Okay, I'm working on Libra (formerly Fulcrum). I've defined the game's purpose to be to explore character and situation (mostly character).

Characters are people chosen to become guardians of reality. They are assigned to resolve threats to the barriers separating unreality from reality. Quite often these threats will force the characters to analyze their beliefs and convictions. (These assignments for the crux of the Situation, if I am reading the essay correctly.)

The other and more important aspect is maintaining a balance between the being you have become and the person that you once were. You possess the power to bend reality and must use it to protect humanity but because of this power you are also separate from them. The decisions you often have to make involve deciding whom to sacrifice and whom to save. The struggle to balance this power and insight with an empathy with the rest of common humanity is the true conflict. (Thus the Character exploration aspect.)

So, the game focuses around telling stories in which characters must explore their beliefs and ethics and deal with the ramifications of their decisions. The Guide puts out a basic situation and the players decide the characters path as well as narrate their efforts (Strong Directorial power is given to the players. The Guide is allowed to "veto" in order to keep the story flowing smoothly or to interject complications.)

Does this fall under Narrative or Simulationist?

I see Simulationist because exploration and development of the characters' personalities is the main focus. But, I can see Narrativist because this is done in the context of the greater situation.

For a real world analog reference any Cop Show in which the characters spend most of their time talking about their personal problems and conflicts while dealing with crimes.

Hi Alex,

No one can provide the concrete answer you're asking, because N or S ultimately comes down to a matter of actual play. And if we're talking about the design of your game, then it's a matter of looking at combinations of many different mechanics, to see which one might be facilitated, if either.

So the only thing I can address in your post is the procedural and emotional difference between Narrativist and Simulationist play, and also to point out a key concept in my essay (often misunderstood).

Exploration is central. It applies to all role-playing. Having Exploration be a big part of the game, even a highly detailed or structured one, is not in and of itself G, N, or S. It has to be there in the first place.

Therefore the intrinsic interest in the imaginary stuff (Setting, Character, Situation, System, and Color) is a given, or rather, making sure that it happens is a requirement. Doing this is not, in and of itself, G, N, or S. So don't think that because you're emphasizing "getting into it," that you're focusing on Simulationism.

I will now lay out four possibilities. This is going to be a little difficult, because I'll say this once without reinforcing it later, that all four possibilities include a huge variety of possible design applications. Don't think of them and their examples as being "single ways" in terms of a real game. However, the differences among them are what I want to focus on, so they are treated as units (which they are, at a group/concept level).

#1 - total Narrativism. In play, the Explored elements together create a "fixation" or unavoidable focus on the Premise, which in this case is a moral or ethical concern that the players emotionally latch onto. In design, many or most of the mechanics are best understood at the real person level, rather than the character or in-world level. Sorcerer, especially in combination with the supplements, is a highly Narrativist game; so are Hero Wars, The Questing Beast, and Alyria.

#2 - Narrativism with a strong Simulationist "helper." In play, the Premise is still the focus or priority, but some of the Explored elements are handled in-play strictly in terms of in-game causality, with little if any personal bias involved. In design, a certain set of the mechanics which concern themselves with in-game causality have a "life of their own" quality, which (hopefully) ends up reinforcing the Premise when their application is done. Example: The Riddle of Steel.

#3 - total Simulationism. In play, the in-game, in-world causality among the Explored elements is the priority, and all thematic (or indeed all metagame) priorities are only valued insofar as they arise from that causality. In design, the system is expected to operate without personal bias or interference; this may be handled very "heavy" (as in RuneQuest) or very light (as in many LARPs or Turku play). Example: Harnmaster, Multiverser, JAGS, Space: 1889, Pendragon.

#4 - Simulationism with a strong Narrativist "helper." In play, the Premise as described for Narrativism is available as an enjoyable sideline or afterthought to play, but it is not expected from or by anyone to be expressed, or for personal interest in it to play a role in decision-making. In design, the Explored Elements are sufficiently deep, or require sufficient metagame input, to give Premise a personal "oomph" that underlies the in-game-cause priority of play. This combination usually doesn't fully exist except as a result of Drift. Example for which this Drift might occur: Jorune, Mage, quite likely The Million Worlds if I'm reading Rob's stuff right. I suspect a fair amount of west coast RuneQuest play fell into this category, whereas British play did not.

