Synergies Between Game Styles: Simulationist - Gamist - Storytelling

[Balesir]

In any case, I've previously described that our group is made up of people who task switch very rapidly when gaming, and this is why we have relatively fruitful gaming out of all three agendas, often switching our focus in seconds. I think when games are "clicking" with traditional groups, playing in a traditional style, this is what is happening. What Forge theory describes as disfunctional, is actually highly functional giving sufficient cues passed back and forth amongst the group. (Nor is this limited to the agenda, as task switching into and out of metagaming, social gaming, and so on also can occur.)

As I said, the Forge agendas apply to instances of play. If you have a group that passes cues to switch agendas (in, say, combat, exploratory and social interaction passages of play, for example) I'm sure this could work. But, then, I think you would, de facto, be using different rules for the different passages of play - I have certainly seen that happen in practise. All it takes, though, is one player who isn't on-board with the cues, and it can become dysfunctional fast.

I think the synergies that Starfox discusses emerge out of that mix of task switching and cues. If you've ever played in a jazz band, and done improvizational jazz, you'll know exactly what I mean.

I haven't, but if you are talking about improvisation (in anything) done around collectively understood themes and with collectively understood cues, I know broadly what you mean. Add in someone who does not have a broad jazz (or whatever) education and an empathy with the rest of the group, though, and I imagine it would go south pretty quickly.

Probably one of the more popular and well-supported innovations in RPGs is the Hero Point/Life Point/Luck Point/Force Point. A Hero point could be construed to represent:

- A character's determination and capacity to exceed their normal capabilities
- A form of currency used by a player to overcome challenges
- A tool to shape the story to create climactic events and prevent anti-climax

In practice, it is any, and all three. A basic weakness of Forge theory is that it posits competing agendas, when in fact, in many cases, the agendas have the potential to converge.

It may be, as you say, difficult to design such a game, but I think such an argument is a steep hill to climb. Why is it difficult? Is it not the path of least resistance, if you can identify the various goals players are likely to have?

This post prompted some interesting thought over what 'rules' or systems do in this context. I'm wondering if the idea of rules "supporting" an agenda splits really into two 'cases':

1) The rule has first to allow the focus in question. The "Hero/Action/Luck/Whatever Point" mechanic is an example of a rule that 'allows' just about any focus. Skill roll mechanics would be similar, as long as the "target number" is not too closely constrained.

2) The rule may also cue a specific focus. This feeds into pawsplay's/Starfox's/Crazy Jerome's point about cueing, but with the systems themselves giving cues about expected or encouraged agenda. The advantage of putting this in the rules would be that a similar expectation would be engendered in all those coming to the table; a disadvantage would be that those who prefer to avoid the encouraged agenda(s) will avoid the system. This is a disadvantage only in a commercial sense.

That may be in part because RM skill development is on the futility treadmill. Everyone knows the numbers are supposed to go up, but you have no idea what the difficulties are going to be like, and you can't possibly cover every skill to some maximum degree. I would argue that the strongest agenda for skill development in RM is outside the G-N-S division; primarily, skill development is done aesthetically. It is more a statement about what kinds of skill checks you like to succeed at, than any probabilistic attempt to beat skil checks optimally, story-driven "realistic" or at least in genre skill development, or skills as a tool for crafting dramatic events. My players hated RM, and although I kind of liked it, I could sort of see why. RM skill development is an unbeatable puzzle designed primarily to test your psychology, like some awful Star Trekian simulation.

Sounds to me like players expecting gamism (character "advancement" is a system that seems to me to give out pretty strong gamist cues, while not disallowing any other agenda) but getting a "character advancement" that was trying not to support gamism much. I find it interesting that Classic Traveller had no character "development" (read: "getting more powerful") system. I find removing such systems useful for Sim games, because of the Gamist cues they tend to give off.

A while back there was a thread in which a situation was described where a group of characters went to see a king and the thief decided to pickpocket the king. In that situation there are, in GNS terms, three broad options:

Woot! Mental! Go for it! But if you get caught you're on your own! - Gamist

Or:"Don't be stupid - surely you know the chances of that are nil! That's so suboptimal - we can sneak into a storeroom to nick stuff with only low level guards to beat!" - Gamism.

