The Forge Archives

As I browse through various Forge postings (when I have spare moments), I've noticed various postings giving advice on how to introduce Narrativist play into a gaming group which had previously focused on Simulationism or Gamism and various postings giving advice on how to integrate a Simulationist or Gamist player into a Narrativist group.

However, I've yet to come across any postings which address how to introduce Simulationist play into a Narrativist gaming group nor any postings about how to integrate a Narrativist player into a Simulationist group.

(I already know how to introduce Gamist play and how to integrate a Gamist player.)

I've posted this here because 1) my question deals more with gamer interaction than with G/N/S theory and 2) RPG Theory is the forum where I've seen the most posts about introducing a new mode to a gamer.

Since I'm curious about this in general, I won't go into the specifics of my particular situation.

And, no, I'm not talking about trying to trick anyone into any gaming mode, whether Gamist or Narrativist or Simulationist or Etceteraist or whatever.

Doctor Xero

What kind of simulationism are you meaning.

The approaches for introducing High Concept Sim would be fairly different from Purist for System Sim.

Quote from: ValamirWhat kind of simulationism are you meaning?

Oops -- my bad.  I was thinking more High Concept Sim.

Hiya,

I had lots of experience doing this very thing over the past year, when playing games like Fvlminata, Godlike, Pocket Universe, and most recently Hidden Legacy. Basically, I said up front: guys, I'm gonna make decisions for your characters. I'll mainly do it through scene-framing, Feng Shui style, rather than taking over during a scene, but sometimes there are mechanics which let me do that (depends on the game: Pocket Universe no, Hidden Legacy and Haven yes, and Fvlminata kinda). Furthermore, here's the point (or we discuss the point a bit, arriving at it together), and that's what it's about. Keep on doing stuff that supports that point and makes the game "about" that point, and we'll all get along. I'll throw a whole bunch of things at you that are pretty unequivocal regarding their relationship to that point.

It seems to have worked out well, although as a GM I find it awfully tiring to be "story guy by myself" these days.

I really do want to play Mongrel eventually, though. Maybe after-hours at GenCon. I'll preface such a game with a little discussion very much like the above.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsBasically, I said up front: guys, I'm gonna make decisions for your characters.

No offense, Ron, but that description sounds nothing like any high concept simulationist game-mastering or playing I've ever done in my life nor like any about which I've ever read.

In every high concept simulationist game I've known personally or through research, the game master does not function to make decisions for the players at any time in the game.  Rather, she or he functions to arbitrate any game mechanics questions (ideally with an eye towards player enjoyment), to create and present the seeds for the probable story (and adapt to players should they choose to ignore said story), and to enforce the genre/mood/style (so that players can know confidently that, yes, this is a swashbuckling campaign in which swinging on a chandelier makes a character harder to hit with rapid-fire machine guns or that, yes, this is a gritty campaign in which swinging on a chandelier makes a character a very easy target to kill).

Players elect/conscript their game master for a specific campaign based upon their perception of her/his sense of fairness and sensitivity in arbitrating disputes between players and rules or between players and players, upon their perception of his/her ability to create and present interesting seeds and her/his flexibility when the players move in another direction instead, and most of all upon their perception of his/her ability to promote and support the specific genre or mood or style they want in that particular campaign.  In many ways I've been more GM Genre Moderator than GM Game Master in my high concept simulationist campaigns.

I honestly don't see how any of the above could possibly be construed as making decisions for the players.

I suspect you're more comfortable with narrativist play than with simulationist play, Ron, and my utter bewilderment that narrativists apparently interpret simulationist game moderating as making decisions for the players is one of the reasons I've brought this topic up.  On the other hand, I could be completely wrong in my assumptions about your preferred playing style or used to more of a simulationist/narrative hybrid, and if so, I apologize if I've offended.

I look forward to further thoughts apropos this query and its accompanying subtopics about G/N/S.

