Over here MJ Young said:

...the answer of the simulationist is, "You're exploring the wrong thing. You have prioritized specific aspects of the world to explore. We're not doing that; we have prioritized exploring the entirety of it, and not specific aspects."

Really, gamism and narrativism are the negatives--they exclude vast areas of the world that are not related to their priorities; simulationism excludes that aspect of forming priorities by which to exclude vast areas of the world.

It is the more positive concept in game priorities, because it includes everything, not just the things that are relevant to narrowly defined play priorities.

you can't exclude the exploration of aspects of the world merely because you find them boring; they're not boring--they're fascinating.

Hi Raven,

Breathe deep, man. It's hard to express the details of Point A without seeming to dismiss Alternative Point B. We went through this 100 times a week back at GO, regarding Narrativism, so it shouldn't be too hard to spot M.J. the benefit of the doubt.

"Suggests" and "tone" and stuff like that are all a grey space we can afford to let ride a bit.

Best,
Ron

Reading that over this morning, it does sound like I'm out to go bungie jumping down MJ's throat.

The post was meant to be friendly-casual, not adversarial. Heck, I even thought I'd been clear that I was observing that it was probably subconscious/unintentional. The media foils me again (that, and having written it at 1am)!

My last point is honestly of the most interest to me, and the whole reason I wrote everything else: that Sim is not more broad than Nar or Gam, precisely because of its wide focus -- and I was thinking "or lack thereof"....but that isn't true.

In fact, that prompts me to think perhaps the difference in perception is that MJ is saying Sim doesn't have a focus, whereas I'm saying it does.

Any thoughts, MJ?

Consider, Raven, that MJ was responding to what he saw as an attack on Simulationism. The arguments he's making are to point out the fallacies in the attack on Sim. That is, if what you say is true, then he's vindicated in his defense of Sim, as he's using some of the same tactics as those who've attacked Sim.

Basically, you're making his point for him.

Mike

Well, that's interesting and all, Mike, but as I only caught the tail end of the discussion from another post, I created my thoughts around that and the thread it was quoted in.

I did look up the initiating thread, and skimmed it quickly, but I didn't feel like reading through five pages of back-and-forth at one-in-the-morning, either. So, if I'm only repeating what MJ already said, because I'm unaware of the intended facetiousness of the statements, then we're already in agreement, so cool.

But perhaps, then, it should be a lesson on resorting to such a strategy in debate...it only confuses everyone by clouding your own, actual point.

I apologize for my hyperbole.

I've many times said that I play in all modes, and enjoy all modes--I was probably the first to argue that such players existed back in the early days on Gaming Outpost. I was indeed responding to the persistent attitude that simulationism is the poor stepsister of gamism and narrativism by turning the argument on its head.

I would never claim that one of the modes was truly superior to the other two. Faced with the idea that simulationism is "just roleplaying without something extra" I suggested that you could as easily argue that gamism and narrativism are "just role playing in a narrow vein without everything extra". I'd like simulationism to be recognized as an equal partner in the GNS triangle (one of the reasons why I objected to the Beeg Horseshoe Theory). Showing that from its perspective it is the others that are lacking is a response to the argument made that the others have something it is lacking. All three can claim that they have something the others lack (at least to the same degree).

It's also been a long time since I wrote that, I think--long enough in numbers of words written that I can't say I remember in detail what I did write apart from that quote. At the moment I'm inclined to think that it would be difficult to answer whether simulationism has a focus--it would seem like a "broad focus" is oxymoronic, yet that does seem to be what happens with sim.

Perhaps rather sim has the ability to put the focus on aspects of the imagined space that are beyond the constraints of narrativist or gamist play, and to shift it more freely from one aspect to another--but this is so off the top of my head that I won't commit to it.

--M. J. Young

Ok, problem solved. Understanding reached on my part. Cool.

M. J. Young wrote: Perhaps rather sim has the ability to put the focus on aspects of the imagined space that are beyond the constraints of narrativist or gamist play, and to shift it more freely from one aspect to another--but this is so off the top of my head that I won't commit to it.

It seems that there are certain basic assumptions about how worlds are constructed here that perhaps have been canvassed elsewhere that I am missing. Isn't the question of the relevance of places explored to the narrative going to be a function of the type of world you are dealing with?

For instance, in one campaign I ran, the characters were progressing through the seven cities of Arthur's quest in the Spoils of Annwfn. Thus, if the characters left the City of Riches, the next city they came to would necessarily be the City of Frustration. Which city the characters chose to go to next only conditioned how the next city would be the City of Frustration.

fusangite wrote: Isn't the question of the relevance of places explored to the narrative going to be a function of the type of world you are dealing with?

