From Narrativism: Story Now

The hard question
I suggest that both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and automatic, with easy-to-see parallels in other activities and apparently founded upon a lot of hardwiring in the human mind (or "psyche" or "spirit" or whatever you want to call it). Whereas I think Simulationist priorities must be trained - it is highly derived play, based mainly on canonical fandom and focus on pastiche, and requires a great deal of contextualized knowledge and stern social reinforcement. This training is characterized by teaching people not to do what they're inclined to. No one needs to learn how to role-play, but most do need to learn to play Simulationist, by stifling their Gamist and/or Narrativist proclivities. Such training is often quite harsh and may involve rewards and punishments such as whether the person is "worthy" to be friends with the group members.

If the typical role-playing preferences among humans are Gamist and Narrativist, then play based on these modes should be easy to pick up, easy to spread, and easy to sell, and I think it is all three. However, since the typical role-playing text and typical training is Simulationist, the net effect is to bump the majority of interested people away from the hobby after first contact, and to consolidate the Simulationist primacy in all evident features of the hobby, as opposed to the potential ones. This is one of several reasons why the hobby remains decidedly fringe.

So the first question is, how about you? Are you Simulationist-by-habit, which is to say, well-trained to this mode by the first group you encountered? If so, is that what you really want? If so, then excellent. But! If not, if you'd rather be addressing Premise, then you have a lot of habits to break - perhaps even those which, in your mind, originally defined the activity.

From Narrativism: Story Now

Ouija-board role-playing
Here's another outcome for the faulty Simulationist-makes-Narrativism approach. Actually, it's the same phenomenon as Simulationism-makes-Gamism, which I discussed in "Gamism: Step On Up" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/) as "the bitterest role-player in the world." I consider the Narrativist version to be the "most deluded role-player in the world."

How do Ouija boards work? People sit around a board with letters and numbers on it, all touching a legged planchette that can slide around on the board. They pretend that spectral forces are moving the planchette around to spell messages. What's happening is that, at any given moment, someone is guiding the planchette, and the point is to make sure that the planchette always appears to everyone else to be moving under its own power.

Taking this idea to role-playing, the deluded notion is that Simulationist play will yield Story Now play without any specific attention on anyone's part to do so.

I've never encountered a functional (by this I mean, long lasting, continuous, integrated story over a significant number of gaming sessions) game that wasn't based in what is defined here in disparaging language as Simulation-by-habit.

Valamir wrote:

I've never encountered a functional (by this I mean, long lasting, continuous, integrated story over a significant number of gaming sessions) game that wasn't based in what is defined here in disparaging language as Simulation-by-habit.

???

This is like saying "I've never encountered a functional fruit that wasn't an orange (by functional I mean round, covered in a thick orange rind, and full of vitamin C).


I mean really, your definition of funcitonal play requiring a continuous integrated story over many sessions is bizarre. Kind of stacks the deck there, no?

I think you've already found the answer to that question right in the material you first quoted from.

So the first question is, how about you? Are you Simulationist-by-habit, which is to say, well-trained to this mode by the first group you encountered? If so, is that what you really want? If so, then excellent. But! If not, if you'd rather be addressing Premise, then you have a lot of habits to break - perhaps even those which, in your mind, originally defined the activity.

Valamir wrote: Wheres the flaw?

RDU Neil,

I totally sympathize with you.

I think a lot of people get into role-playing because of the simulationism.

In a lot of cases, it is a natural choice. If you are a budding geek in junior-high, chances are you don't like your life too much. I know I didn't. I found comfort in RPGs because: a.) they weren't competitive b.) they let me escape reality for a bit and c.) I was encouraged to imagine and create.

Were those early games derivative pastiche? You bet.
Did I enjoy them? Hell yeah!
Did I have to be taught to function in Simulationist mode? No way.

Later on, after playing with some groups that were mired in dysfunction, I started to long for what I now see as Narrativism. I was older, more cynical. But the point is, I "discovered" Nar goals after long years of happy and natural Sim play had faded.

Perhaps people like you and I are just the exception to the rule.

RDU Neil wrote: If this forum is about discussing GNS and exploring it, then answer my question. Is GNS flawed because it presupposes that G & N are natural, and S is not?

Neil,

I don't know if I can answer the question in general but I can relate a usefull anecdote. The other day I was talking to my girlfriend about Sorcerer and I mentioned that I think a difficulty some of our players have is realizing that Sorcerer not only asks you to player your character but to be art director and stunt coordinator for the environment around them.

Players don't summon demons in Sorcerer because in their brain they don't know what demons they CAN summon; as in what demons already exist out there in the setting for them to contact. Rather than imagining a demon and then acting like it's been out there for their summoning the whole time. On top of that they are used to thinking that magic and what it looks like is something that exists outside their character so creating all the color details of what a ritual consists of, what the air smells like, how the world contorts when a demon enters it and so on feels awkward.