Doctor Xero

I interpreted Ron's meaning as inclusive of the following qualifying sentence, as bolded below:

QuoteBasically, I said up front: guys, I'm gonna make decisions for your characters. I'll mainly do it through scene-framing, Feng Shui style, rather than taking over during a scene, but sometimes there are mechanics which let me do that (depends on the game: Pocket Universe no, Hidden Legacy and Haven yes, and Fvlminata kinda).

So in that sense, yes, high concept simulation can require GM's making decisions for players, such as when they are forced by magic or otherwise to flee in fear, or fall in love, or believe a lie, or whatever. This is completely compatible with the goal of the Sim mode, because by the GM making decisions for players concerning certain aspect, they are better able to experience the lack of control that their character has in the matter, through a lack of control themselves. At least, this would work in Actor stance, but it probably holds true for the other stances to a degree.

In fact, in some cases it isn't even really the GM making decisions for the players, but the rules of the game itself. This can also be seen with mechanical consequences and outcomes for failure (or even success). For a simulationist wishing to explore the reality of the character and the world through that character, this is fine, and even, I would say, desirable. To a narrativist wanting to address a premise, this can be problematic.

At a more abstract level, Ron's qualification of "through scene-framing" is particularly relevant. One doesn't need to actively take control of a PC if one can determine with high accuracy their reactions to given circumstances. This can be seen as "leading them by the nose", which is arguably a very sneaky and effective way of making decisions for the characters. Just because the words come out of the player's mouths does not alter this fact, because the players themselves are not the one's being led. In this sense, the player characters almost being shared mutually owned by the GM.

At least, that's how I read Ron's post.

-Ben

Hello,

Ben has read my post accurately.

I also think that IIEE techniques are crucial during scenes and conflicts, as illustrated by the recent Actual Play discussion about playing Amber - the GM has control over whether characters could activate their defenses "in time" to thwart an incoming attack, because the system itself offers no procedure. Given this power, a GM actually manages far more of the conflict's events and outcomes than it appears he is doing, without apparently "controlling" anyone's actions (after all, they can announce what they want, right?).

Doctor X, of course few or no people ever use these phrases when setting up a High Concept Sim game. Either they are confident that everyone is on board with this level and these degrees of Force on the part of the GM, which would essentially be Participationist play, or they are confident that they can cover the Force with Illusionism - which is to say, never mention that they are using scene framing and shifting IIEE standards to "adjust" player-character decisions.

But you asked about how to get Gamist and Narrativist oriented players invested in a High Concept Sim situation - and they're not going to put up with illusionist approaches. They'll have to have the GM Force right out there on the table from the git-go, and decide that they can enjoy it for its own sake.

As I said, it works. And with players who aren't primarily interested in this approach, such an introduction is absolutely required.

Best,
Ron

But you asked about how to get Gamist and Narrativist oriented players invested in a High Concept Sim situation - and they're not going to put up with illusionist approaches. They'll have to have the GM Force right out there on the table from the git-go, and decide that they can enjoy it for its own sake.

As I said, it works.

Though for a Narrativist, it's pretty import they've already had some powerful Narrativist play experiences. Certainly a Narrativist who's in the http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1095">making the same character over and over phase is very much not a good candidate for introduction to Simulationism.

Paul

Quote from: Ron EdwardsDoctor X, of course few or no people ever use these phrases when setting up a High Concept Sim game.
---snip!--
they're not going to put up with illusionist approaches. They'll have to have the GM Force right out there on the table

I'm not stating that people don't admit or acknowledge or confess or come clean about whether the game master might function to make decisions for the player-characters in a simulationist game.

I'm stating that the game master does not function to make decisions for the players in simulationist play.  I'm stating that players do not surrender player-character control to the game master in simulationist play, and I'm stating that the fact this does not occur is why few if any people use those phrases.

Ron, I realize that The Forge is your forum and that you have written what people here consider the definitive article on Simulationism, so I realize that you could erase any posting I make in response to this and even ban me from further participation in The Forge.  If you choose to do so, that is your right.

Nevertheless, knowing all this, I would feel dishonest if I did not respectfully but strongly disagree with you on this matter.