Please note that #2 and #4 are procedurally problematic. Historically, games with these designs have tended to be incoherent, requiring Drift towards either #1 or #3 in order to enjoy them.

Please note also that "story" in the loosest sense of the word may be produced by any of the possibilities.

Please note finally that I obviously could have included #5 (total Gamism), #6 (Gamism with strong Simulationist "helper"), #7 (Narrativism with strong Gamist "helper"), #8 (Gamism with strong Narrativist "helper"), and #9 (Simulationism with a strong Gamist "helper").

I hope that this has been helpful rather than confusing.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: #1 - total Narrativism.
#2 - Narrativism with a strong Simulationist "helper."
#3 - total Simulationism.
#4 - Simulationism with a strong Narrativist "helper."

I obviously could have included

#5 (total Gamism),
#6 (Gamism with strong Simulationist "helper"),
#7 (Narrativism with strong Gamist "helper"),
#8 (Gamism with strong Narrativist "helper"),
and #9 (Simulationism with a strong Gamist "helper").

Fang,

Already have. All one needs is the basic understanding of the three modes and the notion that only one mode can be "master" for an instance of role-playing - with the corollary concept that the other aesthetics of the other two don't have to be absent, just not prioritized. It's very easy and it's nothing more than I've said from the very beginning.

There aren't twelve nodes. There are three. There are relationships among them; I spelled some of them out for the people who seem determined not to understand something unless I place my finger on it and make it go "beep."

Movement toward one of them (or toward a functional combination) is Drift, which is expected when dealing with incoherent game design; movement from one to another in a kind of "training" way via the practices of play is Transition (for which you are given due credit).

Why the "good luck," sarcastic or not, when what you call for already exists?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: There aren't twelve nodes. There are three. There are relationships among them; I spelled some of them out for the people who seem determined not to understand something unless I place my finger on it and make it go "beep."

Movement toward one of them (or toward a functional combination) is Drift, which is expected when dealing with incoherent game design; movement from one to another in a kind of "training" way via the practices of play is Transition (for which you are given due credit).

Why the "good luck," sarcastic or not, when what you call for already exists?

Heh, I get it - the "good luck" was self-directed, not me-directed. That works ...

What exists, then, is the theory of Transition; what currently is struggling to be birthed, is the application. I buy that.

Alex, before Fang and I get into this Transition thing, let's stick with your question, which was more of a plain old "what Mode" thing. Did my answer help?

Best,
Ron

I think that I'm getting it. I'm trying to make Libra a Narrativist game. The Premise flows into Narrativism and I believe that having the conflict resolutions determined by the players, and thus allowing their biases to be the primary descriptive force, also reinforces a Narrativist focus.

If what I just said is correct then I get it. If not then I'm not 100% clear yet.

I think you do get it, Alex, at least as best I can judge without seeing or playing the game.

You wrote,
"I believe that having the conflict resolutions determined by the players, and thus allowing their biases to be the primary descriptive force, also reinforces a Narrativist focus."

H'm.

What do you mean, precisely, by "conflict resolutions determined by the players"? And similarly, what do you mean by "their biases"?

Please give me concrete examples of what you envision during play.

Best,
Ron

Ron wrote: What do you mean, precisely, by "conflict resolutions determined by the players"? And similarly, what do you mean by "their biases"?

Hi Alex,

Well, in that case, I think you're all good. I especially like the fact that you are referring to these things in terms of reinforcing rather than defining Narrativist play.

Best,
Ron

I think I am working on a #4.

Does anyone think that the narratavist mode of action can be employed *in support* of the coherency of the sim? What I am thinking of is an expanded zone of character action which starts at all social levels. Players may carry out actions from their character sheet OOC with narrativist goals.

The model I have is in fact a kind of RPG of monopoly; or an RPG inside monopoly. To extent the metaphor brutally, a game element arising from sim (in my model, not in Monopoly, where it arises exclusively from mechanics) like a get out of jail free card could be "played" by the player as representative of social forces which they, through mechanics, are empowered to narrate for Directorially.

Does that make any sense?

