How to Introduce a Narrativist to Simulationism?

[Doctor Xero]

Someone has asked me if the above was intended to be sarcastic against Alan.

No, it was sincere.

Alan's clarity in his most recent posting has increased my respect for him, which is why I ran a possible technique by him by name in this thread.

Doctor Xero

[Walt Freitag]

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.

This sounds to me like you were drifting into vanilla Narrativism, and the "better gamemasters" you're characterizing are the ones who supported or accomodated that drift. "Work[ing] toward scenarios with the specific goal of challenging those psychological limitations" is the tip-off, but the really interesting part is "... so we could see what happened."

"Seeing what happened" sure sounds Sim at first, but in the context of the systems you were playing, I don't believe it is. You can't just "see what happens" because those systems aren't set up to "show you" what happens when a character is pushed to the limit against his psychological limitations. They tell you the effects of having those psychological limitations under "normal" (typical play) circumstances. Exactly how performance is reduced under exactly what conditions, specific actions ruled out, and so forth. But the reverse of that, how an extreme emotional situation might affect the psyschological limitation itself, is up to the participants to work out. When you want to play out characters facing psychological turning points it's not "see what happens," it's really "decide what happens." Which very likely means it's drifting from high-concept Sim into vanilla Narrativism. Depending on who's deciding, and on what basis.

In your play, did players just break their characters' psychological limitations under stress, and wait to see if the GM penalized them or not? Or was there more give and take to it, more metagame player input, than that? Was the coolness of an outcome, in the sense of "wouldn't it be just so cool and dramatic if X happened," a major factor in the decision? Making significant decisions, unaided by the textual rules, based on coolness -- and organizing much of play to bring those events about -- is a whisker away from full-blown Narrativism (since the "coolness" is often fueled by an underlying unacknowledged Premise).

Even if I'm overstating the extent of the drift, something is causing the problems of introducing your style of Simulationism to Narrativists to diminish as this thread goes on. Doc, every time someone points out "Narrativists would be expecting X," you respond with "But my Sim play does have X." Since I have no reason to doubt you on those assertions, the notion that you're already accustomed to playing vanilla Narrativist using drifted systems originally designed for Sim is the simplest way to explain how this comes about.

- Walt

[Doctor Xero]

Walter, I am beginning to suspect that the campaigns with which I am familiar have both simulationism and narrativism within them.

I think the narrativists would enjoy my game if they could get over the assumption that the simulationist elements would cancel out the narrativist elements.

If that's true, though, then this thread becomes a lot less useful for introducing narrativists to a pure simulationist campaign.

"In narrativist games, you have the freedom to address any ethical issues even though you give up larger than life dreams and mythopoesis.  In many simulationist games, you have the freedom to be magical and mysterious even though you may lose the freedom to challenge the genre's prevailing ethos.  In my games, you will have the freedom to address most ethical issues but not all, because we also love the genre, and you will have the freedom to be magical and mysterious, but you will also be expected to challenge and be challenged rather than sit tight in an already-known-and-mapped-out ethical metaphysics."

Perhaps that is all that is needed.  I dunno.

Doctor Xero

[Ben O'Neal]

I think alot of this the issue arises from a blurred boundary between character and player. Ethical issues, moral issues, human issues, whatever, all can be addressed very explicitly in all creative agendas. As M. J. Young wrote over in Narrativism: Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:

--To the simulationist, we want to explore what the assassin feels in that situation.
--To the narrativist, we want to know what the player feels about that.
---
It gets close at times, but the question is still, what are we doing? Are we, as players, addressing premise? Or are we, as players, exploring the beliefs and feelings of some imaginary character?

So if you let your players know that they can still explore all their favourite themes, but that they must now do so from the eyes of the character, and not their own, then perhaps Sim play won't seem so bad.

Or perhaps they will find they have really been playing Sim all along, because they have always had their characters address issues of personal conflict, as opposed to addressing such issues themselves, using their character as a proxy for engaging such situations.

I get the impression that the player/character boundary is blurred because of this statement:

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.

