As I browse through various Forge postings (when I have spare moments), I've noticed various postings giving advice on how to introduce Narrativist play into a gaming group which had previously focused on Simulationism or Gamism and various postings giving advice on how to integrate a Simulationist or Gamist player into a Narrativist group.

However, I've yet to come across any postings which address how to introduce Simulationist play into a Narrativist gaming group nor any postings about how to integrate a Narrativist player into a Simulationist group.

(I already know how to introduce Gamist play and how to integrate a Gamist player.)

I've posted this here because 1) my question deals more with gamer interaction than with G/N/S theory and 2) RPG Theory is the forum where I've seen the most posts about introducing a new mode to a gamer.

Since I'm curious about this in general, I won't go into the specifics of my particular situation.

And, no, I'm not talking about trying to trick anyone into any gaming mode, whether Gamist or Narrativist or Simulationist or Etceteraist or whatever.

Doctor Xero

What kind of simulationism are you meaning.

The approaches for introducing High Concept Sim would be fairly different from Purist for System Sim.

Valamir wrote: What kind of simulationism are you meaning?

Hiya,

I had lots of experience doing this very thing over the past year, when playing games like Fvlminata, Godlike, Pocket Universe, and most recently Hidden Legacy. Basically, I said up front: guys, I'm gonna make decisions for your characters. I'll mainly do it through scene-framing, Feng Shui style, rather than taking over during a scene, but sometimes there are mechanics which let me do that (depends on the game: Pocket Universe no, Hidden Legacy and Haven yes, and Fvlminata kinda). Furthermore, here's the point (or we discuss the point a bit, arriving at it together), and that's what it's about. Keep on doing stuff that supports that point and makes the game "about" that point, and we'll all get along. I'll throw a whole bunch of things at you that are pretty unequivocal regarding their relationship to that point.

It seems to have worked out well, although as a GM I find it awfully tiring to be "story guy by myself" these days.

I really do want to play Mongrel eventually, though. Maybe after-hours at GenCon. I'll preface such a game with a little discussion very much like the above.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Basically, I said up front: guys, I'm gonna make decisions for your characters.

I interpreted Ron's meaning as inclusive of the following qualifying sentence, as bolded below:

Basically, I said up front: guys, I'm gonna make decisions for your characters. I'll mainly do it through scene-framing, Feng Shui style, rather than taking over during a scene, but sometimes there are mechanics which let me do that (depends on the game: Pocket Universe no, Hidden Legacy and Haven yes, and Fvlminata kinda).

Hello,

Ben has read my post accurately.

I also think that IIEE techniques are crucial during scenes and conflicts, as illustrated by the recent Actual Play discussion about playing Amber - the GM has control over whether characters could activate their defenses "in time" to thwart an incoming attack, because the system itself offers no procedure. Given this power, a GM actually manages far more of the conflict's events and outcomes than it appears he is doing, without apparently "controlling" anyone's actions (after all, they can announce what they want, right?).

Doctor X, of course few or no people ever use these phrases when setting up a High Concept Sim game. Either they are confident that everyone is on board with this level and these degrees of Force on the part of the GM, which would essentially be Participationist play, or they are confident that they can cover the Force with Illusionism - which is to say, never mention that they are using scene framing and shifting IIEE standards to "adjust" player-character decisions.

But you asked about how to get Gamist and Narrativist oriented players invested in a High Concept Sim situation - and they're not going to put up with illusionist approaches. They'll have to have the GM Force right out there on the table from the git-go, and decide that they can enjoy it for its own sake.

As I said, it works. And with players who aren't primarily interested in this approach, such an introduction is absolutely required.

Best,
Ron

But you asked about how to get Gamist and Narrativist oriented players invested in a High Concept Sim situation - and they're not going to put up with illusionist approaches. They'll have to have the GM Force right out there on the table from the git-go, and decide that they can enjoy it for its own sake.

As I said, it works.

Though for a Narrativist, it's pretty import they've already had some powerful Narrativist play experiences. Certainly a Narrativist who's in the making the same character over and over phase is very much not a good candidate for introduction to Simulationism.

Paul

Ron Edwards wrote: Doctor X, of course few or no people ever use these phrases when setting up a High Concept Sim game.
---snip!--
they're not going to put up with illusionist approaches. They'll have to have the GM Force right out there on the table

Heya,

What the fuck are you talking about?

Delete your posts? "Ban" you from posting? Offended because you disagree? You must be thinking of some other website. None of these things apply as the remotest of possibilities; the first two are literally not permitted to me as moderator and the third is antithetical to the entire purpose of the website.

You've brought up some salient points. We're discussing them. That's really okay.

