Clarifying GNS for the re-write

[greyorm]

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.

I want to jump in and point out that it IS entirely possible to use "railroading", or rather "pre-plotting" in a positive, game-enhancing fashion.

One of my favorite game systems, one which was created for the express purpose of encouraging story-over-mechanics (though whether it manages to do so as well as it could, I won't say here), is the SAGA system by WotC.
Its text actively encourages pre-plotting; setting up what is essentially a story-tree, "Players do this, this happens", with obvious (to the Narrator) preset goals for each "scene."

It allows one to cover their options (met the goal, did not meet the goal) so that no matter what the characters actually do, they end up at the "end" of the story facing the big, bad dude or making out with the bar wench.

So, it isn't so much that railroading is an issue of "bad, naughty, evil pre-plotted adventure!" so much as how one uses the technique to further the game and add to enjoyment.

Hrm, that's probably not as intelligible as I could make it, but its late and I hope folks see the "tool" nature of pre-plotting.

[Mytholder]

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's not railroading in and of itself that's getting pushed around. It's railroading for the purposes of story, for metagame concerns. It's perfectly ok for a simulationist to railroad the PCs, as long as it's an in-game reason for railroading. "The King commands you to go north" is fine.
What isn't ok is railroading because the GM thinks it suits the plot better. "The PCs must find the McGuffin in the abandoned tomb so the mummy can chase after them" is wrong. The GM has this mummy-chasing plot in mind. He can bring the players to the tomb, but he can't compel them to find or take the McGuffin. They have to have the freedom to leave the tomb. The story can't be allowed to mess with the game world.

Saying "two hours after the war starts, the King's army will reach the gates of Castle Anthrax" is fine.
Saying "two hours after the war starts, the King's army led by the PCs will reach the gates" isn't. Both are preplotted events, but one impinges on the reality of the game world. The GM can ensure that his NPCs go to Castle Anthrax. He can't ensure the PCs do so without breaking into the world.

As for Jim's suggestion you stick Dramatism into gamism...my head hurts and I'm going to sit down now. I'm tempted to say no, it's a compromise solution and Brian Gleichman et al will firebomb us if they notice. Let me think about it...

[Supplanter]

Spake Paul

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.

AND

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.

AND

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.

The problems with the above are

1) it reduces non-narrativist dramatism to railroading, which even now I don't believe.

2) the examples only work if you already assume what is in fact in question about GNS. Frex, you cite different module-series from D&D, some of which you identify as "railroading" and some not. In step two, you assign the least plotted to gamism and the most plotted to simulationism. But what is gamist about Keep on the Borderlands that is not gamist about Dragonlance? Considered on the world/story/game axis, Dragonlance is clearly story-oriented while the Keep-era modules are far more world than game-oriented. I remember being scandalized by one of the Basic Set modules because it did away with dungeon levels and had the goblins living in a naturalistic warren in an arroyo. Gosh darn it, I thought at the time, that's not fair to new players! You'll just confuse them if you don't give them that marker (difficulty increases the further you go below the surface.

I do not think you could find a self-styled simulationist who would claim the Dragonlance modules.

3) A further important point: the distinction between plot and metaplot that Gareth explains in his message.

4) The very concept of a "simulationist scenario" is problematic. We recognize that if, presented with the example scenario in Sorcerer, that under the tenets of narrativism, we "play badly" if we take one look at the place, say "I'm outta here" and go chill on the beach until the weekend is over. But this is perfectly acceptable behavior in a simulationist game: if the characters get so afraid or disgusted or bored that they want nothing to do with the issue before them, they are free to disentangle themselves to the best of their ability, and the referee must not prevent them from doing so - the world itself may prevent them, but the referee must not alter the world purely to do so. The GM may say, Okay folks, I need some time to think about what happense next. He may not say, Your tire blows out just before the gate, just to keep you here.

Ron spake

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.

Agreed. What makes it "wrong" in the sense of universally applicable, is, among other things, that only self-identified narrativists are okay with the proposed model in toto.

Gareth spake

[doubting the worth of assigning non-narrativist dramatism to gamism.]

Oh you're right. It's simply not less wrong than assigning it to simulationism.

Best,


Jim

[Logan]

Plenty of ground to cover today. Lots of good discussion.

Epoch has it right about the goal for the faq. Its job is to present the current state of GNS theory so that we have a start point for newcomers and a reference point for further development. Still, the faq may become a catalyst for change and it's certainly sparked interest in what GNS theory says and how it says it.

