Clarifying GNS for the re-write

[Logan]

I'm rather concerned that some primary aspects of the presentation have been misunderstood by many who have read it. Since I will be rewriting the doc on Jun 21, I think it's important to clear up some of the sticking points and prod for further reaction.

First, I'll address the value of GNS. As a set of ideas, GNS has spawned a lot of debate, but GNS has done some good, too. GNS and the ideas it contains have made some people feel better about gaming and allowed them to once again enjoy their hobby. It has actually brought a few people back to gaming. As far as I know, GNS is unique in doing that. I am among those people. That is why I feel that it's important to have a GNS faq, why I expended the energy to write a faq, and why I participate in this debate at all.

Next, I want to address the tone of the debate. Most of it is very good. I'm really pleased with the quantity and quality of input we've received about the faq. Most of it comes as no surprise to me at all, even the criticism. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time and interest in what we're doing here to read what we've written and tell us what you think about it. Some of it is angry - even pissed-off. To the angry, pissed-off people, I say this: Get over it. This is supposed to be interesting and somewhat rewarding. If this stuff pisses you off so much that you have to rant about it in the wee hours of the morning, don't bother with it. You're probably not listening to the context of what we're trying to say and you're just spreading discord. This is not to say critical thinking is wrong or bad, but we can have a reasonable discussion about it. At the end of the day, we may not agree, but at least we had the discussion.

Third, I want to address the criterion for determining whether a game is G, N, or S. It is a combination of overall game presentation, overall mechanical effect, player intent and behavior in playing the game, plus GM intent and behavior presenting the adventure and running the game. Naturally, this covers a lot of ground and has tremendous impact on how this stuff fits together. It's not "just" any one thing. In fact, using words like "just" or "only" is about the most contentious thing a person can do in discussing these issues. If you say, "It's just this," or "it's only that," you will piss people off. I was aware of it, but I credit Ron for articulating the point. Think about it. If any of these models were so cut-and-dried, none of it would require debate

Now, to the main point. I had a definite reason for presenting the historical and background terms before presenting GNS proper. It seems to  me that all these factors feed into GNS and make the definitions live and breathe. It's also apparent that some of the impact has not been fully explored or implemented in the faq. I don't think that will happen over night, but allow me to expand a bit on my thinking in these areas. I will begin with definitions and then delve into terms, their impact, and how all this fits together.

Gamism is about competition among actual humans (players, GMs). It places emphasis on overcoming challenges, solving puzzles, increasing character capabilities, gathering stuff, fairness, balance, and winning the game.

Narrativism is about creating stories as a group. The emphasis is placed on allowing players to have some power over what happens in the story, how it happens, and how the story turns out.

Simulationism is about allowing the group to see what would happen in a given situation as a result of the characters' actions. It places emphasis on fairness, verisimilitude, and allowing the group to have an unusual experience.

GNS and Plot
When we talk about plot/storyline with respect to rpgs, we are talking about a pre-plotted sequence of events. Any game may have a plot set up in advance. Any time the GM uses railroading techniques to keep the players on course, there is the cahnce the players will notice and object. Any time the players deviate from the predetermined plot, there is the possibility that the side-trip will have consequences for the characters later in the game.

Gamist games are most likely to have a completely pre-plotted adventure. In Gamist games, this is primarily a vehicle for moving players from challenge to challenge. Gamists are most likely to follow the pre-plotted adventure from start to finish because the players want to overcome the challenges. The GM will usually railroad them a bit to keep them on course through the story.

Narrativist games are least likely to have a pre-plotted adventure. In a Narrativist game, this is a basis for allowing the players to engage in subplots and new stories. Narrativists may decide to tell a completely different story, in which case the GM probably wouldn't use railroading to keep them on course.

Simulationist games may or may not have a pre-plotted adventure. In a Simulationist game, this is one more set of pre-existing conditions in the game world. Simulationists may follow the pre-plotted story, or they may go off on a tangent at some point. This is determined by character motivations and the GM's interests. Depending on the conditions, the GM may or may not railroad the players to put them back on course.

Metaplot
Any game may have a metaplot. The presence or absence of this has some impact on what might happen in an adventure, but it has little or no impact on the style of play, the techniques the players use, or the methods for making decisions. As far as GNS is concerned, it's no issue at all.

Premise
All games have a premise. Like art, all games are about something. Premise is not so important in Gamist games. It may or may not be important in Simulationist games. It's usually pretty important in Narrativist games.

GNS and System Weight
System weight has little impact on a game's GNS orientation, but it may have some meaning on approach to play within each orientation.

Gamist games are often pretty heavy with mechanics for many occasions and subsystems intended to spell out powers and maintain balance. The mechanics are usually directed toward making a contest (such as combat) more exciting, and they're usually crafted in such a way that the player always has a chance to win or lose, no matter how unlikely either event may be.