For example, you and I apparently disagree strongly. What you call "facts," I can only see as blinders or some kind of misconception; what I think is the key factor to help with your basic question, you see as a fundamental misconception.

And that's cool. All it shows is that I'm not a good person to provide an answer (note "an") for your inquiry. Other people are probably going to do better. The important thing is that I try to understand where you're coming from, and that the conversation-to-come may teach me a few things.

Christ's bleeding wounds, what have we come to that people think they can't disagree with me?

Never mind. High Concept Sim, players with strong Narrativist or Gamist habits/preferences, how to do it. Floor's open, and I'm interested.

Best,
Ron

Ron, I realize that The Forge is your forum and that you have written what people here consider the definitive article on Simulationism, so I realize that you could erase any posting I make in response to this and even ban me from further participation in The Forge. If you choose to do so, that is your right.

Because if simulationist gaming really involved nothing but game master cocercion or force, with puppeteering of players and their characters via illusionism and other storytelling sleight of hand, and if narrativist gaming were really the only mode of gaming which avoided player subjugation to coercion and manipulation, then no one would ever play simulationist gaming and narrativism would be the only roleplaying mode left. For me, the freedoms of simulationism seem obvious. It is now further obvious to me that they are not obvious to those who prefer narrativist gaming.

Doc, I think you're over emphasising that control issue. I also think Ron over emphasised that control issue because that issue is a key one for his group.

What is being referred to are things like Disadvantages in GURPs or many other systems. Say you have a player whose character has "Code of Honor". The Game rules expect the player to play that character as if he had a code of honor. The rules expect the GM to enforce that code and provide various means for punishing players who stray from it.

This is what Ron means when he talks about GM force or coercion are scenes like:

"Hey John, do you really think blowing the guys head off after he surrendered is consistant with your Code of Honor?"

which then can lead to anything from lost XPs for "bad roleplaying" to the GM simply ruling "no you can't do that its a violation of your disadvantage".

The standard assumption in most gaming texts is that behavioral disadvantages should be enforced to the same degree as physical ones (especially in systems that give you bonus character points for taking them). If your character is "Blind" then the rules fully expect the GM to enforce the fact that your character can't see. If your character is a "Pacifist" then the rules fully expect the GM to enforce the fact that your character won't fight.


The difference between this situation and Narrativist play is that this form of Simulation thrives on enforcing and reinforcing the stereo type while many times Narrativist play is about establishing those stereo types and then breaking them.

For instance...what set of circumstances would cause this character to abandon his code of honor...would cause that character to pick up a weapon and fight. Often times, the whole climax of the game will build around the point where the character violates their stereo type. Where a simulationist rules set would then penalize the player for doing so, Narrativist play thrives on it.


This form of establishing and violating stereotypes plays a frequent roll in Ron's games and therefor a key difference for his players when moving to a simulationist game is that now they aren't supposed to do that any more.

There's an old Cold War story. The USA and the USSR perfectly agreed that world peace was highly desirable and that WW3 was a Very Bad Idea (TM). But, to the USA, peace had to include the freedom of the individual and to the USSR, it had to include freedom from capitalist oppression.

Thus, peace was out of reach because the two sides could not agree on the meaning of the word.

I think something similar is happening here. Both simulationist and narrativist (and indeed gamist, but that's beside the topic) play constrain the freedom of the player. The point is that the constraints are on things that those who prefer this mode don't care about. Sure, says the Sim, I can't blow my Code of Honor, but why on Earth would I want to? I picked the disad myself, of my own free will, didn't I? And if it is part of the concept of the character to blow his Code at some point, well, I know that and I can reserve the XP to buy it off, can't I?

On the Nar side, assume you invite me for a game of Sorcerer. My character hangs out where it's at, but I consistently back away from addressing premise. Are you going to invite me for your next game of Sorcerer? At which point the Nar goes, but you can't never address premise! That's boring, that's, that's...

That's a constraint on play, exactly. Not one that a Nar cares about, but a constraint nevertheless.

Im Sim play I promise I will play my character according to genre expectations. In Nar play I promise I will address premise. (I think the hard-coding in the rules or the lack thereof is not the main issue. While typical of GURPS/Champions style games, it is by no means universal Sim. On the other hand, in the absence of rules, peer expectations remain as a powerful force to constrain the character. So it's irrelevant whether or not it's specifically the rules part of the System that enforces the constraint.)

So, in the Nar game, I address premise by deciding whether or not to flee in fear.

In the Sim game, expectations say I flee in fear. I then Explore how my character reacts to to this fact. I might, for example, be playing someone who really wants to be a hero, but keeps pissing his pants instead. The Sim game is then about what such a character might do with/about that.

