PDA

View Full Version : GNS revisited: Gamism



Samurai Jill
2009-09-14, 12:10 PM
These articles' summary thread may be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6938183&postcount=1).


Introduction and Clarifications

Gamist play is widely recognised and easily understood: the purpose of play is to win. Even if the win conditions are localised and short-term, even if it's against wholly imaginary opponents, even if it's 'no big deal.' If that's what most of your play revolves around, if that's the foremost average priority in play, then what you have is Gamism in action- you're aiming to Prove Yourself. From Gamism: Step On Up-

Reality check
I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately, include:
"Eat me"
(upon winning) "I win!" and
"C'mon, let's play without these morons."
Combat- being the single most visceral and decisive form of conflict resolution there is- tends to get a lot of attention in such play, but Gamism isn't limited to combat by any means- political maneuvering, social gatherings, arcane duels, feats of simulated artifice or clever puzzle-solving (e.g, finding "clues") can all provide an arena for testing your mettle or flaunting your smarts. What matters is that there is a well-defined array of tactical or strategic options that the player can explore to surmount the difficulty presented.

All of the above are fun during any role-playing, but from a Gamist perspective, the point is for one's acumen to be acknowledged - it's a matter of pure pride. You grokked the system just right for that particular situation; you took into account all the possible variables of the moment.
Neither is Gamist play simplistic, monotonous or childish (Chess, for example, is about 99.8% Gamist and I don't think anyone could call it intellectually undemanding.) What follows below is some clarification of the terms and conditions applied to Gamist play, and it's specific concerns.

Balance

"Balance" is one of those words which is applied to a wide variety of activities or practices that may be independent or even contradictory.

Within Gamist play
1. Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees of improvement after that. Basically, this means that "we all start equal" but after that, anything goes, and if A gets better than B, then that's fine.
2. The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy: magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and "unbalanced" means numerically broken...

Within Simulationist play...
1. One fascinating way that the term is applied is to the Currency [e.g, point-buy-system]-based relationship among the components of a character... That's right - we're not talking about balance among characters at all, but rather balance within the interacting components of a single character...

Within Narrativist play....
1. "Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time, or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone. Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so...
2. Balance of [Social] Power is relevant to all forms of play, but it strikes me as especially testy in this mode.
These can't all be balanced at once. Hawkeye can't get as much time in the spotlight (a Nar concern) as Thor without a lot more metagame built into the character while maintaining an accurate depiction of their differences in character effectiveness (the former breaks Sim, while the latter is demanded by it.)

A lot of the hallowed fallbacks of Gamist play, such as HP, XP, Classes and Levels can serve a useful function here: they make combat survivable, allow strategic thinking about character development without constraining per-encounter tactics, ensure niche protection by limiting each class to specific kinds of skills and abilities, and facilitate functional Powergaming (see below) by ensuring each level of each class has equal value to a given character. With that said, however, plenty of Gamist play can get along without it: Shadowrun and Rune have largely freeform skill systems that encourage players to experiment, without restriction, with different forms of skill specialisation. Purist-for-System Simulationist design can often drift into Gamism this way.

Challenge and Competition
The chief distinction here is that Challenge refers to environmental, engineering, or NPC adversity, whereas Competition refers to direct and open clashes of interest between PCs.

Competition is best understood as a productive add-on to Gamist play. Such play is fundamentally cooperative, but may include competition. That's not a contradiction: I'm using exactly the same logic as might be found at the poker and basketball games. You can't compete, socially, without an agreed-upon venue. If the cooperation's details are acceptable to everyone, then the competition within it can be quite fierce.
Conversely, even when Gamist play relies heavily upon efficient teamwork and long-term resource strategies to prevail against pressing challenges, you will be judged based on your individual ability to contribute, minmax your character, and avoid treading on other players' toes- which, in itself, is an arena for competition (of sorts.)

Challenge-heavy Gamist play must provide a constant gradient of difficulty during play (this, in itself, could be construed as a form of 'balancing',) to ensure that the players remain engaged. Too easy and the game becomes trivial- too hard, and they tend to give up in disgust.

The Gamble and the Crunch
These are very important during Gamist play. The Crunch involves following trains of possible cause-and-effect within the system, looking for a way to exploit them during the situation at hand. The Gamble refers to elements of randomisation which oblige the players to adapt their tactics on the fly in response to changing adversity. Different forms of Gamist play might emphasise one much more than the other. (Amber, for example, in it's Gamist variants, involves no mechanical Gamble apart from the inherent unpredictability of your human opponent, and very little crunch.)

A great deal of non-functional Gamist play emerges when the Crunch involves combination of isolated elements (e.g, feats, spells, class powers) whose combined effect is so much greater than the sum of their parts that Breaking occurs (see below,) particularly when irregular scattershot concessions to Simulationism are present in the text.

Gamism and Narrativism

Gamist and Narrativist play have an interesting relationship, but it's hard to see or understand unless you have experience with solid non-Simulationist game play, which very few role-players have. Nearly all of us have dealt mainly with Sim-design and Sim-assumptions, with both Gamism and Narrativism as semi-dysfunctional interfering priorities, and resulting in a lot of compromises rather than solutions... Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:

*- Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict...
*- ...Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.
*- More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue...
*- Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic...

Which is a really long-winded way of saying that one or the other of the two modes has to be "the point," and they don't share well - but unlike either's relationship with Simulationist play (i.e., a potentially hostile one), Gamist and Narrativist play don't tug-of-war over "doing it right" - they simply avoid one another, like the same-end poles of two magnets. ...So in Gamist vs. Narrativist play, absent Simulationism, it may be a matter of "what we wanna do," and a very easy adjustment to system to reflect that in many cases, because how we "do" things is very similar already.
This may also explain the apparent absence of stable Gamist/Narrativist hybrids- the greatest difference between the two is psychological, and both rely on obvious metagame concerns- so the players involved are much more willing and able to demolish and remake the rules that stand between them and their favoured goals. Simulationist priorities, by contrast, tend to be formally 'staked out' using explicit rules, text, and concrete outcomes- which makes this mode more problematic from a design standpoint, but also better able to carve out a role for itself under Gamist or Narrativist domination.

Hard Core Gamism

So far I haven't mentioned any negative connotations to Gamist play, despite my hints in the beginning of the essay. The time has come to explain why many people hate and fear any sign of Step On Up, let alone competition, in and among the adversity-situations of their role-playing. It's due to a possible application of Gamist principles to their "perviest" extreme... essentially, all the mechanics become metagame mechanics.

...I perceive four distinct Hard Core applications. They all very easily become dysfunctional, but, contrary to popular belief, quite a bit of Hard Core play may be functional if the Social Contract is being reinforced rather than broken. None of them combine well with secondary Simulationist or Narrativist priorities, which is one reason that people often confound the Hard Core with playing Gamist at all. That's an error, though, because the Hard Core is just as incompatible with high-Exploration Gamist priorities as well.

Turnin' on each other
Gamist play already presupposes some pressure among members of the group. Now add to that not only conflict-of-interest at the Challenge level, but open acknowledgment of one another's player-characters as the only engaging source of Challenge - and given the absence of Exploration, directly applying to a Step On Up struggle for dominance. So now you have both little red dials up to 11, and the arena of resolution is simply whose characters survive mutual attacks...

Powergaming
This technique is all about ramping a system's Currency, Effectiveness, and reward system into an exponential spiral. As a behavior, it can be applied to any system, but most forms of D&D offer an excellent inroad for it: after a certain number of levels achieved, the ability to deliver damage and remain invulnerable itself provides ever-increasing ability to achieve yet higher degrees of damage-delivery and hit-point resources...

...To prevent Powergaming, many game designers identify the GM as the ultimate and final rules-interpreter. It's no solution at all, though: (1) there's no way to enforce the enforcement, and (2), even if the group does buy into the "GM is always right" decree, the GM is now empowered to Powergame over everyone else.

Calvinball
This is the famous "rules-lawyering" approach, which is misnamed because it claims textual support when in reality it simply invents it. Calvinball is a better term: making up the rules as you go along, usually in terms of on-the-spot interpretations disguised as "obvious" well-established interpretations. It basically combines glibness and bullying to achieve moment-to-moment advantages for one's character... Calvinball then quickly transforms into a struggle for control over what is and is not happening in the imaginative situation.

One mistaken solution to this tactic is to hide the rules from the players... The other, more common solution is simply to continue adding rules forever and ever, amen, in order to account unambiguously for any and all imaginable events during play.

Breaking the game
Here's the most extreme form of the Hard Core; it's the only one that I can't imagine is functional in any circumstances... Here's the key giveaway in terms of system design: it is Broken (i.e. Breaking consistently works) if repetitive, unchanging behavior garners benefit. The player hits no self-correcting parameters and is never forced to readjust his or her strategy... Trying to prevent this... behavior has led many game designers mistakenly to provide endless patch rules, full of exceptions to cover the exceptions, none of which accomplishes anything except to open up even more points of vulnerability.
As mentioned, Hard Core isn't neccesarily dysfunctional at all- Kobolds Ate My Baby is all about Turnin', 4E D&D is very much about Powergaming. Both can be great fun, and perhaps the bulk of computer games cater to either one or both of these approaches.

From a role-playing design perspective, Magic and many other customizable card games reminded people of a principle that had been abandoned for almost a decade: (1) that competitive Step On Up is actually fun, rather than automatically Broken; (2) that elegant and highly-prioritized game design permits easier entry and more satisfaction in play; and (3) that Exploration may be customized to taste, rather than considered an all-or-nothing variable.


...The common reaction to this easy transition, for non-Gamist-inclined players, is pure terror - it's the Monsters from the Id! In-group conflicts over the issue have been repeated from group to group, game to game, throughout the entire history of the hobby. ...some groups and game designers [treat] Gamism's easy "in" as a necessary evil and [take] an appeasement approach. The "Id" can be controlled, they say, as long as the Superego (the GM) stays firmly in charge and gives it occasional fights and a reward system based on improving effectiveness. This approach may rank among the most-commonly attempted yet least-successful tactic in all of game design. It will never actually work: the Lumpley Principle correctly places the rules and procedures of play at the mercy of the Social Contract, not the other way around. Therefore, even if such a game continues, it has this limping-along, gotta-put-up-with-Bob feel to it.


Potential GNS Conflicts

Narrativist Conflict: Staying In The Game
No player wants to be 'out of the action' for long, but for Gamists, this means that long-term reductions in character effectiveness relative to other players are simply not tolerable. Expended or compromised resources need to be recoverable within a reasonable timeframe (that's what, e.g. Raise Dead, Restoration and Regeneration spells in D&D are there for.) This isn't to say that Gamist play shouldn't involve 'loss penalties'- on the contrary, they add an edge of excitement to the Gamble and help provide an incentive for teamwork against common enemies- but they can't add up to more than temporary inconvenience. Dramatic self-sacrifice is not really possible within those constraints.

Narrativist Conflict: What's my angle?
This is really just an extension of 'staying in the game', above, but also infringes on Simulationist priorities: it is hard to reconcile the convincing role-play of a character with deep commitments and beliefs with an unwillingness to tolerate a behavioural straitjacket during conflicts. Convictions for which you make no sacrifices aren't convictions, and exactly how inconvenient a given ethical or moral hangup will prove depends almost entirely on the whims of the GM- If a Paladin is given hordes of ravening undead to smite, then obligations to take care of prisoners and give fair warning don't even come up, if he or she has an ideal opportunity to slip arsenic unnoticed into the tyrant's cup, that's a different matter.

Narrativist Conflict: Niche protection.
This is a milder version of the Simulationist/Narrativist conflict between specialisation of character and setting and the freedom to address Premise. Basically, the more specialised a character becomes, the narrower their viable role in the story once the setting is mapped out in detail. Either characters' roles should be flexible and the setting fixed, or the setting flexible and the characters' role fixed, but not both.

Narrativist Conflict: Spare me the details.
This, again, is very similar to one of the ways where Narrativism and Simulationism clash: the precise means by which a given conflict are resolved are simply less interesting, to the Narrativist, than what the conflict was about in the first place: Endless discussion of flanking mechanics, spell combinations, martial maneuvers, initiative order, etc. are basically a waste of time.

Simulationist Conflict: Staying 'in character'.
Simulationists often gravitate toward what's called 'Actor stance'- the idea that a character's decisions should be made based solely on IC information. By contrast, Gamists (and, in fairness, Narrativists,) generally favour Author stance- making decisions based on OOC information, then retroactively justifying them to ensure plausibility. Some Gamists even default to Pawn stance- basically, making decisions with no attempt to rationalise them at all (this sometimes turns up in Sim play, but only where the rules-resolution guarantees 'realism' in the first place.)

When I see a player completely abandon all Stances but Pawn through several scenes of play, it's like the sinister drumming emanating from the leafy jungle the night before the massacre. Many a GM in a Gamist-oriented group strictly enforces justifications of characters' behavior in an attempt to stave off the problem, although frankly, if he has to resort to decrees, threats, and pleas, it's probably already too late.
Any major decisions made in this fashion by the Gamist (or again, Narrativist,) is going to break immersion for the Simulationist: things are happening in the world, but not because of the world.

Simulationist Conflict: Life is Unfair
I've covered this already in the Sim essay, but in summary: the social conventions or physical and biological laws prevailing in a given setting or source of inspiration rarely conform perfectly to the Gamist demand for sustained, diverse, and balanced tactical competition. A faithful Simulationist approach to, for example, katana duels would have to face up to the fact that they're almost invariably over within a handful of moves, leaving one or both opponents dead. (Interestingly, combat this deadly has thus far only been well-represented in Narrativist-Simulationist hybrids- Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel- where you basically need metagame resources earned through protagonism to survive it.)


A Closing Word

Gamist play and Gamist groups are virtually everywhere, but tabletop RPGs that catered to it efficiently were lost for years in the shuffle of incoherent systems, including, but by no means limited to, AD&D, Vampire, and late-edition Champions. Rifts, ugly as a carrot though it was, at least had it's priorities straight, so too did Shadowrun (and, to a degree, 3E D&D, in that the system was at least driftable toward functional Gamist play: players of 3E rarely realise the extent to which they are playing with a whole pile of unwritten 'house rules' regarding, e.g, the use of Polymorph and Monks vs. Druids.) Rune and Kobolds Ate My Baby are more recent examples of highly functional Gamist design.

Despite being much maligned as 'Munchkins', 'Powergamers', 'Rules-Lawyers' or just plain 'pushy bastards', Gamists aren't doing anything fundamentally wrong. They've simply been lumped in with folks that had very different objectives during play.

But it's just a game!
This phrase is an alarm bell. Oh, it looks like an attempt to reconciliate disagreements by calling attention to fun and the shared, social context, but it disguises something far more unpleasant... Rather, it is code for, "Stop bothering me with your interests and accord with my goals, decisions, and priorities of play." I strongly urge that individual role-players not tolerate any implication that their preferred, enjoyed range of role-playing modes is a less worthy form of play.

The New Bruceski
2009-09-14, 02:00 PM
I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in the hobby.

I realize those aren't your words, but that has to be the worst misuse of "synecdoche" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche) (referring to an object by its part) I've seen. The word refers to things like calling a woman "legs" or "toots", or referring to a car as "a set of wheels". I'm having difficulty figuring out what word he *meant* to use.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-14, 02:20 PM
I presume it's a reference to the idea of N or S play-objectives being used to represent role-playing as a whole. I think that's more-or-less consistent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche).

Yukitsu
2009-09-14, 03:04 PM
Once again, I'd have to point out the improper use of terms here. What is defined is competition, where a winner/loser is expected or necessary to win. What the theory defines as a game is not necessarily a game in and of itself, but rather a competition.

What a game is more typically defined as, is a form of entertainment (noting that not all entertainments are games). From here, I'll simply assume that Edward's theory is talking about "competetive" play, and not "game" play. Much like much of the theory, I view this as missing the point.

Balance is rather equivocated in its description to be all inclusive of all forms of balance, assuming that a competetive individual will be interested in balance in all forms, and that other, non-competetive players would care at all. This is false. A competetive individual only needs balance related to the aspect of the game itself, much as the other forms do not require balance at all, making the expansion on the point redundant.

The contrast between groups, again, shows no reason why reasonable individuals can't reconcile differences between play styles, and enjoy a variety or spectrum of things. For the same reasons as outlined in the other topics, there is no reason for me to buy into people moving into any one category at the complete expense of the others as this theory requires.

The line "...and resulting in a lot of compromises rather than solutions" reveals what I believe is half of the problem with Edward's theory. A compromise is a solution, and is considered the ideal in a given situation. Making forced choices between "my way" and everything else is essentially the same as throwing a hissy fit because the world isn't exactly as you like it.

On note of the very last quote placed in that essay, it is again a sign that Edward's basically wasn't mature enough to own up to his own inability to play the game in a mature manner. People who say that say it when people are getting angry over a game, not because someone is trying to do something different. "It's just a game" shouldn't be an alarm that the person who said it is trying to manipulate an individual into playing the game by the rules. It's a warning sign that the individual to whom it is told needs to calm down and stop yelling.

On the use of pop psychoanalysm ala Freud, he presents this lack of maturity as well. The DM "taking control" of the world, in the event of individuals who are mature enough to empathize at all, the problems should not at all arise, or in the event that it does, it should be accepted. One gets from that argument that the original writer doesn't particularly like gamists. It sounds as though he was not good at games, did not recieve a portion of the spotlight due to his lack of aptitude, threw fits, and wanted to be the game's Mary Sue due to ad hoc "narrative" conventions. Though of course, that may just be due to the vitriol that is readily detectable in his essay on gamists when contrasted to the narrativists.

The New Bruceski
2009-09-14, 04:27 PM
I presume it's a reference to the idea of N or S play-objectives being used to represent role-playing as a whole. I think that's more-or-less consistent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche).

...that's not how it works at all. You're describing a logical fallacy (assuming some qualities of one object are shared among all), and synecdoche is a type of descriptive style. Referring to a car as "a set of wheels" identifies an object by a part, and is synecdoche. Saying "all cars have wheels" is making a logical statement, and is not synecdoche.

Raum
2009-09-14, 06:18 PM
I'll say this much for you Jill - you're persistent.

Thinker
2009-09-14, 06:24 PM
Why do you keep posting new threads about GNS? Wouldn't a single thread have been sufficient? There's not much to talk about in a widely-panned theory that tries to pigeon-hole various styles of play based on personal anecdote rather than objective analysis. Why do we even need categories for the way people play? It seems like an unnecessary and trivial practice.

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-14, 07:55 PM
I think the reason Samurai keeps making new threads is to convince people from previous ones not to follow for fear that they will get nabbed for bringing in luggage from another thread (or because they're so darn bored with the topic, either one). If that isn't the reason, then I have to concur - Samurai is rather persistent. Remember, Samurai - a good warrior knows when to keep fighting and when to withdraw.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-14, 08:03 PM
I think the reason Samurai keeps making new threads is to convince people from previous ones not to follow for fear that they will get nabbed for bringing in luggage from another thread (or because they're so darn bored with the topic, either one). If that isn't the reason, then I have to concur - Samurai is rather persistent. Remember, Samurai - a good warrior knows when to keep fighting and when to withdraw.

Actually, I believe the idea is that Jill is constructing a series of Articles, (on Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism, natch) and is seeking feedback (otherwise why put them on the internet in the first place?).

Single Thread or multiple doesn't really make much of a difference. We're not going to run out of internets, and it does at least partly succeed in channelling the nerd-rage and rampant tangents in the general direction of the GNS letter of the Week.

Speaking of which - The term 'crunch' as you have defined it meshes badly with my understanding of 'Crunch' in relation to RP discussions, (given that 'crunch' vs 'Fluff' is, afaik, simply a way of differentiating the crunchy bits, ie, rule related content usually, from flavourfull, non crunchy, 'fluffy bits'. It doesn't to my experience have any of the connotations that part of your essay seems to imply. Perhaps a different word or phrase would keep the meaning you are trying to put across clear and free of potential misunderstandings?

Typewriter
2009-09-14, 08:17 PM
Sorry to ask a stupid question, but I've seen these threads popping up periodically, but never read any of them. After reading the initial post I'm curious as to what's going on.

Are you saying you agree with the theory and are looking for debate? It may be in there and I missed it, but I had a bit of trouble retaining anything more than a paragraph at a time, so sorry if I missed it.

Just curious :)

Draz74
2009-09-14, 08:41 PM
There's not much to talk about in a widely-panned theory that tries to pigeon-hole various styles of play based on personal anecdote rather than objective analysis.
I think the very fact that Jill has written these articles -- clearly carefully thought-out, and long enough that many of us are too lazy to actually read through them -- in and of itself proves you very wrong on this point.

(I plead guilty to not actually reading them, just skimming them. But from what I've skimmed, they seem to be high-quality commentary.)

Indeed, perhaps Jill's purpose in writing these is precisely to attack the recent fad of dismissing GNS theory as useless and empty.


Why do we even need categories for the way people play? It seems like an unnecessary and trivial practice.

... or, then again, maybe the purpose of these articles is to answer this question. :smalltongue:

Yukitsu
2009-09-14, 10:12 PM
I think the very fact that Jill has written these articles -- clearly carefully thought-out, and long enough that many of us are too lazy to actually read through them -- in and of itself proves you very wrong on this point.

(I plead guilty to not actually reading them, just skimming them. But from what I've skimmed, they seem to be high-quality commentary.)

I, and other critics have been thoroughly reading them (I read each one at least twice before posting), and have pointed out some very, very persistent flaws that we've percieved in the presentation, actually.


Indeed, perhaps Jill's purpose in writing these is precisely to attack the recent fad of dismissing GNS theory as useless and empty.

Equivalently, a lot of points raised are not that it's by default pointless, but that there is no support for it, and little coherency.

Roog
2009-09-14, 11:28 PM
I presume it's a reference to the idea of N or S play-objectives being used to represent role-playing as a whole. I think that's more-or-less consistent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche).

It's definitely consistent with the way Edwards uses the English language.

Meek
2009-09-15, 12:32 AM
Why do you keep posting new threads about GNS? Wouldn't a single thread have been sufficient?.

Nope, because this is how Forgies try to get their theories accepted and eventually tolerated in every forum they propagate to – by bludgeoning you over the head with them until you have been rendered too dazed to offer any sort of resistance. It doesn't matter how unwanted or unneeded the commentary is.

Brian Gleichman (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-rpg-theory-has-bad-rep-part-v.html) really puts the sordid history of this stuff better than anyone else can, and why you should probably not bother to debate it.

Saph
2009-09-15, 06:58 AM
I think the very fact that Jill has written these articles in and of itself proves you very wrong on this point.

(I plead guilty to not actually reading them, just skimming them. But from what I've skimmed, they seem to be high-quality commentary.)

The thing is, we have read them, and we're not impressed. Raum and Yukitsu, as well as many others, have posted detailed explanations as to why.

Here's Raum's summary from the previous thread:


I'll list a few of the specifics again. GNS makes claims based on superficial observations with no objective or repeatable testing.
Most statements of "fact" made by GNS are left unsupported, as if they should be accepted as a priori knowledge.
No trichotomy of gamer style or gaming goals has been shown. In fact, data has shown five differing divisions.
Nothing has been shown to make differing gaming goals exclusive or zero sum. Again, data shows common desires for certain elements across types of gamers.

We've challenged Jill repeatedly to back up her trichotomy assumption. Her arguments in response have been . . . poor.

pingcode20
2009-09-15, 07:32 AM
Not to jump into the debate here, but could anybody post a link to WotC's study? The link in Gleichman's blog is dead - does anybody have an alternative mirror?

It seems like it'd be an interesting read, is all.

Kalirren
2009-09-15, 07:42 AM
Draz74: This really is why you can't afford to skim something and argue about it unless you have a good idea what it's about already.

If you're interested in RP theory, go look up newer writings on the topic. In as far as the development of ideas go, going on the Forge and reading GNS and the Big Model in 2009 is like cracking open a 19th-century young-Earth geology textbook when we're in the 21st century. Check out the IJRP (see my sig) for some newer developments. There are references in each of the articles that will give you names to Google. There are also some good RP blogs out there. Raum made a nice list in one of the previous threads, I'll try to find it for you.

They're easier to read and more valuable than Edwards' stuff because they more succinctly model the reality of both RP and gaming dynamics. It's like how my textbook Evolving Brains is shorter than the Bible.

Edit: Here's Raum's list from the Narrativism thread, which contains a working link to the results of the WotC study.


For anyone interested in ludology, I recommend browsing through some of the following sites: Digital Games Research Association (DIGRA) (http://www.digra.org/dl/search_results?general_search_index=ludology)
Richard Bartle's academic papers (http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/papers.htm)
John Kim's system design page (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/) and his RPG theory page (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/). (John Kim has a lot of worthwhile stuff, including a fairly comprehensive list of games.)
International Journal of Role-Playing (http://journalofroleplaying.org/) (Also posted in another thread.)
Some of the Whitehall Paraindustries' (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/) blogs are worth a read. (Some posts were mentioned in another thread on GNS.)
As are many from ars ludi (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/).
Mu's ramblings on design theory (http://mu.ranter.net/design-theory).
Some of Greg Costikyan's (http://www.costik.com/home.html) essays.
Lumpley's gatherings (http://www.lumpley.com/anycomment.php?entry=166).
Some of Greg Stolze's (http://www.gregstolze.com/) writings.
Perhaps Ray Winninger's Dungeoncraft Essays (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/dungeoncraft/).
Forge articles (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/) by Edwards and others.
And, for completeness, WotC's research Breakdown of RPG Players (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html) and Market Research Summary (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotCMarketResearchSummary.html) (Both posted earlier in this thread.)
Some of the pages and articles linked advocate GNS in one form or another, some debunk GNS, and others don't even mention it.

Raum
2009-09-15, 07:51 AM
Not to jump into the debate here, but could anybody post a link to WotC's study? The link in Gleichman's blog is dead - does anybody have an alternative mirror?

It seems like it'd be an interesting read, is all.Here is a post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6897847&postcount=120) with several links, including WotC's study results.

Edit: Ah, thanks Kalirren!

Winterwind
2009-09-15, 08:12 AM
The one thing I never understood about people talking about GNS theory is why so many people tend to assume GNS states every player is one and only one of these things. I always figured it makes much more sense to not assume it talks about people at all, but rather about possible aspects to like about roleplaying, with individual players putting different emphasis on all of these three aspects, but in no way necessarily being just one of them.

And if viewed this way, I find it does actually serve a purpose - namely that of helping understand other people's motivations. It cuts a lot of "you're playing it wrong!" discussions short by enforcing the insight that people may like different aspects about roleplaying more than oneself, and helps outline what these different aspects might be. Anything that serves mutual understanding of players in a group is a good thing, right?

Or am I completely missing something about GNS theory there that runs contrary to the above? :smallconfused:

The Rose Dragon
2009-09-15, 08:21 AM
The one thing I never understood about people talking about GNS theory is why so many people tend to assume GNS states every player is one and only one of these things.

[...]

Or am I completely missing something about GNS theory there that runs contrary to the above? :smallconfused:

GNS (though it may just be Samurai Jill) states that you can't adhere to more than one of these "playstyles" or your character becomes "wishy-washy and inconsistent".

So, yes, you're missing something.

Winterwind
2009-09-15, 08:40 AM
Mmm, I see. Okay, in that incarnation, that makes no sense to me either.

Though I still think it can be quite insightful if one does not insist on that. It's a bit too narrow, as I can think of more than three noteworthy things people can desire in roleplaying games (for instance, the wish to explore the character one plays and the wish for as good a story as possible are two quite distinct preferences, yet are both summarized under Narrativism - of course, in line with my belief the GNS theory should describe facets common to all players to various degrees, most people will want both anyway), but it's still quite worth it, in my eyes.

I've written up a few more elaborate posts on that matter some two years ago, but I don't seem to be able to find them anymore.

Morty
2009-09-15, 08:43 AM
Even if not used strictly, GNS theory doesn't cut "You're doing it WRONG" arguments short but rather spawns them by dozens, by giving people who'd use such arguments a perfect tool - instead of simply saying "you're wrong", one can say "you're a gamist/simulationist/narrativist and therefore, you're wrong".

Winterwind
2009-09-15, 08:47 AM
I've written up a few more elaborate posts on that matter some two years ago, but I don't seem to be able to find them anymore.Ha! Found it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3002302&postcount=6) after all! :smallamused:

...funny how that thread's title was almost the same as this one's. :smallbiggrin:


Even if not used strictly, GNS theory doesn't cut "You're doing it WRONG" arguments short but rather spawns them by dozens, by giving people who'd use such arguments a perfect tool - instead of simply saying "you're wrong", one can say "you're a gamist/simulationist/narrativist and therefore, you're wrong"....how? If the essence of the theory is "there are different things people like about roleplaying. None of them is right, but different playstyles and stances towards roleplaying may be caused by a different emphasis of preferences", then using it to state the other is wrong for playing a certain way is in direct opposition to what lies at the theory's heart. :smallconfused:

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 08:52 AM
Winterwind, I don't think people are objecting to the basic notion of working out what different parts of a game players may prefer or prioritize, but rather to the specifics of GNS and the claims and conclusions of its advocates. For example, the model's author claims that striking a balance between the different modes leads to incoherence and mediocrity, and the proper way to design a game is to pick one aspect and focus on it. You may say that this doesn't mean calling the neglected aspects wrong (though the author seems to have convinced plenty of readers that he thinks exactly that, by his treatment of the various modes), but it does lend itself to groups essentially saying "your preference is X and X is not ever going to be catered to in this game".

