Topic: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
Started by: Mytholder
Started on: 6/17/2001
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 6/17/2001 at 3:09am, Mytholder wrote:
More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
Ok...It's 2.18am as I begin this, I got four hours sleep last night and have spent half the day playing an l5r tournament and the rest of the time at a party, so I apologise for any incoherencies or blatant brain farts. I want to get these comments out and into the forum.
Firstly, I pretty much agree with everything in the first section of the FAQ - all the material on stances, scenario design etc. It's all good stuff, and clearly explained.
The GNS stuff...eh.
When GNS was first explained to me, I thought it made sense. The three axes - Gamism, Narrativism, Simulationism - seemed nicely balanced. I could clearly see examples of all three styles of play among players I knew, in games I played, and in rpg books I'd read. I glanced at John Kim's stuff, and it seemed that there was a direct one-to-one mapping between the Threefold and GNS Of course, back then, in those early days of GO, there wasn't as much of a distinction between GNS and Threefold. Narrativism and Dramatism seemed to be describing much the same thing - the only reason the name had been changed was to avoid confusion between 'd' as shorthand for Dramatist and 'd' as shorthand for Drama in DFK (resolution mechanics).
I accept that the GNS model can and should evolve...however, the foundations of the threefold can be seen in early ideas like the "Four-Way Split: A concept suggested by American gamer Glenn Blacow as long ago as the late ‘70’s; the categorisation of types of role-playing behaviour into "Roleplaying", "Story-Telling", "Powergaming", and "Wargaming".
(http://www.rpg.net:443/oracle/essays/vocabulary.html)
It seemed to me that there was a solid body of evidence that these three styles of play - Gamism, Simulationism and Narrativism/Dramatism - were really widespread, overarching catagories which genuinely did describe the way a lot of people played rpgs.
Now, my current thinking is that a player may prefer a style of play, and a game may be good or bad at supporting a style of play, but a player isn't an "ist" and a game isn't inherently an "Xist" game. While I know we tend to use such labels in casual discussion ("yeah, D&D's gamist"), any game can be turned to any style of play. This is my first major problem with the current FAQ - it catagorises games FAR too glibly.
Examples of Gamists(sic) RPGs include AD&D (what is now called "1st Edition"), D&D3E, Rifts, Shadowrun, Pantheon, and Rune
Someone go off and tell Doc Fortune he's a gamist. All of these games are quite good at supporting gamist play, but they're not completely, totally, incontrovertibly, you-can't-use-them-for-anything-else-ever GAMIST through and through (well, maybe Rune...)
(I know this is something of a well-worn point, but the FAQ should say that while some games are especially suited to some styles of play, any game can be turned to any style.)
(I also question the inclusion of Pantheon in this list - it's at least as much narrativist as it is gamist).
I'll let Brian Gleichman and other people who are more in tune with gamist concerns tackle the rest of the gamist section. It looks okish to me.
Narrativism...and simulationism.
This whole section looks like a hideously messy car crash to me, with lots of messy red wet bits scattered everywhere and tangled up in the wreckage.
The narrativist section reads fine. It's only when I read through simulationism that I realised how narrativism had changed. (Or, at least, how my understanding of it was at odds with Ron & co's). I always described narrativism as "the style of play which values a good story above all other concerns." This definition seemed to be a fairly accurate synopsis of the ideas mentioned by Dramatists, of the basic concept of storytelling, and of the "empowered players/author & director stances" style of play. Everything I described as "narrativist" had a central if somewhat fuzzy goal of "good story", even if their means of achieving "a good story" varied somewhat.
The narrativist section in the FAQ describes a style of play which isn't just concerned with "good story", but also demands some level of authorial or directorial power from the players. This definition is fine on its own - but then the other form of story-based play...the style often exemplified by WW's Storyteller, the style which doesn't demand author/director stance, the style which can have the GM railroading the players completely, even dictating the plot to them. As was pointed out in the recent "where did dramatism go?" thread, the faq's definition of narrativism doesn't include this style of play.
A lot of the points I'm making in this thread were also made in that thread. I didn't agree with a lot of the arguments made, but we agreed to wait for the FAQ to see where Dramatism/storytelling would end up.
Crash. Blood everywhere.
Dramatism's sitting there, stunned and lost, while Simulationism's lying in the middle of the twisted metal and broken glass, bleeding and broken.
This topic is still under debate, and for some reason it tends to upset people more than discussing the other goals.
And it will continue to upset people, because a lot of the discussions of simulationism get it painfully wrong.
The purpose of play is to experience the results of the resolution system and of playing one's character, specifically without establishing victory or theme as the indicator of success.
I read this.
And I reread it.
And I still don't know where it's coming from.
Parts of that definition might work well as a definition for the act of roleplaying itself ("play is to experience the results of the resolution system and of playing one's character"). Describing it as the "purpose" of play doesn't work. It's a very passive definition. Simulationists have goals in play. There are games they like and games they don't like. That defition is utterly neutral. EVERY game involves playing one's character and seeing the results of the resolution system on the character.
