Confused between N & S

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Good questions, good discussion. This may turn out to be one of those "Go see this" threads people link to all the time.

You wrote,
But, take a situation where a player's character has a choice of two different weapons to use in a combat scene.

From a game mechanics point of view, the only difference between the two is that one does more damage. If the player elects that their character picks the most damaging weapon *purely because* of that game mechanic advantage, then aren't they acting in a G mode?

The key is the phrase "purely because" - you have shifted the question from externally-observable behaviors to internal-motivations. In theory, yes, given that motivation, that decision is probably Gamist. However! That level of theory is not accessible to anyone, perhaps not even to the person in question. I strongly suggest that we focus instead on the practical level, my "instance of play," which by definition provides enough observable evidence to work with.

So, let's take your example carefully. Not only does Bob select the morningstar for his character Bartholemew, he glances challengingly at the GM (or whoever) and says, "Now try this!" And he's not role-playing Bartholemew; it's a statement to the group that he, Bob, is on top of the doing-mondo-damage issue. Still, even more detail is needed - we have to be talking about a game in which the morningstar really is a butt-kicker and not just another 2d8 or whatever. We also have to be talking about a situation that does not necessarily correspond to addressing Premise - it's about whether Bob is a good tactician - and that probably means assessing this decision as it relates to several scenes, not just one.

Another thing people miss a lot is that "instance of play" is not necessarily an individual variable; play is a group phenomenon. Therefore let's look at the others' reactions - ranging from "Oh, shit," to "Whoo-hoo!" to whatever. As long as they include (1) appreciation rather than disgust or impatience, and (2) focus on Bob's acumen rather than on thematic outcomes of the impending carnage, now we're really talking Gamist play.

Just as an aside, and for contrast, an N reason for picking the morningstar might be that Bartholemew is (a) about to fight the half-ogre who slew his mentor and further (b) was taught by that mentor to solve problems peacefully if possible. If something like this is going on, then it's the timing and thematic content of the decision that generates response from the group, as opposed to appreciation for Bob's tactical skill.

And now for the Simulationism. As preface, let me say that a year ago, this exchange, not to mention the whole thread, would have generated fifty screaming outraged responses, so everyone, don't think that I fail to appreciate how times have changed.

OK. So would it be correct to say that Simulationist play has no meaning outside of the context of the game (or at least pretends that this is the case), whilst Narrativist play has some external, acknowledged meaning for the players?

Yow. "No meaning" is harsh. As I said, the people involved really do have the metagame priority of not acknowledging/using metagame priorities, and if Exploration is engaging enough by itself, that's not a contradiction. I think "priority" as I'm using it translates very nicely to "meaning" at the personal level, so I'd hesitate to say such play "has no meaning." (At least, I hesitate now; a year ago, I was much less inclined to be sympathetic or respectful. Credit Seth ben-Ezra and Mike Holmes with changing my views.)

You are right about the Narrativism, though. As I've said before, both Narrativist and Gamist play have extremely overt and focused "external and acknowledged meaning for the players [participants]." Depending on the levels of vocabulary and communication among the group, a mixed group of S and N-or-G can get very acrimonious about that.

Best,
Ron

[lehrbuch]

Hi,

> If the player elects that their character picks the most damaging
> weapon *purely because* of that game mechanic advantage,
> then aren't they acting in a G mode?

The key is the phrase "purely because" - you have shifted the question from externally-observable behaviors to internal-motivations...However! That level of theory is not accessible to anyone, perhaps not even to the person in question. I strongly suggest that we focus instead on the practical level, my "instance of play," which by definition provides enough observable evidence to work with.

I agree that I shifted the question.  However I do not believe that a particular "instance of play" contains enough information to make a GNS classification.  For example, you go on to say:

Not only does Bob select the morningstar for his character Bartholemew, he glances challengingly at the GM... And he's not role-playing Bartholemew; it's a statement to the group that he, Bob, is on top of the doing-mondo-damage issue.... we have to be talking about a game in which the morningstar really is a butt-kicker... and that probably means assessing this decision as it relates to several scenes, not just one.