In my opinion, my disagreement on this matter is the key to the difficulty many of us have in introducing narrativists to simulationist gaming.
(Admittedly, since you wrote the definitive Forge article on the term, you may define it such that it includes such lack of control for the players.  If so, then I have never encountered a simulationist game in all my years as a genre fiend, not in play nor in research, even though these games fit the simulationist description in the article perfectly in every other way, and I would want another term because what we have been doing most assuredly does not fit narrativist nor gamist descriptions.)

I have become convinced that one of the reasons there is such difficulty introducing self-proclaimed narrativists to high concept simulationist play is that they enter play with the assumption that simulationist game moderating involves making decisions for the player-characters, an assumption which I find utterly bewildering.

There is no greater coercion or force in simulationist play than in any other play which involves de jure or de facto rules, be they narrativist or gamist.  The moment I am required to adhere to any sort of constraint, be it a rule written in a book or one enforced by people, whether enforced by an individual conscripted for the task or by frequent consensus voting or by unspoken but palpable peer pressure, I have lost a bit of "freedom", but what loss of "freedom" there might be is no different in kind or even degree between simulationist and narrativist, only different in focus.

When I sit down with friends and we agree to play a horror genre game, whether to count up zombie kills (gamist) or to explore favorite horror tropes (simulationist) or to confront personal moral quandaries through this medium (narrativist), we have all agreed to recognize certain genre rules.  Gamists, narrativists, and simulationists are alike in being bound by social rules such as agreeing not to kick each other in the shins.  That one group may ask a game master to remind people not to introduce goofy space aliens in a serious modern day horror game or not to kick another player's shin and another group may rely upon group consensus or one player punching out another on her own to maintain the sanctity of the ambience and the sanctity of uninjured shins is really not a difference of kind or degree, either -- again, it is only a difference of focus.

What makes it difficult to introduce a narrativist to a simulationist group or to introduce simulationism to a narrativist group is precisely the difficulty in making it clear to narrativists that, no, they do not have reduced control over their characters in a simulationist game, despite what they may have heard.  The biggest difference about such control is that in a simulationist gaming group, one person is tasked with set design for the shared creative space, with which player-characters interact, rather than players ignoring this set design for their own side projects.  However, it would be facile at best to confuse this reliance upon one person's set design (the game master) with a loss of character control.

What I'm asking for is advice on how to introduce a narrativist to a simulationist group by transcending stereotypes about simulationism and by helping the narrativist to understand simulationist gaming's own desireable qualities, not superior nor inferior to narrativism but desireable nevertheless.

Because if simulationist gaming really involved nothing but game master cocercion or force, with puppeteering of players and their characters via illusionism and other storytelling sleight of hand, and if narrativist gaming were really the only mode of gaming which avoided player subjugation to coercion and manipulation, then no one would ever play simulationist gaming and narrativism would be the only roleplaying mode left.  For me, the freedoms of simulationism seem obvious.  It is now further obvious to me that they are not obvious to those who prefer narrativist gaming.

But how to explain this to the narrativist and introduce her to the simulationist gaming!  That is the question.  

I apologize if I've offended you, Ron, and I recognize that I may find this thread closed or other consequences as a result, but I felt compelled to make clear my thoughts on this matter.

I would very much like to bridge the gap between narrativists and simulationists.  I have been able to explore narrativism with my narrativist friends ; I would like the reverse to take place as well.

Doctor Xero

Heya,

What the fuck are you talking about?

Delete your posts? "Ban" you from posting? Offended because you disagree? You must be thinking of some other website. None of these things apply as the remotest of possibilities; the first two are literally not permitted to me as moderator and the third is antithetical to the entire purpose of the website.

You've brought up some salient points. We're discussing them. That's really okay.

For example, you and I apparently disagree strongly. What you call "facts," I can only see as blinders or some kind of misconception; what I think is the key factor to help with your basic question, you see as a fundamental misconception.

And that's cool. All it shows is that I'm not a good person to provide an answer (note "an") for your inquiry. Other people are probably going to do better. The important thing is that I try to understand where you're coming from, and that the conversation-to-come may teach me a few things.

