Simulationism vs Narrativism

[The Evil DM]

I am not trying to argue the merits of either style I am merely seeking a poll on what degree of balance people prefer between simulation and narration.

On a scale of 1 to 9 with 1 being pure simulation to the order of classical Kriegspiel and very mechanical simulation of combat to and 9 being total rules free narration, Where do you lie?

[jaydubs]

As a DM:

Interactions with the PCs (especially combat) are much closer to simulationism. Probably around a 2.

Everything else going on in the world, timing of events, NPCs interacting with other NPCs off-camera, so on and so forth, are narratively determined. Probably a 7.

[Comet]

I don't like determining things by narrative or how cool I think it would be. Having mechanics that drive play for every participant is what separates roleplaying from pure make believe.

I also don't like rules that try to emulate reality with complex math. I like fast resolution systems that react quickly to what the players are doing instead of systems where you know what you're doing but it takes forever to calculate the results of that action.

I don't know. A 5? I like narrative more than math but I want the rules to be a big part of that narrative.

[Maglubiyet]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the question, but I'm having a hard time seeing this as an either/or continuum.

In my view they're largely interdependent; the narration drives the mechanics whose outcome, in turn, spawns the narrative.

In the games I run the storytelling aspect is important. Characters can *attempt* to perform any action the players feel follows from the action, their skills, goals, and personality. The resolution, though, usually boils down to a cold, hard die roll.

Whether they succeed or not then adds the next paragraph to the story and on it goes.

[Thrawn4]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the question, but I'm having a hard time seeing this as an either/or continuum.
[...]
The resolution, though, usually boils down to a cold, hard die roll.

I think you misunderstood the question. The way I see it, this is about using either dice or another complex system for realistic and in-depth (simulationist) resolution VS an approach that emphasizes the flow of the story and neglects neutral means of decision (like dice).

I have one question though: Does 1 mean rules-heavy or can it also be rules-light? I assume it means the former.

In that case I guess I would be on 5:
I am not particularly interested in using tables a lot which interrupt the narrative, but I do like a somewhat neutral way of resolving conflicts to create a dynamic story.

[NichG]

Where would you put 'rules discovery as a method of explanation'?

E.g., the players interact with some new thing narratively when there's a time crunch or action sequence. But once they have time to interact with it more casually, I write a quick mechanical rule to explain how the thing works and represent that they now have some mastery over it rather than it being an unknown.

So, e.g., the balance between rules and narration is dynamically adjusting based on how in-control the characters are in that situation. The less control or knowledge they have, the more things tend to be narrative. The more concrete knowledge they have, the more it swings towards rules.

[Maglubiyet]

I think you misunderstood the question. The way I see it, this is about using either dice or another complex system for realistic and in-depth (simulationist) resolution VS an approach that emphasizes the flow of the story and neglects neutral means of decision (like dice).

I have one question though: Does 1 mean rules-heavy or can it also be rules-light? I assume it means the former.

The purely storytelling version, where all outcomes are resolved in the imagination, doesn't qualify as an RPG in my mind -- that's just RP.

So the question is, how realistic do the mechanics have to be in your game? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I translate that as a rules-heavy vs rules-light comparison too.

Sample scenario - Player says, "I jump off the landing, swing from the chandelier, and chop off the Duke's head".

Rating = 9: "Okay, the Duke's head rolls across the floor into the lap of the dazed Captain of the Guard. He shakes his fist and curses at you as you ride off into the sunset."

Rating = 7: "Okay, roll your Panache skill on a d6 to see if you succeed. A 5, you do it!"

Rating = 5: "Roll your Dex to catch the rope. Now your attack roll vs. the Duke. A hit! Now roll for damage. 25, he goes down!".

Rating = 3: "Roll your Dex or Jump skill, whichever is better, to catch the rope. Now make another roll to see if you can swing in the right direction and make sure to include your Perfect Balance bonus. The Duke is facing away from you and is wearing light scalemail, which gives him an overall +3 defense. You're attacking from an unstable stance (swinging on rope) so your attack is at -2, plus you're aiming for his neck, so a further -6 penalty."