Which is fine, but you are still placing the "instance of play" into a context.  Perhaps you are correct that a context of other instances is better than a context of internal motivations (which I attempted to place the decision in).  However, as you say "play is a group phenomenon."  Which not only means that group reaction is a context, but that each member of the group may see a particular instance in a different context.

For example I may be acting in what I consider a thematically consistent manner, and be quietly congratulating myself on my fine Narrativist style.  Another player may see my actions in a different context and only see a set of relentlessly Gamist decisions.  Does this mean that one player is wrong, or that the group is dysfunctional or does it mean that a GNS classification of a game is dependent not only on the particular instance but who is making the classification?  Which is exactly the same problem placing the decision in a "context of internal motivations" presents.

Or to put it another way: can a decision be made about whether a particular roleplaying system is G, N or S without a knowledge of who is playing it, and what they think they are doing?

As an aside, could "audience stance" be what a player is doing when they attempt to understand a particular instance of play in some context?

And now for the Simulationism.... Yow. "No meaning" is harsh. As I said, the people involved really do have the metagame priority of not acknowledging/using metagame priorities, and if Exploration is engaging enough by itself, that's not a contradiction.

I think you are saying Simulationism is Escapism?

In which case what about roleplaying as practiced in a professional capacity, for example, by a social worker or a business strategist?  They, I think, would claim to be "simulating" a social problem or a business contingency, but they have the metagame priority of making/learning some point about real life.  Is this Narrativism?  If it is then it is certainly not a "literary narrative" they are creating.

[contracycle]

In which case what about roleplaying as practiced in a professional capacity, for example, by a social worker or a business strategist?  They, I think, would claim to be "simulating" a social problem or a business contingency, but they have the metagame priority of making/learning some point about real life.  Is this Narrativism?  If it is then it is certainly not a "literary narrative" they are creating.

Chris Engle, he of matrix gaming famne, uses these games as a psychiatrist - one of the most used, IIRC, is "lets get Bob drunk".  The objective here is to let the player Explore, with trips to and from the metagame, their own psychological process of turning to the bottom.  Becuase people tend to rationalise their decisions as virtuous, the objective is to puncture the subjectivity of the personal narrative with interventions from an external objectivity, dice.

What I am stumbling towards is that "roleplaying for the purpose of learning about the situation simulated" is simulationism, IMO.  The purpose opf simulating is usually to learn how something works, to model it in a testable way.  IMO, RPG sim is the same thing.

[Mike Holmes]

What I am stumbling towards is that "roleplaying for the purpose of learning about the situation simulated" is simulationism, IMO.  The purpose opf simulating is usually to learn how something works, to model it in a testable way.  IMO, RPG sim is the same thing.

Very much so. And insamuch as learning is fun (works for me) it qualifies as entertainment. I tend to use the term discovery because it goes with exploration. Or, IOW, the fun of exploration is discovery.

Goes to my Columbus vs. Michelangelo type comparison. In the most general terms, do you prefer to discover, or create?

Mike

[Jake Norwood]

Just wanted to say that this thread has been very informative for me, as the Riddle of Steel has been labeled Narrativist, Simulationist, and a "heretofore impossible combination of both." I'm pretty new to all this GNS stuff, so now I'm starting to get what people are saying and what all this GNS stuff is.

Now I'd like to pose a question--Simulationism seems to be about exploration/discovery...the "Columbus" bit. Narrativism is about creation, or the "Michelangelo" bit. On the other hand I've heard of Narrativism being a platform for the exploration of moral issues, protagonist themes, story-building, etc. What is seems to me is that Narrativism is simulation of the psyche and the soul, and the so-called "sim" games are simulation of the physical world (or some variant thereon)...

