The Forge Archives

On another thread entitled Retroactive Story Ron Edwards make a post that caught my attention.  The particular post can be found here.  In it he describes a CoC game whereby the Theme is pre-established and "celebrating" that pre-established Theme is the "point" of that game.  If I read the post accurately, I believe Ron implies that this "Theme celebration" can be described as Sim.  If I am mistaken and misunderstood Ron's claim about his example's CA as Sim (certainly he claimed such play to be non-Narrativist and by exclusion, I inferred that he was saying it was probably not Gamist either), then this post has no merit.  Ron let me know if I mistook you.

The point of all this rambling introduction is to lay the claim that such play – The celebration of "Pre-established Theme" via role-play is not Sim, but Narrativist.  Now before everyone rushes for their banana suits hear me out.

Ron has claimed, in the Narrativism Essay, that Nar and Gam are (or appear to be) "mirror images or twin siblings" of each other.  That being said, I would like to draw everyone's attention to The Crunch "style" of play or better yet "approach" to Challenge.

Let me start with the glossed version of The Crunch in the Provisional Glossary.

QuoteThe Crunch

An application or type of Challenge, based on high predictability relative to risk. A feature of Gamist play[/list:u]Emphasis mine

High predictability of what?  High predictability of success; or for the purposes of my argument – High predictability of Victory.  Given this particular understanding, that the outcome of Victory is highly likely, one might then ask why bother. IOW as Victory is more or less guaranteed, what are the players doing?
What are the players doing if the measure of player effectiveness is more or less rendered irrelevant?

I propose that in such play the players are engaged in the "Celebrating of Victory," without actually being instrumental in its creation.  Victory was preordained; to have deviated from that conclusion would have violated the whole point of being there.

Sure there was logistics, the manipulation of currency and strategizing but none of those highly enjoyable efforts is really supposed to effect the condition of Victory.  There is no issue with this style of play in Gamism and in fact it is a recognized, understood and celebrated aspect of that particular CA.

Does that phrasing sound familiar?

Quote from: Ron EdwardsSo we do it! Rock on! We have celebrated Lovecraft as we understand it (or perhaps, which I didn't touch on, as we saw fit to modify it). To have deviated from that Theme would have violated the whole point of being there.

To borrow from Ron again –

Quote from: Ron Edwards... if everyone is on board with this, it's not railroading. It's (as I understand the term) perfect Participation. The story is not authored in play, but embellished and refined during play, as a given/fixed element of Exploration (shared imagined space).

Underlining mine.

Just by changing two words we get the Crunch –

"... if everyone is on board with this, it's not railroading. It's (as I understand the term) perfect Participation. The victory is not achieved in play, but embellished and refined during play, as a given/fixed element of Exploration (shared imagined space).

The Gamble is to addressing Premise as the Crunch is to "celebrating Theme."  The "celebration of Theme" is the Narrativist equivalent of the Gamist Crunch.

So the type of play that Ron had provided as an example of  Sim play in the Retroactive Story thread is really an example of Narrativist Participationism (celebration of pre-established Theme) and not Sim at all.

Hello,

Controversial, to be sure.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: SilmenumeHigh predictability of what?  High predictability of success; or for the purposes of my argument – High predictability of Victory.  Given this particular understanding, that the outcome of Victory is highly likely, one might then ask why bother. IOW as Victory is more or less guaranteed, what are the players doing?
What are the players doing if the measure of player effectiveness is more or less rendered irrelevant?

Jay,

I believe you are misunderstanding what is meant by "the Crunch". It is my understanding that "The Crunch" basically means tactics.  It's not that the Crunch guarrentees victory. It's just that (in a 'pure' sense) there's no random element. Like chess or checkers. It's all tactics. You never gamble anything, you try to out-smart your opponent (but your opponent may out-smart you). That's what meant by "high predictability relative to risk."

(If that's true, than you can't compare pre-set theme to 'the Crunch')

I thought the "addressing" part of addressing premise in actual play was definitional to narrativism.  If so, Jay's whole argument turns on whether premise can be said to be addressed in this situation.  I think it's a pretty long stretch to say just affirming or celebrating or following the form of a theme necessariliy involves addressing premise during play.  Are we going to say that the very act of celebration is addressment?  That seems pretty broad.

