I have read the Simulationism, Gamisim and Narrativism essays (amongst others) but have some considerable difficulty in applying the definitions to many instances of actual play I have encountered. To be clear on this, I can readily identify ways of playing that clearly fit into each of the 3 categories, but there is much play that doesn't seem to neatly fit. This may, however, because I am reading the definitions too narrowly, so I will describe a particular type of play I have a problem classifying, and then give an actual example of this play for clarity.

As I am always concerned that I will accidentally misuse Forge terminology and thus derail discussion as definitional points are raised, please excuse me if I attempt to avoid terms of art as much as possible in my descriptions, and instead use non-Forge language with which I am more familiar.

The sort of play I am asking about works like this. The game is run by a single GM, who spends considerable work beforehand, without consultation with the players, in preparing the game. The GM determines the starting conditions of the game to the extant they are neccessary to start play (the people involved, the backstory, the geography etc). The GM also thinks considerably about plot, but rather than pre-configuring a plotline which the players will be compelled to follow (contributing only minor details or colour along the way), the GM prepares himself for a number of likely alternative plot turns the action may take depending on player decisions. The game is then run, with the GM taking the traditional role of a GM, being to hear the players describe their characters actions, adjudicate those actions, and describe what results. The players do not perform any significant amount of narration, but (apart from limited instances where it is necessary to introduce some important new plot element by some sort of deus ex machina) the players are largely free to have their PCs do what they like, and to control the action and the outcome by that means. There is one or more moral decisions to be made by the players on which the final outcome greatly depends, where there is no "right" answer and the course the players will take is not effectively determined either by character traits recorded on the character sheets, by GM nudging, or by some convention inherent in the genre of the game being played. There are also problem-solving exercises, such as coming up with battle-strategies or solving mysteries through detective work, along the way.

The above-described type of play seems to be closest to the descriptions of Simulationism and Narrativism in the essays, but does not (in my view) really satisfy either description. There is not the "jazz-session jamming" phenomenon here that seems (from the description in the Narrativism essay) to be integral to Narrativist play, instead we have a GM fulfilling the traditional GM role of making up most of the stuff, with the players confined to specifying the actions for their players. On the other hand, the description of Simulationism also seems unsatisfied, with the choices to be taken neither pre-scripted nor dictated by character sheet or genre, but by way of free choice by the players in making moral (as well as tactical)decisions, which does remind one more of Narrativist that Simulationist play.

Now a play example as an illustration. In case it is relevant, the game system involved is a home-grown set of rules I co-created dubbed "Anthology", which allow characters described by 4 characteristics, ratings in 24 pretty general skill categories, and a general character description to be placed in whatever genre of game the GM has prepared (in other words, the characters are not genre-specific, but can with minimal translation be placed in any setting or genre). The play in question was the first outing of these rules, and the game was run not by me but by the system's co-creator. The adventure lasted for around 4 hours (from memory) and was comprised by a single session. Apart from the GM, there were 6 players, of which I was one.

The game was set in a small modern-day US town. The game started with the GM introducing each of the characters to the town, explaining who they were and how they related to other characters (this was necessary given that the characters were not genre-specific). Each PC was then confronted by the GM with a situation in which a normally mild-mannered citizen was becoming inexplicably enraged and attacking other citizens without any apparent cause. There was not much decision-making for the players at this stage, apart from deciding whether to use maximum force to KO the assailants as quickly as possible before others were injured, or whether to use minimum force in the interests of not injuring a person who appeared not to being willfully violent.

At the end of the first stage of the game, described above, the PCs had met up. Most (but not all) then decided to band together and try to find the cause of the strange rage. This involved considerable detective work and problem solving, where the players seemed to be in the driving seat rather than the GM simply handing out clues to keep things moving. The players managed to find a subtle link between the rage victims and deduced the existence of some sort of menace in the nearby woods, which was then investigated and ultimately found to be a leaking cannister of government chemicals. There was then some considerable debate between players/PCs as to how this information should be acted upon. The faction that supported calling in the government to clean up the mess and aid townsfolk infected with the chemical won out over the group considering that the government should not be trusted.

The government were called in, but the untrusting group was proved right as US military arrived and started herding the population together in a single building. The GM then caused it to be apparent, through the hostile attitude of the military and through a news broadcast announcing that the town had been destroyed by terrorists, that the military intended to kill the whole town's population. It was also made apparent, however, that the rage infection was highly contagious and seemingly untreatable, and this planned mass-slaughter seemed to have as much to do with protecting the world from infection than simply being a cover-up exercise.

The PCs now had a real dilemna- to attempt to resist the slaughter and risk the infection spreading, or to meekly submit to mass-murder of innocent townsfolk. There was also another dilemna, as the PCs were now themselves all infected by "rage". The strange thing about "rage" was that it was normally only temporary and didn't hurt the victim directly, but if the victim tried to resist an episode of anger and failed in the roll to do so, there was permanent and cumulative spiritual damage which, if it accumulated sufficiently, would finally turn the victim into a brain-eating zombie. Each PC thus had to decide each time the anger started to well up whether to save him or her self and let the violent rage take over, or whether to act in a more socially responsible manner by resisting the rage but at a possible personal cost (and the longer term societal cost of producing a new zombie).

