I'll give a bit of a background about my concerns, so you can see where I'm coming from. I'm currently designing a couple of different games, trying hard to advance my games forward along the track of game development and am trying to learn about all the trends in game-making currently. I feel there's a lot happening in the roleplaying game industry and I'm designing my games with that pioneering state of mind.

That said, I thoroughly enjoy the GNS model and this forum, even if I am not swallowing the model whole, so to speak. I recognize it is a tool and not a way to constrict (indeed, I feel it's purpose is quite the opposite), so I'm often reviewing my own work in light of the GNS paradigm, even if I am not wholly designing within it.

There are a few thoughts that have occurred to me, since I find myself appealing to both narrativistic and simulationist (even occasional gamist, perhaps) tendencies within my game. I design mechanics and settings that facilitate both. So, I often wonder at the usual negative comments said about trying to achieve a "best of both worlds" response.

I want to leave a lot to the GM, but I want to offer a lot more tools to craft their game than a typical "old school" roleplaying game.

And I'm not totally convinced that narrativism and simulationism have to be separated.

I'll quote Ron's latest essay here:

"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.

Facilitating Simulationism is all about Exploring the designated element(s). The most important priority is that the stated features express linear, in-game-world causality. That is why the most prevalent version of Simulationist character design relies on Nature-Nurture distinctions, using layered qualities, for a large number of attributes and abilities. Other sorts of Simulationist design may employ different methods, but the commitment to in-game, linear causality remains the priority.

Facilitating Narrativism relies on bringing specific Premise and the ability to have an impact on it into the foreground, over and above any “descriptive” or “explanatory” elements. Distinctions between attributes and skills, for instance, is irrelevant. A big tough fighter and a small lithe fighter may well be described, in game terms, with a single identical “fight” value, perhaps modified retroactively during play for especially-appropriate situations. A character may have features for completely metagame concerns, such as “plot points” or similar things."

(end quote)

I understand the concept of not allowing the game to "break" out of an immersive mindset in a simulationist model, but I wonder if that is a necessary outcome of using a meta-game mechanic or another narrativist tool.

I propose that one can embed narrativism into a simulaion by allowing narrativistic concerns to influence the inherent randomness of any actual world. What I mean is that most simulations of a world are going to include pure chance or fortune, so why not allow the needs of the story to influence those apparently random decisions?

I wonder if it is necessary to break the in-game-world causality to allow narrativism to take hold?

Can the rules of a game not account for the same thing which Ron refers to when he writes: "to set up and resolve the issues of interest in strictly person-to-person terms."

Also, on a not wholly related note, I tend to sense a certain idea on the forum that simulationist games can't be rules-lite and that rules-lite is usually considered to be imminent narrativism? Where does this come from or am I reading into the wrong phrases?

My games are on the rules-lite side, but with definate simulanist concerns influencing my design. I am however, including a lot of narrativistic tools for the GM and the players, as well as having the player take part in creating the setting and story, often on the fly in something bordering on Director or Author Stance.

Hi Daredevil,

Great post. I'd really like to address it detail soon, but now won't work (time crunch). You've quoted one of the most important sections of the essay.

Instead, I want to deal with your afterthought first.
" I tend to sense a certain idea on the forum that simulationist games can't be rules-lite and that rules-lite is usually considered to be imminent narrativism?'"

Wherever you're perceiving that, you're seeing a terrible, pernicious thing. As stated in my essay, I do not consider ANY degree of rules-density to be correlated with any particular mode. The full spectrum of rules-density may be found in game designs focused in all three directions.

In fact, I suggest (and have repeated again and again) that associating "rules-light" with Narrativism is one of the most destructive assumptions in discussing role-playing.

Best,
Ron

And Simulationism is just fine with being rules-light, thankyouverymuch.

Hey DD,

We may be kindred spirits on this one. And the curmudgeon who made the short comment above might end up being your best ally. I think that he and I have been working on concepts similar to yours. Anyhow, the phrase that intrigues me would be:

I wonder if it is necessary to break the in-game-world causality to allow narrativism to take hold?

Hey Mike,

How do you allow players to create events and still feel as if they are experiencing the world?