Morty
2009-09-15, 09:02 AM
...how? If the essence of the theory is "there are different things people like about roleplaying. None of them is right, but different playstyles and stances towards roleplaying may be caused by a different emphasis of preferences", then using it to state the other is wrong for playing a certain way is in direct opposition to what lies at the theory's heart. :smallconfused:

I'm pretty sure that original GNS theory by Ron Edwards blatantly favored Narrativism while berating Simulationism. Also, even if a theory isn't in favor of one gameplay style, arbitrary distinctions like this one do encourage people to pick one of them and dismiss the others, especially if meshing them together is called "incoherent design", by essentially glorifying their short-sightedness. If GNS were used as general descriptions of notions in RPG systems and among gamers, it wouldn't be so bad, but the it isn't.

Diamondeye
2009-09-15, 09:10 AM
...how? If the essence of the theory is "there are different things people like about roleplaying. None of them is right, but different playstyles and stances towards roleplaying may be caused by a different emphasis of preferences", then using it to state the other is wrong for playing a certain way is in direct opposition to what lies at the theory's heart. :smallconfused:

It's done rather subtly, but if you look, for example, at "Narritivism"; it includes all sorts of unnecessary qualifications beyond "the game is primarily about the story", such as the players having an equal 'say' in the creation of the story and so forth, cleverly disguised by misusing words like "narritive", "drama", and "protagonist".

This artificially narrows that portion of the theory, and shoves story-based gaming that doesn't conform to these unparsimonious additions over into one of the other 2 arms of the theory, even though they don't have much in common with those arms, using terms like "illusionism" which have pejorative connotations.

It's a little more complex than just "You're doing it wrong", but basically what it's saying is "If you're playing a game around a storyline but aren't doing it in way X, you're doing narritivism wrong, (same thing for the other two arms) and if you're mixing aspects of more than one arm, you're doing it wrong because your game is 'incoherent'".

Essentially the theory is one huge circular argument where the theory categorizes games a cerain way because that's how the theory categorizes them.

Winterwind
2009-09-15, 09:13 AM
Winterwind, I don't think people are objecting to the basic notion of working out what different parts of a game players may prefer or prioritize, but rather to the specifics of GNS and the claims and conclusions of its advocates. For example, the model's author claims that striking a balance between the different modes leads to incoherence and mediocrity, and the proper way to design a game is to pick one aspect and focus on it. You may say that this doesn't mean calling the neglected aspects wrong (though the author seems to have convinced plenty of readers that he thinks exactly that, by his treatment of the various modes), I... see.
Alright, if GNS indeed refers to such conclusions, too, and not just the outline of these three basic possible directions of preferences, I do see what I was missing and what makes people scorn that. I'd still say a listing of the various aspects people can like about roleplaying is a sensible and worthwhile thing, but I guess this might no longer be called GNS then.


but it does lend itself to groups essentially saying "your preference is X and X is not ever going to be catered to in this game".A most unfriendly thing to do, and something I'd hope not to see amongst friends, but better they warned this person than if they had not, right? Since presumably they would have played in this fashion either way, even if they were not aware of the various preferences at all. As long as they formulated it more as "I thought your preference is X?", and left the ultimate decision to the person in question - shoehorning people into roles they may not even consider for themselves is horrible, excluding them from games for that reason is even worse.

Contrariwise, I find it can be quite useful to tailor games more for people - I have a friend who places more focus on story, and another who likes to come up with mechanically highly tuned characters and to see their prowess in action (and several others who fall somewhere in the middle). When only the former is around, I sometimes DM adventures with tons and tons of social elements, very little dice rolling and far more weird events that happen to drive the story in some direction with much less input from the player, because I know she likes it this way - I wouldn't even consider using even a fraction of this amount of railroading and such a lack of dice-involving challenges if the latter was around, because he would hate that. Just like the former wouldn't like the more dungeon crawl like adventures I come up with if only the latter is around. If both of them are there (or any of the other people I play with), I know I need to combine aspects from both directions. This way, I can always try to cater to the people I am currently playing with to ensure everyone has as much fun as possible.

I could still do this if I didn't know about GNS theory, of course, but having it formulated in clear, concise form helps.

EDIT:

I'm pretty sure that original GNS theory by Ron Edwards blatantly favored Narrativism while berating Simulationism. Also, even if a theory isn't in favor of one gameplay style, arbitrary distinctions like this one do encourage people to pick one of them and dismiss the others, especially if meshing them together is called "incoherent design", by essentially glorifying their short-sightedness. If GNS were used as general descriptions of notions in RPG systems and among gamers, it wouldn't be so bad, but the it isn't.Well, I don't blame a theory for people misusing it, if it is useful if they don't (see above). :smalltongue:
Of course, if the theory itself contains these flawed concepts, that's a different matter entirely...


It's done rather subtly, but if you look, for example, at "Narritivism"; it includes all sorts of unnecessary qualifications beyond "the game is primarily about the story", such as the players having an equal 'say' in the creation of the story and so forth, cleverly disguised by misusing words like "narritive", "drama", and "protagonist".

This artificially narrows that portion of the theory, and shoves story-based gaming that doesn't conform to these unparsimonious additions over into one of the other 2 arms of the theory, even though they don't have much in common with those arms, using terms like "illusionism" which have pejorative connotations.

It's a little more complex than just "You're doing it wrong", but basically what it's saying is "If you're playing a game around a storyline but aren't doing it in way X, you're doing narritivism wrong, (same thing for the other two arms) and if you're mixing aspects of more than one arm, you're doing it wrong because your game is 'incoherent'".

Essentially the theory is one huge circular argument where the theory categorizes games a cerain way because that's how the theory categorizes them.Oh, I see. Didn't know that. Yes... this is bad, quite bad indeed.
Quite enlightening though, with regards to the problem people have with the theory. Thank you for that (and the others who posted in response to me, too). :smallsmile:

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 09:32 AM
A most unfriendly thing to do, and something I'd hope not to see amongst friends, but better they warned this person than if they had not, right? Since presumably they would have played in this fashion either way, even if they were not aware of the various preferences at all.

Well, see Morty's post immediately after mine, which you quoted. The perception seems to be that GNS encourages people to say "sorry, we're Narrativists playing a Narrativist game, your concerns are Simulationsist and inherently incompatible with our priorities so either shut up or get out" (okay, the last bit doesn't have to be phrased that way), where left to their own devices a group might be more likely to say "you're right, we could stand to pay a little more attention to verisimilitude and indulge your desire to track certain details, we can compromise on that".

Winterwind
2009-09-15, 09:57 AM
Well... I certainly would hope that a better understanding of other people would not turn anyone into a bigger egoist, and the reaction would rather be "you're right, we could stand to pay a little more attention to verisimilitude and indulge your desire to track certain details, we can compromise on that. Also, while we're at it, you seem to have a bigger preference on Simulationism than us - consequentially, is there anything else you think we could improve in this direction to make the game more fun for you (as long as it doesn't make the game less fun for the others)". This would certainly be more in line with my own experience, but of course anecdotal evidence from the experience of one particular person is no kind of evidence at all.

Either way, I see how it could go the way you describe.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 10:02 AM
You still seem to be thinking in terms of a purely descriptive model of players. GNS is supposed to be applied to systems too and guide how to design them, which extends naturally to how to run a game in accordance with its system's design.

Again, a model that only tried to identify the different priorities of different types of players would not lead to what I'm describing, but GNS is not such a model. (And even then, I couldn't say how much of what it's criticized for comes from its author and advocates rather than any necessary consequence of its stated goals.)

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-15, 11:54 AM
I could still do this if I didn't know about GNS theory, of course, but having it formulated in clear, concise form helps.


If you want something clear and concise, than GNS is not it. It is purposefully obtuse, with reams and reams of jargon that does not match commonly accepted uses of terms in an attempt to blindsight people. Your job is not to question the theory, but to just lie back and accept the gospel, to know that you are in the presence of an enlightened mind and shut up and take it. It's the same sort of pseudo-intellectualism that postmodernists use.



Well... I certainly would hope that a better understanding of other people would not turn anyone into a bigger egoist, and the reaction would rather be "you're right, we could stand to pay a little more attention to verisimilitude and indulge your desire to track certain details, we can compromise on that..."


Yes, and this is what most reasonable people can do in life. But GNS theory states that such compromises are BadWrong and will only lead to player conflict. Unresolvable player conflict. It assumes that the players are the single most hard-headed, stubborn, boorish SOBs on the planet and that the only way to prevent problems is with a game system that concentrates on only one of the three categories to the exclusion of others.

Compromise is not part of GNS theory; it actively disparages it, in fact calling such games "incoherent".



This would certainly be more in line with my own experience...


It is in line with most other people's experiences, too. But GNS says that such compromise not only should not happen, but is actively a bad thing.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-15, 02:53 PM
GNS (though it may just be Samurai Jill) states that you can't adhere to more than one of these "playstyles" or your character becomes "wishy-washy and inconsistent".
An effective protagonist is, for all intents and purposes, a central character that commits themselves to a cause long enough for it to involve substantial inconvenience. So it's not compatible with the idea of switching back and forth between certain Gamist and Simulationist priorities (i.e, winning efficiently, sticking to your convictions.) I'm sorry, that's just a question of definitions.

Each GNS mode is DEFINED as being an incompatible thing. The only contentious assertion is that people naturally gravitate toward one of these modes above and beyond others- that they have distinct instinctive preferences- rather than simply being artificial categories. I think the former idea is most consistent with observations of actual play, informal and anecdotal as they may be.

Even if not used strictly, GNS theory doesn't cut "You're doing it WRONG" arguments short but rather spawns them by dozens, by giving people who'd use such arguments a perfect tool - instead of simply saying "you're wrong", one can say "you're a gamist/simulationist/narrativist and therefore, you're wrong".

You may say that this doesn't mean calling the neglected aspects wrong (though the author seems to have convinced plenty of readers that he thinks exactly that, by his treatment of the various modes), but it does lend itself to groups essentially saying "your preference is X and X is not ever going to be catered to in this game".
In many cases, this is perfectly accurate- at least, not without ignoring or rewriting substantial portions of the rules (which is known as Drift.) Most 3E groups offer a perfect example of Drift in action, usually without the players even realising it.

I'm pretty sure that original GNS theory by Ron Edwards blatantly favored Narrativism while berating Simulationism...
Yes, it did, as does much of the supplementary material in Sorcerer (where Sim play is categorised as 'Denial'.) The thing is that, contrary to his detractors' assertions, Ron Edwards is actually capable of modifying his views in response to contrary evidence. I see little or no evidence for favouritism in his later essays on the subject, which, as far as I can tell, bend over backwards to give Sim a fair shake. I have mentioned this before.

It's done rather subtly, but if you look, for example, at "Narritivism"; it includes all sorts of unnecessary qualifications beyond "the game is primarily about the story", such as the players having an equal 'say' in the creation of the story...
It's a simple matter of definitions. A game is defined as an interactive process. A fixed plot is a non-interactive thing. It cannot be the primary focus of a game, any more than the primary focus of chess is somehow on medieval chivalry.

Well, see Morty's post immediately after mine, which you quoted. The perception seems to be that GNS encourages people to say "sorry, we're Narrativists playing a Narrativist game, your concerns are Simulationsist and inherently incompatible with our priorities so either shut up or get out" (okay, the last bit doesn't have to be phrased that way), where left to their own devices a group might be more likely to say "you're right, we could stand to pay a little more attention to verisimilitude and indulge your desire to track certain details, we can compromise on that".
You can compromise on that, but it will not be a productive compromise. Narrativist and Simulationist priorities differ enough that a halfway point is just going to leave both parties equally irritated. It's a bit like trying to compromise on East and West. This is in contrast to conflicts between players within a given mode, which can generally be solved satisfactorily if everyone gives a little. In essence, each GNS mode defines the ranges of play within which productive compromise is possible.

You still seem to be thinking in terms of a purely descriptive model of players. GNS is supposed to be applied to systems too and guide how to design them, which extends naturally to how to run a game in accordance with its system's design.
Formal rules support certain forms of interaction and not others. Written text emphasises certain goals and not others. Reward systems generate value systems. Incoherent design leads to systems that claim to cater to everyone and actually service no-one well, while leading to interplayer disagreements as different players latch onto different portions of the rules and text as how things "ought" to be played. Scenes that appeal greatly to one form of player will simply bore others. System does matter.

I'll be posting a final summary and explanation thread, and after that I think I'm done.

If you want something clear and concise, than GNS is not it...
I have done my best to present each mode in as clear and concise as fashion as is reasonably possible while remaining useful, but asking for a clear, concise definition of- say- Narrativism is... like asking for a clear, concise definition of 'painting', or 'poetry', or 'jazz music'. There's no snappy formula you can give that will actually convey meaningful information on the subject to someone who's never seen it in action before. You just have to read the damn thing, and, ideally, actually try it out with a suitable group and suitable rules. These essays should, theoretically, serve to assist you in that goal.

I won't deny that Edwards' own presentation of the theory is often impenetrable, but what I have tried to do is hack away as much of the clutter and digressions as possible and present the core of the theory, while still affording useful illustrations of the practical conflicts that arise.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 02:59 PM
You can compromise on that, but it will not be a productive compromise.

This seems to be in direct opposition to the experiences of people who do compromise in their games and find them the better for it. On what grounds to you tell these people that your theorizing trumps their experience?

Samurai Jill
2009-09-15, 03:12 PM
This seems to be in direct opposition to the experiences of people who do compromise in their games and find them the better for it. On what grounds to you tell these people that your theorizing trumps their experience?
Because by and large, what they think is a 'compromise' is actually 'one side winning'. Ensuring that all races have the same +/-2 bonus/penalty to some significant attribute, regardless of their fictional depictions, is not 'compromising between Sim and Game', it is Gamism winning, and Sim being left with the scraps. Making up the setting as you go in a way that's plausibly consistent with previous elements is not 'compromise between Nar and Sim', that is Narrativism winning, and Sim being left with the scraps.

There is nothing wrong with these modes of play, but they don't represent compromises, and they certainly don't represent 2 or more modes firing on all cylinders.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 03:21 PM
What would represent a compromise, to your mind? Even an unproductive one?

Samurai Jill
2009-09-15, 03:24 PM
Well, for example, making wizards more powerful than fighters at higher levels, because that's how they're depicted in fantasy literature, despite having things like HP, Levels, XP and Classes plastered all over the actual rules.

Yukitsu
2009-09-15, 03:29 PM
An effective protagonist is, for intents and purposes, a central character that commits themselves to a cause long enough for it to involve substantial inconvenience. So it's not compatible with the idea of switching back and forth between certain Gamist and Simulationist priorities (i.e, winning efficiently, sticking to your convictions.) I'm sorry, that's just a question of definitions.

Yes, and the question of definitions, namely "when will they be clear?" comes swiftly to mind.


Each GNS mode is DEFINED as being an incompatible thing. The only contentious assertion is that people naturally gravitate toward one of these modes above and beyond others- that they have distinct instinctive preferences- rather than simply being artificial categories. I think the former idea is most consistent with observations of actual play, informal and anecdotal as they may be.

Hence one of the problems with the model. It's based largely around the assumption that things fall into those categorical extremes, and because it assumes only these extremes are possible, it therefor assumes compatibility is impossible. As well, it's not contended that people tend towards a style, given a mood or game, but it's more contentious that people do so at the exclusion of developing a fondness for the other two, which is more coherent with observations.


In many cases, this is perfectly accurate- at least, not without ignoring or rewriting substantial portions of the rules (which is known as Drift.) Most 3E groups offer a perfect example of Drift in action, usually without the players even realising it.

I find this is only true if an individual is an active exponent of a singular ideal at the expense of the game at large. 3.x is fairly broad in its ability to deal with multiple desires, and where a group is a diverse set of freinds or mature individuals, broadening, not narrowing can happen.


Yes, it did, as does much of the supplementary material in Sorcerer (where Sim play is categorised as 'Denial'.) The thing is that, contrary to his detractors' assertions, Ron Edwards is actually capable of modifying his views in response to contrary evidence. I see little or no evidence for favouritism in his later essays on the subject, which, as far as I can tell, bend over backwards to give Sim a fair shake. I have mentioned this before.

Must be reading different late era articles than me.


It's a simple matter of definitions. A game is defined as an interactive process. A fixed plot is a non-interactive thing. It cannot be the primary focus of a game, any more than the primary focus of chess is somehow on medieval chivalry.

That's not the "definition" of a game at all. A game is more than interactivity, and certainly more than victory conditions. As said earlier, the primary core of a game is that it is entertainment. The method used to attain this, be it group story telling (3 word story games) or die rolling (craps) is irrelevant to the fact that it is a game at heart.


You can compromise on that, but it will not be a productive compromise. Narrativist and Simulationist priorities differ enough that a halfway point is just going to leave both parties equally irritated. It's a bit like trying to compromise on East and West.

Actually, the definition of East and West is based on arbitrary premises, and are based entirely on convention, as opposed to anything observable. To compare, narrativist and simulationist conventions are based (if I use the definition of what those words mean IRL, as opposed to in Edward's theory) on personal preference of which no individual need exclude others in having. Much like my like of mushrooms in no way prevents me from also enjoying bacon.


This is in contrast to conflicts between players within a given mode, which can generally be solved satisfactorily if everyone gives a little. In essence, each GNS mode defines the ranges of play within which productive compromise is possible.

This is contentious, and I frankly would like to see proof that people are so thoroughly incapable of compromise that they can't see the value of one of the other two.


Formal rules support certain forms of interaction and not others. Written text emphasises certain goals and not others.

Partly true. The way things are written can direct a game in a certain direction. However, I've noted in both cases, the rules only direct the game. They do not dictate them. There is no game in which other elements cannot be brought about.


Reward systems generate value systems.

On this note I completely agree, and also note that each style demands different types of rewards as well, none of which are mutually exclusive.


Incoherent design leads to systems that claim to cater to everyone and actually service no-one well, while leading to interplayer disagreements as different players latch onto different portions of the rules and text as how things "ought" to be played.

And this is where there is a bit of a leap in logic. That a system moves more towards one style or the other, and possibly at the cost of others does not imply that each can't have their cake and eat it to. That people are incapable of enjoying multiple modes of play or in invisioning the rules as a whole is also a catastrophic leap.


Scenes that appeal greatly to one form of player will simply bore others.

Again, this relies on people being incapable of having multiple preferences.


I have done my best to present each mode in as clear and concise as fashion as is reasonably possible while remaining useful, but asking for a clear, concise definition of- say- Narrativism is... like asking for a clear, concise definition of 'painting', or 'poetry', or 'jazz music'. There's no snappy formula you can give that will actually convey meaningful information on the subject to someone who's never seen it in action before. You just have to read the damn thing, and, ideally, actually try it out with a suitable group an suitable rules. These essays would, theoretically, serve to assist you in that goal.

No it doesn't. If the theory holds any water, the game will naturally gravitate towards that direction on its own accord. That it doesn't is proof that the theory is flawed.

As well, if you are writing a thesis paper on art, if you don't define what a painting is, you're going to fail. Edward's theory does this. It's as simple as that. I certainly don't know what morality truly is, but every paper I wrote on it, I had a short description of what it is, as well as a justification for that definition.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 03:39 PM
Well, for example, making wizards more powerful than fighters at higher levels, because that's how they're depicted in fantasy literature, despite having things like HP, Levels, XP and Classes plastered all over the actual rules.

I don't really see what that has to do with compromise in a group.

Incidentally.


An effective protagonist is, for all intents and purposes, a central character that commits themselves to a cause long enough for it to involve substantial inconvenience.

This doesn't seem to resemble any definition of "protagonist" in art that I'm aware of. Why does it need a new definition for the purposes of RPGs?

Meek
2009-09-15, 03:45 PM
Why does it need a new definition for the purposes of RPGs?

If you can wrest control of the terminology, you can wrest control of the debate.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-15, 03:45 PM
Well, let me see... I recall that... oh definitely months back... there was this poster trying to replace Vanceian magic with spellcasting based on fatigue (a Sim approach,) as represented through nonlethal damage. Sounds fine by itself... except that he still permitted healing magic that restored lost HP directly, including nonlethal damage. His entire group were Sim players by the sound of things, so it seems they quietly ignored this glaring loophole, but anyone else adopting that system was very likely to run into some unpleasant surprises.

This was a guy who had also spent 2 years writing his own compendium of house rules for 3E, and was about to undertake the same task for 4th Edition.

Yukitsu
2009-09-15, 03:47 PM
Actually, functionally infinite (or simply really inexpensive) healing in 3.X is fairly common, and isn't too difficult to get. Doubtful that this was a loophole worth noting.

The infinite magic based on that is similar to the recharge variant of magic found in the SRD. You can go nova in each encounter, but once you're out in a fight, you don't get anything back until the encounter ends.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-15, 03:49 PM
This doesn't seem to resemble any definition of "protagonist" in art that I'm aware of. Why does it need a new definition for the purposes of RPGs?
Because when you don't have it, the story sucks badly enough that no-one pays attention to it. Seriously- look at any example of riveting drama and the one thing you won't find is permanent indecision in the central characters.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 04:04 PM
Well, let me see... I recall that... oh definitely months back... there was this poster trying to replace Vanceian magic with spellcasting based on fatigue (a Sim approach,) as represented through nonlethal damage. Sounds fine by itself... except that he still permitted healing magic that restored lost HP directly, including nonlethal damage. His entire group were Sim players by the sound of things, so it seems they quietly ignored this glaring loophole, but anyone else adopting that system was very likely to run into some unpleasant surprises.

Er... so what? What's your point? I really don't see it. How does this answer my question? You seem to be focusing entirely on design and when I ask about actual table play, you just switch focus to that subset of design that is houseruling.


Because when you don't have it, the story sucks badly enough that no-one pays attention to it. Seriously- look at any example of riveting drama and the one thing you won't find is permanent indecision in the central characters.

What in your original definition had to do with indecision?

So Narrativism isn't about narrative, but drama. And Protagonism isn't about protagonists, but about suitable protagonists, by your standards, for a riveting drama?

Samurai Jill
2009-09-15, 04:07 PM
It's based largely around the assumption that things fall into those categorical extremes...
It's not an assumption. It's fact. Tolkien's setting is not compatible with members of each race being equally powerful. Realistic swordfighting is not compatible with 'Hit Points'. Those are facts.

3.x is fairly broad in its ability to deal with multiple desires, and where a group is a diverse set of freinds or mature individuals, broadening, not narrowing can happen...

...personal preference of which no individual need exclude others in having. Much like my like of mushrooms in no way prevents me from also enjoying bacon...

...This is contentious, and I frankly would like to see proof that people are so thoroughly incapable of compromise that they can't see the value of one of the other two...
Once again...

Because by and large, what they think is a 'compromise' is actually 'one side winning'. Ensuring that all races have the same +/-2 bonus/penalty to some significant attribute, regardless of their fictional depictions, is not 'compromising between Sim and Game', it is Gamism winning, and Sim being left with the scraps. Making up the setting as you go in a way that's plausibly consistent with previous elements is not 'compromise between Nar and Sim', that is Narrativism winning, and Sim being left with the scraps.

There is nothing wrong with these modes of play, but they don't represent compromises, and they certainly don't represent 2 or more modes firing on all cylinders.

No it doesn't. If the theory holds any water, the game will naturally gravitate towards that direction on its own accord.
It might, if the rules-as-written don't actively obstruct that goal, or mislead players about it. But they can.

...As well, if you are writing a thesis paper on art, if you don't define what a painting is, you're going to fail.
How can you give a succinct definition of poetry to someone who's never read or heard one? I've done my best to define Narrativism, but the fact is that definition actually requires a bit of reading and careful observation to grasp fully.

...That's not the "definition" of a game at all. A game is more than interactivity, and certainly more than victory conditions. As said earlier, the primary core of a game is that it is entertainment...
This does not meaningfully seperate games from films, books, comics, TV etc. I agree that entertainment is an important purpose of games, but it's not sufficient. It's good to be skeptical, but you can't just make crap up.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-15, 04:12 PM
Er... so what? What's your point? I really don't see it. How does this answer my question? You seem to be focusing entirely on design and when I ask about actual table play, you just switch focus to that subset of design that is houseruling.
How, exactly, do you formally facilitate 'compromise' between each group, except through 'house rules'? Any reliable behavioural convention stuck to during play that isn't emphasised in the original text, whether written down or not, is- in effect- a 'house rule.'

What in your original definition had to do with indecision?

So Narrativism isn't about narrative, but drama. And Protagonism isn't about protagonists, but about suitable protagonists, by your standards, for a riveting drama?
Again, I agree that the name and terms can be somewhat confusing. But specialised terminology doesn't invalidate the theory's key predictions.

Indecision is the opposite of commitment.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-15, 04:16 PM
Actually, functionally infinite (or simply really inexpensive) healing in 3.X is fairly common, and isn't too difficult to get. Doubtful that this was a loophole worth noting.
This poster was also aiming for a relatively low-magic setting where CoDzilla syndrome wasn't as pronounced.

The infinite magic based on that is similar to the recharge variant of magic found in the SRD. You can go nova in each encounter, but once you're out in a fight, you don't get anything back until the encounter ends.
There was no such limitation present.

Yukitsu
2009-09-15, 04:29 PM
It's not an assumption. It's fact. Tolkien's setting is not compatible with members of each race being equally powerful. Realistic swordfighting is not compatible with 'Hit Points'. Those are facts.

Actually, I believe I was adressing a different point when I made that line. As for inherent game balance not coinciding with either the simulation or narrativist assumption of different people holding unique skills based on race, the world has simply stated that they are roughly equivalent, much like Tolkein has elves as vastly superior in every way. This does not conflict with a story, or realism, simply because they have chosen to define the setting that way. That by contrivance, the world matches game balance (and I'll add, it doesn't. By and large, the races are fairly mechanically distinct, even with only a +2/-2 to their key abilities. In particular, only a few races are considered worthwhile by character optimizers. Humans in particular.)


It might, if the rules-as-written don't actively obstruct that goal, or mislead players about it. But they can.

The statements of this theory imply that a game will be inferior when incoherent. The only relevant "inferiority" a game can have is that it is less fun than another game, and people will not play a game that is not fun. No obstruction in a game can actually force a player to accept a poorly made game. It's rational to conclude that if players continue to play "incoherent games" that they do so not because they are being decieved, but because they are having fun, which makes it a good game by all criteria I care about.


How can you give a succinct definition of poetry to someone who's never read or heard one? I've done my best to define Narrativism, but the fact is that definition actually requires a bit of reading and careful observation to grasp fully.

By being overly inclusive, then narrowing the scope over the extent of an essay is how I generally define such things. For example: Poetry can be defined as any verbal or written passage of variable length that use rhyme, meter or other conventions not typically found in day to day speech. Modern poets have blurred the line between "poem" and "non-poem" by creating free form poetry that is by and large indistinct from other forms of writing.


This does not meaningfully seperate games from films, books, comics, TV etc. I agree that entertainment is an important purpose of games, but it's not sufficient. It's good to be skeptical, but you can't just make crap up.

Games being entertainment at their core is part of the dictionary definition. As well, it's the first component to Wittgenstein and I think Crag's philosophical definitions of games. That and you're ignoring that a game is the things you mentioned with a core of entertainment.

Yukitsu
2009-09-15, 04:31 PM
This poster was also aiming for a relatively low-magic setting where CoDzilla syndrome wasn't as pronounced.

Then it's a failure on that part, but not on maintaining interesting gaming utilities with simulationist intents.


There was no such limitation present.

It requires combat healing, which is derided as the least worthwhile action a party member can make as a cleric.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 04:33 PM
How, exactly, do you formally facilitate 'compromise' between each group, except through 'house rules'? Any reliable behavioural convention stuck to during play that isn't emphasised in the original text, whether written down or not, is- in effect- a 'house rule.'

Whose behaviour exactly?


Again, I agree that the name and terms can be somewhat confusing.

That's not really what I'm saying at all. When the terms you choose are actively misleading and work to hinder understanding, I don't think "confusing" is the most applicable term.

Narrativism, in GNS, doesn't deserve consideration on a level with the other factors. Attaching it to a term as general as "narrative" inflates its importance hugely. And it seems your definition of "Protagonist" is doing the same thing, but with a whiff of circularity about it (so Narrativism isn't about narrative, but about the kinds of narratives that support Protagonists. But Protagonists aren't protagonists, they're protagonists suited to telling Narrative narratives...).

Samurai Jill
2009-09-15, 04:39 PM
Whose behaviour exactly?
Everyone involved. That's what 'convention' means.

That's not really what I'm saying at all. When the terms you choose are actively misleading and work to hinder understanding, I don't think "confusing" is the most applicable term.
If it were up to me, I would be more than happy to perform a few re-labelings, but I really don't think this constitutes a substantive criticism.

Narrativism, in GNS, doesn't deserve consideration on a level with the other factors. Attaching it to a term as general as "narrative" inflates its importance hugely. And it seems your definition of "Protagonist" is doing the same thing, but with a whiff of circularity about it (so Narrativism isn't about narrative, but about the kinds of narratives that support Protagonists. But Protagonists aren't protagonists, they're protagonists suited to telling Narrative narratives...).
They're the kind suited to producing compelling stories- i.e, the kind that might be worth creative attention in the first place.

I'm going to leave off on further discussion for today...

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 05:00 PM
Everyone involved. That's what 'convention' means.

So any agreement or understanding about how the players and/or DM conduct themselves is a house rule? ...No. Sorry. That's not what house rules are.


If it were up to me, I would be more than happy to perform a few re-labelings, but I really don't think this constitutes a substantive criticism.

Er... I'm saying that the whole model is an active, if not necessarily conscious, attempt to mislead the reader, to advance a set of false claims by dressing them up as something more superficially plausible. That seems like a substantive criticism to me, albeit not one that engages the model on its terms.

