This morning I shared with Ron a message about how my most recent RPG session was a great success for me, and he asked I share the experience, so here goes.

A bit of history, first. My gaming group is composed of a few close friends that have managed largely to stick together since high school -- 10 years or more. Through that time, unsurprisingly, we've played mostly D&D in one form or another, with brief stints playing Warhammer FRP , a funky Call of Cthulhu Dreamlands campaign, and very brief sessions of a couple of my homebrew games.

Now, we play D&D cause all of us are fantasy fans. But we also play D&D because, well, because we always have! It's a kind of common RPG language for us, a tradition we can all agree on. Playing D&D so much has its disadvantages, but by and large we've enjoyed ourselves over the years. I should also point out that my fellow gamers haven't been able to agree on playing other games in the past -- certainly not more "experimental" games, so naturally we keep coming back to D&D.

Ok, now for the last 2 or 3 years, my group have stopped and started several new D&D campaigns, some longer lived than others. Part of the problem was Real Life as people moved away, got married, became fathers, etc. But, a significant part of the problem was the symptoms Ron describes in his GNS essays. That is, that the experience wasn't as fun and rewarding as it used to be. Particularly for me as the main GM, our gaming was lackluster. Sessions were hit or miss, and I was frustrated as often as I was entertained.

That's why reading Ron's articles were eye-opening for me. He was describing precisely the same problem I was having. I knew we had changed, and the reasons we wanted to roleplay had changed as we got older. Yet, we were still playing basically the same way we did in high school. Something needed to change.

Now, much of what Ron's articles and others here on the Forge I wrestle with. I'm not sure I understand every aspect of the GNS theory (and others for that matter), I don't know precisely where my group fits in to that model, and I've never completely understood other terms like IIEC, vanilla narrativism, illusion, etc. I think some of those terms might apply to my group, especially illusion, but I've not quite deciphered those terms. (Which makes me wonder if Ron would post a glossary of commonly used Forge terms. Maybe I just missed the fact that there is one already, but it'd be useful to me. Ron?)

All that said, I still found Ron's articles and Forge discussion very useful when I can apply it to my group and my GM style. I created a survey for my players and myself to examine what we liked about our session, what we didn't like, and what our motivations are for roleplaying. (if interested can check out the survey here: http://dragons.carlisle.ia.us/survey.html )

The results of the survey were very interesting. When my group discussed the results with one another, we found that we were largely on the same page in terms of whats, good, bad and ugly, and why we kept showing up each week. This was very useful to me, and really helped me redefine the way I GM.

That all came to a head last night. It was our weekly gaming session. Currently, we're playing an "all Elf" Forgotten Realms campaign in which the PCs are starting a kind of guerilla war, in an attempt to drive out the invading drow from Cormanthor and lead the return of the elves from Retreat by example. Unlike the last couple years, we've managed to keep this campaign running for more than 6 months now.

Last night's session finally broke from the formulaic session I had been throwing at my players week after week. The session involved some wonderfully immersive role-playing on the part of the three players in attendance. They discovered some startling things about their family members, discovered a mysterious tree growing in front of their newly claimed tower, held a celebratory feast for the return of one of the PCs (the player rejoined our group recently after a 3 month hiatus), all while terrible blizzard stormed on outside.

As GM I took the approach that I would simply present a situation (rather than a scenario or "adventure") and see how they reacted. They ran with it beautifully. What's more, we made maybe 10 dice rolls collectively, and did not have a single combat encounter. For my "traditional" group, that's unheard of. And, they made comments that they can't wait 'til the next session to figure out the tree and interact more with their family members.

In the end, I walked away from the table happier and more entertained than I have in a very long time.

A word of caution. Keep the Bangs up. That is, keep throwing in things like the tree idea. If you don't Sim/Gam systems will tend to eventually bog down without the "scenario" to drive them. IME.

Or are your players playing in a Narrative style despite the system? Making lots of decisions OOC for the betterment of the story, etc? (that would be vanilla Narrativism, BTW)

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
A word of caution. Keep the Bangs up. That is, keep throwing in things like the tree idea. If you don't Sim/Gam systems will tend to eventually bog down without the "scenario" to drive them. IME.

Or are your players playing in a Narrative style despite the system? Making lots of decisions OOC for the betterment of the story, etc? (that would be vanilla Narrativism, BTW)

Matt,

One of the problems with dialogue about GNS is that what people say is a very feeble measure of what they do. For instance, "I play according to what my character would do" sounds like a priority on Character Exploration, but that doesn't necessarily tell us what for (which is what GNS is all about). The only way to evaluate this is to see what sort of decisions are actually made during play.

For instance, does the person really not care what happens in the larger sense of the Situation, or how well the other people at the table understand his character, as long as he gets to experience the character? Or does he integrate crucial acts and decisions of the character into the key elements of the Situation, including backing off from acts/decisions if they wouldn't "get anywhere"? Or ... well, you can see lots of possible different angles or approaches, I'm sure. No single one of them is THE Narrativist-tag or Simulationist-tag, but after playing with the guy for a while, the pattern would emerge for those who know what to look for.