Jim,
You summed up the way pre-plotted Gamist adventures work, with the adventure as a vehicle through the game's challenges; but this isn't what Mytholder (Gareth) has been talking about, and I think you know it.

Furthermore, there have been pre-plotted adventures published for Simulationist games. They've been published in modules and magazines for years. You can't ignore the fact of it just because it doesn't suit your ideals. To that end, I think Gordon makes a valid point about the inherent imperfection of Simulationist efforts.

Paul,
I really hope this whole thing is about more than "railroading in pre-plotted adventures." As far as Gamist adventures, you're absolutely right about the early dungeon crawls, but FASA and West End published a mountain of pre-plotted adventures for Shadowrun, Earthdawn, and the old Star Wars RPG. They weren't the only ones to do this for Gamist games. The thing is, no style of game has to feature pre-plotting, though I think any style can have it. It's just some styles feature it more than others, and it serves different roles with markedly different results as you go from style to style.

And this, I suppose, is as good a launching point as any for my main point. Bear with me. This is long.

I know what's bugging Gareth about this whole pre-plotted adventure thing, and I know he's not alone in his irritation. You can have a pre-plotted linear or branched Simulationist adventure. It's not ideal for Simulationist play (no one ever said it was), but such things exist. The events in it won't necessarily violate the verisimilitude of the game world. They can, but they don't have to. That part is a leap in logic, but the GM must anticipate problems in running it as described by others in this thread. This is Simulationism + Plot. This exists and it's a valid approach to play. Verisimilitude of the game world, strong use of character motives in decision making, and the desire for the experience take precedence over creating story (doing what is good for the story) or successful completion of the adventure. The plot is there to set up events so that the players (including GM) can have their experience and see what happens.

Here's the rub: I know from experience, from posts on the rgfa list, from posts on GO, and from posts here that there is a mode of play that fits between Simulationism + Plot and Narrativism. In form and action, it strongly resembles rules-light, character simulation related to the Elaytijist ideal - but it's really not a simulationist mode of play. We know it's not because, as Gareth and others have correctly pointed out, verisimilitude of the game world and (to a lesser degree) decision-making based on character motivation are both thrown out the window in favor of story. This is the basis of rgfa Dramatism. And Gareth's right, we're definitely "dancing on the heads of pins here."
But there has to be an acceptable solution that doesn't require switching to a 4-fold model and doesn't piss people off.

The problem is, in rgfa discussion, Dramatism focuses on this mode of play that I just described. It's rules-light Simulation where Story, (support of the GM's story?) and the desire to participate in telling a story to a high aesthetic standard, replaces verisimilitude and the desire for experience. The part where the GM and players share power and the players actively participate in shaping events that happen in the story, what we call Narrativism, is truncated. In GNS discussion, Narrativism is in a class all by itself and Dramatism, genuine Dramatism, is an orphan.

I think Dramatism (as we've discussed it) is a bridge which leads from Simulationism to Narrativism. The question is, can we build it into the definition of Narrativism without ruining anything? We managed to accept the idea of character simulation and rules-light Simulationism without destroying the model. Can we do the same for Dramatism? Can we set up some sort of arrangement where you have Lesser and Greater (Weaker/Stronger; Older/Newer, whatever) forms of Narrativism? So far, Ron has resisted all such efforts. He went tooth and claw with MJ young over this very issue on GO. I don't blame Ron. He went to a lot of trouble to articulate the Narrativist ideal. But Dramatism and Narrativism are obviously related.

If the idea of Dramatism is valid (and I think it is), it has to fit somewhere. It's not a Gamist concern. Their gateway to Narrativism lies on a different path. If Dramatism is not part of Simulationism, then perhaps it could be part of Narrativism. If that's not possible, then it must be its own entity.

As is frequently the case in these debates, I can live with the arrangement however it turns out. Like Mike Holmes, I can see both sides of the issue. I can also see that the current arrangement is fine with some people and not fine with others. If we don't reach consensus today, don't worry. We can list it as a current issue. When a consensus is reached, we can update the faq as needed. That's all I can say about it.

