So, I've been giving my collection a partial read through lately, partly spurned on by a friend to "fix" a system we used to play (Long story why: I argued that the system didn't know what it was trying to do CA-wise, and decided I could prove this by showing him the framework of a game that better met the feel of the setting and was singularly directed to being Sim.) My efforts wandered (trying to prove my point wasn't sufficient argument to do the herculean task of fixing broken systems) and I began to become curious about one of the generally accepted tenants of Sim design.

Sim games (especially the High Concept variety, see the Sim essay) depend on the GM as a singular moderator that decides what is acceptable content in his game, and what fits his expected idea of a story. The players don't generally get input, or if they do there is a way for a GM to null it, give it no system benefit (ex Exalted where you describe a stunt the GM decides doesn't fit his idea of the genre, so he gives it only one die bonus or none), or it effectively has little meaning on the world (as someone once put it about Exalted here on the Forge, that the stunts only affect color, no other element of the game). The GM always has the ability to affect, change and alter the setting as he pleases, he can veto any PC, controls the reward systems and in general is the biggest decider on whether it will be an enjoyable experience or not. These are pretty big features of almost every Sim game on my shelf. They're some of the big reasons, in my book, why Illusionism survives as a GM maneuver.

But is there a Sim game that doesn't do it that way? We identify Sim games as being associated with trying to work precisely as specific genre... I've noticed in play that this depends alot on the GM being able to entertain the players with the story and NPCs he has come up with, and being able to get them into that special "Sim Zen" where the genre is felt very tangibly. Something tells me there must be some alternative way of getting to that level of genre-emulation, one that is actually authority decentralized, but I'm wondering if might be an impossibility.

Has anyone had any experience in a Sim game (one that is identifiable as Sim, although I realize the difficulty in that) where the GM did not have total authority, and where the players were able to make large amounts of input on the setting and the game's direction story-wise? And the game DIDN'T Drift Narr (possibly incoherently)? If it is possible, I'm wondering how, what Techniques were employed...

Thanks to anyone who points me in the direction of a similar thread. Sorry if GM power seems to be a recurring topic of mine, it's one of the things that most interests me about gaming theory.

-Dave Bapst

I'd like to add a question in relation to decentralised power, if it's okay with you David.

Decentralised power requires far more out of character discussion between players. Given its effects on immersion, is that the reason you'll see groups hand over power to one individual, in favour of a gain in immersion?

David:
Despite rumors to the contrary, Universalis tends to be strongly Sim (High Concept) supporting, and it very much divides up traditional GM duties. OTOH, it also divides up traditional character player duties, leading to the loss of immersion potential that Noon is talking about.

(For those folks that might've been shocked that I point to Uni, note that I consider the initial tenet phase to be creating the "High Concept" being simulated for the remainder of the game. This is the base of my comment)

In either case, it seems like what you are looking at is an issue involving the totality of GM duties in the person of the GM. Once you start considering identification of those duties and their re-apportionment, all sorts of funky things happen.

Incidently, since you mentioned both High Concept Sim and Narrward Drift, I have a suspicion that this is an awfully common occurence anyway.
A personal example for me would be Werewolf the Apocalypse (HC Sim), a game with many conflicts that held personal(IRL) meaning to me and my play group at the time. I'm quite sure that a number of player decisions made during those games represented atomic moments of Narr play, despite the essentially Sim nature of that game system.

David Bapst wrote: Has anyone had any experience in a Sim game (one that is identifiable as Sim, although I realize the difficulty in that) where the GM did not have total authority, and where the players were able to make large amounts of input on the setting and the game's direction story-wise? And the game DIDN'T Drift Narr (possibly incoherently)? If it is possible, I'm wondering how, what Techniques were employed...

Noon wrote: Given its effects on immersion, is that the reason you'll see groups hand over power to one individual, in favour of a gain in immersion?

komradebob wrote: David:
Despite rumors to the contrary, Universalis tends to be strongly Sim (High Concept) supporting, and it very much divides up traditional GM duties. OTOH, it also divides up traditional character player duties, leading to the loss of immersion potential that Noon is talking about.