You're ruining the adventure! There's no way you can realistically get away with that and we're all going to be thrown in jail and executed - Sim

Or: "Sure - your character is just the sort of futz who'd try that! OK, roll; let's see if he gets caught." - Sim.

That's a defining character choice with lots of potential for new and unforseen drama. Let's run with it and see where it goes - Narratavist

Or: "What?!? The pursuit of some dumb stunt like this has nothing to do with the story, or the theme we're trying to develop! Cut that out!" - Nar.

In that example both Narratavist and Gamist players might say 'Go for it!' when the pickpocketing gets announced, but for entirely different reasons - and the GNS essays talk about why G & N can co-exist more easily with each other than with S.

While I think Gamist and Narrativist agendas are more "robust" - in the sense that they tend to generate more adrenalin/emotion and thus can swamp out Sim if they are around - I don't think this particular split is well founded, I'm afraid.

I don't think GNS says a game can't switch between the modes. It posits that A) there will be a trend towards prioritising one and B) if players are expecting different modes in a given situation then you have disagreement, conflict and an unhappy mess to sort out.

Exactly what I was trying to convey - thanks . Hence the usefulness of cues - both in the social "layer" and in the rules.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I haven't, but if you are talking about improvisation (in anything) done around collectively understood themes and with collectively understood cues, I know broadly what you mean. Add in someone who does not have a broad jazz (or whatever) education and an empathy with the rest of the group, though, and I imagine it would go south pretty quickly.

...

Exactly what I was trying to convey - thanks . Hence the usefulness of cues - both in the social "layer" and in the rules.

And interesting aspect of Improv Jazz is that not every player has to fully grok it to do it. You need one or two that have it cold. And then you need most of the rest that sort of understand and are willing to play along when they don't. And then you can have one or two that don't really get it at all, but are willing to follow a few rules laid down by the others--and do so when cued. The idea being, in part, that you don't get it until you do it--and thus there has to be allowances made for people to learn while doing it.

I'm sure that the above sounds very familiar to some veterans of mixed experience roleplaying groups, with particular styles.

And of course, in Forge theory, the "system" is not limited to the rules, but whatever it is that people do that makes it work. Thus, in Forge theory, our extensive use of cues is part of the system--albeit not explicitly written out. Plus, I'm sure everyone uses cues quite a bit, at least in some area of their game. I don't think our game stands out in that respect, but maybe stands out in that our use of the cues is very conscious by most of the players.

I am teaching my son to drive. I am teaching him how I was taught, which was based on defensive driving principles. Everyone that drives sends out cues to other drivers--in the way you approach an intersection, how fast and when you brake, how close you get to it before stopping, etc. In defensive driving, you do the same thing, but part of the training is being conscious of the cues that you send. For yourself alone, there is often no reason to prefer approaching the intersection one way over the other. It's the signal that you send that makes a difference (or might--most of the time, it doesn't matter).

Here is a social cue in gaming that affects agenda, that I'm sure tons of people use: You, speaking in character at an important diplomatic scene, make a really brash, even pushy speech. You give a certain smile and catch the eye of the player of your character's friendly rival. This maybe says: "I'm setting this up for us to argue. Hit me with it." What that means will, of course, vary with the agenda at the table, right now. But chances are, anyone that has been there for a few session and isn't completely socially inept has at least some clue as to what is intended.

This same scene, the player might be more focused on getting results. The speech is similar (still in character), but more hurried, and played to the DM. This might say, "I want someone to jump in and help me, because this is important to do, win, say ..."

You'll note a strong metagaming component to those cues. One of the reasons we don't mind dropping out of immersion into explciit metagaming is that sometimes cues are misread. It is more important to us to have the cues read correctly than it is to preserve immersion. Not only does this produce the kind of game we want now, it teaches a bit on how to read the cue next time. I'm sure immersionist have not only a different preference, but accordingly a somewhat different set of cues as well. You'd have to ask an immersionist about that, but I imagine that a big part of the cues is that they be useful, but able to be learned outside the session to some degree.