Best,

Logan

[Mytholder]

On 2001-06-19 10:46, Logan wrote:
I know what's bugging Gareth about this whole pre-plotted adventure thing, and I know he's not alone in his irritation. You can have a pre-plotted linear or branched Simulationist adventure. It's not ideal for Simulationist play (no one ever said it was), but such things exist. The events in it won't necessarily violate the verisimilitude of the game world. They can, but they don't have to. That part is a leap in logic, but the GM must anticipate problems in running it as described by others in this thread. This is Simulationism + Plot. This exists and it's a valid approach to play. Verisimilitude of the game world, strong use of character motives in decision making, and the desire for the experience take precedence over creating story (doing what is good for the story) or successful completion of the adventure. The plot is there to set up events so that the players (including GM) can have their experience and see what happens.

I have no argument with any of this. Basically, my main objection to the faq was that it put Simulationism+Plot at the heart of Simulationism, whereas it really belongs at some point between "extreme" simulationism and narrativism.

What I've been describing/arguing for/frothing about recently is extreme, rabid, psychotic, hardcore simulationism with bells on. Most games won't go that far in excluding metagame and out-of-world stuff. I think having a strong definition for each of the three extremes (hardcore narrativism, hardcore simulationism and hardcore gamism) means we can more easily move between the styles when classifying and discussing games. Instead of three sharply-divided regions, you've got three extremes and zones of blending.

Storytelling/Simulation+Plot/Dramatism goes have elements which are more simulationist than narrativist. It's also got elements that are closer to narrativist ideals. It exists between them.

But there has to be an acceptable solution that doesn't require switching to a 4-fold model and doesn't piss people off.

I'd suggest:
Keep the current definition of narrativism. Use something cobbled together from the various pro-sim posts over the last few days as the definition of simulationism. Somewhere between those two is Dramatism - it's neither one nor the other. (I think it is anyway...).

Of course, then there's gamism, which we haven't even touched... :smile:

[greyorm]

I do not think you could find a self-styled simulationist who would claim the Dragonlance modules.

What makes it "wrong" in the sense of universally applicable, is, among other things, that only self-identified narrativists are okay with the proposed model in toto.

Whoa, there, Nelly...while Ron and I disagree about what I am Threefold-wise, I've claimed strongly that I'm Simulationist, or have been Simulationist for most of my gaming years.

In fact, prior to discovering Sorcerer and being exposed to the various discussion lists about it, I was definitely hard-core Simulationist.
My rules were drawn-out and complex* and I demanded things happen by the rules in a realistic and understandable fashion: A, B, C event progression.

* Anyone want to see the ten pages of rules I once wrote up to simulate realistic spell-casting?  Yes, ten pages of rules to do ONE action...
Anyone ever glance over my previous page and look over the Astromancer class?  I can't even figure out the math anymore and I CREATED the darn class.

Even now, I'm sitting on the fence between the two.  As I described with the dead-sorcerer episode from my game, I didn't arbitrarily decide the sorcerer lived to enhance the plot, I realized he could survive because he had healing potions, I recognized doing that would make a better story and help me out of a jam, but I also felt guilty about "cheating" and just having him come back to life...so I rolled dice (he's bleeding to death, does he achieve consciousness? He does!  Teach those adventurers not to administer coup de grace!).

That said, I will support that the DragonLance modules are Simulationist...they're simulations of the events of the books, "Hey, I wonder what it would be like to be the Heroes of the Lance?"

I will also point out that I, being no self-identified Narrativist, but a self-identified Simmie, am ok with the proposed model.

(and no, I'm not saying all this to be contrary, check out prior posts from weeks ago where I've stated that I'm pretty certain I am Simulationist...that being true, I couldn't let the issue be drawn along lines of preferred stance, because it isn't)

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-06-19 07:46, Supplanter wrote:
. . . if the characters get so afraid or disgusted or bored that they want nothing to do with the issue before them, they are free to disentangle themselves to the best of their ability, and the referee must not prevent them from doing so - the world itself may prevent them, but the referee must not alter the world purely to do so. The GM may say, Okay folks, I need some time to think about what happense next. He may not say, Your tire blows out just before the gate, just to keep you here.

And yet this is done, all the time.  We don't like it, but it happens.  It can be "hidden" in all kinds of ways - the referee picks just that momment to call for a Vehicle Reliability check with the difficlty set very high.  He has a great in-world explanation for that ("we haven't had one in a long time, you guy's haven't told me that you took the car in for maintenance", etc. etc.)  The players may or may not realize what's "really" going on (it may or not be an issue, depending on where the group stands re: "illusionism"), but in either case they have their characters (as long as GM/player trust hasn't been broken) accept it as an entirely in-gameworld phenomena.

