Narrativism? Simulationism?

[Bankuei]

Hi xect,

I am not able to understand where you're coming from in regards to this discussion.  Here are the issues that I kinda see floating about, and I'm not sure what you're really driving at:

-What is the difference between Narrativist and Simulationist play?
-"I like this unnamed quality X, how do you define X in regards to the Big Model"
-What do these examples indicate in regards to the Big Model theory?
-Some other question you are unable to articulate?(help me out here)

First, the last 3 things are all things no one can help you with.  As I said, there's not enough information for anyone to go on with regards to those questions.  The onus is on you to provide more info or come at it from a different way for folks to be able to help you in regards to those questions.

In regards to Nar vs. Sim- the reason that Ron says that often examples are entangling is that people take the examples and run them to extremes without recognizing that there are more issues involved in them.

The simplest I can see it getting is:

Narrativism = Addressing Premise = Addressing human issues through play = Value statements through play.  Hopefully you understand what it means to have a conversation with someone on a human issue ("Romance", "Violence", "Justice"), now think of the issue being addressed through play by the group(just like a group conversation).  It happens in books and movies everyday.  That is Narrativism.  

Simulationism = Celebrating a Vision = Realizing the Dream = Fidelity to Canon/Realism/Idea in one or more people's heads.  Maybe that idea, vision, dream is from fiction or cinema, maybe its just this vision that the GM has, maybe its what the group has agreed upon as "realistic".   The focus of play is sticking to that "thing" as much as possible.  Sim is easiest to identify when you see the lack of strategic focus/Step on Up and the lack of value commentary being played out by the players.  That's Sim.

If this doesn't work for you as an explaination- I'm sorry, I've hit the end of my ability to describe it any better.  Maybe someone else can find the right synonymous terms that unlock it for you, or perhaps the right experiences or understanding will come to you.  The information you've given us insufficient to work with to pull out or provide examples to Nar vs. Sim.  That's the best folks can do for you.

Chris

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

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.

Hmm. I'd have thought it should be used carefully because it has a notably different meaning her than in most other places.

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.

But a gamist player does not play to produce a story about conflict and the overcoming of challenges. To a gamist player story=color. It holds the challenges together in a (more or less) sensible manner, depending on the group's preference.

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

Yes, but as you've pointed out that is only true for 'story' as defined in the Forge glossary.

Keep in mind nthough that I did not equate story with narrativism. But the aim to create a 'story' is what drives nar-play. Regardless of whether you use my or the Forgian definition of story.

But the Forgian definition leads to the confusion between Nar and Sim that xect is experiencing, see below.

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.

Which was also my point.

Are you aiming to create a (non-Forgian) story or are you trying to create a specific type of story experience?

Nar - play devoted to creating a specific 'transcript' (which I would call story) in play
Sim - play devoted to experiencing a specific theme/moment/idea/concept/etc. in play

What's kind of amusing is when your sim-play is devoted to experiencing story (as I defined it). Which I think was the case in xect's post and confused him.

[Alan]

Nar - play devoted to creating a specific 'transcript' (which I would call story) in play
Sim - play devoted to experiencing a specific theme/moment/idea/concept/etc. in play

What's kind of amusing is when your sim-play is devoted to experiencing story (as I defined it). Which I think was the case in xect's post and confused him.

I don't think that devotion to creating a transcript is anywhere in Ron's descriptions of narrativism.  Nor is it in any of my experience in playing with that creative agenda.  Your statement puts the focus on some final, after-play result.  In fact, narrativist play looks for immediate gratification.  That's why it's called Story Now!

[Marco]

I don't think that devotion to creating a transcript is anywhere in Ron's descriptions of narrativism.  Nor is it in any of my experience in playing with that creative agenda.  Your statement puts the focus on some final, after-play result.  In fact, narrativist play looks for immediate gratification.  That's why it's called Story Now!

I think you're more or less correct, although the glossary entry for Story Now doesn't talk about instant gratification. Also: if by Story Now, you mean "Climax Now" I think that's how it's often communicated or understood (that game takes too much time setting up the conflict--it can't be Story Now).

-Marco

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Your statement puts the focus on some final, after-play result.  In fact, narrativist play looks for immediate gratification.

