How to Introduce a Narrativist to Simulationism?

[Ben Lehman]

I would like to suggest that Dr. Xero and, well, everyone else are talking about two totally different types of simulationism.

Ron is talking about Illusionism, particularly Participationism (I call it Storytelling in the link below).  Doctor Xero is talking about Virtuality, A.K.A. RGFA Sim.

Reference for Sim subtypes:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11317

So, Dr. X, can you see that the Sim that Ron is talking about does take away choice?  Ron, can you see that the sim that Dr. X is talking about emphatically does not place credibility player choices in the hands of the GM?

yrs--
--Ben

[Paul Czege]

Hey Ralph,

What is being referred to are things like Disadvantages in GURPs or many other systems....this form of Simulation thrives on enforcing and reinforcing the stereo type while many times Narrativist play is about establishing those stereo types and then breaking them.

I think Ron is saying more than that. In his second post he refers to covertly exerting control via IIEE techniques.

It seems to me that a successful high-concept Simulationist game with Narrativist players needs to overcome the following:[list=1][*]The Narrativist player perceives that story cannot be produced by chimps banging on typewriters. If story is being produced, and as a player you know you're not invested in it the way you would be if you were making a meaningful contribution to it, you start looking around for who might be authoring it. You may not quite know how it's being done, but in a small group it's not that difficult to discern who's doing it.

The thing that kills the game is the GM talking the language of story, and suggesting that the story will emerge from the actions and decisions of the player characters. That is, the thing that kills the game is the promise to the players that they'll be producing the story. When they realize that they aren't doing so, the whole thing collapses. Oftentimes then players start "picking at scabs," that is, they start backstabbing each other and doing other dramatic and destructive shit that's entirely under their control. Sometimes the players just start making excuses about not being able to attend game sessions. Having recognized that the social contract promise that they'll be producing the story has been violated, they exert themselves forcefully, if indirectly.

Ron's solution is to not make that social contract promise. It can work. You can do character/setting exploration Sim. "Your job is to explore your character." But then you damn well better make sure as a GM that you're rigorous and consistent with your handling of IIEE and penalties/rewards. And don't talk the language of story at all. "The game is about character within environment. We're just going to see what happens."

[*]But the problem for the Narrativist player with character/setting exploration is that it feels so purposeless. If you're going to be successful with it as a GM, you need to embed some understanding in the group social contract about what things are being explored, and how, when, and who can move things along when folks are getting antsy after forty-five minutes of in-character bartering in the magic shop. I'm not suggesting that you need this in the social contract with dedicated Simulationists, but if you're going to run high-concept Sim for Narrativists I think you gotta have it. And if it's the GM who's responsible for moving things along, well, how easily could that be abused? The balance here is very very fine. The slightest error in handling could very easily convince the players the social contract has been violated and then again you have the collapse of the game.[/list:o]I would love to see some text directed at handling these things well. What are strong rules/guidelines for who, when, and how things can be moved along in character/setting exploration Sim? I think the goal of introducing Narrativists to Simulationism can be achieved. It's just very tricky.

Paul

[Rob Carriere]

Ralph,
I agree completely. The fact that so many games are set up that way says something fairly strong about the design community at large, which in turn will have an influence on the player community. The engineer in me would love to have actual, hard figures, but it's got to be significant.

Ben,
I agree about the different choices, I'm not so sure I agree about the claim that Illusionism/Participationism takes away more choices than Virtuality. I'd argue that they're different and objectively incomparable choices. So, at least in my perception, when you say `more', that actually says something about your play preferences (namely, that you find the choices that Illusionism/Participationism takes away more important than the choices that Virtuality takes away). I personally would agree with you, but two opinions do not objective fact make, and indeed I know people who have argued exactly the other way around with me.

SR
--

[John Kim]

I would like to suggest that Dr. Xero and, well, everyone else are talking about two totally different types of simulationism.

Ron is talking about Illusionism, particularly Participationism (I call it Storytelling in the link below).  Doctor Xero is talking about Virtuality, A.K.A. RGFA Sim.

Reference for Sim subtypes:http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11317

Aha!  I missed the previous "Sim subtypes" thread when it came by, unfortunately.  I kind of like the term "Virtuality", given that the original term of "Simulationism" has been perhaps hopelessly muddled at this point.  