One PC tried to solve the dilemna by sidestepping the moral dimension and simply infiltrating and attacking the military. The PC was greeted with overwhelming militray force, was shot, and ended up a zombie. There seemed no avoiding the dilemna- lead a mass-breakout to save the townsfolk, or to stay put and die and thereby perhaps save the world. This seemed, indeed, to be the central purpose of the the whole adventure, to see how players would decide in this situation (although I say this as a player and not the GM and creator of the scenario). The GM certainly did not prod the PCs down either of the two conflicting paths.

Again there were conflicts between the PCs as to what should be done. My character, Father Damien the Cleric of Fading Faith, decided that it was best to avoid the immediate evil of mass-murder as the greater evil of destruction of society was not necessarily going to flow from escape but was a mere possibility. He was opposed, however, by Sir Lucius, a Rogue Aristocrat, who considered that sacrificing the town for the sake of the world was the only sane option. With opinion still divided, Father Damien started a mass-breakout, which Sir Lucius tried to foil with the assistance of the military, but failed. The other PCs (apart from the zombie) decided to follow Father Damien's lead and went out in the escape, but Sir Lucius opted to stay behind- the only person in the town to do so. When I say the various PCs decided these things, I mean the players came to these conclusions applying their own moral judgements, rather than rolling against some personality trait or similar, or simly "roleplaying" the character in question. On the latter point, I should note that there was noting about the Rogue Aristocrat's defined character from which it would follow that he should sacrifice the town to save society, and as for the Priest of Fading Faith, both the concept of the sanctity of life and the concept of sacrifice for the greater good would have been equally familiar to the priest (and, in any event, his faith was "fading" and so he didn't feel bound by church dogma) so no decision could be made in his case based on his character traits.

Although the escapees tried to avoid any other human contact and to live in the woods until hopefully the infection passed, the infection didn't pass and inevitably some people left the group and carried the infection. There was no cure for the infection. The GM announced that all of human society was eventually destroyed. This, incidentally, was no problem for the continuing campaign, as the next session of play could simply take place in another world with the same characters, that being the central feature of the game system.

I trust I have provided enough information for meaningful comment, but if not I am happy to go into further detail on request.

Marcus

I almost stopped after reading this:

To be clear on this, I can readily identify ways of playing that clearly fit into each of the 3 categories, but there is much play that doesn't seem to neatly fit.

I agree with Mike on these salient points:

• It sounds like narrativism overall.• There's no way to be completely certain from this distance.• There's no particular reason to worry about it from what you've described, as it does sound coherent and functional overall.


I would also emphasize regarding the band analogy that it is very easy to confuse agenda with techniques. The bass player approach does work well for narrativism, but it works for gamist and simulationist play in some contexts, and there are other approaches which also work for narrativism. Freedom of choice when it matters is the critical component of narrativism, but arguably it is critical for gamism as well, and for many forms of simulationism--it's just that it matters in different situations.

--M. J. Young

One other point about a request for GNS analysis... Marcus, you tell us little or nothing about how the players were reacting to in game events, just telling us what happened in the imagined game space. Since GNS is primarily about the players, not the characters, telling us what happened in the imagined game space without telling us how the players reacted to those events is only giving us half the story.

Soooooooo... how did the players take it when they realised the session was being moved towards the Big Dilemma? Big grins, furrowed brows, resigned sighs...?

Thank you for the responses. The only reason I called for the analysis of this instance of play was to provide a concrete example of the application of the definitions of Narrativism and Simulationism to an actual instance of play in which I was involved. Although Ron has clearly gone to great efforts in his essays and in various Forge discussions to clarify these definitions, I still could not work out whether Narrativism was a phenomenon completely alien to my play, or whether it actually was the most apt description for much of my play. It appears from the responses that it is not alien at all, being achievable with what might be described as the "orthodox" functions of players and GM rather than necessarily requiring this wierd (to my eyes) concept of power-sharing GM and players in some sort of surreal jam session. I had no concern that the cited instance of play was disfunctional in some manner- I merely cited it because I thought it might be difficult to obtain views on play expressed in purely abstract terms.

As for how the players reacted physically to various developments, it is very difficult for me to recall such matters, and even more difficult to apportion such reactions to the approach of the central moral dilemna as opposed to any other event in the game. I would say that at least the player who sought to solve things through taking on the military directly was not especially engaged with the moral question. One of the other players, although apparently enjoying our various RPG sessions (he always seems to want to turn up), seldom seems to react to events in a sensible fashion, and this game was no exception- he seemed not really to engage with either the plotline or the moral dilemna, but had his character steal chicken dinners, which seemed completely inexeplicable behaviour. I am really not sure how many of the players really considered the moral issue the central point, or even an especially important point in the game. It is possible that only myself and the player of Sir Lucius realised that this is where the game focus was, as only these two players took strong stands on the question; 2 other players then supported the stand of my PC, but it could be that they did this not on any moral grounds, but because they thought launching a mass escape from armed guards more fun that remaining prisoners and being shot. It is hard to tell what they were thinking. It was fairly clear from comments made by the GM after the game, however, that he considered the moral dilemna crucial (amogst other things, I recall receiving an extra Experience reward for taking a stand- even though my stand led to the destruction of society).


Marcus