Reading the recent threads about Simulationism and Narrativism, and also reading over my copies of Sorcerer and Sorcerer and Sword that I just got last week, it seems to me that there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. Simulationism and Narrativism aren't inherently opposed. Simulationists and Narrativists can often be opposed, but that's not the same thing as the two philosophies being opposed.

I'm someone who loves simulation -- but I love the mechanics in Sorcerer and Sorcerer and Sword. The thing that I think often gets missed is that the first question of simulation is "What are we simulating?" Simulationism is generally associated with world-based simulation (especially "realistic" worlds), but there's no reason why it must be applied in such a way.

To me, Ron's mechanics are a simulation -- but they're trying to simulate particular genres of stories, rather than trying to simulate worlds. A couple of cases in point:


• The discussion of weapon and armor types in Sword and Sorcerer, on pages 70-71. Effectiveness of weapons and armor is discussed with reference to the way they work in stories of the genre, rather than how they "really" work. To me, this is simulating the genre.
• Also in S&S, the section on how to interpret failed rolls on pages 67-68. Again, this is simulating the genre -- Sword & Sorcery heroes are competent, so failure is not due to incompetence on their part.
• In one of the two books (forget which), there's a bit about allowing players to establish cuts to new scenes, without regard to how the character(s) get there from here. To me, this is simulating a standard fictional device: we know the characters got there somehow, but how isn't important to the story -- and story-flow is what's being simulated.
• To give an example from another game, Theatrix's primary descriptors simulates a literary/dramatic staple: the character who is "the best" in his/her area.
• Also from Theatrix (though the same idea is mentioned in Ron's games) are improvisations. The allow a player to state things about their character's surroundings and have them be true -- e.g., "I grab the fire extinguisher from the wall and wallop the thug with it", when it hasn't previously been established that there is (or isn't!) a fire extinguisher present. This also simulates dramatic conventions.


I don't know -- to me all of this seems obvious, but I rarely see anyone else mention it. Is the "Simulationism" axis of GNS supposed to apply only to world-based or "realistic" simulation? And if it is, what sort of terminology would you use to distinguish between narrativisist games that use rules to enforce/encourage narrative structures, as opposed to those that simply tell the GM to remember that story should come first?

--Travis

Keep in mind that Sorcerer, while it will contain some Simulationist elements to it, focuses on the narrative. It is meant to explore a group of themes and the way in which people react to demonic power. You could say that it's merely a simulation of what these effects would have on a person, but the game is meant to be used as a tool to create a story. Simulationism in it's purist form, I think only concerns itself with the actual exploration - story goals come second.

You said that the game simulates fictional devices. Here's where your terms are a bit mixed up. Simulationism doesn't mean that the game simulates something. Any game does that to a certain extent - even gamist ones. Instead it implies a style of play and a general set of goals. Sorcerer uses fictional devices because it wants to help you tell a story, but it's not trying to simulate a story. A simulationist game wants to help you exlpore a specific setting/character/event from the point of view that you are actually there. A narrativist game wants to use the setting/character/event to say something meaninful through fiction.

fleetingGlow wrote:
You could say that it's merely a simulation of what these effects would have on a person, but the game is meant to be used as a tool to create a story. Simulationism in it's purist form, I think only concerns itself with the actual exploration - story goals come second.

fleetingGlow wrote:
You said that the game simulates fictional devices. Here's where your terms are a bit mixed up. Simulationism doesn't mean that the game simulates something. Any game does that to a certain extent - even gamist ones. Instead it implies a style of play and a general set of goals. Sorcerer uses fictional devices because it wants to help you tell a story, but it's not trying to simulate a story. A simulationist game wants to help you exlpore a specific setting/character/event from the point of view that you are actually there. A narrativist game wants to use the setting/character/event to say something meaninful through fiction.

efindel wrote:
To me, "Simulationism" just seems like a poor name if it's meant to only cover world-based simulations (the "you are there" sort).

fleetingGlow wrote:
If you've read Ron's article, "System Does Matter" and his new one on GNS then you'll notice a change in his definitions - or maybe a clarification. A guy who goes by the name Scarlet Jester suggested an alternate model where the Simulationist was replaced with the Explorationist.

fleetingGlow wrote:
Now you say that Simulationism is only for world based simulations.

fleetingGlow wrote:
Hmmm... I think we're on the same page, but just to be pedantic I'll write some more. Make sure you don't confuse world based with setting. Simulating a character is perfectly acceptable as is simulating an event. Simulationism plays up the exploration aspect of role-playing. All you have to do is be. Explore the world you and your fellow players create and you're happy.

fleetingGlow wrote:
Actually I just thought of something. How can you simulate a story? You are either telling a story or you're not. You don't simulate one. You might be able to simulate a particular author's fictional world, but fiction is just a story you tell. How do you simulate that?