So, perhaps one way to put this to a native Nar who is visiting Sim land is: Build a conflicted character (like the wannabe hero above) and then the game is about the character addressing the premise of his conflict. If you, the player, foresee the possibility of the character flipping sides at some point, support your character by having the XP ready to buy off his disad when he--the character--decides it is time.

SR
--

Doctor Xero wrote:
There is no greater coercion or force in simulationist play than in any other play which involves de jure or de facto rules, be they narrativist or gamist. The moment I am required to adhere to any sort of constraint, be it a rule written in a book or one enforced by people, whether enforced by an individual conscripted for the task or by frequent consensus voting or by unspoken but palpable peer pressure, I have lost a bit of "freedom", but what loss of "freedom" there might be is no different in kind or even degree between simulationist and narrativist, only different in focus.

Rob, absolutely with you. I pointed to Gurps and the rules as a convenient example. Clearly the expectations of the players at the table is a far morre potent contraint then any rule. Rules are much easier to discard than player expectations. But the fact that those expectations are built into so many rules systems does offer some evidence as to how standard those expectations are presumed to be.

I would like to suggest that Dr. Xero and, well, everyone else are talking about two totally different types of simulationism.

Ron is talking about Illusionism, particularly Participationism (I call it Storytelling in the link below). Doctor Xero is talking about Virtuality, A.K.A. RGFA Sim.

Reference for Sim subtypes:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11317

So, Dr. X, can you see that the Sim that Ron is talking about does take away choice? Ron, can you see that the sim that Dr. X is talking about emphatically does not place credibility player choices in the hands of the GM?

yrs--
--Ben

Hey Ralph,

What is being referred to are things like Disadvantages in GURPs or many other systems....this form of Simulation thrives on enforcing and reinforcing the stereo type while many times Narrativist play is about establishing those stereo types and then breaking them.

I think Ron is saying more than that. In his second post he refers to covertly exerting control via IIEE techniques.

It seems to me that a successful high-concept Simulationist game with Narrativist players needs to overcome the following:

• The Narrativist player perceives that story cannot be produced by chimps banging on typewriters. If story is being produced, and as a player you know you're not invested in it the way you would be if you were making a meaningful contribution to it, you start looking around for who might be authoring it. You may not quite know how it's being done, but in a small group it's not that difficult to discern who's doing it.

The thing that kills the game is the GM talking the language of story, and suggesting that the story will emerge from the actions and decisions of the player characters. That is, the thing that kills the game is the promise to the players that they'll be producing the story. When they realize that they aren't doing so, the whole thing collapses. Oftentimes then players start "picking at scabs," that is, they start backstabbing each other and doing other dramatic and destructive shit that's entirely under their control. Sometimes the players just start making excuses about not being able to attend game sessions. Having recognized that the social contract promise that they'll be producing the story has been violated, they exert themselves forcefully, if indirectly.

Ron's solution is to not make that social contract promise. It can work. You can do character/setting exploration Sim. "Your job is to explore your character." But then you damn well better make sure as a GM that you're rigorous and consistent with your handling of IIEE and penalties/rewards. And don't talk the language of story at all. "The game is about character within environment. We're just going to see what happens."

• But the problem for the Narrativist player with character/setting exploration is that it feels so purposeless. If you're going to be successful with it as a GM, you need to embed some understanding in the group social contract about what things are being explored, and how, when, and who can move things along when folks are getting antsy after forty-five minutes of in-character bartering in the magic shop. I'm not suggesting that you need this in the social contract with dedicated Simulationists, but if you're going to run high-concept Sim for Narrativists I think you gotta have it. And if it's the GM who's responsible for moving things along, well, how easily could that be abused? The balance here is very very fine. The slightest error in handling could very easily convince the players the social contract has been violated and then again you have the collapse of the game.

I would love to see some text directed at handling these things well. What are strong rules/guidelines for who, when, and how things can be moved along in character/setting exploration Sim? I think the goal of introducing Narrativists to Simulationism can be achieved. It's just very tricky.

Paul

Ralph,
I agree completely. The fact that so many games are set up that way says something fairly strong about the design community at large, which in turn will have an influence on the player community. The engineer in me would love to have actual, hard figures, but it's got to be significant.

Ben,
I agree about the different choices, I'm not so sure I agree about the claim that Illusionism/Participationism takes away more choices than Virtuality. I'd argue that they're different and objectively incomparable choices. So, at least in my perception, when you say `more', that actually says something about your play preferences (namely, that you find the choices that Illusionism/Participationism takes away more important than the choices that Virtuality takes away). I personally would agree with you, but two opinions do not objective fact make, and indeed I know people who have argued exactly the other way around with me.

