Re: Sim has not be discussed as process yet it needs to be s

[contracycle]

As I said, there are different concepts being expounded here which are both using the label of "Narrativism".  I don't think either side is right or wrong -- they're just conflicting usage which has to be made clear.  It seems to me that your usage is what I described as Narrativism-as-story.  

Cool.  Yes, I am arguing that the claims to story by Narr should be asserted more strongly, and the claims to story by Sim be dropped.  

Really, I like that definition because it seems clear to me.  Anything which reliably creates transcripts with story is by definition Narrativism.  

... except I don't think the transcript is important in this regard, especially.  The only reason the transcript was mentioned was to identify where Sim can make a claim to being/having produced "story".  I am proposing that if we recognises that this is after-the-fact story, rather than story-in-play, the ownership of Story-in-play by Narr is clarified and strengthened.

However, it is not the definition which many people have historically meant when they used the word "Narrativism".  Notably, in his Narrativism essay a year ago Ron came out with the idea that transcript was not useful in determining the Creative Agenda of a game.  

Agreed - I don't think it is particularly important either.  All I was trying to explain was the phenomonen of sim players retroactively organising the events they experienced into a story, and then laying claim to Story en bloc.

I also note that you support Jay's idea of Simulationism-as-myth-making.  Again, there's nothing wrong with that idea, but it's different than prior definitions of the word "Simulationism".  For clarity of discussion, I think this should be clearly distinguished from other usage.  For example, you could label it as a variant model (like the "3D" model or Scarlet Jester's "GEN" model).  Indeed, I would strongly urge coining new terms even if the concepts are similar (perhaps Story-ism and Myth-ism ?).

Hmm well maybe.  But while I think we are proposing a new take on sim, I'm not so sure that its really a new model.  I've railed against the ubiquity of the Story term for some time now and think that the identification of sim-as-myth and narr-as-story makes existing GNS clearer.  I think we should be able to interpret the "sequence of events" produced by sim as raw material for bricolage, rather than describing them as one of many varieties of story as we have tended to do to date (and thus getting sucked into the morass Sil identified of the story model being applied to sim innapropriately).

[Marco]

Thats facetious, yiou are in no doubt that story exists and can be produced.

It's not faceitous, Gareth: I just wasn't sure what you were arguing. It sounded to me like you think "all transcripts" are opaque as to their accuracy and therefore aren't a good indicator of anything. That didn't sound reasonable to me: a carefully noted transcript is, IMO, the one piece of hard data that could actually come out of most games.

I think that if we do define Nar-as-story and Sim-as-Something-Else then a great deal of what has been considered Sim play would be redefined to Nar play and games like Theatrix would become Nar.

It seems like you are arguing for a major departure from Ron's essay and theory and while that's fine, I agree with John that we need another term (in this case, I think Dramatist from GDS would serve pretty well, but John can correct me if that's not so).

I have already allowed multiple times that an after-the-fact transcript might resembvle a story, but that I consider this unlikely and improbable.  I cannot imagine that any mode of play other than the adress of premise will concentrate its action on the address of premise.  And if it fails to do so then the strictly observed action that appears in a transcript will contain non-story elements; the output as a whole will not be story like.

(Emphasis added)
In my example, the idea that 'thematic elements' will appear in the transcript seems both likely and probable. That's why I posed it. When you address it, you gave four objections:

1. So many qualifiers: I submit there are really very few (and all that are there are entirely reasonable for most real games).

2. What if there is a big argument about patriotism: I'm not sure why this is a factor. I don't see why it'd be likely, but according to the definition of transcript, a meta-game argument wouldn't appear there. If the argument happened in game (between characters) it'd be dead on thematic and the more the better.

3. What if they shoot the NPC who poses the question: I don't think anything is damaged if they do from a story standpoint. I placed the NPC in the description in order to make the Premise Question incredibly clear so that no one could miss it. Narrativism doesn't require NPC's to come in and "phrase the question" in order for the game to be a story. Neither should Sim.