Winterwind
2009-09-15, 07:07 PM
Just dropping by to say that... Rose Dragon, Morty, kamikasei, Diamondeye, ScreamingDoom, I understand perfectly what you were talking about now. Geez, it's horrifying. :smalleek:



Samurai Jill, I have a friend who generally prefers the gamist aspects of the game - he gets bored if the game focuses too much on story or even just social interaction for too long, spends much time fine-tuning his characters mechanically, enjoys the dice-rolling challenges for his characters the most, and is vehemently of the opinion that dice rolls, rules and stats should be the ultimate arbiter, not the game master. He has, without any doubt, a strong gamist preference. And yet, he also considers story elements and roleplaying (in the sense of acting like the character) a crucial part of the game, complained when the game drifted too much into the gamist direction with too little story to keep it together and has explicitly requested more focus on the characters' private life besides adventuring than we had used to have before.

I'm sure he will be quite surprised to find out that, apparently, going by your claims, he does not actually exist. :smallamused:

NorseItalian
2009-09-15, 07:14 PM
You guys better watch it or Samurai Jill will cut you.

Akal Saris
2009-09-15, 08:16 PM
Draz74:
Edit: Here's Raum's list from the Narrativism thread, which contains a working link to the results of the WotC study.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin:

My God...I saw Mu listed in there, and I thought 'No way...it can't be Sashi Mu...well...I'll click the link anyways...'

AND IT WAS HIS CHEESY WEBPAGE!

Back in 2000, that was one of my favorite websites! I was 13 or so and just getting into online gaming through Asheron's Call (and reading through Dragonlance for the first time as well!), and nearly every single one of Mu's articles on Asheron's Call or Ultima had me in complete stitches. My friends and I still reference the "I just leveled up and was thinking of taking Creature Magic" joke from that little animated thing he did once =)

Roog
2009-09-15, 11:59 PM
Well, for example, making wizards more powerful than fighters at higher levels, because that's how they're depicted in fantasy literature, despite having things like HP, Levels, XP and Classes plastered all over the actual rules.


In what fantasy literature are wizards depicted as more powerful than fighters of the same (high) level?

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-16, 12:11 AM
In what fantasy literature are wizards depicted as more powerful than fighters of the same (high) level?

What fantasy literature actually has the characters even gain levels?

Samurai Jill
2009-09-16, 12:22 AM
So any agreement or understanding about how the players and/or DM conduct themselves is a house rule? ...No. Sorry. That's not what house rules are.
Yes. It absolutely is. Any binding behavioural convention not emphasised by original game text that operates within a given group is, in effect, a house rule.

Just dropping by to say that... Rose Dragon, Morty, kamikasei, Diamondeye, ScreamingDoom, I understand perfectly what you were talking about now. Geez, it's horrifying. :smalleek:
What I do wrong now?!

I honestly am trying to be of use here...

...I'm sure he will be quite surprised to find out that, apparently, going by your claims, he does not actually exist.
Sure he likes these things- he's just not prepared to invest any particular effort in them at the expense of the competitive elements of Gamism. He likes them, in essence, as background ornaments, rather than an actual focus of gameplay. Hence, an RPG design that expected him to actually contribute on those fronts would be a bad idea for any groups he joined. That's the main point here.

In what fantasy literature are wizards depicted as more powerful than fighters of the same (high) level?
...I'm not sure how well the concept of 'levels' would translate here, but Tolkien and le Guin would be pretty fair examples.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-16, 12:37 AM
Actually, I believe I was adressing a different point when I made that line. As for inherent game balance not coinciding with either the simulation or narrativist assumption of different people holding unique skills based on race, the world has simply stated that they are roughly equivalent, much like Tolkein has elves as vastly superior in every way. This does not conflict with a story, or realism, simply because they have chosen to define the setting that way...
Sure, and you could define a setting identical to reality in every way, except that Hit Points really existed. That makes sense.

The statements of this theory imply that a game will be inferior when incoherent. The only relevant "inferiority" a game can have is that it is less fun than another game...
For whom? By what standards?

...No obstruction in a game can actually force a player to accept a poorly made game. It's rational to conclude that if players continue to play "incoherent games" that they do so not because they are being decieved, but because they are having fun, which makes it a good game by all criteria I care about.
Quite often, they do stop playing, either by agreeing to disagree (the 'good' option,) or having an unpleasant falling out, but sometimes they continue to play for no more compelling reason than that they desperately want it to work and it's their best social venue. (Even a bad RPG can be better than Ludo.) No, I don't know why people would bother to keep playing this way. Go figure.

The other option is drift- in essence, continuing to play by ignoring, extending, or rewriting large portions of the rules, whether those modifications are written down, formally articulated, or even consciously realised or not. This is surprisingly common.

Games being entertainment at their core is part of the dictionary definition....
...So is the interactivity bit.

...Poetry can be defined as any verbal or written passage of variable length that use rhyme, meter or other conventions not typically found in day to day speech. Modern poets have blurred the line between "poem" and "non-poem" by creating free form poetry that is by and large indistinct from other forms of writing.

Well, in that case, I think I can give you a succinct definition of Narrativism: the focused address of Premise through players' Protagonism to produce Theme. The problem is, this definition is still not helpful until you further qualify what's meant by each of those terms, some of which may not be familiar to the reader, others of which don't convey adequate information for purposes of understanding. Much the same might be said for rhyming, stress and metre within poetry- if the person in question had never heard or seen it before.

Extending the metaphor... it's as if people confused the term "rhyme" with "words that sound the same"- which is technically accurate, but useless for the purpose- and when you further qualify that "they have to appear in similar positions in sentences of similar length", everyone throws their hands up and says one the following:

"-Now you're just being unnecesarily specific and misleading! Stop abusing the language! ...LANGUAGE-ABUSER!!!"
(protagonism)

"-That's ridiculous- you could never get all those words to fit in one sentence. Never."
(group protagonism)

"-Actually, some forms of rather obscure verse use entirely different techniques and structure, so that really has nothing at all to do with poetry."
(protagonism again)

"-Okay, but if everyone, especially me, comes up with words, and then I use the ones that match the ones I like to use in poems to write a poem, then we're all participating!"
(illusionism)

"-I can write poems without any of that! Here is my poem- The cat sat on the hat / Hat crushed under tail, I like fish / And fish."
(events == stories)

"-Why does it need to be so... long and complicated? Look, here: 'Wood is good.' Or: 'Long is strong.' I like those."
(the premise is enough)

"-Nobody has to be taught poetry. I figured it out myself- and it only took me 30 years."
(system doesn't matter)

"-People would just get a headache from rhyming so much words! What are you, sadistic?!"
(because drama is melodrama)

"-Sure, other people can add lines... as long I write the first line, and I get to choose half the words, and it has to rhyme, plus there's metre and stress... But they totally have creative freedom."
(illusionism... again)

"-This is all nonsense. The purpose of words is to be precise and unambiguous. That's how you really communicate."
(simulationism)

"-Look, there's nothing stopping you from writing Haikus that rhyme with 'phantasmagoria'. You just need to try harder."
(paladins can take complexity)

"-There is no inherent problem with rhyming words that end with different letters."
(alignment)


...Y'know, I'm actually quite glad we stumbled onto this little metaphor.


The most difficult aspect of writing this essay is the presence of two distinct problematic audiences, neither of which I realized existed when I first wrote System Does Matter... Role-players who greatly value the story quality of their transcripts, but don't play Narrativist to make them. It's often painful for them to be, as they see it, relegated to Simulationist play (usually Exploration of Situation). "We create stories too, dammit!" - Role-players who play Narrativist already, but who think what I'm describing must be harder or more abstract than it is. Since they can identify Exploration of Character and Situation in their play preferences, they think they must be playing Simulationist. "That's Narrativist? But we do that, using a plain old well-known role-playing game -it can't be Narrativist!"

The first problem these audiences pose for me is that any point, example, or clarification I make that's specific to one of them is automatically misleading for the other.

The second problem is that, when I say Not Narrativist to the first, and when the second mistakenly says Not Narrativist to me, then Narrativism as a label gets misconstrued as "how Ron himself plays."
...I should've taken the hint.

Roog
2009-09-16, 01:18 AM
In what fantasy literature are wizards depicted as more powerful than fighters of the same (high) level?

...I'm not sure how well the concept of 'levels' would translate here, but Tolkien and le Guin would be pretty fair examples.

Exactly. Generally levels do not translate to the context of a novel. What is required to represent that in a game is for specific individual wizards to be more powerful than specific individual fighters in the game. No more, no less.

So why would you describe wizards being more powerful than fighters of the same (high) level as a compromise? Who would it be a compromise between. Using for the moment the GNS categorizations; this rule does not help G, N, or S priorities.

You can pick any bad rule you like, and then call it an example of compromise, but an example that actually involves compromise would be better.



...Y'know, I'm actually quite glad we stumbled onto this little metaphor.

Yes, its a great way to avaid reasoned argument. But lets give it a go.



"-Okay, but if everyone, especially me, comes up with words, and then I use the ones that match the ones I like to use in poems to write a poem, then we're all participating!"
(illusionism)
...

"-I can write poems without any of that! Here is my poem- The cat sat on the hat / Hat crushed under tail, I like fish / And fish."
(events == stories)
...

"-Sure, other people can add lines... as long I write the first line, and I get to choose half the words, and it has to rhyme, plus there's metre and stress... But they totally have creative freedom."
(illusionism... again)
...

"-This is all nonsense. The purpose of words is to be precise and unambiguous. That's how you really communicate."
(simulationism)
So how can you categorise illusionism as flawed simulationism? Even your straw-poems portray it as flawed narativism.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-16, 01:50 AM
Exactly. Generally levels do not translate to the context of a novel. What is required to represent that in a game is for specific individual wizards to be more powerful than specific individual fighters in the game. No more, no less.
General rules emerge from observations of individuals (besides, in the Earthsea and Middle-Earth settings, the number of seasoned wizards more powerful than seasoned warriors is virtually 100%.)

Making wizards more powerful isn't a compromise by itself- it's combining that with obvious concessions to Gamism that ties people in knots. Look at all the resistance to the Tome of Battle.

You can pick any bad rule you like, and then call it an example of compromise...
As a general thing rules that express mixed priorities in this fashion are bad rules. That's sort of the point.

Yes, its a great way to avaid reasoned argument. But lets give it a go.
Hey, it was fun!

So how can you categorise illusionism as flawed simulationism? Even your straw-poems portray it as flawed narativism.
I don't categorise it as flawed Simulationism. It works perfectly well as a complement to Simulationist play. It just doesn't complement Narrativist play at all.

Roog
2009-09-16, 03:10 AM
General rules emerge from observations of individuals (besides, in the Earthsea and Middle-Earth settings, the number of seasoned wizards more powerful than seasoned warriors is virtually 100%.)
In that case, the simplest characterization of the situation in game terms is that wizards are higher level than warriors.


Making wizards more powerful isn't a compromise by itself- it's combining that with obvious concessions to Gamism that ties people in knots.
Making wizards more powerful at the same level is harmful to all priorities. While it makes more of a difference to some priorities than others, it negates the use of level as a direct measure of character power - which can be a usefull tool for any of them.
Since it is a change that runs counter to almost any priorities, it can tie games of any priority in knots, not just "Gamist" games.


Look at all the resistance to the Tome of Battle.
Do you mean to say that the resistance to ToB was caused by ToB compromising sim and game priorities? I would disagree with that pov of the conflict.

To put it in GNS terms, I would say the conflict was between "sim" and "sim". If ToB characters were no more powerfull than core fighters and monks, the people who objected to the flavour would still have objected to the flavour. And if the flavour had been more "medieval" the argument would have been reduced to the normal level of bitching about over-powered-ness of anything new.


As a general thing rules that express mixed priorities in this fashion are bad rules. That's sort of the point.
I get your point - I just don't think that that is a logical arguement. If you just look at bad rules (especially the worst rules), you should not expect them to fit with any priorities.

If you were correct about mixing priorities then any mixed priority rule would be a bad rule. In order to show this, you would need to look at the best mixed priority rules, not just any bad rules.

I could try to think of good examples of usefull mixed priority rules. I won't do that immediatly because I think I have a good guess what your responce will be. You would probably say something to the effect that "one agenda can support another, and this is already acknowledged in GNS theory". You would be contradicting your own specific point, but not your general argument.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-16, 03:50 AM
I believe that all that needs happen for GNS to have no conflicts is for players to will that to be so.

For example, the gamist has a character. It's intimidation based. For expediency, he believes might makes right, and terror is the best tool.

The Narrativist throws some challenges in there that are hindered by intimidation (suddenly, people stop coming forth with issues, because they're scared of the guy... getting any direction becomes pulling teeth... etc).

Now, the gamist could have a conflict here, if he decides that his views were all wrong. But, this is contrary to what the character has experienced many times. Intimidation CAN be an effective tool. But it's not the only tool for the job. Just as you don't use a hammer on screws, you don't use a screwdriver on nails.

So, the character learns, he keeps intimidation, uses it when it works, and tries other approaches when it doesn't. This satisfies gamist concerns over winning/being effective. It satisfies narrativist concerns, in that the character meets a challenge that fundamentally opposes his outlook, and changes as a result. It satisfies simulationist concerns, in that the character has verisimilatude. Throwing away a lifetime of work because of a few incidents doesn't make sense. Neither does banging your head into a wall over and over when there's a door beside you. The simulation is a believable character, that can learn from his experiences. Is he true to form? Absolutely. You just begin to see the difference between the brute force warrior, and chieftain, who once was brute force, but learned to add subtlety to his intimidation, learned to lead as well. It's how tribal warrior kings come to be, by and large.

So there can be conflict, but only if you seek it. Only when you dismiss the other elements, do they come into conflict.

Diamondeye
2009-09-16, 08:23 AM
It's a simple matter of definitions. A game is defined as an interactive process. A fixed plot is a non-interactive thing. It cannot be the primary focus of a game, any more than the primary focus of chess is somehow on medieval chivalry.

See, you're confusing "game with a plot" with the fixed plot of a story. In a plot-centric game, the DM plans out the general framework of what's going to happen. He then starts the game, and the players' decisions dictate the details of that plot and how close the game actually stays to it.

It's just like the Duke example. If the DM plots out that the players will kill the Duke and then be pursued for his murder, he has to alter that portion of it if they don't go kill the Duke. If the Duke ambushes them and he ends up getting killed, now the characters will have a much easier time convincing peope it wasn't a murder since they just defended themselves. If they break out of the ambush, then they won't be pursued for murder since.. he's not dead. If it's a TPW, well, that changes the story too because it ends.

The fact of the matter is that the primary focus of the game is whatever most concerns the majority of those involved, DM included. If that happens to be the plot and storyline, it's a narrative/story based game. Period. Since they are playing a game and are interacting, the non-interactive parts of it never come up. In fact, even your chess example is poor because even if one opponent is a computer the human player is still interacting with it.

It's not a matter of "plot absolutely set in stone" versus "plot not set at all and created by equal effort on everyone's part". That's a false dilemme. You can certainly have a plot that's mostly set by the DM but altered and fleshed out by player actions.


As a general thing rules that express mixed priorities in this fashion are bad rules. That's sort of the point.

That's a circular argument. WHY are they bad rules? Well, because they mix priorities, and that's bad!


Because by and large, what they think is a 'compromise' is actually 'one side winning'. Ensuring that all races have the same +/-2 bonus/penalty to some significant attribute, regardless of their fictional depictions, is not 'compromising between Sim and Game', it is Gamism winning, and Sim being left with the scraps. Making up the setting as you go in a way that's plausibly consistent with previous elements is not 'compromise between Nar and Sim', that is Narrativism winning, and Sim being left with the scraps.

There is nothing wrong with these modes of play, but they don't represent compromises, and they certainly don't represent 2 or more modes firing on all cylinders.

Yes it does. That +2/-2 bonus thing is A) part of simulation as well, since it simulates the general characteristics of a race compared to a baseline (usually human), and B) in any case, part of a compromise is each side getting some of what they want. Focusing on tiny detail and claiming its "gamist" and that therefore gamism is "winning" is ignoring what a compromise is.

Simulation does not mean that mechanical details are not important; it means that they are arranged in a way as to simulate the character one has in mind most accurately rather than in the way that is necessarily the most mechanically powerful, unless of course the character being simulated IS mechanically powerful.

Yukitsu
2009-09-16, 11:20 AM
Sure, and you could define a setting identical to reality in every way, except that Hit Points really existed. That makes sense.

Yes, but to be honest, a simulationist account of battles would be boring for everyone involved. Most battles involve a few seconds of something, then either the bad guy or the PC falling over dead. This isn't fun to anyone, and as such, it's the "gamist" sorts that win out, because their style is more entertaining.


For whom? By what standards?

That's pretty much the basis by which games sell. Their entertainment value is pretty much the defining factor. If you disagree, I'd ask what could be more important.


Quite often, they do stop playing, either by agreeing to disagree (the 'good' option,) or having an unpleasant falling out, but sometimes they continue to play for no more compelling reason than that they desperately want it to work and it's their best social venue. (Even a bad RPG can be better than Ludo.) No, I don't know why people would bother to keep playing this way. Go figure.

The other option is drift- in essence, continuing to play by ignoring, extending, or rewriting large portions of the rules, whether those modifications are written down, formally articulated, or even consciously realised or not. This is surprisingly common.

Yeah, see, this is one of those statements that needs backing. Don't tell me this and expect me to buy into any of it without factual backing other than "That's how I see it happen."


...So is the interactivity bit.

I never denied that. I simply stated that it's subordinate to entertainment.


Well, in that case, I think I can give you a succinct definition of Narrativism: the focused address of Premise through players' Protagonism to produce Theme.

And if you were using the real definitions of the words "protagonist" "premise" and "theme" I'd be inclined to agree that this is relevant. However, as the real world definitions of those terms clashes with what Edward's wants them to mean, it's irrelevant. As is articulated poorly by GNS, this definition is better described as "the use of conflict presented by a character's driving motivation to produce conflict" which is nothing at all what a standard narrative is about.


The problem is, this definition is still not helpful until you further qualify what's meant by each of those terms, some of which may not be familiar to the reader, others of which don't convey adequate information for purposes of understanding.

Then use real words.


Extending the metaphor... it's as if people confused the term "rhyme" with "words that sound the same"- which is technically accurate, but useless for the purpose- and when you further qualify that "they have to appear in similar positions in sentences of similar length", everyone throws their hands up and says one the following:

Actually, the technical definition is all you need to define poetry. A poem need not adhere to proper spacing in rhyme schemes, which is why my definition is "inclusive" of all concepts that can be taken as poetic. Yours is arbitrarily disclusive, discluding any narrative that doesn't follow a specific formula. Equivalently, your amendment to my definition of poetry by specifying a type of rhyme scheme is not inclusive of every rhyme scheme that can be poetic, which is why it fails as a definition.


*word salad*

Yes, this is what happens when people fixate on trying to remove lots of things they don't believe should be in poetry, as opposed to a definition that sensibly includes everything that can be poetry.

Winterwind
2009-09-16, 12:48 PM
What I do wrong now?!

I honestly am trying to be of use here...They explained to me that there were actually people who claimed a game being a mixture of narrativist, gamist and simulationist elements was a bad thing and a group finding the mixture that suits them best was a bad thing also. And while I believed them, I found this difficult to imagine, due to how completely not in line with my everyday experience this was (I've been in several groups with varying composition, and there never have been any problems with that). But then you started to actually argue in that way, giving their point a fair illustration.


Sure he likes these things- he's just not prepared to invest any particular effort in them at the expense of the competitive elements of Gamism. He likes them, in essence, as background ornaments, rather than an actual focus of gameplay. Hence, an RPG design that expected him to actually contribute on those fronts would be a bad idea for any groups he joined. That's the main point here.And this is the mistake you keep making - you assume you know this friend of mine, potentially better than me. While in fact, you are about as far off the mark as you could be.

See, while his main preference is of gamist nature, that does not mean he does not invest effort in the narrative aspects. He is a superb roleplayer, probably better than me in fact, with characters exhibiting clear, memorable and unique personalities and sticking to them. Sure, those are usually personalities that are compatible with his gamist focus - they are cautious, will-strong and tactically minded, so when they try to find the tactically best option in action- or drama-laden situations, it's actually in-character - but they also have a lot of additional facets that are just there to add to character depth. And this friend of mine does not enjoy playing a purely gamist game with no narrative elements, even though he'd enjoy a purely narrative game with no gamist elements even less.

I consider myself a narrativist - I've been playing in freeform groups a lot and some of my best roleplaying experience has been in them, because I find a good gamemaster with a good story in mind makes for a better experience than dice rolls. And the most important thing for me enjoying a roleplaying session is an immersive atmosphere and a great story. But that doesn't mean I do not enjoy playing with rules once in a while. Heck, I'd do say even for variety's sake alone, but I can even enjoy them for their own sake - it's something different than freeform, but I happen to like both for different reasons. And I freely admit I am not above enjoying the numbers on a character sheet climb.

Every other player I have ever met in my life (which has been a fair number) is like this - they all enjoy N, G and S motives, and while they may like one of them best, they consider a mixture of them to be even more fun.

The point is, your core statement about "mixed" games becoming incoherent or compromises being inherently dissatisfactory is wrong, because it is based on the premise people are either narrativists, gamists or simulationists. They are not. They are all three of them, even if with varying amounts of each, and if a game contains all three elements, unless they actually fall into one of the extremes (something I haven't encountered yet), they will have fun. More so than if the game focused on catering to just one of the three aspects, in fact, because even if this happened to be their most favoured aspect, they require the other two also for the perfect experience.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-16, 03:04 PM
I think the very fact that Jill has written these articles -- clearly carefully thought-out, and long enough that many of us are too lazy to actually read through them -- in and of itself proves you very wrong on this point.

(I plead guilty to not actually reading them, just skimming them. But from what I've skimmed, they seem to be high-quality commentary.)


In my admittedly pessimistic opinion, they appear to be merely summaries of the ideas of others. Summaries that add neither brevity or clarity. Given the lack of new information, I'm hard pressed to find a way to describe them as high-quality anything.

Pie Guy
2009-09-16, 03:37 PM
Can't everyone just get along?

According to you, no.

Fhaolan
2009-09-16, 03:38 PM
I consider myself a narrativist - I've been playing in freeform groups a lot and some of my best roleplaying experience has been in them, because I find a good gamemaster with a good story in mind makes for a better experience than dice rolls. And the most important thing for me enjoying a roleplaying session is an immersive atmosphere and a great story.

Unfortunately, according to my understanding of GNS, that's not necessarily a Narrative game. It's likely a Simulation (Illusionist) game, because the GM is defining the story/plot. It only becomes a Narrativist game when GM doesn't exist, or is redefined into being an arbiter of disputes between players. If the players don't have complete and exclusive control not only of their own characters but how the campaign world reacts to and influences their own characters, then it's not 'Narrative' by GNS standards.

An example previously in these threads was the party letting a Duke go rather than killing him. The GM later had the Duke attempt to ambush the party, during which the Duke was killed. Because the GM had the Duke ambush the players, it was considered by Samauri Jill to be Illusionist, I believe, because it was the GM 'forcing' the players to overcome the Duke (an obsticle) in a set way (killed in combat) in order to further the pre-determined plot. However, if one of the *players* had decided that the Duke should attempt an ambush, in order to work out what the player believed was unresolved issues in his/her character's personal story, it would have been Narrativist.

The fact that the same event would have happened either way, it is irrelevant to GNS. It's the fact that the GM made that decision rather than one of the players that makes it Sim/Ill rather than Nar.

At least that's best I was able to decipher from the discussion, and from the various games I've tried that are billed as being 'Narrativist' systems.

WalkingTarget
2009-09-16, 03:41 PM
[description of the Duke scenario]

Yeah, that matches my understanding of the Narrativist/Sim-Ill distinction.

Winterwind
2009-09-16, 03:52 PM
Fair enough. Even under this definition, those freeform games I participated in had a decidedly narrativist slant, with the players being encouraged to come up with aspects of the world that affect their characters (like NPCs they know, places they frequent etc.) and being given the option to take control over a scene once per session (the gamemaster had come up with a pretty nifty system for that - he handed out cards with three moderately related terms on them, like Bishop-Devotion-Corruption, and a player was free to play a card at any time and declare how a scene resolved, as long as it was somehow related to one of the terms on that card).

Granted, that's still not purely narrativist, as there still was a gamemaster in control of the world and creating a plot. But it decidedly had narrativist components.

Which is kinda the point I am making. Games have aspects from all three directions, and that should be embraced, not shunned.

Friv
2009-09-16, 05:07 PM
You can compromise on that, but it will not be a productive compromise. Narrativist and Simulationist priorities differ enough that a halfway point is just going to leave both parties equally irritated. It's a bit like trying to compromise on East and West.

I feel like I've missed a key reference. Do you mean East and West as in the actual compass directions, or as in Eastern Culture vs Western Culture?

Because in the former case, if you just keep going East you will in fact reach west, and the difference is purely illusionary.

If the latter... obviously you can compromise and mix those. Very effectively, if modern culture is any guide.

Morty
2009-09-17, 09:33 AM
And this is the mistake you keep making - you assume you know this friend of mine, potentially better than me. While in fact, you are about as far off the mark as you could be.


This, I think, is the main failing of the GNS theory - its proponents claim that they know gamers and their preferences, as well as what's better for their games, better than the gamers themselves.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 09:56 AM
And this is the mistake you keep making - you assume you know this friend of mine, potentially better than me. While in fact, you are about as far off the mark as you could be...

Samurai Jill, I have a friend who generally prefers the gamist aspects of the game - he gets bored if the game focuses too much on story or even just social interaction for too long...
I gotta work with what I've got...

See, while his main preference is of gamist nature, that does not mean he does not invest effort in the narrative aspects. He is a superb roleplayer, probably better than me in fact, with characters exhibiting clear, memorable and unique personalities and sticking to them...
Role-play is not Narrativism. I have covered this already. Role-play is a Simulationist priority. A Narrativist character does have personality traits, but the player is prepared to change them in response to emotional stress. No amount of role-play, by itself, is going to generate story- only drama does, the active focus on moral/ethical conflict, which tends to undermine the idea of 'not breaking character'.

Sure, those are usually personalities that are compatible with his gamist focus - they are cautious, will-strong and tactically minded, so when they try to find the tactically best option in action- or drama-laden situations, it's actually in-character - but they also have a lot of additional facets that are just there to add to character depth.
Then this is Gamism, pure and simple. Beliefs and convictions which never entail personal inconvenience are not beliefs or convictions worth speaking of. He is not 'role-playing' in any meaningful sense beyond providing colour. This is not a compromise. This is Gamism winning, Simulationism getting the scraps, and Narrativism getting the scraps of the scraps.

Fair enough. Even under this definition, those freeform games I participated in had a decidedly narrativist slant, with the players being encouraged to come up with aspects of the world that affect their characters (like NPCs they know, places they frequent etc.) and being given the option to take control over a scene once per session (the gamemaster had come up with a pretty nifty system for that - he handed out cards with three moderately related terms on them, like Bishop-Devotion-Corruption, and a player was free to play a card at any time and declare how a scene resolved, as long as it was somehow related to one of the terms on that card).
That sounds fine and laudable, but what were the criteria used in making these choices? Personal advantage, staying in character, or complementing theme? It's not often you can satisfy more than one at once.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 10:29 AM
In that case, the simplest characterization of the situation in game terms is that wizards are higher level than warriors....
Making wizards more powerful at the same level is harmful to all priorities.
Right, because Wizards suffer from automatic learning disabilities. You are rationalising.

...Do you mean to say that the resistance to ToB was caused by ToB compromising sim and game priorities? I would disagree with that pov of the conflict.
No, not at all- The ToB was criticised for clearly expressing Gamist priorities, by making fighter-types competitive with casters. But wizards are supposed to be more powerful, whined the Simulationists!

Yet it made play more fun for the great majority of players.


So, the character learns, he keeps intimidation, uses it when it works, and tries other approaches when it doesn't.
Like what, exactly? What other social skills is he going to bring to bear that can be useful against level-appropriate foes, given that he only gets a few skill points per level, and he really ought to be investing those on survival/jump/move sliently, etc. How many levels does it take for him to bring this other (incidentally cross-class) social skill up to an effective rank, and how much has it cost him in terms of skills that might be more useful?

I'm really not sure you've thought this through.


See, you're confusing "game with a plot" with the fixed plot of a story. In a plot-centric game, the DM plans out the general framework of what's going to happen. He then starts the game, and the players' decisions dictate the details of that plot...
That's exactly what I mean. The real emotional core of the story is something they have absolutely no influence upon. All they're deciding are the low-level details. They can't possibly be primarily concerned with the plot because there is no way for them to be involved there. They are primarily concerned with 'staying in character' and 'winning'.

Yes it does. That +2/-2 bonus thing is A) part of simulation as well, since it simulates the general characteristics of a race compared to a baseline (usually human), and B) in any case, part of a compromise is each side getting some of what they want.
But the actual differences between these races as originally depicted in the literature is considerably bigger than that.
Imagine you have 100 dollars, of which you need 60 to buy lunch, and you're friend comes up to you and says, "hey, I need 80 dollars, right now." When you protest, he says "look, we'll compromise- I'll take 80 dollars, and you can keep 20."

"A compromise is NOT 'you getting everything you want'!"

Yes, but to be honest, a simulationist account of battles would be boring for everyone involved. Most battles involve a few seconds of something, then either the bad guy or the PC falling over dead. This isn't fun to anyone, and as such, it's the "gamist" sorts that win out, because their style is more entertaining.
Well, that all depends on how interesting those few seconds of combat are. I don't think the approach to combat found in Burning Wheel or the Riddle of Steel is boring at all, since those few seconds are really intense.

