Topic: Sim story
Started by: RDU Neil
Started on: 4/5/2004
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 4/5/2004 at 1:38am, RDU Neil wrote:
Sim story
Setting aside the "Does Sim exist as a CA" conversation for the moment.
Question.
Does "Sim story" exist?
By this I mean... I have seen and played examples of "Sim setting" and "Sim character" and "Sim action"... exploration for explorations sake, focusing on setting or character or action.
So... can you have "Sim story"?
By this, I mean, a prioritized focus on simulating the dramatic elements of a story (not just events.) Simulating scenes and setting and character, but with a focus on them occurring in the structure of conflict > rising action > penultimate chapter > climax > denoument. (I'd use narrative structure, but that would confuse the term narrative on these boards.)
A simple of example of this would be:
Player A is playing Obnoxious Lad. Obnoxious Lad is a fully developed, fleshed out charcter that is wholly consistent with the imaginary world. Obnoxious Lad is very obnoxious. Always making jokes and comments inappropriately, showing little tact or self awareness, and generally making an ass of himself.
Player A... if he is in Sim character mode, will be obnoxious all the time... just like O. Lad himself would be. He would simply play O. Lad to the hilt, focusing only on the needs and wants of O. Lad's charater concept... even if that character began to detract from over all game enjoyment... if the character was inappropriate for the focus of the current plot, etc.
Player A... if he is in Sim story mode, can still play Obnoxious Lad. But now Player A's focus is not on, "I do it because O. Lad would do it..." but more like "Is O. Lad's obnoxious contribution to the scene helping or hindering the story... the dramatic arc?"
In this second, the player is noticing that "A ribald joke at the mayor's dinner is very funny... it works as a tension breaking moment, and fleshes out the scene..." but the player also restrains himself from constant interrupting with banalities, though he could easily justify it as "that's what O. Lad would do!" Instead, he finds ways, that when the focus is on other events or plot developments, to describe tiny background scenes where O. Lad is first being walked away from, then a drink poured on his head, then slapped, and finally being tossed out the front door by two bouncers, while his friends shake their head. Thus, O. Lad is played honestly, but in a way that creates appropriate comic relief as the focus, rather than "that's what O. Lad would do." The player avoids putting the character before the story.
To me... this works. In fact, I really think this describes my play, and the play of others I know... but because we think we are focused on the "story" we first look at Nar as our style, but really don't match that form of play as described here. Detail after detail of our play seems to say "SIMULATION" very loudly, but darn it if we aren't very concerned that the drama and flow of the scenes... the appropriateness of character action, not just consistency, but appropriate to the plot... is of utmost priority.
It's confusing, and has confused me... until I thought of this "Sim story" concept.
Another example could be...
Early scene in the game, the hero confronts the main badguy. Hero tries to shoot bad guy, who killed his wife, stole his bible and raped his dog. The hero is unlikely to succeed at this stage, he has no skill in guns and never been a violent man before... but dice are involved in this RPG game, and with such luck the dice roll a near critical. Not only did the player hit, but he has a choice. He has a Fate point. He can play the Fate point to make the near critical a true crit. Blow the bad guy away right off the bat. The player has a choice to do this, or not...
Gamist... likely to use the tool involved to win, no matter when or where it occurs, it's just about using the rules to succeed at what you try to do. Drama be damned.
Nar... could choose either way, but would be focused on "No, I don't want to spend it, because I want my character to explore the path of vengeance on the human soul, and that would be ruined by killing the bad guy right off the bat." Or, just as plausible, the Nar could say, "I spend the Fate chit. I kill my nemesis, because I want to explore the results of vengeance... the emptiness of having nothing to strive for after even vengeance is gone. What is left to live for?"
Sim, though... Sim is also likely to have some choices. Sim is still about "let's see what happens" as the focus... exploration for exploration's sake, but Sim character would say, "Ok... the character wants this guy dead... any advantage must be taken to achieve this character's reason for being," and spend the chit... boom, the bad guy is dead in scene two with zero drama.
Sim story though... this one says "It's inappropriate to the dramatic flow of a story, for the villain to die in scene two... I can just not spend the Fate chit... hit the villain but not kill him... or I could spend the Fate chit, hit the villain but not kill him, but it leaves a disfiguring scar which might be the only way I can track the bad guy down on my quest for vengeace." (The Sim story would also be grumpy and put out by the Gamist or the Sim character decision to whack the villain right off the bat. "That's not dramatic!" they'd say.)
This final area probably has the most resonance with the kind of play I've seen over the past years with my group... as I type, maybe "Sim drama"is a better term... but either way, does this sound like an appropriate interpretation?
On 4/5/2004 at 12:03pm, Landon Darkwood wrote:
RE: Sim story
So... can you have "Sim story"?