So N and S are, kernally, the same thing, and are just begging to be blended. At least that's what I'm seeing.

Feedback? Am I way off here? Am I right on?

Jake
TROS

[Paul Czege]

Hey Jake,

What is seems to me is that Narrativism is simulation of the psyche and the soul, and the so-called "sim" games are simulation of the physical world (or some variant thereon)...

I think you're a bit off. Both of those qualify as Simulationism. Ralph "Valamir" Mazza's awesome http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1559">GNS Primer is a good place to start in on this stuff.

Paul

[Mike Holmes]

Now I'd like to pose a question--Simulationism seems to be about exploration/discovery...the "Columbus" bit. Narrativism is about creation, or the "Michelangelo" bit. On the other hand I've heard of Narrativism being a platform for the exploration of moral issues, protagonist themes, story-building, etc. What is seems to me is that Narrativism is simulation of the psyche and the soul, and the so-called "sim" games are simulation of the physical world (or some variant thereon)...

So N and S are, kernally, the same thing, and are just begging to be blended. At least that's what I'm seeing.

Feedback? Am I way off here? Am I right on?

Nope, sorry Jake. I apologise if my simplification threw you off. I was speaking to general motivations, not what actually happens.

By creation, we're talking about Creation of Theme, which is only created by addressing the Premise. Has nothing to do with he Soul or Psyche unless that's what you want it to be about. And you can Sim Soul and Psyche, as well, we call it Exploration of character.

The question still remains the same. Are you making particular decisions because it makes sense with in-game causality, or are you making them because they address the premise better (thus creating themes and the literary story). If the first, you are participating in Simulationism. By the second, you are participating in Narrativism. Note that these are actual behaviors.

A game (such as yours) when labeled as Simulationist or Narrativist is simply meant to imply that it supports that mode of play best. I would say that it is an excellent Simulationist game, while Ron would say that it's a Narrativist game. Each of us meaning that we feel that it supports that mode best. Not that one cannot play it in another mode. To play a game in a mode for which it is not best desined is referred to as drift. There is another pertinent term, as well, Transitional, which means that the game has rules that encourage you to play in one mode at one time, and in another at a later time. One might argue that TROS combat is Sim, while accumulating the Spirit stats in play ouside is Narr making th game transitional...hmmm. But that might be a longshot.  

Note that one cannot give highest priority to both Premise and in-game causality at the same time. This is what we refer to as the "impossible thing" (about which there is much debate). Also note that payers shift back and forth between G and N and S rather regularly, during play, despite the system being used and what it supports. So, one moment I'm making a decision that is Narrativist, and the next I'm making Sim decisions. Still, particular mechanics will only best support one mode.

I'm just reiterating all the stuff that you'll find explained better in the essays. Trying to jump in here without reading those first is likely to get one confused (confused me at least).

Mike

[Jake Norwood]

Always good to see how little you know. I'm afraid that those essays are currently unavailable (which is a darn shame), but they are on the top of my reading list as soon as they're up.

And, as always, thanks.

Jake

[Paul Czege]

Ron's essay, "GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory" is available here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/gns/gns_introduction.html

Paul

[lehrbuch]

Chris Engle, he of matrix gaming famne, uses these games as a psychiatrist - one of the most used, IIRC, is "lets get Bob drunk".  The objective here is to let the player Explore, with trips to and from the metagame, their own psychological process of turning to the bottom...What I am stumbling towards is that "roleplaying for the purpose of learning about the situation simulated" is simulationism, IMO.

OK, I can believe this.  But I could also believe someone who said that they were addressing the Premise of "What are the consequences of losing control, for example by getting drunk?"

That is, whether a particular instance of roleplaying is G, N or S is dependent on the context in which the "critic" or audience making the classification perceives it to be in.  I think the best statement that can in general be made about a roleplaying system is that it is G, N or S in *your* experience of it and possibly, if it is clearly articulated, in the intent of the designer.  In other words G, N or S is at least as much of a statement about players as it is about system.  See, for example, the thread concerning differences between West Coast and British play of Runequest (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2014).  