I never denied that. I simply stated that it's subordinate to entertainment.
You might as well argue that the 'rectangular' aspect of squares is 'subordinate' to 'being a shape.' A game cannot be a game if it is not interactive. Ergo, the primary focus of players' attention cannot be a non-interative thing.

Actually, the technical definition is all you need to define poetry. A poem need not adhere to proper spacing in rhyme schemes, which is why my definition is "inclusive" of all concepts that can be taken as poetic.
Wait wait wait wait- you were specifically saying that forms of poetry which violate these conventions stretch the definition to the point where it's meaningless. Poetry is poetry insofar as it sticks to these conventions. And stories are stories insofar as they feature the active address of premise through protagonism to produce theme.

Kalirren
2009-09-17, 10:36 AM
I gotta work with what I've got...

Wait, what? For you to tell me about what's wrong about a person you've never met is just plain dishonest. You don't know him better than Winterwind does. You've never even seen him before. It's one thing if Winterwind gives you enough information to lead you to make a judgment about Winterwind's group dynamic and the way he fits into it. It's one thing if you say, "Based upon what you've told me, this is my image of the situation. Is this what's going on?"

Yet it's another thing entirely when you take a person about whom you personally know nothing, mentally bin him in one of your categories, and then proceed to tell all of the participants in this thread flat out that Winterwind's wrong about him based upon a theoretical association that you have, weighted against Winterwind's personal experience with him, and expect us, including Winterwind, to accept that.

In no society in this world that I know of would this behavior be considered civilized. I am not your mother. I should not have to tell you this.

Notwithstanding that, you did this to me, too, and you were wrong that time as well. Your score is 0 for 2 (and I haven't been counting closely for everyone else) for your judgment in general with regards to players in group dynamics, and that's a pretty bad track record. I'm frankly surprised you're interested in RP theory at all, given that you seem so disinterested in observing how people in other gaming groups actually work at the table.

In the end, GNS is useless in general, and you actually offered the reason yourself:


Beliefs and convictions which never entail personal inconvenience are not beliefs or convictions worth speaking of.

Then obviously what GNS claims is Coherent RP, as you see it, which can't handle even the slightest significant level of personal compromise in terms of Creative Agenda, isn't worth speaking of.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 10:49 AM
...It's one thing if you say, "Based upon what you've told me, this is my image of the situation. Is this what's going on?"
If the information I've been given is inaccurate, I will happily revise my stance on the subject. But if a person comes into the debate, freely confesses to not reading the actual material, and then weighs forth on how their friend doesn't fit into a given bracket when they don't know what the brackets are, I reserve the right to correct that misconception.

Okay, fine, maybe I should have been a little more tactful. I'll try to bear that in mind in future.

Then obviously what GNS claims is Coherent RP, as you see it, which can't handle even the slightest significant level of personal compromise in terms of Creative Agenda, isn't worth speaking of.
It appears that just about everyone else actually has a similar POV, and don't realise it, since they never actually compromise between the modes. They declare one mode the winner, feed scraps to the rest, and then pretend each is getting their fair share. They are not. They cannot.

WalkingTarget
2009-09-17, 10:55 AM
I gotta work with what I've got...

Role-play is not Narrativism. I have covered this already. Role-play is a Simulationist priority. A Narrativist character does have personality traits, but the player is prepared to change them in response to emotional stress. No amount of role-play, by itself, is going to generate story- only drama does, the active focus on moral/ethical conflict, which tends to undermine the idea of 'not breaking character'.

Then this is Gamism, pure and simple. Beliefs and convictions which never entail personal inconvenience are not beliefs or convictions worth speaking of. He is not 'role-playing' in any meaningful sense beyond providing colour. This is not a compromise. This is Gamism winning, Simulationism getting the scraps, and Narrativism getting the scraps of the scraps.

Then you do not understand what Narrativism entails. Fixed plot is not Narrativism. I have also covered this before. Meaningful player input to story is flatly impossible when the sequence of major events is fixed and immovable. Your active contributions on that front are inherently nil. Story in such games is a background ornament, not the primary focus of play. This is not a compromise between Narrativism and other modes. This is other modes winning, and Narrativism getting the scraps.

Jill, the problem as I see it is that Narrativism, for the most part, isn't something that the majority of players want or expect out of the games they play in (in my experience at least).

Most of the people I game with accept that they have control over their character and that character only. That character may have motivations and by communicating those goals to the other players and the GM the player may influence the direction of the story insofar as the GM takes the characters' actions into account and can tailor the reactions of the NPCs in an appropriate manner (this works better in Sandbox-type games where the GM doesn't have a fixed plot in mind; I was in an Exalted game that lasted a few years of weekly play that operated in this way).

The term NPC is the crux of it, they are not controlled by the Players but by the GM and allowing the players to dictate what an NPC's actions are breaks the contract that most games set up.

Narrativist games throw out the idea that the GM has control over the non-PC elements of the game world by allowing the players to narrate, to some extent at least, the reactions to their characters' actions.

Now, I've played a session of Donjon, a short campaign of Trollbabe, a few (and admittedly hilarious) games of InSpectres, and even some early playtests of a friend's game Hero's Banner (along with several demos of other games at GenCon), but the Narrativist play style just never caught on with my gaming group in general. We have that one friend who's into Narrativist play (hell, he's friends with Mr. Edwards and I've hung out with him on occasion), but he's the exception to the rule. The Simulationist/Illusionism play mode is what most of us look for in a game.

I wouldn't say that the mode of play described in GNS as Narrativism doesn't exist or even that it doesn't work (it clearly does), I'm just not convinced that the Theory as presented works as anything other than a way to define a niche play style (Narrativism) that otherwise doesn't get a lot of attention in the mainstream.

Thane of Fife
2009-09-17, 11:08 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my general understanding based on what you've said is that Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist priorities (of a player) would be the following, respectively:

To take the most effective action
To take the most realistic action (given the in-game circumstances and such)
To take the most dramatic action

And that, further, these actions will often be mutually exclusive (ie, sometimes one action may be able to fulfill multiple criteria, but not always) and that in these latter situations, a given player will always prefer to meet one of the three criteria over the other two.

And finally, that a player will prefer to play in a game which focuses on their priorities, with other people who hold these same priorities.

Is this the general idea, Samurai Jill?

GoufCustom
2009-09-17, 11:09 AM
No amount of role-play, by itself, is going to generate story- only drama does, the active focus on moral/ethical conflict, which tends to undermine the idea of 'not breaking character'.

No! No, no, no, no! Drama as you define it is not required to make a story! It can (but does not always) make one better, but it is not a prerequisite. Comedies can get away with it and have good stories to tell. Even classic literature does. It's been some time since I've read it, it's possible I'm forgetting something, but what moral/ethical conflict was there in The Old Man and the Sea? Guy just wanted to get home!

What you're doing is declaring that your brand of story is the only brand of story worth telling, and looking down your nose at anything that doesn't match with it. I gotta admit, it's kinda pissing me off, and that's very hard to do.

Also, resolving moral/ethical conflict does not undermine staying in character, because characters, also known as people (albeit fictional in this case) are fluid things. We change our minds (or not) or find other options or whatever we do to solve our own moral/ethical conflicts without acting completely unlike ourselves. How we react to conflict is part of who we are. Our characters are no different.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 11:18 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my general understanding based on what you've said is that Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist priorities (of a player) would be the following, respectively:

To take the most effective action
To take the most realistic action (given the in-game circumstances and such)
To take the most dramatic action

And that, further, these actions will often be mutually exclusive (ie, sometimes one action may be able to fulfill multiple criteria, but not always) and that in these latter situations, a given player will always prefer to meet one of the three criteria over the other two.

And finally, that a player will prefer to play in a game which focuses on their priorities, with other people who hold these same priorities.

Is this the general idea, Samurai Jill?
That's pretty close, yeah. My one qualification would be that Sim play can also refer to being faithful to a particular body of related fictional works (e.g, cyberpunk, superheroes, sword and sorcery, lovecraftian horror, etc.)

There is a surprising amount of flexibility within each mode, and yes, in some cases, it is possible to cater fully to one mode while at least partly satisfying others. Functional hybrids are perfectly possible, but they establish clear priorities among each mode.

Kalirren
2009-09-17, 11:22 AM
If the information I've been given is inaccurate, I will happily revise my stance on the subject. But if a person comes into the debate, freely confesses to not reading the actual material, and then weighs forth on how their friend doesn't fit into a given bracket when they don't know what the brackets are, I reserve the right to correct that misconception.


But that's not only what you did. Doing that would have been saying, "Well, then he's not really a narrativist," explaining why, and stopping there. But you went a step further. This is what you said:


Sure he likes these things- he's just not prepared to invest any particular effort in them at the expense of the competitive elements of Gamism. He likes them, in essence, as background ornaments, rather than an actual focus of gameplay. Hence, an RPG design that expected him to actually contribute on those fronts would be a bad idea for any groups he joined.

You told Winterwind what his friend likes? what his friend was -prepared- to do? That's more than you could possibly know or offer any honestly derived opinion about. You can't weasel out of my accusation this easily.



Okay, fine, maybe I should have been a little more tactful.

Tactful?! You don't need to avoid being tactless! this is the Internet, for crying out loud! :smalltongue:

What you needed to avoid was reducing a person you had never met (or in general, something real about which you have no personal experience) to an intellectual simulacrum of your own fabrication. This generalizes to what is colloquially known as "not talking out your arse."



I'll try to bear that in mind in future.


*puts on a Yoda costume* Do, or do not, do not try.



It appears that just about everyone else actually has a similar POV, and don't realise it, since they never actually compromise between the modes. They declare one mode the winner, feed scraps to the rest, and then pretend each is getting their fair share. They are not. They cannot.

Recall that Edward's main point is to -avoid- Incoherent play. He always sees it as a possible state of play, and he thinks it's an undesirable one. He never says it doesn't exist. But in my experience, a lot of group who play in a manner that Edwards calls Incoherent don't really see a problem with it. That -is- compromise. Edwards was just unwilling to make that particular one because he didn't think it was fun, but a lot of people -do- think it's fun.

In my experience, the play group as a whole either comes to a consensus about what they're willing to accept in terms of play focus at any given time, or they don't reach any consensus. In my experience, the latter -is- dysfunctional and has -always- led to dissatisfied players, whereas the former is entirely workable and has been satisfying for me and the other players I have played with in the past.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-17, 11:23 AM
It appears that just about everyone else actually has a similar POV, and don't realise it, since they never actually compromise between the modes. They declare one mode the winner, feed scraps to the rest, and then pretend each is getting their fair share. They are not. They cannot.

I disagree. You state that any time the classes are balanced, gamism wins over simulationism. You forget that there are a great many fantasy stories where wizards are NOT overpowered. For example, the Conan tales do not feature high magic.

Simulationism greatly depends on what you are simulating.

It seems to me that gamism is a player with a mechanical focus. You can say that anytime you make the mechanics work, you damage the narrative element, or you wreck the "true to simulationism. Gamism would then seem to be proving you're a better player on a level playing field.

You start by assuming that making things true to genre makes them unbalanced. Always. I'd like to see evidence to support this.

You continue by stating that protagonism involves sacrifice. All a protagonist is, is someone devoted to a cause. There requires no sacrifice for a protagonist to be one. Conflict? Absolutely. After all, causes don't need support without opposition to that cause. But sacrifice? Perhaps GNS uses a different definition of protagonist than the rest of the world. Sacrifice is a method for demonstrating devotion, but it is not the only way.

GNS theory (and by calling it a theory, we all acknowledge that is has not been proven true) uses "Narrativism" imprecisely. All a Narrativism is, is telling a story. One need not have everything you're indicating to have a good story. Many stories involve sacrifice. But that sacrifice doesn't signify a devotion to storytelling over raw power, or over realism and truth to genre.

You say that a story is incoherent if it supports more than one of these, that it irritates the players. My players would disagree. My emphasis focuses on one or the other of these, changing. Characters can remain devoted to a cause, even if players blend balance and genre-savviness. And the character's devotion to the cause is what makes the story.

Further, incoherent irritates everyone? You fail to show how blending these will annoy people. You just assume that, with no evidence or support.

Perhaps blending gamism and simulationism will annoy Gamists and simulationists. I don't have any of those in my games, however. I have players. They appreciate a different definition of "narrative" than you put forth. They believe that a good story doesn't need every element you described, though a good story could posess those elements. They strive to win. I do a good job balancing to keep everyone involved.

Yes, I have many simulationist tendencies. I'll feature non-status quo encounters, where the party sees things well outside their CR. Parties are generally smart enough not to actively engage those. Does this support simulationism over gamism? No. Balance is defined by differing objectives. Perhaps the ideal party goal is escape. Perhaps misdirection. One side can have an advantage and still be solid for gamists. All you have to do is broaden your definition of "winning". A party that leads a wyvern away from town, using horses as bait? I've seen a party do that at level 2. They hijacked horses, got the thing's attention, and rode. Once they got far enough out, one jumped from one horse to another, and the wyvern ended up eating the non-ridden horse. The system definately wasn't balanced, but understanding and using the rules allowed for the party to accomplish the goal "protect the town from the wyvern". They didn't need to kill the wyvern, and that's what balances the situation. The victory condition. Part of winning is setting achievable goals.

I always tell a story, however, and I keep things more-or less balanced. And, if that story isn't "narrative" by your definition? I'm fine with that.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 11:26 AM
Jill, the problem as I see it is that Narrativism, for the most part, isn't something that the majority of players want or expect out of the games they play in (in my experience at least).
Well, sure. The majority of the players are probably Gamists, and Gamists+Simulationists certainly make up the great bulk of the hobby.

Most of the people I game with accept that they have control over their character and that character only. That character may have motivations and by communicating those goals to the other players and the GM the player may influence the direction of the story insofar as the GM takes the characters' actions into account and can tailor the reactions of the NPCs in an appropriate manner (this works better in Sandbox-type games where the GM doesn't have a fixed plot in mind; I was in an Exalted game that lasted a few years of weekly play that operated in this way).

The term NPC is the crux of it, they are not controlled by the Players but by the GM and allowing the players to dictate what an NPC's actions are breaks the contract that most games set up.

Narrativist games throw out the idea that the GM has control over the non-PC elements of the game world by allowing the players to narrate, to some extent at least, the reactions to their characters' actions.
I don't think that's actually the chief characteristic of Narrativist play. Sure, it's a frequent feature- in that players get input to world-building through director stance, e.g, checks against 'knowledge skills' and establishing contacts through circles- but the point is that the GM:
1. Angles conflicts to hit the PCs' emotional issues, and
2. Doesn't exert control over those conflicts' outcomes.

Now, I've played a session of Donjon, a short campaign of Trollbabe, a few (and admittedly hilarious) games of InSpectres, and even some early playtests of a friend's game Hero's Banner (along with several demos of other games at GenCon), but the Narrativist play style just never caught on with my gaming group in general. We have that one friend who's into Narrativist play (hell, he's friends with Mr. Edwards and I've hung out with him on occasion), but he's the exception to the rule. The Simulationist/Illusionism play mode is what most of us look for in a game.
Sure, absolutely. That's perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with that. I just wish people wouldn't conflate it with story authorship.

I wouldn't say that the mode of play described in GNS as Narrativism doesn't exist or even that it doesn't work (it clearly does), I'm just not convinced that the Theory as presented works as anything other than a way to define a niche play style (Narrativism) that otherwise doesn't get a lot of attention in the mainstream.
Even if it were a relatively niche preference, this wouldn't invalidate the basic observation of it's incompatibilities with G or S play. Personally (given the modest success of Burning Wheel and it's descendants,) I think Narrativism is a little more widespread than it's given credit for, but time will tell...

Yukitsu
2009-09-17, 11:41 AM
Well, that all depends on how interesting those few seconds of combat are. I don't think the approach to combat found in Burning Wheel or the Riddle of Steel is boring at all, since those few seconds are really intense.

If it's sim, it's actually fairly dull or fairly horrifying, depending on accuracy of depiction. If it's narrativism, it's usually going to be some bunk like a DC comic, because frankly, not many RPers are Tolkien, or even Rowling. Though I suppose for combat, I should be saying most players aren't Tarentino, or even Uwe Bowle. The former will be a spread sheet and thus boring, and the latter will lack any form of suspense, because you choose who wins.


You might as well argue that the 'rectangular' aspect of squares is 'subordinate' to 'being a shape.' A game cannot be a game if it is not interactive. Ergo, the primary focus of players' attention cannot be a non-interative thing.

I never said it was. Please stop making straw man arguments. I've stated that both are essential, but one is a determinant of success. Increasing entertainment makes a game better, while increasing interactivity (unless increased interactivity is more fun) is not. Why are you incapable of noting that a given term may require a broader, not more narrow definition?


Wait wait wait wait- you were specifically saying that forms of poetry which violate these conventions stretch the definition to the point where it's meaningless. Poetry is poetry insofar as it sticks to these conventions. And stories are

I specifically said they adhere to some of these conventions with the noted and blurred exception of free form poetry (mentioned in my description) which makes poetry indistinguishable from standard written convention.


stories insofar as they feature the active address of premise through protagonism to produce theme.

That's not what a story is at all. Who taught you that?

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-17, 11:48 AM
Sure, absolutely. That's perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with that. I just wish people wouldn't conflate it with story authorship.

I've never met a roleplayer who has, in any comination of words or implied meaning, expressed any real interest in 'Story Authorship' as defined here.

I suspect I am not alone in my experiences.

ie; 'So what?'

Kalirren
2009-09-17, 11:56 AM
I don't think that's actually the chief characteristic of Narrativist play. Sure, it's a frequent feature- in that players get input to world-building through director stance, e.g, checks against 'knowledge skills' and establishing contacts through circles- but the point is that the GM:
1. Angles conflicts to hit the PCs' emotional issues, and
2. Doesn't exert control over those conflicts' outcomes.


That's interesting! I take 1. for granted, but most people I've played with describe the conflict resolution method very differently. What in your opinion is a validly Narrativist way of resolving a conflict in which a PC is emotionally involved?

The reason why I ask is that most people with whom I play would describe the process of OOC resolution of IC conflict as an instance of mutual pressure. That's a term I invented, so I owe you an explanation of it. The GM stimulates the player with situation, throws down details, instances, and opportunities for the player to react to. And when the player reacts to these stimuli, the way in which the player reacts defines the character. The reason why I ended up calling it pressure is that just like the way pressure in physics results from fluid particles bouncing off of the surfaces of a container, this pressure results from player characters reacting to environmental details and events thrown down by the GM.

This needs an example - I once GMed a very inert player, who refused to react to anything that I thought his character would naturally react to. Low-pressure player. In the same game, I would throw down random details that I didn't think any player would bother reacting to, and this one other player would react to them - that's a high-pressure player. There was a very strange incompatibility in that the high-pressure player would end up reacting to details intended for the low-pressure player even though it would have been so much easier for the low-pressure player to dominate that creative arena, leading to the low-pressure player's dissatisfaction.

Now most of the people I play with would agree that meaningful addressment of a character-centered conflict involves mounting player pressure against a GM-imposed situation. What essentially happens is that when the pressure in the situation has reached a dramatically critical level, the GM and the player cooperate to let it loose in a fashion that lets the character shine.

This method of play seems to lie in stark contrast to your criterion 2., that a Narrativist DM should not exert control over the outcome of such a conflict. So my question, is quite simply "how -would- you do it?" Is it substantively different? What do you think is the extent and manner in which a Narrativist GM running a Narrativist game with Narrativist players in the Edwardian sense would deal with the outcomes of conflicts that address a character's Premise?

Kylarra
2009-09-17, 12:10 PM
I'm kind of curious what role the N DM takes in all of this. If having the world react to the PC's actions is S, wouldn't that make the N DM rather... redundant to a N game, Since any actions she takes would be ones based on an S CA?

I realize this is probably the wrong thread for it, but since Kalirren is asking a similar question, I thought it'd be appropriate.

WalkingTarget
2009-09-17, 12:20 PM
I don't think that's actually the chief characteristic of Narrativist play. Sure, it's a frequent feature- in that players get input to world-building through director stance, e.g, checks against 'knowledge skills' and establishing contacts through circles- but the point is that the GM:
1. Angles conflicts to hit the PCs' emotional issues, and
2. Doesn't exert control over those conflicts' outcomes.

But how does one resolve conflicts that aren't entirely mental without entering Director Stance at least implicitly? If there are emotional issues that are tied into interpersonal relationships, then either the GM is controlling some aspects of the NPC parties (which breaks part 2 above) or the player is (which is giving him control of the universe beyond his individual character).


Even if it were a relatively niche preference, this wouldn't invalidate the basic observation of it's incompatibilities with G or S play. Personally (given the modest success of Burning Wheel and it's descendants,) I think Narrativism is a little more widespread than it's given credit for, but time will tell...

Oh, I'm not in any way detracting from the successes of Burning Wheel-related games (or Riddle of Steel - I've not played a full session, but enjoyed the short demos they ran at the Forge booth at GenCon when it first came out), but of what use is GNS as a theory beyond simply defining what Narrativism is and what it's not? I think, in GNS's terms, that Coherent rulesets are important to Narrativism if that is how you want to play, but that it's less important for Gamist or Simulationist games where there's a much broader continuum of style. In this manner, I think that GNS does a good job (aside from some poor choices in terminology) setting Narrativist play apart from the others, but doesn't actually say much about those others that is notable.

Roog
2009-09-17, 02:33 PM
Right, because Wizards suffer from automatic learning disabilities.
Really? - When did that happen?

Now you are adding a whole lot of assumptions about the game in question (XP, learning rate, training descriptions, etc).

Having rules where level is not a consistent measure of power destroys the use of levels as a descriptive measure. All roleplaying agendas use description.

When you start talking about "learning disabilities", you are getting into the area of prescritive rules about level.

So you decide to implicity pick some prescritive rules about levels and character improvement (but not tell me what they are). And then, when (supprise, supprise) they do not fit the setting you are talking about, you say that levels have given wizards "learning disabilities". It is not the levels that have given wizards learning disabilities. You were the one who gave them learning disabilities when you added those presciptive rules about levels.

You pick rules that don't fit the setting and then complain about getting results that don't fit the setting - well Done.

If you have character training and advancement that fit the setting - even if this means that wizards could change the world while muggles are still doing their O levels - all agendas will still benefit from levels corresponding to power.
Levels (as a RPG term) corresponding to power does not need to change the outcome of the rules set as a whole, it simply makes those rules more comprehensible.


You are rationalising.
No, I'm trying to keep my unjustified assumptions to a minimum.

Diamondeye
2009-09-17, 02:42 PM
That's exactly what I mean. The real emotional core of the story is something they have absolutely no influence upon. All they're deciding are the low-level details. They can't possibly be primarily concerned with the plot because there is no way for them to be involved there. They are primarily concerned with 'staying in character' and 'winning'.

It doesn't matter what they're concerned with primarily; if they are concerned with the story at all then they are combining the various elements. They're also deciding details at much higher han just "loe level", and there isn't necessarily any "emotional core" to the story at all. Not every story is about drama or emotion. They don't need to be involved with plot creation in order to enjoy it or be focused on it.


But the actual differences between these races as originally depicted in the literature is considerably bigger than that.

The actual difference between what races? What in blazes has the difference between races got to do with whether there's compromise in the game as a whole?


Imagine you have 100 dollars, of which you need 60 to buy lunch, and you're friend comes up to you and says, "hey, I need 80 dollars, right now." When you protest, he says "look, we'll compromise- I'll take 80 dollars, and you can keep 20."

"A compromise is NOT 'you getting everything you want'!"

This doesn't remotely relate to the sort of compromise in games. Just because you can describe a situation where there isn't a compromise doesn't establish there isn't one in RPGs.


It appears that just about everyone else actually has a similar POV, and don't realise it, since they never actually compromise between the modes. They declare one mode the winner, feed scraps to the rest, and then pretend each is getting their fair share. They are not. They cannot.

This is what we call circular argument. You're saying that there is no compromise because compromise is impossible, and that we know compromise is impossible because we never really compromise.

Your only way of establishing that compromise isn't really happening is simply proclaiming it by fiat. It's a No True Scotsman fallacy.

"compromise is impossible"
"We compromise just fine in my group"
"No, you're not really comprmising."

So far all you've cited is the mere existance of a mechanic for races ou arbitrarily call "gamist" in D&D, and claim that since it exists, gamism must have "won" completely ignoring all the other aspects of the game.

Winterwind
2009-09-17, 03:19 PM
I gotta work with what I've got...Well, but you didn't. I described to you how this friend of mine enjoyed and put effort into several aspects of roleplaying, and you proceeded to stating how he didn't really put effort into some of these aspects - in spite of me explaining the contrary to be the case.


Role-play is not Narrativism. I have covered this already. Role-play is a Simulationist priority. A Narrativist character does have personality traits, but the player is prepared to change them in response to emotional stress. No amount of role-play, by itself, is going to generate story- only drama does, the active focus on moral/ethical conflict, which tends to undermine the idea of 'not breaking character'.I consider reactions to emotional stress and personality changes induced by those to be part of roleplaying. And I'd consider not reacting appropriately to stress the actual breaking of character.

Since when is moral/ethical conflict the only form of drama though? :smallconfused:


Then this is Gamism, pure and simple. Beliefs and convictions which never entail personal inconvenience are not beliefs or convictions worth speaking of. He is not 'role-playing' in any meaningful sense beyond providing colour. This is not a compromise. This is Gamism winning, Simulationism getting the scraps, and Narrativism getting the scraps of the scraps.So portraying a complex character with a multi-facetted personality in a believable and charismatic manner, going through many situations where his character is being tested and the decision how to act is far from obvious, is not "roleplaying in any meaningful sense"? :smallconfused:

...Okay, I think this is the point where I should switch to German or Polish; we are obviously not talking the same language right now. Maybe we will have more success after I do that...


That sounds fine and laudable, but what were the criteria used in making these choices? Personal advantage, staying in character, or complementing theme? It's not often you can satisfy more than one at once.Whichever the player in question happens to feel like satisfying at the time. All three of those have happened (with about equal frequency, I'd estimate), and from the same people, too.

That's the thing - people are not fixed in their desire of only one thing at a time.


If the information I've been given is inaccurate, I will happily revise my stance on the subject. But if a person comes into the debate, freely confesses to not reading the actual material, and then weighs forth on how their friend doesn't fit into a given bracket when they don't know what the brackets are, I reserve the right to correct that misconception.I am not aware of having confessed that. Matter of fact, I did read this thread; if my understanding about some aspect of the matter of hand was faulty, this was due to my bias from what I previously knew about GNS theory (at a time when I viewed it in a far more favourable light, I might add).

Also, "if the information I've been given is inaccurate"? So you automatically jump to the assumption the fault is with the other party, rather than giving even a moment's consideration to the possibility that not the information given to you, but your interpretation thereof might be the thing at fault?

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 04:34 PM
I consider reactions to emotional stress and personality changes induced by those to be part of roleplaying. And I'd consider not reacting appropriately to stress the actual breaking of character.
Define 'reacting appropriately'? The whole point to choices like these- i.e, the dramatic kind- is to make it as hard as possible to discern what an 'appropriate reaction' would be. That's what I mean by moral/ethical conflict.
And it's not what you described happening:

...exhibiting clear, memorable and unique personalities and sticking to them.
'Sticking' to a given personality precludes the possibility of that character evolving. I think you may be confusing RP alone for Narrativism.

So portraying a complex character with a multi-facetted personality in a believable and charismatic manner, going through many situations where his character is being tested and the decision how to act is far from obvious, is not "roleplaying in any meaningful sense":smallconfused:
If it doesn't involve deviation from tactics that secure victory with maximum efficiency, no, it is not. It is superficial colouring of the scene.
It's also not what you described:

...Sure, those are usually personalities that are compatible with his gamist focus - they are cautious, will-strong and tactically minded, so when they try to find the tactically best option in action- or drama-laden situations, it's actually in-character...
If the character is put in situations where the right thing to do is far from obvious, then it's impossible to decide on a tactically optimal course of action offhand. But I suspect that here you are confusing the Gamist dilemma of choosing between means with the Narrativist dilemma of choosing between ends.

I am not aware of having confessed that. Matter of fact, I did read this thread...
My mistake- I had you confused with Draz. Sorry- my bad.

Also, "if the information I've been given is inaccurate"? So you automatically jump to the assumption the fault is with the other party...
I think the onus is on the other party to prove their case. If you want to fault me about the niceties involved (or lack thereof,) I won't stop you, but it makes little or no difference to the core of the argument.

Look, as far as I can tell, in my humble opinion, you and your friend are, respectively, a Simulationist with Gamist tendencies and a Gamist with Simulationist tendencies, and you're playing a primarily-Gamist, secondarily-Simulationist game. There is absolutely nothing wrong that. What you are doing is not, in any sense, wrong, and I don't see any real incoherence there. But you're not hitting all 3 modes, and you're not describing anything incompatible with GNS predictions. You're hitting maybe 1-and-a-half out of the 3 modes. I am sorry if I came across as overly judgmental, and I will endeavour to be more tactful in future.

Yukitsu
2009-09-17, 04:36 PM
In summation, stories about people who know what they're doing, in any definition of the terms used, are not narratives according to Edwards.

Kylarra
2009-09-17, 04:40 PM
In summation, stories about people who know what they're doing, in any definition of the terms used, are not narratives according to Edwards.As a corollary, it is implicitly impossible to hit all 3 nodes as defined by Edwards, hereafter replaced with ADBE, because Narrativism (ADBE) has been explicitly defined to be incompatible with the other modes (ADBE).