Rating = 1: "Your miniature is facing 45-degrees away from the railing on the battle map, which will give you a -1 penalty to initiate the Jump maneuver. Calculate your max jumping distance based on your current Fatigue, Encumbrance, and Injuries based on your Physicality score. What is your Climb and Leap bonus? Okay, check p.221 for the rules on one-handed rope swinging..."

[Satinavian]

I wouldn't interpret it as rules-heavy vs. rules-light. It's more a question of cool story vs. versimilitude.
And there are plenty of situations, where such questions arise (nearly) independent from the ruleset.

Do PCs meet NPCs at dramatically appropriate times or do NPCs have a scedule and the meeting only takes place if the PCs are at the same place ?
Do PCs take realistic in-character-choices or do their choices depend more on their role in the story (whether it makes sense or not) ?
Are the main conflict resolutions always exciting and climatic or can better preparation make the last fight utterly boring due to overwhelming odds ?

Most (not all!) rulesystems don't answer those questions and can be played either way.



I would see myself around a 2. If i can't believe in a story i'm not interested in it.

[sakuuya]

I wouldn't interpret it as rules-heavy vs. rules-light. It's more a question of cool story vs. versimilitude.

Are there any rules-light systems that are closer to the pure-narrativist end of the spectrum, though? Not in terms of stuff the rules don't cover, but the actual rules. I can't think of any, but I'd be interested in seeing what one looks like.

Not necessarily in actually playing it, though: I'm like a 6 or 7 on the spectrum. Verisimilitude doesn't really interest me, but I like some randomness in resolutions.

[VoxRationis]

Very strong on the simulationist aspect, probably a 1 or a 2. Narrativist and rules-light systems seem to me to have a very strong propensity for self-aggrandizing role-playing. If the limit on what your character can do is how well you can tell a story of what ridiculous feat they're trying to accomplish, then players are just end up trying to one-up each other and the DM with stories of whatever "cool and awesome" things they'll do. Then you get into childishness like in Toy Story:
"But I brought my attack dog, with a built-in force field!"
"But I brought my dinosaur, which EATS force-field dogs!"

On the player's side, this also means less railroading. If your DM honestly keeps to the mechanics of a story, you can come up with unexpected ways of solving obstacles, kill NPCs at unexpected times, and otherwise alter the plotline of the story, rather than just adding over-the-top flavor text to the fight scenes.

[Morty]

It's a false dichotomy. Those two are not mutually exclusive, and presenting them as such has no purpose except breeding arguments.

[Thrawn4]

It's a false dichotomy. Those two are not mutually exclusive, and presenting them as such has no purpose except breeding arguments.
Which one do you mean? By now we have three different distinctions of simulationism VS narrativism:
1. mechanical resolution VS dramatic purpose resolution
(dice VS telling)
2. rules-light VS rules-heavy
3. DM improvises a lot VS DM planned everything ahead or justifies everything by mechanical means (both can be done in basically every system)

[Maglubiyet]

Which one do you mean? By now we have three different distinctions of simulationism VS narrativism:
1. mechanical resolution VS dramatic purpose resolution
(dice VS telling)
2. rules-light VS rules-heavy
3. DM improvises a lot VS DM planned everything ahead or justifies everything by mechanical means (both can be done in basically every system)

Yeah, we need the OP to clarify the question. I'm still having trouble figuring out why the two need to be on opposite ends of a spectrum, unless it's a rules-light vs rules-heavy scenario.

[Galen]

Maglubiyet,

Why in your example scenarios, total narrativism ends in a player ridiculously succeeding, while increasing degrees of simulationism keep applying penalties, until in total simulationism he seems to have no chance at all? Doesn't seem like it has to be this way ...

[Maglubiyet]

Maglubiyet,

Why in your example scenarios, total narrativism ends in a player ridiculously succeeding, while increasing degrees of simulationism keep applying penalties, until in total simulationism he seems to have no chance at all? Doesn't seem like it has to be this way ...

I don't think he has no chance. Depending on the game system and the character's abilities, it could still be a near guarantee that it'll work.