Christ's bleeding wounds, what have we come to that people think they can't disagree with me?

Never mind. High Concept Sim, players with strong Narrativist or Gamist habits/preferences, how to do it. Floor's open, and I'm interested.

Best,
Ron

QuoteRon, I realize that The Forge is your forum and that you have written what people here consider the definitive article on Simulationism, so I realize that you could erase any posting I make in response to this and even ban me from further participation in The Forge. If you choose to do so, that is your right.

Ban you? Erase your post? I've seen Ron in all his hats, and I've never seen him in the "Nazi Hat". For the most part, he seems pretty good at seperating his moderator hat from his fellow gamer hat.

QuoteBecause if simulationist gaming really involved nothing but game master cocercion or force, with puppeteering of players and their characters via illusionism and other storytelling sleight of hand, and if narrativist gaming were really the only mode of gaming which avoided player subjugation to coercion and manipulation, then no one would ever play simulationist gaming and narrativism would be the only roleplaying mode left. For me, the freedoms of simulationism seem obvious. It is now further obvious to me that they are not obvious to those who prefer narrativist gaming.

I don't think anyone suggested that Sim is "nothing but ... coercion or force". Far from it. But that in some Sim games, player's simply do not control everything about their character. It isn't just that they no longer control the world around their character, it's that part of the experiecen of a character in Sim play can mean giving up certain control. As I menioned earilier with the example of fleeing in fear. The player cannot choose to have his character stand his ground to face the fears. It isn't merely a matter of the agreed upon genre convention, it's hardcoded into the rules of the game. And the player has no choice, according to the rules and the GM fiat, to have their character do anything other than flee in fear. There are numerous examples of this in Sim games (and even Gam games, where such lack of control becomes a challenge, as opposed to an exploration of the in-game reality).

So in short, I am definately siding with Ron on this one. I don't know what games you've played, how you may have interpreted the rules, or how you have interpreted loss of player control over their character as keeping accord with the genre convention, but in my eyes, loss of player control over their characters is a very real phenomena in many Sim games (and some Gam games, like AD&D), and thus is an important issue for Nar players.

-Ben

Doc, I think you're over emphasising that control issue.  I also think Ron over emphasised that control issue because that issue is a key one for his group.

What is being referred to are things like Disadvantages in GURPs or many other systems.  Say you have a player whose character has "Code of Honor".  The Game rules expect the player to play that character as if he had a code of honor.  The rules expect the GM to enforce that code and provide various means for punishing players who stray from it.

This is what Ron means when he talks about GM force or coercion are scenes like:

"Hey John, do you really think blowing the guys head off after he surrendered is consistant with your Code of Honor?"

which then can lead to anything from lost XPs for "bad roleplaying" to the GM simply ruling "no you can't do that its a violation of your disadvantage".

The standard assumption in most gaming texts is that behavioral disadvantages should be enforced to the same degree as physical ones (especially in systems that give you bonus character points for taking them).  If your character is "Blind" then the rules fully expect the GM to enforce the fact that your character can't see.  If your character is a "Pacifist" then the rules fully expect the GM to enforce the fact that your character won't fight.


The difference between this situation and Narrativist play is that this form of Simulation thrives on enforcing and reinforcing the stereo type while many times Narrativist play is about establishing those stereo types and then breaking them.

For instance...what set of circumstances would cause this character to abandon his code of honor...would cause that character to pick up a weapon and fight.  Often times, the whole climax of the game will build around the point where the character violates their stereo type.  Where a simulationist rules set would then penalize the player for doing so, Narrativist play thrives on it.


This form of establishing and violating stereotypes plays a frequent roll in Ron's games and therefor a key difference for his players when moving to a simulationist game is that now they aren't supposed to do that any more.

There's an old Cold War story. The USA and the USSR perfectly agreed that world peace was highly desirable and that WW3 was a Very Bad Idea (TM). But, to the USA, peace had to include the freedom of the individual and to the USSR, it had to include freedom from capitalist oppression.