As for helping Narrativists play in Virtuality, it is definitely tricky.  I think the real key is in character creation.  It helps, I think, if the game resembles a genre where the protagonist is pro-active.  For example, in a gangster drama the protagonist goes out and shakes up the status quo to benefit himself.  In contrast, in a thriller an ordinary person who leads a boring life is suddenly dragged into some scheme.  So it helps if the initial setup and character creation suggests a genre like the gangster drama -- but you should of course explain that things will not pan out exactly according to the conventions of that genre.  

It takes dropping some preconceptions about the game.  People may be taken aback by pure Virtuality because while the principles are straightforward, it is often totally different than anything they have done before.  It helps if you have other players to help get them used to it.  The standard is to look for the GM for cues about what the players are supposed to do.  Even players who despise Illusionism may still instinctively depend on the GM to provide them with hooks or bangs to drive things.  

But don't depend too much on what I say here, because I don't feel like I've had a lot of success in getting people to adjust unless they were already open to the idea.

EDIT: This is really about Virtuality/RGFA Simulationism, and thus isn't about GNS per se.  So it may be off-topic.

[Ben Lehman]

I would like to suggest that Dr. Xero and, well, everyone else are talking about two totally different types of simulationism.

Ron is talking about Illusionism, particularly Participationism (I call it Storytelling in the link below).  Doctor Xero is talking about Virtuality, A.K.A. RGFA Sim.

Reference for Sim subtypes:http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11317

Aha!  I missed the previous "Sim subtypes" thread when it came by, unfortunately.  I kind of like the term "Virtuality", given that the original term of "Simulationism" has been perhaps hopelessly muddled at this point.  

(...cut...)

EDIT: This is really about Virtuality/RGFA Simulationism, and thus isn't about GNS per se.  So it may be off-topic.

BL>  Feel free to spin off a thread.  I'd love to talk about it more (I let that thread drop due to some unfortunate overlap with finals.)  In fact, it might still be postable to.

I agree about the different choices, I'm not so sure I agree about the claim that Illusionism/Participationism takes away more choices than Virtuality. I'd argue that they're different and objectively incomparable choices.

BL>  You will note that I was *very* careful about the phrasing of that sentence, and that is for a reason.  I believe that every choice of Creative Agenda (and Technical Agenda) removes choice from the participants of the game.  The removal of choice makes the creative decisions more interesting.

Narrativism also takes away choice -- it takes away choice to do boring or inactive things, for example.

yrs--
--Ben

[Rob Carriere]

You will note that I was *very* careful about the phrasing of that sentence, and that is for a reason.  I believe that every choice of Creative Agenda (and Technical Agenda) removes choice from the participants of the game.  The removal of choice makes the creative decisions more interesting.

I completely agree about the choice bit. Yes, I did note the care of phrasing. I also noted...

Narrativism also takes away choice -- it takes away choice to do boring or inactive things, for example.

...the value judgement.

There are architects and there are interior decorators. Architects worry about lay-out, technical feasability, whether all the required rooms are present and arranged in an artistically satisfying manner and so on.

And then the work of the interior decorator starts.

Similarly, there are players who will tell you that all this plotting and banging stuff is boring them to tears.  That for them, it might as well be taken off their hands. ``Who cares,'' they say, ``that it is pre-ordained that my character will do X, Y and Z and then be hung for the offenses?

``I get to chose his last words!''

And they do have the point that if they do well, the game will be remembered for those last words, not for the skeleton of plot structure that led play there.

What's boring and what brings you to edge of your seat is highly personal.

SR
--

[Doctor Xero]

What is being referred to are things like Disadvantages in GURPs or many other systems.  Say you have a player whose character has "Code of Honor".  The Game rules expect the player to play that character as if he had a code of honor.

I honestly don't see how that could be considered a constraint on the player.  The player freely chose, of his or her own volition, to constrain his or her player-character with that Code of Honor.

Furthermore, it seems to me that it would be far more difficult to suspend disbelief in a roleplaying game if all the characters were psychologically shapeless, swinging from chaotic to orderly and from kindly to cruel at the drop of a hat.  Encapsulating the character's psychological profile within game terms is a tool by which a busy player, who has Real World schooling and/or work and Real World relationships and Real World ethical and/or emotional challenges, can easily recall the basic character conception of his or her player-character so that there is some consistency from game to game in how he or she roleplays the character.