A very good question, and very central to Universalis, I think. To be honest, the game is cool in a lot of ways, but I'm not sure you hit this one.

Paul

I think it can be pretty much summed up by saying that I want to allow narrativism, (and now I deviate from typical Forge lexicon) without breaking suspension of disbelief.

Quoting the above post:
"The question is what angle are you approaching this from. You mention the idea of the addition of Author/Director power. I have previously surmised that these tools could be very effective in non-immersive simulation; essentially using these sorts of powers for a different end. That's easy. But what you suggest is harder. How do you allow players to create events and still feel as if they are experiencing the world? Is this a case of limited powers, or filtering them somehow? Can you share your methods, if even just theoretically?"

I'll try putting it simply at first, as much to stir conversation and brainstorming as not to give away ideas just yet. :smile:

Assume characters have in-game knowledge of the gameworld that the player (and gamemaster) does not. That seems rather obvious. After that it's just a matter of developing a tool to allow the player to create that knowledge within the gameworld.

In it's simplest form, already existing in most good RPG tables, it's when players do minor ad libs, like : saying "we head to Tavern of the Great Oak we passed when we arrived to the town" when no tavern has been mentioned by the Gamemaster. Depending on the GM, he can continue from there or allow the players to describe the place further.

It (the mechanical tool) can be developed from there, but that's a good starting point for discussion, I think.

Hey DD,

I think it can be pretty much summed up by saying that I want to allow narrativism,...without breaking suspension of disbelief.

Everybody wants this. Well...a lot of people do. It is, to quite a few Simulationist game designers, like El Dorado to the conquistadors.

Honestly, it's a hard thing for me to wrap my brain around. I keep thinking, why is retroactive justification of character actions widely considered to break suspension of disbelief when dice-based Fortune mechanics aren't? Both require the player to step outside whatever mental veiling he's implemented to protect his SOD. Is it just that nonlinear conflict resolution is harder? Or is there a notion that suspension of disbelief becomes impossible if conflict resolution is not an outgrowth of multiple individual task resolutions?

As I've had more experiences with Narrativist games, I've begun to think that preferencing suspension of disbelief in an RPG design is almost like striking at shadows. I personally don't consider it to be one of my "must haves", so maybe this is irrelevant, but I'm aware of how Authorial power is considered to undermine suspension of disbelief, and despite having a great deal of Authorial power in Tom's Theatrix game, when I consider things in retrospect, I'd say the game was characterized by as much or more suspension of disbelief than any of many games of Champions, AD&D, Vampire, or Call of Cthulhu that I've played. You can ask Scott, Matt, and Tom if they think the scenario I'm currently running using The Pool feels lacking for them in suspension of disbelief.

Still, I understand that people feel the mechanics and conventions that make Narrativism possible are problematic for suspension of disbelief. But I think of scientific experiments that have made nuclear fusion work in special lab conditions, or have made energy travel faster than the speed of light in a specially constructed environment. I can't help but think someone's going to lab out a game that gives players access to the mechanics and conventions that make Narrativism possible, but in a way that doesn't violate suspension of disbelief for Simulationist players. I suspect it'll be a carefully constructed game system with mechanics integrated into a setting where the authoring and directing mechanics are disguised in ways that don't pose a challenge to suspension of disbelief. Imagine a game setting where a player can call on the aid of a guardian angel...something like that.

Paul

On 2001-10-24 22:10, Paul Czege wrote:
Hey Mike,

How do you allow players to create events and still feel as if they are experiencing the world?

A very good question, and very central to Universalis, I think. To be honest, the game is cool in a lot of ways, but I'm not sure you hit this one.

Paul

Y'know, upon rereading, I wrote:

I can't help but think someone's going to lab out a game that gives players access to the mechanics and conventions that make Narrativism possible, but in a way that doesn't violate suspension of disbelief for Simulationist players. I suspect it'll be a carefully constructed game system with mechanics integrated into a setting where the authoring and directing mechanics are disguised in ways that don't pose a challenge to suspension of disbelief.

And you wrote:

Assume characters have in-game knowledge of the gameworld that the player (and gamemaster) does not. That seems rather obvious. After that it's just a matter of developing a tool to allow the player to create that knowledge within the gameworld.

