Over in What kind of GM/Player Am I?

Trevis Martin wrote: I'm looking at this topic with great hesitation. I read a post on a blog not long ago that mourned the loss of the war of turning the creative agendas according to Ron's big model into identity politics. That is, it is absolutely critical to understand that a person isn't Gamist, Narrativist or Simulationist. There are no G, N or S people, there are only instances of play that are G, N, or S.

I like to connect the GNS discussions to my current AD&D group, which has been very enlightening. I know people have told you to try and look at actual examples of play, and I strongly second that.

Now, while no one is a Gamist per se, people tend to have preferences, and games as well as GM and play styles tend to support one agenda over another, in the big picture of things.

When I was introduced to my current AD&D game, the GM and main player appeared to be running a Sim game. They told me all about their detailed world, how they do research and use geography books to create accurate locations, how they like to tie characters into the world, etc.

So I created my character believing this to be a Sim-oriented game. That means, when it came to character creation choices, instead of making my character powerful, I made him consistent with the setting.

It turned out that in play, the GM strongly encourages Gamism. Even with the details and world consistency and cultural history background, actual play and rewards (XP) revolve around combat, traps, lockpicking, puzzle solving, etc. I find that I cannot play my character as expected, because if I did, I would fail more at those tasks and die rather quickly. In fact, I have almost decided to let my character die at the earliest possibility to make a more Gamist-oriented character. Because that's the dominant style of the group.

So yes, there can be GNS conflicts, and proper understanding of what's going on in my group has helped me enjoy the Gamism aspects instead of being constantly frustrated about the absence of Sim play (not to mention Nar).

And while agenda can differ from instance to instance, you will find that certain aspects, notions, and play styles support and further different agenda. As I said in my example, we could all have different agenda and play them differently in various instances of play, but the reward system alone pushes us to make more Gamist decisions.

Hi Elliot,

By way of analogy- let us say that out of a group of people, there is a number who like vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry ice cream, respectively. Some people like two of the flavors, and some like all 3. These are preferences. Although one can jokingly call someone a "Chocolate person", they may also like vanilla, or whatever else. Their tastes may change with time, or maybe they only like it if it has nuts and candy in it, whatever.

These likes exist, and are identifiable. In GNS, you can also identify the sorts of things you like and the things you don't like without necessarily needing conflict to show it. The reason most people only notice the CA preferences in conflict, is the equivalent to only noticing the difference in the ice creams after you put it in your mouth.

For most gamers, the problems identifying CA usually come from one of the following:

- Familar with only one way ("I've only eaten chocolate, therefore all ice cream = chocolate. Anything else is not ice cream!")
- Misperceptions of value ("Strawberry is immature and for kids. Chocolate is real ice cream. What I'm eating is pink chocolate!")
- Misperceptions of what constitutes a given choice ("All Dreyers is chocolate. I'm eating Dreyer's Vanilla Chocolate!")

Obviously, if we're talking ice cream, the conflicts between reality and imagined beliefs are where people are going to have to become honest with what they're really dealing with. Likewise, for gaming, when people are dealing with a misperception, conflict usually points to folks trying to do two incompatible things, and the fact that the two are not the same becomes apparent.

For folks who know their flavors- they don't have this problem to begin with.

Chris

Thank you both for your answers.

Xenopulse, I don't have a problem with the existence of conflicts. What I'm wondering is whether GNS can be identified absent of conflict. Now, in your example, you do answer my second question, which is whether a person can (as it were) self-identify GNS goals--but note that this is only in the presence of a clash between modes.

Bankuei, if I see three people eating ice cream, I can tell what flavors they're eating by looking at the colors and I can tell whether each person is enjoying it by asking them. What if I can't see the colors?

Similarly, how can I tell which CA each person is prioritizing, and whether they might possibly be prioritizing different CA's, except by either (a) asking them, (b) observing a clash in their agendas (analogous to having the ice cream eaters rotate their cones and then watching their reactions), or (c) playing the game myself (which just makes me another ice cream eater)?

You're right, my response was more aimed at your second question.

I think the ice cream comparison is a bit flawed, because we're talking decision making here. Which is still imperfect when observed from the outside, but has a better chance. It's more like people who choose what car to drive--and then you can guess why one picked a Mustang while another picked a Prius. You might be wrong, but you have some chance.

E.g., think back to moments in play when a player had the choice to either show off their skills and/or character power, or make a thematic statement by not doing that. What did they do? When creating a character, are they taking "flaws" in order to buy better powers, or to give thematic openings, or because they seem "appropriate" given the character concept?