My point was that the mechanics to demonstrate this become increasingly cumbersome.

[erikun]

Narration and simulation are not in direct competition with each other, as it is possible to have a narration-focused, simulation-focused game. It is also possible to have a narration-light, simulation-light game. Also, narration does not mean rules-light and simulation does not necessarily mean rules-heavy (although it frequently will), as there can be rules for narration methods or rules focused entirely on the narration of a game. So forgive me if my response is not terribly helpful.

I find a game system most helpful when the rules are very interpretive. That is, it is easy to deduce how to apply the rules to any particular situation that might come up. With a system like Fate or HeroQuest, the ability to assign your own personal skills to roll is very good at this, since it means you could create a skill system either narrowly focused on nitty-gritty of melee combat or just broadly encompassing "combat" as one skill and diplomacy or starship operation as other skills. I've much preferred HeroQuest 2nd ed for this, as the system has rules for dealing with overly broad skills or using similar skills for various actions; it is a mechanical, rules-based solution that makes the idea work better than the overly broad method in something like Fate, which leaves skills up to Narrator decision on if they are too broad.

Especially with a more rules-heavy game, I prefer when the rules have an obvious logic or sense to how they work together. Again, it helps when making decisions on how the rules would apply to a certain situation. If a PC is jumping off a moving motorcycle to tackle someone on the sidewalk, how well do the rules allow for this? If "Jumping" and "Motorcycle Driving" and "Stuntmanship" are entirely different skills, then it can be difficult to base a decision on what to use. But if they're all based on basic stats and having the skills just means a proficiency, then it is much easier to just ask for a roll with a specific stat - perhaps reflexes, given what is attempted - and applying a proficiency to show that the character can use some of their skills in the particular stunt.

Also, a general rule I have is that rolling the dice should give the same expected result as not rolling the dice. If the results of an action are so obvious that rolling the dice is "not needed", then spending the time to roll the dice should generally confirm that. While it is understandable that 100% success or failure rate isn't required, a situation where "auto-succeed" turns out to be 70% success if you roll the dice is problematic. It means that situations where a Narrator doesn't ask for dice rolls ends up vastly different from situations where Narrators do ask for dice rolls.

As for when I'm a player, I just don't want the rules getting in the way of playing the game or interpreting what I want to do. Part of this involves the above, in avoiding confusion of what to roll or what the chances are for success. I also prefer to keep things simple, rather than having 50 skills with their own lengthy reference sections for what they do, or character builds which require sitting down and spending half an hour on a level-up. Individual systems in the game could work fine for people who want to spend that time on a character (D&D Wizards and their spell preparation is a good example) but not when the whole system behaves like that.

[BayardSPSR]

Can we collectively clarify what we mean by "simulation" and "narration?" If they're just synonyms for "more rules" and "fewer rules," I think we should just use those terms to avoid getting off-track. Likewise if we mean "realistic" or "cinematic," which is often less dependent on the written rules in question.

[The Evil DM]

I realize now debate was somewhat impossible amongst this group. Gamers automatically enjoy debate. Was hoping for an off the cuff 1 - 9 without interpretation.

So to clarify

Simulationism = Rules for every tiny detail. If you have ever seen the old game ASL (advanced squad leader) this is the ultimate in simulationism. It takes about 4 years just to learn to play every aspect and detail of the game but it can faithfully model just about any WWII scenario.

Narrativism = Minimal to No rules - GM adjudicates based on interpretation of story and tale. When asked how long does it take the ship to sail from London to New York the answer is - All things move at the speed of plot.

[Thrudd]

In my understanding of these two terms in relation to RPGs, I prefer more simulation in my D&D game. Feng Shui, Star Wars and World of Darkness are more narrative. This is mostly attributed to how the rules are designed and partly the type of setting.

Simulation in D&D means the setting obeys and reacts according to certain mechanics.
I, as the DM, do not choose how and when everything will happen, tables and dice do. If you go into town looking to recruit a henchman, I will roll to see what type of characters respond to your inquiries. If you attempt to negotiate with some orcs, the dice decide their reaction. There are tables to determine the weather, random encounters and wandering monsters, etc. in battle, dice decide if enemies and NPCs keep fighting or break and run when things look bad. The mechanics have a high level of abstraction that allows a lot of interpretation, but they are based on simulating how the world works, not on telling a story.