Hi Travis, and welcome to the Forge.

I'll start with saying that you are perfectly correct to state that Simulationism is not just about setting (and I think Tim mis-read you on that one).

I'd like to address this point of yours: "if what you're simulating is a story, then story goals must come first. Otherwise, you've declared something else to be more important."

I'm not sure if you've read my big essay ("GNS and related matters") in the Articles section of the site, but I spent a lot of time on this very issue. It all comes down to what is really meant by "GNS" in the first place - which is, goals of play.

Narrativist play relies on a person taking an author-type attitude toward the events and play as a whole, in that a judgmental theme is supposed to be generated. Playing a character is a means to do this, and attention to things like setting, or conventions of a certain sort of story, is there to reinforce the same goal.

Simulationist play relies on a person imagining being in a story, or setting, or situation, as the first priority. In other words, by definition, Simulationist play "declares something besides story creation" to be the the goal. The story, if present at all, is superimposed either before or after play by one participant. It is not a goal of play.

[Side note: either of these types of play may show a wide variety of the following things: degree of character identification, degree of formal rules-use, and degree of out-of-character discussion.]

It's hard to distinguish in words between certain types of Narrativist play and certain types of Simulationist play, without using the specialized jargon of the essay, but the difference in actual play is profound. There is really no mistaking it after you've played both ways, or kept an eye out for the issue among other players.

For example, Feng Shui, Call of Cthulhu, and Unknown Armies all offer good examples of Simulationist play with a lot of player input, but that input is limited in type - players are neither encouraged nor empowered to generate plot events, nor to influence the importance of a given scene, nor to modulate how "good" or "bad" a given outcome is. The player is able to interject style or color ("Oh jeepers!" "Take that you bastards!" "I kick the pool ball off the one guy's rifle barrel and into the other guy's temple!") but not to create plot outcomes and consequences.

Final note: I do not follow the Scarlet Jester's use of Exploration, in substituting it for Simulationism. Instead, I use Exploration as a baseline of all role-playing, and Simulationism is one set of goals of play from there (as are the other two modes).

I'll be curious to see what you think of the GNS essay.

Best,
Ron

>I don't know -- to me all of this seems obvious, but I rarely see
>anyone else mention it.

There were extensive threads on this . . . somewhere. Over on Gaming Outpost? Feng Shui seems to be the usual cannonical example of "simulation of genre".

>Is the "Simulationism" axis of GNS supposed to apply only
>to world-based or "realistic" simulation?

Nope, not as I understand it. Ah, to hell with the weasel-words - no frikkin' WAY is "realistic" the be-all and end-all of Simulationism. Ron makes that very clear in his essay.

>And if it is, what sort of terminology would you use to distinguish between
>narrativisist games that use rules to enforce/encourage narrative structures,
>as opposed to those that simply tell the GM to remember that story should come first?

I'm going to quote Ron's GNS essay here, 'cause I think he's tried to address this issue there (and if it doesn't get the job done, perhaps revisions are called for):

"Controversy: But I'm story-oriented!"

A great deal of intellectual suffering has occurred due to the linked claims that role-playing either is or is not story-oriented, and that one falls on one side or the other of this dichotomy. I consider this terminology and its implication to be wholly false.

"Story" may simply mean "series of caused events," in which case the issue is trivial. However, most of the time, the term is more specific. More specific meanings of "story" may be involved in role-playing in a variety of ways. Narrativism is a no-brainer in this regard, as it is defined by the metagame attention to creating a story of critical merit (i.e. "good"). But story-creation and its elements are certainly possible, although not prioritized, in both of the other modes. Most generally, there are (1) forms of Simulationist play with a strong Situation focus, which provide a story for the participants to imagine being in; and (2) forms of Gamist play in which dramatic outcomes are the stakes of competition, which produces story as a side-effect of that competition."

I think what you're talking about is "Simulationist play with a strong Situation focus". The priority is on staying true to the Situation being Simulated - and if that Situation is a particular "genre" (see the GNS essay for Ron's issues with this word, but I think it works in this context), you have a decent chance to produce a story that at least "tastes" like the genre simulated. But suppose the Story these particular players are interested in in a given moment would be best served by an occurance that's NOT suited to the genre? If you tend to stay within the situation being simulated in most cases, you're showing a Sim-focus. If you (or the game system, or the GM, or whatever factors we're evaluating here) care more about a meaningful Story that fits the PCs involved, you're showing Nar-focus.