Adding a little rider ("specifically without establishing victory or theme as the indicator of success") does nothing for me. According to the FAQ, not only do simulationists like to sit back and watch the resolution system act on our characters, we don't even have a defined reason for doing it.
One thing is for sure: Simulationist play and design as defined here is inarguably the most common, widespread, and well-established form of roleplaying. The variety within this category is far more well-developed and diverse than in the other two GNS goals.
That's because you've pretty much defined simulationism as "well, you've got a character, and a setting, and, like, you don't care about winning, or story". You've encompassed every rpg that isn't distinctly gamist or narrativist.
You haven't got three axes, you've got a line. Gamist at one end, narrativist at the other, and everything else in between.
That's not a threefold. There's no S in this GNS.
Okay...what's simulationism? If pure gamist is at the end of the gamist axis, and pure narrativist is at the end of the narrativist axis, what's the extreme that defines simulationism?
One rather cute definition comes from rgfa.
"simulationist": is the style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without
allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision
Meta-game, in this context, means anything outside the game, including story concerns.
It's a rather dry definition, but a lot of simulationism is dry. Endless arguments about crossbow damage et al, rolemaster and finicky, number-heavy rulesets. At its heart, though, both the rulesmongers and the fuzzy system-light people like moi want the same thing. We want a world we can believe in, a world that makes sense according to its own rules. A world that you could mentally walk away from and it would still keep going without the GM pushing the levers and pulling the puppetstrings. Anything from "outside" this mental construct damages the simulation. Things from "outside" include story.
Reality (even a fictional reality) doesn't have neat beginnings, middles and endings. It doesn't have plot development, a carefully modulated increase in tension towards an ending. It doesn't work by some aesthetic committee trying to develop the most pleasing story. Reality just happens.
Now, it may happen that a particular sequence of events in reality is naturally dramatic, may naturally make a good narrative etc - but that's a bonus, not an aimed-for goal.
Simulationism is having the PCs interact with a bunch of stuff that's happening in a game world. The internal consistency and logic of the game world are paramount. Anything from "outside" the game world is bad and wrong and evil and contrary to simulationism.
Back to the scene of the crash.
The second type is far more oriented toward the story elements of play and is often confused with Narrativism. In this case, the story is well-established by the GM or by a published text, and the role of the players is to experience it essentially as written. The linear or branched scenario designs are obligatory.
One of us is confused here.
Dramatism and storytelling isn't simulationist.
(Quickie digression: it's possible to have a Simulation of an existing story from another, non-rpg medium...Pendragon could be considered a simulation of Le Morte D'Arthur, for example...however, the simulation will concentrate more on the setting than the actual storyline of the original fiction, and if the two conflict, the setting will win out. If PCs can use the resources of the setting to expose an defeat Mordred years before he kills Arthur, then a simulationist GM will let this happen. The planned story bends in the face of a contradiction from the players).
The extreme end of simulationism is "world above all". Gamism is "challenge above all" and narrativism is (or should be) "story above all".
Sticking all forms of story-based play which don't meet the criteria for this new definition of narrativism into simulationism doesn't work. It's a mess. Simulationism has its own distinct identity, one which the FAQ does not recognise consistently. You get it right half the time, then confuse what I'd consider a form of narrativism with simulationism.
(Logan - you do something related to this which is very odd in the "where's dramatism" thread. You agree that rgfa-Dramatism is part of gns-Narrativism...then you turn around and describe Supplanter's examples of rgfa-Dramatism as "those are prime examples of Simulationist play". I was hoping the FAQ would explain this...and it hasn't.)
I think there are three problems in the GNS section of the FAQ.
Firstly, narrativism is redefinied as a rather idiosyncratic, precisely defined style of play, a style which is not widespread or encompassing enough to justify having its own axis. All three axes should be clear and distinct.
Secondly, the parts of "traditional" narrativism/dramatism are put under simulationism.
Thirdly, the middle of the triangle is where most games and players go. Labels should only be assigned when bias is clearly evident, to avoid confusion.
=============================================
One or two other passing comments...
Most of the FAQ is good. It's only the simulationism parts (and by extension - or, more accurately, omission, in the narrativism section) that the major blunders are made.
The rgfa model is about primarily about decisions.
GNS is primarily about style of play.
GENder is primarily about premise. Discuss.
Guys - Ron and Logan especially. The GNS part of the FAQ as it currently stands doesn't work at all as far as I'm concerned. It basically says "well, this is how we play. It's narrativist and it's really cool. We rock. Oh, there's this gamist stuff, which we do for a laugh. And then there's simulationism, which is everything else. All the cool indie games are narrativist. And we're, like, totally hip and cutting edge. All the cool kids are narrativists."
Yawn. Almost two hours writing this thing. I'd better reiterate the usual "all of the above is my opinion and should be taken as just" ward against flames.
On 6/17/2001 at 5:22am, Supplanter wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
Yawn. Almost two hours writing this thing. I'd better reiterate the usual "all of the above is my opinion and should be taken as just" ward against flames.
Nah. Can't do that cause it's my opinion too. Pretty much everything you had to say.
