How to Introduce a Narrativist to Simulationism?

[Balbinus]

Mike, the argument (in part) was about whether sim games required GM intervention overriding player control over character, as described in Ron's original post.  I never argued it couldn't happen, just that it is not a necessary component of sim.

So my point was simply in rebuttal to that notion, although in some sim games as in some games with other agendas the GM may override player control of character, there is nothing inherent in sim which requires that the GM exert such control and a sim game can be successfully run without any such exertion of control ever ocurring.

[Mike Holmes]

These constraints are only being considered in terms of plot in the example I gave. I can't give one example of GM constraint that covers all manner of GM constraint. And, yes, for every example of GM constraint that I come up with, you can say that there's a form of sim that doesn't require it.

But at some point, the GM is going to do something to the world, and that limits player response. Is that really controversial?

Mike

[contracycle]

Mike, the argument (in part) was about whether sim games required GM intervention overriding player control over character, as described in Ron's original post.  I never argued it couldn't happen, just that it is not a necessary component of sim.

I think you're missing that specifically the topic is High Concept sim, that is sim that is About a given issue, which explicitly seeks to explore that specific issue.  Now I do think it is legitimate to asseert that High Concept sim is likely to empower the GM to overule player decisions regarding their characters more than most CA's, and more even than a kinda freeform sim.  In order to for the topical subject to manifest in the game space, it must impose itself to some degree, and the GM is not only mandated by actually obliged to carry that out.

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, it's not Dune if the GM isn't having Bene Gesserit plotting against you or something.

Note that constraint isn't just a sim thing, it pertains to all modes. Ron was saying that the idea that narrativism isn't constrained is nonsense. Making it just like all other modes.

Mike

[Doctor Xero]

Mike, the argument (in part) was about whether sim games required GM intervention overriding player control over character, as described in Ron's original post.

Yes, these issues are relevant to aiding a narrativist in understanding the joys of sim play.

One early complaint voiced was the assumption that sim play requires the game master to restrict player freedom but nar play does not.

This was later amended or clarified as referring to different types of freedom and accepted social contracted restraint.

Here's an light-hearted example : by the words of die-hard narrativists, the sim game master is restricting their characters when she rules that the narrativist can not have his male player-character become pregnant.  The die-hard narrativist states that he wants to explore the Premise of whether or not a pro-choice man would have an abortion were he to find that he could also become pregnant -- then, angry, he declares that for the game master to keep him from exploring this is an odious evil standard-sim restriction of his freedom as a player.  The simulationist game master points out that the narrativist agreed to play in her roleplaying campaign set in the modern real world, with no magic nor esoteric science to justify having a male become pregnant, so suddenly introducing male pregnancy into the campaign is absurd -- then, angry, she declares for the player to define any level of restraint as onerous game master control of his character is a capricious standard-nar self-absorption that values player whim as sacrosanct.

As has been pointed out before in this thread, a lot of narrativists have become die-hard anti-sim narrativists because of bad experiences with simulationist game masters in dysfunctional public groups (just as a number of simulationists have been skeptical about nar play due to bad experiences with self-absorbed narrativist players in dysfunctional playing groups).

I started this thread in large part to deal both with posts and private messages from such scarred narrativists and with some Real Life narrativists I have been trying to (re)introduce to simulationist roleplaying.  Calming them about the anti-sim stereotypes (while showing respect for nar play) seems a crucial aspect of bringing them into healthy simulationist play.

The best evidence for the popularity of such anti-sim stereotypes is the fact that this thread has gone on for so long with continued arguments about whether simulationist roleplaying gaming is intrinsically oppressive or restrictive or however one puts it -- with the correllary implication that narrativist play is innately liberated and free and what-have-you.

Those of us who love simulationist play (particularly actor stance sim) already know how free it is, with the shared "objective" imagined space a necessary canvas against which to play and in no way a straitjacket.

But how do we explain this to them so that they understand?

I have been exploring in this thread (sim? nar? gamist since finding the solution would be winning?) how to clarify for narrativists who consciously or unconsciously look down upon sim play the joy of simulationism so that they can participate in our simulationist campaigns as well as in our narrativist campaigns -- especially since our campaigns tend to incorporate opportunities for both CA.

That is why such issues as freedom and restraint and player responsibility and game master trustworthiness keep popping up.

