Narrativism? Simulationism?

[Christoph Boeckle]

Wait, this just struck me. How's this:

The border between Narrativism and Simulationism in the two is whether or not the decision to enter the forest was ultimately about values, or about experiencing the story of his rise to glory.

In a narrativistic game, the whole point of the story would be to question those values. (...)

In a simulationist game, the whole point of the story would be to play through the fulfilment of these values. (...)

So, creating the story happens in both games, what's making the difference between the two CA's is which parts of the story that are, ultimately, the central ones. Am I on the right track there?

That's about how I've understood the differences, applied to your particular case at least.
So if you want to apply GNS definitions to your game preferences, I'd suggest exploring these aspects.

You can get stories out of all RPGs, AFAIK. CA is about what you enjoy in these stories.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

You can get stories out of all RPGs, AFAIK.

That depends on what you mean by 'stories'. Keep in mind that a arbitrary series of actions does not a story make.

A story (at least as far as differentiating CAs is concerned) needs to be about something, i.e. it needs to address a premise. Thus, play that tries to continually address premise is narrativist, since it thereby creates a story.

The moment your decisions are dominated by a different goal (e.g. consistency or authenticity), you're no longer persuing narrativist play.

[Christoph Boeckle]

Here's what I had in mind when I used the word "story":

All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story.

(...)

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.

Further than that, I don't understand where your trying to go.

[Bankuei]

Hi xect,

"Morality questions" sometimes throw people for a loop.  A synonymous term I use is "Value statements".  If the players are making value statements with the characters, using the characters to make statements on issues, then that's Narrativism.  Now, you might not make a statement with every decision in play, but if it is the vital part of play that matters, then you're looking at Nar play.

But let's put down Sim & Nar for a second.  What I'm reading from Kit's post, is an enjoyment of not just of character- but of protagonism.  "My hero gets spotlight time", "My guy gets to do things that matter", or, perhaps, more tellingly, "The game isn't focused on the GM and his or her NPCs"

Is this more what your aiming for?  The basic fulfillment that your character is actually a protagonist and not just a witness or camera to a set of events?  That the focus of play, the spot light focuses around the PCs and not "plot" or NPCs?

Because if that's what you are looking for, that's protagonism.  It can show up in any of the 3 Creative Agendas and isn't indicative of any particular one.

Is this closer to what you're looking at as the focus of your idea?

Chris

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Here's what I had in mind when I used the word "story":

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.

I think the using the word 'story' to describe two distinctive concepts was a bad choice, especially as the distinction between the two is essential to understanding Narrativism.

As an english-lit major I always consider 'story' to be synonymous with 'narrative'. A simple enumeration of events ('transcript') does not qualify as a story. A story is the intentional arrangement of events to relate an issue, question or value to the audience. With this in mind, narrativist play should be much easier to comprehend and spot.

It is the aim to create a story and not merely a transcript, that drives narrativist play.

[Simon Kamber]

"Morality questions" sometimes throw people for a loop. A synonymous term I use is "Value statements". If the players are making value statements with the characters, using the characters to make statements on issues, then that's Narrativism.

Now you're starting to get confusing again. The notion that to play nar, you must be using the character to make statements is somehow incompatible with the notion that you can play nar without consciously adressing premise.

But to refer back to the post I made about the elf story from a narrativist viewpoint and the story from a simulationist viewpoint, am I getting it right or is there something wrong with that one? I'm aware that since in both cases, the player is the one creating the story, and the character is the one in the spotlight, protagonism IS occuring in both examples.

As an english-lit major I always consider 'story' to be synonymous with 'narrative'. A simple enumeration of events ('transcript') does not qualify as a story.

That wasn't what the text he quoted said either. But you can be focused on creating a transcript that qualifies as a story without play being narrativist.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

But you can be focused on creating a transcript that qualifies as a story without play being narrativist.

A transcript that qualifies as a story? I don't understand how that's supposed to work. How can something that is a transcript (and thus NOT a story) qualify as a story (and thus NOT a transcript)?