Having read the FAQ today, I was going to start a thread called "FAQ Not That Bad, Readers Say" and put some stress on the parts I don't disagree with. But the land that gave us the Pogues and Donal Lunny has now given us an extremely pointful critique of what the FAQ is justly calling the Edwards model, so I'll pick up from there.
What I was going to say is, you can fix almost everything with the FAQ by changing one little word, specifically the word "Simulationism." Because as Mytholder says and, by gum, I said before, to say that "dramatist play" as classically understood is "a kind of simulationism" is to sow confusion and error. No self-respecting dramatist or simulationist could abide the claim, and let me show you my scars if you don't believe me.
I can actually see what whichever of Ron's followers meant when he cautioned that the Edwards model is not the rgfa model. Mytholder gets some sense of the distinction among the levels of the various models. I'd rephrase it as
GDS is primarily about decisions
GNS is primarily about techniques
GEN is primarily about desires
On the level that interests the Edwards model, one can justly contrast shared authorial power with traditional GM/player divisions. In that sense and that sense only one can equivocally liken rgfa dramatism and rgfa simulationism as styles that share certain stance relationships - player handles "my guy," GM handles everything else. But simulationism, despite what the FAQ says about fringes, has a preexisting meaning, distinct enough and diffused enough that one of my Amberway II players could say, without preamble, "I'm not quite as much of a simulationist as you are," and have every expectation of being understood. So one quick fix suggestion is simply "Find another term for the S part of the Edwards model." After all, partly to stress the difference between Narrativism and Dramatism, the newer term was adopted. So if there is to be a change in the other point, and it is simply unarguable that lumping non-"narrativist" story-oriented games together with simulationist games is to create a difference, use a different term. Not "explorative" - "explorative" is appropriate in SJ's model but isn't the term for not-G, not-N that the Edwards model needs.
All that said.
I've read Jester's model and his explanations. I've read the Edwards model FAQ. I've read tons of discussion of the Edwards model. I've been through the wars on rgfa. And the end of all my wandering is to return to where I started and know the place for the very first time.
GDS wins.
That's snarky: mind you, on a certain level it's snarky, if undoubtedly satisfying, to declare that dramatism and simulationism are really the same category. The less snarky thing to say is that the rgfa model has not been surpassed for comprehensiveness and clarity. After all the explanations and all the arguments, I can't escape the following conclusion: "narrativism" is simply a flavor of dramatism; it's a movement, a school - a species rather than a genus. That does not invalidate narrativism as a way of designing and playing games. That doesn't mean shared authorship as an approach to dramatism isn't an elegant solution to the railroading problem or a fruitful new area for design. It doesn't mean some genuinely talented people haven't poured productive energy into some exciting game ideas. If instead of an attempt at a Theory of Everything, we got a forthright manifesto a la what the Turkus have given us for Elayatism, I think we'd all be further along.
There remains the question of just how distinct narrativism is from dramatism, actually. Because while Kim wrote the FAQ, Berkman had a big impact on the development of dramatism as a category. Theatrix is copyright 1993 and distribution of directorial power is a major part of the rules - see Statement Activation, the subplot rules and more. Theatrix meets every test of "narrativism" I see in the Edwards model FAQ, but it bulked large in the development of dramatism on rgfa. Berkman wouldn't have had it any other way! He was an energetic participant in the very discussions that led to the faq.
Now I don't know about this business of Theatrix and Vampire making people mad. I know that both games exist and are the games they are, and are relevant to the discussion. I don't believe you can discuss RPG theory without reference to Theatrix. So if someone is going to get angry, they are just going to need to look into anger management.
Which brings us to Vampire. The argument advanced in this forum is that, because Vampire has rules and traits that are not directly related to the premise of The Beast Within, that it must be simulationist. This is a kind of one-drop rule of simulation; the claim is simply that if a game has any mechanics or traits that are not specifically story or premise oriented, that it must be a simulationist game.
The claim in the forum is also that since it's the Storyteller System that it must be simulationist because a characteristic of simulationism is "The System Plus." But "The System Plus" as a marker for simulationism is an intriguing first thought but not a convincing last one. Any Theatrix setting is " 'Core Rules' Plus." I've seen the Over the Edge system used for Thundarr the Barbarian and swashbuckling fantasy, and the Edwards model accounts OTE as narrativist. "The System Plus" is not a reliable marker of simulation.
So to the Ongoing Issues section, I would add the following:
Does Narrativism really rise to the level of a top-shelf category, as Mytholder and I doubt it does?
What one term should cover those games, whether story or world-oriented, where the traditional GM/player power relations are preserved? "Simulationist" or something else?
The Edwards theory considerably modifies two of the three points on the rgfa triangle. But its sense of gamism remains substantially unchanged from the old model. What's up with that?
Despite what Jim and Mytholder have said about the levels of the three extant theories, GNS actually spans levels, and the span changes across the triangle. The Edwards model's narrativism is actually a compound of a specific end - story - with a particular set of means - author mode and distribution of Direction. The Edwards' model's "S-thing" is a congeries of ends - world, story, character - bound to a particular set of means - GM god, players supplicants like in the good old days. The Edwards model's gamism is, um, gamism. To what extent is the assertion that the means the Edwards' model ascribes to narrativism - distribution of direction, and fortune-you-know-where - are inherently narrativist a) unproven, and b) just begging someone to go out and design a bunch of simulationist games using distributed direction and fortune-you-know-where?
