The Forge Archives

OK, the subject here is Ben Lehman's description of a common style of his games, detailed more in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8086">this thread.  

The key point about this style is that it handles all in-game interactions as simulation: i.e. the setting and characters are all narrowly kept to how they were designed in the initial setup.   This matches my description of my Water-Uphill campaign from a http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5113">Feb 2003 thread.  It also sounds reflects a lot of Bruce Baugh's essay on http://www.sff.net/people/bruce-baugh/gamelab/situationist.htp">Situationist Gamemastering.  

First of all, I'd like to settle on a name for this.  Is "front-loaded Nar/Sim" a reasonable label for it?  

Second, I'd be interested in people's thoughts on their preferred rules system for such games.  I used to use the Hero System for most of my games.  In my opinion it worked great within the set of players that I had in Chicago.  The drawback I have found since then is that it is very difficult to teach to new players.  I don't have a general preferred system at this point.  What system do you prefer for this -- or if like me you don't have one, what sort of a system would you be looking for?  (I have some further thoughts on this but they'll take some time to compose.)

I love Hero System, but I do think that you must have been lucky to overcome the Gamism that exists in the system. Or maybe you were Hybridizing that as well.

Anyhow, most of what I like from Hero System is available in simpler form in Hero Quest. And I find it enables exactly the sort of play that I think we're talking about. It doesn't model detail in resolution, but one can spec out things in great detail quickly when neccessary, as only one simple number on the same scale is ever needed.

For example, I can say that a castle wall has a 3w (23) resistance to climbing, and a 15w4 (95) resistance to being smashed (a giant with a similar strength might be able to do it).

Anyhow, I love the ease with which this modeling happens. As far as NPCs, having one with a Vengeful 10w1 is a really cool way to remind you of the character's priorities that comes out in play. I feel that relationships are similar, but for those with problems with that sort of rule, it's easily just dropped.

Mike

If I'm reading this all correctly, you're talking about what amounts to a Nar/Sim RPG where the Sim is a fairly structured situation provided through setting and color -- presumeably by the GM -- which is then gamed in using primarily Nar and Sim techniques.

So the 'front-loading' comes from the GM prebuilding not just the overall setting, but sort of stacking the deck in terms of what role the player characters will play in the coming scenario.  You aren't dictating the end-condition, but you've made the starting conditions very particular and biased towards a particular set of priorities.  It sounds like the PCs aren't just encountering the Relationship Map, but are actually given a specific role within it.

At least, that's what I got from the "You are church missionaries of a generally Good Church who for the most part have Right on your side" example.

I'd have to go with Ron on not calling this primarily Sim gaming.  There's too much Nar in the setup.  The players get to set their own priorities in terms of what they do and where they go, but because of their predetermined role, there are very specific ranges of reactions the NPCs are likely to have to those actions.

I think the difference I see between this and more 'straight' Sim play is what seems to me the tight coupling of the characters to the relationship map.  That drifts Nar for me.

Does that make sense, or have I misunderstood something?

In terms of systems, well, I wouldn't do this with Hero.  Hero is the game which made it clear to me that character building is a skill that the players have to develop to get the most out of the game.  It's a kind of gamist front-loading of using it, if you will, and as you note, it's hard to teach it to new people.  That lead me to largely abandon it, unless playing with other people who already know it as well as I do.

If I am reading all this correctly, I'd say any low gamist, high sim game could be used thusly.  Too much Gamism can lead to abandonment of the Nar elements and the Sim elements which do tie to the Nar elements, I suspect.

BRP would work, I think.  The Sim stays out of the way of the Nar with it, for the most part.  I'd avoid GURPS, Hero, and other games with a lot of fiddly gamist optimizing in the rules.  But that's just me, assuming I am reading this all right...

Hiya,

At the risk of analyzing in the absence of specific play data (but extrapolating backwards based on lots of your play-posts, John), I'm gonna say - Narrativism with strong Explorative foundation.

So, this can mean any number of things depending on what's Explored (character psychology with no quantitative mechanics, tactical decisions in combat with overwhelming quantitative mechanics, to name a couple), but the common feature is the defining one for Narrativism: commitment to thematic play, in which the "theme" isn't pre-set but is produced through what happens during play.