So whether such a session will go south or not is going to depend on having cues that fit what you do. We have safeguards, because immersion isn't important to us. I'd say that on this front, having cues that match your desired immersion level is far more important than everyone having the same creative agenda. I can deploy tools, including cues, to satisfy the gamist, simulationist, and narrativist. I can't deploy immersion-breaking tools or cues without pissing off the dedicated immersionist.

 

[pemerton]

In that example both Narratavist and Gamist players might say 'Go for it!' when the pickpocketing gets announced, but for entirely different reasons - and the GNS essays talk about why G & N can co-exist more easily with each other than with S.

This fits with my experience, although Edwards himself talks about G and N repelling one another "like the same-end poles of two magnets".

I think that part of what might lead him to say this is that he has understated the range of thematic/evaluative material that narrative play can address - like I said upthread, in practice he gets this right (eg wrt Dying Earth) but when expressly theorising he focuses too much on moral evaluation. Once the breadth of possible narrative agendas is recognised, and then is compared to the breadth of possible gamist agendas, which can include low competition between players (making the emotional stakes quite different from eg a game of chess) then the scope for at-the-table compatibility becomes clearer, I think.

Or:"Don't be stupid - surely you know the chances of that are nil! That's so suboptimal - we can sneak into a storeroom to nick stuff with only low level guards to beat!" - Gamism.

Or: "Sure - your character is just the sort of futz who'd try that! OK, roll; let's see if he gets caught." - Sim.

Or: "What?!? The pursuit of some dumb stunt like this has nothing to do with the story, or the theme we're trying to develop! Cut that out!" - Nar.

While I think Gamist and Narrativist agendas are more "robust" - in the sense that they tend to generate more adrenalin/emotion and thus can swamp out Sim if they are around - I don't think this particular split is well founded, I'm afraid.

I take chaochou's side on this. Yes, you can come up with an imagined situation that goes in the opposite direction to that which chaochou imagined. But I think the underlying point - that both G and N are comfortable with using a situation framed by the GM as a springboard for player-driven activity, rather than treating it as a constraint within which their PCs must be played - is right.

Your N variant above, in particular, looks a bit funny to me if the scene with the king really is the opening framing by the GM. What is going on that the other players are trying to railroad this player through the scene? (Of course, the more vanilla the system, the more the players might be confused about one another's thematic concerns - because these won't have been so clearly revealed as part of PC build and action resolution - and hence something like pickpocketing the king might come out of nowhere. How likely is that in practice, though?)

Sounds to me like players expecting gamism (character "advancement" is a system that seems to me to give out pretty strong gamist cues, while not disallowing any other agenda) but getting a "character advancement" that was trying not to support gamism much. I find it interesting that Classic Traveller had no character "development" (read: "getting more powerful") system. I find removing such systems useful for Sim games, because of the Gamist cues they tend to give off.

Agreed. I'd also add that in more-or-less mainstream systems character advancement mechanics are also one main vehicle for drifting to narrativism. Which is why I think RQ is the purest of the purist-for-system designs - so little scope for drifting either in PC build or action resolution mechanics! (Classic Traveller probably comes second, but it has choices in PC build and choices - like parrying - in some parts of action resolution.)

 

[pawsplay]

A while back there was a thread in which a situation was described where a group of characters went to see a king and the thief decided to pickpocket the king. In that situation there are, in GNS terms, three broad options:

Woot! Mental! Go for it! But if you get caught you're on your own! - Gamist
You're ruining the adventure! There's no way you can realistically get away with that and we're all going to be thrown in jail and executed - Sim
That's a defining character choice with lots of potential for new and unforseen drama. Let's run with it and see where it goes - Narratavist

In that example both Narratavist and Gamist players might say 'Go for it!' when the pickpocketing gets announced, but for entirely different reasons - and the GNS essays talk about why G & N can co-exist more easily with each other than with S.

I don't think GNS says a game can't switch between the modes. It posits that A) there will be a trend towards prioritising one and B) if players are expecting different modes in a given situation then you have disagreement, conflict and an unhappy mess to sort out.