Of course the foregoing is just my opinion except for those points where the opinion is shared by others, and those further points where it's actually incontrovertible fact...
Best,
Jim
On 6/17/2001 at 3:24pm, Logan wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
Let's start here.
>Dramatism and storytelling isn't simulationist.
----------------------
If the GM is the sole provider of story and if the player is locked into a mode of play where he can only react to what the GM provides, as far as we're concerned, it's Simulationism. If the player has input into the shape and outcome of events, and the players actually create story with the GM, it's Narrativism. It relates to what John Tynes wrote in Puppetland, "The Puppetmaster must realize that while he or she has a certain tale in mind, that tale may not be the one that ends up being told." The reason, of course, is that the players have the power to make significant changes to the environment, setup, and outcome of events with their declarations. What the player says becomes part of the tale.
Okay. So much for clarification. Let's talk about definitions.
Here's one for Narrativism:
Narrativism is about creating stories as a group. The emphasis is placed on allowing players to have some power over what happens in the story, how it happens, and how the story turns out.
Here's one for Simulationism:
Simulationism is about allowing the group to see what would happen in a given situation as a result of the character's actions. It places emphasis on fairness, verisimilitude, and allowing the group to have an unusual experience.
I think they're accurate. Do these work better for people?
As far as Narrativism vs. Dramatism, it's pretty simple. Narrativism is about group creation of story. If the players don't have some influence over the setup, condition, and outcome of events, it's not Narrativism. If the players don't have some say into the creation of the story, it's not Narrativism. Dramatism simply places the story first and foremost. From reading rgfa stuff, I have the impression that Dramatism doesn't care whether the GM creates the story or the players. What this means, in my opinion, is that rgfa Dramatism ends up straddling the fence between Edwards Simulationism with strong emphasis on simulation of character with light mechanics (related to the Elaytijist ideal) and Edwards Narrativism, where the players have impact on what the story is, what happens in the story, and how the story turns out.
As far as Theatrix angering people, I don't know about that. I do know that people's impression of Theatrix and people's use of that system vary widely because many people have heard of the game but realtively few people have actually bought it or played it. It's a little easier to talk about WoD because it's a much more widely-known entity. More people have had direct contact with it. In fact, one difficulty confronting Narrativism is that most gamers haven't played a Narrativist game. Narrativism is a less-explored form. That's not a defense, an argument, or an accusation. It's a simple statement of fact. Simulationist and Gamist concerns are older than Chainmail. Narrativist ideals weren't published before Prince Valiant. Whatever Theatrix is or is not, it's a genuine Narrativist game.
Okay. Mytholder, Supplanter, I've said what I want to say. I didn't try to satisfy every qualm. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points. Now, I'm going to ask the same question I asked Epoch: What are your recommendations to fix the perceived problems with the faq and make it better?
Best,
Logan
[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-17 11:25 ]
On 6/17/2001 at 7:32pm, Supplanter wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
Okay. Mytholder, Supplanter, I've said what I want to say. I didn't try to satisfy every qualm. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points. Now, I'm going to ask the same question I asked Epoch: What are your recommendations to fix the perceived problems with the faq and make it better?
For now I think I'll stick with the half-dozen specific suggestions in my original, lengthy post, thanks. I can't speak for Mytholder, though I count a similar number of specific, only partly-overlapping suggestions in his.
Best,
Jim
On 6/17/2001 at 9:19pm, Mytholder wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
>Dramatism and storytelling isn't simulationist.
----------------------
If the GM is the sole provider of story and if the player is locked into a mode of play where he can only react to what the GM provides, as far as we're concerned, it's Simulationism.
Ok. You're wrong. :smile:
Firstly, you use the word "story". Simulationism isn't about story. A simulationist GM doesn't sit down and say "I'm going to tell a story". He doesn't have a preplanned series of events which are going to happen (there might be plans afoot inside the world - Lord X might be about to invade the peaceful city of Exampleville, but the OUTCOME isn't predetermined). "Story" can only be seen after the game.
Secondly, the players can react. Simulationist players have little to no metagame power at all - but they have as much power are as is appropriate for their characters to have inside the game. You can run a Simulationist game where the characters are Gods who can remake reality with a whim (it'd be hard, but it's doable.)
The simulationist GM creates and presents a world. The players take on avatars and enter that world. The world is changed by their actions. If the world is a coherent and logical one, and that coherency is prized as the chief virtue of the game, if the players and GM feel like they're interacting with a "real" world - that's simulationism.
If the player has input into the shape and outcome of events, and the players actually create story with the GM, it's Narrativism.
No...that's arrogance, to be honest. The second part of your definition is accurate - narrativism is all about joint story creation. However, players have input into the shape and outcome of events in all three styles of play (unless there's heavy railroading going on). True, narrativism demands author/director stance which gives the player more power, but that doesn't mean simulationist players are powerless. It just means their only tool is their PC.