Hey Tim,

Just to make sure, I went back and re-read the section in the Gamist essay on the Crunch as well as the Glossed entry.  

Quote from: Gamism EssayThe distinction between Gamble and Crunch isn't quite the same as "randomness;" it has more to do with options and consequences. Fortune can be involved in both of them, and it doesn't have to be involved in either (see Diplomacy for a non-RPG example).

As we can see "randomness" is not the determinate factor, rather its the high degree of predictability [of success/desired outcome] relative to risk that is the issue of importance.  I don't want this thread to turn into argument over what the terms "really" mean.  However, what I am trying to establish is that the Gamble is at the low end of the sliding scale of predictability of outcome and the Crunch is at the high end of the same sliding scale of predictability of outcome.  This proposition is only half my argument and not an end unto itself.

Given that Nar and Gam are near mirrors of each other, I am arguing that the free addressing of Premise has a low predictability of what the final outcome will be (that is – what will the Theme finally be?) just like the Gamble, which also has a low predictability regarding final outcome.

The converse of this is the Crunch.  The Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the "celebrating Theme" (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?).  (Some may ask if Theme is pre-established how can it not be realized?  The players may do something to alter the Theme unintentionally or maybe not enough events transpire in the "celebration style" game to allow for the Theme to be fully realized.)

As predictability gets close to 1 in any case, we begin to feel that something uncomfortable is happening.  We either have to accept that predetermined outcome is demonstrative of effective CA expression or that it is not.  I know that sounded like a tautology, but that conundrum ALREADY exists within the discussions of the CA's within the model.

If we know we are going to win ahead of time, is it really Challenge(ing?) and thus expressive of Step on Up?  

IOW if the game outcome is (virtually/nearly) 100% predictable can it be said that any CA is being Expressed?  If we know where we are going to end up because we have chosen so before hand, then what is being added?  If the process cannot/does not/will not effect the product, then are we truly engaged in a process of creation with regards to that product?  By outcome I mean specifically with reference to CA metagame (Victory/Theme/Bricolage myth).

If not, then the celebration of "pre-established" Theme or "pre-established" Victory or "pre-established" plot or "pre-established" whatever you want to call it (provisionally Bricolage myth or Sim myth) is not indicative of any CA.

However, if it is said that (virtually/nearly) 100% predictability of game outcome (irrespective of agency) is indicative of effective CA expression then we must accept that the "celebration" of pre-established Theme must be part of the Narrativist CA as Premise and Theme are securely within the purview of Nar.

Hey Alan,

Quote from: AlanAre we going to say that the very act of celebration is addressment? That seems pretty broad.

It is pretty broad.  However such a claim has long been made about the Sim CA, so in an effort to keep the Model internally consistent, why should the other CA's be different?

Jay, Ron's description of simulationism has never used the word "address" as a definitional term.  That comparison is fallacious.

Hello,

QuoteThe Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the "celebrating Theme" (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?).

Lost me on that one, for two reasons. The first reason is being discussed by others, in that your understanding of "Crunch" seems off to me. It would be very very valuable to present instances of play in Actual Play which illustrate the Crunch as you see it, and then we can all work from those.

The second reason is my intellectual rebellion at a certain form of argument. The text I quoted about relies on accepting that fixed-theme play is a subset of Narrativist play. Therefore your comparison to Crunch is ... over-hasty. You're trying to argue two points at once - hey, if X, then X is like Y!!

For my part, my interest and focus on Y is completely absent until X gets  a little more feedback and clarification.

Little Steps. One thing at a time.

Best,
Ron

I have two things to say about this--both of which are reasons why I am not clear on exactly what is being said.

1. Gamism is, to me, very murky on the guy who plays to "build up his character." I'm pretty sure this is a common and observable phenomena and I do not think it is related to social cred. It must be socially acceptable to be functional--but it is not "respect" the gamer gets but rather the internal joy of having a built-up character--even if that character never performs in "a fair fight."

I have a player (a very good RP'er, IMO) who also spends hours grinding on MMPORGS. Sometimes, under some conditons, he scratches that itch in tabletop-play.

Actual Play Experience: He found GURPS--which had fairly few upper-level development options worse than Fantasy Hero (where he could make new spells) or D&D (we think--un-verified to the extent I would like) where there are clear lines for upward development.