In any event, the NPC could be an NPC teammate or a captured allied soldier whom they are reliably likely to encounter. What makes you think it is likely that they'd shoot him or likely that they'd miss him if he is obvious and in a place they are likely to visit?

4. The players don't care about the premise: Of course I think this is the determining factor between Sim and Nar. But I don't think it is necessiarly clear in the transcript of play:

1. Their characters may care--if they are playing 'in character' they may be disgusted and revolted. They might even have the conversation about rescuing him (especially if posed by an NPC). Of course, they are all Gamist and the last castle has the big battle--so they're not going to give up the mission--but that isn't part of the transcript of the game.

I think this is relaibly likely in Exploration of Character--a common Sim type, according to the essay (and, not coincidentally, one that I think is associated with 'story-oriented gaming' for the very reasons that it does, reliably, produce story given any theme in the situation).

2. If there is no in-character dialog and the characters are all treated as pawns, then a transcript of the game will not read "like a story" (with dialog and character exposition) but the action of the game will still show clearly that the main characters cross the country, see terrible things, and do their duty anyway. That's an answer.

I believe that theme will be created in the transcript if:
(a) They rescue the scientist.
(b) They decide not to.
(c) They abort half-way through deciding he's not worthy (I actually think this is the more 'Nar' response since it indicates that the players are more interested in the themes than the mission. If the players have strong feelings about justice over patriotism this would result in an arguably 'inferior'* story in the sense that it's anti-climax).

As I see it, it won't be answerd if:
(c) They decide to "do something else" (i.e. abort or abandon the mission for reasons unrelated to the mission)
(d) All get killed half-way-through (or so badly shot up they cannot continue).

I don't think you can argue that (c) and (d) are likely from my set up, so I am guessing that you have another set of criteria for judging that the Premise Question inherent in the situation won't be 'answered' by such play.

You gave me some objections but I'm not sure what they are--they seem tangential to me.

Perhaps if you can expand on what you think is unlikely to happen during such a scenario, I can see where you are coming from.

-Marco
* I am not arguing that Narrativist play will result in inferior story: the decision point where the super heroes decide to give up and turn back could be powerful stuff--however, avoding an actual showdown with the scientist and a chance for a lot of dialog exposition and hightened drama could be seen by some as sub-optimal. Either way, though, it counts as Story.

[contracycle]

I think that if we do define Nar-as-story and Sim-as-Something-Else then a great deal of what has been considered Sim play would be redefined to Nar play and games like Theatrix would become Nar.

I don't.  I point this may be local to you given your objections to TITBB and so forth, so whether you use the term to mean what I mean by it is dubious.

It seems like you are arguing for a major departure from Ron's essay and theory and while that's fine,

I don't think I am.  Nothing I have suggested contradicts any standing information about the CA's that I can think of presently.

4. The players don't care about the premise: Of course I think this is the determining factor between Sim and Nar. But I don't think it is necessiarly clear in the transcript of play:

I neither claimed that it was NECESSARILY clear, nor necessarily CLEAR.  I said only that I EXPECT there will be identifiable differences.  Please stop over-extending my argument.

Your position seems to be that all play is identical in the transcript, and that all play regardless of agenda will produce roughly similar transcripts.  From reading actual play acocunts here, I do not think that is at all likely.

But I would be open to input from others as to what they think in this regard.  All contributions welcome.

[Marco]

It seems like you are arguing for a major departure from Ron's essay and theory and while that's fine,

I don't think I am.  Nothing I have suggested contradicts any standing information about the CA's that I can think of presently.

What I was refering to was the Narrativism Essay:

The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We don't know whether people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination of the three. A story can be produced through any Creative Agenda. The mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based issue.

(Emphasis in the original)

I neither claimed that it was NECESSARILY clear, nor necessarily CLEAR.  I said only that I EXPECT there will be identifiable differences.  Please stop over-extending my argument.

I'm sorry you're reading me as over-extending: I'm discussing a given starting-scenario example. I'm trying to figure out is what you think would be different between Sim and Nar in the play of that scenario and why the thematic elements "embeded" in the situation wouldn't (in that specific case) reliably appear in the transcript.