I mentioned all this to my girlfriend and she said "I don't understand why. It's MY demon after all." You see my girlfriend was not a gamer when I met her. To her, on a natural gut level instinct, she not only owns her character but everything that is IMPORTANT to her character. Her character's appartment belongs to her, the player, because it is an extension of her character. Her character's sister belongs to her because that too is an extention of her character. She takes ownership and authorship very easily of anything she feels is important or an extension of her character concept.

She does this very naturally and yet when I started describing GNS to her she self identified as a simulationist because "plot logic" is very very very important to her but she's very much a Narrativist because her character and her character's issues (Premises her character embodies) are the focus of her play. In fact I was very Simulationist focused when we first started playing and the games were very frustrating for her because she kept talking about how her character was being underminded all the time. By that she meant everything that was important to her character concept was being swept aside in favor of the current "adventure" or "scenario" at hand.

Does that make any sense?

Jesse

It also pre-supposes that long lasting, coherent gamist and nar campaigns never happen.

Now, I know the former happen. Dear god, do they happen. Round here, the longest lasting D&D campaigns are gamist in character, as are the big RIFTS campaigns. The same guys, with the same GM, iterating over challenging each other.

I'm pretty sure the latter happen: god knows how many articles I've read over the years on running campaigns like Soap Opera's or ongoing serials, specifically talking about running cmapaigns on addressing the character's personal issues, which is not necessarily nar, but strongly supports it.

Also, any long running campaign, in order to maintain coherence, must be developing a body of history and information that informs the play, and pressurizes the players to acknowledge it, but this, again, is not necessarily sim, if all that information is doing is helping to establish the shared imaginary space in which gam or nar play is the purpose.

"Being" the character, acting as a 3-fold model simulationist, doesn't map 1-to-1 with simulationist play in this model. Even depth of simulation doesn't. "Being" the character can be as much about addressing premise as exploring character.

Just becuase theme & subtext arise from internal cause, it doesn't necessarily follow that play must be sim in this mode: in fact, the model is predicated on theme & subtext being necessarily addressed within a simulated, imaginary space, otherwise it's not an RPG. If the premise isn't addressed within the shared imaginary space, it's not an RPG, it's a literature discussion.

The Ouija board is disparaged in the Nar essay, because it's a metaphor for players who want to address premise, but instead of thinking about the issues of the character as issues per se, they pile on more and more detail to the character description, in the hope that making the character more "real", with more detailed history, and physicality, and associations, premise will be magically addressed by simulating the character with more and more systems and rolls and checks and attributes...

And all it takes is to look and say "What are this guys issues? Why do they matter to him? What's he going to do about it? What does that say?" and boom, narrativism.

It doesn't sound to me like this is happening with the play you're talking about: you're happy to look back at the session and see where the GM has put theme to work within the world, but detailing the world, deepening the detail of the dream, takes precedence over the story or the game when push comes to shove.

Now, I don't know if I agree with Ron over the source of Sim being an artifact of the history of RPG's. I think it's a natural by-product of human curiosity (which to me is the soul of this model's version of simulationism), the urge to explore the "worlds of what-if", to rip-off an old comic book. To me, though, the fact is that conventional RPG's, given their heritage, are actually an odd form of Sim compared to that seen in other avenues (fantastic literature, frex), in that it's bound up with mechanical rules, funny dice, saving throws, etc etc etc, rather than the wonder of curiosity, and the application of "common sense" to what's going on.

But that's just me. And I think you adequately answered Ron's hard question for sim players. If I can take the liberty of paraphrasing you: "Nuh-uh, Ron. Ya got me all wrong."

But I also think you're identifying any game with a long lasting, solid basis of exploration as sim by definition, whereas, to my eyes, any long lasting game has a solid base of exploration by aggregation.

jburneko wrote: I mentioned all this to my girlfriend and she said "I don't understand why. It's MY demon after all." You see my girlfriend was not a gamer when I met her. To her, on a natural gut level instinct, she not only owns her character but everything that is IMPORTANT to her character. Her character's appartment belongs to her, the player, because it is an extension of her character. Her character's sister belongs to her because that too is an extention of her character. She takes ownership and authorship very easily of anything she feels is important or an extension of her character concept.

She does this very naturally and yet when I started describing GNS to her she self identified as a simulationist because "plot logic" is very very very important to her but she's very much a Narrativist because her character and her character's issues (Premises her character embodies) are the focus of her play. In fact I was very Simulationist focused when we first started playing and the games were very frustrating for her because she kept talking about how her character was being underminded all the time. By that she meant everything that was important to her character concept was being swept aside in favor of the current "adventure" or "scenario" at hand.

