The Forge Archives

Over here MJ Young said:

Quote...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.

A problem comes to mind regarding this: Your tone and choice of words suggests dismissiveness towards G & N as "lesser" forms of gaming (negative), while S as a gaming form is "superior" (positive). This may not be your intention, but it bugs the living hell out of me, and given the whole of the post, I can't see it being entirely un-deliberate.

Second, the idea that focusing on theme is more negative an experience in some fashion is disturbing, since you have just called nearly all forms of story-based entertainment (TV shows, movies, books, short stories, poetry, etc.) lesser because they focus upon theme -- that is, telling stories has always been about exploring theme, to the exclusion of bits not relevant to that goal.

Frex, this is why no one ever takes a crap in Star Trek: because it isn't important to the story! And exploration of the whole be damned! Taking a crap would not add to the themes developed in Star Trek.

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

This is what I like to call "the assumption from hell" in your post. I'd like you to take a moment and think about what you're saying here: the statement is dismissive of the style preferences of someone else, as though they are children who don't know what they want, and you know best for them.

To use the same attitude with a different subject, "You can't not eat peanut butter just because you don't like the taste! Peanut butter doesn't taste bad, it tastes good (so eat it)!"

Ah, but it doesn't. Really. Some people just plain do not like concentrating on the stuff unimportant to their goals, doing so is boring to them because you are limiting them from achieving what they desire through the use of intrusive, irrelevant obstacles -- and that's what they are, for those people.

That is, you can't tell someone to eat peanut butter, or that eating peanut butter is more positive and inclusive, just because YOU happen to like it or find that it tastes good.

So, no, I have to disagree with your final assessment: Simulationism is not more inclusive, is not more positive, is not the broad focus of the three...I posit instead that its broadness does not remove focus, but changes the nature of the focus entirely, in much the same way N & G change the focus when they are priorities.

The fact that everything is concentrated upon, so that Exploration of the entirety can occur, is the limiting focus -- by "broadening" the focus, you have actually "narrowed" it in much the same way that it is "narrowed" in G & N modes.

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.

Quote from: M. J. YoungPerhaps 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.

Yeah, I get the same feeling from that interpretation...it sounds ok, but something bugs me about it. Really, we'd have to define what we mean by "aspect" before we could go anywhere with that, as in, what things/elements/behaviors can Sim shift to more freely than in either N or G?

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.

Quote from: fusangiteIsn'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?

1) I think I don't understand the question; however, I'm going to post here anyway.

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 http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8608">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.

Am I at all close?

--M. J. Young

Quote2) 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.

Sorry the question is unclear. I guess what I'm saying is that there are certain world design principles and styles of GMing that can collapse Narrativism and Simulationism into a single category. If a GM chooses to constantly reconstruct the narrative based on what the players are choosing to explore, Narrativist and Simulationist behaviour effectively become identical.

QuoteThis is, I think, quite distinct from your interesting notions of metatext (which I just read in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8608">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).

I posted it in RPG theory and a moderator moved it here. I just assumed he knew best.

Quote3) How worlds are constructed is not directly at issue here in this thread; it is more about why players explore them.

I realize that. What I am suggesting, though is that certain world construction principles make simulationist and narrativist play functionally indistinguishable.

Quote4) 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.

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. One of the reasons Peter Jackson wrecked the Two Towers (I have nothing bad to say about Fellowship) is the thing that Charlie Kaufman mocked in Adaptation -- our obsessive need for characters to be driven by an inner conflict which must be resolved on screen. 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. If you want to tell stories about pre-modern people, you can still be a narrativist. Tolkien's Aragorn doesn't change; he doesn't make a pivotal moral choice: at every stage, he embraces his fate and does the virtuous thing. It's pathetic that Jackson had to wreck pre-modern style characters like Aragorn or Faramir. I would hate for us to go along with this conflation of inner conflict and compelling narrative.

Quote5) 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.

Thanks a lot. 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. Also, if I come across as beligerent on this forum, please forgive me. My online persona seems to be my outlet for pent-up hostility more often than I would like.