The primary player in my group is clearly a Gamist, and he has no clashes. How do I know? Because he scolded me for my choice of skills upon leveling. "We have to maximize our potential," he said. "So you should max out your sneaking and hiding, because player B already has the lockpicking and trap finding down." That's a very clear Gamist statement; he thinks about maximizing the group's ability to face challenges.

I can clearly think of other things he could have said that would have been more Sim or Nar oriented.

Hi Elliot,

Similarly, how can I tell which CA each person is prioritizing, and whether they might possibly be prioritizing different CA's, except by either (a) asking them, (b) observing a clash in their agendas (analogous to having the ice cream eaters rotate their cones and then watching their reactions), or (c) playing the game myself (which just makes me another ice cream eater)?

xenopulse wrote: You're right, my response was more aimed at your second question.

I think the ice cream comparison is a bit flawed, because we're talking decision making here. Which is still imperfect when observed from the outside, but has a better chance. It's more like people who choose what car to drive--and then you can guess why one picked a Mustang while another picked a Prius. You might be wrong, but you have some chance.

E.g., think back to moments in play when a player had the choice to either show off their skills and/or character power, or make a thematic statement by not doing that. What did they do? When creating a character, are they taking "flaws" in order to buy better powers, or to give thematic openings, or because they seem "appropriate" given the character concept?

The primary player in my group is clearly a Gamist, and he has no clashes. How do I know? Because he scolded me for my choice of skills upon leveling. "We have to maximize our potential," he said. "So you should max out your sneaking and hiding, because player B already has the lockpicking and trap finding down." That's a very clear Gamist statement; he thinks about maximizing the group's ability to face challenges.

Hi Elliot,

I'll be able to help you out a lot in this issue if you'll do one thing: post in Actual Play. Describe your play-experiences, tell us what the people did, and so on.

It could be an old session, a recent one, a fun one, a crappy one, from a short game, from a long game, whatever.

There's no need to try to analyze it yourself, although reflecting on it using whatever criteria you'd like is necessary. Then we'll talk a little.

That is the only way to learn about the Big Model.

Best,
Ron

Okay, I'll do that, perhaps later today. It will have to be an old session, and of those I think I might choose several memorable examples from a particular campaign. See you over there.

ewilen wrote: Bankuei, what I think you're saying is that an experienced theorist can recognize GNS modes in person more reliably than an untrained person who is self-identifying. But it's still not entirely clear to me what the theorist is going to be looking for. I suppose the biggest problem for the third-party observer might be distinguishing so-called Vanilla Narrativism from certain forms of Simulationism within a given instance of play, since Vanilla Nar is described as Narrativist play which lacks certain identifying techniques.

Note that I can easily see that there would be no difficulty in identifying a mode transition from an instance of Narrativist play, say during character creation, to Sim play later on. But while xenopulse's example contains an overt "symptom" of Gamist preferences, and a gateway into observing coherent Gamist play (such as players engaging in metagame strategizing), I'm at a loss to see how one would identify Vanilla Nar as Nar.

Cruciel, thank you for your comments--I'd also appreciate anything you might have to add to the Actual Play thread. (For reference--Highs & Lows from an old campaign. Even though I wasn't trying to illustrate any points germane to this topic, there may be some.)

You write, "I think if you want to get analysis useful for your actual play out of GNS it would be best to ignore Sim." Do you mean my play, or anyone's actual play? Either way, that's a very interesting comment. Do you think it also applies to analysis of game design?

Hi Elliot,

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused- are you asking how to identify GNS preferences at all or if it's possible to identify them without conflict? If the question is the latter- that's what my posts have been addressing. If you're asking the former, then that's pretty much the entire basis of all the model.

It's not really a matter of "experience" it's a matter of looking at the right thing- the color of the ice cream as it were. That's why a lot of people make it into something much harder than it really is.

Chris

Elliot,

You're right, I guess there was a conflict there with regards to the leveling. That said, now that I recognized that, I could easily pose the question to a player even outside a game: How do you decide how to level your character? The answer can give great clues as to their style of play.

Then again, many people are being trained to think a certain way (I call this the preconceived notions of how RPGs are supposed to be played), without ever reflecting that there are other ways as well. So while they may act in accordance with a certain CA, it's possible that they just haven't been exposed to other options.

ewilen wrote: You write, "I think if you want to get analysis useful for your actual play out of GNS it would be best to ignore Sim." Do you mean my play, or anyone's actual play? Either way, that's a very interesting comment. Do you think it also applies to analysis of game design?