In Feng Shui, we're simulating a setting that behaves like every type of action movie mashed together. It is cinematic, making sure that the most awesome things happen at the most awesomely appropriate times is what the game is all about. As the GM, I need to make sure action scenes happen in varied and interesting locations and the plot moves along like an action movie, full of tropes and one liners and recurring bad guys that you love to hate.

[Jay R]

Add me to the list of people who don't see them as incompatible. I want a clear set of rules, so I can decide what this character would do with a pretty clear understanding of what might happen. That's the best way to tell a story.

They are only incompatible if "narrativist" means that bizarre or unlikely plans work as well as clever ones, or "simulationism" means complete lack of DM judgment. Being relatively clever, I don't need the training wheels of a DM who will make stupid plans work.


It's more a question of cool story vs. versimilitude.

Thanks for making it clear. If this is the distinction, then I reject it. I reject the notion that a realistic story is not cool. In the original book of The Three Musketeers, the three (with D'Artagnan) are attacked by five Guards, and they must work together to win. In the recent 2011 movie version, they are attacked by forty, all dumb plans work, and the fight just looks silly.


So to clarify

Simulationism = Rules for every tiny detail. If you have ever seen the old game ASL (advanced squad leader) this is the ultimate in simulationism. It takes about 4 years just to learn to play every aspect and detail of the game but it can faithfully model just about any WWII scenario.

Narrativism = Minimal to No rules - GM adjudicates based on interpretation of story and tale. When asked how long does it take the ship to sail from London to New York the answer is - All things move at the speed of plot.

OK, by that definition, I am mostly simulationist, because I want to tell a narrative. I want rules in place, so as a player, I have some ability to help tell the story. I want my plan to work as my plan would work, not merely to the extent that it fulfills the DM's plot. The DM must be able to exercise judgment if the dice make an impossible result.

[erikun]

I realize now debate was somewhat impossible amongst this group. Gamers automatically enjoy debate. Was hoping for an off the cuff 1 - 9 without interpretation.
If people are giving answers that do not fit well with your initial question, might it be a good idea to analyze the initial question and wonder why that is happening? It could be the result of the initial question containing assumptions that some people might disagree with. Or it could be that a response relies on providing information that isn't mentioned in the initial question.

And as an aside, I find it strange to say that debate would be impossible with people who wish to debate. Wouldn't that make it easier?

There is also the concern about the answer perhaps not being helpful as presented, due to the assumptions in the question. Case in point:

I would probably say that I prefer games in the 3-7 or 3-8 range, due to my preferences tending towards being able to easily determine the results (or at least necessary roll) for a particular action. Overly rules-light systems (9+) have a problem of making absolutely everything vague, to the point where their might be one way to do everything, but it becomes difficult to get a meaningful conclusion out of the roll - just that something happened good or something happened bad. Overly rules-heavy systems (2-) might actually be in my favored range as well, assuming they were logically constructed and laid out. Unfortunately, most rules-heavy games I've seen will instead just make a sub-system for each situation, which is exactly the opposite of what I want.

[Lord Raziere]

I am not trying to argue the merits of either style I am merely seeking a poll on what degree of balance people prefer between simulation and narration.

On a scale of 1 to 9 with 1 being pure simulation to the order of classical Kriegspiel and very mechanical simulation of combat to and 9 being total rules free narration, Where do you lie?

Your asking the wrong question.

this is a communication problem, not a preference problem.

you should be asking something like "how do you figure out to balance the two for your group?" because each group is a little different, and thats generally listening and asking how you can make the game more fun, and whatever works as fun is what you go with, and whether its narrative or simulated is an afterthought really.

[Maglubiyet]

If people are giving answers that do not fit well with your initial question, might it be a good idea to analyze the initial question and wonder why that is happening? It could be the result of the initial question containing assumptions that some people might disagree with. Or it could be that a response relies on providing information that isn't mentioned in the initial question.