2) Narrativism, Simulationism, and Gamism are not really about scenario design per se, although scenario design can greatly impact them and they can greatly impact scenario design.

This is, I think, quite distinct from your interesting notions of metatext (which I just read in New Threefold Division to Compete with GNS--I find it interesting, but don't see it related to GNS in any particular way, being rather a theory of scenario design, whereas GNS is a theory of player psychology).

3) How worlds are constructed is not directly at issue here in this thread; it is more about why players explore them.

4) It may be that you're confusing "the narrative" with "narrativism". The former means nothing more than the record of the events as they unfold; the latter means play that is focused on moral/ethical/personal issues as its central purpose.

5) I think your metatext ideas are fascinating, and would love to see someone do something with them for Multiverser world play; I also think that they're uncommon generally--I don't know that I've ever met a referee who creates worlds that way, nor encountered any worlds that seemed to have that approach. However, my medieval history is a bit weak--I've not read Martin, but would not have spotted the historical allusions you reference in him had I done so.

Welcome to the Forge, fusangite! (What's your real name, BTW? It's hard to have a conversation with a handle)

fusangite wrote: I've been deliberately choosing to view narrativism a little more broadly. I think what makes play narrativist is that the player's interests are the interests of the larger plot rather than being identical to the character's interests.

The idea that characters changing during the narrative and choosing to make a moral choice at a pivotal point in the story is essential to a good narrative is just plain wrong.

fusangite wrote: I think what makes play narrativist is that the player's interests are the interests of the larger plot rather than being identical to the character's interests.

fusangite then wrote: What is multiverser? I've been off in my own little corner of the gaming world. I don't attend cons and have only been involved in forums like this for a year. So, I'm pretty far off the beaten path.

OK -- first off, please refer me to the URL where the original essay defines these things. I'm having a little difficulty finding the things on the site that are most important for me to read.

Next, what kind of play is a modern person engaging in if she plays a character who is not internally conflicted? By virtue of being modern, we have a consciousness that makes each of us internally conflicted; therefore, a person playing a non-conflicted character cannot be a simulationist. If you argue that the character being internally conflicted is a necessary condition of narrativist play as well, are you not then stating that anyone who plays a non-conflicted character must, by process of elimination, be engaging in exclusively gamist play?

I would argue that pre-modern heroes are typically not conflicted characters and that it is only modern and post-modern readings and reinterpretations that attempt to turn pre-modern heroes into conflicted people. I think that we would be pretty whiggish to argue that Beowulf, for instance, is a conflicted character. But even if you want to argue that Beowulf, specifically, is a conflicted character based on some portion of the text, can we not agree that some pre-modern heroes are not conflicted?

Most gaming and fantasy literature bugs me because it is about modern people wandering around worlds with non-modern technology. What I like in gaming is actually taking a break from the modern narrative and wandering around in a pre-modern story where modern ideas of the nature of consciousness are a given.

Now that I've given away some of my interests in gaming, I hope you won't be offended if I don't immediately pursue multiverser; it seems like a very very good excuse for modern people being modern people in fantastic places.

Fusangite,

You are again setting up a straw man. You have not yet learned what the Forge’s very specific, if sometimes difficult to understand, definitions are, not having read the primary articles or participated in extensive discussion. This is certainly understandable! It takes a lot of time, effort, and discussion for most folks to learn the theory.

By virtue of being modern, we have a consciousness that makes each of us internally conflicted; therefore, a person playing a non-conflicted character cannot be a simulationist.

This statement is erroneous. Being “non-conflicted” does not preclude simulationist play, Simulationist play is game play that, taken as a whole, prioritizes choices that emphasize exploration of setting, color, character, system, or situation (all of which have specific definitions in the GNS theory).

Can you explain what you mean by “conflicted.” I don’t really understand what you mean by indicating that characters from ancient texts cannot be conflicted. If I can understand the context of what you mean, I have a hard time seeing how, say, Achilles is “non-conflicted.” He seems to me a profoundly conflicted character at several key points in the Illiad, which predates Beowulf by perhaps as much as1,000 years. The same could be said of Gilgamesh, Jesus Christ, Aeneas, and indeed Beowulf and many other figures from ancient texts. I do not accept that pre-modern humanity is so deficient in consciousness, and I think many, many ancient texts confirm that.

Further, how do you play games such as you’ve described? That is, how can you (1) know you’re playing with “pre-modern consciousness” and (2) also know you’ve appropriately shed all “modern consciousness”?

I've now read the foundational essays for the site.

Unfortunately, quite unlike the thread about my theory of metatextual play, reading the essay has not given me the impression that my prior statements have been wholly off-base.

