Let's see if I got this straight. Having read the essay various times and read these threads I'm understanding Narritivism and Simulationism for Situation as so:

Narritivism: focus on story/theme with player input

Simulationism (Situation): focus on story with complete GM control, no player input

Is the deference really whose making the story up at the table? If so, then what's the point of defining GM/Player Directorial Stance--since a player with directorial powers is by definition playing in a Narrativist game?

And finally, if the dividing line is very small, why isn't Narritivism just Simulationism (Theme)?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Hi Steve,

This one will have to wait for a day or two. Real life intervenes. For now, I'll say that your distinction is a bit simplistic and that the differences between Simulationism and Narrativism are more fundamental.

Anyone else is of course free to jump in.

Best,
Ron

Steve,

I'll jump in with an admittedly simplistic analogy:

Think about the difference between real life and a book. In a book, a good story will (or at least should) happen. It's the purpose of being a book - to have a good story. There will still be characters, a background, a setting, and the like, but events are written for the singular purpose of creating a good story.

In real life, you don't think, 'What would make a good story?' before you do things. You think, 'What's the most practical solution?' A lot of times, you don't even think that. You just go with what pleases you the most.

Likewise, narrativism is role-playing for the explicit purpose of creating a good story. Decisions are made to influence the quality of the story, and hopefully, mechanics will support story creation.

In simulationism, you role-play with the explicit purpose of portraying a character within a set of boundaries. It doesn't have to be realistic, but consistent. What your character does and can do are set by the "simulation," or the setting and theme of the game.

As in real life, you'd love it if a great story came out of your action, but that's not the point. Simplified, the point is asking yourself, "What would this guy do in this situation?" and exploring the outcomes of that.

I'll have a crack, partly becuase I suspect I may be Ron's diametric counterpoint when it comes to sim and exploration. For a while I have been thinking that Sim needs a Forge to discuss its own particular nuances :)

I hadb a bit of a difficulty with the narrativism "vs" sim thing the other day in the horror + nar thread, becuase the descriptions of narratavist play and player behaviour do not seem a million miles away from my experience of player behaviour in strongly Illusionist games.

I think it is necessarily the case that all the preferences can adopt authorial, and to a lesser extent directorial, stances. I think the distinction lies in the degree of consciousness by the players of their "right", in fact responsibility, to exercise this power. Sim players will, I think, occassionally exert authorial power unconsciously. I'm not sure they ever exert directorial power unconsciously, however.

Thus I think an explicit metagame dialogue is between player and "GM" about story points and events is more likely in the Nar environment; I suspect Sim players are more likely to exhibit their "authorialism" with propositions about the game rather than statements about it. Fundamentally, too much conversation of thus type is likely to challenge the Sim and ths their enjoyment.

To me, at the moment, the distinction lies in the conscious awareness of the tools and their use.

contracycle wrote:
I think it is necessarily the case that all the preferences can adopt authorial, and to a lesser extent directorial, stances. I think the distinction lies in the degree of consciousness by the players of their "right", in fact responsibility, to exercise this power. Sim players will, I think, occassionally exert authorial power unconsciously. I'm not sure they ever exert directorial power unconsciously, however.

contracycle says:

To me, at the moment, the distinction lies in the conscious awareness of the tools
and their use.

Clinton R. Nixon says:

In simulationism, you role-play with the explicit purpose of portraying a character
within a set of boundaries. It doesn't have to be realistic, but consistent. What your
character does and can do are set by the "simulation," or the setting and theme of
the game.

Hi Steve,

I found a minute so shall wade back in ...

First of all, these are excellent, critical questions. I totally endorse you asking them.

I'll stick with the most fundamental of the bunch, because I'm pretty sure it'll reverberate out to the others:
"why do we run things through the GNS meatgrinder? Why can't we just discuss RPGs under the heading Exploration and dispense with GNS? What is it that GNS is bringing to the table that I can't explain through Exploration of System, Setting, Theme, Character, Situation, or Plot(?), etc?"

I think that Theme is (a) not an imagined element of play. It is an outcome, or even better, a reaction. The same, in many ways, applies to Plot - insofar as we are talking about events and outcomes that are only derived through play, not "pre-planned Plot" (which would be Situation).

In other words, the elements that I have listed (Character, Situation, Setting, Color, even System) may be introduced as "things to imagine" by the various people at the table. Plot cannot - it arises from play (System in action). Theme cannot - it arises from a reaction or judgment applied to Plot.

