This is entirely based on this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8092

So I was thinking about the "Vanilla Simulationists" mentioned in this thread with regard to my own experiences with highly immersionist play styles -- I think that, because the struggle inherent in this mode of play is often not explicitly discussed, Ron may have missed it in his theory. Let me define some terms.

Struggle: Struggle is the basis of interest in RPGs. It is defined as anything that is difficult for the player or the character.

Struggle is towards one of two ends:

Moral struggles are matters of right and wrong, ethics, etc. They ask the question "What should I do?"
Material struggles are for survival, power, and influence. They ask the question "How can I do this?" or "How should I do this?"

Most struggles in RPGs are actually combined. These can either be:

Opposed combined "How far will you go to get what you want?"
or
Aligned combined "Can you become powerful enough to save the world?"

In addition to ends of the struggle, there are also the means of the struggle. These come in two types (which can also mix): Internal (to the character or player) or External (forces beyond the control of that particular participant.) Sorcerer has a lot of internal moral struggles, for example.

Internal and External may be bad word choices here. I also considered "Decided," "Fated," and "Social" as categories.

We can further discuss whether these struggles are addressed as the character, or as the player. This is essentially a matter of stance, but sometimes can make a much larger difference (material / social is very different in and out of character, natch.)

My argument is this: Moral struggles interest the Narrativist player, Material struggles interest the Gamist player. The simulationist player is interesting in in-character play but, by definition, is confronting moral or material struggles during that play. Many essentially sim players have a preference for one of the other type of struggle, thus placing them in Gamist or Narrativist brackets. Those that do not prefer a particular type of struggle are therefore not so much "raw sim --" as their game includes both Premise and Challenge, but are instead, truly playing "mixed."

Any thoughts--
--Ben

P.S. Interesting corollary: Mixed struggles actually contain interest to both gamist and narrativists -- they involve both material and moral struggle. My take on this is that the Nar player views Sorcerer's baseline as "How far will you go to get what you want" and the Gam player views it as "How far will you go to get what you want." Just a sidenote, really.

P.P.S. This still doesn't address comedy... grr... Someday...

Hey Ben:

My argument is this: Moral struggles interest the Narrativist player, Material struggles interest the Gamist player.

Matt Wilson wrote: Hey Ben:

My argument is this: Moral struggles interest the Narrativist player, Material struggles interest the Gamist player.

I'd say it's internal vs. external struggles that interest the N and G player, respectively.

Hi Ben,

I guess I don't see the difference between your "Struggle" and my terms "Situation + System."

Best,
Ron

Well, I'm of a mind that struggle defines it as a game, (what's the Costikyan definition of a game... ah "an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal"), as opposed to an excercise in collaborative fiction, frex.

So, yes, struggles are intrinsic to RPG's. And they're in the GNS essays, but not labelled as such.

Now, I have to admit I'm failing to see how a Nar moral struggle is or should be internal to the player, as that reflects an ethical system that de-prioritizes the social dimensionsof ethics. Which is a whole 'nother story, but suffice to say, Nar = internal seems a bit whacked to me.

And much gamist struggle can be in terms of optimising your own character for best effect.

EDIT - Okay, editing frantically as my brian catches up to what's really being said: the above can be taken as a valid statement of my views, but not entirely relevant to the thread...

There are also problem with the "Nar is ethical, Gam is material, Sim is both." Because ethical questions can be very much material ones, or at least questions that evaporate without a material dimension. It looks like you're saying that we can divorce ethical and material struggles, and I really don't see that this could or should be done.

As a concrete example: the ethical dilemma of grain distribution during a famine. I would argue that the (nar biased) play arising from that would have a very heavy material component external to the player. Simlarly, a gamist could take psychological disadvantages to get a tactical advantage in some situations, and avoid triggering the debilitating effects as a gamist rather than sim or nar behaviour.