-Marco

[contracycle]

What I was refering to was the Narrativism Essay:

(Emphasis in the original)

Fine.  That was the state-of-the-art then.  I am proposing that in the light of new development the state of the art is now different.  I may of course be wrong.  I still largely agree that the CA is not explicit in the transcript, but am suggesting that by dispersing some of the multiple senses of story we should be able to distinguish sequence-of-events story from premise-addressing story.  While we were/are treating story as an indivisible whole that was virtually impossible to do or discuss.

I'm sorry you're reading me as over-extending: I'm discussing a given starting-scenario example. I'm trying to figure out is what you think would be different between Sim and Nar in the play of that scenario and why the thematic elements "embeded" in the situation wouldn't (in that specific case) reliably appear in the transcript.

Because in my experience of Sim play there is no premise, so no addressing of premise or anything like it would appear in the transcript.

The reason I think your scenario is bad and over-extended is that it starts from an overtly story-structured sim game, which is itself such a complicated beast its terrible example to discuss.

But even if it were the case that such a game was designed and run my argument would not be invalidated; in the first place such a transcript could be produced by railroading, the presence of a transcript not implying that the game was in fact succesful and that the participants enjoyed it.

And if you succeeded in running such a game and everyone did enjoy it, and the transcript was in fact a story in situ, then you would have carried out the impossible thing before breakfast/found el dorado and the only question I would have is how that was done.

[Marco]

The reason I think your scenario is bad and over-extended is that it starts from an overtly story-structured sim game, which is itself such a complicated beast its terrible example to discuss.

Let's look at this. I'm very much interested in knowing why the example is a 'complicated beast'--I hadn't thought about it that way. I'd thought this was a pretty simple (almost basic) example of, a game run in, say, Godlike (which I don't own so I can't be certain--but it's WW II Supers).

But even if it were the case that such a game was designed and run my argument would not be invalidated; in the first place such a transcript could be produced by railroading, the presence of a transcript not implying that the game was in fact succesful and that the participants enjoyed it.

And if you succeeded in running such a game and everyone did enjoy it, and the transcript was in fact a story in situ, then you would have carried out the impossible thing before breakfast/found el dorado and the only question I would have is how that was done.

Okay, we can discuss this: why would we think that my example implies a dysfunctional amount of GM control?

What elements of my proposed set-up do you think are trouble prone, and, more importantly, are they endemic to having a 'story-structured Sim game'?

My Scenario

A group of supers are sent on a mission to rescue a turned Nazi scientist during WW II. His 'capture' will be of great importance to the allied war effort. Along the way of searching for him, they come across various atrocities of his (and may have to fight some). In the end, assuming they overcome the obstacles and don't abandon the mission (both of which are reasonable for the characters) they find him.

An NPC will bring up the question as to whether he should be rescued (or terminated or left to the Nazis).

I stipulated that:
1. The players agreed to play characters who would willingly go on missions for the allied command and wouldn't consider a mission to grab a turn-coat Nazi scientist to be outside of their abilites or responsibilities (i.e. they are not all playing super-medic characters).
2. That the GM did not require the players to be dogmatic (i.e. did not mandate a Super-Patriot disadvantage of some kind for all characters)
3. That the difficulty of the game (both in combat and in clues) was well judged for the group and reliably within their ability to handle.

Do you think any of these are unusual or difficult or prone to cause arguments?

-Marco

[John Kim]

However, it is not the definition which many people have historically meant when they used the word "Narrativism".  Notably, in his Narrativism essay a year ago Ron came out with the idea that transcript was not useful in determining the Creative Agenda of a game.  

Agreed - I don't think it is particularly important either.  All I was trying to explain was the phenomonen of sim players retroactively organising the events they experienced into a story, and then laying claim to Story en bloc.

What I was refering to was the Narrativism Essay: (...)

