Definitions: narrativist vs gamist/simulationist

[JeenLeen]

I've seen the terms narrativist RPG system as opposed to gamist/simulationist a fair bit on these forums, but could someone define them (as well as any other -ist systems)?

I've got an idea of what they mean based on the posts, but I'd appreciate clarification.

[Angry Bob]

As philosophies for game design:

Narrativist: Narrative, story, or "fluff" comes first. If game balance or realism get in its way, it's preferable to sacrifice in those areas rather than compromise it. Even where there are detailed rules, they're expected to be thrown out if they would interfere with the story.

Gamist: Game balance and mechanical clarity come first. The game is first and foremost, well, a game, and the mechanics should be fair, understandable, and most importantly, balanced against each other, even if that means some strange interactions with the setting. Example: dude with a sword being roughly as powerful as a guy who can reshape reality on a whim.

Simulationist: The game is intended to simulate something. The rules as written should create an internally consistent world. If a mechanic unbalances the game but is "realistic," or more accurate to the setting, it can go unchanged because hey, sometimes life isn't fair.

They can also be applied to styles of DMing, I suppose, but they're primarily game design terms.

[Rhynn]

Wikipedia!

And the model that supplanted it.

[LibraryOgre]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory

Basically?

Gamism makes decisions that make for a good game. This includes things like game balance decisions. Sometimes those decisions get in the way of the game making sense, or telling a good story.

Simulationism makes decisions that make for an accurate simulation of the world. This includes rules about how different weapons work, or how weather affects people's actions. Sometimes, this gets in the way of a good game or telling a good story.

Narrativism makes decisions that make for a good story. This can include "narrative control" elements like story points, allowing a collaborative story to be told. Sometimes, this gets in the way of the game making sense, or in the way of a good game.

Under GNS, most games strike a balance between these... or think they are striking a balance, but fail because of some mistake on the part of the designer. 4e, for example, was frequently cited as being very "gamist"... the design was less about creating a world that functioned much like our own, and much more about creating a game that was relatively balanced. Hackmaster tries for simulationism... the mechanics are designed to mimic real life in a lot of respects. I'm not as up on narrativist games... they're not my cup of tea... but Savage Worlds is somewhat of an example, as mechanics are built into the game (such as bennies) that allow the players to control the flow of the story.

[Airk]

Yeah. The gist is that each term defines what a game of that type "puts first" - being a good "game" (Carries with it connotations of 'balance' and fairness in particular - a good game gives all players equal influence.), being a good simulation (Of a world. Carries with it connotations of always striving for the most 'realistic' result) or a good narrative (A good story, basically. These sorts of games usually offer the players some ability to alter the story directly, rather than through their character.)

Of course, all games contain some elements of each, but the ratio is different.

[Black Jester]

For a more "balanced" (for the lack of any better word) perspective on the issue, any reading into the GNS model and especially Ron "you all have brain damage (his words, not mine)" Edwards, you should also take a look on the writings of the RPGPundit (slight warning though: polite language isn't one his strengths) to let him tell you about the corruptive influence of the Swine (again, his word, not mine) . Both require some critical distance - and keep in mind, they are equally right in their opinions.

[erikun]

A number of narrativist systems tend to focus on the end result of a particular action, and then extrapolate how a character got to that point from there. A good example is in combat, the result of a dice roll might put one character at an advantage against their opponent - what that advantage is, and how the character got it, is left to the players to determine.

A number of gamist and simulationist systems tend to focus on the direct result of an action, and then extrapolate any end results from there. A good example is that in combat, a dice roll from an action might move one character a certain distance - if that grants them an advantage, or a penalty, depends entirely on where the character ended up at the end of the movement.

You've probably heard about it due to the talk around Fate Core lately on this board. Gamist/simulationist tends to be grouped together because they tend to resolve actions in the same manner. (Note that this is not always the case - some gamist systems resolve actions like the narrativist example! It's just more common, though.) The terms narrativist, gamist, and simulationist are from GNS theory, mentioned above - I don't particularly agree with a lot of it, although those three terms get used a lot in discussions anyways.

[Drachasor]

It's a misconception that Narrativst games don't care about balance or rules. Half the point of GNS theory is that the rules matter. Rules heavily influence how you play and think about a game. If you find yourself having to toss out the rules a lot in a Narrativist game, then the rules aren't very good; they are getting in the way. A good Narrativist game has rules which enhance the story and story-based decisions.

Similarly, balance also matters a great deal in a Narrativist game. If there's imbalance, then you can have one person that hogs the spotlight and controls most of the story. That's not very fun. You ideally want everyone to have roughly equal narrative power (on average at least).

In a lot of ways a narrativist game is similar to a gamist game in fact. In both of them your choices matter a lot and are a central focus on the system. It's simulationist that's the odd duck, imho. Balance doesn't matter there as long as it is realistic* for the setting. Similarly, your choices don't matter as much as what the character would realistically do in a given situation. It's all about simulating a setting and how characters would behave. Sorta like a computer simulation where you are exploring to find out what happens if you place certain characters in a particular environment.

As GNS is defined, true simulationist games are rare. I've seen a couple, but never played one. One had various motivations for a character, and by default you always acted in accordance with the highest motivation, but you could spend resources to temporarily boost another (but that risks increasing it).