And I (probably erroneously) detect a whiff of dismissal of Sim, in implying that all but a very narrow range of sim is really Gam or Nar in disguise, or mixed gam and nar. Now, I would see sim struggle as the struggle of the characters to acheive their goals (as opposed to Gam /Nar player struggle to achieve goals through the characters), but I feel like I'm stretching struggle to accomodate.

Ron Edwards wrote: I guess I don't see the difference between your "Struggle" and my terms "Situation + System."

Ben wrote: Struggle is the basis of interest in RPGs

Pete wrote:
I'm of a mind that struggle defines it as a game, (what's the Costikyan definition of a game... ah "an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal")

Pete wrote: ...I would see sim struggle as the struggle of the characters to acheive their goals (as opposed to Gam /Nar player struggle to achieve goals through the characters)...

Ben wrote:
Both Story Now and Step On Up seem, to me, to imply some meta-game sensibility which is either absent or safely buried in Dream-heavy play.

Ben wrote: a dream must contain moral and/or material struggles to remain interesting

Ben wrote: Struggle is the basis of interest in RPGs

Pete wrote:
I'm of a mind that struggle defines it as a game, (what's the Costikyan definition of a game... ah "an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal")

Anya wrote:
In my mind, one of the defining qualities of Role Playing Games as a category distinct from other games is the fact that the 'Struggle toward a goal' component is highly customizable, varying not just from game to game, but within a given group, in some cases. To a degree, the Struggle is suggested by the mechanics, but is left in the hands of the individual players to define and pursue.

Anya wrote:
The Goal and the Struggle Towards it can be almost anything -- a gamist goal ("I will become King of all I survey!"), a metagame goal ("Hey, when we split up, let's make sure Marsha's character teams up with Norm's -- he's got a crush on her!"), a simulation goal ("Being a peasant in 6th Century France is the coolest thing ever! Where's that 'Lice and Lesions' table?"), or whatever mix of everything that you want.

Pete wrote: ...I would see sim struggle as the struggle of the characters to acheive their goals (as opposed to Gam /Nar player struggle to achieve goals through the characters)...

Ben wrote:
Both Story Now and Step On Up seem, to me, to imply some meta-game sensibility which is either absent or safely buried in Dream-heavy play.

Anya wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, Ben, but I think I've seen Sim-heavy play not necessarily be Dream-heavy (although it can be). I think there are (or can be) very strong meta-game concerns in Dream-heavy play. In fact, I would argue that most strong Sim play has a very explicit metagame concern: Being Faithful to the Sim. That's something the Players are concerned with (as opposed to the Characters), which to my mind makes it a metagame concern.

Or am I misunderstanding?

Ben wrote: a dream must contain moral and/or material struggles to remain interesting

Anya wrote:
I don't think that's a requirement for Dream/Sim play, although I agree it frequently is present. I think there is plenty of Sim-prioritized play where the Sim components don't necessarily have moral and/or material struggles, and which remain quite interesting to those players dedicated to them.

Anya wrote:
I think Faithfulness to the Simulated Topic can be the Struggle. You struggle in the social, metagame arena to Do It Right. It's almost a kind of gamism, but not really, because you aren't necessarily competing to be the one Doing It Right the best.

I can give examples, if that would help. It may be that what I'm seeing as Sim-heavy play is in fact not, or is not what you would categorize as Sim-heavy.

Hi Ben,

I'm still seeing all of this as synonymous with, "All role-playing contains Situation." I don't really see it as much of an issue, except insofar as you've hit upon some phrasing that makes the basic point really hit home for you, or that you can use to communicate better with others. All of that is good, though.

Perhaps the issue is that you're seeing Narrativism defined as containing moral/ethical struggles, and therefore thinking that Simulationism must not have such things. If so, then I can identify what the stumbling block is: the GNS categories are not defined by what they contain, but by what gets maximally-reinforced, social attention.