Thanks, cruciel. I think I understand where you're coming from. I have looked at that thread, and it touches on a good number of issues related to this topic; however, what I get from it is that the definitions of several fundamental concepts are very much in contention. In fact you seem to have rejected GNS qua GNS, at least for the moment.

Everyone, I've noticed that in other threads, "conflict" has been tentatively put forward as a criterion for determining GNS in the sense of "how you handle conflict inside the imaginative space", as opposed to clash between GNS modes. I realize I've already used "conflict" in the former sense but for the sake of clarity perhaps we can switch to "clash"?

xenopulse, I understand what you're saying. Thanks.

Bankuei, I've zeroed in on the question of Vanilla Narrativism vs. Simulationism. Now, this may be an old issue that is no longer represented in current conceptions of GNS. However, Vanilla Narrativism seems to be a case of people playing in a Narrativist mode without "doing anything" that looks Narrativist (especially to them). If so, why should the model distinguish between Vanilla Nar and Sim? It seems to invite the identity politics which were decried in the parent thread, for no benefit. Would it be less problematic to leave the issue of play-mode-categorization aside, until someone either says, "I don't want to play that way", or "I am experiencing a clash of priorities X and Y which interferes with my enjoyment. Please pick one."

There are two questions here: (1) What benefit do we get by defining play modes outside of clashes (or potential clashes, e.g. when designing). (2) If there is a benefit, how do we go about assigning observed play to one mode or another?

Hi Elliot,

However, Vanilla Narrativism seems to be a case of people playing in a Narrativist mode without "doing anything" that looks Narrativist (especially to them). If so, why should the model distinguish between Vanilla Nar and Sim?

There are two questions here: (1) What benefit do we get by defining play modes outside of clashes (or potential clashes, e.g. when designing). (2) If there is a benefit, how do we go about assigning observed play to one mode or another?

Hey Elliot,

As you can no doubt see that while what defines Nar and Gam (addressing Premise and Challenge respectively) has been pretty much settled how to define Sim is still very much in debate.

If you wish to gain some additional perspective on Sim and don't mind some heavy reading I suggest the following links -

Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games
Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!]
On RPGs and Text [Long]
Sim is Bricolage and makes myth - comments?
An effort to un-gum the Discussion.
1/3rd baked idea about Situation and Sim
Bricolage APPLIED (finally!)

I hope this helps you in your learning process here at the Forge.

Thank you, Jay. That is certainly my impression.

In fact I've been reading those same threads and articles lately (or they're on my reading list, and if I've missed any, thanks for helping me locate them). The concept of bricolage for which you appear to be one of the main advocates is an attractive idea to me.

However, getting back to Bankuei's post (hi, Chris) is this concept of "vanilla Narrativism" settled or in debate? Because even with Sim-as-bricolage, I'm not seeing where Vanilla Nar clashes with Sim at all. One player could be in Sim mode for an entire instance of play, while another player is addressing premise (but without using Director Stance, etc.), and neither need be any the wiser that there's no shared CA. Nor would a player experience "aesthetic discord" by being caught between Vanilla Nar and Sim.

If my impression is correct, that seems to conflict with the notion that you can only have one CA dominant at a time.

Something has to give in my scenario. Either my understanding of the exclusive dominance rule, or my idea of an instance of play, or the assignment of "Vanilla Nar" to Nar and not Sim. Another possibility would be that the criterion for distinguishing Nar and Sim, "Addressing Premise", can be boiled down entirely to emotional response, as suggested by cruciel. But in the latter case, I still don't see how that implies an interpersonal or intrapersonal clash.

Hi Elliot,

Vanilla Nar is a settled term- it refers to what techniques you go about achieving Narrativism. In the same sense, we could coin Vanilla Gamism, as many Sim supporting games have the potential for gamist play as well.

What you may be thinking of is Hybrid play-

From the Prov. Glossary:

Play which combines two or more Creative Agendas. Observed functional hybrids to date include only two rather than all three, and one of the agendas is apparently primary or dominant, with the other playing a supportive role. See my review of The Riddle of Steel.

Thank you, Bankuei. This makes me wonder, what does a clash between Vanilla Narrativism and Simulationism look like? Let's say that we're not talking about Participationist or Illusionist Simulationism. (Are there any examples from Actual Play?)

Hi Elliot,

I can't say I've experienced that clash really.  Whenever I run into "non-directed" Sim play, I run far away, very fast.  Perhaps that IS a Nar-Sim clash by itself, though I know personally that form of Sim play holds less than zero appeal for me and usually the folks who I find playing it not particularly my crowd.  Other Nar folks may have different stories.