I think the only reason gamist and simulationist get grouped together in D&D forums is a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that D&D is somehow simulationist. It really isn't. It has a veneer of "realism" as all RPGs do, but when you get right down to it, the system just doesn't have any real simulationist rules that matter. Of course, GNS theory doesn't state every game is all G, N, or S. A lot of games are a bit of a mixed bag. It is primarily built to argue that a game is better if you focus on delivering one of those categories. Though it is perhaps more useful to view it in terms of which element wins when there's a conflict (from a game design perspective). Settings and games that feel real need to have elements of G, N, and S, of course.

Anyhow, it can be a useful tool and perspective, I think.

*Which does not mean it is realistic in a real life sense.

[TheEmerged]

How I define it, may not work for you, etc.

Narrativist - if I could go for an entire two hour session without once picking up my dice

Gamist - if I'm playing a game regardless of the story or carrying about how this might effect a real world

Simulationist - if I'm trying to do one or both with more of an eye to how the world affects me than how I affect the world

[Devils_Advocate]

(1) A pure simulation based only on internal cause leaves no room for player input. It's a mathematical model, not a game, though it tells a story of a sort.
(2) A game of pure strategy and tactics doesn't really leave room for narrative considerations. It's a wargame (or the like), rather than a story, though it functions as a sort of simulation.
(3) What happens in pure group storytelling is driven only by the mandates of the participants. It's freeform roleplaying, with no simulation, though it is loosely speaking a type of game.

It seems generally fair to assume that people who want to play a roleplaying game with rules want something that is a game, a narrative, and a simulation. Emphasizing any one aspect as much as possible -- min/maxing, if you will -- excludes another aspect, and makes the experience no longer an RPG in the normal sense of the term.

[Lorsa]

I don't think these terms are meant to be applied to game systems but rather actual play or player motivation. Some people prefer one style over another and games can help facilitate one type of play more than the other but in and of itself a system is neither.

Many of these terms are hard to understand and there are plenty of people that will tell you all sorts of contradictory things. Some people are also very heavily inspired by their own agenda and way of playing that their understanding of the other ways will be skewed.

This is my understanding, although admittedly it was some time since I read the large articles on the subject that existed on the Forge.

Gamism: The motivation in gamism lies in the challenge, typically the challenge of the player. There needs to be a goal to overcome and it needs to be difficult so that the player has to be clever and use whatever resources the character has in a good way. Strategy, tactics and resource management are important things here.

Narrativism: Narrativist play is based on having a premise that is then explored during play. This premise can be many things, but often is meant to explore some part of the character and the choices they make. For example, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" can be an excellt premise for a game. The point of play then, is to explore this theme and put the players in situations where they have to make choices that can lead to the metaphorical hell.

Simulationism: This is a style of play I sometimes felt that some people in the Forge looked down on, and some people wrongly understands it as "play that is absent of challenges and premise". The way I see simulationism is that the motivation comes from total immersion. In simulationist game, you want to explore the character to the fullest, and you want to explore the world and experience it as though it was real. It's important to note that it has nothing to do with realism, but versimilitude is often important for simulationist play, as breaking the immersion is very bad.


As you can see, the names aren't very good and can give you the wrong idea. It's fauly to think, for example, that narrativism is better at creating "a story". If reading a novel that was written based on a campaign, it would be impossible to say which creative agenda that was used. The names really should be altered, but they've been so ingrained in people that it's impossible by now.

Some people think you can only ever have one creative agenda, and that claiming that you can be a little of each is deluding yourself, that one will always dominate and you are making yourself a disfavor by not acknowledging which one it is. I don't really agree with this, I think people can have a creative agenda that is a mix of all.

[Xuc Xac]

People keep saying that Narrativism ignores the rules or is "free-form", but that's not true. Narrativism can have rules too.

Take the example of a fighter surrounded by goblins. Gameist rules might give the fighter an extra attack for each extra enemy around him in order to help balance the fighter's effectiveness against the area effect spells that a wizard gets. A simulationist rule might say that he gets a penalty to defense because he's surrounded and can't cover himself well from all sides at once. A narrativist rule might give him a damage bonus because the fighter has "burning hatred of goblins +5".

Gameist rules exist for the benefit of players playing the game. It might make sense that your character has nothing to contribute to a particular encounter, but Gameism will ensure that you have something to do anyway to keep the player involved when the character is sidelined.

Simulationist rules exist to keep the world functioning consistently. If you lose your last health point, you die just like anyone else. It doesn't matter if the other player characters haven't even taken a hit yet. Fairness among the players has nothing to do with it. It also doesn't matter if you got stabbed by a random goblin in a completely anticlimactic encounter just before the final confrontation with the main villain. Whether or not the plot is random and anticlimactic has nothing to do with it.

Narrativist rules exist for the benefit of the story. "My character is too important to die in the opening act. I spend an Action Point to re-roll my defense because the bullet hit my pocketwatch!" Gameism might say "Hey, you were randomly selected by the sniper and had the same chance everyone else did. It's your turn to get ganked!" and Simulationism might say "There's no way your $10 watch is going to stop a sniper round. If anything, you'll just get more shrapnel in the wound from the shattered watch!", but Narrativism doesn't care about being "fair" or "technically correct". Narrativism cares about what's more interesting. In a narrativist game, the "rule of cool" would have mechanical support so you wouldn't have to ignore the rules to do cool things.

[Lorsa]

People keep saying that Narrativism ignores the rules or is "free-form", but that's not true. Narrativism can have rules too.