SR
--

Ben Lehman wrote: I would like to suggest that Dr. Xero and, well, everyone else are talking about two totally different types of simulationism.

Ron is talking about Illusionism, particularly Participationism (I call it Storytelling in the link below). Doctor Xero is talking about Virtuality, A.K.A. RGFA Sim.

Reference for Sim subtypes:http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11317

Ben Lehman wrote: I would like to suggest that Dr. Xero and, well, everyone else are talking about two totally different types of simulationism.

Ron is talking about Illusionism, particularly Participationism (I call it Storytelling in the link below). Doctor Xero is talking about Virtuality, A.K.A. RGFA Sim.

Reference for Sim subtypes:http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11317

John Kim wrote:
Aha! I missed the previous "Sim subtypes" thread when it came by, unfortunately. I kind of like the term "Virtuality", given that the original term of "Simulationism" has been perhaps hopelessly muddled at this point.

(...cut...)

EDIT: This is really about Virtuality/RGFA Simulationism, and thus isn't about GNS per se. So it may be off-topic.

Rob Carriere wrote:
I agree about the different choices, I'm not so sure I agree about the claim that Illusionism/Participationism takes away more choices than Virtuality. I'd argue that they're different and objectively incomparable choices.

Ben Lehman wrote: You will note that I was *very* careful about the phrasing of that sentence, and that is for a reason. I believe that every choice of Creative Agenda (and Technical Agenda) removes choice from the participants of the game. The removal of choice makes the creative decisions more interesting.

Narrativism also takes away choice -- it takes away choice to do boring or inactive things, for example.

Valamir wrote: What is being referred to are things like Disadvantages in GURPs or many other systems. Say you have a player whose character has "Code of Honor". The Game rules expect the player to play that character as if he had a code of honor.

Valamir wrote: The difference between this situation and Narrativist play is that this form of Simulation thrives on enforcing and reinforcing the stereo type while many times Narrativist play is about establishing those stereo types and then breaking them.

For instance...what set of circumstances would cause this character to abandon his code of honor...would cause that character to pick up a weapon and fight. Often times, the whole climax of the game will build around the point where the character violates their stereo type. Where a simulationist rules set would then penalize the player for doing so, Narrativist play thrives on it.

Rob Carriere wrote: The point is that the constraints are on things that those who prefer this mode don't care about. Sure, says the Sim, I can't blow my Code of Honor, but why on Earth would I want to? I picked the disad myself, of my own free will, didn't I? And if it is part of the concept of the character to blow his Code at some point, well, I know that and I can reserve the XP to buy it off, can't I?

Rob Carriere wrote: Im Sim play I promise I will play my character according to genre expectations. In Nar play I promise I will address premise.

Rob Carriere wrote: So, perhaps one way to put this to a native Nar who is visiting Sim land is: Build a conflicted character (like the wannabe hero above) and then the game is about the character addressing the premise of his conflict.

John Kim wrote: It helps, I think, if the game resembles a genre where the protagonist is pro-active. For example, in a gangster drama the protagonist goes out and shakes up the status quo to benefit himself. In contrast, in a thriller an ordinary person who leads a boring life is suddenly dragged into some scheme.

John Kim wrote: The standard is to look for the GM for cues about what the players are supposed to do.

Ron Edwards wrote: Christ's bleeding wounds, what have we come to that people think they can't disagree with me?

Hi Doc,

A couple points:

Doctor Xero wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: Christ's bleeding wounds, what have we come to that people think they can't disagree with me?

To be honest, I had gotten that impression, not from you directly but from others and from the intensity which sometimes permeates The Forge, particularly when they are quoting your articles.

Doctor Xero wrote:
In the interests of further promoting understanding between Narrativists and Simulationists,

Doctor Xero wrote:
... I'd like to reference Zero at the Bone (named after one of the more charming Dickinson poems) from a high concept simulationist (virtuality?) perspective, with occasional references to Mongrel.

Though Ron points out that this game is not the narrativist game design, ....
.... ....
When I want to write a haiku, it is no restriction for me to use the demands of the haiku form to shape and enhance my creativity. When I want to write freeform verse, however, being forced to write a haiku would be onerous.

Hello,

This thread seems to have drifted into a discussion of constraint and choice which doesn't, to me, seem relevant at all.

All creative interaction requires constraint. I'm kind of a ghoul about that concept, which is why none of my GNS categorizing concerns degrees of "player freedom," and why freedom/range-of-choice doesn't enter into the glossary at all.

So I guess I'm not seeing what the thread's about any more. Doc, I have plenty of things to say about your discussion of Zero at the Bone and Mongrel, but I really hate wave-front replies (I react, you react to that, I react to that, etc). I'll need some better context to make sure that Alan's excellent points about constraints are understood as the foundation.