Thus, peace was out of reach because the two sides could not agree on the meaning of the word.

I think something similar is happening here. Both simulationist and narrativist (and indeed gamist, but that's beside the topic) play constrain the freedom of the player. The point is that the constraints are on things that those who prefer this mode don't care about. Sure, says the Sim, I can't blow my Code of Honor, but why on Earth would I want to? I picked the disad myself, of my own free will, didn't I? And if it is part of the concept of the character to blow his Code at some point, well, I know that and I can reserve the XP to buy it off, can't I?

On the Nar side, assume you invite me for a game of Sorcerer. My character hangs out where it's at, but I consistently back away from addressing premise. Are you going to invite me for your next game of Sorcerer? At which point the Nar goes, but you can't never address premise! That's boring, that's, that's...

That's a constraint on play, exactly. Not one that a Nar cares about, but a constraint nevertheless.

Im Sim play I promise I will play my character according to genre expectations. In Nar play I promise I will address premise. (I think the hard-coding in the rules or the lack thereof is not the main issue. While typical of GURPS/Champions style games, it is by no means universal Sim. On the other hand, in the absence of rules, peer expectations remain as a powerful force to constrain the character. So it's irrelevant whether or not it's specifically the rules part of the System that enforces the constraint.)

So, in the Nar game, I address premise by deciding whether or not to flee in fear.

In the Sim game, expectations say I flee in fear. I then Explore how my character reacts to to this fact. I might, for example, be playing someone who really wants to be a hero, but keeps pissing his pants instead. The Sim game is then about what such a character might do with/about that.

So, perhaps one way to put this to a native Nar who is visiting Sim land is: Build a conflicted character (like the wannabe hero above) and then the game is about the character addressing the premise of his conflict. If you, the player, foresee the possibility of the character flipping sides at some point, support your character by having the XP ready to buy off his disad when he--the character--decides it is time.

SR
--

Quote from: Doctor Xero
There is no greater coercion or force in simulationist play than in any other play which involves de jure or de facto rules, be they narrativist or gamist.  The moment I am required to adhere to any sort of constraint, be it a rule written in a book or one enforced by people, whether enforced by an individual conscripted for the task or by frequent consensus voting or by unspoken but palpable peer pressure, I have lost a bit of "freedom", but what loss of "freedom" there might be is no different in kind or even degree between simulationist and narrativist, only different in focus.

The different focus is the big deal. The whole creative agenda topic is about focus and priority. Depriving a player of choices about effectiveness hurts gamist play. Random life path generation doesn't allow optimizing a character to demonstrate skilled use of the system. A person not interested in skill during creation might find such a system interesting for its variety and unplanned nature. Resolving entire conflicts with a single act with only simple player input reduces the opportunity to use player skill in conflicts. Some players like to run a game where only the GM knows the rules and numbers; they feel it enhances the purity of the simulation and reduces metagame thinking. The HackMaster text mocks this idea by forbidding anyone other than a GM from reading the rules, and then telling players to "GM one time for your little brother, nephew, mom or somebody (thus making you a GM at least temporarily)." Preventing a player from talking better than his dice roll or stats allows restricts skill at "role-playing instead of roll-playing".

If the agendas of the players really do vary, then which constraints are interfering should be expected to vary as well. The Gamism essay talks about "dials and switches" affecting aspects within the agenda. Those variations then would imply different reactions to restriction. Random stats might be good for a high gamble, low crunch player. A high crunch, low gamble player might want point build instead.

Telling players to expect purposeful restrictions and trust the GM is a good introduction when the restrictions are the ones that clash with their habitual agenda. After Ron's introduction they can understand that he is developing a point and buy into it.

John

Rob, absolutely with you.  I pointed to Gurps and the rules as a convenient example.  Clearly the expectations of the players at the table is a far morre potent contraint then any rule.  Rules are much easier to discard than player expectations.  But the fact that those expectations are built into so many rules systems does offer some evidence as to how standard those expectations are presumed to be.