The larger issue, though, is "Why not just talk about Exploring?"

The answer is, Because people Explore (role-play) for different reasons, and the way they want any of the listed elements to interact is going to vary in tremendously varying ways based on these reasons. This is, in the most general sense of the term, "metagame." Why does Johnny play?

That's why GNS is a big deal - because no procedural or imaginative aspects of role-playing are going to be reliably successful without accord among the people involved about "why," and (as I argue) without some procedural facilitation from the System itself.

I should also point out that Plot and Theme, as discussed above, are not universally desired or prioritized aspects of role-playing. Plenty of people have argued passionately about, and spend hours performing, modes of play that specifically disavow these things. I, on the other hand and for-instance, intensely dislike playing without them as priorities (with some exceptions). That's the metagame right there - without GNS or something like it to describe these real-life, real-human priorities, then we spin into dysfunctional play, dysfunctional design, and dysfunctional discussion.

Best,
Ron

I'm going to take a crack at this. I think Ron dislikes the terms 'in-game' and 'out-of-game' but I'm going to use them anyway because I think they at least convey what I'm getting at if not concretely define what is actually going on.

Look at the top of the essay and you'll notice that Ron creates sort of a 'minimum' requirement for something to be a roleplaying game. He basically says that roleplaying is the act of imagining:

Character, Situation, Setting, Color and System.

I think Theme/Plot are dilberately excluded from this list because they are fundamentally different and not NECESSARY for something to be a roleplaying game. The five elements listed are all, 'in-game' constructs. Notice that the footnote even defines 'System' to mean 'events to be occurring.' That is, these things all really 'exist' in the shared imagined space that is the game world. If this imagined space were somehow real then these 5 things are what it would be made up of.

Things like Theme and Plot and even Game, however require an external observer. They require something OUTSIDE the imagined space. A Character only has a Theme in that there is something external to that character to recognize that theme. A Plot exists only in that there is an outside observer to impose some meaning on the sequence of events. A Game only exists if there is external entity aranging things appropriately. And so on.

GNS in some sense is an answer to the question, 'What purpose do these 5 elements serve?'

In a Gamist environment those five elements are deliberately arranged to produce some kind of 'game' in the classic sense of the word. The five elements are subservient to the player's desire for good competition.

In a Narrativist environment those five elements are deliberately arranged to produce some kind of 'story' in the litterary sense of the word. The five elements are subservient to the player's desire to explore a Premise (narrow Narrativist sense) and author a Theme.

However, in a Simulationist environment those five elements are the very point of play. The five elements are subservient to nothing other than the predefined arrangement for their self-contained interactions.

From this point the existence of Director Stance does not effect the view point. Director Stance alone does not define Narrativism because we have to understand WHY Director Stance is being imployed.

In fact I find that Simulationist players use Director Stance more often than they think.

GM: "The Elevator isn't working."
Player: "Okay, I'll take the stairs."

The player just used Director Stance. But he didn't do it because of Premise or Theme or Game. He did it because that's a natural extention of the already existing element of the game.

GM: "You're in a Roman War Chariet speeding across the desert."

Player: "Okay, Roman Chariets have shields on them. I'm going to take the shield...."

Again, Director Stance but no indication that this isn't Simulationism.

Is this any clearer?

Jesse

jburneko says:

Is this any clearer?

Steve Dustin wrote:
It appears that the five principles are the actual key, and not GNS.

Mike Holmes says:

The key to what? Without GNS you have no organization of these items. GNS is, for
me, a key to avoiding bad game designs. Not the only key, but an important one.

Mike Holmes says:

You very much seem to want GNS to not be central to RPGs for some reason. Well,
don't worry, it's not. It's only central to GNS theory.

Hey Steve,

You wrote,
"If I'm reading you right, this separates Gamist and Narrativist from Simulationist. Gamist and Narrativist uses those principles to achieve "something" (game, theme, premise...). Simulationist is strictly exploration and "simulation" of those principles. "

You are absolutely correct, and if you take a peek at the part of essay where I focus Premise according to GNS, you'll see that I say exactly the same thing. The "something" by definition must be a real-people thing, not an in-game thing. For Narrativists, it's Premise becoming Theme; for Gamists, it's "challenge" or "contest" becoming victory/loss of some kind.

I think this is a good indication that you are indeed latching on to all of this with very little grinding.

Best,
Ron