I posit that such disagreements are not about agendas, but about the perceived meaning of the text. One example, "pickpocketing the King is cool" versus "pickpocketing the King is stupid." In this case I would expect double vision; there are several distinct priorities which make the action either cool or stupid. GNS seems to de-emphasize the meaningfulness of actions in favor of trying to identify an external motivator. RPGs work because the players treat the game as real. Even the most meta powergaming tool at least is willing to embrace imaginary elements like imaginary victories or imaginary wealth.

It's easy to show that GNS agendas regularly and probably ultimately converge. In order for "Gamism" to work there has to be a clear and continuous narrative in which events are posited to be challenges. In fact the text is the same as in any other RPG; the events and characters are all imaginary! There isn't any real challenge, and any competition is only social in nature, not material. Either all games are Sim, or no games are Sim. Even on the Forge there is an understanding that GNS begins breaking down when you try to define the soul of Simulationism.

 

[Balesir]

I take chaochou's side on this. Yes, you can come up with an imagined situation that goes in the opposite direction to that which chaochou imagined. But I think the underlying point - that both G and N are comfortable with using a situation framed by the GM as a springboard for player-driven activity, rather than treating it as a constraint within which their PCs must be played - is right.

I agree that there is a historical tendency to regard GM framing as directive, rather than permissive, but I don't think that is a function of Simulationism per se - it's just a symptom of some rather unsavoury fashions for GM-driven stories being told with players present only to play bit-parts and act as an appreciative audience. I think Sim in its full sense can be just as open a field for player-driven action, with the GM simply representing the world in as neutral a manner as possible.

That said, of course, pickpocketing the King will likely end badly in most Sim games - but if that fits the characters and the situation, then so it should be.

Your N variant above, in particular, looks a bit funny to me if the scene with the king really is the opening framing by the GM. What is going on that the other players are trying to railroad this player through the scene?

I wasn't aware this was an opening scene - I just read it as "a scene that happens along". With this backdrop, it seems quite possible - likely, even - that the themes so far developed have nothing to do with class envy or enrichment at the expense of nobility. Basically, the character acting outside the developing "genre" of the game - in all three cases - is what I see as the likely cause of a big "Huh?!?" from the rest of the group.

(Of course, the more vanilla the system, the more the players might be confused about one another's thematic concerns - because these won't have been so clearly revealed as part of PC build and action resolution - and hence something like pickpocketing the king might come out of nowhere. How likely is that in practice, though?)

With some of the players I have encountered in my time - very likely!

I posit that such disagreements are not about agendas, but about the perceived meaning of the text. One example, "pickpocketing the King is cool" versus "pickpocketing the King is stupid." In this case I would expect double vision; there are several distinct priorities which make the action either cool or stupid.

Yes, this is kind of where I am, too. I don't think it has anything to do with agenda, but has everything to do with the proposed or collectively assumed "style" of the game world. Are the characters uber-L337 dudes who can get away with crazy stuff, or are they "average joes"? That is a matter of game setting style, not agenda.

GNS seems to de-emphasize the meaningfulness of actions in favor of trying to identify an external motivator. RPGs work because the players treat the game as real. Even the most meta powergaming tool at least is willing to embrace imaginary elements like imaginary victories or imaginary wealth.

The "meaningfulness of (in-game-world) actions" for its own sake is one of the things prioritised in Simulationist play. The motivator for every agenda must, in the end, be "external" since, as you say yourself, the world and all in it are imaginary. But Sim attempts to de-emphasise those external factors as much as possible and detatch the game world from the "real" world - to "dream the dream". Hence 'immersionist' play is generally thought of as an (extreme?) type of Sim.

It's easy to show that GNS agendas regularly and probably ultimately converge. In order for "Gamism" to work there has to be a clear and continuous narrative in which events are posited to be challenges.

All types of play will have a narrative, of course - so what? That's not what Narrativism is - nor Simulationism, even though both of those will also have a narrative. I think you're just drifting away from how the GNS (as opposed to the threefold) elements are defined, here. All three types will have game world continuity/consistency concerns, too - but that doesn't make them all Simulationist, either.

