I thought I'd throw out some thoughts/questions that have been churning in my mind for a while and see what other people concluded. a lot of these questions have surfaced in my mind as a result of my recent reworking of the Court of 9 Chambers rules, but I believe they raise issues for rpg design in general.

when I first read through Ron's essays and thought about examples of play, I came to the conclusion that Gamism and Narrativism tended to be in opposition. my reasoning was based on these points:



• Gamism and Narrativism both depend on metagame issues, in contrast with Simulationism, and take those issues in nearly opposite directions;
• when people describe a play session that breaks down, it usually involves conflict between Gamists and Narrativists;
• Simulationism seems to be the most likely GNS mode to show up in a coherent hybrid, with Simulationism in support of either Gamism or Narrativism.



these points seemed to be supported by later discussions on the Forge. however, the foundation began to crumble... in a discussion on Simulationism, we came to the (perhaps startling) conclusion that Simulationism has a metagame issue as well, what Emily named "fidelity". this spoiled the illusion of two modes concentrating on opposed metagame issues contrasted with the in-game issues of Simulationism.

the other crack in the foundation was my own game in development. as I worked on Co9C, I had the general plan to make a small Gamist game that could be expanded with optional rules into an extended not-so-gamist game, one that might even be Narrativist. I even had a general Narrativist premise worked out: "what would you do for your art?"

in the Narrativist version, the players make decisions for their artists that illustrate little morality plays about artistic vision and obsession; some artists would sacrifice everything for their vision, others may draw the line at physical violence, and still others may place life first and foremost, with artistic vision acting in a supportive role; some artists may choose a solitary path, others may try to form alliances. in the full game, there's no reason why all the artists need to be at each other's throats to address the general premise.

but as I worked on the game and thought about it, I began to wonder: is the game actually a Gamist game with a Narrativist option, or is it Gamism in support of Narrativism -- the very thing I thought was impossible? you can see now why I took interest in Raven's comments on Gamism in the recent thread, in particular his response to me about Co9C:

Raven wrote:
I would call the core game a facilitator of Gamist play, but there's structure there that would allow Narrativist play if a group was so inclined. Essentially, however, it's all about how the dice hit the table and how you can use your resources to achieve some goal.

Clinton wrote:
Lastly, I know this seems like a huge Simulationist thorn shoved right up in the craw of a game that's supposed to be unabashedly Narrativist. That thought's been on my mind a lot as I wrote this. Here's the deal: Simulationist and Gamist underpinnings can drive a Narrativist game, I believe.

talysman wrote:

Clinton wrote:
Lastly, I know this seems like a huge Simulationist thorn shoved right up in the craw of a game that's supposed to be unabashedly Narrativist. That thought's been on my mind a lot as I wrote this. Here's the deal: Simulationist and Gamist underpinnings can drive a Narrativist game, I believe.

... that Simulationist underpinnings can drive Narrativism seems reasonable enough: it's why there's such excitement about The Riddle of Steel. but Clinton here acknowledges that he doesn't believe a Gamist/Narrativist hybrid is impossible.

Hello,

One of the secondary issues in the upcoming Gamism essay is to examine hybrid-GNS game play in detail. Here are some very sketchy conclusions so far; the full argument will be presented in the essay.

Simulationist play is an excellent "subordinate" mode for either Gamist or Narrativist play. A game designed toward this sort of play is also open to functional Drift toward Sim-only as people toss out that "weird stuff" or that "powergamer" stuff.

Gamist play is a terrible "subordinate" mode for Simulationist play ... because it takes over in a heartbeat.

Narrativist play is theoretically a possible "subordinate" mode for Simulationist play, but historically it cracks apart over the Impossible Thing. Maybe better Social Contracts and/or mechanics can help prevent that.

Gamist and Narrativist play have an interesting relationship ... but it's hard to see or understand unless you have experience with solid non-Sim game play, which very few role-players have. My call is that if Sim-play is involved, then a terrible struggle emerges among the modes. But if it's not, then Gamist play converts to Narrativist play very easily.

Again, this is going to be hard for people to accept, because nearly all of us have dealt mainly with Sim-design and Sim-assumptions, with both Gamism and Narrativism as semi-dysfunctional interfering priorities, and with a lot of compromises rather than with solutions.