He finds (I would say) nerve-biting fights overly stressful and prefers a series of encounters where the battles are very well skewed in his favor. A good deal of the reward in this is, I think, the treasure: He would insist on clearing a level since there's treasure "at level" to be gotten rather than up the risk/reward by going one level deeper.

I think it is reasonable to say he is 'celebrating victory'--although I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it is a stretch to say he is Gamist uner the present defintion: he doesn't like puzzles, tough fights, or challenge per-se, in this mode--but he does like a constant string of minor risks for constant rewards.

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

2. I believe that it is correct to say that a player "authors" "story" in Sim play. This is because the Story-elements (thematic elements) will have come out of the player's mouth (and into the transcript) in an unpredictable fashion.

This is not saying that I dsagree with Ron on his quote.

In the context Ron was discussing (Address of Premise == Authoring Theme) he was correct and, IMO, fairly clear.

My point is that when you start saying that "author" reasonably means one and only one thing (the creation of story in a Narrativist context) you start getting into I-switch-this-word-out-here-and-in-there arguments like the one we see.

If we assume that "authoring story" in a Simulationist context means something entirely different then the substitution example doesn't work.

And, indeed, I don't think it does on that basis: If Ron had said "Premise is not addressed ... " rather than "Story is not authored" then the form this conjecture has taken (word substitution) wouldn't make sense.

-Marco

Hiya,

Marco's nailed it. Truth is, I really think that "author" as a verb, and (in other discussions) a few similar terms like "control," are causing us a lot of trouble. I'll shape up a little on the former (always avoided the latter for that reason).

Best,
Ron

Hey Jay,

Here's where your argument breaks down for me..

Quote from: SilmenumeThe converse of this is the Crunch. The Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the "celebrating Theme" (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?). (Some may ask if Theme is pre-established how can it not be realized? The players may do something to alter the Theme unintentionally or maybe not enough events transpire in the "celebration style" game to allow for the Theme to be fully realized.)

There is nothing like a guarantee of Victory or successful Theme adherence inherent to to either of these situations. Possessing a large and accurate amount of information in the Crunch is likely to promote overall Victory but it's not a done deal.

"Celebrating Theme" seems like an even more slippery situation to me. You know what Theme or Themes that you want to promote and reinforce but, just as in the Crunch, that's no guarantee of successful outcomes. What makes "celebrating Theme" the more unruly beast in my mind is that the realization of a Theme is more difficult to achieve across multiple participants than the realization of a successful Crunch attempt.

The ease of all participants distinguishing the same tactical outcome as successful and that of distinguishing the same thematic outcome as successful seems greatly disparate. Regardless, there is still no guarantee of successful overall outcomes in either approach. They're certainly not, as you say, "(virtually/nearly) 100% predictable".

That's not to say that I don't think there's a possibility that "celebrating Theme" might actually be an act of Narrativism. I'm still pondering that possibility. The very fact that the outcome is not guaranteed might speak to it being Narrativism, just as if the Crunch didn't leave a decent chance of failure it would, I feel, cease to be Gamism.

-Chris

I find myself in an awkward position, because I tend to agree with Jay's conclusion, but not with the means by which he arrives at it.

The distinction between gamble and crunch lies in the predictability of outcomes.

If I'm playing bridge, I know the Ace of the trump suit will take the trick; that's predictable. If I control the Ace, I know that the King is also guaranteed to take a trick. I don't know from that whether or not I will win; only that these particular tactics will succeed.

If in Dungeons & Dragons, I cast a Magic Missile spell, according to the book rules there is no significant gamble--it hits the target and does a specific range of damage. If I cast a Spiritual Hammer spell, by contrast, the spell will work, but I still have to make die rolls to see whether I hit the target at all--I might miss every time. If I pick up a Wand of Wonder and aim it at an opponent and activate it, I don't know whether I'm going to get fireballs or butterflies. Magic Missile is high crunch; Wand of Wonder is high gamble; Spiritual Hammer is somewhere between the two. High crunch does not mean that the use of Magic Missile guarantees I will win the combat. It means that I can predict with high certainty that Magic Missile will have specific desired effects.