And I think we're saying the same thing.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Paul

On 2001-10-24 23:09, Paul Czege wrote:
Hey DD,

I think it can be pretty much summed up by saying that I want to allow narrativism,...without breaking suspension of disbelief.

Everybody wants this. Well...a lot of people do. It is, to quite a few Simulationist game designers, like El Dorado to the conquistadors.

Honestly, it's a hard thing for me to wrap my brain around. I keep thinking, why is retroactive justification of character actions widely considered to break suspension of disbelief when dice-based Fortune mechanics aren't? Both require the player to step outside whatever mental veiling he's implemented to protect his SOD. Is it just that nonlinear conflict resolution is harder? Or is there a notion that suspension of disbelief becomes impossible if conflict resolution is not an outgrowth of multiple individual task resolutions?

As I've had more experiences with Narrativist games, I've begun to think that preferencing suspension of disbelief in an RPG design is almost like striking at shadows. I personally don't consider it to be one of my "must haves", so maybe this is irrelevant, but I'm aware of how Authorial power is considered to undermine suspension of disbelief, and despite having a great deal of Authorial power in Tom's Theatrix game, when I consider things in retrospect, I'd say the game was characterized by as much or more suspension of disbelief than any of many games of Champions, AD&D, Vampire, or Call of Cthulhu that I've played. You can ask Scott, Matt, and Tom if they think the scenario I'm currently running using The Pool feels lacking for them in suspension of disbelief.

Still, I understand that people feel the mechanics and conventions that make Narrativism possible are problematic for suspension of disbelief. But I think of scientific experiments that have made nuclear fusion work in special lab conditions, or have made energy travel faster than the speed of light in a specially constructed environment. I can't help but think someone's going to lab out a game that gives players access to the mechanics and conventions that make Narrativism possible, but in a way that doesn't violate suspension of disbelief for Simulationist players. I suspect it'll be a carefully constructed game system with mechanics integrated into a setting where the authoring and directing mechanics are disguised in ways that don't pose a challenge to suspension of disbelief. Imagine a game setting where a player can call on the aid of a guardian angel...something like that.

On 2001-10-24 23:11, Mike Holmes wrote:

On 2001-10-24 22:10, Paul Czege wrote:
Hey Mike,

How do you allow players to create events and still feel as if they are experiencing the world?

A very good question, and very central to Universalis, I think. To be honest, the game is cool in a lot of ways, but I'm not sure you hit this one.

Paul

Truth be told, Paul, this wasn't a design goal of Universalis at all. And in fact Universalis probably removes players from immersion more than any other game I've played. As in the game we played where I didn't even play my character at all. I've had whole sessions where I didn't even have a character.
Mike

Hey Daredevil,

I believe it is time for me to be the Bad Man in the Corner again, Old Miseryguts (I stole this term from Warren Ellis) nattering about what can't be done ... no fun, probably pisses on himself ...

First, the good news.

I think that achieving Narrativist goals with full suspension of disbelief embedded in it periodically is possible, not difficult, and extremely wonderful role-playing. I especially like The Pool and The Framework for taking exactly opposite, yet functional approaches for formalizing it.

I also think that achieving Simulationist goals (i.e. full suspension of disbelief) with a strong focus on Situation is possible, not difficult, and extremely wonderful role-playing. Call of Cthulhu play is an excellent example, and there are many others at various levels of complexity and emotional depth out there, such as the popular drifted-variant of Amber. (To be clear, this IS story-based or story-oriented or whatever you want to call it.)

However - and here Old Miseryguts disgusts and embarasses everyone in the room - I do not think that a story can be reliably created, with players as co-creators, via the means of Actor Stance, continuous suspension of disbelief, immersion (as narrowly defined), or anything similar. I articulated my point of view on Epoch's thread "'Story,' Actor Stance, and My Guy-ism," specifically in the post on October 17, 13:23. El Dorado does not exist, say I.

Sorry guys. I'll go mumble and stink elsewhere now.

Best,
Ron

El Dorado doesn't exist?