As I mentioned in my other post, this kind of thing used to bother me a lot.  I've come to accept it - after all, how do you distinguish between what "the world itself" does and what the referee does?  The referee and the rules are only the "representitives" of the gameworld, they aren't the actual thing, and they can NEVER perfectly reflect that other reality - heck, we can't even perfectly simulate our own reality.

hmmm . . . another "solution" here that seems to fit my experiences is to design the "story" such that it in fact MUST "pursue" the players in the manner described above.  A simulationist "story plot" works best when it is designed in such a way that, by the very logic of the world it occurs in, it is relentless - the chance that the characters really find a way "out" is vanishingly small.

Call of Cuthulu, anyone?

Anyway, that's my take, from my experiences playing with many, many people who would literally jump at the label "simulationist" and roll in it happily.  And would no doubt sneer if someone tried to pin "narrativist" or "dramatist" on 'em.  Gamist . . . maybe.  But Simulationist fits better, IMO.

Gordon C. Landis

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-06-19 04:49, Mytholder wrote:
Saying "two hours after the war starts, the King's army will reach the gates of Castle Anthrax" is fine.
Saying "two hours after the war starts, the King's army led by the PCs will reach the gates" isn't. Both are preplotted events, but one impinges on the reality of the game world. The GM can ensure that his NPCs go to Castle Anthrax. He can't ensure the PCs do so without breaking into the world.

Actually, I'd say that becuase the PCs are in the world, he can't ensure his NPCs do this either, unless he/his group is willing for him to "prevent" the PCs from, say, sending a telepathic msg to the NPCs in question that "The Dark One awaits you at Castle Anthrax".

All Simulationists (I assert) come up with a compromise that suits them for these kind of issues, beacuse you can't always avoid them.  In some of those compromises, saying "two hours after the war starts, the King's Army led by the PCs . . . " is acceptable, in some it isn't.  That may make one a more "pure" simulation than the other, but it doesn't make one a simulation and the other not.  And given my doubts about the reality/usefulness of a "pure" simulation, I'm not going to sweat the difference.  Others may (in many ways, from Turkuist to old-style wargamers) - that's cool, I can enjoy a more rigorous simulation at times.  And if *I* didn't, but they did, that's more than enough to make it a "valid" play style (hope I never indicated in any way I thought it wasn't).

I just don't think that specific style has a monopoly on the term "Simulationist" in this model.  (I'm begining to feel the same way about "Narrativist" as currently defined . . . but that's a different subject I haven't thought through fully yet).

Gordon C. Landis

[Blake Hutchins]

Hi folks,

There's some excellent discussion in this thread. Much to digest. Here's my input, all standard disclaimers attached.

With many, many kudos to Ron and Logan for an excellent first draft, let me say I disagree with the boxing match/main event analogy as a basis for organizing the document. I suggest a more concise, bullet-pointed presentation at the beginning that sketches a basic outline of the model along with any prerequisite vocabulary, thereafter proceeding to a more detailed discussion of the model, its history, and its potential application. Any explanation of a model needs to move from general to specific with clear lines of progression. The historical context of the model's development and discussion about stances could properly come after the model is presented at least in a summary format. Visual aids such as a flowchart-style graphic or a triangle graph would also be helpful. James and Ron have discussed several variants in another thread, I believe. I would definitely include the GNS Triangle section closer to the beginning of the document.

The part about simulationism seems to gloss over the point that simulationist games, whether genre-focused (Feng Shui, Pendragon) or realism-focused (Rolemaster, GURPS), strive for player immersion via accurate modeling of a particular milieu. The primary motive for simulationist gamers, on the other hand, can apparently be condensed to Exploration of character or setting. Given these definitions, I personally don't find Simulationist gaming difficult to place in the model, but the Forge community seems quite divided on it, perhaps because (in my opinion), the model's focus has shifted toward a taxonomy based primarily on mechanics rather than design goals and player motivation. I may be grossly overstating things (in which case please do correct me), but this particular point is where most of the contention appears to come up.

