A few days ago, Ron commented about one of my examples "Look, Narrativism!" I didn't know how to reply, and I decided to read more articles and threads. I have come to the tentative conclusion that my basic confusion with Ron's GNS distinctions is that I was stuck in my old threefold definitions from rgfa.

On rgfa, Simulation was considered to be a rarely-occupied corner of the triangle. Indeed, there were arguments over whether it even existed as a "pure" style. Arguments from Warren Dew, Mary Kuhner, myself, and a few others were a fair bit of what shaped it. In contrast, Ron's view of GNS Simulationism is that it is the style of most mainstream games. Of course, Ron clearly says that GNS is different from rgfa's threefold, but it took me a while to fully realize that.

For that matter, Ron uses "meta-game" in a very different sense than I am used to. For example, in the "Players as Bass" thread he referred to a PCs status as "nobleman" as metagame (assuming that it didn't directly modify mechanical rolls); and in the Simulationist essay he refers to time between played-out scenes as metagame. On rgfa, we used "meta-game" to mean things conceptually outside of the game-world -- so a character's hair color is in-game, but his point total (say) is meta-game.

My remaining confusion is: what do the games that I thought of as Simulation-oriented in the threefold sense correspond to in GNS?


For clarity, I'll pick a specific game: namely my "Water-Uphill" campaign. It was patterned after children's fantasy -- specifically books like Narnia or Oz where children from our world suddenly find themselves in a bizarre fantasy world. In my game, the weirdness of the world was apparent from the outset in that water flowed uphill. The world was a domed disk where water would "fall" in geysers out of the ground into the sky.

My basic procedure for this game was that I designed the world to be quirky and interesting to explore. I then shoved the PCs into it -- specifically in the royal palace -- and then let them do whatever they wanted. The PCs were all middle-school kids ages 12 to 14, by the way. I had no predefined plot or adventure which they had to fit into. Instead, I just had a bunch of notes on the characters and locations. They wandered about and talked to people, interacted, and so forth. They also got to experiment with magic. When they went to a place, I described to them what was there. When they talked with someone, I role-played that person.

I was using a homebrew system where the PCs had various skill ratings, but there was only vague guidelines as to how the skills applied. If a task called for PC skill, there was a roll (the lower of 2d6, sort of) which was added to skill to gauge what happened. However, in practice rolls were rarely used. There was no combat to speak of except one time when Steve pushed another kid down. Nearly all of the game was exploring the areas and interacting with NPCs (and experimenting with magic, which was pretty much exploring the areas).

How would this be analyzed in the GNS? I'm not sure at this point. I suspect it is Narrativist, but I'm not quite sure why. Was the start of having children thrown into a quirky fantasy world itself the Premise? In that case, naturally all of the play addressed that Premise. On the other hand, for the most part I stuck to in-game logic -- i.e. when a player did something, I answered by thinking "What would logically be the result in this game-world?"

Obviously, if you have any more questions about it I'd be happy to answer.

My general read on it would be...

Simulationist

probably Sim Exploration of Setting

As you know, John, I'm as much of a newcomer around here as you, but on the other hand I don't have prior expectations about the model.

I think Bob's right, from your description, but it really all depends (I think) on the relationship between PCs and setting. If the setting is extremely flexible, and bends to center the PCs, then you're probably talking about Narrativism; if the PCs explore a reactive but non-flexible setting, you're probably talking about Sim.

The problem here is what we mean by "flexible." My sense is that it comes down to questions along the lines of (but not limited to):

You come to a choice between the setting altering in a far-reaching (i.e. not entirely localized and incidental) fashion, or the characters "facing up to reality" as your mother used to say (however reality may be defined). Will you keep reality firm and require the PCs to deal with it (Sim)? Will you permit the characters to focus on their Premise and bend the setting to fit (Nar)?

You experts (including Ron), please feel free to problematize and add precision, but I would ask you to state clearly at the outset: do you basically agree or disagree with this formulation? I realize that it's very crude, but is the general conception correct?

Hey, John.

Before I give my impressions, I'd like to first say that the answers give are based on the information you give and only the information you give. What I mean is, your game may be hard core Narrativist or whatever, but what you describe may not be. See? OK.

John Kim wrote: My basic procedure for this game was that I designed the world to be quirky and interesting to explore.

I suspect it is Narrativist, but I'm not quite sure why. Was the start of having children thrown into a quirky fantasy world itself the Premise? In that case, naturally all of the play addressed that Premise.

Hey John,

I think yer missin' a really big point here.

Ron ain't dissin' your game.

Go back and read you opening post on the thread where Ron said "Look, Narrativism!".

Right at the beginning you say, "I want to try defining an alternate, non-Narrativist style, which is still concerned about narrative and story. I would think of it as a complement to Narrativism," which you then describe. To this Ron says, "Your description really sounds very much like a functional form of Narrativism to me." I think the confusion lay where you think the description offered in this thread is the same as, "I'm using the example of the players being the bassmen."

It isn't.

All you basically said over there was 'I have this idea, but it isn't Narrativism.' You even almost say that it must be 'anti-Narrativism.' Ron rightly points out that as if it's "still concerned about narrative and story" the way Narrativism is, it doesn't matter if the gamemaster or the players are "the bassmen."