It relates to what John Tynes wrote in Puppetland, "The Puppetmaster must realize that while he or she has a certain tale in mind, that tale may not be the one that ends up being told." The reason, of course, is that the players have the power to make significant changes to the environment, setup, and outcome of events with their declarations. What the player says becomes part of the tale.
Again, that's hardly germane. Tynes' line could be applied to simulationism too. The events of the game are the result of the actions of both the GM and the players.
Narrativism is about creating stories as a group. The emphasis is placed on allowing players to have some power over what happens in the story, how it happens, and how the story turns out.
I'm cool with this one.
Here's one for Simulationism:
Simulationism is about allowing the group to see what would happen in a given situation as a result of the character's actions. It places emphasis on fairness, verisimilitude, and allowing the group to have an unusual experience.
Yes...as long as the results are purely the results of the character's actions, and aren't also molded by some "story" external to the game world.
As far as Narrativism vs. Dramatism, it's pretty simple. Narrativism is about group creation of story. If the players don't have some influence over the setup, condition, and outcome of events, it's not Narrativism. If the players don't have some say into the creation of the story, it's not Narrativism. Dramatism simply places the story first and foremost. From reading rgfa stuff, I have the impression that Dramatism doesn't care whether the GM creates the story or the players.
All seems accurate enough...but then...
What this means, in my opinion, is that rgfa Dramatism ends up straddling the fence between Edwards Simulationism with strong emphasis on simulation of character with light mechanics (related to the Elaytijist ideal) and Edwards Narrativism, where the players have impact on what the story is, what happens in the story, and how the story turns out.
I'd agree with a lot of that. However, the FAQ doesn't. You crashed Dramatism into Simulationism. As I said in the earlier "where's dramatism" thread, narrativism has a lot of dramatism in it. It's got the story consciousness of narrativism and the strong gm/weak players of simulationism.
However...this does wierd things to the model. We've got a very strong, well-defined style of play (narrativism) which has all these wishywashy other styles around it. It's like defining Gamism as "the style of play set in a heavily restricted dungeon-like environment populated with entities that are hostile to the PCs, and the PCs must retrieve McGuffins from the grasp of the hostiles."
Shouldn't the three "top-level" axes of play cover the widest number of games, and substyles can focus on particular variations?
Okay. Mytholder, Supplanter, I've said what I want to say. I didn't try to satisfy every qualm. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points. Now, I'm going to ask the same question I asked Epoch: What are your recommendations to fix the perceived problems with the faq and make it better?
Rewriting the definition of simulationism would help.
Removing dramatism from simulationism would help.
Expanding narrativism would help.
That's basically saying "turn it back to the three rgfa-defined axes". GNS does cover a lot more ground, applying to system design for one thing.
Perhaps if you explained why you felt it necessary to expand/alter the rgfa model, and why you think GNS is more useful, we could understand your thinking better.
Later: another thought just struck me. We used to be able to say "well, this game is sorta halfway between G and S, or has bits of narrativism in the GMing advice, but has a primarily simulationist background". We could do this because stance was distinct from position on the threefold. This new model can't do that. Pantheon is fun for gamists because part of the fun is defending your plotline against the other players, and managing your beads. Is Pantheon also narrativist because it rewards good stories, or because it's in director stance....?
[ This Message was edited by: Mytholder on 2001-06-17 17:26 ]
On 6/17/2001 at 11:26pm, Logan wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
Mytholder, Supplanter,
Thank you for your time and effort. All this will be considered carefully when I begin revising the 101 doc.
Best,
Logan
On 6/18/2001 at 2:44pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
On 2001-06-17 11:24, Logan wrote:
>Dramatism and storytelling isn't simulationist.
----------------------
If the GM is the sole provider of story and if the player is locked into a mode of play where he can only react to what the GM provides, as far as we're concerned, it's Simulationism. If the player has input into the shape and outcome of events, and the players actually create story with the GM, it's Narrativism.
I read this and thought "hey thats a good definition. That clarifies exactly what you mean when you use the word Narrativism"
But then I thought, what an amazingly narrow definition. What a tiny slice of games that have ever been created (and likely ever will be) fit that definition.
Then I thought back on previous discussions of Simulation, and my own talk with Ron where he acknowledged most of the RPGs ever made would be categorized as Simulationist by GNS.
Then I referred back to Myth's "its not a triangle its a line" comment, which is exactly what I've been saying for awhile but I didn't have such a clever sound bite to go with it.
I think Jim might be on to something when he questions if Narrativism is deserving its own corner of the triangle. Clearly it is a very valid and amazing style of play...but should a style that accounts for maybe what: 5%, 10% of all of the RPGs ever published qualify for its own vertex?
Its been said that Dramatism is about story above all. the above definition reads that Narrativism is about story above all *IF* the story is being told as a collaborative effort by the players.
By your own definition it would seem that Narrativism must actually be a subset of Dramatism. Both have the same story above all goal, but Narrativism is the more restrictive of the two. One could say, simply on the basis of your own comments on the subject, that Dramatism is about story and Narrativism is Dramatism where the story is told collectively.