Another point I'd like to suggest concerns stances. We've discussed Actor, Author, Audience, and Director stances; Actor and Author seem to correspond to Simulationism and Narrativism respectively (yes, I know stance is independent of RP goals, but I like the symmetry and think the correlations are at least generally valid in terms of describing prototypical player approaches). It occurred to me that another relevant stance could be termed Tactical stance, in which the player treats the character like a piece on a board. This stance would, of course, arise most frequently in Gamist and certain Simulationist games. The FAQ mentions it under the section on pawns, adding that Ron speculates that it may be Author stance in a Gamist context. Tactical stance players assume OOC knowledge for purposes of optimizing decisions for conflict resolution. They may well adopt a more detached, almost isometric perspective that focuses on rules, the character's combat capabilities, location, and movement options. In my view, this approach goes farther than Author stance in abstracting the player connection to the character. In the pure sense, Tactical stance could be analogized to a chess player's viewpoint, which doesn't utilize Author stance at all. However, I may be making too fine a distinction here.

At any rate, the model in (drastic) summary form could look something like this:

GAMISM:
Primary Goal = Victory
Primary Motive = Overcome tactical challenges
Primary Mode = Competition
Primary Stance = Tactical

NARRATIVISM:
Primary Goal = Story
Primary Motive = Create satisfying dramatic conflict
Primary Mode = Collaboration
Primary Stance = Author

SIMULATIONISM:
Primary Goal = Verisimilitude
Primary Motive = Explore character or setting
Primary Mode = Immersion
Primary Stance = Actor

Crude as it is, this breakdown helps me see the major differences between the different components of the model. Using the triangle concept, dramatism would be nothing less than a point falling somewhere between the N and S vertices.

Thoughts? Does this resolve anything, or is it too simplistic?

Best,

Blake

[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-06-22 17:18 ]

[Supplanter]

Thoughts? Does this resolve anything, or is it too simplistic?

I think you should get the genius award. You and a couple of others have provided a genuine way forward, if there is the will to seize it:

So far, Ron has resisted all such efforts. He went tooth and claw with MJ young over this very issue on GO. I don't blame Ron. He went to a lot of trouble to articulate the Narrativist ideal. But Dramatism and Narrativism are obviously related.

If the idea of Dramatism is valid (and I think it is), it has to fit somewhere. It's not a Gamist concern. Their gateway to Narrativism lies on a different path. If Dramatism is not part of Simulationism, then perhaps it could be part of Narrativism. If that's not possible, then it must be its own entity.

Flexible thinking from the model coauthor, and another sign of hope for a resolution. I salute you, Sir!

I'd suggest:
Keep the current definition of narrativism. Use something cobbled together from the various pro-sim posts over the last few days as the definition of simulationism. Somewhere between those two is Dramatism - it's neither one nor the other. (I think it is anyway...).

And Gareth finds the perfect balance, IMHO. The mismatch has been defining narrativism in terms of ideals and simulationism in terms of actual, messy praxis. Frex, Gordon has argued that simulationist GMs have been known to do X despite their ideals. But the point is that while they may do X, they are breaking simulation when they do so. The further point is that examples of narrativist GMs breaking the narrativist ideal have not been considered justification for expanding the definition of narrativism.

At any rate, the model in (drastic) summary form could look something like this:

GAMISM:
Primary Goal = Victory
Primary Motive = Overcome tactical challenges
Primary Mode = Competition
Primary Stance = Tactical

NARRATIVISM:
Primary Goal = Story
Primary Motive = Create satisfying dramatic conflict
Primary Mode = Collaboration
Primary Stance = Author

SIMULATIONISM:
Primary Goal = Verisimilitude
Primary Motive = Explore character or setting
Primary Mode = Immersion
Primary Stance = Actor

Blake's outline seems to fit the bill. It restores each apex to an "ideal state." I am entirely okay with a model that says, "Narrativism in its pure form is characterized by story-orientation, distributed direction and global resolution," AND SAYS "Simulationism in its pure form is characterized by gameworld integrity, concentrated direction and iterative (atomic) resolution" AND SAYS "Gamism is...oh you know, when you try to win. Or whatever." (Strikes me the gamists have been awful quiet through this whole discussion.)

Then with our apexes (apices?) in place, we can recognize that "There are games of intermediate form characterized by story-orientation, concentrated direction and, resolutionwise, whatever. These games have commonly been called dramatist." And, "There are games that concentrate on the experience of character, that use concentrated direction and place a high value on world integrity, but since characters are best experienced alive, they will sacrifice some level of setting consistency for the sake of preserving player characters and the investment (time, emotion, insight) that has been made in them. These games are commonly called something Finnish." And, "There are games that share the narrativist ideal of working a premise through to resolution and employ global resolution but concentrate direction in the GM and PC responsibility in the player. These games are commonly called Amberway II."