Best,
Ron

Doctor Xero wrote:

Rob Carriere wrote: Im Sim play I promise I will play my character according to genre expectations. In Nar play I promise I will address premise.

I'm still not quite sure that I see why the two must be in opposition nor can I understand why various Narrativism fans imply they are when posting to The Forge or talking with me outside The Forge.

Alan wrote: On the Forge such statements must be carried over from experiences elsewhere, as I've never seen supporting evidence in the behavior of Ron or Clinton.

Doctor Xero wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: Christ's bleeding wounds, what have we come to that people think they can't disagree with me?

To be honest, I had gotten that impression, not from you directly but from others and from the intensity which sometimes permeates The Forge, particularly when they are quoting your articles.

Alan wrote: I'm always appalled to see people write such things.

Alan wrote: Also, forgive me if this has been mentioned by another poster, but the supposition that players who prefer narrativist play need somehow to be introduced to simulationist style seems a straw man.
---snip!--
Perhaps another assumption of this thread is that a player with narrativist preference must somehow be asked to curb his preference so it doesn't interfere with other player's desire for simulationist play.

Ron Edwards wrote: This thread seems to have drifted into a discussion of constraint and choice which doesn't, to me, seem relevant at all.

Hi Doc,

If CA theory teaches anything, it's that there's room for all of us. And I think that most people get that once they've had a year or two to get past the novelty of understanding a new agenda style. In the meantime, we have to tolerate exclamations of glee from new discoverers. Similar new waves happen every few years in the hobby and none have ever taken it over completely.

Doctor Xero wrote:
One of the primary reasons given by narrativists for being leery of simulationist gaming has been the impression that narrativism is less constrained and freer.

Alan wrote: In the meantime, we have to tolerate exclamations of glee from new discoverers.

Alan wrote: Consider that many players who would like narrativist play started the hobby playing good simulationist designs that actually constrain their desire to address premise. It doesn't matter whether the game was well or poorly presented, what matters is that a sim design will tend to constrict narrativist satisfaction.

When suddenly they discover a game that supports the stuff they find satisfying - bang! Wow! I feel so much freer! They don't notice that the good narrativist design is also constrained, because they're getting freedom where they like it, and constraint where they don't care as much.

Someone has asked me if the above was intended to be sarcastic against Alan.

No, it was sincere.

Alan's clarity in his most recent posting has increased my respect for him, which is why I ran a possible technique by him by name in this thread.

Doctor Xero

A few posts back Doctor Xero wrote: in almost every high concept simulationist game I have played over the past two decades, no game master has ever punished players for having their characters strain against their psychological limitations. In fact, in these high concept simulationist games, if a player had her male character violate his code of honor because he had been pushed to the limit, and it made dramatic sense, there would no penalty of any sort exacted.

The better game masters would find out which psychological limitations the players wished untouched and which ones the players wanted challenged and then, within the constraints of the genre, work towards scenarios with the specific goal of challenging said psychological limitations so that we could see what happened.

Champions, Villains & Vigilantes, Ars Magica, Runequest, Mekton, and Palladium actually encouraged this kind of player-directed character growth, either directly in the games themselves or in articles on authorized variants of play, and I think we can safely say that those are games which encourage simulationist play.

Back in the 1980s, before the G/N/S schema, we called what I have just described "role-playing" and held it in opposition to what we called "power gaming", which involved former war-gamers who expected the game masters to enforce their psychological limitations because they took them exclusively for the character building points and for no other reason.

Walter, I am beginning to suspect that the campaigns with which I am familiar have both simulationism and narrativism within them.

I think the narrativists would enjoy my game if they could get over the assumption that the simulationist elements would cancel out the narrativist elements.

If that's true, though, then this thread becomes a lot less useful for introducing narrativists to a pure simulationist campaign.

Perhaps it'd work best if I told people or wrote: "In narrativist games, you have the freedom to address any ethical issues even though you give up larger than life dreams and mythopoesis. In many simulationist games, you have the freedom to be magical and mysterious even though you may lose the freedom to challenge the genre's prevailing ethos. In my games, you will have the freedom to address most ethical issues but not all, because we also love the genre, and you will have the freedom to be magical and mysterious, but you will also be expected to challenge and be challenged rather than sit tight in an already-known-and-mapped-out ethical metaphysics."

I think alot of this the issue arises from a blurred boundary between character and player. Ethical issues, moral issues, human issues, whatever, all can be addressed very explicitly in all creative agendas. As M. J. Young wrote over in Narrativism: Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:

M. J. Young wrote: --To the simulationist, we want to explore what the assassin feels in that situation.
--To the narrativist, we want to know what the player feels about that.
---
It gets close at times, but the question is still, what are we doing? Are we, as players, addressing premise? Or are we, as players, exploring the beliefs and feelings of some imaginary character?