Take the example of a fighter surrounded by goblins. Gameist rules might give the fighter an extra attack for each extra enemy around him in order to help balance the fighter's effectiveness against the area effect spells that a wizard gets. A simulationist rule might say that he gets a penalty to defense because he's surrounded and can't cover himself well from all sides at once. A narrativist rule might give him a damage bonus because the fighter has "burning hatred of goblins +5".

Gameist rules exist for the benefit of players playing the game. It might make sense that your character has nothing to contribute to a particular encounter, but Gameism will ensure that you have something to do anyway to keep the player involved when the character is sidelined.

Simulationist rules exist to keep the world functioning consistently. If you lose your last health point, you die just like anyone else. It doesn't matter if the other player characters haven't even taken a hit yet. Fairness among the players has nothing to do with it. It also doesn't matter if you got stabbed by a random goblin in a completely anticlimactic encounter just before the final confrontation with the main villain. Whether or not the plot is random and anticlimactic has nothing to do with it.

Narrativist rules exist for the benefit of the story. "My character is too important to die in the opening act. I spend an Action Point to re-roll my defense because the bullet hit my pocketwatch!" Gameism might say "Hey, you were randomly selected by the sniper and had the same chance everyone else did. It's your turn to get ganked!" and Simulationism might say "There's no way your $10 watch is going to stop a sniper round. If anything, you'll just get more shrapnel in the wound from the shattered watch!", but Narrativism doesn't care about being "fair" or "technically correct". Narrativism cares about what's more interesting. In a narrativist game, the "rule of cool" would have mechanical support so you wouldn't have to ignore the rules to do cool things.

There are no such thing as "g/n/s rules". It is player agenda, why people play, it's never meant to refer to rules. There are some games that are created with a creative agenda in mind but that doesn't make their rules anything really.

Also, your understanding is flawed. For example, in simulationist play, if you want to experience the world of Kung Fu action flicks, a $10 watch could definitely stop a sniper round. If we're talking herioc fantasy, a warrior could definitely get a bonus from fighting multiple enemies. D&D 3.5 is a higly unrealistic game but it can work very well for simulationist play if your base setting is based on the rules. It's first when the rules and the setting come into conflict that it causes a problem for the simulationst agenda. The rules that work great for simulating Hong Kong action movies won't work as well for simulating realistic WW2 action.

A rule of "you get +5 because your hatred of golins" is only helping narrativistic play if there's a premise that is based on exploring what hatred (of goblins) can make you do. Otherwise it's just like any other rule. Again, rules in themselves aren't one thing or another. They can aid certain types of agendas but that's all. If there isn't a premise, it isn't narrativism anymore. It isn't about creating "a story", all agendas do that. Burning Wheel's belief system is there to facilitate narrativistic play because it forces you to answer the question of "what theme do I want to explore with my character". But you could do that equally well in D&D 3.5, the rules certainly don't work against it, they just don't force you to do it.

From a gamist perspective, again the rules only matter so far as if they allow choices to matter. There aren't any "gamist rules", and being sidelined can be an acceptable outcome to someone with a gamist agenda if that is the best option. Inclusiveness isn't more or less a part of any agenda. From a gamist point of view, there being an equal chance of a sniper targeting anyone would be bad. That means there isn't a way to alter the outcome, like wearing camouflage clothing or walking in the shadow or something. The challenge lies in sneaking past a sniper and disable a bomb, and if that means leaving behind the large stupid brute who can neither sneak nor disable bombs then so be it.

So, again, there aren't any GNS rules, there's only GNS creative agenda and actual play. Rules can be created with a specific agenda in mind, but what sort of play is present will always be determined by the people that sit down at the table.

[Drachasor]

There are no such thing as "g/n/s rules". It is player agenda, why people play, it's never meant to refer to rules. There are some games that are created with a creative agenda in mind but that doesn't make their rules anything really.

The entire point of GNS is that RULES MATTER. And personally I think this is the most important take-away from the GNS perspective. One might disagree on how the GNS division in particular, but it is a fact that rules change how people play. Anyone that's played with many different systems should notice that different rules not only support and even encourage different playstyles.

If you reward characters stabbing each other in the back, then characters will stab each other in the back. If you make knowledge itself drive you crazy, then players will be wary of knowledge. If you reward and make intricate rules for combat, then people will focus on combat.

The rules shape how you play. Good rules encourage, support, and provide a framework for the sort of play the game was designed for. Bad rules can act counter to the intended purpose of a game. How the rules work is fundamental to how a game plays. But this can be a complicated matter since the "rules" doesn't just mean game test, but house rules -- even unwritten and/or unspoken house rules.

A rule of "you get +5 because your hatred of golins" is only helping narrativistic play if there's a premise that is based on exploring what hatred (of goblins) can make you do. Otherwise it's just like any other rule. Again, rules in themselves aren't one thing or another. They can aid certain types of agendas but that's all. If there isn't a premise, it isn't narrativism anymore. It isn't about creating "a story", all agendas do that. Burning Wheel's belief system is there to facilitate narrativistic play because it forces you to answer the question of "what theme do I want to explore with my character". But you could do that equally well in D&D 3.5, the rules certainly don't work against it, they just don't force you to do it.

That's because "you get +5 because of your hatred of goblins" is a crappy narrativist rule. Now, "you get a action/hero/whatever point if you ACT on your hatred of goblins" is getting a bit better. Better still is "you get such a point when you act on your hatred of goblins in a situation where it might hurt you". That can fuel narrative conflict.

[Lorsa]

The entire point of GNS is that RULES MATTER. And personally I think this is the most important take-away from the GNS perspective. One might disagree on how the GNS division in particular, but it is a fact that rules change how people play. Anyone that's played with many different systems should notice that different rules not only support and even encourage different playstyles.