I do think that the thing that drives me away, and may apply to others is that Nar play is very based on a "point"(Addressing Premise), while non-directed Sim play is very much not about a point.  I guess you could say it's like trying to play catch with someone who doesn't catch the ball- it hits them, they blink, then they blink again...  If you want the ball, you got to go pick it up yourself and throw it again.  After a point, there's no reason to throw the ball-  you're not playing catch in any sense of the word.

The clash is not so much about techniques here, it's about Creative Agenda- why we're playing in the first place.

Chris

I briefly took conversation to PM with Chris, but I was just able to clarify where I'm going in this so I'm coming back into public in case others would like to contribute.

You wrote that you run away from "non-directed" Sim play. What I'm trying to find out about is Sim play that doesn't fall in that category, and which isn't Illusionist/Participationist. Does such play exist? If it does, what does it look like, and how does it differ from/clash with Nar?

I'm going to post the examples from my last PM over in Actual Play. I don't know if further theoretical discussion should continue here or in that thread.

Here's the link: Clarifying Sim vs. Vanilla Nar

Just a note on hybrid play.  The existence of hybrid play is one of those things that is tied directly to the definition of Sim in use.  All identified and theorized (last I checked) hybrid play is either Nar+Sim or Gam+Sim. 

Let us assume hybrid play does exist.  This unavoidably leads to theories such as the Beeg Horseshoe Theory, which are not dependant upon an instance of play to make an analysis, due to the lack of an exclusive priority in Sim because of its unique ability to hybridize.  This renders the term hybrid obsolete due to all play being hybrid.  This requires a definition of Sim that is not exclusive - definitions based on exploration/causality/etc (the definition in the Sim essay).

However, in order to be able to identify GNS modes by when they conflict they must be exclusive priorities.  GNS makes its classification by choosing the dominant mode over an instance of play (a big lump of decisions, such as a session).  If there is no observable dominant mode then play is undefined (congruent).  Thus, hybrid play cannot exist.  As hybrid play does not exist a definition of Sim that is exclusive is required - one that is completely independent of exploration/causality/etc such as the learning/discovery definition.

Either way we end up with hybrid play not existing.  I've been away for a while, so perhaps things have changed, but I thought hybrid play was a dead concept seeing as it's just an ambiguous way of stating the Beeg Horseshoe Theory.  I suppose the concept could still apply to game design without applying to play.

I'm not sure what "non-directed" Sim play means.  A creative agenda is a direction...  Sim lacking any guiding techniques?  Sort of Vanilla Sim?

Anyway... Vanilla Nar is, in my experience, most often adherence to character integrity.  By consistently doing what the character would do you end up with a theme built from the character's personality.  For exploration/causality Sim definitions there doesn't end up being a conflict, because causality techniques are all that's in use, which are said to be the domain of Sim.  I'm unaware of any identifiable techniques (anyone?) for the learning/discovery definition of Sim, so again no conflict arises.

An often-mentioned example is being confronted with a choice between doing what the character would do and what would make for an interesting story.  If you pick character it's Sim and if you pick story it's Nar.  However, if you have to make that choice what you actually have is a bad Nar, not Sim.  Character is central to story and you weaken the theme by making the personality of the character inconsistent.  Your audience no longer believes the character's motivations, so they can no longer empathize, and the theme is lost.

The distinction between Vanilla Nar and Sim/Char has always been the breaking point of GNS for me, so I'm again unsure if I can help clarify where GNS stands on the issue.  Sim/Char is my example here, but the same applies to other types of Vanilla Nar.  I just don't think they are nearly as common.

To be absolutely clear: any discussion of a contradiction between "playing my character right" and "playing for the sake of the story" is nonsensical.

In case anyone wasn't quite following Jason's point.

Also, I figure it's time to step in again. I am taking my time mulling over the Actual Play thread and in the interim, this one heated up again.

Point #1: yes, a Creative Agenda is always identifiable, if it's present, even in the absence of conflicts about CA. But you have to learn how.

Point #2: the difference between Vanilla Narrativism and Simulationism is easy as pie, because it's exactly the same distinction between any Narrativism and any Simulationism - the address of Premise. The "Vanilla" label is a red herring, and a holdover from the days when people were just a little too hung up on specific techniques (e.g. lots of Director Stance, etc) when discussing CA.

Best,
Ron

Also, there was a recent thread I was hunting and didn't find until just now. A whole hell of a lot of things I wanted to say here, I just said there, and the thought of reconstructing them was prohibitive. So without further ado, if you'd like, check out GNS for all that stuff.

