Setting-Premise Nar. vs. Setting Exploration Sim.

[jburneko]

Hello Again,

Very simple question.  I really like this passage from Ron's latest essay:

The simple one: Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play? I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of contract.

I like it because it neatly shows the different between Character-Premise Narrativism and Character Exploration Simulationism.  Something, that I know is a source of confusion for a lot of GNS Newbies.  

I was wondering if it's possible to construct a similar example for the difference between Setting-Premise Narrativism and Setting Exploration Simulationism?

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Yes, it is possible, in fact, it's necessary.

I nominate you to draft a potential example and to present it here!

Best,
Ron

P.S. Yeah, baby.

[jburneko]

Argh!  How did I know you'd do that?

Sigh.

Alright, here it goes.

I think in both styles of play we're talking about allowing the Setting to play a large role in defining the Character.  In Narrativism the definition comes about by revealing (through play) how the Character interacts with the cultural and political limitations of the Setting.  The player is expected to push on those limitations in a meaningful way to reveal who his character is.  In Simulationist play, however, the very same cultural and political limitations are themselves the defining factors of Character.  The player is expected to take those limitations and shape his Character's sociatal role from them.

Example: A wealthy land owner in a world with slavery.

Narrativist: The character of the wealthy land owner is defined by his decision to own or not to own slaves and in the interactions with other land owners and slaves concerning that decision.

Simulationist:  The fact that the character IS a wealthy land owner defines his relationship with slaves and other wealthy land owners.  It is probably unquestioned that the character owns slaves and supports slavery.

How's that?

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

I think that works pretty well for me, although it still smacks of Character in some ways. Here are two of the elements that'll play a role in the Narrativism essay, for this issue:

1) The actual conflict at hand, the one that raises the Premise, is part and parcel of the setting. It's not like default Sorcerer, in which the character's passions and interactions provide the conflict from the git-go; it's more like Glorantha in which, no question, the Hero Wars are here, and you are in them.

2) Something you mentioned especially, which is the revelation of the character through play in a way slightly different from the Char-centered version. In Setting-Premise play, the characters may well start as stereotypes, or (more likely) typical folks. "A farmer" is a fine starting character for Hero Wars, no need for the back-story or even the clan details that you'd find in Sorcerer or Orkworld, respectively. The expectation is for this to change, but it's not something that has to be set up to do so.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Simulationist: The fact that the character IS a wealthy land owner defines his relationship with slaves and other wealthy land owners. It is probably unquestioned that the character owns slaves and supports slavery.

Like the samurai example in Ron's essay, I find this simultaneously a very good and a very bad example, because both are inherently situated in an exceedingly complex (because real and historical) world.  If it were the case the a Simulationist game must constrain a character not to break commonly-accepted boundaries of the simulated world, then to precisely that extent I would think that Simulationism was itself incoherent.  But I don't actually think this is the case.

Take the slave-owner example, as a case in point.  Suppose we're talking about the antebellum South.  Now the world being simulated does have this expectation that people of the type of this slave-owner do not change or challenge their cultural world.  But expectation is far from reality; indeed, if all socio-cultural expectations, such as class mores and conventions, were never changed by the people in question, then there would rarely be any change without total revolution.  So the simulated world ought to incorporate the possibility of such change.

So suppose, in the course of play, that the slave-owner comes to this crisis of faith, as it were.  The way the distinction has been posed in such examples thus far, the very fact of such a crisis of faith would already make the game Narrativist.  But the implication is that a Simulationist game cannot simulate the world in question, because there were slave-owners who became abolitionists.  This seems to me a "broken" analysis.  The Sim game should accept the possibility, even as a socially frowned-upon choice.  

The main difference, I think, will be one of emphasis.  

In the Narrativist model, the emphasis is on the slave-owner and his engagement with the limits of convention, the moral difficulty in which he places himself.  

In the Simulationist model, the emphasis is on the world's reaction to the choice, once made.  If the slave-owner becomes an abolitionist, how will the world react?  It should react with a logic and a power all its own, not determined or guided by the former slave-owner's choices or questions.  The inexorable social logic of the world should react independently.

Given Ron's own Narrativist preferences, which he makes explicit, I think it is essential for everyone to ensure that this preference does not creep into the definitions --- something I think Ron wants very much to avoid.  We have here a formulation which implies that Simulationism is necessarily static in its conception of "world"; I think that's an accidental artefact of a Narrativist preference.  I suggest a slight revision here.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

Jesse's question concerned the simpler of my two comparisons, the Sorcerer vs. GURPS one. The Setting version of this issue, so far in this thread, is limited to this simpler and more obvious sort of difference.

My example of Pendragon vs. TROS illustrated a more complex comparison, in which changes in the character were permissible in both games. For a parallel to this, another Setting-based example would be necessary, in which the Settings of both games would not be static, but the emphasis and sort of decision-making during play would be aesthetically (i.e. GNS) different.