Fine.  That was the state-of-the-art then.  I am proposing that in the light of new development the state of the art is now different.  I may of course be wrong.  I still largely agree that the CA is not explicit in the transcript, but am suggesting that by dispersing some of the multiple senses of story we should be able to distinguish sequence-of-events story from premise-addressing story.  While we were/are treating story as an indivisible whole that was virtually impossible to do or discuss.

Well, what I mean by the transcript is what actually happened in order during the game -- i.e. no additions, embellishment, or editing.  Transcript is simply what happened during the game.  For example, in IRC or chat play, there is a literal transcript.  The reason why I like your definition is that it means that play can be analyzed based on the transcripts, which are a visible and analyzable component of play.  It seems a clearer category.  At times in earlier GNS discussion -- having rejected transcript -- some people have said that GNS mode has to be determined only by eye movements, smiling, and other subtle cues.  I think the actual verbal statements and fictional events of play are a much meatier and interesting ground for analysis.  

However, that said, I agree with Marco that your new formulation is a significant change.  Ron did not put in that section of his Narrativism essay lightly -- it was a very deliberate step.  While I may have quibbles about his example, I agree with the principle that if you use change criteria (from Ron's "no transcript" to your "new state of the art"), then some games which were considered Sim will be Nar, and vice-versa.  Hence I think it should at least be distinguished as a variant model even if it is quite similar in many respects.  

I'm sorry you're reading me as over-extending: I'm discussing a given starting-scenario example. I'm trying to figure out is what you think would be different between Sim and Nar in the play of that scenario and why the thematic elements "embeded" in the situation wouldn't (in that specific case) reliably appear in the transcript.

Because in my experience of Sim play there is no premise, so no addressing of premise or anything like it would appear in the transcript.

The reason I think your scenario is bad and over-extended is that it starts from an overtly story-structured sim game, which is itself such a complicated beast its terrible example to discuss.

Well, the example may be debatable, but I'd like to establish what we're trying to get from the example in the first place.  In his last post, Marco actually described the WWII setup of the game independent of system.  So, for example, we could ask how would that scenario play out differently using The Pool vs using Godlike vs using GURPS?  Do such scenario setups simply not occur in your experience of Sim?  Alternatively, do such setups occur, but they result in different transcripts than when played out using a Nar system?

[Marco]

Hi John,
I hadn't specified what game to use--but thinking about it, I would tend to suggest that scenario for any of the standard 'Simulationist' systems (Hero, SAS, Godlike, Mutants and Masterminds, GURPS Supers, etc.). Doing this with The Pool might indeed be different than doing it with Mutants and Masterminds or Godlike--but I think (maybe) that's a bit tangential to my point in bringing it up.*

I'm more concerned about the ideas that successfully running this game is approaching El Dorado or TITBB. This seems based on the idea that:
(a) Perhaps the scenario is distinctly unusual or trouble prone for Sim play in some way.
(b) That maybe to "make the scenario work" reliably and functionally would tend to indicate railroading was going on.
(c) That perhaps there would be elements of transcript that would veer significantly from the proposed "direction of play" for reasons unrelated to the premise.
(d) etc... (other objections that this scenario is a difficult or edge-condition case)

I think this is a very standard Exploration of Character/Exploration of Situation game that would be easily and reliably run and would play out in a pretty predictable manner (i.e. it doesn't seem absurd that it would tend to run more or less 'as written'--and that concept includes the possibility of the PC's deciding to abort the mission or execute/leave the scientist because they've had it with him).

-Marco
* Maybe system is the most important part of the question and I'm missing something. Certainly running this in AD&D would seriously make the set-up a bit unlikely. Doing it in Sorcerer would be different too. I just think those proposals are perhaps, obscuring the questions about the viability of 'story style Sim games.'

[clehrich]

I've long thought this was a rather simple question, the one complicating factor, really, being Ron's rather idiosyncratic use of the word "transcript."

To my mind, a transcript is a careful inscription of everything that occurs during a span of time, somehow delimited.  Thus trans-script (writing across).  This is as opposed to, for example, a script in the sense of theater.  

