I'm currently working on a rpg project, based on content (setting/stories). I've developed a new desing, a new way to write scenarios and setting related to them.
The two main differences in this design are the presence of multi plots with no predefined hole for the players and the use of a calendar instead of chapters. I believe this two components encourage SIM and NAR play, but I still got some problems, questions.
First of all, I believe those kind of play are encouraged, somehow, intuitively. Here's the explanations.

Multi plots with no predefined hole for the players
I believe this way of writing encourages NAR play because the players tend to be in story now all the time. They are always confronted to choices, their choices. The way they have to go is not given to them. An example.
Some forest people are going to war against the humans. What will the players do ? Fight beside the forest people, the humans, try to prevent the war ? There is nothing in the story like 'Chapter X : fighting the humans'. They have to make choices. Even so, when they have made their choices, they might come up with another dilemma, as they learn that in some region, the peasants are fighting over their oppressors, or that a long lost city is now free of his icy prison. What will they do, stay with their previous choice or choose a new plot they find more important ?

The use of a calendar
I believe removing the static chapter based design of a scenario encourages SIM play, because players realised that things move in the world. I think it encourages immersion into the world. When they come back to some places, they need to get informations about what has happened there since they left. Not only do they have to try to achieve their goal, but also try to acheive them in time. Sometime, they might be too late. Also, they can't see, participate in everything on the narrative plot (sorry for the term), so the gathering of informations is very important.
One important note about SIM design and the use of calendar. My main question when writing down the stories, is not much how does it work ? but more how is it done ? Some examples.
The orcs are building a camp near a position they want to control. It is not done in a blink of an eye, it needs time. So, how is it done ? They need to build trenches, collect wood and stone, build fortifications, camps, also boats in that particular place. This takes a couple of weeks.
The humans try to reconquer a long lost city. How is it done ? They call the arms into a capital, word is spreading of this. As the civilian population is now in the city, the fighters who gather there need to build camps outside the city, waiting for departure. This may also take a couple of weeks.
My main concern while writing is that the superimpositition of the different plots, in time, needs to be realistic.

The way I play it
I have to admit there is a strong social contract between my players and me. I'm there to play with them, not against them. We're there to build their story. I also almost play freeform, refering to the system mostly for combat. For my games, I use d20 system (d&d 3rd edition). That said, I don't distribute experience points. I just 'level up' the characters at the end of the chapters (i.e. seasons, three months of calendar). It is clearly understood by my players that they are rewarded base on the influence they had on the plot. So, they are not encouraged to fight anyone, but only when there is a stake.

My problems
As long as I'm the only one playing this scenario, no problems arise. But, I wish to publish it. Note that I'll use d20 at first to illustrate my stories into a system as its licence suits my needs.
So, here are some of my concerns.
- First of all, do I get the SIM interpreted in the right way, trying to present a realistic, living world ?
- Does the design of the setting/stories seems enough to encourage SIM/NAR play ? Would there be need for rules to enforce it ?
- Do the understanding/influencing of the plot seem rewarding enough ? For my players it is, but I doubt making a generalisation based on that.
- Beside putting a big 'general note' on this matter, what can I do ?
- For me, intuitively, the design encourages SIM/NAR, that it affects actual play. But is it, really ?

Why is this on actual play?

Se wrote: First of all, do I get the SIM interpreted in the right way, trying to present a realistic, living world ?

Does the design of the setting/stories seems enough to encourage SIM/NAR play ? Would there be need for rules to enforce it ?

Do the understanding/influencing of the plot seem rewarding enough ? For my players it is, but I doubt making a generalisation based on that.

Hello!

Great reply, Tommi.

Pells, let me start with the jargon-stuff first, and I'm going to take it a little farther than Tommi did. Basically - you'll do better to leave out the Sim, in the discussion. If you really mean that business about the players' "story," then what you're describing as Sim is actually support for the Narrativist play.

So, Narrativist play with a sense of powerfully imagined, powerfully rooted, powerfully consistent material to work with ... that's what I'm seeing you talking about.

A lot of people get kind of confused about that, because as soon as they see a big map and an in-game-world calendar, or as soon as they see stuff about the different cultures in different areas on the map, they say, "Sim!" But that's not correct. That stuff can be supportive of any Creative Agenda, including Gamist play.

Now I'll talk about just one of the questions you brought up, because it seems like the central one - the issue of in-game time and its role in the imaginary situations. In technical terms, it seems like what you're looking for is dramatic constraint. All (all!) good stories need dramatic contraints, and time is one of the best.