(For those folks that might've been shocked that I point to Uni, note that I consider the initial tenet phase to be creating the "High Concept" being simulated for the remainder of the game. This is the base of my comment)

John Kim wrote:
Well, I've played in both Ars Magica and Theatrix campaigns which followed the book's troupe-style structure. For those who aren't familiar with the concept, it means there is a GM for each session, but who the GM is rotates among the participants. As for their GNS classification -- each session tended to have a relatively linear plot by the GM, which most people tend to classify as GNS Simulationist. In the 3D Model, each session would be Theme/Centralized. But while the players didn't have much control over the main plot, they could add in subplots and the setting as a whole was collectively generated.

David Bapst wrote:

John Kim wrote: Well, I've played in both Ars Magica and Theatrix campaigns which followed the book's troupe-style structure. For those who aren't familiar with the concept, it means there is a GM for each session, but who the GM is rotates among the participants. As for their GNS classification -- each session tended to have a relatively linear plot by the GM, which most people tend to classify as GNS Simulationist. In the 3D Model, each session would be Theme/Centralized. But while the players didn't have much control over the main plot, they could add in subplots and the setting as a whole was collectively generated.

Yes, that's very interesting, as it spreads what defines the genre among the entire group. I'll have to borrow my friend's Ars Magica and give it a good reread. Some questions (about AM and other troupe games): How do troupe games handle questions like character concept approval and etc? Is one GM chosen as "head GM" or "Story GM" and given some overall authority (like the Story Designer from Rune)? Or does it just default to whoever is currently GM? Or are questions of who can override who not answered in the system rules?

David Bapst wrote:

Noon wrote: Given its effects on immersion, is that the reason you'll see groups hand over power to one individual, in favour of a gain in immersion?

Noon, we're thinking along the same lines. Immersion (however the heck we define it) I've seen tends to be used as a way for players to enjoy tedious Illusionism or Participationism in Sim games. It's sort of like how Sim has the lack of metagame content, in order to not take players away from the immersion.

Noon wrote:

David Bapst wrote:

Do sim players seek immersion so as to have something to enjoy in illusionist games? Or do they seek immersion, and inadvertantly create illusionist games in the process? By avoiding meta game talk and funneling all power to just one GM, all for the sake of immersion?

Further, I wonder if you can inflict illusionism on yourself, rather than it being the GM's intent to do so? You leave him to talk, while you as a player simply immerse in your character. While immersed in your character, you feel so much in him that you must have choice like he does. Except you left the GM to just talk all by himself, and while your character (if he were real) would be able to flex his muscles and exert choices, the GM is working at a director stance level. A characters ability to choose because of character power, just has no effect at director stance level.

So when you cut yourself off from director stance as a player (while believing you still have choice via PC actions), you have brought down the veil of illusionism on yourself. You think you have a choice, but really you have none. And it would be your own doing!

Not really. In participationism (or at least the homegrown variety I aimed for in running WW games) it becomes obvious when one player stops interacting; I always felt it was somehow a sign that the players weren't enjoying my efforts to make a story for them (that sounds really funny and almost scary nowadays). In Narr, player distraction becomes obvious immediately.

I'm more inclined to think that reducing input is the result of becoming receptive to the (black curtained or not) GM Force and deciding to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

(That said, I don't think the stance level of the input matters significantly).

-Dave

I agree with Bob that Universalis is capable of supporting solid, functional sim games. Others have commented before on Uni's structural similarity with Chris Lehrich's Shadows in the Fog. If you look at our groups first 2 sessions of Shadows, here and here, I think you'll see that we ended up playing the game as some very functional sim with decentralized power. I think an Uni game could work in much the same way.

One thing to note about our play is that, as near as I could tell, no one was doing much immersion -- and no one really missed it, either. So I think it's completely possible to have functional sim with little or no immersion.

Awhile ago I played Metal Opera, which is hardcore Sim. But it's not about immersion, its more about enjoyment of color. It's like we all just sat back and joked the entire time. It has a decentalized power structure. There's still a GM, but based on a player's success (dice roll), they can either narrate or add facts to the narrative. It's very player-enabling.