Or in other words, he said 'how isn't this Narrativism?' (Slipping in a complaint about how narrowly everyone attributes his definition of Narrativism.); "Look, Narrativism."

I tried to point out how Narrativism isn't simply or literally "concerned about narrative and story," but a bit more. I wanted to convey the idea that you imagined Narrativism too much like Dramatism and perhaps the ways that it isn't.

I hate to put it this way, but Ron basically blew off your last post on that thread returning to his unanswered question. Over here you seem a little bent out of shape because you perceived that he was saying that your last example was clearly Narrativism. There wasn't enough to the description to say either way. (All that was clear was that it wasn't Illusionism. Not only that, but it seemed like you lost track of the fact that Ron's bassman is a Narrativist gamemaster.)

See, from all I've heard the most central point of Narrativism is how it addresses an Edwardian Premise (that is a real moral or ethical question that most stories answer by developing a message based on their theme and metaphor). Since you started that thread saying, "I want to try defining an alternate, non-Narrativist style," you were talking about 'some kind of Narrativism,' even if it were 'anti-Narrativism.'

Your second example contained no reference to Edwardian Premise, either with or without. That, coupled with Ron's avoidance of dealing with it, must have made it sound like he simply proclaimed it as Narrativist. If the example you explain more clearly here is the same one:

John Kim wrote:

• The players start off the basis of play by defining their characters and continue to define this basis throughout the campaign.
• Anything the GM does has to conform to basis set by the players. If there is a mismatch of what the players want to do and the GM's ideas, it is always the GM's ideas which have to bend.
• The actual plots originate from the GM, however. i.e. He initiates the action by creating a situation which the PCs respond to. (Simplest example: a supervillian begins a deadly scheme to rule the world.)

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: At no point was an ethical of moral question addressed in your description. If there was, then you would have had a Narrativist game on your hands, maybe (I'm still a little shaky myself on GNS) If, just as an example, your game centered around the PCs deciding if the royal family had the right to rule or not based on their lineage vs their ability, and this was the center of play, then you might have a Narrativist game going on (weak example). But you had the players more-or-less do "whatever they want" which is usually, not always but usually, a good indication of a SImulationist priority.

Le Joueur wrote: ... All I've read here is about a charming Simulationist (Exploration of Setting) game that seems unrelated to what appeared to (but didn't) give rise to the "Look, Narrativism" comment.

Does that clear things up?

John Kim wrote: A few days ago, Ron commented about one of my examples "Look, Narrativism!" I didn't know how to reply, and I decided to read more articles and threads. I have come to the tentative conclusion that my basic confusion with Ron's GNS distinctions is that I was stuck in my old threefold definitions from rgfa.

John Kim wrote: ...That's why I started a new thread with a different and more complete example.

Now, it appears that there is pretty widespread feeling that my Water-Uphill campaign is Simulationist in GNS terms. As I said, I can offer some more information on how it worked, but you seem reasonably sure. (I may try to post some more information on how magic works and the dynamic between the kids, but I'm not sure if it applies.)

Given that case, I have to ponder over more questions to ask. My impression has been that how people talk about Simulationist here seems radically different from the Water-Uphill game. But I can't quite pin down the specifics of that impression.

John-

My understanding of GNS may or may not be according to Hoyle, but at least it's simple to articulate.

First of, there's the standard disclaimer that GNS is never never about describing games, and not even players, but just player's choices moment to moment.
Everyone is always mentioning this, and just as quickly everyone ignores it, because player's choices are such a significant part of playing, and of games.

But, disclaimer over, the big division (as I see it) is this:
Sim - Explore an internally consistent, but unknown place/ situation.
Nar - Manufacture a story, with the necessities of story-logic more important than that of place-logic.
Restatement:
With Nar, the world as experienced is greatly dependent on the PC's choices. Sim is about the almost-opposite - a world that moves independent of the PCs, that they can interact with or not according to their own choices.


Benchmarks:
Are there consistently challenges of exactly the right degree of difficulty?
Are travel times important, or do folks tend to arive in the nick-of-time?
Can the GM-known backstory change to make player's current actions more interesting?
etc.
This is all the easy stuff; yesses to these sorts of questions indicate Nar.


(In my own analysis, I ignore the whole Premise thing. Best case scenario, the Premise is some morally-gripping question. But in my own understanding, that's not a necessity, and instead Premises can be almost anything.)



Tougher calls are when people are trying to simulate not a world, but a story. When folks start discussing "Simulating a Fairy Tale Story," it all gets a little deep for me. (And, just between the two of us, I'm not sure the distinction in those cases is all that useful, anyway.)

-Matt

John Kim wrote: I can't really say as to whether these addressed the Premise, because I didn't have a conscious Premise. However, I certainly felt them to be dramatic choices.

John,

My impression has been that how people talk about Simulationist here seems radically different from the Water-Uphill game. But I can't quite pin down the specifics of that impression.

First of, there's the standard disclaimer that GNS is never never about describing games, and not even players, but just player's choices moment to moment. Everyone is always mentioning this, and just as quickly everyone ignores it, because player's choices are such a significant part of playing, and of games. [Emphasis mine]

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: But was the issue of the magical power and the accompanying Premise "Is it right to use supernatural influence on people?" the central point of your game? That is, was it a priority? The main priority? All else cast aside in support of this?