If you reward characters stabbing each other in the back, then characters will stab each other in the back. If you make knowledge itself drive you crazy, then players will be wary of knowledge. If you reward and make intricate rules for combat, then people will focus on combat.

The rules shape how you play. Good rules encourage, support, and provide a framework for the sort of play the game was designed for. Bad rules can act counter to the intended purpose of a game. How the rules work is fundamental to how a game plays. But this can be a complicated matter since the "rules" doesn't just mean game test, but house rules -- even unwritten and/or unspoken house rules.

Yes, rules matter. But there aren't GNS rules, there are rules that support GNS playstyle. I think that's an important distinction. You don't say "this is a narrativist game", you say "this is a game that is trying to support narrative playstyle". How you actualy play will always be more important than the rules.

It is true that you should be aware of your creative agenda and choose rules that will work in that framework. Rules matter. But the rules themselves don't have an agenda. People do.

That's because "you get +5 because of your hatred of goblins" is a crappy narrativist rule. Now, "you get a action/hero/whatever point if you ACT on your hatred of goblins" is getting a bit better. Better still is "you get such a point when you act on your hatred of goblins in a situation where it might hurt you". That can fuel narrative conflict.

The most important part of the definition of narrativistic play is the presence of a premise. While a rule that encourages you to place yourself in situations where your hatred of goblins is tested towards another "belief" like your own survival is good for narrativistic play, it doesn't necessarily make it poor for the other two agendas. From a gamist point of view, it could just mean the instigation of a challenge that needs to be overcome (defeating the goblins) and from a simulationist point of view, if your character hates goblins so much, it's only natural to attack them. As long as the world being simulated is one where people driven by strong emotion are more capable, it's only natural to recieve a bonus for it.

That's why many rules can be used for more than one agenda, even those that are created with a specific one in mind. There isn't any one way to describe "these kind of rules are G/N/S" like some people tried to do here, there's only "these rules have worked well for people with a G/N/S agenda".

[erikun]

Yes, rules matter. But there aren't GNS rules, there are rules that support GNS playstyle. I think that's an important distinction. You don't say "this is a narrativist game", you say "this is a game that is trying to support narrative playstyle". How you actualy play will always be more important than the rules.

Well, true. How you play the game is a lot more important than any rules at the table. There are people who play newer editions of D&D much like they did AD&D, and have little problem outside a few houserules. There are people who play D&D like a sandbox/narrative/adventure, and have no problem ignoring the rules to play that way.

I've seen that a lot of people who dislike Fate Core are coming from a D&D background and are upset that Fate doesn't have the same types of tables and mechanics. (Not the only reason to dislike Fate Core, of course, but a common one I see.)

I think, however, that stating the rules aren't as important - or that there are no narrative rules - is a bit much. Some people simply aren't going to sit down at a table and say "I want to play a narrativist game!" They won't necessarily start by assuming the sort of game that will be played from the start. This is where the type of rules come into play - and there certainly are rules for narrative. World of Darkness has vice and virtue, actions taken that are good/bad for the character and give them some benefit. Burning Wheel has nature, beliefs, instincts, and traits. Fate has aspects. All of these rules allow players to change the nature of the game, or encourage players to play the game with a certain mindset.

I do think that a "narrativist game" is a silly concept. There's far more to a game than simply focusing on the narrative. But there are certainly rules to support a narrative playstyle, and that's what I mean when I say "narrative rules."

[Drachasor]

Yes, rules matter. But there aren't GNS rules, there are rules that support GNS playstyle. I think that's an important distinction. You don't say "this is a narrativist game", you say "this is a game that is trying to support narrative playstyle". How you actualy play will always be more important than the rules.

If you are talking about the GNS theory, then yes, it is indeed about saying "this is a narrativist game" and so forth.

You are getting into territory about house rules both explicit and implicit. Sure, you can take D&D and play a narrativist game with it. The system is horrible for this purpose and you'll end up essentially playing a new game of your own devising, but you can call it D&D if you want. You'll be fighting or ignoring the system to do this all over the place.

GNS is all about saying that you should be playing a game whose rules support the game you want to play. That way you don't have to fight or ignore the game and instead the rules enhance the experience.

It is true that you should be aware of your creative agenda and choose rules that will work in that framework. Rules matter. But the rules themselves don't have an agenda. People do.

The most important part of the definition of narrativistic play is the presence of a premise. While a rule that encourages you to place yourself in situations where your hatred of goblins is tested towards another "belief" like your own survival is good for narrativistic play, it doesn't necessarily make it poor for the other two agendas. From a gamist point of view, it could just mean the instigation of a challenge that needs to be overcome (defeating the goblins) and from a simulationist point of view, if your character hates goblins so much, it's only natural to attack them. As long as the world being simulated is one where people driven by strong emotion are more capable, it's only natural to recieve a bonus for it.

Yes, hatred of goblins can show up in any sort of G, N, or S game. However, the mechanics for that hatred are going to be very different if you want the game to support G, N, or S. A "+5 bonus" on a roll is not going to handle narrativist needs very well, generally speaking (at least if we consider a resolution mechanic akin to d20).

That's why many rules can be used for more than one agenda, even those that are created with a specific one in mind. There isn't any one way to describe "these kind of rules are G/N/S" like some people tried to do here, there's only "these rules have worked well for people with a G/N/S agenda".

I am not sure what you are saying here.