Hi Gareth,

I think it does make sense, but I think it's also clear that any of these "helper" game designs is (by definition) vulnerable to Drift. That may be considered a design advantage, by some, in the sense that more/different people would be able to enjoy the game.

And after all, since the game-play would be more likely to be coherent either non-Drifted or Drifted, I can't argue with that.

Best,
Ron

Hi,

I'm a bit confused over exactly what narrativism is. I've read the articles by Ron.

I understand that if at a particular instance in a roleplaying game a player indicates that their character does something because it is the optimal behaviour under the rules system, then the player is acting in a Gamist mode.

I also understand that if a player indicates that their character does something because it is "in-character", then the player is Simulating a character.

I think that the GNS system would then say that if a player indicates their character does something because it would advance a literary theme, then the player is acting with Narrativist goals in mind.

Assuming my understandings above are correct, how then is Narrativism different from Simulation, where what is being simulated is literature? It seems to me that Narrativism is a special case of Simulation not a separate category.

Hi Lehrbuch,

Thanks for posting. I'm afraid your paraphrases are very far from being correct, which is what's led to your conclusion.

1) "Optimal" is personally defined and cannot be used as a metric to classify an instance of play. If you're talking about tactics in, say, a combat scene, then using effective tactics for the character may be observed in any version of G, N, or S play. Doing so doesn't indicate any one of the modes at all.

2) The same goes for "in character." That corresponds, at its most general, to Exploring (imagining, sharing the imagination of) one's character, which is fundamental to role-playing of any kind.

3) I've been discussing the difference between Narrativism and Simulating Story for a long time. What you describe, I think of as a "door" or alleyway that people turn into just "before" they find the door into what I'm saying.

Fundamentally, Simulationism is about role-playing only through in-game, in-game-world mechanisms. It is not about inserting in-game-world events or generating in-character decisions through overt, player-agenda-driven priorities. Avoiding such priorities is what defines Simulationist play (and becomes a priority of its own). Narrativism, like Gamism, is based on the participants' overt agendas, for which the imagined characters (etc) are pawns or instruments, if you like.

Narrativism is best defined as the overt, acknowledged, shared priority of addressing Premise (in the strict Egri sense of the word), producing Theme through the instrument of generating plot. This is not "simulating" literature, or film, or any other kind of story - it is creating it. Note that Narrativist play varies a lot in terms of when and how much these priorities kick in, and also in terms of how much self-observed effort is involved, from a lot to a little.

As you know from my essays, such activity does not have a monopoly on creating stories; Gamist play and Simulationist play have been known to do it in a variety of ways. However, GNS is about priorities during instances of play, and creation of story as a side-effect of the role-playing, or as a preamble to the role-playing, doesn't qualify. Narrativist play is distinguished from the other modes on this basis.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm afraid your paraphrases are very far from being correct, which is what's led to your conclusion.

Ron Edwards wrote: 1) "Optimal" is personally defined and cannot be used as a metric to classify an instance of play. If you're talking about tactics in, say, a combat scene, then using effective tactics for the character may be observed in any version of G, N, or S play. Doing so doesn't indicate any one of the modes at all.

Ron Edwards wrote: Fundamentally, Simulationism is about role-playing only through in-game, in-game-world mechanisms. It is not about inserting in-game-world events or generating in-character decisions through overt, player-agenda-driven priorities. Avoiding such priorities is what defines Simulationist play (and becomes a priority of its own). Narrativism, like Gamism, is based on the participants' overt agendas, for which the imagined characters (etc) are pawns or instruments, if you like.

Hi there,

Good questions, good discussion. This may turn out to be one of those "Go see this" threads people link to all the time.

You wrote,
But, take a situation where a player's character has a choice of two different weapons to use in a combat scene.

From a game mechanics point of view, the only difference between the two is that one does more damage. If the player elects that their character picks the most damaging weapon *purely because* of that game mechanic advantage, then aren't they acting in a G mode?

The key is the phrase "purely because" - you have shifted the question from externally-observable behaviors to internal-motivations. In theory, yes, given that motivation, that decision is probably Gamist. However! That level of theory is not accessible to anyone, perhaps not even to the person in question. I strongly suggest that we focus instead on the practical level, my "instance of play," which by definition provides enough observable evidence to work with.