The point isn't that no one gets Simulationism intuitively, but that for the majority of people (ie: people as a demographic group), Gamism and Narrativism are more intuitive. What do most people do best? Act, or tell stories about something?

Grandpa always tells stories about Vietnam, and you think, as a listener, "Damn, that event was cool!" or "terrifying" or "sad" -- rarely do you think, "Damn, I wish I'd been in Vietnam!" The emotional experience-event is the interesting part, not the event itself without that end investment.

Or to get really mystical for a moment, for most people, the destination is the point, rather than the journey.

Act, or compete?

To make this point by example, think about need for all the "enraged horror" at munchkinism, power-gaming, et al? Unless it is a real, actual "problem" -- meaning that people are trying to "Step On Up" naturally -- and another segment of gamers is trying to stop it from cropping up? If it weren't a common occurence, would so much of the text on the play of RPGs be devoted to correcting common Gamist behaviors in players?

The point is not that people can't act naturally, but that less people act than tell stories or compete. And yes, this is a gross oversimplification. Let's not analyze it to death as a metaphor, please.

greyorm wrote: Grandpa always tells stories about Vietnam, and you think, as a listener, "Damn, that event was cool!" or "terrifying" or "sad" -- rarely do you think, "Damn, I wish I'd been in Vietnam!" The emotional experience-event is the interesting part, not the event itself without that end investment.

Sorcerer not only asks you to player your character but to be art director and stunt coordinator for the environment around them.

Grandpa always tells stories about Vietnam, and you think, as a listener, "Damn, that event was cool!" or "terrifying" or "sad" -- rarely do you think, "Damn, I wish I'd been in Vietnam!" The emotional experience-event is the interesting part, not the event itself without that end investment.


I would argue that Grandpa's stories would rarely address any premise. The tendency for people to tell stories relates not to Narrativism in my book, but to role-playing in general.

I just think that Sim is more natural than was represented by Ron's essay

Valamir wrote:

I just think that Sim is more natural than was represented by Ron's essay

For whom?
SNIP
Seems to me that what the article says is that far more people in the general population easily identify with gamist priorities or narrativist priorities than Sim priorities. Given the relative popularity of Monopoly and Chess and that of reading of novels over non-fiction are you really going to argue against that?
Look in the general non gaming population. Where do you really see entrenched Sim priorities reflected in leisure activities? Seems to me the words "canonical fandom" come to mind. Are you really going to try and suggest that that doesn't represent a fringe interest in the general populace?
SNIP
So given that Simulationist agendas are a minority in the general populace, but a majority (at least by habit) in the gaming populace, are you really then going to try and argue against the idea that there is some pretty dramatic indoctrination going on?

greyorm wrote: The point isn't that no one gets Simulationism intuitively, but that for the majority of people (ie: people as a demographic group), Gamism and Narrativism are more intuitive. What do most people do best? Act, or tell stories about something?

coxcomb wrote: I would argue that Grandpa's stories would rarely address any premise.

Valamir wrote:
Seems to me that what the article says is that far more people in the general population easily identify with gamist priorities or narrativist priorities than Sim priorities. Given the relative popularity of Monopoly and Chess and that of reading of novels over non-fiction are you really going to argue against that?

Valamir wrote: Look in the general non gaming population. Where do you really see entrenched Sim priorities reflected in leisure activities? Seems to me the words "canonical fandom" come to mind. Are you really going to try and suggest that that doesn't represent a fringe interest in the general populace?

Valamir wrote: Yet look at the traditional game text and even the number of gamers who would immediately (if non-reflectively) agree with Neil's description about what's important in an RPG. Are you really going to argue with the idea that Sim gaming occupies an extremely prominent place in the RPG hobby?

Valamir wrote: So given that Simulationist agendas are a minority in the general populace, but a majority (at least by habit) in the gaming populace, are you really then going to try and argue against the idea that there is some pretty dramatic indoctrination going on?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

coxcomb wrote: I would argue that Grandpa's stories would rarely address any premise.

THat would depend on how natural a storyteller Grandpa is. Some people can spin gripping yarns about getting their kids on the bus. Others cannot engage interest with what should be a very emotional event, such as the death of a family member.

This comes back to my current thing about seeing story as an object d'art. Something that is constructed and requires a certain amount of craftmanship to build well.

Ron, in the Glossary of the Narrativism essay wrote: Premise (adapted from Egri)
A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions. Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about how to act, behave, or believe.

Storn wrote: Okay, my follow up question is this; I wouldn't want to be in Viet Nam firefight or be up to my waist in Zombie parts in some dungeon crawl... But I sure want to put my character there!

Hezues almighty, people, I said not to dissect the metaphor because it was grossly simplistic...and what happens? We're discussing grandpa and whether he's a good storyteller...