You may have that right, Raven. We may have to wait for the Narrativist essay to be sure. But my point was that the fact that this wound up addressing an Egrian Premise was a side effect of play rather than a priority of play. The priority, from what I've read, seems to me to be very strongly Simulationist.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: But my point was that the fact that this wound up addressing an Egrian Premise was a side effect of play rather than a priority of play. The priority, from what I've read, seems to me to be very strongly Simulationist.

It seems that nearly everyone agrees that this is a Simulationist game under GNS terms. That certainly makes things easier for me in one sense, since I had considered it Simulation in rgfa's threefold.

clehrich wrote:

John Kim wrote: My impression has been that how people talk about Simulationist here seems radically different from the Water-Uphill game. But I can't quite pin down the specifics of that impression.

I think it would be helpful if you could try to pinpoint some of the differences. Ron's got a pretty specific model going, but there don't seem to be all that many people who are entirely certain about it. Possibly working by counter-definition might be helpful.

Hi, John.
Caution, I'm no expert, barely a novice in GNS. I could be writing complete rubbish!

John Kim wrote: I often see talk about GM control as being an effect of Simulationism, especially for Illusionism which Ron classifies as a subset of Simulationism. I see extremely little in common with the Water-Uphill game, which was strongly directed by the players.

John Kim wrote: Perhaps a related point to the others, Simulationist exploration is often expressed as non-dynamic. i.e. The PCs are "along for the ride" but don't control the flow of events. I don't see any reason for that. For me, the whole point of Simulation is to see the dynamic -- i.e. to let loose the PCs and not know what is going to happen.

John Kim wrote: I also see talk which suggests that Simulationism lacks or inhibits moral and social choice. Ron's samurai (Sorcerer vs GURPS) and knight (Pendragon vs TROS) examples, for one. I don't dispute those examples, but I don't see how this has to do with Simulation. Water-Uphill seems to be agreed as simulation and it left PC behavior entirely up to the players.

Hey John,

John Kim wrote:


• I also see talk which suggests that Simulationism lacks or inhibits moral and social choice. Ron's samurai (Sorcerer vs GURPS) and knight (Pendragon vs TROS) examples, for one. I don't dispute those examples, but I don't see how this has to do with Simulation. Water-Uphill seems to be agreed as simulation and it left PC behavior entirely up to the players.

Hi John,

It seems to me that you have a couple issues:


• You are taking Simulationism as a big lump. Simulationism is the Exploration of one of the five elements of roleplaying, so there are five major types of Simulationims, and nigh-infinite ways to do each of the five, I'd imagine.

So comparing Water-Uphill to the examples of the knight and samurai in the Simulationist essay isn't useful because they are two very, very different types of Simulationism: Exploration of Setting and Character respectively.

• You are also confounding Illusionism with Simulationism. They are not the same.

John Kim wrote: I think the main priority of my game was promoting immersion in character.

However, you are right that I did not pre-decide on a narrow issue like "the use of supernatural influence" to be the priority.

Le Joueur wrote: Since you didn't describe the game as having a specific moral quandary for the participants, it doesn't sound like Narrativism. Having an "accidental" thematic question and answer (even if you know 'something' will happen), doesn't sound like Narrativism because this result sounds like it wouldn't have hurt to be absent of it; I don't think you can have 'Narrativism as gravy' and call the play Narrativist.

Hi John,

Wow, you are so close!

However, your logic seems to be that unless something is specifically pre-planned, then it is not centrally valued. I don't feel that is true.

For me at least, Noriko's rash action was probably the high point of the campaign. I certainly would have been less satisfied with the game if it hadn't happened and nothing equivalent happened instead.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Consider this: Suppose instead of doing what you did in that game, the players all decided to, whenther conciously or not to address the Premise "Is it right to use supernatural means to your advantage?" You would still have Noriko's bit, but then the other players would have pursued this premise (hopefully) to the same degree. Perhaps one player would be mucking about with a love potion, another would be toying with some kind of truth helmet, or whatever. Then, instead of the one instance of profoundity, you would have most of play be profound in some way.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: You see, it's not the end result it's how you get there. It's also not what you're hoping to get out of a session, but what you do to make sure you get it out of a session.

Hey, John.

When you look back over a game, what you'll see is a bunch of instances of play. Some'll be Narrativist, some Gamist, some Sim. Identify a) which are which, b) which you enjoyed best, and c) how each came about, and you'll have useful information to take into future gaming.

So your game might have been predominantly Sim, but all the high points were Nar. That's fine. Might've been predominantly Nar, with key Sim instances providing structure. Might've started out mostly Sim and, as the setting and situation clicked thematically with the characters, become increasingly Nar. Your game doesn't sound like "pure" Sim or Nar, but who knows? Personally, I don't think we'll be able to narrow it down much.

Premises are less mystifying than all that, though. If you can look at a character's actions and they're about something, that's Premise. What were the cool, interesting, effective conflicts in the game? That's where the Premise is. You've got kids going around in a magical world: so what? If there is a "so what," there's a Premise. The Nar instances were the instances where the "so what" came to the front.