If the acts of role-playing - the interactions, the rules applications, everything - demonstrably and preferentially reinforce addressing such a struggle (Situation), then you have Narrativist play. But you can be playing in a Situation which contains such a struggle (Situation), but in this case not see that sort of play, in which case it wouldn't be Narrativist.

Best,
Ron

This is beginning to get close to one of my personal areas of quicksand with GNS: where does exploration of character end and narrativism begin? And, in a related question, can you have sim exploration of premise?

My handy shorthand answer for the first is "sim char asks what would my character do, nar asks what should my character do." It's shorthand in that there are so many holes in it you can use it to strain cheese, but it helps me on occassion.

My answer to the second is "Yes, as long as the PC's don't care." Again, it's shorthand for half an essay on protagonism, but certainly ethical premises can exist as arising from setting, even integral to them, but they'll only give you nar if the players engage with them as other than a part of the setting to live with or an opportunity to improve their position.

So what's this got to do with Sim struggle? I'll subtly change my position now by pretending to clarify it: Sim struggle for a player is the struggle to faithfully respresent and explore the simulation. The goal is the dream. A well designed sim game makes the struggle, the intersection of systems, or the revelation of setting, interesting. And, more importantly, it's a goal that can be forever striven for, but never permanently attained, as the perfect dream never ends, the perfect simulation cannot ever be fully explored.

The Nar goal is the un-nebulous "do the right thing" in most nar games. Nah, hold that, the struggle is to adequately address the premise, and a well designed nar game makes that struggle interesting. The goal is the adressing of the premise through the story of the character, and is often acheivable, especially in closed games like MLwM.

And Gam, the goal is constant proving of the character in challenges. In some ways, it's actually gam that's the odd man out, as the structure of RPG campaigns makes the goal of RPG gamism (the constant challenge) nearly impossible to achieve, as, in the words of Qui Gon Jinn, "There's always a bigger fish." The character can only, in the long run of an open ended campaign, either fail at a challenge or end up with no challenges left, weeping because there are no more worlds to conquer.

But anyway, this has, for me, been mostly an academic excercise in stretching Costikyan's definition of a game, which he tried to formulate to include everything he thought was a game and exclude everything he thought wasn't, over the GNS framework.

Taking it away and going back to struggle... So, would you say sim heavy on setting exploration, that does not address premise or concentrate on challenge, not exist, exist as gam/nar hybrid by equal prioritisation of the only two elements that matter for struggles' sake (even if that's negative prioritisation of ignoring both), not consist of roleplaying, or be so rare as to be beyond consideration? Baecasue I'm finding it hard to find it a place in the struggle theory.

Hello Pete,

You're falling into some verbal holes that I'm familiar with. People talk themselves into very strange places by subtly mis-using the terms, and then they flail to get out.

where does exploration of character end and narrativism begin?

And, in a related question, can you have sim exploration of premise?

Ben Lehman wrote:
The thing is, that a lot of Sim players object to any implication that they have metagame goals beyond Being Faithful (rather like accusing some of adultery, actually.)

Ben wrote:
Please, contradict the theory. Cite a specific example of play (that you have experienced or heard of directly) that has no moral or material struggle, but still is interesting.

It is my belief that all human life is filled with moral and material struggles, and thus any game with even-close-to-human characters will contain such.
[Snip]
I think that no Sim player has ever simulated (nor ever will simulate except as gedankengame) a role-playing game (where here I refer to actual play, not books) which contain no struggle.

I think there ios some value in 'struggle', but not in the sim context primarily. I think that 'struggle' is a far better capsule description of gamism than 'competition' is. In most media, you sit and observe, but in all forms of taks or games, success arises from your action. You struggle with the logistical or tactical or whatever problems to achieve your goals and obtain saitisfaction. Struggle is a universal characteristic of games (while competition is not) and serves, IMO, in much the same way that Exploration does.

Ron Edwards wrote:

where does exploration of character end and narrativism begin?