So, let me restate it without all the metaphor: most stories told to us have an ultimate point; experiencing that point is the reason for listening to the story (funny, sad, terrifying, cautionary, uplifting, etc). This is the crude Narrativist equivalent.

Rambling without a point, without some "end" to the events, without some building up towards an experience, without some highlighting of certain features and ignoring or de-emphasizing others in expectation of that point, is the crude Simulationist equivalent.

Listening to the story to experience the story is rarely the reason, nor is just telling the story the reason stories exist and occur. This isn't to say such stories don't exist, aren't or can't be enjoyed, etc. only that they are in the literary minority of texts produced.

As I said before, with stories, most people are about the destination (Narration -- issue) rather than the journey (Simulation -- experience).

Now, of course, there are vast differences between stories and role-playing games from a number of points (creation method, experience of, authorship, etc), so instead of trying to dissect or agree with the metaphor as it stands, just try to understand what I'm getting at with the metaphor.

Otherwise, we're arguing about how a turtle shell is not hard like a rock, because the densities of shell and rock are different.

greyorm wrote: Hezues almighty, people, I said not to dissect the metaphor because it was grossly simplistic...and what happens? We're discussing grandpa and whether he's a good storyteller...

So, let me restate it without all the metaphor: most stories told to us have an ultimate point; experiencing that point is the reason for listening to the story (funny, sad, terrifying, cautionary, uplifting, etc). This is the crude Narrativist equivalent.

I am not convinced that Narrative goals are any more common in new role-players than Simulationist goals

coxcomb wrote:
Sorry that the metaphor was seen as the object of the point I was trying to make. Please let me make it without the metaphor:

Most stories that folks tell, or read about, or see on TV or at the Movies, engage the audience by setting up a situation, applying dramatic tension, building to a climax, and resolving the situation. What a good many stories don't do is address any premise.

Ralph:

I think a distinction needs to be made between what people naturally enjoy/understand/find entertaining and what they naturally do. I'm not getting into the whole question of 'naturally' which is a sticky mess all of it's own.

Valamir wrote: The point being is that we humans are intrinsically hard wired to understand the nature and format of a story. We can identify good stories without even trying. We may not be able to articulate what we like about them without exposure to the jargon of lit theory, but a lack of lit theory classes doesn't prevent people from enjoying stories.

Valamir wrote: What's the point of this rambling...simply this. People understand intuitively what makes for a good story. That's why playing Nar is said to be natural. Because people telling a story will try...on purpose...to instill that story with drama, they'll do it without even realizing they're doing it because they just know it feels like the right thing. Its automatic.

coxcomb wrote: You can tell a story that is engaging and good without adressing a premise.

Interjection: Claire, ability has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't. You can create a completely crappy, shallow, awful, horrid story that you're ashamed to talk about ever again, and it would still be Narrativist -- because whether good or bad, the attempt is all that matters, not the ability or the success. Ron's Narrativism essay does make note of this point (and way more clearly than I have).

Hey Claire, I agree, its certainly not a given that people tell stories well. I know lots of people who bore me to tears telling stories.

But the issue at hand wasn't one of talent, it was responding to posts which questioned why gamist and narrativist tendencies were put forward as being natural while Sim tendencies generally required being learned.

Nar play comes naturally. Good Nar play...like good anything, takes practice.

I doubt that arguing about this stuff is doing anyone any good--but I'll offer one more post.

When I started role-playing, I was also starting to write fiction. I was about 10, which was not (at that time and place) an unusual age to get into the hobby. At that point, *everyone* I called a friend was getting into RPGs too. All of us got into it for the exploration, and for nothing else.

It was cool to think about people who were different from oneself. It was cool to imagine how they lived and acted. It was cool to think of the neat abilities and powers they might have.

I think that lots of kids at that age are developing a fondness for imaginative exploration. I have talked to plenty of folks since then that had the same introductory experiences.

So in my mind and (obviously limited) experience, there is plenty of evidence that exploration for the sake of exploration is natural, at least at a certain age. Later on it often ceases to be so important, and people need more to keep them in the game (I thrive on Nar play myself now). But at that certain formative age, exploring the elements of play is enough.

But I have no scientific data to back up this notion, and it seems to be an unpopular one. So I will resign myself to disagreeing.

greyorm wrote: Interjection: Claire, ability has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't. You can create a completely crappy, shallow, awful, horrid story that you're ashamed to talk about ever again, and it would still be Narrativist -- because whether good or bad, the attempt is all that matters, not the ability or the success. Ron's Narrativism essay does make note of this point (and way more clearly than I have).

Valamir wrote: Hey Claire, I agree, its certainly not a given that people tell stories well. I know lots of people who bore me to tears telling stories.