What is great about the Blake/Logan/Mytholder resolution is that, with the model's multidimensionality, we can frankly acknowledge games that fall into the regions between apices (apexes?) without analytical surrender - instead of throwing up our hands and saying, "It's kind of a mix," we can say what kind of a mix it is.

This preserves the full description of the narrativist ideal. It clarifies the simulationist ideal. And it's still got gamism, I think.

Best,


Jim

[Mike Holmes]

I'm here to say that Simulationism includes (but is not limited to, of course) plots of all kinds. Meta plot, pre-plotting, railroading, you name it. When I think high fantasy RPG, I think a Simulation of the kinds of adventures that characters have in High Fantasy. That doesn't mean that they are just left entirely free to roam in a static world. The world will come at them in the form of Goals, NPCs, quests, adventures. I don't want to simulate everyday life of a Medieval peasant in a world that happens to have magic and monsters. I want to simulate the life of adventurous souls in such a world, lives full of action and exciting occurences. I believe few Simulationists are intrerested in simulations that don't make any attempts to introduce plots.

Given that my fantasy game will include adventurous plots, I require my players to make their characters adventurous in some way such that an accurate poortrayal of them does not include slinking off to the beach until its all over. That way I don't have to railroad them toward adventures. I can just have adventures available and let the players pursue them as they like, which then is an accurate simulation of that character. Yes, premise can be important to Simulationism.

A quick note on that word, "railroading". It has been used for a long time and has a definition from before RPGs that is inherently negative. Mayhap I'm being a bit PC here, but could we use a different term? Direction by Fiat? I don't know what exactly. But if you do include that term it will make those that are of the "ism" to which it is assigned a bit anxious. I think that Railroading should be reserved for that foul method that involves taking player power over their character's destinies away entirely and obviously. This is a mistake when it occurs, and is rarely done intentionally. It is not a feature of Simulationism, it is an example of Simulationism done poorly.

Illusionism is much more acceptable. All simulations are inherently flawed, people, that's why they're called simulations and not reality. The Simulationist doesn't strive to make a perfect simulation of something, he tries to make those things he can control as believable and interesting as possible (this is entertainment after all). Magic isn't really all that believable, it's just interesting. The Simulationist must make it internally consistent to make it "believable" within the context of a world in which magic exists.

To the extent that SOD is important, presentation of plots must still seem as though the characters have free will, or more importantly that the world is not colluding to make things occur despite their efforts. This means either they do have free will in a given situation, or the mechanisms that are used to introduce the plot do not stretch the illusion beyond beleivability. Just like a player can buy into magic, he can buy into this illusion.

Again, no simulation is perfect, but, by golly, some are damned fun.

Mike Holmes

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-06-19 22:19, Supplanter wrote:

(from Gareth)
I'd suggest:
Keep the current definition of narrativism. Use something cobbled together from the various pro-sim posts over the last few days as the definition of simulationism. Somewhere between those two is Dramatism - it's neither one nor the other. (I think it is anyway...).

And Gareth finds the perfect balance, IMHO. The mismatch has been defining narrativism in terms of ideals and simulationism in terms of actual, messy praxis.

I agree, at least as regards Sim and Narrative - I'm not exactly sure what's meant by the "somewhere between the two" part re:Dramatism, but the degree to which I understand it, I think I disagree.  Most Dramtism will be either one or the other - is there's enough collabaritive story creation, it's (weaker-than-pure) Narrative, if there's more concern with staying true to the gameworld it's (weaker-than-pure) Simulation.  If you're really right in the middle . . . there's another thread ("Mixing styles"?) on that.

Frex, Gordon has argued that simulationist GMs have been known to do X despite their ideals. But the point is that while they may do X, they are breaking simulation when they do so. The further point is that examples of narrativist GMs breaking the narrativist ideal have not been considered justification for expanding the definition of narrativism.

As far as "breaking the sim" goes, part of my point is that for some Simulationists, it isn't a problem.  They continue to see what they're doing as Simulative.  And the further point about Narrativists sounds right, to me - the EXTREME of Narrativism may be Ron's definition, but we can drift off that extreme a fair degree before it ceases to be "real" Narrativism.  At least, that's the direction I see this heading, and it seems like a good thing to me.

... AND SAYS "Gamism is...oh you know, when you try to win. Or whatever." (Strikes me the gamists have been awful quiet through this whole discussion.)