-Vincent

Well, I tried to illustrate how Water Uphill would work if it were run Narrativist. I may have done a poor job. Then again, maybe not:

John Kim wrote: I find that this approach frequently lessens profoundity rather than heightening it, because the events feel contrived -- because, in fact, they are.

I'll try to work on some more writeups, but unfortunately this isn't one of my better documented campaigns.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: You see, it's not the end result it's how you get there. It's also not what you're hoping to get out of a session, but what you do to make sure you get it out of a session.

Well, several other posters have talked about "priorities" as being the important thing. You might want to take it up with them.

I think the main priority of my game was promoting immersion in character. For example, a key idea for the concept was that it kept the players very close to the PCs in terms of viewpoint -- i.e. the world was just as strange to the modern-day Earth players as it was to the modern-day Earth PCs. What happens to the kids -- not just physically but emotionally -- and what choices they make were very much a priority of the game.

However, you are right that I did not pre-decide on a narrow issue like "the use of supernatural influence" to be the priority. Instead, the issues flowed out of what the characters did and chose. You can call that accidental, but I knew for certain that some sort of accident would happen, and that was a priority of the game. I just didn't know exactly what it would be.

Hey, Jack.

I think I disagree with you. Immersion just means exploration of character, and you can't address a Premise without exploration of character in some form. Did John and his group prioritize immersive exploration of character for its own sake, or in order to effectively address the game's Premise? We don't know. I don't think we can know.

(My experience of Narrativist play is that it seems less contrived than Sim play, but that's for another time. Certainly, how contrived a game seems doesn't correlate to GNS.)

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Immersion just means exploration of character, and you can't address a Premise without exploration of character in some form. Did John and his group prioritize immersive exploration of character for its own sake, or in order to effectively address the game's Premise? We don't know. I don't think we can know.

lumpley wrote: (My experience of Narrativist play is that it seems less contrived than Sim play, but that's for another time. Certainly, how contrived a game seems doesn't correlate to GNS.)

greyorm wrote: At least, if I'm remembering my Narrativism right (since you can address multiple Egri-style Premises (what Fang keeps calling an Edwardian Premise) at the same time in Narrativist play). And if I'm wrong on that, as the Mask says, "Somebody stop me!"

Although I have not read all the posts to this thread, I'm going to venture to say that everyone is wrong. John Kim's game, as presented, is not simulationist. It's hybrid.

He's created a background setting that is interesting in itself, and has the potential for creating stories. He's created a system which does not reward either exploring that setting or creating those stories in any way other than the inherent reward involved in the activity itself.

When the players are wandering around the setting, they're doing exploration of setting, and he's running the game as a simulation. But as things happen, he transitions with the players to deal with the issues raised.

The story of the girl who picks up the rod raises issues, and everyone in the game recognized it. It created a mini-story with moral and ethical implications that were explored, and continued to be explored to some degree, in that she recognized that her power to control them could not be terminated once it had been established. She made the moral choice not to speak to them again when they had decisions to make--resolution of the narrative premise--and that then transitioned back to the simulationist exploration of the setting, with this new element that this character did not speak in these situations.

I'm going to post this and get back to reading the thread; maybe I'll be embarrassed by something I've not yet read, but there's a lot here and I don't want to lose this before I get to the end.

--M. J. Young

John Kim wrote: In his GNS model, Ron has addressed this by making Exploration the goal of Simulationism -- but I suspect this has the same shortcoming. "Exploration" is so general a goal that it is a central part of Narrativism and Gamism as well. This seems to make it difficult to distinguish based on goals or priorities.

Whataminute.

Right at the top, the essay states that if you liked how your game went, then the GNS isn't for you.

Basically, that means if John and company had fun, it doesn't matter in the least what mode their game was. It's pretty clear there that the GNS is really only of use when the game goes badly. (It helps figure out what the problem was.)

So, John, did you have any problems?

Fang Langford

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Like my group that I complained about in Actual Play overmuch. They seem to have a very Sim priority, I seem to wish to explore (small "e") my Narrativist bend. It's like if we were playing the Samurai example from the essay. I wanted to play it Sorcerer style, but the group was playing it using GURPS (to keep using the example) This brings the GNS priorities into sharp relief. I either play within the given system (which require a roll to see if I can break any of my samurai's tenant, and can thus keep me from doing what I wish to do) or I ignore this and break the social contract, pissing everybody off.

John Kim wrote: As I read it, there doesn't seem to be anything about Simulationism which requires such rules. For example, no one pointed out how the lack of such meant that Water-Uphill wasn't pure Simulationism.

Incidentally, couldn't this same thing come up in Sorcerer? (Note: I haven't played it yet, so I'm really not sure.) If a player insists on ignoring the Humanity rules and instead just doing what she wishes to do even if her Humanity drops to 0, won't she break the social contract and piss people off?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I think Fang poses an interesting question that may help. Did this game run into any problems?

Three pages!

On a topic I need to respond about in full and with care. And in the last few days I've had time to drop maybe three or four shortie-answers at the Forge as a whole.

I always do this to John. I'll be back.

Best,
Ron

Hey, all :)

Whilst we wait for Ron to come back ;) I thought I'd drop my couple-o-cents(TM).