By this, I mean, a prioritized focus on simulating the dramatic elements of a story (not just events.) Simulating scenes and setting and character, but with a focus on them occurring in the structure of conflict > rising action > penultimate chapter > climax > denoument. (I'd use narrative structure, but that would confuse the term narrative on these boards.)
I'll wade into this one. Warning: relative newbie wielding GNS terms. Please keep all hands and arms inside the post until it comes to a complete stop. Other, more experienced voices are encouraged to save this post if my initial response proves itself faulty. :) This will be a long post.
My summary answer: yes and no, and even in the case of 'yes', I wouldn't call it what you're calling it. I'd call it Sim/Situation, probably, and leave it at that. Further explanation below.
Player A... if he is in Sim character mode, will be obnoxious all the time... just like O. Lad himself would be. He would simply play O. Lad to the hilt, focusing only on the needs and wants of O. Lad's charater concept... even if that character began to detract from over all game enjoyment... if the character was inappropriate for the focus of the current plot, etc.
The above scenario has more to do with Social Contract issues than GNS issues, to me. If Player A is being so obnoxious and disruptive with O. Lad that it detracts from the other players' enjoyment of the game and he doesn't care, Player A is breaking the Social Contract, spoken or unspoken. Doesn't even move into the GNS part of the model, IMO. Playing an inappropriate character might also be an SC issue, depending. If Player A forces his choice of character on everyone, and it detracts from their enjoyment of the game, you have SC problems going on. Still not related to GNS, IMO.
Oh, the acronyms...
Player A... if he is in Sim story mode, can still play Obnoxious Lad. But now Player A's focus is not on, "I do it because O. Lad would do it..." but more like "Is O. Lad's obnoxious contribution to the scene helping or hindering the story... the dramatic arc?"
Okay, here we could have a split, depending on Player A's ultimate motives. 'Adhering to the consistency of the standard three-act dramatic arc' could be interpreted as Sim/Situation or Sim/Color, too. The internal causality maintained in Sim doesn't necessarily have to orient itself around properties of Character. In such a game, Player A would think it was most cool when he managed to 'hit all the cues' for when he can be funny, under the assumption that those 'cues' were built right into the adventure's plot.
On the other hand, you could also be talking about Player A being discerning over when to use O. Lad's obnoxious quality and when not to because he's making some kind of Premise-oriented statement, however thin, about the proceedings at hand. Let's look at the example below.
In this second, the player is noticing that "A ribald joke at the mayor's dinner is very funny... it works as a tension breaking moment, and fleshes out the scene..." but the player also restrains himself from constant interrupting with banalities, though he could easily justify it as "that's what O. Lad would do!" Instead, he finds ways, that when the focus is on other events or plot developments, to describe tiny background scenes where O. Lad is first being walked away from, then a drink poured on his head, then slapped, and finally being tossed out the front door by two bouncers, while his friends shake their head. Thus, O. Lad is played honestly, but in a way that creates appropriate comic relief as the focus, rather than "that's what O. Lad would do." The player avoids putting the character before the story.
My instinctive read is just that the player is reinforcing the Exploratory environment by keeping his character consistent, without going so far as to break the Social Contract. I'm not sure this can be broken down into GNS terms given how small the play instance is, but if I had to go somewhere with it, I'd just call it Sim/Character with respect for Social Contract, assuming the player has no particular statement to make and there's no human conflict involved.
Okay, something that you're saying a lot so far: appropriateness. To me, acting primarily according to your game's 'appropriateness' is a Sim flag /assuming/ it is the primary motive for the action and the primary source of your enjoyment. It doesn't matter what that 'appropriateness' is - if it matters more than anything else, you're talking Sim. The Character's internal traits are to be roleplayed and not messed with under any circumstances unless they're changed by internal causes (Sim/Character). The plot has to have certain defined rising and falling action, with scene pacing going a certain way, and be damned if anything's going to interrupt that smoothness (Sim/Situation). If that's why you're there, it's Sim.
In plainer English: You could be RPing Shakespeare-quality stuff, but if your primary goal of play is to 'make all your games flow and resemble Shakespeare's plays in structure and content', you're Sim. In my experience, when Sim does that 'follow the situational rules of drama' stuff, it's with genre emulation.
Really, I think the big problem here is that you're trying to sort out GNS classification through a single second or two of decision-making, and as far as everything I've read is concerned, that doesn't work. You have to observe the primary social reinforcement of actions in a session of play or more. In other words, if Player A comes out of the session /primarily/ digging how well he helped fill the appropriate comic relief role in the game's environment, he's Sim. If he comes out of the session /primarily/ digging how he used his character to illustrate that acting like an idiot will always lead to ostracism from polite society, he's Nar. I say primarily because he may enjoy both to a certain extent. You have to look to repitition in those behavioral cues as your guide.