Best Tom-Cruise-as-military-lawyer impression ON:

Oh, we'll be getting the Airme - er, Gamists - in a minute, sir.

Best Tom-Cruise-as-military-lawyer impression OFF

Seriously, I think taking this same approach to Gamism would be very valuable - I can see the "bleed" between Sims and Games pretty clearly, so a "pure" Gamist flavor and a Sim-influenced flavor are both clearly valid (to me).  After this flurry of posting, I'm thinking I'll wait and see what others come up with here first (I particualarly look forward to Brian's Gamist thoughts) - I just know I'm missing something and I don't understand things as well as I think I do.

Gordon C. Landis

[JohnMorrow]

Out of curiosity, I finally came over here to look at the GNS discussions.  To be honest, having been involved in the r.g.f.a discussions, the experience was not unlike watching Highlander 2.  A lot of the words are the same but the interpretation is significantly different.  For whatever it is worth, I'm going to give my comments on the issues presented here in the hope that they might be useful.  I've tried to be constructive and not negative but I'm sure I've failed in a few places.  Feel free to ignore my comments if you want.

On 2001-06-18 14:45, Logan wrote:
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.

Gamism is about challenge more than competition.  The difference is subtle but important.  The GM and players need not be in actual competition for the players to be challenged.

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.

Dramatism is about making a good story.  I don't believe that player participation is necessary to achieve this goal and I'm not sure that narrowing the definition is useful here.  Yes, I'm aware that you consider Narrativism a priviledged style of play but having to eject the other parts of the Dramatist style into other styles, you harm the definition of those other styles.

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.

I think that the last point is irrelevant.  The rest of the definition is reasonable.  If you want another terminating phrase, try "...and allowing the game to proceed without metagame influences." instead.

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.

There is a wide range of plotting from none, through loose, to tight plotting.  I don't think this definition recognized the range and seems to have a preconceived bias that plotting and railroading are bad.  While railroading is generally considered a negative by many people, it is widely used and even expected by many players and GMs.  Indeed, the noted adventure writer Ken Rolston once described his adventure planning style to me as "greased rails".  If this document is supposed to be non-judgemental, it should even be non-judgemental towards railroading.

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.

I don't believe this linkage can be made.  It is entirely possible to write an entirely unplotted gamist game.  Indeed, wandering through the wilderness or through a random dungeon relying on randomly rolled encounters is a perfectly legitimate Gamist game so long as the encounters are challenging and this involves absolutely no pre-planning or plotting.  I think you are confusing the traditional module game with the only possible way to run a Gamist game.  It
isn't.

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.

I disagree.  In practice, Narrativist games are quote often pre-plotted.  I think that these definitions are written with a Narrativist bias and, as such, tend to distance the Narrativist style from any possible negative techniques.  Theatrix, the most fundamentally Narrativist game available is based on Syd Field's book on plotting movies.  But just like Gamist games, Narrativist games don't need to be plotted.  They can be run on the dramatic sensibilties of the GM and potentially the players.

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.

The core definition of a Simulationist game is the lack of any metagame.  If it isn't a factor in the setting, then it isn't a factor in the way the game plays out.  There is no "course" to follow.  On what possible grounds could there be one?  The real world doesn't have plots and neither does the Simulationist game.

In general, I think you are creating a real problem here by trying to find any correspondence between plotting and style.  None of these styles requires any form of plotting.  All of them can be run on-the-fly.

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.

Gamist games can be easily played with light or heavy rules.  TFT, for example, is very lightweight but also very Gamist.  I would describe a possible bias for heavier systems that allow tactical player decisions to have in-game effects.

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.

Narrativist games tend towards lighter systems because the narrative sensiblity is largely metagame and subjective.  Complex rules often do a poor job of capturing either of these goals.

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.

This is incorrect.  There was recently a very heated discussion on the Fudge mailing list about the use of lightweight systems for Simulationist games.  While some simulationists do indeed seek verisimilitude through complex rules, many do not.  I don't think you can accurately portray a strong correllation here.

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.

You need to account for random character generation.  It still exists and the model should cover it.  Audience mode players do exist.  They tend to be the people who expect and enjoy railroading.  While this doesn't fit the definition of good role-playing for most other types of players, it is a perfectly legitimate way to play.  Think of it more like traditional storytelling.  As such, it cannot exist in the Gamist form.

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.