That example awaits investigation, but I don't think it'll be very difficult. Last time, I put Jesse on the spot. Are you willing to try this one?

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Take the slave-owner example, as a case in point.  Suppose we're talking about the antebellum South.  Now the world being simulated does have this expectation that people of the type of this slave-owner do not change or challenge their cultural world.  But expectation is far from reality; indeed, if all socio-cultural expectations, such as class mores and conventions, were never changed by the people in question, then there would rarely be any change without total revolution.  So the simulated world ought to incorporate the possibility of such change.

Funny, that.  There is of course a philosphy that advances just such an argument.  

In fact I quite liked Jesse's scenario; I would think the approach in which the setting determines the characters views (at least by default) determines or heavily influences the individual characters analysis of their own surroundings.  While it might be a bit heavy handed to mandate that the charcter has opinion X, it would seem me possible to construct a number of alternatives and/or rationalisations for the status quo from which a player could select or which tnbey could refer for self-definition.  The advantage here is that you would get fewer simplistic belief statements and more interesting personal conflicts.  Many of these views are structured as a cluster of individual beliefs which synthesise into this particular position.

So suppose, in the course of play, that the slave-owner comes to this crisis of faith, as it were. The way the distinction has been posed in such examples thus far, the very fact of such a crisis of faith would already make the game Narrativist.

I think the emphasis on character self-discovery and growth in this subject of play may lean toward Narratavist sympathies, but I don't see that such alterations in viewpoint are necessarily narratavist unless they are the explicit mechanism by which a player addresses premise.  Such differences of opinion or particular stances may well not be in the foreground of action, but still strongly inform character portrayal.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gareth,

Well put. It's a very subtle point.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Hey Chris,

Are you willing to try this one?

Tag me.

Paul

[clehrich]

Paul,

Tag me.

Go ahead.  I will actually come up with something that fits the bill, but it's going to take a little while (I have a mountain of grading), and since it looks like this thread is generating interest, maybe delay is not in order.  Besides --- I want to see what you come up with.

Chris

[Paul Czege]

Alrighty, let's see how I do. Taking a step back, in simplest terms a Narrativist Premise is a question that must be answered through play. So the difference between Character-Premise Narrativism and Setting-Premise Narrativism is that with the former, it is the character who answers the question, and with the latter, it is the setting. In the former, it is the job of the setting to problematize the character's efforts to address the premise. In the latter, it is the job of the character to influence the answering of the question of the premise by the setting; which means that with Setting-Premise Narrativism, there is no absolute mandate that the character ever come into conflict with his own convictions, as long as he impacts the way the setting answers the premise.

So, for the difference between Setting-Premise Narrativism and Setting-Exploration Simulationism, I think we should go with something we haven't culturally answered for ourselves so completely as we have the issue of slavery. I think we might be confusing ourselves with the slavery issue, because we're all so completely on the same page about the morality of it. Let's go with a future setting where people with enough money keep a couple of clones of themselves around the house for when they die; there's a technology where the consciousness of someone freshly dead can be transferred into a young clone.

If this were a Setting-Exploration type Simulationist game, play would be characterized by exposure to aspects of the setting. Perhaps characters would join the clone rebellion, and experience the secret clone communities. The whole point of play is for the game world to happen, and for the characters to be carried along on a wave of experiences. But there isn't much of a question, or rather, the answer to the question is worked out largely external to the player characters. Perhaps, as in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, there is a "Caesar" among the clones who will lead a successful rebellion, or whatever.

If this were a Setting-Premise type Narrativist game, play would feature the characters playing significant roles in the outcome of the conflict. Distinct from Character-Premise Narrativism, there is no requirement that a character be capable of actually apprehending the scope of the conflict. Distinct from Setting-Exploration Simulationism, there is no requirement that a character actually experience much of the setting. A largely retarded teenage boy who stalks the homes of the rich, mercilessly executing clones is a perfectly appropriate character for Setting-Premise Narrativism. He will be significant to the setting answering the Premise, because as a protagonist, he must be. The setting must apprehend him as significant. Perhaps ultimately the collaborative work of play puts him in the position of stepping calmly over the body of Washington's most powerful pro-transferrence Senator, as the man lies clutching at his chest and fumbling for his nitroglycerin, on his way to execute the Senator's only clone.

Paul

[Jack Spencer Jr]

But there isn't much of a question, or rather, the answer to the question is worked out largely external to the player characters. Perhaps, as in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, there is a "Caesar" among the clones who will lead a successful rebellion, or whatever.

Holy metaplot, Batman!

That is what this is, isn't it?

[jburneko]

Holy metaplot, Batman!

That is what this is, isn't it?

That's something that has always confused me.  Ron has on several occasions refered to metaplot heavy play as being Exploration of Situation, which has never struck me as correct.