By "front-loaded," I think we're talking about a very strong emphasis on Situation, and I'm instantly put in mind of HeroQuest and Alyria. These are games in which the locale and the immediate issue there "sweep up" or already include the player-characters - and more importantly, do the same for the players. Ummm, add Castle Falkenstein and to some extent The Dying Earth as well.

In my terms, I call that Situation and Setting based Premise. By "Premise," I mean, issue or grabby problem. It fires up the people at the table, in terms of (ummm) the "human condition."

What's not front-loaded, if I understand correctly, is a great deal of "What I have to say about that" power in the hands of everyone at the table, in terms of character actions. Dice could be heavily involved or not, character/personality mechanics could be heavily involved or not, etc, etc. What matters is that nothing in the processes of play is oriented toward stifling a person's ability to comment upon the issue at hand, through the medium of play itself.

I strongly suspect that a lot of people who read "Simulationism relies on Exploration," failed to read further to the part, "to the exclusion of thematic or competititive-based priorities," and mistakenly tagged themselves as Sim-players.  

This error has the extremely negative effect of ghettoizing all Narrativist play into pervy Narrativist play alone. Which incidentally cuts most Sorcerer games right out of the category.

Best,
Ron

Anya, I think the style we're talking about is more a case where the GM (or possibly the players) have designed the game (by which I mean the campaign/characters/relationships) so that Nar play results even if the players think in Sim terms.  

I called it front-loading because the only place where Narrative issues are a conscious priority are at the beginning.  After that, Sim issues are the conscious priority... but the situation was designed such that any exploration ultimately has to deal with the Premise.

It's kind of the opposite of No Myth style.  Instead of changing the GM's plans to increase interest and involvement, the GM designs it so that interest and involvement are inevitable in that situation.  A bunch of priests in a little town full of rivalries could sit around twiddling their thumbs and have interesting things happen anyways.  And, Ben designed the city such that any decision the players make automatically has the kind of moral and thematic importance that fits Nar modes.

As for systems... I've always played this way and was actually a little surprised to learn that other GMs did it differently.  I have used many systems and found that most of them supported this style.   Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play has always been my favorite, but it worked pretty well in Palladium and GURPS as well.

Hello,

Justin, you're falling into the "consciousness" trap. Narrativist play is defined by observable commitment to getting that Premise turned into Theme. It doesn't have anything to do with the internal experience of doing so, which may be as "intuitive" and "unintentional" or any similar term as you please.

With that in mind, your "Sim" becomes Narrativism, with a strong Explorative foundation.

Now mind you, many a GM has made the error of thinking the Exploration alone can do the job of producing Theme, basically wanting Narrativist results to emerge from wholly Simulationist play. That is a pipe dream and often produces fizzled, frustrated play. Such a group often switches games in the hunt for the Perfect Setting that will Do It This Time, unaware that their own commitment to "playing in character" or similar stuff is hampering their ability to mean their own goals.

But that's a pitfall, and a slightly different topic. What you describe is indeed possible, fun, and wholly Narrativist play.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI strongly suspect that a lot of people who read "Simulationism relies on Exploration," failed to read further to the part, "to the exclusion of thematic or competititive-based priorities," and mistakenly tagged themselves as Sim-players.  

BL>  This troubles me.

The first and foremost reason is that this, essentially, relegates Sim to the "baseline RPG" experience which, quite frankly, it isn't, or ought not to be.  I think that this assumption does two things:
1)  It relegates Sim games to a "theoretically uninteresting" ghetto.
2)  It relegates Nar and Gam games to a "not really RPGs" ghetto.

Both of these, I think, are disasterous, for obvious reasons.

Going further...

If it is true that any competitive or premise driven content drives an RPG out of the Sim category, than I have never in my life played, nor heard reports a Simulationist RPG -- by which I mean not a "game system" but an actual RPG session.  Every game contains moral dilemnas or competition (in or out of game), and usually both.  In fact, the only game which I can think of which featured neither of these is my oft-used Teenagers from Outer Space example -- but that also contained very little in-game exploration, so I have no idea what's what with that.

Going further...

All stories contain a premise, correct?
All role-playing games produce story (note: not necessarily a very good story, but a story)
Therefore all role-playing games contain some premise.

All role-playing games involve social groups
social groups of humans naturally compete
therefore, all RPGs contain competition elements

All role-playing games contain some exploration (we've already established this.)

Thus, all games contain some element of each of G, N and S.  The only way that they can be defined is by what elements are the most important to the play of the game -- particularly the decisions made by the participants.  If a game is played Sim, it is Sim, regardless if it contains competition (as Amber often does) or premise (as these example games do.)