A bunch of orcs start building their fortress. This sets up the time-scale for how tense the humans' problem is, specifically whether the ships full of grain are going to arrive before the fortress is completed. Right? Stuff like that?

Well, I think you'll do best to design your system in terms of personal conflict among characters. I realize it's not 100% realistic, but don't let that throw you. What I mean is that you can think in terms of the three ship's single commander "fighting" against the orc leader. The former's sailing and leadership abilities against the latter's expertise and leadership abilities. Again, this is just like combat, except that the two aren't actually meeting with one another.

The neat thing is that the time it takes is then set by (for instance) the orc chief beating the human captain in a round of this "combat." That means the orcs pulled ahead, and the ships were delayed, or something similar. (the details depend on your resolution system)

Now you can subdivide each leader into two things: (1) the characters or groups that help them get their job done, like the ship captain's trusty lieutenant; and (2) the characters or groups who cause trouble for these goals, like the orc shaman who's always undermining the chief. If you want there to be a serious physical/geographic issue to consider, like the storms that sweep in out of the western ocean, then they become similar to #1 or #2 even if they are "things" rather than people.

The neat thing about doing it this way is that all of the time-based realism actually appears after all - right there during play, not fixed in-place prior to play. You don't have to "glue" two separated task-by-task processes together using time all by yourself as GM.

That's a big shock for people who are used to having tons of charts and maps to use for simulating the climates and terrains and reactions of characters, all of which are supposed to be utilized and cross-referenced constantly with fictional time as the underlying connecting factor. Your current suggestion seems to be aimed right at that fictional time, but it will work best as a means of starting conflicts (i.e. saying when the orcs start their fortress project), rather than as a means to manage those conflicts once they're under way.

So! I am supporting your use of the calendar, and your interest in having in-game time be a major, inspiring, tension-filled part of your scenarios. What I'm suggesting is that you use the characters' conflicts to move the game along the calendar, which can set up sudden new conflicts, rather than using it as a timer like you'd see in a computer RPG for "whether you can get the ships there in time" or stuff like that.

Best,
Ron

Hm. From what Ron's describing, you may want to take a look at the The Riddle of Steel mass combat system (from The Flower of Battle) for an example of how to abstract a large scale undertaking. Basically, I see it like this.

You build each commander's "body of resources", which could be something like armies, or what have you. Whatever factors you think would apply will give bonuses or penalties. Things like "veteran ship crews" or "novice engineer corps" would strengthen or weaken each side. Total it up to a numerical value, compare the values, and decide what the disparity means. Maybe it grants bonus dice to one commander or the other's roll. Roll, and decide what the roll means. Maybe each roll augments a running "progress total". Then have ways for the PCs actions to help or hinder either side.

Anyway, it's a thought to accomplish what you're looking for. For a more indepth example of the sort of thing I mean, check out the aforementioned.

Well... I had to give a lot of thougths on this one, but, maybe, this is what I like about the Forge... So first things first. I'll follow Ron's advice and leave the SIM beside.

Why is this on actual play?

So, in summary, add a reward cycle and elaborate on how you see sim/nar play. Give an AP account and an ideal gaming moment.

Now you can subdivide each leader into two things: (1) the characters or groups that help them get their job done, like the ship captain's trusty lieutenant; and (2) the characters or groups who cause trouble for these goals, like the orc shaman who's always undermining the chief. If you want there to be a serious physical/geographic issue to consider, like the storms that sweep in out of the western ocean, then they become similar to #1 or #2 even if they are "things" rather than people.

So! I am supporting your use of the calendar, and your interest in having in-game time be a major, inspiring, tension-filled part of your scenarios. What I'm suggesting is that you use the characters' conflicts to move the game along the calendar, which can set up sudden new conflicts, rather than using it as a timer like you'd see in a computer RPG for "whether you can get the ships there in time" or stuff like that.

I'd build a reward system around it. Instead of levelling by months, level by impact on plots.
An idea: advancement tokens. When a plot is significantly changed, grant 2 of them. When a more minor change occurs, grant 1. When number of tokens equals current level, gain another one.

Hm. From what Ron's describing, you may want to take a look at the The Riddle of Steel mass combat system (from The Flower of Battle) for an example of how to abstract a large scale undertaking. Basically, I see it like this.

Hello,

You're doing very well, actually! Thank you for providing even more examples of play for this thread. It's a good lesson for others to understand - that Actual Play is the perfect forum for effective playtesting.