As an anecdote, narrativism (ADBE) sounds awfully boring to me, could someone explain what the draw is?

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 04:43 PM
In summation, stories about people who know what they're doing, in any definition of the terms used, are not narratives according to Edwards.
It's kind of like a Jeet Kun Do approach: Yes, characters can change their mind- but only if they've kept it unchanged long enough for that to be significant! That's part of what make Narrativism inimicable with both Game and Sim priorities- the 'hard' Gamist will always want to change their mind, and the 'hard' Simulationist never wants to.

But yes, in a sense, Narrativism is all about exploring morality- putting the characters in situations where the right thing to do is unclear, and seeing what judgements the players express in response.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 04:47 PM
As a corollary, it is implicitly impossible to hit all 3 nodes as defined by Edwards, hereafter replaced with ADBE, because Narrativism (ADBE) has been explicitly defined to be incompatible with the other modes (ADBE).
In essence, yes, it is definitionally incompatible with incorporating the other two modes. I'm so happy we've finally agreed on this! No, really, I am. This is not sarcasm.:smallsmile:

As an anecdote, narrativism (ADBE) sounds awfully boring to me, could someone explain what the draw is?
I'll have to look up 'ADBE', but I would say it's the same draw you get from TV shows like Firefly. They're all about emotional conflict between and within characters. Hell, all drama is like that.

Diamondeye
2009-09-17, 04:54 PM
But yes, in a sense, Narrativism is all about exploring morality- putting the characters in situations where the right thing to do is unclear, and seeing what judgements the players express in response.

Then the theory fails. It is unnecessarily constricting what defines a story-based game (a 'narrative' game) with baggage about exploring morality. Stories/narratives do not necessarily have to be about moral exploration at all.

Moreover, it contradicts itself It's been said repeatedly that in order to have a narrativist game, the players must have input on the overall plot. But then when they are put in such a situation, such as being ambushed by the Duke after not going to his castle and attacking him; it's claimed they're being railroaded because they didn't get a 'choice' whether to fight the Duke. All this despite the obvious fact that if they think it's wrong to fight the Duke they can just try to escape the ambush.

Narritivism unnecessarily constricts its own definition in order to create the appearance of incompatability or incoherence, when what it really is, is Ron Edwards's way of trying to isolate the exact style of play he wants and making it a co-equal arm of everything else.

This makes the theory contradictory and reliant on No True Scotsman fallacies and circular logic to maintain the idea of incompatibility between game styles.

Yukitsu
2009-09-17, 04:55 PM
It's kind of like a Jeet Kun Do approach: Yes, characters can change their mind- but only if they've kept it unchanged long enough for that to be significant! That's part of what make Narrativism inimicable with both Game and Sim priorities- the 'hard' Gamist will always

Yeah, this is where the theory stops applying to the real world. Most people aren't "hard" anything. Besides, a gamist can very easily apply in character theme driven motivation into the rules of that character.


want to change their mind, and the 'hard' Simulationist never wants to.

Why not? Appropriate moral dilemas are a fairly constant thing in real life.


But yes, in a sense, Narrativism is all about exploring morality- putting the characters in situations where the right thing to do is unclear, and seeing what judgements the players express in response.

So what's it called when people make narratives that don't simulate anything, and are not centered around angst?

Kylarra
2009-09-17, 04:58 PM
In essence, yes, it is definitionally incompatible with incorporating the other two modes. I'm so happy we've finally agreed on this! No, really, I am. This is not sarcasm.:smallsmile:I suppose the corollary to my corollary is that using terms (ADBE) to justify your theory is circular reasoning. "These things are incompatible because I've defined them to be incompatible", is circular reasoning. It doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that this is your definition, and is certainly not applicable to anything else.


I'll have to look up 'ADBE',
I defined it in my first sentence. ADBE = As Defined By Edwards.


but I would say it's the same draw you get from TV shows like Firefly. They're all about emotional conflict between and within characters. Hell, all drama is like that. But it's like playing CoC or Paranoia without the consequence of being amusing. I don't see a game where the foregone conclusion that you will lose, and it is serious business, ie not for comedic effect, being any fun. I don't doubt that there are people that enjoy that sort of thing, but I suspect the majority, and for sure the people I game with, would not be interested in Narritivism (ADBE).

Well I guess there's always Bliss stage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlissStage).

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-17, 05:51 PM
Samurai, I really am confused as to why you post this stuff. It doesn't make any sense. You aren't going to convince anyone. No one is going to agree with you. I really don't see how being in an argument where you are always against everyone else could possibly be positive for you in any way (other than maybe for you to learn some humility, but I don't think that's happening). Why are you doing this?

The way you have been dealing with GNS has been essentially like this:

Samurai's position:
1) Word G means (definition number one).
2) Word S means (definition number two).
3) Word N means (definition number three).
4) Compromise between any of them is impossible.

Other people:-So, I can easily see how N(using actual definition rather than the one above) can be compromised with the others.

Samurai:-No, that example isn't N, that's S, specifically illusionism.

Other:- Um...that doesn't really fit under (definition number two) unless you really stretch things. It really has to do with N. You see, N is (actual definition).

Samurai:-No, N is (definition number three). Let me elaborate. (proceeds to misuse several other words, including protagonist and drama). A story that doesn't have this isn't really a story.

Other:-Definitely false. Well, let's get back to talking about compromises. Here is an example. (provides example)

Samurai:-That's not a compromise. One side is winning.

Others:-Um...no? Explain why you say it is not really a compromise.

Samurai:-Well, here. I'll say it again- actual compromise is impossible.

Others:-Wait...so it isn't a compromise because compromise is impossible?

Samurai:-Of course.

Others:-And it's impossible because every example really isn't a compromise.

Samurai:-Right.

Others:-That's the same as saying it isn't because it isn't, which is circular reasoning.



And so forth. Oh, and the bit about you slandering other types of stories that don't fit your definition and assuming you know more about others than you do. To be perfectly honest, it takes a lot of self restraint to not start flaming you. It's the main reason I haven't been posting.

Winterwind
2009-09-17, 06:20 PM
Define 'reacting appropriately'? The whole point to choices like these- i.e, the dramatic kind- is to make it as hard as possible to discern what an 'appropriate reaction' would be. That's what I mean by moral/ethical conflict.
And it's not what you described happening:By "reacting appropriately" I mean "in a way that seems realistic considering the situation and what the character's personality and background are". Which may include several options that all fulfill this criterium, with it being difficult to discern which one of them to take.


'Sticking' to a given personality precludes the possibility of that character evolving. I think you may be confusing RP alone for Narrativism.Not if you take into account my previous statement that I consider the ways a personality may change and evolve under stress to be a part of that personality. If a character is usually calm and composed, but then something truly traumatic occurs, remaining calm and composed might not be staying true to this character's personality anymore, because this character would be unlikely to remain the same in the face of such events.
Or maybe s/he would. That's the part where the player's decision of who this character is and how s/he reacts to trauma comes in.


If it doesn't involve deviation from tactics that secure victory with maximum efficiency, no, it is not. It is superficial colouring of the scene.Alright then; seems our definitions of roleplaying have no common ground.
Besides, tactics are about means to achieve goals. Personality is not only about choosing the appropriate means (though also that), it's also about choosing the appropriate goals. That allows for plenty of room for varying decisions.


It's also not what you described:...
Okay, I'm speechless.

Let's get this straight.
You quote this:

Sure, those are usually personalities that are compatible with his gamist focus - they are cautious, will-strong and tactically minded, so when they try to find the tactically best option in action- or drama-laden situations, it's actually in-character...
to prove that my original statement did not describe him as playing deep, multi-facetted characters. And you do so when my original statement in its entirety was this:

Sure, those are usually personalities that are compatible with his gamist focus - they are cautious, will-strong and tactically minded, so when they try to find the tactically best option in action- or drama-laden situations, it's actually in-character - but they also have a lot of additional facets that are just there to add to character depth.
No comment. I don't think there's anything left to say about that.


If the character is put in situations where the right thing to do is far from obvious, then it's impossible to decide on a tactically optimal course of action offhand. But I suspect that here you are confusing the Gamist dilemma of choosing between means with the Narrativist dilemma of choosing between ends.Just because a character usually tries to find the tactically best option does not mean s/he never weighs it against moral issues. Or that both or either the tactically or morally most sound solution is clearly visible.


I think the onus is on the other party to prove their case. If you want to fault me about the niceties involved (or lack thereof,) I won't stop you, but it makes little or no difference to the core of the argument.How exactly do you expect me to prove to you that just about all people I have ever played with enjoy all three of the GNS aspects in some measure and are absolutely willing to put effort in all of them?


Look, as far as I can tell, in my humble opinion, you and your friend are, respectively, a Simulationist with Gamist tendencies and a Gamist with Simulationist tendencies, and you're playing a primarily-Gamist, secondarily-Simulationist game. There is absolutely nothing wrong that. What you are doing is not, in any sense, wrong, and I don't see any real incoherence there. But you're not hitting all 3 modes, and you're not describing anything incompatible with GNS predictions. You're hitting maybe 1-and-a-half out of the 3 modes. I am sorry if I came across as overly judgmental, and I will endeavour to be more tactful in future.Since at this point I am starting to find it increasingly more difficult to discern what exactly makes up Narrativism (as a multitude of the things previously mentioned as constituting Narrativism are not mutually inclusive - a drama-driven story with moral conflicts is in no way correlated with the amount of control players exert over the gameworld in the gamemaster's stead, for instance), I won't disagree here for now, as I find myself no longer fit to judge that.

Fhaolan
2009-09-17, 08:38 PM
*puzzles* *puzzles* *puzzles*

Aha!

You know, something about this whole thing has bothered me from the begining, and I haven't been able to put my finger on it until now.

I started with the standard, dictionary accepted definition of Narrative. This, apparantly, was bad/wrong and the word 'Drama' was pulled out to substitue for Narrative. However, the way Samurai Jill has been using the word doesn't seem to map to my understanding of the standard, dictionary accepted definition of Drama either. Thinking about it, I have heard that definition before, just not for that word.

I have just remembered it was back in University, where a friend of mine took a media studies course. It's the film definition of the term 'Melodrama'. I've checked against the dictionary definitions, and it fits. It's a narrow subset of Drama, and contains 'crises of human emotion, failed romance or friendship, strained familial situations, tragedy, illness, neuroses, or emotional and physical hardship' (sound familiar? It's all about emotional/moral crisis.) Compromise is impossible with melodrama, because if the possiblity of compromise existed, the crisis would end in a whimper rather than a big satisfying bang. Most people tend to use the word as a pejorative, due to it's older roots in theatre emphasizing stereotypes rather than fully fleshed characters, but in film it simply means a specific form of Drama that specializes in emotional/moral conflict.

Herein lies the problem. Melodrama is very specialized. Simulation and Game are not, we therefore end up with a theory that is very heavily weighted with what a lot of people would call 'Narrative' being shoved into the opposing nodes because they aren't part of the specialized node that is being labeled Narrative. In addition, those people who gravitate towards Melodrama in a game system by definition must enjoy heightened emotional/moral conflicts. So advocating this version of GNS on forums... is actually a Narrativist (by GNS standards) game in and of itself. You get the heightened emotions, the moral and ethical outrage, the big melodrama. The inability to compromise is part of the mindset.

All you need is a soundtrack, and you could get the older Greek form of melodrama (song-action also known as melody-drama) as well. :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2009-09-17, 08:41 PM
GNS: Railroading for Game Theory.

If for any reason, you try to get "off track", by using silly tactics like rules, logic, or standard use of the english language, you are wrong. There is only one possible outcome.

No wonder people hate it so much.

Roog
2009-09-18, 12:50 AM
the 'hard' Gamist will always want to change their mind, and the 'hard' Simulationist never wants to.


I'm a Simulationist myself

Now I understand.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-09-18, 05:05 AM
Herein lies the problem. Melodrama is very specialized. Simulation and Game are not, we therefore end up with a theory that is very heavily weighted with what a lot of people would call 'Narrative' being shoved into the opposing nodes because they aren't part of the specialized node that is being labeled Narrative. In addition, those people who gravitate towards Melodrama in a game system by definition must enjoy heightened emotional/moral conflicts. So advocating this version of GNS on forums... is actually a Narrativist (by GNS standards) game in and of itself. You get the heightened emotions, the moral and ethical outrage, the big melodrama. The inability to compromise is part of the mindset.


Exactly! To put it in other terms:

Gamism: "roll-play"*
Narrativism: A specific kind of character-driven roleplay
Simulationism: All the other sorts of roleplay.

In essence, GNS is picking up on the age-old debate of Rollplay vs Roleplay and putting them in two categories. That third one? Yeah, not really a category. It is a subset of one of the categories that got lumped into Sim for reasons I don't care to hypothesize about. Namely, it is a type of character-driven roleplay. The other sort, which is what Sim would be if GNS tried to be equitable with it's divisions, is what one could call world-based roleplay.

After reading up on GNS some more I've come to the conclusion that the basic idea is kinda right if you do a few changes:

1.- Redefine Narrativism to include all character focused role-play. Rename it... oh, I don't know. Character-driven.
2.- Redefine Simulationism to correspond with it's lighter and less wieghted nature. We'll call it World-driven.
3.- Since we're changing names, we'll call gamism Tactics-driven. Because consistent naming schemes are cool. :smallwink:
4.- Get rid of the whole coherent/incoherent. The only reason incoherency exists is because N play and only N play can't play with others. Get rid of the stupid, stupid definition N currently uses and incoherency melts away like butter in the sun. Not under. In.

And with this, we reach my Ten Minute Gaming Design Theory!

Spoilered for being kinda offtopic:


There are three broad categories that classify the ways RPGs can be played. They arise from focusing play on the three aspects of an RPG: rules, characters and world.

- Character-driven: The main focus of play is to explore the characters being played and the relationships between them. In this mode the world provides events that facilitate explaration of character. The rules are used to regulate character interactions and (ideally) reward character exploration and development.

- World-driven: The main focus of play is the exploration of a fictional world. In this mode the characters are vessels with which the players interact with the world. The rules are used to regulate the workings of that world and (ideally) simulate the desired world faithfully.

- Tactics-driven: The main focus of play is the resolution of set tasks using the rules as a framework of what solutions are allowed or disallowed. In other words, exploration of the rules. The most common form of these tasks are combat and puzzle-solving. In this mode characters are implements with which to test the rules and the world's function is to give these tasks verisimilitude.

The only thing remaining is to say that all modes of play are compatible in theory. In practice there are a few provisos:

- People may actively dislike a given mode. In this case attempting to include said mode is an exercise in futility. ( I.E. Rollplay v. Roleplay)
- Mixing two or more modes simultaneously is difficult. It is however, possible to switch between modes.

Thus, I conclude that a well designed game will include ways to cater to all three modes of play and facilitate mode-switching. That way, each individual gaming group can decide what modes it is interested in at a given moment and use a single system to sastify whatever preferences it may have over time. Furthermore, it allows for those who actively dislike a given mode as they are free to ignore it in favour of whichever mode/s they enjoy.

Finally, and to achieve the total parallelism to GNS and crown my theory GNS's Evil Twin (I kid, I kid) I shall make up two more definitions:

Exclusive Game: A game system that does not facilitate one or more of the modes of play. This kind of game is a niche game (to varying degrees) as it excludes players who enjoy the non-facilitated mode of play.

Inclusive Game: A game that facilitates all three modes of play to equal degree. The Holy Grail of game systems.


OK. So it's not really GNS anymore. There are still 3 categories though and... well; it's what GNS looks like if you don't try examining it too hard and ignore the parts that don't make sense.

What say you, Playground?



* I am aware that this is a pejorative term. However, I can't think of a better word to describe what rollplay describes if you ignore the negative connotations. So for this post I'm pretending it doesn't come with all that baggage. Suggestions are welcome.

Yora
2009-09-18, 05:19 AM
I think roll-playing is completely accepted in tactical war games. So "tactics driven" seems pretty adequate for it.

I really have to say I like your three categories. They are so much more easier to understand, and even with these very short paragraphs, appear much more accurately defined.

But it still does not answer the main question, what this "discovery" is useful for. :smallbiggrin:

Though I disagree with you on two main points:
First would be, that I don't think there are any real "modes" between which you can "switch". There may be a strong focus on one aspect at one moment, but I think it's very rare that other aspects are completely shut out. Even if a barbarian slices through an entire army and the player is having the time of his life combining special attacks and using terrain to his advantage (tactics), he is still also developing his character by establishing him as a raging juggernaut who laughs at the face of death (character), and exploring and shaping the setting, by taking an active and prominent role in local events (world). Situations where any one aspect is completely ignored are probably very rare special cases. You can focus on character development and perform only the second- or third-best option in combat, but you're most probably still using the most optimal option that can represent what you want to do. And even the most hardcore powergamer and munchkin will probably play like that, because he wants his character to be a real badass. I know about some first- and second-hand actual game situations, where apparently the world-aspect was completely ignored, but most of them I would account for boredom and to spite other players. Still an interesting subject, but a special case that I would not count as part of the general theory.
Second, I don't think the "best game" is one that focuses on all aspects equally. For the publisher, it's obviously a great thing, as you can reach out to the largest possible customer base. But its a "one size fits all" approach, which usually caters not so well to special interest customers.
But I really do agree, that this a real strength of 3rd Edition D&D. It has all three aspects and every group can distribute their focus on all aspects as they like. I've heard many complains, that would put D&D into the tactics category. But even as a player and gm who likes to use the rules only as tools to help develop the characters and the setting, the system provides anything that I feel I need for my game. Because D&D is build modular, you can very easily switch and replace individual components as you like. Some people like skill-based games, but that seems too much work to me. With classes, I can just pick one class and have most of the basic stuff allready done for me. And the way D&D is made, it's very easy to design new classes, races, feats, spells, and weapons. Probably Sturgeons Law applies, that 90 percent of everything is crude, but you can do it.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 06:04 AM
I have just remembered it was back in University, where a friend of mine took a media studies course. It's the film definition of the term 'Melodrama'. I've checked against the dictionary definitions, and it fits. It's a narrow subset of Drama, and contains 'crises of human emotion, failed romance or friendship, strained familial situations, tragedy, illness, neuroses, or emotional and physical hardship' (sound familiar? It's all about emotional/moral crisis.)
Do you consider Romeo and Juliet to be an example of melodrama? Because that IS all about emotional/moral crisis. What about King Lear? Because that, too, is all about emotional/moral crisis. Hamlet? Same thing. How about A Man For All Seasons?- All about emotional/moral crisis. Is that "melodrama"- as opposed to, say, some of the finest, most powerful, and most thought-provoking cinema ever filmed? The Odyssey. Jane Eyre. Dune. The Lord of the Rings. The list goes on.

What distinguishes actual melodrama from these towering works of master storytelling is- aside from any number of good things pertaining to characterisation, descriptive colour, depth of theme, etc- is that melodrama doesn't pace itself. This is why I mentioned the principle of escalation when describing Narrativism- you're supposed to lead up to these things gradually, one step at a time.


Gamism: "roll-play"*
Narrativism: A specific kind of character-driven roleplay
Simulationism: All the other sorts of roleplay.

The oft-touted distinction between roll-play and role-play is nothing more or less than the Exploration of System and the Exploration of Character, either of which, when prioritised, is Simulationism.
(Read 'exploration' as 'simulation', and it becomes much clearer. I've covered this in the Sim essay.)
Narrativism is not a subset of Simulationism any more than poetry is a subset of writing doctoral theses. They have intrinsically different emphases.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-09-18, 06:05 AM
But it still does not answer the main question, what this "discovery" is useful for.

As far as I can tell? At this point, all it tells us is that hardcore rollplayers and hardcore roleplayers don't mix. A discovery which has far-reaching and paradigm-shattering consequences. Oh wait. It doesn't :smalltongue:

However if one were to test it in a scientific manner and concluded that those categories actually correspond to a real division in RPG play practice, then you might have a guideline to what should go into your RPG.


Though I disagree with you on two main points:
First would be, that I don't think there are any real "modes" between which you can "switch". [...]

You are probably correct. If anything we're talking about about a three way sliding scale. And I agree that it's a rare case where on of the modes is completely shut out.

Perhaps there is a better term out there than mode... focus, maybe?



Second, I don't think the "best game" is one that focuses on all aspects equally. [...]

Hence why I called it a Holy Grail. You can't make it. You can try and you can get close, but it's more a Platonic Ideal than a real possibility. Thus all games would be Exclusive to a degree. The important thing to note is not that a game caters to which modes but how well the game caters to which modes. A game that caters to all modes poorly would be a worse game than one who caters mainly to two modes in a superiour way.

I still think this has no practical application, mind. But Theory-crafting is fun :smallbiggrin:



EDIT:



The oft-touted distinction between roll-play and role-play is nothing more or less than the Exploration of System and the Exploration of Character, either of which, when prioritised, is Simulationism.



(Read 'exploration' as 'simulation', and it becomes much clearer. I've covered this in the Sim essay.)
Narrativism is not a subset of Simulationism any more than poetry is a subset of writing doctoral theses. They have intrinsically different emphases.


Then I still fail at understanding N. Or GNS fails at explaining it.

Define it, if you could, without resorting to a definition that requires further definitions to be understood.

Yora
2009-09-18, 06:11 AM
I heard there was a guy at our university who did is graduation paper on RPGs. I think I really should try to get a hand on it.

The main problem with RPG-theory lies probably in the fact, that RPG is a niche-subculture activity. Whatever you discover, it has probably no actual value for anyone who is not a gm or game designer.
I'm a major in religion, that's really serious stuff compared to RPGs. :smallbiggrin:

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 06:15 AM
Samurai's position:
1) Word G means (definition number one).
2) Word S means (definition number two).
3) Word N means (definition number three).
4) Compromise between any of them is impossible.
Oh, it's possible- it just sucks.

Other:- Um...that doesn't really fit under (definition number two) unless you really stretch things. It really has to do with N. You see, N is (actual definition).
Narrativism is defined as story being the primary focus of the players' active contributions. It is flatly impossible to reconcile this with fixed plot. It would be like trying to play 'house' with a monolith.

Other:-Definitely false. Well, let's get back to talking about compromises. Here is an example. (provides example)
A compromise would be each side making concessions to the other. Side A. walking away with everything it wanted in the first place is not a compromise. I really don't think this is a particularly abstract concept.

To be perfectly honest, it takes a lot of self restraint to not start flaming you...
...that sounds awfully similar to a passive-aggressive flame.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 06:35 AM
Stories/narratives do not necessarily have to be about moral exploration at all.
They do, to be worth a damn.

All this despite the obvious fact that if they think it's wrong to fight the Duke they can just try to escape the ambush...
'Thinking something' does not mean they have affected the story's theme, which could probably be summarised as 'the BBEG deserved to die'. Their input to story was nil.

Yeah, this is where the theory stops applying to the real world. Most people aren't "hard" anything. Besides, a gamist can very easily apply in character theme driven motivation into the rules of that character.
How, exactly, is it supposed to be meaningful without compromising tactical efficiency in some significant respect. A character who never deviates from 'look out for number 1' is not a hero, or even an antihero.

Why not? Appropriate moral dilemas are a fairly constant thing in real life.
Real life is not a simulation! It is not possible to fully address complexities of this magnitude without the real person becoming directly engaged, rather than a crude internal simulacra of their character. Full-blown emotional conflict can never be perfectly simulated in an impartial fashion, which is what Sim would oblige you to do. This is what essentially obliges Nar play to break Sim- it's inherently a metagame process, and extraneous metagame is anathema to Sim play.

I suppose the corollary to my corollary is that using terms (ADBE) to justify your theory is circular reasoning. "These things are incompatible because I've defined them to be incompatible", is circular reasoning.
No, it's just an observation. What you might contest is whether people's personal approach to role-playing really varies along these axes. Personally, I think there's good circumstantial evidence to that effect. That at the 3E DMG: it gives explicit guidelines for what's called 'Break Down The Door' play- which I think we can all agree is Gamist, and then another mode, revolving around a lack of clear moral divisions, complex NPCs, and lots of dialogue- which could, in theory, be either Sim or Nar play, depending on where the balance of power lies with respect to story creation.

But it's like playing CoC or Paranoia without the consequence of being amusing. I don't see a game where the foregone conclusion that you will lose, and it is serious business, ie not for comedic effect, being any fun.
Y'know, I'm accused of being unwilling to see other peoples' perspectives, but here's you and Yukitsu pereptorily dismissing the key techniques of two other entire modes of play as automatically crappy, with, as far as I can tell, zero actual experience of such play.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-09-18, 06:37 AM
Narrativism is defined as story being the primary focus of the players' active contributions.

And what the boop does this have to do with putting characters in situations where their beliefs are challenged to the point they either change those beliefs or suffer dire consequences? :smallconfused:

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 06:41 AM
And what the boop does this have to do with putting characters in situations where their beliefs are challenged to the point they either change those beliefs or suffer dire consequences? :smallconfused:
Because that's what you have to do to create a gripping story. A story without protagonism, premise and theme would be like poetry without rhyme, stress or metre. They are the key aesthetic ingredients.

Serenity
2009-09-18, 06:48 AM
Except that players can drive the story in new directions in a 'fixed' plot. Jayne can decide he has a change of heart, and tries to lead Simon and River away from the ambush he had planned. New story right there, regardless of whether or not the ambush catches up to them anyway. The DM has authored the larger framework, but the players fill in the details that make the story dramatic and engaging. Only your obtuse and narrow definition of Narrativism disallows that--paradoxically, I might add, since the DM who is not supposed to interfere with character choices is also supposed to force the characters to question those choices.

Diamondeye
2009-09-18, 06:55 AM
They do, to be worth a damn.

No they don't. That's a completely subjective assesment. Maybe they need to have that to be worth a damn to you, or to Edwards, but you certainly can't use that to support a theory about roleplaying in general.

I can just as easily say that NO story that's about drama or emotional conflict is worth a damn; in part because that's pretty much how I feel. I consider anything Tom Clancy wrote to be vastly superior to most 'classics', as a personal opinion. That doesn't mean I can come up with some theory in which every story must be an action thriller and claim that stories have to be that way to be worth a damn. Or, I can, but I won't be taken seriously.


'Thinking something' does not mean they have affected the story's theme, which could probably be summarised as 'the BBEG deserved to die'. Their input to story was nil.

No, it wasn't nil. You're strawmanning again. First of all, there is no reason to think the theme is 'the BBEG deserves to die' since the characters didn't attack him. It may be all a giant misunderstanding of which the characters are aware, but the Duke isn't, hence he sees them as a threat and ambushes them. Not only have they already changed the theme from 'characters kick in castle door to slay evil Duke (or nonevil Duke who is being framed)' to 'characters discover Duke is being framed by rical and flee dukedom until they can get evidence (or whatever the misunderstanding might be)' to either "characters are forced to kill Duke in self-defense" or "characters flee the Duke and are hounded by him to the edge of his holdings."

That's a significant change in the course of the story, and certainly involves moral choice. Do they what they learn about the Duke and kick in his door for personal gain or not? If not, do they then kill the same man in self-defense when he attacks them, because he still thinks they are part of the plot against him, or do they flee? There's certainly moral conflict there.


How, exactly, is it supposed to be meaningful without compromising tactical efficiency in some significant respect. A character who never deviates from 'look out for number 1' is not a hero, or even an antihero.

Because tactical efficiency hasn't got the first thing to do with meaningful emotional or moral conflict. You can certainly have a game where all the moral and emotional conflict is unrelated to actual combat. Not only that, but tactical efficiency isn't always served by doing the most expedient thing now; doing the moral or sacrificial thing may gain longer-term tactical rewards such as money, items, land, titles, respect and assistance from the powerful, etc. 'Looking out for number one' and making the best tactical choice are only synonymous in the minds of people who have not been taught (or who don't have natively) proper tactical skills.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-18, 07:03 AM
Narrativism is defined as story being the primary focus of the players' active contributions. It is flatly impossible to reconcile this with fixed plot. It would be like trying to play 'house' with a monolith.

Narrativism as defined within the GNS theory exists almost entirely within the GNS theory.

It is impossible to reconcile the two and nobody cares, as so few people, (Even those primarily interested in Role-play and character) really care about this particular type of melodramatic niche-play.

Diamondeye
2009-09-18, 07:06 AM
Because that's what you have to do to create a gripping story. A story without protagonism, premise and theme would be like poetry without rhyme, stress or metre. They are the key aesthetic ingredients.

Any story necessarily has a protagonist. Theme is not related to morally stressful situations; it's simply what the story is about. Premise is simply a starting point to reach a conclusion.

In fact, protagonism isn't even a word. A dictionary search for it only returns to 'protagonist'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/protagonism


pro⋅tag⋅o⋅nist  /proʊˈtægənɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [proh-tag-uh-nist] Show IPA
Use protagonism in a Sentence
See web results for protagonism
See images of protagonism
–noun 1. the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work.
2. a proponent for or advocate of a political cause, social program, etc.
3. the leader or principal person in a movement, cause, etc.
4. the first actor in ancient Greek drama, who played not only the main role, but also other roles when the main character was offstage. Compare deuteragonist, tritagonist.
5. Physiology. agonist.

In fact, a careful reading of the definition indicates that protagonists only exist in literary work, not RPGs, but even if we assume a 'narritivist' game could be translated to a literary work, it does not need to be a drama to have a protagonist, nor to be a good story.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theme


–noun 1. a subject of discourse, discussion, meditation, or composition; topic: The need for world peace was the theme of the meeting.
2. a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art. 3. a short, informal essay, esp. a school composition.
4. Music. a. a principal melodic subject in a musical composition.
b. a short melodic subject from which variations are developed.