Further to confusion between N and S: if in the process of simulating something a player breaks the logic of the simulation, for the express intention of demonstrating something about the Premise on which the simulation is based, then is this acting in a Narrativist mode?  What if the player tried to perform this demonstration while still maintaining the logic of the simulation?

[Ron Edwards]

lehrbuch,

This is to respond to several of your points in a couple of posts, so forgive me if it jumps around.

First, there isn't any such thing as an "instance of play" for which a GNS orientation cannot be determined. An "instance" is not an instant, as some often mis-read it; it might need to be an hour of play, for example. I have found instances of play usually to be more like an entire session. A great deal of play may be considered set-up for pay-off, and leaping to a "Beep! Gamist!" kind of identification of an instant of play is distinctly not useful.

Second, I don't make any claim to discuss "role-playing" as the term is used outside of "role-playing games" in the hobby parlance. The term is used for various activities in corporate, military, and therapy-oriented applications, and I frankly have no interest in these. I don't think they have much to do with the activities in the hobby we're talking about; they just share the same word to label them.

Third, you're using Premise in a way that gets fuzzy for me. Addressing the Premise of "What are the consequences of getting drunk?" is Exploration of System, and hence (as a priority) would be simulationist. Now, if by "consequences" you are more interested in family interactions, interpersonal responsibilities, and the outcomes of love among dysfunctional personalities ... and if play focuses on decisions about these things (rather than on experiencing or observing them), then we move into Narrativism. But that line is a definite one - practically interdimensional. There is no gray area at all.

Fourth, I do not think your notion that "viewer context" is valid at all. That will probably be a topic for another post, or perhaps another thread.

Fifth, "escapism" is a loaded term and I hesitate to adopt your identification of it with Simulationism. "Shared day-dreaming" has been used in the past, with the strong connotation of no other metagame goal, and that seems a little less loaded. If, by escapism, you are not implying some kind of retreat or schizophrenia, then that works OK.

Best,
Ron

[Clinton R. Nixon]

... I don't make any claim to discuss "role-playing" as the term is used outside of "role-playing games" in the hobby parlance. The term is used for various activities in corporate, military, and therapy-oriented applications ... I don't think they have much to do with the activities in the hobby we're talking about; they just share the same word to label them.

Ron,

I hate to disagree, but I think these activities bear a close relationship to some forms of role-playing games. Outside the Forge, you'll see a certain type of role-playing often lauded above others, usually identified by such terms as "transparent" and "immersion." This style of role-playing, while being usually extremely rules-light, falls smack dab into Simulationism, and its goal is to have an experience in a fictional world as a different person. This goal is more than just "playing a part" in that the players want to experience the same emotions as their character and become "immersed" in it: these players express as their most significant pieces of play those moments when they imagine they can see the cloud city, or winged elf, or napalmed jungle, or whatever their character is seeing.

This valid form of Simulationism bears a distinct resemblance to the above, and is a form of escapism. By this, I don't imply retreat; I explicitly invoke the term. The reasons for this: well, I should write an essay on the social aspects of gaming. Suffice it to say that I'm not writing this from anecdotal evidence alone.

[lehrbuch]

Hello,

I hope we're not repeating too much prior discussion here...

First, there isn't any such thing as an "instance of play" for which a GNS orientation cannot be determined. An "instance" is not an instant, as some often mis-read it; it might need to be an hour of play, for example.

I agree an instance does not need to be an "instant".  But my point was not that there is an "instance of play" for which a GNS orientation cannot be determined, but that there could be an "instance of play" which *can be oriented in several ways* depending on which player (or commentator) is doing the orienting.    

So, if several players orient an instance differently does that mean:
a) There are no such instances, one or more players is Wrong.
b) The GNS system is (or can be) dependent on who is applying it.