This can be a fuzzy area, as staying true to a particular mood and feel can be very supportive of creating a good Story. The question is, is it REALLY just a means to an end (the good Story), or is it prioritized as goal in it's own right?

That's my take,

Gordon
Edited to fix "?"'s that showed up in the cut-and-paste from Ron's GNS essay, and to say . . . wow, others managed to make most of my points while I wrote this. Sorry for the redundancy . . .

I thought I'd jump in here as I've thought about this many times myself. The issue here is something I call, 'genre simulationism.' And I agree that the distinction between Genre Simulationism (or explorative emphasis on a combination of Character and Situation) and Narrativism is VERY subtle and often hard to spot. I was only recently able to put it concretely recently.

You have to remember that there is a difference between Story Result as a priority and Story Creation as a priority. I would say that MOST, not all, Call of Cthulhu and Vampire players hold Story Result to be their priority. However, a great deal do not hold Story Creation as their priority. Really, the GM is creating the story and the players are 'living' the story. The players are in essence an element of the execution of the story but they are not creating the story.

So how does this relate to mechanics. I maintain that it is possible for a mechanic to strongly fascilitate, 'genre simulationism' and still be very Anti-Narrativism. The reason being is that it is very easy for a mechanic to fascilitate Story Result and hinder Story Creation. How? Well, it mainly has to do with the direction of ego assertion from the mechanic.

Let us compare Sanity in Call of Cthulhu to Humanity in Sorcerer. Both can be gained or lossed on various die rolls and both force your PC to become an NPC at 0. However, the Sanity rules in Call of Cthulhu perfectly simulate the genre and fascilitate Story Result, however, they completely hinder Story Creation. Here's why.

In Call of Cthulhu it is actions of the GM that bring about Sanity loss rolls. That is, the GM throws down a monster and my character loses Sanity. The GM throws down a vital clue in the form of an ancient tome and I lose Sanity when I read it. Eventually, my character will go insane in a very Lovecraftian way and I'll have a fun Story Result to share with my friends. However, *I* had no hand in the creation of that story. In Call of Cthulhu I can't control how and when and why my character goes insane. I can't even push him in that direction. When my character goes insane is totally in the hands of the mechanics and the GM. There's even the risk that my character will go insane in a way that is totally unappropriate Thematically for my character.

Now, take a look at Sorcerer. In Sorcerer the GM can not FORCE a Humanity roll. The GM can push situations that FORCE the player into making Humanity relevant decisions but he can not actually force a Humanity loss or even gain roll on the player. The player KNOWS that if he summons a demon he'll take a Humanity hit. The player can recognize when the GM will call for a Humanity loss roll if a certain action is taken. All the Story Creation power is in the hands of the player. *I* decide when my character loses it and sends himself into damnation. *I* decide if why I'm summoning a demon is worth my soul.

I hope this makes the distinction a little clearer.

Jesse

Hey Jesse,

Didn't I read an essay by you, a couple of months ago, about explaining Narrativism? Yes I did. Did I ever see the revised version? No I didn't.

Gee, it would be swell if that essay were posted here at the Forge. Gee, it was really good, too.

Gasp! Did I just say all that in front of everybody? Did I just guilt-trip Jesse into finishing it and sending it to Clinton to be posted at the Forge? Oh, I am so sorry. Oh, wow.

Jumps up, makes gleeful ork-face, and runs off,
Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
I'll start with saying that you are perfectly correct to state that Simulationism is not just about setting (and I think Tim mis-read you on that one).

Ron Edwards wrote:
Final note: I do not follow the Scarlet Jester's use of Exploration, in substituting it for Simulationism. Instead, I use Exploration as a baseline of all role-playing, and Simulationism is one set of goals of play from there (as are the other two modes).

jburneko wrote:
Now, take a look at Sorcerer. In Sorcerer the GM can not FORCE a Humanity roll. The GM can push situations that FORCE the player into making Humanity relevant decisions but he can not actually force a Humanity loss or even gain roll on the player. The player KNOWS that if he summons a demon he'll take a Humanity hit. The player can recognize when the GM will call for a Humanity loss roll if a certain action is taken. All the Story Creation power is in the hands of the player. *I* decide when my character loses it and sends himself into damnation. *I* decide if why I'm summoning a demon is worth my soul.

jburneko wrote:
In Call of Cthulhu it is actions of the GM that bring about Sanity loss rolls. That is, the GM throws down a monster and my character loses Sanity. The GM throws down a vital clue in the form of an ancient tome and I lose Sanity when I read it. Eventually, my character will go insane in a very Lovecraftian way and I'll have a fun Story Result to share with my friends. However, *I* had no hand in the creation of that story. In Call of Cthulhu I can't control how and when and why my character goes insane. I can't even push him in that direction. When my character goes insane is totally in the hands of the mechanics and the GM. There's even the risk that my character will go insane in a way that is totally unappropriate Thematically for my character.