5. Grammar. the element common to all or most of the forms of an inflectional paradigm, often consisting of a root with certain formative elements or modifications. Compare stem 1 (def. 16).
6. Linguistics. topic (def. 4).
7. Also, thema. an administrative division of the Byzantine Empire.

A theme is merely a unifying idea. It doesn't need to be about drama, nor does it need to have input in equal measure from all participants, or any of this other nonsense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/premise


–noun 1. Also, premiss. Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.
2. premises, a. a tract of land including its buildings.
b. a building together with its grounds or other appurtenances.
c. the property forming the subject of a conveyance or bequest.

3. Law. a. a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds.
b. an earlier statement in a document.
c. (in a bill in equity) the statement of facts upon which the complaint is based.

–verb (used with object) 4. to set forth beforehand, as by way of introduction or explanation.
5. to assume, either explicitly or implicitly, (a proposition) as a premise for a conclusion.

–verb (used without object) 6. to state or assume a premise.

I see no definition of this word that pertains to the matter at hand.

Megaduck
2009-09-18, 07:20 AM
Because that's what you have to do to create a gripping story. A story without protagonism, premise and theme would be like poetry without rhyme, stress or metre. They are the key aesthetic ingredients.

Except... they're not. Poetry is language (Either written or verbal) that uses symbolism and imagery to invoke emotion and larger meaning.

While Rhyme, Stress, and Metre are tools that may be used in poetry, they are not actually necessary.

Jill, you are over defining you're terms and trying to fit them in boxes to small for them. In the process you're losing a lot of meaning and possibility.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-09-18, 07:20 AM
Because that's what you have to do to create a gripping story. A story without protagonism, premise and theme would be like poetry without rhyme, stress or metre. They are the key aesthetic ingredients.

And what the boop does this have to do with giving players creative control over the story?


See what I did there? N as you explain it is the union of two different things. One is that players have creative control over the story (as an aside, what is the DM doing during N play?) the other is that the characters are put into morally conflicting situations. Each of these two things are do not require the other to be possible.

A railroaded plot can produce a gripping story where the characters are put into morally conflicting situations. Any book or film is essentially this.

Conversely, a purely hack-and-slash game can be made with creative input from the players. For instance:

Players: We wanna have a dungeon filled with Kobolds and traps!
Dm: Ok. Does the word "Tucker's" mean anything to you guys?
Players: No... why do you ask?
DM: No reason.

Winterwind
2009-09-18, 08:19 AM
I cannot recall how many times my players have completely changed the plot by doing something unexpected, be it by cunning, folly or bravery. They have managed to end up completely elsewhere than they were supposed to, killed a would-be traitor long before he could do his work (and no, nobody came around to do the job instead) or managed to talk people into cooperation who were supposed to be enemies. The existence of a gamemaster who controls the environment and the NPCs to full extent, including their reactions to PCs, and the PCs affecting the story's plot to great extents, is in no way mutually exclusive.

WalkingTarget
2009-09-18, 08:23 AM
[stuff about definitions]

Your problem is that Protagonism, Premise, and Theme as Jill is using them here are specialized terms within GNS.

It's like how quarks have "flavor" and those flavors are up, down, top, bottom, strange, and charm.

These are all English words with normal dictionary definitions, but have little to do with those definitions when dealing with subatomic physics.

Diamondeye
2009-09-18, 10:24 AM
Your problem is that Protagonism, Premise, and Theme as Jill is using them here are specialized terms within GNS.

It's like how quarks have "flavor" and those flavors are up, down, top, bottom, strange, and charm.

These are all English words with normal dictionary definitions, but have little to do with those definitions when dealing with subatomic physics.

That's great if we're accepting GNS theory as valid prima facia. We're not. We're cricticizing the theoy and one of the things we're cricticizing is that it creates its own nonsensical definitions in order to make itself work. That's part of why it violates parsimony. It redefines common terms when there's really no need to.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-18, 10:37 AM
Real life is not a simulation! It is not possible to fully address complexities of this magnitude without the real person becoming directly engaged, rather than a crude internal simulacra of their character. Full-blown emotional conflict can never be perfectly simulated in an impartial fashion, which is what Sim would oblige you to do. This is what essentially obliges Nar play to break Sim- it's inherently a metagame process, and extraneous metagame is anathema to Sim play.

A simulation, by definition, is an attempt to model real life relatively accurately. If we're now excluding wide ranges of human experience from "simulationism", I find it difficult to see ANY rational definition for this grouping within GNS.

Sedrata
2009-09-18, 10:45 AM
We like putting things in boxes. It's a very human thing to do, finding patterns and labeling them so that we can have grounds for what to expect in the future. The fun thing about categorical systems is the exceptions to the rules we make. There are ALWAYS exceptions. Even the periodic table has exceptions.

Let's take, for example, a different categorical system: personality theory based on the Four Temperaments. In short, there are four personality types, Phlegmatic, Melancholic, Choleric, and Sanguine. The easiest two to understand are the Phlegmatics: timid, easy-going, lazy, and very rational; and in contrast, Cholerics are the opposite: outgoing, high-strung, active, and idealistic.

Given this system, I can claim that everyone has one of the four personality types, and that they will tend to act according to their personality in most cases (say, at least 80% of the time). When they act in a way that's not in keeping with their core personality, it's secretly rooted in the personality core. At an unproductive meeting, a Phlegmatic steps up to take charge (something you'd expect from a Choleric) because she just wants to get the meeting over with and get started on the project. A Choleric might decide to keep quiet about a certain issue because he thinks that doing so will help him build support in the long-run for things that really matter.

This makes sense, right? Enter reality.

If you try labeling yourself, you'll most likely end up picking two categories, instead of just one. I analyze myself and get both Phlegmatic and Melancholic. Now what? I modify the system. I arrange the four types in a circle and say that you can be a hybrid of two adjacent types.

This will work. I can make a categorical system for personality which is always right.

Imagine someone with extremely firm principles who is energetic and friendly, but doesn't take things too seriously and hates conflict. I can imagine it. That's a Choleric... Phlegmatic hybrid? But those are opposite types. What do I do now? And then what about Myers-Briggs typing, another system with sixteen completely different personality types and extensive statistical data for them. I've only got twelve types!

My system is not, and never will be 100% correct. There will always be exceptions. I can either pretend I'm right while ignoring the exceptional cases by saying "Oh yes, they fit in if you look at them the right way," or I can admit that my system isn't perfect. I don't have to throw it away, though! The vast majority of people are going to fit into my categories, and I can use that to my advantage in the future.

GNS is the exact same. It makes sense that there are three types of people who play games. But take a step back and ask WHY these people play these games at all. Why doesn't the Gamist play a video game RPG or a strategy game instead? Why doesn't the Narrativist write a book instead? Why doesn't the Simulationist read a book or watch a movie instead? The answer is that because while they have a distinct preference for playing a certain way, the reason they're playing these games is because they enjoy more than one aspect. Maybe a Gamist mainly wants to get to level X and bash some hardcore monsters in creative ways, but he wants to play in character, too. A Narrativist might want to forge her own destiny while secretly hoping to get the gist of the initial plan for the story and fully experience the world.

It doesn't matter that these side goals are a lot less pronounced than the main preference. They're still there, and oftentimes they're equally as important to the creativity of the player as the main preference is. At the very least, the player THINKS they're important, and that matters, too.

When you design games deliberately to exclude certain types of play, you're minimizing the indulgence of these side preferences. By doing so, you're removing aspects of the game which people like. The arguments here against GNS are all rooted in specific exceptions and counterexamples, which more than anything go to show that people value more than one attribute of the game. Sure, they might have a specific style, but they like to have the option of playing another way, even if they never do so.

The reason GNS meets so much disagreement is because it does not compromise. GNS does not believe in exceptions to its own system, and in doing so, it fails. In fact, GNS advocates the exact opposite of what it should. Instead of stating that games should be designed with one, and only one, goal in mind, it should be advocating that games be designed with all three in mind so that it can appeal to all the desires of each player. Even if you design a game with a Simulationist bent, you have to accept that they enjoy both Narrativist and Gamist aspects of the game as well, to some extent, or at least they THINK they do, which means they basically do.

As a categorical system for players, GNS is interesting and helpful. It categorizes your types of players into three neat little archetypes and you know what all of them want. You can use these hypothetical players to help you design your game. But ultimately GNS is not a legal code for game design, and putting real people into labeled boxes is impossible.

Fhaolan
2009-09-18, 11:21 AM
Do you consider Romeo and Juliet to be an example of melodrama? Because that IS all about emotional/moral crisis. What about King Lear? Because that, too, is all about emotional/moral crisis. Hamlet? Same thing. How about A Man For All Seasons?- All about emotional/moral crisis. Is that "melodrama"- as opposed to, say, some of the finest, most powerful, and most thought-provoking cinema ever filmed? The Odyssey. Jane Eyre. Dune. The Lord of the Rings. The list goes on.


Yep. Although I would dispute Odyssey, Dune, and LotR. Dune and LotR are exercises in myth- and world-building. Odyssey is an adventure yarn. The emotional/moral crisis parts of those stories are clearly (in my mind at least) secondary rather than primary.

However, congratulations! *blows a streamer* You have just experienced the cognative dissonance that the rest of us seem to be having. I threw a term at you using a definition different from what you are used to. Mine used a definition from film studies, whereas yours was from a specific game theory, but still, welcome to the club! We have a secret handshake, and everything. :smallsmile:

Seriously, though; 'Melodrama', due to it's pejorative usage, probably isn't the best term to use. It's just the one I found that seemed to best fit the definition you seem to be going off of. Let me try again.

*puzzles* *puzzles* *puzzles*

Okay, let me try a differect tack. Your definition of Narrativism still seems to be any story primarily about emotional/moral conflict. Specifically about emotional/moral conflicts internal to the characters themselves. According to you , they have to have this conflict to count as having drama potential as, to you, *no other form of drama is interesting*. Because of that, you do not believe that any other form of drama *is* drama. They must, by definition, be something else.

This, to me, seems to firmly fall into the dramatic category of 'Man versus Self'. In fact the other two nodes of dramatic conflict seem to be moved into the other two nodes of gameplay. 'Man versus Environment' is being considered to be a part of Simulationism, labeled 'Illusionist', and 'Man versus Man' is being considered to be part of Gamism, without a funky label. That's not to say that *all* Simulationism is 'Man versus Enviornment', but that that dramatic conflict is being *added* to the rest of Simulationism. Same for Gamism and 'Man versus Man'.

Additionally, I get the distinct impression that because this theory is 'serious business', only half of the Aristotlian dramatic theory 'Tragedy/Comedy' (by-the-by, I do recommend reading 'Poetics' and 'Tractatus Coislinianus'. It's heavy going, but if you're going to discuss dramatic theory you should always have a basis in the classics. For those unable to wade through classical greek, I've seen translations around. Still heavy going, though. Pity the second half of Poetics was lost, but Coislinianus is in a similar style and seems to cover that ground.) is being represented, the Tragedy side of things. Using Hamlet for example, the tragic story is heavily laden with comedic elements. This is because Shakespeare understood that unleavened tragedy quickly turns into a melodramatic (ha!) morass of misery. Drama requires both tragedy and comedy, or it becomes depressing or pointless.

Kylarra
2009-09-18, 11:24 AM
No, it's just an observation. What you might contest is whether people's personal approach to role-playing really varies along these axes. Personally, I think there's good circumstantial evidence to that effect. That at the 3E DMG: it gives explicit guidelines for what's called 'Break Down The Door' play- which I think we can all agree is Gamist, and then another mode, revolving around a lack of clear moral divisions, complex NPCs, and lots of dialogue- which could, in theory, be either Sim or Nar play, depending on where the balance of power lies with respect to story creation.
It proves nothing about the theory. Your theory posits that these people (Extremists ADBE) can never get along, but the basis of that position is the fact that it defines the positions in such a way that they wouldn't ever be able to get along! If people do get along, you shove them into your conveniently defined boxes and say "well they're not compromising, G (ADBE) is getting all the they want and S (ADBE) is stuck with the scraps" or "That's not N (ADBE) getting along with people (G or S ADBE), that's really S (ADBE) in the form of Illusionism (ADBE)."


Y'know, I'm accused of being unwilling to see other peoples' perspectives, but here's you and Yukitsu pereptorily dismissing the key techniques of two other entire modes of play as automatically crappy, with, as far as I can tell, zero actual experience of such play.Correction. At most I am dismissing one mode of roleplay, except I wasn't you know.

I have played CoC, so I know what it's like to be in a situation where every decision you make may end in your unfortunate demise. I also play Chess, MtG, and various other CCGs, and miniatures games, making me familiar with Gamist strategies. On the actual RPG front, I've played "Freeform*", D6/D20 Star Wars, D6/D20 BESM, Exalted 2e, Scion, D&D 2e/3.x/4e, and more that I don't care enough to try to remember, so I've got a fair amount of experience in various degrees of simulationism. It's not a comprehensive list, and I'm not trying to make this as any more than the fact that yes, I've played games. Basically, I've played enough to get a decent feel. You know something I've never really ever come across in the years I've been gaming? Anyone that's asked for Narritivism (ADBE). No one has asked in a serious game "challenge my devotion to my one Cause** repeatedly until I fall" and summarily denied the GM the power to actually have the world react.

Like I said before, I'm sure there are people that like Narritivism (ADBE), but I have never had or seen a player attempt to take "authorship" of the "story" from the GM by writing out how their player's decision affects the world they work in. I'm sure it works great when you're writing a story by yourself, assuming that is the sort of story you like. It seems like it would be an unfortunate thing to be stuck playing, either with or as the hapless GM. Which is why I've repeatedly asked questions about how this would work out, both from a player perspective and a GM's perspective!

*So called freeform is simply internet RPing with various levels of restrictions
**Devotion to multiple Causes would make you wishy-washy so you can only have one dimension. Everything else is convenient fluff to be discarded at will in the pursuit of that Cause.

WalkingTarget
2009-09-18, 11:36 AM
That's great if we're accepting GNS theory as valid prima facia. We're not. We're cricticizing the theoy and one of the things we're cricticizing is that it creates its own nonsensical definitions in order to make itself work. That's part of why it violates parsimony. It redefines common terms when there's really no need to.

Most games I'm familiar with have specialized jargon that overloads new meanings onto existing words. The aspects of the game that Narrativist players are looking for don't already have terms in that context so they've assigned new ones.

Premise - the question or statement that the player wishes to explore over the course of play that is, generally, decided ahead of time (which is why it's the premise). "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" is an example. You decide up front that this is the issue you wish to explore with your character. This is at least similar to the latter definitions you quote.

Protagonism - the ways in which the Premise is addressed by a particular character. Harvey Dent's situations in The Dark Knight simulate this (he's not a RP character, obviously, but when he threatens the thug with the gun, pulls a Spartacus and "admits" to being Batman, the decisions he makes while in the hospital talking to the Joker, and the subsequent confrontations with Batman and the Gordons are places where the Premise are addressed). The GM's job is to present situations that address the Premise and then let the player work through the choices and their implications. Sure, they've co-opted a literary term, but it has to do with the specific ways in which a PC responds to the situations presented so I don't think it's that bad of a choice in-and-of itself.

Theme - the overall emotional payoff of working through the situations presented. This is an intangible idea and is workable with the second definition you give when looked at in hindsight, but it isn't something that is determined ahead of time. A player portraying Harvey Dent thinks back on the campaign that was The Dark Knight: what emotions does that player feel about having made the decisions he made? That's the Theme.

I'm not arguing that GNS works as an all-encompassing theory for all of roleplaying (I've said before in this thread that I think it works, at best, as a method of defining a particular style of play, which it calls Narrativism), I just think that attacking it via it's vocabulary isn't a particularly efficient way to go about it. Are there better terms to use? Probably, but I'm not going to fault them unduly for it.

Edit - or at least, these are the Narrativist definitions of these three terms as I understand them. Jill or others might have nitpicks.

Yukitsu
2009-09-18, 11:57 AM
They do, to be worth a damn.

I doubt your a legitimate authority of the value of all literary work.


'Thinking something' does not mean they have affected the story's theme, which could probably be summarised as 'the BBEG deserved to die'. Their input to story was nil.

Actually, internal self rationalization, which is nothing but thinking something is essential to the angst that you've confabulated with narrative.


How, exactly, is it supposed to be meaningful without compromising tactical efficiency in some significant respect. A character who never deviates from 'look out for number 1' is not a hero, or even an antihero.

Because most real life gamists are capable of creating rules based on consistency of personality quirks, alignment, etc. and win even with those shortfalls. You assume there is only one solution, and a gamist must take it, but situations are not like that.


Real life is not a simulation! It is not possible to fully address complexities of this magnitude without the real person becoming directly engaged, rather than a crude internal simulacra of their character. Full-blown emotional conflict can never be perfectly simulated in an impartial fashion, which is what Sim would oblige you to do. This is what essentially obliges Nar play to break Sim- it's inherently a metagame process, and extraneous metagame is anathema to Sim play.

Games are a simulation of real life, and thus emulating the conflict (which is what a melodrama attempts to do) are certainly part of a good simulationist game. It isn't as though simulationist characters are Vulcans. That you think it's impossible to emulate angst speaks against your own theory.

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-18, 03:15 PM
They do, to be worth a damn.

This? This right here is flame bait, Samurai. This is your opinion, and you are stating it as fact in such a way as to dismiss others as having worthless preferences if they do not agree.


A compromise would be each side making concessions to the other. Side A. walking away with everything it wanted in the first place is not a compromise. I really don't think this is a particularly abstract concept.

Except that this (the bolded part) is not what people are describing. They are describing the former, to which you respond "No, you are wrong. What you are doing is the bolded part because I say so and for no other reason. Obviously I have to be right because I am right. Therefore you are wrong." Except that the last two sentences are implied rather than typed.


Because that's what you have to do to create a gripping story.

Except....no. That isn't the case, as many others have already said. Just because you claim it to be so does not make it so, Samurai.


Lots of stuff.

Thank you, Diamondeye. You, unlike Samurai...well, I appreciate that you actually say true things.


I cannot recall how many times my players have completely changed the plot by doing something unexpected, be it by cunning, folly or bravery. They have managed to end up completely elsewhere than they were supposed to, killed a would-be traitor long before he could do his work (and no, nobody came around to do the job instead) or managed to talk people into cooperation who were supposed to be enemies. The existence of a gamemaster who controls the environment and the NPCs to full extent, including their reactions to PCs, and the PCs affecting the story's plot to great extents, is in no way mutually exclusive.

YES!!!

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 04:18 PM
This? This right here is flame bait, Samurai. This is your opinion...
Everything I ever say is automatically 'my opinion'. Do you have anything useful to add here?

Except that this (the bolded part) is not what people are describing...
Yes it is. They are describing a situation where the demands, needs and key techniques of Gamist play are 100% satisfied, and other modes being allowed to inject their priorities only where they do not interfere, however slightly, with those of Gamism. That is not a compromise, that is one side winning. (Except in the case of Kalirren, which I think is Narrativism winning, and other modes getting the seconds.)

Except....no. That isn't the case, as many others have already said. Just because you claim it to be so does not make it so, Samurai.
Fine. Give me an example of gripping story that does not involve moral/emotional conflict as expressed through protagonism. Please. Prove your case.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 04:24 PM
I cannot recall how many times my players have completely changed the plot by doing something unexpected, be it by cunning, folly or bravery. They have managed to end up completely elsewhere than they were supposed to...
See- here's the key point. In Narrativist play, there wouldn't be any place they were 'supposed to be'. Changes happened here despite your influence, not because they were facilitated by it. -At least, that is what it sounds like to me, I could be jumping to premature conclusions, correct me if I'm wrong.

...killed a would-be traitor long before he could do his work (and no, nobody came around to do the job instead) or managed to talk people into cooperation who were supposed to be enemies. The existence of a gamemaster who controls the environment and the NPCs to full extent, including their reactions to PCs, and the PCs affecting the story's plot to great extents, is in no way mutually exclusive.
It is perfectly possible to modify the plot (or have a complete absence of plot,) within Gamist or Simulationist play. But the changes do not reflect players' authorship of story unless their attention was consciously focused on the address of premise.

Diamondeye
2009-09-18, 04:24 PM
Most games I'm familiar with have specialized jargon that overloads new meanings onto existing words. The aspects of the game that Narrativist players are looking for don't already have terms in that context so they've assigned new ones.

Games do that, but GNS isn't a game; it's a theory. When you're writing a theory it's best not to use excessive jargon and especially not to redefine common words to new meanings.

In any case, there are plenty of good terms that can be sued. For example, what you described as "Protagonism" could be called "conflict" or "problems" or a number of other words.


I'm not arguing that GNS works as an all-encompassing theory for all of roleplaying (I've said before in this thread that I think it works, at best, as a method of defining a particular style of play, which it calls Narrativism), I just think that attacking it via it's vocabulary isn't a particularly efficient way to go about it. Are there better terms to use? Probably, but I'm not going to fault them unduly for it.

Not if it were merely a matter of nitpicking it for semantics, but part of the problem with its vocabulary is that it uses this redefinition of terms to conceal its lack of parsimony and circular logic.


Edit - or at least, these are the Narrativist definitions of these three terms as I understand them. Jill or others might have nitpicks.

I understand that. I'm not disputing what the correct GNS definition of each term is. What I'm pointing out is that the terms are part of what's used to cover up the problems with the way the theory is constructed. It's becoming more and more clear that narritivism only describes this very narrow type of play where this moral conflict is explored and only when the players and the DM somehow "collaborate" to that end. This causes the theory to shove other story-oriented play agendas into areas that they aren't relaed to. It does this in order to separate "games Ron Edwards likes" from "those he doesn't", not because all these qualifications are actually necessary for the theory to work. When people start making claims about "A story needs to be like this to be worth a damn" that becomes abundantly clear.


See- here's the key point. In Narrativist play, there wouldn't be any place they were 'supposed to be'. Changes happened here despite your influence, not because they were facilitated by it. -At least, that is what it sounds like to me, I could be jumping to premature conclusions, correct me if I'm wrong.

When he says "supposed to be" he means "supposed to" as in what he anticipated, not as in what is allowed.


It is perfectly possible to modify the plot (or have a complete absence of plot,) within Gamist or Simulationist play. But the changes do not reflect players' authorship of story unless their attention was consciously focused on the address of premise.

It doesn't matter. Player authorship isn't important to whether play is story-oriented.


Yes it is. They are describing a situation where the demands, needs and key techniques of Gamist play are 100% satisfied, and other modes being allowed to inject their priorities only where they do not interfere, however slightly, with those of Gamism. That is not a compromise, that is one side winning. (Except in the case of Kalirren, which I think is Narrativism winning, and other modes getting the seconds.)

No, they aren't. They're describing compromise. You're trying to change the definition of that word to make your argument work. All you're doing is pointing out 'gamist' elements and claiming that because they exist they are somehow "winning" and the others are getting the leftovers. What you're really doing is just trying to proclaim yourself correct by fiat.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 04:32 PM
If people do get along, you shove them into your conveniently defined boxes...
The boxes to happen to fit. No-on here is describing being happy with a situation that involves actual concessions on the part of more than one mode. They're describing situations where one mode is getting 100% of what it wants, and other modes are getting some other, smaller percentage- from what I see, a substantially smaller percentage. That is not a compromise. That is one side winning.

Correction. At most I am dismissing one mode of roleplay, except I wasn't you know.
You were (I thought) dismissing Narrativist play, Yukitsu was dismissing the Sim approach to combat.

Like I said before, I'm sure there are people that like Narritivism (ADBE), but I have never had or seen a player attempt to take "authorship" of the "story" from the GM by writing out how their player's decision affects the world they work in. I'm sure it works great when you're writing a story by yourself, assuming that is the sort of story you like. It seems like it would be an unfortunate thing to be stuck playing, either with or as the hapless GM. Which is why I've repeatedly asked questions about how this would work out, both from a player perspective and a GM's perspective!...
Check out Burning Wheel. The purpose of Beliefs and Instincts is explicitly to tell the GM what the players' foremost priorities for story events are. But it doesn't need to formalised- DitV tells the GM to come up with ideas for the next town based on challenging the judgements of the PCs in a given session (again, escalation at work.) It's the players choices between two different values that give the most potent feedback for the GM on where the story ought to go.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 04:36 PM
When he says "supposed to be" he means "supposed to" as in what he anticipated, not as in what is allowed.
A Nar GM wouldn't even be able to reasonably anticipate the outcome! The whole point is to make those choices as ambivalent as possible!

It doesn't matter. Player authorship isn't important to whether play is story-oriented.
That is a contradiction in terms.

There's nothing narrow about Narrativism. In many ways, it can actually be the least restrictive of the three modes of play (insofar as it doesn't need explicit mechanics to the same degree as most Gamist or Sim play.)

No, they aren't. They're describing compromise. You're trying to change the definition of that word to make your argument work. All you're doing is pointing out 'gamist' elements and claiming that because they exist...
It's not because they exist, it's because they're not making any actual sacrifices of Gamist priorities in favour of other modes- y'know, an actual compromise. There is nothing wrong with this mode of play! It can absolutely be 100% fun for those involved! But it ain't a compromise! It is an unequivocal prioritisation of one mode over others!

Yukitsu
2009-09-18, 04:42 PM
You were (I thought) dismissing Narrativist play, Yukitsu was dismissing the Sim approach to combat.


And narrativist combat. I'm of the view that combat should really have a mechanical, game like emphasis.

Winterwind
2009-09-18, 04:42 PM
See- here's the key point. In Narrativist play, there wouldn't be any place they were 'supposed to be'. Changes happened here despite your influence, not because they were facilitated by it. -At least, that is what it sounds like to me, I could be jumping to premature conclusions, correct me if I'm wrong.No, in a purely Narrativist play as defined by you (or Edwards), I guess there wouldn't be any particular place where the gamemaster expected the players to end up at. So what? I am not the one arguing that games need to be either purely Narrativist, not Narrativist at all, or suck - my point was that contrary to your claims, the players can manage to change the story's course considerably, to a point where the players can rightfully be declared co-creators of the story together with the gamemaster, in spite of the gamemaster retaining all control over NPCs and environment. That narrativist aspects can coexist harmonically with non-gamist ones, without causing any trouble.


It is perfectly possible to modify the plot (or have a complete absence of plot,) within Gamist or Simulationist play. But the changes do not reflect players' authorship of story unless their attention was consciously focused on the address of premise.So, according to you, being responsible for the way a story goes does not count as co-authorship of a story, unless one was consciously focussing on... assuming WalkingTarget's description of the meaning of the term as you use it is correct, predetermined statement to be explored during the session? Regardless of the actual extent of influence one had on what story came together in the end?

If so, I guess I should be adding 'authorship' to the growing list of things we understand something completely different under...

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 04:44 PM
And narrativist combat. I'm of the view that combat should really have a mechanical, game like emphasis.
Fine, sure, absolutely, if that's what you find most enjoyable, by all means. But there are plenty of people who actually like their combat to be loose and open to narration, or gritty and detailed and visceral.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 04:47 PM
So, according to you, being responsible for the way a story goes does not count as co-authorship of a story, unless one was consciously focussing on... assuming WalkingTarget's description of the meaning of the term as you use it is correct, predetermined statement to be explored during the session? Regardless of the actual extent of influence one had on what story came together in the end?
In essence, such influence was an incidental side-effect, and will only improve the aesthetic quality of the final transcript purely by accident- i.e, very rarely. (Also, the premise needn't neccessarily be formalised explicitly, as long as it's recognisably 'what it's about' in a way that can invite emotional conflicts.)

Yukitsu
2009-09-18, 04:48 PM
Fine, sure, absolutely, if that's what you find most enjoyable, by all means. But there are plenty of people who actually like their combat to be loose and open to narration, or gritty and detailed and visceral.

Games can have those applications, but the mechanics involved certainly won't be "Well, Tod's character is a better fighter, and has surprise so he wins." and a narrativist one won't say "Well, Ted's the protagonist so he won't lose to this mook." It will be implicitly based around rules and formulas which then can take on tone and structure from other things, AKA fluff.

Gritty and detailed are not at all opposed to rules, nor is visceral. "Pure sim" according to Edwards and pure narrative, in this sense, are.

Winterwind
2009-09-18, 04:51 PM
And narrativist combat. I'm of the view that combat should really have a mechanical, game like emphasis.For once, here I have to disagree, at least to as broad a statement as that. The most exciting, immersive combat situations, where the players were trying to think on their feet, were really excited or frightened, and where the combats were by far the most interesting, menacing and/or action-laden, were all in freeform1 games without rules.

1 Where I am referring to playing with people in RL, like any tabletop RPG, only without rules beyond the existance of a gamemaster, as opposed to freeform Internet playing as somebody expressed before (or maybe it was in the other thread)


In essence, such influence was an incidental side-effect, and will only improve the aesthetic quality of the final transcript purely by accident- i.e, very rarely. (Also, the premise needn't neccessarily be formalised explicitly, as long as it's recognisably 'what it's about' in a way that can invite emotional conflicts.)That's contrary to every single roleplaying experience I've ever had, unless the gamemaster was really bad because of excessive railroading. Under any good gamemaster, who doesn't do that, the actions the players undertake will always matter and will always change the world - and with it, the plot, often to extreme degrees.

EDIT:

Games can have those applications, but the mechanics involved certainly won't be "Well, Tod's character is a better fighter, and has surprise so he wins." and a narrativist one won't say "Well, Ted's the protagonist so he won't lose to this mook." It will be implicitly based around rules and formulas which then can take on tone and structure from other things, AKA fluff.