So, let's take your example carefully. Not only does Bob select the morningstar for his character Bartholemew, he glances challengingly at the GM (or whoever) and says, "Now try this!" And he's not role-playing Bartholemew; it's a statement to the group that he, Bob, is on top of the doing-mondo-damage issue. Still, even more detail is needed - we have to be talking about a game in which the morningstar really is a butt-kicker and not just another 2d8 or whatever. We also have to be talking about a situation that does not necessarily correspond to addressing Premise - it's about whether Bob is a good tactician - and that probably means assessing this decision as it relates to several scenes, not just one.

Another thing people miss a lot is that "instance of play" is not necessarily an individual variable; play is a group phenomenon. Therefore let's look at the others' reactions - ranging from "Oh, shit," to "Whoo-hoo!" to whatever. As long as they include (1) appreciation rather than disgust or impatience, and (2) focus on Bob's acumen rather than on thematic outcomes of the impending carnage, now we're really talking Gamist play.

Just as an aside, and for contrast, an N reason for picking the morningstar might be that Bartholemew is (a) about to fight the half-ogre who slew his mentor and further (b) was taught by that mentor to solve problems peacefully if possible. If something like this is going on, then it's the timing and thematic content of the decision that generates response from the group, as opposed to appreciation for Bob's tactical skill.

And now for the Simulationism. As preface, let me say that a year ago, this exchange, not to mention the whole thread, would have generated fifty screaming outraged responses, so everyone, don't think that I fail to appreciate how times have changed.

OK. So would it be correct to say that Simulationist play has no meaning outside of the context of the game (or at least pretends that this is the case), whilst Narrativist play has some external, acknowledged meaning for the players?

Yow. "No meaning" is harsh. As I said, the people involved really do have the metagame priority of not acknowledging/using metagame priorities, and if Exploration is engaging enough by itself, that's not a contradiction. I think "priority" as I'm using it translates very nicely to "meaning" at the personal level, so I'd hesitate to say such play "has no meaning." (At least, I hesitate now; a year ago, I was much less inclined to be sympathetic or respectful. Credit Seth ben-Ezra and Mike Holmes with changing my views.)

You are right about the Narrativism, though. As I've said before, both Narrativist and Gamist play have extremely overt and focused "external and acknowledged meaning for the players [participants]." Depending on the levels of vocabulary and communication among the group, a mixed group of S and N-or-G can get very acrimonious about that.

Best,
Ron

Hi,

Ron Edwards wrote:
> If the player elects that their character picks the most damaging
> weapon *purely because* of that game mechanic advantage,
> then aren't they acting in a G mode?

The key is the phrase "purely because" - you have shifted the question from externally-observable behaviors to internal-motivations...However! That level of theory is not accessible to anyone, perhaps not even to the person in question. I strongly suggest that we focus instead on the practical level, my "instance of play," which by definition provides enough observable evidence to work with.

Ron Edwards wrote: Not only does Bob select the morningstar for his character Bartholemew, he glances challengingly at the GM... And he's not role-playing Bartholemew; it's a statement to the group that he, Bob, is on top of the doing-mondo-damage issue.... we have to be talking about a game in which the morningstar really is a butt-kicker... and that probably means assessing this decision as it relates to several scenes, not just one.

Ron Edwards wrote: And now for the Simulationism.... Yow. "No meaning" is harsh. As I said, the people involved really do have the metagame priority of not acknowledging/using metagame priorities, and if Exploration is engaging enough by itself, that's not a contradiction.

In which case what about roleplaying as practiced in a professional capacity, for example, by a social worker or a business strategist? They, I think, would claim to be "simulating" a social problem or a business contingency, but they have the metagame priority of making/learning some point about real life. Is this Narrativism? If it is then it is certainly not a "literary narrative" they are creating.

contracycle wrote: What I am stumbling towards is that "roleplaying for the purpose of learning about the situation simulated" is simulationism, IMO. The purpose opf simulating is usually to learn how something works, to model it in a testable way. IMO, RPG sim is the same thing.

Just wanted to say that this thread has been very informative for me, as the Riddle of Steel has been labeled Narrativist, Simulationist, and a "heretofore impossible combination of both." I'm pretty new to all this GNS stuff, so now I'm starting to get what people are saying and what all this GNS stuff is.