Narrativist games are usually light systems, but they can become heavier as designers spell out specific rights and limitations on the player's method for creating story. They may also gain weight with increased Gamist or Simulationist influence.

Simulationist games pay the most attention to weight. Heavy systems are usually the result of stringent efforts to simulate conditions in the game world. Light systems are the result of strong desire for players to be their characters without cumbersome mechanical interference.

Stances
Any player can occupy any stance in any game, depending on the contract between player and GM. That said, the likelihood of the player being allowed to occupy a given stance changes depending on the orientation of the game. All players use Author stance during character creation unless the GM supplies ready-made characters. Some games have mechanics which allow the player to participate in Audience stance, but this is infrequent and not well-tied to GNS orientation of the game.

Gamist games place the player primarily in Actor stance, though some Gamist games may supply access to Author or Director stance in some circumstances. There is overlap here between Gamism and Narrativism.

Narrativist games place the players in Actor stance but usually allow them significant access to Author and Director stance so that they may actively participate in the creation of story, adding events, inventing subplots, and even dictating the outcome of some actions.

Simulationist games primarily place the player in Actor stance. Sometimes, players may have limited Author or Director power which allows them to change the outcome of events. There must be some way to explain this in order to maintain the verisimilitude of the game world. A very lucky character might have luck points to spend in order to improve a die result. A character with special powers may be able to be 2 places at once. If this is part of the game world, the player uses other stances as needed to achieve acceptable results. This is overlap between Simulationism and Narrativism.

Playing Characters
Interestingly enough, player method of playing characters has minimal impact on GNS orientation of the game. A player may play in IC or OOC mode regardless of stance. All approaches are valid.

Gamists are most likely to play for extended periods OOC mode. Regardless of mode, they usually make free and open use of OOC information.

Narrativists play IC or OOC as the situation demands, and use OOC information as needed.

Simulationists are most likely to play IC and to ignore OOC information.

Balance of Power
Balance of Power has been related to GNS orientation of the game, but that may change over time.

Gamist games have traditionally given the GM the bulk of the power, though some allow sharing based on access to Author and Director stance as shown above. This is not a rigid requirement as Rune demonstrates. Rune gives all the power to the players who take turns acting as GM.

Narrativist games openly share power between GM and players. This is reasonable, because the players need the power in order to tell their own stories. Recent independent designs freely give all the power to the players.

Simulationist games have always given all the power to the GM, and the idea of sharing that power (or using it if it's offered) is anathema to many Simulationists.

Scenario Design
Scenario design is not fixed in its relationship to GNS, but some combinations are more common than others.

Gamist scenarios are usually linear or branched adventures.

Narrativist scenarios are usually Set of Encounters, Relationship Maps, or Intuitive Continuity adventures. They can be linear or branched adventures, but it's likely the players will derail them in oursuit of their own stories.

Simulationist scenarios are often Set of Encounters. This is probably the preferred mode of play for many Simulationists, Simulationist GMs can also present linear, branched. Simulationists could probably make use of intuitive continuity adventures and relationship maps, but the arrangement is fairly new.

Conclusions
Nothing is absolute. There are numerous opportunities for overlap. Games are a jumble of G, N, and S techniques. These are further modified by the GMs who run them and the players who play them. A game can be evaluated based on its written presentation, but players can distort that presentation and give that game a different emphasis. Players themselves need not always play with the same emphasis, even in the same game session. What we try to do with GNS is look at what is possible, try to see what people do in playing games, and make observations about patterns of play.

Dramatism & Narrativism
Much has been said here about Dramatism and the idea of playing for story, any story. The fact is, the bulk of people who write about Dramatism treat it as Simulationism + Plot. I don't buy it. As a goal, a technique, a method, and as an intent, playing for "drama" with the GM driving all the plot is another flavor of Simulationism. The mechanics, the decisions the players make, the way the games are played are just like Simulationist games. All you're saying is that the players portray their characters with feeling and get the most out of their roleplaying experience. This is what I carry away from reading many posts in the rgfa debate.

Narrativism is different and unique. When you give the players control over the course, direction, plot, setup, and outcome of events in the game you open new vistas to them. You give them access to roads previously never travelled. I've seen the eyes of players open when presented with these new possibilities. If these games are a minority in the market, it is because the exploration of these possibilities did not begin until much later. Emphatically, Narrativism deserves its own corner of the triangle. It represents a completely different method and purpose for play compared to Gamism and Simulationism. Related to them? Certainly. A reaction to them? Probably. Important and worthy of separate acknowledgment? Definitely.

On this site in this model, Narrativism is here to stay.

With respect to the GNS faq, if the point of contention is the role of Dramatism in our discussion, I will remove all reference to that term.

