Exploring the Narrative of the Simulated Gamist world

[Sylus Thane]

I know the following could just as easily fit within the Actual Play forum but I feel the overall gist of what I am about to talk about is better served here. I have had several influences as of late the most current being Drew Stevens Gns- questioning gamist located herehttp://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5421 (hope I did the link right).

As of late I have been playtesting one of my settings for Frontier in regards to supernatural creatures. Throughout the playtest so far I feel my group has rather well succeeded in touching on all three points of the GNS in an equal manner.

So far all of the players (with the exception of my wife this last session as she was a little tipsy after a long week of work) have taken great joy in exploring the supernatural underworld within their own. They have taken equal time in the Narration, as I try to encourage them not to rely on rolls for things such as social interactions as well as describing their actions and the consequences in tandem with me. They have also agreed on the Simulation in that things react as they would in the real with the exceptions of certain aspects of the supernatural itself.

Which we now get to the Gamist aspect of it all. I have a player within my group (as I touched upon in the thread in rpg theory about purposely putting players in primary or secondary roles) who is very much a gamist style of player. He must either win, be in control, or be the direct influence of all the other players involved. Now normally I would not think this is not a problem for me but in recent days I have come to believe that perhaps I am facilitating his gamist tendencies to the point that they detract from the rest of the other points of play and the other players.

Now is where I diverge from actual play and delve back into gamism itself and creating protagonists and protagonism amongst your players. Throughout the game in Exploring their new underworld the players have moved themselves into positions in which they are now political players within a city, and for the majority it is because of their exploration of the supernatural and a desire to learn more about certain aspects of the supernatural, and for my power player, he is merely there to take control, win  against all adversaries etc.

Now as of late my other players have begun to take a characterly offense to some of the Gamists actions and begun to let a little of their own gamist out in the effect of creating problem for our main gamist. They have done this is many ways such as going out on their own and creating their own political powers, creating physical and social problems for the power gamist etc. All the while still maintaining their earlier goals of exploration and simulation (narration having never gone away) and in the process bringing out some of the explorer/narrativist in our power gamist as he is forced to play catch to try and fulfill his gamist needs.

Now my main questions to my fellow forgers would be.

1. Is gamist facilitaion not a responsibility of the game itself but of the GM?

2. If the degree of similation represented by the game and player insertables is agreed on and to everyones liking, is not narration and gamism then a GM requirement to fulfill?

and the big one
3. If we can agree that all rpg's simulate in some degree(no matter how fine or large) a hypothetical environment and provide a degree of narration amongst players and gm (again no matter how fine or large) is it not the responsibilty of the gm to then facilitate gamist needs as well as filling the gaps that may be found in simulation or narration needed by the players?

Are we not then capable of achieving El Dorado in the fact that we have all the forms of GNS brought out of out players?

Would it stand to reason that GNS itself is not something totally found within a game but within the players themselves?

And if the above is true is it not possible that we can then take any game and bring out the inner GNS in our players thus achieving El Dorado no matter what we play?

Am I on to something here? Am I totally talking out of my butt? Have I lost my mind in this insane amount of typing beyond my normal amount and totally lost myself in words?

Does anyone else out there see what I am seeing?

Sylus

[Mike Holmes]

1. Is gamist facilitaion not a responsibility of the game itself but of the GM?

Not even sure what this means in this context. If you want to provide Gamism for a player, then it's the GMs job to do that. To that extent he would do well to use the best tool available for the job, presumably a system that supports Gamism well.

2. If the degree of similation represented by the game and player insertables is agreed on and to everyones liking, is not narration and gamism then a GM requirement to fulfill?

Have you read the System Matters essay. It's everyone's responsibility to see that everyone else is having a good time. To that extent, again, the best tools, IOW, the most appropriate systems, should be used.

and the big one
3. If we can agree that all rpg's simulate in some degree(no matter how fine or large) a hypothetical environment and provide a degree of narration amongst players and gm (again no matter how fine or large) is it not the responsibilty of the gm to then facilitate gamist needs as well as filling the gaps that may be found in simulation or narration needed by the players?

For one thing Narration has little to do with Narrativism (which is about creating a Narrative, not a Narration). One can soley use one's left thumb and never speak, and be a great Narrativist.

Are we not then capable of achieving El Dorado in the fact that we have all the forms of GNS brought out of out players?

Sure, a GM can cater to all these desires in sequence. That's not El Dorado or even close. El Dorado is a system that simultaneously caters to all three equally well. (Actually just two, El Dorado isn't concerned with Gamism at all).

Would it stand to reason that GNS itself is not something totally found within a game but within the players themselves?

GNS is totally about player decisions and nothing else. To the extent that a system supports one of the modes better than the others, that can be commented on. But, yes, GNS is all about player decisions. I can play as Narrativist as I like using the most Gamist system available. Doesn't make much sense to do so, but it can be done, and probably happens all the time.

And if the above is true is it not possible that we can then take any game and bring out the inner GNS in our players thus achieving El Dorado no matter what we play?

Inner GNS? As I've said, players can do whatever the heck they like.

Does anyone else out there see what I am seeing?

Sorry, but you seem to be operating on a completely different notion of what these issues are about than most around here. I don't mean to be insulting, but I can only suggest that you re-read the essays.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Sylus,

We can bring the discussion back to your questions, if possible, only if a few points get clarified first.

1. As Mike points out, you've confounded narration with narrative. "Who talks" or "who says what happens" is narration; narration is necessary to role-playing but its organization is not associated with any particular GNS mode.

You also seem to be contrasting "talking" with "dice-rolling" in an either-or sort of way, and associating the former with Narrativism. This is a common error, arising from not reading the essay and slipping back into the older, sterile roll/role dichotomy.

2. GNS is always about the people and their play, not about the game system. When we say a game design is Gamist, for instance, it's shorthand for saying, "system which best facilitates Gamist play of a particular sort." Just as saying a person is Gamist, for instance, is also shorthand for saying "he tends to make Gamist decisions and enjoy them consistently over other modes of play."

3. I think we don't have quite enough information to tell whether your group is experiencing (a) a little Gamist "salting" of the basically Simulationist group experience or (b) some dysfunctional play based on differing, incompatible goals. I expect that you'll be finding this out within a few sessions.

Best,
Ron