In my view GNS is not so much about goals as it is about priorities. These are not completely equivalent terms. For example, I may have a goal to drive from Lisbon to Madrid and get there before 7pm, but my priorities may be to have a safe journey, to enjoy the scenery, to get there as soon as possible, or to spend as little gas as possible. Some of these priorities are compatible, some are not, but definitely, all are within the frame of the goal. Now, those priorities can only be analysed from a series of driving decisions I make along the journey. An instance of driving, so to speak.

As such: if your priorities revolve around:

the challenge, getting better, tactical decisions, the riddle - you tend towards gamism
the meaning, or premise, theme, morals and ethics - you tend towards narrativism
the cause-and-effect, verisimilitude, what-it-would-be-like, 'realism' - you tend towards simulationism

Note that priorites do not require any pre-planning whatsoever, and note also that neither a single decision nor a moment in the game can be isolated in terms of priorities.

I hope that made sense. It makes perfect sense to me, t least. :)

Cheers,

J.

JMendes wrote: As such: if your priorities revolve around:

the challenge, getting better, tactical decisions, the riddle - you tend towards gamism
the meaning, or premise, theme, morals and ethics - you tend towards narrativism
the cause-and-effect, verisimilitude, what-it-would-be-like, 'realism' - you tend towards simulationism

Note that priorites do not require any pre-planning whatsoever, and note also that neither a single decision nor a moment in the game can be isolated in terms of priorities.

In GNS terms, it makes no sense to me to separate out Exploration of Character from addressing of moral and ethical questions.

John Kim wrote:
The problem is that this requires saying that verisimilitude is a hindrance or at least a distraction to studying meaning, morals, and ethics. I think this simply isn't true. Verisimilitude -- especially of character -- is a benefit to meaning, morals, and ethics. In general, a drama with flat, unbelievable characters does not have interesting meaning. In GNS terms, it makes no sense to me to separate out Exploration of Character from addressing of moral and ethical questions. These are each integral to the other.

Hi there,

Well spoo. Ralph's latest post said anything and everything I was planning to.

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote: Merely citing occassions in an otherwise Simulationist game where a moral issue was spotlighted at some point and players had to make a hard choice for their characters...does not make the game Narrativist (or to state it another way, does not suddenly make the game stop being Simulationism).

Similarly if these moral issues are not simply occassional encounters based on where the Exploration led but rather addressing them is the primary reason you're even bothering to play at all...you're playing Narrativist. And because Exploration is part of all games including Narrativism it doesn't matter how much Exploration of Character and Setting et.al. you're doing in the meantime. You could have the crunchiest most detail oriented example of verisimatic roleplaying in history (heh, I just invented that word) and still be playing Narrativist.

Hey John,

Not to confuse you even further, but there is a minority opinion here that Premise with a capitol P is a white elephant. I find it easier to view GNS in terms of balance-of-power and its emergent properties. I have a friend with definite sim tendencies who loves games that pose moral questions. I would call the resulting play sim/exploration of morality (character?). The rules have all been predetermined and we, the players, are taking those rules to their logical conclusions to see what happens.

Later,
Grant

John, the first thing you have to realize is that like any attempt at categorizing behavior there are going to be blurry areas. That's why one can't simply take a bullet point example and point definitively to what it is.

Certainly there is a fuzzy area between Sim and Nar when both are heavy into Exploration of Character. As we established there is Exploration of Character in all gaming (to greater or lesser degree)...so is it really any surprise that what you do when you explore character in a Sim game is going to look really damn similiar to what you do when explore character in a Nar game?

An important piece that you're missing, however, is the importance of the PLAYER in the mix.

In a Sim Exploration of Character it is the character who is exploring the moral issue. In a Nar Exploration of character it is the PLAYER who is exploring the moral issue through the proxy of the character. Subtle difference and I struggle with a way to put words to it, but having done both I can attest that they feel very different when done.

Similiarly there are differences in how one gets from point A to point B (with standard caveats about making generalizations) in Sim play a character encounters a moral issue the same way as he encounters any conflict in the game. The causal nature of the series of events that preceeded it have deposited the character at the feet of this dillema and it is your job as a player to figure out how the character will resolve it.

In Nar exploration of character often times the character was created for the sole purpose of addressing that issue. The only reason for the characters existance is to act as a window on to that issue. Once the issue has been addressed in a manner satisfactory to the group, the character has fulfilled its purpose. This is one reason why a lot of Narrativist play focuses on decidedly short campaigns. Once the character fulfills its utility, the campaign is over and a new one with a new character can begin.

Then you are concerned with Narrativist priorities, John. Which is what Ron said originally.

That is, despite your contention, some people do play just to explore the character, and not in any particularly moral or ethical context. That is, they are more concerned with what it's like for the character to purchase a sword, or what it's like for the character to escape being mugged. But that's a problematic description. You'll just have to believe us that such players exist. Thus you can "have Exploration of Character without addressing moral and ethical issues". It's just not your bag o tea.

There have been a lot of statements here about how to categorize your game. I think we have to realize that doing this, in the absence of actually having been there is going to be extremely difficult. Lord knows that I like speculating about such things as much as the next person (and maybe more). And that I've made more poor analyses than anyone, likely. But I've learned a few things.

