I've been checking out this site for ages now and for the life of me, I still do not understand Narrativism.

Could someone explain to me how Nar differs from Sim?

From my admittedly limited understanding, Nar seems to simply be sim, with the emphasis on character and situation, as opposed to sim with emphasis on setting and color ( would that be High Concept Sim?).

Can someone help?
Robert

Hi Robert,

The big, big, big thing that defines narrativism is A) the entire group having input into B) addressing a thematic premise.

Let's break that down:

A) The whole group having input

This means that somehow, everyone at the table gets some say into what happens in order to fulfill B. This at the very least means you cannot have railroading or a prescripted plot, that the players must at least have control over their own characters.

B) Addressing a Thematic Premise

Almost all thematic premises are based on some version of the question, "What is right?", phrased differently, such as, "How far would you go to save your family?", "What would you risk for justice?", etc. Notice that all of these things are really asking value opinions, and the actions of the characters are ways of playing off of that idea. The focus of play is that players are commenting on that idea(consciously or not) thorugh playing the game.

Sim play, in contrast, may or may not include the above, but regardless, always is focused on maintaining plausibility, which might be based around "realism" or genre conventions.

The 5 explorative elements(System, Setting, Situation, Character, Color), have nothing to do with whether play is Sim or Nar in nature. All play utilizes all 5 elements, and any of the three styles(GNS) can focus on any of the 5 elements, so ignor them in regards to understanding the difference between Nar and Sim play...they're completely a seperate issue.

Chris

Notice that all of these things are really asking value opinions, and the actions of the characters are ways of playing off of that idea

Hi Robert,

First, to reiterate, the 5 explorative elements can be looked at completely seperate of whether a game is being played G, N, or S. If you are having confusion over either one, it probably would do well to digest them seperately before trying to draw lines between the two.

I'm having a hard time imagining a Nar game that does not focus on character+situation, and instead focuses on another combination of elements of exploration. Could you give an example?

The other thing that may be throwing me off is that, from the posts I've read, I've gotten the impression that the general trend in Nar play is to define a character's moral/ethical makeup during play

In Sim, it seems to me, given an unclear situation, the "right" answer would almost always be present. That "right" answer could relate to a number of things, so long as it was in keeping with the simulated world.

Bankuei wrote: Right, and sometimes that response might be a result of plausibility, whether 'realistic'("Samurai act like this") to genre conventions("Superheroes don't kill!"), to personality mechanics("I'm lawful good!"), to system("You can do anything you like, as long as its realistically possible as determined by the dice").

The last one is what usually throws people for a loop between Sim and Nar, because it is a form of Sim play that gives the players freedom to control their characters, BUT it doesn't focus on premise. It fulfills one of the necessary requirements for Nar play, but not the other.

Chris

Hmm, many things to consider.

I'm starting to think maybe my confusion isn't with Nar, but with Sim.

Quick background: I tend to be drawn to what I guess are called High Concept Sim games, that is to say, ones with a well developed game world with lots of color. After playing the games long enough though, I've noticed that both myself, and other gamers I've played with, tend to start heading in either a Gamist ( competitive) direction or a more "let's make deeper characters" direction ( Nar?).

Is that the whole "Sim'ist by habit" thing? -The initial tendency to explore a setting etc, first, then head in a different direction?

I also seen threads indicating that Sim seems hard to define. Could this be because Sim is often experienced as an initial stage of longterm gameplay, rather than a final destination in style?

Robert

OKay, I'll bite first: "deep" characters aren't necessarily a hallmark of nar play. Sorceror & Sword characters, for example, would mostly be thought of as "shallow" in some terms. Many of them are pretty straightforward, and the same could be said for many HeroQuest, or My Life with Master characters. What they are is tied into emotionally charged situations hinging on questions of "human interest".

I think Sim seems hard to define because, to paraphrase Ron's Sim essay, everyone says "right, sim, got that", and moves on without considering much further until they're in the middle of a tarbaby debate on deep sim vs nar, and sim isn't what they thought it was.

This is especially true since it's a local meme that most players are sim by habit... which I don't find true. Most rule books in the mainstream of publishing tend towards sim, if only because exploration and use of the elements of RPG's is a base level of all CA, but is the driving force behind sim.

For me, the vital motivation behind sim play is curiosity, usually with a hefty dose of wonder. The desire to explore and create, whether that exploration is of Character, Setting, Situation, system, colour, whatever, is the driving part of sim, prioritsed over issues based relevance that would tip it into nar or optimisation issues that tip it into gam.

I think Pete's answered this quite well; I'm just going to highlight the "making deeper characters" thing.

If you get to the point at which you decide you want to dig deeper into "who this guy is", and to do so you set up situations in which he (the character) has to face difficult choices, so that you (the player) can learn more about who he is and what it would be like to be him, you're still rather solidly in simulationist territory.

