The Forge Archives

Hey, :)

In my previous thread about rewards, I asked how to reward players in different GNS flavors.

Also, in this thread about actor and author stance, Cassidy had some interesting words on this:

Quote from: Cassidyi.e. In a head on dungeon bash where the PCs wander around killing monsters in a dungeon then XPs, level advancement, finding treasure to buy better weapons, armour, etc, are the order of the day.

i.e. In a story-telling game then good story-telling may get rewarded by 'story points' which the player can use to further influence the development of the story.

i.e. In a character driven sim game then in-game development of the character and furthering the ability of the players to interact with and influence the setting/story through their characters seems like the best reward.

This is interesting to me as it seems that gamist and narrativist rewards are inherently metagame, and yet there doesn't seem to be any metagame simulationist reward. This is not a huge surprise, as simulationist priorities specifically set the metagame aside.

The unexpected bit, at least to me, is that, while there are certain parallels that can be drawn between gamism and narrativism, simulationism seems inherently different. Out of the pot, so to speak. Notice that in-game rewards can be offered for all three modes of play, but only sim seems to lack metagame rewards.

Am I reading anything wrongly?

Cheers,

J.

Hi there,

Nope, you're reading it dead on. "One of these three is not like the others."

As far as reward mechanics go, historically, Simulationist-facilitating designs have kept rewards localized to the character's own abilities, and in many cases they've been extremely specific about why and how those abilities might change. I think any game text I've read that has distinct rules for learning "through trying" vs. those for learning "through study" has also carried multiple other rules that facilitate Simulationist play.

But that's a historical observation. Where such a design might go from here, who knows. I especially await Rob's unveiling of The Million Worlds, which may be the first Simulationist RPG that employs overt Director Stance. He's working out the reward system on Indie Design right now, and I highly recommend taking a look.

Best,
Ron

Given that Exploration is the basis for all play, and that in Sim you focus on it, Gamism and Narrativism can be seen as going beyond basic exploration. Think of Sim as a split in the road. You can stay there, or you can go down the road to Gam or the other road to Nar. The similarity of G and N is that you've decided to travel on from S to the land of metagame priorities, if you will.

I provide this model at the risk of making Sim seem somehow lesser (indeed it was based on a model that Jared once provided intended to challenge the validity of Sim called "The Beeg Horseshoe Model"), but to me it's a valid chioce to stay at that location, and eschew the particular requirements of N or G.

Mike

Hi there,

To reinforce Mike's point, I identify the specific behaviors of play that "remain" with Exploration as the first priority as Simulationist behaviors. There's a whole section of my essay devoted to this point.

Therefore Simulationist play does not mean "doing nothing." It means prioritizing in an interesting way, specifically to avoid letting real-people agenda play a central role.

Whereas both Gamist and Narrativist play-modes endorse real-people agenda(s) as a central issue.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi there,

To reinforce Mike's point, I identify the specific behaviors of play that "remain" with Exploration as the first priority as Simulationist behaviors. There's a whole section of my essay devoted to this point.

Therefore Simulationist play does not mean "doing nothing." It means prioritizing in an interesting way, specifically to avoid letting real-people agenda play a central role.

Whereas both Gamist and Narrativist play-modes endorse real-people agenda(s) as a central issue.

This is why I failed college.* Herr Edwards, what does this mean?

- J

*Well, not the only reason...

I think of it as Sim rewards are more "embedded" in the sim playing choice itself.

Sim play places priority on in-game actions generating in-game consequences; the more frequently and consistently that is applied, the happier is the Sim oriented player.
...........................................

Frankly, I think Narrative rewards are also "embedded" in the Narrative playing choices as well, for Narrative prioritized choices should result in a more satisfying sequence of events that could be viewed as a story (a product) that would make the Narrative oriented player happy.

To award points for this is a way to encourage such play from players who are less self-reinforcing in this aspect; to offer a means of comparison between players; or to get more gamist oriented players on board.

I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a similar system of Sim points offered to those players who offer information supporting world fidelity and consistency.
............................................................................

Going with that parallel, then points of gamists is, well, what gamist oriented players find enjoyable.  So offering points for gamist play...is embedded in gamist play.

So I see the fork in the road at Gamist! It is more explicitly metric in reinforcement, and competition is more important to the players' happiness.  
.................................................

Hi there,

Jared, this example is overly-simplistic and represents extremely overt versions of each mode, but here goes. Bob, Brian, Barry, and Barbara are role-playing together.

If they are playing in a mainly Narrativist way, it's perfectly all right for them to make decisions predicated strictly on "let's address the Premise," letting the in-game characters' decisions operate at the mercy of this real-person agenda. It's also desirable to see one another doing this and to provide social reinforcement for doing so.

