for mechanic USAGE.  I play Deadlands.  Deadlands has very little to offer in terms of Narrativist mechanics.  However, I play a fairly Narrativist game using them by mainly treating the rolls like Fortune-In-The-Middle.

What I'm saying is that take a look at the Sanity mechanics and the Humanity mechanics and ask yourself whom does the mechanic empower in terms of 'genre conventions'?

The Sanity system empowers the GM to enforce Lovecraftian genre conventions.  The GM can place a vital and necessary clue in an insanity causing tome.  The GM can force a direct confrontation with a sanity costing monster.  The GM can place scenes and events that the players have no fore warning of that will cause Sanity loss.  Most of Chaosium's pregenerated adventures are constructed in this manner.  There is no way for the players to:

1) Introduce elements that cause Sanity gain/loss
2) Pick what things cause Sanity loss and what things don't.
3) Avoid 'surprise' Sanity costing scenes, such as coming across a room where a blood bath just took place.

EXCEPT by social contract which is how my Deadlands game is run.  Sure, you can USE the system to introduce Narrativist themes but the system all by itself in its raw form does not empower players as co-authors.  The Call of Cthulhu Sanity system empowers the GM as genre simulator/enforcer.

On the other hand, the Humanity mechanics in Sorcerer empower the player to take ADVANTAGE of genre conventions but it does not enforce or MAKE them do so.  The GM/rules may be the arbitrator of what actions require a Humanity gain/loss roll BUT no such rolls can be called for without a corresponding deliberate action by the player.  Note: Entering a room that contains a blood bath does NOT count as a deliberate player action because there was no way for the player to judge the Thematic consequences of his actions.

I hope this is a little clearer.

Jesse

[Tim C Koppang]

Stupid reply eating forums. [grumble grumble]

I'm saying that in Sim-play one can make major story decisions and one has control over things like SAN checks (crafty play).

Ok you got me.  A Sim player can alter the story through crafty play.  However he cannot introduce new events into the game as freely as a Nar system would allow.  A Nar system will encourage the players to do just that through its mechanics.  As Jesse puts it, it's all about what the system encourages.

(I enjoy playing in themed games but like the odd gamist-combat scene or being the recipient of Sim-story-telling)

Forgive me if I misinterpret you Marco, but when I say theme I mean to use the literary theme sense of the word. I do not mean genre or that the game world has a film-noir feel to it for example.

Also keep in mind that the GNS styles of play are somewhat loose by nature.  It's ok to enjoy a moment of Gamism admidst a generally Sim session - or any other combination for that matter.

[contracycle]

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.

Agreed.

[contracycle]

pregenerated adventures are constructed in this manner.  There is no way for the players to:

1) Introduce elements that cause Sanity gain/loss

Of courtse there is, become a sorcerer <grin>.  CoC spells include Sanity checks IIRC.

2) Pick what things cause Sanity loss and what things don't.

that is pre-defined by the Genre.  Again, Marco is not claiming that Sim and Nar play are indistinguishable, merely that ion the Sim game you can (and I would argue do) play a large part in, yes, CREATING A STORY.

3) Avoid 'surprise' Sanity costing scenes, such as coming across a room where a blood bath just took place.

Just as the Sorcere GM is encouraged to set the players up for Humanity challenges... or the Vampire GM to set the players up for Humanity challenges... or in fact any game ever written that had such a primary "player control indicater".

EXCEPT by social contract which is how my Deadlands game is run.  Sure,

Which may be implicit or explicit in the genre.  Lethality of .38's in PI fiction yada yada.

Call of Cthulhu Sanity system empowers the GM as genre simulator/enforcer.

Exactly so.  And if the genre has narrative conventions, then the GM is an enforcer of those too.

[Marco]

I haven't the time for a longer reply right now but--

Forgive me if I misinterpret you Marco, but when I say theme I mean to use the literary theme sense of the word. I do not mean genre or that the game world has a film-noir feel to it for example.

That's the only way that I'm using the word theme here--in the literary sense.  When I say I enjoy playing in themed games I mean that I want the games to have a resonant, emotionally important point, to develop that point in a literary manner, and to conclude with a satisfying climax (and maybe denoumount).

I'm also saying that as a priority that doesn't hit 100% for me, so there're are other requirements as well.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Looking over this thread, I think that Marco has made some salient points, and that discussions of the Impossible Thing (or Not-As-Impossible-As-Ron-Says Thing, if you prefer) should take those points into consideration.

Specifically, let's stop making "one thing" out of Narrativism, as soon as we get operational. I've said over and over, for Gamism and Simulationism, that each mode contains a lot of operational diversity. The same goes for Narrativism. Remember that the main flavor of this mode is Vanilla.

What I think causes a lot of trouble is that people are enthused about (say) overt Director-stance mechanics, and especially enthused about Narrativist applications of them, and the mechanic or stance gets confused with the goal.

What also causes a lot of trouble is that people are over-reading my Impossible Thing. They think that I am saying, "No story in Simulationist play is possible," or other absurd things.

So this post is a call for peace, and for people to review just what I'm claiming before pulling out the cannons.