Admittedly, a write-up would work just as well, and a lot of people use those instead in high concept simulationist games.  But character disadvantages give free points for players to use in a game system which involves point-based character construction.

That said, I have encountered the occasional game master who required certain psychological limitations for various reasons.  For example, I can not handle graphic depictions of torture, so I have told players that they are not allowed to build player-characters that gleefully torture.

I would not call that a constraint on the players -- I would call that my being honest about what I can handle.  I don't play in games which valorize torture, and I don't game master games which valorize torture.  It's more honest to be upfront about this, I would think.

The difference between this situation and Narrativist play is that this form of Simulation thrives on enforcing and reinforcing the stereo type while many times Narrativist play is about establishing those stereo types and then breaking them.

For instance...what set of circumstances would cause this character to abandon his code of honor...would cause that character to pick up a weapon and fight.  Often times, the whole climax of the game will build around the point where the character violates their stereo type.  Where a simulationist rules set would then penalize the player for doing so, Narrativist play thrives on it.

The term "stereotype" has so many negative connotations in our culture today -- in particular, the term is linked either to artistically-bankrupt performances and writing or to the prejudicial simplications of bigots.  So I have a great deal of difficulty referring to character conceptions and/or manifestations of genre archetypes as stereotypes : it's demeaning.

It also doesn't fit any of the high concept simulationism about which I have read or experienced (more on this further down).  It fits alignment as it occurs in Dungeons & Dragons, but I've always understood that to be more of a gamist system.

The point is that the constraints are on things that those who prefer this mode don't care about. Sure, says the Sim, I can't blow my Code of Honor, but why on Earth would I want to? I picked the disad myself, of my own free will, didn't I? And if it is part of the concept of the character to blow his Code at some point, well, I know that and I can reserve the XP to buy it off, can't I?

EXACTLY!

Except for the fact that, in almost every high concept simulationist game I have played over the past two decades, no game master has ever punished players for having their characters strain against their psychological limitations.  In fact, in these high concept simulationist games, if a player had her male character violate his code of honor because he had been pushed to the limit, and it made dramatic sense, there would no penalty of any sort exacted.

The better game masters would find out which psychological limitations the players wished untouched and which ones the players wanted challenged and then, within the constraints of the genre, work towards scenarios with the specific goal of challenging said psychological limitations so that we could see what happened.

Champions, Villains & Vigilantes, Ars Magica, Runequest, Mekton, and Palladium actually encouraged this kind of player-directed character growth, either directly in the games themselves or in articles on authorized variants of play, and I think we can safely say that those are games which encourage simulationist play.

Back in the 1980s, before the G/N/S schema, we called what I have just described "role-playing" and held it in opposition to what we called "power gaming", which involved former war-gamers who expected the game masters to enforce their psychological limitations because they took them exclusively for the character building points and for no other reason.  

(Those who called themselvse "power gamers" in the 1980s loved to ignore psychological limitations but told us repeatedly that they absolutely hated being put in positions whereat they had to decide whether or not to violate a psychological limitation : either ignore or have the game master enforce it was their motto, and having to roleplay out any challenging of it bored them.  So they tended to avoid "roleplayer" games, as we called them back then.)

Im Sim play I promise I will play my character according to genre expectations. In Nar play I promise I will address premise.

I'm still not quite sure that I see why the two must be in opposition nor can I understand why various Narrativism fans imply they are when posting to The Forge or talking with me outside The Forge.

So, perhaps one way to put this to a native Nar who is visiting Sim land is: Build a conflicted character (like the wannabe hero above) and then the game is about the character addressing the premise of his conflict.

I would suggest that, for those of us who enjoy incarnating our personal psychological archetypes within the characters we construct and then playing them out in Actor stance, this presents no conflict on any level.

It helps, I think, if the game resembles a genre where the protagonist is pro-active.  For example, in a gangster drama the protagonist goes out and shakes up the status quo to benefit himself.  In contrast, in a thriller an ordinary person who leads a boring life is suddenly dragged into some scheme.

Personally, I've always game mastered games in which the players choose whether to play pro-active characters (in which case they determine through their character's actions the storyline) or to play serendipitously involved characters (in which case the game master is conscripted to create a storyline for them and then bring them into it, a more difficult task admittedly).  But that deals with my personal style more than the standard Simulationist style.