Yeah, it seems fairly presumptuous to claim that not getting the answers you're looking for is everyone else's problem. Pretty much done with this thread. Lack of gratitude for people who are honestly trying to help kills it for me every time.

[erikun]

Yeah, it seems fairly presumptuous to claim that not getting the answers you're looking for is everyone else's problem. Pretty much done with this thread. Lack of gratitude for people who are honestly trying to help kills it for me every time.
I'm not sure I would go quite that far. Everyone makes assumptions when asking questions, or even engaging in a discussion. And to be fair, the whole GNS topic is a thing big enough to have its own Wikipedia page. I would not be surprised to find someone familiar with GNS and yet unfamiliar with the counterpoints or negative aspects of the system - and perhaps basing assumptions on it being accurate.

[The Evil DM]

My apologies I offended Maglubiyet but no where did I say I wasn't getting the information I was looking for. I did say that this crowd - Gamers - has a tendency to debate every detail. It just the nature of being a gamer. Its not necessarily a bad thing and if people need proof that Gamers will relentlessly debate just look at any of the thousands of threads in the OOTS community. There is one not too far from here that has nearly 80 replies about doors.

I am not necessarily getting answers on a scale as asked but I am getting information. My intent, which I wasn't so keen on sharing as not to skew results, was to just get a feel for where the overall gaming community is now on this topic. In the late 90's there was a big push to all narrative games with free form rules and a lot of anti simulationism.

I was just wondering how the impact of a new generation of players is moving that needle.

For that objective my question is achieving the information I looked for. Maybe not numerically but the information is there.

[Eisenheim]

3 and also 8. I play fate, which has a simple robust set of rules which rely on dice roles or other mechanics to adjudicate any important interactions the players have with the world, but those rules are aimed at building a satisfying and engaging narrative rather than simulating reality. I might be able to give you an answer if you articulated the notional dichotomy in more detail, but as it is the question seems to presuppose that all rules are necessarily simulationist, so I'm not sure you to answer from the point of view of narrativist systems, which is really all I play anymore.

[Talakeal]

Add me to the list of people who don't see them as incompatible. I want a clear set of rules, so I can decide what this character would do with a pretty clear understanding of what might happen. That's the best way to tell a story.

They are only incompatible if "narrativist" means that bizarre or unlikely plans work as well as clever ones, or "simulationism" means complete lack of DM judgment. Being relatively clever, I don't need the training wheels of a DM who will make stupid plans work.



Thanks for making it clear. If this is the distinction, then I reject it. I reject the notion that a realistic story is not cool. In the original book of The Three Musketeers, the three (with D'Artagnan) are attacked by five Guards, and they must work together to win. In the recent 2011 movie version, they are attacked by forty, all dumb plans work, and the fight just looks silly.



OK, by that definition, I am mostly simulationist, because I want to tell a narrative. I want rules in place, so as a player, I have some ability to help tell the story. I want my plan to work as my plan would work, not merely to the extent that it fulfills the DM's plot. The DM must be able to exercise judgment if the dice make an impossible result.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Satinavian]

Add me to the list of people who don't see them as incompatible. I want a clear set of rules, so I can decide what this character would do with a pretty clear understanding of what might happen. That's the best way to tell a story.I don't see them as incompatible either. That was one of the main prevailing arguments against GNS. But there can and usually will be enough situations, where you can choose one over the other.

They are only incompatible if "narrativist" means that bizarre or unlikely plans work as well as clever ones, or "simulationism" means complete lack of DM judgment. Being relatively clever, I don't need the training wheels of a DM who will make stupid plans work.That is not what it traditionally means. While bizarre and unlikely narrativist plans may work if a success supports the story, they won't work, if the story calls for a failure. That is usually not an impoertant point in a simulationist game. And films are bad examples because the story is designed to fit pacing and arc of tension and genre desired. If you make sure, that your roleplaying campaign behaves similar, that is a narrativist move. "Speed of plot" really is a good example of a narrative element.