A great deal of play may be considered set-up for pay-off, and leaping to a "Beep! Gamist!" kind of identification of an instant of play is distinctly not useful.

Yes, but how do you decide how much play to consider?  For example, I might play in a single session of a game of Vampire, and see all the other players acting as if they were Simulating character.  However, all the other players might see the single session as part of a campaign, where they are addressing the Premise "Immortality leads to inertia".  The characters they have chosen all reflect aspects of and counter-arguments to this Premise, as do the long-term goals they have ascribed to their characters.  Am I correct or are they?  Hasn't this difference in classification arisen from the context in which it is being judged?

Um...as I write this it occurs to me, one could state that in the above example, I am considering *the session* as an "instance of play", while the other players are considering *the campaign* as an "instance of play".  Which, I guess, explains something.  We are both right!

The anwer to my above question could therefore be:
If several players orient an instance differently, that means:
c) they are orienting different instances.

Perhaps, my argument collapses to: A GNS classification (or indeed any classification) of a game system depends upon which particular "instances of play" are selected as representative of play under that system.  In some cases, the choice of "instances" (and therefore the player/commentator doing the selection) are more important than the system itself.

Which seems embarrassingly obvious, and took a long time to get to.

I do not think your notion that "viewer context" is valid at all. That will probably be a topic for another post, or perhaps another thread.

You define three stances in your essay (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/gns/gns_chapter3.html), these are Actor, Author and Director.

The fourth stance (which you say might exist, in your essay) I am proposing as:
Audience: where a person understands, using a context, a character's decisions and actions or aspects of the environment, particularly (but not only) those determined by another player.

Where context can be (but is not necessarily limited to):
a) the rules and mechanics of the game.
b) the observed past and anticipated future of the game.
c) factors external to the game.

Also, noting that a person in Audience stance may not actually be playing the game, they may be an observer or commentator.

[Mike Holmes]

So, if several players orient an instance differently does that mean:
a) There are no such instances, one or more players is Wrong.
b) The GNS system is (or can be) dependent on who is applying it.

This is the source of most of your confusion. GNS is about player decisions. It's all about how the player is making his decisions, and not anything else. So an instance of play is G  roN or S because of how the player makes his decisions in that instance. Can players be playing in different modes? Yes, happens all the time and constantly. Sometimes a problem, and other times not.

Perhaps, my argument collapses to: A GNS classification (or indeed any classification) of a game system depends upon which particular "instances of play" are selected as representative of play under that system.  In some cases, the choice of "instances" (and therefore the player/commentator doing the selection) are more important than the system itself.

Games cannot be GNS calssified per se. When anoyone says that a game is Simulationist, they are either making a mistake, or they are using shorthand to say that they believe that the game is structured such that it best supports players using that mode of play. Which is a mouthful, so y0ou can understand why people just say "its a Sim game".

The fourth stance (which you say might exist, in your essay) I am proposing as:
Audience: where a person understands, using a context, a character's decisions and actions or aspects of the environment, particularly (but not only) those determined by another player.

Where context can be (but is not necessarily limited to):
a) the rules and mechanics of the game.
b) the observed past and anticipated future of the game.
c) factors external to the game.

Also, noting that a person in Audience stance may not actually be playing the game, they may be an observer or commentator.

This has been debated extensively in other threads in this and the RPG Theory forum. A quick search for Audience aned Stance should bring many up.

Mike

[lehrbuch]

> I[Lehrbuch] am proposing [audience stance] as:...

This has been debated extensively in other threads in this and the RPG Theory forum. A quick search for Audience aned Stance should bring many up.

OK.  A major argument against such a definition seems to be that "stance" is defined as "how a person arrives at decisions for an imaginary character's imaginary actions."  Therefore, as no one is obviously making any decisions about characters in audience stance it isn't a true stance.

However, in audience stance, as I've defined it, the player is making a decision about what an imaginary character's imaginary actions *mean*.  Or is that nonsense?