The standard is to look for the GM for cues about what the players are supposed to do.

I see that more as players looking for clues as to what their characters (who exist within that world) might see that the players (who exist in the Real World not the game world) might not.

On the other hand, the players may have chosen to ask the game master to run a storyline which grabs at them, somewhat in the way that Bilbo Baggins found himself carried along to Smaug's den or Frodo Baggins found himself obligated to carry the One Ring.  The characters, of course, had no choice, but it is the players' decision to tell the game master to run such a game, so of course the players had the choice.

I thank you all for your comments, but to be honest, after reading all this, I am more confused than ever why so many narrativists automatically treat simulationism as a surrender of player choice.

More importantly, I am still looking for a way to bridge the narrativist-simulationist gap so that I can satisfactorily introduce narrativist players to simulationist play just as I have been introduced to narrativist play.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

Christ's bleeding wounds, what have we come to that people think they can't disagree with me?

To be honest, I had gotten that impression, not from you directly but from others and from the intensity which sometimes permeates The Forge, particularly when they are quoting your articles.

It is enheartening to read from your own words that you welcome serious disagreement.  Because, to be honest, this is one area in which you and I disagree either technically or perspectivally, and I wouldn't want that disagreement to cause problems or hard feelings.

In the interests of further promoting understanding between Narrativists and Simulationists, so that I may learn further how to introduce narrativists into simulationist play, I'd like to reference Zero at the Bone (named after one of the more charming Dickinson poems) from a high concept simulationist (virtuality?) perspective, with occasional references to Mongrel.

Though Ron points out that this game is not the narrativist game design, it definitely qualifies as one of the prototypical narrativist game designs, written by an expert on that particular creative agenda.

As a simulationist, I would perceive Zero at the Bone as restricting my freedom as a player far more than Mongrel.  I would feel as though the game master and gaming system have told me that they "are gonna make decisions for your characters" specifically because I as a player have no choice at all in what my character's Wrongdoing is.  I didn't choose it, I had no right of refusal to what I had picked, and I can't even ensure that it matches up to any character conception I have imagined or dreamt about in the past.

It's my character, the character which I am to play out in the game, the most intimate part of the game for me, and yet I am not able to control what my character's past had been?  That a narrativist player would find this less restricting than being asked to designate psychological limitations as part of a simulationist character creation process is bewildering to me!

In Mongrel, I am allowed to choose my character's identity -- my character's species, attributes, expertises, possessions, et al., and I can be as larger-than-life or as ordinary as I choose, so long as my character conception choices fit within the game world.  But in Zero at the Bone, the player has no control over his or her character's situation (nor any hope of altering it), no control over his or her character's wrongdoing, and the player is specifically denied any opportunity to be larger-than-life, nothing like James Bond even if that's what he or she has imagined.  It seems to me to be self-evident that Mongrel actually provides far more player freedom and far less game master force than does Zero at the Bone!

Were I as a game master to try to run Zero at the Bone for some simulationist gamers, I would feel tempted to repeat for them Ron's line about "keep on doing stuff that supports that point and makes the game 'about' that point, and we'll all get along", the point in this case being ordinary and basically helpless intelligence agents.  I would also have to coax them to be willing to have much of their character conception subordinated to that sort of no-greater-than-life abilities and to a past wrongdoing chosen randomly.

I know that my high concept (virtuality?) simulationist players would initially be confused, because while they might be used to random rolls controlling their player-characters' attributes, superpowers, psychic talents, even monetary resources, they would one and all be used to having personality and characterization under the player's control.  They would not be used to this level of restriction on their freedom as players.

Now, if I showed Mongrel to a group of high concept simulationists, our response would be twofold.  On the one hand, we would find it a mildly intriguing but ultimately dully generic game -- and for the very reasons Ron mentions in his write-up of this game, the lack of detail and description.  On the other hand, we would be annoyed by the Design notes, for they would come across as seemingly misunderstanding our simulationist interests.

For high concept (virtuality?) simulationists, Color and Setting are strongly intertwined, so the comment about the description Color masquerading as Setting would be a non sequitur.  Similarly, our response to why the game designer might include Houses would have nothing to do with whether Houses are familiar -- we would encourage the inclusion of Houses for the simple reason that "Houses are fun!"  If we didn't think so, we would be playing some other game instead.  The design notes on scenario preparation would also be annoying with the comment about aiming trains and such ; however unintended it might be, the tone would suggest to a lot of simulationism fans that the game designer doesn't think highly of simulationism (the game designer's actual thoughts on the matter are only his to know, of course!).

