Hello Forgers,

I'm working on a home brew system, but I'm running into a weird obstacle: the game has to be initially Simulationist, but will gradually evolve into Narrativism.

I know Ron believes no game can satisfy several modes at the same time, and I agree, but I was wondering if you guys had already encountered this problem, and how I should work to facilitate the transition; I basically need to develop the game setting on my own, or expose an already established (and well supported in terms of source material)setting to the players, and once they've become familiar with it, let them become storytellers within the parameters of the developed setting.


Thanks for any advice !!

Manu

Hey Manu,

I've spent the time to check out all the Scattershot threads, mainly by cut and pasting into a Word file and musing over it. I suggest that it provides some interesting ideas along the lines you are thinking.

Also, your goal is so vague that I can't address it further. Remember, GNS has to do with what people want and do; all game design does is make the goals easier or harder. I can't stress enough that determined play will override system effects, although my other claim is that it's very high-maintenance.

[In other words, all those pained and horrified posts about how you can play, say, D&D or Vampire in a, say, Narrativist fashion are absolutely right.]

Therefore, what you are talking about, I think, is to present a system that does not exceed Simulationist comfort level yet offers, in small or eventually-accessible ways, the opportunity to use techniques that enhance Narrativist play.

Tell me if I'm reading this correctly.

Best,
Ron

Hey Manu,

In my experience with Narrativist games, most notably the scenario I ran with The Pool, where I initially needed to reveal both the situation and details of the setting, but with Theatrix as well, I've noticed that a great deal of the evolution you're wanting to achieve comes almost naturally. If a GM handles the first session or two of a scenario with aggressive scene framing, driving conflict situations at the player characters, he can easily reveal NPC's and setting to the players without the effort being substantially hindered by players going great guns with metagame mechanics and whatnot. I think this is because players give themselves a little while to get their bearings on what the GM is delivering, and because it takes some revelation of situation and setting before the player figures out for himself what narrative he wants to work up with the character in relation to the GM's stuff, and how he wants to make use of metagame in support of that narrative. So I think as a matter of practice that Narrativist games tend to start out with slightly more heavy-handedness from the GM than you see in later sessions, where the balance shifts to greater player use of Authorial and/or Directorial power and asking for specific scenes. Still, I wouldn't call it an evolution from Simulationism to Narrativism, but perhaps an evolution from "Vanilla Narrativism" to "With-Toppings" Narrativism, because you can definitely expect some player requests for specific scenes, and use of Directorial power to influence the presence and behavior of NPC's from the outset, just not as much as you'll see later.

And as far as setting is concerned, I think you'll find in actual play that you need to reveal far less a volume of stuff than you're thinking now. I think you'll find yourself revealing setting and correcting misconceptions about the setting via out-of-character interactions with players amid game events. During a fight scene, you may find yourself saying things like, "The Lemon Sunrise Guards train for twenty years to learn these maneuvers." That may seem awkward, but it actually works very smoothly and almost unconsciously during play.

Paul

Hey guys,

Ron:
You guessed right; I'm very concerned by the "high maintenance" aspect of it all. So sure enough, I can take GURPS and implement at least Vanilla Narrativism, even things akin to James' MoV, frex.I guess I'm still a bit confused as to the "cruise speed" of the campaign: Simulationist with some "shy" Narrativism, Simulationist cum Narrativist, or full blown Narrativist that needs Simulationism as a springboard. Maybe I should design a game based on degrees of players' latitude in obtaining Director power- a game based on stances would be especially appropriate for my specific issue here. "On screen" time as a mechanic, tight metagame structuring of authorial power, subdivisions of Director stance in: scene request, NPC influence, subplot triggering, etc...sounds good to anyone?

Paul:
I can see where you come from. My main issue would be with adjusting the depth/scope of the setting material revealed relative to the player's understanding, vision, and Directorial/Authorial power. I'm a bit scared of letting the players fool around with the setting without knowing the full implications of their visions, which is to say, I have trouble reconciling Narrativism with Setting Exploration. And I feel the problem must be somewhat common. I use Fading Suns as an example because the setting is very rich and developed, but at the same time there's this (totally negelcted in the rulebook) thing in the rules about "Passion Play", which just begs for a Narrativist approach, and I can't find a way around it. So, granted, Narrativism can do marvellous things to a campaign, and we could end up having a richly developed , alternate FS campaign...which would probably leave out 80% of the original source material. And I'm not confident enough in my ability as a storyteller, and the prospective players ability as co-authors/directors, to match a setting developed for several years with amazing consistency.

I hope this clears things up for you, any advice is still welcome from all readers.

Manu

Manu,

Some friends of mine are accidentally doing a similar thing at the moment.

The GM seems Sim-by-Habit (he's a great player, but avoids most rules as a GM), and over the last couple of years has run a bunch of Sim-heavy games, with little or no player control, but lots of player input (ie, advice on where the plot should go). He's running 'Adventure!' at the moment, which does have a 'dramatic editing' mechanic. Players can expend a few points from a small pool to just add an object to a scene ("ooh, a parachute") or twist a scene in a larger way ("Actually, the cultist is my grandmother, gentlemen").

As far as I understand it, the players are only just starting to see the possibilities in using dramatic editing, after 3 sessions. They're beginning to realise what a life-saver it can be (handy parachutes). And from what I understand, they're beginning to understand they can tweak the plot a little.

Obviously, the rules system isn't changing, and is very Sim. I *suppose*, once the game got going, the group could throw out the Fortune mechanic for Drama, keep dramatic editing, and start giving characters more and more points to tweak the plot. Lots of fudging there.

Can I ask, why is your game going from Sim to Narrativist? Do the characters gain amazing world-tweaking powers? I have played in a mangled game with that premise, and oy, it sucked. I can tell you why if it becomes relevant. =)

Best,

Joe.

Manu,

What's your attachment to the setting material?

Notice I'm asking "what" and not "why". You have your reasons and whatever they are, they're valid. But there's something going on with you and setting that is confusing your play priorities, or at least that's how I interpret it.

You may be having trust issues with your players, believing they are somehow going to do something that's going to damage the pre-conceived setting material. Ultimately, if the players and the GM are on the same page in terms of mode of play, such fears are probably unfounded. They won't do anything so bizarre that it would jeopardize the integrity of the setting, and if they do, there's something else going on with the playgroup (like maybe they're not getting what they want out of the game).

But in regards to that final bit, so what if the players do do something that violates some bit of setting or metaplot? One of the cool things about Authorial/Directorial power is that it presumes that the players will know better than the GM what would be fun for themselves, and it gives them the ability to make that real. Sacrificing player enjoyment to preserve written setting material is a poor trade off, in my opinion.

- Scott