Gritty and detailed are not at all opposed to rules, nor is visceral. "Pure sim" according to Edwards and pure narrative, in this sense, are.While how good fighters the respective characters are will matter, a good gamemaster will make it mostly about what it actually is that the characters do. How they try to trick each other in order to penetrate the opponent's defenses. And rather desperately, before the opponent can do them in. It's quite exciting if done well.

Rather, that's one way to do it, and one that works very well, in my humble opinion. Tastes may vary, of course.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 04:51 PM
Games can have those applications, but the mechanics involved certainly won't be "Well, Tod's character is a better fighter, and has surprise so he wins." and a narrativist one won't say "Well, Ted's the protagonist so he won't lose to this mook." It will be implicitly based around rules and formulas which then can take on tone and structure from other things, AKA fluff.
Fluff, in the sense that you're using it, would, I think, be called Colour. But anyways, yes- these games would have rules for resolving these conflicts. But... I don't see how that relates to your original point. I was under the impression that you felt Sim combat would be intrinsically boring because it's over in (game-world) seconds?

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 04:53 PM
That's contrary to every single roleplaying experience I've ever had, unless the gamemaster was really bad because of excessive railroading. Under any good gamemaster, who doesn't do that, the actions the players undertake will always matter and will always change the world - and with it, the plot, often to extreme degrees.
Perhaps, but changing the plot, and changing the plot in ways that are plausibly an improvement are very different things.

Again, I'm not saying that this mode of play is not fun for the participants. But it won't, except by a wild fluke, result in players' active authorship of strong story.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-18, 04:55 PM
Fluff, in the sense that you're using it, would, I think, be called Colour. But anyways, yes- these games would have rules for resolving these conflicts. But... I don't see how that relates to your original point. I was under the impression that you felt Sim combat would be intrinsically boring because it's over in (game-world) seconds?

Again with the confusing of definitions. What GNS sees as simulationism is vastly stricter than what the vast majority of gamers see as simulationism. His entire point was that you could have rules AND fluff, etc. It's not a "pure simulationist" according to GNS approach, and Im a bit surprised that you could get that from his post.

Yukitsu
2009-09-18, 04:58 PM
For once, here I have to disagree, at least to as broad a statement as that. The most exciting, immersive combat situations, where the players were trying to think on their feet, were really excited or frightened, and where the combats were by far the most interesting, menacing and/or action-laden, were all in freeform1 games without rules.

I refer to LARPing as a game with rules, so that likely explains the difference.


While how good fighters the respective characters are will matter, a good gamemaster will make it mostly about what it actually is that the characters do. How they try to trick each other in order to penetrate the opponent's defenses. And rather desperately, before the opponent can do them in. It's quite exciting if done well.

Rather, that's one way to do it, and one that works very well, in my humble opinion. Tastes may vary, of course.

Fights tend not to involve a lot of specific thinking, though they can have a lot of pre-planned strategems, so this would be a narrative style of play, according to Edwards. This can be fine, but my faith in the typical non-professional writer's ability to create interesting combat scenes has been somewhat stymied by all the god aweful fan fics I've read.


Fluff, in the sense that you're using it, would, I think, be called Colour. But anyways, yes- these games would have rules for resolving these conflicts. But... I don't see how that relates to your original point. I was under the impression that you felt Sim combat would be intrinsically boring because it's over in (game-world) seconds?

If you model combat as a close aproximation of real life combat, it will not be all that interesting in my opinion. Combat is technical, over very quickly, and doesn't involve all those interesting tricks that you see in the movies.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-18, 04:59 PM
Perhaps, but changing the plot, and changing the plot in ways that are plausibly an improvement are very different things.

Again, I'm not saying that this mode of play is not fun for the participants. But it won't, except by a wild fluke, result in players' active authorship of strong story.

Who decides that a given plot point is an improvement or not? Clearly, if the players decided on it, they must think it's superior for some reason. That is authorship, or at least, partial authorship.

Trying to get extremely restrictive with poorly defined terms like "active authorship of a strong story" is merely a weak dodge. Who decides if the story is strong? If the participants enjoy it, what does it matter if you do not? It's not as if they're writing a novel for profit here.

If players are participating in the story, changing it through their actions(and it would hardly be an RPG if they could not), then they are most certainly not powerless. Yes, there are different degrees of choice in different campaigns, but that alone is a poor way of defining...anything. It's a very insufficient description.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 04:59 PM
Again with the confusing of definitions. What GNS sees as simulationism is vastly stricter than what the vast majority of gamers see as simulationism. His entire point was that you could have rules AND fluff, etc. It's not a "pure simulationist" according to GNS approach, and Im a bit surprised that you could get that from his post.
Actually, the GNS definition is probably a lot broader, in that it includes games like Risus and Wushu along with CoC and GURPs.
But 'fluff' isn't antithetical to Sim at all. I covered this in the Sim essay- any form of play that makes the exploration of Colour, Character, System, Setting or Situation it's foremost priority (i.e, not winning, and not player input to story,) is Simulationist.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 05:04 PM
Who decides that a given plot point is an improvement or not? Clearly, if the players decided on it, they must think it's superior for some reason...
Yes, but that reason could have been 'it helped me win', or 'it made sense', rather than 'that was dramatic'.

Trying to get extremely restrictive with poorly defined terms like "active authorship of a strong story" is merely a weak dodge. Who decides if the story is strong? If the participants enjoy it, what does it matter if you do not?...
Not at all. If the participants enjoy such play, there is absolutely no problem here. It just ain't Narrativism, and some players do value dramatic outcomes over the most consistent or profitable.

If players are participating in the story, changing it through their actions(and it would hardly be an RPG if they could not), then they are most certainly not powerless. Yes, there are different degrees of choice in different campaigns, but that alone is a poor way of defining...anything. It's a very insufficient description.
If the GM has this campaign plot with predefined thematic outcomes, then that's all you need to know- player input is being constrained, by gentle methods or otherwise. And good stories just don't happen without conscious attention on that objective.

Winterwind
2009-09-18, 05:09 PM
Perhaps, but changing the plot, and changing the plot in ways that are plausibly an improvement are very different things.

Again, I'm not saying that this mode of play is not fun for the participants. But it won't, except by a wild fluke, result in players' active authorship of strong story.Why not, supposedly? Why shouldn't an assembly of creative people all given their vivid interpretations of complex characters, the likes of the gamemaster would never have thought about her or himself, interacting with the gamemaster's own creativity expressed by a complex environment full of mysteries, the likes of which the players would never have thought about themselves, result in a strong story? And while we're at it, what is a strong story according to you, anyhow?


I refer to LARPing as a game with rules, so that likely explains the difference.I wasn't talking about LARPing though, just tabletop roleplaying (except without rules).


Fights tend not to involve a lot of specific thinking, though they can have a lot of pre-planned strategems, so this would be a narrative style of play, according to Edwards. This can be fine, but my faith in the typical non-professional writer's ability to create interesting combat scenes has been somewhat stymied by all the god aweful fan fics I've read.I didn't intend this as statement that such a way of doing combats is any particular aspect of GNS theory; I just wanted to counter the statement that combat in RPGs requires rules as a sidenote, because in my experience this is simply not true (though I admit it requires a gamemaster of rare caliber to pull it off. I know I am not one.) :smallwink:

Yukitsu
2009-09-18, 05:18 PM
I'd probably like to see a good example, but most free-forms I've read through or been in have given me tremendous headaches. I don't think I've read one where one-upmanship and bad hollywood like effects weren't used. I put it down to the fact that simply most people are not good writers, myself included.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 05:19 PM
Why not, supposedly? Why shouldn't an assembly of creative people all given their vivid interpretations of complex characters, the likes of the gamemaster would never have thought about her or himself, interacting with the gamemaster's own creativity expressed by a complex environment full of mysteries, the likes of which the players would never have thought about themselves, result in a strong story? And while we're at it, what is a strong story according to you, anyhow?
One where the characters are defined by their responses over time to a strong, central emotional conflict or dilemma, and the significant events that occur reflect those choices. It's all about giving the main characters meaningful choices- the most meaningful choices possible- the most perfectly ambivalent, and with the most far-reaching consequences.

Another way you can look at it is that, in Sim play, the players revolve around the world (which includes their characters.) In Nar play, the world (including the characters,) revolves around the players. Developing a strong story often benefits from the injection of unlikely coincidences at key moments, which is something that the Sim emphasis on 'internal cause is King' handles quite poorly. And the Gamist emphasis on minimising tactical/strategic inconvenience does not square well with the kind of personal sacrifices associated with protagonism. Again, I've covered this all at some length in my prior essays.

Roog
2009-09-18, 05:27 PM
If you model combat as a close aproximation of real life combat, it will not be all that interesting in my opinion. Combat is technical, over very quickly, and doesn't involve all those interesting tricks that you see in the movies.

But you would agree that if you model it after movie combat, then you could have interesting "sim" combat?

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 05:33 PM
But you would agree that if you model it after movie combat, then you could have interesting "sim" combat?
I have pondered the idea of a Sim game closely based on Anime CRPGs. Now that would be postmodern.

But honestly, realistic combat isn't necessarily boring at all. It all depends on how interesting you make those few seconds. BW and the Riddle of Steel handle this sort of thing very well, with a surprising amount of tactical diversity.

Friv
2009-09-18, 05:42 PM
One where the characters are defined by their responses over time to a strong, central emotional conflict or dilemma, and the significant events that occur reflect those choices. It's all about giving the main characters meaningful choices- the most meaningful choices possible- the most perfectly ambivalent, and with the most far-reaching consequences.

Moving out of RPGs for a moment to come back to them later... by that definition, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote crappy fiction. Very rarely does emotional conflict or dilemmas play more than a supporting role in Sherlock Holmes, and when it does the main characters are immune to it. Emotional conflict is quite common in the Challenger stories, but always takes a backseat to the intellectual challenges that face the characters instead. And... well, I have to admit that I've only really read Holmes and Challenger stories. But my point stands.

Why can't a successful story be about intellectual challenges? A game of exploration or deduction?

Yukitsu
2009-09-18, 05:43 PM
But you would agree that if you model it after movie combat, then you could have interesting "sim" combat?

Depends. Are you a good writer? :smallconfused: I sure as hell can't play that style of game, not because I don't like that sort of thing when done well, but because I can't write.

Edit: As a caveat, in the free form games I've played, people who say they are good writers, aren't.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 05:48 PM
Why can't a successful story be about intellectual challenges? A game of exploration or deduction?
That's a very interesting point. I think Kalirren raised the idea of 'Simulationist fiction'- stories that principally revolve around exploring the curious details of an expansive world and trying to make sense of it (a la much of Star Trek:TNG. At the same time, it's fair to say that wasn't the best example of intercharacter drama...)

However, I would argue that the series does showcase an underlying theme, particularly in Holmes' recurrent struggle against Moriarty, for which Holmes was willing to give his life (and Doyle absolutely hated having to bring him back.)

Winterwind
2009-09-18, 05:53 PM
Yes, but that reason could have been 'it helped me win', or 'it made sense', rather than 'that was dramatic'.Or it could have been "that was dramatic". I don't see how such a motivation for a player undertaking any action would be mutually exclusive with the gamemaster retaining major control over the environment, or in fact how these two would be at all correllated.


If the GM has this campaign plot with predefined thematic outcomes, then that's all you need to know- player input is being constrained, by gentle methods or otherwise.In comparison to a "players control it all" approach, surely. Doesn't mean they can no longer influence the campaign's plot, up to and including a complete departure from the originally intended predefined thematic outcomes.


And good stories just don't happen without conscious attention on that objective.Good stories don't happen without conscious attention from anyone? I'm not sure I agree with even that - even the (by my understanding) purely Sim-oriented approach of players just wanting to play their characters as accurately as possible and the gamemaster having a fascinating world with some interesting intrigues or challenges built in can easily give rise to a gripping tale. Good stories don't happen without conscious attention from a big part of the group, even though some people, like the gamemaster, do pay attention to it? With that, I disagree completely.


I'd probably like to see a good example, but most free-forms I've read through or been in have given me tremendous headaches. I don't think I've read one where one-upmanship and bad hollywood like effects weren't used. I put it down to the fact that simply most people are not good writers, myself included.Well, I'd invite you to participate in our group, then, but I think the distance might be a slight problem... :smalltongue:


One where the characters are defined by their responses over time to a strong, central emotional conflict or dilemma, and the significant events that occur reflect those choices. It's all about giving the main characters meaningful choices- the most meaningful choices possible- the most perfectly ambivalent, and with the most far-reaching consequences.While I adamantly disagree that this is the only way a story can be good, even assuming this premise for a second I still fail to see how this is in any way prevented when the gamemaster retains a major part of narrative control.


Another way you can look at it is that, in Sim play, the players revolve around the world (which includes their characters.) In Nar play, the world (including the characters,) revolves around the players. Developing a strong story often benefits from the injection of unlikely coincidences at key moments, which is something that the Sim emphasis on 'internal cause is King' handles quite poorly. And the Gamist emphasis on minimising tactical/strategic inconvenience does not square well with the kind of personal sacrifices associated with protagonism. Again, I've covered this all at some length in my prior essays.But you can still have all of these in the same game without problems! Just consider a player who, after some moral struggle, enters a fight (be it because s/he isn't sure whether s/he should fight this fight, because it's practically certain s/he will not survive this fight and s/he and her cause will end here, or for whatever other reason) and then proceeds to try and maximize her/his tactical advantage in this fight, because s/he wants to win it, go out most spectacularly or just because s/he enjoys the tactical challenge. There, narrativism and gamism, hand in hand.

Roog
2009-09-18, 06:03 PM
But honestly, realistic combat isn't necessarily boring at all. It all depends on how interesting you make those few seconds. BW and the Riddle of Steel handle this sort of thing very well, with a surprising amount of tactical diversity.

I don't think realistic combat is necessarily booring. Riddle of Steel of steel is interesting, but does not extend well to areas beyond its focus. OTOH, any combat (realistic or not) is interesting if you zoom the focus out beyond technique enough to emphasise the tactical and/or psycological aspects.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 06:11 PM
Or it could have been "that was dramatic". I don't see how such a motivation for a player undertaking any action would be mutually exclusive with the gamemaster retaining major control over the environment, or in fact how these two would be at all correllated.
Again, it comes down to the requirement that thematic choice be present as much as possible. You have a character's belief, which is challenged in an escalating fashion so as to ensure that significant choices are as ambivalent as possible for that character. Pursuing tactical advantage means switching beliefs the moment they becoming inconvenient. Staying 'in character' means never switching beliefs. Switching back and forth between the two comes across as indecisive. Game+Sim will never equal Narrative.

In comparison to a "players control it all" approach, surely. Doesn't mean they can no longer influence the campaign's plot, up to and including a complete departure from the originally intended predefined thematic outcomes.
It's possible, but unless they're actively looking for a thematically satisfying outcome, it's highly unlikely they'll just stumble onto one while looking for something else.

Good stories don't happen without conscious attention from anyone? I'm not sure I agree with even that - even the (by my understanding) purely Sim-oriented approach of players just wanting to play their characters as accurately as possible and the gamemaster having a fascinating world with some interesting intrigues or challenges built in can easily give rise to a gripping tale. Good stories don't happen without conscious attention from a big part of the group, even though some people, like the gamemaster, do pay attention to it? With that, I disagree completely.
In the case of the GM scripting a plot in advance, that story can certainly be high quality (though there's no guarantee of it.) But players' thematic input there is nil.

But as for the idea that good stories can happen without conscious attention for anyone- I will, in turn, have to flatly disagree. The odds of it are basically miniscule.

While I adamantly disagree that this is the only way a story can be good, even assuming this premise for a second I still fail to see how this is in any way prevented when the gamemaster retains a major part of narrative control.
The GM does retain a substantial degree of input. But what s/he must completely forfeit is the idea that the 'right' decisions for the PCs either can or should be known in advance.

But you can still have all of these in the same game without problems! Just consider a player who, after some moral struggle, enters a fight (be it because s/he isn't sure whether s/he should fight this fight, because it's practically certain s/he will not survive this fight and s/he and her cause will end here, or for whatever other reason) and then proceeds to try and maximize her/his tactical advantage in this fight, because s/he wants to win it, go out most spectacularly or just because s/he enjoys the tactical challenge. There, narrativism and gamism, hand in hand.
Yes, except that the Gamist-inclined player isn't going to make the decision about whether to fight or not based on emotional conflict, but based on (A) seeking a challenge, or (B) seeking maximum personal benefit. And including mechanics that specifically appeal to the Gamist without making it clear that play is primarily about something else, means you are likely to attract Gamist-inclined players who will make decisions on exactly that basis. Not in order to improve the story, but in order to maximise personal gain.

As I've said before, you can certainly have gripping conflicts in Narrativist play, but they'll be the incidental means to other ends. And even within that conflict the Narrativist-inclined player will be looking for different things that are best served using different techniques. The Nar-inclined player will want to use direct conflict resolution to first establish the stakes involved, and possibly who prevails with what degree of compromise, then fill in the details afterward (so that even if s/he loses, he doesn't look stupid in a way that swing-and-miss/swing-and-hit mechanics can imply.) The Game-inclined player is going to want a tactical arsenal of exquisitely balanced spells and martial maneuvres that are largely irrelevant to the emotional stakes at hand. Very often, what appeals to the one just bores the other.

Friv
2009-09-18, 06:11 PM
That's a very interesting point. I think Kalirren raised the idea of 'Simulationist fiction'- stories that principally revolve around exploring the curious details of an expansive world and trying to make sense of it (a la much of Star Trek:TNG. At the same time, it's fair to say that wasn't the best example of intercharacter drama...)

However, I would argue that the series does showcase an underlying theme, particularly in Holmes' recurrent struggle against Moriarty, for which Holmes was willing to give his life (and Doyle absolutely hated having to bring him back.)

Mmm....

Not so much, actually. Moriarity only appears in two of the fifty-six stories about Holmes. He's mentioned in five more, according to Wikipedia. That said, there are certainly emotional themes in Sherlock Holmes - they just aren't the focus of the story or the drama. Instead, they are interesting sidelines.

Similarly, I have played in games that tended towards a tactical-driven or event-driven focus, with lots of character interaction and emotional events occurring as side events that everyone found enjoyable. Is that simulationism?

Saph
2009-09-18, 06:20 PM
However, I would argue that the series does showcase an underlying theme, particularly in Holmes' recurrent struggle against Moriarty, for which Holmes was willing to give his life (and Doyle absolutely hated having to bring him back.)

This isn't very accurate. Moriarty is featured in one and only one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short stories, "The Adventure of the Final Problem". He never appears in person for the story - the most we get to describe him is a second-hand conversation reported by Holmes. At the end of the story he dies. There's no recurrent struggle.

Edit: Heh, ninjaed. :)

Samurai Jill
2009-09-18, 06:22 PM
Mmm....

Not so much, actually. Moriarity only appears in two of the fifty-six stories about Holmes. He's mentioned in five more, according to Wikipedia. That said, there are certainly emotional themes in Sherlock Holmes - they just aren't the focus of the story or the drama. Instead, they are interesting sidelines.
I stand corrected.

Similarly, I have played in games that tended towards a tactical-driven or event-driven focus, with lots of character interaction and emotional events occurring as side events that everyone found enjoyable. Is that simulationism?
Probably Gamism, with a bit of Sim on the side.

Winterwind
2009-09-18, 07:20 PM
Again, it comes down to the requirement that thematic choice be present as much as possible. You have a character's belief, which is challenged in an escalating fashion so as to ensure that significant choices are as ambivalent as possible for that character. Pursuing tactical advantage means switching beliefs the moment they becoming inconvenient. Staying 'in character' means never switching beliefs. Switching back and forth between the two comes across as indecisive. Game+Sim will never equal Narrative.I'm not sure how this relates in any way to my question (which was about gamemaster influence vs. total narrative control in players' hands), but this makes for a more interesting point to debate anyway.

Firstly: Depending on the situation at hand, staying true to one's beliefs still may leave a plethora of tactical options. You are basing this all of the paradigm that players are clearly Gamists, Narrativists or Simulationists - whereas if you allow for people exhibiting interest in multiple directions at once (which I, and seemingly a fair part of the other participants of this discussion as well, consider a much more accurate description of reality), this becomes a lot less irreconcilable.

And so the Sim-Gamist picks his goals according to the character's beliefs, and then tries to find the strategically most sound way to achieve them that does not involve breaking her or his personal moral codex (which usually will not be an obvious way).

The Nar-Simulationist considers how the situation at hand might realistically change the character's beliefs based on his personality and background, and changes them in a way that seems as consistent as possible - and before you note that this is purely Simulationist, keep in mind that in any situation involving a real challenge to the character's morals, this way will be far from obvious and allow for plenty of narrative room.

The Gam-Nar-Simulationist not only sounds like something Godzilla would fight, s/he also considers how the current situation impacts the character's beliefs, adjusts them in a consistent, non-obvious fashion, extrapolates the character's goals from the new personality, and then tries to find the tactically most sound option that does not violate the new personality, once more an option that is far from obvious, and under continuous scrutiny whether the circumstances do not require the character's beliefs to shift once more to remain consistent.


It's possible, but unless they're actively looking for a thematically satisfying outcome, it's highly unlikely they'll just stumble onto one while looking for something else.Thematically satisfying outcome? Why not just an aesthetically satisfying one? The story that arises can be good without pertaining to some predefined theme, after all... or am I confusing GNS vocabulary again (if so, sorry)?


In the case of the GM scripting a plot in advance, that story can certainly be high quality (though there's no guarantee of it.) But players' thematic input there is nil....haven't I written just before how often the players manage to completely mess up this pre-scripted plot, turning the story into something completely different (and usually, all the better for it)?


But as for the idea that good stories can happen without conscious attention for anyone- I will, in turn, have to flatly disagree. The odds of it are basically miniscule.Oh yes, sorry, this one was my fault - I switched back to my default definition of a good story, which includes one about moral issues as subset, but may also just include an immersive and action-laden adventure.


The GM does retain a substantial degree of input. But what s/he must completely forfeit is the idea that the 'right' decisions for the PCs either can or should be known in advance.So what was it with all the talk on the previous pages about the players having to have narrative control over how the environment and NPCs react to their characters? :smallconfused:


Yes, except that the Gamist-inclined player isn't going to make the decision about whether to fight or not based on emotional conflict, but based on (A) seeking a challenge, or (B) seeking maximum personal benefit. And including mechanics that specifically appeal to the Gamist without making it clear that play is primarily about something else, means you are likely to attract Gamist-inclined players who will make decisions on exactly that basis. Not in order to improve the story, but in order to maximise personal gain.

As I've said before, you can certainly have gripping conflicts in Narrativist play, but they'll be the incidental means to other ends. And even within that conflict the Narrativist-inclined player will be looking for different things that are best served using different techniques. The Nar-inclined player will want to use direct conflict resolution to first establish the stakes involved, and possibly who prevails with what degree of compromise, then fill in the details afterward (so that even if s/he loses, he doesn't look stupid in a way that swing-and-miss/swing-and-hit mechanics can imply.) The Game-inclined player is going to want a tactical arsenal of exquisitely balanced spells and martial maneuvres that are largely irrelevant to the emotional stakes at hand. Very often, what appeals to the one just bores the other.And here we have that paradigm-clash again. Just because a player is more inclined towards Gamism, Narrativism or Simulationism doesn't mean s/he forsakes the other aspects and never acts in accordance to those. See above for further elaboration.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-09-18, 07:33 PM
Staying 'in character' means never switching beliefs.

That would be... very poor RPing in my book. Staying "in character" means depicting your character's personality in an internally consistent manner. If my character has just achieved a pyrrhic victory against a hated enemy (to pick a random yet recent example), the "in character" thing to do may be to change those beliefs. Or not, depending on the sort of character I'm playing. Maintaining a static personality regardless of events and personality type is a bad simulation of human nature. Or elven nature, or whatever it may be.

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-18, 09:17 PM
That would be... very poor RPing in my book. Staying "in character" means depicting your character's personality in an internally consistent manner. If my character has just achieved a pyrrhic victory against a hated enemy (to pick a random yet recent example), the "in character" thing to do may be to change those beliefs. Or not, depending on the sort of character I'm playing. Maintaining a static personality regardless of events and personality type is a bad simulation of human nature. Or elven nature, or whatever it may be.

{scrubbed}

Diamondeye
2009-09-19, 09:50 AM
A Nar GM wouldn't even be able to reasonably anticipate the outcome! The whole point is to make those choices as ambivalent as possible!

I totally get that that's the point according to what GNS defines as narritivism, but the fact that it defines it that way is part of why the theory (which is really a hypothesis, not a theory) does not accurately describe gamer behavior and preferences.


That is a contradiction in terms.

No it's not. That's the way it is. Player authorship is completely unrelated to story-oriented gaming. It is perfectly possible that the players want to have the DM come up with the overall plot while they simulate their characters actions within that plot and do their best to acheive tactical victories.

I know that GNS claims this isn't the case. I don't care. I see no reason to think that any of this extra baggage about protagonism, premise, or any of the rest of this hogwash is in any way necessary fo the game to focus in the story. I've seen only circular argument that says it isn't story-oriented gaming without those because that's what the theory says which it says because it isn't story-oriented gaming without them!


There's nothing narrow about Narrativism. In many ways, it can actually be the least restrictive of the three modes of play (insofar as it doesn't need explicit mechanics to the same degree as most Gamist or Sim play.)

Yes, there is. The definition of 'Narritivism' is unnecessarily restricted to one very narrow style of play that requires player participation in plot and a number of other things. In fact its so narrow that its almost impossible to meet, sicne the DM must somehow not "railroad" the players by making them make actual choices or by having NPCs make intelligent decisions, but at the same time is expected to create situations where they are ofrced to make choices that involve sacrifice. Aside from the fact that it demands that characters (PC and NPC alike) fight like incompetant nincompoops lest they harm the drama of the story, it requires the DM to manage contradictory priorities, both of which are essential to the definition!

As for thinking it's less "restrictive" because it has fewer mechanics, that's really not any less or more restricvtive at all. That's just playing with fewer mechanics. Fewer mechanics may seem less retrictive in terms of imagination, but the rules are then often unable to model the player's actions as accurately. All you're doing is trading one kind of restriction for another.


It's not because they exist, it's because they're not making any actual sacrifices of Gamist priorities in favour of other modes- y'know, an actual compromise. There is nothing wrong with this mode of play! It can absolutely be 100% fun for those involved! But it ain't a compromise! It is an unequivocal prioritisation of one mode over others!

Yes, it is a compromise. You're not demonstrating that sacrifices of 'gamist' priorities aren't being made, all you're doing is claiming that sicne there still are some gamist priorities at all, that there has been no compromise and 'gamism' is somehow "winning".

I understand prfectly well that you aren't saying there's anything wrong with playing this way. That's not the issue. The issue is that there is compromise being made, and you're just ignoring it by claiming it's not 'real' compromise. That's a No True Scotsman fallacy. Moreover, you haven't shown why 'gamism' needs to make any sacrifices at all to compromise with the other 2 arms of the theory. 'Gamism" describes primarily concenr with the mechanical aspect of the game. There's no reason the simulation of character activity can't involve major effort to achieve tactical victory, nor why the story can't involve it either. In fact, desire for tactical success is highly 'simulationist', since anyone who engages in mortal combat will obviously be doing their best to win unless they're trying to commit suicide! It can also be highly 'narritivist', sicne once the decision to fight has been made, what point is there in fighting like an incompetant nincompoop? Characters need to be inept at fighting to create drama?

Let me take an example from a highly sopisticated, but non-roleplaying game. Harpoon is a highly sophisitcated naval combat simulation. Let's say I am playing this game, commanding a Carrier Battle Group (CVBG) circa 1986 in a hot war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

The game is a simulation. I, in my siulated role as commander must.. let's say locate and destroy a Soviet Surface Action Group (SAG) while sustaining as little damage as possible, not jsut from the SAG but from enemy submarines and aircraft as well.

My tactical decisions will be obviously dictated by 'gamist' concerns for what works best within the simulation. However, those rules are a mathematical model for the way my various platforms will behave in real life (to the degree that such information is avialable publicly). Therefore, there is no conflict betweent he priorities of wanting to simulate the responsibilites of a CVBG commander and the priorities of wanting to win the game; the CVBG commander is obviously going to do his best to win.

In an RPG, there is similarly no conflict between adventurers trying to win and simulating themselves accurately. They're trying to win. Even a relatively unintelligent fighter-type can still be expected to act competantly in a fight from training and experience.

Now, on to the story aspect. I can write a short story, maybe even a novel about this CVBG/SAG battle and its outcome. Depending on my writing skills, it will probably be a reasonably good one (assuing one finds modern warfare interesting), despite the almost-certain lack of drama or moral conflict on the part of the characters.

Similarly, in an RPG, a story pretty much occurs by default even if its just a sries of stories of the characters adventures, and would be perfectly interesting to a reader and to the players themselves just from the question "are they going to retire as great heros or die horribly in the jaws of a hideous monster?" The characters may or may not get involved in drama, but even if the DM plans the overall plot from the beginning, there's still a story. That plot may or may not be how the game actually goes based on player actions; the final result may beat no resemblance to the DMs initial vision. The real reason the DM comes up with a plot or plan is so that when the players describe their actions, the DM isn't sitting there going "uhhhh... weelllll....uhhh..." because he has no idea where he wants to go with that. If he's going to challange the players/characters in any way, he's going to need to do that.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-19, 10:14 AM
Actually, the GNS definition is probably a lot broader, in that it includes games like Risus and Wushu along with CoC and GURPs.
But 'fluff' isn't antithetical to Sim at all. I covered this in the Sim essay- any form of play that makes the exploration of Colour, Character, System, Setting or Situation it's foremost priority (i.e, not winning, and not player input to story,) is Simulationist.