Thus a transcript of a theatrical performance would include all sorts of events that are specific to that single performance, many of which are not registered in the script.  One could limit the transcript to what happens on stage, or include also audience reaction and noise and such, but in any event the transcript is distinct to that single performance and is non-repeatable.

What Ron describes as a transcript is essentially a redacted version of events within SIS, rather less specific than a hypothetical script which would, after all, include at the least everything said in-character.

So:

I propose that "transcript" be used for a total account of play events, in SIS and otherwise.  What Ron has been calling a transcript I'd tend to call a "redaction" or an "account."

If people don't like these terms, we need another for what I'm calling "transcript", because we're chasing our tails over what is and is not in the transcript.

Now given this, we have (for the moment) the Lehrich-transcript (transcript) and the Edwards-transcript (account), T-L and T-E for short, okay?

Now examining the T-L should generate an understanding of CA.  Examining the T-E will not, except under very peculiar circumstances.  Which was Ron's point in the essay.

--------
Now we get to the problem of product and process.  The Big Model is founded on process, not product.  Since the T-E does not reflect process, and is just a form of product, it does not reflect CA.

However, as Ron points out, the T-E can certainly be a story, of whatever quality.

Therefore, Ron's point is that any CA can generate story (or myth, or whatever).

At the same time, Nar is a CA whose focus and method is devoted to generating story NOW.  Presumably this means that most successful Nar games generate a T-E that is a story.  By contrast, this is unusual -- but possible -- with Sim play.

But this does not mean, logically, that that which produces story is Nar.  That's a fallacy.

Note that Ron is insistent that story very rarely arises from Sim play -- it happens as often as "monkeys fly out of my butt."  I happen to think he's wrong about this, but his point, I think, is that "Oujia-board" play (in which Sim players kind of sit around hoping that story will magically happen) is mostly a waste of time.  Ron's point, I think, is that if these players really want story to happen now, they'd be better off playing Nar, where they have a reasonable -- even good -- shot at getting what they want.

Now there is a certain weaving-about here between process and product, since we're saying that these players want some product and are confused about process, but Ron's main emphasis is that they ought to be focused on process, because that will produce what they want.  The focus on product is ass-backwards.  Again, I think this is slightly off-kilter analytically, but it makes good practical sense: if you want to build a table, whanging a bunch of bits of wood together in a vaguely table-shaped way is less effective than actually learning how to do a little carpentry and making a table.

All of which, I'm sorry to say, seems to me to make this whole retroactive business a matter of deep confusion -- unless it is intended as a sharp challenge to the Big Model.  Retroactive examination is founded on a product focus, which the Big Model is emphatically not.  It's perfectly plausible to generate a good analytical theory of gaming that is founded on product -- although I'd suggest that an extensive transcript (T-L) would be more effective for the purpose -- but such a theory has little to do with the Big Model.

-----------

My basic disagreement with Marco, and I think maybe John though I'm not sure, is that I don't think that defining Sim and Nar in terms of their products is going to change anything -- it's going to create a completely new model.  Nar isn't about story-as-product, about being able to look back and say, "Hey, there was a story!"  It's about having that right now.  And even if there was a story, you could have been playing Sim -- and no, that's not El Dorado, it's a predictable if uncommon effect.

Ron's point throughout the Big Model essays -- one of them at least -- is that we need to emphasize process.  What you want in a game is what happens in the game.  That may or may not have anything to do with what you think you want to come out of the game.  If you want stories in your games, you're best doing so mindfully, which entails Nar agendas.  But this simply does not mean that if a story gets told the game was Nar.  That's taking the model and turning it inside out.

[Ron Edwards]

Thanks, Chris. Your points are very much in tune with my general take on this thread topic.

Regarding likelihood of story occuring via Sim play, however, you're mis-stating my case a bit. The "monkeys fly out my butt" likelihood refers to Ouija-Board play hiding (fleeting) Narrativist input, not to Sim in general.

