First fumbling steps

[Mike Holmes]

Leave it to Ralph and me to cross post with nigh identical responses.

Mike

[Valamir]

Heh, happens.

Although I would say regarding your example that I don't see anything inherently "better" in either version.  One place where I think discussions of narrativism run into difficulty is when phrases like "what's good for the story" start appearing.  

Such phrasing is important in so far as it notes that we're not talking about stupid crappy stories...but then who would be motivated to intentionally design a stupid crappy story to begin with.  Instead such phrasing as "players will do whats best for the story" implies that there *is* a "best" for for the story and that everyone around the table can agree what that is.

IMO, Mike, each of your examples are perfectly legitamate story choices that can be justified for any style of play.  Getting an army together first is no more inherently Sim, than running off solo is inherently narrativist.

The difference is what MOTIVATES the player to make those choices not what the choices are.

Frex, a simulationist player might gather an army first for the reasons you describe.  OR he might decide that would take to long and leave the dragon free to rampage and so action needs to be taken now...either option is justifiable.

A narrativist player might narrate gathering an army first also.  However this player may be motivated by highlighting the anguish of his character as he sends his men into battle knowing they are ill equipped to handle the dragon and will die most painfully.  Another motivator might be that the character, once a valiant knight errant, is now a nobleman and has too many duties and responsibilities to but himself at risk in man to dragon combat.  The player might want to spot light the character's guilt at sending other men to their deaths while he stays home managing his estates.  The character may even start to question his own courage or start pining for his lost days of youthful adventure.  Heck the most dramatic scenes might not even have the dragon in them at all.  The dragon may never actually be even seen except through reports recieved.

Point being:  I would be extremely reluctant to ever pose two situations and conclude a "simulationist would do A" and a "narrativist would do B".  I think those types of examples confuse more than clarify.

[Mike Holmes]

The difference is what MOTIVATES the player to make those choices not what the choices are.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Narrativism means giving consideration to what makes for a better story. And, out of context, my examples probably are useless. Let me rephrase. Assuming example A is more versimilar, and assuming that exmple B happens to be better for the story in question, and assuming that the characters motivations could lead him to either solution, then choosing option B (or at least consideing it) is the Narrativist option.

Note, as always, the same choice could be the best for both the Simulationist and Narrativist. This is the case where the happy coincidence occurs and versimilar play happens to produce story (or vice versa). The question of decision making is only an issue when a situation occurs where two equally reasonable courses of action present themselves, and one is better for one style, and the other is better for the other.

Better?
Mike