In fact the text is the same as in any other RPG; the events and characters are all imaginary! There isn't any real challenge, and any competition is only social in nature, not material. Either all games are Sim, or no games are Sim. Even on the Forge there is an understanding that GNS begins breaking down when you try to define the soul of Simulationism.

Exactly what is included in Simulationism is hard to pin down, sure, but that doesn't mean "everything is Sim". From just Edwards' original essays it's pretty clear to me what Sim isn't - and I can identify with some of what it is. Just because every roleplaying game involves an imaginary world that is being explored as play proceeds doesn't mean that all roleplaying sessions address a Simulationist agenda in an analogous way to that in which not everyone who owns a computer is a Java programmer. It's possible to program in Java (as far as I know - I'm no coder) on most computers, but many folk don't know how to and quite a few (perhaps most) have no interest in doing so. They will likely still use Java applications if they do what they want to do, though...

 

[pawsplay]

All types of play will have a narrative, of course - so what? That's not what Narrativism is - nor Simulationism, even though both of those will also have a narrative. I think you're just drifting away from how the GNS (as opposed to the threefold) elements are defined, here. All three types will have game world continuity/consistency concerns, too - but that doesn't make them all Simulationist, either.

I'll tell you what. Let's assume the narrative is consistent. The Gamist would like the world to "make sense" in order for actions to be meanginful. If this is achieved, Gamism converges with Simulationism, as the world perfectly represents the sort of world in which Gamist agendas are worthwhile. Similarly, Narrativism, if successful, ends up simulating the exploration of a theme, as the theme would be explored in fiction or in real life. If Simulation is about "the right to dream," all successful Gamist and Narrativist approaches become Simulationist.

The alternative is to assume the narrative is inconsistent, that the Gamist or Narrativist does not consider it important that they experience a "dream" wherein their gamist or dramatic urges are satisfied.

Exactly what is included in Simulationism is hard to pin down, sure, but that doesn't mean "everything is Sim". From just Edwards' original essays it's pretty clear to me what Sim isn't - and I can identify with some of what it is. Just because every roleplaying game involves an imaginary world that is being explored as play proceeds doesn't mean that all roleplaying sessions address a Simulationist agenda in an analogous way to that in which not everyone who owns a computer is a Java programmer. It's possible to program in Java (as far as I know - I'm no coder) on most computers, but many folk don't know how to and quite a few (perhaps most) have no interest in doing so. They will likely still use Java applications if they do what they want to do, though...

I said everything is Sim, nor nothing is Sim. i didn't simply say "everything is Sim." To use your analogy, a Java programmer might want to create a multimedia splash page for a website, or they might want to do forms processing. Either way, they use Java. And in fact it doesn't matter which they are doing in terms of how they approach using Java. Good Java is good Java.

Gamist and Narrativist agendas cannot exist without Sim. Pure Sim... cannot exist at all. It is a tautology to say that what someone would like to imagine is something imaginary, and that to be engaged with it, they would prefer to be engaged. But that's what Simulation says. The reason I am trodding all over Sim is not that I don't understand it, but because I don't believe it works. Trying to use GNS to understand "Sim" play is like trying to make gunpowder using Aristotle's chemistry.

EDIT: Plus Edwards conception of Narration is muddled in Modernism, that is, literary criticism of the early part of the last century.

 

[chaochou]

Or:"Don't be stupid - surely you know the chances of that are nil! That's so suboptimal - we can sneak into a storeroom to nick stuff with only low level guards to beat!" - Gamism.

Or: "Sure - your character is just the sort of futz who'd try that! OK, roll; let's see if he gets caught." - Sim.

Or: "What?!? The pursuit of some dumb stunt like this has nothing to do with the story, or the theme we're trying to develop! Cut that out!" - Nar.

I was writing from my experiences, but I don't claim that those are definitive. My experience is that meeting the challenge and introducing premise or theme is very rarely discouraged. Protecting the integrity of the sim is constant and ongoing. Not a dig at sims. Played with a sim agenda a lot and done my fair share of protecting.

But I think the underlying point - that both G and N are comfortable with using a situation framed by the GM as a springboard for player-driven activity, rather than treating it as a constraint within which their PCs must be played - is right.

This response is more concise than anything I could come up with.