When Sim play uses a given story-type construction as an agreed-upon, group-appreciated feature of Exploration (many groups playing Call of Cthulhu often do this, e.g.), then the transcript (my usage) reliably features story. Simulationist play is all about confirmation, as I've written before, and if you make sure X is in there, then successful play yields X, unscathed.

I hope it's clear that in Sim play which does not include such a construction, story-as-outcome is correspondingly absent or rare.

We can debate the use of "transcript" in another thread, I think.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

My basic disagreement with Marco, and I think maybe John though I'm not sure, is that I don't think that defining Sim and Nar in terms of their products is going to change anything -- it's going to create a completely new model.  Nar isn't about story-as-product, about being able to look back and say, "Hey, there was a story!"  It's about having that right now.  And even if there was a story, you could have been playing Sim -- and no, that's not El Dorado, it's a predictable if uncommon effect.

Heya Chris,
You have me wrong on what I'm saying. I wasn't suggesting that Nar and Sim should be re-defined in terms of their products. I do think that'd be a new model: that was my point. I was saying that discussing Story After is, in fact, quietly doing that--and I think it's at odds with the existing model. The glossary definition of Story Now defines it as "Commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) Premise through play itself."

Every time Story Now vs. Story Later is discussed the focus is improperly removed from Address of Premise and put back on Story.

The problem is that Addressing Premise is composed of two parts:
1. The action that is taken that addresses it.
2. The player's internal engagement with said premise.
(You could say 3. Group support for Narrativist play, I guess)

Adding thematic elements to the transcript only addresses point 1 which is why discussions about TITBB or El Dorado get hung up (when you are discussing "The GM's story vs. The Player's Story" this dialog is focused on the transcript of play and not the process of play).

It is also why there's an argument here as to whether a Transcript of play (Let's say T-C: the transcript of an IRC game) will reliably contain Story under Sim play.

I have yet to see a reason why it shouldn't--in fact, I think it is commonly and easily done--but the discussion around Sim-Story is distorted by the idea that Nar is really the only reliable way to get it.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Narrativist play reliably produces story-in-transcript via addressing Premise during play itself.

Some Simulationist play reliably produces story-in-transcript via various agreements or conditions that "put the story in there." Usually the "inserted story" has a fixed Theme as part of its non-negotiable features. Some of these agreements/conditions are done beforehand, some afterward, but not through addressing Premise during play itself.

That's what I've been saying for years now. Very easy. Very painless. I don't see any issues that make it hard.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

At the risk of a "me too" post, I'm with Ron here.

If we're all agreed that Big Model definitions are about process and not product, and

We're all agreed that transcript (under Ron's definition) is product,

Then surely it's obvious that whether transcript does or does not contain story (or anything else) is totally irrelevant for CA examination?

And if that's the case, what is this argument about?

This is a genuine statement of confusion.  I've read all the posts, and with these last few it looks to me like this discussion isn't going anywhere because it isn't about anything.  If I'm wrong, please do correct me -- because I'm entirely missing the point.

[John Kim]

If we're all agreed that Big Model definitions are about process and not product, and

We're all agreed that transcript (under Ron's definition) is product,

Then surely it's obvious that whether transcript does or does not contain story (or anything else) is totally irrelevant for CA examination?

And if that's the case, what is this argument about?

This is a genuine statement of confusion.

OK, let me try summarizing, because I think that you haven't quite grasped the thread.  It seems like you and Ron are supporting me and Marco, although you don't seem to realize that for some reason.  The current voice of dissent is contracycle.  (Apologies if I'm misrepresenting anyone here.)  

Marco started this thread arguing exactly what you just said -- that GNS mode is not distinguished by transcript.  Story is a quality of transcript (as defined in Ron's glossary), and transcript is product.  He was arguing against people who claimed that Simulationism can be distinguished by story (i.e. by product).  He was upholding the principle that GNS mode is not distinguished by the transcript or story.  