I don't think Sim games really have anything to do with constraints on the player. "The player" doesn't even need to factor in. "The player" is merely the one experiencing the character, which is the entity of prime importance in Sim games. So what matters is that the player is focused on exploring the character in the setting. Restricting the player's ability to control that character does not restrict their ability to explore it, and thus is a non-issue. Conversely, restricting a player's ability to control a character when that character is the tool by which a player can explore theme is a Bad Thing, because it restrict's the player's ability to play. But back to Sim, constraints on a character, regardless of whether they are put there by the rules, setting, or GM, serve as aspects for exploration. "What is it like to flee a dragon in fear?"; "What is it like to experience sadness as a hardened soldier?"; "How would an elf mourn the death of a loved one?"; "How would a dwarf react when magically forced in love with an elf?". These are all Sim. "How do I feel about my character being discriminated against?" is Nar.

But players can still explore characters and settings when the GM or rules make some decisions for that character (not for the player, for the character), so Sim games don't suffer from such rules and can indeed benefit from them for increasing the reality of the situation.

If you want to bring a Nar gamer to a Sim game, they must understand the differences in focus, and what this entails about the design and running of the game. If they don't like/accept the difference, then play will either not be fun for them or will be dysfunctional.

-Ben

[Doctor Xero]

I think a lot of this the issue arises from a blurred boundary between character and player. Ethical issues, moral issues, human issues, whatever, all can be addressed very explicitly in all creative agendas. As M. J. Young wrote over in Narrativism: Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:

--To the simulationist, we want to explore what the assassin feels in that situation.
--To the narrativist, we want to know what the player feels about that.
---
It gets close at times, but the question is still, what are we doing? Are we, as players, addressing premise? Or are we, as players, exploring the beliefs and feelings of some imaginary character?

---snip!--
I don't think Sim games really have anything to do with constraints on the player. "The player" doesn't even need to factor in. "The player" is merely the one experiencing the character, which is the entity of prime importance in Sim games. So what matters is that the player is focused on exploring the character in the setting. Restricting the player's ability to control that character does not restrict their ability to explore it, and thus is a non-issue. Conversely, restricting a player's ability to control a character when that character is the tool by which a player can explore theme is a Bad Thing, because it restrict's the player's ability to play.

Thanks for the insights, Ravien.  However, this sounds less like Narrativism vs. Simulationism CA than it does like Author vs. Actor stance.

For an Actor, who is incarnating part of himself or herself within the character conception, sometimes the difference between character experience and player experience isn't.  Or one can use the same character to explore characterization one scenario and premise the next.

Doctor Xero

[Ben O'Neal]

However, this sounds less like Narrativism vs. Simulationism CA than it does like Author vs. Actor stance.

Not necessarily. Whilst it might be easier to explore setting and character in Actor stance (Sim), it is still entirely possible to do so in the other stances. The same is true of exploring theme in Author stance (Nar), and system in Pawn stance (Gam).

Perhaps these stances are correlated with the three CAs because they tend to "fit" the goals of each CA, but IMHO, they are still independant, and each stance can still be effective in each CA, and regardless of stance, the goal of each CA never changes.

Or one can use the same character to explore characterization one scenario and premise the next.

That would be drift then. The focus changes from the character being the object of exploration within the setting, to the character being a tool with which the player can explore premise. The character cannot logically be both at the same time, and if I understand Ron's essays correctly, this would be why it is called drift. Some games make this easier, some make it harder, some make it dysfunctional, and some might even make it impossible.

For an Actor, who is incarnating part of himself or herself within the character conception, sometimes the difference between character experience and player experience isn't.

There is no spoon. There is no character. The character cannot experience anything, it doesn't exist. Only the player can have experiences. The difference is whether or not the player is "channelling" those imaginary experiences through and into their imaginary character, asking themselves "how would this imaginary character react to this imaginary experience?" Because this is all happening in the player's mind, the player is experiencing this. Alternatively, the player could use their character to expose the player to themes which the player themselves has a vested interest in, and then asks themselves "how do I feel about this experience?"

I think the only times this distinction would become blurred is when the answer to both questions is the same: both player and character would feel/react the same. But it isn't the answer that is important for the CAs, it's the question. It doesn't matter where the story goes, it only matters how the story is approached. As I understand it, the CAs are about how the players approach their games, not what they want out of them (because they all want "fun").