I'm not sure what your stances are here.  Using the original r.g.f.a stances, the Gamist would be Author, IC, and potentially Immersive (Deep IC).

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.

Narrativist players can play Actor, Author, Audience, or IC.

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.

Of all of the Simulationists on r.g.f.a involved in the creation of the Threefold, most were Immersive or IC.  Author is possible if the player becomes a partner in Simulation.  I suppose Audience is possible.

If you are using the term "Actor" for "In Character", then I think you are missing an important distinction.  A player can approach their character "In Character" from the third person meaning that they play their character from their character's perspective as a player.  A player can approach their character "Immersively" meaning that they try to think in first person as their character.  This need not result in "Avatarism" (the merging of player and character) and many people have reported being able to think in different mindsets while playing Immersively.  Finally, the purpose of Actor mode is to outwardly portay an interesting character to the other participants for entertainment purposes.  While IC and Immersive are largely concerned with the inside of the character that the character's player can see, Actor mode is concerned with the outer aspect of the character that the other players can see.  Accents, gestures, and other visible aspects of character are Actor things.

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.

This model loses and important distinction between playing IC in the first person ("I hit him with my sword!") and third person ("My character hits him with his sword!").  Both are essentialy IC.  This is important in Simulation.

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

This reflects the Immersive bias of the r.g.f.a people who created the Threefold.  It is entirely possible to play OOC Simulationist.  There is a world-building collaborative Fudge game being described on the Fudge mailing list that sounds like it would fit that category.

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.

I would argue that Gamist games give their power to the rules.

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.

Some Narrativist games openly share power.  I believe this, again, reflects the bias of the author.  There are also authoritarian GMs who are Narrativist.  

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.

Simulationist games generally give their authority to the GM or rules but I believe that giving authority to the players is possible here.  Again, I point to the Simulationist world-building game mentioned on the Fudge mailing list.

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.

I don't believe this is true.  It is possible to run a Gamist game with random tables.  Just because you wouldn't want to do this doesn't mean it couldn't be a satisfying Gamist experience.

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.

This conflicts with the assertion the Narrativist games are weakly plotted above.  But Narrativist games can also be run on-the-fly with no plotting.  I don't think this is a useful generalization.

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.

I have never seen a simulationist game run this way.  Most of the simulationist games I've seen can best be described as "running a world".  The GM creates a world and the players do what they want in it.  As a self-identified Simulationist, I've never seen any of the stuff you are talking about in a Simulationist game.

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.

Dramatism is not like Simulationism at all.  The original Threefold grew out of an explanation of the differences between the two.  I think you are, again, letting your biases dictate your categories here.  It looks like you don't want GM driven Narrativist games (with the possible taint of railroading) to encroach on your ideal form of that sort of game.  The model should not be driven by "Things I like go in and things I don't like get shuffled into another category."

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.

Then create a 4th vertex.  Don't extract everything that you don't like from Dramatism and foist it off into other modes of play.  There is no hard rule that says that a model has to have exactly three vertices.

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

At the expense of the validity and usability of the model?  Is the purpose of this model to create legitimate descriptive categories for games or to advocate a particular style of play at the expense of the others?

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.

I would say that the point of contention should be that you are creating a priviledged mode of play by taking over the r.g.f.a Dramatist vertex and shuffling it off the parts you don't like (such as GM-only plotting) into the Simulationist vertex where it most definitely doesn't belong.  Your definition of Simulationism would be unrecognizable to most self-identified Simulationists under the r.g.f.a model.  Is that your intent?

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.

The whole Threefold was designed specifically to explain to David Berkman exactly why many of the people on r.g.f.a have no interest in the Author stance or creating stories.  Since you have so misunderstood the model, apparently we all failed misserably.   I think the original Threefold certainly suffers from being biased by the Simulationist sensibilities of many of the participants in creating it but I think your model is similarly suffering from your Narrativist model which is attempting to correct the problems with the Dramatist vertex of the Threefold by wrecking the Simulationist vertex.  That's not progress.  That's simply shuffling the problem around to a place where you are more comfortable with it.

[Mytholder]

John - if you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at the other threads relating to simulationism and the FAQ (my 'long and bloody' one, & Supplanter's 'towards a sense if not a theory' one? We made a lot of the same comments you did, and I'd like to see your opinion of the results of those comments.

[Logan]

Thanks to all who have responded. The GNS doc is now being rewritten. Look for a new draft at the beginning of July.

Best,

Logan