Another example could be...<snip some>... He has a Fate point. He can play the Fate point to make the near critical a true crit. Blow the bad guy away right off the bat. The player has a choice to do this, or not...
Okay, first: This is sort of problematic for me from a System perspective, because my experience with systems that allow the player to affect dice outcomes by spending some kind of currency is that they primarily support Nar play (or are not coherent, a la Vampire). Though that isn't a universal association to make, my read of the example is going to be colored by that experience.
Gamist... likely to use the tool involved to win, no matter when or where it occurs, it's just about using the rules to succeed at what you try to do. Drama be damned.
Nar... could choose either way, but would be focused on "No, I don't want to spend it, because I want my character to explore the path of vengeance on the human soul, and that would be ruined by killing the bad guy right off the bat." Or, just as plausible, the Nar could say, "I spend the Fate chit. I kill my nemesis, because I want to explore the results of vengeance... the emptiness of having nothing to strive for after even vengeance is gone. What is left to live for?"
Sim, though... Sim is also likely to have some choices. Sim is still about "let's see what happens" as the focus... exploration for exploration's sake, but Sim character would say, "Ok... the character wants this guy dead... any advantage must be taken to achieve this character's reason for being," and spend the chit... boom, the bad guy is dead in scene two with zero drama.
IMO, the Gamist would actually say, "What? I can just spend points when I really need to succeed at a roll? Where's the challenge in that?" and grumble because the Step isn't big enough for him. He spends the point to kill the bad guy and tries to get the group to switch to d20 for next time.
Okay, sure. The Nar player uses the Fate point or doesn't because he's making a statement on the in-game proceedings. Check.
Sim, to me, is about "dudes, no matter what happens, (insert internal facet of Exploratory environment here) remains consistent." So we take it back to the previous question: what is the 'appropriateness' that we're preserving here?
If it's the 'three-act Shakespearean drama', then Sim Player states: "Okay, it's only Scene 2, so nothing I do right now will let me kill the villain. I'm going to spend the Fate point and see what happens." The GM then replies, "Your bullet burns hideously across the villain's cheek, and he runs away screaming. The villain's goons come out of nowhere and block his escape." GM and player say, "Cool, this is so like a classic tragedy." The context in which the player can spend the Fate points and achieve stuff is bound by that other causality - in a coherent group, the GM and players would have that in their Social Contract and/or house rules already. In an incoherent group, this kind of stuff is what leads to bickering.
If the thing to keep consistent is the internal causation of random events (i.e. the way the dice results work), the player probably wouldn't even have Fate points to spend on dice rolls anyway. That'd also be in the SC and/or house rules.
This final area probably has the most resonance with the kind of play I've seen over the past years with my group... as I type, maybe "Sim drama"is a better term... but either way, does this sound like an appropriate interpretation?
I could call it Sim/Situation and/or Sim/Color. No new terms need be invented for it.
However, I would also seriously call into question whether or not those adherences to 'dramatic structure rules' are really what's primarily important in your group. Remember that consistent Dreaming has to be in any roleplaying. What purpose does that consistency serve? If this attention to dramatic structure is done because you think that classic, three-act stories are cool and you want to remind yourself of three-act dramas when you roleplay, then you may be able to claim Sim-dom.
On the other hand, if you do it because doing so adds a deeper emotional impact to the experience for you as players, because following that structure is a good way to ensure that emotionally arresting conflicts of human nature are brought to life and explored... well, you may be taking up a seat in Nar-dom, again without any fancy terms. Personally, I've got this vibe like you and your group may be doing this unconsciously, using your 'fitting everything into a dramatic flow' as your tool to achieve that as opposed to it being an end unto itself.
I'd need more data on the group to be sure, though.
I hope this provided at least some clarity, and I hope that I didn't just mess up my first big handling of the GNS texts in a forum post. :)
-Landon Darkwood
On 4/5/2004 at 8:28pm, RDU Neil wrote:
RE: Sim story
If you can interpret Sim situation or Sim color as you have stated... then fine, I have no need to create Sim drama.
I'm also looking at it from my personal POV, as the place where I most often get frustrated by my group. That sense when an event or player action occurs in a consistently causal way... but it just isn't cool. It was something that should happen eventually, but that wasn't the time and place, because it wasn't dramatic.
Now, sometimes, breaking out of the three act drama can still be cool and dramatic... it is a surprise that takes the game in a new direction... fine... but often it can be a let down. Tension builds, and is never released... or tension is never built because some causal, but undramatic event, resolves the issue without struggle... whatever. Often, when it does come up, is when players tend to role play the mundane trivialities of life... petty conversations, describing the wallpaper in their bedroom and their character's favorite color... without any sense that only the dramatic elements of a character are important. Only those things that drive the story (small s story) are important, so unless your favorite color is an important clue, or gives us hidden insight as to character motivation, shut up already.