Doctor Xero wrote: I honestly don't see how that could be considered a constraint on the player. The player freely chose, of his or her own volition, to constrain his or her player-character with that Code of Honor.

Ravien wrote: I think a lot of this the issue arises from a blurred boundary between character and player. Ethical issues, moral issues, human issues, whatever, all can be addressed very explicitly in all creative agendas. As M. J. Young wrote over in Narrativism: Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:

M. J. Young wrote: --To the simulationist, we want to explore what the assassin feels in that situation.
--To the narrativist, we want to know what the player feels about that.
---
It gets close at times, but the question is still, what are we doing? Are we, as players, addressing premise? Or are we, as players, exploring the beliefs and feelings of some imaginary character?

---snip!--
I don't think Sim games really have anything to do with constraints on the player. "The player" doesn't even need to factor in. "The player" is merely the one experiencing the character, which is the entity of prime importance in Sim games. So what matters is that the player is focused on exploring the character in the setting. Restricting the player's ability to control that character does not restrict their ability to explore it, and thus is a non-issue. Conversely, restricting a player's ability to control a character when that character is the tool by which a player can explore theme is a Bad Thing, because it restrict's the player's ability to play.

However, this sounds less like Narrativism vs. Simulationism CA than it does like Author vs. Actor stance.

Or one can use the same character to explore characterization one scenario and premise the next.

For an Actor, who is incarnating part of himself or herself within the character conception, sometimes the difference between character experience and player experience isn't.

Guys, could someone possibly post a straightforward example of GM constraint of player choice in high sim play? I realise some of you are moving on from that, but it seems to me relevant to the topic and perhaps because I am tired admittedly I am really struggling to see the argument being made on this one.

If I am playing Runequest for example, in what ways is the GM entitled to take control of my character? The very idea seems so anathemical to sim play that I think a concrete example would really help. Ron's essay is good on sim, so I think this must be miscommunication rather than anything more fundamental.

Hmmm. Let's say that you're playing an Orlanthi in RQ, and you come to a clan chief's hall, and you come in shouting curses at him. The GM says, "Uh, an Orlanthi would never do that, the rules of hospitality forbid it."

You're saying you've never encountered play like this? Normally it occurs when the player is about to take an adventure off of the path that the GM has set for it. That is, in the example, he assumes that being Orlanthi that the PCs will come into the hall calmly, and that leads to an important plot point. The player is messing this up, so the GM has to straighten it out by making the adjustment to the player's decision on what happened.

Again, often it's put as a question. "Given that Orlanthi don't do that, what will you have your character do?" Basically the GM asking the player to try again.

This is so common that if you say you've never seen it that I'd be shocked. Or it might be that you're play is just a lot more narrativism than you were aware of.

The easier example is when in a game like, say, Star Wars D6, you have as part of chargen some "Personality flaw" like "Argumentative." Then in play, when you declare that the PC tries to walk away from a situation where an argument seems to be starting, the GM points at the flaw and tells you that you can't play that way. The GM is mandated in most of these games to correct players who do not play these things correctly in thier opinion.

Mike

Mike... is such a response on the part of the GM inherently because they're feeling thwarted in introducing a plot point? Or is that a side issue that you felt you would address?

I would think that having the Orlanthi (whatever they are) wildly violate the mores of its people without any apparent justification would be frowned upon as a violation of The Dream, whether it messes with the GMs plans or not.

Mike Holmes wrote: Hmmm. Let's say that you're playing an Orlanthi in RQ, and you come to a clan chief's hall, and you come in shouting curses at him. The GM says, "Uh, an Orlanthi would never do that, the rules of hospitality forbid it."

You're saying you've never encountered play like this? Normally it occurs when the player is about to take an adventure off of the path that the GM has set for it. That is, in the example, he assumes that being Orlanthi that the PCs will come into the hall calmly, and that leads to an important plot point. The player is messing this up, so the GM has to straighten it out by making the adjustment to the player's decision on what happened.

Again, often it's put as a question. "Given that Orlanthi don't do that, what will you have your character do?" Basically the GM asking the player to try again.

This is so common that if you say you've never seen it that I'd be shocked. Or it might be that you're play is just a lot more narrativism than you were aware of.

Mike

First, in the name of disclosure, I edited in another example, not knowing that responses would occur so soon. Apologies.

Balbinus wrote: I do recognise what you portray, I also think though that it is an example of a form of dysfunctional play which occurs mostly in sim but is not good sim play if you see what I mean.