If they are playing in a mainly Gamist way, similarly, it's perfectly all right for them to make decisions (or employ tactics) predicated strictly on "let's see who's best at it," to whatever degree of friendliness or against whomever (one another, GM, scenario designer), and also to heap praise, commiseration, or perhaps humorous scorn upon one another as persons.

Now, if they are playing in a Simulationist way, admitting to or reinforcing personal agenda as with the above two is right out. The only acceptable personal agenda is to help one another focus on the in-game imaginary events. Bringing in a personal desire to see who wins, or a personal desire to create a story (with emphasis on "create"), is considered intrusive; such things are acceptable as incidental outcomes but not as goals.

(OK, bracing myself to receive the flame war. I did say these were extreme and simplified.)

MK, if I'm not mistaken, the last post represents more of a thinking-out-loud process than a novel conclusion. You've come 'round full circle regarding Gamism, for instance; to say, "competition is more important to the players' happiness" is only to re-state the mode's definition.

I also suggest reviewing some of the possible reward mechanisms in Narrativist-facilitating games. In many of them, rewards are multi-purpose, including narrative rights, bonuses, and character-improvement as options from a single item ("points").

Best,
Ron

BTW, there are similar sorts of strong linkages between other modes of play. For example, the consistency on in-game rationale required by both Sim and Nar make Pawn stance verboten in both. And historically Director stance is forbidden by both Gam and Sim (though attitudes are changing on this one).

This might say some things about potentials for Conguence (in the Walt Frietag sense). But I'm not sure how significant it is otherwise.

Mike

I still don't see why players cannot evaluate one another's skill at playing in a simulationist fashion. Just as they would critique Narrativist play.

In fact, it happens all the time; when the premise is of simulating certain real-world events (or sufficently close analogs) players debate the outcomes. "A gun wouldn't do that." "It would if it was a .357 Magnum"

If the premise is less dependent on outside information (such as use of Magic), there can still be player disagreement over consistency or application of outcome to events in game with reference to canonical game literature.

Couldn't players be rewarded outside of the game for bringing information/adhering to fidelity/creating complexity? Or presenting a sounder argument for why one outcome would be preferred over another?

Or be rewarded not with points, but with Godlike Powers to create new outcomes for events, the privilege of adding to the world?
........................................................................................................
Also, I don't understand the difference between Narrativist and Dramatist: they appear identical to me.

"Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis)."

""dramatist":  is the style which values how well the in-game action
   creates a satisfying storyline.  Different kinds of stories
   may be viewed as satisfying, depending on individual tastes,
   varying from fanciful pulp action to believable character
   drama.  It is the end result of the story which is
   important.  " (from FAQ on rec.games.frp.advocacy)
........................................................

Yes, rewarding a gamist oriented player points is circular and silly.

What happens in actual group play is that the gamist oriented player can reward the non-gamist oriented player with tolerance for suboptimal choices; tolerance for extended descriptive passages; or providing some story consideration for gamist choices.  

This is usually after some negotiation when the gamist oriented player wants the nongamist oriented player to make a gamist choice to mutual benefit measured by gamist priorities; if the other player resists, the gamist oriented player can offer a deal.

A gamist oriented player can also be content playing non-gamist oriented players, enjoying the feeling of superiority and competence supplied by "outthinking" the other players.

A gamist oriented GM is just going to be driven nuts by a narrativist/dramatist player.

If the game is designed such that the reward system meshes well with the resolution system, gamist and simulationist choices should be in accord for most or all decisions.  

I think most games use this as a selling point; this may be what is meant by the word "realistic". The game rewards choices with as much fidelity as does real life.

Hi MK,

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Simulationist players don't "evaluate one another's skill" at this mode of play. I agree with you that they do. I don't perceive any controversy to exist regarding this point.

Perhaps you are mistaking my use of "reward system" for "player-evaluation" system. Perhaps you missed my qualification that my discussion of reward systems was limited to historical role-playing design, without including avenues of potential design.

The fundamental difference between GNS Narrativism and rec.games Dramatism is that the latter is focused on instances of play in a process-oriented fashion, and the latter focused on the product of play in a retrospective fashion.

Arguably, one could play with attention and effort toward addressing a Narrativist Premise and (for whatever reason) "perform badly" and not produce a story of note - it would still be Narrativist play. Similarly, one could play with no particular effort or interest in making a story, but the outcome of play produced one anyway (due to GM fiat or perhaps just ol' chance) - and it would still be Dramatist play. These two conditions are incompatible.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsPerhaps you missed my qualification that my discussion of reward systems was limited to historical role-playing design, without including avenues of potential design.

Ah yes. Far as I know, there haven't been such rewards historically as I posit.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThe fundamental difference between GNS Narrativism and rec.games Dramatism is that the latter is focused on instances of play in a process-oriented fashion, and the latter focused on the product of play in a retrospective fashion.