Now, in the recent twist of this thread, contracycle responded by suggesting that there should be a new, altered Narrativist definition which distinguishes based on transcript.  He acknowledged that this was different than what Ron wrote in his Narrativism essay, but he felt that in his experience, Sim did not produce story.  Thus, Sim could be distinguished by product.  I said that I felt that distinguishing based on product was a fine idea, but that he should call it a different model rather than calling it the "new Narrativism".  Marco simply disagreed that contracycle's new distinction was Narrativism, and tried to show through hypothetical example how it differed.  

Marco's thrust was that a lot of people seem to be saying that Nar is distinguished by product.  i.e. By story.  But by the Nar-as-process definition, Nar is just one way of making the product of story.  Again, quoting Ron's glossary definition:

Story: An imaginary series of events which includes at least one protagonist, at least one conflict, and events which may be construed as a resolution of the conflict. A Story is a subset of Transcript distinguished by its thematic content. Role-playing may produce a Story regardless of which Creative Agenda is employed.

[contracycle]

Marco started this thread arguing exactly what you just said -- that GNS mode is not distinguished by transcript.  Story is a quality of transcript (as defined in Ron's glossary), and transcript is product.  He was arguing against people who claimed that Simulationism can be distinguished by story (i.e. by product).  He was upholding the principle that GNS mode is not distinguished by the transcript or story.  

OK, I disagree with your summary.  Way back, I wrote:

Yes Marco, but I think its that nuance that we can now lay to rest. I fully agree that retrospectively the product of sim play is something that can rightly be termed "a story" even if one in need of significant editing. I think however that this casual term is sometimes misleading in the apparent attribution of a story-based CA to sim. I like Silmemune's construction because it does not exhibit the same conflation.

To which Marco responded:

However, I do have an issue with what you've said: you talk about story as the "retrospective" product of Sim play. I don't understand that, and I think this concept is important wrt Jay's formulation.

According to the glossary, Story is found in the *Transcript* of play--a re-telling of play after the fact. Therefore, in any game wherein there can be said to be Story, it must be retrospective, whether Sim, Nar, or Gamist.

Which IMO is mistaken - as I responded above, Narr has story Now and does not need story afterward.  It is not true that IN ANY GAME story is only found in the transcript product.  In Narr, story happens in Actual Play.  It may ALSO appear in the transcript.  In Sim (and Gam incidentally), my contention is it will ONLY appear in the transcript, if at all.

That, as far as I am concerned, has been the entire discussion of transcript and retroactive story.  So on to something rather more substantial:

Do such scenario setups simply not occur in your experience of Sim? Alternatively, do such setups occur, but they result in different transcripts than when played out using a Nar system?

They result in different transcripts, OR they suffer other known problems.  Probably.  I think.

If you are playing by a Sim contract and you set up Story you run into the classice RGFA objection: the accomodation of story renders the Sim "unrealistic", as where the nominated story villain cannot be killed in the first act regardless of player action.

So what this means in practice is that in order to force play down a constrained path that will output a story in the transcript at the end, the players must be railroaded.  This is all in line with prior discussion of el dorado et al.

So thats problems of play that have been much discussed already.  As to the differing transcripts, this is what I mean.  I have on several occassions mentioned the Hardwired supplement for CP2020 and an event which occurred in ourt playing of this product: the PC's were investigating something and in the process were photographed by an entirely innocent tourist.  they spent several game hours and half a day running to ground everything there was to know about this tourist in order to rule them ourt as some sort of covert surveillance.

All of this would appear in the transcript even though it is totally unrelated to any "story" that might be going on, or even mere plot.  This was a total red herring, a distraction, a dead end, which I had only introduced to keep the world alive, full of people NOT involved with the plot.  If you were a reviewer reading this transcript as a book I'm sure you would find it very poor, totally irrelevant, and the kind of thing that should have been cut before it went to print.

It is my contention that Sim contains these sorts of excursions all the time, not least becuase the CA being served is Explorative, not Narrative.  Therefore I certainly do not expect Sim play to produce a story transcript reliably at all, and the only way I know of to make it reliable is to railroad fearlessly.