I heartily commend your efforts on the FAQ (which are indeed outstanding) but I must admit that in some ways its left me more confused than I was. It would seem there are some incongruities in GNS which I hadn't noticed because I was filling up any holes with my own misconceptions. Now that the FAQ has stripped away those misconceptions some of the unresolved issues are more obvious. It would seem that GNS may be much farther away from being finished that once was thought.
On 6/18/2001 at 4:12pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
supporting a style of play, but a player isn't an "ist" and a game isn't inherently an "Xist" game.
Isn't that just splitting hairs?
A game that supports a certain style is an "xist" game and vice versa, the only difference (to me) seems to be in the phrasing you've chosen to couch it in.
All of these games are quite good at supporting gamist play, but they're not completely, totally, incontrovertibly, you-can't-use-them-for-anything-else-ever GAMIST through and through (well, maybe Rune...)
I don't believe that's being said, at least I don't perceive it to be said. Suggestion, then, include a disclaimer in the FAQ that reads as above, "any game may be used in any style; certain games merely support certain styles better." Which I note is in there...hrm, rewrite to clarify?
I'll let Brian Gleichman and other people who are more in tune with gamist concerns tackle the rest of the gamist section. It looks okish to me.
I recall from another thread Brian said he found the gamist description to be completely off. Didn't say why.
even if their means of achieving "a good story" varied somewhat.
See...there's my problem, what is "a good story"? Or just a story? I think we're talking about actual dramatic creation here*, not creation in hindsight (how does everything we've just done make a story (ie: a series of events which occurred)?).
* Not to imply solely "drama", however, and exclude humor or horror, etc.
demands some level of authorial or directorial power from the players.
I think that's alright...I think it is necessary to story-creation and not just Simulationism, where the players do little more than experience the world via their characters.
The world in this case being a pre-scripted scenario where 'the rules' are simply narrative ones instead of physical or realistic ones.
So, you're not being Narrative, you're experiencing a narrative. If you see what I'm saying?
the style which doesn't demand author/director stance, the style which can have the GM railroading the players completely, even dictating the plot to them.
I don't personally believe that IS a style of Narrativism, there's no Narrative qualities to it...so what if there's a plot? Plot /= Narrative.
"The purpose of play is to experience the results of the resolution system and of playing one's character, specifically without establishing victory or theme as the indicator of success."
I read this.
And I reread it.
And I still don't know where it's coming from.
Weird, I completely understand that. Didn't even blink. Fits with my understanding of the Kim's Threefold FAQ definition of Simulationism completely.
Perhaps that can be cleaned up a bit to sound less passive, to include "the experience of one's character or exploration of the variables of the setting in a framework of plausibility"...er, or maybe something a little more clear than that.
It's a rather dry definition, but a lot of simulationism is dry. Endless arguments about crossbow damage et al, rolemaster and finicky, number-heavy rulesets. At its heart, though, both the rulesmongers and the fuzzy system-light people like moi want the same thing. We want a world we can believe in, a world that makes sense according to its own rules. A world that you could mentally walk away from and it would still keep going without the GM pushing the levers and pulling the puppetstrings. Anything from "outside" this mental construct damages the simulation. Things from "outside" include story.
I'll agree with that definition, though I don't see where your definition contradicts the one offered in the 101 FAQ. Yours is perhaps more clear/detailed than that of the 101 FAQ, however.
Reality (even a fictional reality) doesn't have neat beginnings, middles and endings. It doesn't have plot development, a carefully modulated increase in tension towards an ending. It doesn't work by some aesthetic committee trying to develop the most pleasing story. Reality just happens.
Now, it may happen that a particular sequence of events in reality is naturally dramatic, may naturally make a good narrative etc - but that's a bonus, not an aimed-for goal.
I'm going to steal the above for use in a different discussion in which we're trying to come to agreement about what seperates a Simulationist with a story-idea from a Narrativist with a story-idea.
Dramatism and storytelling isn't simulationist.
I'm not certain if I agree with you here given the examples proposed. I can certainly see where you are coming from, but I think that this easily could be a form of Simulationism, though I also understand why you would consider it not to be.
See my notes above why I believe this IS dead-on Simulationism, just with a different "rule-set" that is being simulated and experienced. Though perhaps this clouds the issue, I'm not sure; but I might be convinced otherwise.
On 6/18/2001 at 4:28pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
I can actually see what whichever of Ron's followers meant
I've sent you a private message about this questionable phrasing in your box.
That's snarky: mind you, on a certain level it's snarky, if undoubtedly satisfying, to declare that dramatism and simulationism are really the same category. The less snarky thing to say is that the rgfa model has not been surpassed for comprehensiveness and clarity.
On the first, see my other post to my current thinking and response to why I don't think the type of Simulationism being spoken of is really Narrativism.
As to the part about comprehensiveness and clarity, I practically choked. No, honestly, I stopped dead and stared at that line.
Now maybe you're talking about this pseudo-nebulous revised-FAQ entity that exists somewhere out there in the collective of RGFA, but you aren't speaking about the FAQ on Kim's page, are you?
Not if you're using words like "comprehensive" and "clear"? I've got RGFA regulars breathing down my neck about those two issues with that FAQ, insisting it is a terribly vague thing with numerous problems of definition and in sore need of update.