You seem to be starting with the idea that a given system of rules can provide good support for gamist, narrativist, and simulationist needs. If that's what you are saying, I strongly, strongly disagree. I've never seen such a system that could handle even two of them well.

I don't know what you mean by "these kind of rules are G/N/S" though. Do you mean to say that a certain sort of system of rules could support gamist games and another for narrativist and another for simulationist? If so I have to say I think that's pretty much true. However, there are certainly tons of ways to make each type of game. Certainly something that works well for narrativist games isn't going to work well for a gamist game (unless you fundamentally alter it).

Part of the point of GNS theory that I agree with is that if you try to make a game that emphasizes multiple conflicting styles of play, then the rules are going to end up being a mess. At a certain point you'll have to decide which is dominant when conflicting styles butt heads. Even ignoring the GNS division and supposing a different division I think this is true.

I've seen that a lot of people who dislike Fate Core are coming from a D&D background and are upset that Fate doesn't have the same types of tables and mechanics. (Not the only reason to dislike Fate Core, of course, but a common one I see.)

To go off-topic slightly, my problem was the lack of balance and required game mastery. It's kind of tough making a group of characters they have roughly equal pull on the story, and the pile of offense and defense types with limited skills just makes it all the harder. Especially when even a difference of 1 in a skill can be a pretty big deal (bell curve system). But I digress.

[Lorsa]

I do think that a "narrativist game" is a silly concept. There's far more to a game than simply focusing on the narrative. But there are certainly rules to support a narrative playstyle, and that's what I mean when I say "narrative rules."

Focusing on the narrative isn't really the main point of narrativism as far as I understood. A narrative could occur from a railroaded story, indeed it could be a great narrative, but it wouldn't be narrativism. The point is to explore a premise. If there's already a preset narrative (like a railroaded adventure) in place to answer this premise, there is no longer any point in playing with a narrativistic agenda. The premise needs to be explored through character actions without any pre-determined outcomes.

And yes, there are rules that are made in order to try and support one playstyle or another, but I think that's what you should say; "rules to support narrativism". It's an important distinction I believe.

[Drachasor]

And yes, there are rules that are made in order to try and support one playstyle or another, but I think that's what you should say; "rules to support narrativism". It's an important distinction I believe.

Care to elaborate on that? I'm not seeing a real distinction between "narrativist rules" and "rules to support narrativist". Seems like you're making an arbitrary distinction here.

[Lorsa]

Damnit! I was in the process of writing a long post and then I must have accidently touched something at the keyboard becuase the tab closed and now it's all lost. I'll have to write it later because I don't have time to do it again now, sorry.

[Pluto!]

Narrativist: Games Ron Edwards likes.
Gamist/Simulationist: Games Ron Edwards doesn't like.

[huttj509]

Narrativist: Games Ron Edwards likes.
Gamist/Simulationist: Games Ron Edwards doesn't like.

See, I assumed the question was regarding the terms as people actually use them, as opposed to the bizarro confusionworld they originated in.

[Lorsa]

If you are talking about the GNS theory, then yes, it is indeed about saying "this is a narrativist game" and so forth.

You are getting into territory about house rules both explicit and implicit. Sure, you can take D&D and play a narrativist game with it. The system is horrible for this purpose and you'll end up essentially playing a new game of your own devising, but you can call it D&D if you want. You'll be fighting or ignoring the system to do this all over the place.

GNS is all about saying that you should be playing a game whose rules support the game you want to play. That way you don't have to fight or ignore the game and instead the rules enhance the experience.

Can you explain exactly why D&D is horrible for narrativist play? I don't see anything in the rules that says you can't have a game that explores a premise and focuses on emotionally important situations where character choices plays an important part.

Yes, hatred of goblins can show up in any sort of G, N, or S game. However, the mechanics for that hatred are going to be very different if you want the game to support G, N, or S. A "+5 bonus" on a roll is not going to handle narrativist needs very well, generally speaking (at least if we consider a resolution mechanic akin to d20).

You don't necessarily need a mechanic for hatred regardless of which agenda you are using.

I am not sure what you are saying here.

You seem to be starting with the idea that a given system of rules can provide good support for gamist, narrativist, and simulationist needs. If that's what you are saying, I strongly, strongly disagree. I've never seen such a system that could handle even two of them well.

I don't think I said good support. I said a system can be used for many kinds of play. Saying that a system is stricly one or the other is disregarding the fact that people have been playing all sorts of systems using all sorts of agendas for ages.

I don't know what you mean by "these kind of rules are G/N/S" though. Do you mean to say that a certain sort of system of rules could support gamist games and another for narrativist and another for simulationist? If so I have to say I think that's pretty much true. However, there are certainly tons of ways to make each type of game. Certainly something that works well for narrativist games isn't going to work well for a gamist game (unless you fundamentally alter it).

Part of the point of GNS theory that I agree with is that if you try to make a game that emphasizes multiple conflicting styles of play, then the rules are going to end up being a mess. At a certain point you'll have to decide which is dominant when conflicting styles butt heads. Even ignoring the GNS division and supposing a different division I think this is true.

Some people said that "narrativist games are rules-lite" and similar statements. I don't think you can make such claims that a certain type of game, be it rules-lite or featuring certain resolution mechanic is "G/N/S". I am fairly certain there can be games supporting any agenda with all sorts of varying mechanics.

Care to elaborate on that? I'm not seeing a real distinction between "narrativist rules" and "rules to support narrativist". Seems like you're making an arbitrary distinction here.