We would assume, of course, that the Vow would be something which the game master would use to challenge us ; we would further assume that there would no pre-determined right or wrong answer whether to break a vow, simply a shared insistence that our characters' actions be within character conception (and we would want that character conception to have been shaped somewhat by the setting or we wouldn't be playing in that setting to begin with).

I hope all this helps clarify.

I look forward to further posts on how to introduce narrativists into simulationist gaming groups.

Doctor Xero

When I want to write a haiku, it is no restriction for me to use the demands of the haiku form to shape and enhance my creativity.  When I want to write freeform verse, however, being forced to write a haiku would be onerous.

[Alan]

Hi Doc,

A couple points:

Christ's bleeding wounds, what have we come to that people think they can't disagree with me?

To be honest, I had gotten that impression, not from you directly but from others and from the intensity which sometimes permeates The Forge, particularly when they are quoting your articles.

Given how often I've seen Ron's statements and theories challenged here on the Forge over the three years I've been reading, I'm always appalled to see people write such things.  I have seen no examples of petty-minded use of moderator power in that time, and many examples exemplar of what moderation should be on a discussion board.

On some other boards, statements like "I fear to disagree lest the moderator ban me" are a kind of passive-aggressive jab at egocentric dictatorship because the poster expects no respect.  On the Forge such statements must be carried over from experiences elsewhere, as I've never seen supporting evidence in the behavior of Ron or Clinton.    

In the interests of further promoting understanding between Narrativists and Simulationists,

This makes it sound as if narrativists and simulationists are different species, forever crippled by their respective preferences.  My own experience is that, 1) once I understood my own preferences and the range of Creative Agenda options, and 2) that I could actually get my CA preferences met, I was much happier choosing to play ANY particular agenda.  I might say "So we're playing a simulationist game for the next two months.  Okay, I know how to do that."  And I do play within the social contract for that game.

Also, forgive me if this has been mentioned by another poster, but the supposition that players who prefer narrativist play need somehow to be introduced to simulationist style seems a straw man.  It's not like narrativist play has any great dominance in the hobby.  Almost every RPG player will have most of their initial experiences with simulationist play and have little need to be introduced.

Perhaps another assumption of this thread is that a player with narrativist preference must somehow be asked to curb his preference so it doesn't interfere with other player's desire for simulationist play.  Let me point out that players with narrativist preference are generally in the minority.  Must the minority be asked to conform with no expectation of give and take?

Just as a group of four friends will play Bill, Jim and Jen's favorite game of Risk some nights, they also play Monopoly often because it's Bob's favorite.  I mean, in a group of friends, we're all concerned that everyone get to have fun and play their favorite game once in a while, right?

What is needed is an understanding that the group will agree on a particular creative agenda for a set period of time - and an acceptance that each player may have different creative agenda preferences that are all equally acceptable.  In my experience, the best kind of group is one where all the players are willing to commit to different creative agendas from their preferred one every so often and play that game for a few months.

... I'd like to reference Zero at the Bone (named after one of the more charming Dickinson poems) from a high concept simulationist (virtuality?) perspective, with occasional references to Mongrel.

Though Ron points out that this game is not the narrativist game design, ....
.... ....
When I want to write a haiku, it is no restriction for me to use the demands of the haiku form to shape and enhance my creativity.  When I want to write freeform verse, however, being forced to write a haiku would be onerous.

In regards free verse, a poet once said, "You can't play tennis without a net."  I think this is true for poetry, fiction and RPG play.  For meaningful play, some kind of restrictions have to be applied.  I think the restriction has to fall in one or more elements of the Exploration medium: Character, System, Setting, Situation, or Color.

In a game that supports narrativism, the restrictions will highlight a category of thematic preference, but I don't think they have to be in any specific area.  Ron's designs, Trollbabe, Sorcerer, and Zero use the technique of restricting character choice (you can only be a Trollbabe, a Sorcerer, a Deep Cover Agent).  But, for another example, HeroQuest is a narrativist design that restricts Setting and Situation.  