If you get to the point at which you decide that it would be interesting to use him to make statements about and otherwise explore issues that matter to you, you're crossing the line into narrativist play.

Let me put forward an example. I've got a Multiverser world entitled Orc Rising. In a nutshell, here's the concept.

This is a post-fantasy world, sort of. Magic is fading. There are still elves, but they've turned mostly to agriculture, and the little magic they still use is dedicated to helping things grow. The dwarfs still delve into the earth and make beautiful and useful things from metal, and trade them with men. The men primarily work in livestock, and running trade between themselves, the elves, and the dwarfs.

The lands of these three "free peoples" border on the jungle to the south. The jungle is considered by them unclaimed wilderness; no one really lives there. Thus all three are gradually encroaching into this area, clearcutting the timber for their own purposes.

However, the jungles are not unpopulated; they're merely uncivilized. Tribes of orcs live within them as hunter-gatherer groups, warring with each other and keeping completely different customs. These primitive creatures will attack innocent lumberjacks. In response, humans, elves, and dwarfs have begun capturing and "civilizing" the orcs through forced labor, in their fields, pastures, and mines, and in other areas--essentially enslaving them in the name of bringing them up to the standards of civilization.


Now, in that scenario, what interests you? Would you like to explore what it's like to live in a post-fantasy world, with magic fading into the past? Would you like to experience the life of a tribesman, or a slave, or a slave owner, within this milieu? Would you like to pass through as a traveler and observe how everything is done? All those things are simulationist play. On the other hand, the moment you want to say something about slavery and racial inequities, or about the destruction of culture in the name of progress, or the morality or beliefs of people, through these characters and places and events, you've stepped into narrativism.

It's the difference between the anthropologist trying to understand a culture and the missionary aid society trying to make the lives of the people better. Are you here to gain information, experience, understanding of something outside your ordinary experience, or are you here to express values against the backdrop of an imaginary scenario?

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

If you get to the point at which you decide you want to dig deeper into "who this guy is", and to do so you set up situations in which he (the character) has to face difficult choices, so that you (the player) can learn more about who he is and what it would be like to be him, you're still rather solidly in simulationist territory.

If you get to the point at which you decide that it would be interesting to use him to make statements about and otherwise explore issues that matter to you, you're crossing the line into narrativist play.

Hi Robert,

Sim by habit is defined by the tendancy of some folks who have become so accustomed to, or only know Sim play, to apply Sim play techniques and assumptions about play to ALL games, regardless of what the rules actually say.

The usual red flags that indicate Sim by Habit behavior include being unable to conceive anything other than Actor Stance, Illusionism or "realism" as the source of 'what happens', very limited player input, resolution based on "realism" or genre conventions, etc.

Sim by Habit folks stay firmly in Sim play, and are the last people to drift, often because they can't even concieve of other ways to play. Sim by Habit happens because Sim games tend to make up the majority of the market, along with most game advice(for players or GMs) encouraging Sim play. A big thing with many of these texts is a strong admonishment against Gamism("munchkinism", "powergamers", etc.) and also a preponderance of the prescripted plot as the standard technique of play(no player input= no Narrativism).

Gamist drift over long term play is common because many Sim games are built on some solid Gamist system elements, and "advice" against gamism usually isn't sufficient. It's probably the number one reason that most games have a "GM is god"/"GM has the right to fudge, ignor the rules" rule, in order to provide a guard against it.

Narrativist drift from Sim over long term play is less common just because the group as a whole has to embrace both allowing players input to the game AND addressing theme. Sim play might involve neither of those requirements, or only one. The key drift point is getting both in action at the same time.

Chris

komradebob wrote: This seems like a rather permeable border. I could see play drifting between these two very easily. Is that what Pete Darby was referring to when he mentioned "tarbaby" arguments of Deep Sim vs. Nar?

Bankuei wrote: Sim by habit is defined by the tendancy of some folks who have become so accustomed to, or only know Sim play, to apply Sim play techniques and assumptions about play to ALL games, regardless of what the rules actually say.

The usual red flags that indicate Sim by Habit behavior include being unable to conceive anything other than Actor Stance, Illusionism or "realism" as the source of 'what happens', very limited player input, resolution based on "realism" or genre conventions, etc.

Hi folks,

I think the key point that usually trips people up in the Sim/Nar border is (dah-da-dahhhh!): Addressing Premise! I do think is definitely a crossable border, since I have had personal experience doing so, in a 2 year long campaign of Feng Shui.

First you have to be willing to make serious shifts in the techniques used, which usually means tossing out all the advice on preparing and running scenarios in most Sim texts, and second, injecting Premise. Neither of these options occur to folks trapped in Sim by Habit.

I wish someone would make an authoritative definition of the Nar by habit gamers as well, that new breed who, once having drifted over to narrativism, now have difficulty conceiving that any gamer of advanced sophistication or maturity would willingly play any other CA.