I really can't take seriously any system that is so set on pigeonholing RPGs into very specific categories, and shoves GURPS into simulationist.

I mean, sure, you could play a simulationist game of GURPS. You could also play, well, pretty much anything else.

Kylarra
2009-09-19, 10:41 AM
The boxes to happen to fit.
Actually no they don't. I'll just refer back to Winterwind's situation where you were telling him how his friend feels, despite never meeting said friend or interacting with him at all. You're just putting them into those boxes because it is more convenient than revising the theory you're promoting.


No-on here is describing being happy with a situation that involves actual concessions on the part of more than one mode. They're describing situations where one mode is getting 100% of what it wants, and other modes are getting some other, smaller percentage- from what I see, a substantially smaller percentage. That is not a compromise. That is one side winning.You're setting up false poly-lemmas again. As far as you're concerned, having slightly more aspects of one node means that they've 100% won, and that other nodes are only getting scraps. This line of thinking necessitates a quantification of aspects as well as being a subjective opinion, meaning that it is useless as rationale or a defense.

Alternatively, as the modes you're describing are all ADBE, it bears little relevance on actual play whether or not all extremist nodes are "firing on all cylinders", as IME very rarely will people want a[n RPG] game that hits only one node, regardless of what your theory proposes.


You were (I thought) dismissing Narrativist play, Yukitsu was dismissing the Sim approach to combat.I am dismissing it, because I don't see it as fun for the GM or the players.


Check out Burning Wheel. The purpose of Beliefs and Instincts is explicitly to tell the GM what the players' foremost priorities for story events are. But it doesn't need to formalised- DitV tells the GM to come up with ideas for the next town based on challenging the judgements of the PCs in a given session (again, escalation at work.) It's the players choices between two different values that give the most potent feedback for the GM on where the story ought to go.How can the GM write the story if the players have authorship? Isn't that a violation of your Narritivist (ADBE) beliefs? How can she create a town based on challenging the judgments of players if that's a Sim style (ADBE) albeit on a smaller scale since it is world building one town by town in response to what they've done before, which you've already dismissed as illusionism in the Duke example previously?


I'll reiterate, even though people more eloquent than I have already pointed it out, there is no need for a GM in a N (ADBE) game, because the GM isn't allowed to alter the story that the players come up with (as that would turn it into illusionism, which is S(ADBE) and thus not fulfilling the N (ADBE) CA).

For me, a game must be satisfying to both the person running it and the person(s) playing it. If the GM is written in with conflicting dilemmas, provide situations to challenge the players morally, but don't railroad them at all and don't have the world change based on the actions of the players, they're not going to do too well at either. The GM needs to be able to react to the actions of the players.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's been an interesting run, but I think I may just bow out of it for now as I don't really see any headway being reached. The definitions of terms from the GNS theory (ADBE) are specifically written to suit the theory, and thus any counters to the theory itself are swamped with re-definitions that are trying to be used in place of their normal definitions in gaming. Eg: Story, Protagonism, Drama.

It is useless to argue that Story (ADBE) can be achieved without Drama (ADBE), because Story (ADBE) is only created through Drama (ADBE), regardless of what stories can be created or written without it.

Drama (ADBE) can only be achieved when you're in a moral grey area fighting against opposite aspects of your Cause. Anything with a clear right and wrong would not be Dramatic (ADBE), and thus anything that is drama, but not Drama (ADBE) cannot be used as evidence against the statement.

Protagonists (ADBE) can only be Protagonists if they have one Cause (ADBE) and are challenged against it on an episodic basis, else they would not be Protagonists (ADBE), regardless of what other protagonistic meanings there are.

Narritivism (ADBE) requires that players have authorship of the story and are challenged episodically in situations that they themselves write out, as the GM is not allowed to respond to their situations with the world evolving, but rather must follow the script of their decisions. The players are all omniscient and know the results of their choices before they even make them (see Duke example). It is explicitly impossible to be N (ADBE) and S(ADBE) or G(ADBE) because S (ADBE) would take authorship away from the players and give it to the GM, and G (ADBE) would take authorship from the players and limit them by the system.

Admittedly, I'm not sure why S (ADBE) and G(ADBE) cannot co-exist, but that's probably because I got lost in the legalese somewhere.

I've probably missed some, but those are key recurring elements that I see now. I may be back later, but I need a breather.

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-19, 03:28 PM
Actually no they don't. I'll just refer back to Winterwind's situation where you were telling him how his friend feels, despite never meeting said friend or interacting with him at all. You're just putting them into those boxes because it is more convenient than revising the theory you're promoting.

You're setting up false poly-lemmas again. As far as you're concerned, having slightly more aspects of one node means that they've 100% won, and that other nodes are only getting scraps. This line of thinking necessitates a quantification of aspects as well as being a subjective opinion, meaning that it is useless as rationale or a defense.

Alternatively, as the modes you're describing are all ADBE, it bears little relevance on actual play whether or not all extremist nodes are "firing on all cylinders", as IME very rarely will people want a[n RPG] game that hits only one node, regardless of what your theory proposes.

I am dismissing it, because I don't see it as fun for the GM or the players.

How can the GM write the story if the players have authorship? Isn't that a violation of your Narritivist (ADBE) beliefs? How can she create a town based on challenging the judgments of players if that's a Sim style (ADBE) albeit on a smaller scale since it is world building one town by town in response to what they've done before, which you've already dismissed as illusionism in the Duke example previously?


I'll reiterate, even though people more eloquent than I have already pointed it out, there is no need for a GM in a N (ADBE) game, because the GM isn't allowed to alter the story that the players come up with (as that would turn it into illusionism, which is S(ADBE) and thus not fulfilling the N (ADBE) CA).

For me, a game must be satisfying to both the person running it and the person(s) playing it. If the GM is written in with conflicting dilemmas, provide situations to challenge the players morally, but don't railroad them at all and don't have the world change based on the actions of the players, they're not going to do too well at either. The GM needs to be able to react to the actions of the players.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's been an interesting run, but I think I may just bow out of it for now as I don't really see any headway being reached. The definitions of terms from the GNS theory (ADBE) are specifically written to suit the theory, and thus any counters to the theory itself are swamped with re-definitions that are trying to be used in place of their normal definitions in gaming. Eg: Story, Protagonism, Drama.

It is useless to argue that Story (ADBE) can be achieved without Drama (ADBE), because Story (ADBE) is only created through Drama (ADBE), regardless of what stories can be created or written without it.

Drama (ADBE) can only be achieved when you're in a moral grey area fighting against opposite aspects of your Cause. Anything with a clear right and wrong would not be Dramatic (ADBE), and thus anything that is drama, but not Drama (ADBE) cannot be used as evidence against the statement.

Protagonists (ADBE) can only be Protagonists if they have one Cause (ADBE) and are challenged against it on an episodic basis, else they would not be Protagonists (ADBE), regardless of what other protagonistic meanings there are.

Narritivism (ADBE) requires that players have authorship of the story and are challenged episodically in situations that they themselves write out, as the GM is not allowed to respond to their situations with the world evolving, but rather must follow the script of their decisions. The players are all omniscient and know the results of their choices before they even make them (see Duke example). It is explicitly impossible to be N (ADBE) and S(ADBE) or G(ADBE) because S (ADBE) would take authorship away from the players and give it to the GM, and G (ADBE) would take authorship from the players and limit them by the system.

Admittedly, I'm not sure why S (ADBE) and G(ADBE) cannot co-exist, but that's probably because I got lost in the legalese somewhere.

I've probably missed some, but those are key recurring elements that I see now. I may be back later, but I need a breather.

I think I'll rest on this post. There is no point in debating if all the terms are defined by one side rather than a third party. Since all important terms are being defined by GNS, it is impossible to argue against them in any reasonable way. The post quoted summarizes just why arguing with GNS is futile. GNS is a hypothesis, not a theory, and it apparently relies on everyone accepting common and relevant words being redefined by the hypothesis. This, of course, is inherently ridiculous, as without the ability to use the real definitions of the relevant words, there can be no discussion.

Fiery Diamond out.

PS.


"--and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents--"

"Certainly," said Alice.

"And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!"

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant, 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean do many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

Alice was much too puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them--particularly verbs: they're the proudest--adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs--however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

"Would you tell me, please," said Alice, "what that means?"

"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."

"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

"Oh!" said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

"Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night," Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, "for to get their wages, you know."

From Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. Replace Humpty Dumpty with Samurai and/or Edwards. Rather accurate.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-19, 04:09 PM
Firstly: Depending on the situation at hand, staying true to one's beliefs still may leave a plethora of tactical options.
It may, but quite often, it doesn't. If it never does- because the GM is steering the plot in such a way that the issue never comes up for the player- then the player's role-playing is, in effect, limited to providing low-level colour rather than embodying significant convictions.

You are basing this all of the paradigm that players are clearly Gamists, Narrativists or Simulationists...
I am basing this on the fact that you cannot simultaneously make significant sacrifices to prove the convictions of a multifaceted character AND pursue victory with maximum efficiency. These are not compatible things. (Hell, between Raise Dead, Restoration and Regeneration spells, your options for meaningful personal sacrifice are limited to begin with, because entering combat is never actually dangerous.)

And so the Sim-Gamist picks his goals according to the character's beliefs, and then tries to find the strategically most sound way to achieve them that does not involve breaking her or his personal moral codex...
That is not a compromise between S and G. That is Simulationism winning. G only gets what it wants after S has taken it's pick.

The Nar-Simulationist considers how the situation at hand might realistically change the character's beliefs based on his personality and background, and changes them in a way that seems as consistent as possible - and before you note that this is purely Simulationist, keep in mind that in any situation involving a real challenge to the character's morals, this way will be far from obvious and allow for plenty of narrative room.
Then don't add addenda or qualifications to the effect of 'realistic' or 'consistent'. There is no way that the internal logic of the game world can guarantee a 'correct' deterministic outcome here, because it's been made as ambivalent and complex as possible- the player's thematic choice, instead, becomes the most important factor. That is Nar prevailing over Sim.

The Gam-Nar-Simulationist not only sounds like something Godzilla would fight, s/he also considers how the current situation impacts the character's beliefs, adjusts them in a consistent, non-obvious fashion, extrapolates the character's goals from the new personality, and then tries to find the tactically most sound option that does not violate the new personality...
That is Narrativism beating Simulationism beating Gamism, based precisely as you describe upon the order of priorities in decision-making. This is perfectly possible, perfectly coherent, and can be perfectly fun, but it does not represent a compromise. It is one mode winning, making another second-in-command, and leaving the third with scraps of the scraps.

Thematically satisfying outcome? Why not just an aesthetically satisfying one? The story that arises can be good without pertaining to some predefined theme...
The 'aesthetic' in question could be tactics, consistency, or drama. As for predefined theme- the point in Narrativist play is to manufacture theme as the result of addressing premise- the answer to the question expressed through protagonism. But I don't think story can be good without that, any more than poetry can be good without metre, stress, or rhyme.

Oh yes, sorry, this one was my fault - I switched back to my default definition of a good story, which includes one about moral issues as subset, but may also just include an immersive and action-laden adventure.
'Immersive and action-laden adventure' can absolutely be fun for the participants, but by itself won't make for a good story. I mean, imagine that you took the transcript of events, stripped it of all the small-scale details of events, and just presented a summary of the main characters' crucial decisions. Would that have some kind of evocative message to it?

I'd have to see some examples of summaries of play before I could comment further on your experiences.

So what was it with all the talk on the previous pages about the players having to have narrative control over how the environment and NPCs react to their characters?
The players don't neccesarily have that directly (though to some degree they often do.) The point is that the GMs' job, in many respects, is to make play revolve primarily around their choices, rather than primarily around internal logic, tactical challenges, or his/her idea of what 'should happen'.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-19, 04:16 PM
That would be... very poor RPing in my book. Staying "in character" means depicting your character's personality in an internally consistent manner. If my character has just achieved a pyrrhic victory against a hated enemy (to pick a random yet recent example), the "in character" thing to do may be to change those beliefs. Or not, depending on the sort of character I'm playing. Maintaining a static personality regardless of events and personality type is a bad simulation of human nature. Or elven nature, or whatever it may be.
There is no 'internally consistent' way to role-play such dilemmas. The whole point to such play is to find the points where a character's internal consistency breaks down. Simulationism is based on the ideal that there is a right way and a wrong way for things to turn out within the world and within the character- Narrativism, in a sense, is about taking that assumption and smashing it to bits.

Now sure, some degree of plausibility needs to maintained here, but that's a much weaker condition, which gets subordinated to the desires and interests of the real players, not in-world causality.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-19, 04:30 PM
You're setting up false poly-lemmas again. As far as you're concerned, having slightly more aspects of one node means that they've 100% won...
No, Kylarra, I think that e.g. Gamism not sacrificing anything of importance to it means it has 100% won. What does Gamism want? Gamism wants, e.g, balanced tactical and strategic options without players being obliged to incur significant permanent losses in character effectiveness- because that gives everyone equal opportunities to pursue victory during play. If you are playing a game where none of those qualities are compromised, it logically follows that Gamism is making no compromises at all, because it's not being compromised. Other modes are being allowed to inject their priorities only when they can be wholly and entirely reconciled with those of Gamism- which is possible in some cases, but not so in many, many others.

Alternatively, as the modes you're describing are all ADBE, it bears little relevance on actual play whether or not all extremist nodes are "firing on all cylinders", as IME very rarely will people want a[n RPG] game that hits only one node, regardless of what your theory proposes.
I'm not saying that people can't be happy with games that give one mode priority and feed scraps to the others. Many people are perfectly happy with story as an accessory to rather than focus of play, and many people are happy to restrict their role-play to colouring the action rather than seriously inhibiting choice. But that is not a compromise, it is coherence.

How can the GM write the story if the players have authorship?...
Just because s/he's not the sole author doesn't mean s/he can't have input.

How can she create a town based on challenging the judgments of players if that's a Sim style (ADBE) albeit on a smaller scale since it is world building one town by town in response to what they've done before, which you've already dismissed as illusionism in the Duke example previously?
Because the inclusion of such features is a reflection and development of the players' thematic choices, rather than an attempt to curtail or diminish their importance. It's a magnification of, or zooming in on, player input to story, rather than an attempt at it's containment.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-19, 05:09 PM
I mean, sure, you could play a simulationist game of GURPS. You could also play, well, pretty much anything else.
You can, but it's not especially emphasised by the rules, and will probably require extra work on the part of the GM to do it well (i.e, drift.)

Anyways. Roland (apparently) wants discussion to be restricted to the main summary thread in the near future, so I'll leave it at that.

GoufCustom
2009-09-19, 05:28 PM
'Immersive and action-laden adventure' can absolutely be fun for the participants, but by itself won't make for a good story. I mean, imagine that you took the transcript of events, stripped it of all the small-scale details of events, and just presented a summary of the main characters' crucial decisions. Would that have some kind of evocative message to it?

I can't imagine any story you do that to having an evocative message to it. Give me your best Narrative game, strip it of all the details, the hows, the whys, and it's going to be really freaking boring.



There is no 'internally consistent' way to role-play such dilemmas. The whole point to such play is to find the points where a character's internal consistency breaks down. Simulationism is based on the ideal that there is a right way and a wrong way for things to turn out within the world and within the character- Narrativism, in a sense, is about taking that assumption and smashing it to bits.

I don't see why Simulationism is based around there being a single right option and a single wrong option. If it's truly being accurate to the characters and to the world, the only correct option is the one the player decides on.

Let's try this with your poisoning example. One player's paladin might decide that yes, even if it's unlawful, it might be the best thing to go through with it. Another would decide to challenge the duke (it was duke, wasn't it?) to a duel to the death. Another would decide to go outside and incite the peasants to rebel. Another would go up the fuedal ladder and try to get, say, the king to strip the duke of his title and lands. Another might walk up to the duke, stab him in the face, and then kill himself in atonement for his evil deed for the greater good. And each of these is the correct option, because each of these characters are different. Any of these can be dramatic (standard definition). Heck, I'm pretty sure any of these could be dramatic (ADBE). But each character of the same class and same basic background take the same stimuli and responds differently. And all of them are internally consistent, which is to say they all are Simulationist.

Simulationism itself smashes the assumption there is a right way and a wrong way.

Because really. It's just a silly assumption.

Roog
2009-09-19, 06:10 PM
Then don't add addenda or qualifications to the effect of 'realistic' or 'consistent'. There is no way that the internal logic of the game world can guarantee a 'correct' deterministic outcome here, because it's been made as ambivalent and complex as possible- the player's thematic choice, instead, becomes the most important factor. That is Nar prevailing over Sim.


Why does it mater whether "the internal logic of the game world can guarantee a 'correct' deterministic outcome"?

You imply that that is why you call this Nar (ADBE) over Sim (ADBE), but I do not see what determinism has to do with it.



There is no 'internally consistent' way to role-play such dilemmas. The whole point to such play is to find the points where a character's internal consistency breaks down. Simulationism is based on the ideal that there is a right way and a wrong way for things to turn out within the world and within the character- Narrativism, in a sense, is about taking that assumption and smashing it to bits.

It sounds like you are saying that Nar (ADBE) must by definition break suspension of disbelief.

A model of a character that does not allow for the possibility of change would be a highly flawed model. And as we are talking about ideal cases here the "right way and a wrong way for things to turn out within the world and within the character" in Sim (ADBE) must already include the possibility of change for characters.

So, when you say Nar (ADBE) must take that assumption and smash it to bits, Nar (ADBE) must be smashing the model of 'internally consistent' character action. This leaves us with Nar (ADBE) requiring internally inconsistent actions from the character - the character must do things that cannot be understood.

Diamondeye
2009-09-20, 02:46 AM
I am basing this on the fact that you cannot simultaneously make significant sacrifices to prove the convictions of a multifaceted character AND pursue victory with maximum efficiency. These are not compatible things. (Hell, between Raise Dead, Restoration and Regeneration spells, your options for meaningful personal sacrifice are limited to begin with, because entering combat is never actually dangerous.)

Yes you can. Aside from the extreme expense of casting those spells, which means combat IS actually dangerous, you certainly can make all kinds of sacrifices without limiting tactical capabilities. In fact, if the sacrifices you make limit your tactical capabilities that much you're making stupid sacrifices because then you'll most likely lose, rahter defeating the point of making them. You're simply assuming that sacrifices have to relate to tactical ability, and that sacrifice is necesssary for a story-based game anyhow, which is not established.


That is not a compromise between S and G. That is Simulationism winning. G only gets what it wants after S has taken it's pick.

No it isn't. That's a compromise. 'Simulationism' isn't "winning" at all; it's simply being Simulation. I could describe the exact same situation with reverse language and you'd be claiming 'gamism' was winning even though nothing would have changed.


No, Kylarra, I think that e.g. Gamism not sacrificing anything of importance to it means it has 100% won. What does Gamism want? Gamism wants, e.g, balanced tactical and strategic options without players being obliged to incur significant permanent losses in character effectiveness- because that gives everyone equal opportunities to pursue victory during play. If you are playing a game where none of those qualities are compromised, it logically follows that Gamism is making no compromises at all, because it's not being compromised. Other modes are being allowed to inject their priorities only when they can be wholly and entirely reconciled with those of Gamism- which is possible in some cases, but not so in many, many others.

None of these scenarios has been detailed enough for you to really know what any one aspect has sacrificed, and as for "anything of importance", that's just arbitrarily proclaiming gamist compromise unimportant so that you can claim compromise is impossible.

Sorry, but for there to be compromise between 'G' and the other aspects doesn't mean that tactical options have to be compromised. The compromise can happen in all kinds of other areas. Simply having large portions of campaign time devoted to various social and other noncombat matters can provide that.

Even if one player is not really compromising, compromise for the campaign overall can be provided by the other players and the DM having different attitudes.

porpentine
2009-09-20, 06:45 AM
Samurai: thanks for an interesting discussion. Here's my take:

GNS is valid as a tripartate definition of game types. It fails because it goes further: it proposes a false trichotomy. GNS is fine and a useful observation on gaming and game design. G vs N vs S is erroneous. It assumes a mental prioritisation on the part of RPG gamers that - in my experience - does not exist.

It's gamist to assume that GNS is a stones-scissors-paper relationship. The feedback you are getting here (and which you will get on any other gamers' board) is that the three aspects are all desirable, not exclusive, and not in conflict. If you are writing a paper (and good luck), I suggest you should take these views into account.

Personally, if I want pure gamism, I play chess or Settlers. These are excellent, purely competitive games, old and new. If I want pure narrativism I read. In other words, I have strong appetities for pure forms of these things.

But when I play an RPG I don't want pure gamism, or N or S. From an RPG I want something more sophisticated than purity (sophistication in the old sense, ie mixed, complex). That is exactly what makes an excellent RPG for me: the combination of GNS.

Side note: my personal feeling is that GNS has damaged game design in the last few years. It is an interesting observation which has been expanded into a false theory. It's false because the theorists don't listen to the gamers, who are telling them what people are telling you here - that the categories are not exclusive. When gamers play chess they want gamism: when they play RPGs they want more.

Best of luck with the paper.

The Big Dice
2009-09-20, 05:50 PM
I've been lurking on this thread for a while now, and I think I've identified the core problem. Not so much with GNS itself, though that's so flawed that Mr Edwards himself abandoned it in favour of the so-called Big Model.

The problem is, GNS has become a kind of doctrine and dogma to a small but vocal part of the gaming community. And you really can't debate with people like that. You can't even argue with them, because empirical facts don't factor into things. You can't even argue with them.

My gaming experience (which I won't go into here) has led me to think there's two aspects to the RPG hobby. One is pretendy-fun-time-games. We're kids playing Cops and Robbers, or Cowboys and Indians, or whatever. But because we're older and (supposedly) more sophisticated, just saying "I do this" isn't enough. And we need a way to resolve the "Bang you're dead" vs "No I'm not" argument. And so we have characters with defined abilities, and task resolution systems to let the dice decide the outcome of things.

The other part of it is a form of dialectic. The GM brings his ideas and setting to the table, the thesis. The players bring their characters and reactions to the situation at hand, forming an antithesis. Between the two, the actual roleplay experience becomes the synthesis.

While you can argue all kinds of points based on those statements, observable evidence bears out what I've said. And any attempt to pigeonhole gaming table behaviour in any other way starts running into the inevitable "yeah, but..."

Raum
2009-09-20, 06:07 PM
I've been lurking on this thread for a while now, and I think I've identified the core problem. Not so much with GNS itself, though that's so flawed that Mr Edwards himself abandoned it in favour of the so-called Big Model.Edwards' "Big Model" is a wrapper around GNS, it doesn't abandon it. That means it contains all of GNS' flaws.


The problem is, GNS has become a kind of doctrine and dogma to a small but vocal part of the gaming community. And you really can't debate with people like that. You can't even argue with them, because empirical facts don't factor into things. You can't even argue with them.

My gaming experience (which I won't go into here) has led me to think there's two aspects to the RPG hobby. One is pretendy-fun-time-games. We're kids playing Cops and Robbers, or Cowboys and Indians, or whatever. But because we're older and (supposedly) more sophisticated, just saying "I do this" isn't enough. And we need a way to resolve the "Bang you're dead" vs "No I'm not" argument. And so we have characters with defined abilities, and task resolution systems to let the dice decide the outcome of things.

The other part of it is a form of dialectic. The GM brings his ideas and setting to the table, the thesis. The players bring their characters and reactions to the situation at hand, forming an antithesis. Between the two, the actual roleplay experience becomes the synthesis.

While you can argue all kinds of points based on those statements, observable evidence bears out what I've said. And any attempt to pigeonhole gaming table behaviour in any other way starts running into the inevitable "yeah, but..."Interesting descriptions...I like your thesis - antithesis - synthesis idea in particular. How does that fit into cooperative play? What about competitive play? Or are you tossing those into the 'pretendy' bucket?

The Big Dice
2009-09-21, 01:50 AM
I like your thesis - antithesis - synthesis idea in particular. How does that fit into cooperative play? What about competitive play? Or are you tossing those into the 'pretendy' bucket?
Competitive and co-operative play are simply differences in style. There's no 'buckets' as such. Rather, there's two sides of a coin, and one can't exist without the other. To my way of thinking, this is the game and the metagame. The game meaning what roleplaying is, and the metagame meaning the environment that the roleplaying takes place in.

The way I see it, at the core there's no difference between a 5 year old putting a box over his head and pretending to be a Dalek and me picking up a character sheet and a handful of dice so I can pretend to be a Dual Wielding Dark Elf Ninja/Ranger with two axes and a pet bison. That's the pretendy-fun-time aspect of things. The act of pretending to be someone or something other than the person sat at the table.

But what goes on around the table, the conversations that go to build up the play experience is the dialectic part of roleplaying. The GM posits a situation ("You're in a tavern. There's an bard sat tuning his lute near the fire, while rowdy farm hands demand a song.") That's the thesis. The player then contributes something ("I steal a farm hand's pants!") which is the antithesis. The dice then give an outcome, based on various methods of determining success and failure, which is where the mechanical aspect of the game comes into effect. And from those comes the synthesis.

From the merging of the pretendy fun and the dialectic comes the game as a holistic experience. Obviously, you can argue that there's a lot more to roleplaying than my somewhat simplistic concepts, but that stuff really belongs to the metagame. And that's where you find matters of play styles.

The choices of play style, be it competitive v co-operative, or kick in the door v narrative driven are more about personal idiosyncracy than anything else. Much like taste in music is, and the reasons behind choosing a particular style over another can be just as hard to pin down as trying to say why one person prefers rock to classical music.

Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as mutually exclusive play styles, especially not in the way GNS reads when you apply it to people rather than systems. There can be personalities that clash at the gaming table, but that's a totally different set of problems.

If I were to subscribe to GNS Theory, which I don't because it's far too limiting and dogmatic in approach and application, I'd say the so-called incoherent systems are the best ones. Simply because they're the ones that give the end user the most freedom of choice

Diamondeye
2009-09-21, 08:44 AM
I've been lurking on this thread for a while now, and I think I've identified the core problem. Not so much with GNS itself, though that's so flawed that Mr Edwards himself abandoned it in favour of the so-called Big Model.

The problem is, GNS has become a kind of doctrine and dogma to a small but vocal part of the gaming community. And you really can't debate with people like that. You can't even argue with them, because empirical facts don't factor into things. You can't even argue with them.

My gaming experience (which I won't go into here) has led me to think there's two aspects to the RPG hobby. One is pretendy-fun-time-games. We're kids playing Cops and Robbers, or Cowboys and Indians, or whatever. But because we're older and (supposedly) more sophisticated, just saying "I do this" isn't enough. And we need a way to resolve the "Bang you're dead" vs "No I'm not" argument. And so we have characters with defined abilities, and task resolution systems to let the dice decide the outcome of things.

The other part of it is a form of dialectic. The GM brings his ideas and setting to the table, the thesis. The players bring their characters and reactions to the situation at hand, forming an antithesis. Between the two, the actual roleplay experience becomes the synthesis.

While you can argue all kinds of points based on those statements, observable evidence bears out what I've said. And any attempt to pigeonhole gaming table behaviour in any other way starts running into the inevitable "yeah, but..."

When you combine the thesis and th antithesis to they annhilate one another in a massive release of energy? :smalltongue:

No, seriously, this hypothesis is a lot better than GNS. It's far more parsimonious and works for pretty much any RPG out there. It also avoids the trap of using its own assmptions to demonstrate that it's correct.

Kalirren
2009-09-21, 08:53 AM
My gaming experience (which I won't go into here) has led me to think there's two aspects to the RPG hobby. One is pretendy-fun-time-games. We're kids playing Cops and Robbers, or Cowboys and Indians, or whatever. But because we're older and (supposedly) more sophisticated, just saying "I do this" isn't enough. And we need a way to resolve the "Bang you're dead" vs "No I'm not" argument. And so we have characters with defined abilities, and task resolution systems to let the dice decide the outcome of things.

The other part of it is a form of dialectic. The GM brings his ideas and setting to the table, the thesis. The players bring their characters and reactions to the situation at hand, forming an antithesis. Between the two, the actual roleplay experience becomes the synthesis.

While you can argue all kinds of points based on those statements, observable evidence bears out what I've said. And any attempt to pigeonhole gaming table behaviour in any other way starts running into the inevitable "yeah, but..."


Seconding (thirding, I suppose) something I think is good when I see it. I can agree with these conclusions independent of the system I am currently using (i.e., freeform/systemless , RIFTS, D&D.)

Put in Edwardsian terms, I think the base state of any RPG is Calvinball, and groups which are unhappy with frequent arguments of the form "Yes I did" "No you didn't" will impose rulesets upon that lack of framework to keep the game in control. Samurai Jill, would you like to comment upon this? I've hinted at this in the past but never received a direct response from you on the matter.

The Big Dice
2009-09-21, 09:27 AM
When you combine the thesis and th antithesis to they annhilate one another in a massive release of energy? :smalltongue:
That's why you need dice. Those plastic polyhedra regulate the flow of all that -esis energy and let it merge without blowing up the room in a huge burst of Mountain Dew. :smallbiggrin:

No, seriously, this hypothesis is a lot better than GNS. It's far more parsimonious and works for pretty much any RPG out there. It also avoids the trap of using its own assmptions to demonstrate that it's correct.
To be honest, it all came about from a talk about what roleplaying is. I'm sure everyone reading this has seen dozen of those pages at the front of just about every core rulebook they ever own. I know I don't even read them anymore, but for a while I was looking for my own answer to the question of what is roleplaying.

I wouldn't even suggest that my thoughts are the only way to look at things. But then I wouldn't say they were wrong either. What it is to me is an inclusive way of looking at things, rather than an elitist and exclusive view.