The restrictions in Ron's games are pinch points that bring the players in contact with possible Premises to address, but which also allow enormous creative freedom outside the pinch point.  On the other hand, the restrictions on Setting and Situation in HeroQuest have no pinch point - instead, they provide boundaries that contain the characters and force the players into contact with Premise.

Most often, simlulationist designs use boundaries as HeroQuest does: from the outside in, rather than pinches.  I wonder if this is a requirement of simulationist design or just a historical artifact.  I don't know.

Finally, any player may dislike the restrictions of any game.  Even one who prefers narrativist play above others, may dislike the restrictions in Zero, for example.  I would suggest that this holds true in simulationist design as well: does every simulationsit player like playing a vampire?  Or do they all want to play adventurers in a pseudo-medieval setting, or how about HERO system?  You see, the restrictions in simulationist designs are there, they're just different from those of a gamist or narrativist design.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This thread seems to have drifted into a discussion of constraint and choice which doesn't, to me, seem relevant at all.

All creative interaction requires constraint. I'm kind of a ghoul about that concept, which is why none of my GNS categorizing concerns degrees of "player freedom," and why freedom/range-of-choice doesn't enter into the glossary at all.

So I guess I'm not seeing what the thread's about any more. Doc, I have plenty of things to say about your discussion of Zero at the Bone and Mongrel, but I really hate wave-front replies (I react, you react to that, I react to that, etc). I'll need some better context to make sure that Alan's excellent points about constraints are understood as the foundation.

Best,
Ron

[Rob Carriere]

Im Sim play I promise I will play my character according to genre expectations. In Nar play I promise I will address premise.

I'm still not quite sure that I see why the two must be in opposition nor can I understand why various Narrativism fans imply they are when posting to The Forge or talking with me outside The Forge.

OK, my bad, I didn't express myself clearly.

The two must not be in opposition, but they might be in some cases. In other words, this is not a certain point of conflict, but an item to have on the mental checklist.

SR
--

[Doctor Xero]

On the Forge such statements must be carried over from experiences elsewhere, as I've never seen supporting evidence in the behavior of Ron or Clinton.

Christ's bleeding wounds, what have we come to that people think they can't disagree with me?

To be honest, I had gotten that impression, not from you directly but from others and from the intensity which sometimes permeates The Forge, particularly when they are quoting your articles.

I'm always appalled to see people write such things.

Re-read what I had written before commenting on it.  Then you will notice that I had written that I've received this impression from the way other posters have sometimes referenced Ron's writings to support them as though merely the act of referencing Ron automatically wins any debate.

Since what I had written addressed how others have treated Ron's work, the issue of whether or not Ron or Clinton has actually behaved that way becomes, at best, a distracting tangent if what you're going to make a comment about is how "appalling" you consider it to be for me to candidly acknowledge the concern I had had.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

Also, forgive me if this has been mentioned by another poster, but the supposition that players who prefer narrativist play need somehow to be introduced to simulationist style seems a straw man.
---snip!--
Perhaps another assumption of this thread is that a player with narrativist preference must somehow be asked to curb his preference so it doesn't interfere with other player's desire for simulationist play.  

Not at all, Alan!

Both in various postings in The Forge and in my interactions with narrativists outside The Forge, I have encountered again and again devotees of narrativism who refer to narrativism as the new wave of gaming, make casual side references which imply that narrativism is innately "freer" than all other modes, and imply that gamism and simulationism are modes which players "outgrow" or are modes which intrinsically rely upon a lack of player creativity and a creative laziness which results in dependence upon a game master to set up the creative setting and situation.  So this is definitely not a straw man argument.

At the same time, I have also encountered posters in The Forge and narativism enthusiasts outside The Forge who love to depict themselves as underdogs being asked to curb their preferences.  At no time in this thread have I asked how to convert narrativists to simulationism nor how to convert gamists to narrativism nor any other sort of conversion.  What I have asked is how to introduce narrativists to well-played simulationist gaming -- just as I have been introduced to narrativist gaming.

It seems that many narrativists have had only one primary experience of simulationism, one involving rules lawyers and genre lawyers rather than what we used to call "roleplayers" in the 1980s, and from that one primary experience have discarded all simulationism with a "fine for thems what likes it, but ewwwww" attitude.  The specific narrativists I am trying to reach personally come from that experience ; they are interested in trying it out again, but rather leery and are used to playing only narrativist games these days.