Another confounding factor is that a person's decision-making about this stuff is often muted or covered by the available options given the system at hand. For example, I've been employing Director Stance as player for many years as a major element of my Narrativist goals, long before I ever saw a game design that formally gave it to me. But other people I know were astounded at that design - they took to it immediately, once it was "allowed," but had never conceived of it as an option prior to that point, and had never put their [fill-in the GNS goal] into action using that stance before.

So all this is to say that understanding another person's preferred mode of play is a multivariate process, and most especially to be based on observation and play, rather than on the person's self-perception or key phrases.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
For instance, does the person really not care what happens in the larger sense of the Situation, or how well the other people at the table understand his character, as long as he gets to experience the character? Or does he integrate crucial acts and decisions of the character into the key elements of the Situation, including backing off from acts/decisions if they wouldn't "get anywhere"?

So all this is to say that understanding another person's preferred mode of play is a multivariate process, and most especially to be based on observation and play, rather than on the person's self-perception or key phrases.

Matt,

Based on your description of their "character-ish" play, then, I would suggest that a certain amount of Narrativism may be present in their decision-making. Again, I can't say without playing with them myself, but your more detailed description in the above post does point in that direction. Therefore, I think that we agree regarding my point - that when someone says, "Oh, I just play my character," it can mean just about anything.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
Matt,

Based on your description of their "character-ish" play, then, I would suggest that a certain amount of Narrativism may be present in their decision-making. Again, I can't say without playing with them myself, but your more detailed description in the above post does point in that direction. Therefore, I think that we agree regarding my point - that when someone says, "Oh, I just play my character," it can mean just about anything.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Matt,

Based on your description of their "character-ish" play, then, I would suggest that a certain amount of Narrativism may be present in their decision-making. Again, I can't say without playing with them myself, but your more detailed description in the above post does point in that direction. Therefore, I think that we agree regarding my point - that when someone says, "Oh, I just play my character," it can mean just about anything.

Best,
Ron

Marco,

You see, this is exactly the problem in all of our discussions to date. "Playing my character," or "Staying consistent for my character" can mean anything in GNS terms.

A highly specific group of people mis-read my definition of Simulationism as the only role-players who value Exploration, whereas my point is that all role-players value it, and that the Sims (in their multifarious ways) are distinctive in that they are willing to base all their decision-making on preserving the in-game causality. The mis-reading of this point leads these folks to think that Narrativism must be about some abstract "story thing" to which all considerations of character, setting, situation, decision-making, etc, must be sacrificed.

So here I am, Narrativist player, "playing my character." Do I think, "What would he do?" Sure I do! In my case, the question serves the purposes of the underlying player priority of getting a great story made about this guy; why ever in the world would I permit violating "him"? That would defeat the purpose. What makes it Narrativist is that the character's "identity" and the "story in action" are related to one another; it is part of the player contract (goal) to bring that character into visibility for everyone else to appreciate, as a protagonist of a real, relevant conflict.

It really comes down to what "story" means, as a term. To a Narrativist, story is an outcome of character decisions, conflict resolutions, and the author's (players', GM's) commitment to the issue at hand. Sacrificing the integrity of any of these makes a worse story, not a better one. Rather, the integrity of these things are utilized, up-front, to produce a story (as just described) as the shared end.

All of this is sharply distinguished, in practice, from the Simulationist role-player whose priority is on Character. Some of the examples given here at the Forge of on-line Amber play are perfect examples - the player's priority is to develop a personal, private experience of the deep motives and self-insights and reactions of the character. The player interacts with the other material in play (situation, other characters, etc) specifically to generate this experience. Resolving elements of conflict becomes an optional means to an end, not an end in itself, and the players have no particular investment in that resolution, if it's even present at all.

[I could write a similar paragraph as the above one for all of the various branches of Simulationism: emphasis on Situation, emphasis on Setting, and combinations. I could also discuss Narrativist play with a stronger emphasis on Setting or Situation than on Character. However, the topic at hand concerns Character-centered play, Sim as opposed to Narr, so that's what I'm describing.]

This whole post is also why Vanilla Narrativism shares no overlap or "closeness" to Simulationist play, which is a related misconception.

Best,
Ron

Maybe you need a bigger stick :-)

Seriously, having followed GNS for a while now I trace this misconception (which I also held at one time) to earlier days when when the three points were being described as mutual exclusive. What was not made clear at the time (I think it was mentioned but not so explicitly that I caught on to what it meant) but has been made more clear more recently, is that this exclusiveness applies *only at the point of decision*.

It it thus possible for simulative seeming elements to peacefully (and effectively) coexist next to narrativist elements and gamist elements within the same game, within the same player, within the same play session, even within the same scene. Ultimately though, at the point of a specific decision for a specific situation, the players choice as to how to handle that decision must come down to one and only one element (at that point in time).

Thus, even in a narrativist game it is entirely possible (indeed encouraged) to "get into character". The player can always evaluate his choices in terms of "what would my character do". Most of the time the answer to this question will not conflict with the question of "what would make for the most compelling story".

It is only at those junctures in the game where "what would my character do" conflicts with "what would make for the most compelling story" that a hard choice must be made. It is the players choice at this point of decision that defines the difference between narrativism and simulationism.

This (perhaps) could be made even more dramatically explicit in the essay for those of us in the cheap seats :-)