[Bankuei]

Hi xect,

Consider this: "Chocolate ice cream tastes good", "People shouldn't kill each other", "Hiphop music is good"

All of these are value statements.  We make them all the time, everyday, all day.  I don't think there's many conversations we have where we don't make value statements.  Sometimes these are matters of opinion and taste, such as the ice cream and hiphop statement, and sometimes these are addressing human issues such as the not killing concept.

We do this unconsciously.  We're just saying what we feel or what we think.  We don't hop onto a podium and go, "Ok, now I'm going to spew value statements for the people!".  It's just something that happens.  It's not confusing- it's a natural, common, everyday thing.  Addressing premise is as simple as articulating an opinion(educated, uninformed, correct or completely wacky) about any human issue.  It becomes a premise when two or more people address on the same issue, whether they are recognizing it or not.

Again(and again) there's not enough information to tell you what happened when you were playing that elf.  You could have been playing gamism with the "retrieving bits of lost culture" as goal objectives for all I know.  The pharmacy can't help you without more information. :/

Chris

[Simon Kamber]

Again(and again) there's not enough information to tell you what happened when you were playing that elf.  You could have been playing gamism with the "retrieving bits of lost culture" as goal objectives for all I know.  The pharmacy can't help you without more information. :/

I know you can't tell me what was happening with that elf. But I'm using the elf as a standpoint for trying to understand the concepts in general. Could you please try adressing the post I made with those two examples, because that's where I am at the moment, and I'm trying to figure out if I got it right.

[Christoph Boeckle]

Sorry Xect for this thread-pirating, but I think it's necessary you get the point about story, in order to get a clearer picture of your CA.
And if the different people trying to help can't agree... :)

I think the using the word 'story' to describe two distinctive concepts was a bad choice, especially as the distinction between the two is essential to understanding Narrativism.

Here is my view on it: the word story does not describe two distinctive concepts.
Remember, Narrativism is Story Now. What this "now" implies is that we have a kind of story that addresses an engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence during play.
All that has be done is to narrow down on one type of story.

As an english-lit major I always consider 'story' to be synonymous with 'narrative'. A simple enumeration of events ('transcript') does not qualify as a story. A story is the intentional arrangement of events to relate an issue, question or value to the audience. With this in mind, narrativist play should be much easier to comprehend and spot.

I can see what you mean by the word "story", but remember that we are on the Forge and that it has been defined differently. For example, the provisional glossary states:

Transcript: An account of the imaginary events of play without reference to role-playing procedures. A Transcript may or may not be a Story.

So yes, Forge-transcript can be a story.
On the other hand, I agree that Nar CA is to relate to an issue, question or value in the participants. But as Ron says, this needn't be intentional to be Nar.

It is the aim to create a story and not merely a transcript, that drives narrativist play.

In your words, yes, but not in Forge words.


Xect, as I understood it, your two examples are spot on. It is just that I can't say for sure what you'd prefer, that will have to be your part of the analyzing ;)

[Simon Kamber]

Xect, as I understood it, your two examples are spot on. It is just that I can't say for sure what you'd prefer, that will have to be your part of the analyzing ;)

Yup, that's the point I've reached too, and that part of the analyzing will have to wait until I actually get to play again. I'm trying to find out if Chris agrees, because I'm not sure if we actually see things differently or if we're just misunderstanding each other.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

So yes, Forge-transcript can be a story.
On the other hand, I agree that Nar CA is to relate to an issue, question or value in the participants. But as Ron says, this needn't be intentional to be Nar.

I don't think I'd agree.

People recognize between a story and a rambling series of events. One has 'a point' the other does not. Any game that tries to come up with a story that has a point is Nar, and THAT I think is always intentional.

In your words, yes, but not in Forge words.

Well, that says something about intuitive use of terms and unintuitive jargon.

[Simon Kamber]

People recognize between a story and a rambling series of events. One has 'a point' the other does not. Any game that tries to come up with a story that has a point is Nar, and THAT I think is always intentional. .