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

Quote from: fusangiteI'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.

That's not Narrativism, then, so you aren't discussing collapsing Narrativism and Simulationism into a single category based on your ideas, because one of the items is not the item advertised.

That is, you can't "view Narrativism a little more broadly" because then you aren't viewing Narrativism at all. Narrativism is a label, a definition; you can't change the definition, keep the label, and expect it to be the same thing, treated as the same thing, or function as the same thing.

Hence you can't discuss it as Narrativism when it isn't; when you've redefined it. Narrativism, to be Narrativism, requires the moral/ethical/personal issues at the heart of play.

So, without the moral conflict, it isn't Narrativism (no matter what you call it now: Narrativism or something else), and doesn't collapse into Simulationism. Something else collapses into Sim, the thing you've defined, but not Narrativism.

You may also want to read Egri's "The Art of Dramatic Writing" in order to understand where Ron is coming from in his establishment of the GNS priority that is Narrativism.

BTW, I think you're completely wrong about Aragorn's character not having moral conflicts and needing to make moral choices throughout the course of LotR, but that's neither here nor there, and better suited to a different discussion group.

Quote from: fusangiteI 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.

Ah, strawman time. Reverend Daegmorgan's right. If you want to argue about narrativism, we all have to agree regarding what that is.

No one said that a narrativist character had to "chang[e] during the narrative and choos[e] to make a moral choice at a pivotal point in the story" is not the point of narrativism; Aragorn and Faramir are equally addressing narrativist premise by consistently choosing the honorable course. (I did not care for the change to Faramir as presented in the film, and don't understand why it was made other than to give him screen time and invent another action sequence). What matters is that moral decisions are made, not that they are made one way or another. If the character chooses the wicked and dishonorable course and meets his just dessert, or chooses the wicked and dishonorable course and somehow manages to get away with it while leaving a wake of destruction behind him, these are equally narrativist tales to the character who chooses always to be honorable and upright and is rewarded for it, or who chooses always to be honorable and upright and suffers for it--and all are just as narrativist as any character who repents, turning from evil to good or from good to evil at a critical or a not so critical moment. What matters is that moral, ethical, and/or personal questions are being explored, not that there is any particular interest in the creation of the overall story.

In fact, interest in the larger plot could itself be descriptive of a form of simulationist play, that of exploring situation, in which case it's no wonder that it collapses easily into simulationism--it never was anything else.

So there's nothing in narrativism that requires compelling narrative. As far as inner conflict, yes, that's rather central to narrativism--but unlike film, the inner conflict need not play out on screen as a visible change of heart, but may be revealed through consistency as easily as through change. That the issue exists to be explored and is so explored is the foundation of narrativism; that inherently means that the character makes choices that are difficult and may have consequences, and therefore are conflicts within the story--but it doesn't mean anything at all about compelling narrative. It only means the choices which are made which are interesting to the players involve such matters.

Quote from: fusangite thenWhat 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.

Actually, although its been in print for six years now, there are probably a lot of people on the beaten path who've not heard much of it. It's a role playing game in which you move from universe to universe (mostly by dying). Because of this design, a lot of work goes into settings--fantasy, science fiction, alternate modern, historical, literary, and just about any other world concept you can imagine is covered. Right now I've got two players finding their way through a massive playground, one leading a commando team against terrorists in a modern city office building, one trying to convince a museum curator that the archaelogical artifact on display actually is a dangerous magical device of which he has personal knowledge, one trying to finish a Ph.D. in advanced physics in the next century by designing a faster than light drive, one living with elves on a communal farm, one trying to make peace between feuding Neanderthals and Cro Magnons--anyway, everything is possible.

The company web site is down at the moment (working on it), but you can read a bit about it on my site, http://www.mjyoung.net/publish/ if you're interested, and I'd be happy to answer questions, although these should probably be by e-mail or private message (not that I mind answering them on the forums for others to read, but that that's not the function of these forums).

--M. J. Young

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.

QuoteBy 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.

Quote

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.