The Forge Archives

Okay, I'm working on Libra (formerly Fulcrum). I've defined the game's purpose to be to explore character and situation (mostly character).

Characters are people chosen to become guardians of reality. They are assigned to resolve threats to the barriers separating unreality from reality. Quite often these threats will force the characters to analyze their beliefs and convictions. (These assignments for the crux of the Situation, if I am reading the essay correctly.)

The other and more important aspect is maintaining a balance between the being you have become and the person that you once were. You possess the power to bend reality and must use it to protect humanity but because of this power you are also separate from them. The decisions you often have to make involve deciding whom to sacrifice and whom to save.  The struggle to balance this power and insight with an empathy with the rest of common humanity is the true conflict. (Thus the Character exploration aspect.)

So, the game focuses around telling stories in which characters must explore their beliefs and ethics and deal with the ramifications of their decisions. The Guide puts out a basic situation and the players decide the characters path as well as narrate their efforts (Strong Directorial power is given to the players. The Guide is allowed to "veto" in order to keep the story flowing smoothly or to interject complications.)

Does this fall under Narrative or Simulationist?

I see Simulationist because exploration and development of the characters' personalities is the main focus. But, I can see Narrativist because this is done in the context of the greater situation.

For a real world analog reference any Cop Show in which the characters spend most of their time talking about their personal problems and conflicts while dealing with crimes.

Hi Alex,

No one can provide the concrete answer you're asking, because N or S ultimately comes down to a matter of actual play. And if we're talking about the design of your game, then it's a matter of looking at combinations of many different mechanics, to see which one might be facilitated, if either.

So the only thing I can address in your post is the procedural and emotional difference between Narrativist and Simulationist play, and also to point out a key concept in my essay (often misunderstood).

Exploration is central. It applies to all role-playing. Having Exploration be a big part of the game, even a highly detailed or structured one, is not in and of itself G, N, or S. It has to be there in the first place.

Therefore the intrinsic interest in the imaginary stuff (Setting, Character, Situation, System, and Color) is a given, or rather, making sure that it happens is a requirement. Doing this is not, in and of itself, G, N, or S. So don't think that because you're emphasizing "getting into it," that you're focusing on Simulationism.

I will now lay out four possibilities. This is going to be a little difficult, because I'll say this once without reinforcing it later, that all four possibilities include a huge variety of possible design applications. Don't think of them and their examples as being "single ways" in terms of a real game. However, the differences among them are what I want to focus on, so they are treated as units (which they are, at a group/concept level).

#1 - total Narrativism. In play, the Explored elements together create a "fixation" or unavoidable focus on the Premise, which in this case is a moral or ethical concern that the players emotionally latch onto. In design, many or most of the mechanics are best understood at the real person level, rather than the character or in-world level. Sorcerer, especially in combination with the supplements, is a highly Narrativist game; so are Hero Wars, The Questing Beast, and Alyria.

#2 - Narrativism with a strong Simulationist "helper." In play, the Premise is still the focus or priority, but some of the Explored elements are handled in-play strictly in terms of in-game causality, with little if any personal bias involved. In design, a certain set of the mechanics which concern themselves with in-game causality have a "life of their own" quality, which (hopefully) ends up reinforcing the Premise when their application is done. Example: The Riddle of Steel.

#3 - total Simulationism. In play, the in-game, in-world causality among the Explored elements is the priority, and all thematic (or indeed all metagame) priorities are only valued insofar as they arise from that causality. In design, the system is expected to operate without personal bias or interference; this may be handled very "heavy" (as in RuneQuest) or very light (as in many LARPs or Turku play). Example: Harnmaster, Multiverser, JAGS, Space: 1889, Pendragon.

#4 - Simulationism with a strong Narrativist "helper." In play, the Premise as described for Narrativism is available as an enjoyable sideline or afterthought to play, but it is not expected from or by anyone to be expressed, or for personal interest in it to play a role in decision-making. In design, the Explored Elements are sufficiently deep, or require sufficient metagame input, to give Premise a personal "oomph" that underlies the in-game-cause priority of play. This combination usually doesn't fully exist except as a result of Drift. Example for which this Drift might occur: Jorune, Mage, quite likely The Million Worlds if I'm reading Rob's stuff right. I suspect a fair amount of west coast RuneQuest play fell into this category, whereas British play did not.

Please note that #2 and #4 are procedurally problematic. Historically, games with these designs have tended to be incoherent, requiring Drift towards either #1 or #3 in order to enjoy them.

Please note also that "story" in the loosest sense of the word may be produced by any of the possibilities.