Marco wrote:
'I can't control how and when and why my character goes insane?' Isn't that what players do? As a player you can manipulate when and where you make that die roll (if you make it at all).

Marco wrote:
The statement that "... *I* had no hand in the creation of that story ..." implies that:

a) the player will take no action that GM hasn't forseen --or--
b) the GM will let no unforseen action have any result.

fleetingGlow wrote:
Not really. In CofC you have to make a sanity check when you see the great googly monster from beyond. You, the player, don't decide when the great googly monster from beyond attacks - the GM does. So, in effect you don't have complete control over your character's sanity loss. It depends on the events the GM throws at you.

Eventually, my character will go insane in a very Lovecraftian way and I'll have a fun Story Result to share with my friends. However, *I* had no hand in the creation of that story.

Ron Edwards wrote:

Didn't I read an essay by you, a couple of months ago, about explaining Narrativism? Yes I did. Did I ever see the revised version? No I didn't.

Marco wrote:
In a Narrativist game the GM can frame to your first demon summoning if he wants to. If that's a breach of social contract, so is the CoC monster ambush if the players are the type that want a fair-chance.

Marco wrote:
If you wish a context example, the monster is in the house with its prisoner. My near-insane, desparate character burns the house down rather than face the monster. I've answered the Narrativst-sounding question: Are your friends worth your sanity? No. It's a pure sim game--and I haven't made the SAN roll. I've played in games like that--good games.

Yes, you are correct, but you did not escape the situation through any Nar mechanic. You acted proactively within the confines of the exploration. You did not break any simulation limitations - you controlled your character's destiny. Again, in a Sim game you have control of your character's actions, but not necesarlly over the story the GM is telling.

Alright, I think I finally know how to address Marco's complaints. I think you're mistaking raw mechanic for mechanic USAGE. I play Deadlands. Deadlands has very little to offer in terms of Narrativist mechanics. However, I play a fairly Narrativist game using them by mainly treating the rolls like Fortune-In-The-Middle.

What I'm saying is that take a look at the Sanity mechanics and the Humanity mechanics and ask yourself whom does the mechanic empower in terms of 'genre conventions'?

The Sanity system empowers the GM to enforce Lovecraftian genre conventions. The GM can place a vital and necessary clue in an insanity causing tome. The GM can force a direct confrontation with a sanity costing monster. The GM can place scenes and events that the players have no fore warning of that will cause Sanity loss. Most of Chaosium's pregenerated adventures are constructed in this manner. There is no way for the players to:

1) Introduce elements that cause Sanity gain/loss
2) Pick what things cause Sanity loss and what things don't.
3) Avoid 'surprise' Sanity costing scenes, such as coming across a room where a blood bath just took place.

EXCEPT by social contract which is how my Deadlands game is run. Sure, you can USE the system to introduce Narrativist themes but the system all by itself in its raw form does not empower players as co-authors. The Call of Cthulhu Sanity system empowers the GM as genre simulator/enforcer.

On the other hand, the Humanity mechanics in Sorcerer empower the player to take ADVANTAGE of genre conventions but it does not enforce or MAKE them do so. The GM/rules may be the arbitrator of what actions require a Humanity gain/loss roll BUT no such rolls can be called for without a corresponding deliberate action by the player. Note: Entering a room that contains a blood bath does NOT count as a deliberate player action because there was no way for the player to judge the Thematic consequences of his actions.

I hope this is a little clearer.

Jesse

Stupid reply eating forums. [grumble grumble]

Marco wrote:
I'm saying that in Sim-play one can make major story decisions and one has control over things like SAN checks (crafty play).

Marco wrote:
(I enjoy playing in themed games but like the odd gamist-combat scene or being the recipient of Sim-story-telling)

Marco wrote:
This isn't to pick on Jesse, he's a smart guy and I like reading his posts--but the offical Forge language surrounding 'creation of a story' and its attendant 'Impossible Thing To Believe' seem pretty biased to me.

jburneko wrote:
pregenerated adventures are constructed in this manner. There is no way for the players to:

1) Introduce elements that cause Sanity gain/loss

2) Pick what things cause Sanity loss and what things don't.

