Ron Edwards, from GNS Chapter 5, ROLE-PLAYING DESIGN AND COHERENCE wrote: Facilitating a metagame concern (a developed Premise) differs greatly from Exploring a listed element as a priority. To address a Premise, the imaginary, internal commitment to the in-game events must be broken at least occasionally during play, to set up and resolve the issues of interest in strictly person-to-person terms. To Explore the topic in the Simulationist sense, breaking the imagined, continuous in-game causality is exactly what to avoid. The at-first attractive idea that a system could easily encompass, say, Character-based Premise and prioritized Character Exploration is actually utterly unworkable

Hi Cassidy,

Back when I was writing the thing, just over a year ago, it was awesomely difficult to explain that two players could "like their character" and "want to see what happens with their character" and "enjoy role-playing their character" and ... be utterly incompatible in the same group.

To write it more clearly today, I'd say:

Facilitating a metagame concern (e.g. a developed Narrativist Premise) differs greatly from Exploring a listed element as a priority. To address a Narrativist Premise, the imaginary, internal commitment to the in-game events must be broken at least occasionally during play, to set up and resolve the issues of interest in strictly person-to-person terms. To Explore the topic in the Simulationist sense, breaking the imagined, continuous in-game causality is exactly what to avoid. The at-first attractive idea that a system could easily encompass, say, Narrativist Character-based Premise and prioritized Character Exploration is actually utterly unworkable

See what I'm after? I'm talking about Narrativist play which happens to have a strong Character Exploration as its foundation, as opposed to Simulationist play which happens to focus on Character Exploration as a priority. In my experience, these two modes of play may come into very savage conflict, much to the surprise and indignation of the people involved, because each one is artistically committed to "playing my character" but the goals are extremely different.

Best,
Ron

I think I do see what you mean now. Qualifying the nature of the developed premise used in the original text puts a completely different spin on the text.

I guess what you are highlighting are issues that may arise when the developed premise is designed to facilitate a style of play that is at odds with that of the player.

Exploring the topic in the Gamist sense, overriding competetive aspects of play to further the story or plot in a game with a developed Narrativist premise is potentially worrying for players who prioritorize gamist goals.

GM: The fight is brief and rather brutal, you dispatch the 2 guards with ease.
Player: What? Don't we get to play it out?
GM: Er....if you want to I guess.

Am I on the right track?

Hmmm...

Ron, am I correct that what you are saying is that "An out-of-character discussion of where the plot is going may be essential to the player with Narrativist priorities, but can ruin the mood for the player with Simulationist priorities."?

To me, the simplest way to think of it is to focus on the priorities. Say there are two players in a group. One player prioritizes addressing a narrativist premise; the other player prioritizes simulation with, say, exploration of character. At some point, a situation will arise in which addressing the premise (one kind of "story") will seriously damage the linear sequence of caused events (another kind of "story"). Both players will adamantly, and properly, maintain that they have unbending dedication to the "story." (This is a good example of why the word "story" is dangerous. :) But there's a very good probability that, when the divergent instance of play is reached, a serious disagreement will arise because of the difference in priorities.

Up til this instance of play, an outside observer very likely would be unable to identify the respective goals of the players. But when it comes down to the wire in a situation where it's either one or the other, the player's choice is telling.

Both players with Simulationist priorities and players with Narrativist priorities have occasions when they will feel it is appropriate to speak up in an Out of Game stance.

The Narrativist oriented player would probably be motivated to speak up if she wanted to negotiate an aspect of story development (as a goal).

The Simulationist oriented player would probably be motivated to speak up if she wanted to correct an aspect of descriptive fidelity.
..........................................................
How is that?

Paganini wrote: To me, the simplest way to think of it is to focus on the priorities. Say there are two players in a group. One player prioritizes addressing a narrativist premise; the other player prioritizes simulation with, say, exploration of character. At some point, a situation will arise in which addressing the premise (one kind of "story") will seriously damage the linear sequence of caused events (another kind of "story"). Both players will adamantly, and properly, maintain that they have unbending dedication to the "story." (This is a good example of why the word "story" is dangerous. :) But there's a very good probability that, when the divergent instance of play is reached, a serious disagreement will arise because of the difference in priorities.

Ron Edwards wrote: It has rightly been asked whether Simulationism really exists, given that it consists mainly of Exploration. I suggest that Simulationism exists insofar as the effort and attention to Exploration may over-ride either Gamist or Narrativist priorities.

Cassidy wrote:
Even players with a shared Premise will disagree at times. Sure, their priorities on creating a good narrative are shared, but in a given instance of play both may have different views on what is the best narrative to persue. That's unavoidable, people are people after all.

GNS seems to be saying that the focus on Exploration in Simulationist play may at times over-ride Gamist or Narrativist goals?

Since that is to be avoided is Simulationist play inherently incompatable with the other modes of play?

Paganini wrote:
<ALARM BUZZER>
Before I say anything, I want to remind you that Narrativism does not equal prioritizing a good narrative.

Paganini wrote: The issue you touch on above (what narrative to persue) is unrelated to the original question about conflicting priorities.

Cassidy wrote:
GNS seems to be saying that the focus on Exploration in Simulationist play may at times over-ride Gamist or Narrativist goals?

Paganini wrote: Not exactly. It's saying that Simulationist play prioritizes Exploration, and doesn't care about anything else.

Paganini wrote: I maintain that all the modes of play are inherently incompatibile with each other, in the sense that I outlined above (IOW, there will eventually be a conflict of priorities.)

Paganini wrote: However, remember that GNS is a tool for identifying decisions in individual instances of play. Other phrases (like "narrativist system" or "simulationist session" are only shorthand phrases.

Cassidy wrote:
I mentioned it because to me it is related. It's something that GNS doesn't touch upon but it is an area of potential conflict. Upon reading that particulat part of GNS it's ommision inferred to me that players with the same Premise don't come into conflict. I merely drawing attention to the fact that they do.

Cassidy wrote:
That clarifies things for me. The mode adopted by a player is exclusive of any other mode in a given instance of play. That makes sense.

Hi there,

Ummm, Nathan and Cassidy seem to have handled a lot of this already, but since MK's question was directed to me, I'll answer as best I can:

Yes, that's pretty much it, but I have to emphasize that there isn't "a" Narrativist/Character player and "a" Simulationist/Character player to point to. I'm talking of the historically most common forms of these two modes, as follows:

- Narrativist/Character player as best facilitated by the play of Sorcerer, with Kicker, player-generated conflict, world-built-mainly-through-play, and a reward mechanic with a potential backlash.

- Simulationist/Character player as best facilitated by (um ...) Unknown Armies (2nd edition), with Trigger Event, player-generated conflict, world-built-mainly-through-play, and a punishment mechanic with several possible directions.

Let's pick two folks who really love these modes of play, respectively, and who have decided to play one of these games in the mistaken belief that they think "character-generated story" as a priority will be smooth sailing. My call is that traditionally, out-of-character discussion is more acceptable (even necessary) for the first person, and generally discouraged for the second. However, to take it out of history and look just at the theory, the issue becomes, not out-of-character discussion, but rather, "what the player is for," and out-of-character discussion issues are problematic not so much for their presence but for their content.

Best,
Ron