A game without choices has no interest, and is patently unplayable.  I can think of no one who would disagree with this.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  Perhaps I am suddenly approaching Beeg Horseshoe Theory.

P.P.S.  Sorry for the tone... just a leetle frustrated today.

Hi Ben,

Yeah, you're approaching the Beeg Horseshoe idea, and that is not a bad thing.

The only reason I'm not agreeing with you (and by extension, with Mike) about it is that many people have insisted to me, either angrily or with the gleam of inspiration in their eyes, that "Dream Only" role-playing is indeed precisely what they want, and precisely what they do. It's their testimony I'm relying on.

QuoteThe first and foremost reason is that this, essentially, relegates Sim to the "baseline RPG" experience which, quite frankly, it isn't, or ought not to be. I think that this assumption does two things:
1) It relegates Sim games to a "theoretically uninteresting" ghetto.
2) It relegates Nar and Gam games to a "not really RPGs" ghetto.

I think this is over-reacting, really. The "not really RPGs" issue, in particular, is a bunch of hooey. No one knows "what" an RPG is, and if anyone thinks he or she does, they can just post it to get it demolished by a horde of rabid RPG-Theory deconstructers. And similarly, the issue "baseline RPG experience" role for Sim play is mistaking Exploration for Simulationist priorities. Exploration is the common baseline to all role-playing. Simulationist play means Exploration as the priority uber alles. Two different things.

Regarding Sim games then being "theoretically uninteresting," my only response is, don't mistake your personal preferences for How Things Are. I went through this with battle scars you can only imagine - because my initial reaction was identical to yours. "That's Simulationism? Christmas! How could anyone enjoy that?"

Hey Seth, can I cue the "Exploration/Dream" diatribe? Way back when, during various GNS controversy discussions at the Gaming Outpost, I endured my share of people rhapsodizing about how pure, and how glorious, role-playing without reference to (as I now call them) Step On Up and Story Now is, and how beknighted and indeed selfish I am to inflict these two priorities onto others. Seth did a nice job of explaining all of this while struggling not to kill me through resentful thought-waves at the same time.

Since that time, I have found that playing games like Dread and Godlike became much more fun once I recognized that I had to put those priorities aside, or at least (in my personal case) way down to a very dull roar. I still can't say I revel in the "Dream, nothing but the Dream" mode of play, but I'm willing to believe that the people who say they do aren't lying.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsJustin, you're falling into the "consciousness" trap. Narrativist play is defined by observable commitment to getting that Premise turned into Theme. It doesn't have anything to do with the internal experience of doing so, which may be as "intuitive" and "unintentional" or any similar term as you please.

Actually, I think I just wasn't clear enough.  At one point I said "Nar play results even if the players think in Sim terms."  By front-loading the Nar elements, you don't have to be conscious of them (thus players may be thinking only of Sim goals).  The process of front-loading ensures that the behaviors are Nar, even if this isn't conscious among the participants during play.

And, as I've said elsewhere, I'm not entirely comfortable with this assessment, but I know it's the "party line" as far as what you've written goes.  I'm waiting for the Nar essay before trying to come up with my final argument on the topic.

If I'm not mistaken, we're cross-posting quite a bit, responding to posts that precede what the person wrote most recently.

I'm gonna slow down and let everyone get their words in edgewise, and if possible, everyone, please read everything.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: justin
A bunch of priests in a little town full of rivalries could sit around twiddling their thumbs and have interesting things happen anyways. And, Ben designed the city such that any decision the players make automatically has the kind of moral and thematic importance that fits Nar modes.

I think this is the key point that Ron is talking about.  What makes it automatic that Nar will fall out of your situation?  Nothing, I think.  Unless what you are talking about is knowing your players, and feeding them rope you know they won't be able to leave alone (a lot of gaming between me and my brother, whom I grew up gaming with, is this sort).  

The Nar doesn't come from the situation you've got set up, but the combination of the situation, your belief/knowledge of your players, and your understanding of their likely actions.  The players are part of the mix.  If they don't commit to exploring your narrative structure it won't happen.  The fact that they have to commit to the exploration of the themes you are throwing out makes it Nar, not Sim.  Sim (for me) is stuff like rules for intricate politics and mechanical effects and stuff like that.  Hero and GURPS.