It is detail for detail's sake, without any sense of drama of minimalism. I do agree we have themes to our stories as a group, but we don't make theme/premise our priority, so I can't call us Nar... that is why I think we are strongly Sim, but very different kinds of sim at times.
GNS is proving, for our group, VERY useful as an analysis of a game breakdown... examining two moments of behavior that conflicted and figuring out why and working past it... but it seems relatively worthless in predicting or establishing future play, or analyzing actual FUNCTIONAL play... because everyone has a different opinion on what means what in a theoretical way, and no two people would ever really agree.
Fine with me... I love the results I've gotten using my own bastardized understanding of GNS to resolve issues in my group... and I'm happy with that. Probably useless, and a waste of time, to try and analyze over all group CA or player CA... since they change on a dime.
On 4/5/2004 at 10:35pm, Landon Darkwood wrote:
RE: Sim story
I'm also looking at it from my personal POV, as the place where I most often get frustrated by my group. That sense when an event or player action occurs in a consistently causal way... but it just isn't cool. It was something that should happen eventually, but that wasn't the time and place, because it wasn't dramatic.
Well, now you're talking about differences in causality, too. In the above, their actions are internally causal in terms of in-game events, what's on the characters' sheets, etc. They are not, however, internally causal in terms of the three-act dramatic structure. Even within a single mode, conflicts can arise when players are prioritizing different facets of the same creative agenda. They're playing one kind of Sim and you're playing another. But, hold on a sec...
It is detail for detail's sake, without any sense of drama of minimalism. I do agree we have themes to our stories as a group, but we don't make theme/premise our priority, so I can't call us Nar... that is why I think we are strongly Sim, but very different kinds of sim at times.
You don't necessarily have to be conscious of your reinforcement of Premise in order to be prioritizing it in play. Nar can be played without strong universal agreement of what the Premise(s) is(are). Each player might be exploring their own, and that's okay.
I keep going back to the Nar thing because your group sounds a lot like the group that I was with when I first came to the Forge. I could have sworn we were Sim, just with a more conscious attitude of 'making things dramatically cool and moving for us' than other types of Sim. Kept wondering why, when I looked back on what was played, we kept getting these rich stories with lots of thematic meat that everybody liked to talk about and look back on later. Eventually, I got around to thinking I was a hybrid player, or some such.
Turns out we've been a straightforward Nar group the whole time - just because we never sat down with the intention of creating a story, didn't mean we weren't using every opportunity in play to explore 'the human drama' of the decisions we were making. It just meant that we were each doing it on our own, according to what 'tough questions' of our characters' natures were most interesting to us.
I think that may apply to your group, too. You seem to be interested in play being this emotionally fulfilling (you keep calling that 'cool') experience that is dramatic and powerful in all the classic ways, which is solidly a Nar motive. You get tripped up when other players pay attention to internal details of the setting, their characters, and the in-game events more than they pay attention to 'getting to the meat of the human conflicts'. In other words, addressing the Premise directly as personified by the adventure's conflicts.
So, I don't think you adhere so strongly to the three-act for no reason. I think it does something for you to do so, creates something for you in play that I would more closely associate with Nar priorities.
I could be reading that all wrong, of course. I only have shreds of detail about you and your group. :) Does this interpretation make sense to you, though?
GNS is proving, for our group, VERY useful as an analysis of a game breakdown... examining two moments of behavior that conflicted and figuring out why and working past it... but it seems relatively worthless in predicting or establishing future play, or analyzing actual FUNCTIONAL play... because everyone has a different opinion on what means what in a theoretical way, and no two people would ever really agree.
I partly disagree. As a GM, I've been able to use it to predict what players in my group will enjoy most in play and design scenarios accordingly. I've also been able to use it to establish a much stronger Social Contract for play, resulting in people enjoying Gamist stuff a lot because they know the score of what's expected in play up front. And sadly, it is my experience that even most functional play isn't really as functional as it could be.
I do agree, however, that the universality of the Creative Agenda lexicon isn't what it could be yet. In my group, we've had to learn how to interpret everyone else's GNS jargon in terms of our own. In the end, though, we've learned how to cross those bridges with each other, which probably wouldn't have happened if the theory wasn't there as a basis.
-Landon Darkwood
On 4/6/2004 at 4:26am, RDU Neil wrote:
RE: Sim story
I've also been able to use it to establish a much stronger Social Contract for play,
Oh, absolutely. We've recently been discussing and using in our games, a much more stated Social Contract. Essentially, that it is ok to break out of the game as a player and say "Hey, I'm not enjoying where we are going with this," and discuss it in a way that isn't judging the person, but is trying to see if something can change to give them what they want, if they can change to accommodate the group, or a bit of both.
GNS has been very helpful in those terms, which I'd suspect is the real focus of the paradigm.