Yet I agree that the celebration of theme in role playing is probably a form of narrativism. I've thought so for a while.

The problem is that all forms of role playing require that the participants be permitted to make meaningful decisions which advance their personal agenda. Gamism is made functional because players can choose strategies and tactics which might lead to victory. Narrativism is made functional because players can choose character actions which explore issues. Simulationism is made functional because players can choose directions which open new discoveries. It is evident that illusionism is dysfunctional as play precisely because the only participant whose input matters is the referee, but the other players do not know this. Thus it is dysfunctional as gamism because nothing we do affects whether we succeed; as narrativism because nothing we do impacts the issues; as simulationism because nothing we do reveals what we would not have been told anyway.

Participationism is functional because the character players have agreed that the only person whose input matters is the referee. That means if the referee reveals his interesting world to us, we have participationist simulationism (the most functional of participationist forms). If he takes us on a rollercoaster ride in which we feel like we have saved the world through our character actions, that's participationist gamism (very like identifying with the hero of an action movie, only more so). If he weaves a tale of moral or thematic interest, it's participationist narrativism.

Some players are quite happy with participationism. I contend that most are not. This is especially so among narrativists, because a large part of their interest lies in being able to make statements about the issues themselves--the difference between attending a lecture and participating in a discussion group. It is also prominent among gamists, although not as much so--players who have low confidence in their ability to win welcome the opportunity to be made to feel like winners without actually having done anything, and are willing to ignore the fact that it was not possible for them to have lost. Confident gamists want the risk (whether from the gamble or the crunch, both of which entail risk) because they don't really feel the glory if the risk is absent. Since participationist simulationism is more functional than the other agenda, you don't see as much rejection of it--but there is some.

So I'd agree that a game which is about theme, in which the referee is the only person who provides any input to that theme, is still narrativist. Its appeal is different, just as the appeal of participationist gamism is different.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

The difference to me is that the gamist faces a challenge whereas the narrativist addresses premise.   In facing a challenge the gamist either wins or loses it's a binary result.  The address of premise is an act of creation with an infinite string of possible results of which you choose one.  If there is only one option available you are not making much of a choice.

This quote Ron used in the simutlationism essay explains fully to me why a theme laden situation can be simulationist.

QuoteFrom the introduction to Marc Miller's Traveller (1996, author is Marc Miller):


... the players' enjoyment comes from identifying with the character and vicariously experiencing the situation with that character, just as the reader of a novel and the viewer of a movie identify with the character ...

A novel or a movie will likely have themes but not one that you get to choose.  The sim player vicariously experiences the situation and is impacted by any theme that is in the game just as the reader of a book is.  The author of the book can not do so, he has to choose what  theme he puts into the book (whether conciously or not), thats narrativism.

Sim is prioritizing the "vicarious experiencing of the situation with that character",  that's why it can happen within a theme laden situation while strapped to the railroads of the illusionist gm or in the more open discovery/bricolage form of sim.

Hey Ron,

Quote from: Ron Edwards

Quote from: SilmenumeThe Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the "celebrating Theme" (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?).

Lost me on that one, for two reasons. The first reason is being discussed by others, in that your understanding of "Crunch" seems off to me. It would be very very valuable to present instances of play in Actual Play which illustrate the Crunch as you see it, and then we can all work from those.

As dumb luck would have it, Marco's first example provided a perfect example of the type of play that is virtually "pure Crunch", as I am proposing.  I am not saying that Marco agrees with me about my idea of pure Crunch, I am just saying that the following example typifies what I am trying to say about the Crunch.

Quote from: MarcoActual Play Experience: He found GURPS--which had fairly few upper-level development options worse than Fantasy Hero (where he could make new spells) or D&D (we think--un-verified to the extent I would like) where there are clear lines for upward development.

He finds (I would say) nerve-biting fights overly stressful and prefers a series of encounters where the battles are very well skewed in his favor. A good deal of the reward in this is, I think, the treasure: He would insist on clearing a level since there's treasure "at level" to be gotten rather than up the risk/reward by going one level deeper.

I think it is reasonable to say he is 'celebrating victory'--although I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it is a stretch to say he is Gamist uner the present defintion: he doesn't like puzzles, tough fights, or challenge per-se, in this mode--but he does like a constant string of minor risks for constant rewards.