Theatrix
IMO, Theatrix is ill-served and poorly represented in the rgfa model. Its potential and its meaning are submerged in the rgfa debate. It's a Narrativist game, pure and simple. That you can play it to dramatic ends is implicit, but to say it's "only" a Dramatist design is an insult to Berkman's work. In truth, I think even he doesn't quite realize the impact of what he wrote. In the bulk of their debates, the rgfa participants don't give weight to the great empowerment of players that Director stance provides. They barely even acknowledge their own Author stance. They largely poo-poo the idea of wearing the Author cap. They don't like the idea of GMs sharing power with players. As far as I can tell, they don't really understand the implications of allowing the whole group to create story as a group. That is one more set of reasons why I am an advocate of the Edwards model over all others. If/when John Kim updates the rgfa faq and presents compelling argument to dispute this, I will re-evaluate my position.

Best,

Logan


[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-18 18:57 ]

[Mytholder]

Simulationism is about allowing the group to see what would happen in a given situation as a result of the characters' actions. It places emphasis on fairness, verisimilitude, and allowing the group to have an unusual experience.

That's a great definition...and it works for me. However, the FAQ still talks about the GM being a "provider of story". Simulationism is about "seeing what happens in a situation" - and you can't do that if the result of the situation is predetermined by the story.

Simulationist games may or may not have a pre-plotted adventure. In a Simulationist game, this is just one more set of pre-existing conditions in the game world.

No...story doesn't exist in the game world, so it's not a part of simulationism. Simulationists don't use preplotted stories.

Simulationists may follow the pre-plotted story, or they may go off on a tangent at some point. This is determined by character motivations and the GM's interests. Depending on the conditions, the GM may or may not railroad the players to put them back on course.

On course to what?

Dramatism & Narrativism
Much has been said here about Dramatism and the idea of playing for story, any story. The fact is, the bulk of people who write about Dramatism treat it as Simulationism + Plot. I don't buy it. As a goal, a technique, a method, and as an intent, playing for "drama" with the GM driving all the plot is just another flavor of Simulationism. The mechanics, the decisions the players make, the way the games are played are just like Simulationist games. All you're saying is that the players portray their characters with feeling and get the most out of their roleplaying experience. This is what I carry away from reading many posts in the rgfa debate.

The essential difference is that the logic of the game world takes second place to the demands of the GM's story. The Dramatist GM is allowed violate the world's internal consistency if it makes for a better story. The Simulationist GM isn't allowed do this.

Emphatically, Narrativism deserves its own corner of the triangle. It represents a completely different method and purpose for play compared to Gamism and Simulationism. Related to them? Certainly. A reaction to them? Probably. Important and worthy of separate acknowledgment? Definitely.

I agree with all that. Wholeheartly. 100%.
However...there's also a style of play which isn't narrativist, isn't gamist, and centres on story instead of world, which your model doesn't seem to recognise.
You're attributing behaviours and ideas to simulationists which don't fit.

With respect to the GNS faq, if the point of contention is the role of Dramatism in our discussion, I will remove all reference to that term.

*head in hands*
Well, that's it, problem solved. That wasn't so hard, now, wasn't it? Once the "d" word was removed from the discussion, understanding and fellowship blossomed in an instant and all the simulationists danced off to tell preplotted stories which gleefully violated world logic whenever it got in the way.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me it's just a game and I shouldn't take it so seriously too?

Look...I've posted more often and in more detail over the last three days than I have in months. I'm not doing this to "spread discord", I'm doing this because I think the FAQ is wrong, but fixable.

YMMV.

[jburneko]

On 2001-06-18 16:53, Mytholder wrote:

Simulationist games may or may not have a pre-plotted adventure. In a Simulationist game, this is just one more set of pre-existing conditions in the game world.

No...story doesn't exist in the game world, so it's not a part of simulationism. Simulationists don't use preplotted stories.

Simulationists may follow the pre-plotted story, or they may go off on a tangent at some point. This is determined by character motivations and the GM's interests. Depending on the conditions, the GM may or may not railroad the players to put them back on course.

On course to what?

Dramatism & Narrativism
Much has been said here about Dramatism and the idea of playing for story, any story. The fact is, the bulk of people who write about Dramatism treat it as Simulationism + Plot. I don't buy it. As a goal, a technique, a method, and as an intent, playing for "drama" with the GM driving all the plot is just another flavor of Simulationism. The mechanics, the decisions the players make, the way the games are played are just like Simulationist games. All you're saying is that the players portray their characters with feeling and get the most out of their roleplaying experience. This is what I carry away from reading many posts in the rgfa debate.

The essential difference is that the logic of the game world takes second place to the demands of the GM's story. The Dramatist GM is allowed violate the world's internal consistency if it makes for a better story. The Simulationist GM isn't allowed do this.