If you want a player with Narrativist leanings to enjoy a Sim game, it's not a matter of convincing them the Sim game won't cramp their style, or that Sim games can be fun too, it's a matter of convincing them to alter how they approach the game. All these issues of "constraints" and such are irrelevant, they are seen as obstacles to prevent one CA from working in another CA, when in fact they are part of what helps each CA be met. I think of it like walls on a highway. If you approach from the side, they look like obstacles, but if you adjust your angle and enter from where you're supposed to, they look like guides that help you get where you want to go. Sim, Nar, and Gam are all different highways at different angles to each other. If you try to approach a Sim highway from a Nar angle, you're gonna crash.

I hope that makes sense, and I hope I'm not just talking out of my ass.

-Ben

[Balbinus]

Guys, could someone possibly post a straightforward example of GM constraint of player choice in high sim play?  I realise some of you are moving on from that, but it seems to me relevant to the topic and perhaps because I am tired admittedly I am really struggling to see the argument being made on this one.

If I am playing Runequest for example, in what ways is the GM entitled to take control of my character?  The very idea seems so anathemical to sim play that I think a concrete example would really help.  Ron's essay is good on sim, so I think this must be miscommunication rather than anything more fundamental.

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm. Let's say that you're playing an Orlanthi in RQ, and you come to a clan chief's hall, and you come in shouting curses at him. The GM says, "Uh, an Orlanthi would never do that, the rules of hospitality forbid it."

You're saying you've never encountered play like this? Normally it occurs when the player is about to take an adventure off of the path that the GM has set for it. That is, in the example, he assumes that being Orlanthi that the PCs will come into the hall calmly, and that leads to an important plot point. The player is messing this up, so the GM has to straighten it out by making the adjustment to the player's decision on what happened.

Again, often it's put as a question. "Given that Orlanthi don't do that, what will you have your character do?" Basically the GM asking the player to try again.

This is so common that if you say you've never seen it that I'd be shocked. Or it might be that you're play is just a lot more narrativism than you were aware of.

The easier example is when in a game like, say, Star Wars D6, you have as part of chargen some "Personality flaw" like "Argumentative." Then in play, when you declare that the PC tries to walk away from a situation where an argument seems to be starting, the GM points at the flaw and tells you that you can't play that way. The GM is mandated in most of these games to correct players who do not play these things correctly in thier opinion.

Mike

[TonyLB]

Mike... is such a response on the part of the GM inherently because they're feeling thwarted in introducing a plot point?  Or is that a side issue that you felt you would address?

I would think that having the Orlanthi (whatever they are) wildly violate the mores of its people without any apparent justification would be frowned upon as a violation of The Dream, whether it messes with the GMs plans or not.

[Balbinus]

Hmmm. Let's say that you're playing an Orlanthi in RQ, and you come to a clan chief's hall, and you come in shouting curses at him. The GM says, "Uh, an Orlanthi would never do that, the rules of hospitality forbid it."

You're saying you've never encountered play like this? Normally it occurs when the player is about to take an adventure off of the path that the GM has set for it. That is, in the example, he assumes that being Orlanthi that the PCs will come into the hall calmly, and that leads to an important plot point. The player is messing this up, so the GM has to straighten it out by making the adjustment to the player's decision on what happened.

Again, often it's put as a question. "Given that Orlanthi don't do that, what will you have your character do?" Basically the GM asking the player to try again.

This is so common that if you say you've never seen it that I'd be shocked. Or it might be that you're play is just a lot more narrativism than you were aware of.

Mike

All I'm saying is I didn't understand the examples Mike :-)

I do recognise what you portray, I also think though that it is an example of a form of dysfunctional play which occurs mostly in sim but is not good sim play if you see what I mean.

Why?  Because the player is not experiencing the dream, they cannot because they do not really know what the dream is.

Alternatively, it is dysfunctional because the player is choosing to have their character flout societal conventions and the GM is intervening to prevent them doing that.  That's not a sim issue as such, that is more a question of a fundamental breakdown in game vision between the GM and player.

I don't encounter this often, because the games I run do not have programmed paths which players can veer off.  They are high sim but character driven, which I think is not that uncommon among older sim gamers.

Returning to your example, why would this happen?