...there are several distinct priorities which make the action either cool or stupid.

Hmmm. I don't want to try and guess at what you mean. Could you post some examples?

GNS seems to de-emphasize the meaningfulness of actions in favor of trying to identify an external motivator.

Again, I'm not playing stupid - I genuinely don't understand this. Meaningfullness to who? External to what? I'm confused.

It's easy to show that GNS agendas regularly and probably ultimately converge. In order for "Gamism" to work there has to be a clear and continuous narrative..

Either all games are Sim, or no games are Sim.

I'm not sure about that. The essays are long and detailed. It's one thing to cherry-pick excerpts or just assume things from the G, N & S titles and say 'I do that and that and that so my game is all of GNS'.

But, for example, a clear and continuous narrative does not make a game narratavist. My character buying and drinking a beer and then killing a goblin pickpocket produces a clear and continuous narrative but it doesn't say anything about the creative agenda which produced those events.

Similarly, the OP says 'Storytelling is my main interest.' Which is great. But storytelling isn't narratavism. Narratavism is the process of letting players create and then address premise. The Story Now essay explains it in far greater detail - and that's what counts, not my one-line paraphrase. Maybe the OP does everything in the essay. Maybe not. The post didn't say. But there's no counter to the claim 'that's what I do' - nor any reason to want to counter it.

GNS theory is (in my mind) a great read and an interesting stance to use for reflection on your own gaming. But probably a source of unnecessary antagonism if you start using it to label other people, games or rules without consent.

 

[chaochou]

The Gamist would like the world to "make sense" in order for actions to be meanginful.

Simulationism is defined as prioritising causality (Internal Cause is King). Prioritising - that means subordinating other things in the game to it. It doesn't follow that a world featuring elements of causality (like, say, a law of gravity) are automatically sim. It means in sim mode, if the rescue attempt breaks the laws of gravity the dramatic rescue gets canned. That needn't be the case with G or N agendas.

I can switch gravity on and off at random in Alpha Complex. The R&D cleaning bot the size of a washing machine can transform into a giant killbot the side of an Apache helicopter. Players can not build a washing machine sized bot which transforms into a helicopter. Or switch gravity on and off. Unless it's funny (to us the players), in which case they can. See the internal causality? Me neither.

I've seen plenty of games with rules like "The zanier and crazier the attempted stunt, the better the chances of success." There's at least one game where for each description you add to your action you get an extra die to roll (Wushu, maybe? Danger Patrol certainly does it). It's a pure metagame device - it says entertain us at the table and your chances improve. Nothing to do with Internal Cause is King though, and still meaningful choice.

I think to imagine consistent internal causality as a prerequisite for 'meaningful choice' across all three modes is synechdoche - mistaking one possible view of 'meaningful' for every possible view.

 

[pemerton]

I agree that there is a historical tendency to regard GM framing as directive, rather than permissive, but I don't think that is a function of Simulationism per se - it's just a symptom of some rather unsavoury fashions for GM-driven stories being told with players present only to play bit-parts and act as an appreciative audience. I think Sim in its full sense can be just as open a field for player-driven action, with the GM simply representing the world in as neutral a manner as possible.

I think that Classic Traveller would be a good example of an early attempt at the sort of player-driven sim you're describing here.

I wonder, though - Does even purist-for-system sim have a tendency towards becoming GM-driven just because, in practice, the GM becomes the custodian of the "truth" about the world and its internal causal processs (whether mechanical processes in Traveller, or cultural processes in RQ)?

Let's assume the narrative is consistent. The Gamist would like the world to "make sense" in order for actions to be meanginful. If this is achieved, Gamism converges with Simulationism, as the world perfectly represents the sort of world in which Gamist agendas are worthwhile. Similarly, Narrativism, if successful, ends up simulating the exploration of a theme, as the theme would be explored in fiction or in real life. If Simulation is about "the right to dream," all successful Gamist and Narrativist approaches become Simulationist.

<snip>

Gamist and Narrativist agendas cannot exist without Sim.

Maybe I've missed something, but all I see here is that both G and N involve exploration of the shared fictional world. Which is true. But doesn't exhaust what they aim at, as priorities for play.