Please note finally that I obviously could have included #5 (total Gamism), #6 (Gamism with strong Simulationist "helper"), #7 (Narrativism with strong Gamist "helper"), #8 (Gamism with strong Narrativist "helper"), and #9 (Simulationism with a strong Gamist "helper").

I hope that this has been helpful rather than confusing.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards#1 - total Narrativism.
#2 - Narrativism with a strong Simulationist "helper."
#3 - total Simulationism.
#4 - Simulationism with a strong Narrativist "helper."

I obviously could have included

#5 (total Gamism),
#6 (Gamism with strong Simulationist "helper"),
#7 (Narrativism with strong Gamist "helper"),
#8 (Gamism with strong Narrativist "helper"),
and #9 (Simulationism with a strong Gamist "helper").

If you add #10-#12 - Mode with two weak "helpers," you pretty much have all the nodes you'd need to address using GNS for Transition.  (And pretty much the discussion of how to prioritize them.)

(Good luck creating a system that accomodate all twelve nodes and a system for handling noting and acceding to the need to Transition between them.)

Fang Langford

Fang,

Already have. All one needs is the basic understanding of the three modes and the notion that only one mode can be "master" for an instance of role-playing - with the corollary concept that the other aesthetics of the other two don't have to be absent, just not prioritized. It's very easy and it's nothing more than I've said from the very beginning.

There aren't twelve nodes. There are three. There are relationships among them; I spelled some of them out for the people who seem determined not to understand something unless I place my finger on it and make it go "beep."

Movement toward one of them (or toward a functional combination) is Drift, which is expected when dealing with incoherent game design; movement from one to another in a kind of "training" way via the practices of play is Transition (for which you are given due credit).

Why the "good luck," sarcastic or not, when what you call for already exists?

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThere aren't twelve nodes. There are three. There are relationships among them; I spelled some of them out for the people who seem determined not to understand something unless I place my finger on it and make it go "beep."

Movement toward one of them (or toward a functional combination) is Drift, which is expected when dealing with incoherent game design; movement from one to another in a kind of "training" way via the practices of play is Transition (for which you are given due credit).

Why the "good luck," sarcastic or not, when what you call for already exists?

If it needs to be spelled out then it is present.  There are clearly three Modes, but possibly twelve Nodes (as you spelled them out) to "beep."  The concept of the 'beepers' (or something like them) is vital to the theory of Transition I am working with now.

Unless you have clear demarcation, a style of play will not focus in any of the ways you describe and will suffer from worse than Drift, it'll be quite Incoherent.  As far as I theorize Transition, a group must jump from Node to Node, in a focused, healthy fashion.

I say "Good Luck," because I am finding the construction of such an animal anything but easy.  If they (meaning explicit Transitional games) "already exists," I'd be more than happy to hear about them; I feel like I am stumbling around in the dark, blindfolded.  I'm not sarcastic, I'm cynical.

Fang Langford

Heh, I get it - the "good luck" was self-directed, not me-directed. That works ...

What exists, then, is the theory of Transition; what currently is struggling to be birthed, is the application. I buy that.

Alex, before Fang and I get into this Transition thing, let's stick with your question, which was more of a plain old "what Mode" thing. Did my answer help?

Best,
Ron

I think that I'm getting it. I'm trying to make Libra a Narrativist game. The Premise flows into Narrativism and I believe that having the conflict resolutions determined by the players, and thus allowing their biases to be the primary descriptive force, also reinforces a Narrativist focus.

If what I just said is correct then I get it. If not then I'm not 100% clear yet.

I think you do get it, Alex, at least as best I can judge without seeing or playing the game.

You wrote,
"I believe that having the conflict resolutions determined by the players, and thus allowing their biases to be the primary descriptive force, also reinforces a Narrativist focus."

H'm.

What do you mean, precisely, by "conflict resolutions determined by the players"? And similarly, what do you mean by "their biases"?

Please give me concrete examples of what you envision during play.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: RonWhat do you mean, precisely, by "conflict resolutions determined by the players"? And similarly, what do you mean by "their biases"?

The mechanic is roll to determine the outcome (success or failure, and to what degree). The player decribes how the conflict was resolved. By their biases I meant that the players will tailor the description of the conflict's resolution to follow how they believe the story should flow.

Hi Alex,

Well, in that case, I think you're all good. I especially like the fact that you are referring to these things in terms of reinforcing rather than defining Narrativist play.

Best,
Ron

I think I am working on a #4.

Does anyone think that the narratavist mode of action can be employed *in support* of the coherency of the sim?  What I am thinking of is an expanded zone of character action which starts at all social levels.  Players may carry out actions from their character sheet OOC with narrativist goals.