But the issue at hand wasn't one of talent, it was responding to posts which questioned why gamist and narrativist tendencies were put forward as being natural while Sim tendencies generally required being learned.

Nar play comes naturally. Good Nar play...like good anything, takes practice.

I see this is a long thread, and that I'm going to lose my thoughts if I try to read it all and then reply; so I'm going to start now and hope I don't duplicate too much of what others have said.

The first thing I would want to bring forward is that I think Ron is unduly skeptical of natural simulationist play. I have before noted that "Playing House" seems to be an entirely simulationist activity engaged in as childhood make-believe. I played a great deal of that as a boy, thanks to the girl next door and my own little sister--but I never "got it" then. It seemed a bit boring, like I wanted to do something and this game was all about being something, not doing something. Looking back, though, I see that this was very similar to the simulationist play which I have enjoyed. It's about imagining what it's like to be this other person, just for the sake of understanding what it's like.

Your desire, though, to have the referee make premise-driven story possible suggests that what you want isn't really simulationism, but highly-immersive narrativism--play in which you get to address premise and create theme, but only by doing what your character "would" do in response to what the referee creates. You want to be part of the story, but without ever losing the feeling that you are a character in something larger, not a creator of events. I can't be certain of this, of course, but you seem to lean that way quite a bit in your posts. It's supposed to become a story because the referee is guiding it that direction, but we're supposed to control our characters exclusively as "they" would do things.

(This overlooks the critical point that "they" are only what you want them to be; you have chosen who they are, and as you play you continue to choose who they are. They can change, make decisions that might appear to be out of character, but in the context of themselves making life-changing decisions, deciding to do this instead of that, when every time before they would have done that, because they've learned something, grown in some way, repented or fallen or otherwise shifted their view of the world. You think that they are making these choices, but you are always making the choices in a way that makes them what you want them to be. The difference between actor and author stance isn't really one of what the character would do versus what the player wants him to do; it's a difference between whether the character's choice is based on things already known about him or on things that the player decides to add to him at this moment.)

Front-loaded narrativism, that is, play which addresses premise because the characters and the situation are all designed so that character choices will inherently address premise, is extremely common; it sounds like what you're doing much of the time.

Ralph, I think you missed both points. It is a fairly clear implication of the quote section of the Narrativism article that Simulationism is in essence learned activity, that people are pushed to do it, and don't fall into it naturally. Neil is arguing that some people do fall into it naturally. If that's so (and I agree with him), then the implication that simulationism has to be taught is wrong.

I would also take issue with what you wrote: So given that Simulationist agendas are a minority in the general populace, but a majority (at least by habit) in the gaming populace, are you really then going to try and argue against the idea that there is some pretty dramatic indoctrination going on?

Valamir wrote: That's because you're confusing mediums. The very concept of Narrativist Premise was specially adapted to role playing needs FROM analysis of fiction (specifically plays).

The point being is that we humans are intrinsically hard wired to understand the nature and format of a story.
...
Sim play requires excising this natural instinct out of your play habits. You are simply not aloud to manipulate story that way in Sim play. It goes against the very purity of simulationism.

And THAT is why Sim play is not natural...must be learned...and requires most people to be indoctrinated in it before they can do it. And THAT is one key reason why this hobby is a fringe hobby. Cause there aren't many people in the general populace who find this fun.

I did and still do relate strongly to enjoying the 'experience' of what it's like to fly via magic, shoot lightening from my hands, wield a sword, whatever.

The thing is, I never intuitively got how to play that way. Okay, I've flown, I've shot lightening, I've wielded a sword. What do I do now?

A DUNGEON! YUS! Gamist. And occasionally there would be talking with people...pretty much failed narrativist attempts (that really were just gamist).

Wanting to experience the world was VERY intuitive for me. But how I/we went about getting new experiences was basically gamist (hack hack/tactical tactical...ah, this is what its like to loot 12 gold!). Doing it this way was VERY intuitive as well and generally got more focus (the thrill of holding a sword lasting briefly).

So play itself was gamist, but occasionally bouts of simulationist examination of the SIS (then, having explored all, hopping onto the gamist wagon to get somewhere else interesting).

If Ron's talking about actual play being driven by simulationism, then I think he's right. But I'd say bouts of SIS examination in the simulationist way are very intuitive, yet aren't really the mode of play, just a brief CA change.

But... But... The article is talking about role-playing. It's not talking about telling stories, or playing chess, or watching a play, or reading fiction, or writing fiction, or, or, or. Just. Role. Playing. GNS simply doesn't apply to anything else.

So, what are we talking about? We're talking about Ron's opinion that most people don't roleplay naturally in a Sim mode, that Sim RP is a learned behavior, and that Nar/Gam RP come much more naturally. Which seems terribly evident to me when regarding a few factors in existing role-playing games.