3) Avoid 'surprise' Sanity costing scenes, such as coming across a room where a blood bath just took place.

EXCEPT by social contract which is how my Deadlands game is run. Sure,

Call of Cthulhu Sanity system empowers the GM as genre simulator/enforcer.

I haven't the time for a longer reply right now but--

Forgive me if I misinterpret you Marco, but when I say theme I mean to use the literary theme sense of the word. I do not mean genre or that the game world has a film-noir feel to it for example.

Hey,

Looking over this thread, I think that Marco has made some salient points, and that discussions of the Impossible Thing (or Not-As-Impossible-As-Ron-Says Thing, if you prefer) should take those points into consideration.

Specifically, let's stop making "one thing" out of Narrativism, as soon as we get operational. I've said over and over, for Gamism and Simulationism, that each mode contains a lot of operational diversity. The same goes for Narrativism. Remember that the main flavor of this mode is Vanilla.

What I think causes a lot of trouble is that people are enthused about (say) overt Director-stance mechanics, and especially enthused about Narrativist applications of them, and the mechanic or stance gets confused with the goal.

What also causes a lot of trouble is that people are over-reading my Impossible Thing. They think that I am saying, "No story in Simulationist play is possible," or other absurd things.

So this post is a call for peace, and for people to review just what I'm claiming before pulling out the cannons.

As for my position? I remain unconvinced that the Impossible Thing is possible, and as I said before, the recent discussions look just like the old ones on GO, in which people claimed that "the GM controls the story" but "the players have free will" and so on.

Saying "I remain unconvinced" does not mean that I'm intractably fixed. I'll be happy to discuss the issue, perhaps on a new thread if someone wants to start one. At this point, though, it looks as if clarification rather than debate should be the priority.

Best,
Ron

Marco wrote:
That's the only way that I'm using the word theme here--in the literary sense. When I say I enjoy playing in themed games I mean that I want the games to have a resonant, emotionally important point, to develop that point in a literary manner, and to conclude with a satisfying climax (and maybe denoumount).

I'm also saying that as a priority that doesn't hit 100% for me, so there're are other requirements as well.

Hey Tim,

You're dead on correct, in your last/revised statement. The essay is about mechanics that facilitate goals, rather than establishing or defining those goals.

Best,
Ron

I'm super-pressed for time--but I think I absolutely agree!

I would say that Creation of Story is a spectrum rather than a boolean. In a heavy-narrativist game the players are creating a lot more story than the average sim-game--but the sim-players are still making some--and can be dramatic. Nar techniques just place the focus on the heavy-player-creation end of the scale.

-Marco

Ron Edwards wrote:
You're dead on correct, in your last/revised statement. The essay is about mechanics that facilitate goals, rather than establishing or defining those goals.

Excellent essay, Jesse. Really opened my eyes to some things about Narrativist play I had missed.

Jesse sent me a private message where he wanted me to elaborate on my thoughts on the essay. Well, I thought I might as well post them out here. I hope you don't mind, Jesse.

On to the subject ...

Well, for one, it's often mentioned that narrativist games have a Premise but it's rarely expounded on. Your essay clarified that bit somewhat, showing me how having a Premise really affects the thinking around "the table" and how the Premise is more than something that might arise during play.

Also, the place of a character in a Narrativist game seems somewhat different from Sim-play. Your essay was quite clear on that. In Narrativist play characters are vessels through which the player experiences emotions, the player is the more important of the two, while (character driven) Sim-players hold the character and immersion to it as the most important things, Other issues relating to player protagonism, the Premise and the lack of Sim-type mystery were interesting as well.

More on that "lack of mystery" : as players watch the game proceed in Audience Stance. I really didn't appreciate the difference that makes before. In my Sim-play, there's a lot the characters (and players) do behind each others backs (what we call playing "in the office"). I've even considered tackling this bit and forcing players out onto the open, but have so far not done so in all cases (it really goes against some Sim-play tenets).

The GM section was less brilliant (not saying it isn't good, but it didn't open my eyes in the same fashion as the player section). A lot of the things discussed are also good for Sim-play that aims for minimum railroading, but then my thinking in that respect leads to thoughts that say "a story of some kind can be created even in Sim-play".

On the other side of the spectrum, there's two things you mention that I slightly object to. There is truth to them, but the essay holds them to be true differences between Sim-play and Narrativist play, which I don't agree with. For me, they're arguments which don't hold quite enough water for that.

1) "Simulationists don’t like knowing things that their character doesn’t."

All Simulationists consider acting on OOC (out of character) information as "evil". Some Simulationists consider even knowing any unnecessary OOC knowledge as a bad thing (the hardcore Simmers), others may not. There are degrees to this, however, but I don't see it as a matter of just simple stating it like that.