Rather, it has focused me on what I perceive to be a problem with how we comprehend the definition of narrativist play. As I understand it, theme is a necessary part of narrativist play; for the purposes of the GNS essay, Edwards labels theme as "premise."

I think there is a real problem with Edwards' assumption that narrativist premises must necessarily be themes centred on moral or ethical questions. It seems to me that Edwards consigns all narrative themes/premises which are not ethical questions to the realm of simulationist play. I think this is an error in the GNS classification system. Fatalist, cyclical and teleological visions of history/narrative, in my view, can qualify as premises for narrativist play.

Moral/ethical hierarchies are not a precondition of intentional narrative. If one finds oneself situated in the Oedipus myth, the point is to make the myth unfold in the way that it is fated to do, not to impose a moral structure on it. Moving around in existing mythic tropes is not an exercise in exploration (ie. simulationist); it is a narrativist experience by all other standards of the GNS division.

Anyway, apologies for my misuse of terminology elsewhere in the thread. My concern, however, remains that basing a character's actions on serving the narrative is not identical to basing a character's actions on the exploration of a moral/ethical theme.

Hello,

Fatalist, cyclical and teleological visions of history/narrative, in my view, can qualify as premises for narrativist play.

Thanks for these responses Ron.

Ron Edwards wrote:

Fatalist, cyclical and teleological visions of history/narrative, in my view, can qualify as premises for narrativist play.

All of those count as moral/ethical issues. They are fall into the category of answers to Premise-type questions.

I also think you might be seeing a much more narrow meaning of morality/ethics than I am. See Narrativism and morality? for some good discussion about my use of those terms.

1. I think that all role-playing satisfies the concept of "the character's actions serving the narrative," if by "narrative" all we mean is "what happens."

2. I emphatically do not support the definition of narrativism that a character's actions must be chosen to meet some plot or event criterion to be acceptable.

Sorry to be so obtuse but I have read the thread you pointed me to. I still do not understand where to situate the way I play in certain campaigns in your model. I have trouble seeing an implicit ethics/morality in simply conforming to tropes.

fusangite wrote: I would argue that pre-modern heroes are typically not conflicted characters and that it is only modern and post-modern readings and reinterpretations that attempt to turn pre-modern heroes into conflicted people. I think that we would be pretty whiggish to argue that Beowulf, for instance, is a conflicted character. But even if you want to argue that Beowulf, specifically, is a conflicted character based on some portion of the text, can we not agree that some pre-modern heroes are not conflicted?

fusangite wrote: Most gaming and fantasy literature bugs me because it is about modern people wandering around worlds with non-modern technology. What I like in gaming is actually taking a break from the modern narrative and wandering around in a pre-modern story where modern ideas of the nature of consciousness are a given.

fusangite wrote: Moral/ethical hierarchies are not a precondition of intentional narrative. If one finds oneself situated in the Oedipus myth, the point is to make the myth unfold in the way that it is fated to do, not to impose a moral structure on it. Moving around in existing mythic tropes is not an exercise in exploration (ie. simulationist); it is a narrativist experience by all other standards of the GNS division.

Fusangite,

I too had difficulty comprehending what exactly narrativist premise was. I think it's a natural thing to take some weeks or months for the concept to sink in. When it hits bottom, it's a profound realization.

I must say, playing an RPG that supported narrativist preferences was a great aid to my understanding. Simple, inexpensive games are available, like The Pool , or Trollbabe (my favorite).

As others have said, one difficulty with understanding Narrativism is the baggage of meaning the root term itself carries with it. We have groped for a better term, but so far have not agreed on one.

Discard any idea that narrativism merely requires a narrative. Every RPG session involves the creation of fantasy events ("Exploration") which can be interpreted as a narrative (or story) by the players.

What narrativism does require is one or more moral questions that interest the players. As events unfold in the fantasy, each player gets to choose a moral question as their dance partner, improvising moves and expressions in relation to the question.

Ian Charvill wrote:
If you introduce to the players the option of subverting the narrative - of coming up with a new mythic structure (e.g. Oedipus realizes he's sleeping with his mother and decides, well, that's not the end of the world*) then you might have narrativism.

As I've stated in other threads, I'm now convinced my approach is broadly gamist.

EDIT: Lone Star was indeed a great film!

Alan wrote: Be cautious of comparing narrativIST premise in an RPG with the thematic premise in a work of fiction. In an RPG, the player gets to choose their response to the premise question. In fiction, it is a common device to have each character represent a particular answer.
...
So while in an RPG a player in Beowulf's position might choose not to face Grendel's mother alone, the fictional Beowulf always will, because he is that particular answer personified.

Hello,

This thread is ready to be closed, I think. Thanks to all.

Best,
Ron