Factor 1: Many (many many) Sim game texts rant and rave and go out of their way for paragraphs to explain how Gamism is bad bad bad. There's admonitions to players and advice to GMs on how to suppress Gamism ad nauseum. Why would this be necessary unless Gamism was a natural tendency in many (many many) role-players?

Factor 2: Sim game texts tend to focus on "just the facts, ma'am." In order for Sim to be prioritized, there must be an explicitly established context in which play is to take place. Many game texts assume (often erroneously) that the players will know how to establish this context. Game texts that do attempt to establish this context typically do so through a combination of rules and setting information. Playing a game in a Sim mode requires knowledge and understanding of this supported context prior to the beginning of play. And that's not natural. It just ain't. It isn't natural to say, "let's pretend. I'll pretend I'm a 1st-level warrior with a Strength of 17, and 14 hit points." It is, on the other hand, natural to say, "let's pretend. I'm a great and powerful warrior, and I'm going to rescue the maiden fair." See the difference?

I argue that folks who claim that their early experiences with roleplaying were all about just pure pretending, and naturally focused on a Sim mode of play, should consider the possibility that it is far more likely that the game itself prioritized the Sim mode for you, at the same time it told you that you were "playing pretend." We've all been duped, folks.

Factor 3: I've come across two types of Narrativist game texts. The first type tends to prioritize tightly focused mechanics that cut to the meat of what play is going to be about. My Life With Master is the best example I can think of for this type. And you know what? People get MLWM. They get it at a gut level that goes beyond understanding, and far beyond the cerebral mode of play that needs an explicit context for exploration. This type of Narrativist text and play operates at a lower, more basic level than a Sim RPG's text and play.

The other type of text is the "pure" Narrativist game. The Pool, and perhaps Story Engine, are the best examples I can think of for this type of text. These texts provide a structure for how the Narrativist Premise (whatever it happens to be) is to be adressed by the participants. And it doesn't provide anything else. Simply because nothing else is needed. Once you know how to go about addressing Premise, all the other stuff falls effortlessly into place. Note the use of the word "effortlessly" in the previous sentence. I point it out because reading and learning to play a Sim game such as AD&D, Hero, GURPS, CORPS, EABA, and any of the countless others, is never effortless to the degree that reading and learning to play The Pool is.

(One might argue that The Pool is easy to absorb because it's so "rules light." To which I respond: TWERPS. Certainly a Sim game, and rules don't get much lighter than that. Is it a playable game? Yes. Is it as intuitively understandable as The Pool? Not even close.)

One last thing: Don't freak out on me. I love Sim play. I'm currently working on multiple Sim games. I'm not downplaying the quality of your early role-playing experiences, and I'm not encouraging you to "cast off the chains of Sim" or any such notion. I just happen to agree, rather strongly, with Ron on this one.

Ethan: I dunno. I'm still of the opinion that Sim tendencies are as natural as Gam or Nar, but that the dominant agenda in most conventional rulebooks is a very odd form of Sim, one that is Sim by model, sim by constraint, rather than sim by consensus.

Frex, Universalis can be played, and I've no doubt often is, simmier than Mr Sim from simtown, with folks piling detail on detail, exploring character & setting like gangbusters, and to my mind, it's a much more natural expression of Sim tendencies than endless charts and statistics, modelling the characters, setting, etc in terms of a mathematical simulation.

But it looks to me like we're in the land of "you say, well I say," and we're just marking out lines in the sand here.

Something just occured to me this morning reading this thread. Nar & Gam are very goal-orientated modes were as Sim the process is the goal, so to speak. That's very zen and it reminds me of a protion of McCloud's Understanding Comics where he explains the difference between Asian (Japanese) comics and Western (American) comics is found in the differences in our cultures. He says that the US is a goal-orientated culture while Japan stresses "being there' as much as any goal. This strikes me as a Sim-like priority so there may be a cultural influence and explain why the older we get, the less "natural" Sim is.

Are there any Japanese about to comment on this?

Started a real shitstorm here, I did. Take a night off to play Magic until 2:00 am and there are 37 replies. Most threads never get this long.

The Ouija board is disparaged in the Nar essay, because it's a metaphor for players who want to address premise, but instead of thinking about the issues of the character as issues per se, they pile on more and more detail to the character description, in the hope that making the character more "real", with more detailed history, and physicality, and associations, premise will be magically addressed by simulating the character with more and more systems and rolls and checks and attributes...

And all it takes is to look and say "What are this guys issues? Why do they matter to him? What's he going to do about it? What does that say?" and boom, narrativism.