The former statement seems like it's trying to say that games can have an agenda. Rules are just an abstract system and as such they can't actually have any creative agenda or another. People can, and the person(s) that designed a system can certainly do it with one in mind. That doesn't make the game "G/N/S", but it does make it (possibly) support one or the other. Also, saying that these are "narrativist rules" seem to imply that narrativist play is the only possible outcome of using them. That simply isn't true. The people that sit down and actually play is going to be the ones that determine what sort of game it is.


Also, when reading the entry on narrativism on the big model wiki:

Story Now

I'm not just talking about the minor issue of making stories in play. I'm talking about two things: (i) wanting fictional stuff in play that is emotionally engaging about real-human problems, gets the blood pumping, stuff you want to do something about; and (ii) not wanting any significant outcomes pre-determined or under anyone's arbitrary control, at all. In other words, no fair prepping plot. Or rather, go ahead and prep problems, but not outcomes for them, and bloody well no "sequences" or plotlines that rely on certain things happening soon. In Story Now play, there is no "GM controls the story." The story only appears because the player-characters' actions do matter.
Subtly or unsubtly, developed in play or there from the start, Story Now play always charges up and takes on Premise. That's what its Reward is all about.

I immedietely think "Yes! I like that!". However, many of the mechanics that people say are there to "enhance narrativist play" are things I don't like. I've always had a problem with Burning Wheel's belief system, as it's very difficult to define the 3 things that are important, and when you do it feels like those are the only important things to the character which simply shouldn't be true. I've also felt like the Plot Point awards in Serenity from engaging your negative traits are a bit weird and easily abuseable.

While I'm not a true narrativist player as I don't usually have a clear premise (I think the term is vanilla narrativism?), I've never felt I needed mechanics for it. Being in emotionally engaging situations where my choices matter always felt like its own reward. The mechanics lessen that somehow.

Sometimes they mechanics are also acting against what they're trying to do. For example, in nWoD (and c I guess), the suggested premise is something like "can you fight the monster within". It tries to emphasis the loss of morality and even have a mechanic for it.

However, while it sounds great in theory to explore the theme of a slow moral degeneration and the choices that can bring you down, that's not how it turns out in practice. Either those choices become completely void because a player happens to roll amazing on their rolls, or the slow descent becomes a speedride as the player happens to be unlucky. None of that is really fun and both fail the premise.

The last Vampire:tR game I played in, which was a solo campaign, we took away all the Humanity rolls and instead decided between player and GM when and if Humanity would drop. We still used all the normal penalties for having low one that is present in Vampire. I found it made for a much better game, and better exploration of the actual premise. My character was very concerned with Humanity, wanting to retain a high one, asking various mentors for help (and getting conflicting advice) and trying to be a "good vampire". It was very satisfying to be placed in situations where all the character's hard work crumbled to dust in order to protect/avenge loved ones. Having succeeded with those rolls due to luck would have felt cheap somehow.

See, I assumed the question was regarding the terms as people actually use them, as opposed to the bizarro confusionworld they originated in.

How do people actually use them then?

[Tengu_temp]

If you are talking about the GNS theory, then yes, it is indeed about saying "this is a narrativist game" and so forth.

Note: the GNS system, as described by Ron Edwards, is flawed, biased and makes no sense. In order to turn the system into something reasonable, we have to extrapolate on his definitions. Just because by his definition this and that is true doesn't mean jack squat, because his definitions are incredibly flawed.

Now, how I see the system:
The GNS theory describes playing styles. What systems do is either support or not those playing styles. For example: it's easy to play a gamist game with DND 4e, but it's hard to play a simulationist one with it. For a simulationist game, GURPS is much better.
Almost nobody is purely gamist, or purely narrativist, or purely simulationist. Most people are a combination of all three, in various proportions. Also, people who favour the same style can still have completely different approaches to the game, because there are many more playing styles than just those three.

[Drachasor]

Note: the GNS system, as described by Ron Edwards, is flawed, biased and makes no sense. In order to turn the system into something reasonable, we have to extrapolate on his definitions. Just because by his definition this and that is true doesn't mean jack squat, because his definitions are incredibly flawed.

Now, how I see the system:
The GNS theory describes playing styles. What systems do is either support or not those playing styles. For example: it's easy to play a gamist game with DND 4e, but it's hard to play a simulationist one with it. For a simulationist game, GURPS is much better.
Almost nobody is purely gamist, or purely narrativist, or purely simulationist. Most people are a combination of all three, in various proportions. Also, people who favour the same style can still have completely different approaches to the game, because there are many more playing styles than just those three.

I am not sure "playing styles" is the right term. More like genres or reasons why people play. He acknowledges that any RPG is going to have elements of his three genres because they are RPGs. However, the elements can and do come into conflict with each other. Basically the idea is that when designing a game you should decide on the genre and make sure when GNS elements conflict that the chosen genre comes out on top.

But sure, every game of a given genre won't appeal to fans of that genre. Much like every FPS or even every good FPS doesn't appeal to every fan of FPS games (and similarly everyone who plays FPS games doesn't play them the same). To draw a comparison though, has elements of simulationism, exploring a premise, and gamism too. But if you are slipshod about deciding what element comes out on top then you're going to end up with a mess of a game. Certainly there's room for more than strict G-, N-, or S-focused games, but I think it is generally true that mixing priorities would have to be done very, very carefully. There might be other genres or classifications as well, though GNS seems to work decently well.