I'm going to jump in here and say that I agree with Mytholder on all the above points.  I don't think Dramatism is it's own entity but I don't think it is part of Simulationism.  If it were all up to me I'd put it at one extreme of Narrativism.  I think this is clear if we briefly define what is valued MOST in each group without regard to technique.

The Gamist values challenges and fairness.
The Simulationist value coherency and consistency of world.
The Narrativist values story.

Then we look at technique and we see that at one end of the Narrativist spectrum we see a group that values story above challenges, fairness, and coherency of world but chooses to experience that story through traditional GM/Player power roles.  The GM is the facilitator of the story and controls the world and NPC behavior to best fit the theme and the tempo of the story.  The Players play their parts to the hilt providing in-character decision for the GM to react to and thus adjust the world and up-comming plot points to fit the Player's previous decisions.  The Players are NOT powerless to affect the plot, it's just that the only tool they have is that of their character's decisions.  A good GM of this style respects that the players MUST feel they have an impact on the story and they will make those decisions count.  He will alter the world (something a simulationist would not do) to amplify the dramatic impact of those decisions and thereby make the player feel empowered.

At the OTHER end of the Narrativist spectrum we have shared power as described in the FAQ.  The players are in essence mini-GMs contributing directly to the story by adding elements and outcomes to the world outside of their character as opposed to indirectly by in-character actions alone.

For a long while now I've felt as though I were at war with myself.  That a power-hungry egomaniacal meglomanic Simulationist GM inside me was at war with my Narrativist desire for the players to take more control of their characters lives and contributions to play.  I've felt that to achieve some of my ideals I'd have to sacrifice other ideals.  The FAQ as written says, yes, this is what's happening to me.

But MY definition as stated here says, No.  You sit in the middle of the Narrativist spectrum.  You want to tell the story as the GM.  You want to control the pacing and the tempo by managing the NPCs and the world and the information.  BUT, you also want the players to contribute more.  Not to the plot directly but rather to the METHODS of discovering the plot.

The player may, for example, add an NPC that wasn't there originally but as soon as the NPC is added the control of that NPC reverts to me as the GM.  The player can say, 'I'm going to go visit my old friend Diego who happens to be an expert on X'  I as the GM have never heard of Diego but I understand that it is realistic for the character to have such a friend and I understand what the limits of Diego's knowledge might be.  However, *I* still determine what Diego knows and doesn't know.  I'm still in control of keeping the story consistent and at a certain pace.  The good GM will reward the Player's creativity by having Diego know something relevant but the GM will still be able to prevent Diego from knowing something contradictory to the story or something too revealing as to screw up the pacing.

So you see, I want the players to add elements to the world, it's just once those elements are added control reverts to me in the normal manner as if I the *GM* had added them.  The idea being that the players can add tools, methods and means to the world but they can't dictate how they will behave or what the outcome of their application will be.

Jesse

[greyorm]

That's a great definition...and it works for me. However, the FAQ still talks about the GM being a "provider of story". Simulationism is about "seeing what happens in a situation" - and you can't do that if the result of the situation is predetermined by the story.

No...story doesn't exist in the game world, so it's not a part of simulationism. Simulationists don't use preplotted stories.

I think I can see where your argument is really coming from now!  Whoo!

That said, I agree, but I disagree.
What about games that are merely, "I want to experience my character in the context of this story.  I want to feel what it is like to BE King Arthur fighting Mordred."

Simulationism, in my opinion, but focused on character simulationism...thus you could have a pre-plotted adventure and still have it be Simulationism, just a different type of Simulationism than the one that focuses on events.

[james_west]

On 2001-06-18 17:50, jburneko wrote:

The Gamist values challenges and fairness.
The Simulationist value coherency and consistency of world.
The Narrativist values story.

In my opinion, that's about all the FAQ should say about GNS, as well as something about how all elements may be present; it's just that, if there's a conflict, this tells you which element wins. The jet fighter analogy from the other thread would work well.

Saying anything else is sort of going beyond definitions of values and starting to talk about the mechanics that support them ... which clearly is jumping the gun, IMHO.

Basically, I think the FAQ says -too much- about them.

                                  - James

[Epoch]

Basically, I think the FAQ says -too much- about them.

I sympathize with this point of view -- maybe even agree with it -- but you should realize that Ron's theory is designed to talk about mechanics and such.  To say that it should not discuss mechanics and techniques in the FAQ is to say in the FAQ that the theory is fatally flawed.

I'm not entirely convinced that the theory isn't fatally flawed, but I think that the FAQ should be an advocate for the theory to further debates about whether or not the theory is flawed, not an executioner of the theory.

[Logan]

Mytholder,

>The essential difference is that the logic of the game world takes second place to the demands of the GM's story. The Dramatist GM is allowed violate the world's internal consistency if it makes for a better story. The Simulationist GM isn't allowed do this.
--------------------------
This is a good point - but the GM determines what constitutes the internal consistency of the game world, especially in rules-light, immersive character simulation. Is that picky? Yes, I think it is.