Exploration of Situation, to me, is Call of Cthulhu where the point of play is to figure out what's going on, right here, right now and then deal with it.  Exploration of Setting is pretty much what Paul described as being caught up in a tidal wave of experiences and that, to me, is Metaplot.

Jesse

[Paul Czege]

Hey Jack,

Holy metaplot, Batman!

That is what this is, isn't it?

Yeah, there's a very strong relationship between metaplot and Setting-Exploration Simulationism. And this is an example of such. But I will say that metaplot isn't the only way to achieve SetEx Sim. As with the Ron's example of Character-Exploration Simulationism in which bushido functions as a perimeter in which the character operates, Setting-Exploration Sim is defined by the way the setting creates a scope for the activities of the characters. With Setting-Premise Narrativism, the setting responds to the characters. With Setting-Exploration Simulationism, the characters respond to the setting, even if the GM is actually just inventing the setting from whole cloth during play.

Paul

[clehrich]

With Setting-Exploration Simulationism, the characters respond to the setting, even if the GM is actually just inventing the setting from whole cloth during play.

I think this was the point that kept bothering me; now I think maybe I'm ready to give it a stab.  Paul's nicely covered Setting-Premise Narrativism, so I'll confine my remarks to Setting-Exploration Sim.

Let's go back to Ron's "simple" example, the samurai in a fairly classic representation of bushido-dominated Japan.  [That's just a disclaimer, since the whole issue of "classic" bushido in feudal Japan is an extremely vexed one, historically speaking.]

Okay, the expectation, probably designed into the character by various mechanical means, is that this samurai is going to follow the code.  Ideally, difficult situations will provoke the samurai to think about what the "right" thing to do is, and that he will do this thinking in terms dictated by the bushido code.  Ordinarily, he does not break the code; to do so would challenge the setting itself.

Now if we complicate this example, we find a classic literary trope: the samurai in an impossible position.  Within the code, each of his options is contradictory to another.  One of the most valorized solutions to this problem, folded into the code itself, is to commit seppuku, closing the loop honorably.

But an alternative is even more highly romanticized: the samurai chooses the single option he feels is morally superior, despite the fact that most of society will think that his choice is the wrong one.  The classic here is Chushingura, the Forty-Seven Ronin.  In fact, that example goes further, because here the chief of the loyal ronin group, in order to permit his long-term plan for revenge to work best, actually goes to a great deal of effort to convince everyone that he is actually a bad samurai: drinking and lying in gutters, going into debt, wandering around filthy, getting jailed for disorderly conduct, etc.  Eventually, however, it turns out that all this is a ruse, and he gets the crew together to make a huge raid, and avenge their murdered lord.

Now there are couple of ways of reading this in SetEx-Sim.  If you take the Chushingura story itself, there's really no problem.  The characters are simply taking the moral high ground, and could care less what society thinks.  Society, i.e. the setting, reacts appropriately, by scorning and denouncing the PCs.  Eventually, when it turns out that the PCs are loyal to the nth degree, exemplars of the highest ideals of their code, society lionizes them (posthumously).

But if this story is part of the setting itself, i.e. an historical and valorized event in the setting-world, then the PC has the option of drawing upon it and manipulating it.  In any given complex situation, the samurai may decide essentially to do whatever he feels like doing, and point to a classic story as justification.  This may make him a bad samurai, or just a very ruthless one, but it is working entirely within the paradigm set by the setting: bushido.

Thus I think the important issue in SetEx-Sim is the setting and its functioning, on multiple levels.  If the samurai acts within the code, this does not mean he will be rewarded for it (or only posthumously).  If the samurai acts in a very gray edge of the code, bordering on violating it, this does not make him a bad samurai as such (see Kurosawa's films Yojimbo and especially Sanjuro on this).  The question is whether the player has the character act as he does as an exploration of the setting, which includes bushido especially.  Is bushido premise or setting -- is agonizing about bushido necessarily the issue, or is exploring the complex interweavings of bushido with society and the world the issue?

To sum up this example:

In a SetEx-Sim version of the samurai and bushido,

1. The samurai's activities must occur within the context of bushido --- but they need not be simply constrained by it.
2. The setting must react within the confines of bushido, but it may be interpreted in as altruistic or self-serving a fashion as is currently relevant.
3. The only thing that really can't happen here is a radical shift of the setting away from bushido.  The character may find some way of "opting out," but the setting cannot: a major paradigm for interpreting the world around the society is not likely to shift overnight.  (Of course, you could try to simulate a serious revolution, in which case that would be the issue, but I think that's a somewhat peculiar example.)
4. Both character and setting may certainly manipulate bushido consciously; it is not imposed upon them by mind-control, but is an active and dynamic conception with which they interact.  If the character is a ruthless bastard who stabs people in the back, this may or may not mean that he thinks of himself as acting contrary to bushido; however he thinks about it, the society has an equally wide range of options, but will not shift rapidly.

Does any of this make any sense at all?