The history of Tunnels & Trolls offers, I think, one of the most powerful examples of the phenomenon in the theory of game design ever, and it was back around 1980. No one noticed at the time. I'll be describing it in detail in the essay.

Best,
Ron

Using Walt Freitag's idea of congruence, as long as the Narrativist Premise has a lot to do with somthing that requires player tactics to address, then you'll have little problem with the G/N hybrid.

The bigget problem that I can see is with use of Pawn mode. I think, in a way, this is what Ron is getting at above in terms of the problem of Simulationism coming in a wrecking the coherence of such a hybrid. Because, I'm going to guess that he's going to say that Pawn Stance is more acceptable in Narrativist games than is probably generally accepted. But it does seem to me that Pawn stance can be problematic to Narrativists. Especially if congruence does not exist.

So, for example, if your Gamism is causing players to chase EXPs, doing things that are inconsistent with personalities in order to gain power, and the Narrativist Premise is about something like Loyalty, then the game is going to be horribly incoherent. But if you're character's personalities are defined by the pursuit of power, and the Narrativist issue is power, then you're much less likely to have a problem.

I would say that this isn't something that we've seen, and I will continue to disagree with those who claim that D&D is somehow "close" to Narrativism. It can only be Narrativist if drifted, or if there's some Social Contract to say that the Narrativist issues being addressed all have to do with power.

Mike

Hi Mike,

I agree with your last point in principle - that we are talking about different modes of play, for sure. However, I'm going to mention a side-point that I hope doesn't take over the discussion: that using "D&D" as any kind of GNS example is not going to make a point one way or another. "D&D" has many meanings - hundreds, at the least, in my view, for exactly the "cargo cult" reasons that we discussed a while ago.

For example, I don't know whether you're talking about AD&D2 when a 1986 Forgotten Realms game gets broken by a "powergamer" to the distress of the GM and the other players, or whether you're talking about fifteen eight-person tables all blazing away at the same scenario in order to see who finishes fastest in some 1977 tournament in Elgin, IL. Or a dozen other, equally distinctive examples.

So let's not point at D&D and say, "You know, like that," for examples. It's too various a phenomenon. If we're talking about Gamist play, then I think the vocabulary is still a little too rough (and emotions a little too high) to expect much; if we're talking about Gamist design, then I suggest that Tunnels & Trolls, Rune, Pantheon, Rifts, and a few other games would yield more consistent and understandable examples.

Best,
Ron

to be fair, Clinton was talking about 3rd edition D&D using specific options listed in the DMG, although he didn't go into detail. I'm curious what those options are, though.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

talysman wrote:

Clinton wrote:
Lastly, I know this seems like a huge Simulationist thorn shoved right up in the craw of a game that's supposed to be unabashedly Narrativist. That thought's been on my mind a lot as I wrote this. Here's the deal: Simulationist and Gamist underpinnings can drive a Narrativist game, I believe.

... that Simulationist underpinnings can drive Narrativism seems reasonable enough: it's why there's such excitement about The Riddle of Steel. but Clinton here acknowledges that he doesn't believe a Gamist/Narrativist hybrid is impossible.

Um - I thought I said right in that post that Gamism and Narrativism go well together if done right.

Hi John,

I cannot recommend reading and playing Tunnels & Trolls highly enough. I also recommend reading all of their solo adventure scenarios, with special reference to date and author, and also as many copies of the magazine Sorcerer's Apprentice as possible. I am coming to think that all Gamist role-playing to date, aside from D&D tourney play, has achieved nothing more than small, ornate elaborations on the principles in these sources.

I'm dubious about Gamism playing a subordinate role to Narrativism during play. However, it's not for the same reason that I think that Gamism is a poor (or rather, over-powerful) subordinate to Simulationism.

Rather, my current position is this: since Gamist and Narrativist play share, I think, an identical "baseline creative aesthetic" - which is to say, a relationship among the real people concerning the imaginary stuff they create - their differences operate far more at the GNS and Social Contract level than at the procedural or "rules" level. The key system element is the reward system, not resolution, and reward systems are not about "how we decide what happens" so much as "how we decide that we're having fun."