A.  The player didn't know that Orlanthi wouldn't do that.  As above, I don't see how you can explore a dream you are utterly ignorant of.

B.  The player knew Orlanthi wouldn't do that but thought that credibly in character their character would break Orlanthi custom.  The GM intervention is a straightforward breach of most games social contracts, the GM is taking over the character because he dislikes the character concept.  Not really a sim or indeed GNS issue in my view.

C.  The player has asked the GM or agreed with the GM that the GM should intervene if he gets cultural stuff wrong.  Cool, but here the player has not really lost character control.  He has shared some character control because he wants to play in line with the background and needs help doing so.  Again, not sure that's really a GNS issue though it's not dysfunctional either.

This is where I really depart from you though:  "[The GM] assumes that being Orlanthi that the PCs will come into the hall calmly, and that leads to an important plot point. The player is messing this up, so the GM has to straighten it out by making the adjustment to the player's decision on what happened. "  GM's making assumptions about what players will do, pre-preparing important plot points, the idea of the player messing up the GM's game, "straightening out" player actions by changing their decisions.  All control related, but really all examples of classic control driven disfunctional play and nothing really to do with anything inherent to sim play.

[Mike Holmes]

First, in the name of disclosure, I edited in another example, not knowing that responses would occur so soon. Apologies.

I do recognise what you portray, I also think though that it is an example of a form of dysfunctional play which occurs mostly in sim but is not good sim play if you see what I mean.

There are a great many players who would tell you that this is just your opinion. That is, they see this as a perfectly valid form of play. Many have said so, even here.

Alternatively, it is dysfunctional because the player is choosing to have their character flout societal conventions and the GM is intervening to prevent them doing that.  That's not a sim issue as such, that is more a question of a fundamental breakdown in game vision between the GM and player.

We're assuming that the players want this form of play. Sure, it could be dysfuncitonal, but that can be said of any mode. There's nothing here that makes this automatically dysfunctional. We have to assume that the players accept that they don't have full control over their characters. Hard as that may be to believe.

A.  The player didn't know that Orlanthi wouldn't do that.  As above, I don't see how you can explore a dream you are utterly ignorant of.

The player can't know everything about the world in which they play. They have to somehow be introduced to it. Sometimes that happens in play. The "Dream" doesn't assume that the player is actually the character.

B.  The player knew Orlanthi wouldn't do that but thought that credibly in character their character would break Orlanthi custom.  The GM intervention is a straightforward breach of most games social contracts, the GM is taking over the character because he dislikes the character concept.  Not really a sim or indeed GNS issue in my view.

Right, so not an issue here. That said, what if there's merely a difference of opinion? What if the GM thinks that it's something that would not happen, and the player thinks it is. In these cases, in these games, the GM is mandated to have the final say. Usually under some clause like, "Players can't just have their characters do anything they like - they have to play in  character. The GM is allowed to veto character behavior if it's unrealistic, or out of character."

Yes, many GMs ignore such rules.

C.  The player has asked the GM or agreed with the GM that the GM should intervene if he gets cultural stuff wrong.  Cool, but here the player has not really lost character control.  He has shared some character control because he wants to play in line with the background and needs help doing so.  Again, not sure that's really a GNS issue though it's not dysfunctional either.

Agreed, that's not what the example is about.

GM's making assumptions about what players will do, pre-preparing important plot points, the idea of the player messing up the GM's game, "straightening out" player actions by changing their decisions.  All control related, but really all examples of classic control driven disfunctional play and nothing really to do with anything inherent to sim play.

Well, one of two things is true. Either the game in question has given the power to the GM to ensure that things are kept straight, or it says The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. That the player controls the character, but the GM controls the plot. Right here you see a case where both cannot be true. In the example, either the player gets his way, and he's controling the plot at that point, or the GM gets his way, and he's controling the plot.

Many styles of Sim claim at least to functionally allow the GM control of the plot. It's not only OK for the GM to plot like this, most of the published adventures are written like this. Some day I'll count the number of times it says in "At the Mountains of Madness" for COC, "Next the characters do X". It's the GM's job to enusre that they do X.