Two "latters", no "former"?

Silliness aside, aren't both models to address problems that arise the process of gaming? I must be missing something if the difference is a matter of tense! There must be implications in that flying past me.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsArguably, one could play with attention and effort toward addressing a Narrativist Premise and (for whatever reason) "perform badly" and not produce a story of note - it would still be Narrativist play.

Aaargh! No, it wouldn't. If Narrativist play is defined by the state of the product--"Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme."--then product that failed this definition would define the play that produced it as non-Narrative.

"failed narrativist play", perhaps. Play with narrativist intent or goals, but not, strictly speaking, Narrativist Play.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsSimilarly, one could play with no particular effort or interest in making a story, but the outcome of play produced one anyway (due to GM fiat or perhaps just ol' chance) - and it would still be Dramatist play.

No, because the definition of Dramatist play includes intent at the moment of play: "is the style which values how well the in-game action creates a satisfying storyline."

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThese two conditions are incompatible.

Yes, at this level of comparison. It's not something I feel strongly about--quite possibly because there are more momentous implications that I do not yet appreciate.

Hmm, for individual players, I think it is easier to be content if one's goal is to play in a dramatist style, and be willing to compromise on the perfection of the product (the story overall). So, I, as a dramatist oriented player, may find sufficient satisfaction with my own contribution to be content to play with a group of players of other orientations.

If, on the other hand, the entire story as produced is important to my sense of satisfaction, I will have a much harder time playing in a "mixed group". I will be frustrated that they do not share my Narrativist goals.

Whoops.

Replace the first "latter" with "former," using the traditional construction for the terms. Sorry about that.

The difference is far more than a matter of tense. It's procedural. The social, cognitive, and emotional elements of play are different. What one does in Narrativist play, regardless of outcome, regardless of its degree of perviness (ie Director stance, weird-shit rules, etc), is defined by addressing an emotionally-engaging, broadly-applicable issue, of which the situation of play is an isolated instance. Whereas what one does in Dramatist play really has no defined features whatsoever, beyond a story somehow having emerged in retrospect.

A typical Call of Cthulhu session, as laid out in dozens and dozens of supplement adventures or across hundreds and hundreds of con sessions, may well be Dramatist. It is rarely, if ever, Narrativist.

(By the way, this discussion is hampered by my observation that whenever any group of people discuss Dramatist play, their examples are all over the map in terms of how it's done. No example of Dramatist actual play has ever been proffered as "the one," in my view. All of my present discussion is based on the textual definitions that you've isolated.)

As for your "argh!" paragraph, you are misreading my text. To some extent it's my fault, and I think a bit of clarification in the re-write is necessary to keep this mis-reading from happening again. Narrativist play is procedurally defined - "to create" should be read as an in-play priority, not as a required product (as you are doing).

Now, I do agree with you that I'd call the play I described "failed," in the sense that it didn't achieve what the people (during play) wanted. My only contention is to specify that it's failed at what.

Your reading of the Dramatist definition is wholly incompatible with many examples of the term that are frequently flung at me, all of which are explicitly about either story "magically arising" from non-story-directed play, or story being under the control of one fellow during play. Story-of-any-sort = Dramatism is precisely the (often furious) reading that led me to say, "You win, Narrativism isn't Dramatism," quite a while ago. Your reading of Dramatism, on the other hand, is essentially synonymous with my Narrativism - and I think it's interesting that the text you're quoting is readable in the sense you've stated.

Best,
Ron

How, exactly, do the Call of Cthulu sessions fail the Narrativist test?  Is it because:

*They don't *create* the narrative elements, because those have been predefined (by dear HP Lovecraft)

*Everybody dies, so satisfying stories are not created.

*The simulationist priority of fidelity to Lovecraft always overrides narrativist concerns (you can't change the story *that much* even if it does make it better!)

Suggested rewrite:

Narrativism is expressed by the attempt to create, via role-playing, a story with a recognizable theme.

Hey, :)

Ok, so, historically, sim play has not had any metagame rewards. Question: is this possible?

To expand:

- Gamism is rewarded via XPs - they make you better at gamism;
- Narrativism is rewarded via 'story' points - they make you better at telling the story;

So:

If sim play is about exploration, how about 'exploration points' that would somehow make you 'better at exploring'?

Hmm... Ok, no, I haven't the faintest idea of what I'm aiming at. My question is simply: theoretically, is it possible? If so, how would a designer go about it?

Cheers,

J.

P.S. I thought about opening a new thread for this. What's Forge policy about starting new threads or following up on live ones? (Heck, I even had a cute title: 'Towards a Simulationist Metagame Reward'... ;)