So if that is what you are speaking of, why/how do you find it to be clear and comprehensive where other RGFA regulars do not?
After all the explanations and all the arguments, I can't escape the following conclusion: "narrativism" is simply a flavor of dramatism;
See, this is where I lose you and think you've make a leap of logic that I can't follow...they're the same thing. One is simply more defined than the other for easier classification. Narrativism IS Dramatism, just with the name changed so confusion doesn't arise given the use of D/F/K.
The Edwards theory considerably modifies two of the three points on the rgfa triangle. But its sense of gamism remains substantially unchanged from the old model. What's up with that?
You'll note Brian Gleichman doesn't think the definition of Gamism is up to snuff either.
further points where it's actually incontrovertible fact...
Yes, but which of those points are incontrovertible fact is up for debate [grin]
_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."
[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-06-18 12:33 ]
On 6/18/2001 at 7:25pm, Mytholder wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
On 2001-06-18 12:12, greyorm wrote:
supporting a style of play, but a player isn't an "ist" and a game isn't inherently an "Xist" game.
Isn't that just splitting hairs?
A game that supports a certain style is an "xist" game and vice versa, the only difference (to me) seems to be in the phrasing you've chosen to couch it in.
To a large extent, yes it is. However, if the FAQ is going to be the first port of call, we want to be as clear as possible. If someone's first impression is that GNS classifies games strictly, and doesn't allow any overlap...it creates more problems. You'll have people shouting "I play D&D and I'm not a gamist".
I don't believe that's being said, at least I don't perceive it to be said. Suggestion, then, include a disclaimer in the FAQ that reads as above, "any game may be used in any style; certain games merely support certain styles better." Which I note is in there...hrm, rewrite to clarify?
It's said later on, after the systems are catagorised. A simple cut-and-paste would deal with this issue.
even if their means of achieving "a good story" varied somewhat.
See...there's my problem, what is "a good story"? Or just a story? I think we're talking about actual dramatic creation here*, not creation in hindsight (how does everything we've just done make a story (ie: a series of events which occurred)?).
Yeah, this is the sticking point. Narrativism wants to create a story during play. Dramatism has a story mapped out in advance. Simulationism doesn't care about story that much, but doesn't mind if you look back after the game and see a story.
demands some level of authorial or directorial power from the players.
I think that's alright...I think it is necessary to story-creation and not just Simulationism, where the players do little more than experience the world via their characters.
The world in this case being a pre-scripted scenario where 'the rules' are simply narrative ones instead of physical or realistic ones.
eh. You see, if you have "narrative" rules, you're experiencing something your character isn't. It's the real world intruding on the pristine unreality of the game world. It's something from outside. My character can't perceive these "narrative rules". No experiment or quest will allow him to find them out. They're not part of his reality - so they shouldn't be part of the game.
So, you're not being Narrative, you're experiencing a narrative. If you see what I'm saying?
Yeah. I grok narrativism a lot more after all this debate...however:
The issue was never "what narrativism is". The question is "what do we do about the style of "story-oriented" play that isn't narrativism. The rgfa approach is to put both "story-oriented" play and narrativism under the label of simulationism. The GNS approach has become "put that stuff into simulationism", which doesn't work.
the style which doesn't demand author/director stance, the style which can have the GM railroading the players completely, even dictating the plot to them.
I don't personally believe that IS a style of Narrativism, there's no Narrative qualities to it...so what if there's a plot? Plot /= Narrative.
Ok...it's not narrativism. I can buy that. However, it's not simulationism either, at least not as defined by rgfa.
rgfa isn't the be-all and end-all of debate, I know, but if we're going to replace their ideas, we'd better have something better to replace them with. Currently, I don't think we do.
"The purpose of play is to experience the results of the resolution system and of playing one's character, specifically without establishing victory or theme as the indicator of success."
I read this.
And I reread it.
And I still don't know where it's coming from.
Weird, I completely understand that. Didn't even blink. Fits with my understanding of the Kim's Threefold FAQ definition of Simulationism completely.
Perhaps that can be cleaned up a bit to sound less passive, to include "the experience of one's character or exploration of the variables of the setting in a framework of plausibility"...er, or maybe something a little more clear than that.
Heh. Yeah. Basically, my objection to that definition is that it's not extreme enough. It's not distinguished enough from a "neutral" style of play which takes from all three styles. Simulationism has to have its own distinct identify if we're going to talk about a three-axes(axis?) model.
It's a rather dry definition, but a lot of simulationism is dry. Endless arguments about crossbow damage et al, rolemaster and finicky, number-heavy rulesets. At its heart, though, both the rulesmongers and the fuzzy system-light people like moi want the same thing. We want a world we can believe in, a world that makes sense according to its own rules. A world that you could mentally walk away from and it would still keep going without the GM pushing the levers and pulling the puppetstrings. Anything from "outside" this mental construct damages the simulation. Things from "outside" include story.
I'll agree with that definition, though I don't see where your definition contradicts the one offered in the 101 FAQ. Yours is perhaps more clear/detailed than that of the 101 FAQ, however.