One very small correction about the ideas is that reward doesn't dictate Creative Agenda, but Creative Agendas are certainly the point of any given reward system.

Actually, that's a little more important than it looks. You have asked a couple of times whether your scenarios will cause the players to take sides, or to become active in the middle of a dilemma in some way. My answer is that no rule or scenario can make anyone do anything, but what you are describing will be very attractive for players who already want to play in this fashion. My experience suggests that many players will enjoy it a great deal, and that you will be surprised at how well they can build the developing story instead of merely watching it.

As you can see, the use of the calendar is not much as "time bomb", but rather as a way to impose dilemmas. What I want to avoid, is seeing my characters say "let's prevent the war, then we'll go against the orcs." It is not possible, as the two plots occur at the same time. They can't do both. The calendar is useful when players go 'in' and 'out' of stories.

And this is why I say that multi plots, using a calendar, encourages, intuitively, NAR play.

Ron, thanks for the insight.

The one, single thing that will encourage taking sides and getting involved at a thematic level is this: presenting the situation as personal conflicts, not just strategic ones.

Or would you prefer to talk about how that caring is generated in the first place?

Would you like to talk about how to use that calendar as effectively as possible, during a tense conflict that the players already care about?

Sebastien,
I read you response. Nothing to comment to there.

So, I guess, you can't force anyone to play NAR. They either want it or not. And if your players say 'we don't care' about the plots, then, maybe there is big problem about the story.

I have four strong beliefs when it comes to writing/designing setting/story.

First, I believe the story/plot should be rooted in 'history'.

Second, the use of gray scale protagonists, meaning I don't have black and white characters.

how to handle a multi plot without the use of a calendar

Sometimes, creating or defining the history is one of the highlights. Generally, extensive histories are no needed and can even be negative if the GM doesn't remember them almost by heart.

Memorise it all. Make things happen when it seems like a good idea. Have events and let the story create itself organically.

My experience suggests that many players will enjoy it a great deal, and that you will be surprised at how well they can build the developing story instead of merely watching it.

No one should be forced. Encouragement is fine, though.

pells wrote:

Sometimes, creating or defining the history is one of the highlights. Generally, extensive histories are no needed and can even be negative if the GM doesn't remember them almost by heart.

The objective of the history is to give depth to the description of the elements.

This is not a home brew campaign, planned a session at a time.

So, I see the calendar as a tool to elude that.

Remember, there is no predefined holes for the players to fill.

So, when it happened is NOT when I needed it, but in coherence with that specific plot.

Before going on to the next example, just a reminder : my events are defined for a given week, not day. So the DM can manage when they happen as to serve his needs.

No one should be forced. Encouragement is fine, though.

But how do I acheive that, encourage them ? In my game, so far so good. The players take side, they get involved, they are really in the story. They like it. But, like I said, I don't want to generalise over that.

Good thing is, I'm learning somethings here.

As I said, another point of view. I do understand what you are after, and think that it is superior to standard modules or adventures (there are free ones for D&D in the company's website, if you are interested, but most are not that good). Your way is simply not the only way.

This is not a home brew campaign, planned a session at a time.

I don't plan my sessions in any way deeper than your calendar does. Probably less rigorously.

It is probably just me, but ready adventures always seem like crutches. Same with ready calendars. A tool with which to elude the fun point. Then, my GMing style is quite sim, so read my input with that in mind.
I am not saying that what you are doing is worthless, far from that. It simply is not something I am too interested in.

What you do seems to be a variation of "run a setting, let PCs do what they want".

I add generic random or bizarre events now on then. See if the PCs follow the leads. So, when it seems like making something happen is a good idea does not have anything to do with a plot of any kind.

Reward system. It is a way of telling the players that what they did was a good thing. Also, general material for GMs to tell the players, stuff like "you make your own plot, or not; your choice". D&D's standard reward system is not good for this, IMO.
Static experience awards for simply being there might work, but to a sim direction.

I see no benefit in continuing discussion, as it stands now, besides this:

Sebastien wrote: At some point, a group of great warriors splited apart based on a conflict about the shamens. My players took side with them, leaving the city in their company. As they left, the members of those group gave them some powerful items that they use. So, my players got a reward, better armor, a steed, but not by killing out monsters, instead as a reward for the sides they had chosen to take part for. I guess this is a good way to encourage them.

Oops.
The tag that ends the quote should be at the end of the first paragraph.