2) Author Stance and Director Stance are Narrativist tools.

This one I agree the least with, though I'm not sure that the essay really states these as Narrativist-only things, but the implication seems to be there . Examples of game mechanics using these stances in Sim-play have already been discussed in a few threads previously so I won't go into much detail here.

The trick is in what type of information is used in these game mechanics. If the information driving their use is IC (in character) to the player's relevant character, then the mechanic is perfectly okay for Sim-play. If pure OOC intentions drive them, only a Narrativist (or Gamist) could use them.

Hopefully I'll get my mechanic ideas developed far enough to be presentable here as well.

- Joachim -

I think that there are quite a few exceptions to Jesse's OOC rule for Smulationists. The most obvious one I can think of is that if there are two or more equaly valid decisions from a Simulationist view, then using OOC knowledge to choose one for player reasons is completely acceptable.

For instance, a character comes up to an opponent that he knows is more than his match. It's completely reasonable that the character could challenge himself and attack, and also reasonable that he might retreat to avoid the danger. Given that both are acceptable to the Simulationist, he can probably make the decision using OOC knowledge. For example, this is only a game, nobody will really get hurt; why not attack? Or some such player reasoning.

Really, using OOC knowledge is only objectionable to many Simulationists if it is used in a fashion that breaks the verisimilitude of the scene. Only the real Immersionists hate knowing what their charcter does not.

Mike

Guys!

First of all I specifically asked that any comments on my essay be sent to me privately until an 'official' revised version had been released. Until then I will only say this in response.

First of all one of my revisionary goals is to remove most of the Forge jargon from it. It is meant to be an essay for a general uninformed audience. As such when I refer to Simulationists, I'm not refering to the experiemental simulationists out there or among us. I'm talking strictly about the set of gamers who, when you suggest that perhaps they act on out of character knowledge or make a decision based on something other than, 'what their character WOULD do', look at you funny and think you've just commited a blasphemous sin against the god of role-playing.

Jesse

Hey,

This is exactly why I don't post drafts any more. My comments to Jesse regarding his essay, months ago, include amending precisely the same phrases that Daredevil and Mike are objecting to.

No, in-character or out-of-character "experience" are not dichotomized between Simulationism and Narrativist play. No, Author and Director stances are not the exclusive domains of Narrativist play.

I respectfully request a careful reading of my essay regarding these exact issues, before any indignant cries of "Narrativist favoritism" crop up.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
I respectfully request a careful reading of my essay regarding these exact issues, before any indignant cries of "Narrativist favoritism" crop up.

Hi Marco,

I have some points for you.

1) Please identify any instances of favoritism toward Narrativism in the essay, in a thread dedicated to that purpose. I am not interested in claims that a given phrase "makes you feel that it might be" favoritism, but a veritable smoking gun.

As you know, the essay is a work in progress. It undergoes very slow revision, but it does occur. Both Gamism and Narrativism are slated for additional material, for which I have extensive notes - and those notes are already influenced by you, as well as by others.

2) Read the "Metamorphoses of a gamer" thread. Matt's interests are certainly Simulationist in large part - am I marginalizing him, or urging that he turn to "real" role-playing (ie Narrativism, if I were to exhibit the alleged bias)? No. I am providing encouragement for him to find ways to satisfy those interests.

Before anyone defends the poor, misunderstood Simulationists from Biased Me, you'll have to identify some instance of that bias actually hurting someone.

3) Bias may be implied or inferred. Without concrete examples or instances to talk about, the discussion devolves into "Are too," and "Am not," and I'm not going to enter into that. I accept that you may be right in inferring bias - thus, I ask for examples. Do me the same courtesy by accepting that you may be wrong in doing so, and be ready to consider a valid counter-argument. That will begin once a primary argument has been presented, which it hasn't.

I do not regard highly the expectation that, to be "good," or "well-written," a complex idea must be easily and immediately understood by anyone. All discourse requires one round of, "Are you saying X?" and "Yes, I am saying X" before any further discussion can occur. I don't have time or energy to hold down both ends of this necessary process for people, so the reactions of people who don't take the time to do this are irrelevant.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

Before I go off on this, let me say that I think the work you're doing with RPG's is excellent, relevant, and has had beneficial results. I respect your opinion. I don't believe your article states anything that favors Narrativism over Simulationism. There is no smoking gun. The article has content that is valid and interesting, defines its terms carefully, and is well written.