Alternatively, it is dysfunctional because the player is choosing to have their character flout societal conventions and the GM is intervening to prevent them doing that. That's not a sim issue as such, that is more a question of a fundamental breakdown in game vision between the GM and player.

A. The player didn't know that Orlanthi wouldn't do that. As above, I don't see how you can explore a dream you are utterly ignorant of.

B. The player knew Orlanthi wouldn't do that but thought that credibly in character their character would break Orlanthi custom. The GM intervention is a straightforward breach of most games social contracts, the GM is taking over the character because he dislikes the character concept. Not really a sim or indeed GNS issue in my view.

C. The player has asked the GM or agreed with the GM that the GM should intervene if he gets cultural stuff wrong. Cool, but here the player has not really lost character control. He has shared some character control because he wants to play in line with the background and needs help doing so. Again, not sure that's really a GNS issue though it's not dysfunctional either.

GM's making assumptions about what players will do, pre-preparing important plot points, the idea of the player messing up the GM's game, "straightening out" player actions by changing their decisions. All control related, but really all examples of classic control driven disfunctional play and nothing really to do with anything inherent to sim play.

Mike,

You're assuming there has to be a plot. Nothing in sim play requires one though.

And even for games with plot (admittedly the majority in actual play I think), a GM who can't adapt their plot to the vagaries of character decisions is a GM who can't improvise, again not a GNS issue. Most GMs in the wild routinely adjust plots to address unexpected character actions.

I think you're potentially confusing badly written and heavily railroaded published scenarios with stuff that is actually necessary to sim play. CoC scenarios for example are notorious for egregious railroading, that doesn't make such railroading an intrinsic part of the sim play experience.

Sim does not require plot, where plot is used plot need not be inflexible and unable to adapt to unexpected character behaviour. The impossible thing is an artificial construct here. No, you cannot have player freedom and rigid GM plot, but nothing in sim requires that you do.

Mike Holmes wrote: Now, many GMs in this situation resort to Illusionism. They'll allow the character to barge into the chief's hall, but then figure out how to get the plot element in anyhow. "Suddenly you're surrounded by ten weaponthanes of legendary ability [who only just now appeared in the scenario] who tell you to cease with the cursing." The implication being, "Follow the plot or your character dies." The GM is controling the character just as surely as if he had just told the player that he can't do X.

Mike

OK, I'm going to suggest that Mikes example is too ambiguous and propose some others, but first I'd like to mention that I think its raised an interesting point, which is what if the GM's version of the SIS and the players version of the SIS clash. Certainly I have wondered sometimes whether or not a player unerstands all the ramifications of an action like this and wondered if the player is seeing the decision the are making in the same terms I am. That in principle can be resolved by there and then discussion I suppose; that might be said to be a call for exposition, a prompt for further GM discussion. If this happened in a linear story you'd probably get a digression - sometimes for pages or minutes - as to why this would be a bad idea so we understand why the character reconsiders their initial impulse.

In these cases, the failure to discuss might result in a GM's exercise of force to privilige their own version of the SIS, in principle in the name of unanimity. However, I'm not sure that that is the same thing as the GM's exercise of authorship over the players characters in the name of the High Concept. The point though is that in this example, its hard to tell what's the source of the divergence; a difference in interpretation of or familiarity with material, or something actually in service of the High Concept.

Anyway, some other examples I've like to suggest from things I've done:

Hardwired the CP2020 supplement; characters get "rewarded" with head implants. The text says if they're dumb enough to let strangers play with their heads, they get implanted with an assasination instruction for someone they are later hired to guard. So it duly happened, and in the event I dictated their actions ex cathedra.

Conspiracy-X. A character went carelessly somewhere they shouldn't have and got abducted and memory wiped. I told the player absolutely nothing and took complete ownership of about 6 hours of their life. Its especially interesting becuase the genre almost demands this; frequently in such stories a character is significant precisely because they have been abducted.

Mage and Vampire have numerous mind-bending powers available which I utilised as a player on NPC's and have had done to my characters. I think. Anyway, all of these were authorised by the situation simulated, and are a direct exercise of authority over a characters actions in the game world and all enjoyed player consent, albeit sometimes a little grudging. But on that count, IMO it's merely that the social contract is easier to establish if the players have toys that do the same things; then they can see for themselves what the parameters are and have a framework for understanding what they are agreeing to.

Balbinus wrote: You're assuming there has to be a plot. Nothing in sim play requires one though.

Mike, the argument (in part) was about whether sim games required GM intervention overriding player control over character, as described in Ron's original post. I never argued it couldn't happen, just that it is not a necessary component of sim.