This thread seems to have drifted into a discussion of constraint and choice which doesn't, to me, seem relevant at  all.

Again, Ron, I must disagree.

One of the primary reasons given by narrativists for being leery of simulationist gaming has been the impression that narrativism is less constrained and freer.

When simulationism is misperceived as having nothing to offer narrativists but a loss of freedom and a loss of choice, narrativists will be leery of it.

If I can find a way to explain clearly to narrativists what it offers and that it does not involve such a disempowerment, I can more effectively help interested narrativists try out simulationism (or try it again), as I have been helped during my time at The Forge to try narrativism.

On the other hand, I agree, Ron -- this is only one tack, and it seems to have taken over the discussion.

The focus question remains on how best to help an interested narrativist enter into a simulationist game.  I seem to recall receiving comments within and outside the forums that it is about  time such a topic be addressed.

Doctor Xero

[Alan]

Hi Doc,

If CA theory teaches anything, it's that there's room for all of us.  And I think that most people get that once they've had a year or two to get past the novelty of understanding a new agenda style.  In the meantime, we have to tolerate exclamations of glee from new discoverers.  Similar new waves happen every few years in the hobby and none have ever taken it over completely.  

One of the primary reasons given by narrativists for being leery of simulationist gaming has been the impression that narrativism is less constrained and freer.

When people say this, I suspect they are either dropping the context or haven't thought it through completely.  Consider that many players who would like narrativist play started the hobby playing good simulationist designs that actually constrain their desire to address premise. It doesn't matter whether the game was well or poorly presented, what matters is that a sim design will tend to constrict narrativist satisfaction.

When suddenly they discover a game that supports the stuff they find satisfying - bang!  Wow!  I feel so much freer!  They don't notice that the good narrativist design is also constrained, because they're getting freedom where they like it, and constraint where they don't care as much.

[Doctor Xero]

In the meantime, we have to tolerate exclamations of glee from new discoverers.

< smacks forehead very hard and quotes Dr. Strange > Curse me for a novice!  I had completely neglected to take that into consideration.

Thank you, Alan!  Now that I think about it, most of the annoyingly anti-simulationist remarks I've encountered both here in The Forge and out in the Real World seem to come from people who have gotten involved with narrativist play within the past two years.

This explains a great deal -- thank you!

Consider that many players who would like narrativist play started the hobby playing good simulationist designs that actually constrain their desire to address premise. It doesn't matter whether the game was well or poorly presented, what matters is that a sim design will tend to constrict narrativist satisfaction.

When suddenly they discover a game that supports the stuff they find satisfying - bang!  Wow!  I feel so much freer!  They don't notice that the good narrativist design is also constrained, because they're getting freedom where they like it, and constraint where they don't care as much.

Perhaps I have simply been fortunate that most of the simulationist campaigns I've been in have also encouraged addressing premise so long as it is within the constraints of the previously-agreed-upon genre and of the player's characterization (and since the genre constraints had been previously agreed upon and the characterization constraints are constraints which would have been taken anyway, they present zero sense of confinement).

Riddle me this, Alan : would you suggest that the best way to introduce a narrativist into a simulationist gaming group might involve making certain he or she feels unrestrainedly involved in initially choosing (and at times defining) the genre, ambiance, etc. from the start,  and then further working with him or her to develop a character conception which allows for all the give in all the right places so that possibilities of confronting premise are overtly "built into" the character from the start?  I think a good simulationist would already know to do this, but a narrativist who is unused to simulationism or has forgotten it might not already realize to do this.

Or should I just assume that, until the initial glow of narrativism fades away, the player will be interested in only one creative agenda regardless of his or her desire to game with us in our simulationist campaigns as well as in our narrativist games?

(For example, I have a good friend who is a gamist.  He doesn't enjoy simulationism nor narrativism, so he doesn't join in those campaigns with us.  He knows he is always welcome, and we socialize a great deal outside gaming, but we both know this is one area where our interests do not intersect, and we both respect that.)

Doctor Xero

I never thought I'd miss the 1980s, but sometimes I miss the days when gamers simply divided themselves into self-described "roleplayers" (which encompassed both simulationism and narrativism) and self-described "power gamers" (which focused on gamism).  I can see the need for subdividing what we labelled "roleplay" then, but I miss being able to simply call myself a "roleplayer" without having to specify how much simulationism and how much narrativism is involved in this.