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

In this example the condition of Victory is not what is up for grabs as he "expects" rewards (for victories) via that act of "earning" them.  He "expects" the environment will give him a steady stream (highly predictable victories).  There really is no room or desire for "if".

Let me back up a step and see if I can provide some additional context to my argument here.

As I currently understand the Model, a CA is defined by what paradigm the players use to classify and engage Situation.  Situation is the relationship between Character and Setting (all things in the SIS that are not that player's Character).  This relationship, Situation, is inherently CA neutral.  A Narrativist/Gamist will look at Situation and try and organize the elements within it to see if an opportunity to address Premise or Challenge can be found.  IOW addressing Premise/Challenge is a subset or a way or an approach to engaging Situation.  Thus if a Situation is described as Challenge or Premise it is only because a human being, a player, has mentally arranged the elements of Situation in such a way that Premise or Challenge may be meaningfully addressed.

The essays go on to explain that Nar and Gam are defined by this addressing of Premise or Challenge.  Addressing is said to an external, observable process as that anything internal is by nature unobservable.  Thus any discussion about what constitutes a CA is strictly based upon what the players are doing with regards to the SIS, NOT what they are "feeling" about the SIS or the process.  CA's are processural and not only this is fully supported by the model structure, but its very foundations are built on that assumption.

It is not unreasonable to state that any functioning process will reliably result in a desired outcome.  Frex – following the directions (process) of baking cooking effectively will result in a desired outcome (the product of baked cookies in this case). As CA's are processes they too will create products/outcomes.  The question is not whether they will create an outcome, but rather what form will that outcome be?  Thus in Nar we do not ask whether there will be a Theme, but rather what form will that Theme be in.  In Gamism we do not ask whether there will an outcome, but rather what form that outcome will be (victory/loss).  The form of outcome can only be changed via the engagement of Situation - the altering of one's relationship between Character and Setting.

The presumed interest in engaging these CA processes is that we don't know ahead of time in what forms the final outcomes will be.  Because we don't know what form the final outcome will be, yet the players are indeed playing for some reason, we presume there is an interest or desire to have a say in the form of the final outcomes and that desire was given a name – "Story Now" for Nar and "Step on Up" for Gam.  However, these presumed desires are internal interests, desires, or feelings are inherently internal.  We can only infer their presence by observation.  There seems to be a strong link between these labeled interests/desires, however as the labeled interests/desires can only be inferred we cannot establish a direct causal link between interest/desire and CA process, thus one cannot use these labeled interests/desires as being definitional of a CA.  We are left only with observable action with regards to the SIS.  While outpourings of expressed support for an action taken with regards to the SIS indicates the players are responding emotionally that outpouring alone is not sufficient to say that they were responding to some cool CA relevant action  (A player may make a good joke or riff a really good line that breaks the tension, etc.).  Nor is the lack of outpouring of support sufficient to declare that the players are not enjoying the CA at hand.  This is important and I will get back to this in a minute.

When I started this thread I was discussing a style of play had been forwarded that, I felt, violated this understanding.  How does this relate to my original post?

Having finally qualified my argument's starting place, I am re-proposing that Crunch play, the example listed far above, with its "pre-established" form of outcome and Celebration of Theme play with its "pre-established" form of outcome are essentially mirror images of each other.

RANT - not aimed at anyone in particular.
But that begs the deeper question of "Why did Jay squawk?"  Because Nar could not be sullied with this form of play so it was dumped into Sim.  Sim - the dumping ground of roleplay theory.  If we don't want something in my CA, lets push it off onto Sim.  Also, in order to make sure that Sim cannot reject anything that I don't want in my theoretical section of the Model, lets thwart any attempt to give Sim any process because goodness knows that might mean we might end up with a hot potato problem, Houston.  I mean, come on!  Doesn't anyone else see the (solvable) incongruities within the model that everyone keeps dancing around?  Its like the big elephant in the middle of the room that everyone is trying so desperately to ignore!  Either CA is defined by process or not.  Sim has only been recently been provisionally defined by process and there is much resistance to this.  Celebration is no more process than Step on Up or Story Now.  Participationism is a fine way to play, just don't dump its employment into something that identifies Sim play.  That's bullshit as well as the inconsistent application of the Model.