The model I have is in fact a kind of RPG of monopoly; or an RPG inside monopoly.  To extent the metaphor brutally, a game element arising from sim (in my model, not in Monopoly, where it arises exclusively from mechanics) like a get out of jail free card could be "played" by the player as representative of social forces which they, through mechanics, are empowered to narrate for Directorially.

Does that make any sense?

Hi Gareth,

I think it does make sense, but I think it's also clear that any of these "helper" game designs is (by definition) vulnerable to Drift. That may be considered a design advantage, by some, in the sense that more/different people would be able to enjoy the game.

And after all, since the game-play would be more likely to be coherent either non-Drifted or Drifted, I can't argue with that.

Best,
Ron

Hi,

I'm a bit confused over exactly what narrativism is.  I've read the articles by Ron.

I understand that if at a particular instance in a roleplaying game a player indicates that their character does something because it is the optimal behaviour under the rules system, then the player is acting in a Gamist mode.

I also understand that if a player indicates that their character does something because it is "in-character", then the player is Simulating a character.

I think that the GNS system would then say that if a player indicates their character does something because it would advance a literary theme, then the player is acting with Narrativist goals in mind.

Assuming my understandings above are correct, how then is Narrativism different from Simulation, where what is being simulated is literature?  It seems to me that Narrativism is a special case of Simulation not a separate category.

Hi Lehrbuch,

Thanks for posting. I'm afraid your paraphrases are very far from being correct, which is what's led to your conclusion.

1) "Optimal" is personally defined and cannot be used as a metric to classify an instance of play. If you're talking about tactics in, say, a combat scene, then using effective tactics for the character may be observed in any version of G, N, or S play. Doing so doesn't indicate any one of the modes at all.

2) The same goes for "in character." That corresponds, at its most general, to Exploring (imagining, sharing the imagination of) one's character, which is fundamental to role-playing of any kind.

3) I've been discussing the difference between Narrativism and Simulating Story for a long time. What you describe, I think of as a "door" or alleyway that people turn into just "before" they find the door into what I'm saying.

Fundamentally, Simulationism is about role-playing only through in-game, in-game-world mechanisms. It is not about inserting in-game-world events or generating in-character decisions through overt, player-agenda-driven priorities. Avoiding such priorities is what defines Simulationist play (and becomes a priority of its own). Narrativism, like Gamism, is based on the participants' overt agendas, for which the imagined characters (etc) are pawns or instruments, if you like.

Narrativism is best defined as the overt, acknowledged, shared priority of addressing Premise (in the strict Egri sense of the word), producing Theme through the instrument of generating plot. This is not "simulating" literature, or film, or any other kind of story - it is creating it. Note that Narrativist play varies a lot in terms of when and how much these priorities kick in, and also in terms of how much self-observed effort is involved, from a lot to a little.

As you know from my essays, such activity does not have a monopoly on creating stories; Gamist play and Simulationist play have been known to do it in a variety of ways. However, GNS is about priorities during instances of play, and creation of story as a side-effect of the role-playing, or as a preamble to the role-playing, doesn't qualify. Narrativist play is distinguished from the other modes on this basis.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI'm afraid your paraphrases are very far from being correct, which is what's led to your conclusion.

I thought so which is why I asked.  Some more things for someone to correct me on:

Quote from: Ron Edwards1) "Optimal" is personally defined and cannot be used as a metric to classify an instance of play. If you're talking about tactics in, say, a combat scene, then using effective tactics for the character may be observed in any version of G, N, or S play. Doing so doesn't indicate any one of the modes at all.

OK.  I can see this.

But, take a situation where a player's character has a choice of two different weapons to use in a combat scene.  

From a game mechanics point of view, the only difference between the two is that one does more damage.  If the player elects that their character picks the most damaging weapon *purely because* of that game mechanic advantage, then aren't they acting in a G mode?

Of course, there might also be N or S reasons for picking the "optimal" weapon, for example a S reason for the character picking the most damaging weapon might be that the player's character is psychotic and wants to inflict lots of pain, but the fact that the game mechanics actually reflect this is only of secondry importance.  Or a N reason might be that the players recently saw someone attacked with this type of weapon in "real life".

Is this totally wrong?

Quote from: Ron EdwardsFundamentally, Simulationism is about role-playing only through in-game, in-game-world mechanisms. It is not about inserting in-game-world events or generating in-character decisions through overt, player-agenda-driven priorities. Avoiding such priorities is what defines Simulationist play (and becomes a priority of its own). Narrativism, like Gamism, is based on the participants' overt agendas, for which the imagined characters (etc) are pawns or instruments, if you like.

OK.  So would it be correct to say that Simulationist play has no meaning outside of the context of the game (or at least pretends that this is the case), whilst Narrativist play has some external, acknowledged meaning for the players?