The situation does not require the events or conflicts you are positing.  They can't as long as the players have narrative control over their characters and are able and willing to choose actions that won't bring your narrative elements into play.  The 'fact' that the players will choose to explore the situation you give them, which will bring about the narrative play elements you are intending, is different from 'inevitability'.  The situational Sim alone can't create Nar inevitably.

I'm a little loopy today (I'm on discombobulating medication), so I could easily be missing something.  Hopefully this all makes sense.

Hm.  Maybe a parallel.  Diablo & Diablo II are Gamist/Sim games with very little Nar at all, IMHO.  Computer RPGS are almost always heavy Sim.  If your game was really 'Simming' Nar stuff, you ought to be able to program a computer to give you the same kind of game play, because computers are good at Sim, but bad at Nar.  But it doesn't really work out that way, at least not in my experiences.

Okay, feeling loopy now.  I'll probably have to come back and edit this :/

Well, I'm not sure if this is consistent with current clear and established GNS theory, but here's how I think about it:  in addition to being "priorities," Story Now and Step On Up can also slide in there next to the five Explored elements as "mere" interesting parts of the shared, imagined environment.

You know how in Nar or Gam play, some part of the Dream (Explored elements) MUST exist, it (they) just isn't (aren't) being prioritized?

In Sim play, Story Now and/or Step On Up CAN exist, they just aren't being prioritized.  (So can lots of other things, like non-Nar "story")

Also, in Gam play Nar can exist as an element, or in Nar play Gam can be an element.  Element vs. Priority, that's the distinction that's driving me here, and (this is the part that may not be acceptable in current GNS theory) a Priority is just an Element granted particular importance by the group.

Does that lead to odd situations, like play that prioritizes The Dream which also contains a lot of Story Now?  Sure.  But GNS makes the observation that some elements just can not always share Priority status with other elements.  One day, your Story Now and your Dream are going to be heading towards each other at 120 mph, and unless you pick one of 'em to flinch, you're going to end up with a heck of a wreck.  Likewise, if your Step On Up prioritized game contains a lot of world/setting-focused Dream elements, you better either have a traffic cop or an ambulance standing by.  Now, there are some good traffic cops out there (there are ways to mitigate the problems of conflicting G, N and S), and some people just aren't bothered by a periodic wreck (referencing Ron's post about fizzled, frustrated play: for some people, it's more like "our Sim 'in-character' need has frustrated our pursuit of Theme (we tried to have a Dream element and a Story Now element both be priorities)?  Oh well, it was neat while it lasted, and it will be neat again in the future.").

Well . . . maybe not.  Reading back over this, I think I'm reconstructing some big chunks of GNS by looking at it this way.  But - something about prioritized vs. present seems an important here.

Gordon

First of all, a topic check:  the question is about the particular style of play I mentioned, and game systems supporting it.  Ron suggested "Narrativism with strong Explorative foundation" as a name, but that seems vague to me.  Do you think that is really specific to front-loaded games as described?  

Quote from: AnyaTheBlueThe Nar doesn't come from the situation you've got set up, but the combination of the situation, your belief/knowledge of your players, and your understanding of their likely actions.  The players are part of the mix.  If they don't commit to exploring your narrative structure it won't happen.  The fact that they have to commit to the exploration of the themes you are throwing out makes it Nar, not Sim.  

Well, on the one hand this is trivially true.  If the players do nothing but say "Dibble" during the session... well, there isn't going to be much exploration of themes.  So the players clearly have power.  On the other hand, I don't think that understanding of the particular players is necessarily all that important.

For example, I've run my scenario "Extra Credit" about five or so times at different conventions.  It's a one-shot scenario where a bunch of college students volunteer for a psychology experiment, and end up getting psychic powers.  Since it is a convention game, I never know what players I'm going to end up with, and indeed the plot always goes quite differently.  However, it pretty consistently produces an interesting story about how the students regard and use their powers.  

I guess an the important thing to me is that the players need to commit to picturing their character and imagining what their character would do.  As long as they do that, it doesn't matter to me what they think of "themes" as a word or concept.  

Quote from: AnyaTheBlueSim (for me) is stuff like rules for intricate politics and mechanical effects and stuff like that.  Hero and GURPS.  