It doesn't sound to me like this is happening with the play you're talking about: you're happy to look back at the session and see where the GM has put theme to work within the world, but detailing the world, deepening the detail of the dream, takes precedence over the story or the game when push comes to shove.

coxcomb wrote: Is there indoctrination? Yes.
Does that mean that there aren't plenty of people who naturally have a Sim agenda? No.

Scourge108 wrote:

Storn wrote: Okay, my follow up question is this; I wouldn't want to be in Viet Nam firefight or be up to my waist in Zombie parts in some dungeon crawl... But I sure want to put my character there!

Very true. But I do want to understand what it would be like to be there, if only from a safe distance. But how can you ever really understand something you've never experienced? The best you can do is some sort of simulation of the events. Then you can relate to being in Vietnam or in a dungeon of zombies. Unless it's not a very good simulation. But this is in my mind the purpose of Sim. To really understand what it would be like to be a (fill in character type here). I think this is as natural an inclination as gamism and narrativism.

Greg Jensen

coxcomb wrote:

greyorm wrote: Hezues almighty, people, I said not to dissect the metaphor because it was grossly simplistic...and what happens? We're discussing grandpa and whether he's a good storyteller...

So, let me restate it without all the metaphor: most stories told to us have an ultimate point; experiencing that point is the reason for listening to the story (funny, sad, terrifying, cautionary, uplifting, etc). This is the crude Narrativist equivalent.

Sorry that the metaphor was seen as the object of the point I was trying to make. Please let me make it without the metaphor:

Most stories that folks tell, or read about, or see on TV or at the Movies, engage the audience by setting up a situation, applying dramatic tension, building to a climax, and resolving the situation. What a good many stories don't do is address any premise.

Maybe I'm going batty, but my fractured understanding of Narrativism is that it must address premise, as described by Ron in the essay. A story can be funny, sad, terrifying, cautionary, uplifting, etc. without addressing any premise--without asking any big questions.

Rambling without a point is bad storytelling. That does not equal Simulationism.

The point being is that we humans are intrinsically hard wired to understand the nature and format of a story. We can identify good stories without even trying. We may not be able to articulate what we like about them without exposure to the jargon of lit theory, but a lack of lit theory classes doesn't prevent people from enjoying stories.

Stories don't JUST HAPPEN. The events in stories do not occur "simply because". They occur because they were driven in a very specific way to a very specific reason for a very specific end.

Just a small thing: the "question" in a premise doesn't have to be "big", and I'd still go with the idea that any story worthy of the name has at least one firing away in there.

If anyone can give me an example of one of these hot to trot stories without a premise, I'll do my damndest to shoot you down and show you what the premise is.

Coxcomb, you say that these films "engage the audience by setting up a situation..." I'll stick my neck out and say they're establishing the premise at that point. Giving the audience a reason to give a damn about what happens next.

And before we get further into the "story" tarbaby... an arbitrary string of events isn't a story, although a story is an account of a string of events. Even making those events exciting doesn't make it a story. Looking back at a series of exciting events and making a story out of them retrospectively isn't Nar play, because Nar play is all about feeding the premise-adress beast in play.

In sim play, address of premise, creation of a new story isn't prioritized. In the hunt the serial killer example, all that can be done exploring setting, character, theme, situation, etc. Nothing Ralph said implies that this exploration can't have a dramatic drive, direction or destination: in fact, that pretty much describes exploration of situation (this is happening, what happens next).

The GM can set up "premise rich" situations, sure, but it's the player's choice whether they address the available premise, or don't. Seeing it as the GM's job to "make it Nar" is a bit hard on the GM.

RDU Neil wrote:
Tension can be built and released without premise...

... can't it?

RDU Neil wrote:
Drama can happen whether I care "why" I have may character do certain things.

pete_darby wrote: Just a small thing: the "question" in a premise doesn't have to be "big", and I'd still go with the idea that any story worthy of the name has at least one firing away in there.

A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions. Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about how to act, behave, or believe.

Ok... I'm going to get flamed for this. But I really think this is crucial.

All this "Sim with heavy illusionist technique" or "Nar with a heay emersive technique" and all that anal parsing might just be the result of a major flaw in GNS.

It isn't GNS... it is simply GN... with N coming in two very distinct camps... conscious/directed premise... and unconscious/undirected premise.

Yes, I know I'm taking a wild stab at the heart of something very dear to folks here... but this really begins to make sense to me, this way.

Hello,

And furthermore, the "GN" only model was actually my first choice following my decision that Exploration is the foundational act of role-playing. Only massive outcries and multiple examples of play which overtly rejected both G and N led me to include Simulationism as a Creative Agenda at all. You can all thank Mike Holmes in particular for that.

Both the section Controversy: is that third box really there? in "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory" and the whole essay "Simulationism: the Right to Dream" were written with this issue in mind.