Can you explain exactly why D&D is horrible for narrativist play? I don't see anything in the rules that says you can't have a game that explores a premise and focuses on emotionally important situations where character choices plays an important part.

Because there are no rules supporting exploring a premise, rewards are all about overcoming challenges, and usually there's a way to short-circuit any premise exploration.

Sure you can house-rule explicitly or implicitly to do narrativist play in D&D...but then your "D&D" will have gotten pretty far removed from the game as written. Most times people do this sort of thing "with D&D" it is just free-form roleplaying. At that point you don't really need a system at all.

Point is, D&D gets in the way of narrativist play.

You don't necessarily need a mechanic for hatred regardless of which agenda you are using.

Granted, but if hatred is going to be a major turning point/focus of the game, then a game that actually represents that is superior. If, on the other hand, the hatred is just an excuse for adventuring/play then it doesn't really need a mechanic.

I don't think I said good support. I said a system can be used for many kinds of play. Saying that a system is stricly one or the other is disregarding the fact that people have been playing all sorts of systems using all sorts of agendas for ages.

I don't think anyone has ever said this in this thread and GNS theory certainly doesn't state that. GNS is just about saying you should use the right tool for the job, and doing so yields a better play experience.

Some people said that "narrativist games are rules-lite" and similar statements. I don't think you can make such claims that a certain type of game, be it rules-lite or featuring certain resolution mechanic is "G/N/S". I am fairly certain there can be games supporting any agenda with all sorts of varying mechanics.

I grant that is true regarding "rules-lite" because that is extremely vague. On the other hand, a mechanic can easily carry a context as part of it. So there are certainly some mechanics, with the proper context, which support one of the G, N, or S genres.

The former statement seems like it's trying to say that games can have an agenda. Rules are just an abstract system and as such they can't actually have any creative agenda or another. People can, and the person(s) that designed a system can certainly do it with one in mind. That doesn't make the game "G/N/S", but it does make it (possibly) support one or the other. Also, saying that these are "narrativist rules" seem to imply that narrativist play is the only possible outcome of using them. That simply isn't true. The people that sit down and actually play is going to be the ones that determine what sort of game it is.

Games have an intended sort of play built into them. Sorry! isn't about shooting fireballs and making demonic pacts. Monopoly isn't about genocide or extorting the poor for slave labor. Etc, etc. Good rules are all about supporting and encouraging certain sorts of play. "Narrativist rules" just means that's the intended purpose of a system. That's all. If you want to use a drill to cut a piece of wood in half, that's your call, but that doesn't mean it will do a good job at it. Nor does it mean the designer of the drill didn't have an "agenda" and intended purpose for the drill.

While I'm not a true narrativist player as I don't usually have a clear premise (I think the term is vanilla narrativism?), I've never felt I needed mechanics for it. Being in emotionally engaging situations where my choices matter always felt like its own reward. The mechanics lessen that somehow.

Any RPG is supposed to be emotionally engaging. Narrativism doesn't have some special hold on that. That said, if you like those sorts of situations where choices matter in a narrativist way, then a good narrativist game will help make those situations happen and provide ways for story-based elements to come to the fore. Now I suppose it is possible you just prefer free-form roleplaying and have a really, really good GM -- but that's essentially saying you have someone you trust and that there are a lot of unwritten rules on how things work. That can work for individual groups but it isn't something that can be exported to other groups.

Sometimes they mechanics are also acting against what they're trying to do. For example, in nWoD (and c I guess), the suggested premise is something like "can you fight the monster within". It tries to emphasis the loss of morality and even have a mechanic for it.

Yes, bad mechanics happen. But that's hardly an argument against having mechanics. Bad free-form roleplaying happens too.

I just wanted to add I'm not saying I'm 100% in agreement with Ron on the GNS thing. However, I think he does have a large number of really good points.

[Lorsa]

Because there are no rules supporting exploring a premise, rewards are all about overcoming challenges, and usually there's a way to short-circuit any premise exploration.

Sure you can house-rule explicitly or implicitly to do narrativist play in D&D...but then your "D&D" will have gotten pretty far removed from the game as written. Most times people do this sort of thing "with D&D" it is just free-form roleplaying. At that point you don't really need a system at all.

Point is, D&D gets in the way of narrativist play.

The character rewards are all given by overcoming challenges, that is true. That doesn't mean the player's rewards have to come from there. To me, those are different things.

I don't think anyone has ever said this in this thread and GNS theory certainly doesn't state that. GNS is just about saying you should use the right tool for the job, and doing so yields a better play experience.

Yes that is true. But you don't need a theory to tell you that it's best to find a system that does what you want and works with your style of play. Everyone who's ever played a roleplaying game can figure that out.

I grant that is true regarding "rules-lite" because that is extremely vague. On the other hand, a mechanic can easily carry a context as part of it. So there are certainly some mechanics, with the proper context, which support one of the G, N, or S genres.

Do you have any examples of such mechanics? I'm actually curious as to what type of mechanics are best used with an agenda (or rather which mechanics are BAD to use with an agenda which is a more interesting question).

Any RPG is supposed to be emotionally engaging. Narrativism doesn't have some special hold on that. That said, if you like those sorts of situations where choices matter in a narrativist way, then a good narrativist game will help make those situations happen and provide ways for story-based elements to come to the fore. Now I suppose it is possible you just prefer free-form roleplaying and have a really, really good GM -- but that's essentially saying you have someone you trust and that there are a lot of unwritten rules on how things work. That can work for individual groups but it isn't something that can be exported to other groups.