Now I'd like to pose a question--Simulationism seems to be about exploration/discovery...the "Columbus" bit. Narrativism is about creation, or the "Michelangelo" bit. On the other hand I've heard of Narrativism being a platform for the exploration of moral issues, protagonist themes, story-building, etc. What is seems to me is that Narrativism is simulation of the psyche and the soul, and the so-called "sim" games are simulation of the physical world (or some variant thereon)...

So N and S are, kernally, the same thing, and are just begging to be blended. At least that's what I'm seeing.

Feedback? Am I way off here? Am I right on?

Jake
TROS

Hey Jake,

What is seems to me is that Narrativism is simulation of the psyche and the soul, and the so-called "sim" games are simulation of the physical world (or some variant thereon)...

I think you're a bit off. Both of those qualify as Simulationism. Ralph "Valamir" Mazza's awesome GNS Primer is a good place to start in on this stuff.

Paul

Jake Norwood wrote: Now I'd like to pose a question--Simulationism seems to be about exploration/discovery...the "Columbus" bit. Narrativism is about creation, or the "Michelangelo" bit. On the other hand I've heard of Narrativism being a platform for the exploration of moral issues, protagonist themes, story-building, etc. What is seems to me is that Narrativism is simulation of the psyche and the soul, and the so-called "sim" games are simulation of the physical world (or some variant thereon)...

So N and S are, kernally, the same thing, and are just begging to be blended. At least that's what I'm seeing.

Feedback? Am I way off here? Am I right on?

Always good to see how little you know. I'm afraid that those essays are currently unavailable (which is a darn shame), but they are on the top of my reading list as soon as they're up.

And, as always, thanks.

Jake

Ron's essay, "GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory" is available here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/gns/gns_introduction.html

Paul

contracycle wrote: Chris Engle, he of matrix gaming famne, uses these games as a psychiatrist - one of the most used, IIRC, is "lets get Bob drunk". The objective here is to let the player Explore, with trips to and from the metagame, their own psychological process of turning to the bottom...What I am stumbling towards is that "roleplaying for the purpose of learning about the situation simulated" is simulationism, IMO.

lehrbuch,

This is to respond to several of your points in a couple of posts, so forgive me if it jumps around.

First, there isn't any such thing as an "instance of play" for which a GNS orientation cannot be determined. An "instance" is not an instant, as some often mis-read it; it might need to be an hour of play, for example. I have found instances of play usually to be more like an entire session. A great deal of play may be considered set-up for pay-off, and leaping to a "Beep! Gamist!" kind of identification of an instant of play is distinctly not useful.

Second, I don't make any claim to discuss "role-playing" as the term is used outside of "role-playing games" in the hobby parlance. The term is used for various activities in corporate, military, and therapy-oriented applications, and I frankly have no interest in these. I don't think they have much to do with the activities in the hobby we're talking about; they just share the same word to label them.

Third, you're using Premise in a way that gets fuzzy for me. Addressing the Premise of "What are the consequences of getting drunk?" is Exploration of System, and hence (as a priority) would be simulationist. Now, if by "consequences" you are more interested in family interactions, interpersonal responsibilities, and the outcomes of love among dysfunctional personalities ... and if play focuses on decisions about these things (rather than on experiencing or observing them), then we move into Narrativism. But that line is a definite one - practically interdimensional. There is no gray area at all.

Fourth, I do not think your notion that "viewer context" is valid at all. That will probably be a topic for another post, or perhaps another thread.

Fifth, "escapism" is a loaded term and I hesitate to adopt your identification of it with Simulationism. "Shared day-dreaming" has been used in the past, with the strong connotation of no other metagame goal, and that seems a little less loaded. If, by escapism, you are not implying some kind of retreat or schizophrenia, then that works OK.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
... I don't make any claim to discuss "role-playing" as the term is used outside of "role-playing games" in the hobby parlance. The term is used for various activities in corporate, military, and therapy-oriented applications ... I don't think they have much to do with the activities in the hobby we're talking about; they just share the same word to label them.

Hello,

I hope we're not repeating too much prior discussion here...