Then there's been a misunderstanding. What I meant was that the act of creating such a 'transcript' is what is 'fun' or provides 'immediate gratification'.

Narrativist play is not about having created a narrative, but creating one right now - in play. At least that's how it works for me and that's why I often use the term 'narrativist play' to describe what I'm after in roleplaying games.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Also: if by Story Now, you mean "Climax Now" I think that's how it's often communicated or understood (that game takes too much time setting up the conflict--it can't be Story Now).

I'm not sure I understand.

How can 'climax now' work at all in a narrativist CA? The built-up to the resolution of a dramatic conflict is half the fun, cutting it out to rush to a conclusion would make that climax feel 'cheap' and 'unearned'.

[Alan]

Hi Marco,

When I talk about instant gratification, I'm speeking from personal experience, not from a text.

And no, it's not climax now.  The climax is only one moment of addressing premise.  When I play I prefer to have a premise choice in almost every scene - but each choice doesn't have to be big or climactic, it just has to have meaningful consequences.

[Marco]

I'm not sure I understand.

How can 'climax now' work at all in a narrativist CA? The built-up to the resolution of a dramatic conflict is half the fun, cutting it out to rush to a conclusion would make that climax feel 'cheap' and 'unearned'.

Climax Now, indeed, doesn't make any sense--it doesn't work. What happens, IME, is that if you are trying to determine if you got your "meaningful action fix" it's a matter of opinion as to what counts for you. But from the outside people commonly make assessments of what they think was or was not meaningful for someone else.

When games take a while to reach their climax a common judgement I have seen is that it either wasn't "Story Now" (because the observer decides the choices made during the set up were not meaningful) or that Story Now requires the PC's act in a way that creates a literary story-structure without any influence towards that structre from the situation.

I think, clearly, both standards are incorrect.

-Marco

[apparition13]

xect wrote:

However, let me pull out an example from another thread, Washing the blood.... In the 6th post of that thread, Solamasa writes:

"...and by the end of the previous session I had pretty much decided that Garrison's Peak would be Br. Hector's swan song. I was really savouring Hector's inability to reconcile his duty as a Dog with the shades of his past."

That's the kind of play I'm enjoying. It's where I sit, outside the character, and make decisions about his story.

Seems like Sim decision-making to me, albeit a variety that I haven't seen in posts frequently.  Your decision making is based on a standard of "what would make sense".  In setting-intensive Sim this is defined by the conventions of the setting, in character-intensive Sim by the personality of the character.  In the case of the decision Solamasa made regarding Br. Hector "what would make sense" seems to me to be defined by aesthetic considerations.  "Story" and "narrative" spring to mind, but given the potential for ambiguity and confusion here inherent in those terms I'll use "tale".  

Solamasa's decision seems to be based on "what would make sense" in telling the tale of Br. Hector.    "Can Br. Hecto reconcile his duty as a Dog with the shades of his past?"  can be a Nar premise, but there is no Nar reason to end it at Garrison's peak (the premise can continue to be addressed);  that seems to be a decision made because it is a fitting ending to the Tale of Brother Hector.  Likewise, decisions you make for your character seem to me to be predicated on what would make a good tale rather that what makes sense in terms of setting or personality.  What you are simulating is "the Tale of...", and your decisions will be based on  considerations of aesthetic fit.  It's confusing because it looks like a type of "story now", since your decisions are based on "what would make a good story (tale) now", but since you are not directly addressing premise ("premise now" might be a better way to think about Nar) it ain't Nar.  Since you are making decisions based on fidelity to an abstract standard; setting, character, in this case "tale" (to give Sim an inclusive definition), I'd call it a variety of Sim.

[Simon Kamber]

Seems like Sim decision-making to me, albeit a variety that I haven't seen in posts frequently... in this case "tale" (to give Sim an inclusive definition), I'd call it a variety of Sim.

To avoid misunderstandings, it should be noted that a part of this discussion has been lost in the recent problems on the forge. What you're saying is basically the conclusion that was reached. I don't recall the game clearly enough to decide if my focus was on the tale or the premise, but now at least I know what I don't know, where I was more or less totally confused in the beginning.