>However...there's also a style of play which isn't narrativist, isn't gamist, and centres on story instead of world, which your model doesn't seem to recognise.
You're attributing behaviours and ideas to simulationists which don't fit.
-----------------------
Oh, we definitely recognize it. I do, anyway. You just don't like where we've put it in the heirarchy. :wink:

>Well, that's it, problem solved. That wasn't so hard, now, wasn't it? Once the "d" word was removed from the discussion, understanding and fellowship blossomed in an instant and all the simulationists danced off to tell preplotted stories which gleefully violated world logic whenever it got in the way.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me it's just a game and I shouldn't take it so seriously too?
---------------------
Yeah, yeah. Okay. That phrase was poorly chosen.

I'll tell you what you couldn't know:
I had a phone conversation with Ron yesterday. We were talking about this stuff. One of the points that I made was that the only way to make you feel better about this would be to insert the term Dramatism into the model. Shame I didn't put money on that... Anyway, my thought has been, it's an unnecessary addition to the model because in many ways, the flow of play and the relationships between GM and players in Dramatism are practically identical to the relationships in Simulationism. He agreed with me.

The trouble is, I'm trying to build consensus for the work we're doing here. I don't really want to send people away all pissed off and thinking that their valid concerns have been ignored. You've presented some valid reasons why Dramatism (that part of Dramatism that is not part of Narrativism) is subtly different from what we commonly regard as Simulationism. I agree. It coincides with some of what I've read in rfga posts. There is a certain body of material that uniquely qualifies as Dramatist. It's more than Simulationism + Plot and less than full-blown Narrativism. The question is, what do we do with it?

AFAIK, Hell's not frozen today, so it probably won't get built into Narrativism. It's already sitting in Simulationism, but people don't seem too happy about that. If it were up to me, I'd probably work out some sort of compromise, but it's not up to me. I'm not "GNS Governor." I'm more like "GNS Secretary," so I have no definitive answer for you.

Best,

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-18 18:53 ]

[james_west]

On 2001-06-18 18:13, Epoch wrote:
To say that it should not discuss mechanics and techniques in the FAQ is to say in the FAQ that the theory is fatally flawed.

That's not really what I meant: I meant that the FAQ is just there to tell you what GNS is, rather than what mechanics support which play mode best. If there's a clear definition of GNS, it supports talking about mechanics. All the FAQ was supposed to do, I thought, was give clear definitions of GNS. The ones I quoted from Jburneko seemed very clear, and seem accurate.

Given these definitions, then we can discuss which mechanics promote consistency, which promote story, and which promote fairness and competition.

For the record, I agree with Logan and Ron's claim that it's hard to have the players helping to promote story without giving them authorial or directorial power. If you've only got actor stance, then by definition you're acting in a manner consistent with the character, which is, once again by definition, simulationist. See ? This is why definitions are so nice.

                - James

[Mytholder]

On 2001-06-18 18:51, Logan wrote:
Mytholder,

>The essential difference is that the logic of the game world takes second place to the demands of the GM's story. The Dramatist GM is allowed violate the world's internal consistency if it makes for a better story. The Simulationist GM isn't allowed do this.
--------------------------
This is a good point - but the GM determines what constitutes the internal consistency of the game world, especially in rules-light, immersive character simulation. Is that picky? Yes, I think it is.

Oh yeah, we're dancing on the heads of pins here. The simulationist GM has to do a little balancing act in his head - on the one hand, he's got to keep the game going and resolve all the actions of the players. On the other, he's trying to keep the game world coherent and pure. It's a tricky bit of doublethink (hmm...I said the same thing about Gamist GMs and balance in another thread....there's something about the division between GM-as-agent-of-resolution and GM-as-world/story/challenge-designer that's worth exploring, but that's another thread...)

>However...there's also a style of play which isn't narrativist, isn't gamist, and centres on story instead of world, which your model doesn't seem to recognise.
You're attributing behaviours and ideas to simulationists which don't fit.
-----------------------
Oh, we definitely recognize it. I do, anyway. You just don't like where we've put it in the heirarchy. :smile:

Don't like is putting it mildly. Yer wrong, wrong, wrong!!

Seriously...your reorganisation doesn't work for me at all...and I don't think I'm alone.

>Well, that's it, problem solved. That wasn't so hard, now, wasn't it? Once the "d" word was removed from the discussion, understanding and fellowship blossomed in an instant and all the simulationists danced off to tell preplotted stories which gleefully violated world logic whenever it got in the way.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me it's just a game and I shouldn't take it so seriously too?
---------------------
Yeah, yeah. Okay. That phrase was poorly chosen.

You got off lightly. I nearly Jestered...