For one, we have to get you to understand where our thinking is at, and let you then make your judgment. We can use examples from your play, but that's not likely to be completely successful. We have to be on the same page.

To that extent, I'll try to clear some misconceptions first. Jack is wrong about the need for a central premise. This is a commonly bandied myth. All that is required for narrativism is that the player be answering some moral or ethical question posed by the game elements, and answering in "directly". That is, as has been pointed out, one can indirectly answer a moral question by answering, "what would my character do". But that's just happy coincidence. The question is what was the player prioritizing?
Let's look at an example. I will state before hand that my examples are always, always prone to overstatement, and potential misunderstanding, and as such try to read my intent if not my execution:

Bob's character Raynard has a choice to either fight against a giant that's about to stop on a small child, or to flee. Raynard stands little chance of defeating the giant. If Bob decides to flee, because that's "what Raynard would do", then this is a Sim choice. If he chooses to fight allowing the child to flee, because "that's what's cool for the story", then it's Nar.

Now, before I get jumped, here's the tricky thing. You can't often tell by looking. That is, the situation has nothing to do with figuring this out, only the reason why. Thus, if Raynard flees because "that's what's interesting for the story" then the choice is Nar, while if he stays "because that's what Raynard would do", then it's Sim.

Tricky, eh? Both actions have to be plausible, BTW. For Sim it's the point to be plausible. For Nar not being plausible means draining the emotional power of the decision (people scratch heads and go, huh?).

People at this point often then ask what's the use if you can't tell? But you can tell. You just have to ask in most cases. Which is why I said in my fist sentence that you prefer Narrativism. Because you came out and said it. If the actions of characters are devoid of moral and ethical meaning you are not content.

But again, I overstate. I'm taking you to mean that if you were playing that you would play that way. But given that you are the GM in this case, you could mean something else. If you mean that you want the players to be driving these decisions such that they are answering moral and ethical questions, then you are looking for narrativist play from them. If you are, instead intent on providing a context as GM in which all decisions have a moral impact, and having the players make decisions based on "what they would do", thus creating theme as a result, then you want Sim.

And, lest we loose sight, GNS is not only for diagnosing certain sorts of negative play. Yes, I am contradicting Ron slightly. I see GNS as prophylactic as well as a treatment. Which is to say that in addition to fixing current problems, knowing GNS can help you prevent problems from occurring in future games. In both design and play.

Now for my WAG at what I think your game is about. You mentioned the one dissatisfied player. I think you hit the nail on the head. That player prefers Nar play. But I'd hazard that the problem is not that you don't support that sort of play, but rather that the other players were playing in a rather Sim mode. It's also just as likely that the dissatisfied player meant that you had not placed them in enough of those aforementioned moral and ethical contexts, and as a Sim player wanted to see more of those. How's that for wishy-washy.

Here is how the Nar player sees the Sim players actions on occasion: "They act in an interesting manner as far as concerns their own characters, playing them well, but they don't consider the bigger picture of what's going on, and most importantly what's going on to my character, when making decisions. As such they don't make the story go except insofar as they create action for their characters."

Is that illuminating at all? A lot of Nar players understand that, although not completely required, one of the most potent ways to prioritize story is to consider things from angles other than one's own character. Really, the player asks himself, "What would be cool" and ignores "what the character would do" perhaps only bothering to make the action chosen plausible afterwards by rationalizing it. "Sure, Raynard would attack the giant, um... his uncle was eaten by one."

Are the players bending things so that the story works, or are they bending so that they setting remains objective reality? These are good indicators of Sim and Nar respectively.

Hmmm. I'm kinda meandering here. Is this helping at all?

GNS is not about goals (it's about behaviors), but there are some desires commonly associated with each particular preference. The Sim player wants the game world to be "real" seeming so as to get his particular requirements for "Immersion, and as such does not want to be in control of things that do not promote this, or, worse, interfere with it. He wants to control the character, not make story. The story is supposed to result from the play. The Nar player wants to be a part of creating the story, OTOH, as opposed to just being a participant in the process.

Hope I've shed some light.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: That is, despite your contention, some people do play just to explore the character, and not in any particularly moral or ethical context. That is, they are more concerned with what it's like for the character to purchase a sword, or what it's like for the character to escape being mugged. But that's a problematic description. You'll just have to believe us that such players exist. Thus you can "have Exploration of Character without addressing moral and ethical issues".

Mike Holmes wrote: Bob's character Raynard has a choice to either fight against a giant that's about to stop on a small child, or to flee. Raynard stands little chance of defeating the giant. If Bob decides to flee, because that's "what Raynard would do", then this is a Sim choice. If he chooses to fight allowing the child to flee, because "that's what's cool for the story", then it's Nar.
...
Which is why I said in my fist sentence that you prefer Narrativism. Because you came out and said it. If the actions of characters are devoid of moral and ethical meaning you are not content.

Mike Holmes wrote: Now for my WAG at what I think your game is about. You mentioned the one dissatisfied player. I think you hit the nail on the head. That player prefers Nar play. But I'd hazard that the problem is not that you don't support that sort of play, but rather that the other players were playing in a rather Sim mode. It's also just as likely that the dissatisfied player meant that you had not placed them in enough of those aforementioned moral and ethical contexts, and as a Sim player wanted to see more of those.