And I still don't think we've achieved a definitive solution yet!

I look forward to reading more.

Doctor Xero

[Ben O'Neal]

But how do we explain this to them so that they understand?

How can we lead a horse to water, and make it drink?

You can't.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the three CA's are approaches to gaming. As in, a preconception of how a game should play, and how the player will play it. You can't change that. Only the person can change that. All you can do is give them information.

But if a Nar player approaches a Sim game from their Nar perspective, they aren't going to enjoy the game. You are essentially trying to change what they enjoy about playing. Hardcore Nar players are convinced that they won't enjoy Sim. You're trying to tell them that they personally can enjoy another CA. You'd have better luck convincing a hardcore catholic that evolutionism can provide logical and convincing answers at least as well as creationism.

So trying to get Nar players who are convinced that Sim is not their style, to actually alter their entire approach to the game, is going to be hard, if not impossible. I think the important question really isnt' "how do we bring nar players to sim games?" but, "if they are having fun with nar, why bother?".

I mean, sure, you and I know that Sim can be great fun. But so can Nar, and so can Gam. If someone wants to stick with one mode and be all elitist about it, I say "Let them, it's their loss". If they're interested in trying another CA, make sure up front that they understand the differences required in how they fundamentally approach the game, and I'm sure they'll be able to appreciate it as much as the rest of us. But their CA has to match the style of game you are running. The important words there are "their CA", because it is theirs, not the games, nor the groups, nor anything else's. A game cannot have an agenda, and certainly can't be creative. When we say "A Sim game", we are saying "A game which caters to the interests and play styles of players with Sim CAs". I think this pretty neatly sums up why trying to convince a Nar player to play a Sim game is flawed. You can only convince Sim players to play a Sim game.

So how are you going to make your Nar players into Sim players? Horse. Water. Can't.

-Ben

[Doctor Xero]

How can we lead a horse to water, and make it drink?

You can't.
---snip!--
But if a Nar player approaches a Sim game from their Nar perspective, they aren't going to enjoy the game. You are essentially trying to change what they enjoy about playing. Hardcore Nar players are convinced that they won't enjoy Sim.

Some excellent points, Ben!

However, two other considerations :

1) What about trying to explain the joys of simulationist play to hardcore narrativists who want to understand why some of us enjoy sim play so they could perhaps join in our sim games with us?  (After all, we enjoy their nar games with them.)  In my specific case, that is one of the concerns : I keep trying to explain sim play, and I keep receiving a "yes, but -- " response.  Perhaps I should simply "wax poetic" about what I like about sim play without reference to nar play one way or the other and ask their permission to avoid the comparing and contrasting method of explanation.  Their biggest fears seem to come from an inability to see past the anti-sim stereotypes which are so popular (and, admittedly, often lived out in the one-shot sim play at conventions).

2) What about the people in The Forge and elsewhere who pepper their posts with subtle (and not-so-subtle) implications that Narrativist play is the more mature, more sophisticated, more respectful or liberating, and more artistic play and that Simulationist play is childish, pulpy, oppressive, disrespectful of players, and artistically hack work?  Ron Edwards has suggested that one should simply ignore them or at least ignore the insulting implications.  But I mislike ignoring what people say/write because it abandons the ideals of communication and a mutual exchange of thoughts and insights and feelings.

Other than the above: good point, Ravien.  I have heard there was an Introducing Simulationists to Narrativist Play thread somewhere in the vastness of The Forge -- is that the conclusion reached in that thread as well?

Doctor Xero

[Mike Holmes]

1) What about trying to explain the joys of simulationist play to hardcore narrativists who want to understand why some of us enjoy sim play so they could perhaps join in our sim games with us?  

It's hard to get people to understand the sim POV if they don't share it, because it's something rather unique to RPGs. But that said, like all modes, I think the best way to get somebody to understand a mode is to demonstrate it in play.

2) What about the people in The Forge and elsewhere who pepper their posts with subtle (and not-so-subtle) implications that Narrativist play is the more mature, more sophisticated, more respectful or liberating, and more artistic play and that Simulationist play is childish, pulpy, oppressive, disrespectful of players, and artistically hack work?

Send 'em to me so I can make fun of them. Or so I can harangue them about the Beeg Horseshoe.