Er...  I think I mentioned that the Hero System was my favorite system for running these front-loaded sort of games for a long time, and with a set of veteran players, I was perfectly satisfied.  Extra Credit is a Hero System game.  Maybe your mention of those systems was supposed to evoke something in my mind that it didn't?  For example, how are intricate politics incompatible with story or theme?

I guess I'm in for a penny, in for a pound!

Quote from: John KimFirst of all, a topic check:  the question is about the particular style of play I mentioned, and game systems supporting it.  Ron suggested "Narrativism with strong Explorative foundation" as a name, but that seems vague to me.  Do you think that is really specific to front-loaded games as described?

Ron's phrase describes what I'm thinking of well, actually.  I may have some part of the Standard Forge GNS Vocabulary wrong, though.  I've been mostly lurking here for awhile, and dipping into the articles and games, but I am not going to claim a high level of expertise on local jargon.

It all seems so clear when I'm reading the articles, then it gets all fuzzy... =)

GNS:
o Gamist for me indicates victory conditions.  They can be implicit or explicit, but there is definite recognizable positions of advantage either between players & GM or between the players.  In Paranoia it's explicit.  In most games, it's implicit and unadressed except by Social Contract meta-discussions, where it's usually not directly confronted explicitly, either (in my experience, anyway).

o Narrativist for me indicates an emphasis on plot and story.  Drama, created meaning.  Focus on plot and drama.

o Sim is modeling something fairly accurately, and the forge "Exploring" term seems to map to Sim strongly in that you explore the simulation.  There is at least some fun about just simulating a starship crew, or the universe in which you might be a starship crew, or whatever.  Lots of fiddly details, where the fiddly details are important to the fun.  If you go dig out Aaron Allston's Strike Force, the Genre Fiend maps very strongly to Sim play, in my brain.

I may have one or more of these ill defined, with respect to Forge Jargon, but I wanted to get my take on this out up front.

For me, I try and pick one or two games to kind of 'embody' each of the GNS elements.  Gam is Paranoia.  Nar is Over the Edge.  Sim is Hero/GURPS and Pendragon (Pendragon Traits seem to me to be a Sim way of handling morality -- Sim provides a strong way for incentivising gamist priorities (the armor of god stuff that certain high traits in Pendragon can give you) or narrativist priorities (getting Force Points in WEG Star Wars d6 for being heroic)).

I see what you have described here as having a strong focus on Narrative play.  Your prep, yes, simulates the interrelationships and motivations of a set of NPCs, and the initial relationship of the PCs to the NPCs.

You aren't 'simulating' the politics of the church with mechanics.  You aren't simulating the life of the medieval village with mechanics.  You aren't simulating the process of being a holy missionary to the masses and converting heathens.  Making those a strong focus of the game, with either actual game mechanics to help, or by being very aware of the 'right way' to do those things and having both the players and the GM put doing those things 'the right way' as a primary goal for having fun would be Sim, in my opinion.

The scenario as described, in my mind, is one of almost pure Narrative setup and interaction, with a strong focus on letting the players Explore the Narrative prep work you've done, and allowing that prep work to evolve in reaction to their actions.

Does that make sense?  I repeat (can't remember if it was in this thread or not) -- I'm on medication that can make me wonky, so this may or may not be me at my most coherent.  I am trying, however :/

Quote from: John Kim
I guess an the important thing to me is that the players need to commit to picturing their character and imagining what their character would do.  As long as they do that, it doesn't matter to me what they think of "themes" as a word or concept.  

I would contend that having this as a pillar of the game is in fact a narrative concern to some degree.  A 'sim-heavy' approach might be for them to sit in their monastic cells for 12 hours a day piously praying, or something...  It's not that there is no sim in the game, but the focus on the game isn't on simulating the environment, it's on moving the story along and creating a plot out of the unfolding events and interactions.

In your Extra Credit scenario, what if one person kept her powers a complete secret and didn't do anything with them because she thought they were demonic, and avoided the other characters for the same reason?  If you can make that fun, because the character is being 'simulated realistically', then I'll admit you are playing a primarily sim game.

This may be something of a strong man on my part.  I'm not sure.

Quote from: John KimEr...  I think I mentioned that the Hero System was my favorite system for running these front-loaded sort of games for a long time, and with a set of veteran players, I was perfectly satisfied.  Extra Credit is a Hero System game.  Maybe your mention of those systems was supposed to evoke something in my mind that it didn't?  For example, how are intricate politics incompatible with story or theme?

Ah.