The alternative is to assume the narrative is inconsistent

I think that you're asking the notion of "consistency" to do too much work. When I think back to discussions on these boards, for example - like the one on ElfWitch's "Should this be fixed?" thread - the contrast between priorities doesn't turn on consistency, but on the basis for extrapolation from one ingame event to the next. Consistency is an outer parameter here - but there is a difference between asking "What would happen next?" and "What would be fun but not utterly absurd if it happened next?"

Edwards conception of Narration is muddled in Modernism, that is, literary criticism of the early part of the last century.

I think this is true to an extent, although I think when he deploys the conception, as opposed to when he discusses it, he does a better job of illustrating what it involves. (Again, the classificaiton of Dying Earth as aimed at supporting N play, even though it's not aimed at addressing a moral premise, is an instance of this.)

But I'm enough of a modernist myself to think that there is a difference between constraints on extrapolation of the sort that I've mentioned above in this post. And it is these differences that mark the G/N vs S contrast.

GNS theory is (in my mind) a great read and an interesting stance to use for reflection on your own gaming. But probably a source of unnecessary antagonism if you start using it to label other people, games or rules without consent.

My interest in GNS theory is threefold. First, I'm a professional theoriser, and I like to have a theory that intellectualises my hobby.

Second, I'm a long time GM, and I like to have a theory that allows game rules and actual play experiences to be analysed and interpreted in a way that helps me GM (and the proof of the theory, for me, has been its practical payoff in this respect).

Third, a lot of discussion on ENworld presupposes a certain sort of orientation in play - somewhere between purist-for-system sim and Gygaxian-style exploration-heavy gamism. Given that I play in quite a different fashion, I find that a theory that articulates that alternative approach gives me a stable base from which to engage in those discussions.

 

[pawsplay]

Simulationism is defined as prioritising causality (Internal Cause is King). Prioritising - that means subordinating other things in the game to it. It doesn't follow that a world featuring elements of causality (like, say, a law of gravity) are automatically sim. It means in sim mode, if the rescue attempt breaks the laws of gravity the dramatic rescue gets canned. That needn't be the case with G or N agendas.

I can switch gravity on and off at random in Alpha Complex. The R&D cleaning bot the size of a washing machine can transform into a giant killbot the side of an Apache helicopter. Players can not build a washing machine sized bot which transforms into a helicopter. Or switch gravity on and off. Unless it's funny (to us the players), in which case they can. See the internal causality? Me neither.

If you're playing Toon, you bet. If you are simulating an absurd genre, you encourage absurdity.

I've seen plenty of games with rules like "The zanier and crazier the attempted stunt, the better the chances of success." There's at least one game where for each description you add to your action you get an extra die to roll (Wushu, maybe? Danger Patrol certainly does it). It's a pure metagame device - it says entertain us at the table and your chances improve. Nothing to do with Internal Cause is King though, and still meaningful choice.

Why wouldn't I simply classify Wushu as a game that emulates a crazy, action-packed genre, and provides in-game incentives to promote the feel of an over-the-top action story?

I think to imagine consistent internal causality as a prerequisite for 'meaningful choice' across all three modes is synechdote - mistaking one possible view of 'meaningful' for every possible view.

I say if there's no internal causality, you don't have anything. How can you explore a moral choice, without already assuming a set of circumstances, and parameters within which a character must explore the choice? The results can be unpredictable and surprising, but they have to flow from some kind of internal consistency. If the dramatic situation flows perfectly, and you are working in a dramatic genre, you are simulating the dramatic genre. To say Narrative play hinges on choice, and not exploring the world for it's own sake, is pretending that somehow narration doesn't require a text. I think you may be reading what I said too narrowly. It's easy to find games that purport to do little more than simulate an imaginary world; the reason to do so is supplied by the players. It is essentially impossible to find an RPG that purports to tell a story, or present challenges, that does not exhaustively (though perhaps not finitely) define a world in which Gamist or Narrativist priorities are not the assumed reality.


Here's my impossible thing before breakfast: Create a Narrative game that explores a moral theme, but which does not Simulate a moral world.