Rather, if they're so biased that they feel this way, then it's like trying to convince a racist that they're position is wrong. Not likely to work. Also consider that it might just be that you've read in some things that aren't there in some people's discussions of sim. That those "subtle implications" are actually possible imagined rather than real.

Mike

[Doctor Xero]

That those "subtle implications" are actually possible imagined rather than real.

That last is unlikely.  1) I have training in this, and 2) I've consulted with others since, of course, I am just fallible as anyone else.

Still, since Sim controlled the field for a while, it makes sense that Nar would have a backlog of frustration which might seep out now and then.

How's that go?  Never attribute to malice what can be explained by a bad breakfast? < laughter >

Thanks for the pointers.

Unless anyone has anything further to add, I think this thread is finished.  Thank you one and all for the advice both on the abstract level and on the concrete interpersonal level.

Personally, I prefer the examples of G, N, and S presented in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11694 in this.

Doctor Xero

[droog]

I'm a newcomer to this theoretical framework. I've been using it to examine my past gaming experiences as a way of understanding it. Please forgive me if I misuse the terms.

While much in my play has been Nar, it's very useful to be able to think of it in more conscious critical terms, so the theory has been fruitful. But while, in a sense, I'm one of the enthusiastic newcomers spoken of earlier, I'd like to speak up for Sim.

For me, the definitive Sim game is Pendragon. Strangely enough, my game group had always been used to playing RQ drifted for Nar, so there were some clashes with eg personality mechanics or long heal times when I first introduced it.

But over time, my Nar players entered the Dream. The literate ones got intertextual and the others enjoyed the blood and mud. We took to using the financial rules for the players' estates. Elaborate family trees appeared. The life histories of the characters became something to tell stories about even after they'd died. 'When Aeddan was at Badon...' 'I saw Arthur draw the sword!' It was being woven into the grand tapestry that made the game absorbing. That means a certain amount of creative direction must be tolerated, whether it's explicit in system as in Pendragon or in setting as in RQ/Glorantha.

The story constructs itself, and if it sometimes tails off inexplicably or without dramatic conclusion; well, that's in the source material too. It's also in the ultimate source material: Life.

Hardcore Narrativists, there's room for you. It's making a documentary instead of a movie. It's anthropology, not a novel. There's a joy in both that many know. Leave Premise on the shelf for a night and explore where human culture can go.

[Doctor Xero]

I'm a newcomer to this theoretical framework. I've been using it to examine my past gaming experiences as a way of understanding it. Please forgive me if I misuse the terms.

While much in my play has been Nar, it's very useful to be able to think of it in more conscious critical terms, so the theory has been fruitful. But while, in a sense, I'm one of the enthusiastic newcomers spoken of earlier, I'd like to speak up for Sim.

For me, the definitive Sim game is Pendragon. Strangely enough, my game group had always been used to playing RQ drifted for Nar, so there were some clashes with eg personality mechanics or long heal times when I first introduced it.

But over time, my Nar players entered the Dream. The literate ones got intertextual and the others enjoyed the blood and mud. We took to using the financial rules for the players' estates. Elaborate family trees appeared. The life histories of the characters became something to tell stories about even after they'd died. 'When Aeddan was at Badon...' 'I saw Arthur draw the sword!' It was being woven into the grand tapestry that made the game absorbing. That means a certain amount of creative direction must be tolerated, whether it's explicit in system as in Pendragon or in setting as in RQ/Glorantha.

The story constructs itself, and if it sometimes tails off inexplicably or without dramatic conclusion; well, that's in the source material too. It's also in the ultimate source material: Life.

This is perfect!  The specific examples you mention show the delights to be found in simulationist play ; in particular, your statements about "Elaborate family trees appeared. The life histories of the characters became something to tell stories about even after they'd died. . . . It was being woven into the grand tapestry that made the game absorbing" wondrously explain what Simulationists love in our gaming in a way Narrativists can parse (IMHO).  You have captured exactly the feel of what brings me back to Simulationism over and over again, despite my enjoyment of Narrativist play as well.  Thank you!

(Oh, and if someone hasn't already said it, welcome to the Forge, Droog.)

Although I'd closed the thread, I'm glad you posted, because this is exactly that for which I have been searching.

Doctor Xero