This part should not be discussed here, as Ron said, "Little Steps."  However, this is where I am coming from.  I wouldn't have had to propose the above if the model was applied consistently.
END RANT

Hey Chris,

Quote from: C. EdwardsThe ease of all participants distinguishing the same tactical outcome as successful and that of distinguishing the same thematic outcome as successful seems greatly disparate. Regardless, there is still no guarantee of successful overall outcomes in either approach. They're certainly not, as you say, "(virtually/nearly) 100% predictable".

Agreed, that is the nature of our physical world.  However, the players with such inclinations agree that they want this to happen and strive for that desired outcome.  IOW they would like it to be that way are working towards making that happen.  This can mean surrendering much input to someone else (by agreement!) who has more ability to bring this to fruition, such as the GM.

Hey Caldis,

You're arguing conclusions.  You haven't put forth anything other than Sim is noun.  Why is Sim defined this way?  Espeically since its not a definition with regards to the Model or CA process/verb.  Identification with Character is not an external process which deals with Situation; it is an inherently internal process – its what the player "feels".  That makes "identification with Character" as an identifier of Sim outside the scope of the model.

Quote from: JayIn this example the condition of Victory is not what is up for grabs as he "expects" rewards (for victories) via that act of "earning" them. He "expects" the environment will give him a steady stream (highly predictable victories). There really is no room or desire for "if".

Quote from: Marco1. Gamism is, to me, very murky on the guy who plays to "build up his character." I'm pretty sure this is a common and observable phenomena and I do not think it is related to social cred. It must be socially acceptable to be functional--but it is not "respect" the gamer gets but rather the internal joy of having a built-up character
*snip*
I think it is reasonable to say he is 'celebrating victory'--although I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it is a stretch to say he is Gamist uner the present defintion: he doesn't like puzzles, tough fights, or challenge per-se, in this mode--but he does like a constant string of minor risks for constant rewards.

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

It's simulationism. Anything that breaks or doesn't befit his prefered CA, he avoids or ignores. He avoids fortune and ignores social feedback, because he's exploring the growing character like some would explore the sprawl of an imaginary city. That's interupted by fortune, and back slapping social feedback doesn't add to exploration.

As a mental exercise, if you were interested in exploring the rise of a hero to great heights of power, would you be interested in adding in fortune? Something that can easily interupt such an exploration?

From here the predictable outcome your refering to with crunch is more a matter of drifting crunchy gamist structure to simulationism, by sticking to the predictable parts of it (which isn't the whole of it). That doesn't support your position.

Quote from: SilmenumeHey Caldis,

You're arguing conclusions.  You haven't put forth anything other than Sim is noun.  Why is Sim defined this way?  Espeically since its not a definition with regards to the Model or CA process/verb.  Identification with Character is not an external process which deals with Situation; it is an inherently internal process – its what the player "feels".  That makes "identification with Character" as an identifier of Sim outside the scope of the model.

Good call Jay, you're right I have been arguing conclusion and I think it's because I see the evidence for the conclusions in abundance and didnt think it necessary to debate the points.  So I'll step back and do some of the dirty work I was trying to avoid (call me lazy if you wish ;) ).

You are looking for a verb or process for Sim.  I propose that the process of sim is one of maintaining verisimilitude and it's goal is the realization of the ideal that Walt and others discussed here. The sim player engages the situation looking for a true to life outcome given the constraints of the ideal he is trying to explore.

The example of celebrating the theme of Call of Cthulu fits this description.  The theme is part of the 'ideal'  for the CoC game which guides a players reaction to situations that develop in the game, thus sim.  The theme is celebrated but not challenged or forced to prove itself during play. It also matches with Noon's take on Marco's example of the "build up his character" player, which I think he correctly identified as simulationist.   Without risk of failure or at least celebration of his victory the "build his character" player is choosing the options that best allow him to explore the growth of the character via system.  

The CoC example does not match with the definition of Narrativism because address of premise requires freedom of choice on the theme created, we make the theme during play by our decisions.  Narrativist play in Call of Cthulu would not be focused on celebrating the theme of a doomed mankind in the face of a bizarre and hostile universe, it would deal with how one deals with that knowledge.