The key to answering this one is, Exploration doesn't end when Narrativism begins. Narrativism operates on a bed of Exploration. So if you're looking for its "ending" point, you'll be endlessly frustrated.

Where Narrativism begins is easy - when it does. You're a HeroQuest player; you know that people get jazzed about the "political is personal" aspects of Glorantha, and that their characters' actions express Theme Stuff about those aspects through play. There you go.

Ron Edwards wrote:

And, in a related question, can you have sim exploration of premise?

"Exploration of Premise" is an oxymoron. It's the five elements of Exploration which are Explored; Premise is a guiding aesthetic ("creative agenda") that shapes or marks that action. Simulationist play, by definition, lacks that (or the corresponding Gamist) aesthetic.

Best,
Ron

Hi Pete,

Yup. I forgot to mention in my previous response that I agree with you regarding Struggle, Simulationism, and so on. Which was sort of the main point of your post, so I apologize for not acknowledging that.

Quick detail. You wrote,

My problem was with the idea that whenever someone was exploring character, they were engaged in narrativism, not sim. I'm not looking for the terminator between the two, but a recognition that you can explore character without adressing premise.

Following up from Pete's line of thought, and some of the comments Ben's been making.

An Egrian Premise (reformulated as a question as per narrativism) seems to be to merely be an interest question about the human condition. What would you do for love? Is revenge more important than peace? What would you do for $1000000?

Now, as per Pete and Ben, theme is going to emerge in pretty much any sim game - certainly any successful game - simply by dint of them dealing with interesting characters doing interesting things. And a lot of sim players want theme, and are really glad when it arrives - because it's something of a mark of a successful game. To my mind, that does not make them closet narrativists.

Dig, I like vanilla ice cream. I like strawberries. Give me a choice and I'll take a bowl of vanilla ice cream over a bowl of strawberries any day of the week. Now, offer me a bowl of strawberries and ice cream, and I'd be the happiest little bunny in the world.

Too, I like making stuff up. I like making stuff up more than I like questions about the human condition. But if I can make stuff up that also provokes questions about the human condition, then I'm happiest of all.

I suspect with narrativists that it's the other way round: they want the theme and if they can get the sim stuff, wonderful, but if not they'll just take the theme.

Hello,

I'm not quite sure how this came to be a Narrativism thread, but all right.

Yesterday, I received this message from a private correspondent:

In your Simulationism essay, you have this: "'Story,' in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play."

Is this the key to distinguishing the abovementioned play modes? My intepretation of this statement is that in Simulationist gaming, a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream. i.e., A Sim game Colored with elements from Chinese wuxia movies might have a multilayered story involving class conflict, people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance, heavy action, a sorcerer and his eunuch henchmen - but these are all trappings of the genre. So, their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that /isn't already there/. In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the Exploration; because the dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a kind of intricacy involved.

In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are /created/ by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, /reinforced/ by the play, and kind of a
by-product.

Am I on this now?

Hi all,

I know I'm usually a lurker, but I'm going to try and provide some play examples from my own group that might help. It'll dovetail back into Struggle at some point, I promise. :) This may be long, though.

One of the gaming groups I'm in plays Shadowrun. Now, Shadowrun is primarily a Gamist venture (note: the working shorthand is in operation - it's a game that facilitates Gamist tendencies), but it's getting Drifted, and we don't mind. In play, what's been getting maximal social reinforcement (Ron, that's such a cool phrase - keep it) has been the themes developing in play between long, roleplayed out interactions between the PCs. We have to be the slowest-moving Shadowrun group in history, by our own design. The characters are a preppy mage just out of college trying to get out from under Daddy's heel (me, Nick Colby), a Trinity-like Physical Adept (Roxy), and a former corporate stooge gone to Shadowrunning because he had an affair with someone (Gus).