I'll tell you what you couldn't know:
I had a phone conversation with Ron yesterday. We were talking about this stuff. One of the points that I made was that the only way to make you feel better about this would be to insert the term Dramatism into the model. Shame I didn't put money on that... Anyway, my thought has been, it's an unnecessary addition to the model because in many ways, the flow of play and the relationships between GM and players in Dramatism are practically identical to the relationships in Simulationism. He agreed with me.

That's true. They're similar on some levels. The flow of play and relationship between the strong GM and the weak players is similar. However, they're both trying to accomplish different things, and the things they're trying to accomplish are so different and divergent that jamming the two together is painfully wrong.

The trouble is, I'm trying to build consensus for the work we're doing here. I don't really want to send people away all pissed off and thinking that their valid concerns have been ignored. You've presented some valid reasons why Dramatism (that part of Dramatism that is not part of Narrativism) is subtly different from what we commonly regard as Simulationism. I agree. It coincides with some of what I've read in rfga posts. There is a certain body of material that uniquely qualifies as Dramatist. It's more than Simulationism + Plot and less than full-blown Narrativism. The question is, what do we do with it?

Well, my mental model has Narrativism contained within Dramatism, to some extent...or, more accurately, but Narrativism as you've defined it and the other stuff which you threw into simulationism are both catgatorised within a fuzzy "style centred on story" section. Narrativism has its own unique identity - it's a strong style of play that can produce amazing games - but it's sorta related to other styles on some levels.

Another option which I think Jim put forward is to chuck all the Game/Story/World stuff, and explore the concept of a threefold of stances....

AFAIK, Hell's not frozen today, so it probably won't get built into Narrativism. It's already sitting in Simulationism, but people don't seem too happy about that. If it were up to me, I'd probably work out some sort of compromise, but it's not up to me. I'm not "GNS Governor." I'm more like "GNS Secretary," so I have no definitive answer for you.

So what do we do? Ron? You feel like weighing in on this?

(*phew*. I think we achieved something. I'm not sure what, but my fingers hurt....)

[Epoch]

The issue of Narrativism as a top-level goal versus being a subset of Dramatism is an interesting question, ain't it?

On the one hand, we've got a pretty darn clear distinction as to whether or not it's a subset of Dramatism.  Dramatism is defined as being the style of play in which the goal is for the end result of that play to be a story which is "good" by the aesthetic standards of those involved.

So the question for the Narrativists is:  Is it an essential feature of Narrativism that the participants want the end result to be a good story?  If the answer is yes, it's a subset of Dramatism.

On the other hand, Logan's point that Narrativism and traditional Dramatism of the railroading variety demand a wildly different approach is a good and telling one.

I think that the answer is the tension between the GNS as a model of people's goals and the GNS as a model of techniques.  As a goal, Narrativism isn't top-level.  As an approach to the game, well, I haven't thoroughly explored it, but I suspect that it is top-level.

At least, that's what I think.

But I suspect that this falls under the same criticism that I made of James West's arguments -- the FAQ isn't here to fundamentally change or demolish the GNS theory, it's here to advocate the existing GNS theory as clearly as possible, so that interested parties can decide whether or not they feel it should be kept, tweaked, fundamentally changed, or demolished.

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-06-18 16:53, Mytholder wrote:
No...story doesn't exist in the game world, so it's not a part of simulationism. Simulationists don't use preplotted stories.

I've been thinking about Simulationist RPGs a lot lately, as I realized that under the GNS description most of my RP history fits in this category.  This may get a bit long, so if you're (and I mean that as in a broad "you", not just Mytholder) impatient, I think my bottom line is that the statement above would only be correct under a very narrow definition of Simulation.  And while there's risk and difficulty involved in broadening the definition, I think it really does need to be broader.  There are enough varieties of Simulationists out there that "only what's in the game world" HAS to mean "anything that has been defined as within the game world for the purposes of this simulation."

There's an acknowledged link between wargames and the Simulationist aspects of RPG's, and while I've see some valid concerns about taking the analogy too far, it does seem helpful here.  I'd equate "Simulationist Metaplot" with events that occur on certain turns/triggers in a wargame - the weather WILL turn bad on turn 13, reinforcements WILL arrive once you relieve the town of Gascony, etc.  Metaplot and simulation are fully compatible in this model - the Metaplot is part of the simulation, the key events ARE going to happen, we are (if you like) simulating a world in which some things are inevitable/fated/destined.  One of the "rules" of the simulation is that the events will occur - there is nothing the PCs can do to change it.  That established . . . let's see what happens to our characters, shall we?  Are they among the heroes who fight in the big battle?  Are they the ones who (unwittingly, of course) made the key mistakes that allowed the Ancient Ones to escape?  To use (possibly improperly - I'm no music expert) the band analogy, what we've got here are improvisations on a theme - you've got some feedom, but you must stick to the theme in a very important way.