Now, many GMs in this situation resort to Illusionism. They'll allow the character to barge into the chief's hall, but then figure out how to get the plot element in anyhow. "Suddenly you're surrounded by ten weaponthanes of legendary ability [who only just now appeared in the scenario] who tell you to cease with the cursing." The implication being, "Follow the plot or your character dies." The GM is controling the character just as surely as if he had just told the player that he can't do X.

Mike

[Balbinus]

Mike,

You're assuming there has to be a plot.  Nothing in sim play requires one though.

And even for games with plot (admittedly the majority in actual play I think), a GM who can't adapt their plot to the vagaries of character decisions is a GM who can't improvise, again not a GNS issue.  Most GMs in the wild routinely adjust plots to address unexpected character actions.

I think you're potentially confusing badly written and heavily railroaded published scenarios with stuff that is actually necessary to sim play.  CoC scenarios for example are notorious for egregious railroading, that doesn't make such railroading an intrinsic part of the sim play experience.

Sim does not require plot, where plot is used plot need not be inflexible and unable to adapt to unexpected character behaviour.  The impossible thing is an artificial construct here.  No, you cannot have player freedom and rigid GM plot, but nothing in sim requires that you do.

[Balbinus]

Now, many GMs in this situation resort to Illusionism. They'll allow the character to barge into the chief's hall, but then figure out how to get the plot element in anyhow. "Suddenly you're surrounded by ten weaponthanes of legendary ability [who only just now appeared in the scenario] who tell you to cease with the cursing." The implication being, "Follow the plot or your character dies." The GM is controling the character just as surely as if he had just told the player that he can't do X.

Mike

Sure, but again this is almost synonymous with bad GMing technique, it immediately destroys the Dream because the intervention is so blatant.

I'm not saying illusionism is bad GMing, but this sort of heavy handed intervention almost always is.  Again, not I think a GNS issue.

[contracycle]

OK, I'm going to suggest that Mikes example is too ambiguous and propose some others, but first I'd like to mention that I think its raised an interesting point, which is what if the GM's version of the SIS and the players version of the SIS clash.  Certainly I have wondered sometimes whether or not a player unerstands all the ramifications of an action like this and wondered if the player is seeing the decision the are making in the same terms I am.  That in principle can be resolved by there and then discussion I suppose; that might be said to be a call for exposition, a prompt for further GM discussion.  If this happened in a linear story you'd probably get a digression - sometimes for pages or minutes - as to why this would be a bad idea so we understand why the character reconsiders their initial impulse.

In these cases, the failure to discuss might result in a GM's exercise of force to privilige their own version of the SIS, in principle in the name of unanimity.  However, I'm not sure that that is the same thing as the GM's exercise of authorship over the players characters in the name of the High Concept.  The point though is that in this example, its hard to tell what's the source of the divergence; a difference in interpretation of or familiarity with material, or something actually in service of the High Concept.

Anyway, some other examples I've like to suggest from things I've done:

Hardwired the CP2020 supplement; characters get "rewarded" with head implants.  The text says if they're dumb enough to let strangers play with their heads, they get implanted with an assasination instruction for someone they are later hired to guard.  So it duly happened, and in the event I dictated their actions ex cathedra.

Conspiracy-X.  A character went carelessly somewhere they shouldn't have and got abducted and memory wiped.  I told the player absolutely nothing and took complete ownership of about 6 hours of their life.  Its especially interesting becuase the genre almost demands this; frequently in such stories a character is significant precisely because they have been abducted.

Mage and Vampire have numerous mind-bending powers available which I utilised as a player on NPC's and have had done to my characters.  I think.  Anyway, all of these were authorised by the situation simulated, and are a direct exercise of authority over a characters actions in the game world and all enjoyed player consent, albeit sometimes a little grudging.  But on that count, IMO it's merely that the social contract is easier to establish if the players have toys that do the same things; then they can see for themselves what the parameters are and have a framework for understanding what they are agreeing to.

[Mike Holmes]

You're assuming there has to be a plot.  Nothing in sim play requires one though.

You're running in circles. You asked for an example of GM's making decisions for players in High Concept Sim games. I gave you examples of a style of Sim where this happens supported by purportedly stable CAs and texts that suggest the style of play.

What are you really looking for?

I never suggested that all Sim is this way, just that some is. As an example, it's quite valid.

Mike