In play, there's been continued tension between these characters regarding their attitude toward "professionalism". Nick tries to maintain an absolute emotional separation between business and pleasure, which has caused him to spurn some of Roxy's advances, and that has given rise to an overtly aggressive attitude on the job (he's overcompensating). Gus thinks Nick knows what he's doing, because Nick has an attitude, and follows him around because he wants to be a "cool, professional Shadowrunner" like Nick is. Roxy thinks Nick is just fooling himself about his emotional detachment, and wants to crack his shell so that she can make some kind of connection to Nick and perhaps keep Gus from following Nick into anything too stupid. Romantic tension has emerged between Roxy and each character by now, because we've been continually under fire together.

The emerging themes have been, "What does being a professional Shadowrunner mean?" "What is the cost of emotional detachment?" "Is love worth the risk of loss?" None of these things were part of the GM's game... he just preps the missions and waits for us to catch up, essentially.

So there's Narrativism without anything funky, with the themes emerging mostly through the Character part of Exploration, player-created, and not a for-granted part of the Dream. In the players' eyes, the other elements also influence the themes we're making; without the Situation of the missions, we'd have no reason to develop these relationships, and without the Setting + Color, the whole "professional Shadowrunner" angle wouldn't exist.

Now, to contrast that, one of my other groups ran a James Bond RPG game. The story revolved around the pursuit of a chemical weapon that ultimately was found to be in use by an alliance between young Yakuza and Chinese Tongs to oust the older, troublesome Yakuza bosses so that the younger Yaks could take over. The characters were a Delta Force operative (me, Alex Wilkins), a CIA analyst (Mr. James), and a near-retirement MI6 operative (Langworthy).

This game ended up as what stands, for me, as a primary mental reference for what Simulationist play is. What was being reinforced in play, mostly, was "being in a Bond movie." The story was fairly convoluted, involving travel to several locals in the Middle and Far East, us penetrating the group of involved lackeys before reaching the masterminds, high action, car chases, gambling, fast women, a Jai-alai match between me and one of the villains (I won), etc. If there was a theme present, we weren't reinforcing it consciously; indeed, we weren't paying attention to it much at all because we were reinforcing the Bond Dream. There was plenty of competitively witty banter between the characters and some implicit commentary on life under the mantle of the secret agent, but it was all par for the course - that's what those types of Characters do in that Dream. We killed the bad guys at the end because that's what Bond does, etc. In that game, no one made any effort to contribute anything thematically to the game that wasn't already there (not even the GM), and there was no social reward on the player level for overcoming challenges because it was just seen as intrinsic to the Bond movie. At the end of it all, we had these memories of our Bond movie, and that was cool.

Bringing these examples together, what's come to define Simulationism in my mind is this notion of "Exploring what's already there" - whether "what's already there" is as concrete as Setting and how one interacts with it, or as nebulous as casting everything with the appropriate Color, what matters is that the point of play is about enjoying what's in your playground for its own sake. The moment you try, as a player or GM, to "make a point" with your Exploration that is outside part and parcel of the Dream, you're making Nar play decisions, perhaps whether you realize it or not. And that goal, too, is different from wanting to create something to put in the Dream, which is still Simulationism because you only put the new jungle gym in the playground so that you can swing from it or for the sheer joy of looking at it and saying, "I made that. I Dreamed this."

So, Struggle, as it was being defined by the original poster, can be a facet of all three modes, internal or external, material or otherwise. I don't think it's really suggestive of any one mode or another. If overcoming Struggle is what one comes to the table for, it's Gamist. I mean, if you wanted to, you could take the Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel and 'Step On Up' with them, much as they translate to mechanical competence, if you really wanted to. If Struggle naturally evolves as a result of in-game causality in the Dream, standing as a by-product of the nature of the Dream, it's Sim. If Struggle is the means by which the players/GM create and address themes in play, and is purposefully introduced for that reason, it's Nar. I'm not sure that said Struggle needs to take place along moral/ethical lines, though, just for Narrativism to be at work.

Okay, done. :)


-Landon Darkwood