There are RPG issues here that bother simulationists - if the PCs do something really extraordinary, shouldn't there be a chance that the events don't actually happen (if you begin to see a powerful new melody, shouldn't you be allowed to develop it?)  While a wargame can "hide" this issue by not providing any mechanics to, e.g., hasten the arrival of reinforcements, the greater freedom you have in an RPG means that the PC could conceivably do something that really should result in early reinforcements (say, they repair a communication line and inform HQ of the desperate situation earlier than would otherwise have happened).  I expect that "pure" simulationists HATE it when this happens - it means the game world the simulation was supposed to occur within has been compromised.  But others come up with their own ways to handle such things without thinking they've entirely "lost" the simulation - perhaps "the dirty hand of the GM" is acknowledged as a neccessary evil to prevent it from ever occuring by steering (railroading, if you prefer)  the players away from such danger.  "Nope, you just can't get that communication line working"  Why?  Not because it's good for the story, or because it'd make the battle too easy - in the simulation we're running, that line simply did not get repaired until later.  Or some people just "reset" the simulation - "OK, there's no way around it - you change the course of the battle in an even bigger way than I/the simulation had thought possible.  Let's see what that means for the rest of the environment, and we'll mentally reset with a slight adjustment to the simulation."

What a particular group does when things break down like this, or how they prevent it, probably says a lot about what's REALLY important to them.

Personally, I've decided that since a simulation can never really take everything into account, and human GMs and players will always end up "tainting" the purity of "only what's in the game world", worrying about such things is kinda silly (despite the fact that I've no doubt spent weeks - no, MONTHS - of my lifetime doing just that).  I can't decide yet if that means I'd actually be better off (have more fun) if I shifted to thinking in mostly Narrativist terms, or if it's just a "flavor" of Simulationism I'm looking for, that sufficiently well expressed and supported could make for a Simulation that knew how to cope with its' own inherent contradictions (only consider what's in the game world . . .except, of course, you aren't actually in the game world, are you?  hmm - suddenly, I have more sympathy for the Elaytijists than ever before . . . )

Phew . .  I hope that's helpful to someone, somehow.  Took more work than I thought.

Gordon C. Landis

[greyorm]

I'd equate "Simulationist Metaplot" with events that occur on certain turns/triggers in a wargame - the weather WILL turn bad on turn 13, reinforcements WILL arrive once you relieve the town of Gascony, etc.  
the key events ARE going to happen, we are (if you like) simulating a world in which some things are inevitable/fated/destined.
One of the "rules" of the simulation is that the events will occur - there is nothing the PCs can do to change it.  That established . . . let's see what happens to our characters, shall we?

Yes, yes, yes!  Yes, Gordon!  (I apparently just washed my hair with Herbal Essence)
This is exactly the point I was making in my other post, where I stated that metaplot or pre-plotting COULD be Simulationist (and in fact, I consider it to be by default, though moreso in the case of the former than the latter).

[Supplanter]

There is a certain body of material that uniquely qualifies as Dramatist. It's more than Simulationism + Plot and less than full-blown Narrativism. The question is, what do we do with it?

Here is my suggestion: Give it to gamism.

Pause while people pick themselves off the floor or nod cynically.

Return with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear - specifically, to the Marvel Superheroes Role-Playing Game Basic Set. The included adventure was called - actually, I have no idea what it was called. But it purported to put the players through a story in which they are a handful of Avengers chasing this big thingamabob through town. The scenario builds in the following bits of helpful advice for the GM:

Players fail to chase the thingamabob - Have Thor show up and tell them to chase the thingamabob

Players miss an important clue to trail of thingamabob - Have Thor suggest how to find the trail

Players, you know, get their ass kicked by the thingamabob - Have Thor show up and kick the thingamabob's ass

At the end you have something structured just like a (bad) comic book. If you get their without the GM having to bring Thor in, you've clearly done "better" than if you didn't.

Most every unipolar dramatist scenario or advice chapter in a rulebook makes the principle explicit or implicit: The players' job is to have their characters act in such a way as to fulfill the plot. It's their challenge.  Solve the mystery, complete the quest, whatever. The scenarios build in the deus ex machinas or the rulebook briefs the GM on fallbacks. After all, if you've got the big finish scene waiting to go, you don't want to see it wasted.

Fulfill the plot with a minimum of GM intervention and you win. For that matter, set your adventure up so the players follow the "right" path with a minimum of out-and-out guidance, and you win as a GM.

Your other option is to go to a fourfold model.

Best,


Jim

[Paul Czege]

Hey everyone,

What's particularly surreal about this thread is watching us push railroading back and forth between Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism like a bowl of vaguely threatening Life cereal.

It becomes apparent from an understanding of stance that Narrativism and railroading don't mix, and since the FAQ places railroading techniques squarely within Simulationism the issue we go around and around on becomes whether we modify the FAQ to protect Simulationism from that. My vote is no.