Ron Edwards wrote: First, there isn't any such thing as an "instance of play" for which a GNS orientation cannot be determined. An "instance" is not an instant, as some often mis-read it; it might need to be an hour of play, for example.

Ron Edwards wrote: A great deal of play may be considered set-up for pay-off, and leaping to a "Beep! Gamist!" kind of identification of an instant of play is distinctly not useful.

Ron Edwards wrote: I do not think your notion that "viewer context" is valid at all. That will probably be a topic for another post, or perhaps another thread.

lehrbuch wrote: So, if several players orient an instance differently does that mean:
a) There are no such instances, one or more players is Wrong.
b) The GNS system is (or can be) dependent on who is applying it.

Perhaps, my argument collapses to: A GNS classification (or indeed any classification) of a game system depends upon which particular "instances of play" are selected as representative of play under that system. In some cases, the choice of "instances" (and therefore the player/commentator doing the selection) are more important than the system itself.

The fourth stance (which you say might exist, in your essay) I am proposing as:
Audience: where a person understands, using a context, a character's decisions and actions or aspects of the environment, particularly (but not only) those determined by another player.

Where context can be (but is not necessarily limited to):
a) the rules and mechanics of the game.
b) the observed past and anticipated future of the game.
c) factors external to the game.

Also, noting that a person in Audience stance may not actually be playing the game, they may be an observer or commentator.

Mike Holmes wrote: > I[Lehrbuch] am proposing [audience stance] as:...

This has been debated extensively in other threads in this and the RPG Theory forum. A quick search for Audience aned Stance should bring many up.

Hi there,

Whew! Three meaty topics all at once. Let's see.

STANCES
I don't think you're saying nonsense. I do think, though, that as soon as the watching person opens his or her mouth to convey that meaning to everyone else - and especially when they do so in reference to what the "active" player is about to do or has done - then they have entered Author stance, or co-Author, if you like.

ROLE-PLAYING (NOT GAMES)
Clinton's right, I concede that strong, even defining similarities exist among (say) therapeutic role-playing and some forms of Sim. However, I think that any categorization I've come up with (or modified from others), like GNS, or how Currency relates to GNS, etc, is predicated on the role-playing being a group leisure activity - thus I don't expect any of my theorizing to apply substantively to the other forms of role-playing.

INSTANCES
Unless I'm terribly wrong somehow, I'm pretty sure that Mike, you, and I have all reached at least a tolerable consensus on this one.

Best,
Ron

edited to correct a mis-attribution

lehrbuch wrote: However, in audience stance, as I've defined it, the player is making a decision about what an imaginary character's imaginary actions *mean*. Or is that nonsense?

Hello,

Ron Edwards wrote: STANCES
I do think, though, that as soon as the watching person opens his or her mouth to convey that meaning to everyone else - and especially when they do so in reference to what the "active" player is about to do or has done - then they have entered Author stance, or co-Author, if you like.

Mike Holmes wrote: I have added a Pseudo-stance that I refer to as Joiner mode, where the player is just present and is actually more or less disinterested in play. That is their level of participation does not even reach your conditions for Audience Stance.

Mike Holmes wrote: But I'm not sure how this relates to an understanding of Narrativism versus Simulationism. Stance is Mode independent.

Ron Edwards wrote: ROLE-PLAYING (NOT GAMES)
Clinton's right, I concede that strong, even defining similarities exist among (say) therapeutic role-playing and some forms of Sim.

Ron Edwards wrote: INSTANCES
Unless I'm terribly wrong somehow, I'm pretty sure that Mike, you, and I have all reached at least a tolerable consensus on this one.

Hi lehrbuch,

Yup, you were the "you" in the sentence. So we're reasonably good ...

Now, the last issue - that "social box" is definitely in the model, but perhaps it's easy to miss because it's the biggest box, within which the Exploration is enclosed, with GNS being enclosed within that.

Real humans, sittin' around, enjoying being together, scammin' on each other on occasion, getting into romantic hassles, playing these games (or is that word too problematic ...). That's the big box. All the stuff that my essay is about is subordinate to the the box which holds it.

The last chapter in the essay gets into this to some extent, and there's a whisper of it in the beginning of the Exploration chapter as well. When I re-do the essay, I'll explain the social context stuff better right up front.

Best,
Ron