So my point was simply in rebuttal to that notion, although in some sim games as in some games with other agendas the GM may override player control of character, there is nothing inherent in sim which requires that the GM exert such control and a sim game can be successfully run without any such exertion of control ever ocurring.

These constraints are only being considered in terms of plot in the example I gave. I can't give one example of GM constraint that covers all manner of GM constraint. And, yes, for every example of GM constraint that I come up with, you can say that there's a form of sim that doesn't require it.

But at some point, the GM is going to do something to the world, and that limits player response. Is that really controversial?

Mike

Balbinus wrote: Mike, the argument (in part) was about whether sim games required GM intervention overriding player control over character, as described in Ron's original post. I never argued it couldn't happen, just that it is not a necessary component of sim.

Yeah, it's not Dune if the GM isn't having Bene Gesserit plotting against you or something.

Note that constraint isn't just a sim thing, it pertains to all modes. Ron was saying that the idea that narrativism isn't constrained is nonsense. Making it just like all other modes.

Mike

Balbinus wrote: Mike, the argument (in part) was about whether sim games required GM intervention overriding player control over character, as described in Ron's original post.

But how do we explain this to them so that they understand?

Ravien wrote: How can we lead a horse to water, and make it drink?

You can't.
---snip!--
But if a Nar player approaches a Sim game from their Nar perspective, they aren't going to enjoy the game. You are essentially trying to change what they enjoy about playing. Hardcore Nar players are convinced that they won't enjoy Sim.

Doctor Xero wrote: 1) What about trying to explain the joys of simulationist play to hardcore narrativists who want to understand why some of us enjoy sim play so they could perhaps join in our sim games with us?

2) What about the people in The Forge and elsewhere who pepper their posts with subtle (and not-so-subtle) implications that Narrativist play is the more mature, more sophisticated, more respectful or liberating, and more artistic play and that Simulationist play is childish, pulpy, oppressive, disrespectful of players, and artistically hack work?

Mike Holmes wrote: That those "subtle implications" are actually possible imagined rather than real.

I'm a newcomer to this theoretical framework. I've been using it to examine my past gaming experiences as a way of understanding it. Please forgive me if I misuse the terms.

While much in my play has been Nar, it's very useful to be able to think of it in more conscious critical terms, so the theory has been fruitful. But while, in a sense, I'm one of the enthusiastic newcomers spoken of earlier, I'd like to speak up for Sim.

For me, the definitive Sim game is Pendragon. Strangely enough, my game group had always been used to playing RQ drifted for Nar, so there were some clashes with eg personality mechanics or long heal times when I first introduced it.

But over time, my Nar players entered the Dream. The literate ones got intertextual and the others enjoyed the blood and mud. We took to using the financial rules for the players' estates. Elaborate family trees appeared. The life histories of the characters became something to tell stories about even after they'd died. 'When Aeddan was at Badon...' 'I saw Arthur draw the sword!' It was being woven into the grand tapestry that made the game absorbing. That means a certain amount of creative direction must be tolerated, whether it's explicit in system as in Pendragon or in setting as in RQ/Glorantha.

The story constructs itself, and if it sometimes tails off inexplicably or without dramatic conclusion; well, that's in the source material too. It's also in the ultimate source material: Life.

Hardcore Narrativists, there's room for you. It's making a documentary instead of a movie. It's anthropology, not a novel. There's a joy in both that many know. Leave Premise on the shelf for a night and explore where human culture can go.

droog wrote: I'm a newcomer to this theoretical framework. I've been using it to examine my past gaming experiences as a way of understanding it. Please forgive me if I misuse the terms.

While much in my play has been Nar, it's very useful to be able to think of it in more conscious critical terms, so the theory has been fruitful. But while, in a sense, I'm one of the enthusiastic newcomers spoken of earlier, I'd like to speak up for Sim.

For me, the definitive Sim game is Pendragon. Strangely enough, my game group had always been used to playing RQ drifted for Nar, so there were some clashes with eg personality mechanics or long heal times when I first introduced it.

But over time, my Nar players entered the Dream. The literate ones got intertextual and the others enjoyed the blood and mud. We took to using the financial rules for the players' estates. Elaborate family trees appeared. The life histories of the characters became something to tell stories about even after they'd died. 'When Aeddan was at Badon...' 'I saw Arthur draw the sword!' It was being woven into the grand tapestry that made the game absorbing. That means a certain amount of creative direction must be tolerated, whether it's explicit in system as in Pendragon or in setting as in RQ/Glorantha.

The story constructs itself, and if it sometimes tails off inexplicably or without dramatic conclusion; well, that's in the source material too. It's also in the ultimate source material: Life.