I'm telling you that if you're seeing a trend of reaction (Gamist complaining about the definition, Simulationist saying their getting miss-interperted, observers saying The Forge is 'rules-light,' etc.) *some* of that trend may be due to the *way* things are often said here. I have an example of this--I don't want to make this inflamatory. The example is extreme--I am *not* comparing you to the issues I'll go into below. The example is a real-world one that, I hope, makes a point.

A person I know offered his services to a charity organization. He was told he could contribute working with Wife Abusers--the state sponsored a class as part of the rehabilitation for spouse abuse. The people who had pitched the class and ran it were adherents of a particular class of feminist ideology. He had to go to their meetings (and study their philosophy) before they'd let him "teach a class."

Their statement: You, if you are a white, heterosexual male, are a wife abuser. The blood of beaten women is literally on your hands.

Not married? Doesn't matter.
Never hit a woman? Doesn't matter.
Protected a woman from assault? Doesn't matter.

How could they say this? If you followed their argument it was this:

You are a hetro white male. You profit from the predominant powerstructure and are not working directly against it (if your are an extreme activist then they'd give you a pass. I doubt anyone reading this is working that hard against the dominant paradigm). By your tacit support of society you create a structure that aids and abetts the systematic abuse of women. Therefore some of their blood is on your hands.

Now, the above is an interesting, perhaps telling argument. Calling a hetero-white-male a Wife Abuser obscures any point they might be trying to make with the average observer. Their *language* suggests they think you're a violent woman-beating barbarian. Their *content* suggests that they think you, and them, and everyone else needs to strongly support massive societal change to make hitting women less common.

This is an *extreme* and *loaded* example and I'm using it because it is the only example I've run into that so strongly makes the distinction. While an average observer might agree with the argument, the language it's couched in provokes (as it's intended to) a strong, visceral, argumentative reaction. People would constantly, angrily, tell them they were not wife abusers.

In their literature there is no "smoking gun." You'll never find a passage in their books that says YOU HIT A WOMAN or YOU'RE OKAY WITH WOMEN BEING HIT. It isn't in there. But there's no denying that their world choice, how they frame their arguments, etc. is very telling.

Regards,
-Marco

I get your point, but bad eample, Marco.

By analogy, then, the Forge folks are saying that others are bad, just in a way that implies that people are bad in one way, when they mean another.

What I think you mean to say is that the Forge language may imply that certain styles are bad when not intending to do that at all. Is that correct? I think I agree with your point to an extent, but would say that people should read with a more critical eye.

I think that people do have biases, and they will show, almost no matter what you do. And given that most members on the Forge have at least said that they agree that all styles are created equal, I think that the onus is on the reader to do the necessary filtering. Otherwise the process of communication (writing in this case) will become very laborious.

BTW, Ron and Jesse like Narrativism. So what? If the essay is biased, take it for what it is. Are we now saying that you can't be an advocate for what you like? If they feel that there are advantages to a certain style, they should feel free to state those. An essay on what Narrativists like may necessarily state that they don't like the effects of Gamist of Simulationist mechanics. These statements are opinion, and should be treated as such.

As far as my objection to the OOC thing, Jesse, I think my point still stands. I don't think that the non-Immersionist Simulationist is extreme, or even rare. I know a lot of em. All I'm asking is that you amend the statement to say that OOC is abhorent to some Simulationists. Which I agree is totally true.

Mike

I don't think that Ron or anyone else is consciously writing this material manipulatively . I do think that no person can escape their own biases, however. The result I believe is a document that makes and honest and honourable stab at "objectivity" as is possible.

That said, there remain differences of opinion, and that some of them are felt to be somewhat inflammatory. THAT said I think there are enough signposts on the forge for an Sim/Gamists to come in here knowing to apply caveat emptor. Personally I find seeing, umm, narrativism in its native environment, as it were, very useful, because I'm precisely after the ways that other people approach things. even if I disagree with an analysis from one angle, it at least allows me to see the differences in interpretation inherent to our individual angles.

Does the Forge treat Sim and Gamism in as much depth as it treats Narrativism? No, no IMO. Should it? No, not IMO. Or at least, not my place to say.

Mike,

Maybe it is a bad analogy. And I could certainly do the filtering myself--that's true--but why *not* take a look at the language? If the author of the GNS article is biased, there are ways of dealing with that--see below--that are a lot less likely to get people showing up, reading it, and then making a post saying "Gamist is NOT Competition!" followed by 20 other posts saying "we agree with you."