Hmmm ... Gedanken Experiments (thought expeiments):

1. Suppose:
There exists an amnesia pill. The player who wishes to co-create the story details the scene he wishes to create, with likely plot forks, to the GM, and takes the pill. Now he takes the pill and is run through his scene in simulationist fashion with full attention to Narrativist Premise (including being in a story he authored and the GM is running).

Would that count? Or would the fact that he isn't *aware that he's narrating as he's in it* make it non-narrativist?

I suspect that, under Ron's definition, it would: there's little room for discussion about SOD and narrativist--the argument is reduced to a tautology.

2. Question:
If I detail the plot, story, and theme of a game without telling you which participants did what in a directoral sense, and you ONLY know that the GM and the players were ALL surprised with the outcome, can you tell whether it was narrativst or sim? If you "can't be sure" do you think you'd *probably* know?

3. If the game-system is Narrativist and one of the players doesn't narrate--but asks the GM to run him in a simulation of what's going on does that make the gaming-session simulationist?

I think the point was that some players could narrate and some could play pure-sim. Does anyone think *that's* impossible? It seems like a great idea to me.

-Marco

On 2001-10-25 11:30, Marco wrote:
El Dorado doesn't exist?

Hmmm ... Gedanken Experiments (thought expeiments):

1. Suppose:
There exists an amnesia pill. The player who wishes to co-create the story details the scene he wishes to create, with likely plot forks, to the GM, and takes the pill. Now he takes the pill and is run through his scene in simulationist fashion with full attention to Narrativist Premise (including being in a story he authored and the GM is running).

2. Question:
If I detail the plot, story, and theme of a game without telling you which participants did what in a directoral sense, and you ONLY know that the GM and the players were ALL surprised with the outcome, can you tell whether it was narrativst or sim? If you "can't be sure" do you think you'd *probably* know?

3. If the game-system is Narrativist and one of the players doesn't narrate--but asks the GM to run him in a simulation of what's going on does that make the gaming-session simulationist?

Yes, that player is playing Simulationist. This is called Drift. Playing a game in a manner other than what it's geared for. This player can certainly do so. They just might have more fun playing in a Simulationist game than this Narrativist game.

I think the point was that some players could narrate and some could play pure-sim. Does anyone think *that's* impossible? It seems like a great idea to me.

Happens all the time. I've heard of examples, right here. The problem is threefold. Either the Sim or the Narr players aren't going to be supported by the system given that it balances one way or the other (all known systems do this). Also, the Sim players may have their SOD affected by the other players' play. And the Narr players may be disapointed with the Sim players contribution (refusal to produce story through these mechanisms. But it can certainly be done. And a really excellent GM might be able to make it fun for all. Just sounds very difficult. Depends a lot on how willing the players are to compromise some.

Mike

Authorial and Direcorial power are not the only Narrativist tools. There are all sorts of others. And many of these don't break anyone's SOD. Take, for example, the Relationship Map. This tool works for anyone to create dramatic potential and is as "believable" as any other background subject. Heck, even if you were as a player so anal about your Immersion that you didn't like to design your own background, a decent Relationship Map could probably be generated randomly. In fact, "realistic" relationships should help Immersion quite a bit.

Other background stuff is also very allowable. Like Ron's Kickers. I think that most players are OK with setting up the scenes with already extant problems and conflicts. They are just used to having the GM do it for them traditionally. I'd go so far to say that any sort of background options of this nature are not a problem. After all, the player almost always gets to decide things about their character before hand. The usual problems only arrive with mucking about with things during play.

The true "immersionist" might want their character to be generated completely at random to avoid any dissonance with the idea that they had control over certain parts of the character's development that would likely be uncontrolable by the character. Like size. But I'm not too concerned with catering to this fictitious player.

Mike

However - and here Old Miseryguts disgusts and embarasses everyone in the room - I do not think that a story can be reliably created, with players as co-creators, via the means of Actor Stance, continuous suspension of disbelief, immersion (as narrowly defined), or anything similar. I articulated my point of view on Epoch's thread "'Story,' Actor Stance, and My Guy-ism," specifically in the post on October 17, 13:23. El Dorado does not exist, say I.

Laurel wrote:
Now, can anyone cause this El Dorado of mine to -intentionally- happen at a given time and place? Nope. It happens as a phenomenon in my opinion, because of a unique set of circumstances.