Best,
Ron

Thanks, Ron. I looked at the GNS thread; I may be missing something but what I mainly got out of it was a rejection of GNS as a "player type" schema. This is something that I've already absorbed (though I see it pops up in places in this thread). It's part of the reason why I emphasized the possibility that GNS clash might only affect one person who is "caught between modes"--like someone who enjoys creepy psychological thrillers, and also enjoys goofy character comedy, but hated The Cable Guy.

Ron wrote:
Point #1: yes, a Creative Agenda is always identifiable, if it's present, even in the absence of conflicts about CA. But you have to learn how.

Point #2: the difference between Vanilla Narrativism and Simulationism is easy as pie, because it's exactly the same distinction between any Narrativism and any Simulationism - the address of Premise. The "Vanilla" label is a red herring, and a holdover from the days when people were just a little too hung up on specific techniques (e.g. lots of Director Stance, etc) when discussing CA.

I want to clarify something about the last sentence: as things turned out, it's clear that I did Address Premise. But I only did so because of what was, to me, a poor commitment to "realistic" simulation of character and situation.. In other words, even if I was doing Nar and the other players were doing Sim--had they been doing "better" Sim, the clash wouldn't have come up. Just as a player who is being finicky about the quality of in-game credibility could experience a problem even when the entire group is doing Nar. This is why I don't think the incident was GNS clash.

Hi Elliott,

Maybe a little history is necessary. 'Way back in the early days of discussing my take on the Threefold Model, a particular conflict of ideas arose between me and my friend Ran Hardin. In a nutshell:

ME: "If you simply play characters, bringing strong imaginative and social commitment to their situations, you will be playing Narrativist."

RAN: "Hooey. I and lots of people do not want 'meaning' in any such Premise sense. We like slipping into character especially even when nothing happens of that sort. What do you call that?"

Back then (and this is way pre-Forge), I thought he was dead wrong and whatever he was doing was simply broken or Zilchy play, although I didn't have the terms for that. Can you see that at this stage, I'm agreeing with what you're saying now? Of course Exploration (although I didn't have that term or concept as I now use it) leads to addressing Premise. What else would you do with it?

But by the time I wrote "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory," I had realized that this viewpoint was hopelessly limited to Narrativist bias. Now, I had expanded the concept of Sim to include any such emphasis on "just" imagining - in other words, agreeing with Ran. You can "play your character" and not be addressing Premise. In fact, I decided, "play your character" can go with any Creative Agenda. Same goes for "imagine Setting real hard" or "really get into how the mechanics work," or any combination of these things.

Articulating this point, at that time, was very difficult, and you can probably see that it evolved through the course of the three supportive essays (Sim first, then Gamism, then Narr). Through writing those essays, I've become much better at describing Sim play in terms of what people are doing as opposed to what they're not doing. Therefore, instead of the problematic construction:

If they address Premise, it's Narr; if they don't (and don't Step On Up), it's Sim

... which is operationally at least fairly accurate, but definitionally weak (and unfairly hurls much dysfunctional play into Sim), I now have:

if they address Premise, it's Narr; if they Step On Up, it's Gamism; if they confirm the input/source material, it's Sim.

Now, this construction is easiest if we're talking about genre-emulative play, but that is only a subset of Sim. It also applies to the play common among engineering-heads who really want to concern themselves with how many charges the phaser has left (but are not Stepping Up), or to "put on my cape and be Vlad" play.

There are a few threads kicking around in which I talk about this confirmatory or celebratory discussion of Sim, or rather, articulating what it is in active terms. I'm not sure if you've seen them, but I'll do a little hunting.

Best,
Ron

Hi, Ron. You know, those threads might be helpful but I think some actual examples such as I've solicited upthread might be even better. I.e., examples of non-Forced Sim play either from my AP threads or elsewhere. I seem to recall reading a comment by you that this is how you often play CoC.

Hi,

If I'm not mistaken, what you're asking for is a comparison of non-Force Sim play with Narrativist play that doesn't have many overt mechanics differences from most existing RPGs.

Is that right?

If so, I think I can do that. The Call of Cthulhu example isn't a good one, though, because my experiences as a GM (and GMs with whom I've played) in this game involve a lot of Force. Same goes for Unknown Armies and a couple of other games I delved into for Sim-fun purposes (Pocket Universe, Fvlminata, a few others).

The Force appeared mainly in terms of interpretations of dice rolls which provided opportunities when I felt like providing opportunities (or rather, knew I'd be bored unless they appeared). Stuff like, "Hey, that's a good roll, so in addition to hurting him, you slash open his briefcase and the documents fall out!" Obviously, these aren't interpretations of dice rolls at all, but simple and straightforward Do This instructions to the other people at the table.