I was trying to go for system focus, not game focus.

GURPS and Hero focus on Sim mechanics for modelling action/adventure tropes, primarily, with a slow shading into interpersonal social interactions with varying levels of transparency and utility.

If you are playing a sim-heavy game, and your game sims stuff that isn't relevant to what you want to sim, you end up having a bunch of mechanics you either fight, ignore, or extend and adapt.

On the other hand, if you are playing a Nar game, you can layer it on almost any sim game you want by just using the Sim as the basis, but only referring to them when you need to resolve something that relates to things it actually sims, and even occasionally allowing your own judgement of where the story should go to trump the sim mechanics.

Hero and GURPS sim heroic SF/Fantasy/Action-Adventure pretty well.  When it comes to Nar enhancing mechanics or targetted Genre Simulation, they both tend to be rather more patchy, in my experience.  I think Tri-Stat has a stronger Nar leaning in terms of Nar/Sim balance than either Gurps or Hero, which tend to put a higher priority on Sim.

But, as I said above, I'm not sure I'm right inside the context and jargon definitions here at the Forge.  I'm not sure my argument isn't a self-circular straw man, either, which suggests to me that I should maybe not be prattling on about it at great length, and should instead go and actually sleep.  =)

Anya, I think you might be a little tied up in your association of rules and Sim play.  They do go together nicely, but I can explore small-town relationships without any relationship mechanics in place.  It also isn't necessary for it to be an accurate model.  They key is simply a prioritization of exploration.

Back to the larger topic and everyone's points... perhaps I should simply wait for the Narrativist essay before even bothering to continue, since I've touched on this before and always wind up feeling there's something I'm not quite grasping in Narrativist modes.

Here's the bottom line for how I play (which, I think correpsponds closely to what Ben and John are also talking about).  When I play, I like the intellectual meat introduced by deep moral or thematic issues.  However, my real priority is on standard Sim issues: a focus on Exploration and the internal consistency of "the Dream."  I am actually bothered by the thought that someone might stop in the middle of a session and think "What can I do that will help this story have them x?"  However, I'm not bothered by the idea that a GM might create a campaign while thinking "Let's set something up that will cause players to explore the way religion affects the relationships in a previously-stable and isolated environment."

Thus, the GM has front-loaded Nar elements into the campaign.  They're going to come up, one way or the other, unless players refuse to play in the given campaign.

Nar players are going to fit right into this and have no problem developing the themes.  They're the ones I'm going to become annoyed with.  "Oh, great... Joe is subtly rewriting his character again for maximum drama.  What a loser."

Gamist players will miss the point altogether - they're trying to "win" in a situation that can only be won if the player creates his own arbitrary victory conditions.  I generally wind up thinking something like "Congratulations, your character has become rich and powerful, leaving a wake of misery and dischord behind him.  You must be so proud of yourself."

Sim players couldn't care less about the theme... but the very nature of the setting produces a theme as they explore it.  What that theme is differs from one game to the next, as John described with his "Extra Credit" scenario, but it always winds up coming out of play.  My thoughts about these people might be "Fred's accurate portrayal of his character in this situation has really shown how important honesty really is."

Now, the general consensus here on the Forge is that what I'm describing in the "Sim" part is really Narrativist.  I can understand why people say that, particularly in light of the behaviorist approach taken by GNS.  The players may be intending one thing, but they wind up actually doing another (instead of, or at the same time).

I like the term "front-loaded Nar/Sim" because it describes the fact that you get Nar play thanks to the initial situation, despite a general commitment to Sim ideals throughout play.  The GM is probably the only person aware of the Nar elements.  Even in a strictly behavioral approach, I like this term better because, the commitment to consistently always overrides commitment to theme.  In other words, if you have a choice between a cool story and playing your character well, I'll fully expect you to play the character and forget story.  My reading of what John and Ben describe makes me think they'd agree with this.  (BTW, given two choices that are consistent with character, I'd encourage players to take the one that provides the coolest story).

"Narrativist with emphasis on Exploration" seems almost like an oxymoron to me, since Sim play is defined as "emphasis on Exploration"  There's the additional problem that the Exploration has a higher priority than the Narrativism except when the GM is creating the campaign.

Perhaps a "Story Now Sim" term might be even better?  I don't know if Story Now really describes what we're talking about either since the story now elements are pretty much front-loaded too.

Does this make sense to everyone else?