David Bapst wrote: Not really. In participationism (or at least the homegrown variety I aimed for in running WW games) it becomes obvious when one player stops interacting; I always felt it was somehow a sign that the players weren't enjoying my efforts to make a story for them (that sounds really funny and almost scary nowadays). In Narr, player distraction becomes obvious immediately.

I'm more inclined to think that reducing input is the result of becoming receptive to the (black curtained or not) GM Force and deciding to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

(That said, I don't think the stance level of the input matters significantly).

-Dave

Noon wrote:
A player who is operating at a director stance level might declare 'Damn! Now I must climb down there and track it down the river! Who knows what evil dwells down there!'

A player who is operating at just an immersion level, can quite easily just say "Oh.". The immersion cuts off his ability to organise the game in a way that will satisfy him.

In my experience, Callan, just saying "oh" counts as not responding.

Huh. Thanks for pointing Metal Opera and Shadows out to me, Tim and Lee.
-Dave

John: If I loose a valuable item in real life, I'll most likely think that someone has found it by now and taken it, so it's lost forever now. I'll go "Oh"

In game, if I don't immerse, I can think at almost a meta game level how a tough but fair challenge could be presented, so I could get that item back.

In game, if I do immerse, I'm very likely going to think like I did in real life...in real life, there is no benign force that sets up tough but fair conflicts to give me a shot at getting something back. Thinking like this, I am not going to suggest some sort of adventure so I can get my stuff back. Even though that would suit me to a T.

The "I must" part is the more actor stance.

In my experience, Callan, just saying "oh" counts as not responding.

Noon wrote: David:

In my experience, Callan, just saying "oh" counts as not responding.

Take "Oh" to also include such things as standing up, posing, talking with your characters accent, talking about the terrible moment for several minutes on end, etc.

All adding lots of color and responce, but not taking control of the games direction one bit.

Noon wrote: Take "Oh" to also include such things as standing up, posing, talking with your characters accent, talking about the terrible moment for several minutes on end, etc.

All adding lots of color and responce, but not taking control of the games direction one bit.

John Kim wrote: You still haven't explained the connection to immersion though. As far as I can tell, you are postulating that immersion always means inaction. That has rarely been my experience. In general, when I immerse in character I go into action, aggressively pursuing my character's goals. I frequently get the opposite complaint -- that my behavior derails the game by shifting its direction too much.

In my experience, I don't see any relation between active/passive and immersive/non-immersive. There are plenty of non-immersive passive players who will think meta-game about where the GM wants the game to go and actively try to play along to that -- even if it makes no sense for their character. There are also immersive passive players who play passive characters.

I think I touch on this in Applied Theory, where I agree that decentralized play is perfectly possible in Simulationism.

I think that part of the problem with answering the question you're asking is that the majority even of Narrativist games centralize a great deal of credibility with the referee. Even though it's built to favor the bass-playing referee model, Sorcerer invests a great deal of credibility in the referee. Legends of Alyria goes so far as to suggest that it can be run without a referee, but the referee is included in the design. We have trouble finding any games in which someone isn't in charge at every moment. Simulationism is particularly entrenched in its traditions, and thus the least likely to provide good examples of decentralized credibility structures. However, it can be done, such as in Theatrix' assertion that character concepts may need troupe approval--a sort of democratic decision making process.

--M. J. Young

Well, MJ, it's not that I want to create GM-less Sim (well, you know what I really mean; a system where GM powers aren't centralized) but I've very willing just to find a halfway point: a game where the GM enjoys much less power, and the decision on how to define the genre is spread across the group. The troupe play suggested before comes up as the best example yet. By sharing the GM role, the players are taking turns at being the person who defines what the genre in the Sim is (I guess).

I've been thinking about this, and I think I've noticed some interesting relationships. I think once you start taking away the GM's specific control of Situation/Story (Setting and Color can be seperated just fine) we begin talking about something different, but I'm concerned about whether that's something Sim or Narr. It's hard to tell if there's no middle ground between Sim and Narr (I doubt it) or if once the whole group starts to interact as a whole on how Situation/Story develops.

(I think it may be possible that you could retain just Situation or just Story under GM control in order to keep a game recognizably Sim, but now I'm starting to get into stuff I've really never seen in actual play, so I won't bother to continue with such guessing.)