So, non-Force Sim play examples are probably going to have to come from others. I do know, from observation and very long-ago play experiences, that such play tends to be very involved with resolution and depiction. The folks really want to be comfortable with their pre-play interpretation of (for example) whether that many laser-cannon bolts will cut through that bulkhead in time or not ... or, conversely, whether Bill can bust out his Centauri accent and attitude in time

Ah! I just remembered some examples, after all! The Centauri jogged my memory.

Our game of the Babylon Project in 1995; it might be considered my lesson in how badly a couple years of Magic had marred my role-playing skills, but also how well a couple of years of Magic had taught me that role-playing rules were largely bogus, and become more so by the month.

I was playing the Centauri pirate, Zev Cesare. For the first few sessions, it's fair to say that no Force was exerted on me or my fellow players. Result? A hell of a lot of good reinforcement of the primary source material (obviously, the show, second season; we were playing "underbelly" on the Babylon Station, given our knowledge of later season or so). That reinforcement took the shape of very fun character depiction (accents, etc), some runnin' around trying to find stuff on the station, and a few brawls based on inter-race prejudice, simple politics, or misunderstandings.

In other words, not much of any story resulted except for tracking the story we already knew existed (the show's) and using that as a group-celebrated constraint. Did we "do" Babylon Five to our satisfaction during this phase? Sure. But we were also itchy that no story of our own was occurring - at least, the GM and his co-GM/assistant were.

Now, the second half of our game (about six or seven more sessions) were characterized by a mix of aggressive scene framing (not itself Force, usually) and basic Force, usually toward a couple of other players who were looking for cues of the sort I describe above. Not outright "you do this" statements on the part of the GM, but "opportunities" which were essentially "do this" offers that were not intended to be refused. As the players were tacitly complicit in taking such offers, we were off to the races and "a story" occurred - helmed throughout, of course, by the GM.

This is a good example because we can compare the no-Force and Force phases of play, and also because I did have a hell of a lot of fun, most of the time. Most of my fun came from a strong Explorative focus - because I was expressing my fandom for the show via a character whose like was not seen on but was fully consistent with the show. For those of you familiar with it, I'm sure you can see that a flamboyant Centauri pirate is a way fun notion.

Another good example would be my long-running character in a Champions game (3rd edition, then 4th edition) beginning in the late 1980s. This was Nocturne, a very Goth spectral character, in a fairly generic supergroup called Northwatch. The GM and I became very good friends; in fact, he was Ran Hardin, the fellow I mentioned above.

The group aesthetic was similar to what I described for the BP game - if we could "do" our characters and take the proffered opportunities, all was well. Ran was very, very good at riffing off what we demonstrated would interest us, creating the cycle of response-satisfaction that many people consider the acme of role-playing expertise.

Without me involved, I think this group would never have changed an iota. But as time passed, I realized that the satisfaction was not actually occurring for me - it kept feeling like we were about to get going on something decisive/thematic, but we never did. I decided to take a much more active hand and pushed Premise-y stuff in relatively subtle ways during play itself, becoming kind of a co-GM in a participatory way. I tried my best not to be a source of irritation, but I'll definitely cop to having been a bully toward a couple other players.

Now for the Narrativist examples ... well, that's easy. I play like that all the time. Sorcerer, bluntly, doesn't look very different from its contemporary games until you see the reward cycle in action and until you recognize that rapid-pace conflict resolution occurs without Force. I'll give you the links for my necromancy game in a minute.

But a less charged/gimme example would be my long-running Champions game of the same period as the one I mentioned, which did not include Ran or any of the other people in his group. (Note the possessive pronouns; these games were played during a period in which if you GMed a game, it was "yours.") In this game, the rules were sliced down and interpreted in ways which Drifted play toward very solid Narrativist goals, for all of us involved. In our arrogance, of course, we called it the "right way" to play the game.

Sessions were composed of extremely direct references and consequences of previous play and what I did not realize at the time were Bangs. Players tended to provide Bangs of their own for one another as well. The best evidence of Narrativst play was found in how Experience Points were spent: mainly in altering in the framework of disadvantages for characters, which if you're familiar with the game, you'll recall can be used (if you squint at them in a Narrativist way) as a veritable Campaign Framework much like a relationship map or setting/back-story. I tended to utilize this backdrop, looking across everyone's disadvantages while prepping, to provide situations which were extremely open-ended for player-character decisions. It also helped that I have always loved villains and wanted their fates to be extremely subject to heroes' judgments of them.