I'm saying that statements along the lines of:

1. 'The simulationist CoC player has no control over when or how he goes insane, meets monsters, etc'
-- [paraphrase from above discussion]


2. The description of GNS-related game design as Incoherent (I know what it means--incoherent implies things inconsistent doesn't), "_deceptive_ Narrativist Color," (emphasis added) and "horribly dysfunctional" applied to Seventh Sea, Earth Dawn, etc. ... "vampire example are especially screwed if they have Narrativist leanings and try to use Vampire: the Masquerade."
-- [From the big GNS essay, which is required reading for The Forge ]

Is unnecessairly inflamatory.

What's being said is that:

1. In Sim-play the GM is responsible for the architecture of the story. A player may avoid or participate in certain plot events but he doesn't make the *framework* for the story (in general) and when the player does alter the framework (say, committing honorable suicide) it's usually a surprise to the GM and can be a nasty one.

2. A lot of games don't provide a mechanism for players to create plot and methods of its resolution. If you're trying to do that in VtM, you're going to need a lot of social-contract work with the GM to pull it off. A more Narrativist version would put that directly in the game.

This isn't going to upset anyone. They might disagree--but they won't make a Carthridge Must Be Destroyed post.

-Marco

[Note: I agree with both points above. I think the Narrativist game design ideas have a *lot* to offer. It's good stuff--but there are ways of talking about 7th Sea or even VtM without using "horribly disfunctional," and 'deceptive.' ]

Hey,

In the past, when a thread went off on a point of this sort, I asked people to take it to private email, as a courtesy to the thread's originator and original issue. I have subsequently learned that this was sometimes interpreted as marginalizing or isolating the people in question from public debate.

So, with apologies to the thread - and with hopes that it can simply pop back into shape, without being derailed - I'll carry on.

The first point is that there is no trend of negative reaction regarding Narrativist bias and so forth. There are a few individuals who lose no opportunity to resurrect the claims, and I was hoping to forestall them. The main trend is astoundingly positive - I do not make public the private messages and emails of thanks for the site, with multiple examples of improved enjoyment of play, because they are private, but they are so numerous that I am content with the goals of the essay and the Forge in general.

On to the discussion.

One of the differences between the example Marco provides and the purpose/standards of the Forge, is that the activists are demanding social change from others, whereas the Forge is not demanding any change at all. I hope it is demonstrating that discussing RPG theory helps people have more fun in the hobby, and that creator ownership helps publishers reach some forms of success more consistently, but Clinton and I are not even requesting, much less demanding, that anyone change their behavior.

That difference is significant, because it means that I have no stake in anyone "accepting" the arguments I present. I would like people to consider them fairly, without agenda, and I am willing to go a little ways to help people get to that point, if they are interested. However, I (unlike the activists) have the luxury of writing off anyone who doesn't go that far. As I've said many times, people are perfectly free to write me off as the Bad Old Man in the Corner. If someone disagrees with me that much, we do not have to fight, whereas with the activists, that degree of disagreement means we absolutely have to fight (ie politically).

Another difference concerns the direction of change or perspective - in the case of the activists in question, it is unilateral: "Of all the possible outlooks, we want everyone to adopt this one." In the case of the Forge, the proposed (offered? proffered?) outlook is plural: "Let's consider a framework that permits a variety of priorities and approaches."

This difference is significant as well, because any perceived "bias" in terms of preferences of play does not automatically falsify the argument in question. As long as stated, verbalized arguments and points are not invalid in plain logistic/rhetorical terms, then we're cool. Biases can sit on our heads and make faces at one another, but the arguments and meeting of minds are occurring legitimately. (In other words, the associative-logic, or illogic, of the activists in question is not admissible.)

My final points: the essay is evolving, slowly. All points being made on the Forge are being taken into account (although the essay is not intended to be a "state of the art" summary, but a statement of my own conclusions). All discussion at the Forge is held to strict standards of courtesy and fair time (although I regret not being able to address certain things in detail due to time constraints, e.g. the latest Scattershot offerings).

In summary, this place is a symposium, not a political convention or confrontation (nor, as has been suggested, a coffee-shop). Unless some person's outlook actually disrupts the quality of discussion for a particular point, I'd prefer that people not wave the "Maybe you're biased" flag, as it has no argumentative power.

Best,
Ron

Much better examples. Certainly, it's always a good idea to try and be as clear as possible, and consider the potential beligerency of terms used for emphasis. But it's hard not to let something drop once in a while; forgiveness is simpler. But, FWIW, I for one will continue to try to improve my clarity, and I hope that others will try to read a little more critically.

Remember that there are big limitations to this medium. Emotional context is often really difficult to convey (which is why I use the stupid emoticons), for example. If everyone keeps this in mind, we'll all be better off.

Mike