Hi guys,

Mike and Ralph have essentially summarized the points I'd make, but a couple of turns of phrase bear investigating.

First on the list is that whole "what my character would do" thing. Frankly, this is an example of a non-illuminating criterion. As has been mentioned - but I'm afraid isn't getting internalized - is that practically all role-playing can be phrased in these terms. If one is playing a character such that an engaging ethical or moral dilemma is a high priority, then "what my character would do" will ipso facto meet that priority. Substitute "such that my strategizing earns me the most victory points" into that sentence and you'll get the same thing.

So let's bag the "what my character would do" issue; I think it's a red herring.

Second is the Exploration issue. I think that sometimes people are using it way too generally, basically just as "play." I'm using it in about as rarefied, jargony, and Forge-specific way possible: to imagine, communicatively. So, John, to Explore Character does not mean to address an emotional or ethical issue - that would be a Narrativist employment of Exploration/Character.

For the record, I used to agree with you wholeheartedly that there wasn't any other way to do this; you can see my argument of the time in the Sorcerer mailing-list archives on that website. It resembles yours greatly. However, I have learned that many people do indeed enjoy "just being" the character - they want to make him up, and to play him, to appreciate the character, and to have others appreciate him, and whatever happens, happens. The character "says" what he said already during the act of character creation, and that's the theme, all done. This mode of play would be Simulationist, with emphasis on Exploration of Character.

The third issue is the medium of GNS needs to be explained much more carefully than I do in the essay. Recently, I hit upon the right way to say it: GNS exists only across and among the lines of communication during play. That's where it is. It's not in people's heads in some vague-ass way, and it's not in the rules, and it's not in the "morning after" regarding the game. We find it in procedural aspects of resolution, in in-character and out-of-character dialogue, in stuff like Stance (as I see the term), and in plain old social appreciation or other supportive elements of interaction.

Fourth, and related to #3, I think that the concept of the "instance" of play needs to be addressed in detail. What time-unit or social-unit is necessary to assess GNS preferences and play-in-action? In my view, at least a session is necessary. This is not a matter simply of a measurable scale, for operational purposes; I'm talking about fundamental elements of the three modes' definitions.

In a game that moves as fast and hard as a typical session of Trollbabe or Call of Cthulhu (to pick very different games, good at N and S respectively), the single session is almost certainly enough. So many important decisions have been made in that session, and it's so clear who's making them, that more sessions aren't going to do anything but ramp up the R-coefficient value (to use a not-especially-good metaphor).

In a game that moves much slower and in which the crucial personal decisions may be conceived, gestated, born, matured, and finally brought to fruition through a variety of encounters and locales, say my years-long Hero Wars game, I'd hate to have anyone take a GNS-whack at it without seeing at least three sessions.

I suspect - and again, I can only go with what you've presented on these two threads - that we are talking about Narrativist play in which Premise arises through group interest and development, during play itself, and in which Theme is produced at fairly widely-spaced intervals when it seems right to everyone. I think that's why you didn't see much in common with my bass/blues metaphor - it had too much driving force, too ba-dum-ba backbeat going on, too much shared direction from the git-go, to match well with what you experience.

But Mike and Ralph are right - if, as you say, the "payoff" comes with the illumination and catharsis of a palpable ethical/moral issue ... then regardless of atmosphere, rate, techniques, and "style" - then we are talking about Narrativist play.

No, it's not like mine (or the kind I described). Narrativist play is not all alike except in terms of the above paragraph. Vive la difference.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: So, John, to Explore Character does not mean to address an emotional or ethical issue - that would be a Narrativist employment of Exploration/Character.

For the record, I used to agree with you wholeheartedly that there wasn't any other way to do this; you can see my argument of the time in the Sorcerer mailing-list archives on that website. It resembles yours greatly. However, I have learned that many people do indeed enjoy "just being" the character - they want to make him up, and to play him, to appreciate the character, and to have others appreciate him, and whatever happens, happens. The character "says" what he said already during the act of character creation, and that's the theme, all done. This mode of play would be Simulationist, with emphasis on Exploration of Character.

Ron Edwards wrote: I suspect - and again, I can only go with what you've presented on these two threads - that we are talking about Narrativist play in which Premise arises through group interest and development, during play itself, and in which Theme is produced at fairly widely-spaced intervals when it seems right to everyone.
...
But Mike and Ralph are right - if, as you say, the "payoff" comes with the illumination and catharsis of a palpable ethical/moral issue ... then regardless of atmosphere, rate, techniques, and "style" - then we are talking about Narrativist play.

No, it's not like mine (or the kind I described). Narrativist play is not all alike except in terms of the above paragraph. Vive la difference.

John Kim wrote:
OK. I understand that "Exploration of Character" (as a GNS-specific phrase) doesn't have to really mean exploration of the character in a literal sense. One should be careful that it is a deceptive term, though, since there isn't really any exploring going on if nothing new is found about the character. If the character is really static, then I would highly suspect that the player is interested in something else. For example, he might be interested in the Setting, the Situation, etc.