We also used a five-session structure for rising action and climaxes, which at least for a while promoted thematic input ... although over several years it degenerated later into simple railroading on my part. At that point, I literally felt betrayed when someone would not display interest in hooks I provided, as I thought they were falling down on the job - when in actuality, I was railroading them.

I'm not sure whether I'm providing the details which would address your question. Helping, not?

Best,
Ron

got'em! My current Sorcerer game - modern necromancy and The necromancy game continued.

Yes, helping very much indeed. You've given me some good stuff to ponder, not only in terms of theory, but also (in conjunction with recent poking around on blogs and old threads) in terms of practical GMing ideas independent of theory.

That's not to say I won't have more questions about exactly how the examples limn the border between Nar and Sim--or that I wouldn't still appreciate any comments touching on my AP threads in relation to this topic. Or anything that anyone else might have to add on this topic. So I'd prefer not to close this thread just yet.

(After reviewing Ron's last post.)

Ron wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, what you're asking for is a comparison of non-Force Sim play with Narrativist play that doesn't have many overt mechanics differences from most existing RPGs.

I was playing the Centauri pirate, Zev Cesare. For the first few sessions, it's fair to say that no Force was exerted on me or my fellow players. Result? A hell of a lot of good reinforcement of the primary source material (obviously, the show, second season; we were playing "underbelly" on the Babylon Station, given our knowledge of later season or so). That reinforcement took the shape of very fun character depiction (accents, etc), some runnin' around trying to find stuff on the station, and a few brawls based on inter-race prejudice, simple politics, or misunderstandings.

In other words, not much of any story resulted except for tracking the story we already knew existed (the show's) and using that as a group-celebrated constraint. Did we "do" Babylon Five to our satisfaction during this phase? Sure. But we were also itchy that no story of our own was occurring - at least, the GM and his co-GM/assistant were.

Ron wrote: Our game of the Babylon Project in 1995; it might be considered my lesson in how badly a couple years of Magic had marred my role-playing skills, but also how well a couple of years of Magic had taught me that role-playing rules were largely bogus, and become more so by the month.

I was playing the Centauri pirate, Zev Cesare. For the first few sessions, it's fair to say that no Force was exerted on me or my fellow players. Result? A hell of a lot of good reinforcement of the primary source material (obviously, the show, second season; we were playing "underbelly" on the Babylon Station, given our knowledge of later season or so). That reinforcement took the shape of very fun character depiction (accents, etc), some runnin' around trying to find stuff on the station, and a few brawls based on inter-race prejudice, simple politics, or misunderstandings.

In other words, not much of any story resulted except for tracking the story we already knew existed (the show's) and using that as a group-celebrated constraint. Did we "do" Babylon Five to our satisfaction during this phase? Sure. But we were also itchy that no story of our own was occurring - at least, the GM and his co-GM/assistant were.

Hello,

Elliott, you're completely in the ballpark and making perfect sense. I'm a little irked with something, though - your protest that I'm not fulfilling your assignment. Yes, the second half of the BP game was not what you're looking for. I realize that, and said so, and provided it as necessary contrast.

Due to popular request, a typical early session in the Babylon Project game ...

The characters included my pirate, a young telepath (the most thankless character choice in the system), and one other I can't recall well, but was probably a trader/gambler of some kind. The setting is a space station which fulfills a dipolomatic role among all these different spacegoing races/cultures. However, for us, the show itself was also setting, in the underbelly sense. The GM had chosen a sequence of episodes we were all familiar with, and the events of our game were to occur on the station during those episodes. Our shared constraint was not to futz with the canonical events, and our overall goal was to have a kind of "second show" that a B5 fan would appreciate greatly. We didn't know which episodes they were exactly, starting out, although we knew the season, and as expected and appreciated by all of us, we sussed out which episodes we were in pretty quickly.

Now for the session. There were three things going on in the show during these episodes, one of which was only known to people who were watching the current episodes. A war was brewing between two of the races, a prophecy of some kind was coming to fruition, and very nasty uber-alien, Lovecraftian beings were manipulating things behind the scenes (that would only become clear to viewers during the third season).

Well. The episode I recall best from this period concerned things for all of our characters: the telepath was being chased around the station (unregistered TPs were illegal), and the other two were enmeshed in a big fight in a bar area, during which some gangsters tried to kill my character under cover of the brawl. We got to shoot up a bunch of gangsters. At one point, the telepath glimpsed a terrifying and horrible Lovecraftian alien being deep in the bowels of the station, and it spoke to her in some sort of mind-shattering way. The setting closed with the pirate and the trader/gambler character getting individually interrogated lightly by the security chief of the station (an important character on the show).