Well, the GM in this case is most often me. I certainly don't prefer completely free-form play, but I haven't seen any mechanics that were supposedly made to enhance narrativism play that actually felt like they did that for me.

Yes, bad mechanics happen. But that's hardly an argument against having mechanics. Bad free-form roleplaying happens too.

Definitely true. I don't argue for not having mechanics, that would be stupid. I suppose what I need is some examples of good mechanics for various styles of play (like mentioned before).

I just wanted to add I'm not saying I'm 100% in agreement with Ron on the GNS thing. However, I think he does have a large number of really good points.

Yes, he does have some good points. However, his description of the various types of play can be a bit... confusing sometimes. For example, reading the entry on Story Now! it seems like many people have a flawed understanding of Narrativism. And sometimes people assume simulationism is concerned with things being like reality which isn't true at all. His definitions are very abstract, and while one agenda might be higher than the other at any one point in time, it often feels like the assumption is that it is always the same. This isn't true in my experience, and it can vary even over the course of a game session.

[Urpriest]

Similarly, balance also matters a great deal in a Narrativist game. If there's imbalance, then you can have one person that hogs the spotlight and controls most of the story. That's not very fun. You ideally want everyone to have roughly equal narrative power (on average at least).

Would it be fair to say that Gamist games care about balance between characters, while Narrativist games care about balance between players? So a Narrativist game might have a powerful player with a weak character (a designated victim who can warp the story around their own victimization for example) while a Gamist game might have a powerful character that disempowers their player (a potent healer that has to do the same thing every turn to meaningfully contribute).

[Lorsa]

Would it be fair to say that Gamist games care about balance between characters, while Narrativist games care about balance between players? So a Narrativist game might have a powerful player with a weak character (a designated victim who can warp the story around their own victimization for example) while a Gamist game might have a powerful character that disempowers their player (a potent healer that has to do the same thing every turn to meaningfully contribute).

If there is only one and the same option that is clearly "the best one" every round I don't think that would be very beneficial for Gamist play. The emphasis should be on strategy, resource management and general cleverness. There's a challenge that needs to be beaten. If the answer to beat it is only the same every time it's hardly challenging is it?

[Urpriest]

If there is only one and the same option that is clearly "the best one" every round I don't think that would be very beneficial for Gamist play. The emphasis should be on strategy, resource management and general cleverness. There's a challenge that needs to be beaten. If the answer to beat it is only the same every time it's hardly challenging is it?

Depends on what the game is, really. GNS doesn't specify whether the game is primarily about character creation strategy or combat strategy or something else entirely.

That said, I agree that in many games a one-option character isn't powerful in a gamist sense. Nonetheless I think it's definitely possible for a gamist system to have a strong character choice that denies player agency.

[Airk]

The character rewards are all given by overcoming challenges, that is true. That doesn't mean the player's rewards have to come from there. To me, those are different things.

Players are inherently inclined to chase character rewards. If a game tells a player "You get a chit everytime you roleplay well, and those make your character better" (Tenra Bansho Zero, Primetime Adventures, etc) then people will make an effort to roleplay well. If a game tells you "You get XP for killing monsters" players will make an effort to kill monsters. If a game tells you "You get a bonus point everytime you do something interesting with one of your Beliefs" (Mouse Guard, Burning Wheel) people will make an effort to bring up their beliefs.

Sure, you could say "But players should always be trying to roleplay well, because that is its own reward!" Maybe. But it's uncanny how well it works to tie advancement to it.

Yes that is true. But you don't need a theory to tell you that it's best to find a system that does what you want and works with your style of play. Everyone who's ever played a roleplaying game can figure that out.

Hah. I wish. Seems like most people who have played roleplaying games try to make whatever system they are "comfortable with" (usually "Whichever one they learned first") serve all ends. Kindof like you are encouraging in this thread.

Do you have any examples of such mechanics? I'm actually curious as to what type of mechanics are best used with an agenda (or rather which mechanics are BAD to use with an agenda which is a more interesting question).

Sure. I just listed two above. For another, you can use Houses of the Blooded, which allows players to stipulate an "and..." or "but..." onto the end of their result - literally adding new elements to the narrative.

Tenra Bansho Zero has a reward system based on doing cool things and playing your Fates.

Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard give out their "XP rewards" based on doing things relevant to your Beliefs.

All these rules encourage a certain style of play.

Edit: Oh, and reading another thread here about character death, I am reminded that TBZ does another interesting narrative thing. Characters cannot be killed without player consent. Not just consent. There's a little box on the character sheet called the "Dead box". It is never required to be filled. If at any time a character with the Dead Box unchecked runs out of Vitality (HPs, sortof) they are out of the fight. They are defeated. They lose whatever was at stake in that fight. But they are never killed. On the other hand, a player may, at any time, CHOOSE to check that box when his character is hit. If he does so, the character takes, essentially, no "other" damage from that attack. And he gets +3 dice on his rolls now (A nontrivial amount). But NOW if that character runs out Vitality, he dies. The "Dead Box" is, essentially, the player saying "Okay. Now it's ON. My character is willing to die for this." This is a narrative design. Characters are NEVER killed "By accident" no matter how the dice come up. Characters are only killed at times when their player deems it is narratively okay for the character to die.

Well, the GM in this case is most often me. I certainly don't prefer completely free-form play, but I haven't seen any mechanics that were supposedly made to enhance narrativism play that actually felt like they did that for me.

What systems have you actually looked at? It might be easier to explain if I knew your frame of reference.