Also Simulationism doesn't mean lack of GM-judgement. Only that the GM aims for realism if he makes judgements. Rule heavy system might support that better because the average DM is utterly clueless in many areas which limits the realism he can achieve by himself and a good simulation heavy rulebook can fill in the blanks, but it's not strictly needed. Furthermore, many (especcially narrativist) systems do not rely on the GM only when it comes to make such decisions and handwaving things. Player empowerment is nothing new by now and there exist elaborate rules for "free form" games about who gets to arbitrarily decide what instead of the GM being the sole decision maker and story teller.




So to clarify

Simulationism = Rules for every tiny detail. If you have ever seen the old game ASL (advanced squad leader) this is the ultimate in simulationism. It takes about 4 years just to learn to play every aspect and detail of the game but it can faithfully model just about any WWII scenario.

Narrativism = Minimal to No rules - GM adjudicates based on interpretation of story and tale. When asked how long does it take the ship to sail from London to New York the answer is - All things move at the speed of plot. How much the GM desides has never been part of the traditional GNS definition.Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory) has all the important links. Nor was it ever about rules light vs. rules heavy. But if that is your clarification, it should probably be used further.


I am not necessarily getting answers on a scale as asked but I am getting information. My intent, which I wasn't so keen on sharing as not to skew results, was to just get a feel for where the overall gaming community is now on this topic. In the late 90's there was a big push to all narrative games with free form rules and a lot of anti simulationism.

I was just wondering how the impact of a new generation of players is moving that needle.

For that objective my question is achieving the information I looked for. Maybe not numerically but the information is there. My personal impression is that GNS itself got kind of frgotten because many people don't see their "mixed" styles well represented and none of the Forge games or others geared to SIM or NAR exclusively were a big succes. Furthermore i am sceptical if you will find a "new generation of players" on an obscure board dedicated to a webcomic that is rooted in D&D 3.5 which is both old and extremely on the gamism side.

But yes, i gave you a number already.

[The Evil DM]

I would like to thank people who have responded to this thread. Following some of the wiki links I have learned how I am using these terms incorrectly.

The answers above do still answer my question. I am really going for rules heavy to no rules.

Thanks again

Illuminating.

[goto124]

i am sceptical if you will find a "new generation of players" on an obscure board dedicated to a webcomic that is rooted in D&D 3.5 which is both old and extremely on the gamism side.

The webcomic is very much narrative-based and not gamist.

Also, the community here is large. All kinds of people. The 'new generation' has already spoken on these boards in many different threads, communciating/arguing with the 'old generation'.

[Lord Raziere]

The webcomic is very much narrative-based and not gamist.

Also, the community here is large. All kinds of people. The 'new generation' has already spoken on these boards in many different threads, communciating/arguing with the 'old generation'.

heck, I consider myself new gen. only 21, don't really care for 3.5, but Fate, Mutants and Masterminds those are my faves while 5e is probably the best iteration of DnD for me so far. 4e was good but I like things to be a little more flowing than two at wills an encounter and a daily y'know? more at-will stuff.

[JAL_1138]

My answer is pretty much "AD&D 2e with on-the-fly houserules to patch anything blatantly verisimilitude-breaking (verisimilitude does not necessarily mean strict realism, otherwise nobody could cast Fireball) whenever it comes up and few-to-no splatbooks used." Wherever that falls on the spectrum.

5e with revamped/homebrew weapons table, variant 2e-style initiative, lingering wounds, and tougher healing is also great.

If the rules stop someone from doing something plausible or that was actually done, like stabbing with a longsword or with the spear-point on a halberd, they need fixed, but at the same time I don't want a million fiddly bits and modifiers to memorize.

[Thrudd]

My answer is pretty much "AD&D 2e with on-the-fly houserules to patch anything blatantly verisimilitude-breaking (verisimilitude does not necessarily mean strict realism, otherwise nobody could cast Fireball) whenever it comes up and few-to-no splatbooks used." Wherever that falls on the spectrum.

5e with revamped/homebrew weapons table, variant 2e-style initiative, lingering wounds, and tougher healing is also great.