My personal experience doesn't correspond with Logan's observation that "Gamist games are most likely to have a completely pre-plotted adventure". The Tomb of Horrors, any of the giant modules, The Keep on the Borderlands, all of the early TSR AD&D modules were not the least bit pre-plotted. The actions of the player characters were basically the only significant thing happening in the game world while a DM was running one of those modules, and there was no sequence of plot events embedded in them more sophisticated than finding a key in one room to open a door in the next room.

But I can't say I've ever played a scenario of Vampire or Werewolf or Call of Cthulhu that that didn't feature significant events that were entirely pre-plotted by the GM or the published materials he was using.

Of course, if you go way back to the first edition of Traveller, it becomes obvious that Simulationism doesn't have to feature pre-plotting either.

But I've played railroaded Dragonlance AD&D scenarios, and the above-mentioned railroaded Call of Cthulhu scenarios, and I've struggled to overcome my own history of creating railroaded scenarios when I ran Everway recently, probably failing in some ways and actually railroading some events.

I think we push railroading around like that bowl of cereal because we know what poison it is to the engagement of the player. One whiff of railroading and your extended scenario or campaign fizzles. Player bickering. The thief running wild in the streets at night, getting arrested by town guards and distracting the party from the objectives provided to them by the scenario. We all know from experience that it's lack of player engagement in the actual scenario that causes that stuff. To have railroading attached to a favored branch of the threefold feels like the staining of a damnable spot of blood you can't get out. And because we've seen railroading used across the threefold, it seems like a solution to push it off on the other guy. Yet as Gordon has perfectly explicated above, a sequence of predetermined events is a Simulationist technique. The core of Gamism is a balanced challenge. Layering railroading onto it is making use of the Simulationist technique of triggering historical events that impact the simulation without themselves being factors that could arise from within the scope of what's being simulated. Railroading, as such, is a perfectly acceptable Simulationist technique.

It certainly has perceivable consequences for player engagement. The Turkuists address the problem in their Vow of Chastity with language like, "I will try to be true to my character without trying to spot a story-line..." This is basically saying, "Don't think about it." But we all know how hard that is to do.

Somehow, only Mikey can do it.

Paul

[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-06-18 22:48 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hey everybody,

Despite all the sturm and drang, I'd like everyone to look over this thread at least once. Put aside your "position" for a second and notice how ... SUBSTANTIVE this discussion is. It's strong stuff and people are actually making sense to one another.

I was invited to weigh in at one point up there. I've decided to weigh in mainly in the form of revision and re-write of the document itself. In other words, you guys are the "environment" and the GNS-101 is the organism.

I have ... extensive comments on the Simulationist issue, and much of it is related to the Exploratory issue, much of it is related to the creative issues that I was SUPPOSED to clarify with Jim privately (and did not have time to do), and much is related to the cordial differences John Kim and I discovered in our views a long time ago.

Not a word of Gareth's and Jim's objections are surprising to me. Some of it is solvable simply by changing some wording. Some of it, however, is disagreement. There will come a time when - if we understand the parameters of disagreement - we can get along about it, or choose to part ways. And I must make this point: insofar as what I and others are suggesting DIFFERS, coherently, from GDS, then that, in itself, does not earmark these views as WRONG.

Here are my only comments now.

1. System design MATTERS, in terms of effective and enjoyable play. I suggest that GNS is a worthwhile tool for examining HOW it matters.

2. People are getting a bit too festive with "Gamist games do this," and so on - I may be guilty of this regarding stance, which by definition is highly, highly labile during play. All the way back to my original essay, I suggest that we are still very much in the dark about which mechanics do what in terms of GNS. At one point in the GO discussion, M.J. and I found a lot of common ground in discussing the toolbox of design, and thinking about how a hammer (e.g.) is used DIFFERENTLY at different times.

3. Related to the above, I also suggest remembering that people are not games - to play an RPG with a primarily-Gamist orientation is not to be a Gamist; judging this would strictly be a matter of watching or participating in play with that group.

4. In terms of design, I suggest that most role-playing games either (1) have a coherent orientation in GNS, which is well or poorly supported by their mechanics, or (2) have NO GNS orientation, which is to say that nearly anyone has to ignore or insert SOMETHING in order to enjoy the game.

5. Also, in terms of design, I also suggest that author-intent is not, and never has been, an issue in my framework.
I regard GNS (or the issues raised by GDS, to give credit where it's due) as fundamental to role-playing - but just as it was possible to build a functional bridge without knowing Newton's laws of motion, it is possible to write a good RPG without being into GNS thinking at all. I claim that the analogy is exact, in that a GOOD bridge DOES accord with these principles (or is interpretable in their terms), no matter what the author/architect thought or intended.

Best,
Ron