Again, this stems from your definition of a story. Try looking at the example I posted further up the thread of a simulationist game aimed at producing a story. That story didn't have a "point" per se, but it was still a story.

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

I'm going to throw in my two bits again.

People recognize between a story and a rambling series of events.

Actually, no, people don't. Or better, yes, maybe they do, but they probably won't agree on many occasions. An example: I actually know a lot of people that would consider that the film "2001" has a story, whilst I strenuously contend that it falls into the "rambling series of events" category.

Well, maybe lit majors agree most of the time, though certainly not every time, but the vast majority of people is not a lit major. Which is why the word "story" has to be used extremely carefully in a Forge context.

I'll expand, bear with me for a while.

For instance, at some point throughout your academic career, you probably learned to distinguish between types of conflicts: man vs. self, man vs. nature and man vs. others. You will also no doubt have learned that the concept of story always includes some sort of conflict, likely to fit into one of the types above.

Now, gamist players would be entirely within their right to call their play "story". Why? Because it's all about the conflict and the overcoming of the challenge. The sequences of events that transpire are almost always centered around meaningful conflicts that may or may not be successfully negotiated. At least in functional gamist play.

As such, "story=narrativism" is simply a fallacy, though one very easy to fall prey to.

Alas, I think ths thread has been miserably hijacked by now, so I will attempt to get back on track.

Xect, I would like to add my support for the following:

The border between Narrativism and Simulationism in the two is whether or not the decision to enter the forest was ultimately about values, or about experiencing the story of his rise to glory.

I also think the following are words of wisdom that you should analyse carefully:

I suggest that xect's example of the bard is simulation of the epic genre of stories, not of character. Wow, he's thinking, that would be a cool (exciting, epic, colourful - not thematic) story! And he tries to achieve it.

It falls in line with exactly what I was thinking after you responded to my questions earlier in the thread.

Cheers,

J.

[komradebob]

xect:

I've been reading threads and articles at this site for a while now, and I'm probably as confused about this issue of sim v. narr ca as yourself. Bearing that in mind, I might suggest the following-

If you find that the bard's actions are very much tied to the setting and that is where you are getting your gamer happiness, you're probably in sim mode.

If you can imagine taking the core ideas of say saving the cultural artifacts of his people and transfer it to another setting, you're probably playing narr.

Here's my reasoning-
In the first case, the actions only make sense in the context of setting and situation. He's a bard, an elf, his homeland is falling into darkness. Bing! All of it is falling into place for you.

If, however, you can imagine yourself playing another character ( A native american archaeologist, a werewolf in W:tA ) dealing with similar issues and enjoying it, chances are good that the premise of the thing is what is engaging you.

Having said that, I seem to recall having a lot of confusion about the Big Model until a couple of things were pointed out to me:
CAs are a general series of tendencies expressed over a period of time. People can move between CAs, but will tend to gravitate towards one.

In different games, a player could very well enjoy an entirely different CA. Lots of people who post here enjoy a variety of games supportive of very different CAs. It is very likely to find that people might enjoy a very gamist dungeon bash and an occasional foray into more narrativist waters, or vice versa. On the whole, over the long term, however, people will tend to pick one CA that they like best.

There are on-going feedback loops within the Big Model. As your particular group finds what it grooves on, chances are good that there will be changes in play style. When those changes occur while the group is using a particular rules-set, drift occurs (AFAIK). Drift is nothing but altering the rulesset to better meet your needs/CA. A group might also change games, picking a rulesset that is more directly supportive of their overall CA.

On the downside: Even now, Sim design seems to be defined in the negative. Basically, if something can't readily be defined as gamism or narrativism, people tend to dump it unceremoniously in the sim category. Mind you, that's my opinion, and I'm sure others will very vocally disagree with that.

As for the bard example, I personally think you are dipping your toes into narr play. Whether you continue to explore that CA may well be dependant on the feedback you get from your group.

just some thoughts from another guy also muddling through these concepts,
Robert