As for my position? I remain unconvinced that the Impossible Thing is possible, and as I said before, the recent discussions look just like the old ones on GO, in which people claimed that "the GM controls the story" but "the players have free will" and so on.

Saying "I remain unconvinced" does not mean that I'm intractably fixed. I'll be happy to discuss the issue, perhaps on a new thread if someone wants to start one. At this point, though, it looks as if clarification rather than debate should be the priority.

Best,
Ron

[Tim C Koppang]

That's the only way that I'm using the word theme here--in the literary sense.  When I say I enjoy playing in themed games I mean that I want the games to have a resonant, emotionally important point, to develop that point in a literary manner, and to conclude with a satisfying climax (and maybe denoumount).

I'm also saying that as a priority that doesn't hit 100% for me, so there're are other requirements as well.

hmmm... ok you've expanded my view of Simulationism - this is good.  I think our major differences may come down to "same tools (theme & story creation) for a different goal."  Would you agree?

I still believe that a Nar game attempts to emphasize the theme of a game while a Sim game does not.  For example you said that while you enjoy theme in a Sim game, it's not your major motivating goal.  That's just basic GNS.  The Sim game may allow players to explore a theme if they wish to do so, but for the most part the Sim game's mechanics will concentrate on something else.  As Ron said I'm assuming lots of director stance mechanics in a Nar system which may or may not be present in reality - just as a Sim game could contain them.

This says to me that mechanics can be seperate from a person's goals.  Whoa - I'm not comfortable with that statement.  Let me revise.... Mechanics, while emphasizing a particular goal, can at the same time allow for secondary motivations.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Tim,

You're dead on correct, in your last/revised statement. The essay is about mechanics that facilitate goals, rather than establishing or defining those goals.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

I'm super-pressed for time--but I think I absolutely agree!

I would say that Creation of Story is a spectrum rather than a boolean. In a heavy-narrativist game the players are creating a lot more story than the average sim-game--but the sim-players are still making some--and can be dramatic. Nar techniques just place the focus on the heavy-player-creation end of the scale.

-Marco

[jburneko]

You're dead on correct, in your last/revised statement. The essay is about mechanics that facilitate goals, rather than establishing or defining those goals.

This is all I've been trying to say about the difference between 'genre simulation' an Narrativism in system design.  The Sanity rules facilitate one set of goals and the Humanity rules facilitate another different set of goals.  However, you end up USING them is a completely different issue.

And I agree with Ron that perhaps a discussion of 'The Impossible Thing' would be interesting as it seems that this topic has indeed drifted in that direction.

Jesse

[Daredevil]

Excellent essay, Jesse. Really opened my eyes to some things about Narrativist play I had missed.

[Daredevil]

Jesse sent me a private message where he wanted me to elaborate on my thoughts on the essay. Well, I thought I might as well post them out here. I hope you don't mind, Jesse.

On to the subject ...

Well, for one, it's often mentioned that narrativist games have a Premise but it's rarely expounded on. Your essay clarified that bit somewhat, showing me how having a Premise really affects the thinking around "the table" and how the Premise is more than something that might arise during play.

Also, the place of a character in a Narrativist game seems somewhat different from Sim-play. Your essay was quite clear on that. In Narrativist play characters are vessels through which the player experiences emotions, the player is the more important of the two, while (character driven) Sim-players hold the character and immersion to it as the most important things, Other issues relating to player protagonism, the Premise and the lack of Sim-type mystery were interesting as well.

More on that "lack of mystery" : as players watch the game proceed in Audience Stance. I really didn't appreciate the difference that makes before. In my Sim-play, there's a lot the characters (and players) do behind each others backs (what we call playing "in the office"). I've even considered tackling this bit and forcing players out onto the open, but have so far not done so in all cases (it really goes against some Sim-play tenets).

The GM section was less brilliant (not saying it isn't good, but it didn't open my eyes in the same fashion as the player section). A lot of the things discussed are also good for Sim-play that aims for minimum railroading, but then my thinking in that respect leads to thoughts that say "a story of some kind can be created even in Sim-play".

On the other side of the spectrum, there's two things you mention that I slightly object to. There is truth to them, but the essay holds them to be true differences between Sim-play and Narrativist play, which I don't agree with. For me, they're arguments which don't hold quite enough water for that.

1) "Simulationists don&#8217;t like knowing things that their character doesn&#8217;t."

All Simulationists consider acting on OOC (out of character) information as "evil". Some Simulationists consider even knowing any unnecessary OOC knowledge as a bad thing (the hardcore Simmers), others may not. There are degrees to this, however, but I don't see it as a matter of just simple stating it like that.

2) Author Stance and Director Stance are Narrativist tools.

This one I agree the least with, though I'm not sure that the essay really states these as Narrativist-only things, but the implication seems to be there . Examples of game mechanics using these stances in Sim-play have already been discussed in a few threads previously so I won't go into much detail here.

The trick is in what type of information is used in these game mechanics. If the information driving their use is IC (in character) to the player's relevant character, then the mechanic is perfectly okay for Sim-play. If pure OOC intentions drive them, only a Narrativist (or Gamist) could use them.

Hopefully I'll get my mechanic ideas developed far enough to be presentable here as well.

- Joachim -