OK, fair enough. Narrativist is what I suspected at the start of this thread based on vague impression. I think this is a confusing point, though -- and not just for me. Certainly after my initial post nearly everyone responded that it was Simulationist, for example, without asking this crucial question.

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: One should be careful that it is a deceptive term, though, since there isn't really any exploring going on if nothing new is found about the character. If the character is really static, then I would highly suspect that the player is interested in something else.

I would disagree. You are setting up a dichotomy that I don't believe exists. You are saying "if my character is not addressing moral issues through play...then he's static...and if he's static then nothing is being explored and the term is misleading. I don't think its an either or situation. I would agree with your above reply to Mike that if the character is static its probably something else being explored. But there are other ways to explore a character than through how he reacts to moral dilemma.

Valamir wrote: And that is precisely why attempting to play "guess my GNS" 20 questions style is not an effective way to discuss GNS. I think if you go back to the beginning of the thread you'll find a decided paucity in the description of your Water-Uphill game and the whole first page of responses is full of caveats about trying to judge it.

John wrote:

In this case, though, I was responding to Ron, who said about such players:

The character "says" what he said already during the act of character creation, and that's the theme, all done.

That was where I got the idea of staticness.

Hello,

Am I correct in assuming this thread has met its purpose?

Couple last points (not the last word; anyone's free to respond) ...

1. John, I am the first person to say, "Give me concrete examples." The more concrete, the more actual-play, the better, though. That means Social Contract, Exploration emphases, priorities of play, social reinforcement, rules-sets, techniques, Stances, and everything else. The kitchen sink about the play itself. GNS exists as a middle-range layer within a multiply-layered model; the three modes themselves do not purport to explain anything and everything about role-playing. I need the context, the actions, the interactions, what happened with/to the characters during play, who got laid afterwards (really), that sort of thing.

2. Chris, to clarify, I used the static-character as the extreme case that falsifies John's claim that "explore character" must mean the production of a theme. I believe my Simulationism essay makes it very clear that Sim play can include changing characters; such play is not limited to my extreme case.

As a general point, I really wish people would not try to take every example as a definitive, whole-GNS-mode archetype. My examples serve points - in this case, to demonstrate a mode of play which is personally foreign to John's aesthetic priorities (and to mine, I might add), but has to be acknowledged as part of the real landscape of possible play. They are not intended to be "Character role-playing for Simulationism as such" examples.

Quite a lot of this thread is based on such readings. My bass-player analogy, for instance, does not define Narrativist play; it's a technique that serves Narrativist ends very nicely, among many possible others. My static-Sim character-Explorer player - not made up, by the way; taken from the example posed by Ran on the Sorcerer mailing list discussion that I mentioned - does not define or exemplify Simulationist Character Exploration; but it serve to show that some play-preferences cannot possibly be mistaken for Narrativist play.

Best,
Ron

John Kim wrote:

Valamir wrote: And that is precisely why attempting to play "guess my GNS" 20 questions style is not an effective way to discuss GNS. I think if you go back to the beginning of the thread you'll find a decided paucity in the description of your Water-Uphill game and the whole first page of responses is full of caveats about trying to judge it.

Well, I'm sorry if the 20-questions style is frustrating to you, but I at least feel like this has been helpful. Personally, I feel that for any theory it is vital to discuss how it applies to real cases. I have trouble really grasping a theory until I've seen it applied at least a few times, so I would like to offer up a few more games as examples in the near future. I'll try to have more information available at the start for these, though.

Jusst for the record, I was a big advocate of the idea that one can explore dynamic characters in Sim. But the whole static/dynamic thing is a smokescreen. The question is, how is the character explored.

In Pendragon, the system changes the character all the time. This is Sim, because the changes are not authored by the character but the system. In Sorcerer, characters change all the time, but through the decisions of the player as to what would be interesting in terms of the character's story.

Thus, just like the hill that forms the horizon in a setting, characters in play are undiscovered country to be explored. The question is how the discoveries will be made.

BTW, I think when you say "literal" in terms of character, that you mean "literary". Is that right? Using literary terms with RPGs is fraught with peril. Thus Ron has to continually point out that the term premise refers to something other than it does in literature.

But this is necessary. We aren't discussing books. And though a term like "character" from literature meaning the internal being, or even the common use of character meaning "what the person is made of morally" does not apply. We're talking RPGs here, and it's commonly acknowledged that "Character" means a fictitious entity in the game world for whom the player makes decisions. So when we say Exploring Character, it does not necessarily mean moral fibre (though it can), it means exploring any aspect of the fictitous being in play. As such, if the being's hsir color is not established at the time of creation, enumerating it in play is exploration of character of a sort. Think of the character as the subset of the setting that the player controls, and it becomes more clear. If I can explore a town in a Simulationist way, I can do so with charracters.

Note that one can Explore Character in a Narrativist way; that may have been obscured. Indeed that's almost always how it's done. The idea of Exploring Setting in a Narrativist way seems odd at first, but Hero Wars stands as a likely practical example of a game that supports exploration of Setting in a Narrativist way. Remember you can't get away from exploring and even from prioritizing what's being explored. It's just in Narrativism you put addressing moral and ethical themes above exploring anything else. Or rather the exploration is the means by which you explore these things.

Simulationists just don't take that extra step (for potentially very good reasons).

Mike