If the rules stop someone from doing something plausible or that was actually done, like stabbing with a longsword or with the spear-point on a halberd, they need fixed, but at the same time I don't want a million fiddly bits and modifiers to memorize.

Yes, simulation doesn't necessarily equate to rules complexity. Higher level of abstraction can give you simpler rules that are still simulationist.

D&D combat is abstract, the rules don't detail every movement a character makes and every possible technique or use of a weapon. The die roll tells us the result of a fighting exchange, better fighters have better chance of landing blows and killing enemies. What makes it simulation and not narrative is that the results are determined by factors linked to the character's abilities and how they would interact with the game world, not on the needs of story or characterization. You accept the results of the dice as the mechanic that determines what happens.

If the rules and dice rolls are routinely over ruled in order to further a story or give the characters certain dramatic arcs, narrative is being favored over simulation. The game world simulation does not decide what the weather is, the DM decides in order to give a certain atmosphere or add a certain challenge. The reaction of monsters and NPCs is determined by the needs of a story.

I would run AD&D or B/X at a 8 on the simulation scale. I build a world and populate it with places and people, and then use the rules and dice to decide how just about everything happens. The players act through their characters to interact with the world, there are no rules which allow abstract narrative control, like fate points or rerolls or abilities that let the player add something to the scenery or the world apart from what their character can do. I will decide on the fly what is in the world, sometimes without dice, if I hadn't prepared it beforehand, and I will make other judgement calls sometimes without the dice, and that is why it is not a level 9 or 10 simulation.

Feng Shui, on the other hand, is like a 1 or 2 on the scale, almost all narrative. Simulation doesn't decide much about what happens. The game is planned out to be an action adventure with action scenes that will happen at predetermined times and places. Bad guys show up at dramatically aporopriate times, decisions are made based on what would be cool. There is a small amount of simulation in the combat rules, as the mechanics and dice model the relative in-world abilities of characters and the results adhered to, for the most part. Everything else is decided by the story and characterization.

[SparksMcGee]

The webcomic is very much narrative-based and not gamist.


I'm having trouble understanding how the hell a webcomic would be gamist. If it were, it wouldn't be a webcomic anymore, would it?

[JAL_1138]

I'm having trouble understanding how the hell a webcomic would be gamist. If it were, it wouldn't be a webcomic anymore, would it?

Parodying gamist concepts such as optimizing to "win d&d" by building the story such that it runs on them rather than building around metafiction and character development. If you want an example of a gamist character, look at Pete (R2D2) in Darths and Droids, although Pete is often extremely simulationist as well.

EDIT: Parson from Erfworld is able to wreak havoc through gamist tactics.

[SparksMcGee]

Parodying gamist concepts such as optimizing to "win d&d" by building the story such that it runs on them rather than building around metafiction and character development. If you want an example of a gamist character, look at Pete (R2D2) in Darths and Droids, although Pete is often extremely simulationist as well.

EDIT: Parson from Erfworld is able to wreak havoc through gamist tactics.

You can have a character with a gamist play style, of course. What you can't have is a gamist webcomic. A webcomic is a story. You can't win it. It can't be gamist.

[Lord Raziere]

You can have a character with a gamist play style, of course. What you can't have is a gamist webcomic. A webcomic is a story. You can't win it. It can't be gamist.

yeah the only thing story I can think of being gamist outside of well....videogames...are choose your own adventure novels. but those mostly boiled down to "whoops you chose the wrong choice at this branch, you die, go back and choose the right one."

[Kalirren]

I tend to prefer rules-light systems because they feel more like the base state of roleplaying. I call it "shifting into freeform gear." The power is more equally shared between all the players, including the DM.

Rules-heavy systems concentrate more of the power on OOC preparation, and I feel detract from the act of playing itself. I tend not to like such systems very much except when the rules help structure a player's choices, or otherwise help the players have fun. When DMs prepare extensively using rules-heavy systems, players often feel hammered, and that has not usually been a good thing in my experience.

[Morty]

The "GNS theory" was crafted primarily to prove that the "narrativist" style is superior. It's really no surprise that the "simulationist" and "gamist" styles are absurd extremes few, if any, tabletop systems actually represent.