Which is a really long-winded way of saying that one or the other of the two modes has to be "the point," and they don't share well - but unlike either's relationship with Simulationist play (i.e. potentially hostile one), Gamist and Narrativist play don't tug-of-war over "doing it right" - they simply avoid one another, like the same-end poles of two magnets.

Note, I'm saying play, not players.

For instance, now that I'm really really thinking about it, I consider the "story" side of Pantheon play to be less about Narrativism, even as a subordinate, than it is about pastiche. Story creation doesn't play much role in it at all, or if it does via Drift, the Gamism has to be thrown out.

But all this is just an idea, or perhaps a design challenge that will prove fruitful. If you can get G to help out N, or N to help out G, then fantastic. New avenues of role-playing.

However, I'm pretty sure that such a relationship between these two modes will look nothing like how S can be constructively subordinate to G or to N.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Pawn Stance, or Stances in general, are not the issue, in my view.

First, by D&D above, I mean to say "all versions and play of D&D that are not drifted". This includes Clinton's 3E example, but also all other versions of D&D as well. In all of them the class, level, EXP, hit point structure is alive and well, and making a Narrativist game out of that requires drift from the Gamism that the rules encourage.

Could you elaborate, Ron, on what the difference is between the incoherency issues between Sim/Nar, and Gam/Nar? I agree they aren't identical, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Is it simply that resoluton is the problem in the first, and reward in the second? You could be read that way, but I doubt that's the point.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Um, it's sort of a choice between writing stuff here and not working on the essay, or vice versa ... I'll compromise by being sort of sketchy.

Resolution vs. reward is a big part of it, but as you rightly spot, not all of it. In some ways, that's a symptom rather than a cause.

My thinking - and remember, this is all still fermenting - is that Gamist and Narrativist play (a) regardless of sub-variety and (b) stripped of Simulationist support often share the following things:

- Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.

- Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.

- More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion OOC, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.

- Reward systems that reflect on player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play.

So my claim is that when we talk about G and N "not getting along," historically, we're usually talking about G+S faced with N - the whole White Wolf line of games represents a fascinating case study of this, starting with Vampire and, in my view, culminating with Adventure!. Another case study would be the history of the Hero System.

But if we instead take plain ol' G, with S simply abandoned from the start, then N may in some cases pop in as a relatively painless substitute, or vice versa, simply by altering the reward system to reflect the N Social Contract. Obviously, if the group is disinclined to do this, it can't happen. So in G vs. N, absent S, it may be a matter of "what we wanna do," and a very easy adjustment to system to reflect that in many cases, because how "we" "do" things is very similar already.

Toon, Tunnels & Trolls, and even Paranoia all offer good instances, I think. Comedic, strategic action converts to savage, biting satire very easily. Elfs is written in this tradition. This is a cool thing when it happens.

It's also not necessarily what a particular designer or group wants to see. The main way to stop this, from a designer perspective, is to embed the reward system way deeply into the rest of the game, as with Sorcerer and Rune, neither of which, I think, would convert very easily, but also, neither of which is subject to easy Drift either.

All the above is what I was driving at in my above points. You asked, however, about G/S incoherence vs. N/S incoherence, and that's kind of a different question. I'll have to think about that one for a while.

Best,
Ron

thanks for some thought-provoking answers, Ron. I'm thinking certain parts of what you just wrote may provides some clues on how to achieve what I want to achieve. in particular, the comment about reward systems. Co9C currently has a "Gamism-lite" reward system: character advancement and reward depend entirely on "getting more stuff" (motifs) which are acquired through play (using the resolution system.)

now, it may be possible that the lack of a reward system distinct from the resolution system combined with social rewards of descriptive scenes that address the premise will lead to Gamism supporting Narrativism. as it stands right now, I think the game is Gamist as long as players focus on strategic decisions with minimal motif description; drifting Narrativist only requires describing the motifs and scenes in more detail in such a way as to highlight the premise. there's no rules change at all, other than ignoring the supposed goal.

what I may do is add a Narrativist reward mechanic for coop play. perhaps, also, I can add something similar to kickers that would boost effectiveness when the players make decisions that tie into their character's embodiment of the premise.

I'll have to think of it a bit more.