Half the time, my definition is the same as the FAQ's. However, the FAQ throws in all the stuff about plot which doesn't fit.
Dramatism and storytelling isn't simulationist.
I'm not certain if I agree with you here given the examples proposed. I can certainly see where you are coming from, but I think that this easily could be a form of Simulationism, though I also understand why you would consider it not to be.
See my notes above why I believe this IS dead-on Simulationism, just with a different "rule-set" that is being simulated and experienced. Though perhaps this clouds the issue, I'm not sure; but I might be convinced otherwise.
It's possible to get into very fuzzy areas around here, I know. If you're simulating a novel, then don't you have to have story-based rules? Feng Shui, for example, has tied us up in knots on occasion. Some styles of simulationism can wobble very close to dramatism.
However, the FAQ currently suggests that such story-based play is a major component of simulationism, and that any game which isn't gamist and isn't big-N empowered player Narrativist is simulationist. And that simply isn't true as far as I'm concerned.
On 6/18/2001 at 9:50pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
However, if the FAQ is going to be the first port of call, we want to be as clear as possible. If someone's first impression is that GNS classifies games strictly, and doesn't allow any overlap...it creates more problems.
[nods]
Narrativism wants to create a story during play. Dramatism has a story mapped out in advance.
Hrm...don't agree. I don't think GDS claims anything remotely similar, either (making the split between them as to when the story is "mapped").
eh. You see, if you have "narrative" rules, you're experiencing something your character isn't. It's the real world intruding on the pristine unreality of the game world. It's something from outside. My character can't perceive these "narrative rules". No experiment or quest will allow him to find them out. They're not part of his reality - so they shouldn't be part of the game.
Isn't that, as the 101 FAQ has been accused of with Narrativism, narrowing the definition for Simulation too much?
I personally can't see why it ISN'T a valid form of simulationism. "I'm going to run a Simulation of 60's style detective story; the world-rules will follow the rules of a good detective fiction."
You're putting "reality" at the top there as the only ruleset a Simulationist can use or ascribe to, but that's not the only ruleset available to the Simulationist IMO.
Ok...it's not narrativism. I can buy that. However, it's not simulationism either, at least not as defined by rgfa.
rgfa isn't the be-all and end-all of debate, I know, but if we're going to replace their ideas, we'd better have something better to replace them with. Currently, I don't think we do.
Ok, we'll have to disagree on this point, I think.
Heh. Yeah. Basically, my objection to that definition is that it's not extreme enough. It's not distinguished enough from a "neutral" style of play which takes from all three styles. Simulationism has to have its own distinct identify if we're going to talk about a three-axes(axis?) model.
Agree.
It's possible to get into very fuzzy areas around here, I know. If you're simulating a novel, then don't you have to have story-based rules? Feng Shui, for example, has tied us up in knots on occasion. Some styles of simulationism can wobble very close to dramatism.
That's what I'm sayin'. [grin]
On 6/18/2001 at 11:49pm, Mytholder wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
Narrativism wants to create a story during play. Dramatism has a story mapped out in advance.
Hrm...don't agree. I don't think GDS claims anything remotely similar, either (making the split between them as to when the story is "mapped").
Would it make it clearer if I specify that Dramatism here is basically "that style of story-oriented play which isn't narrativism?" Call it storytelling or something.
eh. You see, if you have "narrative" rules, you're experiencing something your character isn't. It's the real world intruding on the pristine unreality of the game world. It's something from outside. My character can't perceive these "narrative rules". No experiment or quest will allow him to find them out. They're not part of his reality - so they shouldn't be part of the game.
Isn't that, as the 101 FAQ has been accused of with Narrativism, narrowing the definition for Simulation too much?
I personally can't see why it ISN'T a valid form of simulationism. "I'm going to run a Simulation of 60's style detective story; the world-rules will follow the rules of a good detective fiction."
You're putting "reality" at the top there as the only ruleset a Simulationist can use or ascribe to, but that's not the only ruleset available to the Simulationist IMO.
I said "his reality" - my character's reality, which isn't necessarily the same as this one. If my character is living in a high-fantasy world where spirits are everywhere and magic is a fact of life, then that's his reality, and the rules of it must be respected.
Again, with Feng Shui and the 60s detective, we're getting into the zone where simulationism overlaps with something else. RGFA would call it dramatism. GNS currently doesn't have anything to call it - but it's sufficiently far from "normal" simulationism that it can't be comfortably put under the same heading, IMHO.
On 6/19/2001 at 1:22am, greyorm wrote:
RE: More FAQ comments (long and bloody)
Would it make it clearer if I specify that Dramatism here is basically "that style of story-oriented play which isn't narrativism?" Call it storytelling or something.
Ah, ok, I see what brand of the term you're using. Sorry.
Again, with Feng Shui and the 60s detective, we're getting into the zone where simulationism overlaps with something else. RGFA would call it dramatism. GNS currently doesn't have anything to call it - but it's sufficiently far from "normal" simulationism that it can't be comfortably put under the same heading, IMHO.
I think we're going to have to disagree on this point; I can't think of anything else to say to support my point but I'm not convinced that that isn't where it belongs.