Character Simulationism & Narrativism

[jburneko]

This is an extention of my ever changing quest to clearly define the lines between certain brands of 'story oriented' simulationism and Narrativism.  I think I've finally nailed the difference between Situation-based Simulationism and Narrativism.  In Situation Simulationism the game is ABOUT exploring the situation.  In Call of Cthulhu if you're not working to solve the mystery, you're not playing the game.  In a mystery oriented Narrativist game the mystery exists only to put pressure on the Premise at hand.  "Is solving the mystery worth risking your family's life?" or some such and it's perfectly valid to say no and walk away.  Where in Call of Cthulhu to try and say my Sanity isn't worth this would be to stop playing the game.

So my next hurdle is where is the line between Character Simulationism and Narrativism.  Now the goal of Character Simulationism is to explore 'being' the character.  This area interests me because I have a couple of players who I suspect are basically Character-focused Simulationists but they fit really well in my game because they've constructed very compelling characters who react in consistently thematic ways to the conflict presented.

This is my rational.  If the purpose of Narrativist play is address a Premise and the GM of said game is constantly presenting the players with Premise centric conflicts.  How do you tell the difference between a Character Simulationist and a Narrativist player in actual play?  If they're addressing the given conflicts consistently and the conflicts are Premise centric, then you end up with Theme, correct?  Or am I missing something?

Example, I have a player who's a GREAT roleplayer in the weakest flimest definition of the word.  When this guy acts, every player in the room shuts up and pays attention.  In my Deadlands game, (I know, I know, some of the confusion may be coming from the system and if I had a different system the distinction might be clearer) this player has created a union deserter.  But this deserter didn't leave because he was affraid to die or had shell shock or anything like that.  He left because he had lost his faith in war as means of satisfactorily resolving political differences,  mainly because in the Deadlands universe the civil war has been going on for more than 13 years.

This seems awfully Premise centric to me.  We've got here issues of loyalty and patriotism.  So, I built into the scenario chances to address that.  I have a fiercely loyal retired union general who's job is now to hunt, try and execute deserters.  The general's daughter who has basically been all but forgotten by her father.  A confederate spy who has recently obtained the list of union deserters from the general and is it out looking to see if loyalties and information can be purchased.

Bang 1: I had the daughter take note of the 'troubled' man who walked into her saloon and start kind of a flirtatious relationship.  I was prepared for the player to reject the kindness but he didn't and responded in kind and began taking the girl out.  It was through the daughter that this character learned about the existence of The General and his stance on union deserters.

Bang 2: The confederate spy approaches the character and explains that his name has recently come into his possession and offers to purchase information and loyalties.  The player rejects the offer and launches into a rather riviting speech about the pointlessness of war.  The confederate spy takes his leave.

Bang 3: The confederate spy obtains evidence of the character's courtship of the general's daughter and sends part of the evidence to the character with the note: 'All ideals have a price.'  The player responds by having his character break off the relationship with the daughter basically telling her that he's putting her in danger and the simply turns and walks out.

Now, I'm getting a pretty riviting story here.  And personally I'm having great fun with it so whether this is Narrativism or Character Simulationism is purely an intellectual exercise for my own understanding.

Any ideas?

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

Are the players making decisions based on what the character would do or on what is good for the story? Answer that and you have the answer to your question.

Do players who play these styles shift between these two modes? Frequently. I do (sometimes even slip into Gamist character advancement). Is it hard to tell them apart? Quite often.

But, on average, the Narrativist players will create a better (or more proper) story, while the Simulationists will have more fun. Just kidding, but you get the idea.

Mike

[Valamir]

I think "good for the story" is a huge problem phrase and one I would recommend avoiding.

For one you have the whole story as a series of linked events vs literary story issue.  For another you have people who interpret this as meaning sacrificing free will to some metaplot.  And for others they think that "good for story" necessarily conflicts with "acting in character".

I suggest using the following question rule:  "Are the players making decisions that allow them to explore Premise?"  This is the heart of what distinguishes a Narrativist game.

Note to Mike:  I know you know all of this and were just using a convenient shorthand.  I'm just pointing out that there is probably a more accurate, less likely to be misunderstood short hand we could be using.

[Gordon C. Landis]

(Edited to fix a few bad line-breaks, and here's the simple version of my post, based in part on what Valamir said . . .  "As long as what's good for exploring the Premise remains the same as what's good for exploring the Character, there's no real difference between a Nar-GM with a Sim-Char player and a Nar-GM with Nar-players.  Maintaining that congruence ALWAYS is probably impossible, but maintaining it sufficiently to produce a functional game environment is likely do-able, with the right participants and good communication.")

If the purpose of Narrativist play is address a Premise and the GM of said game is constantly presenting the players with Premise centric conflicts.  How do you tell the difference between a Character Simulationist and a Narrativist player in actual play?  If they're addressing the given conflicts consistently and the conflicts are Premise centric, then you end up with Theme, correct?  Or am I missing something?

Seems like what you're depending on here is the GM's (your) ability to pose situations in which the range of "true to character" responses only include Premise-supporting possibilities.  The moment your Char-Sim player decides that his "true to char" response will/should be something
that in no way "fits" with the Premise, he's chosen Sim over Nar.  That's not neccessarily a problem - in no way must EVERY decision in a Nar-focused game be Nar-based - but it could be.

Also possible is that his Char-Sim preference leads him to desire long, in-character interaction that is NOT related to Premise, and annoys the other players (though it sounds like his "acting skill" is good, so other players forgive the "distraction" from the core game goal because it's entertaining).

But I suspect that with a skilled GM and good communication, this is a pretty functional situation - it's just if/when those "better for the Nar story/premise exporation" vs. "better for my Sim-char explorative experience" situations arise that a conflict occurs - and the conflict may or may not be important, depending on the exact details.  I'd submit that the "skilled GM" and "good communication" I mention above can minimize, but not eliminate, the possibility that those conflicts occur.

Gordon