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote:

Hardly. Do a search on Beeg Horseshoe. You aren't the first person to suggest something similiar to this.

First, I am only an advocate of Beeg Horseshoe as a visual model of what's going on. That is, that in describing gamism and narrativism as linked to simulationism inextricably by the horseshoe shape itself (but notably not to each other), it says that you can't have one without the other. You can have gamism without narrativism (the "prongs" of the horseshoe don't touch), but you can't have gamism or narrativism without first coming from the base of the horseshoe, which is exploration.

Where I differ with Beeg Horseshoe is that I don't see failure to reach the prongs as a failure, or retreat from the "fun" part of play: that's what Jared, and other supporters claimed. Simulationism, should it exist in the model would be staying nearer to the base of the model if/when opportunities come around to go out on a prong. But it's my supposition, essentially, that this is because, for some players, if you go out on those prongs in certain situations, the horseshoe breaks, the gamism or narrativism no longer is connected to exploration, and the game ceases to be an RPG for that individual. It loses that essential exploration quality that RPGs have for that player.

So, staying near the base to an extent, is something we all do when playing RPGs unavoidably. The only question is the level to which we feel that we can come out to the prongs without the horseshoe breaking. That's the "sim" part of every agenda. And it's a positive thing, because I think all players are looking for either narrativism and/or gamism (or play "like" these, if you consider these to be "beyond the base level of support), and can only get them in the context of the appropriate level of support. That is, even if you want to move to something beyond exploring, you can't do it without maintaining that appropriate level of support first. Which means, occasionally not going out on that limb at all when the moment isn't right.

Doing this in most cases is what I think gets labeled simulationism. That is, satisfied with the product of exploration, why threaten to break the exploratory feel at that particular point. There will be other points at which congruence will allow for both urges to be satisfied, so there's no reason to have to go out on that prong at that particular moment.

The "gamist" or "narrativist" can still see this as a conflict, yes, because they expect that people will travel down that prong at the slightest opportunity. But even these sorts will not often do so when it drops the exploratory feel. Those who would, I'd label "hardcore" in that they really don't want the full RPG experience, they simply want a more expansive framework in which to Step on Up, or create Story Now.

Does that help?

Neil, it's all in how it plays, what people are focussing on.

Take the zombie game as concrete: are folk concentrating on playing to address the issue "What can a person do when faced with insurmountable opposition?" or something along those lines, or are they concentrating on "what would someone like this really do in this situation?" They sound very similar, but are very different questions. The first prizes the creation of a meaningful story, the second prizes the creation of a "deep", authentic shared imaginary space. Each can support the other in hybrid play, but they're aiming at different ends.

That definition of premise you quoted doesn't mean "the characters have a reason for doing what they do", it means "the players are invested in the address of these issues through these characters"

I'll trot out my personal definition of an Egri style premise here:

A premise is a question that can only be properly formed in general terms, but only adequately addressed in specific terms.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

And furthermore, the "GN" only model was actually my first choice following my decision that Exploration is the foundational act of role-playing. Only massive outcries and multiple examples of play which overtly rejected both G and N led me to include Simulationism as a Creative Agenda at all. You can all thank Mike Holmes in particular for that.

Both the section Controversy: is that third box really there? in "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory" and the whole essay "Simulationism: the Right to Dream" were written with this issue in mind.

Best,
Ron

pete_darby wrote: Neil, it's all in how it plays, what people are focussing on.

Take the zombie game as concrete: are folk concentrating on playing to address the issue "What can a person do when faced with insurmountable opposition?" or something along those lines, or are they concentrating on "what would someone like this really do in this situation?" They sound very similar, but are very different questions. The first prizes the creation of a meaningful story, the second prizes the creation of a "deep", authentic shared imaginary space. Each can support the other in hybrid play, but they're aiming at different ends.

Oh... and we can end this thread now, unless anyone objects. I think I have my initial questions answered.

Just a nod to Claire~beingfrank...

I'm a Girl Guide leader in my spare time, and we use a little bit of roleplaying as an instruction tool with girls who can range from 6-18 in age. In trying to teach them teamwork and such we often ask them to roleplay out situations. Most of this is very Nar is design. "Make up a skit about what makes a good team leader. Make up a skit about why it's important to look after the environment. Make up a skit where your best friend announces she hates you." That seems pretty Nar to me and my limited understanding of GNS. And yet what the girls almost invariably produce is Sim. They get into what they're doing and just noodle about rather than dealing with drama or anything like that. These are not roleplayers. They haven't been exposed to any roleplaying at all. They're probably as good a sample I can think of of people unbiased by the culture of roleplaying (as in 'learning Sim') and yet that's what I've observed. It's just one set of data points. But it does make me reconsider the logic that Nar is more natural.

All closed now.

Best,
Ron