The system has a few interesting features; the one I liked the most was the resolution of arms fire, with "misses" possibly still hurting the person, just not where you aimed. Fights were fun in this game. On the other hand, the basic resolution system was a 2d6 TN system dressed up in unnecessary handling-time manipulations to seem like it was "new" (a common thing at this point).

The experience of play had exactly the features you describe, Elliott: not much direction or "do this" from the GM, but also not much in the way of characters actually driving at things they wanted or cared about. We all steered our characters around and had them say things. It was, in fact, action-packed, and we all got to deliver combat or escape tactics, as well as interact with some colorful individuals. But a lot of our actions were "feelers," just doing stuff to see what beeped or hit "the story," such as when my character called his aunt because I simply couldn't imagine anything else for him to do that would discover anything. The beep turned out to be a buzz when this accidentally precipitated a political incident. So our actual activity as people, players, was very much in the realm of "do stuff, find out if it's a beep or a buzz."

Touchstones for the show included tension between the two brawling alien races, a brief glimpse of the terrifying alien, and the security chief. We all took these aspects seriously, such that the fact that we brought them off with no violation of our primary, show-based enjoyment of them was sufficient reward for play.

And yes, the key issue from a larger perspective is that this payoff is insufficient, for me. It palls; two episodes of recognizing that this "don't violate the show, do colorful stuff" process is possible is plenty. The GM felt the same way and went into a more Force-heavy approach (the only approach that to him would yield "story"), and the whole thing took on the sameness of many such games. Yes, things "held together" and our characters "came together and teamed up," and the story ended with the telepath becoming immensely strong and going off to become something important, elsewhere. However, the story only became a story insofar as A led to B; it was a tapestry, but not much else. I can't even recall what we teamed up against.

If we had, on the other hand, gone into a mode in which all of us were issues-oriented, and focused on developing otehr angles onto the thematic content of the show which mattered to us (and in fact, the show was extremely strong by the 4th season), then I think we would have been astonished. Such a mode might be muted and slow and subtle, or it might have been a slam-bang conflict-conflict approach - doesn't matter. But no such modality occurred.

So, overall, I'm not sure what question remains, Elliott. Is this description sufficient? You state that you're not really getting what I'm saying, but everything you're saying is fully on-target, so I'm not sure where to go from here.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

I may have been a little frustrated because I wasn't getting enough detail to confirm what I thought I was understanding from you. So I just wanted to point out where I needed more "meat" in the examples. No irking intended.

Your last post is indeed helpful. For one thing it makes clear that Narrativism requires group commitment, not just acceptance. That is, if the GM provides space for "significant action" on the part of the player-characters, but the players don't take advantage of it, then you don't have Narrativism. Or conversely a game can drift into Narrativism if the players start directing their characters into "significant action" and the GM sees he's got a good thing going and lets it happen.

I might have more questions later. In particular I'm thinking about my terms "alter the state of the game" and "significant action", but that might be fodder for another thread. Some more detail on your Champions game, as John suggested would also be illuminating. I mean, I'm 90% or more of the way there, and I would hope that any reader of this thread would be, too, but more detail would be like shining a floodlight on the issue. Such as concrete (not necessarily lengthy) examples for these:

1. "Sessions were composed of extremely direct references and consequences of previous play and what I did not realize at the time were Bangs. Players tended to provide Bangs of their own for one another as well."

2. "The best evidence of Narrativst play was found in how Experience Points were spent: mainly in altering in the framework of disadvantages for characters, which if you're familiar with the game, you'll recall can be used (if you squint at them in a Narrativist way) as a veritable Campaign Framework much like a relationship map or setting/back-story. I tended to utilize this backdrop, looking across everyone's disadvantages while prepping, to provide situations which were extremely open-ended for player-character decisions." (I should mention that my familiarity with Hero system is limited to owning but barely reading the original Fantasy Hero. I think what you're talking about may be roughly similar to aggressive use of GURPS disadvantages and the way they're bought off, though I gather that Hero is/was more flexible.)

--Elliot

Well, patience. I move slowly in these discussions, and I'm reluctant to discuss the Hero System in detail because it prompts very powerful kneejerk reactions among its veterans (and they don't like my reasons for why it does so). 90% of the way is value added, so I'm happy.

At present, looking back at the original questions posed, I think they've been answered; the answer to the thread title is simply, "yes."

Time for new threads, I think. And as we are demonstrating here, probably best in Actual Play.

Best,
Ron

That's fine with me. Let's close this one, and if John or anyone else wants to start a new thread specifically on how a group can engage in "Vanilla Nar", I'll look for it.

I appreciate the time you've taken to answer my questions, Ron. Thanks.